Overland Content Feedback Thread

thatnewcatsmell · January 14

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Also, I have posted these videos before but can't find the quote in this thread anymore.

Here's what the game looks like for a vet character

https://youtu.be/WTDxmuSRNto

And here's how it looks at level 50+ with no gear or CP besides a white weapon

https://youtu.be/EN-Ixn0tFzs

The enemy being fought in both examples is just normal overland trolls.

What are you trying to tell with these videos? The two situations aren't comparable at all, it's not even the same type of enemy (the trolls in the second video have 100k more health).

spartaxoxo · January 14

thatnewcatsmell wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Also, I have posted these videos before but can't find the quote in this thread anymore.

Here's what the game looks like for a vet character

https://youtu.be/WTDxmuSRNto

And here's how it looks at level 50+ with no gear or CP besides a white weapon

https://youtu.be/EN-Ixn0tFzs

The enemy being fought in both examples is just normal overland trolls.

What are you trying to tell with these videos? The two situations aren't comparable at all, it's not even the same type of enemy (the trolls in the second video have 100k more health).

They show the dramatic difference in walking around the overland with bad gear/no geae and even a little bit of power.

Both of those trolls are normal overland enemies. They aren't in a dungeon, delve, etc.

thatnewcatsmell · January 14

Yes, heavily undergeared and underspecced characters who aren't scaled up anymore because they've hit level 50 and with a bunch of random skills on their bar get steamrolled by elite mobs in overland.

spartaxoxo · January 14

thatnewcatsmell wrote: »

Yes, heavily undergeared and underspecced characters who aren't scaled up anymore because they've hit level 50 and with a bunch of random skills on their bar get steamrolled by elite mobs in overland.

A situation many new level 50s find themselves in or similar. It's easy to forget once you've reached CP because you can assign your cp points right away, aren't setting skills up at random, and probably have decent gear. They may not be as bad off as the setup in the video. But, the video wasn't made to replicate their experience but to show how much power was in those things. And because some didn't realize losing the under 50 buffs made that much difference. Overland is easy for those enjoying the under 50 buffs and vet players. But, it's not so easy for newer ones who don't know what they're doing. Not to mention those who have other things going on like age, health, bad Internet, etc.

Deserrick · January 14

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Also, I have posted these videos before but can't find the quote in this thread anymore.

Here's what the game looks like for a vet character

https://youtu.be/WTDxmuSRNto

And here's how it looks at level 50+ with no gear or CP besides a white weapon

https://youtu.be/EN-Ixn0tFzs

The enemy being fought in both examples is just normal overland trolls.

Thank you for the video evidence of something I have been trying to communicate for a while. Playing the game in a non-metagaming way (not buying/target-farming perfectly complete sets, choosing non-meta skills) results in a very difficult overland already.

jad11mumbler · January 14

Deserrick wrote: »

Thank you for the video evidence of something I have been trying to communicate for a while. Playing the game in a non-metagaming way (not buying/target-farming perfectly complete sets, choosing non-meta skills) results in a very difficult overland already.

TIL Wearing gear at all, or even assigning attribute points is considered meta.

sans-culottes · January 14

disky wrote: »

Elvent wrote: »

Been playing since the Beta and a subscriber, though I don't keep up on the forums or updates but I read on steam they will be doing something with overworld content making it more challenging? I enjoy the overland content how it is now. If they make it more challenging then I will just quit, I'm a solo player and world content is where I spend majority of my time when I play. I see new players in the world struggling and I recently helped somebody that was new at level 30 and said he was struggling with leveling.

What's the point of leveling and champion points if things aren't going to get easier the stronger you get? I hate that they changed overworld world bosses that they are almost impossible to solo unless you have great gear and build. I prefer how when you could solo them. It's hard to find groups for these bosses and it seems like it's the only thing on the map that I never can get completed.

I still remember the craglorn fiasco, nobody would go there because everything was challenging so they had to nerf the mobs.

I'm hoping ZOS have enough sense to make it optional, have a vet instance or something for those that want a challenge with trash mobs. Leave the rest of us alone.

Most of the people in this thread, including those of us who are looking forward to this, want this change to be optional. We've been asking for it to be that way for a long time. There are occasional comments from people who think differently but they're less common.

thatnewcatsmell wrote: »

Veteran and hard mode content always gives extra rewards in ESO, be it slightly better/higher quality gear, plunders or achievements/collectables, so in that sense it's not weird to assume that a 'veteran overland mode' (which we may or may not get) is going to to have (or should have) some extra rewards as well. 'The challenge is its own reward' taken to its extreme would very much mean that no activity in this game should reward anything special, as everything can be perceived as some form of challenge at least to some people.

You're right, and I believe that it will happen. But I think it has to happen in a way which doesn't alienate people who enjoy playing the game the way it is now, and I think that's just going to require a balance. ZOS has to consider the fact that they can cause backlash by providing rewards that are too good, and that if the rewards aren't good enough, some people will choose not to use the feature. It's going to be difficult to get right, but I would err on the side of caution, especially in the beginning. Let people come to accept the feature as part of the game, and as the feature is normalized, add rewards.

Well said. The current overland content is noticeably easier than its competitors. While some people might appreciate a hard turn toward Soulsborne difficulty, that just doesn’t seem to be the case for a majority of players.

Surgee wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Surgee wrote: »

I think many of you are overreacting. We don't even know how much harder it will get. Even if it they'll bump it up 30% it honestly won't make much difference since most players kill mobs within 1-2 hits. Let the update release and check if you really will fail miserably fighting a boar.

There are players that find the current overland difficult for various reasons. Increasing the difficulty by 5% would make it more difficult for them, and 30% would render it completely unplayable for many of these players.

This isn't an overreaction... it's a fact.

Where did you get that fact from? Source? There are people who really struggle to kill a boar? I don't believe it. Unless you're talking about soloing world bosses in the newest maps, which is meant to be a group encounter. I always meet randoms there and it isn't an issue.

This. It’s hard to fathom. The “added difficulty’s to world bosses comes from poorly designed mechanics (e.g., endless invulnerability phases), which isn’t really what people have asked for.

spartaxoxo · January 14

Deserrick wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Also, I have posted these videos before but can't find the quote in this thread anymore.

Here's what the game looks like for a vet character

https://youtu.be/WTDxmuSRNto

And here's how it looks at level 50+ with no gear or CP besides a white weapon

https://youtu.be/EN-Ixn0tFzs

The enemy being fought in both examples is just normal overland trolls.

Thank you for the video evidence of something I have been trying to communicate for a while. Playing the game in a non-metagaming way (not buying/target-farming perfectly complete sets, choosing non-meta skills) results in a very difficult overland already.

I don't think that particular video shows this. It's moreso about the base power level without CP/gear/below level 50 buffs/etc. I think it does give food for thought at how much lower the basic power level is though.

Anyway, here's a video that does show that. This one has a few passives, attributes evenly split, and random gear I found from traders that was selling for extremely cheap to simulate wearing whatever you find lying around. I did forget to pickup a weapon/helm so had to use my thief's real one and somehow a couple cp160 garbage slipped in but it didn't add much power. Didn't use jewelry due to that. First fight no food buffs and simulated not that good gameplay. Second fight added a food buff and cleaned the gameplay up a bit just to show that this setup could get the kill.

https://youtu.be/FJo1WL6TFho

And here she is with her actual gear

https://youtu.be/RMMigOVL2IA

The character being used isn't used for almost anything but stealing so I don't know her combat skills well.

Anyway that's some new troll killing videos to show how differences in power level does impact things even before factoring in outside factors.

Franchise408 · January 14

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Surgee wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Surgee wrote: »

I think many of you are overreacting. We don't even know how much harder it will get. Even if it they'll bump it up 30% it honestly won't make much difference since most players kill mobs within 1-2 hits. Let the update release and check if you really will fail miserably fighting a boar.

There are players that find the current overland difficult for various reasons. Increasing the difficulty by 5% would make it more difficult for them, and 30% would render it completely unplayable for many of these players.

This isn't an overreaction... it's a fact.

Where did you get that fact from? There are people who really struggle to kill a boar? I don't believe it. Unless you're talking about soloing world bosses in the newest maps, which is meant to be a group encounter. I always meet randoms there and it isn't an issue.

There are people in this thread who already find overland difficult due to things like age, internet connectivity, disability, etc. The devs have also said some unnamed percentage of players find overland challenging.

I can empathize with those people - I even have some in my guild and we - myself included - do the best we can to help them along.

I also don't believe that this is the skill level that the game should be balanced around. I don't consider myself an "elite" player by any means, but I do believe there is a certain level of competency that needs to be expected of the players. It has nothing to do with any sort of ego surrounding in game achievements, but rather the fact that if the game is simplified so much that literally anybody can do it without any sort of effort being put in, then it ceases to be an actual game.

It is an online game. You should be expected to have a competent level of internet connection.

It is an ARPG. You should be expected to have a competent level of reflexes and "stick skills".

There is already an expectation to have proper hardware to run the game, whether it be an appropriate console, or a PC with proper GPU's, CPU's, etc. The game shouldn't be balanced around people who don't meet those minimum requirements, and the same should apply to online connections and reflex skills.

This is not the same as expecting Souls-like difficulty. I've no problem with this game having content that these players can do and complete. What I am saying is that in an online game, you should be expected to have at least a minimum level of internet connection, and in an ARPG you should be expected to handle a minimum level of reflex and twitch skills, and if you can't meet those requirements, that's not who the game should be balanced around. That's just balancing around the other extreme of the difficulty spectrum opposite from Souls-difficulty, which the game should also not be primarily balanced around.

spartaxoxo · January 14

-snipped for brevity-

Franchise408 wrote: »

. That's just balancing around the other extreme of the difficulty spectrum opposite from Souls-difficulty, which the game should also not be primarily balanced around.

I don't think any one group should get to claim an entire genre to themselves. There is absolutely nothing wrong with various video games catering to a variety of different audiences.

I don't see any reason why Elden Ring or Cuphead shouldn't exist. And I don't see any reason why an accessible MMO shouldn't exist either. This game made 2 billion dollars and the story content was the most enjoyed by the vast majority of users. Clearly, there is a market.

colossalvoids · January 14

spartaxoxo wrote: »

-snipped for brevity-

Franchise408 wrote: »

. That's just balancing around the other extreme of the difficulty spectrum opposite from Souls-difficulty, which the game should also not be primarily balanced around.

Clearly, there is a market.

Question is for what exactly. For an "easy mmo" or tes universe game plus an MMO on top, no matter the difficulty of it which starts to be an issue only after the purchase, be it too hard to too easy.

I also do agree that the median balancing should go for an average player and not a one with unstable connection and ping going beyond 200 range with lack of basic agility (which is an extreme outlier).
Though there could be options for those, same as options for people who possess agility required and are capable of playing the game intended way and beyond so they don't overly trivialise the questing content and would get similar experience and enjoyment as less equipped folks, if they want to. The reason why options should/can exist both ways.

spartaxoxo · January 14

colossalvoids wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

-snipped for brevity-

Franchise408 wrote: »

. That's just balancing around the other extreme of the difficulty spectrum opposite from Souls-difficulty, which the game should also not be primarily balanced around.

Clearly, there is a market.

Question is for what exactly. For an "easy mmo" or tes universe game plus an MMO on top, no matter the difficulty of it which starts to be an issue only after the purchase, be it too hard to too easy.

I also do agree that the median balancing should go for an average player and not a one with unstable connection and ping going beyond 200 range with lack of basic agility (which is an extreme outlier).
Though there could be options for those, same as options for people who possess agility required and are capable of playing the game intended way and beyond so they don't overly trivialise the questing content and would get similar experience and enjoyment as less equipped folks, if they want to. The reason why options should/can exist both ways.

The game is already at its intended state and most of the story works just fine. That only changed recently to try and give a challenge to vet players while keeping the content good for new players, a clearly impossible task and some kind of vet option should have been the solution from jump.

There's absolutely no reason the difficulty needs to be forced up to suit ideas about who video games should be for. There's nothing wrong with the current difficulty.

Franchise408 · January 14

spartaxoxo wrote: »

colossalvoids wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

-snipped for brevity-

Franchise408 wrote: »

. That's just balancing around the other extreme of the difficulty spectrum opposite from Souls-difficulty, which the game should also not be primarily balanced around.

Clearly, there is a market.

Question is for what exactly. For an "easy mmo" or tes universe game plus an MMO on top, no matter the difficulty of it which starts to be an issue only after the purchase, be it too hard to too easy.

I also do agree that the median balancing should go for an average player and not a one with unstable connection and ping going beyond 200 range with lack of basic agility (which is an extreme outlier).
Though there could be options for those, same as options for people who possess agility required and are capable of playing the game intended way and beyond so they don't overly trivialise the questing content and would get similar experience and enjoyment as less equipped folks, if they want to. The reason why options should/can exist both ways.

The game is already at its intended state and most of the story works just fine. That only changed recently to try and give a challenge to vet players while keeping the content good for new players, a clearly impossible task and some kind of vet option should have been the solution from jump.

There's absolutely no reason the difficulty needs to be forced up to suit ideas about who video games should be for. There's nothing wrong with the current difficulty.

Obviously there is something wrong with the current difficulty, given this thread, given the non-zero amount of people that have quit the game because of it, and a statement from ZOS themselves saying they are going to experiment with overland difficulty.

Video games can be and should be for everyone. Not every game can nor should be for everyone.

Someone should expect to have a basic level of twitch and reflex skills in an ARPG. As an MMO, there absolutely should be content for people with a lower skill level. They are not the people the base difficulty setting should be balanced around.

Given the mass appeal of TES and having an already pre defined philosophy and design, and being an M rated game, there is obviously a certain large audience that this game is targeted to. Therefore, the target should be closer to the middle, and not heavily leaning towards one extreme end of the spectrum. This game should not be frustratingly difficult, nor should it be mind numbingly easy. The game should offer options for both extremes, while generally being balanced in the baseline for a middle of the road difficulty.

There are plenty of games in existence to cater towards people who don't want involved or challenging combat. ARPG's aren't that. ARPG's are very combat intensive by definition, and as such should have an expected level of challenge.

SilverBride · January 14

If there is increased difficulty for those that want it there should also be a decreased difficulty mode for those that have limitations, or just plain want a relaxing questing experience.

ghastley · January 14

Whatever system they come up with needs to allow an experienced player to guide a new one that they are introducing to the game. That means not making the mobs more difficult because the expert is nearby. Not separating the two players into instances where they have no interaction. The level scaling that already exists to bring the new player up is probably the only approach that can achieve that, so do we want it amplified in some way?

And I am not understanding the "I want this, but you will have to bribe me to use it" posts.

sans-culottes · January 14

ghastley wrote: »

And I am not understanding the "I want this, but you will have to bribe me to use it" posts.

In cases where other MMORPGs have implemented optional, opt-in difficulty increases in the overland have in turn made it so that those seeking more of a challenge also get more of a reward. This isn’t the same thing as asking someone to bribe you to participate in something you’re interested in.

An example would be if veteran dungeons and trials offered the same rewards as regular ones. It’s entirely reasonable to expect this. That’s assuming ZOS goes the “opt in” route, which is a big assumption.

spartaxoxo · January 15

Franchise408 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

colossalvoids wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

-snipped for brevity-

Franchise408 wrote: »

. That's just balancing around the other extreme of the difficulty spectrum opposite from Souls-difficulty, which the game should also not be primarily balanced around.

Clearly, there is a market.

Question is for what exactly. For an "easy mmo" or tes universe game plus an MMO on top, no matter the difficulty of it which starts to be an issue only after the purchase, be it too hard to too easy.

I also do agree that the median balancing should go for an average player and not a one with unstable connection and ping going beyond 200 range with lack of basic agility (which is an extreme outlier).
Though there could be options for those, same as options for people who possess agility required and are capable of playing the game intended way and beyond so they don't overly trivialise the questing content and would get similar experience and enjoyment as less equipped folks, if they want to. The reason why options should/can exist both ways.

The game is already at its intended state and most of the story works just fine. That only changed recently to try and give a challenge to vet players while keeping the content good for new players, a clearly impossible task and some kind of vet option should have been the solution from jump.

There's absolutely no reason the difficulty needs to be forced up to suit ideas about who video games should be for. There's nothing wrong with the current difficulty.

Obviously there is something wrong with the current difficulty, given this thread, given the non-zero amount of people that have quit the game because of it, and a statement from ZOS themselves saying they are going to experiment with overland difficulty.

Video games can be and should be for everyone. Not every game can nor should be for everyone.

Someone should expect to have a basic level of twitch and reflex skills in an ARPG. As an MMO, there absolutely should be content for people with a lower skill level. They are not the people the base difficulty setting should be balanced around.

Given the mass appeal of TES and having an already pre defined philosophy and design, and being an M rated game, there is obviously a certain large audience that this game is targeted to. Therefore, the target should be closer to the middle, and not heavily leaning towards one extreme end of the spectrum. This game should not be frustratingly difficult, nor should it be mind numbingly easy. The game should offer options for both extremes, while generally being balanced in the baseline for a middle of the road difficulty.

There are plenty of games in existence to cater towards people who don't want involved or challenging combat. ARPG's aren't that. ARPG's are very combat intensive by definition, and as such should have an expected level of challenge.

More people have enjoyed the story than haven't. People have quit the Souls series games for being too hard and asked for an easier difficulty for years, does that mean that they are poorly designed? No. They decided on their market, have made a game that is successful in its space, and people enjoy it. They made a lot of money and made many gamers happy. So has this one.

I think it's wonderful when games have optional difficulty settings. I am thrilled this game is getting something to increase its difficulty. I continue to hope that it is an optional increase. I don't want to see this game chase away its core audience that it has cultivated for many years to chase after some new players that probably wouldn't even come because this game and its graphics are outdated.

Games can't be everything to everyone. This game has chosen to be the accessible MMO that is very casual friendly. It's the one with the easy overland. And that choice has made it one of the most successful MMOs on the market. So, clearly there is an audience for who enjoys it including some people who often don't get to play games. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

As it has moved away from that from the past 2 years while simultaneously failing at making vet players happy, it has bled players. It would be a mistake to compound that by forcing the difficulty increase.

BananaBender · January 15

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

colossalvoids wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

-snipped for brevity-

Franchise408 wrote: »

. That's just balancing around the other extreme of the difficulty spectrum opposite from Souls-difficulty, which the game should also not be primarily balanced around.

Clearly, there is a market.

Question is for what exactly. For an "easy mmo" or tes universe game plus an MMO on top, no matter the difficulty of it which starts to be an issue only after the purchase, be it too hard to too easy.

I also do agree that the median balancing should go for an average player and not a one with unstable connection and ping going beyond 200 range with lack of basic agility (which is an extreme outlier).
Though there could be options for those, same as options for people who possess agility required and are capable of playing the game intended way and beyond so they don't overly trivialise the questing content and would get similar experience and enjoyment as less equipped folks, if they want to. The reason why options should/can exist both ways.

The game is already at its intended state and most of the story works just fine. That only changed recently to try and give a challenge to vet players while keeping the content good for new players, a clearly impossible task and some kind of vet option should have been the solution from jump.

There's absolutely no reason the difficulty needs to be forced up to suit ideas about who video games should be for. There's nothing wrong with the current difficulty.

Obviously there is something wrong with the current difficulty, given this thread, given the non-zero amount of people that have quit the game because of it, and a statement from ZOS themselves saying they are going to experiment with overland difficulty.

Video games can be and should be for everyone. Not every game can nor should be for everyone.

Someone should expect to have a basic level of twitch and reflex skills in an ARPG. As an MMO, there absolutely should be content for people with a lower skill level. They are not the people the base difficulty setting should be balanced around.

Given the mass appeal of TES and having an already pre defined philosophy and design, and being an M rated game, there is obviously a certain large audience that this game is targeted to. Therefore, the target should be closer to the middle, and not heavily leaning towards one extreme end of the spectrum. This game should not be frustratingly difficult, nor should it be mind numbingly easy. The game should offer options for both extremes, while generally being balanced in the baseline for a middle of the road difficulty.

There are plenty of games in existence to cater towards people who don't want involved or challenging combat. ARPG's aren't that. ARPG's are very combat intensive by definition, and as such should have an expected level of challenge.

More people have enjoyed the story than haven't. People have quit the Souls series games for being too hard and asked for an easier difficulty for years, does that mean that they are poorly designed? No. They decided on their market, have made a game that is successful in its space, and people enjoy it. They made a lot of money and made many gamers happy. So has this one.

I think it's wonderful when games have optional difficulty settings. I am thrilled this game is getting something to increase its difficulty. I continue to hope that it is an optional increase. I don't want to see this game chase away its core audience that it has cultivated for many years to chase after some new players that probably wouldn't even come because this game and its graphics are outdated.

Games can't be everything to everyone. This game has chosen to be the accessible MMO that is very casual friendly. It's the one with the easy overland. And that choice has made it one of the most successful MMOs on the market. So, clearly there is an audience for who enjoys it including some people who often don't get to play games. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

As it has moved away from that from the past 2 years while simultaneously failing at making vet players happy, it has bled players. It would be a mistake to compound that by forcing the difficulty increase.

To me it's pointless to argue that ESO would become extremely difficult and unapproachable to players just because the difficulty is raised even a little bit.

The thing is, every single game is easy, what differs between games is how much is expected from the player to make the game easy. Elden Ring is easy if you know all the item locations, stats, buffs and boss move sets. With the right build you can kill all the bosses in one hit. Of course this doesn't mean that Elden Ring is an easy game for a normal player, because those are some extremely high requirements to meet to make the game easy.

So game's difficulty comes down to how much does the game expect from the player. And in ESO's case, it's not very much at all. Raising the expectations from 'not at all' to 'basic understanding of the mechanics' or even 'comfortable with the combat system the game has to offer' doesn't mean that the game is any less approachable to players. Even if a large part of the community would consider themselves to be casual players, that category can fit sooooo many play styles into itself that it has lost all its meaning. At this point what does it even mean to be a casual player? Just because someone is right now satisfied with the game's difficulty, that doesn't mean they wouldn't be happier if the game got a little harder.

Yes, raising the expectations to 'comfortable with the combat system the game has to offer' would leave out the people who have no interest to engage with the game's combat, itemization or skill system, but at that point I don't think an MMORPG is the game genre for you.

I'm actually curious so I'm going to ask everyone here, what do you think would be the minimum expectation the game should have of the player?

SilverBride · January 15

BananaBender wrote: »

Yes, raising the expectations to 'comfortable with the combat system the game has to offer' would leave out the people who have no interest to engage with the game's combat, itemization or skill system, but at that point I don't think an MMORPG is the game genre for you.

MMO only means there are multiple players in the world at the same time. It does not specify that the player has to engage in any available content any more than they choose.

It is up to each individual player to decide what game is right for them, and they are the ONLY one that can make that determination.

Frooke · January 15

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Deserrick wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Also, I have posted these videos before but can't find the quote in this thread anymore.

Here's what the game looks like for a vet character

https://youtu.be/WTDxmuSRNto

And here's how it looks at level 50+ with no gear or CP besides a white weapon

https://youtu.be/EN-Ixn0tFzs

The enemy being fought in both examples is just normal overland trolls.

Thank you for the video evidence of something I have been trying to communicate for a while. Playing the game in a non-metagaming way (not buying/target-farming perfectly complete sets, choosing non-meta skills) results in a very difficult overland already.

I don't think that particular video shows this. It's moreso about the base power level without CP/gear/below level 50 buffs/etc. I think it does give food for thought at how much lower the basic power level is though.

Anyway, here's a video that does show that. This one has a few passives, attributes evenly split, and random gear I found from traders that was selling for extremely cheap to simulate wearing whatever you find lying around. I did forget to pickup a weapon/helm so had to use my thief's real one and somehow a couple cp160 garbage slipped in but it didn't add much power. Didn't use jewelry due to that. First fight no food buffs and simulated not that good gameplay. Second fight added a food buff and cleaned the gameplay up a bit just to show that this setup could get the kill.

https://youtu.be/FJo1WL6TFho

And here she is with her actual gear

https://youtu.be/RMMigOVL2IA

The character being used isn't used for almost anything but stealing so I don't know her combat skills well.

Anyway that's some new troll killing videos to show how differences in power level does impact things even before factoring in outside factors.

That's the point! When you reach level 50, you should get some gear and a solid setup that allows you to survive tougher battles. That's what an RPG is all about, after all—fighting a God-Dragon with rags you found on the ground makes no sense! And this gives a reason to use companions, food, crafting gear... which gives purpose and makes everything more fun. The best part of ESO is the questing, and making it trivial kills all the immersion. It's easy for new players, it's easy for veteran players... playing with a naked character just to have some challenge doesn't make sense either. So I ran a test with white gear, food, and a companion with no levels... the bare minimum you’d expect from a level 50 player... and it is still easy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnfZIW_nakE

BananaBender · January 15

SilverBride wrote: »

BananaBender wrote: »

Yes, raising the expectations to 'comfortable with the combat system the game has to offer' would leave out the people who have no interest to engage with the game's combat, itemization or skill system, but at that point I don't think an MMORPG is the game genre for you.

MMO only means there are multiple players in the world at the same time. It does not specify that the player has to engage in any available content any more than they choose.

It is up to each individual player to decide what game is right for them, and they are the ONLY one that can make that determination.

You are right and I never stated that some people aren't allowed to play the game. I only stated that if you are playing an MMORPG, you should expect a game that is not like a singleplayer game.

SilverBride · January 15

BananaBender wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

BananaBender wrote: »

Yes, raising the expectations to 'comfortable with the combat system the game has to offer' would leave out the people who have no interest to engage with the game's combat, itemization or skill system, but at that point I don't think an MMORPG is the game genre for you.

MMO only means there are multiple players in the world at the same time. It does not specify that the player has to engage in any available content any more than they choose.

It is up to each individual player to decide what game is right for them, and they are the ONLY one that can make that determination.

You are right and I never stated that some people aren't allowed to play the game. I only stated that if you are playing an MMORPG, you should expect a game that is not like a singleplayer game.

Thanks for clarifying.

I was just making the point that we can't tell anyone that an MMO may not be right genre for them. Someone may not strive to succeed at challenging content but may really enjoy the social aspects of an MMO.

TaSheen · January 15

SilverBride wrote: »

BananaBender wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

BananaBender wrote: »

Yes, raising the expectations to 'comfortable with the combat system the game has to offer' would leave out the people who have no interest to engage with the game's combat, itemization or skill system, but at that point I don't think an MMORPG is the game genre for you.

MMO only means there are multiple players in the world at the same time. It does not specify that the player has to engage in any available content any more than they choose.

It is up to each individual player to decide what game is right for them, and they are the ONLY one that can make that determination.

You are right and I never stated that some people aren't allowed to play the game. I only stated that if you are playing an MMORPG, you should expect a game that is not like a singleplayer game.

Thanks for clarifying.

I was just making the point that we can't tell anyone that an MMO may not be right genre for them. Someone may not strive to succeed at challenging content but may really enjoy the social aspects of an MMO.

True. I love ESO for the fact that it's a living breathing world. I'm not into challenging at this point in my life, but I do love the entirety of the game I can play.

I am shut out of zone story content now, because since - well, really Elsweyr - the zone story bosses are just far too hard for me to do. Sad, but I do have other things I can enjoy at this point. I hope that will continue to be available going forward.

Smitch_59 · January 15

Solo casual here. I don't care if ESO is an MMORPG, I play solo and I enjoy it. I play every day. I do crafting and housing and overland. I do delves and a few base game dungeons. I've never done a vet dungeon or a trial because I suck. Which is fine because I prefer solo anyway. I've done Maelstrom Arena twice on normal, never on vet. I'm not complaining that there's hard content that I'll never be able to do, but please, please leave easy overland alone so there's some content that filthy casuals like me can enjoy,

spartaxoxo · January 15

BananaBender wrote: »

I'm actually curious so I'm going to ask everyone here, what do you think would be the minimum expectation the game should have of the player?

The one it's had for 10 years. I don't believe in pulling the rug out from one consumer base to chase another. It's fine if there is options to entice new people. Options are something that the people currently enjoying a game can just ignore if they don't like them. But the core experience of an old game should be whatever the audience has come to expect.

Nilandia · January 15

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Also, I have posted these videos before but can't find the quote in this thread anymore.

Here's what the game looks like for a vet character

https://youtu.be/WTDxmuSRNto

And here's how it looks at level 50+ with no gear or CP besides a white weapon

https://youtu.be/EN-Ixn0tFzs

The enemy being fought in both examples is just normal overland trolls.

These do not appear to be comparable, as the troll in the first video for some reason only has about 6k health.

spartaxoxo · January 15

Nilandia wrote: »

These do not appear to be comparable, as the troll in the first video for some reason only has about 6k health.

They are comparable because they're both still overland enemies and the experience is still similar. You can see that in later videos that show the exact same trolls killed 3 times and produces similar results. Overland enemies die quickly and easily to any type of actual setup. They can be a challenge if you're just running around without CP in whatever under leveled gear that happened to be lying around. Which is the situation most new level 50s find themselves.

Deserrick · January 15

Frooke wrote: »

...a companion with no levels... the bare minimum you’d expect from a level 50 player...

Companions are premium content. Just having them take some attention away from you is a big help.

Speaking of which, @TaSheen , do you have access to companions? Would you like one? Overland bosses became significantly easier once I was able to get Isobel and build her as a tank.

TaSheen · January 15

Deserrick wrote: »

Frooke wrote: »

...a companion with no levels... the bare minimum you’d expect from a level 50 player...

Companions are premium content. Just having them take some attention away from you is a big help.

Speaking of which, @TaSheen , do you have access to companions? Would you like one? Overland bosses became significantly easier once I was able to get Isobel and build her as a tank.

I know.... but I hate (have always hated) sidekicks. I'm still considering Zerith-Var, but every time I think about it hard enough, I get unhappy with having to kill stuff for leveling - I hate the combat and killing stuff for xp for my girls to begin with, much less anything else like a companion.

I want better xp to be from quests instead of killing mobs. That and the type of combat is where this game isn't really a good fit for me. See, getting my 4th account main to CP160 (will happen today) is a matter of doing a LOT of master writs, because I'd far rather do that than kill mobs....

Deserrick · January 15

TaSheen wrote: »

Deserrick wrote: »

Frooke wrote: »

...a companion with no levels... the bare minimum you’d expect from a level 50 player...

Companions are premium content. Just having them take some attention away from you is a big help.

Speaking of which, @TaSheen , do you have access to companions? Would you like one? Overland bosses became significantly easier once I was able to get Isobel and build her as a tank.

I know.... but I hate (have always hated) sidekicks. I'm still considering Zerith-Var, but every time I think about it hard enough, I get unhappy with having to kill stuff for leveling - I hate the combat and killing stuff for xp for my girls to begin with, much less anything else like a companion.

I want better xp to be from quests instead of killing mobs. That and the type of combat is where this game isn't really a good fit for me. See, getting my 4th account main to CP160 (will happen today) is a matter of doing a LOT of master writs, because I'd far rather do that than kill mobs....

That makes sense. As far as the levelling, they do get a taunt without it (one hand and shield skill line), so if you change your mind, let me know. It is frustrating to be effectively barred from content.