SilverBride wrote: »

Snamyap wrote: »

Overland and Quest content is about 70-80% of the game. It's ludicrous to balance that amount of content to new players that have zero experience with computer games.

Overland takes up a lot of area, but most of it is just empty land. If we add up all the quests in Overland and compare that to the amount of Dungeon, Trial, Arena, Bastian Nymics, Infinite Archive and PvP content (which is all repeatable, unlike Overland which is once per character) then I suspect it will actually be the least content.

Also, players new to ESO may have decades of experience with computer games. Just not this one.

If you have decades of experience with computer games then you will have no trouble whatsoever with the difficulty of ESO and certainly don't need hand holding for the entire overland content. You may prefer it to be that easy, but you sure won't need it.
Dungeons, trials, arena's etc are excruciatingly repetitive. When a dungeon has a set I like then by the time I have all the pieces I need I'd rather get a root canal then ever go back there again. But for some reason some people just can not fathom the idea that players that like more difficult content could actually be interested in long, engaging storylines. I spend most of my gaming time in the year and a half away from ESO on Baldur's Gate 3. Finished it multiple times on honor mode and rate it as one of the best games I ever played. Not all "hard core" gamers are just interested in trials or pvp.

Red_Feather wrote: »

On one of Rich Lambert's streams I suggested that beating the main villain of an expansion unlocks a curse on your account depending on the villain. Each curse unlocked adds a new layer to combat in the overland. And if you don't want a curse just go to a Shrine to toggle it off. I've posted about it so many times on the forums over the years and it never got traction, but I honestly feel it would please so many people.

How many creative curses could you come up with? Have fun with it.

edit: If you ever played the Division 2 game, it's known as 'directives' there. I use a few directives when playing as they make combat WAY more interesting. I like the Ragers, Fragile Armour, Fog of War, Cool Skills, Scavenged Skills and Special Ammo directives. But there is way more than that! They rotate 5 togglable directives each week for general PVE, and only certain game modes have all existing directives available to toggle on/off to make things pretty wild.

It's an interesting idea, but I'd rather not mess around with any kind of in-game lore-based solution. That's probably what's going to happen because they might feel compelled to do it that way, but I'd really rather just have a cut and dry, no-nonsense, menu-based solution. Just give me a switch, or a slider, or a group of sliders. Let me turn it on and off as I please without any in-game hassle.

Franchise408 wrote: »

TaSheen wrote: »

mocap wrote: »

TaSheen wrote: »

Same for me - from the opposite of your viewpoint though.

Yet you will be free to choose from that new overland difficulty and current one. Me, in case new difficulty will be crap, i can only take crap and crap++.

I'm not expecting anything optional. This game isn't very good at optional....

I mean, most of the content in this game has optional versions of it. Everything except overland.

Story bosses don't come with "optional" difficulties - and they've all been too hard for me since Elsweyr (I never did get past the final boss there, though I did manage the boss in High Isle, but not Galen). I don't play any group content or pvp, so those "optional difficulties" aren't something I do.

TaSheen wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

TaSheen wrote: »

mocap wrote: »

TaSheen wrote: »

Same for me - from the opposite of your viewpoint though.

Yet you will be free to choose from that new overland difficulty and current one. Me, in case new difficulty will be crap, i can only take crap and crap++.

I'm not expecting anything optional. This game isn't very good at optional....

I mean, most of the content in this game has optional versions of it. Everything except overland.

Story bosses don't come with "optional" difficulties - and they've all been too hard for me since Elsweyr (I never did get past the final boss there, though I did manage the boss in High Isle, but not Galen). I don't play any group content or pvp, so those "optional difficulties" aren't something I do.

My God, is this real?

There are all sorts of reasons a person may have trouble with overland. Things like lag, age, disabilities, inexperience with this game or even games in general, CP points or build, etc.

Just because one person finds something easy does not mean that everyone will.

Franchise408 wrote: »

And as I've said before, while I can empathize, this is not the demographic the game should be balanced around. At some point, something has to be expected from the player's end to play the game.

What demographic should it be built around? It absolutely should not be built around just those that want difficulty.

Not wanting difficulty in the story has nothing to do with how skilled or geared a player is. It is a personal preference and many of us enjoy a relaxing journey through Tamriel. And those that have limitations should absolutely be considered.

Overland is the story and it should be accessible to all players. The player should not be expected to reach any level of skill, for example, or anything else just to play the game.

ESO doesn't belong to just those that want a challenge, and no one demographic should be able to change every aspect of the game to what their preference is at the detriment of others just because that's what they personally want.

Ruschell wrote: »

TaSheen wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

TaSheen wrote: »

mocap wrote: »

TaSheen wrote: »

Same for me - from the opposite of your viewpoint though.

Yet you will be free to choose from that new overland difficulty and current one. Me, in case new difficulty will be crap, i can only take crap and crap++.

I'm not expecting anything optional. This game isn't very good at optional....

I mean, most of the content in this game has optional versions of it. Everything except overland.

Story bosses don't come with "optional" difficulties - and they've all been too hard for me since Elsweyr (I never did get past the final boss there, though I did manage the boss in High Isle, but not Galen). I don't play any group content or pvp, so those "optional difficulties" aren't something I do.

My God, is this real?

I beg your pardon, some folk have hurdles, eg age and physical to name but two. IMO I regard this comment as highly unacceptable.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

There are all sorts of reasons a person may have trouble with overland. Things like lag, age, disabilities, inexperience with this game or even games in general, CP points or build, etc.

Just because one person finds something easy does not mean that everyone will.

And as I've said before, while I can empathize, this is not the demographic the game should be balanced around. At some point, something has to be expected from the player's end to play the game.

I don't agree that any particular group of players should have a monopoly on a genre of game. If tons of people find a game fun and the game is successful, then there's nothing wrong with different games catering to different audiences. ESO is a highly accessible MMO with a relaxing story difficulty. I don't view that as a bad thing at all.

I think there should be gameplay options for those that want something harder. But I fundamentally don't agree that the game "shouldn't" be balanced the way that it is or that there is something wrong on a fundamental level with easy games existing.

We will have to agree to disagree because I do believe a game should absolutely be balanced around some level of challenge and difficulty for a player to overcome, and the player needing to actually have some semblance of gameplay competency to be able to progress through the game. If I play any game, I have to have some level of competency to overcome the challenge. If I am playing Monopoly, I have to have the ability to make deals with the other players. If I am playing Scrabble, I have to have a vocabulary and linguistic knowledge to maximize my points. If I am playing poker, I have to know how to read my opponents and how to not give away my own hand in the process.

If challenge and difficulty isn't important, why not just make it an idle game that just plays itself and progresses automatically? It's accessible, and everyone can play it, right? If players shouldn't be expected to have proper internet connections, why not just make it an offline game? If players shouldn't be expected to have too much skill in order to kill story bosses, why not just make the mechanics "Press E to kill boss"? It's accessible, right?

No, I will not be convinced otherwise that this game should be balanced for people without a consistent internet connection for an online game, people who lack "stick" skills or twitch skills due to age, disability, etc. in an action RPG. I'm sorry, but there should at least be some minimal expectations of the actual player, otherwise what's even the point of having a game? This is why I would rather have forced difficulty increases over nothing at all.

That does not mean the game should be balanced around the "sweats", or be built on Souls-like range of difficulty. This does not mean that I think overland should be vet difficulty by default. This does not mean that I believe relaxing and easy content has no business in the game. But I do believe that a game that is online should expect the player to have a consistent internet connection, and not be balanced around people who don't, and I do believe that an action RPG should actually expect a certain level of "stick skill" and input from the player.

old_scopie1945 wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

There are all sorts of reasons a person may have trouble with overland. Things like lag, age, disabilities, inexperience with this game or even games in general, CP points or build, etc.

Just because one person finds something easy does not mean that everyone will.

And as I've said before, while I can empathize, this is not the demographic the game should be balanced around. At some point, something has to be expected from the player's end to play the game.

I don't agree that any particular group of players should have a monopoly on a genre of game. If tons of people find a game fun and the game is successful, then there's nothing wrong with different games catering to different audiences. ESO is a highly accessible MMO with a relaxing story difficulty. I don't view that as a bad thing at all.

I think there should be gameplay options for those that want something harder. But I fundamentally don't agree that the game "shouldn't" be balanced the way that it is or that there is something wrong on a fundamental level with easy games existing.

We will have to agree to disagree because I do believe a game should absolutely be balanced around some level of challenge and difficulty for a player to overcome, and the player needing to actually have some semblance of gameplay competency to be able to progress through the game. If I play any game, I have to have some level of competency to overcome the challenge. If I am playing Monopoly, I have to have the ability to make deals with the other players. If I am playing Scrabble, I have to have a vocabulary and linguistic knowledge to maximize my points. If I am playing poker, I have to know how to read my opponents and how to not give away my own hand in the process.

If challenge and difficulty isn't important, why not just make it an idle game that just plays itself and progresses automatically? It's accessible, and everyone can play it, right? If players shouldn't be expected to have proper internet connections, why not just make it an offline game? If players shouldn't be expected to have too much skill in order to kill story bosses, why not just make the mechanics "Press E to kill boss"? It's accessible, right?

No, I will not be convinced otherwise that this game should be balanced for people without a consistent internet connection for an online game, people who lack "stick" skills or twitch skills due to age, disability, etc. in an action RPG. I'm sorry, but there should at least be some minimal expectations of the actual player, otherwise what's even the point of having a game? This is why I would rather have forced difficulty increases over nothing at all.

That does not mean the game should be balanced around the "sweats", or be built on Souls-like range of difficulty. This does not mean that I think overland should be vet difficulty by default. This does not mean that I believe relaxing and easy content has no business in the game. But I do believe that a game that is online should expect the player to have a consistent internet connection, and not be balanced around people who don't, and I do believe that an action RPG should actually expect a certain level of "stick skill" and input from the player.

There are plenty of areas in this game that some folk find unplayable. So now it is 'so sad too bad' for the rest of the game for them. Sort of 'shape up or ship out' mentality then. I seems that a large percentage of posters believe there should be some form of selection for difficulty. I just don't understand the mentality of 'my way or the highway'.

And ultimately I do too.

But as I'm said in the past, I'd rather see forced difficulty increase over nothing happening and things being left as is.

I'd rather see optional methods for difficulty increase than forced.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

But I do believe that a game that is online should expect the player to have a consistent internet connection, and not be balanced around people who don't, and I do believe that an action RPG should actually expect a certain level of "stick skill" and input from the player.

Games are not challenges. They can be but it is not necessary. They can also just be stuff people to for amusement and nothing more. Action RPG means you can build your character and do cool actions skills. It doesn't guarantee any particular level of difficulty and there are a wide range of difficulties across the genre.

But there should be SOME level of challenge. Right now the quests are 1 step away from "Press E to kill the boss", since you can kill the story bosses by spamming a single skill and standing still. There is a vast gap between challenging and what ever we have right now.

SilverBride wrote: »

BananaBender wrote: »

But there should be SOME level of challenge.

There IS. In Dungeons and Trials and Arenas and the Infinite Archive and Bastian Nymics and Geysers and Harrowstorms and Vents and Incursions and World Bosses and Public Dungeons and PvP.

Yet I was talking about questing and how the complete absence of player required player input ruins the otherwise great questing experience.

SilverBride wrote: »

BananaBender wrote: »

But there should be SOME level of challenge.

There IS. In Dungeons and Trials and Arenas and the Infinite Archive and Bastian Nymics and Geysers and Harrowstorms and Vents and Incursions and World Bosses and Public Dungeons and PvP.

Yea what do we need engaging quests for if we can just roleplay in Dungeons and Geysers right ?

BananaBender wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

But I do believe that a game that is online should expect the player to have a consistent internet connection, and not be balanced around people who don't, and I do believe that an action RPG should actually expect a certain level of "stick skill" and input from the player.

Games are not challenges. They can be but it is not necessary. They can also just be stuff people to for amusement and nothing more. Action RPG means you can build your character and do cool actions skills. It doesn't guarantee any particular level of difficulty and there are a wide range of difficulties across the genre.

But there should be SOME level of challenge. Right now the quests are 1 step away from "Press E to kill the boss", since you can kill the story bosses by spamming a single skill and standing still. There is a vast gap between challenging and what ever we have right now.

I agree. I strongly prefer challenge and have advocated for difficulty options for years. But, if the update isn't satisfactory, I'm still going to play the game because I like more of it than I don't or I wouldn't still be here. Ultimately, not every part of the game can be my cup of tea.

ETA
Still though, I do think they should update it because the power creep has made overland into something that feels more akin to a walking sim for myself, personally. I like walking sims though. But I think there's a pretty big difference between "I think they should do this" and "This game should not exist in this state" IMO.

Ok, well I've seen this discussion before here. Not seeing anything new.

How about this though: I'm in favour of a more difficult overland experience. For me it adds to the immersion of it. However, I do kind of doubt whether a higher difficulty would actually translate into replayability. I wonder to what extent this discussion is about the game we would rather have had than the game we want going forward. They're not the same thing.

I haven't taken a new character through the base game story content in ages. I'd just get impatient with that same old dialogue, knowing exactly where the story is going. And I have to ask myself if harder difficulty alone would actually be enough to rekindle that interest. If not, and the harder combat is the only novel thing in overland would it not make more sense to do the dungeons and trials and arenas specifically designed for that?

The point is, I suppose, I do want a more challenging overland experience, but it has to be new overland content that is designed for it and designed with replayability in mind.

Ruschell wrote: »

TaSheen wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

TaSheen wrote: »

mocap wrote: »

TaSheen wrote: »

Same for me - from the opposite of your viewpoint though.

Yet you will be free to choose from that new overland difficulty and current one. Me, in case new difficulty will be crap, i can only take crap and crap++.

I'm not expecting anything optional. This game isn't very good at optional....

I mean, most of the content in this game has optional versions of it. Everything except overland.

Story bosses don't come with "optional" difficulties - and they've all been too hard for me since Elsweyr (I never did get past the final boss there, though I did manage the boss in High Isle, but not Galen). I don't play any group content or pvp, so those "optional difficulties" aren't something I do.

My God, is this real?

Just because you and I find something easy doesn't mean everyone does. What right does anyone have to judge this person because they have a hard time. You don't know their situation. Crazy.
I have guild mates in their 70s. They come to our weekly no pressure normals trial runs but sometimes they have trouble executing the mechanics. instead of judging their skills maybe try to offer some help beyond a laugh and a git gud.

I don't know what the solution is for overland. My wife loves overland questing. It's really all she does besides tinker with her houses. I wouldn't wanna mess that up. So I won't give an opinion on the answer cause I'm not qualified. I just hope they land it.