Overland Content Feedback Thread

spartaxoxo

The feature was already stated to be optional and coming this year but not during this latest update. So, Solstice wasn't supposed to be any different to what we already have and optional means that it would not involve the base level difficulty being increased.

ETA

They haven't announced when yet but I personally expect Q4 since Q3 is for QOL/Bug fixes.

VvwvenomwvV

Why do I keep getting notifications for this discussion? I didn't start this discussion. As far as I know, this is the first time I've posted in this thread.

spartaxoxo

VvwvenomwvV wrote: »

Why do I keep getting notifications for this discussion? I didn't start this discussion. As far as I know, this is the first time I've posted in this thread.

You might have it starred. There's a setting that gives you notifications for new posts in liked threads.

VvwvenomwvV

spartaxoxo wrote: »

VvwvenomwvV wrote: »

Why do I keep getting notifications for this discussion? I didn't start this discussion. As far as I know, this is the first time I've posted in this thread.

You might have it starred. There's a setting that gives you notifications for new posts in liked threads.

That was it. Ty.

WolfStar07

Is the missing Larcenist achievement for Solstice an oversight or a deliberate omission?

Rungar

some may disagree but zone invasions really is the only way to successfully implement a more difficult eso overland. Toggles and things like that will be abysmal failures and waste of effort. They just have no gameplay value.

zos already runs up to 3 copies of each zone through the megaserver technology so modifying an existing zone for a new adventure is a very cheap way to provide real content. The game is large enough that players can avoid it if they wish.

if they were smart they would use this zone copy tech as and have three seperate zones that could be operating.
1) the basic zone we have now
2) the invasion copy that has much increased challenge and reward. Mostly combat based
3) the rebuilding copy which has elements of the first two and challenge somewhere inbetween. Mostly quest based.

in both two and three players can advance the story. You can end the invasion in phase 2 but also help with the rebuild in phase three. Its mostly smoke and mirrors but it would be alot of fun for alot of players to get to contribute in some form.

they arent going to get more bang for the buck doing it any other way. This is the game of stories after all. You wont get much story with a toggle.

disky

Rungar wrote: »

some may disagree but zone invasions really is the only way to successfully implement a more difficult eso overland. Toggles and things like that will be abysmal failures and waste of effort. They just have no gameplay value.

zos already runs up to 3 copies of each zone through the megaserver technology so modifying an existing zone for a new adventure is a very cheap way to provide real content. The game is large enough that players can avoid it if they wish.

if they were smart they would use this zone copy tech as and have three seperate zones that could be operating.
1) the basic zone we have now
2) the invasion copy that has much increased challenge and reward. Mostly combat based
3) the rebuilding copy which has elements of the first two and challenge somewhere inbetween. Mostly quest based.

in both two and three players can advance the story. You can end the invasion in phase 2 but also help with the rebuild in phase three. Its mostly smoke and mirrors but it would be alot of fun for alot of players to get to contribute in some form.

they arent going to get more bang for the buck doing it any other way. This is the game of stories after all. You wont get much story with a toggle.

Saying things like "the only way to successfully implement" and "they just have no gameplay value" don't give your arguments credibility, they have the opposite effect. It sounds like it's just something you want to happen, and it could be a great idea if handled properly, but it's absolutely not the only potentially successful way to address this issue. However, what you're suggesting seems like it's going to split up the population to an even greater extent than some of the similar ideas which have been proposed here in the past, and that's generally not a great idea for an MMO. If it ever did happen, it would probably be done on the main servers, with a more conservative or opt-in methodology.

Rungar

disky wrote: »

Rungar wrote: »

some may disagree but zone invasions really is the only way to successfully implement a more difficult eso overland. Toggles and things like that will be abysmal failures and waste of effort. They just have no gameplay value.

zos already runs up to 3 copies of each zone through the megaserver technology so modifying an existing zone for a new adventure is a very cheap way to provide real content. The game is large enough that players can avoid it if they wish.

if they were smart they would use this zone copy tech as and have three seperate zones that could be operating.
1) the basic zone we have now
2) the invasion copy that has much increased challenge and reward. Mostly combat based
3) the rebuilding copy which has elements of the first two and challenge somewhere inbetween. Mostly quest based.

in both two and three players can advance the story. You can end the invasion in phase 2 but also help with the rebuild in phase three. Its mostly smoke and mirrors but it would be alot of fun for alot of players to get to contribute in some form.

they arent going to get more bang for the buck doing it any other way. This is the game of stories after all. You wont get much story with a toggle.

Saying things like "the only way to successfully implement" and "they just have no gameplay value" don't give your arguments credibility, they have the opposite effect. It sounds like it's just something you want to happen, and it could be a great idea if handled properly, but it's absolutely not the only potentially successful way to address this issue. However, what you're suggesting seems like it's going to split up the population to an even greater extent than some of the similar ideas which have been proposed here in the past, and that's generally not a great idea for an MMO. If it ever did happen, it would probably be done on the main servers, with a more conservative or opt-in methodology.

the invasion zone replaces the existing zone, and the rebuild zone replaces the invasion zone and the original zone replaces the rebuild zone. 3 dragons eating the next ones tail just like in the eso logo. So you get three unique adventures per zone. You opt out by not going to that zone while an invasion is active. You opt in by going there. It doesnt split anyone up, but i should of been clearer. There are plenty of other zones players can go to while an invasion is "on".

the point i was making is that if the solution doesnt advance the story in some way it likely will be a dud.

disky

Rungar wrote: »

disky wrote: »

Rungar wrote: »

some may disagree but zone invasions really is the only way to successfully implement a more difficult eso overland. Toggles and things like that will be abysmal failures and waste of effort. They just have no gameplay value.

zos already runs up to 3 copies of each zone through the megaserver technology so modifying an existing zone for a new adventure is a very cheap way to provide real content. The game is large enough that players can avoid it if they wish.

if they were smart they would use this zone copy tech as and have three seperate zones that could be operating.
1) the basic zone we have now
2) the invasion copy that has much increased challenge and reward. Mostly combat based
3) the rebuilding copy which has elements of the first two and challenge somewhere inbetween. Mostly quest based.

in both two and three players can advance the story. You can end the invasion in phase 2 but also help with the rebuild in phase three. Its mostly smoke and mirrors but it would be alot of fun for alot of players to get to contribute in some form.

they arent going to get more bang for the buck doing it any other way. This is the game of stories after all. You wont get much story with a toggle.

Saying things like "the only way to successfully implement" and "they just have no gameplay value" don't give your arguments credibility, they have the opposite effect. It sounds like it's just something you want to happen, and it could be a great idea if handled properly, but it's absolutely not the only potentially successful way to address this issue. However, what you're suggesting seems like it's going to split up the population to an even greater extent than some of the similar ideas which have been proposed here in the past, and that's generally not a great idea for an MMO. If it ever did happen, it would probably be done on the main servers, with a more conservative or opt-in methodology.

the invasion zone replaces the existing zone, and the rebuild zone replaces the invasion zone and the original zone replaces the rebuild zone. 3 dragons eating the next ones tail just like in the eso logo. So you get three unique adventures per zone. You opt out by not going to that zone while an invasion is active. You opt in by going there. It doesnt split anyone up, but i should of been clearer. There are plenty of other zones players can go to while an invasion is "on".

the point i was making is that if the solution doesnt advance the story in some way it likely will be a dud.

I don't think ZOS is keen on telling people "just don't go there at this time".

spartaxoxo

Rungar wrote: »

they arent going to get more bang for the buck doing it any other way. This is the game of stories after all. You wont get much story with a toggle.

On the contrary, I get to enjoy all of the stories currently in the game. Which I don't right now. Which is the reason for the complaints.

What does a random invasion have to do with The Ascendant Lord's political goals?

Rungar

disky wrote: »

Rungar wrote: »

disky wrote: »

Rungar wrote: »

some may disagree but zone invasions really is the only way to successfully implement a more difficult eso overland. Toggles and things like that will be abysmal failures and waste of effort. They just have no gameplay value.

zos already runs up to 3 copies of each zone through the megaserver technology so modifying an existing zone for a new adventure is a very cheap way to provide real content. The game is large enough that players can avoid it if they wish.

if they were smart they would use this zone copy tech as and have three seperate zones that could be operating.
1) the basic zone we have now
2) the invasion copy that has much increased challenge and reward. Mostly combat based
3) the rebuilding copy which has elements of the first two and challenge somewhere inbetween. Mostly quest based.

in both two and three players can advance the story. You can end the invasion in phase 2 but also help with the rebuild in phase three. Its mostly smoke and mirrors but it would be alot of fun for alot of players to get to contribute in some form.

they arent going to get more bang for the buck doing it any other way. This is the game of stories after all. You wont get much story with a toggle.

Saying things like "the only way to successfully implement" and "they just have no gameplay value" don't give your arguments credibility, they have the opposite effect. It sounds like it's just something you want to happen, and it could be a great idea if handled properly, but it's absolutely not the only potentially successful way to address this issue. However, what you're suggesting seems like it's going to split up the population to an even greater extent than some of the similar ideas which have been proposed here in the past, and that's generally not a great idea for an MMO. If it ever did happen, it would probably be done on the main servers, with a more conservative or opt-in methodology.

the invasion zone replaces the existing zone, and the rebuild zone replaces the invasion zone and the original zone replaces the rebuild zone. 3 dragons eating the next ones tail just like in the eso logo. So you get three unique adventures per zone. You opt out by not going to that zone while an invasion is active. You opt in by going there. It doesnt split anyone up, but i should of been clearer. There are plenty of other zones players can go to while an invasion is "on".

the point i was making is that if the solution doesnt advance the story in some way it likely will be a dud.

I don't think ZOS is keen on telling people "just don't go there at this time".

so the game has like 30 plus underutilized overland zones and most of them you havent touched in years but if they do something fun with one or two of them at a time you take offense. Got it.

disky

Rungar wrote: »

disky wrote: »

Rungar wrote: »

disky wrote: »

Rungar wrote: »

some may disagree but zone invasions really is the only way to successfully implement a more difficult eso overland. Toggles and things like that will be abysmal failures and waste of effort. They just have no gameplay value.

zos already runs up to 3 copies of each zone through the megaserver technology so modifying an existing zone for a new adventure is a very cheap way to provide real content. The game is large enough that players can avoid it if they wish.

if they were smart they would use this zone copy tech as and have three seperate zones that could be operating.
1) the basic zone we have now
2) the invasion copy that has much increased challenge and reward. Mostly combat based
3) the rebuilding copy which has elements of the first two and challenge somewhere inbetween. Mostly quest based.

in both two and three players can advance the story. You can end the invasion in phase 2 but also help with the rebuild in phase three. Its mostly smoke and mirrors but it would be alot of fun for alot of players to get to contribute in some form.

they arent going to get more bang for the buck doing it any other way. This is the game of stories after all. You wont get much story with a toggle.

Saying things like "the only way to successfully implement" and "they just have no gameplay value" don't give your arguments credibility, they have the opposite effect. It sounds like it's just something you want to happen, and it could be a great idea if handled properly, but it's absolutely not the only potentially successful way to address this issue. However, what you're suggesting seems like it's going to split up the population to an even greater extent than some of the similar ideas which have been proposed here in the past, and that's generally not a great idea for an MMO. If it ever did happen, it would probably be done on the main servers, with a more conservative or opt-in methodology.

the invasion zone replaces the existing zone, and the rebuild zone replaces the invasion zone and the original zone replaces the rebuild zone. 3 dragons eating the next ones tail just like in the eso logo. So you get three unique adventures per zone. You opt out by not going to that zone while an invasion is active. You opt in by going there. It doesnt split anyone up, but i should of been clearer. There are plenty of other zones players can go to while an invasion is "on".

the point i was making is that if the solution doesnt advance the story in some way it likely will be a dud.

I don't think ZOS is keen on telling people "just don't go there at this time".

so the game has like 30 plus underutilized overland zones and most of them you havent touched in years but if they do something fun with one or two of them at a time you take offense. Got it.

I don't take offense. I wouldn't mind it at all in fact. I'm game for just about anything that makes overland more interesting and dynamic. However, you're approaching this idea as if it's the only viable solution when it isn't and if anything should be a supplementary feature, and more importantly, it doesn't consider the significant portion of PvE players who want to do what they expect to do when they log in. I think there are ways of doing something similar to what you're suggesting without excluding those people, separating players across instances or forcing them out of their routines which might need a bit of additional thought but would ultimately work in a more elegant and equitable way for the population as a whole.

Willythehippie

Can we have more random overland content? Like for example you added an achievement in Solstice to parkour to the top of a ruined tower to open a chest. We got nothing for it other than the achievement. Why aren't there more climbable strutures? Why can't we get a silly title, or a memento?

You could easily expand upon this and make a silly climbing guild that has us climb random parkourable structures across Tamriel. There could be daily quest that grant us special stuff. Titles, mats, mementos, etc. Things like this in the overland could make for more guild events to be hosted.

You have this huge world that has vast open places that could have things added to it. I'm hoping that your new outlook, on how you're revisiting older zones, will be a step in this kind of direction. I'd love to see just more absolutely random and non combat related content.

Mal_Bad

Willythehippie wrote: »

Can we have more random overland content? Like for example you added an achievement in Solstice to parkour to the top of a ruined tower to open a chest. We got nothing for it other than the achievement. Why aren't there more climbable strutures? Why can't we get a silly title, or a memento?

I would love to see an achievement or title as reward for stealing 1000 fish. Fish Thief!
I know zero about software development so it sounds easy to me and I'm sure adding things like this is more complicated that we all realize.

Maybe it could be a special side project new employees or interns work on. No time pressure. Just has to work well.

Willythehippie

Mal_Bad wrote: »

I would love to see an achievement or title as reward for stealing 1000 fish. Fish Thief!
I know zero about software development so it sounds easy to me and I'm sure adding things like this is more complicated that we all realize.

Maybe it could be a special side project new employees or interns work on. No time pressure. Just has to work well.

I could get behind this! Sometimes when I get on I just want to talk to Guildies and run around exploring. I personally can't multitask well enough to have meaningful combat and conversation.

And I'm not saying stop working on combat but add more non combat stuff to do.

Solstice while it has a lot of great locations there's also a ton of empty space between these places and inevitably feels quite empty. I imagine that's where a lot of people are quite unhappy with it.

Add some more random stuff ZoS!

Anysra

I would like to propose one simple enhancement for the Overland experience:

Please add an option to select a global “Difficulty” setting that applies to all Overland zones. (Not a toggle) - Options.

Difficulties:
- Normal
- Veteran

For example, when you’re not in a group, you could open the map and toggle the difficulty [Normal or Veteran] just like you can for dungeons. As the host, you choose the difficulty, and any player who joins your party would automatically experience the Overland content at that same difficulty level. Including: Delves, Public Dungeons, World Bosses, etc.

Naturally, this should ensure that when you join a Veteran instance of a zone, you won’t encounter players who are still on the Normal version, everyone in that instance should be on the same difficulty to keep the gameplay balanced and consistent.

I would also suggest adding a reasonable requirement system, just like many other games do:
Players should only be able to unlock and select higher Overland difficulties such as Veteran mode after meeting certain criteria first, for example completing the zone’s main storyline, a related campaign, or specific achievements.

This way, new or less experienced players wouldn’t be able to jump straight into a harder difficulty right from the start. Instead, it would feel like a well-earned progression, while still giving more seasoned players a meaningful way to scale the challenge to match their level and gear.

Players who prefer the current Overland experience can continue to enjoy it untouched, exactly as it is now in Normal mode. Meanwhile, those who want more of a challenge would have the freedom to opt into a higher difficulty whenever they choose, creating more options without forcing any changes on those who don’t want them.

As for implementing this, I honestly have no idea how complex or straightforward it would be in practice, since it would require creating separate “instances” for different difficulty levels across all Overland zones.

However, the fundamental mechanics for handling difficulty already exist. For example, the “Veteran” mode that’s used in group content already.

That said, I fully understand that translating this concept to the entire Overland environment is a whole different challenge and would likely involve much more development work behind the scenes.

Tariq9898

Ajintse wrote: »

I would also suggest adding a reasonable requirement system, just like many other games do:
Players should only be able to unlock and select higher Overland difficulties such as Veteran mode after meeting certain criteria first, for example completing the zone’s main storyline, a related campaign, or specific achievements.

I disagree about the quest part. The biggest reason many of us want an optional vet overland is to be more immersed with the storytelling by feeling the danger and stakes more.

You shouldn’t have to beat the entire zone campaign just to unlock veteran.

The requirement could instead be CP related. Similar as to how vet dungeons require a minimum CP.

disky

Ajintse wrote: »

I would like to propose one simple enhancement for the Overland experience:

Please add an option to select a global “Difficulty” setting that applies to all Overland zones. (Not a toggle) - Options.

Difficulties:
- Normal
- Veteran

For example, when you’re not in a group, you could open the map and toggle the difficulty [Normal or Veteran] just like you can for dungeons. As the host, you choose the difficulty, and any player who joins your party would automatically experience the Overland content at that same difficulty level. Including: Delves, Public Dungeons, World Bosses, etc.

Naturally, this should ensure that when you join a Veteran instance of a zone, you won’t encounter players who are still on the Normal version, everyone in that instance should be on the same difficulty to keep the gameplay balanced and consistent.

I would also suggest adding a reasonable requirement system, just like many other games do:
Players should only be able to unlock and select higher Overland difficulties such as Veteran mode after meeting certain criteria first, for example completing the zone’s main storyline, a related campaign, or specific achievements.

This way, new or less experienced players wouldn’t be able to jump straight into a harder difficulty right from the start. Instead, it would feel like a well-earned progression, while still giving more seasoned players a meaningful way to scale the challenge to match their level and gear.

Players who prefer the current Overland experience can continue to enjoy it untouched, exactly as it is now in Normal mode. Meanwhile, those who want more of a challenge would have the freedom to opt into a higher difficulty whenever they choose, creating more options without forcing any changes on those who don’t want them.

As for implementing this, I honestly have no idea how complex or straightforward it would be in practice, since it would require creating separate “instances” for different difficulty levels across all Overland zones.

However, the fundamental mechanics for handling difficulty already exist. For example, the “Veteran” mode that’s used in group content already.

That said, I fully understand that translating this concept to the entire Overland environment is a whole different challenge and would likely involve much more development work behind the scenes.

There's no need to separate players if ZOS provides them with a set of debuffs which still allow them to use their builds fully while experiencing a greater challenge across overland. Separating players in an MMO is community poison.

colossalvoids

disky wrote: »

Ajintse wrote: »

I would like to propose one simple enhancement for the Overland experience:

Please add an option to select a global “Difficulty” setting that applies to all Overland zones. (Not a toggle) - Options.

Difficulties:
- Normal
- Veteran

For example, when you’re not in a group, you could open the map and toggle the difficulty [Normal or Veteran] just like you can for dungeons. As the host, you choose the difficulty, and any player who joins your party would automatically experience the Overland content at that same difficulty level. Including: Delves, Public Dungeons, World Bosses, etc.

Naturally, this should ensure that when you join a Veteran instance of a zone, you won’t encounter players who are still on the Normal version, everyone in that instance should be on the same difficulty to keep the gameplay balanced and consistent.

I would also suggest adding a reasonable requirement system, just like many other games do:
Players should only be able to unlock and select higher Overland difficulties such as Veteran mode after meeting certain criteria first, for example completing the zone’s main storyline, a related campaign, or specific achievements.

This way, new or less experienced players wouldn’t be able to jump straight into a harder difficulty right from the start. Instead, it would feel like a well-earned progression, while still giving more seasoned players a meaningful way to scale the challenge to match their level and gear.

Players who prefer the current Overland experience can continue to enjoy it untouched, exactly as it is now in Normal mode. Meanwhile, those who want more of a challenge would have the freedom to opt into a higher difficulty whenever they choose, creating more options without forcing any changes on those who don’t want them.

As for implementing this, I honestly have no idea how complex or straightforward it would be in practice, since it would require creating separate “instances” for different difficulty levels across all Overland zones.

However, the fundamental mechanics for handling difficulty already exist. For example, the “Veteran” mode that’s used in group content already.

That said, I fully understand that translating this concept to the entire Overland environment is a whole different challenge and would likely involve much more development work behind the scenes.

There's no need to separate players if ZOS provides them with a set of debuffs which still allow them to use their builds fully while experiencing a greater challenge across overland. Separating players in an MMO is community poison.

There is a need for it if people without a debuff do break the game's flow this feature supposed to create. There's no need in any changes at all if it's rendered pointless by such execution, imo. But it was argued back and forth too many times already, agree to disagree situation so to say.

Damico

colossalvoids wrote: »

disky wrote: »

Ajintse wrote: »

I would like to propose one simple enhancement for the Overland experience:

Please add an option to select a global “Difficulty” setting that applies to all Overland zones. (Not a toggle) - Options.

Difficulties:
- Normal
- Veteran

For example, when you’re not in a group, you could open the map and toggle the difficulty [Normal or Veteran] just like you can for dungeons. As the host, you choose the difficulty, and any player who joins your party would automatically experience the Overland content at that same difficulty level. Including: Delves, Public Dungeons, World Bosses, etc.

Naturally, this should ensure that when you join a Veteran instance of a zone, you won’t encounter players who are still on the Normal version, everyone in that instance should be on the same difficulty to keep the gameplay balanced and consistent.

I would also suggest adding a reasonable requirement system, just like many other games do:
Players should only be able to unlock and select higher Overland difficulties such as Veteran mode after meeting certain criteria first, for example completing the zone’s main storyline, a related campaign, or specific achievements.

This way, new or less experienced players wouldn’t be able to jump straight into a harder difficulty right from the start. Instead, it would feel like a well-earned progression, while still giving more seasoned players a meaningful way to scale the challenge to match their level and gear.

Players who prefer the current Overland experience can continue to enjoy it untouched, exactly as it is now in Normal mode. Meanwhile, those who want more of a challenge would have the freedom to opt into a higher difficulty whenever they choose, creating more options without forcing any changes on those who don’t want them.

As for implementing this, I honestly have no idea how complex or straightforward it would be in practice, since it would require creating separate “instances” for different difficulty levels across all Overland zones.

However, the fundamental mechanics for handling difficulty already exist. For example, the “Veteran” mode that’s used in group content already.

That said, I fully understand that translating this concept to the entire Overland environment is a whole different challenge and would likely involve much more development work behind the scenes.

There's no need to separate players if ZOS provides them with a set of debuffs which still allow them to use their builds fully while experiencing a greater challenge across overland. Separating players in an MMO is community poison.

There is a need for it if people without a debuff do break the game's flow this feature supposed to create. There's no need in any changes at all if it's rendered pointless by such execution, imo. But it was argued back and forth too many times already, agree to disagree situation so to say.

I agree, I don't want my enemies getting one shot by me or others while I have a voluntary nerf button activated.

Let me play in the corner on veteran mode with others willing to take on the same challenge.

soelslaev

My separate thread got closed down and I got pointed to this thread, and so I think I should copy paste it here. Right? So here it is:

The other day, in Elsweyr, a bunch of folks were fighting a dragon that breathed lightning and several of us were harming it with heavy attacks from a lightning staff, and I thought to myself, "If this were 1st edition AD&D, we'd all be dead." Because you cannot harm a lightning breathing dragon with lightning. I think you might even heal it. LOL. Anyway, there is your answer to both (one aspect of) overland difficulty and build variety.

So, folks are rightly complaining about overland difficulty, but you don't want to do what Skyrim does and just crank up the health bar. That just makes things a slog. Tone done the pure health bar increase but additionally, have a slider for natural elemental resistance. The current value would be 'regular' (in my opinion 'weak'), but have a 'tough' and 'invulverable' option. Then, lightning dragons would be (respectively) much harder to damage with lightning or impossible.

Obviously, this carries over appropriately to most other monsters. Breathing Dragonknight fire on a flame atronach, same effect. You can get creative with it, like vampires can be slowed by cold but not harmed. Iron atronaches resist physical damage. Zombies immune to disease and poison. Skeletons should be immune to arrows. You get the idea. Oooo! I just thought of something. Some monsters the resistance is inverse, that is, they are immune to everything except one or two types. I like the idea of guar being resistant to everything except healing staff, just for fun.

This also helps with build variety. Every dungeon has multiple bosses. And those bosses might have cosmetics or lore that suggest only certain vulnerabilities. Therefore, someone doing some popular and widely known PVE build of the moment might suddenly not be the best choice in every case because some bosses are immune to most of that type of damage used by that build. People have to think and plan their build before going into the tougher dungeons.

For an example of this, I recall cranking up the difficulty on Witcher 3 and having to do this. I have to make potions and poisons of a certain variety in order to get past certain tough foes.

AdmiralDigby

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

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

With the creation of this thread, please note that future threads created to address overland content will be closed and redirected to this one.

Some ground rules:

• If you do not want to engage in this conversation, please ignore this thread.
• For those engaging in this thread, please keep the conversation civil. Keep the forum rules top of mind here.
• Keep the feedback constructive. The feedback here could help us in the future as we continue conversations around this topic.

Thanks for the continued feedback here.

For many (myself included). Overland is just way too easy for me to enjoy. No matter how good it is, I can't immerse myself in "this big bad villian" when I can kill him in 2 secs easy with an optimized build.

Overland needs to have multiple difficulty levels. The problem is doing this (like Diablo 4 does) would split the player base and make overland feel like a ghost town. Worry not!! I have the perfect solution.

3 difficulty levels. Normal (current overland) - Vet (harder) - HM (or some cooler name whatever). When you select these difficulty levels in overland. It will place a set of debuffs & buffs on you. Making the content more challenging and more rewarding at same time. For example:

Overland: Exactly the same as it is now.
Vet: Damage done reduced by 50% - Damage Taken increase by 25% - XP gained increase by 100% - Gold increase by 200% - Drop rate increased by X%
HM: The above values just dialed up even more.

Don't get caught on my example %'s. They can be dialed to feel. However this would allow multiple difficulty options without dividing the player base up in multiple instances. Then maybe I could enjoy overland content.

Apollosipod

AdmiralDigby wrote: »

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

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

With the creation of this thread, please note that future threads created to address overland content will be closed and redirected to this one.

Some ground rules:

• If you do not want to engage in this conversation, please ignore this thread.
• For those engaging in this thread, please keep the conversation civil. Keep the forum rules top of mind here.
• Keep the feedback constructive. The feedback here could help us in the future as we continue conversations around this topic.

Thanks for the continued feedback here.

For many (myself included). Overland is just way too easy for me to enjoy. No matter how good it is, I can't immerse myself in "this big bad villian" when I can kill him in 2 secs easy with an optimized build.

Overland needs to have multiple difficulty levels. The problem is doing this (like Diablo 4 does) would split the player base and make overland feel like a ghost town. Worry not!! I have the perfect solution.

3 difficulty levels. Normal (current overland) - Vet (harder) - HM (or some cooler name whatever). When you select these difficulty levels in overland. It will place a set of debuffs & buffs on you. Making the content more challenging and more rewarding at same time. For example:

Overland: Exactly the same as it is now.
Vet: Damage done reduced by 50% - Damage Taken increase by 25% - XP gained increase by 100% - Gold increase by 200% - Drop rate increased by X%
HM: The above values just dialed up even more.

Don't get caught on my example %'s. They can be dialed to feel. However this would allow multiple difficulty options without dividing the player base up in multiple instances. Then maybe I could enjoy overland content.

I'm not sure what the right answer is or what ZOS will ultimately do, but I desperately need some challenge to get into the game. I haven't even started this new story because I know whatever it is I'm going to roll through like a hot knife to butter. The biggest enemy I'll face is the time spent waiting for "in-combat" glitches to resolve so I can open a door to the next group of enemies that will evaporate when I turn too hard in their direction lol

Tariq9898

Apollosipod wrote: »

AdmiralDigby wrote: »

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

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

With the creation of this thread, please note that future threads created to address overland content will be closed and redirected to this one.

Some ground rules:

• If you do not want to engage in this conversation, please ignore this thread.
• For those engaging in this thread, please keep the conversation civil. Keep the forum rules top of mind here.
• Keep the feedback constructive. The feedback here could help us in the future as we continue conversations around this topic.

Thanks for the continued feedback here.

For many (myself included). Overland is just way too easy for me to enjoy. No matter how good it is, I can't immerse myself in "this big bad villian" when I can kill him in 2 secs easy with an optimized build.

Overland needs to have multiple difficulty levels. The problem is doing this (like Diablo 4 does) would split the player base and make overland feel like a ghost town. Worry not!! I have the perfect solution.

3 difficulty levels. Normal (current overland) - Vet (harder) - HM (or some cooler name whatever). When you select these difficulty levels in overland. It will place a set of debuffs & buffs on you. Making the content more challenging and more rewarding at same time. For example:

Overland: Exactly the same as it is now.
Vet: Damage done reduced by 50% - Damage Taken increase by 25% - XP gained increase by 100% - Gold increase by 200% - Drop rate increased by X%
HM: The above values just dialed up even more.

Don't get caught on my example %'s. They can be dialed to feel. However this would allow multiple difficulty options without dividing the player base up in multiple instances. Then maybe I could enjoy overland content.

I'm not sure what the right answer is or what ZOS will ultimately do, but I desperately need some challenge to get into the game. I haven't even started this new story because I know whatever it is I'm going to roll through like a hot knife to butter. The biggest enemy I'll face is the time spent waiting for "in-combat" glitches to resolve so I can open a door to the next group of enemies that will evaporate when I turn too hard in their direction lol

You and me both man. I’m doing the entire ESO storyline in chronological order. I just got to Morrowind and about to start the whole Daedric War story arc! Heard it’s some of the best storytelling in all Elder Scrolls games!

I need that challenge to feel immersed! Optional of course!

Tariq9898

AdmiralDigby wrote: »

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

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

With the creation of this thread, please note that future threads created to address overland content will be closed and redirected to this one.

Some ground rules:

• If you do not want to engage in this conversation, please ignore this thread.
• For those engaging in this thread, please keep the conversation civil. Keep the forum rules top of mind here.
• Keep the feedback constructive. The feedback here could help us in the future as we continue conversations around this topic.

Thanks for the continued feedback here.

For many (myself included). Overland is just way too easy for me to enjoy. No matter how good it is, I can't immerse myself in "this big bad villian" when I can kill him in 2 secs easy with an optimized build.

Overland needs to have multiple difficulty levels. The problem is doing this (like Diablo 4 does) would split the player base and make overland feel like a ghost town. Worry not!! I have the perfect solution.

3 difficulty levels. Normal (current overland) - Vet (harder) - HM (or some cooler name whatever). When you select these difficulty levels in overland. It will place a set of debuffs & buffs on you. Making the content more challenging and more rewarding at same time. For example:

Overland: Exactly the same as it is now.
Vet: Damage done reduced by 50% - Damage Taken increase by 25% - XP gained increase by 100% - Gold increase by 200% - Drop rate increased by X%
HM: The above values just dialed up even more.

Don't get caught on my example %'s. They can be dialed to feel. However this would allow multiple difficulty options without dividing the player base up in multiple instances. Then maybe I could enjoy overland content.

The problem with this is if I’m heavily debuffed, someone who’s on current overland might come by and kill the boss in 2 hits.

I might get so much hate for this, but if it’s between splitting overland vs debuff, I’d rather just split the overland.

Majority of the players in ESO prefer to play alone and treat this like a single player game anyways.

Sabre

Open World PVP. Capture locations on the entire map (for example, a capture flag in Skywatch). Or, a zone fortress and 2 keeps - some setup with capturable fortress castles etc. Perks for the controlling faction.

Scale overland difficulty to at or near normal dungeon difficulty.

***The gaming scene in 2025 is different than over a decade ago when ESO was being developed. Deep, difficult games like BG3, Dark Souls/Elden Ring, etc. scream for more difficult content. Players can now do a quick internet search for information about how to and where things are in a game. The old school search is over. With that in mind, make it difficult - which in an mmo also requires cooperation and grouping...which is the point (vs solo play).

Underwater swimming, and other immersion items would be nice, too, like all Elder Scrolls games have had in them since 1995.

Lucasalex92

Zos Can you please add maybe like Guild Wars 2 style live events and achievements related like one live event leading to another and a chain across map ?

like NPC group or Caravan going from Point A on map to point B C D E and between each they fortify as they are attack by group of NPC's and then move on the more you participate the better reward with at the end also world boss being quite powerful with npcs helping him so you would need a lot of players and he would loot something good wanting players actually do it ?

or Special world boss pop over after some events on map ....

please make overland monster more powerful as in normal dungeon or slightly lower with more health, more difficult.

also add please companion dungeons with npcs from our factions that they can be healer someone also tank or dps.

for loot farmers for normal dungeons - you could always reduce XP gain and turn it to gold or something else.

Getsugatenso

The overworld needs more difficulty and before anyone talks about trials and dungeons, that depends on other players. The open world doesn't need it, but without cool mechanics and a decent difficulty, it gets too boring. There's a lack of desire to explore something so easy. Maybe using elemental resistances on enemies is interesting, for example. Well, here's the tip because I kill enemies standing still.

Adria22

I agree with the sentiment here. I am very casual player myself. I don't even have a max level character yet because I keep restarting with new ones. I play other mmos too but almost never do an endgame. But even I need some leveling challenge to feel immersed in the story and the world. The last time I felt that in an mmo was classic wow. All newer mmos are so so boring during a leveling which is like the main content for casual like me. Oh well I will just keep waiting...

spartaxoxo

When do they usually drop the Q4 announcement? I wonder if this is still on track for this year