Maintenance for the week of January 5:
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – January 5
• NA megaservers for maintenance – January 7, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 10:00AM EST (15:00 UTC)
• EU megaservers for maintenance – January 7, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 10:00AM EST (15:00 UTC)
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – January 5
• NA megaservers for maintenance – January 7, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 10:00AM EST (15:00 UTC)
• EU megaservers for maintenance – January 7, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 10:00AM EST (15:00 UTC)
Looking forward to the Endless Archives
-
Tandor✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭OtarTheMad 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 gets it, I'm sorry you don't, but no matter. We'll move on.0 -
Braffin✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭OtarTheMad 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 gets it, I'm sorry you don't, but no matter. We'll move on.
Nothing bad in not seeing your point tho.
But yes, we won't solve our disagreement it seems.Edited by Braffin on October 27, 2023 9:25PMNever get between a cat and it's candy!
---
Overland difficulty scaling is desperately needed. 9 years. 6 paid expansions. 24 DLCs. 40 game changing updates including One Tamriel, an overhaul of the game including a permanent CP160 gear cap and ridiculous power creep thereafter. I'm sick and tired of hearing about Cadwell Silver & Gold as a "you think you do but you don't" - tier deflection to any criticism regarding the lack of overland difficulty in the game. I'm bored of dungeons, I'm bored of trials; make a personal difficulty slider for overland. It's not that hard.1 -
Freelancer_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭OtarTheMad 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 changing, nothing else.
So what exactly would be the benefit of such a change? What's the benefit in playing a higher Arc, if not higher difficulty?
I liked Endless type content a ton in Warframe back when I played it.
It was generally the most fun starting on a low to medium difficulty level and gradually working your way up slaughtering things.
Sure, I could go pick a late tier planet and immediately have a higher tier difficulty but the experience is a bit different as you don't actually feel like you are progressing as far and you end up spending much of the time focused on effectiveness which isn't necessarily the fun part of combat.
I'm unsure if it would actually work in ESO because, the combat in ESO kinda stinks which makes it so killing trash isn't as fun in other games (The environment of the Archive also doesn't do it any favors IMHO) and the boss design in ESO kinda kills the whole relaxing slaughter bit.
0 -
Elvenheart✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Every time I tried it on PTS with a companion I always reached some random boss I couldn’t make it past to get to the final boss of Arc 1. Some random bosses proved to be pretty easy, but some were just too hard for me and took all my Threads. I didn’t like that at all. I was hoping I could at least make it to the end of Arc 1 no matter which random boss came my way. If I can get to the point, I never have any intentions of going any further because I don’t like self torture.4 -
Braffin✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭chessalavakia_ESO wrote: »OtarTheMad 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 changing, nothing else.
So what exactly would be the benefit of such a change? What's the benefit in playing a higher Arc, if not higher difficulty?
I liked Endless type content a ton in Warframe back when I played it.
It was generally the most fun starting on a low to medium difficulty level and gradually working your way up slaughtering things.
Sure, I could go pick a late tier planet and immediately have a higher tier difficulty but the experience is a bit different as you don't actually feel like you are progressing as far and you end up spending much of the time focused on effectiveness which isn't necessarily the fun part of combat.
I'm unsure if it would actually work in ESO because, the combat in ESO kinda stinks which makes it so killing trash isn't as fun in other games (The environment of the Archive also doesn't do it any favors IMHO) and the boss design in ESO kinda kills the whole relaxing slaughter bit.
Well, I like the combat in eso, as I do like the overall boss design.
Maybe that's the issue of the whole discussion: Sure, if someone doesn't like the game's design, they won't make it far in an endless mode centered on exactly this design. That's not a flaw tho, but simply a matter of taste.
Time to leave it there I think, as the game is big enough for different playstyles. Whoever isn't interested in the game's mechanics still can have fun in overland (still 95% of content), normal mode of dungeons, trials and arenas and of course Arc 1 and 2 of EA.
But developing a normal mode of EA especially for people, which dislike eso's combat anyways, is nothing more than a "waste of resources" (I'll lend this term from anti- veteran-overland-crowd).Never get between a cat and it's candy!
---
Overland difficulty scaling is desperately needed. 9 years. 6 paid expansions. 24 DLCs. 40 game changing updates including One Tamriel, an overhaul of the game including a permanent CP160 gear cap and ridiculous power creep thereafter. I'm sick and tired of hearing about Cadwell Silver & Gold as a "you think you do but you don't" - tier deflection to any criticism regarding the lack of overland difficulty in the game. I'm bored of dungeons, I'm bored of trials; make a personal difficulty slider for overland. It's not that hard.2 -
ESO_player123✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭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.
I personally think your estimate of "only the 10% on the bottom end aren't able to succeed further than Arc 1" is way off. Of course I do not have the numbers to back this up. However, judging by how many players wrote on the forums that they cannot solo BN, I think we can get the general idea. Especially if a Trial boss makes an appearance in Arc 1.
Edit: messed up quotesEdited by ESO_player123 on October 27, 2023 9:45PM0 -
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.
"Not necessarily see these arcs/difficulties etc, but isn't something along the lines of this"
It was not meant to say it needed to be structured exactly like that. The numbers don't matter. It is to illustrate the concept.Edited by spartaxoxo on October 27, 2023 9:57PM0 -
spartaxoxo✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭spartaxoxo gets it, I'm sorry you don't, but no matter. We'll move on.
I just want to add, while I wouldn't really care if they added it. It's not something I think is necessary. I think as long as the first arcs are so easy anyone can do them, and any dailies are tied to those arcs, it's fine for the rest to be vet content. I can see the value of it. So, I wouldn't say I'm opposed. But, I think most players that aren't vets are pretty "meh" on the content in this game, and moreso interested in story and exploration.Edited by spartaxoxo on October 27, 2023 10:06PM2 -
Tandor✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭chessalavakia_ESO wrote: »OtarTheMad 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 changing, nothing else.
So what exactly would be the benefit of such a change? What's the benefit in playing a higher Arc, if not higher difficulty?
I liked Endless type content a ton in Warframe back when I played it.
It was generally the most fun starting on a low to medium difficulty level and gradually working your way up slaughtering things.
Sure, I could go pick a late tier planet and immediately have a higher tier difficulty but the experience is a bit different as you don't actually feel like you are progressing as far and you end up spending much of the time focused on effectiveness which isn't necessarily the fun part of combat.
I'm unsure if it would actually work in ESO because, the combat in ESO kinda stinks which makes it so killing trash isn't as fun in other games (The environment of the Archive also doesn't do it any favors IMHO) and the boss design in ESO kinda kills the whole relaxing slaughter bit.
Well, I like the combat in eso, as I do like the overall boss design.
Maybe that's the issue of the whole discussion: Sure, if someone doesn't like the game's design, they won't make it far in an endless mode centered on exactly this design. That's not a flaw tho, but simply a matter of taste.
Time to leave it there I think, as the game is big enough for different playstyles. Whoever isn't interested in the game's mechanics still can have fun in overland (still 95% of content), normal mode of dungeons, trials and arenas and of course Arc 1 and 2 of EA.
But developing a normal mode of EA especially for people, which dislike eso's combat anyways, is nothing more than a "waste of resources" (I'll lend this term from anti- veteran-overland-crowd).
I know you want to leave it there, but in fairness I should just point out that as a continuous ESO player since PC launch I love the combat system, and never understand it when people criticise it - especially as I've played most popular MMOs since1998 and have experienced a lot worse - so be assured that is not the reason I pursue an argument to extend the appeal of Endless Archive to those like me who are not competitive players at veteran level in the game.0 -
Braffin✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭chessalavakia_ESO wrote: »OtarTheMad 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 changing, nothing else.
So what exactly would be the benefit of such a change? What's the benefit in playing a higher Arc, if not higher difficulty?
I liked Endless type content a ton in Warframe back when I played it.
It was generally the most fun starting on a low to medium difficulty level and gradually working your way up slaughtering things.
Sure, I could go pick a late tier planet and immediately have a higher tier difficulty but the experience is a bit different as you don't actually feel like you are progressing as far and you end up spending much of the time focused on effectiveness which isn't necessarily the fun part of combat.
I'm unsure if it would actually work in ESO because, the combat in ESO kinda stinks which makes it so killing trash isn't as fun in other games (The environment of the Archive also doesn't do it any favors IMHO) and the boss design in ESO kinda kills the whole relaxing slaughter bit.
Well, I like the combat in eso, as I do like the overall boss design.
Maybe that's the issue of the whole discussion: Sure, if someone doesn't like the game's design, they won't make it far in an endless mode centered on exactly this design. That's not a flaw tho, but simply a matter of taste.
Time to leave it there I think, as the game is big enough for different playstyles. Whoever isn't interested in the game's mechanics still can have fun in overland (still 95% of content), normal mode of dungeons, trials and arenas and of course Arc 1 and 2 of EA.
But developing a normal mode of EA especially for people, which dislike eso's combat anyways, is nothing more than a "waste of resources" (I'll lend this term from anti- veteran-overland-crowd).
I know you want to leave it there, but in fairness I should just point out that as a continuous ESO player since PC launch I love the combat system, and never understand it when people criticise it - especially as I've played most popular MMOs since1998 and have experienced a lot worse - so be assured that is not the reason I pursue an argument to extend the appeal of Endless Archive to those like me who are not competitive players at veteran level in the game.
Didn't assume you'd dislike combat. As stated before, I honestly have no idea why you're suggesting the changes you're asking for. That's not tied together with any sort of judging tho. Sorry, if it came that way.
The argument you highlighted was specifically aimed at the player I quoted, as they explicitely mentioned they dislike eso's combat system. Sure, we don't exactly know the "intended audience" of EA, but I dare to say, that an arena completely centered on combat isn't meant for players disliking combat (as new houses aren't meant for people disliking houding and so on).
I have to say tho, that inventing a normal mode with tweaked rewards isn't something I completely oppose. I simply see no need for it out of the mentioned reasons. Additionally I can't think of more than a few Arcs without meaningless repetition on the same difficulty.
On a sidenote: I also play eso since the very beginning (didn't participate in beta tho) and fully believe there is simply not enough veteran content in this game to guarantee replayability.
Never get between a cat and it's candy!
---
Overland difficulty scaling is desperately needed. 9 years. 6 paid expansions. 24 DLCs. 40 game changing updates including One Tamriel, an overhaul of the game including a permanent CP160 gear cap and ridiculous power creep thereafter. I'm sick and tired of hearing about Cadwell Silver & Gold as a "you think you do but you don't" - tier deflection to any criticism regarding the lack of overland difficulty in the game. I'm bored of dungeons, I'm bored of trials; make a personal difficulty slider for overland. It's not that hard.1 -
Destai✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭I’m happy they’re adding something, but I will reserve my opinion until I try it. I’m not convinced the rewards are worth it yet and I don’t like that you can’t save it. I’m not a fan of roguelikes to begin with, but I will try to have an open mind and give it a shot. If it’s not something I enjoy, I have plenty of options in game.2 -
Freelancer_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭chessalavakia_ESO wrote: »OtarTheMad 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 changing, nothing else.
So what exactly would be the benefit of such a change? What's the benefit in playing a higher Arc, if not higher difficulty?
I liked Endless type content a ton in Warframe back when I played it.
It was generally the most fun starting on a low to medium difficulty level and gradually working your way up slaughtering things.
Sure, I could go pick a late tier planet and immediately have a higher tier difficulty but the experience is a bit different as you don't actually feel like you are progressing as far and you end up spending much of the time focused on effectiveness which isn't necessarily the fun part of combat.
I'm unsure if it would actually work in ESO because, the combat in ESO kinda stinks which makes it so killing trash isn't as fun in other games (The environment of the Archive also doesn't do it any favors IMHO) and the boss design in ESO kinda kills the whole relaxing slaughter bit.
Well, I like the combat in eso, as I do like the overall boss design.
Maybe that's the issue of the whole discussion: Sure, if someone doesn't like the game's design, they won't make it far in an endless mode centered on exactly this design. That's not a flaw tho, but simply a matter of taste.
Time to leave it there I think, as the game is big enough for different playstyles. Whoever isn't interested in the game's mechanics still can have fun in overland (still 95% of content), normal mode of dungeons, trials and arenas and of course Arc 1 and 2 of EA.
But developing a normal mode of EA especially for people, which dislike eso's combat anyways, is nothing more than a "waste of resources" (I'll lend this term from anti- veteran-overland-crowd).
I'll try explaining one more time and then I'll drop it for this thread:
Some people enjoy pushing themselves to the limit and want to face challenging content as fast as possible.
Some people enjoy slaughtering everything in sight as the difficulty slowly ramps up.
Having separate difficulties would allow the design approach to deliver more effectively to the two views with less need to compromise.
The person that wants to be challenged quickly isn't going to love going through boatloads of trash to get to the part that actually challenges them.
You'll notice that one of the PTS complaints with EA that did get addressed was from people that felt they were facing too much trash.
The person that wants wants to have a relaxing time killing stuff isn't necessarily going to love getting thrown in at a high difficulty.
Personally, since I don't think ESO's combat is that good I'm not sure if it would be worth the investment to implement it as I'm not unique in that view and having a mode that's basically playing to a weakness doesn't seem like it will do well. Unless it's incredibly easy to implement we'd be talking weeks/months and by that point the content may be already dying before they got done.
(You'd also hit issues with people potentially abusing (You can already go afk on a tanky char and come back to the trash being dead as is. If you moved the difficulty lower it would be doable on the bosses), using normal to get rewards faster then quitting leaving the content potentially with less playtime, and players that want the status of more exclusive items being annoyed that more people might be getting them.
0 -
katanagirl1✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Hopefully ZOS has some metrics set up so they can see how players are faring in this new content. If too many players are not able to finish the first Arc or whatever it’s called then maybe they can make some adjustments.
If people really want to be able to do the content but aren’t able, it wouldn’t be fair to exclude them, within reason of course. Just saying they can fall back to overland content is not a good option in my opinion.
Khajiit Stamblade main
Dark Elf Magsorc
Redguard Stamina Dragonknight
Orc Stamplar PVP
Breton Magsorc PVP
Dark Elf Necromancer
Dark Elf Magden
Khajiit Stamblade
Khajiit Stamina Arcanist
PS5 NA0 -
Castagere✭✭✭✭✭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.
I can see it being fun for about two months then people will get bored and annoyed at how they set it up. They should have kept it simple like other games do. Finish one level get loot and the deeper you go the harder it gets but you get gear drops on the way.3 -
IZZEFlameLash✭✭✭✭✭
✭I am not looking forward to no progress saving any content. That really killed the hype for me. I already find arenas and dungeons with too much NPC mono/dialogues, rendering progress stuck until they finish their snail paced talks and walks that are unskippable frustrating because of artificially lengthened completion time.Imperials, the one and true masters of all mortal races of Tamriel3 -
Jack-0✭✭✭✭✭Yeah I’m with @Braffin on this - if you are only able to clear the first arc because the next one is too hard for you, then you do arc 1, get your rewards and port out and in again and do arc 1 again. As I understand it, the rewards from arcs 2+ are just the same as from arc 1, so what does it matter whether you reset after arc 1 or after arc 10?2 -
Aleris✭✭✭is there a possibility that they might add the save feature tomorrow? also, can we get at least a reasonable explanations from devs why we can't get this game changing feature?1 -
katanagirl1✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Kind of ironic that those seeking a higher level of difficulty aren’t happy with grinding through the easy levels multiple times but are fine with those seeking a lower level of difficulty doing that exact same thing.
Khajiit Stamblade main
Dark Elf Magsorc
Redguard Stamina Dragonknight
Orc Stamplar PVP
Breton Magsorc PVP
Dark Elf Necromancer
Dark Elf Magden
Khajiit Stamblade
Khajiit Stamina Arcanist
PS5 NA1 -
Tornaad✭✭✭✭✭
✭katanagirl1 wrote: »Kind of ironic that those seeking a higher level of difficulty aren’t happy with grinding through the easy levels multiple times but are fine with those seeking a lower level of difficulty doing that exact same thing.
I am actually fine with the grind. Yes, I would love the idea of having a save, but that is a different story and does not change the fact that I am still looking forward to the Endless Archive.
0 -
Caligamy_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭
The responses to this thread ^Edited by Caligamy_ESO on October 30, 2023 6:28AMlove is love3 -
Tornaad✭✭✭✭✭
✭Caligamy_ESO wrote: »
The responses to this thread ^
Haha that's awesome. I'm still having fun. I'm still looking forward to the endless archive.0 -
Holycannoli✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭"Each new run starts from the beginning (no saving and starting again) so planning and preparation are key."
"Rewards are offered to adventurers who delve the furthest!"
So rewards will go to whoever has the most time they can dedicate to gaming. Once you start EA you cannot stop, you cannot log off, you cannot queue for a dungeon or PvP. It's EA and only EA for you now. If you want any chance at a reward you will have to call out of work or pretend you're sick to stay home from school because you are locked into EA with no saving or continuing where you left off. You only have like two hours in the evening to play? Hah! No rewards for you!Edited by Holycannoli on October 30, 2023 3:53PM1 -
jarlragnar✭✭✭Been through the archives and so far with my archive currency ive won, i have looted 3 bows from the same class container. There is no way im going to grind for gear just to use my archive currency for items ive already collected, This needs to be fixed0
