Overland Content Feedback Thread

ShalidorsHeir

SilverBride wrote: »

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.

Not at all since vet zones are usually less populated at these points since as you said - you dont do dolmens if not for progress. For the immersion seekers its gonna be perfect. There will always be a noticable difference in the difficulty is higher - see dungeons.

AlexanderDeLarge

Lysette wrote: »

I think they opened it to see if it is worth doing something or not - so far what did they get - "I want it for free, because ZOS should cater for all needs" - do you think, that makes them more likely wanting to do something about it? You guy offered nothing and expect a company to do some major work on their systems - not going to happen.

It's not 'do it for free with zero financial benefit' though. Currently ZOS is putting out two overland-focused content releases a year. One is $40 and one is $20 (in crowns). Sixty dollars every year is on the line. Frankly I can't muster the enthusiasm needed to go through a 20+ hour quest line where I one-shot 99% of all enemy encounters. I'm not exaggerating, that's representative of the overwhelming majority of content being sold to me at this point. Meanwhile every year I become more and more powerful due to the Champion Point system and gear sets, that let's be honest, are getting more and more powerful gear set bonuses.

With some sort of overland difficulty modifier solution in place, I'm not the only one who might be a little more enthusiastic about future overland-focused content releases and you need to consider online communities that have quit the game for one reason or another. This very subject just came up on /r/MMORPG the other day. Many users report the lack of difficulty being the reason why they're not excited about future content and some quit the game entirely because of it.

See for yourselves.
https://old.reddit.com/r/MMORPG/comments/ryfg7m/eso_too_easy_will_it_get_harder/
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 revisionism.

Vulkunne

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

I think they opened it to see if it is worth doing something or not - so far what did they get - "I want it for free, because ZOS should cater for all needs" - do you think, that makes them more likely wanting to do something about it? You guy offered nothing and expect a company to do some major work on their systems - not going to happen.

It's not 'do it for free with zero financial benefit' though. Currently ZOS is putting out two overland-focused content releases a year. One is $40 and one is $20 (in crowns). Sixty dollars every year is on the line. Frankly I can't muster the enthusiasm needed to go through a 20+ hour quest line where I one-shot 99% of all enemy encounters. I'm not exaggerating, that's representative of the overwhelming majority of content being sold to me at this point. Meanwhile every year I become more and more powerful due to the Champion Point system and gear sets, that let's be honest, are getting more and more powerful gear set bonuses.

With some sort of overland difficulty modifier solution in place, I'm not the only one who might be a little more enthusiastic about future overland-focused content releases and you need to consider online communities that have quit the game for one reason or another. This very subject just came up on /r/MMORPG the other day. Many users report the lack of difficulty being the reason why they're not excited about future content and some quit the game entirely because of it.

See for yourselves.
https://old.reddit.com/r/MMORPG/comments/ryfg7m/eso_too_easy_will_it_get_harder/
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 revisionism.

Couldn't have said it better myself if I had tried otherwise.

The roots of the problem run deep.

SilverBride

ShalidorsHeir wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

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.

Not at all since vet zones are usually less populated at these points since as you said - you dont do dolmens if not for progress. For the immersion seekers its gonna be perfect. There will always be a noticable difference in the difficulty is higher - see dungeons.

Is the reason for wanting a separate veteran overland for more difficulty or to have fewer other players in the way?

And where did I say you don't do dolmens if not for progress? I said players powerlevel off them nonstop in Alik'r but that's not the only reason they do them. There is also the Fighter's Guild daily, and some like myself like to complete the map.

Amottica

Lysette wrote: »

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

When doing overland content there does not seem to be anything that separates players of different skill levels. This is about overland content.

Casdha

I've tried to keep up with this but honestly their is one argument that I don't get, on one hand folks want harder overland content yet on the other they don't want to give up their power to do it.

Isn't it your power that makes it easy??? I think the term I've heard in the past is Power Creep.

It seems to me that the only way to fix this is to go back to the original idea of One Tamriel, you know where they said the content would scale to your level so that you could play seamlessly with your friends regardless of level. When you get right down to it what that would actually mean is that levels and numbers would just be window dressing and that regardless of your character's level or power it would take "X" amount of hits to bring down a particular target and the type of skill/damage used (magic, weapon, poison, fire, ice, etc...) on a given target (armor type, shield, mitigation, preparation) would determine the "X" in amount of hits needed to bring down said target.

Well that doesn't give me anything for my level/progress,,,,, sure it does, as your level increases you unlock more types of attacks and defenses to choose from. And you would also get better window dressing *cough* numbers to make you feel stronger.

edit: simple example of what I mean by window dressing: If @ lvl 1 you do 10 damage and mob health is 100 and If @ lvl 50 you do 1000 damage and mob health is 10,000 both instances take 10 hits to kill a mob.

FlopsyPrince

This would be a lot of work for a very short play experience for a limited number of people. New content in any MMO is consumed at a fast rate already. Designing content (or updating it) for a smaller subset would take a lot of time to properly tune and then would likely only be interesting for a while, as Harrowstorms and such have shown.

The players wanting this may not like Harrowstorms, but that would just reinforce my point. They are very hard content for most of us (really tough in a small group and impossible to solo - for a sizeable group of us). Yet they didn't hold the interest of those who want veteran content (according to posts here at least, and my own experience going by them in game) once they were farmed out

I was hoping to see some notable exceptions to this in past questions I asked, but I did not. (Perhaps I missed them, but I find that unlikely.) Please tell me how this would not be true if you believe it would not.

How would the financial cost of all this work be offset by the benefits if this is true?

FlopsyPrince

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

I think they opened it to see if it is worth doing something or not - so far what did they get - "I want it for free, because ZOS should cater for all needs" - do you think, that makes them more likely wanting to do something about it? You guy offered nothing and expect a company to do some major work on their systems - not going to happen.

It's not 'do it for free with zero financial benefit' though. Currently ZOS is putting out two overland-focused content releases a year. One is $40 and one is $20 (in crowns). Sixty dollars every year is on the line. Frankly I can't muster the enthusiasm needed to go through a 20+ hour quest line where I one-shot 99% of all enemy encounters. I'm not exaggerating, that's representative of the overwhelming majority of content being sold to me at this point. Meanwhile every year I become more and more powerful due to the Champion Point system and gear sets, that let's be honest, are getting more and more powerful gear set bonuses.

That is not sufficient to note. How many of those are not playing now? How many would it retain, even for those 2 costs? How many would it acquire? How many would keep playing past a short bit? Would it really pull $60/year in on all such players?

Those are the numbers to consider, not just how many would like it.

AlexanderDeLarge

FlopsyPrince wrote: »

This would be a lot of work for a very short play experience for a limited number of people. New content in any MMO is consumed at a fast rate already. Designing content (or updating it) for a smaller subset would take a lot of time to properly tune and then would likely only be interesting for a while, as Harrowstorms and such have shown.

I was hoping to see some notable exceptions to this in past questions I asked, but I did not. (Perhaps I missed them, but I find that unlikely.) Please tell me how this would not be true if you believe it would not.

How would the financial cost of all this work be offset by the benefits if this is true?

You're misrepresenting the argument by downplaying the number of people this affects as if it's a small handful of neckbeards that don't touch grass. The power creep problem is readily apparent in the open world and from what I've observed, CP300 is when players are basically one-shotting enemies in overland. The game is eight years old and there's been 15+ DLCs including five retail expansion packs. Even someone who only touches the game once a year when chapters release would be able to reach CP300. That's nothing, especially after CP2.0 essentially cut the XP needed in half.

I'm in four super casual guilds on PC-NA that allow me to log out for six months and still be in them so they allow varying levels of lengthy inactivity. In one guild that has players that haven't logged in up to 40 months, over a third of the 471 players we have are above CP300. The others that don't keep inactive members around for years, the overwhelming majority of players in them are above CP300. I look around the open world and out of 25 people completely at random prime time, 16 of them were above the level of CP300. I observe combat encounters outside the cities, the vast majority of mobs are killed in a blink of an eye.

A sizable portion of the playerbase is capable of steamrolling the overwhelming majority of content being sold to us every year. What's the exact percentage? Not sure and I would love for ZOS to release their analytics on this because I am positive it would be favorable to me and my side of the argument but it's certainly a hell of a lot more than some individuals in this thread seem to be implying.

The players wanting this may not like Harrowstorms, but that would just reinforce my point. They are very hard content for most of us (really tough in a small group and impossible to solo - for a sizeable group of us). Yet they didn't hold the interest of those who want veteran content (according to posts here at least, and my own experience going by them in game) once they were farmed out

Why would the community who have been told to shut up and stay in our instanced veteran content since One Tamriel (six years ago) be in the overland in 2021-2022? They're most likely taking the advice of staying in their instanced content running vMA for the 5000th time or not playing the game period (as you can see in the Reddit thread discussing ESO's lack of difficulty above)... Because expecting them to fork out $40 for an expansion where you one-shot mobs for twenty hours is a hard sell even if you're really invested in the lore.

AlexanderDeLarge

FlopsyPrince wrote: »

That is not sufficient to note. How many of those are not playing now? How many would it retain, even for those 2 costs? How many would it acquire? How many would keep playing past a short bit? Would it really pull $60/year in on all such players?

Those are the numbers to consider, not just how many would like it.

None of us have the data so unfortunately the only thing we can do is observe and speculate. As mentioned above, I would love to see Zenimax Online publish more data so we can see how 'casual' the playerbase actually is because rudimentary observations in the open world illustrate a very different scenario than the rhetoric I see in these threads. It's not the top 1% of players killing stuff before they can even perform their attack animations or getting through quest dialog, it's easily a third of the active playerbase.

Frankly the seams are starting to show for anyone spending a reasonable amount of time in the buy2play game they've already paid for. How much longer will it be sustainable to sell content where a sizable portion of the playerbase is one-shotting enemies throughout a 20-30 hour long chapter?

Lysette

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.

@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.

What you are mentioning in your first paragraph is something what I experienced with friends, whom I invited to ESO to play an Elder Scrolls game for the first time. They have been role players in other RPGs, but never played an Elder Scrolls game before. So they started out to play it like an RPG and we had occasionally fun exploring together - it was nice, for as long as they played it like this - but it didn't last - they joined guilds, and there they were introduced to power levelling in the Alikir - dolmen after dolmen after dolmen - and they converted from role players to grinders - it didn't take long and some of them have passed CP1000 - and have still not that much more knowledge about the game - of course now overland is too easy for them, but they cannot stop to do the power leveling crap - like addicts they raise the number of their CP as if it would make their game play better - it doesn't - they would have had more fun, if they would never had succumb to power leveling.

I don't see them returning to overland content - it isn't raising their CP number quickly enough - the are so addicted to raising that number, that in my opinion they have ruined the game for themselves and even if overland would be harder, they would enjoy it more, but they would most likely not play it nevertheless - because that grinding in a group is raising their CPs faster.

It is so sad, but they do not even see, that this is what makes them not enjoy overland - it is less the difficulty, but like you mentioned it - overland lets their CP rise too slowly - they finally succumb to power leveling for good and as long as overland is not raising their CP at a similar pace, I don't see them returning - they are in the grip of power leveling like you mentioned.

Lysette

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

FlopsyPrince wrote: »

That is not sufficient to note. How many of those are not playing now? How many would it retain, even for those 2 costs? How many would it acquire? How many would keep playing past a short bit? Would it really pull $60/year in on all such players?

Those are the numbers to consider, not just how many would like it.

None of us have the data so unfortunately the only thing we can do is observe and speculate. As mentioned above, I would love to see Zenimax Online publish more data so we can see how 'casual' the playerbase actually is because rudimentary observations in the open world illustrate a very different scenario than the rhetoric I see in these threads. It's not the top 1% of players killing stuff before they can even perform their attack animations or getting through quest dialog, it's easily a third of the active playerbase.

Frankly the seams are starting to show for anyone spending a reasonable amount of time in the buy2play game they've already paid for. How much longer will it be sustainable to sell content where a sizable portion of the playerbase is one-shotting enemies throughout a 20-30 hour long chapter?

Story content is not about killing stuff, even we have something to kill there as well - I think it is just like Rich Lambert mentioned as well, most do not want a challenge when doing story content - they want to play through the story and enjoy the scenery whilst doing that - a challenge would just hinder them doing it or distract them from doing it. These chapters are mostly story content and new landscape and scenery, certainly there is stuff to kill as well, but that is not the main focus.

Btw I am not saying with it, that there shouldn't be an option to make it harder - I just doubt that many will use it for very long - they might try it out and for a while enjoy playing like this - but then go back to how it was before, because then they can focus on the story instead to grind fighting through it. This kind of content is just the wrong place for seeking a challenge imo.

colossalvoids

Well as it's overland content feedback thread I'd chime in with some more recent observation.

Yesterday I logged on my alt for some items to withdraw but decided to also try to replay some quest I was interested in after replaying Skyrim recently, namely new one called "the cause". After a brief period of time I found myself just clicking through the lines without even noticing it (that's not how I usually play btw), I kind of wanted to move on to the other stuff because the experience wasn't captivating nor engaging - everything going so quickly with current difficulty so you actually can't appreciate zones and design without forcing yourself to stop deliberately. Boring mob two clicking didn't helped.

So today I wanted to do "city of ash I", so I went for a veteran version of it and was kinda amazed by the contrast of it, not just "difficulty" but how it works hand in hand with stories in eso. First of all I was more focused so I was actually looking at the terrain more, wasn't in a hassle to skip the dialogues and a bit slower paste wasn't feeling off and artificial. Banekin dying first, than atros and dremora last, how you would expect really. Also using combat system I really like feels refreshing, the need of blocking, dodging, prioritising targets and not just using it for flavour sake. Anyway, this actually reinforces me in a thought that this experience in overland or story (would be enough for me honestly, that's my main issue buying chapters and DLC's) questing is needed, and not only for experienced players benefit. Buying chapter or dlc for just a trial or one mythic isn't fun, especially living in a country where chapter cost is 1/5 of an average monthly salary lol.

It's kinda same in single player titles, when you're getting too powerful you can just adjust the difficulty accordingly, which makes content still engaging without you artificially downgrading yourself and abandoning playthrough because of it later. No wonder people skip overland, beating a child doesn't feel particularly heroic nor exciting.

Chilly-McFreeze

Lysette wrote: »

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

FlopsyPrince wrote: »

That is not sufficient to note. How many of those are not playing now? How many would it retain, even for those 2 costs? How many would it acquire? How many would keep playing past a short bit? Would it really pull $60/year in on all such players?

Those are the numbers to consider, not just how many would like it.

None of us have the data so unfortunately the only thing we can do is observe and speculate. As mentioned above, I would love to see Zenimax Online publish more data so we can see how 'casual' the playerbase actually is because rudimentary observations in the open world illustrate a very different scenario than the rhetoric I see in these threads. It's not the top 1% of players killing stuff before they can even perform their attack animations or getting through quest dialog, it's easily a third of the active playerbase.

Frankly the seams are starting to show for anyone spending a reasonable amount of time in the buy2play game they've already paid for. How much longer will it be sustainable to sell content where a sizable portion of the playerbase is one-shotting enemies throughout a 20-30 hour long chapter?

Story content is not about killing stuff, even we have something to kill there as well - I think it is just like Rich Lambert mentioned as well, most do not want a challenge when doing story content - they want to play through the story and enjoy the scenery whilst doing that - a challenge would just hinder them doing it or distract them from doing it. These chapters are mostly story content and new landscape and scenery, certainly there is stuff to kill as well, but that is not the main focus.

Btw I am not saying with it, that there shouldn't be an option to make it harder - I just doubt that many will use it for very long - they might try it out and for a while enjoy playing like this - but then go back to how it was before, because then they can focus on the story instead to grind fighting through it. This kind of content is just the wrong place for seeking a challenge imo.

At this point, why not publish quests as graphic novel instead?

Games are also about challenging yourself, even when a story gives reason to do so - I think it is just like many players mentioned as well, most do not want to faceroll when doing story content - they want to play through the story in an engaging way - enjoying the scenery is a bonus on top that neither hinders nor distracts from enjoying the game as a whole. These chapters are mostly sotry content and with it's current design philosophy driving of many players, because they are not the main focus (or any focus at all).

Btw I am not saying with it, that there shouldn't be an option to have it easy - I just doubt that many will be satisfied for very long - they might start in it and for a while enjoy playing like this - but then grow out of it, because one-shotting opponents turns even an intersting story into a chore. This kind of content should be more than just a sight seeing tour for hobby screentshotters.

See what I did there?

Lysette

Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

FlopsyPrince wrote: »

That is not sufficient to note. How many of those are not playing now? How many would it retain, even for those 2 costs? How many would it acquire? How many would keep playing past a short bit? Would it really pull $60/year in on all such players?

Those are the numbers to consider, not just how many would like it.

None of us have the data so unfortunately the only thing we can do is observe and speculate. As mentioned above, I would love to see Zenimax Online publish more data so we can see how 'casual' the playerbase actually is because rudimentary observations in the open world illustrate a very different scenario than the rhetoric I see in these threads. It's not the top 1% of players killing stuff before they can even perform their attack animations or getting through quest dialog, it's easily a third of the active playerbase.

Frankly the seams are starting to show for anyone spending a reasonable amount of time in the buy2play game they've already paid for. How much longer will it be sustainable to sell content where a sizable portion of the playerbase is one-shotting enemies throughout a 20-30 hour long chapter?

Story content is not about killing stuff, even we have something to kill there as well - I think it is just like Rich Lambert mentioned as well, most do not want a challenge when doing story content - they want to play through the story and enjoy the scenery whilst doing that - a challenge would just hinder them doing it or distract them from doing it. These chapters are mostly story content and new landscape and scenery, certainly there is stuff to kill as well, but that is not the main focus.

Btw I am not saying with it, that there shouldn't be an option to make it harder - I just doubt that many will use it for very long - they might try it out and for a while enjoy playing like this - but then go back to how it was before, because then they can focus on the story instead to grind fighting through it. This kind of content is just the wrong place for seeking a challenge imo.

At this point, why not publish quests as graphic novel instead?

Games are also about challenging yourself, even when a story gives reason to do so - I think it is just like many players mentioned as well, most do not want to faceroll when doing story content - they want to play through the story in an engaging way - enjoying the scenery is a bonus on top that neither hinders nor distracts from enjoying the game as a whole. These chapters are mostly sotry content and with it's current design philosophy driving of many players, because they are not the main focus (or any focus at all).

Btw I am not saying with it, that there shouldn't be an option to have it easy - I just doubt that many will be satisfied for very long - they might start in it and for a while enjoy playing like this - but then grow out of it, because one-shotting opponents turns even an intersting story into a chore. This kind of content should be more than just a sight seeing tour for hobby screentshotters.

See what I did there?

yeah there are valid arguments on both sides - and you can basically argue them in quite a similar way, like you just showed by altering my post - I feel it myself and I have just characters around level 35 yet - I do often not even need to fight, because my armor does the fighting for me - or I just stand there and wait for the enemies to get bored - that can happen actually, they run back to their spawn points if they achieve nothing and are not getting killed in a certain amount of time.

But it doesn't really matter how we feel about it, in the end ZOS will do what makes them the most money - I like it how it is, but then again I'm not looking for a challenge in ESO, to me it is more a scenic tourist tour actually - just to give an example, I have never done that much fighting as I do now with excavation - even I try to not mess with the wildlife, if they leave me alone - still, this looking around for the excavation location makes me having to fight a little more than before. But I'm not here for the combat at all. but just to enjoy myself in the world of Nirn - my characters are deliberately no heroes or heroines - I role play them like that, so they do not have an urge to have challenging fights, as non-heroes they try to avoid confrontation.

Lysette

Not everyone is prepared for harder content though - lately there was a post of someone with a level in the 40s, who got killed in overland content more often than not - when I looked at her data - 333 health regeneration - holy cow, no wonder, the very basics of this game not known to that person - no jewelry, no matching armor weapon set, no food - you can't assume that everyone is getting how this game works - some just do not and for them it is hard as it is already. And seeing how some fight in overland, there might be a lot, who do not enchant their armor and weapons, who have no jewelry or use food.

And even after I had explained it in detail, what is wrong with her equipment and overall approach to the game - she asked "do I really need to eat?" - and she complaint about low stats - and I explained in detail what food and beverages can do for you and how health regeneration or resource management works - and then this question where I can just shake my head - some people just don't get it. And there might be a bunch of them running around in overland - for whom it is challenging already as it is - because they have no clue about game basics.

Sylvermynx

Eh, the absolute LAST thing I want in a game is challenge.... *sigh*

spartaxoxo

Sylvermynx wrote: »

Eh, the absolute LAST thing I want in a game is challenge.... *sigh*

Me personally, I'm a mixed bag. It depends on how I feel that day both in terms of preference and health.

Sylvermynx

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Sylvermynx wrote: »

Eh, the absolute LAST thing I want in a game is challenge.... *sigh*

Me personally, I'm a mixed bag. It depends on how I feel that day both in terms of preference and health.

Yes, I get that. I just have enough challenge IRL right now that I don't want it in game at all - the world itself, husband's age and health.... about the only thing that's gone well lately is paying off the mortgage....

spartaxoxo

Sylvermynx wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Sylvermynx wrote: »

Eh, the absolute LAST thing I want in a game is challenge.... *sigh*

Me personally, I'm a mixed bag. It depends on how I feel that day both in terms of preference and health.

Yes, I get that. I just have enough challenge IRL right now that I don't want it in game at all - the world itself, husband's age and health.... about the only thing that's gone well lately is paying off the mortgage....

I'm sorry to hear that and hope you get some peace. I wish your husband better health. I agree that things like this is why it's vitally important that anything done is done optional. People from all walks of life and taste preferences play this game, and find something that they can enjoy. There's a large mix of types of content and players, with the most diverse playerbase I have personally ever seen. It's one thing that makes this game special and it shouldn't be lost. But I also think a change is needed, just it really really needs to be optional.

Iron_Warrior

I Decided to check this thread after a month and holy.... 67 pages!

Rich in one of his streams said the devs check the forums for maybe 30min per day and i doubt they would waste it on reading pointless back and forths.

I said it in provbably 40 pages ago and i will say it again. If you really want to gather "feedbacks" from the players then make a new thread and only allow feedbacks there and remove everything else. But if you only want to give the illusion of listening to players then keep this one going.

mocap

Iron_Warrior wrote: »

Rich in one of his streams said the devs check the forums for maybe 30min per day and i doubt they would waste it on reading pointless back and forths

holy.... 67 pages!

you answered to yourself. They may not read it, but see this thread growing, so players want from devs to do something with overland.

SilverBride

Iron_Warrior wrote: »

I Decided to check this thread after a month and holy.... 67 pages!

Rich in one of his streams said the devs check the forums for maybe 30min per day and i doubt they would waste it on reading pointless back and forths.

I said it in provbably 40 pages ago and i will say it again. If you really want to gather "feedbacks" from the players then make a new thread and only allow feedbacks there and remove everything else. But if you only want to give the illusion of listening to players then keep this one going.

Making a new thread would only start the process from square one again.

@ZOS_Kevin @ZOS_GinaBruno May we please get some insight into ZoS's stand on this topic, whether any of the suggestions are currently under consideration or may be in the future, so we can put this thread to rest?

Iron_Warrior

mocap wrote: »

Iron_Warrior wrote: »

Rich in one of his streams said the devs check the forums for maybe 30min per day and i doubt they would waste it on reading pointless back and forths

holy.... 67 pages!

you answered to yourself. They may not read it, but see this thread growing, so players want from devs to do something with overland.

But a feedback thread should be the place for players to give their ideas about that "something"

Maybe someone thinks that nothing needs to be done with overland, someone thinks a debuff is the best idea, another one wants a whole new difficulity. These are feedbacks that are defining that something. Number of pages shouldn't matter, we can just casually chat with eachother and make it to the 100th page but it would be 100 pages of junk and nothing helpful.

ZOS_Kevin

Thanks for tagging me, SilverBride.

Several of us have been keeping tabs on and reading this forum post over the last several weeks since starting it up. We will be going through this thread to build out a report specifically on this topic and sharing that with the team at large for their consideration in the future. We think this thread will be helpful to get to the root of player concern on various sides of this conversation of overland difficulty. So thank you all of the time put into having lively discourse around the topic.

Beyond that, nothing to report now, but we will be working toward having a more detailed answer regarding overland content in the future.

Lysette

SilverBride wrote: »

Iron_Warrior wrote: »

I Decided to check this thread after a month and holy.... 67 pages!

Rich in one of his streams said the devs check the forums for maybe 30min per day and i doubt they would waste it on reading pointless back and forths.

I said it in provbably 40 pages ago and i will say it again. If you really want to gather "feedbacks" from the players then make a new thread and only allow feedbacks there and remove everything else. But if you only want to give the illusion of listening to players then keep this one going.

Making a new thread would only start the process from square one again.

@ZOS_Kevin @ZOS_GinaBruno May we please get some insight into ZoS's stand on this topic, whether any of the suggestions are currently under consideration or may be in the future, so we can put this thread to rest?

I support this notion - it would be good to know, if it is worth discussing this at all - if it is something ZOS might consider or if this is just beating a dead horse.

SilverBride

@ZOS_Kevin Thank you!

Lysette

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

Thanks for tagging me, SilverBride.

Several of us have been keeping tabs on and reading this forum post over the last several weeks since starting it up. We will be going through this thread to build out a report specifically on this topic and sharing that with the team at large for their consideration in the future. We think this thread will be helpful to get to the root of player concern on various sides of this conversation of overland difficulty. So thank you all of the time put into having lively discourse around the topic.

Beyond that, nothing to report now, but we will be working toward having a more detailed answer regarding overland content in the future.

that is great, thank you so much for replying.

spartaxoxo

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

Thanks for tagging me, SilverBride.

Several of us have been keeping tabs on and reading this forum post over the last several weeks since starting it up. We will be going through this thread to build out a report specifically on this topic and sharing that with the team at large for their consideration in the future. We think this thread will be helpful to get to the root of player concern on various sides of this conversation of overland difficulty. So thank you all of the time put into having lively discourse around the topic.

Beyond that, nothing to report now, but we will be working toward having a more detailed answer regarding overland content in the future.

This is great news!

Iron_Warrior

Wow that was fast. As someone who wanted a more exciting overland i thought the actuall feedbacks here would get lost among all other comments and nobody would read them but it's good to hear that i was wrong.