Overland Content Feedback Thread

spartaxoxo

BananaBender wrote: »

.
If they implement a system where people and choose to make the game harder, and it doesn't make the game harder, it's a failed system.

You're basically saying if it doesn't make every single fight harder instead of only just most of the fights, then it is a failed system. That perfect is the enemy of good. Yet. That isn't how it works in other multiplayer with this an option. People understand that in a multiplayer game, someone may come along that's stronger than them. And they may have to wait if they're determined to do a shared fight alone. Additionally, this opinion ignore that many story bosses are in solo instances where another person cannot come along.

Forced difficulty would ruin this game and cause mass exodus in the same way that maintaining the status quo has. You'd run away an already loyal and paying playerbase in the hopes that enough lapsed players will decided to come back to an outdated game to replace them.

You say that maintaining the status quo already pushed a lot of people out. I would agree. That's why I said maintaining the status quo would be bad. But a lot of people are still here. And they would not be if difficulty was forced. It would not be some fights on some occasions ruined for them. It would be every fight 24/7 with no ability to workaround an issue. Having to wait for someone to leave and a boss to quickly respawn is significantly less detrimental than being unable to do anything at all. Shifting the burden of a forced issue to the group least able to workaround it doesn't solve it. It just changes who is burdened by it.

Muizer

BananaBender wrote: »

Because to me the slider only works on paper, but runs into issues when you think about how it would actually be utilized. If they manage to implement a well functioning slider, that would be amazing, but I really have my doubts.

So do I, but for a different reason. If, to keep things optional, they cannot touch the encounter design. If, that is, the only thing that gets modified is the strength of the existing NPC relative to the player, then that means difficulty increases will lie on a direct line towards "dodge or get one-shot". I don't think that is a fun form of high difficulty anywhere TBH.

Franchise408

spartaxoxo wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

However, your assertion that no one has argued against optional difficulty recently isn’t entirely accurate. Several participants have repeatedly indicated strong opposition even to optional adjustments, arguing that such options would negatively impact the core experience. I understand and respect their perspectives, but such opposition exists and influences these discussions.

Many of the ones that people keep saying are against difficulty options such as myself, SilverBride, and TaSheen have all voiced support for difficulty options. This is what I mean about context. The recent comments are NOT being made by people against difficulty options. They are being against the concept of forced difficulty and the broader concept that games MUST present a challenge.

Franchise408 wrote: »

We will have to agree to disagree because I do believe a game should absolutely be balanced around some level of challenge and difficulty for a player to overcome, and the player needing to actually have some semblance of gameplay competency to be able to progress through the game. If I play any game, I have to have some level of competency to overcome the challenge. If I am playing Monopoly, I have to have the ability to make deals with the other players. If I am playing Scrabble, I have to have a vocabulary and linguistic knowledge to maximize my points. If I am playing poker, I have to know how to read my opponents and how to not give away my own hand in the process.

If challenge and difficulty isn't important, why not just make it an idle game that just plays itself and progresses automatically? It's accessible, and everyone can play it, right? If players shouldn't be expected to have proper internet connections, why not just make it an offline game? If players shouldn't be expected to have too much skill in order to kill story bosses, why not just make the mechanics "Press E to kill boss"? It's accessible, right?

No, I will not be convinced otherwise that this game should be balanced for people without a consistent internet connection for an online game, people who lack "stick" skills or twitch skills due to age, disability, etc. in an action RPG. I'm sorry, but there should at least be some minimal expectations of the actual player, otherwise what's even the point of having a game? This is why I would rather have forced difficulty increases over nothing at all.

That does not mean the game should be balanced around the "sweats", or be built on Souls-like range of difficulty. This does not mean that I think overland should be vet difficulty by default. This does not mean that I believe relaxing and easy content has no business in the game. But I do believe that a game that is online should expect the player to have a consistent internet connection, and not be balanced around people who don't, and I do believe that an action RPG should actually expect a certain level of "stick skill" and input from the player.

ETA

Also Franchise also favors options over forced.

Almost everyone in this thread has voiced support for difficulty options. There are not a lot of people who want only forced or only no status quo. There have been a couple but they are few and far between.

I just want to reinforce the part that I bolded from your comment.

My ultimate preference absolutely is optional. I believe it to just be the correct choice in general, and I also find it to be consistent with the rest of the game design that offers "normal" and "veteran" options of difficulty. While I am not a developer, considering the game design throughout the rest of the game, I do not believe that this should be something that is unobtainably difficult to implement.

I only prefer "forced" difficulty in preference of leaving the game as it is. The current state of overland is unacceptable for my tastes, and if the only way to implement an increase of difficulty were to force it on everyone, then I would prefer that over nothing at all.

However, I don't believe that any difficulty increase would have to be forced, nor is forced difficulty consistent with the rest of the game design, so therefore it is not my overall preference.

My preferences for increased difficulty:

1. Optional (with various pathways for optional difficulty that I would be in favor of)
2. Forced difficulty across the board for everyone
3. Nothing at all - which is not an acceptable option for my preferences (and the current state of overland has had me completely ignoring it for years now. I decided in Greymoor that I would refuse to do overland content anymore as long as the state of overland remained as it is now.)

SilverBride

One thing that stands out to me is the idea that something has to be done to overland because some players have left because it was too easy for their preference. But that type of thing happens in every MMO. Players start a new game and find out that it does or doesn't meet their playstyle, so they stay or leave based on that. It's not a matter of anything being wrong with the game, but rather that every game isn't going to meet everyone's preferred way of playing.

sans-culottes

@Franchise408 said it best, and I want to echo and support that clarity.

The status quo in overland content isn’t working for a significant portion of players and has already led many to disengage from a major part of the game. That doesn’t mean we need to force a universal difficulty increase, but it also doesn’t mean the current state should be treated as a natural endpoint or somehow “fine” because some people stayed.

@SilverBride, with respect, your latest comment misses that. Saying “people leave games all the time” is true, but it’s also a deflection. People leave when their preferences can’t be accommodated. What many of us are asking for is a way to keep playing, not a reason to quit. That’s the whole point of suggesting optional systems: to create room for varied preferences, not to eliminate them.

Other parts of ESO already do this: dungeons, trials, arenas, even PvP zones like Cyrodiil all offer layered expectations and difficulties. Optional overland scaling or reward-based toggles would just extend that same philosophy to the core of the game’s open world, where right now, challenge has been all but erased.

Letting people walk away isn’t a solution. Giving them a reason to stay is.

SilverBride

sans-culottes wrote: »

@Silver bride, with respect, your latest comment misses that. Saying “people leave games all the time” is true, but it’s also a deflection. People leave when their preferences can’t be accommodated. What many of us are asking for is a way to keep playing, not a reason to quit. That’s the whole point of suggesting optional systems: to create room for varied preferences, not to eliminate them.

Other parts of ESO already do this: dungeons, trials, arenas, even PvP zones like Cyrodiil all offer layered expectations and difficulties. Optional overland scaling or reward-based toggles would just extend that same philosophy to the core of the game’s open world, where right now, challenge has been all but erased.

Letting people walk away isn’t a solution. Giving them a reason to stay is.

Some have already walked away, which is unfortunate but it is not an indication of a problem. People play games that meet their preferred playstyles and leave those that don't.

sans-culottes

SilverBride wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

@Silver bride, with respect, your latest comment misses that. Saying “people leave games all the time” is true, but it’s also a deflection. People leave when their preferences can’t be accommodated. What many of us are asking for is a way to keep playing, not a reason to quit. That’s the whole point of suggesting optional systems: to create room for varied preferences, not to eliminate them.

Other parts of ESO already do this: dungeons, trials, arenas, even PvP zones like Cyrodiil all offer layered expectations and difficulties. Optional overland scaling or reward-based toggles would just extend that same philosophy to the core of the game’s open world, where right now, challenge has been all but erased.

Letting people walk away isn’t a solution. Giving them a reason to stay is.

Some have already walked away, which is unfortunate but it is not an indication of a problem. People play games that meet their preferred playstyles and leave those that don't.

@SilverBride, respectfully, I think that kind of framing is part of the problem. Saying, “some people have walked away, and that’s just how it is,” treats avoidable attrition as a natural fact rather than a design failure worth addressing.

Yes, players leave games all the time. But when a significant portion of players disengage specifically from overland content—not the game as a whole—it points to a system that’s failing to serve its purpose. That’s not just preference but an imbalance in the gameplay loop.

We already have the infrastructure for tiered experiences in ESO. Nobody argues that dungeons should be only vet mode, or that PvP should offer a single rule set. Overland is the only part of the game where player skill, gear, and experience have essentially no bearing on moment-to-moment gameplay. That may be fine for some, but it’s deeply unsatisfying for others—and those players are part of the community too.

Optional systems would do what ESO has always done well: allow people to tailor the experience. That’s not a radical departure; it’s a continuation of what’s already working elsewhere in the game.

No one wants to take away the version of ESO you enjoy. We just want the same respect for playstyle flexibility in overland that already exists everywhere else.

Franchise408

sans-culottes wrote: »

@Franchise408 said it best, and I want to echo and support that clarity.

The status quo in overland content isn’t working for a significant portion of players and has already led many to disengage from a major part of the game. That doesn’t mean we need to force a universal difficulty increase, but it also doesn’t mean the current state should be treated as a natural endpoint or somehow “fine” because some people stayed.

@SilverBride, with respect, your latest comment misses that. Saying “people leave games all the time” is true, but it’s also a deflection. People leave when their preferences can’t be accommodated. What many of us are asking for is a way to keep playing, not a reason to quit. That’s the whole point of suggesting optional systems: to create room for varied preferences, not to eliminate them.

Other parts of ESO already do this: dungeons, trials, arenas, even PvP zones like Cyrodiil all offer layered expectations and difficulties. Optional overland scaling or reward-based toggles would just extend that same philosophy to the core of the game’s open world, where right now, challenge has been all but erased.

Letting people walk away isn’t a solution. Giving them a reason to stay is.

To the bold:

As it stands, I only now log in a couple of times a month to do raids with my guild. I may top out at 4 login's a month.

ESO wants players to log in far more frequently than that. This is made explicitly clear with their daily login rewards, daily objectives, etc. I'm also not buying DLC's because there's no need to, and I am not a consistent ESO+ subscriber because I don't have needs for it.

While I am probably far beyond the point of ESO ever being my full time game again, it is something that I could certainly log into more frequently if I actually had something to do outside of organized trials with my guild. I get the itch sometimes to login outside of trials, as I have quite a few characters that don't get much play time because with my guild, I am our main tank, so I typically only ever get to play my tanks. Playing my DPS is rather pointless because if solo'ing, I don't even get to play through my rotation before everything is dead, and even if I wanted to run a PUG dungeon or something, as a DPS I'll be in the queue forever. So I just don't login.

Giving me an option to do something engaging while solo could lead to logins when I have those itches to play, and could give me a reason to buy DLC and chapters, and give me more motivation to keep an active sub to ESO+.

spartaxoxo

For myself, personally, giving us gameplay options are the only way forward. I have my own personal opinion about which options are best that I have already given but I don't want to focus my comment on that ATM.

The reason that I believe that ESO should offer gameplay options actually isn't just because I find myself bored or because people are leaving. Although those are important to me. It's also not only because I want to keep the playerbase the game already has and maintain accessibility, even though that too is important to me.

It's also because the game's own marketing tells us we can play the way we want. That we can explore the world. That a challenge awaits us. But, it doesn't actually offer that to all groups of players in Overland. It meets that description as much as can be reasonably expected elsewhere. But it doesn't in the game's own story. This is an Elder Scrolls game. Customizable difficulty and a world to explore and quest in has been a part of the core experience for decades. There is, to me, no good reason this game should be the exception.

Every person will experience this game differently. That is alright. There's not one right way to play. Our difficulty options should reflect that.

SilverBride

sans-culottes wrote: »

@Silver bride, respectfully, I think that kind of framing is part of the problem. Saying, “some people have walked away, and that’s just how it is,” treats avoidable attrition as a natural fact rather than a design failure worth addressing.

Yes, players leave games all the time. But when a significant portion of players disengage specifically from overland content—not the game as a whole—it points to a system that’s failing to serve its purpose. That’s not just preference but an imbalance in the gameplay loop.

I feel that players moving on from games that don't meet their expectations is very common and is to be expected. I have never said "and that's just how it is" but rather pointed out that this happens and is not an indication that there is anything wrong with the game itself.

If a company can find a way to make their game appeal to a wide variety of playstyles then I feel that more players will stay and less will move on. ESO already does a good job of this in my opinion.

sans-culottes

SilverBride wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

@Silver bride, respectfully, I think that kind of framing is part of the problem. Saying, “some people have walked away, and that’s just how it is,” treats avoidable attrition as a natural fact rather than a design failure worth addressing.

Yes, players leave games all the time. But when a significant portion of players disengage specifically from overland content—not the game as a whole—it points to a system that’s failing to serve its purpose. That’s not just preference but an imbalance in the gameplay loop.

I feel that players moving on from games that don't meet their expectations is very common and is to be expected. I have never said "and that's just how it is" but rather pointed out that this happens and is not an indication that there is anything wrong with the game itself.

If a company can find a way to make their game appeal to a wide variety of playstyles then I feel that more players will stay and less will move on. ESO already does a good job of this in my opinion.

@SilverBride, I hear you, but I think the contradiction here is worth pointing out.

On the one hand, you say it’s expected that players will leave games that don’t meet their needs. On the other, you say ESO already does a good job supporting a wide variety of playstyles. But the fact that players are disengaging from overland specifically because of how non-engaging it is suggests that the game is failing a particular segment of its audience.

This isn’t just about expectations. As @spartaxoxo notes, ESO’s own marketing actively promotes the idea that “a challenge awaits,” that players can “play their way,” and that exploration and combat are both integral to the experience. For many players, those promises don’t align with what overland actually delivers today.

Optional difficulty wouldn’t erase what you enjoy. But it could make the game live up to its own ethos for a wider group of players—without forcing anything on those who are happy with the current experience.

disky

Muizer wrote: »

BananaBender wrote: »

Because to me the slider only works on paper, but runs into issues when you think about how it would actually be utilized. If they manage to implement a well functioning slider, that would be amazing, but I really have my doubts.

So do I, but for a different reason. If, to keep things optional, they cannot touch the encounter design. If, that is, the only thing that gets modified is the strength of the existing NPC relative to the player, then that means difficulty increases will lie on a direct line towards "dodge or get one-shot". I don't think that is a fun form of high difficulty anywhere TBH.

I think it might be important to note that ZOS have commented about making adjustments to the sense of feedback in combat, which can make for a huge difference in the experience without a need to change enemies themselves. And also, I strongly believe that making changes to numbers alone does actually have a big impact on how you think about and approach an encounter. If failure is more likely and the consequences are more severe, odds are that you're going to make different choices, play more conservatively and employ new tactics. You might block more, you might call on friends, you might use a different build, you might even just try avoiding the fight. I know this because I've spent a lot of time modifying enemies in other games to be dramatically more difficult, which almost always ends up being primarily value adjustments, and it really does have a material impact on the way I approach them.

Enemies don't need new behaviors to make them more fun to fight, although it would be cool to see and I'd welcome it. I think what's more important is that combat feels good and that fights feel like they matter.

SilverBride

sans-culottes wrote: »

@Silver bride, I hear you, but I think the contradiction here is worth pointing out.

On the one hand, you say it’s expected that players will leave games that don’t meet their needs. On the other, you say ESO already does a good job supporting a wide variety of playstyles. But the fact that players are disengaging from overland specifically because of how non-engaging it is suggests that the game is failing a particular segment of its audience.

There is no contradiction. In my opinion ESO does a good job of having content that appeals to different playstyles. But no game is ever going to appeal to everyone and some players will move on.

Players don't disengage from overland because of how non-engaging it is, because for many overland is very engaging. They disengage because it doesn't meet their personal preference. But a personal preference doesn't indicate a flaw in the game.

disky

SilverBride wrote: »

Players don't disengage from overland because of how non-engaging it is, because for many overland is very engaging. They disengage because it doesn't meet their personal preference. But a personal preference doesn't indicate a flaw in the game.

"Engaging" is not an objective term, though. So, right, it's not engaging to them because it doesn't meet their sense of what makes for an engaging experience. We agree that it's different for everyone, so let's not act as if ESO has objectively engaging overland content because that's not a thing.

Franchise408

disky wrote: »

Muizer wrote: »

BananaBender wrote: »

Because to me the slider only works on paper, but runs into issues when you think about how it would actually be utilized. If they manage to implement a well functioning slider, that would be amazing, but I really have my doubts.

So do I, but for a different reason. If, to keep things optional, they cannot touch the encounter design. If, that is, the only thing that gets modified is the strength of the existing NPC relative to the player, then that means difficulty increases will lie on a direct line towards "dodge or get one-shot". I don't think that is a fun form of high difficulty anywhere TBH.

I think it might be important to note that ZOS have commented about making adjustments to the sense of feedback in combat, which can make for a huge difference in the experience without a need to change enemies themselves. And also, I strongly believe that making changes to numbers alone does actually have a big impact on how you think about and approach an encounter. If failure is more likely and the consequences are more severe, odds are that you're going to make different choices, play more conservatively and employ new tactics. You might block more, you might call on friends, you might use a different build, you might even just try avoiding the fight. I know this because I've spent a lot of time modifying enemies in other games to be dramatically more difficult, which almost always ends up being primarily value adjustments, and it really does have a material impact on the way I approach them.

Enemies don't need new behaviors to make them more fun to fight, although it would be cool to see and I'd welcome it. I think what's more important is that combat feels good and that fights feel like they matter.

Honestly, behaviors is likely exactly what they need. Without new behaviors, any increase in difficulty will probably be pretty lackluster.

However, new behaviors is probably a WHOLE lot of work, so I don't see that in the realm of realistic choices, even tho it's probably the most needed change.

That's a big reason why I don't think that any increased difficulty is going to go far enough.

SilverBride

disky wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Players don't disengage from overland because of how non-engaging it is, because for many overland is very engaging. They disengage because it doesn't meet their personal preference. But a personal preference doesn't indicate a flaw in the game.

"Engaging" is not an objective term, though. So, right, it's not engaging to them because it doesn't meet their sense of what makes for an engaging experience. We agree that it's different for everyone, so let's not act as if ESO has objectively engaging overland content because that's not a thing.

I used the term "engaging" because that is the term that was used in a response to me. I thought I was being clear that finding something "engaging" or not is a personal opinion. That is why I stated that some players disengage because it doesn't meet their personal preference.

DeathStalker

sans-culottes wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

@Silver bride, respectfully, I think that kind of framing is part of the problem. Saying, “some people have walked away, and that’s just how it is,” treats avoidable attrition as a natural fact rather than a design failure worth addressing.

Yes, players leave games all the time. But when a significant portion of players disengage specifically from overland content—not the game as a whole—it points to a system that’s failing to serve its purpose. That’s not just preference but an imbalance in the gameplay loop.

I feel that players moving on from games that don't meet their expectations is very common and is to be expected. I have never said "and that's just how it is" but rather pointed out that this happens and is not an indication that there is anything wrong with the game itself.

If a company can find a way to make their game appeal to a wide variety of playstyles then I feel that more players will stay and less will move on. ESO already does a good job of this in my opinion.

@SilverBride, I hear you, but I think the contradiction here is worth pointing out.

On the one hand, you say it’s expected that players will leave games that don’t meet their needs. On the other, you say ESO already does a good job supporting a wide variety of playstyles. But the fact that players are disengaging from overland specifically because of how non-engaging it is suggests that the game is failing a particular segment of its audience.

I haven't logged in or played since they announced the difficulty increase. Why play if the entire game will be ruined by making it harder in any way. I'm convinced it will be a forced difficulty increase on everyone and will not play until proven wrong. If they do increase difficulty on everyone I'll never play again.

You said people are disengaging from overland content because of how non-engaging it is. But if there is any forced difficulty increase I promise the opposite is true and a lot of people just like me will quit playing completely.

disky

Franchise408 wrote: »

disky wrote: »

Muizer wrote: »

BananaBender wrote: »

Because to me the slider only works on paper, but runs into issues when you think about how it would actually be utilized. If they manage to implement a well functioning slider, that would be amazing, but I really have my doubts.

So do I, but for a different reason. If, to keep things optional, they cannot touch the encounter design. If, that is, the only thing that gets modified is the strength of the existing NPC relative to the player, then that means difficulty increases will lie on a direct line towards "dodge or get one-shot". I don't think that is a fun form of high difficulty anywhere TBH.

I think it might be important to note that ZOS have commented about making adjustments to the sense of feedback in combat, which can make for a huge difference in the experience without a need to change enemies themselves. And also, I strongly believe that making changes to numbers alone does actually have a big impact on how you think about and approach an encounter. If failure is more likely and the consequences are more severe, odds are that you're going to make different choices, play more conservatively and employ new tactics. You might block more, you might call on friends, you might use a different build, you might even just try avoiding the fight. I know this because I've spent a lot of time modifying enemies in other games to be dramatically more difficult, which almost always ends up being primarily value adjustments, and it really does have a material impact on the way I approach them.

Enemies don't need new behaviors to make them more fun to fight, although it would be cool to see and I'd welcome it. I think what's more important is that combat feels good and that fights feel like they matter.

Honestly, behaviors is likely exactly what they need. Without new behaviors, any increase in difficulty will probably be pretty lackluster.

However, new behaviors is probably a WHOLE lot of work, so I don't see that in the realm of realistic choices, even tho it's probably the most needed change.

That's a big reason why I don't think that any increased difficulty is going to go far enough.

New behaviors are a great idea and I think even status quo players would welcome them, but that's an entirely different project from addressing the challenge issue.

CP5

SilverBride wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

@Silver bride, I hear you, but I think the contradiction here is worth pointing out.

On the one hand, you say it’s expected that players will leave games that don’t meet their needs. On the other, you say ESO already does a good job supporting a wide variety of playstyles. But the fact that players are disengaging from overland specifically because of how non-engaging it is suggests that the game is failing a particular segment of its audience.

There is no contradiction. In my opinion ESO does a good job of having content that appeals to different playstyles. But no game is ever going to appeal to everyone and some players will move on.

Players don't disengage from overland because of how non-engaging it is, because for many overland is very engaging. They disengage because it doesn't meet their personal preference. But a personal preference doesn't indicate a flaw in the game.

I recently felt inclined to check in again since February, glad to see things haven't really changed. But I would like to say my preference is for the game to be engaging. I want to think about what I'm doing, who I'm fighting, where I am. In ESO currently the only different between a bandit and a deadra is the color pants they wear, and in the case of a mage, what time-wasting spell they use. There is no difference in threat between the two, no unique things I have to keep in mind. Because of this, all enemies that occupy the world are essentially the same, meaning the same strategy works on all enemies the same, and since they're so weak, and I'm doing the same thing every fight, I don't even need to pay attention to the game when I'm doing quest. That is boring, forgettable, and very disengaging.

By contrast, I would never do something like, have a video playing on my second monitor while playing Dragon's Dogma. A stray wolf could grab you by the neck and run away, a harpy could pluck you off a cliff and throw you to your death, the very clear chime of an enemy mage preparing a spell was a timer you needed to interrupt, and you had to pay attention to the who, what, and where of a fight to succeed. I would pay attention when going through a place, because even if I knew the place I would fight something in, the thing I was fighting would greatly impact how the following fight would play out.

This extends to bosses, who normally die before they finish their intro monologue, if they are given one of those, so I've stopped doing overland content years ago because, I don't want to waste my time on things I won't remember. Without resistance, without meaningful feedback, there is nothing for me to remember other than adding to the tally of 'times I felt underwhelmed.'

DeathStalker wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

@Silver bride, respectfully, I think that kind of framing is part of the problem. Saying, “some people have walked away, and that’s just how it is,” treats avoidable attrition as a natural fact rather than a design failure worth addressing.

Yes, players leave games all the time. But when a significant portion of players disengage specifically from overland content—not the game as a whole—it points to a system that’s failing to serve its purpose. That’s not just preference but an imbalance in the gameplay loop.

I feel that players moving on from games that don't meet their expectations is very common and is to be expected. I have never said "and that's just how it is" but rather pointed out that this happens and is not an indication that there is anything wrong with the game itself.

If a company can find a way to make their game appeal to a wide variety of playstyles then I feel that more players will stay and less will move on. ESO already does a good job of this in my opinion.

@SilverBride, I hear you, but I think the contradiction here is worth pointing out.

On the one hand, you say it’s expected that players will leave games that don’t meet their needs. On the other, you say ESO already does a good job supporting a wide variety of playstyles. But the fact that players are disengaging from overland specifically because of how non-engaging it is suggests that the game is failing a particular segment of its audience.

I haven't logged in or played since they announced the difficulty increase. Why play if the entire game will be ruined by making it harder in any way. I'm convinced it will be a forced difficulty increase on everyone and will not play until proven wrong. If they do increase difficulty on everyone I'll never play again.

You said people are disengaging from overland content because of how non-engaging it is. But if there is any forced difficulty increase I promise the opposite is true and a lot of people just like me will quit playing completely.

And what was a part of that announcement? That they had 'plans', and anything else? How genuine do you feel that ZOS would undermine the largest piece of content that their casual players engage in, when in literally every other piece of pve content they have things as 'options'? ZOS's lengthy silence on this topic didn't help matters, but I'm just curious why this idea that 'the only way for ZOS to address this is to ruin everything' continues to manifest.

SilverBride

We will find out more specifically what this entails on the 10th, which is now only 3 days away.

CP5

Exactly, and hopefully it will help diffuse any fears people have. I stand by, I doubt they'll do anything to compromise the way people enjoy the content currently, and I hope to not be wrong.

SilverBride

CP5 wrote: »

Exactly, and hopefully it will help diffuse any fears people have. I stand by, I doubt they'll do anything to compromise the way people enjoy the content currently, and I hope to not be wrong.

I hope that too, more than I can say.

sans-culottes

DeathStalker wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

@Silver bride, respectfully, I think that kind of framing is part of the problem. Saying, “some people have walked away, and that’s just how it is,” treats avoidable attrition as a natural fact rather than a design failure worth addressing.

Yes, players leave games all the time. But when a significant portion of players disengage specifically from overland content—not the game as a whole—it points to a system that’s failing to serve its purpose. That’s not just preference but an imbalance in the gameplay loop.

I feel that players moving on from games that don't meet their expectations is very common and is to be expected. I have never said "and that's just how it is" but rather pointed out that this happens and is not an indication that there is anything wrong with the game itself.

If a company can find a way to make their game appeal to a wide variety of playstyles then I feel that more players will stay and less will move on. ESO already does a good job of this in my opinion.

@SilverBride, I hear you, but I think the contradiction here is worth pointing out.

On the one hand, you say it’s expected that players will leave games that don’t meet their needs. On the other, you say ESO already does a good job supporting a wide variety of playstyles. But the fact that players are disengaging from overland specifically because of how non-engaging it is suggests that the game is failing a particular segment of its audience.

I haven't logged in or played since they announced the difficulty increase. Why play if the entire game will be ruined by making it harder in any way. I'm convinced it will be a forced difficulty increase on everyone and will not play until proven wrong. If they do increase difficulty on everyone I'll never play again.

You said people are disengaging from overland content because of how non-engaging it is. But if there is any forced difficulty increase I promise the opposite is true and a lot of people just like me will quit playing completely.

I’m sorry you feel that way. However, this might be what is referred to colloquially as “putting the cart before the horse”—especially if you actively enjoy the game. You mentioned being “convinced” that it would be “forced”—what leads you to that conclusion?

DeathStalker

sans-culottes wrote: »

DeathStalker wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

@Silver bride, respectfully, I think that kind of framing is part of the problem. Saying, “some people have walked away, and that’s just how it is,” treats avoidable attrition as a natural fact rather than a design failure worth addressing.

Yes, players leave games all the time. But when a significant portion of players disengage specifically from overland content—not the game as a whole—it points to a system that’s failing to serve its purpose. That’s not just preference but an imbalance in the gameplay loop.

I feel that players moving on from games that don't meet their expectations is very common and is to be expected. I have never said "and that's just how it is" but rather pointed out that this happens and is not an indication that there is anything wrong with the game itself.

If a company can find a way to make their game appeal to a wide variety of playstyles then I feel that more players will stay and less will move on. ESO already does a good job of this in my opinion.

@SilverBride, I hear you, but I think the contradiction here is worth pointing out.

On the one hand, you say it’s expected that players will leave games that don’t meet their needs. On the other, you say ESO already does a good job supporting a wide variety of playstyles. But the fact that players are disengaging from overland specifically because of how non-engaging it is suggests that the game is failing a particular segment of its audience.

I haven't logged in or played since they announced the difficulty increase. Why play if the entire game will be ruined by making it harder in any way. I'm convinced it will be a forced difficulty increase on everyone and will not play until proven wrong. If they do increase difficulty on everyone I'll never play again.

You said people are disengaging from overland content because of how non-engaging it is. But if there is any forced difficulty increase I promise the opposite is true and a lot of people just like me will quit playing completely.

I’m sorry you feel that way. However, this might be what is referred to colloquially as “putting the cart before the horse”—especially if you actively enjoy the game. You mentioned being “convinced” that it would be “forced”—what leads you to that conclusion?

It's personal issues that complicate it. For the last several years, my mother has battled cancer. I was her primary caregiver. To say my life for the last couple of years has been stressful is a massive understatement. My mother lost her battle with cancer in February. For the last several years, what could be bad was bad and what could go wrong did go wrong. When I could play, I wanted to play stress-free. no stress, no hard difficulty, but to lose myself in another world. I'm still trying to heal from losing my mom a month and a half ago and the torture the last several years has been on me. I don't want harder, I don't want a challenge. I want to walk through content like I am the living god. But again, for the last several years, what could go wrong and be bad did exactly that. You asked what leads me to the conclusion I've come to. The hell that has been the last several years.

spartaxoxo

DeathStalker wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

DeathStalker wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

@Silver bride, respectfully, I think that kind of framing is part of the problem. Saying, “some people have walked away, and that’s just how it is,” treats avoidable attrition as a natural fact rather than a design failure worth addressing.

Yes, players leave games all the time. But when a significant portion of players disengage specifically from overland content—not the game as a whole—it points to a system that’s failing to serve its purpose. That’s not just preference but an imbalance in the gameplay loop.

I feel that players moving on from games that don't meet their expectations is very common and is to be expected. I have never said "and that's just how it is" but rather pointed out that this happens and is not an indication that there is anything wrong with the game itself.

If a company can find a way to make their game appeal to a wide variety of playstyles then I feel that more players will stay and less will move on. ESO already does a good job of this in my opinion.

@SilverBride, I hear you, but I think the contradiction here is worth pointing out.

On the one hand, you say it’s expected that players will leave games that don’t meet their needs. On the other, you say ESO already does a good job supporting a wide variety of playstyles. But the fact that players are disengaging from overland specifically because of how non-engaging it is suggests that the game is failing a particular segment of its audience.

I haven't logged in or played since they announced the difficulty increase. Why play if the entire game will be ruined by making it harder in any way. I'm convinced it will be a forced difficulty increase on everyone and will not play until proven wrong. If they do increase difficulty on everyone I'll never play again.

You said people are disengaging from overland content because of how non-engaging it is. But if there is any forced difficulty increase I promise the opposite is true and a lot of people just like me will quit playing completely.

I’m sorry you feel that way. However, this might be what is referred to colloquially as “putting the cart before the horse”—especially if you actively enjoy the game. You mentioned being “convinced” that it would be “forced”—what leads you to that conclusion?

It's personal issues that complicate it. For the last several years, my mother has battled cancer. I was her primary caregiver. To say my life for the last couple of years has been stressful is a massive understatement. My mother lost her battle with cancer in February. For the last several years, what could be bad was bad and what could go wrong did go wrong. When I could play, I wanted to play stress-free. no stress, no hard difficulty, but to lose myself in another world. I'm still trying to heal from losing my mom a month and a half ago and the torture the last several years has been on me. I don't want harder, I don't want a challenge. I want to walk through content like I am the living god. But again, for the last several years, what could go wrong and be bad did exactly that. You asked what leads me to the conclusion I've come to. The hell that has been the last several years.

I am so sorry for your loss. The pain of losing a loved one, especially one so close, is always difficult. Video games can be such a needed escape from the things that are weighing us down sometimes. I really hope they don't force difficulty on you or anyone else. I hope you've found a game you can play in the meantime.

DeathStalker

spartaxoxo wrote: »

DeathStalker wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

DeathStalker wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

@Silver bride, respectfully, I think that kind of framing is part of the problem. Saying, “some people have walked away, and that’s just how it is,” treats avoidable attrition as a natural fact rather than a design failure worth addressing.

Yes, players leave games all the time. But when a significant portion of players disengage specifically from overland content—not the game as a whole—it points to a system that’s failing to serve its purpose. That’s not just preference but an imbalance in the gameplay loop.

I feel that players moving on from games that don't meet their expectations is very common and is to be expected. I have never said "and that's just how it is" but rather pointed out that this happens and is not an indication that there is anything wrong with the game itself.

If a company can find a way to make their game appeal to a wide variety of playstyles then I feel that more players will stay and less will move on. ESO already does a good job of this in my opinion.

@SilverBride, I hear you, but I think the contradiction here is worth pointing out.

On the one hand, you say it’s expected that players will leave games that don’t meet their needs. On the other, you say ESO already does a good job supporting a wide variety of playstyles. But the fact that players are disengaging from overland specifically because of how non-engaging it is suggests that the game is failing a particular segment of its audience.

I haven't logged in or played since they announced the difficulty increase. Why play if the entire game will be ruined by making it harder in any way. I'm convinced it will be a forced difficulty increase on everyone and will not play until proven wrong. If they do increase difficulty on everyone I'll never play again.

You said people are disengaging from overland content because of how non-engaging it is. But if there is any forced difficulty increase I promise the opposite is true and a lot of people just like me will quit playing completely.

I’m sorry you feel that way. However, this might be what is referred to colloquially as “putting the cart before the horse”—especially if you actively enjoy the game. You mentioned being “convinced” that it would be “forced”—what leads you to that conclusion?

It's personal issues that complicate it. For the last several years, my mother has battled cancer. I was her primary caregiver. To say my life for the last couple of years has been stressful is a massive understatement. My mother lost her battle with cancer in February. For the last several years, what could be bad was bad and what could go wrong did go wrong. When I could play, I wanted to play stress-free. no stress, no hard difficulty, but to lose myself in another world. I'm still trying to heal from losing my mom a month and a half ago and the torture the last several years has been on me. I don't want harder, I don't want a challenge. I want to walk through content like I am the living god. But again, for the last several years, what could go wrong and be bad did exactly that. You asked what leads me to the conclusion I've come to. The hell that has been the last several years.

I am so sorry for your loss. The pain of losing a loved one, especially one so close, is always difficult. Video games can be such a needed escape from the things that are weighing us down sometimes. I really hope they don't force difficulty on you or anyone else. I hope you've found a game you can play in the meantime.

Thank you for the kind words. I've been playing modded Skyrim or Cyberpunk.

Muizer

disky wrote: »

I think it might be important to note that ZOS have commented about making adjustments to the sense of feedback in combat, which can make for a huge difference in the experience without a need to change enemies themselves.

I don't know what is meant by 'sense of feedback'

disky wrote: »

And also, I strongly believe that making changes to numbers alone does actually have a big impact on how you think about and approach an encounter.

That does not address my concern that if you only have the NPC damage output relative to the player, then the risk to the player would come from shifting the dial towards a "dodge or die" experience. Impactful? Yes. Fun? No.

spartaxoxo

Muizer wrote: »

That does not address my concern that if you only have the NPC damage output relative to the player, then the risk to the player would come from shifting the dial towards a "dodge or die" experience. Impactful? Yes. Fun? No.

The nice thing about a slider as the solution is they can offer multiple settings, so that someone who would rather be punished with death for missing big mechanics can be. And those that like the way things currently are for the most part but just wished the mobs hit slightly harder/lasted slightly longer just so they can hear dialogue can use a lower setting. They could even make things easier, if they wanted to help those who currently find overland challenging. And ofc, you could also opt to not use it at all.

TaSheen

DeathStalker wrote: »

It's personal issues that complicate it. For the last several years, my mother has battled cancer. I was her primary caregiver. To say my life for the last couple of years has been stressful is a massive understatement. My mother lost her battle with cancer in February. For the last several years, what could be bad was bad and what could go wrong did go wrong. When I could play, I wanted to play stress-free. no stress, no hard difficulty, but to lose myself in another world. I'm still trying to heal from losing my mom a month and a half ago and the torture the last several years has been on me. I don't want harder, I don't want a challenge. I want to walk through content like I am the living god. But again, for the last several years, what could go wrong and be bad did exactly that. You asked what leads me to the conclusion I've come to. The hell that has been the last several years.

I feel your pain. I'm so sorry to hear about your mother. I hope you will find solace in the game if you can. I too am now playing modded Skyrim again....

Kallykat

Optional difficulty sounds fine on the surface, as long as it does not affect my gameplay. I do worry, however, that it would come with unintended consequences, and I'm not sure I trust ZOS to implement it with the care and precision needed. I know they advertise "play any way you want," but they don't say "play any content any way you want."

I have to admit that I'm still a little frustrated when I read all the complaints about the ease of overland content and how it's not engaging to someone. I understand wanting content to be at your preferred difficulty when it's not currently there because that's how I feel about dungeons, trials, arenas, pvp, pretty much anything that isn't overland. There is a difference, however, between someone not enjoying content or not finding it engaging and someone literally not being able to play content because it is too difficult for them to survive.

I would love it if ZOS would add an easier option (story mode) to difficult dungeons and trials just as much as many of you would love a higher difficulty option for overland. I am doubtful that will happen.

Maybe they will exceed expectations though and find a way to implement a difficulty slider or some such that satisfies both sides. I just know that if they can't make it optional, a forced increase in difficulty will absolutely be worse than keeping the status quo because there are players for whom overland is the only content in which they can currently participate.