Overland Content Feedback Thread

Franchise408

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Maya_Nur wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Blackbird_V wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Taking a zone away from the general playerbase and making it too difficult for them ever utilize is not the least bit fair and would absolutely divide the playerbase, if there was any playerbase left to be divided.

The only fair and reasonable solution is a debuff. I know some players don't like this idea but there has not been a solid reason given as to why this is not acceptable.

We have.

It's not an acceptable solution as it's cheap and will be underutilised. Going around the world debuffing yourself, while others can just press an ability or 2 and kill the mob(s) your attacking ruins this. I want to see delve bosses with 1m HP, group delve, public dungeon and quest bosses with 2-4m HP, mobs with triple-quadruple the HP, want mobs etc. to hurt.

I want the challenge GIVEN to me, rather than me nerfing myself to seek a challenge, to me it's not logical. People would just not bother, and again: others who aren't debuffed will and can ruin it. I'd love to see people ask for help and ask for help with content, rather than say "derp i debuffed myself halp plox" because people would end up saying to undo the debuff.

Nty. Veteran scaled content please. I don't want nerf food lol.

How is it cheap? If you mean the cost to implement it then yes it would be much cheaper than veteran overland, which is what would be underutilized and expensive.

Why does the challenge have to be given to you with harder mobs if debuffing yourself has the same end result?

What does it matter if others who don't use the debuff can quickly kill mobs? It's about the player wanting more of a challenge for themselves not what others are doing.

Debuff is the only reasonable solution that gives the player harder fights without negatively affecting the rest of the playerbase.

Human psychology. IRL normal situation looks like that: person reaches new height and then moves to the next one. What you suggest is similar to tie your legs and be happy you can move by doing short jumps. Please, understand we are also deserve our portion of desired content as anyone else.

Debuffs have been something used to make video games more challenging for years, especially in RPGs. One of the most popular mods types in Skyrim was debuffs.

In every multiplayer game you're also running around a map with people weaker or stronger than you, so seeing someone hitting harder than you is not an issue. It's the case with every solution including a vet overland.

Not liking debuffs is purely a matter of taste (and rewards). That boss's heavy attack needing to be roll dodged or it will kill you is the same result whether it comes from a default state, buffed boss, or debuffed player. The result is the same. The boss does a heavy and you roll dodge it or die.

For some people, including yourself, the taste dislike may be because it messes with your power fantasy. Everyone's power fantasy is different and may be effected by different things. And it's understandable that it disrupt your power fantast. However, others will view it as just doing things on hard mode.

That boss's heavy attack needing to be roll dodged or it will kill you doesn't exist in the game's current state.

SilverBride

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

Debuff, as others have said, is a cheap solution that only makes encounters take longer with the same poor mechanics. We don't want tedious, we want enriching.

Enriching is an opinion that is different for every player. It is not a clearly defined and measurable goal. It doesn't tell us what the player is asking for.

Do they want World Bosses to be the same difficulty as trial bosses? Random mobs to be triple their current difficulty? Story bosses to be like veteran dungeon bosses? That is what a true veteran overland would look like and I very much doubt that would attract very many players.

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

Optional wouldn't affect you. Not implementing something because "it's too hard" is...not a great excuse not to do something. It would not be bad for the game to include an option. It would increase existing interest in the game and likely encourage more participation in story content, something that only increases revenue and retains player interest. Both things help the company. Long time players are the ones that ZoS earns money from. They're the ones that subscribe, buy things from the crown store, etc etc. Not just catering to people who buy the game and play for two weeks before they quit (not saying you do that, but that is a significant majority of what happens).

I explained in post #33 how this would negatively affect everyone. There is no basis that players who want veteran overland are the long time players. Many long time players are against this, such as myself. I play every day, I sub and spend money in the crown store as many of us do.

Even an optional veteran overland isn't feasible, and doesn't justify the time and cost to implement in light of how little it would be utilized.

Franchise408

SilverBride wrote: »

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

Debuff, as others have said, is a cheap solution that only makes encounters take longer with the same poor mechanics. We don't want tedious, we want enriching.

Enriching is an opinion that is different for every player. It is not a clearly defined and measurable goal. It doesn't tell us what the player is asking for.

Do they want World Bosses to be the same difficulty as trial bosses? Random mobs to be triple their current difficulty? Story bosses to be like veteran dungeon bosses? That is what a true veteran overland would look like and I very much doubt that would attract very many players.

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

Optional wouldn't affect you. Not implementing something because "it's too hard" is...not a great excuse not to do something. It would not be bad for the game to include an option. It would increase existing interest in the game and likely encourage more participation in story content, something that only increases revenue and retains player interest. Both things help the company. Long time players are the ones that ZoS earns money from. They're the ones that subscribe, buy things from the crown store, etc etc. Not just catering to people who buy the game and play for two weeks before they quit (not saying you do that, but that is a significant majority of what happens).

I explained in post #33 how this would negatively affect everyone. There is no basis that players who want veteran overland are the long time players. Many long time players are against this, such as myself. I play every day, I sub and spend money in the crown store as many of us do.

Even an optional veteran overland isn't feasible, and doesn't justify the time and cost to implement in light of how little it would be utilized.

You keep coming back to post #33, but it has been explained to you, numerous times, over 26 pages of this thread, why those concerns are false.

spartaxoxo

Franchise408 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

Debuff, as others have said, is a cheap solution that only makes encounters take longer with the same poor mechanics. We don't want tedious, we want enriching.

Enriching is an opinion that is different for every player. It is not a clearly defined and measurable goal. It doesn't tell us what the player is asking for.

Do they want World Bosses to be the same difficulty as trial bosses? Random mobs to be triple their current difficulty? Story bosses to be like veteran dungeon bosses? That is what a true veteran overland would look like and I very much doubt that would attract very many players.

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

Optional wouldn't affect you. Not implementing something because "it's too hard" is...not a great excuse not to do something. It would not be bad for the game to include an option. It would increase existing interest in the game and likely encourage more participation in story content, something that only increases revenue and retains player interest. Both things help the company. Long time players are the ones that ZoS earns money from. They're the ones that subscribe, buy things from the crown store, etc etc. Not just catering to people who buy the game and play for two weeks before they quit (not saying you do that, but that is a significant majority of what happens).

I explained in post #33 how this would negatively affect everyone. There is no basis that players who want veteran overland are the long time players. Many long time players are against this, such as myself. I play every day, I sub and spend money in the crown store as many of us do.

Even an optional veteran overland isn't feasible, and doesn't justify the time and cost to implement in light of how little it would be utilized.

You keep coming back to post #33, but it has been explained to you, numerous times, over 26 pages of this thread, why those concerns are false.

The concern about costs aren't false and are shared by ZOS.

spartaxoxo

Franchise408 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Maya_Nur wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Blackbird_V wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Taking a zone away from the general playerbase and making it too difficult for them ever utilize is not the least bit fair and would absolutely divide the playerbase, if there was any playerbase left to be divided.

The only fair and reasonable solution is a debuff. I know some players don't like this idea but there has not been a solid reason given as to why this is not acceptable.

We have.

It's not an acceptable solution as it's cheap and will be underutilised. Going around the world debuffing yourself, while others can just press an ability or 2 and kill the mob(s) your attacking ruins this. I want to see delve bosses with 1m HP, group delve, public dungeon and quest bosses with 2-4m HP, mobs with triple-quadruple the HP, want mobs etc. to hurt.

I want the challenge GIVEN to me, rather than me nerfing myself to seek a challenge, to me it's not logical. People would just not bother, and again: others who aren't debuffed will and can ruin it. I'd love to see people ask for help and ask for help with content, rather than say "derp i debuffed myself halp plox" because people would end up saying to undo the debuff.

Nty. Veteran scaled content please. I don't want nerf food lol.

How is it cheap? If you mean the cost to implement it then yes it would be much cheaper than veteran overland, which is what would be underutilized and expensive.

Why does the challenge have to be given to you with harder mobs if debuffing yourself has the same end result?

What does it matter if others who don't use the debuff can quickly kill mobs? It's about the player wanting more of a challenge for themselves not what others are doing.

Debuff is the only reasonable solution that gives the player harder fights without negatively affecting the rest of the playerbase.

Human psychology. IRL normal situation looks like that: person reaches new height and then moves to the next one. What you suggest is similar to tie your legs and be happy you can move by doing short jumps. Please, understand we are also deserve our portion of desired content as anyone else.

Debuffs have been something used to make video games more challenging for years, especially in RPGs. One of the most popular mods types in Skyrim was debuffs.

In every multiplayer game you're also running around a map with people weaker or stronger than you, so seeing someone hitting harder than you is not an issue. It's the case with every solution including a vet overland.

Not liking debuffs is purely a matter of taste (and rewards). That boss's heavy attack needing to be roll dodged or it will kill you is the same result whether it comes from a default state, buffed boss, or debuffed player. The result is the same. The boss does a heavy and you roll dodge it or die.

For some people, including yourself, the taste dislike may be because it messes with your power fantasy. Everyone's power fantasy is different and may be effected by different things. And it's understandable that it disrupt your power fantast. However, others will view it as just doing things on hard mode.

That boss's heavy attack needing to be roll dodged or it will kill you doesn't exist in the game's current state.

This does not address my response in anyway. I was discussing potential changes not the current overland.

summ0004

The issue is tuning the level of the mobs and bosses to what people want, and this will probably be different for many groups of people and fairly challenging for ZOS to redo and implement across the whole game.

But they can implement improvements going forward, so this is where I think they should focus their efforts.

It is pretty obvious that many customers are being out off by the mobs and bosses being too trivial as it currently stands so something needs to be done going forward. The mobs in WoW in the earlier days had the difficulty levels of the mobs about right where they required you to actually fight and they could pose a danger. This was the most popular MMO game at the time, so it obviously wasnt an issue for the masses.

ESO mobs are way below the difficulty WoW had, and dont require any use of abilities or gear in order to kill and they hardly do any damage in return and this for many ruins immersion as it doesnt feel like you are actually fighting.

So something needs to be done going forward and we cant just be in denial and bury heads in the sand and pretend its all ok and acceptable. Things need to evole to stop stagnation, especially with competition from other MMOs that are newly coming out.

The difficulty is what they can do about it, as I dont believe a redo of the entire old overland is a realistic solution.

Seminolegirl1992

SilverBride wrote: »

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

Debuff, as others have said, is a cheap solution that only makes encounters take longer with the same poor mechanics. We don't want tedious, we want enriching.

Enriching is an opinion that is different for every player. It is not a clearly defined and measurable goal. It doesn't tell us what the player is asking for.

Do they want World Bosses to be the same difficulty as trial bosses? Random mobs to be triple their current difficulty? Story bosses to be like veteran dungeon bosses? That is what a true veteran overland would look like and I very much doubt that would attract very many players.

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

Optional wouldn't affect you. Not implementing something because "it's too hard" is...not a great excuse not to do something. It would not be bad for the game to include an option. It would increase existing interest in the game and likely encourage more participation in story content, something that only increases revenue and retains player interest. Both things help the company. Long time players are the ones that ZoS earns money from. They're the ones that subscribe, buy things from the crown store, etc etc. Not just catering to people who buy the game and play for two weeks before they quit (not saying you do that, but that is a significant majority of what happens).

I explained in post #33 how this would negatively affect everyone. There is no basis that players who want veteran overland are the long time players. Many long time players are against this, such as myself. I play every day, I sub and spend money in the crown store as many of us do.

Even an optional veteran overland isn't feasible, and doesn't justify the time and cost to implement in light of how little it would be utilized.

Most of what you said is an opinion though. You don't know that it would negatively affect everyone, nor that its feasibility is not justified. I don't think it's up to one person to determine whether something is worth it, but by judging by the few (in comparison to the player base) responses on this forum, there is plenty of interest, arguably moreso than against. We don't know how popular it is widescale, because only a certain number of folks use the forums, and only a certain number of folks speak english on the forums. Options are a positive change to the game, not negative. Having the choice to pvp, pve, deathmatch battleground, or objective mode battleground makes more people happy, not less.

I don't pvp that much. Does that mean it being fixed is a waste of time because I don't like it? Absolutely not. They deserve their piece of pie as much as anyone else. There are different teams for a reason, because more than one thing at a time can be worked on.

spartaxoxo

summ0004 wrote: »

The difficulty is what they can do about it, as I dont believe a redo of the entire old overland is a realistic solution.

Agreed 100%

I'd like to see

*Debuff food
*Challenge Banner for Story Bosses
*Daedric Rifts buffed (random event in old overland could cause vet mobs to spawn. These are easily avoided)
*A Single New Zone that's like Craglorn with a completely standalone story and a dungeon. Maybe replace one of the dungeon dlcs with this. See if it would be popular. If it's more popular than a full dungeon dlc then maybe one of the dungeon dlcs going forward could be a small adventure zone with only 1 new dungeon instead.

Seminolegirl1992

spartaxoxo wrote: »

summ0004 wrote: »

The difficulty is what they can do about it, as I dont believe a redo of the entire old overland is a realistic solution.

Agreed 100%

I'd like to see

Debuff food
Challenge Banner for Story Bosses
Daedric Rifts buffed (random event in old overland could cause vet mobs to spawn. These are easily avoided)
A Single New Zone that's like Craglorn with a completely standalone story and a dungeon. Maybe replace one of the dungeon dlcs with this. See if it would be popular.

Speaking of the dungeon dlcs (entirely off topic) it would be nice if we could move away from the year long story thing. I like the idea of a challenge banner. Possibly another zone, but that's a tiny bone to a large problem. Not fond of debuff food.

Franchise408

spartaxoxo wrote: »

summ0004 wrote: »

The difficulty is what they can do about it, as I dont believe a redo of the entire old overland is a realistic solution.

Agreed 100%

I'd like to see

*Debuff food
*Challenge Banner for Story Bosses
*Daedric Rifts buffed (random event in old overland could cause vet mobs to spawn. These are easily avoided)
*A Single New Zone that's like Craglorn with a completely standalone story and a dungeon. Maybe replace one of the dungeon dlcs with this. See if it would be popular. If it's more popular than a full dungeon dlc then maybe one of the dungeon dlcs going forward could be a small adventure zone with only 1 new dungeon instead.

I am on board with all of this except the debuff food. I don't think that addresses the problem in any appropriate way, and I also think that a new vet level zone will make up for the need for it anyways.

I am 100% in favor of giving up any potential "vet overland instance" if we can just get some new zones here and there that are dedicated to vet level challenge. Leave existing overland as is, but create new vet challenge zones.

SilverBride

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

Most of what you said is an opinion though. You don't know that it would negatively affect everyone, nor that its feasibility is not justified. I don't think it's up to one person to determine whether something is worth it, but by judging by the few (in comparison to the player base) responses on this forum, there is plenty of interest, arguably moreso than against.

We don't know how popular it is widescale, because only a certain number of folks use the forums, and only a certain number of folks speak english on the forums.

Most of what everyone has said in this thread is opinion. My opinion is that this would negatively affect everyone and is not feasible, and I gave examples why.

We cannot assume that the those players who do not visit the forums are for a veteran overland. If you look at vocal minority vs silent majority the opposite is true. The silent majority only becomes vocal if they are unhappy with something. The fact that there aren't a lot more players coming to the forums complaining that overland is too easy substantiates the fact that most are fine with things just as they are.

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

Options are a positive change to the game, not negative. Having the choice to pvp, pve, deathmatch battleground, or objective mode battleground makes more people happy, not less.

No one is arguing that. I don't PvP but I am all for there being content for PvPers. What I wouldn't agree with is if the entire overland was redone to create a separate PvP overland because there is already content created specifically for PvPers. The same way there is content already created for end game players.

Franchise408

SilverBride wrote: »

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

Most of what you said is an opinion though. You don't know that it would negatively affect everyone, nor that its feasibility is not justified. I don't think it's up to one person to determine whether something is worth it, but by judging by the few (in comparison to the player base) responses on this forum, there is plenty of interest, arguably moreso than against.

We don't know how popular it is widescale, because only a certain number of folks use the forums, and only a certain number of folks speak english on the forums.

Most of what everyone has said in this thread is opinion. My opinion is that this would negatively affect everyone and is not feasible, and I gave examples why.

We cannot assume that the those players who do not visit the forums are for a veteran overland. If you look at vocal minority vs silent majority the opposite is true. The silent majority only becomes vocal if they are unhappy with something. The fact that there aren't a lot more players coming to the forums complaining that overland is too easy substantiates the fact that most are fine with things just as they are.

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

Options are a positive change to the game, not negative. Having the choice to pvp, pve, deathmatch battleground, or objective mode battleground makes more people happy, not less.

No one is arguing that. I don't PvP but I am all for there being content for PvPers. What I wouldn't agree with is if the entire overland was redone to create a separate PvP overland because there is already content created specifically for PvPers. The same way there is content already created for end game players.

Nor can we assume that the silent majority, who is happy with the way things are, will become displeased and leave just because optional or new veteran content is added.

SilverBride

Franchise408 wrote: »

Nor can we assume that the silent majority, who is happy with the way things are, will become displeased and leave just because optional or new veteran content is added.

But they very well may. Why take that chance?

Seminolegirl1992

SilverBride wrote: »

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

Most of what you said is an opinion though. You don't know that it would negatively affect everyone, nor that its feasibility is not justified. I don't think it's up to one person to determine whether something is worth it, but by judging by the few (in comparison to the player base) responses on this forum, there is plenty of interest, arguably moreso than against.

We don't know how popular it is widescale, because only a certain number of folks use the forums, and only a certain number of folks speak english on the forums.

Most of what everyone has said in this thread is opinion. My opinion is that this would negatively affect everyone and is not feasible, and I gave examples why.

We cannot assume that the those players who do not visit the forums are for a veteran overland. If you look at vocal minority vs silent majority the opposite is true. The silent majority only becomes vocal if they are unhappy with something. The fact that there aren't a lot more players coming to the forums complaining that overland is too easy substantiates the fact that most are fine with things just as they are.

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

Options are a positive change to the game, not negative. Having the choice to pvp, pve, deathmatch battleground, or objective mode battleground makes more people happy, not less.

No one is arguing that. I don't PvP but I am all for there being content for PvPers. What I wouldn't agree with is if the entire overland was redone to create a separate PvP overland because there is already content created specifically for PvPers. The same way there is content already created for end game players.

Right, I was just giving an example. Just because pvp isnt my priority, doesn't mean that ZoS shouldn't focus on them- because it's very much needed. Just like ZoS should lend their attention to overland. Trials and dungeons are such a small portion of the game, so to suggest that we need to stick to our lane and be happy with what he have is disingenuous, which we've repeated. Games are meant to provide a challenge, and currently it's not doing that with its quests. A lot of people would re-engage with that content if they felt it was worth doing. I still do because I can't help myself, but soooo many have given up on questing. As for thinking that because so many are silent on the issue, it must not be significant is faulty. That assumes that everyone with a complaint comes to the forums, which is decidedly not true. I think the majority just stay silent and accept that ZoS won't change it. Not many people speak up about it, but it's been clearly enough in the past year alone that they decided to pin a thread on the topic. That tells me they hear this A LOT.

Seminolegirl1992

SilverBride wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

Nor can we assume that the silent majority, who is happy with the way things are, will become displeased and leave just because optional or new veteran content is added.

But they very well may. Why take that chance?

The same can be asked in reverse. How many have already left because they feel the game lacks challenge? Hundreds? Thousands? I think the game has more to lose by not catering to a large variety of people rather than just making a part of its base happy. If you have nothing to lose, then it shouldn't bother you. It wouldn't bother me if they spent a significant amount of time fixing pvp, because it makes those players happy, and I want them to be happy.

SilverBride

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

Not many people speak up about it, but it's been clearly enough in the past year alone that they decided to pin a thread on the topic. That tells me they hear this A LOT.

They do hear this a lot and that is why they pinned the topic, because the multiple threads every week were creating a negative experience for a lot of forum users. So they created an official thread where this topic could be discussed rather than multiple threads. This was a positive decision because it keeps the conversation in one place and allows both sides to continue the debate. But it does not indicate that this was pinned because they consider this a feasible proposal. We don't know what their views are, which is why I would love if we could get some feedback from ZoS.

spartaxoxo

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

Trials and dungeons are such a small portion of the game, so to suggest that we need to stick to our lane and be happy with what he have is disingenuous, which we've repeated. .

I am sincerely already satisfied with the way challenge works in this game. I wouldn't mind more stuff but I am also happy with this game and have hundreds of hours and dollars to prove it. What's actually disingenuous is the people that claim everyone who has a different opinion than them is making it up.

Your opinion on the current challenge level is not the only valid one. Everyone else can have a different opinion than you.

Seminolegirl1992

I agree. As his post states, they have seen the multitude of threads and the increase in discussions, hence all being directed here. They pin topics they want to hear feedback on. Just like they do in the pts- because they're reading player feedback. We probably haven't heard from their side yet because they're letting the players have a discussion about it. The thread hasn't been up for long. I imagine they're letting it develop and seeing each side's point of view. If/when they comment on this, I would love to see feedback from actual devs who oversee overland content, veteran instances, etc.

And who knows whether or not they see it as feasible. Player opinion is important, and they seem invested in hearing what folks have to say. I doubt they would even give this the time of day if they truly viewed it as something they would never consider. It would be a waste of their time, forum admin time, forum mod time, etc etc.

SilverBride

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

I agree. As his post states, they have seen the multitude of threads and the increase in discussions, hence all being directed here. They pin topics they want to hear feedback on.

The fact that this thread was pinned does not indicate that they found this proposal something they are considering or are even interested in. We don't know what they think and won't until they provide some feedback.

spartaxoxo

SilverBride wrote: »

The fact that this thread was pinned does not indicate that they found this proposal something they are considering or are even interested in. We don't know what they think and won't until they provide some feedback.

So far this is the only stated reasoning for the thread's creation.

The increase in weekly threads around this issue has caused some users to have a negative experience on the forum overall, leading to the threads being closed. However, we also recognize there are players who would like to discuss this topic. So, we have made a thread for players who would like to discuss the topic of Overland Content.

We won't know if their opinion has changed from a couple months ago until they tell us more. They did leave that door open. So it's still good to leave good and constructive feedback.

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

[*] Keep the feedback constructive. The feedback here could help us in the future as we continue conversations around this topic.

But for now the reason for the thread is the reason Kevin stated, reduce forum clutter.

Rudrani

Make a vet instance, why complain?
Make it a LOT harder. like a LOOOOT.

Make the instance drop things that end game players actually need (gold mats, transmutes, more gold.)

Its more realistic than adding a new craglorn.
They dont want to add new things that only 5% of the players will use.

Then why should they create vet overland, if only 5% of the players will use it.
Because those 5% are bored, and this will help keep them in the game.
So its not 5%, its 105%

XomRhoK

Franchise408 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

summ0004 wrote: »

The difficulty is what they can do about it, as I dont believe a redo of the entire old overland is a realistic solution.

Agreed 100%

I'd like to see

*Debuff food
*Challenge Banner for Story Bosses
*Daedric Rifts buffed (random event in old overland could cause vet mobs to spawn. These are easily avoided)
*A Single New Zone that's like Craglorn with a completely standalone story and a dungeon. Maybe replace one of the dungeon dlcs with this. See if it would be popular. If it's more popular than a full dungeon dlc then maybe one of the dungeon dlcs going forward could be a small adventure zone with only 1 new dungeon instead.

I am 100% in favor of giving up any potential "vet overland instance" if we can just get some new zones here and there that are dedicated to vet level challenge. Leave existing overland as is, but create new vet challenge zones.

I don't understand why people ask for separate veteran zone? It will be the same as going in any veteran dungeon we have now.
I, personally, want difficulty sliders for overland to make ALL existing and ALL NEW quests more enjoyable. I want to experience all content of new chapters at appropriate difficulty, not being locked in some zone. Craglorn, for example, have almost perfect difficulty for me, for solo play, i enjoyed playing through it, but i completed all quests and delves and see no point in returning there. I don't want to fight veteran mobs to fight veteran mobs, or to prove i am good, i want immersive questing mostly.

SilverBride

Rudrani wrote: »

Make a vet instance, why complain?
Make it a LOT harder. like a LOOOOT.

Make the instance drop things that end game players actually need (gold mats, transmutes, more gold.)

Its more realistic than adding a new craglorn.
They dont want to add new things that only 5% of the players will use.

Then why should they create vet overland, if only 5% of the players will use it.
Because those 5% are bored, and this will help keep them in the game.
So its not 5%, its 105%

5% (or less) of the playerbase being bored is not a good reason for such a drastic change. Especially one that will take time and manpower away from projects that will benefit everyone. And even more so when those who want it haven't given any concrete facts on what exactly they want to see.

Should random mobs be three times their current difficulty?
Should World Bosses be as difficult as Veteran Trial Bosses?
Should Story Bosses be a difficult as Veteran Dungeon Bosses?

What exactly are they looking for in a veteran overland?

Seminolegirl1992

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

Trials and dungeons are such a small portion of the game, so to suggest that we need to stick to our lane and be happy with what he have is disingenuous, which we've repeated. .

I am sincerely already satisfied with the way challenge works in this game. I wouldn't mind more stuff but I am also happy with this game and have hundreds of hours and dollars to prove it. What's actually disingenuous is the people that claim everyone who has a different opinion than them is making it up.

Your opinion on the current challenge level is not the only valid one. Everyone else can have a different opinion than you.

I'm not saying other peoples' opinions are not valid. Just arguing that ours is. Often it comes across that what we think/feel doesn't matter because we're apparently so few in number that our concerns are not something ZoS cares to look into. I'm def not claiming that people are making up opinions. We've argued...viability? Of previous quotes in comparison to how the game is today.

Seminolegirl1992

SilverBride wrote: »

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

I agree. As his post states, they have seen the multitude of threads and the increase in discussions, hence all being directed here. They pin topics they want to hear feedback on.

The fact that this thread was pinned does not indicate that they found this proposal something they are considering or are even interested in. We don't know what they think and won't until they provide some feedback.

If they didn't care about player feedback they wouldn't have pinned it. Whether or not they disagree is not my point- but they seem to, at very least, recognize that enough people have brought this topic up that it was worth pinning and evaluating. They wouldn't just pin any random topic (like werewolf emotes being removed, what we would like to see in 2022, ideas on the eso economy, etc) because the ones in the parentheses are not as important or at least not consistently brought up. If you take a look at the housing forum, they pinned a topic that players are clearly passionate about (furnishing slots). If they didn't care or were interested in player feedback, they wouldn't pin. Same with the crown store forum. I promise you they look at that for player feedback and ideas, just as they would here.

spartaxoxo

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

Trials and dungeons are such a small portion of the game, so to suggest that we need to stick to our lane and be happy with what he have is disingenuous, which we've repeated. .

I am sincerely already satisfied with the way challenge works in this game. I wouldn't mind more stuff but I am also happy with this game and have hundreds of hours and dollars to prove it. What's actually disingenuous is the people that claim everyone who has a different opinion than them is making it up.

Your opinion on the current challenge level is not the only valid one. Everyone else can have a different opinion than you.

I'm not saying other peoples' opinions are not valid. Just arguing that ours is. Often it comes across that what we think/feel doesn't matter because we're apparently so few in number that our concerns are not something ZoS cares to look into. I'm def not claiming that people are making up opinions. We've argued...viability? Of previous quotes in comparison to how the game is today.

Disingenuous means that someone doesn't sincerely believe what they are saying, just fyi. So by saying it was disingenuous to state that challenge should come from stuff like trials, you're saying that we don't truly hold the opinion that it's enough and that we are only saying that to screw with you. Just FYI.

Seminolegirl1992

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

Trials and dungeons are such a small portion of the game, so to suggest that we need to stick to our lane and be happy with what he have is disingenuous, which we've repeated. .

I am sincerely already satisfied with the way challenge works in this game. I wouldn't mind more stuff but I am also happy with this game and have hundreds of hours and dollars to prove it. What's actually disingenuous is the people that claim everyone who has a different opinion than them is making it up.

Your opinion on the current challenge level is not the only valid one. Everyone else can have a different opinion than you.

I'm not saying other peoples' opinions are not valid. Just arguing that ours is. Often it comes across that what we think/feel doesn't matter because we're apparently so few in number that our concerns are not something ZoS cares to look into. I'm def not claiming that people are making up opinions. We've argued...viability? Of previous quotes in comparison to how the game is today.

Disingenuous means that someone doesn't sincerely believe what they are saying, just fyi. So by saying it was disingenuous to state that challenge should come from stuff like trials, you're saying that we don't truly hold the opinion that it's enough and that we are only saying that to screw with you. Just FYI.

That's not entirely what it means, but we're not here to argue definitions. Taking a look at the synonyms confirms my original use of the word. It's not about a lack of belief- I'm using that word to imply that telling us to enjoy trials or stay in our lane is hollow. But inconsiderate is probably a better word for what I'm trying to communicate. That's going to sound a lot more like baiting, however.

summ0004

SilverBride wrote: »

Rudrani wrote: »

Make a vet instance, why complain?
Make it a LOT harder. like a LOOOOT.

Make the instance drop things that end game players actually need (gold mats, transmutes, more gold.)

Its more realistic than adding a new craglorn.
They dont want to add new things that only 5% of the players will use.

Then why should they create vet overland, if only 5% of the players will use it.
Because those 5% are bored, and this will help keep them in the game.
So its not 5%, its 105%

5% (or less) of the playerbase being bored is not a good reason for such a drastic change. Especially one that will take time and manpower away from projects that will benefit everyone. And even more so when those who want it haven't given any concrete facts on what exactly they want to see.

Should random mobs be three times their current difficulty?
Should World Bosses be as difficult as Veteran Trial Bosses?
Should Story Bosses be a difficult as Veteran Dungeon Bosses?

What exactly are they looking for in a veteran overland?

I believe the number is actually far greater than 5% of people who are bored of questing content being too easy, and I think those values are way overtuned for what most people would want in the world other than the real diehard veterans.

But back to point, I think most people just want mobs that can constitute something that could be called a fight where they can use more than a few light and heavy attacks . I think the old WoW mobs had the balance about right and that appealed to the masses with no issues.

There is no point to redoing old overland, but it is something that ZOS needs to consider going forward into the future.

spartaxoxo

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

Trials and dungeons are such a small portion of the game, so to suggest that we need to stick to our lane and be happy with what he have is disingenuous, which we've repeated. .

I am sincerely already satisfied with the way challenge works in this game. I wouldn't mind more stuff but I am also happy with this game and have hundreds of hours and dollars to prove it. What's actually disingenuous is the people that claim everyone who has a different opinion than them is making it up.

Your opinion on the current challenge level is not the only valid one. Everyone else can have a different opinion than you.

I'm not saying other peoples' opinions are not valid. Just arguing that ours is. Often it comes across that what we think/feel doesn't matter because we're apparently so few in number that our concerns are not something ZoS cares to look into. I'm def not claiming that people are making up opinions. We've argued...viability? Of previous quotes in comparison to how the game is today.

Disingenuous means that someone doesn't sincerely believe what they are saying, just fyi. So by saying it was disingenuous to state that challenge should come from stuff like trials, you're saying that we don't truly hold the opinion that it's enough and that we are only saying that to screw with you. Just FYI.

That's not entirely what it means, but we're not here to argue definitions. Taking a look at the synonyms confirms my original use of the word. It's not about a lack of belief- I'm using that word to imply that telling us to enjoy trials or stay in our lane is hollow. But inconsiderate is probably a better word for what I'm trying to communicate. That's going to sound a lot more like baiting, however.

I have never seen it mean anything other like insincere, lying, etc. But I also don't want to argue semantics so I'll just take your word you mean hollow.

I personally don't think it's a hollow argument as I do enjoy how modular it makes the game. You can only do the story once whereas those other things are repeatable. I usually finish the story within 2-3 days while stuff like world bosses and dungeons I will do for weeks and months. Quests are also not repeatable so I wouldn't feel it's as optional if it had special rewards. I would just do the vet version and dislike every second of it because not doing it means permanently missing out achievements for that account.

SilverBride

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

The fact that this thread was pinned does not indicate that they found this proposal something they are considering or are even interested in. We don't know what they think and won't until they provide some feedback.

If they didn't care about player feedback they wouldn't have pinned it. Whether or not they disagree is not my point- but they seem to, at very least, recognize that enough people have brought this topic up that it was worth pinning and evaluating

This thread was pinned because "The increase in weekly threads around this issue has caused some users to have a negative experience on the forum overall..." It does not mean they find the proposal promising or desired by the general playerbase.