Overland Content Feedback Thread

ShalidorsHeir

Spongeyfloor wrote: »

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.

Exactly, game was different and so was community and internal progress of that community as well as the possibilies players had to play the game.
but anyways, creating new content manualy is not solving the problem for reasonable effort. Optional vet zones have to be there as far as the zones go we already have. And obviousbly an option to "reset" a zone, so players can do them again on vet and stuff.
For new zones some stuff like you mentioned should be considered along with dailies and quest like we had in thieves guild & dark brotherhood. Some dailies that offer a challanges (scaling depending on the sub goals to achieve) while it is not about combat only.

SilverBride

Spongeyfloor wrote: »

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.

I was responding to this comment: "Attributing TESO's failed launch to Craglorn is... Disingenuous to say the least."

Craglorn and its forced grouping was a huge factor in the game failing back then. It was the only place to go after Vet rank 11 and there was nowhere to solo quest. Then they announced another forced grouping zone and players left in mass.

FlopsyPrince

Iron_Warrior wrote: »

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

Where did I speak of corporate income?

It sounds like you have not dealt with the business end of things in the real world. Getting a good value for the effort you spend is always a part of planning. Any effort made must give enough feedback to justify its cost.

For example: Spending $1000 to make $100 would be a poor investment if the $100 was the top expected additional income from all areas. Companies will sometimes still spend money on such things if other factors push the value up, but spending lots of money (dev time boils down to costs at some point) to do something that will not get the return is not going to happen in most companies, at least those that want to stay solvent.

Talking about the cost vs. reward of efforts in this area is VERY appropriate because of that.

BronzeCaiman

Lysette wrote: »

BlackArgonian wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Yeah but the world content is less meaningful when every single mob, even the boss of a zone falls like wet paper, maybe if the "bosses had some time to do damage, make you use at least 1 healing skill, get some dialogue out and show you a move or two, you might remember it next week.

And it's even worse for things like Ring of the Pale Order lead from the Al'kir dungeon boss who is camped and erased in 3 seconds.

People pay for a damage sponge, it's called a dummy.

tonyblack

A few additional thoughts about debuff ideas and why I think it will be bad.

For starters, most suggestions on it come from people who misunderstand what makes you do challenging veteran content in the first place. To give clear example: to experience Vateshran Hollows solo arena you can blindly steamroll it on normal for fast and easy clear/progress on vet by optimizing gear, skills, researching mechanics/debuff yourself to the point normal become challenging, making all your efforts to improve obsolete. Even if challenge of debuffed normal vs vet is roughly the same the satisfaction of completing it won’t be, it’s not even about gear rewards (personally, I’ve never used any sets from there) just overall enjoyment. And yes, game offers plenty of options for straight up debuff with no additional rewards, so is there any value adding something that is already in game?

Just a heads up on what you currently can do in game to debuff yourself:

— remove combat focused CP.

— reset attributes to 0.

— remove all passives (class, weapon skills, armor, guild, etc.).

— craft lvl 1 white gear or unequip everything but weapon (lvl 1).

Those 4 combined would significantly reduce all your damage, healing and survivability on a max level character (160 CP) and it can be done in 5 seconds with armory. I tried it and it’s indeed add quite a bit of challenge even to the base game delves. If even that is not enough you can also:

— become stage 4 vampire to minimize your sustain even further and set your hp regeneration to 0 so you would need to use healing abilities more often. Additional fire damage as a bonus.

— use ravage health potions to put heavy dot, ensuring you’d need to be extra careful and use healing more frequently (and they have several levels with different intensity).

All these steps combined would make questing way more difficult, probably even more so than vet instances could. But there are clearly too many pain points attached to such solution hence it’s not popular and usually dismissed.

— You had to zero out your progress. No build variety, no theory crafting, impact of your skills diminished. Everything would start feel the same (minimal class skills and set diversity) and you’d get bored very fast playing that way.

— Other players would unintentionally or intentionally ruin your experience. For example, I want to do daily delve quest in the Deadland. What is usually happening: I run from 1 objective to another while melting any enemies on my way in seconds (unless everything isn’t dead already which is more common), then destro ult/drop ballista on boss and port back to questgiver. What would happen if I self nerf or use debuff? I would most likely encounter players like myself in the first example who wouldn’t use it so while I spent time dealing with one trash pack they would rush on and clear the whole delve ahead. That would just add additional annoyance to overland exploration and it’s not like there aren’t players who already complain about ruining their immersion and killing bosses before they can hit them.

— It does left you with the feeling that you doing something wrong, ruin your immersion and like in example above satisfaction just isn’t there.

— Even with well thought out incentives like in Skinnycheeks video most of these problems remain. From my point of view debuff system like that would make it attractive option for grinding but create more questions about where it could be used, how to adjust it appropriately and prevent any form of exploitation. Like do i really deserve constant stream of purple jewelry by running dolmens? Would it affect my lvl 20 companion with all purple gear? Would it work if I’m in group with someone?

Don’t get me wrong debuff is better than nothing but I’m pretty sure implementing it would kill any hope for anything better and all discussions about better difficulty options would end up with : “but you have debuffs for challenge!!!”.

tonyblack

FlopsyPrince wrote: »

Iron_Warrior wrote: »

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

Where did I speak of corporate income?

It sounds like you have not dealt with the business end of things in the real world. Getting a good value for the effort you spend is always a part of planning. Any effort made must give enough feedback to justify its cost.

For example: Spending $1000 to make $100 would be a poor investment if the $100 was the top expected additional income from all areas. Companies will sometimes still spend money on such things if other factors push the value up, but spending lots of money (dev time boils down to costs at some point) to do something that will not get the return is not going to happen in most companies, at least those that want to stay solvent.

Talking about the cost vs. reward of efforts in this area is VERY appropriate because of that.

Unless ZOS would make data about their financial planning public, which is unlikely, discussing cost of anything would do nothing but derail discussion. You can only make inaccurate assumptions based on your perception and limited experience in that area of what is feasible, and what isn’t.

FlopsyPrince

tonyblack wrote: »

FlopsyPrince wrote: »

Iron_Warrior wrote: »

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

Where did I speak of corporate income?

It sounds like you have not dealt with the business end of things in the real world. Getting a good value for the effort you spend is always a part of planning. Any effort made must give enough feedback to justify its cost.

For example: Spending $1000 to make $100 would be a poor investment if the $100 was the top expected additional income from all areas. Companies will sometimes still spend money on such things if other factors push the value up, but spending lots of money (dev time boils down to costs at some point) to do something that will not get the return is not going to happen in most companies, at least those that want to stay solvent.

Talking about the cost vs. reward of efforts in this area is VERY appropriate because of that.

Unless ZOS would make data about their financial planning public, which is unlikely, discussing cost of anything would do nothing but derail discussion. You can only make inaccurate assumptions based on your perception and limited experience in that area of what is feasible, and what isn’t.

That is not true in the slightest. The software development and game development process is a well-known area. We may not know the exact specifics for ZOS, but we do know general principles. We can assume some broad principles, like the level of effort to customize each and every world zone and boss to make them "harder" (which is still not well-defined).

The payback does not look to be worth the time cost in this case, whatever the exact numbers involved.

Some want debuffs, some despise them and want customized content (much more costly in time/salaries/etc.), some want something that has not been clearly defined.

Thus even the group wanting "harder overland content" is widely split.

spartaxoxo

tonyblack wrote: »

FlopsyPrince wrote: »

Iron_Warrior wrote: »

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

Where did I speak of corporate income?

It sounds like you have not dealt with the business end of things in the real world. Getting a good value for the effort you spend is always a part of planning. Any effort made must give enough feedback to justify its cost.

For example: Spending $1000 to make $100 would be a poor investment if the $100 was the top expected additional income from all areas. Companies will sometimes still spend money on such things if other factors push the value up, but spending lots of money (dev time boils down to costs at some point) to do something that will not get the return is not going to happen in most companies, at least those that want to stay solvent.

Talking about the cost vs. reward of efforts in this area is VERY appropriate because of that.

Unless ZOS would make data about their financial planning public, which is unlikely, discussing cost of anything would do nothing but derail discussion. You can only make inaccurate assumptions based on your perception and limited experience in that area of what is feasible, and what isn’t.

The developer themselves made cost a part of the discussion when they said a vet overland would be too costly time wise and implied they thought it would be a bad idea for the financial health of the company (they said that the game was harder before and it didn't work, and now they are more successful than they ever been).

Any player addressesing a developer talking point made on this topic is addressesing the topic.

Personally I hope they don't view this topic as all or nothing. There are a number of things they could do to improve out experience. And we do need something done. It's just too easy right now and there is a lack of vet content you can do on demand.

Parasaurolophus

FlopsyPrince wrote: »

tonyblack wrote: »

FlopsyPrince wrote: »

Iron_Warrior wrote: »

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

Where did I speak of corporate income?

It sounds like you have not dealt with the business end of things in the real world. Getting a good value for the effort you spend is always a part of planning. Any effort made must give enough feedback to justify its cost.

For example: Spending $1000 to make $100 would be a poor investment if the $100 was the top expected additional income from all areas. Companies will sometimes still spend money on such things if other factors push the value up, but spending lots of money (dev time boils down to costs at some point) to do something that will not get the return is not going to happen in most companies, at least those that want to stay solvent.

Talking about the cost vs. reward of efforts in this area is VERY appropriate because of that.

Unless ZOS would make data about their financial planning public, which is unlikely, discussing cost of anything would do nothing but derail discussion. You can only make inaccurate assumptions based on your perception and limited experience in that area of what is feasible, and what isn’t.

That is not true in the slightest. The software development and game development process is a well-known area. We may not know the exact specifics for ZOS, but we do know general principles. We can assume some broad principles, like the level of effort to customize each and every world zone and boss to make them "harder" (which is still not well-defined).

The payback does not look to be worth the time cost in this case, whatever the exact numbers involved.

Some want debuffs, some despise them and want customized content (much more costly in time/salaries/etc.), some want something that has not been clearly defined.

Thus even the group wanting "harder overland content" is widely split.

No one knows how the eso code specifically works and how difficult it is to work with. And what profit does ZoS get. In any case, any work requires money and time. So I don't see anything shocking about it. It looks like opinion manipulation.
And yes we know what we want, we don't want the game to feel like a visual novel. You know... Ok... Systems work well when no one has questions. No one has questions about the complexity of trials, dungeons, arenas. The developers just made them the way we know them. And why do we all agree with this. Why Vet. overland can't do the same?
Why do we only talk about the difficulty of mobs? Why can't questing be more than a dialogue chain?

spartaxoxo

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

It looks like opinion manipulation.

Listening to a developer about the challenges in implementing something is not opinion manipulation. The developers themselves have stated they weren't successful when they implemented harder story quests and now that they changed it they are more successful than have ever been. The developers themselves have stated it would be a ton of work.

Considering an authoritative source when you form your opinion and discuss a matter is not now nor will it ever be opinion manipulation. I think attributing information provided by a developer to players and then telling them they cannot discuss or consider that information as part of their opinion is not being very objective.

Rich Lambert wrote:

I totally hear you on the difficulty thing. I like things to be more difficult. But you know, the data doesn’t lie. And we have never been more successful than we are today. And a lot of that has to do with just how much freedom players have to go and experience story.

Rich Lambert wrote:

Would it be an option just to give people the choice? It is not as simple as just flip a switch and make things more difficult. There is a TON of work and then as Lucky mentioned earlier you have to also incentivize that. 

Please keep in mind that it being costly and a ton of work are statements made by a developer and not something players invented, and that discussing developer statements on things we want to see implemented is perfectly fine.

Parasaurolophus

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Listening to a developer about the challenges in implementing something is not opinion manipulation. The developers themselves have stated they weren't successful when they implemented harder story quests and now that they changed it they are more successful than have ever been. The developers themselves have stated it would be a ton of work.

Okay. I understand it. But that doesn't mean it can't be done in some other way. It can also be implemented as a debuff or just release new dlcs with mode switching.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Considering an authoritative source when you form your opinion and discuss a matter is not now nor will it ever be opinion manipulation. I think attributing information provided by a developer to players and then telling them they cannot discuss or consider that information as part of their opinion is not being very objective.

Because there is an opinion that eso had a lot of problems with the quality of the content, and not just with the difficulty of the battle. Can't the fact that people left game because they were bored finish 10 similar locations without seeing anything new be an argument? I also say that I crafted the first set already in VR14 and before that I completed all the zones without any difficulties and stated several times that the new locations were not more difficult, but simply required a higher level from the player. Yes, I know some people don't think so. But until we get a definitive answer about the old scaling system, there's no point in talking any further.
We know and even the ZoS recognize that there are big communication problems between developers and players. Therefore, we have some reason to believe that some conclusions may be incorrect. Although in fact I don’t want to believe so, I still want to believe that big companies know what they are doing. But as Nefas said, could the recent tests of BG`s really be objective when NW was released and meta pvp was dying under dark convergence?
In no case do I want to say something bad about ZoS, I understand that this company, like others, simply optimizes its work - spends less where they can spend less. But that doesn't make the game any better. How long did we endure lag in pvp or pve before ZoS finally announced that he would be rewriting the server code?

spartaxoxo

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Listening to a developer about the challenges in implementing something is not opinion manipulation. The developers themselves have stated they weren't successful when they implemented harder story quests and now that they changed it they are more successful than have ever been. The developers themselves have stated it would be a ton of work.

Okay. I understand it. But that doesn't mean it can't be done in some other way. It can also be implemented as a debuff or just release new dlcs with mode switching.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Considering an authoritative source when you form your opinion and discuss a matter is not now nor will it ever be opinion manipulation. I think attributing information provided by a developer to players and then telling them they cannot discuss or consider that information as part of their opinion is not being very objective.

Because there is an opinion that eso had a lot of problems with the quality of the content, and not just with the difficulty of the battle. Can't the fact that people left games because they were bored finish 10 similar locations without seeing anything new be an argument? I also say that I crafted the first set already in VR14 and before that I completed all the zones without any difficulties and stated several times that the new locations were not more difficult, but simply required a higher level from the player. Yes, I know some people don't think so. But until we get a definitive answer about the old scaling system, there's no point in talking any further.
We know and even the ZoS recognize that there are big communication problems between developers and players. Therefore, we have some reason to believe that some conclusions may be incorrect. Although in fact I don’t want to believe so, I still want to believe that big companies know what they are doing. But as Nefas said, could the recent tests of BG`s really be objective when NW was released and meta pvp was dying under dark convergence?
In no case do I want to say something bad about ZoS, I understand that this company, like others, simply optimizes its work - spends less where they can spend less. But that doesn't make the game any better. How long did we endure lag in pvp or pve before ZoC finally announced that he would be rewriting the server code?

The developers themselves stated they changed that old content and made it less difficult. So we know that objectively speaking it did get easier, although individual experiences may vary.

As for your point about the server architecture it is a good one, they tried a lot of cheaper solutions that did nothing but waste pvpers time. So perhaps a cheaper solution would do the same in this instance as well. I don't think it would if it was implemented well, the people in lotro seem pretty happy with their debuff slider, but it's certainly possible due to the issues CP5 noted with things like a delay in the skills firing off meaning it's rather trivial to have time to do things like block and dodge. This is something they should consider when deciding on what to do, if they decide to do anything at all.

And I really hope they do decide to do something. They say they are preparing a new statement. Hopefully it isn't the same old "No. We won't do anything because reasons," statement that they have been putting out. As if those reasons aren't able to be worked around.

StevieKingslayer

Alright, So after thinking about it, Im down with giving us a small veteran expansion to test the waters (as has been suggested by a few people)

But how does that stop the "we dont want it" people from being upset that there is now a small land that they cant go to and do anything in? It was some people of that viewpoint that suggested the idea of giving us a small area to ourselves, so like, how do you then feel about that fact that you wouldnt be able to go there because the combat level was too high? Or do you just legitimately not care and it's one space and it's fine? Well, what if that worked and then ZOS had good feedback and gave us more smaller zones and areas as time went on? Does that then create more of a problem?

Sylvermynx

StevieKingslayer wrote: »

Alright, So after thinking about it, Im down with giving us a small veteran expansion to test the waters (as has been suggested by a few people)

But how does that stop the "we dont want it" people from being upset that there is now a small land that they cant go to and do anything in? It was some people of that viewpoint that suggested the idea of giving us a small area to ourselves, so like, how do you then feel about that fact that you wouldnt be able to go there because the combat level was too high? Or do you just legitimately not care and it's one space and it's fine? Well, what if that worked and then ZOS had good feedback and gave us more smaller zones and areas as time went on? Does that then create more of a problem?

Okay, I'm an outlier here. I don't care if that's what they choose to go with. My inability to manage the current overland "with dispatch" is not going to get better: I'm old, my reflexes are crap, and the combat in this game decidedly does NOT agree with me. Overland is quite hard enough for me thank you very much. I certainly wouldn't be upset about them choosing that option - perhaps they'd decide to drop one dungeon DLC in favor. That would work for me just fine - because dungeon DLCs are already useless content for me.

And I haven't said "I don't want it" - I've said that a veteran overland instance is what I'd personally like y'all to have since most of you don't have any interest in debuffs of any sort.

spartaxoxo

StevieKingslayer wrote: »

Alright, So after thinking about it, Im down with giving us a small veteran expansion to test the waters (as has been suggested by a few people)

But how does that stop the "we dont want it" people from being upset that there is now a small land that they cant go to and do anything in? It was some people of that viewpoint that suggested the idea of giving us a small area to ourselves, so like, how do you then feel about that fact that you wouldnt be able to go there because the combat level was too high? Or do you just legitimately not care and it's one space and it's fine? Well, what if that worked and then ZOS had good feedback and gave us more smaller zones and areas as time went on? Does that then create more of a problem?

I am not such a player so I can only speculate, but I think a lot of them would probably not care because they expressed their biggest concern was that it would take away from their own content. Smaller experiences would be less likely to do that, so I don't know why it would upset them if they got most of the same stuff. But ofc they will have to respond for themselves.

I have been wanting a new adventure zone type thing in conjunction with debuffs for a while now, have been one of the biggest advocates for that a while now.

FlopsyPrince

Any MMO will fail to satisfy everyone for a long time. That is the nature of creating content means that it will always take more time than the most aggressive will get use of that content.

That is a well-known point in the field and has been for many years. It is not "opinion manipulation".

The length of development time for any feature is also fairly well known. Though the exact time will vary by the product, it is one of the principle challenges of software development. Those who have never written code may want to read up on the field a bit before claiming things in that area. All this has been covered on many different forums over the years.

CP5

They're making a card game. And I've done the whole game design loop, programming and what not, and while something of this scale takes time and effort, ZOS isn't a small indie studio, they have the resources and just need to put out some sense of effort to show that they care.

tonyblack

FlopsyPrince wrote: »

tonyblack wrote: »

FlopsyPrince wrote: »

Iron_Warrior wrote: »

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

Where did I speak of corporate income?

It sounds like you have not dealt with the business end of things in the real world. Getting a good value for the effort you spend is always a part of planning. Any effort made must give enough feedback to justify its cost.

For example: Spending $1000 to make $100 would be a poor investment if the $100 was the top expected additional income from all areas. Companies will sometimes still spend money on such things if other factors push the value up, but spending lots of money (dev time boils down to costs at some point) to do something that will not get the return is not going to happen in most companies, at least those that want to stay solvent.

Talking about the cost vs. reward of efforts in this area is VERY appropriate because of that.

Unless ZOS would make data about their financial planning public, which is unlikely, discussing cost of anything would do nothing but derail discussion. You can only make inaccurate assumptions based on your perception and limited experience in that area of what is feasible, and what isn’t.

That is not true in the slightest. The software development and game development process is a well-known area. We may not know the exact specifics for ZOS, but we do know general principles. We can assume some broad principles, like the level of effort to customize each and every world zone and boss to make them "harder" (which is still not well-defined).

The payback does not look to be worth the time cost in this case, whatever the exact numbers involved.

Some want debuffs, some despise them and want customized content (much more costly in time/salaries/etc.), some want something that has not been clearly defined.

Thus even the group wanting "harder overland content" is widely split.

So from what data did you draw a conclusion that it would not worth the cost? Everything you wrote is vague assumptions without any details. There wasn’t a single concrete fact of how much would any of the suggestions cost or how much players would be satisfied with any of the changes. Discussing cost vs benefits based on some unrelated quotes from streams isn’t very productive, especially considering how obscure most of them were.

Ok, let’s assume universal veteran instances for all zones are unrealistic. What about limiting it to new content only? What about limiting it to specific locations like main quest, delves and public dungeons within that zone? Or hard mode scrolls for bosses only? Or creating specific challenge areas within that zone?

There was a lot of different suggestions in this thread. Obviously, some of them are less desirable and easier to implement than the others, but it doesn’t look to me that all of them are impossible and there are a lot of possible workarounds.

tonyblack

Sylvermynx wrote: »

StevieKingslayer wrote: »

Alright, So after thinking about it, Im down with giving us a small veteran expansion to test the waters (as has been suggested by a few people)

But how does that stop the "we dont want it" people from being upset that there is now a small land that they cant go to and do anything in? It was some people of that viewpoint that suggested the idea of giving us a small area to ourselves, so like, how do you then feel about that fact that you wouldnt be able to go there because the combat level was too high? Or do you just legitimately not care and it's one space and it's fine? Well, what if that worked and then ZOS had good feedback and gave us more smaller zones and areas as time went on? Does that then create more of a problem?

Okay, I'm an outlier here. I don't care if that's what they choose to go with. My inability to manage the current overland "with dispatch" is not going to get better: I'm old, my reflexes are crap, and the combat in this game decidedly does NOT agree with me. Overland is quite hard enough for me thank you very much. I certainly wouldn't be upset about them choosing that option - perhaps they'd decide to drop one dungeon DLC in favor. That would work for me just fine - because dungeon DLCs are already useless content for me.

And I haven't said "I don't want it" - I've said that a veteran overland instance is what I'd personally like y'all to have since most of you don't have any interest in debuffs of any sort.

Realistically, if adventure zone ever happen, it would replace zone DLC or chapter. DLC dungeons are way to small part of content to be replaced by other zones.

spartaxoxo

tonyblack wrote: »

Sylvermynx wrote: »

StevieKingslayer wrote: »

Alright, So after thinking about it, Im down with giving us a small veteran expansion to test the waters (as has been suggested by a few people)

But how does that stop the "we dont want it" people from being upset that there is now a small land that they cant go to and do anything in? It was some people of that viewpoint that suggested the idea of giving us a small area to ourselves, so like, how do you then feel about that fact that you wouldnt be able to go there because the combat level was too high? Or do you just legitimately not care and it's one space and it's fine? Well, what if that worked and then ZOS had good feedback and gave us more smaller zones and areas as time went on? Does that then create more of a problem?

Okay, I'm an outlier here. I don't care if that's what they choose to go with. My inability to manage the current overland "with dispatch" is not going to get better: I'm old, my reflexes are crap, and the combat in this game decidedly does NOT agree with me. Overland is quite hard enough for me thank you very much. I certainly wouldn't be upset about them choosing that option - perhaps they'd decide to drop one dungeon DLC in favor. That would work for me just fine - because dungeon DLCs are already useless content for me.

And I haven't said "I don't want it" - I've said that a veteran overland instance is what I'd personally like y'all to have since most of you don't have any interest in debuffs of any sort.

Realistically, if adventure zone ever happen, it would replace zone DLC or chapter. DLC dungeons are way to small part of content to be replaced by other zones.

There is no way that they replace their year long story content with that, especially the chapter. They'd probably choose doing nothing at all before replacing the chapter. They already stated their numbers don't lie and most people don't like it, so it's realistically basically no chance it would be a chapter.

mateosalvaje

I'd like a toggle switch like we have in group dungeons 🤗 Normal and Veteran.
I think the reason that Craglorn didn't work as a Vet zone, is it was released before many people were max level. I mean, it took a couple years to get to vet 160 at first. Now I bet 50¢ there's a rather large percentage of the player base who are there.
Craglorn was just too ahead of its time 🤘🏻😽🤘🏻

StevieKingslayer

Sylvermynx wrote: »

StevieKingslayer wrote: »

Alright, So after thinking about it, Im down with giving us a small veteran expansion to test the waters (as has been suggested by a few people)

But how does that stop the "we dont want it" people from being upset that there is now a small land that they cant go to and do anything in? It was some people of that viewpoint that suggested the idea of giving us a small area to ourselves, so like, how do you then feel about that fact that you wouldnt be able to go there because the combat level was too high? Or do you just legitimately not care and it's one space and it's fine? Well, what if that worked and then ZOS had good feedback and gave us more smaller zones and areas as time went on? Does that then create more of a problem?

Okay, I'm an outlier here. I don't care if that's what they choose to go with. My inability to manage the current overland "with dispatch" is not going to get better: I'm old, my reflexes are crap, and the combat in this game decidedly does NOT agree with me. Overland is quite hard enough for me thank you very much. I certainly wouldn't be upset about them choosing that option - perhaps they'd decide to drop one dungeon DLC in favor. That would work for me just fine - because dungeon DLCs are already useless content for me.

And I haven't said "I don't want it" - I've said that a veteran overland instance is what I'd personally like y'all to have since most of you don't have any interest in debuffs of any sort.

Dw Sylver, you dont need to explain yourself to me - I remember and am fully aware of your viewpoint based on your personal situation ^-^ I do understand your struggle with overland - There are days when I cant tank because I have had a TIA and have lost some basic motor use in my fingers, so I just spam dps instead. I do understand the care that needs to be taken in regards to people who can not physically do the content as it is.

Sylvermynx

StevieKingslayer wrote: »

Sylvermynx wrote: »

StevieKingslayer wrote: »

Alright, So after thinking about it, Im down with giving us a small veteran expansion to test the waters (as has been suggested by a few people)

But how does that stop the "we dont want it" people from being upset that there is now a small land that they cant go to and do anything in? It was some people of that viewpoint that suggested the idea of giving us a small area to ourselves, so like, how do you then feel about that fact that you wouldnt be able to go there because the combat level was too high? Or do you just legitimately not care and it's one space and it's fine? Well, what if that worked and then ZOS had good feedback and gave us more smaller zones and areas as time went on? Does that then create more of a problem?

Okay, I'm an outlier here. I don't care if that's what they choose to go with. My inability to manage the current overland "with dispatch" is not going to get better: I'm old, my reflexes are crap, and the combat in this game decidedly does NOT agree with me. Overland is quite hard enough for me thank you very much. I certainly wouldn't be upset about them choosing that option - perhaps they'd decide to drop one dungeon DLC in favor. That would work for me just fine - because dungeon DLCs are already useless content for me.

And I haven't said "I don't want it" - I've said that a veteran overland instance is what I'd personally like y'all to have since most of you don't have any interest in debuffs of any sort.

Dw Sylver, you dont need to explain yourself to me - I remember and am fully aware of your viewpoint based on your personal situation ^-^ I do understand your struggle with overland - There are days when I cant tank because I have had a TIA and have lost some basic motor use in my fingers, so I just spam dps instead. I do understand the care that needs to be taken in regards to people who can not physically do the content as it is.

Thanks.... that's kind of you. I don't want those who really need harder overland to do without - I'm just seeing new people posting, and some of them come across as "just make it harder overall" (which doesn't work for me, for reasons posted - and for others for other reasons).

I'm getting the feeling that actually the "harder overland" folks really are the majority (at least, here on the forum) no matter what Mr. Lambert had to say. This is why I'd really like ZOS to make a concerted effort to poll those of us who play a lot as well as those who don't play as much.

If I'm such an outlier that the game changes enough that I just can't play it any more.... well, I won't precisely be happy, but I will understand the reasons. And then I'll go back to Skyrim and Oblivion. The reason for playing an MMO is the non-static nature of the beast - but there are still good player-made content mods for the SPMR games. So.... it's not like I'll never have a game to play.

CP5

ZOS may make questionable decisions fairly often, but overland, as it is, is definitely the biggest part of the game in terms of player engagement. They would not compromise that unless they were intentionally going for a record in self-sabatoge. I understand your concerns here, but honestly I feel like them doing something that extreme is by far the least likely outcome.

spartaxoxo

Sylvermynx wrote: »

StevieKingslayer wrote: »

Sylvermynx wrote: »

StevieKingslayer wrote: »

Alright, So after thinking about it, Im down with giving us a small veteran expansion to test the waters (as has been suggested by a few people)

But how does that stop the "we dont want it" people from being upset that there is now a small land that they cant go to and do anything in? It was some people of that viewpoint that suggested the idea of giving us a small area to ourselves, so like, how do you then feel about that fact that you wouldnt be able to go there because the combat level was too high? Or do you just legitimately not care and it's one space and it's fine? Well, what if that worked and then ZOS had good feedback and gave us more smaller zones and areas as time went on? Does that then create more of a problem?

Okay, I'm an outlier here. I don't care if that's what they choose to go with. My inability to manage the current overland "with dispatch" is not going to get better: I'm old, my reflexes are crap, and the combat in this game decidedly does NOT agree with me. Overland is quite hard enough for me thank you very much. I certainly wouldn't be upset about them choosing that option - perhaps they'd decide to drop one dungeon DLC in favor. That would work for me just fine - because dungeon DLCs are already useless content for me.

And I haven't said "I don't want it" - I've said that a veteran overland instance is what I'd personally like y'all to have since most of you don't have any interest in debuffs of any sort.

Dw Sylver, you dont need to explain yourself to me - I remember and am fully aware of your viewpoint based on your personal situation ^-^ I do understand your struggle with overland - There are days when I cant tank because I have had a TIA and have lost some basic motor use in my fingers, so I just spam dps instead. I do understand the care that needs to be taken in regards to people who can not physically do the content as it is.

Thanks.... that's kind of you. I don't want those who really need harder overland to do without - I'm just seeing new people posting, and some of them come across as "just make it harder overall" (which doesn't work for me, for reasons posted - and for others for other reasons).

I'm getting the feeling that actually the "harder overland" folks really are the majority (at least, here on the forum) no matter what Mr. Lambert had to say. This is why I'd really like ZOS to make a concerted effort to poll those of us who play a lot as well as those who don't play as much.

If I'm such an outlier that the game changes enough that I just can't play it any more.... well, I won't precisely be happy, but I will understand the reasons. And then I'll go back to Skyrim and Oblivion. The reason for playing an MMO is the non-static nature of the beast - but there are still good player-made content mods for the SPMR games. So.... it's not like I'll never have a game to play.

Video game forums themselves tend to be more representative of players who dedicate a lot of time to the game rather than representative of the broader playerbase. Playstation trophy data backsup his assertion as does industry trends. But the kind of casual player that wouldn't want the game to be forced harder and leave, is also generally the kind of player that would not come to a video game forum and post. And this one further limits such player's feedback by requiring an invite.

All to that to say, they are unlikely to force a change on players like you because they know it wouldn't be a good idea. Any change is likely to be (and quite frankly ought to be even if the above wasn't true) totally optional. I think are very few here would want it to be forced.

Sylvermynx

Yes, I get all that. But the bottom line here is that there is a pretty good sized population of people who aren't happy with the game as it is now for all the detailed reasons from page one of this thread. And if nothing changes, then the game will bleed those players. And that will cause a domino effect - lots of those people spend a lot of money; if they take their money to some other game, ZOS might cut things even further than they have already (okay, I'm happy with the new chapter except for the card game silliness, but many may not be due to perceived lack of content), and that may lead to more player bleed.

Eh yeah - speculation. But what I want to have happen is a game I can love playing (as I do now) being also a game all y'all can love playing. So, I just hope there's a decent middle ground....

[Edited for tense stupidity - my allergies are already giving me issues, and the meds don't leave much in the way of a mind....]

spartaxoxo

Sylvermynx wrote: »

Eh yeah - speculation. But what I want to have happen is a game I can love playing (as I do now) being also a game all y'all can love playing. So, I just hope there's a decent middle ground....

Yes. I am also saying we simply need a middle ground. Something that makes the world of Tamriel bigger. Doing nothing sacrifices too many players and so does forced. I hope zos sees that and gives us something. There are so many suggestions in this thread and yet still crickets from zos other than to tell us we'd get a response soon (TM).

Lysette

BroughBreaux wrote: »

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.

I actually like this idea, because it is something for everyone - those who have problems can even make it easier than it already is and there are ways to make it just slightly more challenging as well. Adept would certainly be something I could enjoy and expert would already give my characters quite a challenge - I really like your idea.

If it could be changed on the go, I would even consider master with outdoor content as something I could do and enjoy - but certainly not in all situations - if it could be changed whenever I want, this would be quite useful and create a "personal" experience. As well as on a really bad day, when latency is exceptionally high, I could just dump it down a notch or two and would be good to go again.

Edit: now I've been thinking about witcher and what the effect was with just increasing difficulty - beside using the right sign and oil against the enemy type on highest difficulty - gameplay basically converted into a kind of ballet - attack, big swing, backup, attack, big swing, backup - was that really challenging?- Once we got used to it, it was more like dancing with the enemy than having a challenge - at least that is how I experienced that.

mocap

BroughBreaux wrote: »

Novice > Apprentice > Adept > Expert > Master > Legendary
These options would attach a Battle Spirit-like buff and debuff to your character

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

summ0004

mocap wrote: »

BroughBreaux wrote: »

Novice > Apprentice > Adept > Expert > Master > Legendary
These options would attach a Battle Spirit-like buff and debuff to your character

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

Thats the routes I would prefer to go down, it just needs to be balanced with the appropiate rewards in terms of gold, experience and/or higher item quality.