Overland Content Feedback Thread

Sylvermynx

I don't want my overland any more difficult than it is right now. I'm older, my reflexes for this game's type of combat aren't good at all, I don't care about mechanics in combat - so optional is the word you're leaving out.

I'd be happy with an optional vet overland instance or toggle for same. But if current difficulty gets ramped up at all, it will effectively exclude me from playing.

I'm sure you'll be okay with that, but of course I'll be pretty upset....

treadwyckb14a_ESO

Sylvermynx wrote: »

I don't want my overland any more difficult than it is right now. I'm older, my reflexes for this game's type of combat aren't good at all, I don't care about mechanics in combat - so optional is the word you're leaving out.

I'd be happy with an optional vet overland instance or toggle for same. But if current difficulty gets ramped up at all, it will effectively exclude me from playing.

I'm sure you'll be okay with that, but of course I'll be pretty upset....

I don't think most people want anybody to feel excluded from the game but at the same time, I think a lot of people understand there's rarely an answer that will make everybody happy. On one hand, you get your wish and you're happy but people like me aren't and leave. On the other...just the reverse.

I have strong doubts about a toggle being feasible; how do you account for two players in the same zone playing at different difficulty settings and potentially fighting the same mob? I don't think you can. I'm also skeptical about zoning as it divides the playerbase.

But at the end of the day, it isn't our responsibility to figure out how to make this happen in a way that negatively impacts the fewest amount of players. That's on ZOS. It's on them to honestly and openly engage with their players, recognize trends and points of contention and implement solutions. True, player feedback is an integral part of that process, but they have to get things rolling first.

I don't like seeing them effectively say "yeah, we tried higher difficulty and it failed so easy mode overland is here to stay. Go run Vet Arenas, Dungeons and Trials if you want challenge" as if there is only snoozefest easy and Emotional Damage on the difficulty scale.

SilverBride

treadwyckb14a_ESO wrote: »

I have strong doubts about a toggle being feasible; how do you account for two players in the same zone playing at different difficulty settings and potentially fighting the same mob? I don't think you can. I'm also skeptical about zoning as it divides the playerbase.

The toggle would basically bring the player down to the level of the mob, so the mob would be unchanged.

Some posters don't like the idea of playing along side others who aren't using a difficulty setting but it really won't affect their experience at all. We already have players from level 1 to 50 running around the same zones and fighting the same mobs so if a player chooses the toggle for a more difficult experience it would be unnoticeable to the other players. And I really don't think most players pay much attention to others or care how long it takes that player over there to kill that mob anyway.

ThreeXB

I'd be for Vet overland IF there were better and unique rewards. But for people want harder fights I think they forget they don't have to allocate CP and wear gold BIS gear.....want harder overland ??? Take off your CP and wear white non set gear if you want.

treadwyckb14a_ESO

ThreeXB wrote: »

I'd be for Vet overland IF there were better and unique rewards. But for people want harder fights I think they forget they don't have to allocate CP and wear gold BIS gear.....want harder overland ??? Take off your CP and wear white non set gear if you want.

You're saying that players should ignore the biggest parts of character advancement just so they can get a barely satisfying experience as regards difficulty in overland and story content? Why should the choices be to either ignore the larger systems within the game and only be mildly more challenged or engage in those systems and make something that was already easy an absolute snoozefest?

Players should never have to intentionally handicap themselves to make content enjoyable.

Difficulty is more than hitpoints. Mobs that do more interesting things that make you think instead of zerging right over them make for more entertaining combat.

summ0004

Ronin37 wrote: »

But they had time to implement a Magic the gathering game which is a system last I checked.

Agree totally. They seem to spend a lot of time adding features from a commercial perspective to advertise new features to attact brand new players who will then only stay and play for a few weeks, rather than focus on improving and updating out of date features of the existing game for people who are longer term customers.

Such a shame as this game has sooo much more potential if they just unlocked the shackles, and made it hands down the best MMO and single player game on the market that would blow most competition out of the water, and could appeal to all playerbases.

Ronin37

ThreeXB wrote: »

I'd be for Vet overland IF there were better and unique rewards. But for people want harder fights I think they forget they don't have to allocate CP and wear gold BIS gear.....want harder overland ??? Take off your CP and wear white non set gear if you want.

I have run new chars from 1-50 no cp in store gear. The mobs are laughably easy.

spartaxoxo

Ronin37 wrote: »

ThreeXB wrote: »

I'd be for Vet overland IF there were better and unique rewards. But for people want harder fights I think they forget they don't have to allocate CP and wear gold BIS gear.....want harder overland ??? Take off your CP and wear white non set gear if you want.

I have run new chars from 1-50 no cp in store gear. The mobs are laughably easy.

Easy for you. Your experience is not universal. I think that needs to be said since some people want to force the issue the last couple of pages.

spartaxoxo

treadwyckb14a_ESO wrote: »

I don't think most people want anybody to feel excluded from the game but at the same time, I think a lot of people understand there's rarely an answer that will make everybody happy. On one hand, you get your wish and you're happy but people like me aren't and leave. On the other...just the reverse.

Except the majority of players like the current difficulty. So if the solution is about minimizing the number of unhappy people, a solution that forces itself on everyone is literally the worst for minimizing impact. It has inherently the largest impact of all the solutions.

treadwyckb14a_ESO wrote: »

I have strong doubts about a toggle being feasible; how do you account for two players in the same zone playing at different difficulty settings and potentially fighting the same mob? I don't think you can. I'm also skeptical about zoning as it divides the playerbase.

To the toggle point, the same way you account for players having different strengths now. You wait til they leave or just deal with it. It doesn't happen often anyway.

A debuff toggle is already successful in LOTRO.

Of all the proposed solutions which have parallels in other games, the only one I have heard of result in huge failure is forcing the matter. That has resulted in a mass exodus of players, apologies from a company and nerfs.

Lysette

I just hope that pvp performance will get back to what it once was - a lot of those wanting vet overland will then be back in cyrodill and be busy there - and overland can just stay as it is. Ask yourself this - will you still care about overland like you do now, if Cryodiil would provide a rather fluent game play and you would find a real challenge there in a mass battle?

Sylvermynx

Lysette wrote: »

I just hope that pvp performance will get back to what it once was - a lot of those wanting vet overland will then be back in cyrodill and be busy there - and overland can just stay as it is. Ask yourself this - will you still care about overland like you do now, if Cryodiil would provide a rather fluent game play and you would find a real challenge there in a mass battle?

I believe that with many of the posters wanting harder overland, they've said in some posts over all these pages that they also want to do the questlines as well as pvp and the already available vet content - but that because overland is "dead easy" they don't get to enjoy the quests.

Lysette

Sylvermynx wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

I just hope that pvp performance will get back to what it once was - a lot of those wanting vet overland will then be back in cyrodill and be busy there - and overland can just stay as it is. Ask yourself this - will you still care about overland like you do now, if Cryodiil would provide a rather fluent game play and you would find a real challenge there in a mass battle?

I believe that with many of the posters wanting harder overland, they've said in some posts over all these pages that they also want to do the questlines as well as pvp and the already available vet content - but that because overland is "dead easy" they don't get to enjoy the quests.

I understand this - but these guy are playing rather quickly - they get through a zone in a week or two - basically never to return. All the effort to implement something, what will basically just be good for a week or two per zone - stuff what takes months to make and even longer if there has to be a vet version as well - time which could go into other systems, which might benefit them (and potentially us as well) more - I just ask, is it really worth it, because this will be a permanent additional effort for ZOS and eventually reduce the amount of content we get even more, because it is more time consuming to make these zones.

Sylvermynx

I guess that's up to ZOS. But if overland was more to their liking they might spend more than a week or so there, intermixed with vet dungeons, pvp etc. At least that's what I got from some of the posts.

Lysette

I see it from the background of the new chapter - we see there what happens, if they do not have the time to create something really big - we get content, where I say to myself "ok, if the card game is any good, I will be a loyal customer and buy it at launch, despite me thinking, this is not even worth 20 dollars" - and this could go on and get even worse, if they have to do a vet zone with any new chapter, it will be less content for all of us at the same price tag - is this really worth it?

CP5

Lysette wrote: »

Sylvermynx wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

I just hope that pvp performance will get back to what it once was - a lot of those wanting vet overland will then be back in cyrodill and be busy there - and overland can just stay as it is. Ask yourself this - will you still care about overland like you do now, if Cryodiil would provide a rather fluent game play and you would find a real challenge there in a mass battle?

I believe that with many of the posters wanting harder overland, they've said in some posts over all these pages that they also want to do the questlines as well as pvp and the already available vet content - but that because overland is "dead easy" they don't get to enjoy the quests.

I understand this - but these guy are playing rather quickly - they get through a zone in a week or two - basically never to return. All the effort to implement something, what will basically just be good for a week or two per zone - stuff what takes months to make and even longer if there has to be a vet version as well - time which could go into other systems, which might benefit them (and potentially us as well) more - I just ask, is it really worth it, because this will be a permanent additional effort for ZOS and eventually reduce the amount of content we get even more, because it is more time consuming to make these zones.

I have no reason to ever return to some of the older zones since I find the story falling flat due to the lack of, just, overall impact of the actors in the story, and I have no reason to re-explore a land when moving through it is as trivial as walking forward. If I ever level a new character, it is by grinding mobs, not because it's faster, but because questing is so dreadfully dull, and if ever I am not doing group content, what then?

I fish, I farm mats, maybe do some daily quest, but beyond that, nothing. This unfulfilling sense stains new content that I haven't even touched yet, and is only re-affirmed if I do. I tried to do skyrims quest line, so I could do the reach's and get access to one of the daily quest givers but gave up 3 quests in.

If the overland was able to meaningfully engage me I would go back to these older zones, replay the stories because for years that is what I did because I enjoyed it, and having the chance to enjoy them again would be great. I would even look forward to the new content, but as it is my enthusiasm for the whole year is built up and lost Q1, with my only real interest being what new sets are being added and what balance changes are coming to the game. The world of tamriel, the biggest actor in the elder scrolls series, is nothing to me anymore, because I just can't care.

Lysette

@CP5 I understand that from your perspective, but you want a change to mechanics and such, it is not just scaling, it is a big effort to make this happen - and there is just so much development time - if it goes into this, it will not go into something else - and it is an effort which will be there with any new zone as well - so in the end we all will get less content than we could have otherwise - at the same price tag - this is not coming for free, therefore, we all have to pay for it in the end - by getting less content for the same price tag - just look at this new chapter, it is full price, despite being lackluster in content.

CP5

And any effort is more than none. Years ago ZOS updated delves in the base game zones. Early on, they were literal circles. You enter, pass a 1 way door, and clear, killing the boss on the other side of the door and leaving. Every few updates they remodeled a batch of these delves to make them more engaging, not all at once, but over time. Small steps, to show that they understand, that is the place to start.

It is foolish to expect them to pull a full new system like this out of nowhere, but as it is becoming increasingly apparent with more voices on the forums, many people feel disillusioned like I do and feel less and less invested in the game. Is it better to do nothing because it is the easier and cheaper option, and allow this issue to persist, or is it better to do something to show that they care?

And as others have said, they made a new card game, rather than anything else they could have. They chose that over things like this, or pvp, or any pre-existing part of the game. It is important that people remain vocal to help them understand what their choices are, and even then people feel ignored.

Sylvermynx

@CP5 - I do have to say in defense of the developers, this thread was started in November of 2021, and by that time, this year's content was likely already set in stone. I have the feeling that next year's layout is pretty much already set in stone as well.

If they choose to implement a harder overland, whatever choice they make about it will most likely not happen in depth until 2024. Especially since they are going to re-architecture pvp in the interim, so they've said.

Lysette

Ok, like this the impact on all of us might be bearable - step by step not all at once.

But it has it's problems - there are about 40 zones already - if they do 10 per year (about 1 per month minus absent times of staff), this is an effort which takes 4 years to complete - 4 years. And it might take a week per zone to do that - which is about 25% of the workforce available of those involved in this - so this is as well in steps not a small effort and will impact all of us for 4 years - whilst still not being a solution for you for years to come - given that what Sylvermynx pointed out, that the work on it could eventually just start in 2024 - so this is not complete before 2028. Not to talk about the storm which they will have to deal with, if there is less and less content per chapter.

BronzeCaiman

Me and my wife came to a consensus on a simple solution for making the content feel more meaningful.

All we need is a buff on quest bosses and world dungeon bosses (not group dungeons and not public dungeons) that lasts anywhere from 30 to 60 seconds, the either significantly reduces damage taken by the bosses (99%?), or makes them unable to drop below 1 HP. This way they can do dialogue, some flashy moves, and maybe even kill you if your build is subpar.

You spent all of Deshaan chasing Vox and kill her like some random netch 🤣

Lysette

BlackArgonian wrote: »

Me and my wife came to a consensus on a simple solution for making the content feel more meaningful.

All we need is a buff on quest bosses and world dungeon bosses (not group dungeons and not public dungeons) that lasts anywhere from 30 to 60 seconds, the either significantly reduces damage taken by the bosses (99%?), or makes them unable to drop below 1 HP. This way they can do dialogue, some flashy moves, and maybe even kill you if your build is subpar.

You spent all of Deshaan chasing Vox and kill her like some random netch 🤣

damage sponges - oh my, what an idea - people don't like spongy enemies.

treadwyckb14a_ESO

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Except the majority of players like the current difficulty. So if the solution is about minimizing the number of unhappy people, a solution that forces itself on everyone is literally the worst for minimizing impact. It has inherently the largest impact of all the solutions.

Yes, that was my point. There are always going to be those who wind up feeling excluded because no decision is going to make everybody happy. You go with the decision that makes the most amount of people happy and others either deal or leave.

If the majority, in fact, likes the current difficulty then I expect it will stay the same. And it should. I don't know what the "majority" wants and I'm always a little skeptical of forumites who claim to know what the "majority" wants. Maybe you do. I don't know.

All I know is I've made my case as to what kind of difficulty/combat improvements I would like to see. If I'm in the minority, so be it. I don't expect ZOS to cater to the minority here. There are other games and things to do with my time.

tonyblack

After addition of the card game I see the arguments about “majority” even less convincing. I haven’t saw anyone requesting it in years visiting this forum and it didn’t seem popular on Reddit either, outside of some buried minor posts. Yet here we are. Meanwhile sizable portion of community requested overland difficulty options for years. And negative reaction to the new chapter feature have partly have to do with the fact that gameplay wise new zone would offer nothing to veteran players, but new trial. Same easy quests with no challenge or rewards and thus no satisfaction in completing it. If new zones would offer enjoyable experience for both veteran and new players the reaction would be far less toxic. As of now a lot of players already gave up on new chapter.

CP5

Lysette wrote: »

BlackArgonian wrote: »

Me and my wife came to a consensus on a simple solution for making the content feel more meaningful.

All we need is a buff on quest bosses and world dungeon bosses (not group dungeons and not public dungeons) that lasts anywhere from 30 to 60 seconds, the either significantly reduces damage taken by the bosses (99%?), or makes them unable to drop below 1 HP. This way they can do dialogue, some flashy moves, and maybe even kill you if your build is subpar.

You spent all of Deshaan chasing Vox and kill her like some random netch 🤣

damage sponges - oh my, what an idea - people don't like spongy enemies.

That's why I never feel content with just "self nerfing." An incapable enemy who spends the fight fiddling away their time isn't threatening if made to last longer, just more of a chore. They need to live long enough to do things, sure, but those things need to be impactful, hence why I say many of their time-wasting abilities are what need to be addressed, mob and boss alike.

Lysette

CP5 wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

BlackArgonian wrote: »

Me and my wife came to a consensus on a simple solution for making the content feel more meaningful.

All we need is a buff on quest bosses and world dungeon bosses (not group dungeons and not public dungeons) that lasts anywhere from 30 to 60 seconds, the either significantly reduces damage taken by the bosses (99%?), or makes them unable to drop below 1 HP. This way they can do dialogue, some flashy moves, and maybe even kill you if your build is subpar.

You spent all of Deshaan chasing Vox and kill her like some random netch 🤣

damage sponges - oh my, what an idea - people don't like spongy enemies.

That's why I never feel content with just "self nerfing." An incapable enemy who spends the fight fiddling away their time isn't threatening if made to last longer, just more of a chore. They need to live long enough to do things, sure, but those things need to be impactful, hence why I say many of their time-wasting abilities are what need to be addressed, mob and boss alike.

I can agree here - and this might not even be that much of an effort to do. I think as well the game should take latency of a player into account - it is measured anyway, so why not use it?- This could solve Sylvermynx problem as well, if there is a longer delay before an impactful attack happens for someone with high latency, and a much shorter for someone with less latency. It is really hard to react to something, what has already happened at the time one can see the "warning" - you might know that as well - when you are dead already, but don't know it yet due to high latency - and get a list of impactful attacks, where you have none of them actually seen happening.

Sylvermynx

Uh.... I don't think a game can be programmed to work around latency - and even if it could.... that might be a very expensive proposition, when funds need to be allocated Elsweyr.... (sorry, couldn't resist....)

Again - if "harder overland" happens, I will try it. Considering how much even everyone else's "easy overland" causes me problems I don't expect a great outcome. Since what I love is questing, if I'm "erased" because I can't manage the content, I'll be very very sad.

But I've dealt with a LOT of sad in my 74 years so.... I expect I'd get over it. If nothing else I'll still be playing Skyrim and Oblivion - unless microsoft screws that up somehow.

Lysette

Sylvermynx wrote: »

Uh.... I don't think a game can be programmed to work around latency - and even if it could.... that might be a very expensive proposition, when funds need to be allocated Elsweyr.... (sorry, couldn't resist....)

Again - if "harder overland" happens, I will try it. Considering how much even everyone else's "easy overland" causes me problems I don't expect a great outcome. Since what I love is questing, if I'm "erased" because I can't manage the content, I'll be very very sad.

But I've dealt with a LOT of sad in my 74 years so.... I expect I'd get over it. If nothing else I'll still be playing Skyrim and Oblivion - unless microsoft screws that up somehow.

Nah, we need you here - you are a brave lady and should enjoy ESO for as long as you want.

Why would it be hard to work around latency though?- the game needs to take a lot of durations of effects into account anyway - like between "warning" and "heavy attack" of mob - latency would just be factored in (a simple multiplication once you have the latency value, which is measured anyway, you can even put the display of it somewhere onto your hud). This multiplication stretches or shortens the duration between warning and heavy attack - and that's it already.

Sylvermynx

Well, unless they just stuff "ping" into various "levels" (good ping == 20-80; marginal ping == 100-300; horrible ping == anything over 300), the algorithm would seem to need factoring for each player's situational issues.

Okay, so there's not 20 million players - but there's maybe 200k online over the course of the day. So they have to check each player concurrently, and then the backend has to do whatever needs doing to "refactor" so the player like me with 750+ms ping gets something more playable (like the 100-300ms player? dunno, since its a total vaporware setup in any case).

The game backend already chokes for various systems: pvp, endgame pve.... Adding something like ping calcs just seems like it's going to fry a lot of stuff.

Then again, I'm not a programmer.

Lysette

Sylvermynx wrote: »

Well, unless they just stuff "ping" into various "levels" (good ping == 20-80; marginal ping == 100-300; horrible ping == anything over 300), the algorithm would seem to need factoring for each player's situational issues.

Okay, so there's not 20 million players - but there's maybe 200k online over the course of the day. So they have to check each player concurrently, and then the backend has to do whatever needs doing to "refactor" so the player like me with 750+ms ping gets something more playable (like the 100-300ms player? dunno, since its a total vaporware setup in any case).

The game backend already chokes for various systems: pvp, endgame pve.... Adding something like ping calcs just seems like it's going to fry a lot of stuff.

Then again, I'm not a programmer.

I do a lot of simulations of varies kind - and in this case (warning-heavy attack) you have durations of several seconds often - and a multiplication takes a few nanoseconds each. So when the warning is given, the duration is calculated from the moving average of the latency of the player (different players fighting at the same time might see different impact times, but they would do anyway due to their latency differences). A very simple (but not scaled) version of such would be

adjusted duration = duration * latency / 150 with latency given in ms

So someone with 50ms latency will see the heavy attack happening 3 times quicker than it was before - and you with 750ms would have 4-times more time to react - because you see the warning much later than others. This would make up for your high latency and you would be able to react in time.

This could of course be shaped to not be a linear scale but somewhat curved to smooth it out a bit, but even that is in the end just a rather simple calculation, which would happen once per duration adjustment - a couple of nanoseconds more during a time span of several seconds - that is a pretty unrecognizable impact.

spartaxoxo

treadwyckb14a_ESO wrote: »

If the majority, in fact, likes the current difficulty then I expect it will stay the same. And it should. I don't know what the "majority" wants and I'm always a little skeptical of forumites who claim to know what the "majority" wants. Maybe you do. I don't know.

The developers stated that they haven't done it because the majority don't like it based off their stats of what the playerbase does.

All I know is I've made my case as to what kind of difficulty/combat improvements I would like to see. If I'm in the minority, so be it. I don't expect ZOS to cater to the minority here. There are other games and things to do with my time.

Why not? Trials cater to a minority and we have that. Games need not only cater to a majority. The only thing it means is that forced is a bad idea, not that literally nothing should be done.