nnargun wrote: »

Bryanonymous wrote: »

I remember the classic arguments before 1t, players would complain that as they leveled up and went further into silver and gold, it felt to them like there was no progression because the difficulty always remained high as they went up in level.

Now I personally love a challenge, which is why I always play games on hard and I minimize all UI elements that are not essential, however looking back, it’s easy to identify what the problem is...

Progression in this game rewards players by making the game easier. Every time you level up, you unlock more ‘skills’ (lol) which actually make the game easier. Of course, they also level the enemies around you so it doesn’t get too easy, but that ends at cp160.

At that point, the only content that will be hard will be specifically designed to exceed the battle level. It’s a flaw in the design of the reward system itself. They based their reward for progression on making the game easier. Those who say they don’t want to take armor off because it defeats the purpose of the rewards they earned... by attempting to raise the difficulty, that’s exactly what you want. Your reward was to make the game easier. No much of a reward, I know, but that’s was the level grind is.

More skills shouldn't make the game easier though. That's the point. Content should get harder so that the extra skills are actually needed to proceed. Overall it should make the game harder because you have to handle more skills and mechanics at the same time. I level to be able to do some content I couldn't do before, not to be able to rush where I could only go slow before.

Perhaps skill points for abilities, but the champion points are all about making your stats higher thus making the game easier. Perhaps your gripe should be with the fact that the battle level ends at cp160.

Yeah, so I'm a new player, and while I can't speak to endgame right now, the grind upward is pretty fun. I might be biased because I'm doing overland content solo right now until higher levels. Experimenting with my build and seeing what works for me and what playstyle I can pull off.

Playing like this keeps it challenging. I've played elder scrolls games before, dunno if that helps or not. But it's satisfying so far. I'm just glad there IS a climb, a satisfying ascension to endgame. With a couple more people though, the difficulty is a pushover.

I'm also biased however because I've come from another game where... just trust me. Your difficulty and content on the way up is miles ahead and your endgame is probably way better too.

Raudgrani wrote: »

So you still want to struggle killing random NPC's and wolves? We all did once. But once you become better, what was once hard isn't so hard anymore, right? I don't know if it's a matter of melancholy on your behalf, but I guess you need to move on, and find other aspects of the game appealing. Trials, PVP, collecting achievements, make crafting styles complete and what not. Or maybe it's time for you to simply move on to some other game? I mean, there are new players - and you really can't make overland content equally challenging for a lvl 3 and a cp 690, right?

Why can't you? Why, for instance, does difficulty scaling stop after 160 CP? Not that it's satisfyingly challenging with 160 CP but why does it have to get even easier?

Bryanonymous wrote: »

I’m actually considering playing without armor now. :P

I did that but the lack of resources is unbearable.

Edit: maybe it's possible to come up with a cool build for overland that doesn't make you op but gives you good sustain?

Bryanonymous wrote: »

nnargun wrote: »

Bryanonymous wrote: »

I remember the classic arguments before 1t, players would complain that as they leveled up and went further into silver and gold, it felt to them like there was no progression because the difficulty always remained high as they went up in level.

Now I personally love a challenge, which is why I always play games on hard and I minimize all UI elements that are not essential, however looking back, it’s easy to identify what the problem is...

Progression in this game rewards players by making the game easier. Every time you level up, you unlock more ‘skills’ (lol) which actually make the game easier. Of course, they also level the enemies around you so it doesn’t get too easy, but that ends at cp160.

At that point, the only content that will be hard will be specifically designed to exceed the battle level. It’s a flaw in the design of the reward system itself. They based their reward for progression on making the game easier. Those who say they don’t want to take armor off because it defeats the purpose of the rewards they earned... by attempting to raise the difficulty, that’s exactly what you want. Your reward was to make the game easier. No much of a reward, I know, but that’s was the level grind is.

More skills shouldn't make the game easier though. That's the point. Content should get harder so that the extra skills are actually needed to proceed. Overall it should make the game harder because you have to handle more skills and mechanics at the same time. I level to be able to do some content I couldn't do before, not to be able to rush where I could only go slow before.

Perhaps skill points for abilities, but the champion points are all about making your stats higher thus making the game easier. Perhaps your gripe should be with the fact that the battle level ends at cp160.

Well, yes, that's a fundamental issue in the design of the CP system; it mostly just gives raw stats and static bonuses that force you to specialize (and make you simply more powerful, leading to power creep and nerfs) instead of passives that allow you to customize and make playstyles viable that weren't before.

However, even without CP you won't find much of a challenge as a veteran player in open world outside of some world bosses and Craglorn equivalents, which is just sad.

.....

exeeter702 wrote: »

DieAlteHexe wrote: »

ArvenAldmeri wrote: »

The fact that the overland content is this easy just makes noobs stay noobs because they think they are doing well since they are fine completing all the quests and tiny dungeons etc. The amount of people who never look up for build is rather scary tbh because sometimes you need people who have max CP and still cant play the game properly (we had a guy join trial using inner fire as spammable... he was NOT tank)

I don't think you are taking into account the number of people who are not trying for nor gearing up to do PvP or vet dungeons etc.

Hi. I'm one of them. I have no interest in those but I have a lot of interest in the quests, most of the achievements, crafting, faffing about with my houses etc.

I'm playing the game "properly" when I can avail myself of the content I want and not croak.

Not everyone plays an MMO to compete.

-signed,

Content PermaNoob

So you enjoy a game without player risk or failure states? You do not want a game, you want an "experience"

I have no idea what you're trying to insinuate with this comment so I can't really debate it with you. But I can say this, I enjoy this game a lot. That I don't want adrenaline pumping "excitement" does not mean that I "do not want a game...", it simply means that I enjoy THIS game pretty much as is.

DieAlteHexe wrote: »

.....

exeeter702 wrote: »

DieAlteHexe wrote: »

ArvenAldmeri wrote: »

The fact that the overland content is this easy just makes noobs stay noobs because they think they are doing well since they are fine completing all the quests and tiny dungeons etc. The amount of people who never look up for build is rather scary tbh because sometimes you need people who have max CP and still cant play the game properly (we had a guy join trial using inner fire as spammable... he was NOT tank)

I don't think you are taking into account the number of people who are not trying for nor gearing up to do PvP or vet dungeons etc.

Hi. I'm one of them. I have no interest in those but I have a lot of interest in the quests, most of the achievements, crafting, faffing about with my houses etc.

I'm playing the game "properly" when I can avail myself of the content I want and not croak.

Not everyone plays an MMO to compete.

-signed,

Content PermaNoob

So you enjoy a game without player risk or failure states? You do not want a game, you want an "experience"

I have no idea what you're trying to insinuate with this comment so I can't really debate it with you. But I can say this, I enjoy this game a lot. That I don't want adrenaline pumping "excitement" does not mean that I "do not want a game...", it simply means that I enjoy THIS game pretty much as is.

Because when a game fails to engage the player in ways that incentivize overcoming challenge with clear failure and victory states, it becomes more of an interactive experience with no risk/reward dynamic.

The argument here is that in this game such a dynamic exists in end game / pvp which is such a paltry amount of the games overall package.

It has nothing to do with epeen elitism and everything to do with wanting a game that does not coddle players, and actually respects their intellegence while creating an enviroment that lends itself to the entirety of the game without sacrificing integrity.

Having an accessible ie without challenge, overland experience solely for story delivery is not some kind of mandatory rule. Creating an overland experience that delivers on the narrative front while pushing players to overcome mild odds and teach them aspects of the game that creates in them a desire to test themselves in more difficult environments like dungeons or trials.

It is the game design ideology of "here, keep playing this if you are comfortable, we wont make it hard for you, so stay in your comfort zone and enjoy the content"

Vs

"Here, we are going to provide you the tools and lessons, via early progression game play so you can learn and improve. This empowerment will hopefully encourage you to step out of your comfort zone and rise to the fair challenge we present you with. Resulting in higher engagement overall"

Some people want their mmos al la carte in that each different type of content can be isolated from one another and be exclusively "enough" for a given player. Others want the game in its entirety to lend itself to all aspects of it in some way or another.

Having cleared cwc and vvardenfell recently on a new character without spending cp and only using looted and queat reward gear, i do not believe the difficulty is in a good place in this game in a good spot. And would like to think a little nore highly of the capabilities of your average 16+ year old gamer to be able to handle a little more than what we currently have as eso overland content.

After reading both sides of the argument and a variety of possible solutions, the one I like best is the suggestion for some kind of player debuff that is only applied by the player themselves and thus adjusts their stats and the amount of damage they take while increasing reward possibilities (higher percentages for higher tiered rewards). Tying it to some kind of story/achievements may also make people more likely to participate and work towards being able to do that mode. Some people still won't be happy with this because its purposefully 'cripples' their character but it seems to be the best compromise between providing more of a challenge for those who want it while incentivizing doing so for the added rewards/achievements without forcing it on those who are satisfied.

exeeter702 wrote: »

DieAlteHexe wrote: »

.....

exeeter702 wrote: »

DieAlteHexe wrote: »

ArvenAldmeri wrote: »

The fact that the overland content is this easy just makes noobs stay noobs because they think they are doing well since they are fine completing all the quests and tiny dungeons etc. The amount of people who never look up for build is rather scary tbh because sometimes you need people who have max CP and still cant play the game properly (we had a guy join trial using inner fire as spammable... he was NOT tank)

I don't think you are taking into account the number of people who are not trying for nor gearing up to do PvP or vet dungeons etc.

Hi. I'm one of them. I have no interest in those but I have a lot of interest in the quests, most of the achievements, crafting, faffing about with my houses etc.

I'm playing the game "properly" when I can avail myself of the content I want and not croak.

Not everyone plays an MMO to compete.

-signed,

Content PermaNoob

So you enjoy a game without player risk or failure states? You do not want a game, you want an "experience"

I have no idea what you're trying to insinuate with this comment so I can't really debate it with you. But I can say this, I enjoy this game a lot. That I don't want adrenaline pumping "excitement" does not mean that I "do not want a game...", it simply means that I enjoy THIS game pretty much as is.

Because when a game fails to engage the player in ways that incentivize overcoming challenge with clear failure and victory states, it becomes more of an interactive experience with no risk/reward dynamic.

The argument here is that in this game such a dynamic exists in end game / pvp which is such a paltry amount of the games overall package.

It has nothing to do with epeen elitism and everything to do with wanting a game that does not coddle players, and actually respects their intellegence while creating an enviroment that lends itself to the entirety of the game without sacrificing integrity.

Having an accessible ie without challenge, overland experience solely for story delivery is not some kind of mandatory rule. Creating an overland experience that delivers on the narrative front while pushing players to overcome mild odds and teach them aspects of the game that creates in them a desire to test themselves in more difficult environments like dungeons or trials.

It is the game design ideology of "here, keep playing this if you are comfortable, we wont make it hard for you, so stay in your comfort zone and enjoy the content"

Vs

"Here, we are going to provide you the tools and lessons, via early progression game play so you can learn and improve. This empowerment will hopefully encourage you to step out of your comfort zone and rise to the fair challenge we present you with. Resulting in higher engagement overall"

Some people want their mmos al la carte in that each different type of content can be isolated from one another and be exclusively "enough" for a given player. Others want the game in its entirety to lend itself to all aspects of it in some way or another.

Having cleared cwc and vvardenfell recently on a new character without spending cp and only using looted and queat reward gear, i do not believe the difficulty is in a good place in this game in a good spot. And would like to think a little nore highly of the capabilities of your average 16+ year old gamer to be able to handle a little more than what we currently have as eso overland content.

I'm not here to "step out of my comfort zone". I have to do that in real life on a daily basis. I come to gaming as a diversion, a source of entertainment.

What I'm seeing here (and in every other game this has come up in and that's, oh, pretty much all MMOs once they reach a certain age) is that there are those who game for relaxation, diversion, socialising etc. and those who want a challenge (whilst sometimes those merge, usually folk have a preference. As an aside, from past discussions about this in other MMOs,
it's be noted that many of the folk who want more challenge are frustrated PvPers which makes sense. Maybe that is something to consider here?) The wise dev house tries to satisfy both but unfortunately those who want a challenge tend to rip through content so it's a bit harder to keep up with them.

When a game fails to engage me (for whatever reason) I find one that does.

I have.

As for adding content, a switch, an option, whatever would work to give those for whom a challenge is paramount, fine by me so long as I'm not dragged into the whole "needs more challenge" thing.
'
I'm good with where it is now, for the most part aside from small issues that aren't pertinent to this discussion.

Motherball wrote: »

exeeter702 wrote: »

So you enjoy a game without player risk or failure states? You do not want a game, you want an "experience"

So solitaire, golf, majong, crossword puzzles, and wheres waldo are just experiences now. Thank you for the lesson in semantics.

In my opinion, you get back what you put in to any game or experience. It only takes a little imagination to tailor the experience to your liking. ESO allows players to do this more than any other online rpg ive ever played. Maybe players could take some initiative instead of expecting the game to force every experience.

The distinction was relevant to my point. Obviously there is a bit of hyperbole when claiming there is absolutely zero ways to fail in overland, but you really have to try or be highly inpet at playing a game of this type. If someone exclusively wants to take in a story being told to them or "faff about" with housing which is perfectly fine mind you, that persons perspective on the subject is flawed since they are considering how a difficulty spike would effect their comfort zone as opposed how it would or would not benefit the game in general.

Also every game you mentioned has a failure state.

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

exeeter702 wrote: »

DieAlteHexe wrote: »

.....

exeeter702 wrote: »

DieAlteHexe wrote: »

ArvenAldmeri wrote: »

The fact that the overland content is this easy just makes noobs stay noobs because they think they are doing well since they are fine completing all the quests and tiny dungeons etc. The amount of people who never look up for build is rather scary tbh because sometimes you need people who have max CP and still cant play the game properly (we had a guy join trial using inner fire as spammable... he was NOT tank)

I don't think you are taking into account the number of people who are not trying for nor gearing up to do PvP or vet dungeons etc.

Hi. I'm one of them. I have no interest in those but I have a lot of interest in the quests, most of the achievements, crafting, faffing about with my houses etc.

I'm playing the game "properly" when I can avail myself of the content I want and not croak.

Not everyone plays an MMO to compete.

-signed,

Content PermaNoob

So you enjoy a game without player risk or failure states? You do not want a game, you want an "experience"

I have no idea what you're trying to insinuate with this comment so I can't really debate it with you. But I can say this, I enjoy this game a lot. That I don't want adrenaline pumping "excitement" does not mean that I "do not want a game...", it simply means that I enjoy THIS game pretty much as is.

Because when a game fails to engage the player in ways that incentivize overcoming challenge with clear failure and victory states, it becomes more of an interactive experience with no risk/reward dynamic.

The argument here is that in this game such a dynamic exists in end game / pvp which is such a paltry amount of the games overall package.

It has nothing to do with epeen elitism and everything to do with wanting a game that does not coddle players, and actually respects their intellegence while creating an enviroment that lends itself to the entirety of the game without sacrificing integrity.

Having an accessible ie without challenge, overland experience solely for story delivery is not some kind of mandatory rule. Creating an overland experience that delivers on the narrative front while pushing players to overcome mild odds and teach them aspects of the game that creates in them a desire to test themselves in more difficult environments like dungeons or trials.

It is the game design ideology of "here, keep playing this if you are comfortable, we wont make it hard for you, so stay in your comfort zone and enjoy the content"

Vs

"Here, we are going to provide you the tools and lessons, via early progression game play so you can learn and improve. This empowerment will hopefully encourage you to step out of your comfort zone and rise to the fair challenge we present you with. Resulting in higher engagement overall"

Some people want their mmos al la carte in that each different type of content can be isolated from one another and be exclusively "enough" for a given player. Others want the game in its entirety to lend itself to all aspects of it in some way or another.

Having cleared cwc and vvardenfell recently on a new character without spending cp and only using looted and queat reward gear, i do not believe the difficulty is in a good place in this game in a good spot. And would like to think a little nore highly of the capabilities of your average 16+ year old gamer to be able to handle a little more than what we currently have as eso overland content.

Correction: It fails to engage -you-.

REPEAT AFTER ME SUBJECT 2045. I AM NOT ALL PLAYERS. I AM NOT ALLL PLAYERS.

Sigh.... why are you even here man. Honeslty, are you even contributing to anything right now? Spare me the caps lock please.

DieAlteHexe wrote: »

exeeter702 wrote: »

Motherball wrote: »

exeeter702 wrote: »

So you enjoy a game without player risk or failure states? You do not want a game, you want an "experience"

So solitaire, golf, majong, crossword puzzles, and wheres waldo are just experiences now. Thank you for the lesson in semantics.

In my opinion, you get back what you put in to any game or experience. It only takes a little imagination to tailor the experience to your liking. ESO allows players to do this more than any other online rpg ive ever played. Maybe players could take some initiative instead of expecting the game to force every experience.

The distinction was relevant to my point. Obviously there is a bit of hyperbole when claiming there is absolutely zero ways to fail in overland, but you really have to try or be highly inpet at playing a game of this type. If someone exclusively wants to take in a story being told to them or "faff about" with housing which is perfectly fine mind you, that persons perspective on the subject is flawed since they are considering how a difficulty spike would effect their comfort zone as opposed how it would or would not benefit the game in general.

Also every game you mentioned has a failure state.

Not all of us are actually "good" at these games for numerous reasons. Age, disabilities, clumsy blah blah blah. Where these sort of discussions tend to fail is in the apparent inability for some in the discussions to realise that not everyone is on the same level of ability.

Their perspective is no more flawed than that of those who want to be white-knuckled and thrillingly challenged. Too, I remain skeptical about how if the content were more challenging it would benefit the game aside from those for whom challenge is paramount (and we really have no idea how many folk that might be) Were that the case, would we have seen 1T? Strikes me as having been rolled out in an attempt to bring in more people of a less wanting to be challenged nature and it seems to have done the trick.

There should be content for both but ANY type content should not be to the exclusion of the other unless, obviously, a game is meant to be a certain way (shooters etc.). This is an MMORPG, which should have RPG elements, grouping elements, challenges, socialisation etc.

Again, I'm more than happy to support, nay agitate for content for those for whom the game is not challenging enough. However that does not extend to a point where it screws up the way the game is now (WAD) and ruins my fun.

I understand completely what you are saying. But that is the razors edge that im talking about. I am coming from an angle af bare minimum of standard game play interaction. Of course there are those with disabilities but that is an arguably extreme example. Im talking about simple interface interaction under the ruleset that eso establishes itself under. It is very difficult to fail under these circumstances when playing the game at an average level. You have to draw the line somewhere. Accommodating players with disabilities is one thing, catering to the absolutely lowest common denominator is entirely another. There is a way to include and satisfy most player types, i believe it can be handled better.

1T was a result of a great deal of legacy design issues, not only creating a more accessible playable experience in terms of difficulty, although it was surely part of it. The vet grind was crap to be sure but thst isnt what people are exactly asking for when they say they want the overland to have more danger or challenge.

exeeter702 wrote: »

DieAlteHexe wrote: »

exeeter702 wrote: »

Motherball wrote: »

exeeter702 wrote: »

So you enjoy a game without player risk or failure states? You do not want a game, you want an "experience"

So solitaire, golf, majong, crossword puzzles, and wheres waldo are just experiences now. Thank you for the lesson in semantics.

In my opinion, you get back what you put in to any game or experience. It only takes a little imagination to tailor the experience to your liking. ESO allows players to do this more than any other online rpg ive ever played. Maybe players could take some initiative instead of expecting the game to force every experience.

The distinction was relevant to my point. Obviously there is a bit of hyperbole when claiming there is absolutely zero ways to fail in overland, but you really have to try or be highly inpet at playing a game of this type. If someone exclusively wants to take in a story being told to them or "faff about" with housing which is perfectly fine mind you, that persons perspective on the subject is flawed since they are considering how a difficulty spike would effect their comfort zone as opposed how it would or would not benefit the game in general.

Also every game you mentioned has a failure state.

Not all of us are actually "good" at these games for numerous reasons. Age, disabilities, clumsy blah blah blah. Where these sort of discussions tend to fail is in the apparent inability for some in the discussions to realise that not everyone is on the same level of ability.

Their perspective is no more flawed than that of those who want to be white-knuckled and thrillingly challenged. Too, I remain skeptical about how if the content were more challenging it would benefit the game aside from those for whom challenge is paramount (and we really have no idea how many folk that might be) Were that the case, would we have seen 1T? Strikes me as having been rolled out in an attempt to bring in more people of a less wanting to be challenged nature and it seems to have done the trick.

There should be content for both but ANY type content should not be to the exclusion of the other unless, obviously, a game is meant to be a certain way (shooters etc.). This is an MMORPG, which should have RPG elements, grouping elements, challenges, socialisation etc.

Again, I'm more than happy to support, nay agitate for content for those for whom the game is not challenging enough. However that does not extend to a point where it screws up the way the game is now (WAD) and ruins my fun.

I understand completely what you are saying. But that is the razors edge that im talking about. I am coming from an angle af bare minimum of standard game play interaction. Of course there are those with disabilities but that is an arguably extreme example. Im talking about simple interface interaction under the ruleset that eso establishes itself under. It is very difficult to fail under these circumstances when playing the game at an average level. You have to draw the line somewhere. Accommodating players with disabilities is one thing, catering to the absolutely lowest common denominator is entirely another. There is a way to include and satisfy most player types, i believe it can be handled better.

1T was a result of a great deal of legacy design issues, not only creating a more accessible playable experience in terms of difficulty, although it was surely part of it. The vet grind was crap to be sure but thst isnt what people are exactly asking for when they say they want the overland to have more danger or challenge.

I'm not just referring to those with disabilities. I'm referring to a body of players for whatever reason are not interested in being challenged at every turn. There are places to go to when one wants to be challenged. We apparently need more and that's cool, I'm all for it.

Overland needs to remain essentially as it is and what needs to happen is for MORE areas (however they choose to do this) for those who want to be challenged.

IOW, buff not nerf. Give those who want harder goals a place to achieve that but don't muck about with overland as a whole.

That seems pretty reasonable to me.

exeeter702 wrote: »

DieAlteHexe wrote: »

exeeter702 wrote: »

DieAlteHexe wrote: »

exeeter702 wrote: »

Motherball wrote: »

exeeter702 wrote: »

So you enjoy a game without player risk or failure states? You do not want a game, you want an "experience"

So solitaire, golf, majong, crossword puzzles, and wheres waldo are just experiences now. Thank you for the lesson in semantics.

In my opinion, you get back what you put in to any game or experience. It only takes a little imagination to tailor the experience to your liking. ESO allows players to do this more than any other online rpg ive ever played. Maybe players could take some initiative instead of expecting the game to force every experience.

The distinction was relevant to my point. Obviously there is a bit of hyperbole when claiming there is absolutely zero ways to fail in overland, but you really have to try or be highly inpet at playing a game of this type. If someone exclusively wants to take in a story being told to them or "faff about" with housing which is perfectly fine mind you, that persons perspective on the subject is flawed since they are considering how a difficulty spike would effect their comfort zone as opposed how it would or would not benefit the game in general.

Also every game you mentioned has a failure state.

Not all of us are actually "good" at these games for numerous reasons. Age, disabilities, clumsy blah blah blah. Where these sort of discussions tend to fail is in the apparent inability for some in the discussions to realise that not everyone is on the same level of ability.

Their perspective is no more flawed than that of those who want to be white-knuckled and thrillingly challenged. Too, I remain skeptical about how if the content were more challenging it would benefit the game aside from those for whom challenge is paramount (and we really have no idea how many folk that might be) Were that the case, would we have seen 1T? Strikes me as having been rolled out in an attempt to bring in more people of a less wanting to be challenged nature and it seems to have done the trick.

There should be content for both but ANY type content should not be to the exclusion of the other unless, obviously, a game is meant to be a certain way (shooters etc.). This is an MMORPG, which should have RPG elements, grouping elements, challenges, socialisation etc.

Again, I'm more than happy to support, nay agitate for content for those for whom the game is not challenging enough. However that does not extend to a point where it screws up the way the game is now (WAD) and ruins my fun.

I understand completely what you are saying. But that is the razors edge that im talking about. I am coming from an angle af bare minimum of standard game play interaction. Of course there are those with disabilities but that is an arguably extreme example. Im talking about simple interface interaction under the ruleset that eso establishes itself under. It is very difficult to fail under these circumstances when playing the game at an average level. You have to draw the line somewhere. Accommodating players with disabilities is one thing, catering to the absolutely lowest common denominator is entirely another. There is a way to include and satisfy most player types, i believe it can be handled better.

1T was a result of a great deal of legacy design issues, not only creating a more accessible playable experience in terms of difficulty, although it was surely part of it. The vet grind was crap to be sure but thst isnt what people are exactly asking for when they say they want the overland to have more danger or challenge.

I'm not just referring to those with disabilities. I'm referring to a body of players for whatever reason are not interested in being challenged at every turn. There are places to go to when one wants to be challenged. We apparently need more and that's cool, I'm all for it.

Overland needs to remain essentially as it is and what needs to happen is for MORE areas (however they choose to do this) for those who want to be challenged.

IOW, buff not nerf. Give those who want harder goals a place to achieve that but don't muck about with overland as a whole.

That seems pretty reasonable to me.

I want to stress im not really arguing for the game to become harder. I was trying to give some insight as to why some players desire it. Personally i like harder content in both solo and group play in my games in general. I understand eso is not going that route and all things considered likely shouldnt at this point, a harder game would for sure effect the bottom line. I would like if it was, but i understand enough to know why they wont.

My ideal scenario is a seperate instance or zone wide phasing that places players who near max cp into that is scaled up in difficulty. Pulls need to be calculated, surroundings need to be observed, patrols aggroing is a serious obstacle etc etc, just a naturally more dangeous environment that i can partake in that pushes my level of character progression to its apex in a non dungeon, more organic environment with more random elements.

But therein lies the biggest issue of all, the incentive has to be there and when that happens you create the have and have nots dynamic. You enjoy a casual paced game play session, which is fine, but what if you put a lot of value in something like crafting. And a hard instanced zone has increased chance to drop legendary mats or motif styles. There are many that would be outraged, this is just an example ofc. Do you as i said earlier, step out of your comfort zone and rise to the challenge to feed into a feature ofbthe game you place value in (crafting)?, do you accept that its out of your reach? Or do you claim unfair treatment and demand inclusion in said rewards because "it doesnt effect anyone else' gameplay"?. Its all cyclical.

I get why some folks want more challenge, not sure why you think I don't?

As for your crafting example; I'm honest about my stance and in that particular case, I'd be happy to pay someone to obtain what I needed. And, if that wasn't possible (BoP) then I'd accept that my choice prevents me from obtaining that BUT here's the thing, I have found that, in the main, unless one is going after the really tough stuff, one doesn't need much in the way of über gear.

Again, I support ADDITION of more challenging content...kind of getting tired of saying that.

What I am against is changing overland overall. Add, don't nerf.