jkemmery wrote: »

Does anyone else find it ironic that @Dahveed seems to have spent as much time explaining why he doesn't like the game as he claims to have spent playing it?

Shunravi wrote: »

jkemmery wrote: »

Does anyone else find it ironic that @Dahveed seems to have spent as much time explaining why he doesn't like the game as he claims to have spent playing it?

The forum is signifigantly more challenging conten then the game.

Zakor wrote: »

Alphashado wrote: »

I just cannot fathom the level of misunderstanding in this thread. @Dahveed has said several times that the game is too easy while admitting that he hasn't even played anything other than 1-50 normal content. When I suggested many other things to do in order to find challenging content, he said that he shouldn't have to get to "endgame" in order to enjoy a challenge.

I am trying to explain that level 50 is not endgame. I couldn't be more clear or concise. The graph is meant to demonstrate to those that haven't reached level 50 yet that the amount of time required to get from 1-50 is a small fraction of the time and XP required to get from V1-V16. Endgame, by its definition, is things you do when your character is at "Max Level". Max level in ESO is V16, NOT level 50. 1-50 is a tiny, tiny, tiny amount of content compared to the rest of the game. Using 1-50 as criteria to judge the entire game is outlandish.


Here is my honest opinion because just like a certain political candidate, I am tired of trying to be PC about it: Most of you guys have no idea what you are talking about or asking for. Many of you are coming here from a single player RPG and you expect ESO to revolutionize the MMO industry by using "simple technology" to do something that has never been done before. You are ignoring all of the reasonable, practical and logical explanations why it cannot and will not be done.

Furthermore, to argue about the overall quality of the game w/o experiencing more than 20% of the game content is beyond outlandish, it's borderline insane. It's like complaining that the starter islands are too easy, because that's what 1-50 content is in ESO- starter content.

I've never seen such a selfish community in an MMO, and I've been doing this for a very long time. I suppose it stems from such a large influx of people from the ES franchise that are accustomed to the entire game revolving around them.

In summery, this is not Skyrim part 2. This is an MMO. Learn to deal with the type of restrictions and lack of freedom you find in MMOs compared to single player RPGs, or go back to single player RPGs. They are not the same thing, and they never will be.

Sorry to disappoint you, but this game WAS much harder, even from 1-50. In Beta and shortly after launch the game had a challenge while leveling and questing. The questbosses were fun and sometimes you had to change your strategy to beat them. It felt like you really earned your rewards.
I made a Twink a few days ago and if i don't oneshot something, i twoshot it. This games "level phase" has been nerfed to the ground plus we have cp now -> it's damn boring to quest since there is no real challenge (even in the vet areas). Hews bane on the other hand is fun, not because the enemies are challenging but you can try to avoid them and play like a thief since it's about sneaking and not getting caught.

With the battle leveling ZOS introduced with IC and Wrothgar it should be damn easy to implement such a "difficulty slider", since they can debuff you the same way they buff a low level player to v16 stats right now.

Where are those "reasonable, practical and logical explanations" now? I personally miss the challenge ESO offered and would be damn happy to see such an option.

spoqster wrote: »

Zakor wrote: »

Alphashado wrote: »

I just cannot fathom the level of misunderstanding in this thread. @Dahveed has said several times that the game is too easy while admitting that he hasn't even played anything other than 1-50 normal content. When I suggested many other things to do in order to find challenging content, he said that he shouldn't have to get to "endgame" in order to enjoy a challenge.

I am trying to explain that level 50 is not endgame. I couldn't be more clear or concise. The graph is meant to demonstrate to those that haven't reached level 50 yet that the amount of time required to get from 1-50 is a small fraction of the time and XP required to get from V1-V16. Endgame, by its definition, is things you do when your character is at "Max Level". Max level in ESO is V16, NOT level 50. 1-50 is a tiny, tiny, tiny amount of content compared to the rest of the game. Using 1-50 as criteria to judge the entire game is outlandish.


Here is my honest opinion because just like a certain political candidate, I am tired of trying to be PC about it: Most of you guys have no idea what you are talking about or asking for. Many of you are coming here from a single player RPG and you expect ESO to revolutionize the MMO industry by using "simple technology" to do something that has never been done before. You are ignoring all of the reasonable, practical and logical explanations why it cannot and will not be done.

Furthermore, to argue about the overall quality of the game w/o experiencing more than 20% of the game content is beyond outlandish, it's borderline insane. It's like complaining that the starter islands are too easy, because that's what 1-50 content is in ESO- starter content.

I've never seen such a selfish community in an MMO, and I've been doing this for a very long time. I suppose it stems from such a large influx of people from the ES franchise that are accustomed to the entire game revolving around them.

In summery, this is not Skyrim part 2. This is an MMO. Learn to deal with the type of restrictions and lack of freedom you find in MMOs compared to single player RPGs, or go back to single player RPGs. They are not the same thing, and they never will be.

Sorry to disappoint you, but this game WAS much harder, even from 1-50. In Beta and shortly after launch the game had a challenge while leveling and questing. The questbosses were fun and sometimes you had to change your strategy to beat them. It felt like you really earned your rewards.
I made a Twink a few days ago and if i don't oneshot something, i twoshot it. This games "level phase" has been nerfed to the ground plus we have cp now -> it's damn boring to quest since there is no real challenge (even in the vet areas). Hews bane on the other hand is fun, not because the enemies are challenging but you can try to avoid them and play like a thief since it's about sneaking and not getting caught.

With the battle leveling ZOS introduced with IC and Wrothgar it should be damn easy to implement such a "difficulty slider", since they can debuff you the same way they buff a low level player to v16 stats right now.

Where are those "reasonable, practical and logical explanations" now? I personally miss the challenge ESO offered and would be damn happy to see such an option.

Thank god! Finally someone with a brain!

I've suggested it very early in the thread. You'll find it if you look through it. But this type of intelligent suggestion was ignored by most, so that they could carry on with their childish debate.

Alphashado wrote: »

You guys are basically complaining that the starter area is too easy. Your loudest and most vocal proponent admits he has never even left the starter area.

The developers have gone out of their way to create content that is intentionally challenging for those who enjoy a good challenge, yet you refuse to partake in this content, or you refuse to even leave the starter area.

complaining that 1-50 (starter content) is too easy while intentionally avoiding content specifically designed to facilitate more of a challenge simply demonstrates how selfish you are. You are demanding that the entire game be restructured and modified in order to meet your taste. To heck with all the other people that would be adversely effected by some dork who strolls into a group event with a debuff cranked up.

The game has easy content and it has hard content. To dwell in the easy content while ignoring the hard content, then complaining how easy it is... well that is just plain selfish. Plain and simple.

Most people oppose a difficulty slider/debuff for two main reasons:
#1 It would be an INCREDIBLE waste of resources since there are way more pressing issues to address, especially since there are PLENTY of areas with more of a challenge.
#2 Nobody wants to deal with some dork in his underwear using a debuff coming to "help" them do a dolmen, world boss, or public dungeon.

There are REASONS (I have my own ideas as to these reasons, two of which are listed above) why no other open world, persistent MMO has ever done it. We can only speculate on the exact reasons, as that is up for debate, but the fact is that it hasn't been done before. Don't you think if it were so easy to install and manage that it would have been done by now considering the hundreds of main stream MMOs we have now?

You are asking the developers to waste precious resources implementing something that has never been done before in order to facilitate your desire to make all content harder while specifically ignoring already existing challenging content.

Shunravi wrote: »

xellink wrote: »

Dahveed wrote: »

xellink wrote: »

Dahveed wrote: »

ESO could make a bold move, and be the first MMO on the planet that DOESN'T have boring, crappy, sucky, faceroll 1-50 content.

And they could do it with one easy debuff, which *GASP* may, on occasion, slightly inconvenience the odd player who is questing in the world.

difficulty is really subjective.

There is no need for slider.

There IS need for a slider, precisely BECAUSE difficulty is subjective.

i din't say there is no need for difficulty adjustment, but its already there, just remove your armor.

Read the op again please

Dahveed wrote: »

Shunravi wrote: »

DenMoria wrote: »

This whole conversation is now officially boring and circular.

Either enjoy the game or don't.

The game wasn't designed just for you.

An MMO does not function the same way as a single-player, therefore the coding involved in implementing something as "simple" as a slider is quantum light years more difficult than in a single-player as it involves many, many thousands of players, not just you.

Not everyone wants to play a game (particularly on the Tutorial levels 1-50) at punishing difficulty (thus, not everyone loves the Soul series).

If you are such an "incredibly good" player that even the most difficult of programmed bosses are a cakewalk, then it is time to move on.

You are not the center of the universe. The game is not just for you.

If you don't like it. Don't play it.

Do not punish the many many thousands of other players by suggesting that the entire game, it's mechanics and it's coding be re-written just to please you.

Lastly: If you have designed, produced and fully understand the programming that goes in to the creation of something like ESO (or any other MMO) then you can make suggestions for programming changes and educate everyone else on the most appropriate ways to go about doing that with the minimum of disruption to other users.

If not, then just shut up and stop whining.

If you have never heard of the "cascade effect" in coding and programming, perhaps you should educate yourself. To many complainers have no idea just how many moving pieces there are in any sort of programming.

@DenMoria I'll just craft these potions of reduce armor, spell resist, and lower weapon power over here while you keep saying what the op is asking for won't work. As you can't use all three at the same time though, I guess it will have to be a choice of what to nerf when, but it will work.

Now I'm going to petition for Sheogoraths rotten cabbage that applies all minor debuffs to yourself, and Sheogoraths moldy cheese that applies the majors. Both on 2 hour timers. That uses the games current assets, does what the OP is asking for, and wont affect you at all! Aint it great?

Wait, what? These are already in the game?

How do I get them?

Selstad wrote: »

Joining the fray on this debate again, though let me say from the outset; I'm not against higher difficulty. But difficulty is and will always be a crux, since some think it's too difficult while others think it's too easy. It's a personal experience, and each has his own take on how it should be.

Now to the idea that I read most about is the applying of a buff that decreases your health and damage, and/or increases the health and damage of monsters. Now fundamentally, the idea is sound and good. Practically though, not so much.

Balance the buff to function on all monsters and areas of the game

This is in my view one of the trickiest departments to make the idea work. Each NPC in the game has his sort of damage output. Some are nothing more than canon fodders, others pose a bigger threat. Let me take an example, as a sorcerer with 10k health and 25k shields. However against the archer attacks, I can seriously take a pounding, since arrows count as physical damage, and I have no physical damage mitigation. So it's a ranged attack, dealing damage as a melee attack, but as I'm a ranged, I shouldn't be in range of melee attacks, and as such shouldn't need physical damage mitigation. Now scale this up, and/or scale me down, and this monster will 1 shot me. Other monsters however with ranged attacks - such as magicka based ones - don't do any damage at all to me, due to high spell resistance. These monsters would have to be seriously buffed and me seriously debuffed, to pose an actual threat to me.

Now what is my point here? My point is that balancing the buff that increases the difficulty, is easier said than done. The buff isn't dynamic, yet the damage you receive will be, based on what creature you fight. Where do you draw the line? How much should you decrease the player's health and damage output? Which creature do you base your calculations on? People might not think it will be a balance act, but it will be, and difficulty adjustments in an MMO isn't easy, it's rather complex due to the amount of quests, creatures and abilities.

Another side is that this is an open world MMO, and some might not choose to have that buff on them, so they operate on full power. Why is this important? Well say you have the buff on that decreases your health and damage, happy camper, things take time to kill, and you have to avoid and dodge around to survive. You come across a boss, engages it, it's difficult but fun. Then comes a regular player that doesn't have that buff. Within 3 seconds the boss is dead, mostly killed by the regular player.

Since you will always be along other players that might not choose the same as you, you'll most definitely eventually end up along players that don't have your difficulty setting, and as such kill things quickly, and inadvertently make things easy for you.

What can be done?

This is a rather good question. I do understand that some people want higher difficulty, and perhaps it's about time the MMO companies start looking into the dynamics of difficulties and build their game around that dynamic. Players are not a static group, they're rather complex and diverse, and some want it more difficult than others. I don't think that a sliding difficulty setting or a buff option, is a viable or good solution. I foresee a load of problems that way, as explained above. It sounds good on paper, but it can go sour really quickly.

Lets bear in mind a few points here while going through what can be done:

1. Monsters are dynamic and their damage output is as well
2. Quest diversity and quest specific monsters / bosses have their own difficulty
3. It's an MMO, and as such also an open world with many players around that select their difficulty
4. A lot of different areas, dungeons and other places that offers their own difficult, per example public dungeons

Now all of this has to be taken into consideration, and the difficulty buff has to be balanced so that the player is challenged, yet not overcome by it. Is this achievable with a regular buff? No, I'm sorry, it's not. The game is too complex for that to function, and there are too many areas of the game that has to be taken into consideration when you decide how much of the damage output and health you're going to remove from the player.

Potential solutions

A potential solution is a bit of mixture. Lets lean back a bit; what do we have available that can be used? We can buff players, removing health and damage output. Though as I've said above, this adds a host of different problems that's difficult to do something about in a dynamic world of an MMO. What else do we have? Well, we do have death, and as it stands today, there's not that much of a penalty to die. You die, you resurrect, you take some repair bill, that's about it. Hm, why not use that in some way? Penalize dying in such a way that players would think twice before they set themselves into a dangerous situation. But what else can we do? Consequences? Hm, why not? We have a justice system, and a bounty system, why not a more severe punishment if caught? And at the same time, make it so that sneaking around problems where you can, is a lot better than running strait into battle?

So lets recap and boil a soup of a potential solution to this problem.

First off, this package is selected by players and can be turned on and off at their own wish from an option in the game's menu. However, just to make it interesting, once set, the "reset" time to revert it to the "normal" difficulty, is 2 days. So even if you select to have it off, you still have to wait 2 days until it's normal again. Gives the players something to think about. Now what to do?

We give the players a debuff that decreases the following attributes by 20%:

• Effectiveness of healing
• Health
• Damage output
• Resistances (physical / spell)
• Primary resource (magicka / stamina)

Then we penalize death. Each time you have to resurrect yourself, the above list is increased by 20%. So if you've died 4 times, you're practically useless; you're Soul Shriven. This debuff lasts for 30 minutes and can't be removed. Each time you die, the time resets. As soul shriven, your visuals change to reflect that stage as well.

And to sprinkle it a bit for flavour; the justice system. If you're caught committing a crime, the heat doesn't reset, and the bounty doesn't disappear unless you're paying a fencer for it. And if you're caught, your options on what to do, is based on the heat. If you're a very wanted person, you'll get killed on sight. If you're caught just as a notorious one, you're thrown into jail (good luck getting out of that one). However, sneaking should also come with some benefits, per example, if you're on a quest and you successfully sneak past most of the monsters, you're rewarded for your effort. And a thief who manages to survive without being caught by the guards, gain "notoriety" with the Thieve's Guild, which reaps its benefits as well (such as a higher cut of the ill-gotten goods you're selling).

So lets recap; you're debuffed, penalized for dying, and face some severe consequences for being caught committing a crime. Yet you're also rewarded if you manage to do quests by minimal killing, and gain respect amongst your fellow thieves for managing to avoid the law.

This system should allow players to gain some difficulty back if they want to, and as well reap some rewards if they so choose the harsh life.

Zakor wrote: »

Though i like your thinking i have to disagree with your idea. The system is meant to improve the challenge whenever and only when the player wants that. Things like a reset timer or up to 80% penalty speak against that in my opinion.
You had one point that i think is very intresting and i have to agree to: a static buff may be very hard to balance. But then again, why don't make that buff dynamic? Would that be that hard? I don't think so since every enemie has a class and/or type assigned to them. It would include just a few simple checks to know what the player is fighting and then again assign a "better" debuff. I would have to think more about this than the few moments i was writing here.

On the other hand a static buff would be totally fine for the beginning, maybe in two variants:

- disable CP until v1
- reduce attributes 25%/50%
- reduce attribute regen 25%/50%
- reduce dmg done 25%/50%
- reduce healing done 25%/50% (including shields)
- reduce resistance (phy+mag) 25%/50%

The second variant could also:
- increase cost for blocking and dodge rolls
- increase potion cd
- decrease potion effects
- reduce ult generation

While we can discuss about the final numbers of the debuff i think this way would already provide the desired challenge

Selstad wrote: »

Zakor wrote: »

Though i like your thinking i have to disagree with your idea. The system is meant to improve the challenge whenever and only when the player wants that. Things like a reset timer or up to 80% penalty speak against that in my opinion.
You had one point that i think is very intresting and i have to agree to: a static buff may be very hard to balance. But then again, why don't make that buff dynamic? Would that be that hard? I don't think so since every enemie has a class and/or type assigned to them. It would include just a few simple checks to know what the player is fighting and then again assign a "better" debuff. I would have to think more about this than the few moments i was writing here.

On the other hand a static buff would be totally fine for the beginning, maybe in two variants:

- disable CP until v1
- reduce attributes 25%/50%
- reduce attribute regen 25%/50%
- reduce dmg done 25%/50%
- reduce healing done 25%/50% (including shields)
- reduce resistance (phy+mag) 25%/50%

The second variant could also:
- increase cost for blocking and dodge rolls
- increase potion cd
- decrease potion effects
- reduce ult generation

While we can discuss about the final numbers of the debuff i think this way would already provide the desired challenge

The problem with "whenever the player wants it", is that the player changes the difficulty when ever it suits them, without thinking about it. If it's a challenge they're after, then that choice shouldn't come easy and convenient. Take Diablo 3 per example, in Hardcore mode, if you die, it's permanent, no resurrection, dead. The difficulty is the same, but the consequences are not. And players don't have the convenience to turn the difficulty off if they so want to. As should be, the difficulty is not to die.

As for the dynamic buff, having a dynamic buff would be extremely difficult. How do you "read" what the players are looking at? On mouse over, apply X buff? And how would that function with multiple enemies? The difficulty would be going off like crazy unless you have some sort of reset timer, but how long would that be? How long would a standard fight last? Imagine being in the middle of a fight and suddenly the difficulty changed because the reset timer went off and you happened to have a different enemy selected. And how do you calculate what to do and how much difficulty to apply under what circumstances?

The problem with a single system difficulty, is that it doesn't really add that much difficulty to the game. Sure it takes a couple of seconds extra to kill something and you might run the risk of dying now and then, but eventually you'll become cautious enough not to die, and the game would be back at being "too easy" again; because you know what you're doing. Things in this game already has the ability to kill you if you don't know what you're doing and avoid what they throw your way, but experienced players don't think that much about it because we already know what to do and how to avoid most damage anyway. So a single system with just lower attributes and health and a slight lower damage output, simply won't cut it. You need more systems to amp up the difficulty, which was my original idea to begin with.