Parasaurolophus wrote: »One thing I want to say to those who so aggressively defend the current state of the overworld: ZoS wouldn't be changing their development strategy if everything was fine.
Parasaurolophus wrote: »The difficulty slider is not a solution. Not at all. I don't understand why players in these discussions don't see it. Most quest bosses are not in instances, and it's unlikely that ZoS will place them there. Moreover, some sort of reward system for increased difficulty would be necessary. How are we supposed to play in the same world, fight the same boss, if player strength is scaled differently? It makes no sense.
Different versions of the world for veteran and normal modes? That's a bit better, but why bother? It won't significantly improve our experience. ZoS has spent years planning and developing the overworld as it is now, and it's no surprise that locations become deserted—players simply complete all the POIs, and there's no reason to return.
The overworld needs a completely different approach. New activities, new content, perhaps with adjustable difficulty. Questing could be more than just what it is now. But as for what to do with these dozens of empty decorations made for questing, I have no idea. Hopefully, ZoS has some ideas—time will tell.
One thing I want to say to those who so aggressively defend the current state of the overworld: ZoS wouldn't be changing their development strategy if everything was fine.
Parasaurolophus wrote: »The difficulty slider is not a solution. Not at all. I don't understand why players in these discussions don't see it. Most quest bosses are not in instances, and it's unlikely that ZoS will place them there. Moreover, some sort of reward system for increased difficulty would be necessary. How are we supposed to play in the same world, fight the same boss, if player strength is scaled differently? It makes no sense.
Different versions of the world for veteran and normal modes? That's a bit better, but why bother? It won't significantly improve our experience. ZoS has spent years planning and developing the overworld as it is now, and it's no surprise that locations become deserted—players simply complete all the POIs, and there's no reason to return.
The overworld needs a completely different approach. New activities, new content, perhaps with adjustable difficulty. Questing could be more than just what it is now. But as for what to do with these dozens of empty decorations made for questing, I have no idea. Hopefully, ZoS has some ideas—time will tell.
One thing I want to say to those who so aggressively defend the current state of the overworld: ZoS wouldn't be changing their development strategy if everything was fine.
From what I read so far said by some people who are vehemently against difficulty increase, they use arguments such as "people who want difficulty increase are selfish" or the same people claim to be very grounded in reality whereas all their saying point out they are very detached from reality and living in their own bubble instead.
Parasaurolophus wrote: »@disky Scenario: You increased the difficulty to enjoy the quest, but suddenly you realize that all the mobs ahead of you are being obliterated by a player on lower difficulty settings. You finally reach the boss of the quest; the fight begins, and you're executing the mechanics. Then, out of nowhere, a player with lower difficulty settings shows up and nukes the boss with a single ultimate ability.
What if increasing the difficulty level meant better rewards? For example, if three players were fighting the boss—one on a high difficulty and the other two on low difficulty—how would the rewards be distributed?
Er...i genuinely don't know how you got "Overland should be easier" from my post haha. I wasn't trying to imply that at all.thatnewcatsmell wrote: »I've never understood the mindset of wanting others to struggle to accomplish something in a game just so one can feel 'strong'. How others play the game and whether they achieve any given thing or not, they don't affect your own ability. Demanding that others need to have their ability to play the game negatively impacted just so you feel good about what you've accomplished is...I'm sorry it's selfish, and it feels like a game like an MMO isn't the sort of game to play with that mindset.
Not everything needs to be a grueling struggle to accomplish even the most basic of things. Overland doesn't need to be some grand challenge just so someone feels like their "efforts" seem validated because they're able to do it but most others struggle. It's a game not a competition to see who can do what and who can't.
Edit to add this is in response to another post. I was gonna quote it but I hit the Last button on accident and couldn't remember what page the comment was on or the name of who posted it so...
So are you suggesting that overland content should be made easier? There are a couple of posts from people who aren't able to complete recent quest bosses. Should overland turn into 'click boss to win'? What's an acceptable amount of 'struggle'?
1) How is it bloated?Avran_Sylt wrote: »This is such a bloated thread that I hope it gets shut down. Culled, or at least adhere to their necro policy.
Devs can increase overland difficulty and add optional "story mode" buff for those who wants to one-shot various bosses...
Or they can go the easier route and make it an opt-in thing for increased difficulty instead of forcing it onto everyone; it's more work to both make Overland harder AND introduce a 'story mode' than it is to just develop an opt-in system for a greater challenge.Devs can increase overland difficulty and add optional "story mode" buff for those who wants to one-shot various bosses...
How can you know for sure everyone would be happy with "really hard" mobs? The problem with doing a blanket increase is there will be people who feel it went too far and made things too hard, and there will be people who feel it's not hard enough and will demand more challenge.lISpartanIl wrote: »After 10 years playing the game finally we have this very needed change I can solo everything in overland and not even take 10% damage it’s crazy how easy is the game , so I think the solution is very simple to keep everyone happy just make two different instances one with the game on normal mode like now and another instance with really hard mobs and bosses with more health an more difficult and just give everyone a choice to swap anytime, everyone will be happy with this.
Thanks for the dedicated thread, Kevin!
Let me go ahead and get a few things out of the way that tend to derail conversations about this topic.
No, no one wants to force you to play a more challenging overland if you don't want to.
barney2525 wrote: »So long as players start their posts by telling everyone else What the game is supposed to be, without so much as an " In My Opinion ", people ARE trying to shame players that have differing opinions into following their orders.
The last thing I want is to have to group up with people for Overland, which is NOT meany to be that hard. There's plenty of content that requires that; why should the whole game? MMO =/= needing to engage in the game with other people every single time you play. And not everyone wants to or should be expected to use Companions, either. It can be a pain in the butt and a headache many people don't want to deal with.Thank God for difficulty increases. The supereasy overland content was the number 1 reason I completely stopped playing. I could have lived with all my other petpeevs about the game and simply done questing solo, but it was just so boring I stopped. I cringe every time a skill line quest would send me "exploring".
One thing I'd really like to see change is death being completely and utterly meaningless. Rather than go around a cliff and find a way to its bottom, I just jump down and die. Why not? It costs me nothing other than some durability and 1 soul gem. With over 1 million gold, the cost amounts to nothing. I think it's problematic and should be fixed if we ever are to take overland content seriously.
I love the companions. I'm 100% for overland content where you are expected to either party up with a player or use a companion (and that at least 1 companion is available to new players).
PS: I really wish companions could survive AoEs in boss fight and at least try to follow mechanics, and help out with pressure plate puzzles and such. You could do such fun things in overland content if companions were reliable! I don't know of any games that really tried. Some MMOs give pets/companions a 99% reduction in AoE damage to compensate, but it's really not the same thing.
SilverBride wrote: »I agree with barney2525. Opinions should be stated as opinions and not facts.
Saying "Overland is too easy" presents it as a fact, but it isn't. It's a personal preference.
However saying "I find Overland too easy for how I like to play" clearly states that this is the player's personal view and is much less likely to meet pushback.
The last thing I want is to have to group up with people for Overland, which is NOT meany to be that hard. There's plenty of content that requires that; why should the whole game? MMO =/= needing to engage in the game with other people every single time you play. And not everyone wants to or should be expected to use Companions, either. It can be a pain in the butt and a headache many people don't want to deal with.Thank God for difficulty increases. The supereasy overland content was the number 1 reason I completely stopped playing. I could have lived with all my other petpeevs about the game and simply done questing solo, but it was just so boring I stopped. I cringe every time a skill line quest would send me "exploring".
One thing I'd really like to see change is death being completely and utterly meaningless. Rather than go around a cliff and find a way to its bottom, I just jump down and die. Why not? It costs me nothing other than some durability and 1 soul gem. With over 1 million gold, the cost amounts to nothing. I think it's problematic and should be fixed if we ever are to take overland content seriously.
I love the companions. I'm 100% for overland content where you are expected to either party up with a player or use a companion (and that at least 1 companion is available to new players).
PS: I really wish companions could survive AoEs in boss fight and at least try to follow mechanics, and help out with pressure plate puzzles and such. You could do such fun things in overland content if companions were reliable! I don't know of any games that really tried. Some MMOs give pets/companions a 99% reduction in AoE damage to compensate, but it's really not the same thing.
And I also really really really DO NOT WANT death to 'mean something' and punish people. Just because other games make you lose items or other progress does not mean every game needs to be that way. It's not fun, it's irritating and frustrating, especially in a game where lag and disconnects have been really bad for a lot of us lately. If I were to lose items or experience or whatever because I died to no fault of my own, I'd very quickly stop playing, and most other people would as well.
Grouping may not make a difference for a lot of us because we've been playing long enough to be good at the game, to have a bunch of CP and gear and experience and so on. But for a lot of people, I'm sure grouping DOES help. And there are a number of Incursions and such that may not require grouping, but do require you to do the content with others. There are of course people who can solo stuff like Dragons and Vents but that's not a majority of us. Maybe a new pre-1T Craglorn-esque Zone could be introduced that encourages grouping? A lot of people are a lot stronger now than they were back during Craglorn's release. Of course it would not be fun or anything for people who don't like that sort of thing or can't do it, but it would also be contained to one Zone and not implemented in all of them.The last thing I want is to have to group up with people for Overland, which is NOT meany to be that hard. There's plenty of content that requires that; why should the whole game? MMO =/= needing to engage in the game with other people every single time you play. And not everyone wants to or should be expected to use Companions, either. It can be a pain in the butt and a headache many people don't want to deal with.Thank God for difficulty increases. The supereasy overland content was the number 1 reason I completely stopped playing. I could have lived with all my other petpeevs about the game and simply done questing solo, but it was just so boring I stopped. I cringe every time a skill line quest would send me "exploring".
One thing I'd really like to see change is death being completely and utterly meaningless. Rather than go around a cliff and find a way to its bottom, I just jump down and die. Why not? It costs me nothing other than some durability and 1 soul gem. With over 1 million gold, the cost amounts to nothing. I think it's problematic and should be fixed if we ever are to take overland content seriously.
I love the companions. I'm 100% for overland content where you are expected to either party up with a player or use a companion (and that at least 1 companion is available to new players).
PS: I really wish companions could survive AoEs in boss fight and at least try to follow mechanics, and help out with pressure plate puzzles and such. You could do such fun things in overland content if companions were reliable! I don't know of any games that really tried. Some MMOs give pets/companions a 99% reduction in AoE damage to compensate, but it's really not the same thing.
And I also really really really DO NOT WANT death to 'mean something' and punish people. Just because other games make you lose items or other progress does not mean every game needs to be that way. It's not fun, it's irritating and frustrating, especially in a game where lag and disconnects have been really bad for a lot of us lately. If I were to lose items or experience or whatever because I died to no fault of my own, I'd very quickly stop playing, and most other people would as well.
I understand this perspective, but while I don't think some of the more hardcore ideas presented will ever happen, I want to have them as an option, because what it means for me is that gameplay is more consequential and my choices make more of a difference. I just want to have to think about what I'm doing in overland, as someone who prefers overland over any other kind of content ESO provides. I'm not terribly interested in grouping, but I do think that there should be a level at which grouping, or even just ad hoc team-ups, makes a difference. It doesn't currently, for the most part and that's a little sad in my opinion.
As far as death is concerned, one challenge element I'd love to see is the dramatic decrease in the drop rate for soul gems. I'd like for them to (optionally) be much harder to acquire, or even impossible without resorting to alternative sources. And of course, that could be mitigated by simply buying them, but at least you're forced to think about that rather than just selling stacks of them all the time.
For me, the goal is to increase the number of scenarios in which I have to think about something, and for things to matter more. When my choices matter, it grounds me in the world and I am immersed. If nothing I do matters, I just feel like I'm floating through the game.
spartaxoxo wrote: »SilverBride wrote: »I agree with barney2525. Opinions should be stated as opinions and not facts.
Saying "Overland is too easy" presents it as a fact, but it isn't. It's a personal preference.
However saying "I find Overland too easy for how I like to play" clearly states that this is the player's personal view and is much less likely to meet pushback.
Easy is subjective so it's not presenting it as a fact. Overland is too easy is simply direct. The latter is nicer in some cultures but is not how a person would speak in others. Direct speech =/= fact.