Overland Content Feedback Thread

treadwyckb14a_ESO

spartaxoxo wrote: »

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.

Okay, then that would appear to make me the minority who wants it to change. I'm still going to speak my mind about what I'd like to see.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

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.

Because this conversation isn't about trials, it's about overland content. Also, I never said anything about forcing it. They've said that a toggle is not as simple as flipping a switch, there's a ton of work involved and if there's no reward for making things more difficult, why do it? Given that and the fact I appear to be in the minority who wants overland difficulty to change, that is what I mean when I say I can hardly expect them to cater to me with respect to overland difficulty.

Which is fine. It just means I go play something else that I enjoy more.

Don't think I can be any clearer than that.

treadwyckb14a_ESO

Whoops

spartaxoxo

treadwyckb14a_ESO wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

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.

Okay, then that would appear to make me the minority who wants it to change. I'm still going to speak my mind about what I'd like to see.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

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.

Because this conversation isn't about trials, it's about overland content. Also, I never said anything about forcing it. They've said that a toggle is not as simple as flipping a switch, there's a ton of work involved and if there's no reward for making things more difficult, why do it? Given that and the fact I appear to be in the minority who wants overland difficulty to change, that is what I mean when I say I can hardly expect them to cater to me with respect to overland difficulty.

Which is fine. It just means I go play something else that I enjoy more.

Don't think I can be any clearer than that.

I didn't say the thread was about trials?? I was using it as an example of content that caters to a minority to ask you why you don't expect them to cater to a minority player group.

Also you didn't say to force a difficulty, but our conversation started from someone suggesting that. Then another person said that would force them to be excluded. And then you stated that it might be a solution that causes the minimum impact, and expressed your doubts about a toggle or a separate instance.

It's from there that our conversation ensued and eventually wound up on the topic of majority vs minority. And I stated that the only thing being in the minority player group means is that we can't force it. Because our conversation had been about minimizing impact. It was simply a statement about the ramifications of what being in the minority group means.

Because frankly, in this case I think ZOS should cater to a minority player group in this case and I don't care that we are in the minority. This game needs a way for us to optionally increase our difficulty.

treadwyckb14a_ESO

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I didn't say the thread was about trials?? I was using it as an example of content that caters to a minority to ask you why you don't expect them to cater to a minority player group.

Also you didn't say to force a difficulty, but our conversation started from someone suggesting that. Then another person said that would force them to be excluded. And then you stated that it might be a solution that causes the minimum impact, and expressed your doubts about a toggle or a separate instance.

It's from there that our conversation ensued and eventually wound up on the topic of majority vs minority. And I stated that the only thing being in the minority player group means is that we can't force it. Because our conversation had been about minimizing impact. It was simply a statement about the ramifications of what being in the minority group means.

Because frankly, in this case I think ZOS should cater to a minority player group in this case and I don't care that we are in the minority. This game needs a way for us to optionally increase our difficulty.

I guess we'll see if ZOS feels the same.

Lysette

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Because frankly, in this case I think ZOS should cater to a minority player group in this case and I don't care that we are in the minority. This game needs a way for us to optionally increase our difficulty.

You know, this is much like I feel when it comes to speed limits on highways - I'm a born german, Germany has no absolute speed limit on highways - we like to drive fast, as in 200+ km/h - I personally like as well 300+ km/h. The rest of the world (the majority) doesn't like it and even if they would, it is not as easy as flipping a switch, because their highways are often in a state, which doesn't allow for driving much faster than they do, nor do their citizen have the ability to really drive fast. I'm so amused when I see foreigners trying the german Autobahn on youtube - and they go like 130, 140, 150, 160 km/h and think they are driving fast - whilst in fact they are just hindering us to drive like we are used to, if they drive that slowly.

Now, can I seriously expect as a born german, that the rest of the world will change their mind, re-new their infrastructure and redesign their cars, that those are capable to go at those speeds we are used to on highways which are actually good enough to make this possible?- This is not going to happen, takes too long, costs too much and the majority doesn't like to drive fast.

A pretty similar situation it is with veteran overland - you guys are used to the fast lane, while the majority is not. But you basically expect, that the whole infrastructure will be changed to cater to your habit of playing - I feel like you actually when it comes to speed limits on highways - but is it rational to think the world will change their minds about it?- Certainly not.

spartaxoxo

I feel like asking a video game designer for a video game feature is a lot different than expecting the entire world to overhaul it's infrastructure, but okay let's roll with this analogy.

Most of us are not asking for the entire world to change it's infrastructure and enjoy driving fast (that's the equivalent to forcing the matter), we are asking for a way to go to Germany and drive on the Auto-bahn.

Lysette

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I feel like asking a video game designer for a video game feature is a lot different than expecting the entire world to overhaul it's infrastructure, but okay let's roll with this analogy.

Most of us are not asking for the entire world to change it's infrastructure and enjoy driving fast (that's the equivalent to forcing the matter), we are asking for a way to go to Germany and drive on the Auto-bahn.

No, it is even worse - you expect them to create a different infrastructure especially for you, which most will neither use nor enjoy, because their way to play is so much different to yours.

What I wanted to say with this analogy - I'm living for long in countries, where the speed limit is meh - in germany I would switch eventually from 2nd to 3rd gear - but here it is already the speed limit - it is meh, just like overland is for you. But I do not expect them to change their minds about it - they do as well not have the infrastructure for it nor do their citizen have the ability to drive that fast and their cars are not up to the task either.

And you asking for more than you think - there would be 40 zones to be updated and changed already. This takes a really long time to do. It is nearly all of Tamriel, which would have to be changed - it is asking the "world" to change for you to enjoy it.

MindOfTheSwarm

I think some kind of group finder for world bosses would be good. It’s hard to get some of them done without help

Araxyte

I've not seen this thread for a few months, but it seems to be following the same theme - the majority of players commenting would love some kind of optional difficulty setting, but then they are shot down by the same old people that want everyone to be playing at the same level of easy difficulty. There are some big youtubers out there now pushing for an optional increase in difficulty to overland content. Keep pushing your ideas people!

summ0004

Thats why as time is going on I think the best option would be to have the debuff option you can apply to yourself of either

1. Normal- stays exactly as it is now
2. Veteran- Applies a debuff that reduces your damage done, increases damage recieved and gives more experience and more gold and maybe blue and purple item drops.
3. Veteran hardmode- As above but the debuff increases damage taken even further and you do less damage again, and the experience and gold drop is increased even more. The item drops are of a higher quality of purple and a small chance of gold items dropping.

This would balance more risk based gameplay on more risk vs more reward and would solve nearly all the problems.

As far as I know this wouldnt require too much recodings to the game ether and could quickly me implemented.

So people in the world around you know which debuff you are on, you could also have a different icon template on your character to show too.

Lysette

Commander_Kjlp wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I feel like asking a video game designer for a video game feature is a lot different than expecting the entire world to overhaul it's infrastructure, but okay let's roll with this analogy.

Most of us are not asking for the entire world to change it's infrastructure and enjoy driving fast (that's the equivalent to forcing the matter), we are asking for a way to go to Germany and drive on the Auto-bahn.

No, it is even worse - you expect them to create a different infrastructure especially for you, which most will neither use nor enjoy, because their way to play is so much different to yours.

What I wanted to say with this analogy - I'm living for long in countries, where the speed limit is meh - in germany I would switch eventually from 2nd to 3rd gear - but here it is already the speed limit - it is meh, just like overland is for you. But I do not expect them to change their minds about it - they do as well not have the infrastructure for it nor do their citizen have the ability to drive that fast and their cars are not up to the task either.

And you asking for more than you think - there would be 40 zones to be updated and changed already. This takes a really long time to do. It is nearly all of Tamriel, which would have to be changed - it is asking the "world" to change for you to enjoy it.

[snip]

None of you wants to look at the economic side of things - you just see what you want to see - but ZOS is a company, for them the economical aspect is quite important - and it is for me too - because if a major effort would be made to implement this, this will reduce the content we get for years to come - at the same price tag - so it is something we all have to pay for, but don't benefit from it, but rather be at a disadvantage. But this is of course something you don't want to hear nor that it will be pointed out.

[edited to remove quote]

Parasaurolophus

Lysette wrote: »

Commander_Kjlp wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I feel like asking a video game designer for a video game feature is a lot different than expecting the entire world to overhaul it's infrastructure, but okay let's roll with this analogy.

Most of us are not asking for the entire world to change it's infrastructure and enjoy driving fast (that's the equivalent to forcing the matter), we are asking for a way to go to Germany and drive on the Auto-bahn.

No, it is even worse - you expect them to create a different infrastructure especially for you, which most will neither use nor enjoy, because their way to play is so much different to yours.

What I wanted to say with this analogy - I'm living for long in countries, where the speed limit is meh - in germany I would switch eventually from 2nd to 3rd gear - but here it is already the speed limit - it is meh, just like overland is for you. But I do not expect them to change their minds about it - they do as well not have the infrastructure for it nor do their citizen have the ability to drive that fast and their cars are not up to the task either.

And you asking for more than you think - there would be 40 zones to be updated and changed already. This takes a really long time to do. It is nearly all of Tamriel, which would have to be changed - it is asking the "world" to change for you to enjoy it.

[snip]

None of you wants to look at the economic side of things - you just see what you want to see - but ZOS is a company, for them the economical aspect is quite important - and it is for me too - because if a major effort would be made to implement this, this will reduce the content we get for years to come - at the same price tag - so it is something we all have to pay for, but don't benefit from it, but rather be at a disadvantage. But this is of course something you don't want to hear nor that it will be pointed out.

None of the players can be competent in the economics of ZoS. There can be absolutely no arguments here, because the maximum that you can do is rely only on your own ideas about which players are the majority and who spends how much money on the game. You don't have any real data to say anything. Here, in the same way, it has already been explained in detail several times why the player cannot and should not pay attention to the economic side of the issue. Any attempts to try to explain something from the point of view of the economy in this case is just an attempt to manipulate opinion. That's why so many people are so annoyed.
You say that we have the words of the developers. I have them too. Rich said on one of his streams that the average "lifetime" of an account is a guest of weeks. Six weeks! Let's not make more new content and improvements, because the average player will not have time to touch even half of it in six weeks.

[edited to remove quote]

Lysette

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

Commander_Kjlp wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I feel like asking a video game designer for a video game feature is a lot different than expecting the entire world to overhaul it's infrastructure, but okay let's roll with this analogy.

Most of us are not asking for the entire world to change it's infrastructure and enjoy driving fast (that's the equivalent to forcing the matter), we are asking for a way to go to Germany and drive on the Auto-bahn.

No, it is even worse - you expect them to create a different infrastructure especially for you, which most will neither use nor enjoy, because their way to play is so much different to yours.

What I wanted to say with this analogy - I'm living for long in countries, where the speed limit is meh - in germany I would switch eventually from 2nd to 3rd gear - but here it is already the speed limit - it is meh, just like overland is for you. But I do not expect them to change their minds about it - they do as well not have the infrastructure for it nor do their citizen have the ability to drive that fast and their cars are not up to the task either.

And you asking for more than you think - there would be 40 zones to be updated and changed already. This takes a really long time to do. It is nearly all of Tamriel, which would have to be changed - it is asking the "world" to change for you to enjoy it.

[snip]

None of you wants to look at the economic side of things - you just see what you want to see - but ZOS is a company, for them the economical aspect is quite important - and it is for me too - because if a major effort would be made to implement this, this will reduce the content we get for years to come - at the same price tag - so it is something we all have to pay for, but don't benefit from it, but rather be at a disadvantage. But this is of course something you don't want to hear nor that it will be pointed out.

None of the players can be competent in the economics of ZoS. There can be absolutely no arguments here, because the maximum that you can do is rely only on your own ideas about which players are the majority and who spends how much money on the game. You don't have any real data to say anything. Here, in the same way, it has already been explained in detail several times why the player cannot and should not pay attention to the economic side of the issue.
You say that we have the words of the developers. I have them too. Rich said on one of his streams that the average "lifetime" of an account is a guest of weeks. Six weeks! Let's not make more new content and improvements, because the average player will not have time to touch even half of it in six weeks.

Don't you think, if you would be really the backbone of the game, that what you want wouldn't be already implemented. Now look at what we get with this chapter and those before - that is content for whom?- Now, who is likely to be the true backbone seen from an economical side - do you really think, they make this kind of content for those, who would be the minority?

[edited to remove quote]

summ0004

Lysette wrote: »

Don't you think, if you would be really the backbone of the game, that what you want wouldn't be already implemented. Now look at what we get with this chapter and those before - that is content for whom?- Now, who is likely to be the true backbone seen from an economical side - do you really think, they make this kind of content for those, who would be the minority?

Its about customer service and loyalty to customers and to keep as many people as happy as possible. Purely focusing on the business perpective of only making content for players that stay for 6 weeks, rather than longer term loyal players is a bad move.Whilst it may gain decent short term benefits, the loss of reputation can be very damaging in the long term if veteran players are ignored.

Lysette

summ0004 wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

Don't you think, if you would be really the backbone of the game, that what you want wouldn't be already implemented. Now look at what we get with this chapter and those before - that is content for whom?- Now, who is likely to be the true backbone seen from an economical side - do you really think, they make this kind of content for those, who would be the minority?

Its about customer service and loyalty to customers and to keep as many people as happy as possible. Purely focusing on the business perpective of only making content for players that stay for 6 weeks, rather than longer term loyal players is a bad move.Whilst it may gain decent short term benefits, the loss of reputation can be very damaging in the long term if veteran players are ignored.

I am still with spartaxoxo, that an adventure zone for vets as a yearly content would be a good idea - but to redesign 40 zones is quite a lot of work which would impact all of us, because it would bind development resource for years for something most will never even get near to. That is just not a good idea - but I agree that something should be done, just not all of overland.

ShalidorsHeir

Lysette wrote: »

summ0004 wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

Don't you think, if you would be really the backbone of the game, that what you want wouldn't be already implemented. Now look at what we get with this chapter and those before - that is content for whom?- Now, who is likely to be the true backbone seen from an economical side - do you really think, they make this kind of content for those, who would be the minority?

Its about customer service and loyalty to customers and to keep as many people as happy as possible. Purely focusing on the business perpective of only making content for players that stay for 6 weeks, rather than longer term loyal players is a bad move.Whilst it may gain decent short term benefits, the loss of reputation can be very damaging in the long term if veteran players are ignored.

I am still with spartaxoxo, that an adventure zone for vets as a yearly content would be a good idea - but to redesign 40 zones is quite a lot of work which would impact all of us, because it would bind development resource for years for something most will never even get near to. That is just not a good idea - but I agree that something should be done, just not all of overland.

No redesign is needed - simple scaling in an optional vet zone is minimum effort to satisfy all needs claimed in this thread. If it is worth for ZOS to implement further design they can do that later as well. Thats the economic part of that.

CP5

It wouldn't be about manually modifying 40 zones with the proper technique. Enemies are generated off templates, and even dlc zones only have a few dozen of those. Tweaking those templates is how you would modify the world on a whole. It would take time and effort, and expecting them to do everything at once would be a lot, but if they took their list and figured out which templates they would need to modify to influence specific zones they could more easily do something like "we updated Auridon, Glenumbra, and Stonefalls" or "for this elsweyr celebration we updated northern and sothern elsweyr." I don't care much for events since it's just item fodder, but doing something like that would re-inspire me to visit.

ShalidorsHeir

CP5 wrote: »

It wouldn't be about manually modifying 40 zones with the proper technique. Enemies are generated off templates, and even dlc zones only have a few dozen of those. Tweaking those templates is how you would modify the world on a whole. It would take time and effort, and expecting them to do everything at once would be a lot, but if they took their list and figured out which templates they would need to modify to influence specific zones they could more easily do something like "we updated Auridon, Glenumbra, and Stonefalls" or "for this elsweyr celebration we updated northern and sothern elsweyr." I don't care much for events since it's just item fodder, but doing something like that would re-inspire me to visit.

I am an software developer and architect involved in many marketing processes. That is another flag for difficulty and a damn config file. Besides that the only thing to implement is the generation of these zones out of templates that were created and modified long time ago already, the same stuff they generate the usual zones with. That stuff is not magic at all. Even the were do i come out, normal or vateteran?, is just reusage of things that have been implement already.

Parasaurolophus

Lysette wrote: »

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

Commander_Kjlp wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I feel like asking a video game designer for a video game feature is a lot different than expecting the entire world to overhaul it's infrastructure, but okay let's roll with this analogy.

Most of us are not asking for the entire world to change it's infrastructure and enjoy driving fast (that's the equivalent to forcing the matter), we are asking for a way to go to Germany and drive on the Auto-bahn.

No, it is even worse - you expect them to create a different infrastructure especially for you, which most will neither use nor enjoy, because their way to play is so much different to yours.

What I wanted to say with this analogy - I'm living for long in countries, where the speed limit is meh - in germany I would switch eventually from 2nd to 3rd gear - but here it is already the speed limit - it is meh, just like overland is for you. But I do not expect them to change their minds about it - they do as well not have the infrastructure for it nor do their citizen have the ability to drive that fast and their cars are not up to the task either.

And you asking for more than you think - there would be 40 zones to be updated and changed already. This takes a really long time to do. It is nearly all of Tamriel, which would have to be changed - it is asking the "world" to change for you to enjoy it.

[snip]

None of you wants to look at the economic side of things - you just see what you want to see - but ZOS is a company, for them the economical aspect is quite important - and it is for me too - because if a major effort would be made to implement this, this will reduce the content we get for years to come - at the same price tag - so it is something we all have to pay for, but don't benefit from it, but rather be at a disadvantage. But this is of course something you don't want to hear nor that it will be pointed out.

None of the players can be competent in the economics of ZoS. There can be absolutely no arguments here, because the maximum that you can do is rely only on your own ideas about which players are the majority and who spends how much money on the game. You don't have any real data to say anything. Here, in the same way, it has already been explained in detail several times why the player cannot and should not pay attention to the economic side of the issue.
You say that we have the words of the developers. I have them too. Rich said on one of his streams that the average "lifetime" of an account is a guest of weeks. Six weeks! Let's not make more new content and improvements, because the average player will not have time to touch even half of it in six weeks.

Don't you think, if you would be really the backbone of the game, that what you want wouldn't be already implemented. Now look at what we get with this chapter and those before - that is content for whom?- Now, who is likely to be the true backbone seen from an economical side - do you really think, they make this kind of content for those, who would be the minority?

[edited to remove quote]

Because ZoS chose this path to attract a large number of new players. In fact, new chapters are just new advertising campaigns. Again, I can't blame ZoS for being eso very casual. This is not true. We still have two dungeon dlcs and trials/arenas. It's unlikely that casual players demand better server performance, but ZoS is ready to do this big and expensive job. However, all content and all systems are good only when they are interesting or useful for all categories of players. For dungeons and trials there is an easy mode. Craft is necessary for every player. I will now say a very unpopular opinion, but even pvp in eco is casual friendly, because no matter how you play, good or bad, you will still get your AP. New classes for everyone. In archeology, you can find everything from furniture to the mythical gear. Even companions have useful bonuses after we reach max. lvl
But overland and stories? If you spend a lot of time on the Internet, you probably know about such a thing as survivorship bias. So this is exactly it. There are quite a few non-casual games and pvp games in the world that are much more popular than eso. It's just that players who appreciate good gameplay don't stay in the game for long. I see how there is simply no new blood in the game among veterans. People come to eso, see that the game is like a visual novel and not a full-fledged video game, and just leave. Only the most assiduous or stubborn remain.

Sylvermynx

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

People come to eco, see that the game is like a visual novel and not a full-fledged video game, and just leave. Only the most assiduous or stubborn remain.

Or those of us who have played TES since Arena released in 1994, still play Oblivion and Skyrim, and love ESO for what it is so are playing it alongside the other games....

CP5

ShalidorsHeir wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

It wouldn't be about manually modifying 40 zones with the proper technique. Enemies are generated off templates, and even dlc zones only have a few dozen of those. Tweaking those templates is how you would modify the world on a whole. It would take time and effort, and expecting them to do everything at once would be a lot, but if they took their list and figured out which templates they would need to modify to influence specific zones they could more easily do something like "we updated Auridon, Glenumbra, and Stonefalls" or "for this elsweyr celebration we updated northern and sothern elsweyr." I don't care much for events since it's just item fodder, but doing something like that would re-inspire me to visit.

I am an software developer and architect involved in many marketing processes. That is another flag for difficulty and a damn config file. Besides that the only thing to implement is the generation of these zones out of templates that were created and modified long time ago already, the same stuff they generate the usual zones with. That stuff is not magic at all. Even the were do i come out, normal or vateteran?, is just reusage of things that have been implement already.

Exactly, and while the old silver and gold zones, (for those wondering, were essentially 2 additional difficulty flags) were simple and only modified mob level, going beyond that is something seen in every dungeon and trial. It just comes down to modifying (many) templates, and generating new instances off of them. You can do the self flag rule to enable mobs to do more against players with the flag, but that would require modifying those templates as well. But many seem to think making a vet zone would require creating a new npc at every location an npc spawns at and hand crafting what they can do each time.

Parasaurolophus

Sylvermynx wrote: »

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

People come to eco, see that the game is like a visual novel and not a full-fledged video game, and just leave. Only the most assiduous or stubborn remain.

Or those of us who have played TES since Arena released in 1994, still play Oblivion and Skyrim, and love ESO for what it is so are playing it alongside the other games....

And I play it too... What's the problem?

Lysette

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

Commander_Kjlp wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I feel like asking a video game designer for a video game feature is a lot different than expecting the entire world to overhaul it's infrastructure, but okay let's roll with this analogy.

Most of us are not asking for the entire world to change it's infrastructure and enjoy driving fast (that's the equivalent to forcing the matter), we are asking for a way to go to Germany and drive on the Auto-bahn.

No, it is even worse - you expect them to create a different infrastructure especially for you, which most will neither use nor enjoy, because their way to play is so much different to yours.

What I wanted to say with this analogy - I'm living for long in countries, where the speed limit is meh - in germany I would switch eventually from 2nd to 3rd gear - but here it is already the speed limit - it is meh, just like overland is for you. But I do not expect them to change their minds about it - they do as well not have the infrastructure for it nor do their citizen have the ability to drive that fast and their cars are not up to the task either.

And you asking for more than you think - there would be 40 zones to be updated and changed already. This takes a really long time to do. It is nearly all of Tamriel, which would have to be changed - it is asking the "world" to change for you to enjoy it.

[snip]

None of you wants to look at the economic side of things - you just see what you want to see - but ZOS is a company, for them the economical aspect is quite important - and it is for me too - because if a major effort would be made to implement this, this will reduce the content we get for years to come - at the same price tag - so it is something we all have to pay for, but don't benefit from it, but rather be at a disadvantage. But this is of course something you don't want to hear nor that it will be pointed out.

None of the players can be competent in the economics of ZoS. There can be absolutely no arguments here, because the maximum that you can do is rely only on your own ideas about which players are the majority and who spends how much money on the game. You don't have any real data to say anything. Here, in the same way, it has already been explained in detail several times why the player cannot and should not pay attention to the economic side of the issue.
You say that we have the words of the developers. I have them too. Rich said on one of his streams that the average "lifetime" of an account is a guest of weeks. Six weeks! Let's not make more new content and improvements, because the average player will not have time to touch even half of it in six weeks.

Don't you think, if you would be really the backbone of the game, that what you want wouldn't be already implemented. Now look at what we get with this chapter and those before - that is content for whom?- Now, who is likely to be the true backbone seen from an economical side - do you really think, they make this kind of content for those, who would be the minority?

[edited to remove quote]

Because ZoS chose this path to attract a large number of new players. In fact, new chapters are just new advertising campaigns. Again, I can't blame ZoS for being eso very casual. This is not true. We still have two dungeon dlcs and trials/arenas. It's unlikely that casual players demand better server performance, but ZoS is ready to do this big and expensive job. However, all content and all systems are good only when they are interesting or useful for all categories of players. For dungeons and trials there is an easy mode. Craft is necessary for every player. I will now say a very unpopular opinion, but even pvp in eco is casual friendly, because no matter how you play, good or bad, you will still get your AP. New classes for everyone. In archeology, you can find everything from furniture to the mythical gear. Even companions have useful bonuses after we reach max. lvl
But overland and stories? If you spend a lot of time on the Internet, you probably know about such a thing as survivorship bias. So this is exactly it. There are quite a few non-casual games and pvp games in the world that are much more popular than eso. It's just that players who appreciate good gameplay don't stay in the game for long. I see how there is simply no new blood in the game among veterans. People come to eso, see that the game is like a visual novel and not a full-fledged video game, and just leave. Only the most assiduous or stubborn remain.

See, what you call good gameplay is for me - combat, combat, combat, endless repetition and grind to get the gear to do it - that is not good gameplay in my books at all - ESO offers another kind of gameplay as well, that what you would consider gameplay not worth it, I guess.

But ESO is the promised isle in a sea of combat games, where one can actually role play, even if it is the role of a mediocre non-hero type, who has the ambition to nevertheless venture out into the world - failing here and there, because the role demands it, making progress by getting more confident sometimes, being quite picky about which quest to take, because this character has his own political opinions or doesn't want to be an errand runner - this is gameplay which you might not enjoy, but a lot do - and ESO provides the "stage" to role play like this - Matt called it not in vain a virtual world as much as being a game - there is room to actually role play characters - they do not have to be heroes in the best gear available. Playing characters who aren't heroes is sometimes not easy - but it is quite satisfying for a role player to get it done - this is a different kind of challenge - and ESO offers the opportunity to experience that as well.

That ZOS is working on making pvp more enjoyable is a good thing - new players have access to Cyrodiil starting with level 10 - and from my experience with true pvp-oriented players in EVE, those really going for the pvp part of the game are venturing early on into less safe areas and start pvping as soon as they possibly can - so it is good that ZOS is working on that - there is quite an amount of new players enjoying this as well.

Sylvermynx

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

Sylvermynx wrote: »

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

People come to eco, see that the game is like a visual novel and not a full-fledged video game, and just leave. Only the most assiduous or stubborn remain.

Or those of us who have played TES since Arena released in 1994, still play Oblivion and Skyrim, and love ESO for what it is so are playing it alongside the other games....

And I play it too... What's the problem?

I don't consider myself either assiduous or stubborn....

Parasaurolophus

Lysette wrote: »

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

Commander_Kjlp wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I feel like asking a video game designer for a video game feature is a lot different than expecting the entire world to overhaul it's infrastructure, but okay let's roll with this analogy.

Most of us are not asking for the entire world to change it's infrastructure and enjoy driving fast (that's the equivalent to forcing the matter), we are asking for a way to go to Germany and drive on the Auto-bahn.

No, it is even worse - you expect them to create a different infrastructure especially for you, which most will neither use nor enjoy, because their way to play is so much different to yours.

What I wanted to say with this analogy - I'm living for long in countries, where the speed limit is meh - in germany I would switch eventually from 2nd to 3rd gear - but here it is already the speed limit - it is meh, just like overland is for you. But I do not expect them to change their minds about it - they do as well not have the infrastructure for it nor do their citizen have the ability to drive that fast and their cars are not up to the task either.

And you asking for more than you think - there would be 40 zones to be updated and changed already. This takes a really long time to do. It is nearly all of Tamriel, which would have to be changed - it is asking the "world" to change for you to enjoy it.

[snip]

None of you wants to look at the economic side of things - you just see what you want to see - but ZOS is a company, for them the economical aspect is quite important - and it is for me too - because if a major effort would be made to implement this, this will reduce the content we get for years to come - at the same price tag - so it is something we all have to pay for, but don't benefit from it, but rather be at a disadvantage. But this is of course something you don't want to hear nor that it will be pointed out.

None of the players can be competent in the economics of ZoS. There can be absolutely no arguments here, because the maximum that you can do is rely only on your own ideas about which players are the majority and who spends how much money on the game. You don't have any real data to say anything. Here, in the same way, it has already been explained in detail several times why the player cannot and should not pay attention to the economic side of the issue.
You say that we have the words of the developers. I have them too. Rich said on one of his streams that the average "lifetime" of an account is a guest of weeks. Six weeks! Let's not make more new content and improvements, because the average player will not have time to touch even half of it in six weeks.

Don't you think, if you would be really the backbone of the game, that what you want wouldn't be already implemented. Now look at what we get with this chapter and those before - that is content for whom?- Now, who is likely to be the true backbone seen from an economical side - do you really think, they make this kind of content for those, who would be the minority?

[edited to remove quote]

Because ZoS chose this path to attract a large number of new players. In fact, new chapters are just new advertising campaigns. Again, I can't blame ZoS for being eso very casual. This is not true. We still have two dungeon dlcs and trials/arenas. It's unlikely that casual players demand better server performance, but ZoS is ready to do this big and expensive job. However, all content and all systems are good only when they are interesting or useful for all categories of players. For dungeons and trials there is an easy mode. Craft is necessary for every player. I will now say a very unpopular opinion, but even pvp in eco is casual friendly, because no matter how you play, good or bad, you will still get your AP. New classes for everyone. In archeology, you can find everything from furniture to the mythical gear. Even companions have useful bonuses after we reach max. lvl
But overland and stories? If you spend a lot of time on the Internet, you probably know about such a thing as survivorship bias. So this is exactly it. There are quite a few non-casual games and pvp games in the world that are much more popular than eso. It's just that players who appreciate good gameplay don't stay in the game for long. I see how there is simply no new blood in the game among veterans. People come to eso, see that the game is like a visual novel and not a full-fledged video game, and just leave. Only the most assiduous or stubborn remain.

See, what you call good gameplay is for me - combat, combat, combat, endless repetition and grind to get the gear to do it - that is not good gameplay in my books at all - ESO offers another kind of gameplay as well, that what you would consider gameplay not worth it, I guess.

I'm sorry, but I really think you're trying to manipulate the conversation. Of course, good gameplay isn't just about combat. A good questing could contain different options for completing the quest. Different dialogue options depending on the RP. Perhaps the riddles in different manifestations. For example, I often remember the now forgotten adventure quest genre. Probably all this is present in eso and I just don't notice it. For some reason it seems to me that questing in eso is just a linear reading of dialogues. I'm probably wrong.

Lysette wrote: »

But ESO is the promised isle in a sea of combat games, where one can actually role play, even if it is the role of a mediocre non-hero type, who has the ambition to nevertheless venture out into the world - failing here and there, because the role demands it, making progress by getting more confident sometimes, being quite picky about which quest to take, because this character has his own political opinions or doesn't want to be an errand runner - this is gameplay which you might not enjoy, but a lot do - and ESO provides the "stage" to role play like this - Matt called it not in vain a virtual world as much as being a game - there is room to actually role play characters - they do not have to be heroes in the best gear available. Playing characters who aren't heroes is sometimes not easy - but it is quite satisfying for a role player to get it done - this is a different kind of challenge - and ESO offers the opportunity to experience that as well.

While the game does not support RP in any way.
Again, you are burning about RP. You see eso as a cosplay arena. But even RP is not the majority. Casual is not RP.

Lysette

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

Commander_Kjlp wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I feel like asking a video game designer for a video game feature is a lot different than expecting the entire world to overhaul it's infrastructure, but okay let's roll with this analogy.

Most of us are not asking for the entire world to change it's infrastructure and enjoy driving fast (that's the equivalent to forcing the matter), we are asking for a way to go to Germany and drive on the Auto-bahn.

No, it is even worse - you expect them to create a different infrastructure especially for you, which most will neither use nor enjoy, because their way to play is so much different to yours.

What I wanted to say with this analogy - I'm living for long in countries, where the speed limit is meh - in germany I would switch eventually from 2nd to 3rd gear - but here it is already the speed limit - it is meh, just like overland is for you. But I do not expect them to change their minds about it - they do as well not have the infrastructure for it nor do their citizen have the ability to drive that fast and their cars are not up to the task either.

And you asking for more than you think - there would be 40 zones to be updated and changed already. This takes a really long time to do. It is nearly all of Tamriel, which would have to be changed - it is asking the "world" to change for you to enjoy it.

[snip]

None of you wants to look at the economic side of things - you just see what you want to see - but ZOS is a company, for them the economical aspect is quite important - and it is for me too - because if a major effort would be made to implement this, this will reduce the content we get for years to come - at the same price tag - so it is something we all have to pay for, but don't benefit from it, but rather be at a disadvantage. But this is of course something you don't want to hear nor that it will be pointed out.

None of the players can be competent in the economics of ZoS. There can be absolutely no arguments here, because the maximum that you can do is rely only on your own ideas about which players are the majority and who spends how much money on the game. You don't have any real data to say anything. Here, in the same way, it has already been explained in detail several times why the player cannot and should not pay attention to the economic side of the issue.
You say that we have the words of the developers. I have them too. Rich said on one of his streams that the average "lifetime" of an account is a guest of weeks. Six weeks! Let's not make more new content and improvements, because the average player will not have time to touch even half of it in six weeks.

Don't you think, if you would be really the backbone of the game, that what you want wouldn't be already implemented. Now look at what we get with this chapter and those before - that is content for whom?- Now, who is likely to be the true backbone seen from an economical side - do you really think, they make this kind of content for those, who would be the minority?

[edited to remove quote]

Because ZoS chose this path to attract a large number of new players. In fact, new chapters are just new advertising campaigns. Again, I can't blame ZoS for being eso very casual. This is not true. We still have two dungeon dlcs and trials/arenas. It's unlikely that casual players demand better server performance, but ZoS is ready to do this big and expensive job. However, all content and all systems are good only when they are interesting or useful for all categories of players. For dungeons and trials there is an easy mode. Craft is necessary for every player. I will now say a very unpopular opinion, but even pvp in eco is casual friendly, because no matter how you play, good or bad, you will still get your AP. New classes for everyone. In archeology, you can find everything from furniture to the mythical gear. Even companions have useful bonuses after we reach max. lvl
But overland and stories? If you spend a lot of time on the Internet, you probably know about such a thing as survivorship bias. So this is exactly it. There are quite a few non-casual games and pvp games in the world that are much more popular than eso. It's just that players who appreciate good gameplay don't stay in the game for long. I see how there is simply no new blood in the game among veterans. People come to eso, see that the game is like a visual novel and not a full-fledged video game, and just leave. Only the most assiduous or stubborn remain.

See, what you call good gameplay is for me - combat, combat, combat, endless repetition and grind to get the gear to do it - that is not good gameplay in my books at all - ESO offers another kind of gameplay as well, that what you would consider gameplay not worth it, I guess.

I'm sorry, but I really think you're trying to manipulate the conversation. Of course, good gameplay isn't just about combat. A good questing could contain different options for completing the quest. Different dialogue options depending on the RP. Perhaps the riddles in different manifestations. For example, I often remember the now forgotten adventure quest genre. Probably all this is present in eso and I just don't notice it. For some reason it seems to me that questing in eso is just a linear reading of dialogues. I'm probably wrong.

Lysette wrote: »

But ESO is the promised isle in a sea of combat games, where one can actually role play, even if it is the role of a mediocre non-hero type, who has the ambition to nevertheless venture out into the world - failing here and there, because the role demands it, making progress by getting more confident sometimes, being quite picky about which quest to take, because this character has his own political opinions or doesn't want to be an errand runner - this is gameplay which you might not enjoy, but a lot do - and ESO provides the "stage" to role play like this - Matt called it not in vain a virtual world as much as being a game - there is room to actually role play characters - they do not have to be heroes in the best gear available. Playing characters who aren't heroes is sometimes not easy - but it is quite satisfying for a role player to get it done - this is a different kind of challenge - and ESO offers the opportunity to experience that as well.

While the game does not support RP in any way.
Again, you are burning about RP. You see eso as a cosplay arena. But even RP is not the majority. Casual is not RP.

One adds role play to a game, it is not provided by the game - the game provides a stage where this role play can occur, but it is added by role players - in earlier TES games there was some support for it, but it got dumped down to just stamina, health and magicka, no further character attributes anymore - so anyone wanting to actually role play has to bring it to the game by him/herself - but the game world has to allow for it - if it would just be designed to force people into the hero role, it would be hard to role play in it. ESO is offering the stage where roie play can happen - and it is not just cosplay as you call it. Cosplay is more like acting, role play is something more creative and unpredictable, because a role players character develops over time in often surprising ways - and might end up being quite different from how one has imagined him/her to be in the end.

btw you have basically initiated this discourse about role play - because you said just the stubborn remain - because you don't seem to know what kind of gameplay is as well possible outside of your sphere of experience, I try to give you a glimpse of a different challenge, which is in role play and that there is as well a reason to love ESO for providing the stage where it can occur because of the content being rather easy - for a mediocre character that is good enough and allows for playing these kind of roles as well.

Lysette

CP5 wrote: »

ShalidorsHeir wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

It wouldn't be about manually modifying 40 zones with the proper technique. Enemies are generated off templates, and even dlc zones only have a few dozen of those. Tweaking those templates is how you would modify the world on a whole. It would take time and effort, and expecting them to do everything at once would be a lot, but if they took their list and figured out which templates they would need to modify to influence specific zones they could more easily do something like "we updated Auridon, Glenumbra, and Stonefalls" or "for this elsweyr celebration we updated northern and sothern elsweyr." I don't care much for events since it's just item fodder, but doing something like that would re-inspire me to visit.

I am an software developer and architect involved in many marketing processes. That is another flag for difficulty and a damn config file. Besides that the only thing to implement is the generation of these zones out of templates that were created and modified long time ago already, the same stuff they generate the usual zones with. That stuff is not magic at all. Even the were do i come out, normal or vateteran?, is just reusage of things that have been implement already.

Exactly, and while the old silver and gold zones, (for those wondering, were essentially 2 additional difficulty flags) were simple and only modified mob level, going beyond that is something seen in every dungeon and trial. It just comes down to modifying (many) templates, and generating new instances off of them. You can do the self flag rule to enable mobs to do more against players with the flag, but that would require modifying those templates as well. But many seem to think making a vet zone would require creating a new npc at every location an npc spawns at and hand crafting what they can do each time.

Yeah, this is what I read from what some said - hand-crafted new mechanics - if that is not the case, fine then.

spartaxoxo

Lysette wrote: »

.And you asking for more than you think - there would be 40 zones to be updated and changed already. This takes a really long time to do. It is nearly all of Tamriel, which would have to be changed - it is asking the "world" to change for you to enjoy it.

This is why I asked for a debuff slider, which only changes my character. The same solo shortcut added later by another MMO with a similar problem. I recognize that they said a vet mode all was too much work, so I offered a solution a smaller MMO with less resources found doable.

I appreciate that you don't like this idea because then you'd have more players using Overland with you. But, I am not requesting all new mechanics for everything.

I don't see how it's unreasonable to ask for a feature added years after it's launch in one MMO to this one. They chose that solution presumably because it was more cost-effective timewise.

Lysette

But will such a slider be really more of a challenge, or not just prolong the fight with the same outcome - this is what I ask myself with it - if there would be slider to put a cap on my damage for example, would I use it?- What would it change in my gameplay - my characters would still be tanky and wouldn't have to fear a thing in most cases - and it would just be a longer fight than normal - not much more of a challenge, but much more of a tedious chore. At least I would see it as such.

spartaxoxo

Yes. It would make more of a challenge. Something that used to ignorable now being able to one shot you is a change in difficulty. We already see it works in that game and I see nothing in this game about why it wouldn't work here. They devs would settle on which debuffs they'd want to work on it's strength but decreasing damage dealt and increasing damage received would obviously be part of it.

It's not as good at providing a challenge as an entire rework obviously, but it's vastly superior to doing nothing and leaving those old zones with no options.