Would you like to see leveled zones again, as they were before One Tamriel?

Dusk_Coven · January 2020

No

MEBengalsFan2001 wrote: »

Zones should be locked until the a specific prior zone(s) are completed. Dungeons within that zone are locked out until the player completes that zone main quest. Using Glunembra as an example, if you don't complete the main story in that map SpindleClutch would not be opened up to the player until the map is completed.

FFXIV has the same. Now that the quest chain is soooo long with multiple expansions, they get to sell story-and-level completion tokens for around $20? each.
Want to play with your friends who invited you, but are further along in the story? Spend $20 to skip the story that you came here to play just so you can unlock the areas they are playing in.

We're LUCKY to have One Tamriel and devs who are trying to let you play with your friends.

And if they wanted to run an event in some zone that might take a long time to even reach? FFXIV locked themselves out that way and all their events have to only be in the major city hubs very close to the story start.

Magenpie · January 2020

Apart from anything, allowing for a change of pace is nice. It's also alt friendly. I'd also like mats tied to zone levels. WoW does both of these things nicely.

Inaya · January 2020

No

Magenpie wrote: »

Apart from anything, allowing for a change of pace is nice. It's also alt friendly. I'd also like mats tied to zone levels. WoW does both of these things nicely.

Wow became the most alt unfriendly game I ever played and their level scaling in zones is horrible. It took me awhile but I like the mats tied to crafting level as opposed to zone levels, it's just makes more sense to be able to gather level appropriate material as you go. Wow's crafting is now and always has been a joke.

Elsonso · January 2020

No

Inaya wrote: »

Magenpie wrote: »

Apart from anything, allowing for a change of pace is nice. It's also alt friendly. I'd also like mats tied to zone levels. WoW does both of these things nicely.

Wow became the most alt unfriendly game I ever played and their level scaling in zones is horrible. It took me awhile but I like the mats tied to crafting level as opposed to zone levels, it's just makes more sense to be able to gather level appropriate material as you go. Wow's crafting is now and always has been a joke.

The way that ZOS does crafting resources is, and has always been, my main objection to One Tamriel. It is not that I want zone leveled resource nodes, but that all resources should be available at all times. An iron ore node should always be an iron ore node. It should not be a Rubedite Ore node because I am CP 160. It definitely shouldn't be a pewter node, or a copper node. If I want to farm Voidstone Ore, then there should be a place, or places, I can go in the world where I can find it, no matter what my character and crafting levels are. They can be all tossed together, assigned to specific terrain or geography, or whatever other thing... besides random and leveled to my character.

Helgi_Skotina · January 2020

I would like faction zones and see enemies only in ciro and not play with them.

Vyvrhel · January 2020

No

No. That would be about the stupidest thing to do. The lowbie zones are literally dead in all games. PPL always power level just to dash through.

zaria · January 2020

No

I'm happy I experienced it however at max level you are kind of limited.
Remember farming dwemer pages and it was just one dwemer ruing there AD could get them. Outside of resetting the fighter guild quest in an dewemer instance on an alt.

jaekobcaed · January 2020

No

Absolutely not. One Tamriel did remove some of the danger of going to higher-level zones, I know. The goal with the leveled zones was to give it a more Morrowind-esque feel but the issue was that said Morrowind feel rarely came across. Instead, it came across more as, "How long do I need to grind this zone to be able to play in another one?" It made the game more like a traditional MMO first, TES game second when it should have been the other way around.

TES is about the freedom. I get that some prefer the approach present in Morrowind and before and I'll admit, that's pretty immersive and does bring a greater sensation of progression and reward when you level up but it massively limits the goal of freedom. TES, as it stands, is about allowing the player to be whoever they want and do whatever they want. Limiting players so much is counterintuitive to that mindset.

ESO is The Elder Scrolls, but it's online. ZOS has often said that they don't consider ESO an MMO, at least not in the traditional sense. Instead, they just call it an online RPG, to get away from some of the negative connotations of MMORPGs. At its core, ESO is technically an MMO but these days, it's closer to a traditional TES game than an MMO and that is only a good thing.

Kombinator · January 2020

Unsure

Sometimes i would, and other times wouldn't. I agree, that it let you play with others better, and give some extra challenge for playing lowers zones, or go back, and play quest you have missed.

But it also takes away the "I'm the boss" feeling. No matter how hard you work you have the same work for each enemy. You can't reach a state when you just slaughter everything in your path with a spoon.

It also forces you to go with groups for world bosses. No matter what. So you just keep spamming the zone chat, wait, and pray, that someone comes by.

In overall, if these are the only options, then i would say no. But if i could design any system, then stuff would have a minimum level, and above that would have a low scaling. So if an area is 20 to 30, then below 30 it would be fixed. Above 30 it would stay some levels behind. So normal foes would mean little challenge, but still give loot, and quest reward, and elites would be small challenge. World bosses would be still soloable, but hard challenge.

SWTOR has a similar approach. There the zones are fixed, but instead the players got reduced stats, and levels, if they go a low level area. However the reduced stats are still more, than enough to sweep through the area with ease, if you are overleveled. Not oneshot everything, but hardly a challenge.

Taemiru · January 2020

No

Kombinator wrote: »

But it also takes away the "I'm the boss" feeling. No matter how hard you work you have the same work for each enemy. You can't reach a state when you just slaughter everything in your path with a spoon.

It also forces you to go with groups for world bosses. No matter what. So you just keep spamming the zone chat, wait, and pray, that someone comes by.

You can't reach the state of slaughter with a spoon but you can reach state where you 1-2 shot slaughter things just by being good at the game and having good gear, also most of the world bosses can totally be solo killed.

Iccotak · January 2020

No

While I can see the appeal I think zones are for solo/casual play

Group play is for public dungeons, dolmens, group dungeons, and trials

questing and zones is good for 1-2 players - ZOS knows this - that's why Ring of Mara xp bonus is for 2 people

gepe87 · January 2020

Unsure

Only as optional.

Emma_Overload · January 2020

No

No.

They just need to make the overall difficulty of the zones harder.

Nic727 · January 2020

Yes

Kombinator wrote: »

Sometimes i would, and other times wouldn't. I agree, that it let you play with others better, and give some extra challenge for playing lowers zones, or go back, and play quest you have missed.

But it also takes away the "I'm the boss" feeling. No matter how hard you work you have the same work for each enemy. You can't reach a state when you just slaughter everything in your path with a spoon.

It also forces you to go with groups for world bosses. No matter what. So you just keep spamming the zone chat, wait, and pray, that someone comes by.

In overall, if these are the only options, then i would say no. But if i could design any system, then stuff would have a minimum level, and above that would have a low scaling. So if an area is 20 to 30, then below 30 it would be fixed. Above 30 it would stay some levels behind. So normal foes would mean little challenge, but still give loot, and quest reward, and elites would be small challenge. World bosses would be still soloable, but hard challenge.

SWTOR has a similar approach. There the zones are fixed, but instead the players got reduced stats, and levels, if they go a low level area. However the reduced stats are still more, than enough to sweep through the area with ease, if you are overleveled. Not oneshot everything, but hardly a challenge.

I think you have a good point here. I think a mix between what we have now with level scaling and what we had before would be the best.

Like a level 1 would be able to go everywhere, but a max level would have less challenge against mud crab.

I think they could make :
- X scale from lvl 1-10
- Y scale from 1-40
- Etc.

Like that you will always have a kind of challenge or feel stronger, but lower level will always be able to participate.

Wifeaggro13 · January 2020

Yes

Nic727 wrote: »

Kombinator wrote: »

Sometimes i would, and other times wouldn't. I agree, that it let you play with others better, and give some extra challenge for playing lowers zones, or go back, and play quest you have missed.

But it also takes away the "I'm the boss" feeling. No matter how hard you work you have the same work for each enemy. You can't reach a state when you just slaughter everything in your path with a spoon.

It also forces you to go with groups for world bosses. No matter what. So you just keep spamming the zone chat, wait, and pray, that someone comes by.

In overall, if these are the only options, then i would say no. But if i could design any system, then stuff would have a minimum level, and above that would have a low scaling. So if an area is 20 to 30, then below 30 it would be fixed. Above 30 it would stay some levels behind. So normal foes would mean little challenge, but still give loot, and quest reward, and elites would be small challenge. World bosses would be still soloable, but hard challenge.

SWTOR has a similar approach. There the zones are fixed, but instead the players got reduced stats, and levels, if they go a low level area. However the reduced stats are still more, than enough to sweep through the area with ease, if you are overleveled. Not oneshot everything, but hardly a challenge.

I think you have a good point here. I think a mix between what we have now with level scaling and what we had before would be the best.

Like a level 1 would be able to go everywhere, but a max level would have less challenge against mud crab.

I think they could make :
- X scale from lvl 1-10
- Y scale from 1-40
- Etc.

Like that you will always have a kind of challenge or feel stronger, but lower level will always be able to participate.

I think tam one was a mistake in total. A good option would be to have fixed quest lock have the player option to scale up or down to the party or zone. Remember tam one was about allowing players to group up with friends .it was a cheap fix to balancing ' in all honesty the game played way better prior to it

idk · January 2020

No

Wifeaggro13 wrote: »

Nic727 wrote: »

Kombinator wrote: »

Sometimes i would, and other times wouldn't. I agree, that it let you play with others better, and give some extra challenge for playing lowers zones, or go back, and play quest you have missed.

But it also takes away the "I'm the boss" feeling. No matter how hard you work you have the same work for each enemy. You can't reach a state when you just slaughter everything in your path with a spoon.

It also forces you to go with groups for world bosses. No matter what. So you just keep spamming the zone chat, wait, and pray, that someone comes by.

In overall, if these are the only options, then i would say no. But if i could design any system, then stuff would have a minimum level, and above that would have a low scaling. So if an area is 20 to 30, then below 30 it would be fixed. Above 30 it would stay some levels behind. So normal foes would mean little challenge, but still give loot, and quest reward, and elites would be small challenge. World bosses would be still soloable, but hard challenge.

SWTOR has a similar approach. There the zones are fixed, but instead the players got reduced stats, and levels, if they go a low level area. However the reduced stats are still more, than enough to sweep through the area with ease, if you are overleveled. Not oneshot everything, but hardly a challenge.

I think you have a good point here. I think a mix between what we have now with level scaling and what we had before would be the best.

Like a level 1 would be able to go everywhere, but a max level would have less challenge against mud crab.

I think they could make :
- X scale from lvl 1-10
- Y scale from 1-40
- Etc.

Like that you will always have a kind of challenge or feel stronger, but lower level will always be able to participate.

I think tam one was a mistake in total. A good option would be to have fixed quest lock have the player option to scale up or down to the party or zone. Remember tam one was about allowing players to group up with friends .it was a cheap fix to balancing ' in all honesty the game played way better prior to it

Returning to leveled zones is what would be a mistake in total.

Besides 1T zone changes having absolutely nothing to do with balancing it meant the lower level zones were not utter trash and pointless to return to for 99% of the characters in game. It was about making the lower level zones worth returning to for various reasons. Before 1T we had to do limited content in the zones and move on early or deal with a challenge even more of a joke than I ti snow.

1T is a much simpler solution than what you propose. Who would not choose to lock the content to their level vs deal with trash 20 levels below them? Sounds pointless so might as well keep the current design.

PopotoSalad · January 2020

No

I like the idea of zones having progressively higher base levels, but scaling from there (Lv1-CP160, Lv10-CP160, Lv20-CP160, etc.)

wsmith97ub17_ESO · January 2020

No

The only game that has it right.

No, never forget, never forgive, etc.

Wifeaggro13 · January 2020

Yes

idk wrote: »

Wifeaggro13 wrote: »

Nic727 wrote: »

Kombinator wrote: »

Sometimes i would, and other times wouldn't. I agree, that it let you play with others better, and give some extra challenge for playing lowers zones, or go back, and play quest you have missed.

But it also takes away the "I'm the boss" feeling. No matter how hard you work you have the same work for each enemy. You can't reach a state when you just slaughter everything in your path with a spoon.

It also forces you to go with groups for world bosses. No matter what. So you just keep spamming the zone chat, wait, and pray, that someone comes by.

In overall, if these are the only options, then i would say no. But if i could design any system, then stuff would have a minimum level, and above that would have a low scaling. So if an area is 20 to 30, then below 30 it would be fixed. Above 30 it would stay some levels behind. So normal foes would mean little challenge, but still give loot, and quest reward, and elites would be small challenge. World bosses would be still soloable, but hard challenge.

SWTOR has a similar approach. There the zones are fixed, but instead the players got reduced stats, and levels, if they go a low level area. However the reduced stats are still more, than enough to sweep through the area with ease, if you are overleveled. Not oneshot everything, but hardly a challenge.

I think you have a good point here. I think a mix between what we have now with level scaling and what we had before would be the best.

Like a level 1 would be able to go everywhere, but a max level would have less challenge against mud crab.

I think they could make :
- X scale from lvl 1-10
- Y scale from 1-40
- Etc.

Like that you will always have a kind of challenge or feel stronger, but lower level will always be able to participate.

I think tam one was a mistake in total. A good option would be to have fixed quest lock have the player option to scale up or down to the party or zone. Remember tam one was about allowing players to group up with friends .it was a cheap fix to balancing ' in all honesty the game played way better prior to it

Returning to leveled zones is what would be a mistake in total.

Besides 1T zone changes having absolutely nothing to do with balancing it meant the lower level zones were not utter trash and pointless to return to for 99% of the characters in game. It was about making the lower level zones worth returning to for various reasons. Before 1T we had to do limited content in the zones and move on early or deal with a challenge even more of a joke than I ti snow.

1T is a much simpler solution than what you propose. Who would not choose to lock the content to their level vs deal with trash 20 levels below them? Sounds pointless so might as well keep the current design.

I don't know anyone revisiting zones once they are done with them. It does not matter all the overland content is like dealing with trash 20 levels below you even naked at lvl 1. But they will charge you full price for chapters like they spent a year developing the rehashed garbage . But for the record I dont think they should or could unwind this cluster fook back to a cohesive vertical progession system. Their only competition is games that are 16 years old or the bioware flop.

FierceSam · January 2020

No

Wifeaggro13 wrote: »

idk wrote: »

Wifeaggro13 wrote: »

Nic727 wrote: »

Kombinator wrote: »

Sometimes i would, and other times wouldn't. I agree, that it let you play with others better, and give some extra challenge for playing lowers zones, or go back, and play quest you have missed.

But it also takes away the "I'm the boss" feeling. No matter how hard you work you have the same work for each enemy. You can't reach a state when you just slaughter everything in your path with a spoon.

It also forces you to go with groups for world bosses. No matter what. So you just keep spamming the zone chat, wait, and pray, that someone comes by.

In overall, if these are the only options, then i would say no. But if i could design any system, then stuff would have a minimum level, and above that would have a low scaling. So if an area is 20 to 30, then below 30 it would be fixed. Above 30 it would stay some levels behind. So normal foes would mean little challenge, but still give loot, and quest reward, and elites would be small challenge. World bosses would be still soloable, but hard challenge.

SWTOR has a similar approach. There the zones are fixed, but instead the players got reduced stats, and levels, if they go a low level area. However the reduced stats are still more, than enough to sweep through the area with ease, if you are overleveled. Not oneshot everything, but hardly a challenge.

I think you have a good point here. I think a mix between what we have now with level scaling and what we had before would be the best.

Like a level 1 would be able to go everywhere, but a max level would have less challenge against mud crab.

I think they could make :
- X scale from lvl 1-10
- Y scale from 1-40
- Etc.

Like that you will always have a kind of challenge or feel stronger, but lower level will always be able to participate.

I think tam one was a mistake in total. A good option would be to have fixed quest lock have the player option to scale up or down to the party or zone. Remember tam one was about allowing players to group up with friends .it was a cheap fix to balancing ' in all honesty the game played way better prior to it

Returning to leveled zones is what would be a mistake in total.

Besides 1T zone changes having absolutely nothing to do with balancing it meant the lower level zones were not utter trash and pointless to return to for 99% of the characters in game. It was about making the lower level zones worth returning to for various reasons. Before 1T we had to do limited content in the zones and move on early or deal with a challenge even more of a joke than I ti snow.

1T is a much simpler solution than what you propose. Who would not choose to lock the content to their level vs deal with trash 20 levels below them? Sounds pointless so might as well keep the current design.

I don't know anyone revisiting zones once they are done with them. It does not matter all the overland content is like dealing with trash 20 levels below you even naked at lvl 1. But they will charge you full price for chapters like they spent a year developing the rehashed garbage . But for the record I dont think they should or could unwind this cluster fook back to a cohesive vertical progession system. Their only competition is games that are 16 years old or the bioware flop.

Aside from everyone who does any of the major Events, where all the locations are in the original zones. Plus everyone doing the Psijiic Order questline or wanting to level up their mages or fighters guild skill lines. And those who are creating, or levelling alts using the original timeline. Or trading. Or doing housing. Or getting their pledges.

Aside from them, you are right, nobody is revisiting zones

My ‘vertical’ progression is about me getting better, not my character becoming artificially more powerful.

Bucky_13 · January 2020

No

No. Played before one Tamriel, the game got so much more enjoyable with the current system. And have played both WoW and SWTOR which had a similar system to what ESO had initially, it got boring there as well.

Iccotak · January 2020

No

Short answer: No

Long Answer

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

baratron · January 2020

No

No. But what I would like to see is quests marked according to length. It would be nice to be able to plan my play time better - can I get that quest done in the ten minutes before bed, or is it an epic hour-long thing which has me traipsing all over the map?

Cryptical · January 2020

Yes

Lots of people play DnD, so I’ll use that as an example.

It is expected and normal for a fresh new character to have trouble with a small group of goblins. Sure, they are only goblins but there’s a number of them and you are a low level character.

It is NOT expected and is abnormal for a mid-level character to have trouble with that same small group of goblins. They are just goblins! They should get stomped, not put up anything even resembling a fight!

In DnD, there is clear progression of enemies. Start with goblins, move on to bigger badder stuff, end up intimidating dragons.

In eso, there is zero clear progression of enemies due to level balancing.

I understand that consolidating the servers to eliminate alliance separation and create “One Tamriel” also introduced issues with zone levels. However, constructing an artificial booster to universally equalize everyone was not optimal.

Optimal would have been constructing a zone-based artificial variable hindrance that would handicap someone who is outside their alliance area. It could have functioned like this:
A red goes to auridon for the first time. They have zero of the zone quest line done, so get the full handicap sandbagging them down. As the percentage of that zone quest rises, that handicap is removed. This would have preserved the sense of enemy strength progression as a person leveled through the zones overcoming obstacles while also removing the alliance barriers to cross-alliance friends grouping up.

InaMoonlight · January 2020

No

Nop, I have played through this game more times then i can count, and it's nice when making a new character to be able to start on what you did the longest time ago for some refreshing, instead of being forced to do the same rum-drum over and over and over in same order

Casterial · January 2020

Yes

Scaling obviously is failing.

Bradyfjord · January 2020

No

No. Having said that, I do believe it is beneficial for a new player to play through the Molag Bal story. It will explain what being the vestige is, and other relevant backstory.

HumbleThaumaturge · February 2020

Yes

I would love to see ZOS run an "ESO Classic" server, with the game as it was at launch (with the bugs fixed). I started playing ESO during the first minute of "early access." (I seem to recall it was 7 a.m. EST on Sunday, March 30, 2014.) I am so very, very happy I was able to play ESO as it was at initial launch. The game was much more challenging and, therefore, much more fun. I loved the originally leveling scheme: I had great fun challenging myself by moving ahead to areas that were 10 to 15 to 20 levels higher than my character. I had so much fun with ESO during the first six months after launch! It was an amazing game. Yet, I totally understand that ZOS made changes to address complaints by the majority of potential customers (who complained, "It's too hard!"). From the replies to this post, it is obvious that we players who prefer more challenge are in the minority.

Game "Difficulty" at launch was much higher than it is now. The PvE content in the Alliance zones is now trivially easy: (on PTS as an experiment) I was able to level a new character to level 50 with no armor or weapons and only one Ability slotted. When the game first launched, it took me over 100 hours to get my first character to level 50: now players do it in 4 hours or less. Since initial launch everything about the PvE content (except the new dlc dungeons) has been made easier and easier and easier, including the ability to buy riding lessons, trait research, skyshards, and entire skill trees at the Crown Store, and the ability to make gold by selling Crowns (i.e., by converting real-world money into in-game currency). As I said, I am so very, very happy I was able to play ESO as it was at initial launch. It was a great achievement in gaming!

Sephyr · February 2020

No

DIFFICULTY? Yes. As far as getting around? No. I love the fact that I can go anywhere/be anywhere and hang with my friends in other alliances.

Tabbycat · February 2020

No

No, it feels more like the TES single player without leveled zones.