Overland Content Feedback Thread

spartaxoxo

Honestly, the devs listening to the players should be considered a good thing.

I think gameplay should not be judged before a single detail is known.

For all we know the doom posts are about an optional slider.....it literally could be anything or any system. Why just automatically assume the worst possible scenario?

I_killed_Vivec

Quoted post has been removed

We do have one very good idea about the demographics, because ZoS told us.

1T was brought in because people didn't like the hard content associated with Vet Ranks (and Craglorn in particular). They recognized that and "dumbed down" overland.

I didn't vote for 1T, but ZoS told us it was a great success.

SilverBride

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Honestly, the devs listening to the players should be considered a good thing.

I think gameplay should not be judged before a single detail is known.

For all we know the doom posts are about an optional slider.....it literally could be anything or any system. Why just automatically assume the worst possible scenario?

I think of AWA and how it was not implemented the way we expected. And why not just come out and say "Some optional choices for increased overland difficulty"? I'm not the only player with these concerns.

spartaxoxo

SilverBride wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Honestly, the devs listening to the players should be considered a good thing.

I think gameplay should not be judged before a single detail is known.

For all we know the doom posts are about an optional slider.....it literally could be anything or any system. Why just automatically assume the worst possible scenario?

I think of AWA and how it was not implemented the way we expected. And why not just come out and say "Some optional choices for increased overland difficulty"? I'm not the only player with these concerns.

Because they don't want to promise something that people will get mad if it's not like their fantasy.

They already strongly hinted it's optional. So, I don't get the worrying.

spartaxoxo

Quoted post has been removed

We don't know if the metrics have changed. They didn't say that and they have plenty of niche activities.

What I don't get about this whole thing is if you think if someone thinks we're so few in numbers that making something for us would kill the game, and they believe the devs know that, then why on Earth is the assumption that the devs decided to kill their game? Wouldn't this whole minority argument make more sense as a reason to believe they'll go the optional route?

SilverBride

I don't see anything that hints at optional. Putting the statement in a category that isn't specifically stated to contain optional features only doesn't prove anything to me.

I and many others have a lot of concerns about this and we are worried, whether others understand that or not.

TaSheen

spartaxoxo wrote: »

They already strongly hinted it's optional. So, I don't get the worrying.

Where was that? I didn't see anything regarding "optional" in the letter. And Kevin's posts don't mention it either.

spartaxoxo

SilverBride wrote: »

I don't see anything that hints at optional. Putting the statement in a category that isn't specifically stated to contain optional features only doesn't prove anything to me.

I and many others have a lot of concerns about this and we are worried, whether others understand that or not.

Why does it need to be specifically stated if systems have almost always been optional for the past 10 years?

In general, there are two types of content in ESO: hand-crafted, such as quests, stories and things you do one time per character; and systems, which are activities that are generally repeatable such as PvP, dungeons, trials, housing, daily crafting writs, etc

This is what a system is, as defined by the end of the year letter from two years ago. I actually can't name even one system that wasn't optional off the top of my head. I just say almost to leave room for being wrong.

AwA was not a system. It was performance fix. Comparing performance and bug fixing to a type of content makes zero sense. But that's the one that keeps being tossed around in this thread. It was mandatory because of performance. That's it.

PvP is optional.
Crafting writs are optional.
Housing is optional.
Infinite Archive is optional.
Trials are optional.
Dungeons are optional.
Event tickets are optional.

spartaxoxo

TaSheen wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

They already strongly hinted it's optional. So, I don't get the worrying.

Where was that? I didn't see anything regarding "optional" in the letter. And Kevin's posts don't mention it either.

They listed it under systems/ideas. Pretty much every system in the game has been optional. It's a specific term that includes pretty much all optional and repeatably usable content in the game.

It's possible that this won't be one but the odds are very small. It would be unprecedented afaik.

TaSheen

AWA was requested to be optional OVER AND OVER - and when it became obvious that it would not be optional, THAT is when it was stated as a "performance fix".

I don't and didn't care about AWA personally, but I thought it was simply terrible for so many people that it should have been changed to optional. Didn't happen.

In any case, I'm done posting. I'm only one old woman, so no one needs to worry about my "clout" - I don't have any. Enjoy y'all.

Servadei

I don't think it's going to be a blanket difficulty increase for every overland mob like the vet zones at launch. I really don't want to engage in deathmatches against skeevers or other overland creatures when I just want to do something casual like surveys and exploration.

I think, and hope, the increased difficulty is going to tie in directly to the objectives in the new seasons, so we're going to see contained pockets of increased difficulty in overland like the heralds for bastion nymics and world bosses.

Also, I wouldn't mind the return of harder quest bosses.

SilverBride

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Why does it need to be specifically stated if systems have almost always been optional for the past 10 years?

I have never noticed anything about announcement categories having unstated meanings. I have not summarized that because it's called a system it is automatically optional. Unless it's specifically stated that systems means optional then I cannot say without a doubt that this is what that means.

CP5

old_scopie1945 wrote: »

I agree with the SilverBride comment:- "Also, Overland is for the story. It is not a training ground for end game content."

There are some people who seem to think this game has some sort of compulsory form of basic training, such as recruits undergo in the army. I would like to point out that this is just a game that folk can enjoy in their own way. It is not up to others to determine how they should play. Believe it or not some of us don't care tuppence about high level end game or being a unicum.

Is the Mario franchise a niche one because it makes jumping mandatory? No, it's a video game, a type of media defined in no small part by the engagement between the player and the game. Most games teach people over time, and while how much those lessons are expected to be mastered can differ, as is you can find success in every zone against every 'end of the world' threat with minimal effort.

First, "Overland is for the story." That doesn't counter people like myself who want a more challenging overland, look up "ludonarrative dissonance" if you want specifics. Since video games are interactive by their nature, some amazing games tell stories mostly through the gameplay, not just text or spoken words. If I wanted to watch heroes fight against an end of the world threat, I'd watch a movie. If I want to play a game to that effect, and the threat was so weak that I could literally do nothing and not be at risk of retaliation, the illusion fails. It'd be like, if I were watching a horror movie expecting to be scared, but the movie gave impossible to ignore warnings before every scare, with the entire cast looking into the camera treating me like a child, to undermine the fear as much as possible. Games are about their game play, and as I said recently, ESO's overland is the 'classic Elder Scrolls experience' and is the only place in game that kind of content can be found, why should it be restricted to one difficulty?

Then, the learning. Again, look at Mario. You need to jump in world 1-1 else you'll never get past the first enemy. You need to know how to jump, so it is mandatory and expected, and children play those games just fine. Look at that recent video with the low level player tanking 7 enemies, using the occasional heal to counter all of their damage. Is learning how to use, then actively using, a heal, or a shield, or blocking, or dodging, excessive? Many players are much more capable of things than they give themselves credit for, but they'll never learn, so long as all of overland is forever bound to that first tier of difficulty, expecting nothing of them and giving them no chances to learn.

SilverBride wrote: »

...

Not all content is going to meet everyone's play style so players should participate in what they enjoy and not try to change the parts that don't so that others don't lose what they enjoy in the process.

So, does this mean no to story mode dungeons? Seems, unrealistic, to modify stuff that is explicitly group content to cater to people who aren't actively part of the player base who engages with it. I joke, but seriously, you are, one, still acting as if the only option is the nuclear option, and two, as I've said a few times recently, and I like the ring of it, so I'll say it again, ESO's overland is the 'classic Elder Scrolls experience' and is the only place in game that kind of content can be found. Where else in game are players who want more engaging gameplay supposed to find that kind of content?

spartaxoxo

TaSheen wrote: »

AWA was requested to be optional OVER AND OVER - and when it became obvious that it would not be optional, THAT is when it was stated as a "performance fix".

I don't and didn't care about AWA personally, but I thought it was simply terrible for so many people that it should have been changed to optional. Didn't happen.

In any case, I'm done posting. I'm only one old woman, so no one needs to worry about my "clout" - I don't have any. Enjoy y'all.

AWA was requested to be optional. But the devs never listed it under the systems category and in fact told us that their reason for debuting it was because of performance.

They never described it as a system.

Player feedback and dev commentary are totally different things.

disky

Franchise408 wrote: »

Yes, there is one person in this thread who talks about their inability to get through overland because of age and internet connection. This might be unpopular, but I don't believe that's who the game should be balanced around.

First of all, just because you see a single person with this perspective, that doesn't mean there aren't far more people like this who either play the game now, or would like to play the game in the future, that want things to remain the way they are. There are also plenty of other people with other reasons for maintaining the status quo. The game should not need to change for them, and it would almost certainly be detrimental to ZOS' bottom line if it did. Finally, it simply doesn't have to change for them in order for you and me to have what we want.

There's no reason to demand that things change for everyone other than to feel like you are succeeding where they fail. I will never understand this mindset.

spartaxoxo

SilverBride wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Why does it need to be specifically stated if systems have almost always been optional for the past 10 years?

I have never noticed anything about announcement categories having unstated meanings. I have not summarized that because it's called a system it is automatically optional. Unless it's specifically stated that systems means optional then I cannot say without a doubt that this is what that means.

Evidence also matters. Nobody can say without a doubt it means that. But, if all evidence points to one conclusion, then that's the most reasonable conclusion to draw.

Regardless if they have stated it or not, systems have been repeatably usable, optional content. So there is zero reason to believe this one is not until there is evidence otherwise. That will come when they share more details at a later date.

SilverBride

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Why does it need to be specifically stated if systems have almost always been optional for the past 10 years?

I have never noticed anything about announcement categories having unstated meanings. I have not summarized that because it's called a system it is automatically optional. Unless it's specifically stated that systems means optional then I cannot say without a doubt that this is what that means.

Evidence also matters. Nobody can say without a doubt it means that. But, if all evidence points to one conclusion, then that's the most reasonable conclusion to draw.

Regardless if they have stated it or not, systems have been repeatably usable, optional content. So there is zero reason to believe this one is not until there is evidence otherwise. That will come when they share more details at a later date.

I just went back and read the announcement again. It says "These systems and ideas", not just systems. So this could be considered an idea by them.

spartaxoxo

SilverBride wrote: »

I just went back and read the announcement again. It says "These systems and ideas", not just systems. So this could be considered an idea by them.

Yes, I have stated as much myself previously. Regardless, currently we have a lot of evidence that points to it being optional. And no real reason to believe it would be forced. The devs stated even recently this just a couple of months ago...

Of course, ten years means ESO has accrued its own veterans, and with One Tamriel stripping away the level restrictions and putting all zones - even new ones - on the same level playing field, many old-timers now find the game too easy. It’s an interesting contrast as ESO being too hard was what once pushed so many away.

“We do hear that feedback all the time,” Lambert says. “‘Give us a difficulty slider, let us do hard modes.’ There’s things we’re looking at but it’s not a simple problem because ten different people can play the game and they all play it ten different ways and it’s hard for some and easy for others. So we have to find the happy medium ground where the most amount of people can enjoy it.”

What about that says forced? They have stated on several occasions that they don't want to alienate casuals.

Like, I'm sorry but there's so much evidence about this that all leads to it being optional. I can't know for sure. None of us can. They have not explicitly stated anything. But there's a lot of hints all over.

https://www.thegamer.com/the-elder-scrolls-online-creative-director-rich-lambert-10-year-anniversary-interview/

disky

SilverBride wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Why does it need to be specifically stated if systems have almost always been optional for the past 10 years?

I have never noticed anything about announcement categories having unstated meanings. I have not summarized that because it's called a system it is automatically optional. Unless it's specifically stated that systems means optional then I cannot say without a doubt that this is what that means.

Evidence also matters. Nobody can say without a doubt it means that. But, if all evidence points to one conclusion, then that's the most reasonable conclusion to draw.

Regardless if they have stated it or not, systems have been repeatably usable, optional content. So there is zero reason to believe this one is not until there is evidence otherwise. That will come when they share more details at a later date.

I just went back and read the announcement again. It says "These systems and ideas", not just systems. So this could be considered an idea by them.

Without assumption or unsubstantiated correlation, I just don't think it makes sense for them to force that change on everyone. They have to know how many people would be put off by it, not only through demographic study but also through their past experiences.

SilverBride

I will not be confident of this until I hear it directly from them. Which is why I feel it's important to continue to provide our feedback and concerns.

spartaxoxo

Similarly, open-world content is balanced for casual play; ZOS is not going to make the open-world game or story content too hard because they don’t want people to quit. People who want challenge are funneled into dungeons.

Another quote from January

https://massivelyop.com/2024/01/18/elder-scrolls-onlines-gold-road-chapter-takes-players-back-to-oblivions-best-city-on-june-3/

disky

SilverBride wrote: »

I will not be confident of this until I hear it directly from them. Which is why I feel it's important to continue to provide our feedback and concerns.

Without dooming, I agree.

old_scopie1945

I don't know if this has been mentioned about overland. I have just watched Jakeclips,s latest vid on the subject, about 21 hours old. It is quite short but reassuring. He says overland will not be overpowered but there will be insertions into the zones. These will be events of harder content, I think solo and group. Nothing will be forced on the player base but will be self imposed, though one point was a bit vague.

There is a link below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZ7E_X_byD4&t=276s

spartaxoxo

So according to that video we'll have some way to self impose harder stuff and new incursions. Interesting. I don't know if it's accurate but it sounds awesome.

disky

It's all speculation at this point. All we can hope for it's that it's handled in a way which serves everyone well enough. But I think we can assume that they're not going to intentionally do something which they know will turn a large portion of players off. I'd like to believe that includes forcing people into content they can't complete for whatever reason.

Franchise408

disky wrote: »

It's all speculation at this point. All we can hope for it's that it's handled in a way which serves everyone well enough. But I think we can assume that they're not going to intentionally do something which they know will turn a large portion of players off. I'd like to believe that includes forcing people into content they can't complete for whatever reason.

To add to this, it wouldn't surprise me if part of the solution is a retuning of overland in general across the board, making things slightly more difficult, but even in that instance I don't see it reaching a level that would turn off those that are incapable or not wanting of higher difficulty.

I've also seen some other ideas in this thread that I could see them doing, like selected zones that are "enhanced", I'm thinking something similar to Diablo 4's Helltides.

Whatever their ideas are, I don't see them doing something that would force everyone into vet level overland content. I don't even see too big of a difficulty spike. Most I could see is maybe something like Imperial City level mobs, which are enough to maybe go through a rotation, and account a little bit for the power creep, but not enough to be overly "difficult".

SilverBride

Story bosses, world bosses, etc. have gotten progressively more difficult from High Isle forward. We were never told this was going to happen, but belive me... we noticed.

DenverRalphy

I would personally welcome an increase in difficulty for Overland content. It's long overdue. And I don't want to see it optional. No difficulty sliders. Just straight up boost the difficulty.

When anybody, even brand new players, can just truck across any overland zone training all the mobs into one giant pile then turn around at their leisure to kill them all without breaking a sweat, there's something inherently wrong. What ever happened to there being an actual reason you may need to stick to the roadways because otherwise you run the risk of running into something more challenging that you're ready to handle?

For far too long, ZoS has bit by bit fallen into the cliche game developer's mistake of "Quickest way to ruin a game? Give the players everything they ask for."

These very forums are full of "the playerbase is shrinking" sentiment. Yet even if it was/is true, nobody ever seems to entertain the notion that it's because a majority of the game is just so easy it's become dull. Nor are there any rewards with any kind of distinguishable achievement attached to them anymore, and thus can't be displayed as a badge of accomplishment. Because a vocal portion of the playerbase insists that everybody gets everything regardless the difficulty.

I'm not saying zones need to be so dangerous you'd be crazy to venture out solo. But at least be difficult enough that if you leave the main roads, you've really gotta pay attention.

disky

Franchise408 wrote: »

disky wrote: »

It's all speculation at this point. All we can hope for it's that it's handled in a way which serves everyone well enough. But I think we can assume that they're not going to intentionally do something which they know will turn a large portion of players off. I'd like to believe that includes forcing people into content they can't complete for whatever reason.

To add to this, it wouldn't surprise me if part of the solution is a retuning of overland in general across the board, making things slightly more difficult, but even in that instance I don't see it reaching a level that would turn off those that are incapable or not wanting of higher difficulty.

I've also seen some other ideas in this thread that I could see them doing, like selected zones that are "enhanced", I'm thinking something similar to Diablo 4's Helltides.

Whatever their ideas are, I don't see them doing something that would force everyone into vet level overland content. I don't even see too big of a difficulty spike. Most I could see is maybe something like Imperial City level mobs, which are enough to maybe go through a rotation, and account a little bit for the power creep, but not enough to be overly "difficult".

What I personally feel would be the ideal scenario with the lowest degree of backlash would be a rebalancing of the newer content which has been perceived as more challenging back to the base game level, and then give players the option to increase difficulty from there. That way those who have found the newer content harder to complete can do it, while those of us who want a challenge can have it. Works for everyone.

SilverBride

DenverRalphy wrote: »

What ever happened to there being an actual reason you may need to stick to the roadways because otherwise you run the risk of running into something more challenging that you're ready to handle?

How are players supposed to stick to the roadways when their quest objectives are out in the wild and down in caves and delves etc.? And don't forget farming mats for crafting, etc..