800k people don't seem to mind difficult overworld

Seminolegirl1992 · October 2021

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

I was looking, really looking for that piece from the Slashlurk stream, but I can't find it. There are quite a few streams for several hours each. And in almost every one he is asked about the vet. overland, sometimes several times. [snip] I actually heard Rich say that the average duration of a game in eso is six weeks. In addition, in 2016, Matt Firor gave an interview, where he said that the largest population of the game occurs at the time of the release of new content. This is mostly due to returning players. Therefore, we see, and they have been talking about this for a long time, that the main audience that eso is aimed at is completely different from the people who are called casuals on the forum. I believe that all the people on this forum are involved players. It doesn't matter if you do houseing, take a long time to complete quests, or you are a high-end player with all the achievements. You are an involved player who plays a lot. And I love these players equally, really. But the main part of playes of the game is those who play a little. These are the players who buy the game, play it for several weeks, maybe spend some more money. And then, perhaps, return to the next dlc and play for a while. It seems absurd, but this is the state of the entire gaming industry today, alas. It's like mobile gaming. It seems that any person looking at mobile games will think - why play this when there is pc gaming and console gaming, why else donate to it. But this is a colossal huge business. It is these players who make the very statistics that they like to talk about here. This is why we have year-long stories, because it is easier to retain the that players this way. That is why we have events every two weeks, which seems just crazy. We all feel great loss of ping and reduced performance during these events. But ZoS continues to do this because it is profitable.

Now I want to draw your attention to a few points and ask a few questions:

1. Why, if the main problem of Craglorn was the high difficult content, then ZoS just did not reduce it, continuing to release a new Adventure Zone. Look at Craglorn - 3 different types of anchors, 5 each. Several small dungeons such as Skyrich or Shada's Tear with their own daily quests. Where is all this in future content? Many players during the one year event wrote that Craglorn was an interesting new experience for them with the amount of content it offers.

2. Why aren't the developers doing long side quest lines anymore like they did on Vvardenfell? Remember those wonderful and deep stories of Sun-in-Shadow and Veya Releth? Why did ZoS abandon them so quickly? Everyone liked them. They are still remembered as examples of great quests and interesting stories. So why isn't ZoS doing it anymore? Why are the locations again filled with dozens of short, unrelated quests that are not remembered later?

3. Why is even the crown store so rarely updated with new items? Why are 99% of new products only in crown ctrates?

4. Why are quests in a story-focused game so linear? Why do we almost never have a choice? Why do we almost never have different options for completing quests? We ask for this a lot because variability is good for our roleplaying.

5. Why doesn't this story-focused game have the dungeon / trial story mod we've all been asking for?

I think the answer is very simple - most of the players just do not have time to complete most of the content. This is why less new content is being made. That is why the overland is not only easy, but also does not have various interesting content, because most of the players will never get to it. The same was most likely shown by the statistics regarding the long quest lines on Vvardenfell. And it's much easier to just return old items to the store for a new wave of players. Just leave the loot boxes to the "whales". Rather than building a large, stable and loyal player base, ZoS has opted to rely on a large number of fickle players.

[edited for baiting]

Indeed

SilverBride · October 2021

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

I think inherently their data is flawed. If they're basing numbers off how many people do vet trials or other end game content, and not how many people want engaging story enemies, they're getting flawed data.

They can track how many players do end game content. They cannot track how many players want engaging story enemies because whether or not the story and enemies are engaging is personal opinion.

One thing they can go by what they have observed over the years. Hardly anyone was playing Cadwell's Silver and Gold veteran overland before One Tamriel so they got rid of it, and now they are doing better than they ever have.

kargen27 · October 2021

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

But the veteran players who want to rerun old story content are clearly a fairly small subset of the vet player crowd. So much so that throwing them a vet overland or slider is too much for too little.

You're misrepresenting the argument. We don't want to simply 'rerun old story content'. This is for all past, current and future content that we're not going to bother experiencing because it's trivialized beyond enjoyment due to the power creep that has been discussed ad-nauseam. Who wants to go through an entire campaign of riding a horse between destinations and one-shotting enemies for thirty or so hours?

Speaking for myself, I certainly don't and can't bother bringing myself to play through them unless I'm on a completely new character and due to the aforementioned power creep I have fifty levels of fun before it becomes miserable again.
1.) I'm running out of character slots to do this on.
2.) It's objectively the majority of the content in the game.
3.) It's the majority of what we're paying for every year.

I don't see how the existence of veteran dungeons, trials and arenas invalidates the fact that we're being told that the majority of the content wasn't designed for us even though that's what we're buying twice a year. A single chapter can get you up to the level 40 range so if you account for the base game, a chapter and a DLC or two, a small fraction of the available content will get you to that gets you to the point in progression (CP300) when the majority of the game's content becomes trivialized.

I don't know who these unicorn players are that have played multiple releases and somehow not reached that point in progression where the majority of the content becomes trivialized but is the only argument against it that it's not worth doing because there's no outcry yet? Because believe me it's inevitable and it's up to ZOS to decide whether or not to be proactive or reactive on the subject and I'm not quite sure how it makes sense to disregard loyal, paying customers to such a degree.

This. It's not about old story content. It's content going forward. We want it to be engaging. So yeah they're seeing low numbers on people doing the same quests and over again. Because, well yeah lol

Might be what it is about for you. For many in this thread they want a rework of the old zones. The OP included in that category.

spartaxoxo · October 2021

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

I think inherently their data is flawed. If they're basing numbers off how many people do vet trials or other end game content, and not how many people want engaging story enemies, they're getting flawed data.

They are looking at how people play the entire game not any single thing. Their data isn't flawed because it's not only built on who does trials. They can see how many people choose to use the hard content already available in Overland, compare things normal dungeons to hard dungeons, and normal trials to hard trials. They can compare dragons and Harrowstorms to Dolmens and see despite being newer and having better drops, the harder ones are less popular.

They can see how many people just skip through dialog and how many people are actually listening to the dialogue or at least reading it. And their data don't lie, casuals make up most of the playerbase. That's generally the case in most games so I don't know why it's so surprising when it's the online version of a fairly casual friendly single player rpg. There's a lot of people that treat this game like Skyrim with friends and just do whatever dumb build they want and do the stories with them and then bounce

trackdemon5512 · October 2021

For those wanting more engaging story content, are you fine with ZOS releasing less content each year now then?

Ya gotta have a trade off. Can’t have more story without it affecting development times, cost, quality, etc.

Seminolegirl1992 · October 2021

SilverBride wrote: »

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

I think inherently their data is flawed. If they're basing numbers off how many people do vet trials or other end game content, and not how many people want engaging story enemies, they're getting flawed data.

They can track how many players do end game content. They cannot track how many players want engaging story enemies because whether or not the story and enemies are engaging is personal opinion.

The only thing they can go by what they have observed over the years. Hardly anyone was playing Cadwell's Silver and Gold veteran overland before One Tamriel so they got rid of it, and now they are doing better than they ever have.

Right, exactly. They can't measure how many people want that unless they were to do a survey upon logging in or something. And still- they would be getting a lack of response for the people that have quit the game due to lack of engaging content, so those numbers would still be off because of how many folks just don't bother logging in anymore. Cadwell's Silver and Gold is another bad example though. Players didn't want to go through the same thing in a different zone, but more tedious and limited to your faction. One Tamriel was good in that all players from all factions could be in the same zone. Their idea of people not liking harder content because of low Cadwell participation is just bad data. People don't want repeatable quests for base game; most of us are asking for engaging bosses going forward. So of course noone wants vet Cadwell. We just want the daedric prince in Summerset to actually hit like a daedric prince, for instance

Seminolegirl1992 · October 2021

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

I think inherently their data is flawed. If they're basing numbers off how many people do vet trials or other end game content, and not how many people want engaging story enemies, they're getting flawed data.

They are looking at how people play the entire game not any single thing. Their data isn't flawed because it's not only built on who does trials. They can see how many people choose to use the hard content already available in Overland, compare things normal dungeons to hard dungeons, and normal trials to hard trials. They can compare dragons and Harrowstorms to Dolmens and see despite being newer and having better drops, the harder ones are less popular.

They can see how many people just skip through dialog and how many people are actually listening to the dialogue or at least reading it. And their data don't lie, casuals make up most of the playerbase. That's generally the case in most games so I don't know why it's so surprising when it's the online version of a fairly casual friendly single player rpg. There's a lot of people that treat this game like Skyrim with friends and just do whatever dumb build they want and do the stories with them and then bounce

Again though, vet players don't just spend their time farming a world boss. Why the heck would we do that? So if their data is, "Well hmm. Our vet players aren't spending the majority of their gameplay fighting harrowstorms. They must not like hard content.." Like. How do you draw that conclusion? Why would we want to spend our time playing the game doing hard dolmens and fighting dragons? So yeah, their data is flawed. They think people dont want hard content because somehow vet players not wasting their day away at harrowstorms is somehow good data. We want engaging story enemies.

Edit: I skip dialogue only if I've finished reading it before they finish talking, unless the dialogue is so interesting that I have to hear what they say. I feel a lot of people skip dialogue nowadays perhaps due to lazy writing. I love the story, dont get me wrong. But I've heard complaints from friends that their quests in expansions are sometimes just too predictable and meh. I will give them some credit in that they are adding more engaging and unique npcs in expansions. I like that.

Seminolegirl1992 · October 2021

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

For those wanting more engaging story content, are you fine with ZOS releasing less content each year now then?

Ya gotta have a trade off. Can’t have more story without it affecting development times, cost, quality, etc.

Honestly the year long story trope has gotten old. So yes. But they have different teams doing different things, so I doubt devoting time to making engaging content affects devs that might be working to increase performance, or devs/writers/artists working on new content. They've got a large team of people I would imagine.

spartaxoxo · October 2021

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

Why would we want to spend our time playing the game doing hard dolmens and fighting dragons?

Because it's fun? They know you want it. They just also know you won't use it. You're calling engaging in the existing vet overland content a waste of time. Many share that sentiment. Since nobody is actually doing the content, why would they make more of it? What numbers are there to give them confidence that this is something people would actually use?

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

For those wanting more engaging story content, are you fine with ZOS releasing less content each year now then?

Ya gotta have a trade off. Can’t have more story without it affecting development times, cost, quality, etc.

I don't think adding a challenge banner with an extra mechanic or two would require them to release less content. It completely depends on how they get that content in there. They have already started adding more mechs to the boss fights.

CP5 · October 2021

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

For those wanting more engaging story content, are you fine with ZOS releasing less content each year now then?

Ya gotta have a trade off. Can’t have more story without it affecting development times, cost, quality, etc.

Most major patches come with something else as a base game update, or as a major key feature of the expansion. Blackwood had companions, Flame of Ambition rolled out the new CP system, Markarth brought the item set collection and item reconstruction, Greymoor brought antiquities, and so on. ZOS is known for finding a thing to bring alongside major releases, some of those are more widely useful than others but all of them have a place. Is it really outlandish to expect that, rather than getting companions (which again, some players care about and some couldn't care less) that a vet overland or other release like it could be in the same place?

Seminolegirl1992 · October 2021

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

I think inherently their data is flawed. If they're basing numbers off how many people do vet trials or other end game content, and not how many people want engaging story enemies, they're getting flawed data.

They can track how many players do end game content. They cannot track how many players want engaging story enemies because whether or not the story and enemies are engaging is personal opinion.

The only thing they can go by what they have observed over the years. Hardly anyone was playing Cadwell's Silver and Gold veteran overland before One Tamriel so they got rid of it, and now they are doing better than they ever have.

Right, exactly. They can't measure how many people want that unless they were to do a survey upon logging in or something. And still- they would be getting a lack of response for the people that have quit the game due to lack of engaging content, so those numbers would still be off because of how many folks just don't bother logging in anymore. Cadwell's Silver and Gold is another bad example though. Players didn't want to go through the same thing in a different zone, but more tedious and limited to your faction. One Tamriel was good in that all players from all factions could be in the same zone. Their idea of people not liking harder content because of low Cadwell participation is just bad data. People don't want repeatable quests for base game; most of us are asking for engaging bosses going forward. So of course noone wants vet Cadwell. We just want the daedric prince in Summerset to actually hit like a daedric prince, for instance

To elaborate on this- I've been playing pillars of eternity deadfire recently (not as a replacement to eso- i still log in daily and spend more time there). The fights there require strategy. I can easily kill the weaker enemies no problem. I would be annoyed if weaker enemies were tedious. But bosses. I have to think on those. I've had to leave areas I clearly was not able to handle. I love the sense of danger and especially the sense of accomplishment when I execute a good move. Bosses don't hit like wet noodles there. Despite the fact I'm almost max level (lvl 19 out of 20 levels). I'm level 19 and I face an actual challenge against bosses. That's what it's supposed to be like in rpgs. It's like that in Skyrim, dragon age, pillars, wow, etc etc. I have to build my characters carefully. I have to set my team up in such a way to maximize my potential. That's fun. Eso is not like that. I wish it was more like that. And ya know, the good thing about pillars is if those bosses were too hard, there are difficulty sliders. And I guarantee that its easiest slider would be plenty accompanying for those who dont want the challenge

Seminolegirl1992 · October 2021

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

Why would we want to spend our time playing the game doing hard dolmens and fighting dragons?

Because it's fun? They know you want it. They just also know you won't use it. You're calling engaging in the existing vet overland content a waste of time. Many share that sentiment. Since nobody is actually doing the content, why would they make more of it? What numbers are there to give them confidence that this is something people would actually use?

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

For those wanting more engaging story content, are you fine with ZOS releasing less content each year now then?

Ya gotta have a trade off. Can’t have more story without it affecting development times, cost, quality, etc.

I don't think adding a challenge banner with an extra mechanic or two would require them to release less content. It completely depends on how they get that content in there. They have already started adding more mechs to the boss fights.

But it isn't, not as a main activity. Harrowstorms are fun, but I don't want that to be the thing I do all the time for engaging content. Same with trials. I don't want to do trials *all* of the time. I don't want to spend my day farming Harrowstorms or dragons. Those bosses are amazing- I have to be careful or I will die. I still die to them on main toons. I love that. But I don't want to do that as my only vet content in the game yknow? I want to fight the big bad guy in the story and enjoy the fight with it. The only vet overland content they have is Craglorn. Once it's done once, why would I do it again? And again? So of course the numbers are low. Craglorn is not a great example of why vet overland would be unpopular.

SilverBride · October 2021

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

Cadwell's Silver and Gold is another bad example though. Players didn't want to go through the same thing in a different zone, but more tedious and limited to your faction.

That isn't it at all.

"A ton of people completed their own alliance storylines to get to silver and gold. A ton of people did. People just did not like the extra difficulty in the story stuff."

We built the game with difficulty in mind and 2/3rds of the game was never played by players so we changed it." - Rich Lambert

Amottica · October 2021

Elsonso wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

1, When Rich spoke of players not doing the vet zones he was speaking of Silver and Gold. And they did make it easier which is what we have now. Craglorn was a different issue as it was a zone designed for forced grouping. Beyond that, Each DLC zone added has had its own thing, well, many of them.

3. Hallothiel is correct that the devs do not run the crown store, it is the business side.

It is sort of interesting that there are people who hone in on Rich mentioning Silver and Gold and think that is all there is to it and he is not answering the question. Over the years, we have heard them mention how few people do hard content, and we can even see this in the platform achievement rates. This is why I don't take Rich literally and think he is only talking about Silver and Gold and that his information is out of date. That is just what prompted the change to One Tamriel, and he can safely say this without giving away any secrets.

One thing that surprised me recently was a statement that, yes, the development team is much more involved with the Crown Store than I previously thought. I, too, thought that most of the direction came from Bethesda marketing and that what the studio minders did was make sure that assets were available when they needed to be. That may not be the case.

No offense but you are only speaking to a part of the position Rich and Zenimax have taken on the issue.

While the point Rich made about how the huge majority of the players (who finished their own alliance zone) that did not do the harder vet zones which started at VR1 is an important detail, the reality that the game because significantly more popular and successful with the current design of easier stories and more challenging WBs and other features.

That is the business case and the success of the game is he driving force is the driving force as it is with any business. That is what speaks louder than any thread in this forum could ever hope to.

The crown store is not very relevant to the topic though so I will avoid distracting from the subject of this thread.

Seminolegirl1992 · October 2021

SilverBride wrote: »

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

Cadwell's Silver and Gold is another bad example though. Players didn't want to go through the same thing in a different zone, but more tedious and limited to your faction.

That isn't it at all.

"A ton of people completed their own alliance storylines to get to silver and gold. A ton of people did. People just did not like the extra difficulty in the story stuff."

We built the game with difficulty in mind and 2/3rds of the game was never played by players so we changed it." - Rich Lambert

I think there's a difference in making the alliance stories tedious and making them engaging. They've missed the mark on that. Also many people just wanted to complete their alliance story/main story once. They didn't want to basically 'redo' the story but in a different alliance. So if his idea of people not liking the difficulty was because people didn't like the concept of "kill Molag Bal, then go to another alliance to see their version of history" then that data could be inaccurate. I've heard a lot of people say that they loved doing the main story but it seemed silly to just go do it again ish but different alliance. I think they would be surprised if they added a toggle or option to vet bosses in new expansions. Those stories are fresh, new. They are not main story 2.0 and main story 3.0. I don't think he's considering that in his argument.

spartaxoxo · October 2021

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

Why would we want to spend our time playing the game doing hard dolmens and fighting dragons?

Because it's fun? They know you want it. They just also know you won't use it. You're calling engaging in the existing vet overland content a waste of time. Many share that sentiment. Since nobody is actually doing the content, why would they make more of it? What numbers are there to give them confidence that this is something people would actually use?

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

For those wanting more engaging story content, are you fine with ZOS releasing less content each year now then?

Ya gotta have a trade off. Can’t have more story without it affecting development times, cost, quality, etc.

I don't think adding a challenge banner with an extra mechanic or two would require them to release less content. It completely depends on how they get that content in there. They have already started adding more mechs to the boss fights.

But it isn't, not as a main activity. Harrowstorms are fun, but I don't want that to be the thing I do all the time for engaging content. Same with trials. I don't want to do trials *all* of the time. I don't want to spend my day farming Harrowstorms or dragons. Those bosses are amazing- I have to be careful or I will die. I still die to them on main toons. I love that. But I don't want to do that as my only vet content in the game yknow? I want to fight the big bad guy in the story and enjoy the fight with it. The only vet overland content they have is Craglorn. Once it's done once, why would I do it again? And again? So of course the numbers are low. Craglorn is not a great example of why vet overland would be unpopular.

Why is it that none of the existing vet content is a great example of why vet content would be popular? And why do you think more of it wouldn't fair the same? You wouldn't need to spend all of your time doing dragons. But if enough people were spending at least some of their time doing it or any other difficult overland content, there would be more a reason to implement these changes.

As it is, most of the playerbase doesn't use Overland when they want a challenge. They don't go "You know, I want to do something a little hard and fun, lemme go Harrowstorms." You don't see many guild groups adding them to their schedule like they do trials. Many people like dragons. They love the IDEA of them. But when it comes to actually playing them, they pass on it in favor of other vet content like trials, arenas, and dungeons. With so many people using INSTANCED content as the thing to do when they feel like doing something challenging, and hardly anyone using Overland for that, why would ZOS think other Vet Overland content would fair any better? You know how many times I've seen in guild chat "I'm bored, anyone want to do X dungeon?" or "I'm bored, anyone want to do Undaunted dailies?" Too many to count. How many times I have seen "I am bored, anyone want to farm dragons?" Once, in a housing guild. The person figured they'd try their hand at the window lead.

I do think the final boss of a story would fair better, because it would add some spice to content people are actually playing. But I don't think many people would use vet overland. As most people don't want difficult content, and of the ones that want difficult content, a large portion don't want Overland itself to be difficult. They just want to be able to grab some skyshards real quick, or do a daily real quick in the hopes of getting this or that motif.

I think way more people would be open to the story bosses being harder, but not Overland in general.

SilverBride · October 2021

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

Cadwell's Silver and Gold is another bad example though. Players didn't want to go through the same thing in a different zone, but more tedious and limited to your faction.

That isn't it at all.

"A ton of people completed their own alliance storylines to get to silver and gold. A ton of people did. People just did not like the extra difficulty in the story stuff."

We built the game with difficulty in mind and 2/3rds of the game was never played by players so we changed it." - Rich Lambert

I think there's a difference in making the alliance stories tedious and making them engaging. They've missed the mark on that. Also many people just wanted to complete their alliance story/main story once. They didn't want to basically 'redo' the story but in a different alliance. So if his idea of people not liking the difficulty was because people didn't like the concept of "kill Molag Bal, then go to another alliance to see their version of history" then that data could be inaccurate. I've heard a lot of people say that they loved doing the main story but it seemed silly to just go do it again ish but different alliance. I think they would be surprised if they added a toggle or option to vet bosses in new expansions. Those stories are fresh, new. They are not main story 2.0 and main story 3.0. I don't think he's considering that in his argument.

I find the story and quests engaging even after playing all these years. I have never had a problem with the story part... my problem was the veteran levels. I got tired of dying trying to complete what was supposed to be simple quests.

I don't hear anyone talking about Silver and Gold today because it's been 5 years since One Tamriel... except in these threads.

CP5 · October 2021

SilverBride wrote: »

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

Cadwell's Silver and Gold is another bad example though. Players didn't want to go through the same thing in a different zone, but more tedious and limited to your faction.

That isn't it at all.

"A ton of people completed their own alliance storylines to get to silver and gold. A ton of people did. People just did not like the extra difficulty in the story stuff."

We built the game with difficulty in mind and 2/3rds of the game was never played by players so we changed it." - Rich Lambert

I think there's a difference in making the alliance stories tedious and making them engaging. They've missed the mark on that. Also many people just wanted to complete their alliance story/main story once. They didn't want to basically 'redo' the story but in a different alliance. So if his idea of people not liking the difficulty was because people didn't like the concept of "kill Molag Bal, then go to another alliance to see their version of history" then that data could be inaccurate. I've heard a lot of people say that they loved doing the main story but it seemed silly to just go do it again ish but different alliance. I think they would be surprised if they added a toggle or option to vet bosses in new expansions. Those stories are fresh, new. They are not main story 2.0 and main story 3.0. I don't think he's considering that in his argument.

I find the story and quests engaging even after playing all these years. I have never had a problem with the story part... my problem was the veteran levels. I got tired of dying trying to complete what was supposed to be simple quests.

I don't hear anyone talking about Silver and Gold today because it's been 5 years since One Tamriel... except in these threads.

By you, and those who think simply buffing the enemies health and damage would be the fix, like Rich hinted towards in that quote you've been sharing between every other post. The same thing can be accomplished with self nerfing and people don't do it because the enemies aren't any more of a threat when you do that, just tedious. Enemies intentionally waste their own time, work against one another, and for players, both new and long term, who've gotten used to how to play this game, at their best even the biggest bad is nothing more than a glorified punching bag.

SilverBride · October 2021

CP5 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

Cadwell's Silver and Gold is another bad example though. Players didn't want to go through the same thing in a different zone, but more tedious and limited to your faction.

That isn't it at all.

"A ton of people completed their own alliance storylines to get to silver and gold. A ton of people did. People just did not like the extra difficulty in the story stuff."

We built the game with difficulty in mind and 2/3rds of the game was never played by players so we changed it." - Rich Lambert

I think there's a difference in making the alliance stories tedious and making them engaging. They've missed the mark on that. Also many people just wanted to complete their alliance story/main story once. They didn't want to basically 'redo' the story but in a different alliance. So if his idea of people not liking the difficulty was because people didn't like the concept of "kill Molag Bal, then go to another alliance to see their version of history" then that data could be inaccurate. I've heard a lot of people say that they loved doing the main story but it seemed silly to just go do it again ish but different alliance. I think they would be surprised if they added a toggle or option to vet bosses in new expansions. Those stories are fresh, new. They are not main story 2.0 and main story 3.0. I don't think he's considering that in his argument.

I find the story and quests engaging even after playing all these years. I have never had a problem with the story part... my problem was the veteran levels. I got tired of dying trying to complete what was supposed to be simple quests.

I don't hear anyone talking about Silver and Gold today because it's been 5 years since One Tamriel... except in these threads.

By you, and those who think simply buffing the enemies health and damage would be the fix, like Rich hinted towards in that quote you've been sharing between every other post. The same thing can be accomplished with self nerfing and people don't do it because the enemies aren't any more of a threat when you do that, just tedious. Enemies intentionally waste their own time, work against one another, and for players, both new and long term, who've gotten used to how to play this game, at their best even the biggest bad is nothing more than a glorified punching bag.

The reason it's mentioned in these threads is to show how many players did not like the veteran overland zones and how little they were played. But no one outside these forums is speaking of it that I've seen.

CP5 · October 2021

SilverBride wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Seminolegirl1992 wrote: »

Cadwell's Silver and Gold is another bad example though. Players didn't want to go through the same thing in a different zone, but more tedious and limited to your faction.

That isn't it at all.

"A ton of people completed their own alliance storylines to get to silver and gold. A ton of people did. People just did not like the extra difficulty in the story stuff."

We built the game with difficulty in mind and 2/3rds of the game was never played by players so we changed it." - Rich Lambert

I think there's a difference in making the alliance stories tedious and making them engaging. They've missed the mark on that. Also many people just wanted to complete their alliance story/main story once. They didn't want to basically 'redo' the story but in a different alliance. So if his idea of people not liking the difficulty was because people didn't like the concept of "kill Molag Bal, then go to another alliance to see their version of history" then that data could be inaccurate. I've heard a lot of people say that they loved doing the main story but it seemed silly to just go do it again ish but different alliance. I think they would be surprised if they added a toggle or option to vet bosses in new expansions. Those stories are fresh, new. They are not main story 2.0 and main story 3.0. I don't think he's considering that in his argument.

I find the story and quests engaging even after playing all these years. I have never had a problem with the story part... my problem was the veteran levels. I got tired of dying trying to complete what was supposed to be simple quests.

I don't hear anyone talking about Silver and Gold today because it's been 5 years since One Tamriel... except in these threads.

By you, and those who think simply buffing the enemies health and damage would be the fix, like Rich hinted towards in that quote you've been sharing between every other post. The same thing can be accomplished with self nerfing and people don't do it because the enemies aren't any more of a threat when you do that, just tedious. Enemies intentionally waste their own time, work against one another, and for players, both new and long term, who've gotten used to how to play this game, at their best even the biggest bad is nothing more than a glorified punching bag.

The reason it's mentioned in these threads is to show how many players did not like the veteran overland zones and how little they were played. But no one outside these forums is speaking of it that I've seen.

They didn't like stupid mobs with senseless health and damage buffs. Making enemies not worthless in a fight isn't the same as padding those enemies who do nothing but run from fights or blow bubbles. Does that make sense?

SilverBride · October 2021

CP5 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

The reason it's mentioned in these threads is to show how many players did not like the veteran overland zones and how little they were played. But no one outside these forums is speaking of it that I've seen.

They didn't like stupid mobs with senseless health and damage buffs. Making enemies not worthless in a fight isn't the same as padding those enemies who do nothing but run from fights or blow bubbles. Does that make sense?

That wasn't it at all. They didn't like difficult things in the story.

CP5 · October 2021

SilverBride wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

The reason it's mentioned in these threads is to show how many players did not like the veteran overland zones and how little they were played. But no one outside these forums is speaking of it that I've seen.

They didn't like stupid mobs with senseless health and damage buffs. Making enemies not worthless in a fight isn't the same as padding those enemies who do nothing but run from fights or blow bubbles. Does that make sense?

That wasn't it at all. They didn't like difficult things in the story.

Some people don't like difficulty in their stories, other people, as clearly shown in this thread, aren't like you. Some people like it when an end of the world threat is able to fight their way out of a wet paper bag. Do you not understand that other people can seek enjoyment from things you don't personally enjoy?

SilverBride · October 2021

CP5 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

The reason it's mentioned in these threads is to show how many players did not like the veteran overland zones and how little they were played. But no one outside these forums is speaking of it that I've seen.

They didn't like stupid mobs with senseless health and damage buffs. Making enemies not worthless in a fight isn't the same as padding those enemies who do nothing but run from fights or blow bubbles. Does that make sense?

That wasn't it at all. They didn't like difficult things in the story.

Some people don't like difficulty in their stories, other people, as clearly shown in this thread, aren't like you. Some people like it when an end of the world threat is able to fight their way out of a wet paper bag. Do you not understand that other people can seek enjoyment from things you don't personally enjoy?

And vice versa. But it all comes down to what the majority wants and what is feasible.

CP5 · October 2021

SilverBride wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

The reason it's mentioned in these threads is to show how many players did not like the veteran overland zones and how little they were played. But no one outside these forums is speaking of it that I've seen.

They didn't like stupid mobs with senseless health and damage buffs. Making enemies not worthless in a fight isn't the same as padding those enemies who do nothing but run from fights or blow bubbles. Does that make sense?

That wasn't it at all. They didn't like difficult things in the story.

Some people don't like difficulty in their stories, other people, as clearly shown in this thread, aren't like you. Some people like it when an end of the world threat is able to fight their way out of a wet paper bag. Do you not understand that other people can seek enjoyment from things you don't personally enjoy?

And vice versa. But it all comes down to what the majority wants and what is feasible.

The majority don't use companions, yet they exist. Not every thing added to the game needs to be for everyone.

trackdemon5512 · October 2021

The results of ZOS’ recent BG test are in. They pretty much confirm what we’ve been saying about listening to the forum minorities:

“First, it’s valuable to note the general feedback on this test was quite polarizing. While there were certainly a lot of players that liked only having Deathmatch available, there were just as many that didn’t enjoy it. A frequent complaint we saw, though, was the disappointment that we removed something that is ultimately at the core of our game: the freedom of choice. And in the case of this test, the data appeared to back that up as well. Although we initially saw a very slight bump in participation, it quickly declined and has left Battleground populations in a fairly unhealthy state.” - Gina Bruno

And before anyone gets and tries to use her freedom of choice point as an argument in favor of vet overland, understand that you have never had a choice. There was never an option between regular and vet overland. The game just had zones at different levels.

And since One Tamriel came about, with zones all the same level, the game and its population have only gotten bigger and stronger. The evidence is against vet overland.

CP5 · October 2021

"Freedom of choice" applies to literally all dungeons and trials, and ZOS used exactly the same tech in overland. The two are part of the exact same system, deny all you want, this wouldn't be the most challenging thing for them to implement. Also, your memory of One Tamriel ignores that a major part of that update was to allow players from all factions to interact with each other, since before this the pve community was divided into thirds.

So yes, keep denying it if you like, but the fact remains that ZOS uses the tech this task would require on a daily basis, and as much as you may not personally care for it there is an audience for it.

Parasaurolophus · October 2021

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

The results of ZOS’ recent BG test are in. They pretty much confirm what we’ve been saying about listening to the forum minorities:

“First, it’s valuable to note the general feedback on this test was quite polarizing. While there were certainly a lot of players that liked only having Deathmatch available, there were just as many that didn’t enjoy it. A frequent complaint we saw, though, was the disappointment that we removed something that is ultimately at the core of our game: the freedom of choice. And in the case of this test, the data appeared to back that up as well. Although we initially saw a very slight bump in participation, it quickly declined and has left Battleground populations in a fairly unhealthy state.” - Gina Bruno

And before anyone gets and tries to use her freedom of choice point as an argument in favor of vet overland, understand that you have never had a choice. There was never an option between regular and vet overland. The game just had zones at different levels.

And since One Tamriel came about, with zones all the same level, the game and its population have only gotten bigger and stronger. The evidence is against vet overland.

The situation with bg`s is also very indicative. ZoS totally doesn't want to see the modes need to be reworked. Objective modes reward combat avoidance too much. Deathmatch also has balance and design issues. And instead of somehow remaking the modes, the developers just start juggling with queues.

And why do you think it was the more trivial content that made the game more popular? Rich's claim that most players didn't do Silver and Gold is still very controversial. If only simply because neither Silver nor Gold have ever been veteran content. Mobs of your level, and then of your rank, have always been easy. Not the same as now, but never caused problems. I completed all three alliances in two months, and I crafted my first sets only after meeting Craglorn. Why did people throw silver / year? It was very boring ... I remember completing location by location, location by location and nothing changed. Where is the content? Why am I just wandering from one marker to the next? Well, the vanilla locations were of a much poorer quality. I had such feelings already when I came to the third location of my alliance (Malabar-Tor). I thought - well, ok, and then everything will be the same? I literally forced myself to veil silver and gold by force, because I am a devoted fan of the series, but then I did not like the gameplay. Then there were dungeons, dlc`s and trials. They saved this game for me.
Here are a few things that have made the game more popular:
Cancellation of a mandatory subscription.
Cancellation of division of alliances.
Free exploration of the world without levels.
DLC`s quality was much higher than vanilla.
Excellent and completely replayable High-End content.

colossalvoids · October 2021

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

The results of ZOS’ recent BG test are in. They pretty much confirm what we’ve been saying about listening to the forum minorities:

*snip*

And before anyone gets and tries to use her freedom of choice point as an argument in favor of vet overland, understand that you have never had a choice. There was never an option between regular and vet overland. The game just had zones at different levels.

And since One Tamriel came about, with zones all the same level, the game and its population have only gotten bigger and stronger. The evidence is against vet overland.

That's probably the most bizarre piece of "analysis" I've read in this thread, congratulations.

spartaxoxo · October 2021

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

Here are a few things that have made the game more popular:
Cancellation of a mandatory subscription.
Cancellation of division of alliances.
Free exploration of the world without levels.
DLC`s quality was much higher than vanilla.
Excellent and completely replayable High-End content.

And easy overland as confirmed by player metrics of the entire playerbase

spartaxoxo · October 2021

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

The results of ZOS’ recent BG test are in. They pretty much confirm what we’ve been saying about listening to the forum minorities:

“First, it’s valuable to note the general feedback on this test was quite polarizing. While there were certainly a lot of players that liked only having Deathmatch available, there were just as many that didn’t enjoy it. A frequent complaint we saw, though, was the disappointment that we removed something that is ultimately at the core of our game: the freedom of choice. And in the case of this test, the data appeared to back that up as well. Although we initially saw a very slight bump in participation, it quickly declined and has left Battleground populations in a fairly unhealthy state.” - Gina Bruno

And before anyone gets and tries to use her freedom of choice point as an argument in favor of vet overland, understand that you have never had a choice. There was never an option between regular and vet overland. The game just had zones at different levels.

And since One Tamriel came about, with zones all the same level, the game and its population have only gotten bigger and stronger. The evidence is against vet overland.

This test isn't evidence of anything because it's a different kind of content.

But even if it was, it would be evidence in favor of vet overland. Why do you think a test that showed giving people options instead of just catering to the majority of players is healthier for the population of that game mode strengthens the argument?

Most BG pvpers prefer Deathmatch. Everyone knows that. They did a test to determine if they should just make the whole thing Deathmatch and it failed.