Overland Content Feedback Thread

Avran_Sylt

CP5 wrote: »

Arunei wrote: »

Surgee wrote: »

I don't think overland difficulty will be toggable. That's a good thing.

Let me digress a little. I know this community want to be able to literally turn off mobs, damage, and any challenge, but if you look at forums outside of this one, where players talk about ESO but don't play it anymore, this type of "easy" mode is what killed the game for them. People here forget it's an MMO. You won't hear about it here though, because the only ones left here are the ones who enjoy the game enough to stay. Current concurrent player count, according to charts is around 2% of all the people who played the game, so obviously a lot of things are wrong, and if you read opinions outside of this bubble, it's very clear what was wrong for years.

Eh? Where are you seeing that people want to turn off all damage and mobs? I haven't seen a single person saying to make ESO into something akin to Peaceful mode in Minecraft. What I've seen are people wanting things to stay the same and any difficulty increases be strictly opt-in instead of forced across the board.

You can't say "the community" wants something just because opinions voiced here are different than those voiced elsewhere. The people who want stuff either changed or to stay the same are ALL "the community". Also, a lot of people either don't have other social medias for whatever reason, or don't use those platforms to talk about ESO. That doesn't mean their opinions are somehow lesser than those given off the forums.

disky wrote: »

mocap wrote: »

Surgee wrote: »

Increase hp - longer fight, not harder. Boring.
Increase damage / attack frequency, response timeframes - harder fight, same duration
Increased all of the above - much harder fight, slightly longer duration.

An increase in HP is unlikely. Two players: one turned on high overland difficulty, other did not. Both are looking at the same mob. Obviously, HP of this mob should be the same for both players. Now all sorts of percentages (% more mob damage, % less your damage) are very suitable.

In general, I wouldn't change the difficulty of trash mobs in any way. Impact of overland difficulty should be only for bosses, mini-bosses, some unique (named) opponents. Normal 32k HP mobs should remain either unchanged or with minimal buffs.

No no, I want harder trash mobs. That's basically the entire reason I'm here. World bosses can take a while to defeat, and are at least somewhat lethal, so that's fine by me. I wouldn't mind the ability to raise their difficulty if I can but what I spend most of my time doing in the overland game is fighting disappointing enemies which die in a heartbeat. I want those enemies to feel like a challenge. Delve, public dungeon and story bosses definitely also need to be dramatically improved but like I said, I don't spend the bulk of my time fighting them.

I want my experience to be a challenge everywhere, and if my primary experience is fighting trash mobs then I want trash mobs to be a challenge. They don't HAVE to be trash. I want to be forced to consider angles and make choices when I'm entering an enemy camp instead of wrecking the entire place in moments.

The whole point of me being in this thread is to try and make things in the game matter more. To me the game is largely trash mobs, and so they should matter more.

I genuinely cannot get my head around wanting every single fight you get into to be a mini boss. Difficulty and fun are very subjective tho, which is why whatever they implement will hopefully be optional.

I do a lot of running around for mats, I do Surveys and Treasure Maps, I quest. I would HATE every single mob between me and what my current goal is to be more than a mild nuisance, even though I'd be more than capable of handling enemies like that. Before Craglorn was nefed I could take on those three-packs of Wasps. It was a REAL pita, but I could do it. I'd really rather not go back to the times where trash mobs required more effort than actual bosses.

Also...I do want to point out something. In this game we quite literally go toe-to-toe with several Daedric Princes, we fight massive Aedric beings (Dragons) right up in their faces, we travel to Oblivion regularly to beat up beings that never actually truly die, we take on ancient Vampires that would kill 99% of those trying to best them without any effort. Why would our characters struggle to beat mundane animals and simple bandits when you consider the much more powerful threats we've already beaten? It's like making it to the NFL but then also wanting kids playing football for fun to pose the same challenge.

Two good things to point out here. First, it isn't, for me, about each fight being a 12 minute long epic against a single rat, it is about the fight mattering. Who am I fighting, where am I fighting, what am I fighting with? Those things should matter, but as an experienced player the only thing that matters is, if I bother fighting in the first place, is how to most efficiently stack the trash mobs cluttering the world and using a single aoe skill to clear them all. Doesn't matter if they are bandits, deadra, vampires, or the like, who I'm fighting doesn't matter, where I'm fighting doesn't matter, so all fights feel the same, and they are all the same difficulty wise down to being too simplistic to engage me. So I turn on a video on the other screen, because ESO's overland content doesn't do enough to warrent my attention.

And to elaborate on that second point. I, don't struggle against bandits, or deadra, or vampires, or necromancers, or cultist, or robots, or any of them, because they are all the same. If the bandits were easier by comparison to trained and heavily armored knights, then bandits being easy would make sense, but when demons who can revive themselves when being slain are as much of a threat as a starving farmer wielding a stick, those deadra don't seem threatening. For things to matter they need to stand out from one another, but when everything is sanded down to the same level, those 'high threats' are as threatening as basic enemies, meaning those 'high threats' are only basic enemies, no different from bandits.

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

I can certainly say I don’t like West Wealds monsters having 100k HP, at least from the perspective of needing to farm 180 Rubedo Hide to refine to make a piece of gear.

Depending on drop-rate that could be upwards of needing to kill 200 100k beasts who are in groups of two or just one.

And as a side note, all elite tier mobs in overland have 100k health. The giant boars in Southern Elsweyr, the minotaurs in the Gold Coast, trolls in base game zones, 100k is normal. If you want to farm materials, focus on things like wolves, who hunt in packs, and are much easier to kill en-mass. Speaking of, if you want drops (gear, materials, exc.) or experience, you're pretty much always better off fighting larger numbers of weaker enemies rather than smaller numbers of stronger enemies. Food for thought.

But I mean, you'd kind of expect a GIANT BOAR, to you know, drop more hide than a wolf or something?

Arunei

disky wrote: »

Didn't say every fight should be a mini-boss, just that they should be challenging enough to feel like they matter. And that is my opinion of course, which is why it should be optional. I understand that most people don't want to be "inconvenienced" by challenge in overland during whatever else it is they're doing but for me, overland is not simply the field I travel across to get to where I want to be, it is the place I want to be. I'm not here to achieve, I'm here to have adventures, and crushing everything in my path at level 1 deflates that sense of adventure for me. I need all overland encounters to feel like they matter in order for overland itself to feel like it matters.

CP5 wrote: »

Arunei wrote: »

I genuinely cannot get my head around wanting every single fight you get into to be a mini boss. Difficulty and fun are very subjective tho, which is why whatever they implement will hopefully be optional.

I do a lot of running around for mats, I do Surveys and Treasure Maps, I quest. I would HATE every single mob between me and what my current goal is to be more than a mild nuisance, even though I'd be more than capable of handling enemies like that. Before Craglorn was nefed I could take on those three-packs of Wasps. It was a REAL pita, but I could do it. I'd really rather not go back to the times where trash mobs required more effort than actual bosses.

Also...I do want to point out something. In this game we quite literally go toe-to-toe with several Daedric Princes, we fight massive Aedric beings (Dragons) right up in their faces, we travel to Oblivion regularly to beat up beings that never actually truly die, we take on ancient Vampires that would kill 99% of those trying to best them without any effort. Why would our characters struggle to beat mundane animals and simple bandits when you consider the much more powerful threats we've already beaten? It's like making it to the NFL but then also wanting kids playing football for fun to pose the same challenge.

Two good things to point out here. First, it isn't, for me, about each fight being a 12 minute long epic against a single rat, it is about the fight mattering. Who am I fighting, where am I fighting, what am I fighting with? Those things should matter, but as an experienced player the only thing that matters is, if I bother fighting in the first place, is how to most efficiently stack the trash mobs cluttering the world and using a single aoe skill to clear them all. Doesn't matter if they are bandits, deadra, vampires, or the like, who I'm fighting doesn't matter, where I'm fighting doesn't matter, so all fights feel the same, and they are all the same difficulty wise down to being too simplistic to engage me. So I turn on a video on the other screen, because ESO's overland content doesn't do enough to warrent my attention.

And to elaborate on that second point. I, don't struggle against bandits, or deadra, or vampires, or necromancers, or cultist, or robots, or any of them, because they are all the same. If the bandits were easier by comparison to trained and heavily armored knights, then bandits being easy would make sense, but when demons who can revive themselves when being slain are as much of a threat as a starving farmer wielding a stick, those deadra don't seem threatening. For things to matter they need to stand out from one another, but when everything is sanded down to the same level, those 'high threats' are as threatening as basic enemies, meaning those 'high threats' are only basic enemies, no different from bandits.

This is why it's so important anything they want to try implementing needs to be optional. I think we all pretty much know that despite the number of people that seem to post here, the actual number of people who post here (or on other social sites for that matter) compared to the number of people who play is pretty low. There are probably a lot of people who'd like Overland to be harder but we never see posts from them simply because they don't have a forum account or accounts for somewhere like Reddit. But also, people who are pleased with how things are don't generally post about them so...

Surgee wrote: »

The whole point of me being in this thread is to try and make things in the game matter more....

Well said, but unfortunately community on this forums want everything easy, and if you'll propose a harder, more rewarding, and challenging experience, they always say it MUST BE OPTIONAL because they enjoy it easy.

No wonder that on any other forum this game is called a "single player" game. The minor, vocal community definitely drives it that way, while the rest left.

As much as I love a lot of things about this game, looking at the dropping player count (currently sitting at 1% of total players who have the game) the single-player, everything-easy-mode, let a toddler solo the game - kind of approach, doesn't work, while games that promote a challenging experience and did not forget completely about group activities, or PvP, are much more successful. I'm glad that devs are finally seeing it.

I see some people here say "but I like it so easy, I like the way it is now. It should not change". Well, I'm happy you like it, but according to stats 99% of players did not, and if it continues that way, the game will die and shut down. It's time for a change or continuation of slow death.

You keep making massive and untrue sweeping generalizations about the community here. You're trying to say everyone here wants things easy, which is clearly not true given the number of people in this very thread who want Overland to be harder. You're acting like because people here don't want things made harder that somehow the entire forum perspective is wrong. The community isn't a hivemind though, and no opinion on this is right or wrong, because difficultly and fun are entirely and 100% subjective. What you find rewarding isn't the same as what someone else does, but that doesn't make your opinion right, or theirs. I'd also like to ask what in the definition of MMORPG implies that it needs to be hard.

Many people like myself don't want things made harder because to us that isn't fun. We don't want to spend hours slogging through trash mobs just to collect maps or mats or during questing, even though we would be very capable of doing so. Being able to do something in no world equates wanting to do it. Plenty of people don't want Overland (including Story bosses) made harder because they literally struggle now thanks to things like health issues or high ping or other things out of their control, where higher difficulty would just lock them out of that content. No one is over here demanding the game be made easier like you keep trying to make it seem.

Those reasons are why practically everyone in this thread, with the exception of a very few, have voiced that any implemented difficulty increase needs to be optional. Because most people here realize that what they find fun isn't what everyone else does, and that what they can do isn't something everyone else can. And why would you want difficulty imposed on everyone anyway? How does what someone else finds fun or what they can do affect anyone else so long as others can engage in what they find fun via an option to make things harder?

Also you keep throwing out these HUGELY exaggerated numbers to back up your posts, without providing any sort of links to where it is you're getting these numbers. Where is it showing that only 1% of players still play, where are "the stats" that show 99% of players don't like how things are? Throwing out these exaggerated numbers without concrete evidence to back them up doesn't make an argument seem stronger, it actually weakens it.

Surgee

Arunei wrote: »

disky wrote: »

Didn't say every fight should be a mini-boss, just that they should be challenging enough to feel like they matter. And that is my opinion of course, which is why it should be optional. I understand that most people don't want to be "inconvenienced" by challenge in overland during whatever else it is they're doing but for me, overland is not simply the field I travel across to get to where I want to be, it is the place I want to be. I'm not here to achieve, I'm here to have adventures, and crushing everything in my path at level 1 deflates that sense of adventure for me. I need all overland encounters to feel like they matter in order for overland itself to feel like it matters.

CP5 wrote: »

Arunei wrote: »

I genuinely cannot get my head around wanting every single fight you get into to be a mini boss. Difficulty and fun are very subjective tho, which is why whatever they implement will hopefully be optional.

I do a lot of running around for mats, I do Surveys and Treasure Maps, I quest. I would HATE every single mob between me and what my current goal is to be more than a mild nuisance, even though I'd be more than capable of handling enemies like that. Before Craglorn was nefed I could take on those three-packs of Wasps. It was a REAL pita, but I could do it. I'd really rather not go back to the times where trash mobs required more effort than actual bosses.

Also...I do want to point out something. In this game we quite literally go toe-to-toe with several Daedric Princes, we fight massive Aedric beings (Dragons) right up in their faces, we travel to Oblivion regularly to beat up beings that never actually truly die, we take on ancient Vampires that would kill 99% of those trying to best them without any effort. Why would our characters struggle to beat mundane animals and simple bandits when you consider the much more powerful threats we've already beaten? It's like making it to the NFL but then also wanting kids playing football for fun to pose the same challenge.

Two good things to point out here. First, it isn't, for me, about each fight being a 12 minute long epic against a single rat, it is about the fight mattering. Who am I fighting, where am I fighting, what am I fighting with? Those things should matter, but as an experienced player the only thing that matters is, if I bother fighting in the first place, is how to most efficiently stack the trash mobs cluttering the world and using a single aoe skill to clear them all. Doesn't matter if they are bandits, deadra, vampires, or the like, who I'm fighting doesn't matter, where I'm fighting doesn't matter, so all fights feel the same, and they are all the same difficulty wise down to being too simplistic to engage me. So I turn on a video on the other screen, because ESO's overland content doesn't do enough to warrent my attention.

And to elaborate on that second point. I, don't struggle against bandits, or deadra, or vampires, or necromancers, or cultist, or robots, or any of them, because they are all the same. If the bandits were easier by comparison to trained and heavily armored knights, then bandits being easy would make sense, but when demons who can revive themselves when being slain are as much of a threat as a starving farmer wielding a stick, those deadra don't seem threatening. For things to matter they need to stand out from one another, but when everything is sanded down to the same level, those 'high threats' are as threatening as basic enemies, meaning those 'high threats' are only basic enemies, no different from bandits.

This is why it's so important anything they want to try implementing needs to be optional. I think we all pretty much know that despite the number of people that seem to post here, the actual number of people who post here (or on other social sites for that matter) compared to the number of people who play is pretty low. There are probably a lot of people who'd like Overland to be harder but we never see posts from them simply because they don't have a forum account or accounts for somewhere like Reddit. But also, people who are pleased with how things are don't generally post about them so...

Surgee wrote: »

The whole point of me being in this thread is to try and make things in the game matter more....

Well said, but unfortunately community on this forums want everything easy, and if you'll propose a harder, more rewarding, and challenging experience, they always say it MUST BE OPTIONAL because they enjoy it easy.

No wonder that on any other forum this game is called a "single player" game. The minor, vocal community definitely drives it that way, while the rest left.

As much as I love a lot of things about this game, looking at the dropping player count (currently sitting at 1% of total players who have the game) the single-player, everything-easy-mode, let a toddler solo the game - kind of approach, doesn't work, while games that promote a challenging experience and did not forget completely about group activities, or PvP, are much more successful. I'm glad that devs are finally seeing it.

I see some people here say "but I like it so easy, I like the way it is now. It should not change". Well, I'm happy you like it, but according to stats 99% of players did not, and if it continues that way, the game will die and shut down. It's time for a change or continuation of slow death.

You keep making massive and untrue sweeping generalizations about the community here. You're trying to say everyone here wants things easy, which is clearly not true given the number of people in this very thread who want Overland to be harder. You're acting like because people here don't want things made harder that somehow the entire forum perspective is wrong. The community isn't a hivemind though, and no opinion on this is right or wrong, because difficultly and fun are entirely and 100% subjective. What you find rewarding isn't the same as what someone else does, but that doesn't make your opinion right, or theirs. I'd also like to ask what in the definition of MMORPG implies that it needs to be hard.

Many people like myself don't want things made harder because to us that isn't fun. We don't want to spend hours slogging through trash mobs just to collect maps or mats or during questing, even though we would be very capable of doing so. Being able to do something in no world equates wanting to do it. Plenty of people don't want Overland (including Story bosses) made harder because they literally struggle now thanks to things like health issues or high ping or other things out of their control, where higher difficulty would just lock them out of that content. No one is over here demanding the game be made easier like you keep trying to make it seem.

Those reasons are why practically everyone in this thread, with the exception of a very few, have voiced that any implemented difficulty increase needs to be optional. Because most people here realize that what they find fun isn't what everyone else does, and that what they can do isn't something everyone else can. And why would you want difficulty imposed on everyone anyway? How does what someone else finds fun or what they can do affect anyone else so long as others can engage in what they find fun via an option to make things harder?

Also you keep throwing out these HUGELY exaggerated numbers to back up your posts, without providing any sort of links to where it is you're getting these numbers. Where is it showing that only 1% of players still play, where are "the stats" that show 99% of players don't like how things are? Throwing out these exaggerated numbers without concrete evidence to back them up doesn't make an argument seem stronger, it actually weakens it.

Numbers are not exaggerating downwards but upwards if anything.

- Announced number of players who tried the game by Zenimax is 25 million
- steam charts show 10k average and keeps dropping (that's 0.04% of copies out there)
- consoles are known to have lowest population (any LFG is dead, PvP is dead)
- other numbers are most likely less
- 1% of 25 million would be 250,000 players and by the looks of it, we might not be even sitting at 20k concurrent players, which is 0.08% of the total player base

So please stop. If anything, I've increased the number 10 times upwards or more. I don't want to drag this numbers game, because it's not the point of the topic to go into maths now.

As for the difficulty, you must understand the people who want it easy might seem like majority here, but in reality according to what's happening with the game and what's being said elsewhere, you're in the tiny tiny minority.

I don't mind things being optional in general. If you like to decrease the difficulty, that's great, but this is an MMORPG where your achievements are compared to other players and both of you have to go through the same difficulty of game to have the same achievements. Want it optional? Sure, but don't expect a comparable reward. The problem is, zenimax neglected this and other issues for too long and the game is in free fall. If they make overland difficulty optional, you'll have to instance two player groups separately and the game will become even more empty. Again, this is an MMORPG and seeing areas come to life with players running around is ESSENTIAL.

If you think you can allow people changing difficulty in settings where you have it easy and your partner hard while fighting the same enemies, you clearly have no clue what you're talking about when it comes to mmorpgs.

I understand you're afraid of a harder game, but you have to let zenimax try to save it. As for "many struggle to kill story bosses" where do you get YOUR data from? The truth is, you don't know. But you know who knows? Zenimax. They have the data, and decided that the game is too easy.

Arunei

Surgee wrote: »

Arunei wrote: »

disky wrote: »

Didn't say every fight should be a mini-boss, just that they should be challenging enough to feel like they matter. And that is my opinion of course, which is why it should be optional. I understand that most people don't want to be "inconvenienced" by challenge in overland during whatever else it is they're doing but for me, overland is not simply the field I travel across to get to where I want to be, it is the place I want to be. I'm not here to achieve, I'm here to have adventures, and crushing everything in my path at level 1 deflates that sense of adventure for me. I need all overland encounters to feel like they matter in order for overland itself to feel like it matters.

CP5 wrote: »

Arunei wrote: »

I genuinely cannot get my head around wanting every single fight you get into to be a mini boss. Difficulty and fun are very subjective tho, which is why whatever they implement will hopefully be optional.

I do a lot of running around for mats, I do Surveys and Treasure Maps, I quest. I would HATE every single mob between me and what my current goal is to be more than a mild nuisance, even though I'd be more than capable of handling enemies like that. Before Craglorn was nefed I could take on those three-packs of Wasps. It was a REAL pita, but I could do it. I'd really rather not go back to the times where trash mobs required more effort than actual bosses.

Also...I do want to point out something. In this game we quite literally go toe-to-toe with several Daedric Princes, we fight massive Aedric beings (Dragons) right up in their faces, we travel to Oblivion regularly to beat up beings that never actually truly die, we take on ancient Vampires that would kill 99% of those trying to best them without any effort. Why would our characters struggle to beat mundane animals and simple bandits when you consider the much more powerful threats we've already beaten? It's like making it to the NFL but then also wanting kids playing football for fun to pose the same challenge.

Two good things to point out here. First, it isn't, for me, about each fight being a 12 minute long epic against a single rat, it is about the fight mattering. Who am I fighting, where am I fighting, what am I fighting with? Those things should matter, but as an experienced player the only thing that matters is, if I bother fighting in the first place, is how to most efficiently stack the trash mobs cluttering the world and using a single aoe skill to clear them all. Doesn't matter if they are bandits, deadra, vampires, or the like, who I'm fighting doesn't matter, where I'm fighting doesn't matter, so all fights feel the same, and they are all the same difficulty wise down to being too simplistic to engage me. So I turn on a video on the other screen, because ESO's overland content doesn't do enough to warrent my attention.

And to elaborate on that second point. I, don't struggle against bandits, or deadra, or vampires, or necromancers, or cultist, or robots, or any of them, because they are all the same. If the bandits were easier by comparison to trained and heavily armored knights, then bandits being easy would make sense, but when demons who can revive themselves when being slain are as much of a threat as a starving farmer wielding a stick, those deadra don't seem threatening. For things to matter they need to stand out from one another, but when everything is sanded down to the same level, those 'high threats' are as threatening as basic enemies, meaning those 'high threats' are only basic enemies, no different from bandits.

This is why it's so important anything they want to try implementing needs to be optional. I think we all pretty much know that despite the number of people that seem to post here, the actual number of people who post here (or on other social sites for that matter) compared to the number of people who play is pretty low. There are probably a lot of people who'd like Overland to be harder but we never see posts from them simply because they don't have a forum account or accounts for somewhere like Reddit. But also, people who are pleased with how things are don't generally post about them so...

Surgee wrote: »

The whole point of me being in this thread is to try and make things in the game matter more....

Well said, but unfortunately community on this forums want everything easy, and if you'll propose a harder, more rewarding, and challenging experience, they always say it MUST BE OPTIONAL because they enjoy it easy.

No wonder that on any other forum this game is called a "single player" game. The minor, vocal community definitely drives it that way, while the rest left.

As much as I love a lot of things about this game, looking at the dropping player count (currently sitting at 1% of total players who have the game) the single-player, everything-easy-mode, let a toddler solo the game - kind of approach, doesn't work, while games that promote a challenging experience and did not forget completely about group activities, or PvP, are much more successful. I'm glad that devs are finally seeing it.

I see some people here say "but I like it so easy, I like the way it is now. It should not change". Well, I'm happy you like it, but according to stats 99% of players did not, and if it continues that way, the game will die and shut down. It's time for a change or continuation of slow death.

You keep making massive and untrue sweeping generalizations about the community here. You're trying to say everyone here wants things easy, which is clearly not true given the number of people in this very thread who want Overland to be harder. You're acting like because people here don't want things made harder that somehow the entire forum perspective is wrong. The community isn't a hivemind though, and no opinion on this is right or wrong, because difficultly and fun are entirely and 100% subjective. What you find rewarding isn't the same as what someone else does, but that doesn't make your opinion right, or theirs. I'd also like to ask what in the definition of MMORPG implies that it needs to be hard.

Many people like myself don't want things made harder because to us that isn't fun. We don't want to spend hours slogging through trash mobs just to collect maps or mats or during questing, even though we would be very capable of doing so. Being able to do something in no world equates wanting to do it. Plenty of people don't want Overland (including Story bosses) made harder because they literally struggle now thanks to things like health issues or high ping or other things out of their control, where higher difficulty would just lock them out of that content. No one is over here demanding the game be made easier like you keep trying to make it seem.

Those reasons are why practically everyone in this thread, with the exception of a very few, have voiced that any implemented difficulty increase needs to be optional. Because most people here realize that what they find fun isn't what everyone else does, and that what they can do isn't something everyone else can. And why would you want difficulty imposed on everyone anyway? How does what someone else finds fun or what they can do affect anyone else so long as others can engage in what they find fun via an option to make things harder?

Also you keep throwing out these HUGELY exaggerated numbers to back up your posts, without providing any sort of links to where it is you're getting these numbers. Where is it showing that only 1% of players still play, where are "the stats" that show 99% of players don't like how things are? Throwing out these exaggerated numbers without concrete evidence to back them up doesn't make an argument seem stronger, it actually weakens it.

Numbers are not exaggerating downwards but upwards if anything.

- Announced number of players who tried the game by Zenimax is 25 million
- steam charts show 10k average and keeps dropping (that's 0.04% of copies out there)
- consoles are known to have lowest population (any LFG is dead, PvP is dead)
- other numbers are most likely less
- 1% of 25 million would be 250,000 players and by the looks of it, we might not be even sitting at 20k concurrent players, which is 0.08% of the total player base

So please stop. If anything, I've increased the number 10 times upwards or more. I don't want to drag this numbers game, because it's not the point of the topic to go into maths now.

Except the fact that Steam and Epic doesn't account for the people who have the game through ZOS' store. You're also assuming based on anecdotal evidence on the console thing; you don't provide numbers for them, just state that it's known they have the lowest population and offer another claim about that platform being dead. A claim many people have made for years about the game in general and yet here we all still all. And what does "other numbers are likely less" even mean? How does that add any credibility? You haven't given any links or solid proof at all, and yes, as you're the one making these claims, the onus is on you to "do the maths" and provide concrete proof.

As for the difficulty, you must understand the people who want it easy might seem like majority here, but in reality according to what's happening with the game and what's being said elsewhere, you're in the tiny tiny minority.

Like I said in my last post, the number if people who post here or any other site are NOT the majority of people who play in general. Lots of players don't have an active forum account here and many people either don't have accounts to social media places like Reddit or just don't talk about the game there. People who are satisfied or neutral about a topic tend not to say anything about it, so you need to keep in mind that there's a WHOLE PORTION of the community who either don't mind how Overland is currently, or don't feel strongly enough about it being too easy to post anywhere about it.

I don't mind things being optional in general. If you like to decrease the difficulty, that's great, but this is an MMORPG where your achievements are compared to other players and both of you have to go through the same difficulty of game to have the same achievements. Want it optional? Sure, but don't expect a comparable reward. The problem is, zenimax neglected this and other issues for too long and the game is in free fall. If they make overland difficulty optional, you'll have to instance two player groups separately and the game will become even more empty. Again, this is an MMORPG and seeing areas come to life with players running around is ESSENTIAL.

MMORPG ONLY MEANS you're playing a game with a bunch of other players. Achrivements are for your own enjoyment, nothing about them or a game being an MMO implies any level of competition. In no game I've ever played where achievements are public have I EVER felt the need to compare what I can do and what I have to others. I will never understand the mindset of "having this achievement only matters if others struggle to get it" or the like. Again, how does what someone else can do affect your ability to do something or enjoy doing it? Why spend so much time caring about what others can achieve compared to what you can?

If you think you can allow people changing difficulty in settings where you have it easy and your partner hard while fighting the same enemies, you clearly have no clue what you're talking about when it comes to mmorpgs.
Sooooooo...something other people have mentioned other MMOs have done is suddenly not possible at all in an MMO? And yes actually, it would be very possible via a toggle or slider that imposes unique debuffs on the person wanting things harder. That only affects their character, not the server itself.

I understand you're afraid of a harder game, but you have to let zenimax try to save it. As for "many struggle to kill story bosses" where do you get YOUR data from? The truth is, you don't know. But you know who knows? Zenimax. They have the data, and decided that the game is too easy.

I would really prefer you not twist MY words this time, thank you. I never once said I was "afraid" of harder difficulty, so kindly don't say I did. I just don't want the game to be made more inconvenient for me by turning trash mobs into pre-1T Craglorn packs. I can easily handle if they did, but you're ignoring the part of my post where I said just because people can do something doesn't mean they want to. People who ARE worried about harder difficulty are worried because they don't want to get locked out of content they enjoy.

As for your request for info about people being locked out of content, I'll concede that it's unreasonable to expect someone coming into this thread after all this time to read the whole thing. But there are people in this very thread, @TaSheen for example (I hope you don't mind the ping), who've said things being made much harder would lock them out of content. Others in this thread have said the same. Numerous people on the forum in general have mentioned over the years that health issues or age or other things make things hard for them as it is, perhaps not strictly in regards to Overland. But if these people struggle with things as it is, forcing harder Overland on them isn't going to do them any favors.

disky

Surgee wrote: »

As for the difficulty, you must understand the people who want it easy might seem like majority here, but in reality according to what's happening with the game and what's being said elsewhere, you're in the tiny tiny minority.

As someone who wants a challenge, that's speculation. I would argue that if anything, the number of players who like things the way they are is almost certainly higher than the number of those who don't, because many people who don't end up leaving the game. That doesn't mean a lot people don't still want things to change/improve, or we wouldn't be having this conversation, but you're fluffing the numbers here.

Surgee wrote: »

I don't mind things being optional in general. If you like to decrease the difficulty, that's great, but this is an MMORPG where your achievements are compared to other players and both of you have to go through the same difficulty of game to have the same achievements.

Right, this is exactly what I spoke about in my response a few posts ago. This is born from a desire to compare oneself to others as if it somehow makes any difference.

Surgee wrote: »

Want it optional? Sure, but don't expect a comparable reward.

You can provide improved rewards that are reasonable without creating unnecessary drama or backlash. Personally I don't care at all about improved rewards but I totally disagree that players should receive something that those who choose not to use the feature can't get, or can't easily get, because I want the feature to exist. What you're asking ZOS for is a way to immediately annoy thousands of paying customers all at once. It's a mistake and it would be bad for you.

Surgee wrote: »

The problem is, zenimax neglected this and other issues for too long and the game is in free fall. If they make overland difficulty optional, you'll have to instance two player groups separately and the game will become even more empty. Again, this is an MMORPG and seeing areas come to life with players running around is ESSENTIAL.

If you think you can allow people changing difficulty in settings where you have it easy and your partner hard while fighting the same enemies, you clearly have no clue what you're talking about when it comes to mmorpgs.

You absolutely do not have to instance anything. I agree, instancing/separating normal and "veteran mode" players would be a bad idea but we have discussed functional implementations at length in this thread which don't involve any kind of instancing. A player-level debuff system is a functional way to handle it using existing code. While that may mean that being around other players who don't choose to increase challenge would place you at a "disadvantage" when compared to them, I would argue that many players are already experiencing that, and they get on with their lives because it doesn't actually matter.

I get that some people feel an overland challenge mode should be about power and achievement, but please just try and keep in mind that the game is simply boring right now and above all, it just needs to be fun. If we start making wild demands for rewards before we even see any change at all, the feature will never get implemented. You have to see things from a business perspective. ZOS isn't going to alienate their loyal fans to take a big risk on pleasing someone who has their foot out the door.

Kyip

All my recent forum engagement convinced me that debating whether or not to improve base game difficulty is the wrong debate... some people strongly want it, others (me included) strongly do not want it. They need an overland veteran mode, so that they are not alienating half the community by either making everything harder or keeping it all status quo.

Kyip

*Snipped, repetitive.*

TaSheen

@Arunei - no worries on the ping.

Arunei

I'd like to mention on the reward front that I personally don't think anyone who does do the harder content should get increased rewards. If the whole point of wanting the game harder is to simply enjoy the challenge more...isn't that itself the reward? We already have Vet and Hard Mode content that rewards clearing that content, I don't really think Overland, which is meant to deliver story and not gear/other rewards, needs to have higher value rewards like Dungeons and Trials do.

If enough people want harder Overland so they can feel more engaged with the content, there should be no need to lure people to doing it with higher value rewards. If ZOS does decide to give better rewards, I'd prefer seeing it in the form of maybe just more gold or blue drops instead of white or green. Maybe slightly higher drop rates on mats and stuff. But nothing too crazy.

disky

Arunei wrote: »

I'd like to mention on the reward front that I personally don't think anyone who does do the harder content should get increased rewards. If the whole point of wanting the game harder is to simply enjoy the challenge more...isn't that itself the reward? We already have Vet and Hard Mode content that rewards clearing that content, I don't really think Overland, which is meant to deliver story and not gear/other rewards, needs to have higher value rewards like Dungeons and Trials do.

If enough people want harder Overland so they can feel more engaged with the content, there should be no need to lure people to doing it with higher value rewards. If ZOS does decide to give better rewards, I'd prefer seeing it in the form of maybe just more gold or blue drops instead of white or green. Maybe slightly higher drop rates on mats and stuff. But nothing too crazy.

I don't think it should matter, I don't personally care about rewards and I don't think we should be asking for them, but I do think ZOS knows that the vast majority of players will not use the feature unless some form of compensation is provided. I don't think it should be anything more than maybe a bit of extra gold and/or a higher gear level, as with vet dungeons, but the argument has been made that because of the additional time it might take to complete a fight, players should be compensated with rewards in a way that would be roughly equivalent in time spent to acquire those rewards at the lower difficulty. It does make sense to me.

Even so, I don't think it should be implemented right away. It should be done after the feature has been in place for a while, so players have time to get comfortable with the system and hopefully, they will recognize that it only makes sense for slightly improved rewards to be included.

Kyip

If they solve the issue by making a full veteran mode for overland, so the rest of us can be left to enjoy normal mode, I don't really give a damn what they give them for it. They are giving me peace of mind and freedom from incessant cries to change a relaxing game mode into an unpleasant one. Give them the sun, the moon, and the stars for all I care. Just leave the rest of us alone to enjoy the base game content in peace.

Arunei

disky wrote: »

Arunei wrote: »

I'd like to mention on the reward front that I personally don't think anyone who does do the harder content should get increased rewards. If the whole point of wanting the game harder is to simply enjoy the challenge more...isn't that itself the reward? We already have Vet and Hard Mode content that rewards clearing that content, I don't really think Overland, which is meant to deliver story and not gear/other rewards, needs to have higher value rewards like Dungeons and Trials do.

If enough people want harder Overland so they can feel more engaged with the content, there should be no need to lure people to doing it with higher value rewards. If ZOS does decide to give better rewards, I'd prefer seeing it in the form of maybe just more gold or blue drops instead of white or green. Maybe slightly higher drop rates on mats and stuff. But nothing too crazy.

I don't think it should matter, I don't personally care about rewards and I don't think we should be asking for them, but I do think ZOS knows that the vast majority of players will not use the feature unless some form of compensation is provided. I don't think it should be anything more than maybe a bit of extra gold and/or a higher gear level, as with vet dungeons, but the argument has been made that because of the additional time it might take to complete a fight, players should be compensated with rewards in a way that would be roughly equivalent in time spent to acquire those rewards at the lower difficulty. It does make sense to me.

Even so, I don't think it should be implemented right away. It should be done after the feature has been in place for a while, so players have time to get comfortable with the system and hopefully, they will recognize that it only makes sense for slightly improved rewards to be included.

I personally don't care either tbh. If the harder is opt-in and DOES have significantly better rewards than regular gameplay, I might do it for a bit, maybe. Maybe not. But my own personal opinion is if people WANT that time to be spent with more challenging Overland, then why would they also need to be rewarded for playing something they already want and isn't meant to give actual rewards?

I dunno, it's one of those things where it doesn't make sense to me, but if they go that route it isn't going to really bother me.

disky

Arunei wrote: »

disky wrote: »

Arunei wrote: »

I'd like to mention on the reward front that I personally don't think anyone who does do the harder content should get increased rewards. If the whole point of wanting the game harder is to simply enjoy the challenge more...isn't that itself the reward? We already have Vet and Hard Mode content that rewards clearing that content, I don't really think Overland, which is meant to deliver story and not gear/other rewards, needs to have higher value rewards like Dungeons and Trials do.

If enough people want harder Overland so they can feel more engaged with the content, there should be no need to lure people to doing it with higher value rewards. If ZOS does decide to give better rewards, I'd prefer seeing it in the form of maybe just more gold or blue drops instead of white or green. Maybe slightly higher drop rates on mats and stuff. But nothing too crazy.

I don't think it should matter, I don't personally care about rewards and I don't think we should be asking for them, but I do think ZOS knows that the vast majority of players will not use the feature unless some form of compensation is provided. I don't think it should be anything more than maybe a bit of extra gold and/or a higher gear level, as with vet dungeons, but the argument has been made that because of the additional time it might take to complete a fight, players should be compensated with rewards in a way that would be roughly equivalent in time spent to acquire those rewards at the lower difficulty. It does make sense to me.

Even so, I don't think it should be implemented right away. It should be done after the feature has been in place for a while, so players have time to get comfortable with the system and hopefully, they will recognize that it only makes sense for slightly improved rewards to be included.

I personally don't care either tbh. If the harder is opt-in and DOES have significantly better rewards than regular gameplay, I might do it for a bit, maybe. Maybe not. But my own personal opinion is if people WANT that time to be spent with more challenging Overland, then why would they also need to be rewarded for playing something they already want and isn't meant to give actual rewards?

I dunno, it's one of those things where it doesn't make sense to me, but if they go that route it isn't going to really bother me.

Yeah, I'm right there with you. It seems like the people who want this feature and also want substantially improved rewards, like Surgee above, don't actually care about the game becoming more fun, they're interested in new ways to achieve and compare themselves against other players. Rewards are one way of doing that.

I just want the game to be fun, but I also understand that there are plenty of people who play MMOs that think like this, and if it's not worthwhile in terms of compensation then they just won't use the feature. That's probably a not insignificant portion of the group that's asking for overland challenge, if not the majority, so it makes sense for ZOS to throw them a bone if they can find a way of doing it that doesn't bother their status quo players. Finding the right balance is the hard part.

Surgee

Arunei wrote: »

I'd like to mention on the reward front that I personally don't think anyone who does do the harder content should get increased rewards. If the whole point of wanting the game harder is to simply enjoy the challenge more...isn't that itself the reward? We already have Vet and Hard Mode content that rewards clearing that content, I don't really think Overland, which is meant to deliver story and not gear/other rewards, needs to have higher value rewards like Dungeons and Trials do.

If enough people want harder Overland so they can feel more engaged with the content, there should be no need to lure people to doing it with higher value rewards. If ZOS does decide to give better rewards, I'd prefer seeing it in the form of maybe just more gold or blue drops instead of white or green. Maybe slightly higher drop rates on mats and stuff. But nothing too crazy.

No it's not more rewarding to shoot yourself in a leg in an online game for nothing more than some challenge with no reward. This only works for single player games, not online games. [snip]

Anyway, why you're so against the game valuing the effort and time people put into it? Why can't I get a reward adequate to the effort I spent? Why a person who does much less should get essentially the same thing?

[snip]

The point is more effort should always equal more reward, or else the game doesn't respect your time. Tiny bit more gold or a blue item (lol) instead of green is hardly a good reward for working on a build to get through the content and spending tons more time on it.

[edited for baiting]

Surgee

disky wrote: »

Arunei wrote: »

disky wrote: »

Arunei wrote: »

I'd like to mention on the reward front that I personally don't think anyone who does do the harder content should get increased rewards. If the whole point of wanting the game harder is to simply enjoy the challenge more...isn't that itself the reward? We already have Vet and Hard Mode content that rewards clearing that content, I don't really think Overland, which is meant to deliver story and not gear/other rewards, needs to have higher value rewards like Dungeons and Trials do.

If enough people want harder Overland so they can feel more engaged with the content, there should be no need to lure people to doing it with higher value rewards. If ZOS does decide to give better rewards, I'd prefer seeing it in the form of maybe just more gold or blue drops instead of white or green. Maybe slightly higher drop rates on mats and stuff. But nothing too crazy.

I don't think it should matter, I don't personally care about rewards and I don't think we should be asking for them, but I do think ZOS knows that the vast majority of players will not use the feature unless some form of compensation is provided. I don't think it should be anything more than maybe a bit of extra gold and/or a higher gear level, as with vet dungeons, but the argument has been made that because of the additional time it might take to complete a fight, players should be compensated with rewards in a way that would be roughly equivalent in time spent to acquire those rewards at the lower difficulty. It does make sense to me.

Even so, I don't think it should be implemented right away. It should be done after the feature has been in place for a while, so players have time to get comfortable with the system and hopefully, they will recognize that it only makes sense for slightly improved rewards to be included.

I personally don't care either tbh. If the harder is opt-in and DOES have significantly better rewards than regular gameplay, I might do it for a bit, maybe. Maybe not. But my own personal opinion is if people WANT that time to be spent with more challenging Overland, then why would they also need to be rewarded for playing something they already want and isn't meant to give actual rewards?

I dunno, it's one of those things where it doesn't make sense to me, but if they go that route it isn't going to really bother me.

Yeah, I'm right there with you. It seems like the people who want this feature and also want substantially improved rewards, like Surgee above, don't actually care about the game becoming more fun, they're interested in new ways to achieve and compare themselves against other players. Rewards are one way of doing that.

I just want the game to be fun, but I also understand that there are plenty of people who play MMOs that think like this, and if it's not worthwhile in terms of compensation then they just won't use the feature. That's probably a not insignificant portion of the group that's asking for overland challenge, if not the majority, so it makes sense for ZOS to throw them a bone if they can find a way of doing it that doesn't bother their status quo players. Finding the right balance is the hard part.

I don't care about the game becoming fun? Your fun is not my fun. My fun is not your fun. [snip] Fitting rewards are essential part of a challenging experience and ARE PART OF THE FUN. It's NEVER fun to beat that hardcore boss and get 10 gold and a blue sword for it that you can get for killing a rat with one swing.

You are setting the game for a failure with your approach. Any player who will do challenging content and will get crap will absolutely be disappointed and rant about it on the internet. Do you think people in mmmos would do hardcore dungeons and raids if there's no exciting reward for it at the end? This is madness...

[edited for baiting]

disky

Surgee wrote: »

disky wrote: »

Arunei wrote: »

disky wrote: »

Arunei wrote: »

I'd like to mention on the reward front that I personally don't think anyone who does do the harder content should get increased rewards. If the whole point of wanting the game harder is to simply enjoy the challenge more...isn't that itself the reward? We already have Vet and Hard Mode content that rewards clearing that content, I don't really think Overland, which is meant to deliver story and not gear/other rewards, needs to have higher value rewards like Dungeons and Trials do.

If enough people want harder Overland so they can feel more engaged with the content, there should be no need to lure people to doing it with higher value rewards. If ZOS does decide to give better rewards, I'd prefer seeing it in the form of maybe just more gold or blue drops instead of white or green. Maybe slightly higher drop rates on mats and stuff. But nothing too crazy.

I don't think it should matter, I don't personally care about rewards and I don't think we should be asking for them, but I do think ZOS knows that the vast majority of players will not use the feature unless some form of compensation is provided. I don't think it should be anything more than maybe a bit of extra gold and/or a higher gear level, as with vet dungeons, but the argument has been made that because of the additional time it might take to complete a fight, players should be compensated with rewards in a way that would be roughly equivalent in time spent to acquire those rewards at the lower difficulty. It does make sense to me.

Even so, I don't think it should be implemented right away. It should be done after the feature has been in place for a while, so players have time to get comfortable with the system and hopefully, they will recognize that it only makes sense for slightly improved rewards to be included.

I personally don't care either tbh. If the harder is opt-in and DOES have significantly better rewards than regular gameplay, I might do it for a bit, maybe. Maybe not. But my own personal opinion is if people WANT that time to be spent with more challenging Overland, then why would they also need to be rewarded for playing something they already want and isn't meant to give actual rewards?

I dunno, it's one of those things where it doesn't make sense to me, but if they go that route it isn't going to really bother me.

Yeah, I'm right there with you. It seems like the people who want this feature and also want substantially improved rewards, like Surgee above, don't actually care about the game becoming more fun, they're interested in new ways to achieve and compare themselves against other players. Rewards are one way of doing that.

I just want the game to be fun, but I also understand that there are plenty of people who play MMOs that think like this, and if it's not worthwhile in terms of compensation then they just won't use the feature. That's probably a not insignificant portion of the group that's asking for overland challenge, if not the majority, so it makes sense for ZOS to throw them a bone if they can find a way of doing it that doesn't bother their status quo players. Finding the right balance is the hard part.

I don't care about the game becoming fun? Your fun is not my fun. My fun is not your fun. [snip] Fitting rewards are essential part of a challenging experience and ARE PART OF THE FUN. It's NEVER fun to beat that hardcore boss and get 10 gold and a blue sword for it that you can get for killing a rat with one swing.

You are setting the game for a failure with your approach. Any player who will do challenging content and will get crap will absolutely be disappointed and rant about it on the internet. Do you think people in mmmos would do hardcore dungeons and raids if there's no exciting reward for it at the end? This is madness...

You're right, sorry. It's just that your idea of fun requires adequate compensation for time spent. I don't personally see that as a pure form of fun, and frankly it sounds more like work to me, but that's my point of view.

[edited to remove quote]

Arunei

Surgee wrote: »

Arunei wrote: »

I'd like to mention on the reward front that I personally don't think anyone who does do the harder content should get increased rewards. If the whole point of wanting the game harder is to simply enjoy the challenge more...isn't that itself the reward? We already have Vet and Hard Mode content that rewards clearing that content, I don't really think Overland, which is meant to deliver story and not gear/other rewards, needs to have higher value rewards like Dungeons and Trials do.

If enough people want harder Overland so they can feel more engaged with the content, there should be no need to lure people to doing it with higher value rewards. If ZOS does decide to give better rewards, I'd prefer seeing it in the form of maybe just more gold or blue drops instead of white or green. Maybe slightly higher drop rates on mats and stuff. But nothing too crazy.

No it's not more rewarding to shoot yourself in a leg in an online game for nothing more than some challenge with no reward. This only works for single player games, not online games. [snip]

Anyway, why you're so against the game valuing the effort and time people put into it? Why can't I get a reward adequate to the effort I spent? Why a person who does much less should get essentially the same thing?

[snip]

The point is more effort should always equal more reward, or else the game doesn't respect your time. Tiny bit more gold or a blue item (lol) instead of green is hardly a good reward for working on a build to get through the content and spending tons more time on it.

Once again I'll ask you stop putting words in my mouth, please. Because I never once said, in a single one of my posts, to give everyone everything for nothing. I'm honestly not sure where you're even drawing these conclusions from. It feels like you're making assumptions for the sake of your own arguments. Because I also never said people shouldn't be rewarded for time and effort. In fact I very clearly said while I personally don't think increased Overland difficulty should also mean increased reward, I also very clearly said if they DID go that route, it wouldn't bother me.

If you would read my response again, you'll see that I explained why I don't think harder Overland should get higher rewards, but I'll do it again. Overland is NOT MEANT to give you high-tier rewards. Overland is the means that most of the story is delivered. The means for getting most high-tier rewards are Vet Dungeons and Trials and Hard Mode bosses fights. Yes, there are numerous rewards you can get for numerous achievements tied to Overland, but the actual questing and stuff in and of itself isn't meant to actively DROP high-end stuff like Purple Gear.

People keep saying they want Overland to more challenging and more engaging because right now they see it as boring in one way or another. They find it a slog because there's no sense of actual engagement if everything dies super quick. To them I'd say it's like Cookie Clicker, where all you do is click click click and that's all the game really is in terms of Overland. My reasoning for harder Overland not giving more reward is, if you WANT it to be harder and more of a challenge, then why would you also want that time spent to be given extra reward? The point of harder Overland is to be more engaged, not to get more reward. Because being able to have that challenge WOULD be the reward.

That's why I personally don't think harder Overland should give significantly better drops than normal does.

Also...I have a genuine question here...you seem to think that harder Overland should be imposed on everyone rather than being optional, and yet you replied to disky saying "my fun is not your fun and your fun is not my fun". So you agree, then, that harder Overland shouldn't be forced on everyone just because you would want that content for yourself?

[edited to remove quote]

Elvent

Been playing since the Beta and a subscriber, though I don't keep up on the forums or updates but I read on steam they will be doing something with overworld content making it more challenging? I enjoy the overland content how it is now. If they make it more challenging then I will just quit, I'm a solo player and world content is where I spend majority of my time when I play. I see new players in the world struggling and I recently helped somebody that was new at level 30 and said he was struggling with leveling.

What's the point of leveling and champion points if things aren't going to get easier the stronger you get? I hate that they changed overworld world bosses that they are almost impossible to solo unless you have great gear and build. I prefer how when you could solo them. It's hard to find groups for these bosses and it seems like it's the only thing on the map that I never can get completed.

I still remember the craglorn fiasco, nobody would go there because everything was challenging so they had to nerf the mobs.

I'm hoping ZOS have enough sense to make it optional, have a vet instance or something for those that want a challenge with trash mobs. Leave the rest of us alone.

thatnewcatsmell

Veteran and hard mode content always gives extra rewards in ESO, be it slightly better/higher quality gear, plunders or achievements/collectables, so in that sense it's not weird to assume that a 'veteran overland mode' (which we may or may not get) is going to to have (or should have) some extra rewards as well. 'The challenge is its own reward' taken to its extreme would very much mean that no activity in this game should reward anything special, as everything can be perceived as some form of challenge at least to some people.

SilverBride

Elvent wrote: »

Been playing since the Beta and a subscriber, though I don't keep up on the forums or updates but I read on steam they will be doing something with overworld content making it more challenging? I enjoy the overland content how it is now. If they make it more challenging then I will just quit, I'm a solo player and world content is where I spend majority of my time when I play. I see new players in the world struggling and I recently helped somebody that was new at level 30 and said he was struggling with leveling.

What's the point of leveling and champion points if things aren't going to get easier the stronger you get? I hate that they changed overworld world bosses that they are almost impossible to solo unless you have great gear and build. I prefer how when you could solo them. It's hard to find groups for these bosses and it seems like it's the only thing on the map that I never can get completed.

I still remember the craglorn fiasco, nobody would go there because everything was challenging so they had to nerf the mobs.

I'm hoping ZOS have enough sense to make it optional, have a vet instance or something for those that want a challenge with trash mobs. Leave the rest of us alone.

This is exactly how I see it.

The bosses have gotten way too difficult for a questing area. I think they should adjust all the world bosses and story bosses from High Isle forward down to a difficulty more in line with the previous bosses.

disky

Elvent wrote: »

Been playing since the Beta and a subscriber, though I don't keep up on the forums or updates but I read on steam they will be doing something with overworld content making it more challenging? I enjoy the overland content how it is now. If they make it more challenging then I will just quit, I'm a solo player and world content is where I spend majority of my time when I play. I see new players in the world struggling and I recently helped somebody that was new at level 30 and said he was struggling with leveling.

What's the point of leveling and champion points if things aren't going to get easier the stronger you get? I hate that they changed overworld world bosses that they are almost impossible to solo unless you have great gear and build. I prefer how when you could solo them. It's hard to find groups for these bosses and it seems like it's the only thing on the map that I never can get completed.

I still remember the craglorn fiasco, nobody would go there because everything was challenging so they had to nerf the mobs.

I'm hoping ZOS have enough sense to make it optional, have a vet instance or something for those that want a challenge with trash mobs. Leave the rest of us alone.

Most of the people in this thread, including those of us who are looking forward to this, want this change to be optional. We've been asking for it to be that way for a long time. There are occasional comments from people who think differently but they're less common.

thatnewcatsmell wrote: »

Veteran and hard mode content always gives extra rewards in ESO, be it slightly better/higher quality gear, plunders or achievements/collectables, so in that sense it's not weird to assume that a 'veteran overland mode' (which we may or may not get) is going to to have (or should have) some extra rewards as well. 'The challenge is its own reward' taken to its extreme would very much mean that no activity in this game should reward anything special, as everything can be perceived as some form of challenge at least to some people.

You're right, and I believe that it will happen. But I think it has to happen in a way which doesn't alienate people who enjoy playing the game the way it is now, and I think that's just going to require a balance. ZOS has to consider the fact that they can cause backlash by providing rewards that are too good, and that if the rewards aren't good enough, some people will choose not to use the feature. It's going to be difficult to get right, but I would err on the side of caution, especially in the beginning. Let people come to accept the feature as part of the game, and as the feature is normalized, add rewards.

Kyip

Personally I still think we need an overland veteran mode to satisfy both sides of this debate.

That said, I have a question for those who have been following the forums and developer intent messages longer than I have.

• My understanding has been that overland content is primarily meant to be the on-ramp for new players, until they are ready for endgame pve activities like the veteran versions of dungeons, trials, arenas, etc... thus new players have always been nudged to the newest zone after they finish their tutorial.
• My understanding has been that the secondary purpose was to deliver to story content for the new year/chapter for everyone, including new players and casual players, so that all players get to experience it... they advertise each new year/chapter as the reason for players who strayed away to come back and play again, presumably with their old and thus sub-optimal builds and gear.

For both of these purposes, it makes no sense to increase difficulty. So, my question is, am I wrong about the developer intent here? Because if I am, then I'm kinda looking at all this wrong, from the ground up.

SilverBride

Kyip wrote: »

Personally I still think we need an overland veteran mode to satisfy both sides of this debate.

I was always against separating the playerbase this way. But I have become so fatigued with this discussion and trying to protect the overland I love from changes that would ruin that for many of us, that I wish they would just go ahead and make a separate overland, just to put an end to this.

Or better yet just create a difficult overland server for those that want more difficulty and let the rest of us enjoy our game without having difficulty we don't want (as has happened with world bosses and story bosses and Incursions) forced upon us.

Kyip

I'd prefer that they keep one single overland setting with the current difficulty, but these discussions have shown me how unhappy that makes so many vocal people. I don't want them to make us unhappy by making everything harder, but I don't want to see them perpetually unhappy either. It works out ok in other games, I think it would be ok here.

Heck, they could always adopt an approach that when you enter the main city in each zone, everyone phases into a single instance, only splitting out again once you leave city limits. Doing it this way would keep the social fabric intact within the cities.

Franchise408

Kyip wrote: »

I'd prefer that they keep one single overland setting with the current difficulty, but these discussions have shown me how unhappy that makes so many vocal people. I don't want them to make us unhappy by making everything harder, but I don't want to see them perpetually unhappy either. It works out ok in other games, I think it would be ok here.

Heck, they could always adopt an approach that when you enter the main city in each zone, everyone phases into a single instance, only splitting out again once you leave city limits. Doing it this way would keep the social fabric intact within the cities.

I don't know how feasible something like that is or isn't, but I don't think it's a bad idea at all. I feel like that's something that wouldn't be too difficult, and could be a good compromise with not "splitting the playerbase"

SilverBride

Honestly, I don't care if it splits the playerbase any more. Let those wanting more difficulty have their own world so the rest of us can play in peace, knowing our world won't be rendered unplayable for us.

disky

Kyip wrote: »

My understanding has been that overland content is primarily meant to be the on-ramp for new players, until they are ready for endgame pve activities like the veteran versions of dungeons, trials, arenas, etc... thus new players have always been nudged to the newest zone after they finish their tutorial.

If this is the thinking of the dev team then my objective is to change their mind about it. The TES series is about adventure and exploration. It always has been. Yes, this is an MMO, but to treat the bulk of the content of the game as onboarding for dungeons and trials would be wrongheaded if you're trying to develop a game that continues the spirit of the franchise. I am not here for dungeons and trials, I am not here for PvP, I'm here to explore and experience the story, as I have with every other TES game. ESO provides tons of content for someone like me, it's just that I can't enjoy it because it's not fun for me.

Kyip wrote: »

I'd prefer that they keep one single overland setting with the current difficulty, but these discussions have shown me how unhappy that makes so many vocal people. I don't want them to make us unhappy by making everything harder, but I don't want to see them perpetually unhappy either. It works out ok in other games, I think it would be ok here.

Heck, they could always adopt an approach that when you enter the main city in each zone, everyone phases into a single instance, only splitting out again once you leave city limits. Doing it this way would keep the social fabric intact within the cities.

It doesn't need to be done this way and it's more complicated than it has to be. Just because some people want this kind of implementation, that doesn't make them right, and it doesn't mean that it's the most effective way to handle it. There are alternatives which work as well or better, which take fewer resources and less development time, which we have already discussed at length for some time. I just think that more people are coming to the thread with this idea because of the recent letter, and they haven't entirely thought things through.

Kyip

@disky
I am definitely newer to this thread. So, tell me what alternatives you have in mind, that do not sacrifice the game I enjoy for the game you want. No sarcasm, what is the solution you propose? Because what you want and what I want seem incompatible to me. I favor a normal/veteran toggle because I have seen it work in other games.

Kyip

I don't want to see this game go the way of Neverwinter, where they once radically rebalanced everything for greater difficulty so badly that it drove me and many others away from the game. It didn't take much either. They put a timer on potions and nerfed lifesteal so we couldn't sustain ourselves solo, forcing us to rely on healers. They changed the difficulty of endgame zones so that multiple enemy encounters and delves (I forget their word) I could solo before suddenly needed full groups. All the people happy with the changes were in big "do-it-my-way-or-gtfo" guilds that made you run their speed, build their way, etc, which became a necessity just to complete overland content. A beautiful game became unplayable solo and socially unpleasant. I hated it, so I left, ended up here.

SilverBride

disky wrote: »

Kyip wrote: »

My understanding has been that overland content is primarily meant to be the on-ramp for new players, until they are ready for endgame pve activities like the veteran versions of dungeons, trials, arenas, etc... thus new players have always been nudged to the newest zone after they finish their tutorial.

If this is the thinking of the dev team then my objective is to change their mind about it. The TES series is about adventure and exploration.

ESO isn't part of the single player TES series. It's a separate world that was adapted to fit a multiplayer format. And it it's still very possible to adventure and explore in this world because many of us do that every day.