Necrom World Bosses are way too difficult

Jaraal

AlwaysDancing wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

When players are having trouble finding groups for these World Bosses already, this early in the chapter, something is wrong.

I think what is wrong is the lackluster rewards from doing WB in this area, not the difficulty. There is no incentive to go out of the way to kill these bosses. A trash set piece, a crafting material, and a dozen gold pieces? The antiquity lead is maybe worth it to some people, but once you get it - nothing.

Exactly this. If the sets were good, and the bosses were guaranteed to drop purple items, furnishing plans, hard to get style materials (like the Glass Eye of Mora and Pristine Daedra Hearts required for the new content), you'd see more involvement. The rewards should scale to the time spent doing an activity, or players become disinterested quickly. That seems to be the majority of the backlash against the Bastion Nymic quasi-world events, too. Just not enough value in the time required.

There are more people fishing in Apocrypha than doing world bosses. Can you guess why?

LannStone

Playing though on a low-level arcanist with whatever gear drops for me, one thing I have noticed is that all the world and delve bosses in Necrom require more mobility and dodge rolling than in previous chapters to avoid the constantly moving danger zones
+1 on that - I would not want that changed - it's been a good lesson being forced to move around more and keep an eye on the ground
As far as group experience, I have had to put off a few world bosses because nobody else was there, but usually I have not had problems finding a group already there when I showed up
Certainly if you are focusing mainly on leveling your character, there are a lot easier ways than boss fights
If there's not enough participation, assuming that has something to with the trouble vs the reward would be logical
So the solution would be not to make the bosses easier but the rewards more enticing

Gray_howling_parrot

SilverBride wrote: »

w

Jaustink wrote: »

You're fine with your build but that doesn't mean that content should come down to meet your build.

Nor does it mean it should go up to meet anyone else's.

WBs have a set difficulty - this statement doesn't even make sense. If your build comes up short, improve it. These WBs are a LONG SHOT away from being "end-game" activity

ZOS_Hadeostry

Greetings,

After removing some unnecessary back and forth from this thread, we would like everyone to keep posts on the subject at hand, civil, and constructive.

If there may be any questions in regards to the rules, please feel free to review them here.

SeaGtGruff

Jaraal wrote: »

AlwaysDancing wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

When players are having trouble finding groups for these World Bosses already, this early in the chapter, something is wrong.

I think what is wrong is the lackluster rewards from doing WB in this area, not the difficulty. There is no incentive to go out of the way to kill these bosses. A trash set piece, a crafting material, and a dozen gold pieces? The antiquity lead is maybe worth it to some people, but once you get it - nothing.

Exactly this. If the sets were good, and the bosses were guaranteed to drop purple items, furnishing plans, hard to get style materials (like the Glass Eye of Mora and Pristine Daedra Hearts required for the new content), you'd see more involvement. The rewards should scale to the time spent doing an activity, or players become disinterested quickly. That seems to be the majority of the backlash against the Bastion Nymic quasi-world events, too. Just not enough value in the time required.

There are more people fishing in Apocrypha than doing world bosses. Can you guess why?

To be honest, this is why I have my doubts about whether a "hard mode" or "vet" or "variable difficulty" overland would ever be successful. That is not to say that I don't want such a thing, because I think it would be nice if players could adjust the level of difficulty to make things easier or harder according to their preference-- and if a difficulty slider were to be added so players could increase the difficulty if they want to, then I think it would only be fair that they also be allowed to decrease it. Whether such a thing is even doable without putting excessive strain on the servers is quite another matter.

But unless players are willing to engage in challenging content for essentially zero rewards-- that is, to consider the challenge itself as the reward-- then they will not be satisfied with greater difficulty for very long, because they'll either say it was fun to beat the greater difficulty but the rewards just weren't good enough to justify their time spent and make them want to repeat the experience, or they'll say the rewards were okay but once they attain all of the potential rewards they'll no longer have any desire to engage in the content. We're already seeing the first sentiment being expressed by some players-- "Gee, that was fun for a change, but the rewards just weren't worth the effort TBH."

Braffin

SeaGtGruff wrote: »

Jaraal wrote: »

AlwaysDancing wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

When players are having trouble finding groups for these World Bosses already, this early in the chapter, something is wrong.

I think what is wrong is the lackluster rewards from doing WB in this area, not the difficulty. There is no incentive to go out of the way to kill these bosses. A trash set piece, a crafting material, and a dozen gold pieces? The antiquity lead is maybe worth it to some people, but once you get it - nothing.

Exactly this. If the sets were good, and the bosses were guaranteed to drop purple items, furnishing plans, hard to get style materials (like the Glass Eye of Mora and Pristine Daedra Hearts required for the new content), you'd see more involvement. The rewards should scale to the time spent doing an activity, or players become disinterested quickly. That seems to be the majority of the backlash against the Bastion Nymic quasi-world events, too. Just not enough value in the time required.

There are more people fishing in Apocrypha than doing world bosses. Can you guess why?

To be honest, this is why I have my doubts about whether a "hard mode" or "vet" or "variable difficulty" overland would ever be successful. That is not to say that I don't want such a thing, because I think it would be nice if players could adjust the level of difficulty to make things easier or harder according to their preference-- and if a difficulty slider were to be added so players could increase the difficulty if they want to, then I think it would only be fair that they also be allowed to decrease it. Whether such a thing is even doable without putting excessive strain on the servers is quite another matter.

But unless players are willing to engage in challenging content for essentially zero rewards-- that is, to consider the challenge itself as the reward-- then they will not be satisfied with greater difficulty for very long, because they'll either say it was fun to beat the greater difficulty but the rewards just weren't good enough to justify their time spent and make them want to repeat the experience, or they'll say the rewards were okay but once they attain all of the potential rewards they'll no longer have any desire to engage in the content. We're already seeing the first sentiment being expressed by some players-- "Gee, that was fun for a change, but the rewards just weren't worth the effort TBH."

I think you're right about this. Although some of us won't like it (I include myself here), that content, especially in online games, is primarily done for the rewards tied to it, it's nonetheless a reality.

Difficulty options would solve this problem tho, as the two main complaints about more difficult content are:
1) Someone needs help to achieve some reward he isn't able to get without help, but nobody is willing to assist.
2) Players think the proportions of content difficulty and tied in rewards aren't fitting in a specific case.

So, why not completely desync difficulty from the according rewards? This way the game can be fun for the casual soloplayer as well as for people which prefer more engaging combat mechanics or group action. And of course everybody is getting the very same reward in the end, because what's easy for some of us is engaging for others.

Nobody would demand different rewards for different difficulty settings in any other sort of games but alone mmos.

SeaGtGruff

Braffin wrote: »

SeaGtGruff wrote: »

Jaraal wrote: »

AlwaysDancing wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

When players are having trouble finding groups for these World Bosses already, this early in the chapter, something is wrong.

I think what is wrong is the lackluster rewards from doing WB in this area, not the difficulty. There is no incentive to go out of the way to kill these bosses. A trash set piece, a crafting material, and a dozen gold pieces? The antiquity lead is maybe worth it to some people, but once you get it - nothing.

Exactly this. If the sets were good, and the bosses were guaranteed to drop purple items, furnishing plans, hard to get style materials (like the Glass Eye of Mora and Pristine Daedra Hearts required for the new content), you'd see more involvement. The rewards should scale to the time spent doing an activity, or players become disinterested quickly. That seems to be the majority of the backlash against the Bastion Nymic quasi-world events, too. Just not enough value in the time required.

There are more people fishing in Apocrypha than doing world bosses. Can you guess why?

To be honest, this is why I have my doubts about whether a "hard mode" or "vet" or "variable difficulty" overland would ever be successful. That is not to say that I don't want such a thing, because I think it would be nice if players could adjust the level of difficulty to make things easier or harder according to their preference-- and if a difficulty slider were to be added so players could increase the difficulty if they want to, then I think it would only be fair that they also be allowed to decrease it. Whether such a thing is even doable without putting excessive strain on the servers is quite another matter.

But unless players are willing to engage in challenging content for essentially zero rewards-- that is, to consider the challenge itself as the reward-- then they will not be satisfied with greater difficulty for very long, because they'll either say it was fun to beat the greater difficulty but the rewards just weren't good enough to justify their time spent and make them want to repeat the experience, or they'll say the rewards were okay but once they attain all of the potential rewards they'll no longer have any desire to engage in the content. We're already seeing the first sentiment being expressed by some players-- "Gee, that was fun for a change, but the rewards just weren't worth the effort TBH."

I think you're right about this. Although some of us won't like it (I include myself here), that content, especially in online games, is primarily done for the rewards tied to it, it's nonetheless a reality.

Difficulty options would solve this problem tho, as the two main complaints about more difficult content are:
1) Someone needs help to achieve some reward he isn't able to get without help, but nobody is willing to assist.
2) Players think the proportions of content difficulty and tied in rewards aren't fitting in a specific case.

So, why not completely desync difficulty from the according rewards? This way the game can be fun for the casual soloplayer as well as for people which prefer more engaging combat mechanics or group action. And of course everybody is getting the very same reward in the end, because what's easy for some of us is engaging for others.

Nobody would demand different rewards in any other sort of games but alone mmos.

There could still be some differences in the rewards-- for instance, an achievement for completing something at the easiest difficulty, plus a different achievement for completing it at the hardest difficulty, or a difference in how much gold and XP you earn from it (which I think is already how things work as far as enemies of differing difficulties), and things like that. I don't think there should be some highly-desirable thingy that you can only get by doing something at the hardest difficulty, as that would probably just result in (1) resentment and complaints from players who want the thingy but can't get it, and (2) players selling carries to other players who want the thingy but aren't "good enough" to get it on their own-- in other words, the same sort of thing we already see with vet and hard-mode vet content that offers some highly-desirable reward. I'd rather we had less of that sort of thing rather than more of it.

But as nice as a difficulty slider would be, I think the main problem with it is the logistics of how to program it in a way that's workable in a multiplayer (grouped or ungrouped) setting, that wouldn't upset the way certain things are currently set up (such as vet dungeons and trials and hard modes), and that wouldn't result in the servers being overtaxed.

Braffin

SeaGtGruff wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

SeaGtGruff wrote: »

Jaraal wrote: »

AlwaysDancing wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

When players are having trouble finding groups for these World Bosses already, this early in the chapter, something is wrong.

I think what is wrong is the lackluster rewards from doing WB in this area, not the difficulty. There is no incentive to go out of the way to kill these bosses. A trash set piece, a crafting material, and a dozen gold pieces? The antiquity lead is maybe worth it to some people, but once you get it - nothing.

Exactly this. If the sets were good, and the bosses were guaranteed to drop purple items, furnishing plans, hard to get style materials (like the Glass Eye of Mora and Pristine Daedra Hearts required for the new content), you'd see more involvement. The rewards should scale to the time spent doing an activity, or players become disinterested quickly. That seems to be the majority of the backlash against the Bastion Nymic quasi-world events, too. Just not enough value in the time required.

There are more people fishing in Apocrypha than doing world bosses. Can you guess why?

To be honest, this is why I have my doubts about whether a "hard mode" or "vet" or "variable difficulty" overland would ever be successful. That is not to say that I don't want such a thing, because I think it would be nice if players could adjust the level of difficulty to make things easier or harder according to their preference-- and if a difficulty slider were to be added so players could increase the difficulty if they want to, then I think it would only be fair that they also be allowed to decrease it. Whether such a thing is even doable without putting excessive strain on the servers is quite another matter.

But unless players are willing to engage in challenging content for essentially zero rewards-- that is, to consider the challenge itself as the reward-- then they will not be satisfied with greater difficulty for very long, because they'll either say it was fun to beat the greater difficulty but the rewards just weren't good enough to justify their time spent and make them want to repeat the experience, or they'll say the rewards were okay but once they attain all of the potential rewards they'll no longer have any desire to engage in the content. We're already seeing the first sentiment being expressed by some players-- "Gee, that was fun for a change, but the rewards just weren't worth the effort TBH."

I think you're right about this. Although some of us won't like it (I include myself here), that content, especially in online games, is primarily done for the rewards tied to it, it's nonetheless a reality.

Difficulty options would solve this problem tho, as the two main complaints about more difficult content are:
1) Someone needs help to achieve some reward he isn't able to get without help, but nobody is willing to assist.
2) Players think the proportions of content difficulty and tied in rewards aren't fitting in a specific case.

So, why not completely desync difficulty from the according rewards? This way the game can be fun for the casual soloplayer as well as for people which prefer more engaging combat mechanics or group action. And of course everybody is getting the very same reward in the end, because what's easy for some of us is engaging for others.

Nobody would demand different rewards in any other sort of games but alone mmos.

There could still be some differences in the rewards-- for instance, an achievement for completing something at the easiest difficulty, plus a different achievement for completing it at the hardest difficulty, or a difference in how much gold and XP you earn from it (which I think is already how things work as far as enemies of differing difficulties), and things like that. I don't think there should be some highly-desirable thingy that you can only get by doing something at the hardest difficulty, as that would probably just result in (1) resentment and complaints from players who want the thingy but can't get it, and (2) players selling carries to other players who want the thingy but aren't "good enough" to get it on their own-- in other words, the same sort of thing we already see with vet and hard-mode vet content that offers some highly-desirable reward. I'd rather we had less of that sort of thing rather than more of it.

But as nice as a difficulty slider would be, I think the main problem with it is the logistics of how to program it in a way that's workable in a multiplayer (grouped or ungrouped) setting, that wouldn't upset the way certain things are currently set up (such as vet dungeons and trials and hard modes), and that wouldn't result in the servers being overtaxed.

Well, we totally agree on the first paragraph.

Regarding logistics I think you're right to an extent. We can't go for sliders to define difficulty almost infinitely variable. But that's not necessary, as it would be sufficient to define some of the already opened instances as "veteran", the playerbase would split upon them as it does now, except the game is taking the respective difficulty setting into account.

Adaarye

At the end of the day, the majority of the player base will decide individually what is acceptable and what is not. They will then act accordingly for themselves. Stay and play, or move on.

I have left the game numerous times for a break because to do so, was my solution for myself. My husband has done the same. Eventually we always come back because friends and player housing.

I personally do not like Necrom as a whole. I've found it to be underwhelming. I love Sanity's Edge and I love the overall expansion appearance despite the fact that is feels like much was copy pasted . The only useful build I personally have found for the arcanist is healer. I am also working on a tank. I've heard tank is the best choice but that is subjective I am sure. I don't mind the bright lights. I mean who doesn't like a disco? But I digress.

The world bosses are difficult but not undoable with friends. Bastion Nymic is interesting, and again, not undoable with friends. Having active inclusive guildies and friends to help is important for those things.

I can see how the lack of the ability to solo much of the content would be a problem for many. Some players just like doing their own thing. Necrom is not that once past the story and side quests and the delve dailies unfortunately .

Xandreia_

they really aren't that bad tbh! soloing them isn't too bad as long as you don't stand still and know how to get out of things that can kill you

Soraka

Ishtarknows wrote: »

Maybe this is less to do with Necrom bosses and more to do with people gathering skyshards/levelling guilds in base zones for their new Arcanists.

I can only speak for myself, but I definitely spent a lot less time in this new area because of this. I had so much to do to reestablish a new character that I was pretty much everywhere except the new areas for many days before I came back to start working on telvanni/apocrypha stuff.
When I did, I didn't have any issue joining a group advertised in zone for a wb or just standing at one until a couple of people wandered up. I've got them all done and don't remember any of them so I don't recall them standing out as being particularly difficult.

Kendaric

Braffin wrote: »

We can't go for sliders to define difficulty almost infinitely variable. But that's not necessary, as it would be sufficient to define some of the already opened instances as "veteran", the playerbase would split upon them as it does now, except the game is taking the respective difficulty setting into account.

The problem is, ZOS wants to avoid the split in the playerbase. Most likely because it could make the game feel emptier than it actually is to new players.

Also, they probably want to avoid setting a precedence, as other groups would almost certainly want their own "special" instances.

Braffin

Kendaric wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

We can't go for sliders to define difficulty almost infinitely variable. But that's not necessary, as it would be sufficient to define some of the already opened instances as "veteran", the playerbase would split upon them as it does now, except the game is taking the respective difficulty setting into account.

The problem is, ZOS wants to avoid the split in the playerbase. Most likely because it could make the game feel emptier than it actually is to new players.

Also, they probably want to avoid setting a precedence, as other groups would almost certainly want their own "special" instances.

I understand that.

Thing is, the split is already here, as we can see in every thread about difficulty.

We have two options now:
1) Looking for a solution which is fitting for at least most of us, even if this mean we aren't in the same instances all the time. (We are are indeed in different instances as the game is now too. So I'm not convinced the game would feel emptier.)
2) Insisting that a specific way to play the game is the only right way to do it and everybody else has to submit to that set norm or leave the game.

I still vote for option 1 and see therefore no reason to set actions which affect all players (nerfing content) while other options are still available.

Kendaric

Braffin wrote: »

Kendaric wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

We can't go for sliders to define difficulty almost infinitely variable. But that's not necessary, as it would be sufficient to define some of the already opened instances as "veteran", the playerbase would split upon them as it does now, except the game is taking the respective difficulty setting into account.

The problem is, ZOS wants to avoid the split in the playerbase. Most likely because it could make the game feel emptier than it actually is to new players.

Also, they probably want to avoid setting a precedence, as other groups would almost certainly want their own "special" instances.

I understand that.

Thing is, the split is already here, as we can see in every thread about difficulty.

We have two options now:
1) Looking for a solution which is fitting for at least most of us, even if this mean we aren't in the same instances all the time. (We are are indeed in different instances as the game is now too. So I'm not convinced the game would feel emptier.)
2) Insisting that a specific way to play the game is the only right way to do it and everybody else has to submit to that set norm or leave the game.

I still vote for option 1 and see therefore no reason to set actions which affect all players (nerfing content) while other options are still available.

Well, I wouldn't mind emptier instances as I'm a solo player anyway and after all it would mean I have to suffer fewer inappropriate names, ugly outfits, horrible flashy mounts, etc.

I suspect they'd go for option #2 though.

CompM4s

BlueRaven wrote: »

CompM4s wrote: »

We need more world bosses that are of similar difficulty to dragons.

Dragons are closer inclined to world events than world bosses. (Remember elsweyr had wbs too.)

And there was fewer dragons than wbs, (in northern elsweyr at least).

And the map told you if people were fighting them and where.

And dragons actually dropped items people still want.

What it comes down to is not really the difficulty alone, it’s difficulty vs participation.

Necrom wbs are difficult due to lack of participation.

Good point. It would be nice of the map told everyone when world bosses were fighting. Better drops would also be nice.

DP99

Just did the Master Cataloguer WB tonight. Got to the arena, and there were 4 other people just sitting around waiting for others to show up. We all stood there for between 5-10 minutes before someone in the group decided to just try and go for it. We got wiped in about three minutes! LOL!

We all respawned and regrouped at the entrance, when someone must've called a friend, because we then got on or two extra people and some good heals to make it through, but I definitely got killed and needed to respawn myself at least one other time during the second go around, and it was for sure a tough fight.

chessalavakia_ESO

Braffin wrote: »

Kendaric wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

We can't go for sliders to define difficulty almost infinitely variable. But that's not necessary, as it would be sufficient to define some of the already opened instances as "veteran", the playerbase would split upon them as it does now, except the game is taking the respective difficulty setting into account.

The problem is, ZOS wants to avoid the split in the playerbase. Most likely because it could make the game feel emptier than it actually is to new players.

Also, they probably want to avoid setting a precedence, as other groups would almost certainly want their own "special" instances.

I understand that.

Thing is, the split is already here, as we can see in every thread about difficulty.

We have two options now:
1) Looking for a solution which is fitting for at least most of us, even if this mean we aren't in the same instances all the time. (We are are indeed in different instances as the game is now too. So I'm not convinced the game would feel emptier.)
2) Insisting that a specific way to play the game is the only right way to do it and everybody else has to submit to that set norm or leave the game.

I still vote for option 1 and see therefore no reason to set actions which affect all players (nerfing content) while other options are still available.

Part of the issue with separate instances is that the population you pull in isn't just going to be the people that want the harder overland experience. It's also going to be everyone that might prefer to be in a less populated instance. The former might not be that disruptive to lose but, the latter could seriously add up (Ex: players that don't like busy areas, rpers looking to avoid crowds, and resource farmers looking to have less competition)

You'll also run into the issue that people aren't necessarily going to agree on the same level of difficulty for what Veteran should be. For example, I would agree with you that much of the game is too easy but, I'm also one of the people that thinks that the Necrom World Bosses should get nerfed. If the difficulty was aimed at me, it'd likely be too easy for you to enjoy and if it's aimed at you it'd likely be either too tedious or too hard for me to enjoy.

Veteran Overland will also run into the issue that people are lazy/don't necessarily like content. I complain about the difficulty from time to time but, most of the time I'm in-game I am running a companion and relatively well geared out which reduces the difficulty significantly. Even if the difficulty was perfect in my view, I would likely be spending significant periods of time in the easier mode because it goes faster and portions of the content really don't interest me that much.

You'll also hit the payoff issue. If the rewards aren't increased it's not going to be effective which will lead to complaints. If they are increased you'll end up with people in it that don't actually enjoy it for the rewards that will complain about it.

Generally speaking, decisions that take resources will impact everyone to one degree or another. For example, I'd like a PvE Imperial City with reduced Tel Var gain and loss. The time it would take to implement that would take away from other things and it would put a dent on the number of people in the PvP one which could reduce the quality of the experience for the people that like the current version.

Fundamentally, many of the difficulty issues in the game are because ESO draws much of the difficulty from bursts/mechanics and only a small portion of the power a player brings into play is from the character itself. Thus, the results players get are vastly different which makes producing content for them that is enjoyable manner significantly harder.

wolfie1.0.

Kisakee wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

It's not that we want everything to be easy. It's that we want things to be doable by the general player base. These are not.

And we want it to be as hard like that and even harder. We don't want easy mode for the general player base. If you can't do it as four where others can do it as two or even solo that's not on the difficulty of the boss.

Show me you can solo a trial hm. Until such a thing occurs let's please leave normal overland content achievable for casual players. Overland is for casuals let's leave it so.

SilverBride

I ran a World Boss daily today. We managed to find 4 players willing to join and we eventually got the boss down but most of us died a few times. I don't see how the average player could possibly solo these. The biggest problem, though, is it's not been easy finding others to fill a group.

TweFoju

SilverBride wrote: »

TweFoju wrote: »

...there were at least a dozen players engaged in the WB ( could be more )...

What server was this on? Because that is the exact opposite of what I've been seeing on PCNA.

yes im in PCNA, i am not sure how populated is Necrom most of the time, as i only jump into Necrom yesterday because of Azandar quest, maybe i was just in luck that when i passed the WB, there are bunch of players doing it.

SeaGtGruff

Kendaric wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

We can't go for sliders to define difficulty almost infinitely variable. But that's not necessary, as it would be sufficient to define some of the already opened instances as "veteran", the playerbase would split upon them as it does now, except the game is taking the respective difficulty setting into account.

The problem is, ZOS wants to avoid the split in the playerbase. Most likely because it could make the game feel emptier than it actually is to new players.

Also, they probably want to avoid setting a precedence, as other groups would almost certainly want their own "special" instances.

I think the basic mechanism might be in the game already, in the sense that (as I understand it) everything gets scaled to the players based on their levels. I don't pretend to know how that's done, but evidently it's possible to scale either the enemies or the individual player's attributes and skills so that L1 players and CP3600 players can engage with the world side-by-side and the L1 players aren't hugely disadvantaged by their level except for how many Skill Points they have and which skills they're able to purchase (which is actually determined by the level of each skill line rather than the character level).

It seems to me that if that scaling could be adjusted on a per-character basis, then individual players could make the content scale to be either more difficult or less difficult. The scaling is already being applied on a character-by-character basis, but the amount of the scaling is basically fixed in the sense that everything is scaled to (I think?) CP160 or something like that. So if the code could be modified to allow the scaling to be set to some other level on a per character basis, that might allow L1 and CP3600 players to continue playing alongside each other yet each player could be experiencing a different difficulty level of the content.

But I'm sure it probably wouldn't be nearly as easy as I just made it sound, especially since it would just open up a huge can of worms with respect to things like vet content, hard mode vet content, trifectas, earned achievements and titles, etc.

TaSheen

Actually, combat is scaled to CP 160 no matter the character level. It does "reduce" (I'm not sure that's the right term - I just now that by the time you hit 40, things are more difficult) as the character gets closer to 50. And the levels from CP 10 to 160 can be - difficult.

Arato

IMO the bosses would be fine except one thing: there are too many scattered on the map and after a week into an expansion people buzz off and stop doing them, because they spam them on all their alts for that first week, get the achievements and any motifs they need, then they just stop. If you're only doing them on 1 character, you're gonna suffer after that week screaming into the vacuum trying to get help in a now dead zone.

Now when that population crunch happens after the first week, having people split up among 6 possible world boss quests is just bad. compare to the DLC zones that only have 2 bosses, even with a smaller population, people are gathered for the world bosses because it's a 50% chance of everyone getting each boss.
but 6? that's a 15% chance, much higher chance that you will end up having to solo, or scream into the vacuum begging for help.

If there were 2, or at most 3 world bosses in this chapter, this problem would not exist, you'd be able to easily find other people to do the world bosses with without banging your head against the desk spamming "lfg world boss, can share quest"

or.. I guess just play an easy to solo on class like arcanist and have a tank companion.

Braffin

chessalavakia_ESO wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

Kendaric wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

We can't go for sliders to define difficulty almost infinitely variable. But that's not necessary, as it would be sufficient to define some of the already opened instances as "veteran", the playerbase would split upon them as it does now, except the game is taking the respective difficulty setting into account.

The problem is, ZOS wants to avoid the split in the playerbase. Most likely because it could make the game feel emptier than it actually is to new players.

Also, they probably want to avoid setting a precedence, as other groups would almost certainly want their own "special" instances.

I understand that.

Thing is, the split is already here, as we can see in every thread about difficulty.

We have two options now:
1) Looking for a solution which is fitting for at least most of us, even if this mean we aren't in the same instances all the time. (We are are indeed in different instances as the game is now too. So I'm not convinced the game would feel emptier.)
2) Insisting that a specific way to play the game is the only right way to do it and everybody else has to submit to that set norm or leave the game.

I still vote for option 1 and see therefore no reason to set actions which affect all players (nerfing content) while other options are still available.

Part of the issue with separate instances is that the population you pull in isn't just going to be the people that want the harder overland experience. It's also going to be everyone that might prefer to be in a less populated instance. The former might not be that disruptive to lose but, the latter could seriously add up (Ex: players that don't like busy areas, rpers looking to avoid crowds, and resource farmers looking to have less competition)

You'll also run into the issue that people aren't necessarily going to agree on the same level of difficulty for what Veteran should be. For example, I would agree with you that much of the game is too easy but, I'm also one of the people that thinks that the Necrom World Bosses should get nerfed. If the difficulty was aimed at me, it'd likely be too easy for you to enjoy and if it's aimed at you it'd likely be either too tedious or too hard for me to enjoy.

Veteran Overland will also run into the issue that people are lazy/don't necessarily like content. I complain about the difficulty from time to time but, most of the time I'm in-game I am running a companion and relatively well geared out which reduces the difficulty significantly. Even if the difficulty was perfect in my view, I would likely be spending significant periods of time in the easier mode because it goes faster and portions of the content really don't interest me that much.

You'll also hit the payoff issue. If the rewards aren't increased it's not going to be effective which will lead to complaints. If they are increased you'll end up with people in it that don't actually enjoy it for the rewards that will complain about it.

Generally speaking, decisions that take resources will impact everyone to one degree or another. For example, I'd like a PvE Imperial City with reduced Tel Var gain and loss. The time it would take to implement that would take away from other things and it would put a dent on the number of people in the PvP one which could reduce the quality of the experience for the people that like the current version.

Fundamentally, many of the difficulty issues in the game are because ESO draws much of the difficulty from bursts/mechanics and only a small portion of the power a player brings into play is from the character itself. Thus, the results players get are vastly different which makes producing content for them that is enjoyable manner significantly harder.

You make a few fair points here, I nonetheless have some understanding issues with you explanation which I'd like to adress:

1) We already play in seperate instances at any given moment we play this game. There isn't only one instance of "reapers march" for example, but maybe 2-8 of them, depending on the amount of players which are adventuring in this zone. So, even if some people would use a "veteran overland" (which is nothing more but some instances with increased difficulty depending on players porting to that zone by toggling "veteran" on) for various reasons not related to combat, nothing would change. The rules in there would be the same for all players which opted into this and everyone would be free to use it without further restrictions.

2) Of course not all players would agree on the same level of difficulty for veteran overland, as they don't agree on difficulty of overland in general. But having the option to choose between an easier and a more engaging instance would definitely not deteriorate this circumstance but could be an essential tool in counteracting the gap we already have in this game. This very thread we are responding to show exactly why this question is imminent.

3) Yes, people may be lazy sometimes or simply don't like some of the provided content. They won't do this content then in veteran mode but stick to normal mode (as they already do with dungeons), finish it as quick as possible and move on to content they're interested more. This latter content maybe encourages them to do it in veteran mode. I see no problem with that.

4) I simply don't understand what you mean by "payoff issue". Of course there will always be players which aren't satisfied with the rewards for any given content. Look around this forums. We have lots of complaints already. But there is a difference between being able to do content and being willing to do content. Rewards are completely a matter of willingness and don't affect the topic of difficulty at all. Indeed it's a unhealthy peculiarity of mmo-styled games to concentrate almost exclusively on rewards instead of content itself.

5) Yes, altering the game takes resources and therefore everyone of us is affected. With Necrom zos tried to react to increasing demands of the playerbase about a more engaging overland experience, while trying to take into account the concerns of players which voted against any form of "splitting" the playerbase. What are the results? Exactly the players, which were opposing this solution are now demanding nerfs (which, of course, would take resources). If we follow this logic, there will only be easy content left in this game. All players which are looking for a more engaging experience will finally have to find a new game. This is neither a compromise nor is it healthy for the game. Let's be honest here: PvP is starving for years, PvE endgame dried out almost completely, dungeon releases were cut in half. But for some people here that's still not enough, it has to be even easier. Maybe you're right in the end and people are indeed lazy or not interested in the game but play just for the rewards. But if that's the case, this game is on life support anyways.

6) You're right, eso was never a build-based game like other mmos around, but is relying heavily on a player's responsiveness to mechanics. Coupled with the variety of builds, which are theoretically possible (You won't find any other game which give the player a similar amount of freedom, as vertical gear progression is standard in this genre.) the gap between "floor and ceiling" is necessarily significant. There is an easy solution for this issue tho, it's called difficulty options.

Dagoth_Rac

SeaGtGruff wrote: »

It seems to me that if that scaling could be adjusted on a per-character basis, then individual players could make the content scale to be either more difficult or less difficult.

Content difficulty really only works if everyone playing side-by-side faces the same difficulty. Some may be better players. Some may have better gear. But they need to face the same thing. If Player X has themselves set to "veteran" and Player Y has themselves set to "normal", what happens when they both fight an enemy at same time? Can the normal player just stand there and facetank the boss, turning it into a glorified parse dummy for the veteran player? Or will the normal player come along and quickly burn down an enemy that the veteran player was expecting to be a long, mechanic-heavy, difficult fight? It could happen by accident, simply because those players are looking for different game experiences, or could happen on purpose, with people teaming up to de facto exploit the intended harder mode.

The player base would need to be split apart to match up people wanting similar challenges to make sure it stays at the intended difficulty level. If easy mode players are side by side with hard mode players, it is unavoidable that they will interfere with each other. ZOS will put time and money and resources and it will just get us right back where we are now: nobody, especially players looking for a stiff challenge, will be happy.

You either need separate, more difficult instances, which ZOS seem hesitant to implement. They have had difficult overland content in the past, it was largely empty and unpopular. Or you need clearly isolated and limited areas of increased difficulty, that can kind of act as "choke points", where those seeking higher difficulty will know where to congregate. Sort of like dragons. Generally only 1 up at a time, clearly marked on map, easy for players to find (or avoid).

But this idea of a toggle or slider, where players at different difficulties will fight side-by-side anywhere and everywhere, is just not practical. Neither group will be able to consistently and reliably get what they want.

Arato

but admittedly that last isn't ideal, they are meant to be group activities and they are more fun when done in a group rather than solo.

It's just the nature of the beast though that because there's 6, finding groups is a tedious chore that is less fun than soloing the bosses.
after 10 min or so of spamming I just figure I'd have solo'ed it by then.

M0ntie

They are supposed to be group content so should not be solo-able easily.
There has been a lot of complaining about overland being too easy - so now some of it is harder.
Try levelling and kitting out a companion to help you.

Gnesnig

SeaGtGruff wrote: »

Jaraal wrote: »

We're already seeing the first sentiment being expressed by some players-- "Gee, that was fun for a change, but the rewards just weren't worth the effort TBH."

And maybe it's time to adjust that effort/reward formula we use for ourselves. Undoubtedly it's compared to other, but older content. You can't compare the effort involved to kill the Deshaan Troll to the Sable Knight in High Isle, but both Plague Doctor and Mother's Embrace still have value in progression and utility builds and the High Isle overland sets have paved the way for sustainable hybrid builds. I'm not sure Necrom overland sets have the same lasting value, but I feel the effort/reward for killing a base game WB versus latest expansion is skewing our perception a bit.

Secondly, I never see the complainers that cannot do them even with multiple people, posting anything about gear, skills and passives. I shouldn't expet to have an easy time on any world boss in my nightblade's thieving kit, so yeah, if you're all undergeared, mismatched roles for a group, mismatched or no sets at all for combat, then yes, you should not do well and you should figure out how to gear / skill up better.

My first build of my NB was a horror to play (which followed the skill advisor), cause I ditched the wrong skills and had no survivability in my build. After finding a better skill setup things already went a lot smoother. "play as you want" means you have to research or figure out gear and skill combos by yourself, as you are not limited by your class to a restricted set.

Arato

M0ntie wrote: »

They are supposed to be group content so should not be solo-able easily.
There has been a lot of complaining about overland being too easy - so now some of it is harder.
Try levelling and kitting out a companion to help you.

problem is after a week after launch it can be hard to find anyone else to do the quest, the zone is depopulated quite a bit after the initial rush.

I remember after I remarked about this in high isle people claimed it was just temporary and "oh people are just doing tales of tribute"
no, people did the initial rush on a bunch of alts, then ditched the zone after a week.
accountwide achievements may be partly responsible.

SeaGtGruff

Dagoth_Rac wrote: »

SeaGtGruff wrote: »

It seems to me that if that scaling could be adjusted on a per-character basis, then individual players could make the content scale to be either more difficult or less difficult.

Content difficulty really only works if everyone playing side-by-side faces the same difficulty. Some may be better players. Some may have better gear. But they need to face the same thing. If Player X has themselves set to "veteran" and Player Y has themselves set to "normal", what happens when they both fight an enemy at same time? Can the normal player just stand there and facetank the boss, turning it into a glorified parse dummy for the veteran player? Or will the normal player come along and quickly burn down an enemy that the veteran player was expecting to be a long, mechanic-heavy, difficult fight? It could happen by accident, simply because those players are looking for different game experiences, or could happen on purpose, with people teaming up to de facto exploit the intended harder mode.

The player base would need to be split apart to match up people wanting similar challenges to make sure it stays at the intended difficulty level. If easy mode players are side by side with hard mode players, it is unavoidable that they will interfere with each other. ZOS will put time and money and resources and it will just get us right back where we are now: nobody, especially players looking for a stiff challenge, will be happy.

You either need separate, more difficult instances, which ZOS seem hesitant to implement. They have had difficult overland content in the past, it was largely empty and unpopular. Or you need clearly isolated and limited areas of increased difficulty, that can kind of act as "choke points", where those seeking higher difficulty will know where to congregate. Sort of like dragons. Generally only 1 up at a time, clearly marked on map, easy for players to find (or avoid).

But this idea of a toggle or slider, where players at different difficulties will fight side-by-side anywhere and everywhere, is just not practical. Neither group will be able to consistently and reliably get what they want.

Except I'm not sure whether that (the statement I bolded) is actually the case right now, due to scaling. And no, I don't really understand how the scaling works. I've read that everything is scaled to CP160, but I don't understand what that's saying. Are the enemies being scaled to CP160, or are the players being scaled to CP160? And what exactly is being scaled-- damage? or what? All I know is that I'm CP2022 and I can be fighting alongside a L10 player who is dishing out more damage per hit than I'm able to, and I assume that it's got something to do with whatever is being scaled and however it's being scaled.