Overland Content Feedback Thread

colossalvoids

Not really, there's just uneven distribution of support roles in those modes, rarely experienced players queue as an actual support in normals as it's a waste of everyone's time compared to veteran.

Marto

Additionally to all the other comments and suggestions, something that I'd like to see is to increase the "gradient" of enemy difficulty within encounters.

"Mini-bosses"", large animals, and heavy-armor-clad enemies do not feel particularly more difficult, tanky or dangerous than small enemies like archers, critters or grunts.

I think it would make combat more interesting if larger, stronger enemies were harder when compared to smaller, weaker enemies. To have more variety within each encounter in the overworld.

Sylvermynx

Marto wrote: »

Additionally to all the other comments and suggestions, something that I'd like to see is to increase the "gradient" of enemy difficulty within encounters.

"Mini-bosses"", large animals, and heavy-armor-clad enemies do not feel particularly more difficult, tanky or dangerous than small enemies like archers, critters or grunts.

I think it would make combat more interesting if larger, stronger enemies were harder when compared to smaller, weaker enemies. To have more variety within each encounter in the overworld.

As long as all that is optional.

Adria22

So I am semi new player. I played RPGs and MMOs in the past but I am super casual (no raiding) and mostly play on normal difficulty.

In ESO I am now level 13 and have no CP or more skill points from alts. And even in my experience is overland content too easy. At least please buff those big quest bosses a little.

It's just not immersive this way.

Malfious1986

SimonThesis wrote: »

Anumaril wrote: »

We need scaling to be based not just off your character's level, but off their gear/champion points as well. If overhauling the scaling system is too much to ask, perhaps a 'Hard Mode' option that people can toggle on/off which boosts enemy health/attacks.
I'm tired of having to intentionally cripple myself to make overland content even vaguely challenging. I love questing. It's what I enjoy most in ESO. Please toss us a bone here ZOS.

I think this is a good compromise increase the scaling to gear and CP. If you want easier mobs unslot your CP and take off your gold perfected trial gear and gold perfected arena weapons. If you're CP 3600 with gold perfected trial gear and gold perfected arena weapons the mobs should scale accordingly.

Why can't we just continue the scaling to include Champion Points? Wouldn't that be more simple?

Also can't believe there is so much opposition to increased difficulty. I can't think of any other mmo that has an overland this easy.

Epona222

My perspective:

I am disabled and have arthritis in my hands. I do not get to do ANY of the DLC dungeons, or very much on Vet mode. There is a lot of difficult content in the game that I simply cannot access due to physical limitations.

I like doing overland content - it is casual, I can complete it, and I have a lot of fun doing it.

If people want difficult content, there is plenty of difficult content in the game already. If people want to make overland content more difficult, they can remove the gear that they use for Vet content, unallocate their CP (which is now even easier due to Armory slots), and voila the content is more difficult for them.

I do not have the option to reduce the difficulty.

Please, please, do not take away the casual/easy nature of overland quest content. Already a lot of the game is denied to me and others like me.

If overland content difficulty is increased, please make it optional by way of a difficulty setting in the game menu (which implements some sort of power downscaling in PvE quest zones on those who choose it perhaps) and leave the base game difficulty untouched.

Sylvermynx

Epona222 wrote: »

My perspective:

I am disabled and have arthritis in my hands. I do not get to do ANY of the DLC dungeons, or very much on Vet mode. There is a lot of difficult content in the game that I simply cannot access due to physical limitations.

I like doing overland content - it is casual, I can complete it, and I have a lot of fun doing it.

If people want difficult content, there is plenty of difficult content in the game already. If people want to make overland content more difficult, they can remove the gear that they use for Vet content, unallocate their CP (which is now even easier due to Armory slots), and voila the content is more difficult for them.

I do not have the option to reduce the difficulty.

Please, please, do not take away the casual/easy nature of overland quest content. Already a lot of the game is denied to me and others like me.

If overland content difficulty is increased, please make it optional by way of a difficulty setting in the game menu (which implements some sort of power downscaling in PvE quest zones on those who choose it perhaps) and leave the base game difficulty untouched.

Completely agree.

SilverBride

Malfious1986 wrote: »

Why can't we just continue the scaling to include Champion Points? Wouldn't that be more simple?

If this were to happen a lot of players would leave. It has been shown that most players don't want difficulty in the story. I want to feel stronger as I progress. If overland mobs keep getting stronger as I do, I never get to feel like I've actually progressed.

Malfious1986 wrote: »

Also can't believe there is so much opposition to increased difficulty. I can't think of any other mmo that has an overland this easy.

WoW has a very easy overland and always has, and they have been very successful. Their zones are divided by level, but are never challenging, and players outlevel them very quickly.

spartaxoxo

I would most certainly be using the optional difficulty increase occasionally. As I have stated multiple times.

And people who wouldn't need to comment on these ideas because some of them may have negative unintended consequences on those players.

For example giving them exclusive rewards and achievements would make people feel pressured into doing it on hard because those quests can only be done once per character. So if you don't do it, your character is permanently prevented from getting all the achievements or titles you may want later.

Or having a separate instance runs real danger in zones already struggling of being able to find aide for world bosses and the like due to split populations.

That sort of thing.

How you decorate your house has no possible impact on others.

summ0004

Epona222 wrote: »

My perspective:

I am disabled and have arthritis in my hands. I do not get to do ANY of the DLC dungeons, or very much on Vet mode. There is a lot of difficult content in the game that I simply cannot access due to physical limitations.

I like doing overland content - it is casual, I can complete it, and I have a lot of fun doing it.

If people want difficult content, there is plenty of difficult content in the game already. If people want to make overland content more difficult, they can remove the gear that they use for Vet content, unallocate their CP (which is now even easier due to Armory slots), and voila the content is more difficult for them.

I do not have the option to reduce the difficulty.

Please, please, do not take away the casual/easy nature of overland quest content. Already a lot of the game is denied to me and others like me.

If overland content difficulty is increased, please make it optional by way of a difficulty setting in the game menu (which implements some sort of power downscaling in PvE quest zones on those who choose it perhaps) and leave the base game difficulty untouched.

Likewise much of the overland has been made redundant to many players because of lack of difficulty and as a result many are being stuck with only doing dungeons, trials, pvp and arenas which sounds a lot, but is actually a much smaller amount of content compared to questing zones. This has resulted in stagnation and these people have not been able to purchase story chapters as a result.

So something needs to be done to be more inclusive to more players.

You need to look at the thread as no one is suggesting making anything in overland more difficult for everyone and most of the options have been moving towards the idea of optional difficulty.

spartaxoxo

summ0004 wrote: »

Likewise much of the overland has been made redundant to many players because of lack of difficulty

There's a pretty big difference between physically can't do it and chooses not to do it though, so that's important to keep in mind.

Agreed on the part about optional

SilverBride

summ0004 wrote: »

You need to look at the thread as no one is suggesting making anything in overland more difficult for everyone and most of the options have been moving towards the idea of optional difficulty.

Most of the options have been moving toward a debuff, which is the only reasonable solution that affects no one but the player who chooses to use it, or leaves anyone out of achievements and rewards they would otherwise be excluded from.

And this statement below does suggest making the mobs' difficulty match the players' CP, which means the player would never become stronger than mobs that should be simple for them.

Malfious1986 wrote: »

Why can't we just continue the scaling to include Champion Points? Wouldn't that be more simple?

Edited for clarity.

spartaxoxo

Harvokaan wrote: »

Mind that most opinions where ppl talking about additional rewards ppl talk mostly about purple gear

I never said otherwise. It was an example of a negative consequence that became clear because people who wouldn't use vet overland gave their voices to the discussion. The person who suggested it was not trying to make Overland feel non-optional, they were just coming up with rewards similar to other existing vet content. And that idea quickly got dropped because people pointed out they didn't want to be forced into vet overland but would be feel forced if it had exclusive rewards as unlike the other existing vet content in this game, the quests weren't repeatable.

That particular point dropped from the general consensus very quickly because there are people in this thread commenting on what would or would not impact them negatively as non-users of vet overland. To exclude voices of people negatively impacted by a vet overland decision just because they wouldn't use vet overland would just be wrong, not only from a forum rule standpoint but from a good discussion standpoint too. Oppositional voices bring to light negative consequences that may not be intended or seen by people who wouldn't ever face issues with them.

Disagreement is not toxicity.

Sylvermynx

summ0004 wrote: »

You need to look at the thread as no one is suggesting making anything in overland more difficult for everyone and most of the options have been moving towards the idea of optional difficulty.

Actually, I've read every post in this thread, most of them several times over, and there have been a number of people saying just that: "Just make it harder overall." At this point the most forceful person hasn't replied in a while - nor have a couple of the others - and that might be why it seems the responses have been moving more toward optional.

Epona222

Sylvermynx wrote: »

summ0004 wrote: »

You need to look at the thread as no one is suggesting making anything in overland more difficult for everyone and most of the options have been moving towards the idea of optional difficulty.

Actually, I've read every post in this thread, most of them several times over, and there have been a number of people saying just that: "Just make it harder overall." At this point the most forceful person hasn't replied in a while - nor have a couple of the others - and that might be why it seems the responses have been moving more toward optional.

In addition, nothing Zenimax has said has made any suggestion that "optional" would be an option.

People have been asking for "Story Mode" dungeons (ie. an easier option that can be soloed without mechanics, no expectation of good loot ofc) for a while so that people like myself with physical/co-ordination issues and more casual players can experience the story in the harder DLC dungeons that we currently cannot do at all (despite in a lot of cases technically paying for them by having ESO+ and being cut off from that content) - but Zenimax have shown absolutely no interest in accommodating that request to make those 2 content releases each year available to all.

Sylvermynx

Epona222 wrote: »

Sylvermynx wrote: »

summ0004 wrote: »

You need to look at the thread as no one is suggesting making anything in overland more difficult for everyone and most of the options have been moving towards the idea of optional difficulty.

Actually, I've read every post in this thread, most of them several times over, and there have been a number of people saying just that: "Just make it harder overall." At this point the most forceful person hasn't replied in a while - nor have a couple of the others - and that might be why it seems the responses have been moving more toward optional.

In addition, nothing Zenimax has said has made any suggestion that "optional" would be an option.

People have been asking for "Story Mode" dungeons (ie. an easier option that can be soloed without mechanics, no expectation of good loot ofc) for a while so that people like myself with physical/co-ordination issues and more casual players can experience the story in the harder DLC dungeons that we currently cannot do at all (despite in a lot of cases technically paying for them by having ESO+ and being cut off from that content) - but Zenimax have shown absolutely no interest in accommodating that request to make those 2 content releases each year available to all.

Yep, that too. I would love story dungeons.... Loot? Eh, who cares. I'd just like to wander through the stories, since grouping for stuff is close to impossible for me.

Harvokaan

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Disagreement is not toxicity.

Agreed but like I said, I don't have a problem with disagreement, I have a problem with ppl shuting down discussion by torpedoing almost every idea based on their assumptions presented as facts. By ppl that won't gonna use this paarticular feature.
I said before, one of the most valid point was that it needs to be optional. But most of the ppl who are against the idea said present mostly weak arguments like "it will cost too much" while not knowing how expensive it will be or "almost nobody want that" while threads about rising difficulty happened every week and this one already is almost the highiest viewed pinned topic next to thread with guild traders that affect basicaly most of the population, directly or indirectly. Some ppl that are doing that have even the audacity to tell others "it is your opinion, not fact so it means nothing" and sharing their opinions presented as facts.
[snip]

[edited for discussing moderation]

spartaxoxo

Harvokaan wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Disagreement is not toxicity.

Agreed but like I said, I don't have a problem with disagreement, I have a problem with ppl shuting down discussion by torpedoing almost every idea based on their assumptions presented as facts. By ppl that won't gonna use this paarticular feature.
I said before, one of the most valid point was that it needs to be optional. But most of the ppl who are against the idea said present mostly weak arguments like "it will cost too much" while not knowing how expensive it will be or "almost nobody want that" while threads about rising difficulty happened every week and this one already is almost the highiest viewed pinned topic next to thread with guild traders that affect basicaly most of the population, directly or indirectly. Some ppl that are doing that have even the audacity to tell others "it is your opinion, not fact so it means nothing" and sharing their opinions presented as facts.
[snip]

[edited for discussing moderation]

Neither of your examples are weak points. They are strong points that are based on statements by the developers.

And even if they were weak, someone having a weak argument is not "shutting down discussion." You could modify your suggestion to address the criticism, or you could make a counter argument as to why you feel their argument is weak. Having a weak points is not toxic just because it disagrees with you.

What does shutdown discussion is talking about people who make the arguments, instead of the argument itself or using harsh language.

At this point I am going to link you developer statements so you can know what has been said on the topic as an official statement.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Therefore this idea is intended to make questing more interesting while still working within the developers self-stated reasons as to why we can't have a vet overland "too much work" (debuffs require little dev effort) and fractured playerbase (debuffs don't require splitting players up).

If you don't care about what the devs stated in the past they aren't going to do, that's fine. But some of us would rather find solutions they haven't come out against and meet their criteria because we think it's more feasible and the lowest impact on the rest of the playerbase.

Would you please be so nice and link me to where the devs ruled out vet overland instances for good?
Thanks in advance.

They have a policy to never say never but they have said no to vet Overland and why on multiples occasions. This is why I wanted to make a suggestion that wasn't vet overland but still made things harder. Because the playerbase has been told "no" for years to vet Overland.

I compiled some answers here with select highlights from Rich's twitch.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Also here are some responses from Rich Lambert and Mike Finnagin that I had compiled in another thread that I think are pertinent here.

On Vet Overland: [Source for both following responses]
[source 2 just forumers discussing this video in case the link is broken]
"So, we had that, Jeulen, at launch. It was called Cadwell's Silver and Cadwell's Gold. Nobody did it and everybody hated it, so we took it out and we put the challenge into world bosses and into solo arenas and into dungeons and trials."

“People just did not like the extra difficulty in the story stuff. I get that there’s a lot of people that do like the harder difficulty, but a HUGE portion of our player base just wants to do story, and they don’t want to have to struggle with difficult things.”

...

“I totally hear you on the difficulty thing. I like things to be more difficult. But the data doesn’t lie. And we have never been more successful than where we are today. And a lot of that has to do with just how much freedom players have to go an experience story.”

“And yes, go look at Craglorn. There’s not a lot of people in Craglorn and that’s not super difficult but it’s more hard than the regular overland.”

On a Toggle:

"Uh, it is not as simple as just flip a switch and make things more difficult. There is a ton of work, and then as lucky mentioned earlier you have to also incentivize that. Like just making something more difficult for no reason, if you're not going to get anything out of it why do it, you know? The satisfaction is there sure, but players are always going to do the thing that is the most efficient and is the least difficult thing for their time.So like I said, we went down that route. We built the game with difficulty in mind and 2/3 of the game was never played by players, so we changed it.”

On Splitting the playerbase using different difficulty sliders/settings[Source]

'We get this question or request a lot too. We built overland content to be inclusive because as an MMO we want to unify as much of the player base as possible in a given zone. Difficulty sliders and settings are a detriment to that."

On what content players want to do these days (this was NOT said about Vet Overland, but instead was in an different interview where they asked him this question. While this response was never meant by him to address Vet Overland, I do think it's pertinent to know what is the vast majority of content that players engage in)[Source]

The vast majority of our player base loves the exploration, loves the lore, loves the story side of things. So we focus a lot of our time and effort on that. Two of our four major updates every year are focused on story and exploration. The other two are focused on quality of life, are focused on group-oriented activities with the dungeons or adding new systems.

In a nutshell, players want to see that you are going to put the effort into improving the game over time. And if you continue to do that, they’re going to stay and play and have a good time.

For the full transcript of the Rich interview check out SilverBride post.

SilverBride wrote: »

Rich Lambert recently addressed this in a Twitch stream here and gives an explanation as to why things are as they are now. I encourage others to please watch it for his perspective.
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1133028256?t=1h48m0s 1:48:00 through 1:51:11

It appears the full video is no longer available and may have been taken down, but the first part of the stream is avaialble here: https://clips.twitch.tv/BovineLovelyGrassTakeNRG-IGkmH8s1XHeD9P2u

Click SPOILER for a written transcript of the complete stream.

Can we get a vet mode for delves and quests? Uh, so we had that ... at launch. It was called Cadwell's Silver and Cadwell's Gold. Nobody did it and everybody hated it, so we took it out. We put the challenge into World Bosses, and into solo Arenas, and into Dungeons and Trials.

[Speaks about skyshards then returns to the topic.]

People didn't do it because they had to go through their own alliance first? That's not actually true. A ton of people completed their own alliance storylines to get to silver and gold. A ton of people did. People just did not like the extra difficulty in the story stuff.

I get there’s a lot of people that do like the harder difficulty, but a HUGE portion of our player base just wants to do story, and they don’t want to have to struggle with difficult things. And so that was why we did what we did and said story is soloable and quick path will always be soloable and if you want the extra challenge you can go seek out other things to challenge you.

I totally hear you on the difficulty thing. I like things to be more difficult. But you know, the data doesn’t lie. And we have never been more successful than we are today. And a lot of that has to do with just how much freedom players have to go and experience story.

And yes, go look at Craglorn. There’s not a lot of people in Craglorn and that’s not super difficult but it’s more hard than the regular overland.

Would it be an option just to give people the choice? It is not as simple as just flip a switch and make things more difficult. There is a TON of work and then as Lucky mentioned earlier you have to also incentivize that. Like just making something more difficult for no reason, if you’re not going to get anything out of it why do it? The satisfaction's there sure but players are always going to do the thing that is the most efficient and is the least difficult thing for their time.

So, you know like I said, we went down that route. We built the game with difficulty in mind and 2/3rds of the game was never played by players so we changed it.

For an official interview check out Zathras post

_Zathras_ wrote: »

The relative ease of content in Elsweyr and Elder Scrolls Online as a whole has been a common complaint as the game's playerbase ages. Players have asked for alternate difficulty options for the open-world questing experience, to have a challenge outside of dungeons and trials. Lambert says that this probably won't be coming because Zenimax Online wants the entire storyline to be accessible.

"Balance is obviously a tricky thing. What is too easy for one player is impossible for another," he tells us. "We try to balance so that the average player can have a good experience, especially with the main story content. That's our critical path. If they want to challenge themselves, they can go and do Public Dungeons, or Trials with 12 of their friends. We do make that conscious choice with the crit path to make it playable for as many people as possible."

"As for the extra difficulty, that's something our playerbase has talked about for a long time. A lot of our original players forget that we had that with [Cadwell's Gold and Silver] way back when. The feedback that we got about that was they didn't like it. It wasn't fun. The extra difficulty wasn't what they wanted. They wanted to enjoy the story. It's a catch-22."

Source

summ0004

Regardless of what ZOS believes there is still a large number of customers that will not be purchasing the story chapters if they do not not include some sort of optional difficulty in the story quests as it represents poor value for money.

If the lack of difficulty prevents some players from enjoying the quests then there is absolutely no value or point in spending £30 to just have an extra trial and a dungeon for the content.

I believe ZOS is missing an opportunity to connect with more players.

SilverBride

summ0004 wrote: »

Regardless of what ZOS believes there is still a large number of customers that will not be purchasing the story chapters if they do not not include some sort of optional difficulty in the story quests as it represents poor value for money.

I have never heard a single person in zone chat, in guild chat or on my friend's list even once say anything about being unhappy with overland, or that they will not purchase any more chapters unless they get an optional difficulty. On the contrary, according to Rich Lambert (from a Twitch stream 2 months ago) ESO is doing better now than it ever has.

Edited to clarify.

spartaxoxo

Nvm

spartaxoxo

summ0004 wrote: »

Regardless of what ZOS believes there is still a large number of customers that will not be purchasing the story chapters if they do not not include some sort of optional difficulty in the story quests as it represents poor value for money.

If the lack of difficulty prevents some players from enjoying the quests then there is absolutely no value or point in spending £30 to just have an extra trial and a dungeon for the content.

I believe ZOS is missing an opportunity to connect with more players.

Given that a lot of people in the past who like this idea state that all they do is wait around for a single trial/ dungeons and (rightfully) state that this is too little content, that would indicate they are actually buying the chapters. There's no way to quantify who quit over it, but of those who want this and are still playing, many of them are loyal customers who are still buying everything.

Araneae6537

For general overland, I’m quite happy with how it is now. I would also be okay with fewer but more interesting/difficult enemies which I could engage or avoid if careful. I don’t want a difficult slog when I’m just chilling, collecting surveys, etc.

For quests and other main bosses, I absolutely would like for them to scale better or have optional difficulty settings.

colossalvoids

spartaxoxo wrote: »

summ0004 wrote: »

Regardless of what ZOS believes there is still a large number of customers that will not be purchasing the story chapters if they do not not include some sort of optional difficulty in the story quests as it represents poor value for money.

If the lack of difficulty prevents some players from enjoying the quests then there is absolutely no value or point in spending £30 to just have an extra trial and a dungeon for the content.

I believe ZOS is missing an opportunity to connect with more players.

Given that a lot of people in the past who like this idea state that all they do is wait around for a single trial/ dungeons and (rightfully) state that this is too little content, that would indicate they are actually buying the chapters. There's no way to quantify who quit over it, but of those who want this and are still playing, many of them are loyal customers who are still buying everything.

Obviously not all of us are voting with their wallets (partially because zos can't analyse such data, they have zero idea why exactly) hence this thread. And it would be nice if not every single post would be welcomed here with a copy pasta of how it should be optional or how everyone is enjoying the game as it is without such options, it's just cluttering.

spartaxoxo

colossalvoids wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

summ0004 wrote: »

Regardless of what ZOS believes there is still a large number of customers that will not be purchasing the story chapters if they do not not include some sort of optional difficulty in the story quests as it represents poor value for money.

If the lack of difficulty prevents some players from enjoying the quests then there is absolutely no value or point in spending £30 to just have an extra trial and a dungeon for the content.

I believe ZOS is missing an opportunity to connect with more players.

Given that a lot of people in the past who like this idea state that all they do is wait around for a single trial/ dungeons and (rightfully) state that this is too little content, that would indicate they are actually buying the chapters. There's no way to quantify who quit over it, but of those who want this and are still playing, many of them are loyal customers who are still buying everything.

Obviously not all of us are voting with their wallets (partially because zos can't analyse such data, they have zero idea why exactly) hence this thread. And it would be nice if not every single post would be welcomed here with a copy pasta of how it should be optional or how everyone is enjoying the game as it is without such options, it's just cluttering.

If someone posts a new idea that makes it mandatory like automatically cp scaling all the mobs, or making the mobs outside towns the dangerous ones, people are gonna discuss the pros and cons of the idea. That's how discussion works.

If the con is it would be mandatory, you can't really expect someone not to point out this new idea is mandatory. 🤷‍♀️

I also only pointed out the wallet thing as a reply to someone saying people aren't buying the new stuff. I don't think it means it's a not a problem worth fixing, just saying that zos is not likely seeing a problem with chapter sales on their end because it seems like a lot of the people who have this issue state they are loyal customers who still buy everything.

Can't really read these responses in a vacuum. A lot of them are responses to what others are saying. 🤷‍♀️

As I have said before, regardless of it being a minority of players, zos should still change things because it's clearly upsetting a sizable portion of their core install base. We may not agree on what that something should be, but I am in complete agreement something needs to be done.

summ0004

SilverBride wrote: »

summ0004 wrote: »

Regardless of what ZOS believes there is still a large number of customers that will not be purchasing the story chapters if they do not not include some sort of optional difficulty in the story quests as it represents poor value for money.

I have never heard a single person in zone chat, in guild chat or on my friend's list even once say anything about being unhappy with overland, or that they will not purchase any more chapters unless they get an optional difficulty. On the contrary, according to Rich Lambert (from a Twitch stream 2 months ago) ESO is doing better now than it ever has.

Edited to clarify.

That may well have been the case in the past but if things dont change/improve or evolve then things start to stagnate. Comparing what was doesnt indicate what is, or what might be in the future as things are in a constant change all the time and it would be unwise to not consider some additional improvements to the game with newer competition and shifting customers expectations.

The fact that these threads exist show that quite a number of players would liike some sort of changes, and as most agree with optional changes it will not affect those who prefer quests to be a walk and talk simulator.

I dont play PvP but would happily support improvements for those that want it, so lets all be considerate and consider some support for optional quest difficulties for those that want it.

Let the thread give ideas about how to implement changes rather than just repeating that everything is all ok or not ok. Lets focus on building on solutions with which I know a few have been suggested that have had majority support.

spartaxoxo

summ0004 wrote: »

Let the thread give ideas about how to implement changes rather than just repeating that everything is all ok or not ok. Lets focus on building on solutions with which I know a few have been suggested that have had majority support.

I mean, then offer some?

Because what this last page conversation change was

Person X is toxic
Person X is not toxic just because they disagree
Yeah, but Person X is acting like the developers said xyz when it's just their opinion. And then tell me my mine is just an opinion while there's is a fact.
The developers DID say xyz
Well regardless of what they believe a large portion want this
It's not that large of a portion
OMG you can't just say it's not a large portion...

Like...the thread got dragged back on this topic because someone decided to make it about other people instead of solutions.

Y'all don't like debuffs. We don't like a total overhaul.

So what's a solution inbetween redoing the entire overland experience and just tossing in debuff food?

Like let's find that. That's what I'm interested in. CP scaling I didn't like because it makes it mandatory. Any other ideas? I don't have any but it's got to be out there.

SilverBride

summ0004 wrote: »

That may well have been the case in the past but if things dont change/improve or evolve then things start to stagnate. Comparing what was doesnt indicate what is...

Just 2 months ago Rich Lambert said that ESO is doing better now than it ever has, so this is a fact about the current state of the game.

summ0004 wrote: »

The fact that these threads exist show that quite a number of players would liike some sort of changes, and as most agree with optional changes it will not affect those who prefer quests to be a walk and talk simulator.

These threads show that some players want more difficult overland, but having multiple threads does not indicate that it is a large number of players.

A lot of posters on both sides of the debate do agree to options, but what these options would be is not agreed upon.

summ0004 wrote: »

I dont play PvP but would happily support improvements for those that want it...

Many of us opposed to a separate veteran overland have suggested options to make others experience more enjoyable, even though we would never use these options ourselves.

summ0004 wrote: »

Let the thread give ideas about how to implement changes rather than just repeating that everything is all ok or not ok. Lets focus on building on solutions with which I know a few have been suggested that have had majority support.

This thread is for feedback on the state of overland, not just for feedback backing up solutions for a problem not all are experiencing.

I love this game as it is now, and remember how bad it was before, and will stand up against suggestions that I perceive as harmful to the game and the general playerbase.

Edited to clarify.

summ0004

spartaxoxo wrote: »

summ0004 wrote: »

Let the thread give ideas about how to implement changes rather than just repeating that everything is all ok or not ok. Lets focus on building on solutions with which I know a few have been suggested that have had majority support.

I mean, then offer some?

Because what this last page conversation change was

Person X is toxic
Person X is not toxic just because they disagree
Yeah, but Person X is acting like the developers said xyz when it's just their opinion. And then tell me my mine is just an opinion while there's is a fact.
The developers DID say xyz
Well regardless of what they believe a large portion want this
It's not that large of a portion
OMG you can't just say it's not a large portion...

Like...the thread got dragged back on this topic because someone decided to make it about other people instead of solutions.

Y'all don't like debuffs. We don't like a total overhaul.

So what's a solution inbetween redoing the entire overland experience and just tossing in debuff food?

Like let's find that. That's what I'm interested in. CP scaling I didn't like because it makes it mandatory. Any other ideas? I don't have any but it's got to be out there.

I have already suggested some earlier in the thread and am more than happy with the concept of leaving overland mobs being braindead easy, but at least support the idea of having a couple of difficulty scrolls so at least the quest bosses can provide a more fun and better fight for those players that want it.

I personally dont like the idea ot the moment of a debuff scroll and wouldnt use this myself, but I would support this notion if other people would want to use it.

I would like to point out I am not forcing the concept of a veteran overland on anyone as I understand the difficulty in implementing.

summ0004

[quote="SilverBride;c-7454035"

This thread is for feedback on the state of overland, not just for feedback backing up solutions for a problem not all are experiencing.

I love this game as it is now, and remember how bad it was before, and will stand up against suggestions that I perceive as harmful to the game and the general playerbase.

Edited to clarify.[/quote]

There are some options that have been raised such as the difficulty scrolls that have not been disagreed by hardly any people, so this would be an option to implement that would not require many resources and would a compromise to make more people happier.

I know more people would not use these scrolls and like the quests to be a walk and talk simulator, but there is a larger significant minority that would enjoy doing overland again if this was implemented.

Things such as PvP, companions, trials and housing are not all done by the majority of players, but there is a large enough minority of players to make adding these things helpful, and improvements in overland questing should be not be the exception.