CP5 wrote: »

You guys are amusing. Yes, trial instances have fewer players, meaning that you need more instances to satisfy the same player count. If you made an optional overland, first you would have a population of players who would be interested in it, and you would just shuffle people around, not even needing new instances. And second, if adding instances was such a daunting task, wouldn't poor ZOS need to cut back how many zones they make, else spread the player base too thin over the many sprawling instances?

And again, "why do it for one and done quest?" First, haven't even done them once, as I've said, as others have said. I did probably 3% of western skyrims questing, and none of blackwoods, an update like this would encourage players to actually do that content. And don't forget that updating the zone would make going there actually interesting, not just a thing you have to begrudgingly deal with to deal with the quest.

If instances were that hard for ZOS to implement on the server, they wouldn't have as many zones as they do, and would need restrictions on how many dungeon instances could be run at once. Neither are true.

Nagastani wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

summ0004 wrote: »

Or another option could be to just make mobs tougher overall and do more damage to everyone and offer a buff for those that want to make it easier for lower levels. As some people really are no interested in the combat and just want to read dialogue, you could offer them a buff potion that makes them immune to being killed or makes it so mobs wont attack you. That way it wouldnt matter how tough the overland mobs are made.

So players who are perfectly happy with overland quests and mobs should be buffed to make them invincible so they won't complain when overland difficulty is increased to please a small minority of the playerbase? Where is our engaging combat then?

So. Getting back to this. After spending some time in New World, (which by the way I have to make this short cause I need to get back soon) I'm understanding like... alot. Its really helped me in the way in which I look at MMOs.

However. I don't think anyone wants invincible mobs. C'mon now.

What do we want.. is *PROGRESSION*

Ok. -Progression- Your skills should matter, the choices you make should matter. Granted, there are mobs in New World, like Wolves, that are hard as hell in the beginning yet, over time, they become a cake walk to take down and then those mobs level with you as you travel to other areas.

The mistake ZOS made from One Tam, is they stripped the Progression from the game. It got boring after that. Its as simple as that. If I don't need to care about something then it forgettable and not worth my time. And all of ESO content is most certainly NOT like that ... but there is a notable lack of progression in ESO.

One interesting note though, its so interesting how certain ppl in ESO Cyrodiil PvP were always making demands for ppl they don't like to leave the server, because that was 'their' home. Like they owned the server. This happened frequently on Blackreach. So many times I was advised to change my faction or leave 'their' server. In New World it's totally different. We need everyone and we just don't have this problem and it feels so good. Especially since there is also no Dark Convergence or bombers in New World to speak of. It's just great.

Anyways my Faction needs me... time to get back. Peace

mickeyx wrote: »

Nagastani wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

summ0004 wrote: »

Or another option could be to just make mobs tougher overall and do more damage to everyone and offer a buff for those that want to make it easier for lower levels. As some people really are no interested in the combat and just want to read dialogue, you could offer them a buff potion that makes them immune to being killed or makes it so mobs wont attack you. That way it wouldnt matter how tough the overland mobs are made.

So players who are perfectly happy with overland quests and mobs should be buffed to make them invincible so they won't complain when overland difficulty is increased to please a small minority of the playerbase? Where is our engaging combat then?

So. Getting back to this. After spending some time in New World, (which by the way I have to make this short cause I need to get back soon) I'm understanding like... alot. Its really helped me in the way in which I look at MMOs.

However. I don't think anyone wants invincible mobs. C'mon now.

What do we want.. is *PROGRESSION*

Ok. -Progression- Your skills should matter, the choices you make should matter. Granted, there are mobs in New World, like Wolves, that are hard as hell in the beginning yet, over time, they become a cake walk to take down and then those mobs level with you as you travel to other areas.

The mistake ZOS made from One Tam, is they stripped the Progression from the game. It got boring after that. Its as simple as that. If I don't need to care about something then it forgettable and not worth my time. And all of ESO content is most certainly NOT like that ... but there is a notable lack of progression in ESO.

One interesting note though, its so interesting how certain ppl in ESO Cyrodiil PvP were always making demands for ppl they don't like to leave the server, because that was 'their' home. Like they owned the server. This happened frequently on Blackreach. So many times I was advised to change my faction or leave 'their' server. In New World it's totally different. We need everyone and we just don't have this problem and it feels so good. Especially since there is also no Dark Convergence or bombers in New World to speak of. It's just great.

Anyways my Faction needs me... time to get back. Peace

For such a great game with such an amazing PVP in New World there are surely so many complaints in forums over there about how so little players actually flag for PvP. Lol 🤣

I don't know why people keep posting about that game in this forum. Two games are not even comparable in any way or form.

colossalvoids wrote: »

Katlefiya wrote: »

Nagastani wrote: »

So because the game is considered by some to be successful, that means we stop fixing problems and just what... leave them? If the game is successful, then that's even more reason to fix lingering issues so they don't interfere.

It depends. If the "some" are in the majority, then maybe what the minority considers problems and lingering issues may not be as severe as they think. Sometimes the proposed fixes may be detrimental to the game as a whole and would leave ESO in a worse state than before. It may be prohibitively expensive to change the game the way you want. Or the technological risks may be to high. At the end, these are all decisions that only ZOS can make.

Majority would be millions of people checking out the game or playing for a few weeks. So should we go all in and listen to only their possible feedback closing the forum and making some polling system or just roll with the data available?

Majority argument make zero sense, they're already passively changing the game by their data, but we're on forums where actually playing the game daily minority discusses their everyday problems, reporting issues and such. Some are providing solutions but it's the devs to decide what route to take in the end so ultimately just rising a concern matters.

CP5 wrote: »

Katlefiya wrote: »

colossalvoids wrote: »

Katlefiya wrote: »

Nagastani wrote: »

So because the game is considered by some to be successful, that means we stop fixing problems and just what... leave them? If the game is successful, then that's even more reason to fix lingering issues so they don't interfere.

It depends. If the "some" are in the majority, then maybe what the minority considers problems and lingering issues may not be as severe as they think. Sometimes the proposed fixes may be detrimental to the game as a whole and would leave ESO in a worse state than before. It may be prohibitively expensive to change the game the way you want. Or the technological risks may be to high. At the end, these are all decisions that only ZOS can make.

Majority would be millions of people checking out the game or playing for a few weeks. So should we go all in and listen to only their possible feedback closing the forum and making some polling system or just roll with the data available?

Majority argument make zero sense, they're already passively changing the game by their data, but we're on forums where actually playing the game daily minority discusses their everyday problems, reporting issues and such. Some are providing solutions but it's the devs to decide what route to take in the end so ultimately just rising a concern matters.

You are misrepresenting my argument if you reduce it to the simple aspect of majority vs. minority.

And you're acting as though that something being 'good enough' is reason alone to not improve it. Had ZOS added anything in particular you like to the game, and if so how would you be if they settled for 'as is' prior to adding it?

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.

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.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

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.

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

colossalvoids wrote: »

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.

How about:

- Forum group yells for years about bad BGs. Says they should be Deathmatch only. Points to players treating all BG modes as Deathmatches as proof
- ZOS gives in under the guise of a test. Only Deathmatch BGs. Said group is ecstatic
- Several weeks later the conclusion is reached that such a change was a failure.
- Not only did casual BG players dislike the change and not participate, but the numbers of those who argued for said change amounted to a poor number. Many didn’t stay around long after testing was implemented and the BG population was worse than before.

See any parallels with the harder overland difficulty crowd? Or that such changes result in a butterfly effect, driving away more at the cost of appeasing a few.

Hallothiel wrote: »

J

Franchise408 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

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.

Because it's not main content. It's the same thing repetitively. For my preferences, harrowstorms, dragons, etc. are the exact kind of difficulty that I'm looking for in overland. They are fun, and I do things like that fairly frequently.

But it's also very repetitive. It's not like having an actual engaging storyline like the main quests and such. If I could find harrowstorm level gameplay within the quest storylines, I would want to do the questing storylines and I wouldn't boycott them. But while harrowstorms and dragons are fun content for me, being relegated to doing the same 5 minute content over and over and over and over and over and over again lends itself to quick burnout.

And for my preference, I would stop playing if all overland was as hard as harrowstorms or dragons. That to me is not fun at all.

See? Different people want different things, and ZOS cannot please everyone. They have to try & work out what will be popular AND profitable.

I do appreciate some like hard content, but ZOS have repeatedly explained why changing overland is not going to happen.

End of quest boss fights is a different thing, and something where I would like a ‘hard’ mode.

Nagastani wrote: »

kargen27 wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

You guys are amusing. Yes, trial instances have fewer players, meaning that you need more instances to satisfy the same player count. If you made an optional overland, first you would have a population of players who would be interested in it, and you would just shuffle people around, not even needing new instances. And second, if adding instances was such a daunting task, wouldn't poor ZOS need to cut back how many zones they make, else spread the player base too thin over the many sprawling instances?

And again, "why do it for one and done quest?" First, haven't even done them once, as I've said, as others have said. I did probably 3% of western skyrims questing, and none of blackwoods, an update like this would encourage players to actually do that content. And don't forget that updating the zone would make going there actually interesting, not just a thing you have to begrudgingly deal with to deal with the quest.

If instances were that hard for ZOS to implement on the server, they wouldn't have as many zones as they do, and would need restrictions on how many dungeon instances could be run at once. Neither are true.

Glad we can amuse.

MMOs survive by new content. They do not survive by rehashing old content for a few fringe players.

So not to cut into the conversation between CP5 and you, which to be fair not much really amuses me these days Mostly I either get blamed or billed for something but anyways I hear that happens as you get older.

I just wanted to say that we are not talking about old content. Overland is current content. I can goto any zone and you know, meet mobs. I goto Auridon and fight Heritance, can goto Orsinium and fight Trolls and such. This is not like old items that show up in the Crown Store or some junk data that was cut from development.

If it's in the game then its on the books which would have to include Overland content. To that point, many people mistakenly believe that the difficulty was cut for them. Now that's what the Devs may have said, however it doesn't seem like that's actually the case. We've heard arguments such as some players say the difficulty isn't hard enough... Ok. Others say they reduced the difficulty and feels good... Ok. But I wonder how much of this is assumption and how much is what actually is? I think the truth is closer to the fact that maybe there really is 'no difficulty' set at all. Instead, a global value is probably used as default per zone. This is terrible design decision for this day and age, regardless of whatever facts may exist in support of the lack of attention to detail, lack of qa, lack of planning, whichever it was that caused this problem.

So for those who think they reduced the difficulty specifically for them, may be kind of deceived a little bit, although perhaps unintentionally. Because it seems regarding this, the Devs really did nothing for anyone. If they did, we could have some means to verify how the difficulty is now scaled. So the Devs probably said, "we'll reduce the difficulty to something so easy anyone can do it, no one will question it and then wash our hands of responsibility of maintaining it". Which in fairness, maybe that had to. I'm not on the Team, I wasn't there when the decision was made. That still leaves us with this problem though and wherever ESO goes, it will always haunt the game until someone finally steps up to resolve it. And all the facts that people throw at this aren't explaining how this is -not- an issue with other games so why is it a problem with ESO when it doesn't have to be.

Finally, you refer to us as being 'fringe players' which could never be true because we play ESO often and are in-depth familiar with the game itself, not just overland content. And many on here agree that ESO should be for everyone. Therefore, if its for everyone then everyone needs to be taken with a grain of salt and civility because the time and money invested in this game is important to everyone, regardless of who they are or what they think.

Amottica wrote: »

Nagastani wrote: »

Katlefiya wrote: »

Nagastani wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

tonyblack wrote: »

As a player who did both WS and BW main quests I can confirm that there was no improvements which would suddenly make questing more enjoyable and engaging. It is same boring chore as it was 4 years ago.

There was mechanics that you actually had to follow because the bosses had immunity phases that allowed them to live long to talk their trash. They definitely increased the difficulty of them. So they definitely did try to make them more interesting.

Like here's Summerset. Barely any real mechs just dust a mob quick. (Not my videoes)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UXZefVKjz-0

And this is the end boss in Markarth and the main villain of that year long story.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VCbVcOQn83I

[snip] There is clearly effort there. But it's still tuned to low levels. Because the story is for everyone.

[Edited for Baiting]

[snip]

We have identified a problem with overland content missing any form of realism or providing a tangible, believable and/or satisfying experience to accommodate the story. It lacks progression (what I refer to as progressive difficulty) although the story doesn't... this obviously is a problem that must be fixed.

Why must it be fixed if ESO is successful as it is? It might even be as successful as it is because it does some things differently than other MMOs, where progression regularly makes older content obsolete with every new content update.

Its simply a problem that needs to be addressed with the game. [snip] With ESO's current issues, why anyone would want to keep things where they are truly staggers the mind and is -not- good for the game itself... never mind all of us. Arguing for the sake of meaningful change is better than being fully committed to completely resisting any change, because the world changes. People change. Roles in companies change.

Why would I want to keep things where they are? Because I have lots of fun in this game. Because I do not feel the same as you. For me, ESO is not stuck in the mud. Before coming to this game, I was playing WoW for years, but it was exhausting to completely loose the progression of my character with every major update and to replace my precious raid gear with simple green stuff dropping from overland mobs. I was bored by the way WoW did its story arcs. I was angered by changes the developers did to the way I could play my character, reducing choice.

For the last seven years, ESO has become my new MMO home, and I've yet to become bored with it. Or disappointed by the directions ZOS is driving this game.

So because the game is considered by some to be successful, that means we stop fixing problems and just what... leave them? If the game is successful, then that's even more reason to fix lingering issues so they don't interfere.

If a bank is successful however their network architecture is outdated I'm pretty sure they're going to update old hardware & software. Same thing here. Being a success does not excuse you from not doing your due-diligence. It always catches up with you somewhere, somehow.

Secondly, I thank you for relating your experience but really haven't said anything that would hinder you. All I'm saying is ZOS realize the issue, give us the ability to choose, as stated previously. Its understandable being angry about having reduced choices because that's how many of us feel now. So I'm confident then that you can understand why we are asking for ZOS to please fix this and give everyone the ability to choose.

Fixing problems with the game and the topic of this subject are not the same.

What is pertinent to this topic is ESO has become significantly more successful after they went to the current design for overland and quests. So while some may be disappointed Zenimax does not make overland more challenging the bank and stock holders seem to be very thrilled.

kargen27 wrote: »

Nagastani wrote: »

kargen27 wrote: »

CP5 wrote: »

You guys are amusing. Yes, trial instances have fewer players, meaning that you need more instances to satisfy the same player count. If you made an optional overland, first you would have a population of players who would be interested in it, and you would just shuffle people around, not even needing new instances. And second, if adding instances was such a daunting task, wouldn't poor ZOS need to cut back how many zones they make, else spread the player base too thin over the many sprawling instances?

And again, "why do it for one and done quest?" First, haven't even done them once, as I've said, as others have said. I did probably 3% of western skyrims questing, and none of blackwoods, an update like this would encourage players to actually do that content. And don't forget that updating the zone would make going there actually interesting, not just a thing you have to begrudgingly deal with to deal with the quest.

If instances were that hard for ZOS to implement on the server, they wouldn't have as many zones as they do, and would need restrictions on how many dungeon instances could be run at once. Neither are true.

Glad we can amuse.

MMOs survive by new content. They do not survive by rehashing old content for a few fringe players.

So not to cut into the conversation between CP5 and you, which to be fair not much really amuses me these days Mostly I either get blamed or billed for something but anyways I hear that happens as you get older.

I just wanted to say that we are not talking about old content. Overland is current content. I can goto any zone and you know, meet mobs. I goto Auridon and fight Heritance, can goto Orsinium and fight Trolls and such. This is not like old items that show up in the Crown Store or some junk data that was cut from development.

If it's in the game then its on the books which would have to include Overland content. To that point, many people mistakenly believe that the difficulty was cut for them. Now that's what the Devs may have said, however it doesn't seem like that's actually the case. We've heard arguments such as some players say the difficulty isn't hard enough... Ok. Others say they reduced the difficulty and feels good... Ok. But I wonder how much of this is assumption and how much is what actually is? I think the truth is closer to the fact that maybe there really is 'no difficulty' set at all. Instead, a global value is probably used as default per zone. This is terrible design decision for this day and age, regardless of whatever facts may exist in support of the lack of attention to detail, lack of qa, lack of planning, whichever it was that caused this problem.

So for those who think they reduced the difficulty specifically for them, may be kind of deceived a little bit, although perhaps unintentionally. Because it seems regarding this, the Devs really did nothing for anyone. If they did, we could have some means to verify how the difficulty is now scaled. So the Devs probably said, "we'll reduce the difficulty to something so easy anyone can do it, no one will question it and then wash our hands of responsibility of maintaining it". Which in fairness, maybe that had to. I'm not on the Team, I wasn't there when the decision was made. That still leaves us with this problem though and wherever ESO goes, it will always haunt the game until someone finally steps up to resolve it. And all the facts that people throw at this aren't explaining how this is -not- an issue with other games so why is it a problem with ESO when it doesn't have to be.

Finally, you refer to us as being 'fringe players' which could never be true because we play ESO often and are in-depth familiar with the game itself, not just overland content. And many on here agree that ESO should be for everyone. Therefore, if its for everyone then everyone needs to be taken with a grain of salt and civility because the time and money invested in this game is important to everyone, regardless of who they are or what they think.

My definition of old content is content that currently exists in the game. Remember when ZoS changed what a piece of armor looked like? All hell to pay. Overland zones are old content. They are content we where we sometimes return. ZoS tries to give us reason to return to that old content through introducing new things in that old content.
And I stand by my fringe content. I don't say that to mean the players are not enjoying many aspects of the game for hours at a time. I am saying that to mean there is extremely little support for creating a vet instance of every existing zone in the game and reworking mechanics for the mobs that live in that zone. Even in this thread the support for that idea is maybe six people. A lot of people would like a more difficult overland zone. Very few thing a separate vet zone is the way to go.

Offering a choice on solo instances going forward I think would be a great idea. Beyond that I don't think at this point in the games life there is much that can be done. And I doubt the more difficult zone would be popular for long beyond a general curiosity.
The difficulty being reduced thing is kind of a misnomer. Originally zones were scaled separate. With Tamriel One they were all scaled the same. So basically one zone was no longer any more difficult than any other zone. Some DLCs have changed that a bit. The developers picked the level that already existed in the game they thought would appeal to the most players.