Arunei wrote: »

snip

The new Crag-like is coming per the letter, but if that's the planned solution to overland challenge then it's not a solution I consider valuable even though it is also welcome. When I say that I want grouping to make a difference, I don't need it to be life or death, I just want it to feel like the other players can actually help rather than just making things faster. I've said it before but as my level increases I don't ever want to feel godlike or overpowered, I want access to more tools which suit my playstyle. Which means that if I'm not too strong, more players matter, and when there are more elements of the game that matter, that's good for me. Hitting the sweet spot for this is tough which is why I really want a granular challenge system that allows the player to select the challenge elements which suit them best, though I doubt it will ever be implemented in this way.

I wouldn't mind a death debuff, but I wasn't thinking about it and I'd bet that almost nobody would want it. That's a very delicate thing to tackle from a development perspective with little return on investment. I really just feel like fewer soul gems would be enough, because needing to think about that resource is good for me, and running out means you are punished in the form of lost time. It may also force you to wait for player assistance which is another grounding element. I feel like it's way too easy to acquire soul gems and scarcity would dramatically alter the way you play the game. It would also add far more importance and value to the Soul Magic skill line and associated Champion Point nodes. More consequential choices to consider! Good for me.

SilverBride wrote: »

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.

I disagree. Even just saying "I find Overland too easy" is much more clear that an opinion is being given. Because Overland is not too easy for many players and hearing it stated as fact just stirs up defensive feelings.

"Overland is not too easy for many players" is no different than "Overland is too easy for many players", IMO. I don't have a problem with either, it's just how people talk. I think that when using an international forum, it's important to keep in mind that a wide variety of cultures are using it as well. And that what is considered polite speech in one culture would not even cross someone else's mind to say in another.

Textual communication does not have the benefit of body language, tone of voice, and other indicators that someone is not being aggressive. So, it is generally considered polite to NOT assume someone is being rude unless they explicitly state something rude.

If someone finds themselves getting defensive at what someone is communicating because they did something like used the word "should" or left off the word "IMO" one should back away and re-read later. You'll often find that it is not the writers intentions at all. I just used the forum search tool on the word "should" for example, and almost every single last one was from someone who explicitly stated that they wanted everything to be optional. I actually didn't see one case that was the opposite but I might have missed some as it was only a quick glance.

People wanting overland difficulty to be forced is simply not a popular opinion.

SilverBride wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Textual communication does not have the benefit of body language, tone of voice, and other indicators that someone is not being aggressive. So, it is generally considered polite to NOT assume someone is being rude unless they explicitly state something rude.

This is why we need to be more precise and accurate, so our statements aren't misinterpreted.

Also, no one said that anyone was being rude or aggressive. And etiquette has nothing to do with how someone perceives what anyone else says.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20141125212408-10714894-email-tone-often-misinterpreted

Etiquette does have to do with whether or not we show others grace, they even teach this in professional settings. I actually first heard this point from a job.

Also, yes they did. They said players are shaming others

SilverBride wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Textual communication does not have the benefit of body language, tone of voice, and other indicators that someone is not being aggressive. So, it is generally considered polite to NOT assume someone is being rude unless they explicitly state something rude.

This is why we need to be more precise and accurate, so our statements aren't misinterpreted.

Also, no one said that anyone was being rude or aggressive. And etiquette has nothing to do with how someone perceives what anyone else says.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20141125212408-10714894-email-tone-often-misinterpreted

Etiquette does have to do with whether or not we show others grace, they even teach this in professional settings. I actually first heard this point from a job.

Also, yes they did. They said players are shaming others

I did edit my post to say how we react to our perceptions is goverened by etiquette, but not our perceptions themselves. (I edit a lot to make sure I am stating things in a way that won't be misinterpreted.)

Some others have felt like players were being shamed, and honestly I feel talked down to by posts that tell players we just need to get better and then we could handle a more difficult overland.

It's both. While we can't completely control our immediate emotions, we can try to keep certain things in mind to better help inform and shape them. Over time, this can result in our being better able to be emotionally equipped to handle certain environments.

For example, most of the "getting better" feedback has been about the onboarding ramp for new players learning how to play the game. Overland actually doesn't do a good job of teaching the mechanics of the game because they're unneeded. Many players actually struggle to break free, roll dodge, bash, etc. A lot of this IS taught in normal dungeons but even then it's mostly the dlc ones.

It isn't directed at vet players being told to get good so they can enjoy vet overland. I actually have seen very little posts like that.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

I did edit my post to say how we react to our perceptions is goverened by etiquette, but not our perceptions themselves. (I edit a lot to make sure I am stating things in a way that won't be misinterpreted.)

It's both. While we can't completely control our immediate emotions, we can try to keep certain things in mind to better help inform and shape them. Over time, this can result in our being better able to be emotionally equipped to handle certain environments.

I do not agree and I am not going to continue arguing the point. So let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Going to talk about mainly quests here. ↓
I feel like the yearly release of large zones being the major selling point for expansions and the game as a whole is one of the biggest reasons for why we are in this situation to begin with, which makes me all the more excited to see ZoS drop it. Currently the design has been for new players and returning players alike, to start with the new story straight away. Of course the quests and encounters will be designed around this model. But this results in the main story lines feeling like tutorials for anyone experienced, because that's kinda what they are. Sure there is the actual tutorial, which still fails to highlight major key points in the game, but usually in games the first zone after the tutorial is also very beginner friendly, which is also the case in ESO. Here it just applies to every single expansion, and every single zone with the exception of Craglorn.

So basically we are stuck in a situation where every zone is aimed to be beginner friendly, and the whole map is lacking structure or a form of progression. I know for some this is a huge positive thing, but it comes at the cost of being extremely underwhelming for anyone who progresses past the beginner phase. To me it's such a shame as well, because I love the world and generally enjoy the quests (apart every NPC talking to the vestige like they would to a child), the new areas look absolutely amazing, but I just can't enjoy the quests anymore since all the quests feel like they could be intro quests.

Tbh it's disappointing that devs don't see the core of the problem - unnecessary buffs every patch that eventually rendered all older content irrelevant. They aren't making overland really difficult anyway. In maybe two years we will be once again asking for a more difficult overland thanks to powercreep.

disky wrote: »

Arunei wrote: »

snip

The new Crag-like is coming per the letter, but if that's the planned solution to overland challenge then it's not a solution I consider valuable even though it is also welcome. When I say that I want grouping to make a difference, I don't need it to be life or death, I just want it to feel like the other players can actually help rather than just making things faster. I've said it before but as my level increases I don't ever want to feel godlike or overpowered, I want access to more tools which suit my playstyle. Which means that if I'm not too strong, more players matter, and when there are more elements of the game that matter, that's good for me. Hitting the sweet spot for this is tough which is why I really want a granular challenge system that allows the player to select the challenge elements which suit them best, though I doubt it will ever be implemented in this way.

I think the main issue is that different people play at different levels of skill, and what what person sees as too easy could be impossible for others; thus, for many people grouping can already make that difference you want it to make for you. Unfortunately, as with any game, the longer you play, the better you tend to get. You become familiar with mechanics, with the way enemies act/react, how to best put together gear and consumables, which Skills synergize with each other and your gear the best, and so on. That's obviously not true for everyone, or even maybe half the player base, but it's true for a considerable amount of people.

And once you learn that stuff, you can't really UNlearn it in order to make things as challenging as when you were newer, or on a weaker character (because as you start amassing CP even fresh characters can be super buffed). The problem is trying to find some balance between the people who've learned and gotten better, and the people who are stuck at a certain level of ability for whatever reason (or just don't CARE about actively getting better).

Unless ZOS gives you those tools you want, you will unfortunately continue to be "too" strong, because you know how to play the game and get the most out of it. Even if you self-gimp by removing CP and gear, resetting Skills to their base versions, and so on, you still understand the game mechanics and such. Hopefully whatever they have planned for the difficulty boost will give you enough tools to help you feel like how you WANT to feel, and make it more interesting than just going in naked and no CP to punch everything to death. It's why I'm thinking that giving people a set of parameters they can pick and choose to change would be better than just a flat slider that can't take into account different nuances.

disky wrote: »

I wouldn't mind a death debuff, but I wasn't thinking about it and I'd bet that almost nobody would want it. That's a very delicate thing to tackle from a development perspective with little return on investment. I really just feel like fewer soul gems would be enough, because needing to think about that resource is good for me, and running out means you are punished in the form of lost time. It may also force you to wait for player assistance which is another grounding element. I feel like it's way too easy to acquire soul gems and scarcity would dramatically alter the way you play the game. It would also add far more importance and value to the Soul Magic skill line and associated Champion Point nodes. More consequential choices to consider! Good for me.

The ooooonly thing about making Soul Gems harder to come across is they aren't just used to rez yourself. You need them for teammates in group content, and you also need them to recharge your Weapon Enchants. Making them *too* hard to come by means making it more difficult to get downed teammates back up (which could make or break runs for harder achievements) and might make it a real hassle to keep Weapon Enchants up.

I've lost so many brain cells reading this thread.

Why don't we wait for the difficulty increase to come out on PTS and test it so we can give targeted feedback rather than dooming and picking apart other peoples' arguments? It's just silly.

It VERY likely will be optional, and anyone losing sleep over other players have an optional difficulty increase need to touch grass a bit. Just saying.

Cooperharley wrote: »

I've lost so many brain cells reading this thread.

Why don't we wait for the difficulty increase to come out on PTS and test it so we can give targeted feedback rather than dooming and picking apart other peoples' arguments? It's just silly.

It VERY likely will be optional, and anyone losing sleep over other players have an optional difficulty increase need to touch grass a bit. Just saying.

I agree, dooming is bad. But the thread is still valuable because it provides a point of focus for the devs to look at and gauge player sentiment, and maybe selfishly, I'd like to believe that it's possible to change someone's mind through (relatively) respectful discussion. If that happens enough maybe more informed and broadly reasonable opinions will disseminate through the community. Talking civilly about it is good for everyone and showing ZOS how much this matters to us by not shutting up about it is even more important.

Fully get why it would drive you nuts though.

tomofhyrule wrote: »

I think one of the biggest issues with "increase difficulty of overland" is that it's actually a few different things in there. And that means that everyone's arguing for a different version of it, and making different strawmen of everything to discount the opposition.

First, it should be broken down as to what "overland difficulty" entails. I see a few different things people highlight:

• Overland trash mobs
• Delve and World bosses
• Story quest bosses

A lot of people say "I want harder difficulty because I don't want the story final boss to fall over when I breathe on them" and the rebuttal ends up being "I don't want to spend 10 minutes fighting a wolf to pick flowers." Those are talking about two different things, and we should treat them as two different things. On the flipside, we should recognize that there is no comparison between the bosses in the later DLCs and the basegame bosses - even the delves are starting to get mechanics. Trying to argue that DLC bosses and basegame bosses are the same level is blatantly false.

My biggest issue with increasing difficulty of story bosses though is the fact that they're one-and-done. ESO's stories are not exactly replayable - sure, people love to replay RPGs like Baldur's Gate since you can play a different class or make different choices, but ESO's stories are fairly linear and have only gotten more and more linear as time goes on. Very few people will feel the need to run the entire "Hi nameless adventurer, do this fetch quest while I explain everything to you like you're a blithering idiot" multiple times on multiple characters, so a really intense final fight is pretty well wasted after you see it once. I really enjoyed the Ithelia fight at the end of Gold Road, but I have zero intention of getting another character through Necrom AND Gold Road AND the epilogue just to spend 5 minutes with this fight again. The best I can hope for is that it ends up in the Archive at some point. Personally, I'd rather the Encounters team spend the time making Dungeon or Trial bosses with interesting mechanics since those can be done over and over, instead of making a really fun one-time boss and then no Dungeons.

I just wanted to say that I think these are fair points to keep in mind as we continue this discussion.

disky wrote: »

Cooperharley wrote: »

I've lost so many brain cells reading this thread.

Why don't we wait for the difficulty increase to come out on PTS and test it so we can give targeted feedback rather than dooming and picking apart other peoples' arguments? It's just silly.

It VERY likely will be optional, and anyone losing sleep over other players have an optional difficulty increase need to touch grass a bit. Just saying.

I agree, dooming is bad. But the thread is still valuable because it provides a point of focus for the devs to look at and gauge player sentiment, and maybe selfishly, I'd like to believe that it's possible to change someone's mind through (relatively) respectful discussion. If that happens enough maybe more informed and broadly reasonable opinions will disseminate through the community. Talking civilly about it is good for everyone and showing ZOS how much this matters to us by not shutting up about it is even more important.

Fully get why it would drive you nuts though.

I agree we should wait, but input is important. I'm also feeling a bit cautious about the change (the fact I logged back in to the forums for the first time in ages should say something), as I pretty much exclusively play solo PvE. Currently it's mostly fine, but sometimes overland combat sometimes feels like an annoyance when running about for stuff. But hey, it's quick so not too bad. I know the mechanics and it's not like I cannot beat harder difficulties, but I don't want to have to when trying to get around to do other stuff that isn't directly linked to combat. Rather save that for bosses or other specific moments that are about the combat. The DB skill to have less aggression when mounted is already a life-saver there. Making overworld hard would be horrid if it means I have to end up spending time fighting when I'm just running one place to another for other things. But, we don't know yet if that will be the case. There have been enough good changes to the game as well. So I'm having some hope they implement it nicely. At least they've had enough time to think about it by now.

Kallykat wrote: »

BasP wrote: »

Agreed. Over the years, players who felt that Overland was too easy - and sometimes suggested optional ways to increase its difficulty - were often told by other players that they 'must do Dungeons/Trials/solo Arenas instead' because 'Overland is supposed to be easy.' Comments like that didn't really address the issue or helped foster a constructive discussion.

In essence, I agree with your post by the way. But I think it’s important to recognize that it goes both ways. While some players now fear that they might not be able to enjoy Overland content in the future, other players haven't been able to enjoy it for years. Respecting all playstyles is key.

I agree that both playstyles are important, and they are both provided for by ZOS. The question is whether or not both playstyles should be supported in all types of content. Currently, overland supports one playstyle and dungeons/trials support the other. If you think overland should be made more difficult to support the latter style, then do you also agree that dungeons/trials should have an easy/story mode to support the former playstyle?

That's an interesting idea actually. All the cool achievements I'm missing out on now... Might not be a bad move financially either, since I don't buy dungeon DLC now either as I would never play them in the current setup anyways, and I cannot imagine I'm alone in that.

Kallykat wrote: »

BasP wrote: »

Agreed. Over the years, players who felt that Overland was too easy - and sometimes suggested optional ways to increase its difficulty - were often told by other players that they 'must do Dungeons/Trials/solo Arenas instead' because 'Overland is supposed to be easy.' Comments like that didn't really address the issue or helped foster a constructive discussion.

In essence, I agree with your post by the way. But I think it’s important to recognize that it goes both ways. While some players now fear that they might not be able to enjoy Overland content in the future, other players haven't been able to enjoy it for years. Respecting all playstyles is key.

I agree that both playstyles are important, and they are both provided for by ZOS. The question is whether or not both playstyles should be supported in all types of content. Currently, overland supports one playstyle and dungeons/trials support the other. If you think overland should be made more difficult to support the latter style, then do you also agree that dungeons/trials should have an easy/story mode to support the former playstyle?

They absolutely should. I want challenging overland very much but I also find dungeon content to be frustrating when it requires other players for two reasons:

- You are generally expected to know what to do by your groupmates, meaning that if you want to contribute properly you need to spoil the dungeon's mechanics for yourself,

- The speed of the group tends to move at the speed of its fastest player, which often prevents someone interested in the story from taking it in.

Cambion2401 wrote: »

I agree we should wait, but input is important. I'm also feeling a bit cautious about the change (the fact I logged back in to the forums for the first time in ages should say something), as I pretty much exclusively play solo PvE. Currently it's mostly fine, but sometimes overland combat sometimes feels like an annoyance when running about for stuff. But hey, it's quick so not too bad. I know the mechanics and it's not like I cannot beat harder difficulties, but I don't want to have to when trying to get around to do other stuff that isn't directly linked to combat. Rather save that for bosses or other specific moments that are about the combat. The DB skill to have less aggression when mounted is already a life-saver there. Making overworld hard would be horrid if it means I have to end up spending time fighting when I'm just running one place to another for other things. But, we don't know yet if that will be the case. There have been enough good changes to the game as well. So I'm having some hope they implement it nicely. At least they've had enough time to think about it by now.

I see this opinion a lot, but I don't understand it. I know a lot of people want to do things in overland as fast as humanly possible because these people seem to enjoy being optimally efficient, but for me it's not about efficiency, it's about fun and immersion. If I see some daedra on patrol, or a group of trained soldiers, or a monster or whatever it is that is presented to me as opposition, my brain tells me that it's an obstacle I am meant to overcome, not a nuisance to be swatted away. What I want from this experience is fun, not speed. I would like to focus on the experience being satisfying, and for me that means a challenge, whether it's combat or stealth or even just preparation, in all aspects of the game.

To the people who seem to want tougher bosses only, I have to ask, why do you want this? If your goal is to get through everything quickly, will you actually want these tougher bosses when the time comes to choose a challenge or will you switch it off in frustration again? Honestly.

colossalvoids wrote: »

Kallykat wrote: »

BasP wrote: »

Agreed. Over the years, players who felt that Overland was too easy - and sometimes suggested optional ways to increase its difficulty - were often told by other players that they 'must do Dungeons/Trials/solo Arenas instead' because 'Overland is supposed to be easy.' Comments like that didn't really address the issue or helped foster a constructive discussion.

In essence, I agree with your post by the way. But I think it’s important to recognize that it goes both ways. While some players now fear that they might not be able to enjoy Overland content in the future, other players haven't been able to enjoy it for years. Respecting all playstyles is key.

I agree that both playstyles are important, and they are both provided for by ZOS. The question is whether or not both playstyles should be supported in all types of content. Currently, overland supports one playstyle and dungeons/trials support the other. If you think overland should be made more difficult to support the latter style, then do you also agree that dungeons/trials should have an easy/story mode to support the former playstyle?

This content already have a normal (easy) mode to participate in if you are newer to the game or don't enjoy challenge. But Devs already said that story/solo mode is coming, so it's a matter of time as it's decided upon, again to support more options for different kinds of players.

There is a large amount of dungeon content which either cannot be completed alone or is very tough for most players on Normal difficulty. I think it's a worthwhile feature to add. When I see people say "just run Normal" it feels really dismissive and condescending, as if those people could never have possibly conceived of the idea and/or never tried it. Obviously base game dungeons are a breeze compared to most DLC stuff, but that leaves a lot of dungeons that many people just can't do alone. If I'm going to beg and plead for challenge in overland I think it's only fair that they can have a mode which finally allows them to see the story that they've been missing.