Overland Content Feedback Thread

SilverBride

CP5 wrote: »

You fail to acknowledge how instancing allows options in literally every other piece of content in the game, nor address how ESO can't be improved based on what other games have done.

The fact that something can be done doesn't mean it should be. One Tamriel fixed the issue of the veteran zones being too difficult for a huge portion of the player base, the split player base and the forced grouping of Craglorn. Why would these things be any better now?

CP5 wrote: »

As for your other response to LogicOfLian, it doesn't take an experienced player more skills or more powerful gear to overcome the obstacles of overland without effort. It comes down to learning the basics of the game itself. The largest piece of the game, the part unique to the franchise, the world itself, made trivial to some by simply committing themselves to learn it, why would ZOS want to sit back and let that large of a piece of content become worthless to many players?

Overland absolutely teaches the basics of the game and is far from worthless. It is where we enjoy the story and do quests and level and learn how to use our skills and meet others and find guilds to join if we choose, all those basic functions of the game.

CP5 wrote: »

ZOS putting forward effort to make sure more players can enjoy content is why every other piece of content in the game where difficulty is a factor has an option. Why shouldn't overland? "Overland is for the story," though as I explained, video games are interactive, and gameplay informs the story. Different players take that differently, as with my Doom example, but when the gameplay is trivial the story is lost for many and the sense of thrill from exploration is gone.

The areas "where difficulty is a factor" that have options are areas that were created specifically for a challenge, such as dungeons, trials and arenas. That is their purpose and what they exist for. That is not overland's purpose.

CP5 wrote: »

And, last I checked, I have 18 characters, 17 of which have barely done any overland, would sure be nice to take them through some of that content and enjoy it, or my oldest character through the newest content, or maybe even level new characters by questing rather than mindlessly farming mobs. Perhaps that is a good reason.

An individual's choice to not participate in any part of the game is not a good reason to change the way the basic game has functioned, and very successfully at that, for the past 6 years. They can't customize every aspect of the game to please every player. It is an impossible task.

CP5 wrote: »

And besides, if we say we can't do this because of hardware limitations, why are they adding a new zone this coming quarter? If hardware is an issue that is on them to fix if they want the game to go on, and I think we can both agree that is what we want.

You have to ask ZoS that.


But I will ask you what I asked LogicofLiam. Why would anyone expect the base game to challenge a fully decked out player? That is like earning a phd in Mathematics then taking a job as an elementary school math teacher and being dissatisfied that it isn't challenging enough.

LogicOfLiam

But I will ask you what I asked LogicofLiam. Why would anyone expect the base game to challenge a fully decked out player?
That is like earning a phd in Mathematics then taking a job as an elementary school math teacher and being dissatisfied that it isn't challenging enough. [/quote]

I wasn't saying anyone expects the base game to challenge a fully decked out player, I was stating that i believe (and many others) the base game can offer an alternative in a temporary instance in certain locals (such as Delves, Towns, Public Dungeons) for us players outside of Dungeons/Trials/Arenas. It gets tedious running the same small content over and over again, not really offering replayability. I want to be able to launch High Isle in June and not stroll through the whole thing 2 shotting most enemies and burning world ending bosses in 5 seconds.

Just because I am the hero of a story doesn't mean I shouldn't get beat up by trash... Look at film and TV, imagine if the main character (typically the Hero) wins every fight they come to straight away in seconds. Why would anyone want to watch that? It would get boring and become the same old thing over and over again.

I'm not asking for the game to change for the casual player base/less abled, I (like many others) are asking for a way to make it a little bit more challenging for us without affecting the target playerbase.

spartaxoxo

I have actually never played an MMO that overland taught people to do hard dungeons and I don't understand why people would expect that in this one.

The normal dungeons (equivalent to low level dungeons in other games) is how you learn to vet dungeons. And vet dungeons is how you prepare for trials.

I would like them to implement a harder overland in some way, but none of the challenges should need a group or teach people group mechanics. That's what dungeons are for. They should instead be more akin to solo arenas.

CP5

SilverBride wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

You fail to acknowledge how instancing allows options in literally every other piece of content in the game, nor address how ESO can't be improved based on what other games have done.

The fact that something can be done doesn't mean it should be. One Tamriel fixed the issue of the veteran zones being too difficult for a huge portion of the player base, the split player base and the forced grouping of Craglorn. Why would these things be any better now?

CP5 wrote: »

As for your other response to LogicOfLian, it doesn't take an experienced player more skills or more powerful gear to overcome the obstacles of overland without effort. It comes down to learning the basics of the game itself. The largest piece of the game, the part unique to the franchise, the world itself, made trivial to some by simply committing themselves to learn it, why would ZOS want to sit back and let that large of a piece of content become worthless to many players?

Overland absolutely teaches the basics of the game and is far from worthless. It is where we enjoy the story and do quests and level and learn how to use our skills and meet others and find guilds to join if we choose, all those basic functions of the game.

CP5 wrote: »

ZOS putting forward effort to make sure more players can enjoy content is why every other piece of content in the game where difficulty is a factor has an option. Why shouldn't overland? "Overland is for the story," though as I explained, video games are interactive, and gameplay informs the story. Different players take that differently, as with my Doom example, but when the gameplay is trivial the story is lost for many and the sense of thrill from exploration is gone.

The areas "where difficulty is a factor" that have options are areas that were created specifically for a challenge, such as dungeons, trials and arenas. That is their purpose and what they exist for. That is not overland's purpose.

CP5 wrote: »

And, last I checked, I have 18 characters, 17 of which have barely done any overland, would sure be nice to take them through some of that content and enjoy it, or my oldest character through the newest content, or maybe even level new characters by questing rather than mindlessly farming mobs. Perhaps that is a good reason.

An individual's choice to not participate in any part of the game is not a good reason to change the way the basic game has functioned, and very successfully at that, for the past 6 years. They can't customize every aspect of the game to please every player. It is an impossible task.

CP5 wrote: »

And besides, if we say we can't do this because of hardware limitations, why are they adding a new zone this coming quarter? If hardware is an issue that is on them to fix if they want the game to go on, and I think we can both agree that is what we want.

You have to ask ZoS that.


But I will ask you what I asked LogicofLiam. Why would anyone expect the base game to challenge a fully decked out player? That is like earning a phd in Mathematics then taking a job as an elementary school math teacher and being dissatisfied that it isn't challenging enough.

The purpose of dungeons are to be dungeons, small contained spaces designed to house 4 players and provide a string of combat encounters with a story, difficulty is separate from that. Trials are supposed to be trials, 12 man encounter areas just like dungeons, with combat and stories, difficulty is not a mandatory factor of those either. If difficulty were a key aspect of them then they wouldn't offer a difficulty choice. Overland, is exploration, story, combat, and none of those things bar difficulty from being a thing.

Some players don't feel a meaningful sense of exploration if everywhere they go is a casual walk, some people don't feel invested in a story if they walk through every enemy without effort. Those things undermine the purpose of overland, as exploration and story are both heavily dependent on gameplay, since ESO is a video game after all, and providing an option just like dungeons and trials would accommodate these different groups.

And again, "very successfully at that" while people are explicitly citing overlands low difficulty as a pain point completely counters your argument. You left and came back after ZOS made changes, it was your 'individual choice not to participate' so why should ZOS have bothered changing things? Is it potentially in their best interest to solve problems that are driving players from the game, rather than leave them and let people leave without even trying?

As for your last point, look again at my comment on Doom. Some players enjoy the lower difficulty and the power fantasy that comes with it. Others enjoy the higher difficulty and the satisfaction that comes from achieving the heroic title that comes with clearing those challenges, feeling like they were the actual hero actually accomplishing challenging task and earning the praises of the npcs after the quest is done. You, as an individual, may not care for that second category, but to selfishly claim that overland should never change just because you like it as it is now, when the option exist to provide for both groups. Please just try to understand that there are people who, like you, love this game, and like you, could benefit from something changing without taking things away from you.

We aren't trying to burn your ship, we're trying to stop our own from sinking.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I have actually never played an MMO that overland taught people to do hard dungeons and I don't understand why people would expect that in this one.

The normal dungeons (equivalent to low level dungeons in other games) is how you learn to vet dungeons. And vet dungeons is how you prepare for trials.

I would like them to implement a harder overland in some way, but none of the challenges should need a group or teach people group mechanics. That's what dungeons are for. They should instead be more akin to solo arenas.

If I'm doing a random dungeon and someone uses a buff skill, they're instantly in the top 10% of players for me. Same if they can bash an enemy to interrupt them. Or if in Direfrost they're able to break free from the boss so she doesn't keep healing to full. Basic tools every player has access to and the game, while forcing players to do them in the tutorial, never reinforces those things.

Are there any npc's in the world that do something impactful enough to warrant bashing? Or maybe something simpler. Are there any encounters where, depending on who you're fighting, you may need to switch targets? As with ZOS's changes where they flattened enemies, all melee enemies are just as durable and damaging, and same with ranged ones, and none do anything enough to actually stand out.

I remember in Old Orsinium, back when the dlc first went live, the hagravens would revive fallen allies all the time. It was hard for me to single them out with their teleporting and friends blocking my attacks. This taught me through overcoming those challenging fights how to manage enemies like that, tab targeting, timing skills to deal damage quickly and take them out of the fight fast.

Games teach through gameplay, but when all standard encounters are balanced around being the same there is no nuance to learn around, and when bosses are just bigger standard enemies with more health they don't do much to resolve that. If, in all the years I did pugs as a healer and tank, I saw more people doing basic things like buffing, bashing, moving out of red aoe's, using damage over time skills at all, then I wouldn't bring this up. But that isn't the case, and if you do something like the Vvardenfel hunger world boss, and you get pinned, good luck having any of the random players bash him off of you.

SilverBride

Doom is a very different type of game that attracts a very different type of player. There is no way to make a direct comparison between Doom and ESO.

I left ESO when I did because it was completely unenjoyable for me in the state it was in. What I didn't do was continue playing a game that I no longer enjoyed and ask that it be changed to accommodate my personal preferences. Luckily ZoS recognized why so many players were leaving and One Tamriel completely turned things around.

It would be bad for the game to divide the player base again, and a waste of time and resources to develop something that can only be done once per character.

Overland isn't broken. If a player wants more difficulty with overland debuffs and challenge banners are very reasonable options.

This is my opinion and my feedback and I stand by it.

spartaxoxo

CP5 wrote: »

. But that isn't the case, and if you do something like the Vvardenfel hunger world boss, and you get pinned, good luck having any of the random players bash him off of you.

And stuff like the hunger boss and normal dungeons exist to teach those things. That not everyone in the zone may be their yet is a non-issue. I think dungeons should do a better job of teaching these things, and there should be some tutorial stuff people should have to do before jumping into vet dungeons, but I don't think a vet overland should be teaching those things. It shouldn't be designed for beginners at all.

It should be hard content designed for people who already know what they are doing. Let the newbies learn from normal dungeons and let them get slaughtered in vet overland.

If for some reason they decide to do separate instances, then Vet Overland should be for vets. People who don't even know how to bash have enough content.

LashanW

CP5 wrote: »

Are there any npc's in the world that do something impactful enough to warrant bashing?

I see your point. Interruptible enemies on overland/questing isn't rare. It just doesn't matter at all. Like most of the basic combat mechanics.
There were times I watched random pug groups wipe again and again on Icereach last boss because noone knew how to interrupt, they didn't even know the visual cue. I typed on chat explaining what to do, but no one knew the idea of interrupting. They were mostly mid to high CP players. I also see lots of players in normal dungeons attacking invulnerable targets.

SilverBride wrote: »

It would be bad for the game to divide the player base again, and a waste of time and resources to develop something that can only be done once per character.

Unless you are a project manager or a team lead working for ZoS, this is not your concern. I find it ridiculous people are making comments like this. And so what if it could only be done once per character? I have 17 of them. I could do veteran quests 17 times then, as opposed to the zero times I'm doing now. This attitude shows quite a lack of empathy for other players' playstyles.

I don't care about companions, housing or the card game they are coming up with. But I don't think developing such things are a waste of time or resources. I don't use them, but somewhere some players will use them. So it's fine.

Tbh I don't don't even care about new chapter anymore, because I know it will be just another case of steam-rolling all the baddies with zero threats to me. Kinda sad as the story looks actually interesting this time.

CharlieFreak

SilverBride wrote: »

CharlieFreak wrote: »

The problem is just that the combat is a snooze for anyone with any experience playing games.

That is your opinion but not the opinion of "anyone with any experience playing games". Having the same experiences doesn't mean we have the same opinion. I have been playing games over 2 decades and I love overland difficulty just as it is.

What level of difficulty you prefer is an opinion - and I respect yours. However, I think it comes closer to a fact to say that anyone with two decades of experience playing games would find this quite easy. If you prefer it that way, that's fine. This is a thread about people expressing their views, and I don't expect everyone to have the same preferences as me.

Arunei

I want to ask again, because no one has given an answer. How hard is too hard? How hard is enough? Difficulty is subjective, and not everyone wants the same level. Some people just want quest bosses to be stronger, some people seem to think that every single mob needs buffing to boss status. Some people only want a little bit of difficulty, others want a lot.

So how exactly is ZOS supposed to cater to the people wanting harder difficulty when there will always be someone whose unhappy? Someone who will say "no this isn't hard enough" while someone else goes "this is too hard and not what I wanted"?

Separate instances that are a flat difficulty spike won't solve anything because no one will agree on what's a good level. Implementing some sort of flat debuff in the way of a drink or food won't work for the same reason. Individual toggles won't work because you can't have mobs doing high damage to X player and low damage to Y player at the same time if these players have different options activated, because how is the game supposed to know which player to do more damage to if the toggle simply makes the world itself harder?

The only thing that would actually do anything to make content harder in a way that would suit the most people is to implement a slider that debuffs players individually, but it's been said by numerous people they don't want to nerf themselves, even though I don't see what the difference between nerfing oneself and buffing mobs is. What difference is there between giving a mob more health and simply lowering the damage you do, for example? Either way it creates artificial difficulty and makes it take longer for you to kill the mob. Implementing different, harder mechanics is something for dungeons and raids, not simple overland questing.

So again, maybe someone will finally answer this: How hard is too hard, how hard is hard enough, and which group of people wanting X or Y is ZOS supposed to cater to? There will always be people who don't feel challenged enough by overland, because overland isn't meant to be challenging.

And just as a reminder, I'm fine with ZOS trying to implement optional methods of increasing the difficulty, so long as they don't wind up breaking the game somehow. I'm more directing my question at people who are for whatever reason adamantly against an option that debuffs them as opposed to making overland itself harder.

Arunei

A thought I just had regarding toggles that affect the world would be if that toggle puts a flag on characters who have it on, so they take more damage and so on. However, this would really only work on quest bosses because having every single mob in the game needing to check players for flag or not seems like it would be a lot of data being transferred any time people would be in combat. And if it's just an on/off toggle we have the same problem of "how hard is too hard". We all know ZOS doesn't do things in moderation and works on extremes, after all.

LashanW

Arunei wrote: »

So again, maybe someone will finally answer this: How hard is too hard, how hard is hard enough, and which group of people wanting X or Y is ZOS supposed to cater to? There will always be people who don't feel challenged enough by overland, because overland isn't meant to be challenging.

I answered it several pages ago. page 80- post#2400
Have you done veteran and hardmode group content (dungeons, arenas and trials) in this game? I'm just asking.

Personally I would like the ability to select a difficulty level when accepting a quest. Normal, Veteran and Veteran hardmode. Hardmode would be like in every other group content in the game, only applied to bosses. This feels ideal to me. How ZoS implements this and the exact implementation details?, well that's up to dev team. They did it for all group content, without players telling the specifics. It shouldn't be an unsolvable problem. I will provide exact specifications if a ZoS employee comes here and asks for it.

Tbh I'm ok with many types of solutions. Debuff sliders, banners for quest bosses, vet instances etc. They all sound better than the static visual novel gaming difficulty we currently have. I've played visual novel games, don't like em.

Arunei wrote: »

A thought I just had regarding toggles that affect the world would be if that toggle puts a flag on characters who have it on, so they take more damage and so on. However, this would really only work on quest bosses because having every single mob in the game needing to check players for flag or not seems like it would be a lot of data being transferred any time people would be in combat.

I don't think that's how it works.

There are already debuffs and buffs that can increase/decrease player damage taken and player damage done in set percentages. (vulnerability, brittle, aegis, protection, slayer, berserk. battlespirit etc). There are also semi-dynamic values like stagger stacks, sorcerer amplitude class passive and even completely dynamic values like bloodthirsty trait, Bahsei unique buff, and some execute skills.

These flags/checks make much more sense to implement on player character's side. Otherwise imagine the rework that need to be done on every possible enemy when releasing a set like Bahsei. Or adjusting one. Doesn't sound like sustainable code.

But I admit, I've never looked at the ESO source code. So I can't make any concrete comments on such coding details. But I doubt anyone here can. Kinda pointless to argue over something none of has access to verify.

Parasaurolophus

@Arunei this question has already been answered here. In fact, this question is not so important for the players. No one complains that dungeons or trials are too easy or difficult. The players are fine with that. Similarly, there can be consensus on the Quest/Overland problem. Are some dungeons too easy for me? Yes, but for some reason I'm fine with it and I'm having fun. While discussions about the fact that overland and questing are basically devoid of any gameplay have already gone far beyond the boundaries of this forum. We want to see a fun overland. We want to play RPG, MMORPG or adventure game. Instead, we just have a chain of dialogues in different settings. This could be better. This can be done in a variety of ways. Finding the most optimal is already the task of developers.

Lysette

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

We want to see a fun overland. We want to play RPG, MMORPG or adventure game. Instead, we just have a chain of dialogues in different settings. This could be better. This can be done in a variety of ways. Finding the most optimal is already the task of developers.

Overland is structured like this, because it is story-driven, not combat-driven. It has some combat, but the story is what is the main thing - and that is delivered by either dialogues with NPCs or lore books. A quest is a sequence of talking to NPCs and doing something for them, then return and either get a reward or be pointed to the next step, which repeats the pattern.

You might not like it this way, but that is how story-driven games are structured. And what you do in between talking to NPCs is not meant to be hard to do, it is just to advance the story and pretty much anyone can do it - that is the concept of One Tamriel and something ZOS is really proud of, and they can be that actually, because it is refreshing to be free and actually have your very own adventure, after your taste more or less difficult, but never too hard - one isn't forced to learn mechanics, it is often possible to stay in the red and just take the damage, if one so chooses - that is freedom to "play as you want".

Not even the role of a hero is forced on us - and this allows for role play of mediocre and even risk averse characters, who are just pulled into it by the circumstances - a pseudo-hero of kind, who never intended to be one - this kind of role play can be done as well, because it is not overly hard - it wouldn't be possible with content which would be too hard for a non-hero type character to do. I enjoy this kind of characters, who are not that good in anything, who have their own mind and do not like to follow orders or a given path - they do as they please and in ESO they can do that - this is a strength of ESO, to offer this freedom, it is not a flaw.

And ZOS definitely likes it that way too, otherwise they would not have added companions to make an easy game even more easy for most. They gave us our very own private healer or tank - why would they do that, if they would want it to be harder?- They don't, they want more people to enjoy the game and this seems to be the way most are enjoying it.

Lysette

BIackHand wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

BIackHand wrote: »

@ZOS_Kevin
I did not really read everything. But i can already see that tons of People try to find constructive ideas to make Overland Content harder and worth to play, instead of beeing able to solo public dungeons with one hand on their keyboard and with half their attention to Netflix on the second screen. Even without any Gear Sets and Championpoints enabled.

Just as many are happy with overland just as it is and are against having more difficulty forced on them. Many are also against a separate veteran overland because it is overkill when the main complaint is about the quest story bosses, which are a one time fight per character.

The only options that do not affect anyone other than the player who is asking for more difficulty are debuffs and challenge banners for story quest bosses.

BIackHand wrote: »

...reset the Overlanmd Difficulty back like it was in 2k14...

They changed that because most players didn't do 2/3 of the quests because they were veteran level and players didn't want difficulty in the story. It would be illogical to revert back to something that failed before.

[snip]

Skyrim and the others were actually just the same easy played on "normal" - you have just a different experience, because you might have played it on the hardest difficulty. As a top illusionist, you did not even have to fight most of the time - you just made them fight each other and the last one standing you calmed down and the moment he turns his back to you, you go into stealth and cut his throat, done. Not fighting enemies, but killing them. Quite easy, isn't it?

[edited to remove quote]

BIackHand

@Lysette
If you know what to do as an Illusionist, fine. But i was playing an Assassin and was new to the game. Same with my Girlfriend started ESO. She didnt know what to do, but she didnt play for long, because everything was so easy. There is simply no challenge overland. The Lore was interesting for her, but she had no motivation to continue at all bec she knew everything will be fart dry easy, so she quit the game.

I tried ''hard'', but it was to difficult for me first. Then i played it on Normal. I cant even count how many times i died when i entered the first time that hole into the Cave full of Falmers. On Eso diffulty, it would be a total turn-off.

spartaxoxo

BIackHand wrote: »

[snip]

The equivalent of that for this game is ZOS making overland harder because people complained.

Dark Souls was designed by the game makers to be hard to cater to people who love a challenging game.

ESO's Overland was designed by the game makers to be easy to cater to their single player fans who just wanted to hear the story without a challenge.

People who complain about the difficulty of either Dark Souls being too hard, or ESO being too easy, are both asking the developer to change a fundamental design decision that both companies have defended to suit their tastes. As such, they shouldn't be surprised if they get push back. And should be looking for low impact, optional solutions.

That's why I asked for a difficulty slider in the form of a personal debuff. I don't expect this or any game to pull a lot of reaources from their primary playerbase and the game design the artist's did to make the game they wanted and suit their business needs to cater to me.

[edited to remove quote]

Lysette

BIackHand wrote: »

I tried hard, but it was to difficult for me first. Then i played it on Normal.

Hm, then the difference between our both experiences might be the play style - I use stealth, fast daggers and illusion and conjuration, at most light armor or just a robe - I make others fight each others and for the ugly parts I summon my minions to do the fighting for me. This might be a very different experience to a warrior type. one feels like a demi-god when the dremora boys are out ready to follow orders.

BIackHand

spartaxoxo wrote: »

BIackHand wrote: »

[snip]

The equivalent of that for this game is ZOS making overland harder because people complained.

Dark Souls was designed by the game makers to be hard to cater to people who love a challenging game.

ESO's Overland was designed by the game makers to be easy to cater to their single player fans who just wanted to hear the story without a challenge.

People who complain about the difficulty of either Dark Souls being too hard, or ESO being too easy, are both asking the developer to change a fundamental design decision that both companies have defended to suit their tastes. As such, they shouldn't be surprised if they get push back. And should be looking for low impact, optional solutions.

Do you have any prove of ZOS how they planned to design the Overland Content? Eso wasnt designed to be easy. They made it easy because there were mostly people complaining in the forum about the Difficulty. Like i wrote in the Post before, i repeat it for you. It is always the frightening majority of people in the corresponding topics wich complain about something, than the people wich are happy about how it was. People go less to the forum to say something is awesome instead complaing about something. Because of that nobody can say its failed.

If the same people wich were fine with the difficulty, would give positive feedback how awesome the overland difficulty was at release, then i doubt ZOS would ever make it easy.

[edited to remove quote]

Lysette

BIackHand wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

BIackHand wrote: »

[snip]

The equivalent of that for this game is ZOS making overland harder because people complained.

Dark Souls was designed by the game makers to be hard to cater to people who love a challenging game.

ESO's Overland was designed by the game makers to be easy to cater to their single player fans who just wanted to hear the story without a challenge.

People who complain about the difficulty of either Dark Souls being too hard, or ESO being too easy, are both asking the developer to change a fundamental design decision that both companies have defended to suit their tastes. As such, they shouldn't be surprised if they get push back. And should be looking for low impact, optional solutions.

Do you have any prove of ZOS how they planned to design the Overland Content? Eso wasnt designed to be easy. They made it easy because there were mostly people complaining in the forum about the Difficulty. Like i wrote in the Post before, i repeat it for you. It is always the frightening majority of people in the corresponding topics wich complain about something, than the people wich are happy about how it was. People go less to the forum to say something is awesome instead complaing about something. Because of that nobody can say its failed.

If the same people wich were fine with the difficulty, would give positive feedback how awesome the overland difficulty was at release, then i doubt ZOS would ever make it easy

They have the numbers, what is said on the forums is not relevant - in the end just the amount of players, subscriptions and sales count - and it didn't run well at start, they had to adjust the game to what gets them more revenue, that is the game like it is now - at first they designed it for an MMO crowd, but the fan base of TES games is not like that, they want a different experience than the typical MMO - and ZOS had to accept that and redesign the game to please the TES fan base.

[edited to remove quote]

spartaxoxo

BIackHand wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

BIackHand wrote: »

[snip]

The equivalent of that for this game is ZOS making overland harder because people complained.

Dark Souls was designed by the game makers to be hard to cater to people who love a challenging game.

ESO's Overland was designed by the game makers to be easy to cater to their single player fans who just wanted to hear the story without a challenge.

People who complain about the difficulty of either Dark Souls being too hard, or ESO being too easy, are both asking the developer to change a fundamental design decision that both companies have defended to suit their tastes. As such, they shouldn't be surprised if they get push back. And should be looking for low impact, optional solutions.

Do you have any prove of ZOS how they planned to design the Overland Content? Eso wasnt designed to be easy. They made it easy because there were mostly people complaining in the forum about the Difficulty.

No. They made it easy because the game FAILED before. So they decided to redesign the game to be more of an Elder Scrolls game first and foremost. They have said multiple times how happy they are with the outcome, how they now consider the ease a critical design path, how successful it has made them, etc.

Players have asked for alternate difficulty options for the open-world questing experience, to have a challenge outside of dungeons and trials. Lambert says that this probably won't be coming because Zenimax Online wants the entire storyline to be accessible.

"Balance is obviously a tricky thing. What is too easy for one player is impossible for another," he tells us. "We try to balance so that the average player can have a good experience, especially with the main story content. That's our critical path. If they want to challenge themselves, they can go and do Public Dungeons, or Trials with 12 of their friends. We do make that conscious choice with the crit path to make it playable for as many people as possible."

This is all on the first page. Read the links of their previous statements on this matter.

Final Fantasy’s MMO, specifically, has been pretty popular recently. Why has it been doing well?

Lambert: They do a lot of things right in general. They know the game they want to be. They embrace that. And the fans that want that type of game know where to go and know where to get it. They’ve done a really good job in that regard. That is key, just in general, to making a good game — really understanding your community and what they want.

That was one of the lessons we had to learn really early on when we first launched in 2014. We didn’t really feel or have a clear understanding of what game we were trying to make. We tried to walk that line between Elder Scrolls and MMO, and we didn’t really hit either of those out of the park.

And so, we went back, and we listened to the community, and we listened to the team, and we focused on making it an Elder Scrolls game, first and foremost. And once we did that, the game just blew up and turned into what it is today.

Again the way they consider this new design is doing something that makes the team and the majority of their community happy. Their design idea behind this was "let's make it an Elder Scrolls game first and foremost."

The current design is how they view making it an elder scrolls game first, and they didn't really have a vision at first.

It was not just oh players complained. It was they didn't have a solid direction on what they wanted the game to be and now they do.

[edited to remove quote]

Arrodisia

Everyone has the right to comment as they see fit and this matter does concern the whole of the player base, not just those in the forums for and against the topic. Simply for that reason we should be careful in what we ask for and acquaint ourselves with the different issues which arise with these suggested methods. There are definitely issues with each method. so many factors are involved here.

It's very difficult for players with real life responsibilities to come into the forums and regularly write for hours on end and repeatedly do so to break down every introduced issue which would arise with each method of altering game difficulty in overland content.

The next obvious point is when people come home after a long hard day and already full of challenges, they want to relax. The last thing they want is to bang their head on the wall all year long and possibly longer until the issues introduced by these changes are solved.

It will take a great deal of time and effort to get a solid plan together, which foresees and counters the majority of arising issues before considering to begin such an endeavour.

Also, splitting the player base further was commented on by ZOS when players asked about it in past live streams and so on. ZOS was not willing to fragment the base further. They also commented on the Craglorn reworking due to it being too hard for casuals and pretty much don't want to rehash it by trying a very similar thing again.This is the reason most players are saying what they're saying. However, they did say they would continue to explore possibilities.

Fragmenting the player base has in many cases hurt games including this one. They are learning from their own mistake and the mistakes of other developers over time, which is a good thing. They're actually better off fixing performance and adding new content at this time.

We don't need to rehash the same explanations over and over. Every other day players explain how the bigger picture looks in reality according to what ZOS and developer experience has already told and shown them. Yet every day a small peek hole view which doesn't consider all of the ramifications is added to the thread. They should speak their minds too but accept their methods of introduction are flawed at this time and unsuitable for fast implimentation.

Unfortunately modes, debuffs and toggles won't solve all problems which will arise. It will take 1-2 years to iron out most issues which will pop up and some may never be resolved. Imho I'd rather have a functioning game then a game that does everything under the sun and satisfies no one in the end because it becomes unplayable. I. whole heartedly, believe performance should be fixed from all ends and for all content before any changes to difficulty are made.

Regardless of the complaints in this thread, more players will play the card games, just like digging for the antiquities they complained about, than will ever do hard content. So ZOS is practicing good business by concentrating on what the majority wants.

That being said I'm also not against some form of toggles eventually. However, until there is a definitive way to do it without breaking the game, it's best left out for now, and certainly until after the game is performance solid.

Plenty of players have already linked the discussions and comments from ZOS in this thread and others. The whole game shouldn't need to be reworked and likely broken for a small percent just because some are too proud to let go of OP gear, (including legendary items) food, potions, op shields, op self heals, pets, companions, champ points, etc. for overland. Maybe the question is...Do we need a button to press to change the entire game difficulty, when we can press a button in our armoury to strip down and change the difficulty without breaking the game?

I have a few min maxed characters in trial, dungeon and PvP gear but I don't wear anything but junky mixmatch drops now when I level or do overland on my other characters. Accidentally pull a second mob with no gear and no op builds and see what happens if you're not paying attention for 2 seconds.

For me and others, who can shed the op items and op builds for a short time, the problem is already solved. We're enjoying getting beat in the face with dots, push backs, stuns, heavy attacks, snares, and so on by enemies. We enjoy running around because we like how an ability looks rather than how powerful it is for fun and so what if occasionally die? It's wonderful to remember what it was like when we played those first few levels way back when we started in the dinosaur era.

Players are comparing ESO to other games with other visions and worried about losing small amounts of players. Ok but then we must also consider that many of the players who left ESO to play those games are already returning for a reason. This game has a much better QoL than many newer games, surprisingly less bugs and in quite a few cases better performance. I have seen and experienced in many cases leaving ESO or another game gives us a better appreciation for it soon after. It often shows us. We were actually happier where we were in the first place and we should've appreciated our friends, guild mates and gaming communities more as well.

Too many players come into the forums not willing to see every angle. Maybe we should all at least try to be open minded.

Have a wonderful day playing ESO.

Arunei

LashanW wrote: »

Arunei wrote: »

So again, maybe someone will finally answer this: How hard is too hard, how hard is hard enough, and which group of people wanting X or Y is ZOS supposed to cater to? There will always be people who don't feel challenged enough by overland, because overland isn't meant to be challenging.

I answered it several pages ago. page 80- post#2400
Have you done veteran and hardmode group content (dungeons, arenas and trials) in this game? I'm just asking.

Personally I would like the ability to select a difficulty level when accepting a quest. Normal, Veteran and Veteran hardmode. Hardmode would be like in every other group content in the game, only applied to bosses. This feels ideal to me. How ZoS implements this and the exact implementation details?, well that's up to dev team. They did it for all group content, without players telling the specifics. It shouldn't be an unsolvable problem. I will provide exact specifications if a ZoS employee comes here and asks for it.

Tbh I'm ok with many types of solutions. Debuff sliders, banners for quest bosses, vet instances etc. They all sound better than the static visual novel gaming difficulty we currently have. I've played visual novel games, don't like em.

Arunei wrote: »

A thought I just had regarding toggles that affect the world would be if that toggle puts a flag on characters who have it on, so they take more damage and so on. However, this would really only work on quest bosses because having every single mob in the game needing to check players for flag or not seems like it would be a lot of data being transferred any time people would be in combat.

I don't think that's how it works.

There are already debuffs and buffs that can increase/decrease player damage taken and player damage done in set percentages. (vulnerability, brittle, aegis, protection, slayer, berserk. battlespirit etc). There are also semi-dynamic values like stagger stacks, sorcerer amplitude class passive and even completely dynamic values like bloodthirsty trait, Bahsei unique buff, and some execute skills.

These flags/checks make much more sense to implement on player character's side. Otherwise imagine the rework that need to be done on every possible enemy when releasing a set like Bahsei. Or adjusting one. Doesn't sound like sustainable code.

But I admit, I've never looked at the ESO source code. So I can't make any concrete comments on such coding details. But I doubt anyone here can. Kinda pointless to argue over something none of has access to verify.

But that doesn't answer the question of how hard is too hard and how hard is hard enough, because in this very thread there are people wanting different things. So who is it ZOS caters to? They literally can't make everyone happy, so someone is always going to claim the game is too easy because they aren't going to get what they imagined, or someone will claim the game is now too hard. Even making Vet and Vet Hardmode instances isn't that easy, because comparing dungeons and their difficulty to overland isn't really the best comparison. They're different types of content and ZOS would still need to decide how much stronger to make things, whether all mobs or just bosses were buffed, etc.

And yes, I've done Vet DLC dungeons and Hardmode stuff. That doesn't matter because again, you can't compare how group content is structured to solo overland content. ZOS has a general idea now of how hard to make normal, Vet, and Vet HM dungeons these days. They don't have any sort of reference for making harder overland except for what failed before; VR zones and Original Craglorn™.

So the main issue is still how hard do they make these optional instances, because not everyone wanting harder content wants the same harder content. The only way to make it so as many people are catered to as possible is to make a slider that debuffs the player. That way no flat difficulty spikes are either too much or too little.

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

@Arunei this question has already been answered here. In fact, this question is not so important for the players. No one complains that dungeons or trials are too easy or difficult. The players are fine with that. Similarly, there can be consensus on the Quest/Overland problem. Are some dungeons too easy for me? Yes, but for some reason I'm fine with it and I'm having fun. While discussions about the fact that overland and questing are basically devoid of any gameplay have already gone far beyond the boundaries of this forum. We want to see a fun overland. We want to play RPG, MMORPG or adventure game. Instead, we just have a chain of dialogues in different settings. This could be better. This can be done in a variety of ways. Finding the most optimal is already the task of developers.

But the problem is your fun won't be the same as everyone elses', and theirs won't be yours. What's the point in doing any increase in difficulty if the time and resources spent doing it are only going to cater to a very small number of people? This is why flat difficulty spikes aren't really going to work, because you might find it fun but numerous others might find it too hard now or still not hard enough, and then we're right back in this situation with people claiming the game isn't challenging enough.

This is why I'm saying the only thing that will support the most people is making a slider that will debuff individual players. That way people can make the game a little harder or a lot harder and ZOS won't have to juggle balance for overland.

DaveMoeDee

LogicOfLiam wrote: »

But I will ask you what I asked LogicofLiam. Why would anyone expect the base game to challenge a fully decked out player?
That is like earning a phd in Mathematics then taking a job as an elementary school math teacher and being dissatisfied that it isn't challenging enough.

I wasn't saying anyone expects the base game to challenge a fully decked out player, I was stating that i believe (and many others) the base game can offer an alternative in a temporary instance in certain locals (such as Delves, Towns, Public Dungeons) for us players outside of Dungeons/Trials/Arenas. It gets tedious running the same small content over and over again, not really offering replayability. I want to be able to launch High Isle in June and not stroll through the whole thing 2 shotting most enemies and burning world ending bosses in 5 seconds.

Just because I am the hero of a story doesn't mean I shouldn't get beat up by trash... Look at film and TV, imagine if the main character (typically the Hero) wins every fight they come to straight away in seconds. Why would anyone want to watch that? It would get boring and become the same old thing over and over again.

I'm not asking for the game to change for the casual player base/less abled, I (like many others) are asking for a way to make it a little bit more challenging for us without affecting the target playerbase.
[/quote]

While I have not interest in what you suggest, the reality is that ZOS keeps designing systems that encourage players to return to the same places over and over again. If they are going to have dailies to send people into delves or group dungeons over and over again, maybe they should invest in an option where those can be more or less challenging.

Why do you keep returning to those zones? Is it for dailies?

Btw, if you don't want to win fights in seconds, run a tank build. Ugh, really horrible.

phileunderx2

I wish ESO overland mobs were like the ones in Albion online.
There they mobs get stronger the longer they are in the world. They also have a much smaller agro range and leash range than the mobs in ESO so if you don't want to fight them it's quite easy to avoid them and if you do they won't chase you halfway across the map either
ESO mobs as easy as they are are very bothersome, are not fun to fight as they just spam multiple cc's and then just die as soon as you can actually hit them.
As for instanced quest content let us have a choice of normal or veteran mode.

Parasaurolophus

@Arunei and here we are again. It has been discussed so many times here why Craglorn failed, and why players cannot objectively offer ready-made solutions. I really don't want to explain it all over again.
I have already said that players have no problem with the difficult of other content. Why can't there be some kind of consensus for overland and questing, you didn't explain.

CP5

"I left ESO when I did because it was completely unenjoyable for me in the state it was in. What I didn't do was continue playing a game that I no longer enjoyed and ask that it be changed to accommodate my personal preferences. Luckily ZoS recognized why so many players were leaving and One Tamriel completely turned things around."

<snip> Back then, I was playing through silver and gold zones just fine. Now that the opposite is happening, we shouldn't change anything? Overland fails to engage experienced players, fails to provide new players a proper idea of what ESO can offer, putting some off before they even get into it and failing to give those that stick around the confidence or skills needed to even progress into normal dungeons without issue. You enjoy the difficulty, which you explicitly compare to a visual novel, but other players in the community actually enjoy the gameplay ESO provides and are let down by it failing to hold up when we know it can be done better.

"Overland is structured like this, because it is story-driven, not combat-driven. It has some combat, but the story is what is the main thing - and that is delivered by either dialogues with NPCs or lore books. A quest is a sequence of talking to NPCs and doing something for them, then return and either get a reward or be pointed to the next step, which repeats the pattern."

Lysette, how many quest lines in game involve saving the day by killing people? Or delivering an item across a dangerous location, while killing people. Combat is a major factor in many quests, and as we've brought up many times, when a major quest line hypes up this enemy as being a major threat, and we kill them without effort, I don't feel like a demigod saving the populous, I feel like the only person who could be bothered to solve the problem since no one else cared enough to stop the big bad. It makes the entire quest line feel like a waste of time and a chore, it compromises the entire story and my investment in it.

As for the role-play you enjoy, yeah, current overland provides the relaxed area for you to engage in it that way, but if a player can comfortably move through the content without issue when deliberately holding back then what of players who actively apply themselves to the game, can consistently clear veteran content, and want to enjoy the world of tamriel? Isn't it reasonable that these players will be bored to tears running from point A to B listening to npcs bellyache about how doomed the world is when they know for a fact that if they crossed paths with the big bad the whole thing could be sorted in a matter of seconds? That devalues the world, the story, the characters, and makes every year spanning story a joke to some players, many of whom don't bother engaging with it anymore because they know it'll be a waste of time.

For both of you, story doesn't mandate easy. Story, the narrative you follow through gameplay, can be enjoyed in different ways, and for some players a lack of tension and meaningful engagement spoils the experience for them. Every other piece of content in the game offers choice, why not here?

<Snipped Tolling/Baiting comments>

SilverBride

CP5 wrote: »

Overland fails to engage experienced players, fails to provide new players a proper idea of what ESO can offer, putting some off before they even get into it and failing to give those that stick around the confidence or skills needed to even progress into normal dungeons without issue.

I am a very experienced player and overland engages me quite fine. Some players, experienced or not, may not find it engaging but it is not a problem of all experienced players by a long shot.

And as I have mentioned before, overland does not train you for dungeons. Dungeons train you for dungeons.

LashanW

Arunei wrote: »

And yes, I've done Vet DLC dungeons and Hardmode stuff. That doesn't matter because again, you can't compare how group content is structured to solo overland content. ZOS has a general idea now of how hard to make normal, Vet, and Vet HM dungeons these days. They don't have any sort of reference for making harder overland except for what failed before; VR zones and Original Craglorn™.

So the main issue is still how hard do they make these optional instances, because not everyone wanting harder content wants the same harder content. The only way to make it so as many people are catered to as possible is to make a slider that debuffs the player. That way no flat difficulty spikes are either too much or too little.

I don't see why they can't use group content as a reference. Just need some adjustments to the usual formula on the account that it could be a solo player going through the vet zone. (so no pin mechanics or forced grouping). They could make vet DLC zones harder than vet base game zones for example, and keep the small starter vet zones easier. Pretty sure ZoS can figure it out if they actually attempt to give it another go. Btw, how did they make the very first dungeons and trials if they can't work without a reference hmm?

And nope, this is not the main issue at all (unless you pretend you are the one who has to do the development and there's no one else on your team, this sort of issue is usually just a temporary blocker in software development). Devs have never cited this to be an issue to my knowledge. If this is what's holding them back, then they could do a public survey or something (using in-game accounts).

Their reasons were about the failed OG craglorn. Not going there now, enough posts about why it didn't work out. Forced grouping and nine types of separate instances...jeez. I guess ZoS were newbies when it comes to difficulty design back then. Their skills should've improved after half a decade.
Not enough server capacity for separate vet instances. I'm not sure whether devs actually said this at any point. If they did, pretty pathetic for a AAA game with a subscription system and a cash-shop full of overpriced cosmetics.
A lot of rework needed. Devs said this, but it kinda depends on what they are changing. There should be some middle ground that could be considered without complete reworks. I personally think it's not a bad investment. It would increase player retention and keep the subbed imo.
Splitting playerbase. This is valid I guess. Wouldn't want to make the game look emptier. Though if the playerbase becomes fragmented by a significant amount because of vet overland, it only means one thing. More than a minority wanted vet overland. Kinda ironic.

If they are going for some solution that doesn't involve separate instances there's definitely good ideas around. I remember seeing a video from SkinnyCheeks about outdated systems in ESO, he showed some really awesome suggestions.
Edit: here it is.
https://youtu.be/hu7q4mIkuns?t=520

CP5

SilverBride wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

Overland fails to engage experienced players, fails to provide new players a proper idea of what ESO can offer, putting some off before they even get into it and failing to give those that stick around the confidence or skills needed to even progress into normal dungeons without issue.

I am a very experienced player and overland engages me quite fine. Some players, experienced or not, may not find it engaging but it is not a problem of all experienced players by a long shot.

And as I have mentioned before, overland does not train you for dungeons. Dungeons train you for dungeons.

So what about choice, why should overland be the only piece of content that only comes in one form that causes an identical issue to one you had in the past? When the tech exist to both keep what you enjoy and allow other players an option? Your concession that you support self applied debuffs fails to fix the issue of enemies being explicitly designed to waste their own time, and how bosses do much of the same.

Watching Nefas's video while he was participating in the grand final fight, the capstone of a year long story, I felt just as whelmed as he looked playing it, "oh wow, another big boss where you kill mobs, hit a synergy, and repeat that a few times until the boss cry's uncle." That can provide some players an engaging and entertaining time, but when it is the biggest piece of the game and does nothing to try to keep the interest of some of the long time players, no wonder they continue to gravitate away from the game.

Seminolegirl1992

LashanW wrote: »

Splitting playerbase. This is valid I guess. Wouldn't want to make the game look emptier. Though if the playerbase becomes fragmented by a significant amount because of vet overland, it only means one thing. More than a minority wanted vet overland. Kinda ironic.

^ That about sums it up. Honestly, it wouldn't result in an "empty" overland....instances themselves would just be reduced in number because you wouldn't need as many since some would be in a vet instance. Not only that....let's be honest for a second. How many people do you see around you when you're in quest areas? I usually see *maybe* one other person, but usually my quest partner and I wait for them to leave so we can quest in peace. I explore overland constantly as a crafter while I'm doing surveys. The overland itself is extremely quiet except in brand new zones. I would argue that reducing the number of instances with the exception of adding a harder overland (or at the very least, challenge banners for story content) would increase player participation. And as Lashan said- if it somehow becomes dead silent in basic overland....then there's your answer. People don't want to play it.