spartaxoxo wrote: »

Most of the casuals I have seen can do the normal base game dungeons, and the base game world bosses with ease. But they take longer and/or struggle with things like trials, vet mode content, and normal mode dlc dungeons. So, they tend to just ignore that content unless they want something in particular from it. So, that's personally what I would consider around the power level of the average player.

What you described isn't a casual but rather an average, skilled player.

What I mean by casual players you'd probably consider story/quest players. The type of players who doesn't really care about builds, rotations and chooses skills because they are fun/look nice or fit the theme. Those players (myself included) don't really stand a chance in EA (or against world bosses in general). Granted, high CP helps but you have to get there first.

So it's mainly about different definitions.

Kendaric wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Most of the casuals I have seen can do the normal base game dungeons, and the base game world bosses with ease. But they take longer and/or struggle with things like trials, vet mode content, and normal mode dlc dungeons. So, they tend to just ignore that content unless they want something in particular from it. So, that's personally what I would consider around the power level of the average player.

What you described isn't a casual but rather an average, skilled player.

What I mean by casual players you'd probably consider story/quest players. The type of players who doesn't really care about builds, rotations and chooses skills because they are fun/look nice or fit the theme. Those players (myself included) don't really stand a chance in EA (or against world bosses in general). Granted, high CP helps but you have to get there first.

So it's mainly about different definitions.

So you want to say, that all casual players are below average? Because that's exactly the argument you're trying to make.

It's also not understandable why you make a distinction between being interested in story/quests and being interested in builds and combat. Being interested in both is quite common in most rpgs and eso itself (think about the overwhelming feedback of players voting for more meaningful overland).

That EA will be a place centered on combat but not questing or exploration was made very clear by zos since the very first announcement. Please show me where exactly they said otherwise.

Nonetheless EA is offered also to the sort of players, which you're describing. Nobody is excluded by design. If some players exclude theirselves, because they aren't interested, that's a personal decision and not an indicator for necessary chances difficulty-wise.

Kendaric wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Most of the casuals I have seen can do the normal base game dungeons, and the base game world bosses with ease. But they take longer and/or struggle with things like trials, vet mode content, and normal mode dlc dungeons. So, they tend to just ignore that content unless they want something in particular from it. So, that's personally what I would consider around the power level of the average player.

What you described isn't a casual but rather an average, skilled player.

What I mean by casual players you'd probably consider story/quest players. The type of players who doesn't really care about builds, rotations and chooses skills because they are fun/look nice or fit the theme. Those players (myself included) don't really stand a chance in EA (or against world bosses in general). Granted, high CP helps but you have to get there first.

So it's mainly about different definitions.

Many times, the forum has tried to define "casual" and the result is that people pretty much use it however they want. Subjectively. As I see it used, anyone who thinks they are causal, the word means anyone who plays like they do. Anyone who thinks they are not casual, then the word means anyone who plays unlike how they do. It isn't about time, or skill, or what people do, yet it is all about that, and more. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ In every group labeled as "casual", people will come forward and say they are not. Likewise, in any group labeled other than casual, people will say they are casual.

As to the "average player" comment... I won't comment on where "casuals" reside, but I do not think that Endless Archive is for the "average player". I don't think that half of the players are interested in it _and_ can complete the first Arc with any reliability.

Now, on the subject of the average group of two players, yes, I think that Endless Archive is appropriate content.

Personally, I think Endless Archive may finally answer the question about "who is casual". I am sensing the birth of a strata in players. Simply stated, anyone who can complete Arc 1 is not casual, and anyone who cannot complete Arc 1 is.

It's okay for games to have content that not all players can participate in at every level.

I have zero skill at Tales of Tribute and have long since accepted that I will never be able to earn any of the rewards from that activity, and I'm totally fine with that. I'll never be Emperor of Cyrodiil, or have a lot of the trial/vet DLC trifecta achievements and titles, but I'm ok with that too. I'm not going to ask ZOS to make any of these things easier for me; because then I'd have nothing to aspire to in the future if I wanted to pursue those things.

To me, the term "casual" is one of the most loaded/biased terms in online gaming, and I'd love to see it gone from the gaming lexicon. You can ask 10 players and get 10 different answers. I just don't like all of the negative connotations that often come with the term.

Kendaric wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Most of the casuals I have seen can do the normal base game dungeons, and the base game world bosses with ease. But they take longer and/or struggle with things like trials, vet mode content, and normal mode dlc dungeons. So, they tend to just ignore that content unless they want something in particular from it. So, that's personally what I would consider around the power level of the average player.

What you described isn't a casual but rather an average, skilled player.

What I mean by casual players you'd probably consider story/quest players. The type of players who doesn't really care about builds, rotations and chooses skills because they are fun/look nice or fit the theme. Those players (myself included) don't really stand a chance in EA (or against world bosses in general). Granted, high CP helps but you have to get there first.

So it's mainly about different definitions.

I mean, that's true. I think we're working under different definitions. But I don't think a person who cannot clear normal dlc dungeons comfortably has a ton of interest in builds, rotations, etc. Most of the ones like that I have met have stated they are mostly interested in playing how they want, the story, etc. And that focus being on other things is moreso what makes me consider them casual, rather than it being a player below the average power level. I think most players in the game are casual and vet players are smaller sized group but significant in number.

I suspect that devs view things similarly given how EA is tuned, but who knows.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

Sirona_Starr wrote: »

Olen_Mikko wrote: »

Please don't touch the difficulty. People need to learn how to play their class instead of crying. Seriously. This game has already way too little challenging content.

Endless Archive should actually become harder way faster and offer bigger rewards. Now it is kinda boring and time consuming

Then, perhaps something like this should be a chapter you can purchase. I sub. I got NOTHING for my sub this year. My money is as good as yours, even if I am not as good a player as you. Up until this year I knew and accepted that the two dlc bits of the sub was something that would not be in my purvue aside from running one on normal once or twice. Now I get this archive which is worse than a dlc dungeon in terms of my level of subbing.

Maybe all the filthy casuals (which I am not) should stop subbing until we get something to enjoy ourselves.

EA is a f2p-activity. You don't have to sub to do it, so subscribers loose exactly nothing.

They dropped 2 DLCs and gave out a base game system instead. So, ESO+ is down to a single new dlc added each year.

Not arguing against that. But the reason for those changes is a general shift in development direction and tied to the roadmap, not so much EA (which is only a little part of the ongoing changes).

I wouldn't contradict, if anyone is saying eso+ lost two paid dlc (Q3 and Q4) this year due to changes of the roadmap.

But nobody lost those 2 dlc due to EA exclusively. That's nothing more than framing.

I think that's splitting hairs a bit as EA is exactly the type of system they wanted to focus on rather than handcrafted experiences, and the type of system they said would have taken too much time before. So, it's emblematic of what they said they wanted to focus on over questing.

Also not arguing against that. Shifting the focus of development away from questing has nothing to do with eso+ tho.

It's the result of zos trying to find a solution to the ongoing demands of a big chunk of the playerbase, which wants to see more meaningful combat. EA is an attempt to deliver such a solution.

And while I see some potential for improvement, like the implementation of a saving-feature and the possibility to start at already completed Arcs, I have to admit: I hadn't that much fun with combat in eso for years. It's a well-made addition to the game overall and if we see some improvements and additions to EA, like they do with antiquities almost every update (we got a bunch of new leads with U40 as well, basically for free), maybe the debate about overland difficulty finally can come to an end.

I'm not astonished tho, that exactly the people opposing every optional increase of overland difficulty (especially a split normal/veteran) are arguing for split difficulty-modes for EA. It was expectable.

The differences in the difficulty levels of the bosses that can already appear in arc 1 is simply absurd. What's the Endling doing in 1.3.3, pinning you down until you're dead with no chance of breaking free?

Braffin wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

Sirona_Starr wrote: »

Olen_Mikko wrote: »

Please don't touch the difficulty. People need to learn how to play their class instead of crying. Seriously. This game has already way too little challenging content.

Endless Archive should actually become harder way faster and offer bigger rewards. Now it is kinda boring and time consuming

Then, perhaps something like this should be a chapter you can purchase. I sub. I got NOTHING for my sub this year. My money is as good as yours, even if I am not as good a player as you. Up until this year I knew and accepted that the two dlc bits of the sub was something that would not be in my purvue aside from running one on normal once or twice. Now I get this archive which is worse than a dlc dungeon in terms of my level of subbing.

Maybe all the filthy casuals (which I am not) should stop subbing until we get something to enjoy ourselves.

EA is a f2p-activity. You don't have to sub to do it, so subscribers loose exactly nothing.

They dropped 2 DLCs and gave out a base game system instead. So, ESO+ is down to a single new dlc added each year.

Not arguing against that. But the reason for those changes is a general shift in development direction and tied to the roadmap, not so much EA (which is only a little part of the ongoing changes).

I wouldn't contradict, if anyone is saying eso+ lost two paid dlc (Q3 and Q4) this year due to changes of the roadmap.

But nobody lost those 2 dlc due to EA exclusively. That's nothing more than framing.

I think that's splitting hairs a bit as EA is exactly the type of system they wanted to focus on rather than handcrafted experiences, and the type of system they said would have taken too much time before. So, it's emblematic of what they said they wanted to focus on over questing.

Also not arguing against that. Shifting the focus of development away from questing has nothing to do with eso+ tho.

It's the result of zos trying to find a solution to the ongoing demands of a big chunk of the playerbase, which wants to see more meaningful combat. EA is an attempt to deliver such a solution.

It does though because ESO+ is about access to dlc content. The craft bag actually came later as compensation for the chapter being shifted out of Plus. Plus is now down to a single new dlc being added each year.

And while I see some potential for improvement, like the implementation of a saving-feature and the possibility to start at already completed Arcs, I have to admit: I hadn't that much fun with combat in eso for years. It's a well-made addition to the game overall and if we see some improvements and additions to EA, like they do with antiquities almost every update (we got a bunch of new leads with U40 as well, basically for free), maybe the debate about overland difficulty finally can come to an end.

I'm not astonished tho, that exactly the people opposing every optional increase of overland difficulty (especially a split normal/veteran) are arguing for split difficulty-modes for EA. It was expectable.

Me either. I'm also not astonished that many of the people who insisted on a split normal/vet overland are also against that for EA.

Personally, I'm not in favor of a split for either. Although, I understand it more for EA than overland as EA is instanced solo/duo content. You can't exactly split someone up from a solo instance. Is EA a queued activity in the activity finder?

I do support however optional sliders for overland, and I'd be in favor if they potentially nerfed arc 1 if too many people are struggling. But, not as much arcs beyond that one. I don't think people who largely aren't interested in combat need combat oriented content designed around that.

The craft bag isn't designed as compensation for chapters being shifted out of eso+ at all. It's introduction came with DB-update way before morrowind was even announced. I recommend not to mix up personal interpretation with facts.

I tend to also agree that the crafting bag ended up being viewed as compensation for Chapters not being included in ESO Plus. Whether that was the intention, we will probably never know.

Keep in mind that when the crafting bag was announced in 2016, they already knew about Morrowind for 2017, even if we didn't. They could have easily decided that it would not be included in ESO Plus, and could have easily started working up plans to replace it, one of which being the crafting bag.

Braffin wrote: »

The craft bag isn't designed as compensation for chapters being shifted out of eso+ at all. It's introduction came with DB-update way before morrowind was even announced. I recommend not to mix up personal interpretation with facts.

The Dark Brotherhood update was the update right before they shifted chapters out of ESO+ with Morrowind. And they teased Morrowind in Dark Brotherhood because they already knew Morrowind was coming. I don't think it's at all a coincidence that right before they announced they were permanently decreasing the main feature of ESO+, they added a massive new feature. Players have repeated it was compensation for years and years, and devs have never corrected it. What we knew is irrelevant, it's what the devs knew when it comes to that. And the devs knew they were deleting one plus benefit and adding another around the same time, and never once corrected the idea these two things are linked.

Regarding the split, it's not a secret, that I would be in favor of a seperated veteran overland. Nonetheless I can live with the current situation: Overland can stay in it's current state, if EA isn't nerfed difficulty-wise and will see meaningful additions with major updates, as any other implemented system gets them.

I think that's just as inconsistent, personally, as what you highlighted. If a separated version of Overland is necessary so Vets can actually be able to enjoy the content, why shouldn't a separate EA also be needed for the same reason?

Personally, I'm not in favor of a split for either. But a split with EA would bother me less because it's instanced and I'm not sure if it's part of the activity finder. If it is part of the activity finder, that would strengthen my stance against it being split into normal vs vet. If it's not, then there is already not a queue that could be harmed by a split, so it would soften it. Activity Finder, like Overland, requires a lot of people to function properly when it comes to connecting people together for more difficult content.

Braffin wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

The craft bag isn't designed as compensation for chapters being shifted out of eso+ at all. It's introduction came with DB-update way before morrowind was even announced. I recommend not to mix up personal interpretation with facts.

The Dark Brotherhood update was the update right before they shifted chapters out of ESO+ with Morrowind. And they teased Morrowind in Dark Brotherhood because they already knew Morrowind was coming. I don't think it's at all a coincidence that right before they announced they were permanently decreasing the main feature of ESO+, they added a massive new feature. Players have repeated it was compensation for years and years, and devs have never corrected it.

Regarding the split, it's not a secret, that I would be in favor of a seperated veteran overland. Nonetheless I can live with the current situation: Overland can stay in it's current state, if EA isn't nerfed difficulty-wise and will see meaningful additions with major updates, as any other implemented system gets them.

I think that's just as inconsistent, personally, as what you highlighted. If a separated version of Overland is necessary so Vets can actually be able to enjoy the content, why shouldn't a separate EA also be needed for the same reason?

Personally, I'm not in favor of a split for either. But a split with EA would bother me less because it's instanced and I'm not sure if it's part of the activity finder. If it is part of the activity finder, that would strengthen my stance against it being split into normal vs vet. If it's not, then there is already not a queue that could be harmed by a split, so it would soften it. Activity Finder, like Overland, requires a lot of people to function properly when it comes to connecting people together for more difficult content.

Yeah, you think that's not a coincidence at all. That's interpretation, not fact. I'm sure you know the difference.

Where did I state "it's a fact" anywhere? I stated it as common wisdom, because it is the common wisdom. It is not something the devs have ever stated otherwise, despite them being fully aware that is how it has been viewed as the playerbase at large for years. But I never stated "this is a hard fact," that's something you added later.

And I don't see how my statement is inconsistent.

It is not consistent because the best design of the content is that it's separated for overland, but not best separated for EA. And there doesn't seem to be a design reason why the two stances differ.

Edit: nvm don't want to get into it further than that.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

The craft bag isn't designed as compensation for chapters being shifted out of eso+ at all. It's introduction came with DB-update way before morrowind was even announced. I recommend not to mix up personal interpretation with facts.

The Dark Brotherhood update was the update right before they shifted chapters out of ESO+ with Morrowind. And they teased Morrowind in Dark Brotherhood because they already knew Morrowind was coming. I don't think it's at all a coincidence that right before they announced they were permanently decreasing the main feature of ESO+, they added a massive new feature. Players have repeated it was compensation for years and years, and devs have never corrected it.

Regarding the split, it's not a secret, that I would be in favor of a seperated veteran overland. Nonetheless I can live with the current situation: Overland can stay in it's current state, if EA isn't nerfed difficulty-wise and will see meaningful additions with major updates, as any other implemented system gets them.

I think that's just as inconsistent, personally, as what you highlighted. If a separated version of Overland is necessary so Vets can actually be able to enjoy the content, why shouldn't a separate EA also be needed for the same reason?

Personally, I'm not in favor of a split for either. But a split with EA would bother me less because it's instanced and I'm not sure if it's part of the activity finder. If it is part of the activity finder, that would strengthen my stance against it being split into normal vs vet. If it's not, then there is already not a queue that could be harmed by a split, so it would soften it. Activity Finder, like Overland, requires a lot of people to function properly when it comes to connecting people together for more difficult content.

Yeah, you think that's not a coincidence at all. That's interpretation, not fact. I'm sure you know the difference.

Where did I state "it's a fact" anywhere? I stated it as common wisdom, because it is the common wisdom. It is not something the devs have ever stated otherwise, despite them being fully aware that is how it has been viewed as the playerbase at large for years. But I never stated "this is a hard fact," that's something you added later.

And I don't see how my statement is inconsistent.

It is not consistent because the best design of the content is that it's separated for overland, but not best separated for EA. And there doesn't seem to be a design reason why the two stances differ.

I demand equality, nothing more, nothing less. They either split this game into normal/veteran instances in general (including overland) or they don't and guarantee a sufficient delivery of content to all playstyles otherwise. EA is an attempt to do so and I appreciate that.

Sure, the players calling themselves "casuals" after they defined this term exclusively to their liking, may have their normal mode of EA, if we also get veteran overland.

It's either some content for everyone or all content for everyone.

But you've mostly argued against EA being split, while mostly arguing in favor of Overland being split. It comes across like "If I can't have it, you can't either" rather than it being a consistently applied balance philosophy that is viewed that way regardless of who does or doesn't benefit. Which to me is not any different than people who argue against any difficulty options for overland, but want them for EA.

We could quarrel all day about the difference between "fact" and "common wisdom", but tbh I've no intention to do so.

About consistency: EA already offers several difficulties, that's the whole purpose if this mode. Overland on the contrary doesn't offer various difficulties. In fact overland is the only part of the game involving combat without any difficulty options at all. You may think, that's fair. I don't tho.

Nonetheless I don't argue for veteran overland anymore, if EA stays untouched difficulty-wise and is seeing ongoing additions. The reason for this is simple: While I personally had preferred difficulty-options across all content, I'm nonetheless fine with splitting the content in a relaxing experience (overland) and a more challenging one (EA). I think it's a fair deal.

Tandor wrote: »

I can understand why veteran players don't want EA nerfed, but I still don't understand why they don't support the introduction of a normal mode for casual players (definitions may vary) if that is accompanied in the present design which would become the veteran mode by a beefing up of the early Arcs so they don't have to run through trash content but can launch straight into challenging content. At least, I don't understand it unless @spartaxoxo is right on picking up on the "If I can't have it, you can't either" position of those who wanted a veteran mode for overland content but didn't get it.

Maybe if they supported a normal mode for casual players in EA and it happened, they'd be in a stronger position to argue for a veteran mode for overland content - and get more support from the casual players in doing so.

My view is that Arc 1 should be normal mode, and then it progresses to Veteran mode.

Tandor wrote: »

I can understand why veteran players don't want EA nerfed, but I still don't understand why they don't support the introduction of a normal mode for casual players (definitions may vary) if that is accompanied in the present design which would become the veteran mode by a beefing up of the early Arcs so they don't have to run through trash content but can launch straight into challenging content. At least, I don't understand it unless @spartaxoxo is right on picking up on the "If I can't have it, you can't either" position of those who wanted a veteran mode for overland content but didn't get it.

Maybe if they supported a normal mode for casual players in EA and it happened, they'd be in a stronger position to argue for a veteran mode for overland content - and get more support from the casual players in doing so.

I don't think that's correct.

First of all EA isn't a playground solely for veteran but for the whole playerbase. The rules are simple: Fight till you reach your personal limit and enjoy yourself while doing so. It's the possibility to progress for everyone, not only veterans. And that's a good thing to have.

I also see zos trying to defuse the conflict regarding normal/veteran overland with EA, as it's procedurally generated (unless already existing arenas) and doesn't become stale as fast this way. As said before, if EA is maintained properly by future updates, the whole conflict regarding difficulty could come to an end.

There are a few improvements for players which are struggling with Arc 1 I'd like to see as further additions tho:
1) A save-function, so breaks are possible while learning how to deal with unknown mechanics.
2) The possibility to fight a boss more than 3 times, so learning of mechanics can be done more consistently.

Those changes would help a lot of people I think, taking away any challenge from lower Arcs simply isn't necessary tho. Relaxed combat is already possible everywhere in overland.

Regarding overland difficulty it's basically the same vice versa: I don't see the need for increased difficulty, if every player may enter EA if their interested in a challenge. It would be nice to be able to start at any already completed Arc to smoothen the experience.

Tbh, the split normal/veteran seems quite outdated if you look at what EA really offers to the playerbase.

EA is part of the activity finder, yes.

Overland used to be split. From launch, after getting level 50 (Veteran 1) when you started Cadwell's Silver and Cadwell's Gold to do the other two alliances' storylines, you were in a separate Veteran version of those alliances' zones.

In other words, for any given zone -- say, Reaper's March -- there was a version of that zone for levels 40-45, or whatever the range was, and there was a Veteran version of that zone for Veteran ranks, with correspondingly harder difficulty.

Remember that this was before battle-levelling, so zone and group content did not change based on your character's level so a level 10 that ended up in Reaper's March was going to get slaughtered by a Skeever, but a level 45 in Auridon could rapidly clear anything, including world bosses and 4-man dungeon content. Nodes were also level-locked, so if you wanted to farm Maple, you had to go to a starter zone. So this diluted "effective" player population, segregating zones by player level. It's not like now where you have a level 10 player and a CP2200 player both fighting the same WB in Apocrypha or questing alongside each other in Blackwood.

The "II" dungeons: City of Ash II, Crypt of Hearts II, Fungal Grotto II, the Banished Cells II, Wayrest Sewers II and Spindleclutch II -- were Veteran only. (BC2 used to be quite a hard skill check and wipes to the Kinlord were frequent, to the point that players often gave up and bailed out.)

The problem with the "split overland" approach was that for it to work, the devs had to make two versions of every zone in the game, except Coldharbour (up until Craglorn launched, at least.) They then had to adjust the damage and health for every enemy in those zones, including delves, WB's, public dungeons, and quest bosses such as Magistrix Vox. This tuning was largely done manually.

The end result was that the game's population was effectively split as well. Higher-level players doing Cadwell's quests often found the Veteran zones desolately empty, but some content was still difficult enough to require help from other players (world bosses/public dungeons) -- meaning you often had to just skip that content due to lack of help. On top of that, you couldn't group with players from other alliances yet, or do their content outside of Cadwell's quests, so that made the zones even emptier since they were alliance-locked as well! If that wasn't bad enough, you often couldn't see players who were in different phases (e.g. on Step 3 of a quest when you were still on Step 2.) And in a game that was seriously struggling to grow its playerbase, the last thing the devs wanted was to see a bunch of empty zones with ghost towns.

I don't know if there is data yet on "how" people experience EA -- are the duo groups mostly friends, or guildmates, or random strangers? -- but splitting EA would definitely risk diluting the player pool.

Absolutely loved the Endless Archive so far!! As a terrible DPS player, I made it to the final boss of arc 2 without any issues(he kicked my behind). Also love the unknown things: switches, ram, quest, etc! And I am fine with not having a save point or restart function, as this dungeon is about how far you can go in one run. Everything is straightforward, easy to figure out. Though the function of the hourglass was somewhat unclear until I tried it(resets the archive so you can restart it).

But the arc's final boss(es) is too much "in your face" to be able to fight them normally, and my tank companion died within a few seconds due to the continuous ground aoe. These were significantly tougher than the arc they are ending, for some reason. These should be toned down quite a bit to be on par with the rest of the arc they are ending. The worst part is, we get them at the end of every arc, so some change is needed.

But that is basically the only negative thing I can say about the endless archive!! Absolutely love it, and will be spending quite a bit of time in there. Even though I am terrible, and probably have to start arc 1 over again and again!

Note: Gear shouldn't degrade in the EA, it loses durability too fast.

PS: I can't finish vMA, so that is saying something about how bad I really am.
PPS: Did EA solo with a tank companion.

Edit: When does the lead vendor in the EA reset?