Looking forward to the Endless Archives

Tornaad

I am really looking forward to the endless archives. I have been hoping to see something like the Endless Archives ever since I saw the endless dungeon on the Elder Scrolls Blades. (Yes, I played it).
I have only ran through it once or twice on the PTS, but that is just because I did not want to spoil too much of the story before I play through it the first time. I fully expect to spend many hours trying to see how far I can possibly get down that dungeon.
To all the wonderful people at ZoS who played a role in building it, thank you.

No, I am not jumping the gun. I have been playing Elder Scrolls games since Elder Scrolls 3 Morrowind came out and have no desire to leave the world of the Elder Scrolls any time soon. It is such a captivating world to explore.

Tornaad

4 more days.
I am really looking forward to this expansion. This very kind of thing (specifically an endless dungeon) is something I have been hoping to see in ESO since I first learned it existed in Elder Scrolls Blades.

Akisohida

I've heard it has some major flaws, like some runs taking 12 hours, with no saving mid-run at all.
Hopefully they took feedback to change that, because not many people have the time/want to sit for 12 hours in an MMO with 0 pausing and 0 ability to take bathroom/food/phone breaks.

Like, I can't see how ANYONE on the dev team looked at a run taking 12 hours -a.k.a AN ENTIRE DAY- and thought 'This is fine. people will TOTALLY sit in a chair for 12 hours and not need to pee/answer the phone/answer the door/eat!'

Not to mention some people only log in in the evening.
Do the devs think someone logging in at, say 3 PM wants to do a run that lasts until 3 AM?

TaSheen

In order to edit the post, reload the page, then you should see the "gear" icon next to the post number. Click that, select Edit.

Akisohida

TaSheen wrote: »

In order to edit the post, reload the page, then you should see the "gear" icon next to the post number. Click that, select Edit.

Thank you.

jtm1018

Endless dungeon!?
Its an adventurers nightmare.
No matter how hard you try it will never end!

rpa

I tried it at pts (soloed 1st arc) and it has fun potential. But unless they have changed it since, for me no save and extremely repetitive wading through trash to get to bosses was a major issue in having fun. Perhaps it's just me and majority of players enjoy it or maybe it's better grouped.

OtarTheMad

I am excited for the other things that come with U40 but not so much the Endless Archive. We will see if they changed it when U40 hits live.

Tandor

Having tried it on PTS I consider the Endless Archive to be a wasted opportunity in its current form - which is how it will go Live, no further updates are planned on the current PTS build.

Some issues have been touched on here, including the lack of checkpoints or saves. While you can take a short break between stages (each stage being a group of trash encounters or a boss), subject no doubt to the usual disconnection after a period of inactivity, once you leave then on return you will start over at the beginning.

For me the most important factor is that it is only aimed at those who have competitive builds and are highly geared. As a casual player capable of soloing most normal dungeon bosses the most progress I made was to clear 2 bosses (plus the trash stages) with my lvl 50 Magplar who has 540 CPs accompanied by Mirri. The third boss was impossible, and you only have 3 lives. I shan't bother with it on Live as there simply isn't any benefit for my type of player in doing so.

It can't be done in a group, of course, it's one player alone or with a companion, or two players. I suspect 2 players will find it a bit easier than one player and a companion.

The PTS feedback was pretty positive on the original announcement of an endless dungeon, but overwhelmingly critical of the way it's been implemented as a theoretically endless arena.

Holycannoli

Akisohida wrote: »

I've heard it has some major flaws, like some runs taking 12 hours, with no saving mid-run at all.
Hopefully they took feedback to change that, because not many people have the time/want to sit for 12 hours in an MMO with 0 pausing and 0 ability to take bathroom/food/phone breaks.

Like, I can't see how ANYONE on the dev team looked at a run taking 12 hours -a.k.a AN ENTIRE DAY- and thought 'This is fine. people will TOTALLY sit in a chair for 12 hours and not need to pee/answer the phone/answer the door/eat!'

Not to mention some people only log in in the evening.
Do the devs think someone logging in at, say 3 PM wants to do a run that lasts until 3 AM?

This can't be correct? Do they expect people to not go to work or waste an entire Saturday or Sunday like that?

What about players like me that can log in from maybe 7 PM after dinner to like 9:30, and not much if at all on weekends because I'm busy? No saving mid-run? I can't believe that.

Tornaad

Holycannoli wrote: »

Akisohida wrote: »

I've heard it has some major flaws, like some runs taking 12 hours, with no saving mid-run at all.
Hopefully they took feedback to change that, because not many people have the time/want to sit for 12 hours in an MMO with 0 pausing and 0 ability to take bathroom/food/phone breaks.

Like, I can't see how ANYONE on the dev team looked at a run taking 12 hours -a.k.a AN ENTIRE DAY- and thought 'This is fine. people will TOTALLY sit in a chair for 12 hours and not need to pee/answer the phone/answer the door/eat!'

Not to mention some people only log in in the evening.
Do the devs think someone logging in at, say 3 PM wants to do a run that lasts until 3 AM?

This can't be correct? Do they expect people to not go to work or waste an entire Saturday or Sunday like that?

What about players like me that can log in from maybe 7 PM after dinner to like 9:30, and not much if at all on weekends because I'm busy? No saving mid-run? I can't believe that.

There are some key portions of this that I know to be incorrect. Yes you can stop to take bathroom, food, and other breaks. I don't know if you can leave the dungeon and pick back up where you left off, but given the dungeon is literally supposed to be endless, yes there should be the possibility of running for 12 hours or more. I seriously doubt I will ever achieve a feat that grand, but the endless nature of the dungeon alone is exciting.

The leader boards for the dungeon literally just track how far you made it.

To emphasize the point, the endless part of the endless archives is not just a title. It describes the length of the dungeon.. It is literally an endless dungeon that scales up in difficulty as you progress through it. Thus the effective end of the dungeon is how long it takes before you die too many times.

Tandor

Tornaad wrote: »

Holycannoli wrote: »

Akisohida wrote: »

I've heard it has some major flaws, like some runs taking 12 hours, with no saving mid-run at all.
Hopefully they took feedback to change that, because not many people have the time/want to sit for 12 hours in an MMO with 0 pausing and 0 ability to take bathroom/food/phone breaks.

Like, I can't see how ANYONE on the dev team looked at a run taking 12 hours -a.k.a AN ENTIRE DAY- and thought 'This is fine. people will TOTALLY sit in a chair for 12 hours and not need to pee/answer the phone/answer the door/eat!'

Not to mention some people only log in in the evening.
Do the devs think someone logging in at, say 3 PM wants to do a run that lasts until 3 AM?

This can't be correct? Do they expect people to not go to work or waste an entire Saturday or Sunday like that?

What about players like me that can log in from maybe 7 PM after dinner to like 9:30, and not much if at all on weekends because I'm busy? No saving mid-run? I can't believe that.

There are some key portions of this that I know to be incorrect. Yes you can stop to take bathroom, food, and other breaks. I don't know if you can leave the dungeon and pick back up where you left off, but given the dungeon is literally supposed to be endless, yes there should be the possibility of running for 12 hours or more. I seriously doubt I will ever achieve a feat that grand, but the endless nature of the dungeon alone is exciting.

The leader boards for the dungeon literally just track how far you made it.

To emphasize the point, the endless part of the endless archives is not just a title. It describes the length of the dungeon.. It is literally an endless dungeon that scales up in difficulty as you progress through it. Thus the effective end of the dungeon is how long it takes before you die too many times.

No you can't leave and pick up again where you left off. A short period afk as in the rest of the game is ok, after which you'll be kicked from the server. Every time you zone into the EA you start from the beginning again, with 3 lives. Also, comparing it to other parts of the game means it should be thought of as an arena, not as a dungeon.

Tornaad

Tandor wrote: »

Tornaad wrote: »

Holycannoli wrote: »

Akisohida wrote: »

I've heard it has some major flaws, like some runs taking 12 hours, with no saving mid-run at all.
Hopefully they took feedback to change that, because not many people have the time/want to sit for 12 hours in an MMO with 0 pausing and 0 ability to take bathroom/food/phone breaks.

Like, I can't see how ANYONE on the dev team looked at a run taking 12 hours -a.k.a AN ENTIRE DAY- and thought 'This is fine. people will TOTALLY sit in a chair for 12 hours and not need to pee/answer the phone/answer the door/eat!'

Not to mention some people only log in in the evening.
Do the devs think someone logging in at, say 3 PM wants to do a run that lasts until 3 AM?

This can't be correct? Do they expect people to not go to work or waste an entire Saturday or Sunday like that?

What about players like me that can log in from maybe 7 PM after dinner to like 9:30, and not much if at all on weekends because I'm busy? No saving mid-run? I can't believe that.

There are some key portions of this that I know to be incorrect. Yes you can stop to take bathroom, food, and other breaks. I don't know if you can leave the dungeon and pick back up where you left off, but given the dungeon is literally supposed to be endless, yes there should be the possibility of running for 12 hours or more. I seriously doubt I will ever achieve a feat that grand, but the endless nature of the dungeon alone is exciting.

The leader boards for the dungeon literally just track how far you made it.

To emphasize the point, the endless part of the endless archives is not just a title. It describes the length of the dungeon.. It is literally an endless dungeon that scales up in difficulty as you progress through it. Thus the effective end of the dungeon is how long it takes before you die too many times.

No you can't leave and pick up again where you left off. A short period afk as in the rest of the game is ok, after which you'll be kicked from the server. Every time you zone into the EA you start from the beginning again, with 3 lives. Also, comparing it to other parts of the game means it should be thought of as an arena, not as a dungeon.

It is an arena. Specially, it is a 1 or 2 person arena.
Still, the idea of picking up where you left off would be nice.

Braffin

Tandor wrote: »

For me the most important factor is that it is only aimed at those who have competitive builds and are highly geared. As a casual player capable of soloing most normal dungeon bosses the most progress I made was to clear 2 bosses (plus the trash stages) with my lvl 50 Magplar who has 540 CPs accompanied by Mirri. The third boss was impossible, and you only have 3 lives. I shan't bother with it on Live as there simply isn't any benefit for my type of player in doing so.

Zos is simply trying to provide content for the whole playerbase with EA. Less skilled players will reach their personal limit sooner than seasoned veterans, yes. But that's not a bad thing at all, as higher Arcs only deliver higher difficulty and not anything new.

Yes, a save function and the possibility to start again at any completed Arc would be very much appreciated, so players could directly start at an interesting difficulty.

Your argumentation is flawed btw, as one could say overland content (at least 95% of this game's content after all) is only built for less-skilled players, as there isn't even the slightest challenge for the average playerbase.

Holycannoli

Tornaad wrote: »

There are some key portions of this that I know to be incorrect. Yes you can stop to take bathroom, food, and other breaks. I don't know if you can leave the dungeon and pick back up where you left off, but given the dungeon is literally supposed to be endless, yes there should be the possibility of running for 12 hours or more. I seriously doubt I will ever achieve a feat that grand, but the endless nature of the dungeon alone is exciting.

That's precisely the part I'm not liking. Not being able to leave the dungeon and return where you left off is a major problem. Who has the time to dedicate to that?

There is another popular game with an "endless dungeon" that tracks your progress and lets you continue where you left off (Path of Exile's endless Delve). They knew better than to force players to do it all in one session. That's just ridiculous.

Tandor

Braffin wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

For me the most important factor is that it is only aimed at those who have competitive builds and are highly geared. As a casual player capable of soloing most normal dungeon bosses the most progress I made was to clear 2 bosses (plus the trash stages) with my lvl 50 Magplar who has 540 CPs accompanied by Mirri. The third boss was impossible, and you only have 3 lives. I shan't bother with it on Live as there simply isn't any benefit for my type of player in doing so.

Zos is simply trying to provide content for the whole playerbase with EA. Less skilled players will reach their personal limit sooner than seasoned veterans, yes. But that's not a bad thing at all, as higher Arcs only deliver higher difficulty and not anything new.

Yes, a save function and the possibility to start again at any completed Arc would be very much appreciated, so players could directly start at an interesting difficulty.

Your argumentation is flawed btw, as one could say overland content (at least 95% of this game's content after all) is only built for less-skilled players, as there isn't even the slightest challenge for the average playerbase.

The way to have provided content for the whole playerbase would have been with Normal and Veteran options, as with the dungeons. The problem with it currently is twofold - for the more casual players there is not enough content that they can complete to enable them to gain anything from it, while for the more hardcore players the structure requires them to plough through trash content each time they play with no ability quickly to reach the more challenging and rewarding content and thereafter log in straight to that content. As presently structured, it doesn't provide content for the whole playerbase, and even those who see its appeal for them are questioning the way it's being implemented, e.g without any save/checkpoint facility. As presently structured I don't see it having lasting appeal to any particular type of player.

If the aim is solely to provide content for the higher skilled players then that's fine, and I agree that it does provide additional veteran content to balance against the overland content, but I don't believe it caters for "the average playerbase" but rather the top 10% or so. What I sought to do in commenting in this thread was to ensure that players who haven't tried it on the PTS aren't misled by the hype into thinking it's something it's not.

Braffin

Tandor wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

For me the most important factor is that it is only aimed at those who have competitive builds and are highly geared. As a casual player capable of soloing most normal dungeon bosses the most progress I made was to clear 2 bosses (plus the trash stages) with my lvl 50 Magplar who has 540 CPs accompanied by Mirri. The third boss was impossible, and you only have 3 lives. I shan't bother with it on Live as there simply isn't any benefit for my type of player in doing so.

Zos is simply trying to provide content for the whole playerbase with EA. Less skilled players will reach their personal limit sooner than seasoned veterans, yes. But that's not a bad thing at all, as higher Arcs only deliver higher difficulty and not anything new.

Yes, a save function and the possibility to start again at any completed Arc would be very much appreciated, so players could directly start at an interesting difficulty.

Your argumentation is flawed btw, as one could say overland content (at least 95% of this game's content after all) is only built for less-skilled players, as there isn't even the slightest challenge for the average playerbase.

The way to have provided content for the whole playerbase would have been with Normal and Veteran options, as with the dungeons. The problem with it currently is twofold - for the more casual players there is not enough content that they can complete to enable them to gain anything from it, while for the more hardcore players the structure requires them to plough through trash content each time they play with no ability quickly to reach the more challenging and rewarding content and thereafter log in straight to that content. As presently structured, it doesn't provide content for the whole playerbase.

If the aim is solely to provide content for the higher skilled players then that's fine, and I agree that it does provide additional veteran content to balance against the overland content, but I don't believe it caters for "the average playerbase" but rather the top 10% or so. What I sought to do in commenting in this thread was to ensure that players who haven't tried it on the PTS aren't misled by the hype into thinking it's something it's not.

Sorry to say it blunt, but personal beliefs are completely irrelevant regarding this matter. Nonetheless we see, that the argument of "the average playerbase" goes in both directions. I for example firmly belief, that only the 10% on the bottom end aren't able to succeed further than Arc 1. As both of us have no data to proof our claim, it's nonsensical to argue over that, as it's nonsensical to deny players which do proceed into higher Arcs being casual. That's nothing else than framing.

I also don't see how a split veteran/normal would do any benefit to EA: As said countless times before, there is no difference content-wise between Arc 1 and Arc 10 for example, only the difficulty is scaled higher in the latter. Nonetheless you're talking about further differences all the time. Name them please.

XSTRONG

Holycannoli wrote: »

Tornaad wrote: »

There are some key portions of this that I know to be incorrect. Yes you can stop to take bathroom, food, and other breaks. I don't know if you can leave the dungeon and pick back up where you left off, but given the dungeon is literally supposed to be endless, yes there should be the possibility of running for 12 hours or more. I seriously doubt I will ever achieve a feat that grand, but the endless nature of the dungeon alone is exciting.

There is another popular game with an "endless dungeon" that tracks your progress and lets you continue where you left off (Path of Exile's endless Delve). They knew better than to force players to do it all in one session. That's just ridiculous.

Path of Exile's sucks but they apperntly knew to have some kind of save point in their endless dungeon so cheers for that.

EA isnt even live yet and am pretty sure Zos would make EA saveable in future updates if they see a big need for it.

Tandor

Braffin wrote: »

I also don't see how a split veteran/normal would do any benefit to EA: As said countless times before, there is no difference content-wise between Arc 1 and Arc 10 for example, only the difficulty is scaled higher in the latter. Nonetheless you're talking about further differences all the time. Name them please.

I don't recall ever talking about any content differences. As you just said, the difference between the Arcs is in the difficulty scaling, and that's where different difficulty options would enable more people to progress further.

Braffin

Tandor wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

I also don't see how a split veteran/normal would do any benefit to EA: As said countless times before, there is no difference content-wise between Arc 1 and Arc 10 for example, only the difficulty is scaled higher in the latter. Nonetheless you're talking about further differences all the time. Name them please.

I don't recall ever talking about any content differences. As you just said, the difference between the Arcs is in the difficulty scaling, and that's where different difficulty options would enable more people to progress further.

But why is it important to progress further, if nothing changes but difficulty? Seems like you're voting for an overly complicated addition without any meaningful addition to me.

Tandor

Braffin wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

I also don't see how a split veteran/normal would do any benefit to EA: As said countless times before, there is no difference content-wise between Arc 1 and Arc 10 for example, only the difficulty is scaled higher in the latter. Nonetheless you're talking about further differences all the time. Name them please.

I don't recall ever talking about any content differences. As you just said, the difference between the Arcs is in the difficulty scaling, and that's where different difficulty options would enable more people to progress further.

But why is it important to progress further, if nothing changes but difficulty? Seems like you're voting for an overly complicated addition without any meaningful addition to me.

It's not about meaningful additions, it's about accessibility. Either someone can play a decent way through an "endless" dungeon/arena or they find it too difficult and drop out early on, and that determines whether it's worthwhile for them to play it. If the difficulty is scaled to different skill/build etc levels through the same Normal/Veteran difficulty options that the game's other similar content has then it means that more players can get far enough to make it enjoyable and worthwhile. I'd have thought that was a winner for both the playerbase and the developers who presumably want as many players to run the Endless Archive as possible.

Braffin

Tandor wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

I also don't see how a split veteran/normal would do any benefit to EA: As said countless times before, there is no difference content-wise between Arc 1 and Arc 10 for example, only the difficulty is scaled higher in the latter. Nonetheless you're talking about further differences all the time. Name them please.

I don't recall ever talking about any content differences. As you just said, the difference between the Arcs is in the difficulty scaling, and that's where different difficulty options would enable more people to progress further.

But why is it important to progress further, if nothing changes but difficulty? Seems like you're voting for an overly complicated addition without any meaningful addition to me.

It's not about meaningful additions, it's about accessibility. Either someone can play a decent way through an "endless" dungeon/arena or they find it too difficult and drop out early on, and that determines whether it's worthwhile for them to play it. If the difficulty is scaled to different skill/build etc levels through the same Normal/Veteran difficulty options that the game's other similar content has then it means that more players can get far enough to make it enjoyable and worthwhile. I'd have thought that was a winner for both the playerbase and the developers who presumably want as many players to run the Endless Archive as possible.

We are running in circles here, asI simply don't see your point. EA is providing a challenge for the whole playerbase, while the difficulty is exactly scaled how you're suggesting: It's starting very easy with Arc 1 and increases difficulty while players reach higher Arcs. So there is no need for a distinction normal/veteran imo.

I could see your point, if higher Arcs were providing additional content, but they don't. The better rewards (if we are indeed talking about them without explicity talking about them) for higher Arcs are justified, as it takes time to develop a "competitive build". This dedication deserves some reward, as it's the case with every aspect of this game.

On a sidenote: I assume you're also in favor of veteran overland content, so this zones become also "accessible" and worthwile for veteran players. Or is accessibility a privilege for players, which aren't interested in the combat and build-options of this game?

spartaxoxo

Tandor wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

I also don't see how a split veteran/normal would do any benefit to EA: As said countless times before, there is no difference content-wise between Arc 1 and Arc 10 for example, only the difficulty is scaled higher in the latter. Nonetheless you're talking about further differences all the time. Name them please.

I don't recall ever talking about any content differences. As you just said, the difference between the Arcs is in the difficulty scaling, and that's where different difficulty options would enable more people to progress further.

But why is it important to progress further, if nothing changes but difficulty? Seems like you're voting for an overly complicated addition without any meaningful addition to me.

It's not about meaningful additions, it's about accessibility. Either someone can play a decent way through an "endless" dungeon/arena or they find it too difficult and drop out early on, and that determines whether it's worthwhile for them to play it. If the difficulty is scaled to different skill/build etc levels through the same Normal/Veteran difficulty options that the game's other similar content has then it means that more players can get far enough to make it enjoyable and worthwhile. I'd have thought that was a winner for both the playerbase and the developers who presumably want as many players to run the Endless Archive as possible.

I understand what you mean. If the later arcs never got more difficult to a normal dlc dungeon, then more players would be able to progress very far. In addition, if a vet mode started with say...vet base game difficulty, and topped out at vet HM trial difficulty (but tuned to two people) then vet players wouldn't need to star with content they could sleepwalk.

OtarTheMad

Braffin wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

I also don't see how a split veteran/normal would do any benefit to EA: As said countless times before, there is no difference content-wise between Arc 1 and Arc 10 for example, only the difficulty is scaled higher in the latter. Nonetheless you're talking about further differences all the time. Name them please.

I don't recall ever talking about any content differences. As you just said, the difference between the Arcs is in the difficulty scaling, and that's where different difficulty options would enable more people to progress further.

But why is it important to progress further, if nothing changes but difficulty? Seems like you're voting for an overly complicated addition without any meaningful addition to me.

It's not about meaningful additions, it's about accessibility. Either someone can play a decent way through an "endless" dungeon/arena or they find it too difficult and drop out early on, and that determines whether it's worthwhile for them to play it. If the difficulty is scaled to different skill/build etc levels through the same Normal/Veteran difficulty options that the game's other similar content has then it means that more players can get far enough to make it enjoyable and worthwhile. I'd have thought that was a winner for both the playerbase and the developers who presumably want as many players to run the Endless Archive as possible.

We are running in circles here, asI simply don't see your point. EA is providing a challenge for the whole playerbase, while the difficulty is exactly scaled how you're suggesting: It's starting very easy with Arc 1 and increases difficulty while players reach higher Arcs. So there is no need for a distinction normal/veteran imo.

I could see your point, if higher Arcs were providing additional content, but they don't. The better rewards (if we are indeed talking about them without explicity talking about them) for higher Arcs are justified, as it takes time to develop a "competitive build". This dedication deserves some reward, as it's the case with every aspect of this game.

On a sidenote: I assume you're also in favor of veteran overland content, so this zones become also "accessible" and worthwile for veteran players. Or is accessibility a privilege for players, which aren't interested in the combat and build-options of this game?

I can see what you’re both saying but I am not sure EA is for the whole playerbase. Just speaking for me, it’s not intended for me. I would basically get through half of Arc 1 on most days and then have to log. In my opinion EA is intended for players who have a few hours to play, whether they are endgamers or just average doesn’t matter too much. It’s just an Endless Grind.

It would take me forever to grind the class sets, get enough Archival Fortunes to buy anything so honestly… just not meant for me. I have maybe an hour when I log in, I am not going to waste all of it on this low reward grind.

EDIT- if there was a save feature that would be nice that way I can pick up where I left off and maybe finish an Arc or 2. I don’t care about leaderboards. I want the class sets, stuff you can buy from the vendor and furniture.

Braffin

OtarTheMad wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

I also don't see how a split veteran/normal would do any benefit to EA: As said countless times before, there is no difference content-wise between Arc 1 and Arc 10 for example, only the difficulty is scaled higher in the latter. Nonetheless you're talking about further differences all the time. Name them please.

I don't recall ever talking about any content differences. As you just said, the difference between the Arcs is in the difficulty scaling, and that's where different difficulty options would enable more people to progress further.

But why is it important to progress further, if nothing changes but difficulty? Seems like you're voting for an overly complicated addition without any meaningful addition to me.

It's not about meaningful additions, it's about accessibility. Either someone can play a decent way through an "endless" dungeon/arena or they find it too difficult and drop out early on, and that determines whether it's worthwhile for them to play it. If the difficulty is scaled to different skill/build etc levels through the same Normal/Veteran difficulty options that the game's other similar content has then it means that more players can get far enough to make it enjoyable and worthwhile. I'd have thought that was a winner for both the playerbase and the developers who presumably want as many players to run the Endless Archive as possible.

We are running in circles here, asI simply don't see your point. EA is providing a challenge for the whole playerbase, while the difficulty is exactly scaled how you're suggesting: It's starting very easy with Arc 1 and increases difficulty while players reach higher Arcs. So there is no need for a distinction normal/veteran imo.

I could see your point, if higher Arcs were providing additional content, but they don't. The better rewards (if we are indeed talking about them without explicity talking about them) for higher Arcs are justified, as it takes time to develop a "competitive build". This dedication deserves some reward, as it's the case with every aspect of this game.

On a sidenote: I assume you're also in favor of veteran overland content, so this zones become also "accessible" and worthwile for veteran players. Or is accessibility a privilege for players, which aren't interested in the combat and build-options of this game?

I can see what you’re both saying but I am not sure EA is for the whole playerbase. Just speaking for me, it’s not intended for me. I would basically get through half of Arc 1 on most days and then have to log. In my opinion EA is intended for players who have a few hours to play, whether they are endgamers or just average doesn’t matter too much. It’s just an Endless Grind.

It would take me forever to grind the class sets, get enough Archival Fortunes to buy anything so honestly… just not meant for me. I have maybe an hour when I log in, I am not going to waste all of it on this low reward grind.

Yeah, I get what you're saying. That's one of the reasons why I fully support the implementation of a proper save-function. This way also players, which can't spend several hours without break (will be the most of us I assume), would be able to progress through EA on their own pace.

Another nice addition were the ability to restart EA from any already completed Arc for basically the very same reasons. Leaderboards wouldn't be a problem with this, as not everyone is interested in them and the run simply wouldn't count if you save or start for example from Arc 3.

Indeed adding more low-level Arcs is the only suggestion I don't want to see realized, as running through content, which is too easy, simply isn't fun but a slog and there is already enough easy content in this game. Veterans are in dire need of a proper playground, before the very last of us leave.

And I see no need for a distinction normal/veteran, as I think that's an arbitrary addition and will indeed add nothing to EA. You would basically spare yourself a reset of the arena, nothing else would change.

Holycannoli

XSTRONG wrote: »

Path of Exile's sucks but they apperntly knew to have some kind of save point in their endless dungeon so cheers for that.

EA isnt even live yet and am pretty sure Zos would make EA saveable in future updates if they see a big need for it.

If they can't see a need for it before it's even launched then I don't know what to say lol.

Tandor

Holycannoli wrote: »

XSTRONG wrote: »

Path of Exile's sucks but they apperntly knew to have some kind of save point in their endless dungeon so cheers for that.

EA isnt even live yet and am pretty sure Zos would make EA saveable in future updates if they see a big need for it.

If they can't see a need for it before it's even launched then I don't know what to say lol.

Maybe they were on holiday while the PTS feedback was coming in ?

Tandor

Braffin wrote: »

OtarTheMad wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

I also don't see how a split veteran/normal would do any benefit to EA: As said countless times before, there is no difference content-wise between Arc 1 and Arc 10 for example, only the difficulty is scaled higher in the latter. Nonetheless you're talking about further differences all the time. Name them please.

I don't recall ever talking about any content differences. As you just said, the difference between the Arcs is in the difficulty scaling, and that's where different difficulty options would enable more people to progress further.

But why is it important to progress further, if nothing changes but difficulty? Seems like you're voting for an overly complicated addition without any meaningful addition to me.

It's not about meaningful additions, it's about accessibility. Either someone can play a decent way through an "endless" dungeon/arena or they find it too difficult and drop out early on, and that determines whether it's worthwhile for them to play it. If the difficulty is scaled to different skill/build etc levels through the same Normal/Veteran difficulty options that the game's other similar content has then it means that more players can get far enough to make it enjoyable and worthwhile. I'd have thought that was a winner for both the playerbase and the developers who presumably want as many players to run the Endless Archive as possible.

We are running in circles here, asI simply don't see your point. EA is providing a challenge for the whole playerbase, while the difficulty is exactly scaled how you're suggesting: It's starting very easy with Arc 1 and increases difficulty while players reach higher Arcs. So there is no need for a distinction normal/veteran imo.

I could see your point, if higher Arcs were providing additional content, but they don't. The better rewards (if we are indeed talking about them without explicity talking about them) for higher Arcs are justified, as it takes time to develop a "competitive build". This dedication deserves some reward, as it's the case with every aspect of this game.

On a sidenote: I assume you're also in favor of veteran overland content, so this zones become also "accessible" and worthwile for veteran players. Or is accessibility a privilege for players, which aren't interested in the combat and build-options of this game?

I can see what you’re both saying but I am not sure EA is for the whole playerbase. Just speaking for me, it’s not intended for me. I would basically get through half of Arc 1 on most days and then have to log. In my opinion EA is intended for players who have a few hours to play, whether they are endgamers or just average doesn’t matter too much. It’s just an Endless Grind.

It would take me forever to grind the class sets, get enough Archival Fortunes to buy anything so honestly… just not meant for me. I have maybe an hour when I log in, I am not going to waste all of it on this low reward grind.

Yeah, I get what you're saying. That's one of the reasons why I fully support the implementation of a proper save-function. This way also players, which can't spend several hours without break (will be the most of us I assume), would be able to progress through EA on their own pace.

Another nice addition were the ability to restart EA from any already completed Arc for basically the very same reasons. Leaderboards wouldn't be a problem with this, as not everyone is interested in them and the run simply wouldn't count if you save or start for example from Arc 3.

Indeed adding more low-level Arcs is the only suggestion I don't want to see realized, as running through content, which is too easy, simply isn't fun but a slog and there is already enough easy content in this game. Veterans are in dire need of a proper playground, before the very last of us leave.

And I see no need for a distinction normal/veteran, as I think that's an arbitrary addition and will indeed add nothing to EA. You would basically spare yourself a reset of the arena, nothing else would change.

Is it really too hard to get the idea that it's about making it more accessible to more players? It will add the ability for more players to get beyond Arc 1 or 2.

I wholly agree that veteran players don't want more low-level Arcs as it would involve prefacing each meaningful session with running through a load of trash content.

Put these two points together, and what you get with Normal/Veteran difficulty options is a more accessible feature for Normal players, and a more immediate challenge for Veteran players. Why should that be an issue? It's not just me calling for it, the suggestion was made by a number of players on PTS.

Braffin

Tandor wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

OtarTheMad wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

I also don't see how a split veteran/normal would do any benefit to EA: As said countless times before, there is no difference content-wise between Arc 1 and Arc 10 for example, only the difficulty is scaled higher in the latter. Nonetheless you're talking about further differences all the time. Name them please.

I don't recall ever talking about any content differences. As you just said, the difference between the Arcs is in the difficulty scaling, and that's where different difficulty options would enable more people to progress further.

But why is it important to progress further, if nothing changes but difficulty? Seems like you're voting for an overly complicated addition without any meaningful addition to me.

It's not about meaningful additions, it's about accessibility. Either someone can play a decent way through an "endless" dungeon/arena or they find it too difficult and drop out early on, and that determines whether it's worthwhile for them to play it. If the difficulty is scaled to different skill/build etc levels through the same Normal/Veteran difficulty options that the game's other similar content has then it means that more players can get far enough to make it enjoyable and worthwhile. I'd have thought that was a winner for both the playerbase and the developers who presumably want as many players to run the Endless Archive as possible.

We are running in circles here, asI simply don't see your point. EA is providing a challenge for the whole playerbase, while the difficulty is exactly scaled how you're suggesting: It's starting very easy with Arc 1 and increases difficulty while players reach higher Arcs. So there is no need for a distinction normal/veteran imo.

I could see your point, if higher Arcs were providing additional content, but they don't. The better rewards (if we are indeed talking about them without explicity talking about them) for higher Arcs are justified, as it takes time to develop a "competitive build". This dedication deserves some reward, as it's the case with every aspect of this game.

On a sidenote: I assume you're also in favor of veteran overland content, so this zones become also "accessible" and worthwile for veteran players. Or is accessibility a privilege for players, which aren't interested in the combat and build-options of this game?

I can see what you’re both saying but I am not sure EA is for the whole playerbase. Just speaking for me, it’s not intended for me. I would basically get through half of Arc 1 on most days and then have to log. In my opinion EA is intended for players who have a few hours to play, whether they are endgamers or just average doesn’t matter too much. It’s just an Endless Grind.

It would take me forever to grind the class sets, get enough Archival Fortunes to buy anything so honestly… just not meant for me. I have maybe an hour when I log in, I am not going to waste all of it on this low reward grind.

Yeah, I get what you're saying. That's one of the reasons why I fully support the implementation of a proper save-function. This way also players, which can't spend several hours without break (will be the most of us I assume), would be able to progress through EA on their own pace.

Another nice addition were the ability to restart EA from any already completed Arc for basically the very same reasons. Leaderboards wouldn't be a problem with this, as not everyone is interested in them and the run simply wouldn't count if you save or start for example from Arc 3.

Indeed adding more low-level Arcs is the only suggestion I don't want to see realized, as running through content, which is too easy, simply isn't fun but a slog and there is already enough easy content in this game. Veterans are in dire need of a proper playground, before the very last of us leave.

And I see no need for a distinction normal/veteran, as I think that's an arbitrary addition and will indeed add nothing to EA. You would basically spare yourself a reset of the arena, nothing else would change.

Is it really too hard to get the idea that it's about making it more accessible to more players? It will add the ability for more players to get beyond Arc 1 or 2.

I wholly agree that veteran players don't want more low-level Arcs as it would involve prefacing each meaningful session with running through a load of trash content.

Put these two points together, and what you get with Normal/Veteran difficulty options is a more accessible feature for Normal players, and a more immediate challenge for Veteran players. Why should that be an issue? It's not just me calling for it, the suggestion was made by a number of players on PTS.

Yes, it is hard to understand, how exactly the ability to get beyond Arc 1 or 2 is in any way improving accessibility for content, which is the very same in Arc 10 as in Arc 1.

The very same bosses, the very same trash packs. Not even the visuals are changing. Only the number behind the term "Arc" is raising, nothing else. Besides the difficulty of course, but in fact you vote for less difficulty.

So what exactly would be the benefit of such a change? What's the benefit in playing a higher Arc, if not higher difficulty?

spartaxoxo

Not necessarily see these arcs/difficulties etc, but isn't something along the lines of this what is being requested with a normal/vet mode? Like the point is to have long and ramping difficulty for everyone? And vet mode would jump straight to low end vet content and skip the public dungeon level stuff entirely.


Theoretical Normal Mode EA

Arc 1-3 delve difficulty
Arc 4-5 public dungeon difficulty
Arc 6-8 Base game normal dungeon difficulty
Arc 9-10 normal dlc dungeon difficulty
Arc 10+ base game vet dungeon 1 (fungal grotto, banished cells, etc).


Theoretical Vet Mode EA

Arc 1-3 base game vet dungeon 1
arc 4-5 base game vet dungeon 2
Arc 6-8 vet dlc dungeon
Arc 9-10 vet solo arena
Arc 10+ vet trials

Braffin

@spartaxoxo why in the world would it be benefical to play up to 3 Arcs on the same difficulty? Imo that would only be an arbitrary extension of grind without any real progression.

The scaling is fine as it is, only saving and choosing starting Arc are missing.