Overland Content Feedback Thread

Lysette

the problem is that there is not much room for a solution - ZOS does not like separate instances and as well no mix of difficulty settings in a zone - what does that leave actually?- nothing really.

ShalidorsHeir

Vulkunne wrote: »

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.

Doesnt work i didnt play overland for years because it is too easy and nothing changed. But by that logic - stop buying crowns and state that you will buy again when overland was extended.

I still claim normal and vet zones should solve the problem with a minimum of effort. Each zones already has multiple instances as you can see when your group mate is next to you but invisable. --> imagine 5 instances of zone (they scale dynamically anyways) and label 3 of them with normal and 2 with veteran. easy solution - no effort other than implementing a simply difficulty difference between those. More health so we can actually see boss mechanics before they die. they should deal more damage so we have to adept to boss mechanics. Its not that much but it is easy to implement and would help a lot already as a first step.

If ZOS can implement more of what players were wishing for inside this thread I would welcome these as well.

Vulkunne

Huh. Its not hurting me. I'm just trying to help.

If someone has made up their mind to say 'no' to something than only time can change a person.

But your problem remains, I say your problem and I'll leave you to it.

Lysette

ShalidorsHeir wrote: »

Vulkunne wrote: »

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.

Doesnt work i didnt play overland for years because it is too easy and nothing changed. But by that logic - stop buying crowns and state that you will buy again when overland was extended.

that won't work either - because those being happy with the game and the flood of new players recently will make up several times for it. If you look at what they like and don't like, there is no room for any overland solution - so it is basically a no.

Lysette

ShalidorsHeir wrote: »

Vulkunne wrote: »

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.

Doesnt work i didnt play overland for years because it is too easy and nothing changed. But by that logic - stop buying crowns and state that you will buy again when overland was extended.

I still claim normal and vet zones should solve the problem with a minimum of effort. Each zones already has multiple instances as you can see when your group mate is next to you but invisable. --> imagine 5 instances of zone (they scale dynamically anyways) and label 3 of them with normal and 2 with veteran. easy solution - no effort other than implementing a simply difficulty difference between those. More health so we can actually see boss mechanics before they die. they should deal more damage so we have to adept to boss mechanics. Its not that much but it is easy to implement and would help a lot already as a first step.

If ZOS can implement more of what players were wishing for inside this thread I would welcome these as well.

of course it could be done with separate instances - but that is what ZOS said they don't want to do. The problem with this is for them, that in the worst case it is doubling server capacity required.

ShalidorsHeir

Lysette wrote: »

ShalidorsHeir wrote: »

Vulkunne wrote: »

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.

Doesnt work i didnt play overland for years because it is too easy and nothing changed. But by that logic - stop buying crowns and state that you will buy again when overland was extended.

that won't work either - because those being happy with the game and the flood of new players recently will make up several times for it. If you look at what they like and don't like, there is no room for any overland solution - so it is basically a no.

just for your info - i edited my comment afterwards. anyways i dont see waves of new players that want to stay in overland like you do because its to easy for them as well very soon. --> by this logic this game does not need overland content anymore since there is already enough to satisfy the majority of "new" players for a while but they wont stay as new players forever. So i would like to disagree with that. When i asked around in my guilds recently. They just did some of the overland content for the collectibles and be done with it. Or they did not at all. I can not see all these guys being happy with overland content that you mentioned. Not in game, not in twitch streams not in this thread. I see some of them, sure. But thats not the majority then.

ShalidorsHeir

Lysette wrote: »

ShalidorsHeir wrote: »

Vulkunne wrote: »

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.

Doesnt work i didnt play overland for years because it is too easy and nothing changed. But by that logic - stop buying crowns and state that you will buy again when overland was extended.

I still claim normal and vet zones should solve the problem with a minimum of effort. Each zones already has multiple instances as you can see when your group mate is next to you but invisable. --> imagine 5 instances of zone (they scale dynamically anyways) and label 3 of them with normal and 2 with veteran. easy solution - no effort other than implementing a simply difficulty difference between those. More health so we can actually see boss mechanics before they die. they should deal more damage so we have to adept to boss mechanics. Its not that much but it is easy to implement and would help a lot already as a first step.

If ZOS can implement more of what players were wishing for inside this thread I would welcome these as well.

of course it could be done with separate instances - but that is what ZOS said they don't want to do. The problem with this is for them, that in the worst case it is doubling server capacity required.

They ARE already doing it. Read my comment correctly please.

Lysette

ShalidorsHeir wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

ShalidorsHeir wrote: »

Vulkunne wrote: »

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.

Doesnt work i didnt play overland for years because it is too easy and nothing changed. But by that logic - stop buying crowns and state that you will buy again when overland was extended.

I still claim normal and vet zones should solve the problem with a minimum of effort. Each zones already has multiple instances as you can see when your group mate is next to you but invisable. --> imagine 5 instances of zone (they scale dynamically anyways) and label 3 of them with normal and 2 with veteran. easy solution - no effort other than implementing a simply difficulty difference between those. More health so we can actually see boss mechanics before they die. they should deal more damage so we have to adept to boss mechanics. Its not that much but it is easy to implement and would help a lot already as a first step.

If ZOS can implement more of what players were wishing for inside this thread I would welcome these as well.

of course it could be done with separate instances - but that is what ZOS said they don't want to do. The problem with this is for them, that in the worst case it is doubling server capacity required.

They ARE already doing it. Read my comment correctly please.

I know how it works - but you assume that there are many instances per region - I think that just the hubs have a couple of them, but not normal regions - there might be just 1 or 2 for each - now take the worst case - 40 people in 40 vet zones, that is not lowering the requirements for the normal zones, but creates 40 new instances - the game might just run with like 80-100 instances in total (I know it is just a guess), in this case 40 instances more is 40-50% more server capacity required.

spartaxoxo

Lysette wrote: »

[removed quote]

They never actually stated no mixed difficulty settings in the same zones rule. That's something some players don't like. They don't want different settings that would result in the playerbase not being unified but haven't rejected any ideas that would keep them together.

Lysette

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

[Removed quote]

They never actually stated no mixed difficulty settings in the same zones rule. That's something some players don't like. They don't want different settings that would result in the playerbase not being unified but haven't rejected any ideas that would keep them together.

oh, I understood that what Finn said as they think different settings in the same zone would split the community and they would therefore not have different settings inside the same zone - is that not how you interpret it?

ShalidorsHeir

they made this rule to not split players - for the sake of not ending up having to low player amounts in both or X instances BUT ZOS need to remove this rule. Many, including you, want to be a way more separated + more people would come back to overland content in general, enough to fill more than just 1 or 2 instances. So it is an solution, no no no? [snip]

[edited to remove minor bait]

Lysette

ShalidorsHeir wrote: »

they made this rule to not split players - for the sake of not ending up having to low player amounts in both or X instances BUT ZOS need to remove this rule. Many, including you, want to be a way more separated + more people would come back to overland content in general, enough to fill more than just 1 or 2 instances. So it is an solution, no no no? [snip]

yes indeed, one or the other rule has to be dropped - both together leaves nothing - either they give you separate vet instances or we have different settings inside the same zone.

Don't forget that I was for separate instances in the first place - even in a private instance version.

Hm, I have another idea to go around the bloat of instances with separate ones - what if the zone, which has veteran difficulty is changing from month to month or week to week - then just a few more instances are required and those could eventually be balance out by the lower requirements in normal zones - in this case your idea would actually work with not much impact on the server.

Hm, 3 zones with bi-weekly change - that is the whole of Tamriel twice per year, but just 3 zones at a time for 14 days, and then 3 different ones for the next 14 days - I guess that would as well be more compatible with your exploration speed.

Has it's drawbacks as well of course - you guys will remove the enemies quickly and have the same bad experience questing like I have them now - with all enemies dead, a quest is not fun to do.

But it would be a start - and ZOS might loose the fear, that not that many will actually use those vet zones.

spartaxoxo

Lysette wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

[snip]

They never actually stated no mixed difficulty settings in the same zones rule. That's something some players don't like. They don't want different settings that would result in the playerbase not being unified but haven't rejected any ideas that would keep them together.

oh, I understood that what Finn said as they think different settings in the same zone would split the community and they would therefore not have different settings inside the same zone - is that not how you interpret it?

Oh I read it as different difficulty settings would require different instances, which would mean the players wouldn't be united anymore.

If you're reading that correctly then that really does kill any other options we could possibly have.

ZOS_Exile

Hello all,

There have been a few more baiting and bashing comments that had to be removed from this discussion. Please remember to remain civil and constructive when giving feedback.

Lysette

I think we found some consent, even we started out with quite different opinions about the matter.

or not - now where we finally would come to a consent, he is ignoring me and I won't get any feedback on the merger between his and my idea - too bad.

Lysette

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

[snip]

They never actually stated no mixed difficulty settings in the same zones rule. That's something some players don't like. They don't want different settings that would result in the playerbase not being unified but haven't rejected any ideas that would keep them together.

oh, I understood that what Finn said as they think different settings in the same zone would split the community and they would therefore not have different settings inside the same zone - is that not how you interpret it?

Oh I read it as different difficulty settings would require different instances, which would mean the players wouldn't be united anymore.

If you're reading that correctly then that really does kill any other options we could possibly have.

yeah, that is what I said - and what was considered to be "toxic" - I just showed, that both rules at the same time leave no option - so one or the other should be dropped - and I think the no separate instances has to be it, because dropping the other would disrupt the experience of newbies and casuals quite a lot. And it would as well not be pleasant for the vets, who would feel weaker than a newbie in the same environment, we have discussed that already and how bad that would be.

Lysette

This being united can as well be a technical term - as in keeping an instanced filled with enough players to feel busy. If it is meant in a different way, it would not make a lot of sense, because vet players and casuals are normally not in the same zone, so we are most of the time not united at all - that is why I think "united" has to be read in this case as a technical term, as in we try to keep an instance filled with players and run as less instances as required to achieve this goal - this would make sense.

If we read it like that, separate vet instances would not cause less united players, because those who would be separated from each other in normal and vet zone weren't united in the first place before, because they played with quite different content in quite different zones before. So it is not a loss compared to before, to put them in separate instances.

Now if we would use this bi-weekly change of vet zones - one of each faction for 14 days - the impact on the servers for vet zones would be neglectable and ZOS could actually give it a go like this. And veterans would have access to all of the overland zones twice per year whilst still being united in just 3 zones at a time, so even if just a minority would use it, these zones wouldn't feel empty - this is to avoid possible instance bloat, that is why I suggest this bi-weekly change and to keep server impact low. There is pretty much no risk for ZOS involved with this and most likely it would be a win for everyone.

Now, if I am unlucky, all of you are ignoring me and no one will be reading this - well, we will see.

SilverBride

Lysette wrote: »

...vet players and casuals are normally not in the same zone, so we are most of the time not united at all

How are vet players and casuals not in the same zone?

Lysette

SilverBride wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

...vet players and casuals are normally not in the same zone, so we are most of the time not united at all

How are vet players and casuals not in the same zone?

doing vet content, that is what I meant - when I read what they are talking about that is all content I have never even seen, it is somewhere where someone like me never gets to - so we are not united at all - that is what I meant. I assume with it, that those desiring vet overland are those, who are doing this kind of content and not the normal veteran quester, who is ok with overland as it is.

EchoesofThunder

IMO, the "too easy" nature of overland content (hell, most of the content) derives directly from two aspects of the game:
1. The One Tamriel changes: All characters got their combat skills equalized, so they could fight overland baddies the same. That is, a level 1 toon fights just as well against a delve boss as does a level 45 toon (except for the lack of as many skills). Their explanation was that they wanted any level of character to be able to adventure with their differently-leveled friends. Also, every zone in the game has the same challenge, since they adjust your ability to match the zone.
2. Champion Points are the elephant/gorilla in the room. Everyone knows how CP has steadily increased players' dps and surviveability, but Zos pretends it's not an issue. I remember how proud I was, years ago, the first time I solo'd a delve. It was HARD. Now? I can go into any delve, naked and unarmed, and kill everything fast.

How has Zenimax adjusted for this? They've made dungeon & trial fights harder via mechanics. Now, you don't have to (just) learn how to fight well with your teammates - you have to memorize a differently choreographed dance for each encounter. Some people like this, but it really kills the role-playing aspect of the game for me.

I'm not sure how they might fix this. Somehow, they need to make character level matter again, and they need to drastically nerf champion points.

Lysette

As right as you might be, ZOS cannot really do it - people invested a lot of time into their CP and if that would be massively nerfed, a lot would rage quit and never look back - there has to be a different solution, as much as I can understand your point.

TequilaFire

So what would be the difference between a debuff scroll and nerfing CP which has already been nerfed?
In both cases you are debuffing players, only by nerfing CP you are taking away choice.

SilverBride

I agree with Rich when he said "players are always going to do the thing that is the most efficient and is the least difficult thing for their time." because the evidence is right before our eyes. Just step foot in Alk'r any time of the day and note the multiple groups powerleveling through the dolmens. Our go to Belkarth in Craglorn and note all the players selling Skyreach runs for powerleveling, and others seeking them. How many veteran end game players will be satisfied slowly leveling and/or farming through veteran overland? How many will just use normal overland for farming and surveys and other daily activities?

This is why debuffs, in the forms of toggles, food, alchemy etc. and challenge banners make sense. They provide the individual player the choice of when or how often to choose more difficult content, and are the least disruptive solutions.

@spartaxoxo proposed a standalone adventure zone that could be very helpful in showing just how many players would utilize it, and if it is what they consider successful could lead to more changes in the future.

ShalidorsHeir

SilverBride wrote: »

I agree with Rich when he said "players are always going to do the thing that is the most efficient and is the least difficult thing for their time." because the evidence is right before our eyes. Just step foot in Alk'r any time of the day and note the multiple groups powerleveling through the dolmens. Our go to Belkarth in Craglorn and note all the players selling Skyreach runs for powerleveling, and others seeking them. How many veteran end game players will be satisfied slowly leveling and/or farming through veteran overland? How many will just use normal overland for farming and surveys and other daily activities?

This is why debuffs, in the forms of toggles, food, alchemy etc. and challenge banners make sense. They provide the individual player the choice of when or how often to choose more difficult content, and are the least disruptive solutions.

I would agree if it wasnt wrong. When i want to do a dolmen then why should i give myself a debuff when there are 100 people who dont have this debuff and the dolmen is still done within 10 secs and was not even a challenge for me still. That is just one example. Overland content is maybe for you a place to make progress or money. For me it IS a place to waste some time and once WAS a place to do something on my own. maybe a random encouner with other players as well. It never has been about progress per hour. Questing and exploration is NO progress - usually players do it for fun, to have an adventure. Otherwise ZOS would not need to put so much effort into new zones. They could just add a 50*50 metres place with some dolmens and and addiotnal boss into new chapters ....
We simply want some more "Elder scrolls" feeling in The Elder Scrolls Online. So far overland is indeed just a place for unorganized players to progress somehow since they do not know better. But for many players, RPers, adventurers, lore nerds such as myself, completion guys and many more this should be a place as well. The whole overland content is not just for powerleveling. What do you do when you are max level? Or when progress becomes meaningless since you can do basically everything? play anothre game? definitely not.
Many players don't participate anymore because its no fun if its not challenging, if its not immersive, if its not remarkable. So the ones who are challenged feel right about the current state and the ones who are not - are left behind.

TequilaFire

I just wish just one of you would provide your source of who plays what in this game.
ZOS has those numbers.

ShalidorsHeir

TequilaFire wrote: »

I just wish just one of you would provide your source of who plays what in this game.
ZOS has those numbers.

we have for instance this thread as a reference and you can count i guess. If you were about to create a statistics you would be surprised. I was guild leader for a long time having a huge amount of players there on discord, listening to them and why they left, pbserving this game for and its community for 8 years etc. But what does it matter - you will just come up with somehting like - its not real numbers blah and must therefore be wrong.

ShalidorsHeir

One more thing i'd like to see is an option to reset a zone (quest-wise) so i can do the storyline again with my favourite chars! That should not be too difficult to implement as well

TequilaFire

ShalidorsHeir wrote: »

TequilaFire wrote: »

I just wish just one of you would provide your source of who plays what in this game.
ZOS has those numbers.

we have for instance this thread as a reference and you can count i guess. If you were about to create a statistics you would be surprised. I was guild leader for a long time having a huge amount of players there on discord, listening to them and why they left, pbserving this game for and its community for 8 years etc. But what does it matter - you will just come up with somehting like - its not real numbers blah and must therefore be wrong.

I am in 5 guilds and also been playing since Beta on PC and PS4, which is irrelevant.
Rarely does overland being too easy come up as most players who have been around graduate to end game activities and overland is mostly used for farming.
And if you go back and count the unique number of posters in this thread you will find it is mostly the same group of people in a circular discussion which has run it's course, especially without further input from ZOS.

SilverBride

ShalidorsHeir wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

This is why debuffs, in the forms of toggles, food, alchemy etc. and challenge banners make sense. They provide the individual player the choice of when or how often to choose more difficult content, and are the least disruptive solutions.

When i want to do a dolmen then why should i give myself a debuff when there are 100 people who dont have this debuff and the dolmen is still done within 10 secs and was not even a challenge for me still.

What difference does it make if the other 100 people are using a debuff or not? The fact that a dolmen has other players in it and is done faster than if a player had the dolmen to themselves is just one of the consequences of playing a multiplayer game. The same thing could and would happen in a separate veteran overland. You will still have to deal with other players jumping in and killing mobs you wanted to solo.

Seminolegirl1992

TequilaFire wrote: »

I just wish just one of you would provide your source of who plays what in this game.
ZOS has those numbers.

I mean. Having the numbers to support that the majority of players play overland and are thus casuals proves nothing. Overland takes the majority of the game because...of course it does. If a vet player plays overland and a casual plays overland there would be no way to tell the difference. There would be no way to tell if that vet player would prefer a harder overland because they're still playing it.