Overland Content Feedback Thread

spartaxoxo

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

tonyblack wrote: »

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

Well, since this topic has come alive again, I would like to share a recent interview with Matt Firor, in which he said that ZoS plans to continue making walking world bosses. Okay, but that's not enough. From the same interview, it's clear that this is just an idea from IC, and not some kind of vet.overland attempt.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqU7KjfGNsw&t=1s&ab_channel=Desastre
Such an interview is good and only about 2.500 views. And then ZoS wonders why the community thinks communication is bad.

Yep, watched it as well. The sad part out of it is that he said they wouldn’t add new arenas this year, which leaves us with just 4 dungeons and 1 trial. It’s hard to look forward to new DLCs, when they offer so little for veteran players. Majority of the content would be once again super easy quests you can breeze through in one or two evenings with nothing interesting or engaging to spice things up.
Also, wandering bosses, dragons or harrowstorms are not what i would call a “challenging content”. It’s designed for large group of players with mixed level and experience. They usually end up swarmed with people and drop dead as fast as delve boss. Soloing 10 million bosses in weird (read inconvenient for most) hours is boring slog and have nothing to do with what was asked for in this thread. It’s guild event, nothing more.

Shouldn't there be a new arena in 2022? He didn't talk about it. There was no new arena in the Deadlands.

It's possible It's a group arena. A solo one was ruled out but that doesn't exclude a group one. Here's hoping.

tonyblack

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

tonyblack wrote: »

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

Well, since this topic has come alive again, I would like to share a recent interview with Matt Firor, in which he said that ZoS plans to continue making walking world bosses. Okay, but that's not enough. From the same interview, it's clear that this is just an idea from IC, and not some kind of vet.overland attempt.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqU7KjfGNsw&t=1s&ab_channel=Desastre
Such an interview is good and only about 2.500 views. And then ZoS wonders why the community thinks communication is bad.

Yep, watched it as well. The sad part out of it is that he said they wouldn’t add new arenas this year, which leaves us with just 4 dungeons and 1 trial. It’s hard to look forward to new DLCs, when they offer so little for veteran players. Majority of the content would be once again super easy quests you can breeze through in one or two evenings with nothing interesting or engaging to spice things up.
Also, wandering bosses, dragons or harrowstorms are not what i would call a “challenging content”. It’s designed for large group of players with mixed level and experience. They usually end up swarmed with people and drop dead as fast as delve boss. Soloing 10 million bosses in weird (read inconvenient for most) hours is boring slog and have nothing to do with what was asked for in this thread. It’s guild event, nothing more.

Shouldn't there be a new arena in 2022? He didn't talk about it. There was no new arena in the Deadlands.

5:30 Do you plan adding new arenas in the future? - ...we do not have one [arena] on the road map right now for updates that are coming in the next while but we'll do one eventually.

summ0004

The main thing is most oeople are happy about the idea of having an optional difficulty and nothing is forced.

The video simply highlights the problem with the game for those who wish to play the game like an open world RPG rather than a visual story mode similator. Its good to cater to more of an audience and helps the game reach its potential.

The normal, veteran and veteran hardmode debuff modes are the easiest and best compromise to keep all parties happy and should not require much work from ZOS.

That is of course if they dont focus all their time into releasing more card games and other gimmicks and put the effort into fixing the various issues with the game. Only time will tell, and that direction they take will determine whether myself and other players will stick around or move on.

SilverBride

This may all be a moot point. If they go through with account wide achievements as they now stand there will be little reason for any of us to repeat overland on our alts anyway because most of it will already be done.

Sylvermynx

SilverBride wrote: »

This may all be a moot point. If they go through with account wide achievements as they now stand there will be little reason for any of us to repeat overland on our alts anyway because most of it will already be done.

I won't be changing either being an altoholic or how I play. And yes, I can keep track on 58 alts who has done what. Without recourse to spreadsheets (even though I do use them for various things)!

colossalvoids

AWA surely won't make me play my alts less, quite the contrary I would be able to not feel like I'm wasting time with them as my main was an achievement collector one all this time. I would miss tracking progress with achievements but it would enable me to actually do what I want instead of following some achievement to clear all X in zone instead of doing Z that I would actually enjoy more.

So getting some changes for overland options or just stories after would be quite handy.

spartaxoxo

I actually think AWA makes the possibility of vet overland better, not worse. It solves the incentive issue that Rich touched on earlier about how difficult things need to be incentivized.

He didn't go into big detail, but my guess would be that his concern with incentivizing them in a similar way to other vet content is that they were one time only content per character, so it would be massively unfair to have the normal incentives to vet content because unlike existing content a player could not do it on normal the first time then tackle vet when they are ready. They'd instead actually be permanently punished for having done a quest on normal.

AWA solves that issue because now you can come back later on a different character and still pick up the achievement for your main. Doing it on a different character also tends to be more immersive than having the quest repeatable on the same character, as video games have largely trained us to view new characters as separate stories. But ofc like with all things immersion that is subjective and ymmv.

FlopsyPrince

tonyblack wrote: »

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.

I wrote it based on my extensive development experience and lots of reading about MMOs over many years, including nothing indicating effort in custom content will ever satisfy those who only focus on that, which would be the case here. This is not something to do over and over, it is to do one or perhaps several times and then to want even more challenge.

Note the cost of Tamriel One and Warcraft's past revamp(s). Very costly due to the level of effort.

I am fine with them doing whatever they want for new content and it would make much more sense for something like this. Though many of the replies here would not be satisfied with just that. Also keep in mind that making new zones too hard would alienate many more casual players, doubling the effort for new zones if they wanted (and even could) produce both.

How much large scale software development work have you done? How much/long have you followed the MMO business?

FlopsyPrince

summ0004 wrote: »

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.

And that is the key thing that gets denied by many. Some claim they just want to have a higher challenge, but it is fairly clear most want that with higher rewards, which upsets the whole apple cart.

SilverBride

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I actually think AWA makes the possibility of vet overland better, not worse. It solves the incentive issue that Rich touched on earlier about how difficult things need to be incentivized.

He didn't go into big detail, but my guess would be that his concern with incentivizing them in a similar way to other vet content is that they were one time only content per character, so it would be massively unfair to have the normal incentives to vet content because unlike existing content a player could not do it on normal the first time then tackle vet when they are ready. They'd instead actually be permanently punished for having done a quest on normal.

AWA solves that issue because now you can come back later on a different character and still pick up the achievement for your main. Doing it on a different character also tends to be more immersive than having the quest repeatable on the same character, as video games have largely trained us to view new characters as separate stories. But ofc like with all things immersion that is subjective and ymmv.

I'm not understanding how AWA solves this. Are you saying that a player can do the achievements on normal with a new character, for instance, then come back and do them again on veteran with a stronger character as though they had never been done before? Even with AWA that marks most of these achievements as complete?

One thing that I don't remember being discussed in this thread is if each instance of difficulty would be considered as one, meaning you either do them on normal or veteran and they are considered completed on both... or if each instance is completely separate and completing on one has no effect on the other.

spartaxoxo

SilverBride wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I actually think AWA makes the possibility of vet overland better, not worse. It solves the incentive issue that Rich touched on earlier about how difficult things need to be incentivized.

He didn't go into big detail, but my guess would be that his concern with incentivizing them in a similar way to other vet content is that they were one time only content per character, so it would be massively unfair to have the normal incentives to vet content because unlike existing content a player could not do it on normal the first time then tackle vet when they are ready. They'd instead actually be permanently punished for having done a quest on normal.

AWA solves that issue because now you can come back later on a different character and still pick up the achievement for your main. Doing it on a different character also tends to be more immersive than having the quest repeatable on the same character, as video games have largely trained us to view new characters as separate stories. But ofc like with all things immersion that is subjective and ymmv.

I'm not understanding how AWA solves this. Are you saying that a player can do the achievements on normal with a new character, for instance, then come back and do them again on veteran with a stronger character as though they had never been done before? Even with AWA that marks most of these achievements as complete?

One thing that I don't remember being discussed in this thread is if each instance of difficulty would be considered as one, meaning you either do them on normal or veteran and they are considered completed on both... or if each instance is completely separate and completing on one has no effect on the other.

Quests are one and done so far in this game. Even in the dungeons, finishing it on normal also finishes it on vet.

They could do either make everyone do every quest twice on the same characters twice or make them all repeatables to solve that, but I honestly think it's pretty clear they don't want to do that or why even bring up rewards as a difficult solve.

Awa fixes it because they can just go back later on a stronger alt and get the achievement for both their main/1st character and the alt at the same time. They can also just list them in a separate category so people can still feel like they got all the zone guide accomplishments done without doing vet mode, as I do think that's an important part of the new player experience is being happy they cleared a zone.

CP5

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I actually think AWA makes the possibility of vet overland better, not worse. It solves the incentive issue that Rich touched on earlier about how difficult things need to be incentivized.

He didn't go into big detail, but my guess would be that his concern with incentivizing them in a similar way to other vet content is that they were one time only content per character, so it would be massively unfair to have the normal incentives to vet content because unlike existing content a player could not do it on normal the first time then tackle vet when they are ready. They'd instead actually be permanently punished for having done a quest on normal.

AWA solves that issue because now you can come back later on a different character and still pick up the achievement for your main. Doing it on a different character also tends to be more immersive than having the quest repeatable on the same character, as video games have largely trained us to view new characters as separate stories. But ofc like with all things immersion that is subjective and ymmv.

The issue with Rich's comment about needing incentives, is that for some players, having an engaging story that doesn't feel cheap or flat is its own reward. For the past few years I've checked out of the 'year long story' as soon as the Q1 trailer comes out saying what it is. Oh, Dagon's invading? Whatever, let him come, will be easier to kick his teeth in here rather than chase him down for a pre-scripted amount of time. If I would know before going into it that the actual engagement between myself and the story would be memorable, rather than a joke, I would engage with it, no need for fancy titles or achievements.

spartaxoxo

CP5 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I actually think AWA makes the possibility of vet overland better, not worse. It solves the incentive issue that Rich touched on earlier about how difficult things need to be incentivized.

He didn't go into big detail, but my guess would be that his concern with incentivizing them in a similar way to other vet content is that they were one time only content per character, so it would be massively unfair to have the normal incentives to vet content because unlike existing content a player could not do it on normal the first time then tackle vet when they are ready. They'd instead actually be permanently punished for having done a quest on normal.

AWA solves that issue because now you can come back later on a different character and still pick up the achievement for your main. Doing it on a different character also tends to be more immersive than having the quest repeatable on the same character, as video games have largely trained us to view new characters as separate stories. But ofc like with all things immersion that is subjective and ymmv.

The issue with Rich's comment about needing incentives, is that for some players, having an engaging story that doesn't feel cheap or flat is its own reward. For the past few years I've checked out of the 'year long story' as soon as the Q1 trailer comes out saying what it is. Oh, Dagon's invading? Whatever, let him come, will be easier to kick his teeth in here rather than chase him down for a pre-scripted amount of time. If I would know before going into it that the actual engagement between myself and the story would be memorable, rather than a joke, I would engage with it, no need for fancy titles or achievements.

I agree with you completely. I don't need them attached to the stories (do need them for dungeons and such) because an engaging story is it's own reward. I feel that way about achievements attatched to anything not repeatable tbh, finding out some holiday achievements couldn't be got on all characters definitely left a sour taste in my mouth.

I was against them before they annouced AWA because I felt it would be highly unfair to attach them to one and done content. Sure you could always do them on an alt but your achievements would have been permanently screwed over on your main and the thought of that was highly distasteful to me.

I'm guessing Rich felt the same because I have no clue why else he would have a problem not making them like every other vet thing. He didn't elaborate though just cited it as a reason they would never make a vet overland in general as a sticking point. They don't think a lot of players would like it just for it being it's own reward and would only do it with incentives. But they didn't know how to incentivize it. The potential user base goes up a lot when there's incentives.

This change, IMO, solves that issue. They can put any rewards they want now because it won't mess up anyone's achievement score to do them at baseline difficulty, regardless of the method of increasing difficulty. People would no longer be permanently and irrevocably punished for playing the game at normal difficulty, which was an issue with incentives under the old system.

SilverBride

How exactly does this solve anything for those of us who will only play normal overland?

spartaxoxo

SilverBride wrote: »

How exactly does this solve anything for those of us who will only play normal overland?

Because now if you only play normal but you wanted something from vet that you'd be willing to force yourself to get a group and go get, you won't be locked out of the reward on your main character.

SilverBride

That'll never happen. I've never even run a veteran dungeon. So us normal overland players are still being taken to the cleaners with AWA.

spartaxoxo

SilverBride wrote: »

That'll never happen. I've never even run a veteran dungeon. So us normal overland players are still being taken to the cleaners with AWA.

There's a lot of players that would do a little bit of Vet just to get something they want, but spend the vast majority of time in normal because they don't actually like Vet. I have helped a ton of them get monster helms for example. Such a change would help them should they decide to incentivize a vet overland.

SilverBride

Yes it will help them but the rest of us are just out of luck.

tonyblack

FlopsyPrince wrote: »

tonyblack wrote: »

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.

I wrote it based on my extensive development experience and lots of reading about MMOs over many years, including nothing indicating effort in custom content will ever satisfy those who only focus on that, which would be the case here. This is not something to do over and over, it is to do one or perhaps several times and then to want even more challenge.

Note the cost of Tamriel One and Warcraft's past revamp(s). Very costly due to the level of effort.

I am fine with them doing whatever they want for new content and it would make much more sense for something like this. Though many of the replies here would not be satisfied with just that. Also keep in mind that making new zones too hard would alienate many more casual players, doubling the effort for new zones if they wanted (and even could) produce both.

How much large scale software development work have you done? How much/long have you followed the MMO business?

I myself never state anything related to costs of any solution. It’s not my area of expertise and if developer experience would be a requirement to participate in this discussion I don’t see a point keeping it open. I just provided thoughts and feedback of my in game experience and how I feel if any of suggestions would be implemented.

And yet I remember there was different opinions from users who claimed to be related to IT and software speculated ESO already had means and technologies available to them to resolve this through instances utilizing different scaling with low/moderate effort. So there is already contradiction at this stage and by the lack of concrete evidence based on your past expert experience or rough estimates of how much it would cost, how much time and personnel it would require I have hard time putting any cohesive arguments about it. Discussing costs with what little data available seems pointless and counterproductive. Unless we get clearer communication from ZOS representatives, we can only guess what solutions are feasible and what kind of effort they could invest into it.

From your reply, I get the impression that you don’t see value in this yourself and see no reason to make any improvement because those who do have different take on how they want it. This is not very productive course of action for any business that wants to succeed. If sizable group of your clients had a persistent request for your product you decided to ignore it they will be unsatisfied and eventually pick another product that meet their needs better. Compromises and different solutions can always be found. However, if this is just a collateral damage ZOS is willing to make then it’s logical to scrap this discussion and return to regular weekly posts about “overland is too easy”.

YellowFridge

FlopsyPrince wrote: »

summ0004 wrote: »

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.

And that is the key thing that gets denied by many. Some claim they just want to have a higher challenge, but it is fairly clear most want that with higher rewards, which upsets the whole apple cart.

Ah yes, god forbid a greater challenge offers greater or unique rewards. Everything needs to be beatable and obtainable by the lowest common denominator right? There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with this concept. I wouldn't be surprised if there are people already complaining about vDungeons /vTrials offering better rewards - I just personally haven't come across it.

It's quite simple, if you have the option to avoid harder content - then don't do it. There are many posters that say they're "for" some sort of a vet overland as long as it's a choice - BUT it can't offer better rewards. ??????
Isn't that the whole point of difficulty (especially in an MMO)?

I truly don't understand the entitlement. It's absolutely fine for YOU to not want harder content without shaming others that DO want it. There are already harder difficulties for the same content in the game which give better rewards, so why not the same for overland????

CP5

FlopsyPrince wrote: »

summ0004 wrote: »

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.

And that is the key thing that gets denied by many. Some claim they just want to have a higher challenge, but it is fairly clear most want that with higher rewards, which upsets the whole apple cart.

One user in a previous thread made the comment that "You shouldn't get a superior reward for doing the same content on a higher difficulty." This same user either didn't know or didn't care to acknowledge that literally every piece of pve content that comes in both normal and veteran variety already does this. Expecting a standard that's already expressed across the game to be continued if its twin standard (normal and vet) was expanded upon shouldn't be a surprise.

spartaxoxo

I will say this, even though AWA does open the door for better rewards imo, the developers themselves were concerned about incentives.

It's actually pretty crucial that vet players do not get all of the nice rewards in order to keep players. People who play on normal have to feel like their time is valued as well. It's not handholding, it's making all paying customers feel like they get value for their buck.

There is actually very real and legitimate concern with adding nice stuff to vet stories, as that's the content explicitly designed to be rewarding to the average player.

So I very much doubt they could do it like they do dungeons where most of the nicest stuff is the vet difficulties. And they have actually realized this with those too and shifted away from that completely unfair strategy.

The point of the higher difficulty should be the fun of it, not the better rewards. That makes a system where people feel forced into content they do not enjoy and drives players away. There should be some rewardsbut that this is the only pve system explicitly designed to be primarily rewarding for new and average players should not be ignored.

ZOS_GregoryV

Greetings all!

After removing a few posts, we would like to remind everyone that all posts should be kept within the Community Rules. Flaming is a violation of these guidelines and is stated as follows:

• Flaming: It’s okay to disagree and debate on the official ESO forums, but we do ask that you keep all disagreements civil, constructive, and on-topic. If a discussion gets heated and turns into a debate, remember that you should stick to debating the post and/or thread topic. It is never appropriate to resort to personal comments or jabs about those participating in the thread discussion.

If there may be any questions in regards to the rules, please take a few moments to review them here.

Thank you for your understanding,
-Greg-

summ0004

I am not bothered in the slightest about achievements myself. Keep them as they are across all overland to not upset people who are have achievment OCD and it will never be a problem.

Personally the only thing I believe that playing overland on a harder difficulty should give is bonus exps, more gold and higher quality items. This seems more than reasonable in my opinion as it is higher risk vs higher reward.

Lysette

More gold is problematic IMO - there are already not that many really effective gold sinks in the game - flooding the game with even more potent gold sources would make the situation worse. More XP and better quality items is reasonable though.

CP5

The simple fact of the matter is, you can get more kills against easier targets, resulting in more times to get exp and loot from them. By upping the difficulty you kill fewer things, thus get less, so compensating that so two people get the same amount over the same amount of time regardless of their difficulty makes sense. And besides, if I really want gold I would either 1) farm imperials or other gold dropping mobs on 'normal' or 2) get things worth a lot of gold and sell them to other players, and if those things happen to drop from enemies, I'm better off killing large numbers of weak enemies.

Lysette

Yeah, but the goal here is to increase challenge, not to increase the amount of gold in the game - if you get better items and sell them to other players, the amount of gold is not changing, it is just moving from one player to another.

Doing story content should as well not be compared to farming - story content gives you less in the same amount of time than farming would. So to expect to get a similar amount of XP, gold and items from story content as you could get from farming is not even currently at an equilibrium - and should as well not be at it, it is a totally different activity - story content is meant to be actually enjoyed, with complete dialogues and so - this is taking much more time for a lot less reward than farming. It is currently not "compensated" and neither should IMO.

CP5

If I spend 2 hours doing quest, I will accomplish fewer quest in that time if those quests are more challenging. Why should I, if choosing a more challenging approach, end up with less at the end of those 2 hours just because I wanted the content to be more engaging? How is it difficult to expect that over the same amount of time, doing the same content, should offer roughly the same rewards, which would require those fewer ticks of rewards (fights mostly since rewarding quest turn in's would make it, so players would just opt into this mode just to do that) to reward more.

Lysette

CP5 wrote: »

If I spend 2 hours doing quest, I will accomplish fewer quest in that time if those quests are more challenging. Why should I, if choosing a more challenging approach, end up with less at the end of those 2 hours just because I wanted the content to be more engaging? How is it difficult to expect that over the same amount of time, doing the same content, should offer roughly the same rewards, which would require those fewer ticks of rewards (fights mostly since rewarding quest turn in's would make it, so players would just opt into this mode just to do that) to reward more.

I'm not against more reward, just against more gold reward - it could be compensated by something else. Increasing the amount of gold would be a problem, there are a couple of threads, which are about inflationary tendencies on PC - maybe those will give you an idea, why the amount of gold should not be increased by a higher difficulty level.

It is as well not said, that it will take you much longer - because most of the content in quests is more often dead than not - due to too many doing these quests at a time.

EozZoe1989

i like new maps and new places.. what about new planets .. like atrium i think its called lovely place and clockwork city .. i think it be cool to add more worlds to game.. if anything a new class for us would be cool like snow elf-- sea elf or even group the old and new elfs in section so can choose from pull down bar or something when creating.. it something like that..
dwarven race be nice.. Dwemer too could be cool..

other maps and content and classes or races make the game more inviting to more people wanting to be more diverse on things they like to choose way look or even custom there looks .. its good to also fake it and make it look like snow elf and so on but .. its the fact that the gamers want some us do anyways ..

or
we could have a companion ... Dwemer and snow elf one.. ooo