Overland Content Feedback Thread

SilverBride

CP5 wrote: »

And what if, for some points, the bar to entry is just having a decent understanding of your skills and how to best use them? Using an aoe skill when attacked by multiple enemies? A buff that causes you to out heal incoming damage by casting it once every 30s? It is elitist of me to say perhaps, but in an rpg, it isn't "parsing and rotation and super optimal gear" but just an understanding of what skills you have and how to use them. For me, a clear sign of an inexperienced player is one who just backs away, doing heavy attacks, with full resources and a bar full of skills they don't use. As someone who has been in that design space before, the answer to why players aren't using their skills is because they never need to, and don't.

I don't agree with any tests used to admit players to use any part of the game they want to try out. I presented an idea in another thread about dungeon groups but no one seemed interested. But this was my idea.

Why not have a training dungeon where you learn to not stand in red, and to block and to interrupt? But not one with timed mobs that you are required to pass before you are allowed to queue like WoW used to have, and eventually got rid of. Just one that you go do as your chosen class to learn the basics of dungeon mechanics.

I am conflicted on whether or not this should be required to queue, but as long as it doesn't require a player to "pass" the test and is only informational why not?

ShalidorsHeir

SilverBride wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

Overland doesn't require player skills though, so people learn nothing. When I was in cloudrest once, there is a part in one of the fights where a few players need to disengage from the boss and kill multiple stationary targets. This player I was with cast volley on every single one, without knowing either that you can only have 1 aoe active of each skill at a time, and that volley doesn't deal its damage until a few seconds after you cast it. They never needed to pay attention to their skills long enough to learn this.

When I was fighting the hunger world boss in vvardenfel, the one that hard cc's one player and someone else has to interrupt it? Was duoing it easily with a low level player, but every time I got pinned I died because this player, even when mentioning it in chat, didn't understand what to do and what to look for. Thankfully, they had pets that held the boss long enough for me to rez each time, but all it required was 2 keys to be pressed to meaningfully engage with the fight.

Or how about the poster who mentioned one player was stuck on a quest boss for hours, but all it turned out they needed to do was turn their attention away from the boss, likely toward some glowing mcguffin, for only a moment, to progress the fight and not die?

If I'm in the dungeon finder and a player cast any buff skill, especially if they do so before a fight, they're instantly in the top 10% of players. Why wouldn't people, in an RPG, be eager to use their cool skills that they've been unlocking, especially if they make the fights easier as well?

Players aren't paying attention to what their skills do because they don't need to. Players aren't learning core combat principles that are applicable everywhere in the game, like interrupting, because enemies do that outside of dungeons. Players aren't used to doing anything more than mindlessly attacking the boss, so in fights where you need to do anything else, they're overwhelmed. And players aren't even interested in utilizing the cool skills they're gaining in an RPG because the energy required to intentionally use these skills is more than just clearing most fights without them. That is what I mean, these aren't "Dungeon specific mechanics," they're the heart of what makes ESO's gameplay different than other mmo's.

Some players never learn anything no matter if it's in the tutorial or a veteran trial. But overland is for questing and the story. It does not require critical thinking. It does not require mechanics. And it is not a training ground for dungeons or other end game content.

Historically in every game I have ever played... and I was an end game raider up until I came to ESO because been there done that... end game skills are learned by doing end game content. Why should ESO be different?

I dont know any game, tera, bdo, new world and what not, where players were thrown so far apart like in ESO since the overland is not a going a straight forward direction. Dont get me wrong but i would like to state that this comment is wrong Anyways i think it can stay the way but optional vet overland doesnt stand in your way either.

spartaxoxo

CP5 wrote: »

Overland doesn't require player skills though, so people learn nothing. When I was in cloudrest once, there is a part in one of the fights where a few players need to disengage from the boss and kill multiple stationary targets. This player I was with cast volley on every single one, without knowing either that you can only have 1 aoe active of each skill at a time, and that volley doesn't deal its damage until a few seconds after you cast it. They never needed to pay attention to their skills long enough to learn this.

When I was fighting the hunger world boss in vvardenfel, the one that hard cc's one player and someone else has to interrupt it? Was duoing it easily with a low level player, but every time I got pinned I died because this player, even when mentioning it in chat, didn't understand what to do and what to look for. Thankfully, they had pets that held the boss long enough for me to rez each time, but all it required was 2 keys to be pressed to meaningfully engage with the fight.

Or how about the poster who mentioned one player was stuck on a quest boss for hours, but all it turned out they needed to do was turn their attention away from the boss, likely toward some glowing mcguffin, for only a moment, to progress the fight and not die?

If I'm in the dungeon finder and a player cast any buff skill, especially if they do so before a fight, they're instantly in the top 10% of players. Why wouldn't people, in an RPG, be eager to use their cool skills that they've been unlocking, especially if they make the fights easier as well?

Players aren't paying attention to what their skills do because they don't need to. Players aren't learning core combat principles that are applicable everywhere in the game, like interrupting, because enemies do that outside of dungeons. Players aren't used to doing anything more than mindlessly attacking the boss, so in fights where you need to do anything else, they're overwhelmed. And players aren't even interested in utilizing the cool skills they're gaining in an RPG because the energy required to intentionally use these skills is more than just clearing most fights without them. That is what I mean, these aren't "Dungeon specific mechanics," they're the heart of what makes ESO's gameplay different than other mmo's.

Sure, but I don't really remember doing any of that in the tutorial of most games I played. I could get by just spamming buttons randomly for the early part of most games. I learned "advanced" techniques like how to block later.

And ESO is no different in that regard. Players learn these mechanics from the world bosses and dungeons, rather than from story quests which are tutorial content.

If some player doesn't want to progress past that, it's not a problem. The ones that do learn from the intermediate level difficulty content same as any other game.

I don't really get how this relates to vet overland though, TBH. A new player isn't gonna use it, a casual will be uninterested, and dedicated vet player are already learning from the existing content.

BTW, I am for making people do an undaunted tutorial before they can queue for vet, but beyond that...

CP5

SilverBride wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

And what if, for some points, the bar to entry is just having a decent understanding of your skills and how to best use them? Using an aoe skill when attacked by multiple enemies? A buff that causes you to out heal incoming damage by casting it once every 30s? It is elitist of me to say perhaps, but in an rpg, it isn't "parsing and rotation and super optimal gear" but just an understanding of what skills you have and how to use them. For me, a clear sign of an inexperienced player is one who just backs away, doing heavy attacks, with full resources and a bar full of skills they don't use. As someone who has been in that design space before, the answer to why players aren't using their skills is because they never need to, and don't.

I don't agree with any tests used to admit players to use any part of the game they want to try out. I presented an idea in another thread about dungeon groups but no one seemed interested. But this was my idea.

Why not have a training dungeon where you learn to not stand in red, and to block and to interrupt? But not one with timed mobs that you are required to pass before you are allowed to queue like WoW used to have, and eventually got rid of. Just one that you go do as your chosen class to learn the basics of dungeon mechanics.

I am conflicted on whether or not this should be required to queue, but as long as it doesn't require a player to "pass" the test and is only informational why not?

Because learning through repetition and standard gameplay is more natural, intuitive, and doesn't require players to know that this specific place exist. The tutorial literally freezes time until you preform the needed key presses to do things like block and interrupt, but without having threats that require these answers, these skills are just forgotten. To me, what a vet overland entails, is a place where the enemies are threatening enough that you would actively need to think and use these answers, not be a place where elite, max level player alone would go. Having enemies that are persistent enough and challenging enough to require these answers both gives experienced players a way to be engaged and gives newer players the chance to naturally learn these skills.

spartaxoxo

CP5 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

And what if, for some points, the bar to entry is just having a decent understanding of your skills and how to best use them? Using an aoe skill when attacked by multiple enemies? A buff that causes you to out heal incoming damage by casting it once every 30s? It is elitist of me to say perhaps, but in an rpg, it isn't "parsing and rotation and super optimal gear" but just an understanding of what skills you have and how to use them. For me, a clear sign of an inexperienced player is one who just backs away, doing heavy attacks, with full resources and a bar full of skills they don't use. As someone who has been in that design space before, the answer to why players aren't using their skills is because they never need to, and don't.

I don't agree with any tests used to admit players to use any part of the game they want to try out. I presented an idea in another thread about dungeon groups but no one seemed interested. But this was my idea.

Why not have a training dungeon where you learn to not stand in red, and to block and to interrupt? But not one with timed mobs that you are required to pass before you are allowed to queue like WoW used to have, and eventually got rid of. Just one that you go do as your chosen class to learn the basics of dungeon mechanics.

I am conflicted on whether or not this should be required to queue, but as long as it doesn't require a player to "pass" the test and is only informational why not?

Because learning through repetition and standard gameplay is more natural, intuitive, and doesn't require players to know that this specific place exist. The tutorial literally freezes time until you preform the needed key presses to do things like block and interrupt, but without having threats that require these answers, these skills are just forgotten. To me, what a vet overland entails, is a place where the enemies are threatening enough that you would actively need to think and use these answers, not be a place where elite, max level player alone would go. Having enemies that are persistent enough and challenging enough to require these answers both gives experienced players a way to be engaged and gives newer players the chance to naturally learn these skills.

If it's easy enough for them to learn skills, it won't be engaging or challenging at all to me.

ETA
But I'm in favor more challenge as opposed to a moderate one. I actually wouldn't mind them taking as long to kill as the stuff in VMA.

wazbaumukerb14_ESO

I mean Silverbride is right that vet on launch was a disaster, but there were a lot of factors, like power creep and class balancing.

But the big thing was Craglorn being a whiff of a first patch because the developers didn't really know what their audience was yet. Like everyone, they wanted to be a "wow killer" but the vast majority of the people playing the game just wanted story content, dress-up, and achievements, not hardcore dungeons and group content. After realizing that, it was the clear shift to One Tamriel designed to support it, with trials and stuff thrown in for players who wanted a challenge. It is very, very rare for an MMO to suddenly get more popular because it got harder, but being too hard is a death sentence. Most people play to be entertained, not to be challenged.

That said, we are many years after One Tamriel, and every time I try and get back into this game I realize how unsatisfying everything is as a solo player. The difficulty ranges from "kill a delve boss in 5 seconds" to "world boss that has 3 million health." There's almost no gradient and it's kind of insane.

WoW doesn't really over any challenge in overland content either, but a lot of that is because everyone is doing double damage each patch so the RPG scaling is very obvious. Here it's a lot more difficult to see. I'm wearing the same gear on my characters (crafted) that I've been wearing for like 5+ years and I see no reason to every change.

FlopsyPrince

spartaxoxo wrote: »

FlopsyPrince wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

LashanW wrote: »

Yet how do casual players predict what we will do when we don't get exactly what we asked for?

Several posters have stated they do not currently play overland, and some don't play the game at all, but say they would play again if they get a separate veteran overland.

That is almost certainly what they think (at least I would hope so), but that doesn't prove it would satisfy them for long. The latter is the huge question in the room that needs strong consideration given the depth of effort required for any changes to existing content in this area.

Stories are more interesting to many people when the interactive elements support the narrative. Even if a player here eventually gets burnt out, some new player that also enjoys that would replace them, no different to how it works with casual content.

Quests are once and done activities anyway, so there's no need for the same quests to be engaging that long. They just need to be interesting when you engage them the first time or two. This is not repeatable content.

Adding an optional difficulty would no doubt make quests more interesting for a significant number of players.

The problem is that the level of effort to make consistent challenging content would be much more than the relatively brief satisfaction of those who want it with such content. It would take more than a run through or two to "pay" for all the effort made.

I could be wrong of course, but I can't see such players being happy with repeating such content so much as those of us who don't demand it are.

Would they run upgraded Alikr Desert content 20+ times? I have with the current content.

summ0004

FlopsyPrince wrote: »

The problem is that the level of effort to make consistent challenging content would be much more than the relatively brief satisfaction of those who want it with such content. It would take more than a run through or two to "pay" for all the effort made.

I could be wrong of course, but I can't see such players being happy with repeating such content so much as those of us who don't demand it are.

Would they run upgraded Alikr Desert content 20+ times? I have with the current content.

Thats why the debuff option is the best and easiest short term fix, and this doesnt require a re-design of anything in the content as it only affects the player.

Also its good to always give players choice. If someone wants to run Alkir desert 20 times with an increased difficulty thats up to them.

spartaxoxo

FlopsyPrince wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

FlopsyPrince wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

LashanW wrote: »

Yet how do casual players predict what we will do when we don't get exactly what we asked for?

Several posters have stated they do not currently play overland, and some don't play the game at all, but say they would play again if they get a separate veteran overland.

That is almost certainly what they think (at least I would hope so), but that doesn't prove it would satisfy them for long. The latter is the huge question in the room that needs strong consideration given the depth of effort required for any changes to existing content in this area.

Stories are more interesting to many people when the interactive elements support the narrative. Even if a player here eventually gets burnt out, some new player that also enjoys that would replace them, no different to how it works with casual content.

Quests are once and done activities anyway, so there's no need for the same quests to be engaging that long. They just need to be interesting when you engage them the first time or two. This is not repeatable content.

Adding an optional difficulty would no doubt make quests more interesting for a significant number of players.

The problem is that the level of effort to make consistent challenging content would be much more than the relatively brief satisfaction of those who want it with such content. It would take more than a run through or two to "pay" for all the effort made.

I could be wrong of course, but I can't see such players being happy with repeating such content so much as those of us who don't demand it are.

Would they run upgraded Alikr Desert content 20+ times? I have with the current content.

This is exactly why I recommend debuffs.
Quests are meant to be one and done anyway. At least this would get more people invested in the chapter stories.

CP5

It could, though I wouldn't mind being able to level future characters through questing as well, so revisiting older zones is still something I would hope to do.

FlopsyPrince

Some of you may say debuffs are the answer, but isn't turning of CP something like that?

Also, I have seem several others reject the idea of debuffs. Instead, they want customized content. A debuff is simple. Tweaking everything is much more challenging.

spartaxoxo

FlopsyPrince wrote: »

Some of you may say debuffs are the answer, but isn't turning of CP something like that?

Also, I have seem several others reject the idea of debuffs. Instead, they want customized content. A debuff is simple. Tweaking everything is much more challenging.

You can do way more with debuffs than you can just taking off your armor. It can take your damage taken and dealt down more, and you can add unique gameplay elements too.

For example they could put a debuff that adds a stack of cold that does 10hp per second when outside in snowy areas. Going into a town or campfire removes that stack of cold and it can eventually one shot ya.

You can also make a limited amount of enemies recognize the person is under a strong debuff and launch special attacks meant to capitalize in it without having to overhaul all the enemies e.g. story quest mini bosses.

It's the route LOTRO went, minus the cold thing. That's just a riff on Skyrim to showcase the concept not a serious suggestion.

LashanW

FlopsyPrince wrote: »

The problem is that the level of effort to make consistent challenging content would be much more than the relatively brief satisfaction of those who want it with such content. It would take more than a run through or two to "pay" for all the effort made.

I could be wrong of course, but I can't see such players being happy with repeating such content so much as those of us who don't demand it are.

What do you mean "pay" for all the effort made? I saw this type of comment earlier too. We make one-time payment for latest chapters and we sub for ESO+ (people pay for ESO+ for a wide variety of reasons, I mostly pay for the craft bag and increased storage space). What other payments are there for replaying content? It's not like you make additional payments every time you replay an overland zone.

FlopsyPrince wrote: »

Some of you may say debuffs are the answer, but isn't turning of CP something like that?

Not anymore.
CP2.0 is not that strong compared to CP1.0. Also ZoS gave extra stats to all characters regardless of CP, when they transitioned from CP1.0 to CP2.0. For example free 1000 weapon and spell damage for everyone, and increased health. You can't turn these off.

Also, you can have builds that do 20k+ dps with good self heals/shields while having enough sustain to fight for days. And this is with only basic gear and zero CP. It comes from knowing well how the game works, and being skilled with your class. Can't exactly turn these "off".

FlopsyPrince

LashanW wrote: »

FlopsyPrince wrote: »

The problem is that the level of effort to make consistent challenging content would be much more than the relatively brief satisfaction of those who want it with such content. It would take more than a run through or two to "pay" for all the effort made.

I could be wrong of course, but I can't see such players being happy with repeating such content so much as those of us who don't demand it are.

What do you mean "pay" for all the effort made? I saw this type of comment earlier too. We make one-time payment for latest chapters and we sub for ESO+ (people pay for ESO+ for a wide variety of reasons, I mostly pay for the craft bag and increased storage space). What other payments are there for replaying content? It's not like you make additional payments every time you replay an overland zone.

FlopsyPrince wrote: »

Some of you may say debuffs are the answer, but isn't turning of CP something like that?

Not anymore.
CP2.0 is not that strong compared to CP1.0. Also ZoS gave extra stats to all characters regardless of CP, when they transitioned from CP1.0 to CP2.0. For example free 1000 weapon and spell damage for everyone, and increased health. You can't turn these off.

Also, you can have builds that do 20k+ dps with good self heals/shields while having enough sustain to fight for days. And this is with only basic gear and zero CP. It comes from knowing well how the game works, and being skilled with your class. Can't exactly turn these "off".

I am not talking about a payment anyone would make. I am using the business term if some effort will "pay" for the effort it costs. That means "will it be worth more than the cost and level of effort it would take."

Hopefully that clarifies things. I was not suggesting making anyone pay more, but life is full of tradeoffs, including all development.

Iron_Warrior

FlopsyPrince wrote: »

LashanW wrote: »

FlopsyPrince wrote: »

The problem is that the level of effort to make consistent challenging content would be much more than the relatively brief satisfaction of those who want it with such content. It would take more than a run through or two to "pay" for all the effort made.

I could be wrong of course, but I can't see such players being happy with repeating such content so much as those of us who don't demand it are.

What do you mean "pay" for all the effort made? I saw this type of comment earlier too. We make one-time payment for latest chapters and we sub for ESO+ (people pay for ESO+ for a wide variety of reasons, I mostly pay for the craft bag and increased storage space). What other payments are there for replaying content? It's not like you make additional payments every time you replay an overland zone.

FlopsyPrince wrote: »

Some of you may say debuffs are the answer, but isn't turning of CP something like that?

Not anymore.
CP2.0 is not that strong compared to CP1.0. Also ZoS gave extra stats to all characters regardless of CP, when they transitioned from CP1.0 to CP2.0. For example free 1000 weapon and spell damage for everyone, and increased health. You can't turn these off.

Also, you can have builds that do 20k+ dps with good self heals/shields while having enough sustain to fight for days. And this is with only basic gear and zero CP. It comes from knowing well how the game works, and being skilled with your class. Can't exactly turn these "off".

I am not talking about a payment anyone would make. I am using the business term if some effort will "pay" for the effort it costs. That means "will it be worth more than the cost and level of effort it would take."

Hopefully that clarifies things. I was not suggesting making anyone pay more, but life is full of tradeoffs, including all development.

Why are we as players are worrying about the cost of things right now? We know nothing about the business side of things, we are not zenimax employees so talking about it is pointless. Plus zenimax is not an indie company, this is a b2p game with all kinds of monetization, 40$ chapters, sub, lootboxes, cash shop that sells all kinds of things. Stop worrying about corporate incomes.

Some people call us a minority. Ok maybe we are a minority but i'm sure the people that want a harder overland, outnumber the card game fans by at least 10 to 1, yet here we are getting a card game as the main feature of the next chapter

tokeinskyblu

I have not played ESO for a while now. Just wanted to add something here.

I quit ESO because overland was way too easy. Last time I played I completed this really long quest line. The story was amazing I was right into it. The whole quest line led up to a boss fight that I 1 shot.

I really lost interest in the game after this.

SilverBride

Iron_Warrior wrote: »

Why are we as players are worrying about the cost of things right now? We know nothing about the business side of things, we are not zenimax employees so talking about it is pointless. Plus zenimax is not an indie company, this is a b2p game with all kinds of monetization, 40$ chapters, sub, lootboxes, cash shop that sells all kinds of things. Stop worrying about corporate incomes.

Some people call us a minority. Ok maybe we are a minority but i'm sure the people that want a harder overland, outnumber the card game fans by at least 10 to 1, yet here we are getting a card game as the main feature of the next chapter

Going back and giving the huge number of overland mobs new mechanics would be expensive and time consuming. Yes ZoS probably makes a lot of money, but they wouldn't if they put money into doing things the most expensive way when there is a much more economical solution available.

There is a much higher chance of getting something that is less expensive, less time consuming, less disruptive and more widely accepted, such as a debuff and challenge banners, than a huge overhaul of the entire base game.

CP5

SilverBride wrote: »

Iron_Warrior wrote: »

Why are we as players are worrying about the cost of things right now? We know nothing about the business side of things, we are not zenimax employees so talking about it is pointless. Plus zenimax is not an indie company, this is a b2p game with all kinds of monetization, 40$ chapters, sub, lootboxes, cash shop that sells all kinds of things. Stop worrying about corporate incomes.

Some people call us a minority. Ok maybe we are a minority but i'm sure the people that want a harder overland, outnumber the card game fans by at least 10 to 1, yet here we are getting a card game as the main feature of the next chapter

Going back and giving the huge number of overland mobs new mechanics would be expensive and time consuming. Yes ZoS probably makes a lot of money, but they wouldn't if they put money into doing things the most expensive way when there is a much more economical solution available.

There is a much higher chance of getting something that is less expensive, less time consuming, less disruptive and more widely accepted, such as a debuff and challenge banners, than a huge overhaul of the entire base game.

Like a card game? (This reply is a joke, but it is what they've actually chosen to spend time doing.)

Iron_Warrior

SilverBride wrote: »

Iron_Warrior wrote: »

Why are we as players are worrying about the cost of things right now? We know nothing about the business side of things, we are not zenimax employees so talking about it is pointless. Plus zenimax is not an indie company, this is a b2p game with all kinds of monetization, 40$ chapters, sub, lootboxes, cash shop that sells all kinds of things. Stop worrying about corporate incomes.

Some people call us a minority. Ok maybe we are a minority but i'm sure the people that want a harder overland, outnumber the card game fans by at least 10 to 1, yet here we are getting a card game as the main feature of the next chapter

Going back and giving the huge number of overland mobs new mechanics would be expensive and time consuming. Yes ZoS probably makes a lot of money, but they wouldn't if they put money into doing things the most expensive way when there is a much more economical solution available.

There is a much higher chance of getting something that is less expensive, less time consuming, less disruptive and more widely accepted, such as a debuff and challenge banners, than a huge overhaul of the entire base game.

I didn't say i want new mechanic, i think it would be the best thing but also most time consuming. But i'm a big fan of challenge banners and my first comment here months ago was also about challenge banners too. For me the best to worst is like this:

New mechanics > challenge banners > debuff

But at the end i will gladly take any of these changes.

Parasaurolophus

SilverBride wrote: »

Iron_Warrior wrote: »

Why are we as players are worrying about the cost of things right now? We know nothing about the business side of things, we are not zenimax employees so talking about it is pointless. Plus zenimax is not an indie company, this is a b2p game with all kinds of monetization, 40$ chapters, sub, lootboxes, cash shop that sells all kinds of things. Stop worrying about corporate incomes.

Some people call us a minority. Ok maybe we are a minority but i'm sure the people that want a harder overland, outnumber the card game fans by at least 10 to 1, yet here we are getting a card game as the main feature of the next chapter

Going back and giving the huge number of overland mobs new mechanics would be expensive and time consuming. Yes ZoS probably makes a lot of money, but they wouldn't if they put money into doing things the most expensive way when there is a much more economical solution available.

There is a much higher chance of getting something that is less expensive, less time consuming, less disruptive and more widely accepted, such as a debuff and challenge banners, than a huge overhaul of the entire base game.

Well, personally, I think that a good option would be to reconsider the approach to creating locations. I would like to see new zones, with more Craglorn-like content and a vet/normal instance switch.
Let's not forget that we don't have to come to some sort of consensus on how the vet overland could be implemented. overland. This is just feedback. I will accept any ZoS decisions whether it's a debuff/slider or a separate instance. New locations with more instances for solo or with a friend? Wonderful. Debuff/Slider, well I can just enjoy the story better. It doesn't really matter. It is important that the overland and questing that is now terribly boring and trivial.

AlexanderDeLarge

We need a scaling/toggleable solution that affects every zone in the game just as a start long before they reconsider adventure zones again. Personally I would not be happy at all with a token gesture of a single adventure zone while the majority of the content I've paid for remains ridiculously broken, tedious and unfun from a difficulty perspective. That ship sailed five plus years ago when they neutered Craglorn and scrapped Murkmire as planned.

Frankly the way I see it is we've already had two "veteran zones" taken away from us, 6-7 years has passed with this segment of the community completely neglected while they've added almost a dozen new zones since then. A single adventure zone isn't good enough anymore.

Hopefully implementing the global overland solution to this problem reinvigorates not only the community but the development team to create more interesting and challenging content in the future. With companions, I don't see a reason why we couldn't have group-mandatory zones again but there's still much more work to do in addressing existing content before anyone should give serious consideration to reintroducing adventure zones and you'd have to take away the sting from taking away our Craglorn/Murkmire releases first.

SilverBride

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

With companions, I don't see a reason why we couldn't have group-mandatory zones again but there's still much more work to do in addressing existing content before anyone should give serious consideration to reintroducing adventure zones and you'd have to take away the sting from taking away our Craglorn/Murkmire releases first.

Mandatory grouping almost killed this game before One Tamriel. If they tried that again there would be a mass exodus and the game would go under.

spartaxoxo

Iron_Warrior wrote: »

Why are we as players are worrying about the cost of things right now?

I personally considered the cost because when Rich said no he said that it would be too much work and also that ZOS was more successful than ever as a couple of the reasons. So I tried to offer a solution that was lower cost.

AlexanderDeLarge

SilverBride wrote: »

Mandatory grouping almost killed this game before One Tamriel. If they tried that again there would be a mass exodus and the game would go under.

Because as anyone who was actually there knows, the grouping and phasing mechanics were broken. That content is predicated on grouping being solid. You can't have group-mandatory content be successful when the fundamentals of grouping and quest phasing are still broken. The game itself was still broken on a fundamental level. Attributing TESO's failed launch to Craglorn is... Disingenuous to say the least.

spartaxoxo

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Mandatory grouping almost killed this game before One Tamriel. If they tried that again there would be a mass exodus and the game would go under.

Because as anyone who was actually there knows, the grouping and phasing mechanics were broken. That content is predicated on grouping being solid. You can't have group-mandatory content be successful when the fundamentals of grouping and quest phasing are still broken. The game itself was still broken on a fundamental level. Attributing TESO's failed launch to Craglorn is... Disingenuous to say the least.

No. It isn't. The launch of that was most definitely a contributing factor and the entire concept of forced grouping was complained about as a major reason. The same is true of it's difficulty. This forum was flooded with those complaints.

Technical issues were also a factor don't get me wrong, but it wasn't any one single thing etc. But to say it wasn't a major contributing factor doesn't match what the website was like or what the developers themselves have stated.

pecheckler

Overland content is way too easy. I play in all green training gear intentionally and even than doesn’t help.

SilverBride

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Mandatory grouping almost killed this game before One Tamriel. If they tried that again there would be a mass exodus and the game would go under.

Because as anyone who was actually there knows, the grouping and phasing mechanics were broken. That content is predicated on grouping being solid. You can't have group-mandatory content be successful when the fundamentals of grouping and quest phasing are still broken. The game itself was still broken on a fundamental level. Attributing TESO's failed launch to Craglorn is... Disingenuous to say the least.

This is a thread I started in 2014 about the forced grouping. I was not alone in wanting this changed.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/132207/please-give-us-a-solo-questing-for-vet-levels-11-14#latest

Vylaera

B'Vehk 87 pages of replies, that's a lot.

Anyway, I just wanted to add that all ZOS would have to do is add a difficulty slider in the settings that buffs and/or debuffs your character depending on which point it's set to and this problem would be solved, for the most part.

Difficulty options would be as follows:

Novice > Apprentice > Adept > Expert > Master > Legendary

These options would attach a Battle Spirit-like buff and debuff to your character that affects very general values and acts as a sort-of "post process" for the internal equations for how the game calculates things like damage done, taken, healing done, taken, etc. This buff would only apply if you're in an overland or delve instance of the game, and would toggle off when you enter group instanced content like Dungeons, Arenas, Trials, and PvP.

the following percentage values are based around the current damage and healing values in the overworld

Novice:
Damage Taken: 80%
Damage Done: 120%
Healing Taken: 120%

Apprentice:
Damage Taken: 100%
Damage Done: 100%
Healing Taken: 100%

Adept:
Damage Taken: 150%
Damage Done: 80%
Healing Taken: 80%

Expert:
Damage Taken: 200%
Damage Done: 60%
Healing Taken: 60%

Master:
Damage Taken: 250%
Damage Done: 50%
Healing Taken: 50%

Legendary:
Damage Taken: 300%
Damage Done: 30%
Healing Taken: 30%

I think this sort of system, that is completely optional and defaults to apprentice, would be unintrusive and the perfect solution to make everyone happy, and would not be difficult to implement at all, as it does not have to edit any worldspaces, any enemies, any instancing, anything at all, other than your specific character.

Personally, I would love to play on Legendary, to get a truly terrifying world that I have to prepare myself for, and I have to use things like block and roll dodge to succeed. That would be very fun to play in my opinion.

But if someone doesn't want to play on legendary, they don't have to and aren't obligated to, they can play on whichever difficulty they want to, and enjoy the game the way they want to.

This is all about player choice, and no amount of self-nerfs I inflict on myself can even come close to that legendary difficulty I described and still remain fun, as I'd have to just run in naked with no weapons, and that's not how I want to play.

Vylaera

Another thing I wanted to add is that by making difficulty options for the overland, like the above, it opens up the opportunity for players to do harder content in the style they like to.

Because you're alone - you're not doing group content, where, for the sake of your group, who are other players that want to get through efficiently and not waste their time, you're stuck in a meta where you strive for mathematical peak efficacy - you're alone, and you can play how you want. So it doesn't matter if sword and board isn't dps viable, you're alone and not dragging your group down, so if you want to use it, be my guest.

It also automatically creates new content and replayablity overnight. There's only 2 solo arenas, Maelstrom and Vateshran. Those are both really fun, but it's the same arena over and over, and gets old. You can only replay the same content so may times before it gets boring.

This is where a difficulty slider for the overland comes into play. You don't really need to play those 2 arenas ad infinitum for a challenging solo experience when you have seven years of story content that has now become more difficult based on your choice of difficulty.

This would be a perfect match for how ESO is marketed as well. Whenever Matt Firor or Rich Lambert go up, whether it's on a global reveal for the next chapter, or a casual gaming stream, or an interview, the marketing line is always "We have tons of great story content that our players love". What better way to compound on that statement by giving players more options to "play how they want" which is the other marketing line always stated?

This would kill, like, 4 birds with 1 stone.

1. People complaining about the meta in harder content.
2. People complaining about overland being objectively too easy.
3. Adds new difficult solo content without having to actually add more difficult solo content like a new solo Arena that takes time and resources to build.
4. Creates new communities and new exterior-content for the game like "Legendary Overland Magicka Templar Build" for YouTube content creators and streamers who advertise your product for free.

Seems like a no-brainer.

Spongeyfloor

SilverBride wrote: »

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Mandatory grouping almost killed this game before One Tamriel. If they tried that again there would be a mass exodus and the game would go under.

Because as anyone who was actually there knows, the grouping and phasing mechanics were broken. That content is predicated on grouping being solid. You can't have group-mandatory content be successful when the fundamentals of grouping and quest phasing are still broken. The game itself was still broken on a fundamental level. Attributing TESO's failed launch to Craglorn is... Disingenuous to say the least.

This is a thread I started in 2014 about the forced grouping. I was not alone in wanting this changed.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/132207/please-give-us-a-solo-questing-for-vet-levels-11-14#latest

I just want to point out that I don't see people here pushing for an entire new zone that's vet/group content only. I think just adding 1 delve/public dungeon or something that was similar to craglorn, where it's got that + symbol for group content would be great. Only 1 small part in addition to each new zone, so not replacing anything.

The discussion I saw in your thread was not that group content was bad, but that an ENTIRE zone being forced grouping was bad. That any way leveling past V10 required you to group was bad, which I agree. I just don't think that's what people are pushing for here.