Overland Content Feedback Thread

Lysette

fizl101 wrote: »

@Lysette Rich Lambert has said that it is not cloud technology, they designed their own architecture for the megaservers

ok, still I guess it is somewhat scalable, but eventually not enough for a solution like this, if several thousands would want a private instance. I guess the best source for user data like this ZOS could get from Bethesda (Fallout 76) and their premium accounts - which includes private instances afaik. I'm not playing it, but I found the idea of private instances quite good.

spartaxoxo

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

How anyone could make the argument that there isn't a financial incentive to attract and retain players when this has been such a recurrent discussion within and outside these forums is not just disingenuous, it's downright revisionism.

No. It's not. As someone pointed out in the very thread you linked, ESO is more successful than ever by catering primarily to casuals. And most MMOs also cater their questing to casuals as it's what makes the most money.

I am not saying that notning should be done. But you can't ignore that ESO is far more successful as a casual game than ever was before, and that the financial incentive with companies is to keep doing what makes them successful and drew in the largest audience.

When the potential audience is smaller in number, major changes can easily become something that loses money because you anger more people than you please.

It doesn't mean the company should be doing nothing. But it does mean you should temper your expectations. Any changes have to be changes that don't threaten the casual audience, that's where the big financial incentive is.

They definitely should be doing something though. But I would assume that such content would be new instead of overhauling all the old stuff, and that it wouldn't split the playerbase. The latter of which is their most cited reason by multiple developers for not having fixed this issue. I would assume that's the biggest sticking point, as splitting the playerbase is the one that would harm the casual experience and potentially make changes result in a loss not a gain. Same with anything forced.

tophatsaur

The biggest issue for me, coming from the perspective of a very casual and lore-focused player, is the speed at which the player character moves (doubly so if playing a medium-armour character). There are these huge and beautifully designed interior areas for questing, but no real incentive to stay and look at anything - because your character’s speed is insane. Just by holding shift, you outrun every single enemy within the encounter and reach whatever objective is at the end, whether that be the boss or whatever else.

It got to the point that I was trying to equip any gear other than medium in order to just slow the pace of things down, but even in full heavy, it is far more convenient to dash past every single enemy than to engage any of them or engage with the environment.

I also find it absurd at the suggestion that completing a chapter within a few evenings is “binge-playing”, thinly veiled insult aside. I am not much of a typical “gamer”, I can only manage to play a couple nights a week, but even then I am capable very easily of completing the main quest of a chapter in a little under an evening of playtime. This isn’t binge-playing; this is spending a few hours to *play the game* the way it is intended.

I am not a high CP player (sub-300), nor do I play a very optimised build (warden stamina healer), but I still find myself getting through content far faster than is reasonable for me to be able to foreseeably play this game for a long time. It’s far too quick and easy to run out of overland content simply by playing as is normal.

Harvokaan

I really don't understand some of the arguments of anti vet crwod. At the beginning they repeated that there are some technical problems with proposed solution, even when it was raised multiple times that we don't have the data to support claim like that and we shouldn't do developers job as without access to the code, we cannot confirm something is "too hard/too easy/require a lot of work/require little amount of work", we only have a speculations. So now, this crowd started a discussion about how zos should monetize this feature? Like wtf, this is something for zos to consider, why we even waste time trying to dillude this thread with another pointless discussion for which we again dont have the data or even power to do anything at all. Zos doesn't need our suggestion how to monetize content, they do that all the time by themselves.
For me access to vet overland could be even a part of chapter feature, I would probably buy a chapter like that only for this. But all those suggestions like private instances for second eso+ price sounds ridiculous. Do you pay for companions after you bought the chapter? Or jewelery crafting? Necromancer/warden class? You own the chapter = you have the access to those features.
Vet overland would help player retention, and when ppl are staying longer in the game == bigger chance they will use crown store (however current CS is outdated and put almost every new nice thing in crates which definietely didn't encourage ppl to spend money there unless they have a problem with hazard, at some point it should change a little to keep ppl interested)
I'm all up for vet separate instances but tbh I'm against thousands of individual instances. I believe adding one/two vet instances per zone is much less work (both for devs and the server) then creating thousands of separate instances for individuals.

Captain_OP

Harvokaan wrote: »

I really don't understand some of the arguments of anti vet crwod. At the beginning they repeated that there are some technical problems with proposed solution, even when it was raised multiple times that we don't have the data to support claim like that and we shouldn't do developers job as without access to the code, we cannot confirm something is "too hard/too easy/require a lot of work/require little amount of work", we only have a speculations. So now, this crowd started a discussion about how zos should monetize this feature? Like wtf, this is something for zos to consider, why we even waste time trying to dillude this thread with another pointless discussion for which we again dont have the data or even power to do anything at all. Zos doesn't need our suggestion how to monetize content, they do that all the time by themselves.
For me access to vet overland could be even a part of chapter feature, I would probably buy a chapter like that only for this. But all those suggestions like private instances for second eso+ price sounds ridiculous. Do you pay for companions after you bought the chapter? Or jewelery crafting? Necromancer/warden class? You own the chapter = you have the access to those features.
Vet overland would help player retention, and when ppl are staying longer in the game == bigger chance they will use crown store (however current CS is outdated and put almost every new nice thing in crates which definietely didn't encourage ppl to spend money there unless they have a problem with hazard, at some point it should change a little to keep ppl interested)
I'm all up for vet separate instances but tbh I'm against thousands of individual instances. I believe adding one/two vet instances per zone is much less work (both for devs and the server) then creating thousands of separate instances for individuals.

[Snip]

i have to admit that they interuppet any further constructive discussion and made everybody focus on the things they brought up. If this was their goal, then they did accomplish it.

This is still what we want and there was no Argument in 9 Pages(Page 56) of discussion brought up that changed something of this.

[edited for bait]

Captain_OP wrote: »

Like others already stated, this discussion is running in circles. Let`s move on and write the summary and the conclusion.

I start with a summary, broken down into the main points:

1. People want to choose their difficulty in Overland and Main Story.
2. Changing stats alone, could lead to disappointment.
3. For increased difficulty little rewards are expected.
4. Even if players dont play together in the same difficulty their communication should not be seperated aswell.
5. How it is done and everything technical is up to the developer team and can not be calcuated and rated by us the plaerbase.

Harvokaan wrote: »

6. Main problem of dissapointing difficulty are enemies related to quests. Incursions or WBs is something that many players don't have problem with. Multiple ppl stated that quest boss dying in couple seconds is the problem, not world bosses (but voices for increasing wb difficulty also happened)
7. Zos should introduce some method to measure what is the real % of the players who would use new vet overland feature as they dont have the data for that now. They could for example introduce vet zone for new chapter and later check the numbers how popular it was. Of course it is just a suggestion but this issue is important: zos doesn't know how many players would benefit from that. Solid numbers would give them more infos about what direction they should take

Lysette

tophatsaur wrote: »

The biggest issue for me, coming from the perspective of a very casual and lore-focused player, is the speed at which the player character moves (doubly so if playing a medium-armour character). There are these huge and beautifully designed interior areas for questing, but no real incentive to stay and look at anything - because your character’s speed is insane. Just by holding shift, you outrun every single enemy within the encounter and reach whatever objective is at the end, whether that be the boss or whatever else.

It got to the point that I was trying to equip any gear other than medium in order to just slow the pace of things down, but even in full heavy, it is far more convenient to dash past every single enemy than to engage any of them or engage with the environment.

I also find it absurd at the suggestion that completing a chapter within a few evenings is “binge-playing”, thinly veiled insult aside. I am not much of a typical “gamer”, I can only manage to play a couple nights a week, but even then I am capable very easily of completing the main quest of a chapter in a little under an evening of playtime. This isn’t binge-playing; this is spending a few hours to *play the game* the way it is intended.

I am not a high CP player (sub-300), nor do I play a very optimised build (warden stamina healer), but I still find myself getting through content far faster than is reasonable for me to be able to foreseeably play this game for a long time. It’s far too quick and easy to run out of overland content simply by playing as is normal.

A zone has much more to offer than just the main quest though - when it was said, that they can do a chapter in a few evenings, I assumed that they meant the complete content, not just the main story of that chapter. Btw health organizations consider anything beyond 14-15hrs/week as potentially addictive behavior - this is why I used the term binge-playing to point out, that most of us - me included - are far beyond those 15hrs/week - but that is not the norm, I know quite a lot of people, who like playing video games and are below those 15hrs/week - which seems to be normal gaming behavior - ZOS might know those numbers better, how long their players play in average per week - but doing a chapter in just a few evenings is most likely not how most players experience it - it lasts a lot longer for them, and some might never complete it.

Just to name a few things, which belong as well to the content of a chapter - like having caught all the special fish in that zone, having excavated every item which one could acquire in that chapter zone, having done all the side quests, having found all the lore books, having found all the skyshards - having completed all the lore dependent discoveries - there is more content than that, have you done all of those as well in just a few evenings?

spartaxoxo

Harvokaan wrote: »

At the beginning they repeated that there are some technical problems with proposed solution, even when it was raised multiple times that we don't have the data to support claim like that and we shouldn't do developers job as without access to the code, we cannot confirm something is "too hard/too easy/require a lot of work/require little amount of work", we only have a speculations.

We don't only have speculations, we have a quote from the creative director of the game who flat out said it was a ton of work.

"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.

What the developers say is the closest to objective fact that anybody has because not one person has the data or knowledge to contradict them. It is a ton of work because they said it was a ton of work, period.

Expecting us to take the word of a third party about it not being a ton of work over the word of the Creative Director of the game, without literally any evidence whatsoever is just frankly head scratching.

And frankly being unable to acknowledge any cons whatsoever makes an argument for an idea weaker, not stronger

We did not cite that as a reason that it hasn't been done, Rich Lambert did. We simply chose to believe the authority on the issue.

Edit:

But all those suggestions like private instances for second eso+ price sounds ridiculous.

There is no crowd of people suggesting this, it is one person. And I for one also disagree with them.

Lysette

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Harvokaan wrote: »

At the beginning they repeated that there are some technical problems with proposed solution, even when it was raised multiple times that we don't have the data to support claim like that and we shouldn't do developers job as without access to the code, we cannot confirm something is "too hard/too easy/require a lot of work/require little amount of work", we only have a speculations.

We don't only have speculations, we have a quote from the creative director of the game who flat out said it was a ton of work.

"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.

What the developers say is the closest to objective fact that anybody has because not one person has the data or knowledge to contradict them. It is a ton of work because they said it was a ton of work, period.

Expecting us to take the word of a biased third party about it not being a ton of work over the word of the Creative Director of the game, without literally any evidence whatsoever is just frankly head scratching.

And frankly being unable to acknowledge any cons whatsoever makes an argument for an idea weaker, not stronger.

It certainly is a ton of work, because there is a lot to consider and making up their minds about it and testing it and so forth is a ton of work - but so is pealing a sack full of almonds - it is a ton of work, but still easy to do, you understand?

I guess the hardest part is not even conceptualizing it and coding and testing it, but to convince the management, that it is something worth doing - it has to be economically viable to be done - some ideas are fantastic, but they do not fit into the budget or don't generate enough profit to be realized.

spartaxoxo

Lysette wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Harvokaan wrote: »

At the beginning they repeated that there are some technical problems with proposed solution, even when it was raised multiple times that we don't have the data to support claim like that and we shouldn't do developers job as without access to the code, we cannot confirm something is "too hard/too easy/require a lot of work/require little amount of work", we only have a speculations.

We don't only have speculations, we have a quote from the creative director of the game who flat out said it was a ton of work.

"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.

What the developers say is the closest to objective fact that anybody has because not one person has the data or knowledge to contradict them. It is a ton of work because they said it was a ton of work, period.

Expecting us to take the word of a biased third party about it not being a ton of work over the word of the Creative Director of the game, without literally any evidence whatsoever is just frankly head scratching.

And frankly being unable to acknowledge any cons whatsoever makes an argument for an idea weaker, not stronger.

It certainly is a ton of work, because there is a lot to consider and making up their minds about it and testing it and so forth is a ton of work - but so is pealing a sack of almonds - it is a ton of work, but still easy to do, you understand?

They are clearly talking about the technical issues are a lot of work. And you nor anyone else know how their stuff is structured or what it would take. They do. They have already stated before that they are the only mmo structured the way they are in a separate discussion about why pvp fixes are taking so long.

You guys don't know because you don't work there. The developers work there. They know what would be a ton of work and we do not.

Lysette

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Harvokaan wrote: »

At the beginning they repeated that there are some technical problems with proposed solution, even when it was raised multiple times that we don't have the data to support claim like that and we shouldn't do developers job as without access to the code, we cannot confirm something is "too hard/too easy/require a lot of work/require little amount of work", we only have a speculations.

We don't only have speculations, we have a quote from the creative director of the game who flat out said it was a ton of work.

"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.

What the developers say is the closest to objective fact that anybody has because not one person has the data or knowledge to contradict them. It is a ton of work because they said it was a ton of work, period.

Expecting us to take the word of a biased third party about it not being a ton of work over the word of the Creative Director of the game, without literally any evidence whatsoever is just frankly head scratching.

And frankly being unable to acknowledge any cons whatsoever makes an argument for an idea weaker, not stronger.

It certainly is a ton of work, because there is a lot to consider and making up their minds about it and testing it and so forth is a ton of work - but so is pealing a sack of almonds - it is a ton of work, but still easy to do, you understand?

They are clearly talking about the technical issues are a lot of work. And you nor anyone else know how their stuff is structured or what it would take. They do. They have already stated before that they are the only mmo structured the way they are in a separate discussion about why pvp fixes are taking so long.

You guys don't know because you don't work there. The developers work there. They know what would be a ton of work and we do not.

What I was trying to say is, if something is a ton of work, that does not necessarily imply that it is as well hard to do. Like each chapter or DLC is a ton of work, but they have an experienced team, for whom it is a lot of work, but not really hard to do, they are used to it.

The performance issue for example is a totally different beast - because it is basically like sisyphus rolling a barrel uphill and never getting there - that is why this is so hard - the original concept was based on facts, which are no longer valid and to get this now into a somewhat workable state is like a sisyphus job - because when they managed to get an improvement, more players will flood in and make these improvements obsolete again - and the work starts all over - this is tragic in a way.

spartaxoxo

Lysette wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Harvokaan wrote: »

At the beginning they repeated that there are some technical problems with proposed solution, even when it was raised multiple times that we don't have the data to support claim like that and we shouldn't do developers job as without access to the code, we cannot confirm something is "too hard/too easy/require a lot of work/require little amount of work", we only have a speculations.

We don't only have speculations, we have a quote from the creative director of the game who flat out said it was a ton of work.

"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.

What the developers say is the closest to objective fact that anybody has because not one person has the data or knowledge to contradict them. It is a ton of work because they said it was a ton of work, period.

Expecting us to take the word of a biased third party about it not being a ton of work over the word of the Creative Director of the game, without literally any evidence whatsoever is just frankly head scratching.

And frankly being unable to acknowledge any cons whatsoever makes an argument for an idea weaker, not stronger.

It certainly is a ton of work, because there is a lot to consider and making up their minds about it and testing it and so forth is a ton of work - but so is pealing a sack of almonds - it is a ton of work, but still easy to do, you understand?

They are clearly talking about the technical issues are a lot of work. And you nor anyone else know how their stuff is structured or what it would take. They do. They have already stated before that they are the only mmo structured the way they are in a separate discussion about why pvp fixes are taking so long.

You guys don't know because you don't work there. The developers work there. They know what would be a ton of work and we do not.

What I was trying to say is, if something is a ton of work, that does not necessarily imply that it is as well hard to do.

Well they say it's "not as easy as flipping a switch, it would be a ton of work" as well, which means they are dismissing the idea that it would be easy.

It's not a trivial task for them. If it was and it did no harm to the playerbase and they thought it was just free money lying on the table, they'd have done it already. They are well aware this is something a sizable minority want or they wouldn't keep addressing it.

It's just a ton of work. And they have said separately in the past that same thing about why they don't do other fixes as well to old content. They'd rather work on new stuff as a general rule.

Lysette

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Harvokaan wrote: »

At the beginning they repeated that there are some technical problems with proposed solution, even when it was raised multiple times that we don't have the data to support claim like that and we shouldn't do developers job as without access to the code, we cannot confirm something is "too hard/too easy/require a lot of work/require little amount of work", we only have a speculations.

We don't only have speculations, we have a quote from the creative director of the game who flat out said it was a ton of work.

"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.

What the developers say is the closest to objective fact that anybody has because not one person has the data or knowledge to contradict them. It is a ton of work because they said it was a ton of work, period.

Expecting us to take the word of a biased third party about it not being a ton of work over the word of the Creative Director of the game, without literally any evidence whatsoever is just frankly head scratching.

And frankly being unable to acknowledge any cons whatsoever makes an argument for an idea weaker, not stronger.

It certainly is a ton of work, because there is a lot to consider and making up their minds about it and testing it and so forth is a ton of work - but so is pealing a sack of almonds - it is a ton of work, but still easy to do, you understand?

They are clearly talking about the technical issues are a lot of work. And you nor anyone else know how their stuff is structured or what it would take. They do. They have already stated before that they are the only mmo structured the way they are in a separate discussion about why pvp fixes are taking so long.

You guys don't know because you don't work there. The developers work there. They know what would be a ton of work and we do not.

What I was trying to say is, if something is a ton of work, that does not necessarily imply that it is as well hard to do.

Well they say it's "not as easy as flipping a switch, it would be a ton of work" as well, which means they are dismissing the idea that it would be easy.

It's not a trivial task for them. If it was and it did no harm to the playerbase and they thought it was just free money lying on the table, they'd have done it already. They are well aware this is something a sizable minority want or they wouldn't keep addressing it.

It's just a ton of work. And they have said separately in the past that same thing about why they don't do other fixes as well to old content. They'd rather work on new stuff as a general rule.

Nah, it is just what he said - it is a ton of work and not as easy as flipping a switch - everything else either you or me interpret into his words - he never said it would be hard or overall trivial - he just said, it is not that simple and quickly done. That does not imply it to be hard - it might just be time consuming for example, to get to a consent, how to do it, to make nearly everyone happy with it - and that is a ton of work to figure that out for example.

spartaxoxo

Lysette wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Harvokaan wrote: »

At the beginning they repeated that there are some technical problems with proposed solution, even when it was raised multiple times that we don't have the data to support claim like that and we shouldn't do developers job as without access to the code, we cannot confirm something is "too hard/too easy/require a lot of work/require little amount of work", we only have a speculations.

We don't only have speculations, we have a quote from the creative director of the game who flat out said it was a ton of work.

"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.

What the developers say is the closest to objective fact that anybody has because not one person has the data or knowledge to contradict them. It is a ton of work because they said it was a ton of work, period.

Expecting us to take the word of a biased third party about it not being a ton of work over the word of the Creative Director of the game, without literally any evidence whatsoever is just frankly head scratching.

And frankly being unable to acknowledge any cons whatsoever makes an argument for an idea weaker, not stronger.

It certainly is a ton of work, because there is a lot to consider and making up their minds about it and testing it and so forth is a ton of work - but so is pealing a sack of almonds - it is a ton of work, but still easy to do, you understand?

They are clearly talking about the technical issues are a lot of work. And you nor anyone else know how their stuff is structured or what it would take. They do. They have already stated before that they are the only mmo structured the way they are in a separate discussion about why pvp fixes are taking so long.

You guys don't know because you don't work there. The developers work there. They know what would be a ton of work and we do not.

What I was trying to say is, if something is a ton of work, that does not necessarily imply that it is as well hard to do.

Well they say it's "not as easy as flipping a switch, it would be a ton of work" as well, which means they are dismissing the idea that it would be easy.

It's not a trivial task for them. If it was and it did no harm to the playerbase and they thought it was just free money lying on the table, they'd have done it already. They are well aware this is something a sizable minority want or they wouldn't keep addressing it.

It's just a ton of work. And they have said separately in the past that same thing about why they don't do other fixes as well to old content. They'd rather work on new stuff as a general rule.

Nah, it is just what he said - it is a ton of work and not as easy as flipping a switch - everything else either you and me interpret into his words - he never said it would be hard or overall trivial - he just said, it is not that simple and quickly done. That does not imply it to be hard - it might just be time consuming for example, to get to a consent, how to do it, to make nearly everyone happy with it - and that is a ton of work to figure that out for example.

Not as simple as flipping a switch is just an indirect way of saying not trivial.

He was speaking about technical issues not team meetings, so we should assume that he was talking about his chosen topic unless told otherwise.

Lysette

spartaxoxo wrote: »

It's just a ton of work. And they have said separately in the past that same thing about why they don't do other fixes as well to old content. They'd rather work on new stuff as a general rule.

Yeah, and I understand completely why - if you create new content and it is good work, you get praise and eventually even a raise of your salary - but if you fix bugs and performance, you have just done what was expected from you - it is that tragic.

But it is not as if ZOS wouldn't try to get things right, which weren't that good before - I was off for a couple of months, and now those shoulder pieces of armor fit a lot better to the shoulders of my characters - my gameplay is no longer disrupted by 3 disconnects per hour, it is now a stable connection for the whole session - this is all stuff, for which those having worked on it might not get any praise - I will say thank you to those having worked on it here, I really appreciate the work which has been done on so many of these minor issues, which bothered a whole lot of people for a long time - you guys did a really good job with it.

spartaxoxo

Lysette wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

It's just a ton of work. And they have said separately in the past that same thing about why they don't do other fixes as well to old content. They'd rather work on new stuff as a general rule.

Yeah, and I understand completely why - if you create new content and it is good work, you get praise and eventually even a raise of your salary - but if you fix bugs and performance, you have just done what was expected from you - it is that tragic.

Also players generally want new content over minor changes to old stuff.

Which do you think would bring more players and money? A new verision of Skyrim with a bunch of bug fixes and a new difficulty mode, or Elder Scrolls 6?

That's one reason why I suggested new standalone adventure zones as a vet overland content. Yeah it would also be a ton of work, that's a con, but it would also be new. New and monetizable.

Lysette

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

It's just a ton of work. And they have said separately in the past that same thing about why they don't do other fixes as well to old content. They'd rather work on new stuff as a general rule.

Yeah, and I understand completely why - if you create new content and it is good work, you get praise and eventually even a raise of your salary - but if you fix bugs and performance, you have just done what was expected from you - it is that tragic.

Also players generally want new content over minor changes to old stuff.

Which do you think would bring more players and money? A new verision of Skyrim with a bunch of bug fixes and a new difficulty mode, or Elder Scrolls 6?

That's one reason why I suggested new standalone adventure zones as a vet overland content. Yeah it would also be a ton of work, that's a con, but it would also be new. New and monetizable.

yeah, I wouldn't mind if they would care for you guys with new content for a year for example - I have more than enough to do in those zones, which exist already - but the thing is, if they can just do one or the other, what is more likely to be done?- I guess that is again more an economical decision than a technical one - if they care for you guys and cant care for the majority meanwhile, then the majority will be disappointed - it wouldn't bother me, because I play snail pace, but I guess a lot would not be happy, if there is no content for them for a year - it is a difficult trade-off unfortunately.

That is why I like the idea of private instances - even it has it's drawbacks as well - it could be a solution for both - the casual majority as well as vet players who want to choose their own difficulty levels - but there is eventually the technical side of it, which might not be that easy to do, because the game is not yet in cloud space.

spartaxoxo

Lysette wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

It's just a ton of work. And they have said separately in the past that same thing about why they don't do other fixes as well to old content. They'd rather work on new stuff as a general rule.

Yeah, and I understand completely why - if you create new content and it is good work, you get praise and eventually even a raise of your salary - but if you fix bugs and performance, you have just done what was expected from you - it is that tragic.

Also players generally want new content over minor changes to old stuff.

Which do you think would bring more players and money? A new verision of Skyrim with a bunch of bug fixes and a new difficulty mode, or Elder Scrolls 6?

That's one reason why I suggested new standalone adventure zones as a vet overland content. Yeah it would also be a ton of work, that's a con, but it would also be new. New and monetizable.

yeah, I wouldn't mind if they would care for you guys with new content for a year for example - I have more than enough to do in those zones, which exist already - but the thing is, if they can just do one or the other, what is more likely to be done?- I guess that is again more an economical decision than a technical one - if they care for you guys and cant care for the majority meanwhile, then the majority will be disappointed - it wouldn't bother me, because I play snail pace, but I guess a lot would not be happy, if there is no content for them for a year - it is a difficult trade-off unfortunately.

It would just be the one zone, ideally as a replacement for a dungeon.

So casuals still get their year long story. But instead of a dungeon we vets get a standalone adventure zone.

Lysette

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

It's just a ton of work. And they have said separately in the past that same thing about why they don't do other fixes as well to old content. They'd rather work on new stuff as a general rule.

Yeah, and I understand completely why - if you create new content and it is good work, you get praise and eventually even a raise of your salary - but if you fix bugs and performance, you have just done what was expected from you - it is that tragic.

Also players generally want new content over minor changes to old stuff.

Which do you think would bring more players and money? A new verision of Skyrim with a bunch of bug fixes and a new difficulty mode, or Elder Scrolls 6?

That's one reason why I suggested new standalone adventure zones as a vet overland content. Yeah it would also be a ton of work, that's a con, but it would also be new. New and monetizable.

yeah, I wouldn't mind if they would care for you guys with new content for a year for example - I have more than enough to do in those zones, which exist already - but the thing is, if they can just do one or the other, what is more likely to be done?- I guess that is again more an economical decision than a technical one - if they care for you guys and cant care for the majority meanwhile, then the majority will be disappointed - it wouldn't bother me, because I play snail pace, but I guess a lot would not be happy, if there is no content for them for a year - it is a difficult trade-off unfortunately.

It would just be the one zone, ideally as a replacement for a dungeon.

So casuals still get their year long story. But instead of a dungeon we vets get a standalone adventure zone.

hahaha, you know, I would be all for it - you know why - it keeps you off overland content and I might have a better chance to complete a quest uninterrupted - it's egoistic, I know, but I wish you well with it.

But I imagine that ZOS might be reluctant to this idea, given their relatively bad experience with the original Craglorn zone.

spartaxoxo

Lysette wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

It's just a ton of work. And they have said separately in the past that same thing about why they don't do other fixes as well to old content. They'd rather work on new stuff as a general rule.

Yeah, and I understand completely why - if you create new content and it is good work, you get praise and eventually even a raise of your salary - but if you fix bugs and performance, you have just done what was expected from you - it is that tragic.

Also players generally want new content over minor changes to old stuff.

Which do you think would bring more players and money? A new verision of Skyrim with a bunch of bug fixes and a new difficulty mode, or Elder Scrolls 6?

That's one reason why I suggested new standalone adventure zones as a vet overland content. Yeah it would also be a ton of work, that's a con, but it would also be new. New and monetizable.

yeah, I wouldn't mind if they would care for you guys with new content for a year for example - I have more than enough to do in those zones, which exist already - but the thing is, if they can just do one or the other, what is more likely to be done?- I guess that is again more an economical decision than a technical one - if they care for you guys and cant care for the majority meanwhile, then the majority will be disappointed - it wouldn't bother me, because I play snail pace, but I guess a lot would not be happy, if there is no content for them for a year - it is a difficult trade-off unfortunately.

It would just be the one zone, ideally as a replacement for a dungeon.

So casuals still get their year long story. But instead of a dungeon we vets get a standalone adventure zone.

hahaha, you know, I would be all for it - you know why - it keeps you off overland content and I might have a better chance to complete a quest uninterrupted - it's egoistic, I know, but I wish you well with it.

I also think a lot of casual players wouldn't mind giving up a dlc dungeon because it would be one less dlc dungeon in their queue lol.

I keep thinking to myself if these dungeons are mostly for vets, why not replace one with something us vets might like more than the same stale dungeon formula? Less complaints about being "forced" to do dlc dungeons, more interesting stuff for vets, you can give it neat cosmetics without messing up account which means the incentive issue isn't there, devs make more money, just seems like a win for everyone to me lol.

Lysette

I never said it would not be profitable, but I said it would have to be profitable - because it is effort and costs ZOS serious money to do it - if that is not gaining them anything, they just won't do it.

spartaxoxo

ShalidorsHeir wrote: »

Regarding that community split point. It wont in my opinion since more people would return to overland content if it was optionally harder. as this thread alone shows.

People coming into the game for harder content aren't going to be going into the casual mode.

What would happen is some amount of players would start using hard mode, and some would remain in casual.

In instances with lots of people like Alik'r or whatever new zone just dropped, the split wouldn't matter at all. In low population zones like say Greenshade, the split could be detrimental to the new and casual player because they won't get help or may wind up with a bad and false impression of the game.

The way the servers work now is that they merge the players in low population areas, some of them will have like 1 instance because the pop is low. They can't merge them if there are different difficulty settings.

edit:

https://twitter.com/thefinninator/status/1415440700007751682?s=20

Lysette

I doubt that, have you been to stros M'kai, Betnik or the other 4 newbie zones lately?- they are packed with new players.

Harvokaan

Lysette wrote: »

I never said it would not be profitable, but I said it would have to be profitable - because it is effort and costs ZOS serious money to do it - if that is not gaining them anything, they just won't do it.

We are all adults here, I think wise enought to know that corporations are not a charity and they need to make money. If they decide that it won't be profitable then they won't do it, how they gonna decide, well they probaably design a solution, estimate the costs, calculate all direct and indirect profits they can earn from different implementations and later decide (for example: implementation A, B and D won't do, but management see potential in option C).
I can asure you, 1000%, not even one person responsible for that decision will come here and take a feedback provided for financial part seriously.
I can also asure you, 9 pages of talking mostly about the financial part of new implementation won't gonna help the discussion about how overland can be improved, only derail the thread. Financial feedback without data is a waste for highier ups, devs and players.
Lets discuss things that can be discussed with our knowledge. Forcing this thread to go into such bizzare direction is only pushing ppl away.
I don't like many ideas proposed here as optional difficulty. I can disagree with them but until they stay on the topic, it provides opportunity for much needed discussion. Talking about topics that require data without data is not providing anything, it is just killing the reasonable discussion

Lysette

I was talking about the viability for a solution which would benefit both - casuals and vets - with these private instances - as those require not just work to implement bu need a lot more processing power as well, it is not in vain to look at the cost and potential gain side of things - I don't know why you are so averse to have a look at the financial side of things as well.

No one hinders you to discuss anything - just shoot and give your feedback.

spartaxoxo

Lysette wrote: »

I was talking about the viability for a solution which would benefit both - casuals and vets - with these private instances - as those require not just work to implement bu need a lot more processing power as well, it is not in vain to look at the cost and potential gain side of things - I don't know why you are so averse to have a look at the financial side of things as well.

No one hinders you to discuss anything - just shoot and give your feedback.

I will say, while I don't agree with the idea, it definitely would provide a solution. I don't think this should go down this route, but private instances open the door to a LOT of customization.

One of the problems with balancing a game is that what might be easy for one player is downright impossible for another player.

I think a good example is that Halloween boss they gave us this year. I ended up making a thread to show people it could be done with a fairly low power level due to the large volume of feedback from people that stated this boss was impossible to do alone except by the top ".001%" which was a real piece of feedback. Then there were players like me who actually found it pretty easy. And then there ones in-between who didn't find it hard, but found it time consuming and thus the bonus rewards weren't worth it because they could get them faster in other ways.

It's hard to design a piece of shared content that would be satisfying to all 3 of those camps. But you don't have to if you have private instances because the boss can be tuned to each of those groups level of power. Harder for the people who found it easy, easier for the people who found it hard or too time consuming.

I just don't think this idea is very realistic. I've never heard of an MMO adding something like that into the game years later, they are already having server issues, and I just plain don't like the idea for my own tastes because I think it would make the game less of an MMO (splits players a ton). And that's a genre preference that I have that is currently being met. It's not a reason you should be dissuaded from it, as taste is subjective. But it's a con for me personally all the same.

Lysette

spartaxoxo wrote: »

ShalidorsHeir wrote: »

Regarding that community split point. It wont in my opinion since more people would return to overland content if it was optionally harder. as this thread alone shows.

People coming into the game for harder content aren't going to be going into the casual mode.

What would happen is some amount of players would start using hard mode, and some would remain in casual.

In instances with lots of people like Alik'r or whatever new zone just dropped, the split wouldn't matter at all. In low population zones like say Greenshade, the split could be detrimental to the new and casual player because they won't get help or may wind up with a bad and false impression of the game.

The way the servers work now is that they merge the players in low population areas, some of them will have like 1 instance because the pop is low. They can't merge them if there are different difficulty settings.

edit:

https://twitter.com/thefinninator/status/1415440700007751682?s=20

Thank you for that quote - it basically shows, that I can forget about my idea - it is opposite to what they want to achieve.

I understand your input quite well - and I'm not Donna Quixote fighting wind mills - this is not going to happen as I would like it, I see that now and drop the idea and good.

spartaxoxo

Lysette wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

ShalidorsHeir wrote: »

Regarding that community split point. It wont in my opinion since more people would return to overland content if it was optionally harder. as this thread alone shows.

People coming into the game for harder content aren't going to be going into the casual mode.

What would happen is some amount of players would start using hard mode, and some would remain in casual.

In instances with lots of people like Alik'r or whatever new zone just dropped, the split wouldn't matter at all. In low population zones like say Greenshade, the split could be detrimental to the new and casual player because they won't get help or may wind up with a bad and false impression of the game.

The way the servers work now is that they merge the players in low population areas, some of them will have like 1 instance because the pop is low. They can't merge them if there are different difficulty settings.

edit:

https://twitter.com/thefinninator/status/1415440700007751682?s=20

Thank you for that quote - it basically shows, that I can forget about my idea - it is opposite to what they want to achieve.

You're welcome. If you want I can try to dig up my old post that had all the different responses that I am personally aware of compiled into one list that they have done.

But essentially the reasons they cited as to why they haven't done it yet are

Ton of work
Want to have a unified playerbase
Only a minority want it/Most players don't want difficulty in their story
ESO is more successful with the current difficulty and 2/3rd of the content wasn't played when it was designed to be difficult
They don't want to repeat what happened before One Tamriel (Silver and Gold failed)
They'd need to incentivize it somehow
Craglorn failed

Those are the developer's cited reasons for saying no to increasing the difficulty in general, they have also rejected a "Vet mode" and "Lotro style sliders" in particular in those responses in addition to saying "no" in general too.

Lysette

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

ShalidorsHeir wrote: »

Regarding that community split point. It wont in my opinion since more people would return to overland content if it was optionally harder. as this thread alone shows.

People coming into the game for harder content aren't going to be going into the casual mode.

What would happen is some amount of players would start using hard mode, and some would remain in casual.

In instances with lots of people like Alik'r or whatever new zone just dropped, the split wouldn't matter at all. In low population zones like say Greenshade, the split could be detrimental to the new and casual player because they won't get help or may wind up with a bad and false impression of the game.

The way the servers work now is that they merge the players in low population areas, some of them will have like 1 instance because the pop is low. They can't merge them if there are different difficulty settings.

edit:

https://twitter.com/thefinninator/status/1415440700007751682?s=20

Thank you for that quote - it basically shows, that I can forget about my idea - it is opposite to what they want to achieve.

You're welcome. If you want I can try to dig up my old post that had all the different responses that I am personally aware of compiled into one list that they have done.

But essentially the reasons they cited as to why they haven't done it yet are

Ton of work
Want to have a unified playerbase
Only a minority want it/Most players don't want difficulty in their story
ESO is more successful with the current difficulty and 2/3rd of the content wasn't played when it was designed to be difficult
They don't want to repeat what happened before One Tamriel (Silver and Gold failed)
They'd need to incentivize it somehow
Craglorn failed

Those are the developer's cited reasons for saying no to increasing the difficulty in general, they have also rejected a "Vet mode" and "Lotro style sliders" in particular in those responses in addition to saying "no" in general too.

Those are the reasons I heard as well - which is not very promising for you guys actually - so far I think that your idea of dropping one dungeon DLC and create an adventure zone instead with higher difficulty seem to be the best one so far from my perspective. But it has similar issues - how to scale it - there is quite a gap in the abilities of vet players as well.

Hm, it would not have to be just one instance - there could be like 3 with different difficulty levels to choose from - much like it is done with different szenarios in Cyro as well.

But it doesn't solve the overland questing issue - it is just a solution for "give us something" - one zone instead of 40 - there are about 40 zones in overland - if a solution for that would be found, you guys would have 40 times more content.

Lysette

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Those are the developer's cited reasons for saying no to increasing the difficulty in general, they have also rejected a "Vet mode" and "Lotro style sliders" in particular in those responses in addition to saying "no" in general too.

The highlighted part is the most problematic, because if we don't come up with a good idea, I guess it will not even be considered anymore - so this thread is in the worst case just a kind of trash bin to not clutter the forum and in the best case it would generate an idea, which the devs really would eventually consider - so I guess just waiting for them to do something is not working, we have to come up with a good idea.

Vulkunne

Ok great.

Well then I'll just keep ignoring/skipping Overland content as it's not applicable to me whatsoever, not engaging or interesting.

And I guess our ideas will continue to be what? ignored? If that's how it is then some changes I need to make.