I don't even know how to spell whow but one change I'd love to see to ESO delves is for the Undaunted's Bolgrul to up his game and come up with one more quest from each of the 15 provinces he uses, upping his list from 15 to 30. I quite enjoy his delve quests but with only 15, they begin to get a bit stale after a few years. Not to mention that doubling his list would lead to a welcome decrease in the number of players doing his delves. Delves really are less enjoyable with too many players running through them only to arrive at where the boss was just killed and waiting for a respawn.

Or. . . as @TheMajority said above, an option for a solo (you + any group) instance for delves would also be a lovely solution to the problem of overcrowding.

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

show previous quotes

Dahveed wrote: »

Let's face it, at its core it seems that WoW's new "delves" are basically ripoffs of ESO delves, but with massive updates to gameplay systems and much more variety in terms of progression and replayability.

I wonder if there's any chance that ESO devs take a look at that and perhaps throw some of their own salt and pepper into the mix? Perhaps adding a different instance of their own delves... i.e. a hardmode or a retold story, similar how they do things like "Fungal Grotto II" or "Wayrest Sewers II".

Perhaps with new challenges, modifiers, etc.

I dunno, just throwing that out there. I haven't played the new WoW content (haven't touched retail WoW in about 10 years and probably never will), but at least it looks like they're trying to evolve their gameplay formula. Perhaps ZOS should do the same? It seems that more than ever they need to breathe new life into their aging formula after the recent (supposed) outflux of players.

Thanks for the feedback here. We'll pass this along to the team for their future consideration. We don't normally create something "in response" to what another game does, but it can certainly inform future systems we work on. Thanks for the suggestion.

I appreciate the green text! (As far as I can remember it's my first time getting green text that wasn't telling me to "smarten up" lol.)

BUT in true "give them an inch and they'll ask for a mile" fashion, can you give any updates about the "overland content feedback thread" pinned on the general forums?

The general impression players seem to be getting is that it's just a place to filter all overland content and is just permanently /ignored. Are there any dev discussions regarding a difficulty slider (specifically pertaining to the optional "self debuff" slider)?

My hopes aren't very high. (At all.)

Cheers!

Thee_Cheshire_Cat wrote: »

Didnt think we were allowed discussing other games here, especially the game that shall not be named.... interesting.

Interestingly the devs might be looking into some other titles for inspiration now, as space becomes more competitive and players are not as satisfied overall as before. That's a good sign personally, not that I have high hopes there.

My bar is pretty low already, just have working PvP and it would populate itself, have striving PvE endgame which is not looking good but I'm sure they might pull off if they'll put some attention to it (last time was in elsweyr before homogenisation?) and have writing team in check as it's getting more upsetting every year and even going back to writing from 3-4 years ago it would absolutely do compared to what we're having now. So no new features there, just good foundation to begin with.

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

show previous quotes

Dahveed wrote: »

Let's face it, at its core it seems that WoW's new "delves" are basically ripoffs of ESO delves, but with massive updates to gameplay systems and much more variety in terms of progression and replayability.

I wonder if there's any chance that ESO devs take a look at that and perhaps throw some of their own salt and pepper into the mix? Perhaps adding a different instance of their own delves... i.e. a hardmode or a retold story, similar how they do things like "Fungal Grotto II" or "Wayrest Sewers II".

Perhaps with new challenges, modifiers, etc.

I dunno, just throwing that out there. I haven't played the new WoW content (haven't touched retail WoW in about 10 years and probably never will), but at least it looks like they're trying to evolve their gameplay formula. Perhaps ZOS should do the same? It seems that more than ever they need to breathe new life into their aging formula after the recent (supposed) outflux of players.

Thanks for the feedback here. We'll pass this along to the team for their future consideration. We don't normally create something "in response" to what another game does, but it can certainly inform future systems we work on. Thanks for the suggestion.

@ZOS_Kevin While these considerations are being forwarded, I'd like to point out that optionally instanced veteran delves / quest interiors were discussed at length in the Overland Feedback thread a while ago, pages 208 - 209, and was met with an overall positive response and constructive criticism. I think it's an excellent solution to many of the repeated grievances submit to that thread that wouldn't detract from the accessibility the game otherwise offers.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/8121519/#Comment_8121519

o_Primate_o wrote: »

I can see how HM overland content could be difficult to program, but HM delves is a good idea

It wouldnt be difficult, its already programmed. Just increase the multipliers. Same way games like Diablo handle it.

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

show previous quotes

KromedeTheCorrupt wrote: »

Good suggestion and actually a great idea but no we will not get that from zos. Their new mmo is their only priority and hopefully it fails so they come back to us. I don’t see why we keep giving them money just to fund their new game when we can’t even play this one without disconnecting or lagging.

Just wanted to stop this before it goes any further. ESO has it's own team fully dedicated to its continued development. We have folks working on content releasing and QoL updates in a few weeks, for 2025 and 2026. Our other project has its own team, built specifically for that project. Folks on ESO are dedicated to the project and will continue to be.

We are updating the team as we get new info to work toward better stability. This is taking time and will continue to take some testing.

Lastly, let's not hope for project failure. That doesn't mean ppl can just be added to another project, because they were brought on for the new project specifically. That potentially means people losing their jobs and impacting their livelihood. Totally understand being frustrated at connection issues, but that doesn't mean you should then hope other project fails.

Where’d the support staff go then?

Credible_Joe wrote: »

show previous quotes

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

Dahveed wrote: »

Let's face it, at its core it seems that WoW's new "delves" are basically ripoffs of ESO delves, but with massive updates to gameplay systems and much more variety in terms of progression and replayability.

I wonder if there's any chance that ESO devs take a look at that and perhaps throw some of their own salt and pepper into the mix? Perhaps adding a different instance of their own delves... i.e. a hardmode or a retold story, similar how they do things like "Fungal Grotto II" or "Wayrest Sewers II".

Perhaps with new challenges, modifiers, etc.

I dunno, just throwing that out there. I haven't played the new WoW content (haven't touched retail WoW in about 10 years and probably never will), but at least it looks like they're trying to evolve their gameplay formula. Perhaps ZOS should do the same? It seems that more than ever they need to breathe new life into their aging formula after the recent (supposed) outflux of players.

Thanks for the feedback here. We'll pass this along to the team for their future consideration. We don't normally create something "in response" to what another game does, but it can certainly inform future systems we work on. Thanks for the suggestion.

@ZOS_Kevin While these considerations are being forwarded, I'd like to point out that optionally instanced veteran delves / quest interiors were discussed at length in the Overland Feedback thread a while ago, pages 208 - 209, and was met with an overall positive response and constructive criticism. I think it's an excellent solution to many of the repeated grievances submit to that thread that wouldn't detract from the accessibility the game otherwise offers.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/8121519/#Comment_8121519

Any veteran-level delve content should be packaged as part of a more sweeping overland veteran challenge setting. I don't see a reason why delves alone should be affected while the rest of overland should be left untouched.

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

show previous quotes

Dahveed wrote: »

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

Dahveed wrote: »

Let's face it, at its core it seems that WoW's new "delves" are basically ripoffs of ESO delves, but with massive updates to gameplay systems and much more variety in terms of progression and replayability.

I wonder if there's any chance that ESO devs take a look at that and perhaps throw some of their own salt and pepper into the mix? Perhaps adding a different instance of their own delves... i.e. a hardmode or a retold story, similar how they do things like "Fungal Grotto II" or "Wayrest Sewers II".

Perhaps with new challenges, modifiers, etc.

I dunno, just throwing that out there. I haven't played the new WoW content (haven't touched retail WoW in about 10 years and probably never will), but at least it looks like they're trying to evolve their gameplay formula. Perhaps ZOS should do the same? It seems that more than ever they need to breathe new life into their aging formula after the recent (supposed) outflux of players.

Thanks for the feedback here. We'll pass this along to the team for their future consideration. We don't normally create something "in response" to what another game does, but it can certainly inform future systems we work on. Thanks for the suggestion.

I appreciate the green text! (As far as I can remember it's my first time getting green text that wasn't telling me to "smarten up" lol.)

BUT in true "give them an inch and they'll ask for a mile" fashion, can you give any updates about the "overland content feedback thread" pinned on the general forums?

The general impression players seem to be getting is that it's just a place to filter all overland content and is just permanently /ignored. Are there any dev discussions regarding a difficulty slider (specifically pertaining to the optional "self debuff" slider)?

My hopes aren't very high. (At all.)

Cheers!

I'll allow the mile just this once. Also just want to be clear that the intent is not to turn this into an overland conversation. Just to answer this specific question because I think it is important to note that the thread is not ignored. It's been a valuable resource when talking about this internally.

Just high level follow-up, since we don't have anything to announce today on the issue. Overland is brought up and we (ZOS) have conversations about how to address this issue regularly. Myself and my fellow community team members pass on Overland content feedback and note often it is one of the most requested player items when chatting internally. We started the Overland Feedback Thread so that we could keep track of everyone's ideas and worries when talking about overland. It's a tricky thing as we want to provide a fun and meaningful experience with an Elder Scrolls spin, while making sure we do not alienate players who don't want a different difficulty experience. But conversations are being had and that feedback thread is being referenced when we do have those discussions.

So the conversations are happening and your feedback is helpful in those conversation. But any announcement or future news is not for me to share.

There's not a lot on this forum that is truly "awesome", but that post certainly meets the criteria. In part because of its content, but not least because you were able to share it with us !

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

Just to answer this specific question because I think it is important to note that the thread is not ignored. It's been a valuable resource when talking about this internally.

That's comforting to hear, thanks.

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

We started the Overland Feedback Thread so that we could keep track of everyone's ideas and worries when talking about overland. It's a tricky thing as we want to provide a fun and meaningful experience with an Elder Scrolls spin, while making sure we do not alienate players who don't want a different difficulty experience. But conversations are being had and that feedback thread is being referenced when we do have those discussions.

IMO, you guys should stop funneling all overland content discussions into one thread. It does a disservice to the topics, contributors, and readers. It creates a situation where multiple discussions are stuffed into one thread. That's hard to read. I get you want it all in one place, that's nice and all, but a lot of conversations get interrupted that would otherwise mature into more meaningful feedback for the teams.

Plus, there's many people who aren't going to be bothered to repost there and your mods don't link the closed conversations there in the master thread (despite asking for that to be done btw). So potentially fruitful discussions aren't being given a chance.

Ideally, overland content should be its own subforum just given the volume and diversity of topics involved. Not all overland topics are the same.

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

Just wanted to stop this before it goes any further. ESO has it's own team fully dedicated to its continued development. We have folks working on content releasing and QoL updates in a few weeks, for 2025 and 2026. Our other project has its own team, built specifically for that project. Folks on ESO are dedicated to the project and will continue to be.

It sounds like the core concern is more that there's a reduced team size supporting ESO; not whether an individual resource is working on two projects concurrently. The concern is that previously ESO-focused resources have been moved over to another project.

Looking at the last few releases, it seems like there's reduced staff supporting ESO. I'm sure you guys are staffed adequately to support releases, but I can also see where it’s possible you've aligned your release capacity to a reduced headcount.

I know you guys wanted to focus on QoL for Q4, but we're also getting less playable content a year. Previously, we got QoL adjustments like stickerbook along with releases. That really creates the impression that there's less resources dedicated overall.

There's also concern that despite ESO's monetization and financial success, we haven’t meatier releases or increased performance. So, people are worried the money spent on ESO isn't being solely allocated to ESO and its success.

This concern is further compounded by the release changes. The value of ESO plus is lessened because of the 2 dungeons and Q4 DLC being cut from the yearly release schedule. That’s only been mildly offset by IA, and arguably Scribing. The new BGs is not net new content since it’s a retooling of existing content.

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

We are updating the team as we get new info to work toward better stability. This is taking time and will continue to take some testing.

It's understandable that things take time. But, rather than just saying "it takes time" and "we're testing", going into actual detail of what you're testing is going to reduce tensions way more.

Players are thirsty for details, even if it's not the final product. Like you said, you're testing something - what? What are you testing? How big of an issue is it from your end? This has been mentioned before, so it’s a bit surprising that it hasn’t been addressed.

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

Totally understand being frustrated at connection issues, but that doesn't mean you should then hope other project fails.

How things are handled here will impact people’s willingness to support ZOS on future projects. People may not always express their feelings in the best way, but the reputation ZOS has earned in ESO will influence future support for other projects. For better or worse.

Transparency and detailed communication will do more for that than simply telling people what to hope for.

And again, you'd deal with a lot less toxicity if you reported incremental status as amply suggested in the big performance thread. Moments like that should be recognized as opportunities to improve those negative perceptions.

That being said, thanks for the engagement here on and on other threads. You do so much for the community.

One thing I would like that is being used by "that other game" is the massive improvement of their A.I.

....I get AI can be a dirty word these days but it is essential in a video game, and I think especially in a MMO that relies so much on PVE, NPC's pets, companions, etc etc...I don't know how much resources are allocated to what...but If we could see half of what's been given to WoW it would be amazing.....

Quoted post has been removed

Edited due to the above....

AzuraFan wrote: »

show previous quotes

Credible_Joe wrote: »

While these considerations are being forwarded, I'd like to point out that optionally instanced veteran delves / quest interiors were discussed at length in the Overland Feedback thread a while ago, pages 208 - 209, and was met with an overall positive response and constructive criticism. I think it's an excellent solution to many of the repeated grievances submit to that thread that wouldn't detract from the accessibility the game otherwise offers.

I think a difficulty setting for all instanced content would be great. A player should also have the option of turning down the difficulty for group content (to do dungeons alone, for example, assuming all mechanics requiring 2+ players were removed - this could be the story mode that's been requested quite often).

AzuraFan wrote: »

show previous quotes

Credible_Joe wrote: »

While these considerations are being forwarded, I'd like to point out that optionally instanced veteran delves / quest interiors were discussed at length in the Overland Feedback thread a while ago, pages 208 - 209, and was met with an overall positive response and constructive criticism. I think it's an excellent solution to many of the repeated grievances submit to that thread that wouldn't detract from the accessibility the game otherwise offers.

I think a difficulty setting for all instanced content would be great. A player should also have the option of turning down the difficulty for group content (to do dungeons alone, for example, assuming all mechanics requiring 2+ players were removed - this could be the story mode that's been requested quite often).

I could get behind that...I would also prefer it if we could have Instanced Versions of Delves for when we grouped, it would be nice to run a RP event without having two griefers bunny hopping behind you yelling "RP SUXXORZ" in chat....but even without that difficulty levels could bring so much replayability to the game and it would literally hurt no one

I would like for delves to have increased difficulty, quest free with some material replay behind. Like remove mushroom, place them in delves, remove some runestones place them in delves. Remove platinum from overland place them in delves.

Some of them can be PvP free ignoring alliance emblem, respecting guild one. Make guilds compete for some resource in a delve like combat. Winner gets 50k platinum ores. Guild management distribution allowed to people who participated or something similar.

Brainstorming here.
Thanks

The more I think about it the more a PVE Cyrodil makes sense....end the war and utilize that large area for the majority demographic...this would mean a much needed revamp to PVP....PVP could be kick started by utilizing the arena system with a whole new bevy of rewards and titles (Mount's Sets, Costumes etc) along with daily and weekly events....this could also allow for a reworking of the network that could allow for better connectivity in PVP because you would have more personalized battles rather than the huge events that never have and never will work.

One the one hand PVPers will lose the huge battles....but on the other hand PVPers never had the huge battles