Overland Content Feedback Thread

Sylvermynx

CP5 wrote: »

Ok @SilverBride, I understand you probably don't like it when I address you directly, but both yourself and other users seem confused about how instancing works and are worried about subdividing the community. Putting aside the fact that many of the players this change would impact don't even log in all that often, sort of like what happened to you pre-One Tamriel, here is how the system currently works.

Imagine you owned a place that had swimming pools. You have this magic hallway where you can open more pools over time to meet the demands of the number of people arriving. To keep things sane, you only allow, say, to keep the math simple, each pool can only fit 10 people max, but you only ever let them fill to say, 7 people before opening a new pool. This is done so if someone wants to join someone whose already in a pool they can without it becoming over crowded.

Lets say you have 40 people, you would have 5 pools with 7 people and a 6th with only 5. You could, if you wanted the numbers to be more even, have 4 with 7 and 2 with 6, and each group would have a comfortable number of people with room for people to join those who they wanted to be with directly.

Now, if all the pools were shallow and someone wanted a deeper pool to swim, not to worry, you have the ability to change the depth of the pools as need and let's say you change only one of them to accommodate those who want to swim. If only one person wanted this, you would have 1 pool with 1 person, and the rest would be 4 pools with 8 and one with 7. The people who aren't interested in swimming in the deeper pool have slightly more people but still aren't near cap, and those who are interested get to enjoy what they want.

Tweak this ratio as much as you like, but you wouldn't need to open any additional pools to accommodate the 40 people, and outside of extremes like the mentioned "only 1 person" example, and all of them maintain a comfortable number of people.

However, this number, 40 people, would likely rise as people who want to swim in a deeper pool catch wind that you've offered this and as you get more people you open more pools.

This is exactly how it works with zone instances. Divide players into sane numbers so zone chat doesn't become a blur and peoples computers don't fry while entering town, create new instances as the total population needs, and you can organize which instance people are in to curate their individual taste in exactly the same way you would curate players between zones. You, don't take issue with zos adding more zones, do you? Yet they divide players depended on what people want to do, same as this instancing system already does.

It is a good thing you enjoy the game as much as you do. MMO's live or die depending on the population they can maintain, and no one in the right mind would want to change that. But just because you enjoy it as is doesn't invalidate others, and just because you feel the way it is fine doesn't change the fact that every other piece of content in the game has options on how you would want to engage with it. Giving the option gives more players the ability to enjoy the game, and as you've said many times fun is subjective, so please don't assume that your own enjoyment invalidates other players concerns. I've spent thousands of hours in this game because I love it and want to see it succeed, and adding an option, even one you personally wouldn't use, would enable more people to keep enjoying it.

That's an awesome explanation. Thank you for taking the time to post it; probably the best explanation I've seen yet when it comes to this sort of "instance setup".

ShalidorsHeir

Quite accurate indeed i have nothing to add

spartaxoxo

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

You can't combine people with different difficulty settings when the game pop needs you to have less instances.

SilverBride

The example given does not explain how veteran overland would not be different zones than normal.

Using the example given:

The normal zone only has shallow swimming. A player who wants to swim in a deep pool only has to ask and an instance with a deep pool appears. But where did it come from? There has to be separate instances with deep pools created and stored somewhere.

In the case of ESO there are a lot of zones on multiple platforms that would all need veteran level instances created.

spartaxoxo

Now you must always have 2 pools open, even if your population is low enough you'd be better served by one.

So you got 1 person in one pool, and 2 in the other. Let's hope Mr. Solo doesn't leave because there's nobody to swim with.

It's not adding a deep end to an existing pool (that's what debuffs do), it's permanently opening a brand new pool.

ShalidorsHeir

Debuffs do not the satisfy the constraints given by most participants in this thread. And by that logic ZOS should NOT add new chapters and DLC zones since they split up players out of the one zone everything should be. The virtual ingame location of players does not split nor does it unite them in any way.

@SilverBride No that is just not how its works in software. Could you at least trust on some guy whos daily business is that IT stuff?

spartaxoxo

The devs disagree with you and explicitly cite that as a reason. It really can't get more clear that it's a detriment to their design goal of a unified playerbase.

Perhaps they will change their mind about it. Regardless they've made it very clear that it would split the playerbase and they don't want that.

Parasaurolophus

spartaxoxo wrote: »

The devs disagree with you and explicitly cite that as a reason. It really can't get more clear that it's a detriment to their design goal of a unified playerbase.

Perhaps they will change their mind about it. Regardless they've made it very clear that it would split the playerbase and they don't want that.

Yes, developers may disagree. But the overland doesn't get any better than that.

SilverBride

Normal and Veteran overland would be two completely different instances with very different difficulty levels, and possibly mob mechanics. They would not be connected to each other the same way the identical megaserver instances presently are with each other.

spartaxoxo

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

The devs disagree with you and explicitly cite that as a reason. It really can't get more clear that it's a detriment to their design goal of a unified playerbase.

Perhaps they will change their mind about it. Regardless they've made it very clear that it would split the playerbase and they don't want that.

Yes, developers may disagree. But the overland doesn't get any better than that.

I am just saying I trust them more on the tech stuff. So when they tell me how their game works, I trust their word over someone who doesn't work there.

It doesn't mean their design goal is necessarily a good goal. Maybe they should split the playerbase and let it be. They have the numbers so they will make that call, ultimately.

But in regards to whether or not it would split the playbase, the answer is that it would. Because they know better than us how their stuff works. So to me it's not a matter if it would or not, but whether or not it is worth doing.

CP5

SilverBride wrote: »

The example given does not explain how veteran overland would not be different zones than normal.

Using the example given:

The normal zone only has shallow swimming. A player who wants to swim in a deep pool only has to ask and an instance with a deep pool appears. But where did it come from? There has to be separate instances with deep pools created and stored somewhere.

In the case of ESO there are a lot of zones on multiple platforms that would all need veteran level instances created.

It's exactly the same as every single dungeon and trial in the game. When an instance is created, it has some rules to define it. Loading into vet banished cells makes the mobs in that dungeon have more health and do more damage by having different stats than their normal counterparts. A more advanced version of this can be seen in ICP, where lord warden's meteor attack will always one shot players on vet but is intentionally designed to only do about 95% of a players health in damage on normal. A veteran overland would do things like tweak mob stats to let them live long enough to do stuff, while replacing abilities that cause mobs to intentionally stall themselves in fights. A new rule set to define newly generated zones is not the same as having to hand craft dozens of new zones.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Now you must always have 2 pools open, even if your population is low enough you'd be better served by one.

So you got 1 person in one pool, and 2 in the other. Let's hope Mr. Solo doesn't leave because there's nobody to swim with.

It's not adding a deep end to an existing pool (that's what debuffs do), it's permanently opening a brand new pool.

Let's be honest, any zone that is that low pop wouldn't have much interaction to begin with, and who knows, maybe the vet version would be the more popular one even. A lot of experienced players don't go back to do quest again after they did it their first time, but if the gameplay was engaging and enjoyable for them, they may actually go back, revitalizing old areas.

And no, the 'deep end' example was for a vet zone, not debuffs. A debuff example would be intentionally cutting off your own legs so that the shallower pool would give more of a challenge. Plus if no players are, say, in a particular dungeon, the server doesn't just sit there with an empty instance waiting to go, they're generated as needed. And if they're being used, that's when they would be made.

Also, in regards to Finn's post, "unify as much of the player base as possible" falls flat when many players just don't engage with the content. If people aren't taking part in the content, what are they doing instead? Leaving the zones to do instanced content away from everyone else? Logging out? Standing afk waiting for something to do? Adding an optional area for those who are interested in it would engage people who aren't currently interested in the content, because despite what some may think, those who don't enjoy overland as is aren't just standing around in zone waiting to be a superhero for some person asking for help. They're gone, so what good does 'unifying players' do when some just leave?

spartaxoxo

The assumption that any vet player that would use the instance aren't doing Overland already is a bad one. Many people who might use a vet overland are in the current overland. Not only is it the most popular content in the game, but it's just obvious that of the segment that would use vet overland some percentage of them are using the current one.

It is obvious that the players that are already in overland because it's unified are the ones zos worries about splitting away, not the people who never use it anyway.

Honestly, it's pretty obviously a downside to the idea that should be designed around should they decide to run this idea. I saw exactly one poster acknowledge this and try to create a solution to mitigate this downside and that was having a unified zone chat between the two separate instances. I like that idea and should zos go this route, I hope they implement so that low population zones aren't hurt too badly by the split.

Debuffs do not injure the player, they are something people are choosing to do to challenge themselves they don't cause permanent damage to the account.

In the pool example debuffs are like adding a deep end to an existing pool rather than opening a new pool. Because it's people using the deep end in the same exact pool rather than a different pool(separate instance). A shared pool instead of two separate pools.

SilverBride

CP5 wrote: »

It's exactly the same as every single dungeon and trial in the game. When an instance is created, it has some rules to define it. Loading into vet banished cells makes the mobs in that dungeon have more health and do more damage by having different stats than their normal counterparts. A more advanced version of this can be seen in ICP, where lord warden's meteor attack will always one shot players on vet but is intentionally designed to only do about 95% of a players health in damage on normal. A veteran overland would do things like tweak mob stats to let them live long enough to do stuff, while replacing abilities that cause mobs to intentionally stall themselves in fights. A new rule set to define newly generated zones is not the same as having to hand craft dozens of new zones.

There would have to be a veteran overland created and the rules applied for every zone on every platform, and this would be a big job. As Rich said "It is not as simple as just flip a switch and make things more difficult. There is a TON of work..."

Sylvermynx

At this point, I think this is moot anyway. They're already planning a "re-architecture" of the base game programming due to the pvp (and likely, pve endgame) situation. It does not seem likely to me that they will act on anything regarding vet overland before that re-architecture is complete.

This continual bickering is accomplishing nothing.

spartaxoxo

Sylvermynx wrote: »

At this point, I think this is moot anyway. They're already planning a "re-architecture" of the base game programming due to the pvp (and likely, pve endgame) situation. It does not seem likely to me that they will act on anything regarding vet overland before that re-architecture is complete.

They already stated they are looking into it. I don't expect any big changes but they might do something small. This discussion has worked to bring attention to this issue. I think no matter where we fall, we can all be happy about that.

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

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

CP5

Sylvermynx wrote: »

At this point, I think this is moot anyway. They're already planning a "re-architecture" of the base game programming due to the pvp (and likely, pve endgame) situation. It does not seem likely to me that they will act on anything regarding vet overland before that re-architecture is complete.

This continual bickering is accomplishing nothing.

That's why I didn't even touch the thread for months. I want to make those who are against the idea, at all cost for some reason, that changes in the game's past have served to improve it, and options help enable more people to enjoy the game. A mindset shown in the few post since my example just paints a picture of "you'll either play the way I enjoy or you're better off leaving," because while something like this would take time, ZOS at least showing some degree of care and effort, even if it took a while to realize, would allow more people to enjoy the game.

Time will tell what ZOS has to say, I'm just hoping their decision isn't too heavily swayed by those saying 'if this option is given to other's I'll quit.'

Psiion

Greetings all,

Once again, after removing some posts, we would like to remind everyone to keep the discussion on the threads topic. Baiting others, Rude Comments, and Flaming are all against the Forum's Community Rules, and simply not acceptable on the Forums. We understand that disagreements will occur, especially on threads such as these, but discussion should stay on topic, and within the Community Rules. The Forums are intended to be a welcoming place for all players to share their thoughts and ideas, with the Community Rules in place to ensure it stays so.

Please keep the Community Rules in mind moving forward.

spartaxoxo

CP5 wrote: »

Sylvermynx wrote: »

At this point, I think this is moot anyway. They're already planning a "re-architecture" of the base game programming due to the pvp (and likely, pve endgame) situation. It does not seem likely to me that they will act on anything regarding vet overland before that re-architecture is complete.

This continual bickering is accomplishing nothing.

That's why I didn't even touch the thread for months. I want to make those who are against the idea, at all cost for some reason, that changes in the game's past have served to improve it, and options help enable more people to enjoy the game. A mindset shown in the few post since my example just paints a picture of "you'll either play the way I enjoy or you're better off leaving," because while something like this would take time, ZOS at least showing some degree of care and effort, even if it took a while to realize, would allow more people to enjoy the game.

Time will tell what ZOS has to say, I'm just hoping their decision isn't too heavily swayed by those saying 'if this option is given to other's I'll quit.'

Almost nobody in this thread is against some kind of option for increasing overland difficulty. There are less posts saying nothing should be done at all than they are people who have expressed support for forcing an Overland, which is also a minority opinion.

Disagreement in this thread is almost entirely about what should be done, not if something should be done. And nobody's idea can be declared the only idea for increasing difficulty in Overland. This thread is not about any one idea, but rather feedback about how people feel about Overland in general. And it nearly unanimous that some change is needed to offer people seeking a challenge an option.

Sylvermynx

CP5 wrote: »

Sylvermynx wrote: »

At this point, I think this is moot anyway. They're already planning a "re-architecture" of the base game programming due to the pvp (and likely, pve endgame) situation. It does not seem likely to me that they will act on anything regarding vet overland before that re-architecture is complete.

This continual bickering is accomplishing nothing.

That's why I didn't even touch the thread for months. I want to make those who are against the idea, at all cost for some reason, that changes in the game's past have served to improve it, and options help enable more people to enjoy the game. A mindset shown in the few post since my example just paints a picture of "you'll either play the way I enjoy or you're better off leaving," because while something like this would take time, ZOS at least showing some degree of care and effort, even if it took a while to realize, would allow more people to enjoy the game.

Time will tell what ZOS has to say, I'm just hoping their decision isn't too heavily swayed by those saying 'if this option is given to other's I'll quit.'

Eh, the issue for me is that if (yes, I know most of the vet overland folks are stating "optional" - but they're not the ones going to program.... it's ZOS, and.... well....) things change in a serious way toward much harder overland, I will probably not be able to play any longer. I would be happy to try it. But my limitations are.... not really negotiable. I'm old, my reflexes ditto (and I never had really good game reflexes from the word go - racing sports cars, yeah - 50 years ago, and I can still actually force a manual tranny to do stuff it's not supposed to do even in the garbage they're producing now) but the sort of finger/wrist reflexes this game requires for combat is already not anything I can reliably manage.

But it is what it is - and if I'm a casualty, well.... I'll continue playing Skyrim and Oblivion, and hope I live long enough and have enough reflexes to play TES VI (unless it's VR - good LORD, I can't even imagine the vertigo I deal with on a daily basis being confronted with a VR game....)

Lysette

Higher difficulty based on just scaling is an illusion for those who have good sustain - it just takes longer for them to kill stuff in this case, but it isn't more difficult - what do they do what they wouldn't do anyway?- they keep up buffs, they maintain their resources and keep up their health - so as long as they do not run out of resources (as in having a sustainable sustain) it is not more challenge to scale enemies up - it is just a longer fight with a well in advance known result - the Sun Tzu kind of fight "don't start a fight you haven't won already" - so where is the challenge there - you just get the same in a longer version.

In my mind making it challenging should not scale it up too much, but add a lot of unpredictability - something one has to react to live instead to just spool up muscle memory rotations - the thing why this is not engaging is because it can be computed in advance how the outcome will be - see ShalidorsHeir's example - it is not more of a challenge for him if he kills that enemy in 2 or 4 or 6 or 8 hits more, it is just a longer version of an otherwise well known and boring outcome. It is always the same in the end - to be challenging, it would have to be less predictable and the outcome should be more uncertain.

spartaxoxo

Lysette wrote: »

Higher difficulty based on just scaling is an illusion for those who have good sustain - it just takes longer for them to kill stuff in this case, but it isn't more difficult - what do they do what they wouldn't do anyway?- they keep up buffs, they maintain their resources and keep up their health - so as long as they do not run out of resources (as in having a sustainable sustain) it is not more challenge to scale enemies up - it is just a longer fight with a well in advance known result - the Sun Tzu kind of fight "don't start a fight you haven't won already" - so where is the challenge there - you just get the same in a longer version.

In my mind making it challenging should not scale it up too much, but add a lot of unpredictability - something one has to react to live instead to just spool up muscle memory rotations - the thing why this is not engaging is because it can be computed in advance how the outcome will be - see ShalidorsHeir's example - it is not more of a challenge for him if he kills that enemy in 2 or 4 or 6 or 8 hits more, it is just a longer version of an otherwise well known and boring outcome. It is always the same in the end - to be challenging, it would have to be less predictable and the outcome should be more uncertain.

Scaling up absolutely can make things harder.

I mean I recently solo'ed Moongrave Fane on normal, and the 2nd to last boss doesn't have insane mechs I haven't been doing throughout the dungeon anyway. But it's way harder just because there's a lot more damage. I actually had to adjust my build to clear it, something I did not have to do the rest of the dungeon. I added a HoT and some CC and suddenly it went from punishing to challenging. It was the hardest but also most satisfying fight that run just because it hit harder.

Lysette

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

Higher difficulty based on just scaling is an illusion for those who have good sustain - it just takes longer for them to kill stuff in this case, but it isn't more difficult - what do they do what they wouldn't do anyway?- they keep up buffs, they maintain their resources and keep up their health - so as long as they do not run out of resources (as in having a sustainable sustain) it is not more challenge to scale enemies up - it is just a longer fight with a well in advance known result - the Sun Tzu kind of fight "don't start a fight you haven't won already" - so where is the challenge there - you just get the same in a longer version.

In my mind making it challenging should not scale it up too much, but add a lot of unpredictability - something one has to react to live instead to just spool up muscle memory rotations - the thing why this is not engaging is because it can be computed in advance how the outcome will be - see ShalidorsHeir's example - it is not more of a challenge for him if he kills that enemy in 2 or 4 or 6 or 8 hits more, it is just a longer version of an otherwise well known and boring outcome. It is always the same in the end - to be challenging, it would have to be less predictable and the outcome should be more uncertain.

Scaling up absolutely can make things harder.

I mean I recently solo'ed Moongrave Fane on normal, and the 2nd to last boss doesn't have insane mechs I haven't been doing throughout the dungeon anyway. But it's way harder just because there's a lot more damage. I actually had to adjust my build to clear it, something I did not have to do the rest of the dungeon. I added a HoT and some CC and suddenly it went from punishing to challenging. It was the hardest but also most satisfying fight that run just because it hit harder.

Yeah, but once you have a sustainable sustain nothing will kill you before the enemy will be dead - the outcome is no longer unpredictable and the only challenge is then that it takes longer - and becomes a chore - that is not more fun, but more grind.

Lysette

Think about pvp - why is that an endless challenge - because it is in it's very nature very unpredictable, not because anyone around you would be that much stronger - but because he or she or them might confront you with a surprising situation you have to deal with live and immediately - it requires quick decision making and skill to counter it - the challenge is in the unpredictability - ok, you can of course go around this and play the Sun Tzu kind of pvp - being a ganker who just attacks if he is certain to make the kill - but that is then like killing flies and not a challenge - a challenge requires taking risks to be fun.

spartaxoxo

Lysette wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

Higher difficulty based on just scaling is an illusion for those who have good sustain - it just takes longer for them to kill stuff in this case, but it isn't more difficult - what do they do what they wouldn't do anyway?- they keep up buffs, they maintain their resources and keep up their health - so as long as they do not run out of resources (as in having a sustainable sustain) it is not more challenge to scale enemies up - it is just a longer fight with a well in advance known result - the Sun Tzu kind of fight "don't start a fight you haven't won already" - so where is the challenge there - you just get the same in a longer version.

In my mind making it challenging should not scale it up too much, but add a lot of unpredictability - something one has to react to live instead to just spool up muscle memory rotations - the thing why this is not engaging is because it can be computed in advance how the outcome will be - see ShalidorsHeir's example - it is not more of a challenge for him if he kills that enemy in 2 or 4 or 6 or 8 hits more, it is just a longer version of an otherwise well known and boring outcome. It is always the same in the end - to be challenging, it would have to be less predictable and the outcome should be more uncertain.

Scaling up absolutely can make things harder.

I mean I recently solo'ed Moongrave Fane on normal, and the 2nd to last boss doesn't have insane mechs I haven't been doing throughout the dungeon anyway. But it's way harder just because there's a lot more damage. I actually had to adjust my build to clear it, something I did not have to do the rest of the dungeon. I added a HoT and some CC and suddenly it went from punishing to challenging. It was the hardest but also most satisfying fight that run just because it hit harder.

Yeah, but once you have a sustainable sustain nothing will kill you before the enemy will be dead - the outcome is no longer unpredictable and the only challenge is then that it takes longer - and becomes a chore - that is not more fun, but more grind.

Even with a sustainable sustain you can mess up and get one shot and such if the attacks are strong enough. It doesn't have to be unpredictable and many people enjoy puzzling how how a boss's mechanics work and then getting them timed right to beat them.

CP5

Lysette wrote: »

Higher difficulty based on just scaling is an illusion for those who have good sustain - it just takes longer for them to kill stuff in this case, but it isn't more difficult - what do they do what they wouldn't do anyway?- they keep up buffs, they maintain their resources and keep up their health - so as long as they do not run out of resources (as in having a sustainable sustain) it is not more challenge to scale enemies up - it is just a longer fight with a well in advance known result - the Sun Tzu kind of fight "don't start a fight you haven't won already" - so where is the challenge there - you just get the same in a longer version.

In my mind making it challenging should not scale it up too much, but add a lot of unpredictability - something one has to react to live instead to just spool up muscle memory rotations - the thing why this is not engaging is because it can be computed in advance how the outcome will be - see ShalidorsHeir's example - it is not more of a challenge for him if he kills that enemy in 2 or 4 or 6 or 8 hits more, it is just a longer version of an otherwise well known and boring outcome. It is always the same in the end - to be challenging, it would have to be less predictable and the outcome should be more uncertain.

That's why most of the issues I personally feel exist come down to mobs having many skills that serve to only waste their own time. The people with a knife and nothing else spend the whole fight backing up to throw knives, archers spend their whole life taking aim, conjurors literally blowing bubbles. Bosses aren't exempt from this, and any enemy with an interesting attack die to quickly before they can show it off. That's why I feel stat padding and self nerfs don't resolve the issue, because after both of those the mobs remain incapable, and replacing those stalling skills would help the most.

MaleAmazon

Solution to 'dividing the population' - to beat a dead horse that´s just pulp by now - put a voluntary debuff on the player in exchange for a token reward. The best solution I´ve seen to the 'too easy overland' problem (which is all too real) was from someone (I don´t remember who or I´d give personal credit) who said to put in an Undaunted (or so) consumable that debuffs the player.

And we already have XP scrolls. Put in a "Scroll of Challenge Reborn" which gives players a debuff similar to how battle spirit functions, and the ability to remove this debuff at will (for dungeons etc). Then give some token achievement or so for using it.

Lysette

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

Higher difficulty based on just scaling is an illusion for those who have good sustain - it just takes longer for them to kill stuff in this case, but it isn't more difficult - what do they do what they wouldn't do anyway?- they keep up buffs, they maintain their resources and keep up their health - so as long as they do not run out of resources (as in having a sustainable sustain) it is not more challenge to scale enemies up - it is just a longer fight with a well in advance known result - the Sun Tzu kind of fight "don't start a fight you haven't won already" - so where is the challenge there - you just get the same in a longer version.

In my mind making it challenging should not scale it up too much, but add a lot of unpredictability - something one has to react to live instead to just spool up muscle memory rotations - the thing why this is not engaging is because it can be computed in advance how the outcome will be - see ShalidorsHeir's example - it is not more of a challenge for him if he kills that enemy in 2 or 4 or 6 or 8 hits more, it is just a longer version of an otherwise well known and boring outcome. It is always the same in the end - to be challenging, it would have to be less predictable and the outcome should be more uncertain.

Scaling up absolutely can make things harder.

I mean I recently solo'ed Moongrave Fane on normal, and the 2nd to last boss doesn't have insane mechs I haven't been doing throughout the dungeon anyway. But it's way harder just because there's a lot more damage. I actually had to adjust my build to clear it, something I did not have to do the rest of the dungeon. I added a HoT and some CC and suddenly it went from punishing to challenging. It was the hardest but also most satisfying fight that run just because it hit harder.

Yeah, but once you have a sustainable sustain nothing will kill you before the enemy will be dead - the outcome is no longer unpredictable and the only challenge is then that it takes longer - and becomes a chore - that is not more fun, but more grind.

Even with a sustainable sustain you can mess up and get one shot and such if the attacks are strong enough. It doesn't have to be unpredictable and many people enjoy puzzling how how a boss's mechanics work and then getting them timed right to beat them.

Playing by the numbers - you describe exactly what is the problem with combat in ESO - it is too predictable, whilst at the same time too much certainty is in it's skills and abilities -. they work 100% of the time (or they are supposed to). Now compare that to pvp - it is most of the time unpredictable what the opponent will do and if your skills will have an effect is unclear, because your opponent will most likely not just stand there waiting to get killed, but move around, roll dodge, block and counter your attacks. And what do NPCs do?

I wouldn't give NPCs more hitpoints, but an extra strong damage shield, which strength and duration varies from encounter to encounter. This has a similar effect - that NPC will be much better protected (but for how long and how good exactly is unknown and will not be the same next time around). Now give this NPC as well some unpredictability on it's attack side, as in damage and use of special abilities varies from encounter to encounter - and auto-scale it to the incoming damage - in order to create a worthy opponent, it has to scale to what you guys are actually capable of - if you can deal extreme damage, so can this NPC then - and it is no longer clear, who will win this encounter - then you got your challenge.

ShalidorsHeir's problem would be solved by this as well - if he does 125k damage on the first hit - well, then he might not be able to do his second attack, if he cannot tank the 100k+ (auto-scaled) damage incoming to him in return by this NPC - so he won't attack like this anymore, because it would just get him killed. This kind of scaling hinders extreme self-overpowering quite a bit - one can still do it, but it could be lethal - and not just for the opponent.

And a casual player getting there by accident, might experience this opponent as invincible, because he cannot get any damage through this shield - but he won't get easily killed by that NPC either, because if the player does just 10k damage, the NPC might hit back with 8k+: Even that NPC would appear to be invincible, he might eventually not be it for very long - dependent on the duration of it's damage shield (varying from like 10 seconds to forever for example) - so this way an NPC can scale to the ability of players, while not having to become a wet towel to achieve it. A really strong NPC is invincible for a less skilled player - but eventually not for very long - who knows.

So a less skilled player might get away with just a bruise and say "ok, I can't fight this NPC yet" - but a skilled player like ShalidorsHeir has to consider, will I be able to one-shot this NPC (and it will still be unclear, if he actually can) and if not, will I be able to survive the counter attack of that NPC, just in case not being able to one-shot it - this is a challenge for him then, and it is a risk to eventually get killed by it.

TL;DR - it is much too long, sorry, and ZOS will anyway not do a combat change like that -even it would give you a challenge.

And on another note - a good combat system for PvE doesn't have to be fair - it should be interesting - so on the server side it can be cheated to make it more interesting - and to avoid exploits by players - the goal is in the end to have an interesting challenge and this is often not achieved by fair play - real fights are just somewhat fair in a sport - but not on the battlefield.

In earlier times a good game master in a pen&paper rpg cheated quite a bit to make it a real adventure for players, with uncertain and unpredictable outcomes - there is so much value in that approach - but ESO's combat is too much playing by the numbers - which in the end makes it not that interesting. You guys might like it, but it could be so much better.

ShalidorsHeir

Lysette wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

Higher difficulty based on just scaling is an illusion for those who have good sustain - it just takes longer for them to kill stuff in this case, but it isn't more difficult - what do they do what they wouldn't do anyway?- they keep up buffs, they maintain their resources and keep up their health - so as long as they do not run out of resources (as in having a sustainable sustain) it is not more challenge to scale enemies up - it is just a longer fight with a well in advance known result - the Sun Tzu kind of fight "don't start a fight you haven't won already" - so where is the challenge there - you just get the same in a longer version.

In my mind making it challenging should not scale it up too much, but add a lot of unpredictability - something one has to react to live instead to just spool up muscle memory rotations - the thing why this is not engaging is because it can be computed in advance how the outcome will be - see ShalidorsHeir's example - it is not more of a challenge for him if he kills that enemy in 2 or 4 or 6 or 8 hits more, it is just a longer version of an otherwise well known and boring outcome. It is always the same in the end - to be challenging, it would have to be less predictable and the outcome should be more uncertain.

Scaling up absolutely can make things harder.

I mean I recently solo'ed Moongrave Fane on normal, and the 2nd to last boss doesn't have insane mechs I haven't been doing throughout the dungeon anyway. But it's way harder just because there's a lot more damage. I actually had to adjust my build to clear it, something I did not have to do the rest of the dungeon. I added a HoT and some CC and suddenly it went from punishing to challenging. It was the hardest but also most satisfying fight that run just because it hit harder.

Yeah, but once you have a sustainable sustain nothing will kill you before the enemy will be dead - the outcome is no longer unpredictable and the only challenge is then that it takes longer - and becomes a chore - that is not more fun, but more grind.

Even with a sustainable sustain you can mess up and get one shot and such if the attacks are strong enough. It doesn't have to be unpredictable and many people enjoy puzzling how how a boss's mechanics work and then getting them timed right to beat them.

Playing by the numbers - you describe exactly what is the problem with combat in ESO - it is too predictable, whilst at the same time too much certainty is in it's skills and abilities -. they work 100% of the time (or they are supposed to). Now compare that to pvp - it is most of the time unpredictable what the opponent will do and if your skills will have an effect is unclear, because your opponent will most likely not just stand there waiting to get killed, but move around, roll dodge, block and counter your attacks. And what do NPCs do?

I wouldn't give NPCs more hitpoints, but an extra strong damage shield, which strength and duration varies from encounter to encounter. This has a similar effect - that NPC will be much better protected (but for how long and how good exactly is unknown and will not be the same next time around). Now give this NPC as well some unpredictability on it's attack side, as in damage and use of special abilities varies from encounter to encounter - and auto-scale it to the incoming damage - in order to create a worthy opponent, it has to scale to what you guys are actually capable of - if you can deal extreme damage, so can this NPC then - and it is no longer clear, who will win this encounter - then you got your challenge.

ShalidorsHeir's problem would be solved by this as well - if he does 125k damage on the first hit - well, then he might not be able to do his second attack, if he cannot tank the 100k+ (auto-scaled) damage incoming to him in return by this NPC - so he won't attack like this anymore, because it would just get him killed. This kind of scaling hinders extreme self-overpowering quite a bit - one can still do it, but it could be lethal - and not just for the opponent.

Remarkable idea Even better than just one definition of difficulty --> people could actualy make optimzied builds for this, depending on the rule set on how the damage return scales and armor rating becomes usefull again. Ofc bosses need mor health in general to survive that in the first place still.
The negative side effect is: People wont understand it i guess ^^

Lysette

ShalidorsHeir wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

Higher difficulty based on just scaling is an illusion for those who have good sustain - it just takes longer for them to kill stuff in this case, but it isn't more difficult - what do they do what they wouldn't do anyway?- they keep up buffs, they maintain their resources and keep up their health - so as long as they do not run out of resources (as in having a sustainable sustain) it is not more challenge to scale enemies up - it is just a longer fight with a well in advance known result - the Sun Tzu kind of fight "don't start a fight you haven't won already" - so where is the challenge there - you just get the same in a longer version.

In my mind making it challenging should not scale it up too much, but add a lot of unpredictability - something one has to react to live instead to just spool up muscle memory rotations - the thing why this is not engaging is because it can be computed in advance how the outcome will be - see ShalidorsHeir's example - it is not more of a challenge for him if he kills that enemy in 2 or 4 or 6 or 8 hits more, it is just a longer version of an otherwise well known and boring outcome. It is always the same in the end - to be challenging, it would have to be less predictable and the outcome should be more uncertain.

Scaling up absolutely can make things harder.

I mean I recently solo'ed Moongrave Fane on normal, and the 2nd to last boss doesn't have insane mechs I haven't been doing throughout the dungeon anyway. But it's way harder just because there's a lot more damage. I actually had to adjust my build to clear it, something I did not have to do the rest of the dungeon. I added a HoT and some CC and suddenly it went from punishing to challenging. It was the hardest but also most satisfying fight that run just because it hit harder.

Yeah, but once you have a sustainable sustain nothing will kill you before the enemy will be dead - the outcome is no longer unpredictable and the only challenge is then that it takes longer - and becomes a chore - that is not more fun, but more grind.

Even with a sustainable sustain you can mess up and get one shot and such if the attacks are strong enough. It doesn't have to be unpredictable and many people enjoy puzzling how how a boss's mechanics work and then getting them timed right to beat them.

Playing by the numbers - you describe exactly what is the problem with combat in ESO - it is too predictable, whilst at the same time too much certainty is in it's skills and abilities -. they work 100% of the time (or they are supposed to). Now compare that to pvp - it is most of the time unpredictable what the opponent will do and if your skills will have an effect is unclear, because your opponent will most likely not just stand there waiting to get killed, but move around, roll dodge, block and counter your attacks. And what do NPCs do?

I wouldn't give NPCs more hitpoints, but an extra strong damage shield, which strength and duration varies from encounter to encounter. This has a similar effect - that NPC will be much better protected (but for how long and how good exactly is unknown and will not be the same next time around). Now give this NPC as well some unpredictability on it's attack side, as in damage and use of special abilities varies from encounter to encounter - and auto-scale it to the incoming damage - in order to create a worthy opponent, it has to scale to what you guys are actually capable of - if you can deal extreme damage, so can this NPC then - and it is no longer clear, who will win this encounter - then you got your challenge.

ShalidorsHeir's problem would be solved by this as well - if he does 125k damage on the first hit - well, then he might not be able to do his second attack, if he cannot tank the 100k+ (auto-scaled) damage incoming to him in return by this NPC - so he won't attack like this anymore, because it would just get him killed. This kind of scaling hinders extreme self-overpowering quite a bit - one can still do it, but it could be lethal - and not just for the opponent.

Remarkable idea Even better than just one definition of difficulty --> people could actualy make optimzied builds for this, depending on the rule set on how the damage return scales and armor rating becomes usefull again. Ofc bosses need mor health in general to survive that in the first place still.
The negative side effect is: People wont understand it i guess ^^

Now think of the role of a tank - a tank doesn't do much damage, so there is as well not that much damage to tank in return - this is enhancing the role of a tank quite a bit and allows even younger tanks to get experience in a group of more skilled players because they can add value to the group even without being overly skilled as long as he can taunt and tank. But here the same would apply, don't make the taunt reliable - there has to be some kind of uncertainty, or it will be exploited.

DDs are as well better protected in a group - on their very own they cannot go against a high XP target with squishy 18k health, if they aren't able to one-shot it or wait for the moment when the damage shield of the NPC is dropping. But it might never drop, so this cannot be exploited.

I guess that support roles would benefit from such an approach because grouping up actually makes sense then.

I think as well that people have to experience it and not trying to figure out the game mechanics behind it - that is why I (as a game master in a pen&paper rpg) would use randomly changing rules or just make them up on the go - then they cannot figure them out and have to go after what they are currently experiencing and react live to it - this is what makes it a challenge, but if people will like it?- I doubt it.

What I fear is that ZOS will do it in a way, which is the same in a different color just taking instead of 1-8 shots, 5-40 shots instead - the illusion of being harder, whilst in fact just being longer and more exhausting (grind) instead of being a challenge with uncertain outcome.

ACamaroGuy

How do you suggest they change the difficulty of the game for some and not for others? Sliders, option menu, etc.? How will the game programming separate your difficulty setting for the player next to you? The game at times has a hard timing keeping up with it's current play style. Now you all want to add a more complex option setting into the mix. Yeah, don't think it'll be a good idea at all.