Overland Content Feedback Thread

twisttop138 · April 4

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.

I don't know what platform you play on, but I'm sure there are plenty of folks that would love to help you out. As I mentioned in a previous post, we have people in my main guild that are, for whatever reason (though in my case it's age, 70+) can't execute mechanical fights. We love to bring them on our no pressure trials or carry them through dungeons so they can see the story. I don't know if this is possible but if you're grouped with someone can they help you fight a story boss in your quest?

sans-culottes · April 4

SilverBride wrote: »

BananaBender wrote: »

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.

It doesn't ruin it for me, or for many others. I enjoy being able to demolish enemies because I am the hero. Struggling doesn't do anything but frustrate and that detracts from enjoying the story.

Your defense of overland’s ease hinges on the idea that story content “should be accessible to all” and that “players should not be expected to reach any level of skill.” I’d like to take that argument seriously, but that means also tracing its implications.

There’s a difference between accessibility and triviality. Making content accessible means allowing players of varying ability and experience to engage meaningfully. It doesn’t mean eliminating challenge altogether. The former empowers players. The latter flattens the game world into a frictionless experience where nothing is demanded, nothing is risked, and nothing, ultimately, is earned.

You say “it doesn’t ruin the experience for me,” which is entirely fair. But consider that the lack of mechanical stakes may, for others, undermine the narrative stakes as well—myself included. If the great evil threatening Tamriel is defeated by standing still and spamming a single skill, then the narrative tension is cosmetic. What’s framed as “being the hero” becomes indistinguishable from a formality.

Games are interactive media. Struggle and effort are part of what gives outcomes meaning. This doesn’t mean overland should become a gauntlet, but it does mean that allowing players to opt into challenge (as so many are asking) is not the same thing as imposing difficulty on everyone. The real issue is that the current design offers no granularity—only easy, or nothing.

This is not about gatekeeping. It’s about acknowledging that different players find meaning in different forms of engagement. Letting one demographic define the only way to experience story content, while telling others that “they already have dungeons,” is not inclusive—it’s exclusion by default.

Surely there’s room in Tamriel for more than one kind of hero.

Apollosipod · April 4

sans-culottes wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

BananaBender wrote: »

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.

It doesn't ruin it for me, or for many others. I enjoy being able to demolish enemies because I am the hero. Struggling doesn't do anything but frustrate and that detracts from enjoying the story.

Your defense of overland’s ease hinges on the idea that story content “should be accessible to all” and that “players should not be expected to reach any level of skill.” I’d like to take that argument seriously, but that means also tracing its implications.

There’s a difference between accessibility and triviality. Making content accessible means allowing players of varying ability and experience to engage meaningfully. It doesn’t mean eliminating challenge altogether. The former empowers players. The latter flattens the game world into a frictionless experience where nothing is demanded, nothing is risked, and nothing, ultimately, is earned.

You say “it doesn’t ruin the experience for me,” which is entirely fair. But consider that the lack of mechanical stakes may, for others, undermine the narrative stakes as well—myself included. If the great evil threatening Tamriel is defeated by standing still and spamming a single skill, then the narrative tension is cosmetic. What’s framed as “being the hero” becomes indistinguishable from a formality.

Games are interactive media. Struggle and effort are part of what gives outcomes meaning. This doesn’t mean overland should become a gauntlet, but it does mean that allowing players to opt into challenge (as so many are asking) is not the same thing as imposing difficulty on everyone. The real issue is that the current design offers no granularity—only easy, or nothing.

This is not about gatekeeping. It’s about acknowledging that different players find meaning in different forms of engagement. Letting one demographic define the only way to experience story content, while telling others that “they already have dungeons,” is not inclusive—it’s exclusion by default.

Surely there’s room in Tamriel for more than one kind of hero.

I couldn't agree with this more. The argument of "if you want harder content to do dungeons, arenas, or trials" has always been just as dismissive as players who ask for an increased overland difficulty. There has to be a solution that equitably addresses those who enjoy the "story mode" overland as well as though who want to be more engaged during the overland.

colossalvoids · April 4

I don't also see why such an opposition when choosing a difficulty might bring also lowering of it, if there's indeed enough people who do struggle already.

spartaxoxo · April 4

sans-culottes wrote: »

This is not about gatekeeping. It’s about acknowledging that different players find meaning in different forms of engagement. Letting one demographic define the only way to experience story content, while telling others that “they already have dungeons,” is not inclusive—it’s exclusion by default.

Surely there’s room in Tamriel for more than one kind of hero.

One of the things I've disliked about participating in this thread is the lack of context that comments are treated with. And this goes for both sides of the debate and I'm occasionally guilty of it myself. I think a big part of it is just how big this thread is and the sheer impossibility of reading all of the comments. So, context can very easily get lost. So, this is not a criticism of you or anyone in particular but I think this is a good example. As I have said, I have been guilty of this exact same thing where I missed a comment that was crucial to understanding context. It's one of the problem with such a huge mega thread.

One user discussed how overland was impossible for her since Elsweyr.

Another expressed disbelief it was possible for someone to find it hard.

I pointed out it isn't for a variety of issues, such as internet access, age, disability, etc.

The next comment is where the next round of comments really kicked off. Another user made the argument that while they are empathetic and in favor of accessibility options, the game shouldn't be balanced around such users. They argued that forcing the difficulty is better than doing nothing at all. And that it was wrong, on a fundamental level, to have the game balanced the way this game is because it is action RPG.

Next came comments that either agreed that games should have challenges and that overland shouldn't be balanced that way. Or comments that disagreed that it was wrong on a fundamental design level that the current overland existed, including pointing out this game does already have challenges.

This was not push back against difficulty options. It was push back against forced difficulty changes and the concept that such easy action rpg games should not exist. And now that push back is being viewed without that context and being spoken about as if it was an exclusionary take arguing against difficulty options.

Most people in this thread are in favor of difficulty options.

SilverBride · April 4

sans-culottes wrote: »

There’s a difference between accessibility and triviality. Making content accessible means allowing players of varying ability and experience to engage meaningfully. It doesn’t mean eliminating challenge altogether. The former empowers players. The latter flattens the game world into a frictionless experience where nothing is demanded, nothing is risked, and nothing, ultimately, is earned.

Whether or not something is trivial is an opinion, not a fact. This entire debate is based on personal preference. Some like a relaxing story and some don't. But not enjoying something doesn't mean that it's broken and needs fixed.

sans-culottes · April 4

I think there’s been a bit of misinterpretation, so let me clarify.

@SilverBride, I agree that preferences around difficulty are deeply personal. However, accessibility does not equate to removing all challenge from the game. The goal should be to offer options that allow players of varying skill levels to enjoy the content. When I refer to making things “too easy,” I mean when the game becomes frictionless, where there’s no real engagement required. Accessibility is about providing players with ways to enjoy content based on their experience and comfort level, not about removing meaningful challenge. Your point about personal preference is valid, but we need to be careful not to let a “relaxing story” diminish the game’s integrity for those who crave more. Overland content should be accessible without eliminating challenge altogether. It’s about offering balance, not stripping the game of its substance.

@spartaxoxo, I agree with your point that optional difficulty increases are generally a great solution. We have to make sure we’re not treating this as a binary issue, though. The concern is not about forcing difficulty increases on those who prefer a relaxing experience; it’s about creating the opportunity for increased challenge for those who seek it, without forcing it on everyone. It’s not about making ESO into a “Souls-like” game but ensuring that the difficulty spectrum accommodates everyone. This would ensure that difficulty options become choices, not requirements. Furthermore, it would be helpful for promoting a more dynamic and inclusive experience, where players can enjoy their time in Tamriel at their own pace.

Both of you make valid points about personal preference, but let’s not lose sight of the bigger picture: the goal is to provide choice—choice for those who want easy content, and choice for those who want something harder. We should aim for that balance, and the feedback from many players shows that there’s a growing demand for options that can enhance the gameplay experience in a way that is inclusive and flexible for all players.

SilverBride · April 4

sans-culottes wrote: »

@SilverBride, I agree that preferences around difficulty are deeply personal. However, accessibility does not equate to removing all challenge from the game.

All challenge hasn't been removed. There are players that haven't been able to complete the zone story for years now because it is too difficult for them.

sans-culottes · April 4

SilverBride wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

@SilverBride, I agree that preferences around difficulty are deeply personal. However, accessibility does not equate to removing all challenge from the game.

All challenge hasn't been removed. There are players that haven't been able to complete the zone story for years now because it is too difficult for them.

@SilverBride, your response somewhat misrepresents what I actually said. I didn’t claim all challenge has literally been removed from ESO as a whole, nor did I suggest everyone finds the current content equally trivial. Rather, my point was about the principle at stake: Accessibility means designing content that players of different abilities can engage with meaningfully. It does not mean flattening the difficulty curve to the point of triviality for the majority of players.

Citing a handful of anecdotal exceptions doesn’t disprove the broader issue. A few individual struggles with particular content—while valid on a personal level—don’t justify maintaining an excessively low baseline difficulty across all Overland content. Instead, it suggests precisely the opposite: the need for optional solutions (difficulty toggles, scalable challenges, or accessible aids) rather than enforcing universal triviality.

To reiterate clearly: Accessibility and challenge can coexist. Arguing otherwise—particularly by invoking extreme outliers—is a distraction, not a productive engagement with the actual point being made.

spartaxoxo · April 4

sans-culottes wrote: »

I think there’s been a bit of misinterpretation, so let me clarify.

@SilverBride, I agree that preferences around difficulty are deeply personal. However, accessibility does not equate to removing all challenge from the game. The goal should be to offer options that allow players of varying skill levels to enjoy the content. When I refer to making things “too easy,” I mean when the game becomes frictionless, where there’s no real engagement required. Accessibility is about providing players with ways to enjoy content based on their experience and comfort level, not about removing meaningful challenge. Your point about personal preference is valid, but we need to be careful not to let a “relaxing story” diminish the game’s integrity for those who crave more. Overland content should be accessible without eliminating challenge altogether. It’s about offering balance, not stripping the game of its substance.

@spartaxoxo, I agree with your point that optional difficulty increases are generally a great solution. We have to make sure we’re not treating this as a binary issue, though. The concern is not about forcing difficulty increases on those who prefer a relaxing experience; it’s about creating the opportunity for increased challenge for those who seek it, without forcing it on everyone. It’s not about making ESO into a “Souls-like” game but ensuring that the difficulty spectrum accommodates everyone. This would ensure that difficulty options become choices, not requirements. Furthermore, it would be helpful for promoting a more dynamic and inclusive experience, where players can enjoy their time in Tamriel at their own pace.

Both of you make valid points about personal preference, but let’s not lose sight of the bigger picture: the goal is to provide choice—choice for those who want easy content, and choice for those who want something harder. We should aim for that balance, and the feedback from many players shows that there’s a growing demand for options that can enhance the gameplay experience in a way that is inclusive and flexible for all players.

The concern is twofold.

1) We should not force difficulty on those who do not want it or cannot handle it. This is a 10-year-old game with a loyal player base, many of whom play this game because they enjoy the current difficulty. It has a well earned reputation as the most solo friendly and accessible MMO and it should continue to offer a difficulty option for the people that chose it for this reason.

2) This game has a large player base of veteran players who have been power crept out of an engaging and challenging overland experience. The top level of players now have more of a walking sim experience because they can't even really use their skills to engage due to how fast things die. Immunity phases have not solved this problem because they add tedium, not challenge.

I am sorry but I do see this as something that only has one good option: The game needs difficulty options. It has actively chosen to cater to and recruit both groups of players and they both deserve an experience they will enjoy IMO.

I will continue to reject the idea that difficulty should be forced or that nothing should happen. The most recent post was that difficulty should be forced so that is why I responded the way that I did. I am happy to advocate for difficulty options, but I will never agree that forced difficulty is good idea. I also reject the idea that the status quo should be maintained. The difference is that nobody has made the argument that difficulty options aren't okay in a long time.

ETA

I also reject the idea entirely that easy games should not exist and that there is only one right way to make a video game. Frictionless games are popular and completely fine. Them not being someone's cup of tea doesn't invalidate that they are something some people enjoy. I feel the ones trying to create a binary the ones saying things like it is not a game if it is easy.

SilverBride · April 4

sans-culottes wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

@SilverBride, I agree that preferences around difficulty are deeply personal. However, accessibility does not equate to removing all challenge from the game.

All challenge hasn't been removed. There are players that haven't been able to complete the zone story for years now because it is too difficult for them.

@SilverBride, your response somewhat misrepresents what I actually said. I didn’t claim all challenge has literally been removed from ESO as a whole, nor did I suggest everyone finds the current content equally trivial. Rather, my point was about the principle at stake: Accessibility means designing content that players of different abilities can engage with meaningfully. It does not mean flattening the difficulty curve to the point of triviality for the majority of players.

I feel that the difficulty curve is not trivial for the majority of players. I suspect it is a minority rather than a majority that want overland to be a challenge.

sans-culottes wrote: »

Citing a handful of anecdotal exceptions doesn’t disprove the broader issue. A few individual struggles with particular content—while valid on a personal level—don’t justify maintaining an excessively low baseline difficulty across all Overland content. Instead, it suggests precisely the opposite: the need for optional solutions (difficulty toggles, scalable challenges, or accessible aids) rather than enforcing universal triviality.

In my opinion wanting Overland to be something other than what it is is the exception. And no one is enforcing triviality on anyone because whether or not something is trivial is a personal opinion, not a fact. Many of us don't find Overland trivial at all, and many find it challenging

sans-culottes · April 4

spartaxoxo wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

I think there’s been a bit of misinterpretation, so let me clarify.

@SilverBride, I agree that preferences around difficulty are deeply personal. However, accessibility does not equate to removing all challenge from the game. The goal should be to offer options that allow players of varying skill levels to enjoy the content. When I refer to making things “too easy,” I mean when the game becomes frictionless, where there’s no real engagement required. Accessibility is about providing players with ways to enjoy content based on their experience and comfort level, not about removing meaningful challenge. Your point about personal preference is valid, but we need to be careful not to let a “relaxing story” diminish the game’s integrity for those who crave more. Overland content should be accessible without eliminating challenge altogether. It’s about offering balance, not stripping the game of its substance.

@spartaxoxo, I agree with your point that optional difficulty increases are generally a great solution. We have to make sure we’re not treating this as a binary issue, though. The concern is not about forcing difficulty increases on those who prefer a relaxing experience; it’s about creating the opportunity for increased challenge for those who seek it, without forcing it on everyone. It’s not about making ESO into a “Souls-like” game but ensuring that the difficulty spectrum accommodates everyone. This would ensure that difficulty options become choices, not requirements. Furthermore, it would be helpful for promoting a more dynamic and inclusive experience, where players can enjoy their time in Tamriel at their own pace.

Both of you make valid points about personal preference, but let’s not lose sight of the bigger picture: the goal is to provide choice—choice for those who want easy content, and choice for those who want something harder. We should aim for that balance, and the feedback from many players shows that there’s a growing demand for options that can enhance the gameplay experience in a way that is inclusive and flexible for all players.

The concern is twofold.

1) We should not force difficulty on those who do not want it or cannot handle it. This is a 10-year-old game with a loyal player base, many of whom play this game because they enjoy the current difficulty. It has a well earned reputation as the most solo friendly and accessible MMO and it should continue to offer a difficulty option for the people that chose it for this reason.

2) This game has a large player base of veteran players who have been power crept out of an engaging and challenging overland experience. The top level of players now have more of a walking sim experience because they can't even really use their skills to engage due to how fast things die. Immunity phases have not solved this problem because they add tedium, not challenge.

I am sorry but I do see this as something that only has one good option: The game needs difficulty options. It has actively chosen to cater to and recruit both groups of players and they both deserve an experience they will enjoy IMO.

I will continue to reject the idea that difficulty should be forced or that nothing should happen. The most recent post was that difficulty should be forced so that is why I responded the way that I did. I am happy to advocate for difficulty options, but I will never agree that forced difficulty is good idea. I also reject the idea that the status quo should be maintained. The difference is that nobody has made the argument that difficulty options aren't okay in a long time.

@spartaxoxo, I understand where you’re coming from, and to clarify, I wasn’t suggesting that forced difficulty should replace the current Overland experience. My point was precisely that players advocating for optional increases in challenge aren’t necessarily pushing to eliminate the existing accessibility. In fact, I’d argue ESO would significantly benefit from having more flexible options that cater to a broader spectrum of player preferences and abilities.

However, your assertion that no one has argued against optional difficulty recently isn’t entirely accurate. Several participants have repeatedly indicated strong opposition even to optional adjustments, arguing that such options would negatively impact the core experience. I understand and respect their perspectives, but such opposition exists and influences these discussions.

ESO indeed thrives on a diverse player base—both casual players who appreciate the relaxing, story-driven experience, and veteran players who seek deeper mechanical engagement. Neither group should be disregarded, and providing difficulty options would seem a reasonable middle ground. It would enhance the game without removing anything from those who currently enjoy its accessibility.

Your clarification highlights an important point that deserves attention. I’m not arguing that frictionless or easy games should not exist, nor do I think anyone here has seriously argued that position. Games designed to be accessible or relaxing have their place and clearly have an audience; ESO itself thrives in part because it appeals to a wide variety of players, including those who prefer a relaxed experience.

However, there’s a meaningful distinction between advocating for options to enhance player choice and the extreme stance that easy games have no validity. When I mention “frictionless” as a critique, I specifically refer to gameplay scenarios that lack meaningful interaction—such as enemies dying before mechanics can even be engaged with, or content feeling trivial regardless of player input. That kind of frictionlessness is different from the simple preference for a relaxing or easygoing experience, which is entirely valid.

Your edit suggests you’re reacting against a binary no one is seriously proposing. The issue isn’t the existence of easy or frictionless games; it’s about ESO specifically and whether it could better serve its diverse player base through optional difficulty enhancements. There’s room here for both accessible gameplay and meaningful challenge, and advocating for increased choice shouldn’t be misread as an attack on the validity of easier games in general.

We actually agree about the value of difficulty options. What I’m emphasizing is that the presence of more challenging options in ESO wouldn’t undermine its identity as an accessible game—it would enrich it by better accommodating the preferences of more players.

SilverBride wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

@SilverBride, I agree that preferences around difficulty are deeply personal. However, accessibility does not equate to removing all challenge from the game.

All challenge hasn't been removed. There are players that haven't been able to complete the zone story for years now because it is too difficult for them.

@SilverBride, your response somewhat misrepresents what I actually said. I didn’t claim all challenge has literally been removed from ESO as a whole, nor did I suggest everyone finds the current content equally trivial. Rather, my point was about the principle at stake: Accessibility means designing content that players of different abilities can engage with meaningfully. It does not mean flattening the difficulty curve to the point of triviality for the majority of players.

I feel that the difficulty curve is not trivial for the majority of players. I suspect it is a minority rather than a majority that want overland to be a challenge.

sans-culottes wrote: »

Citing a handful of anecdotal exceptions doesn’t disprove the broader issue. A few individual struggles with particular content—while valid on a personal level—don’t justify maintaining an excessively low baseline difficulty across all Overland content. Instead, it suggests precisely the opposite: the need for optional solutions (difficulty toggles, scalable challenges, or accessible aids) rather than enforcing universal triviality.

In my opinion wanting Overland to be something other than what it is is the exception. And no one is forcing triviality on anyone because whether or not something is trivial is a personal opinion, not a fact. Many of us don't find Overland trivial at all, and many find it challenging

@SilverBride, your response ironically highlights the exact contradiction I’ve been pointing out.

You argue that difficulty is purely subjective, yet confidently claim that most players don’t find Overland trivial. But if triviality is entirely subjective, how can you speak definitively about the experience of “many” or even the “majority”? Your argument can’t have it both ways.

When you dismiss calls for optional difficulty as “wanting Overland to be something other than what it is,” you’re implying that the current state is inherently correct, and any request for optional enhancements is an unreasonable exception. This effectively shuts down discussion rather than engaging with the actual issue: how ESO might accommodate more players, not fewer.

Optional difficulty settings wouldn’t remove or diminish the relaxed experience you value—they would enhance choice for everyone. Insisting that any request for choice is somehow exceptional or unreasonable isn’t an argument for accessibility; it’s an argument for limiting player experience to match only your preference.

The real question remains: why oppose optional choice? How does that harm players who enjoy the status quo?

spartaxoxo · April 4

sans-culottes wrote: »

However, your assertion that no one has argued against optional difficulty recently isn’t entirely accurate. Several participants have repeatedly indicated strong opposition even to optional adjustments, arguing that such options would negatively impact the core experience. I understand and respect their perspectives, but such opposition exists and influences these discussions.

Many of the ones that people keep saying are against difficulty options such as myself, SilverBride, and TaSheen have all voiced support for difficulty options. This is what I mean about context. The recent comments are NOT being made by people against difficulty options. They are being against the concept of forced difficulty and the broader concept that games MUST present a challenge.

Franchise408 wrote: »

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.

ETA

Also Franchise also favors options over forced.

Almost everyone in this thread has voiced support for difficulty options. There are not a lot of people who want only forced or only no status quo. There have been a couple but they are few and far between.

sans-culottes · April 4

spartaxoxo wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

However, your assertion that no one has argued against optional difficulty recently isn’t entirely accurate. Several participants have repeatedly indicated strong opposition even to optional adjustments, arguing that such options would negatively impact the core experience. I understand and respect their perspectives, but such opposition exists and influences these discussions.

Many of the ones that people keep saying are against difficulty options such as myself, SilverBride, and TaSheen have all voiced support for difficulty options. This is what I mean about context. The recent comments are NOT being made by people against difficulty options. They are being against the concept of forced difficulty and the broader concept that games MUST present a challenge.

Franchise408 wrote: »

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.

ETA

Also Franchise also favors options over forced.

Almost everyone in this thread has voiced support for difficulty options. There are not a lot of people who want only forced or only no status quo. There have been a couple but they are few and far between.

@spartaxoxo, I think we are talking past each other. I’ve never suggested that you personally oppose difficulty options. On the contrary, you’ve consistently supported optional adjustments—and that’s something we agree on completely.

However, my earlier point was specifically about other contributors who have explicitly opposed even optional difficulty settings at various points throughout this thread. I’m not attributing that position to you or anyone else incorrectly, simply pointing out that such opposition genuinely exists and has influenced the tone and direction of these discussions.

Your point about context is well taken, and I appreciate your clarification. Still, acknowledging that certain participants oppose optional difficulty settings does not negate your own stance—it merely reflects the varied perspectives that exist in this conversation. Recognizing this isn’t creating a binary; it’s accurately representing the full range of views here.

Ultimately, I think most of us (including you and I) agree that providing difficulty options would benefit everyone, and we both support a solution that accommodates diverse player preferences. I’m simply pointing out that opposition—even to optional solutions—isn’t hypothetical; it has been clearly articulated by others in this very thread.

SilverBride · April 4

sans-culottes wrote: »

@SilverBride, your response ironically highlights the exact contradiction I’ve been pointing out.

You argue that difficulty is purely subjective, yet confidently claim that most players don’t find Overland trivial. But if triviality is entirely subjective, how can you speak definitively about the experience of “many” or even the “majority”? Your argument can’t have it both ways.

I was responding to and countering the opinion that Overland is trivial for the majority of players.

sans-culottes wrote: »

When you dismiss calls for optional difficulty as “wanting Overland to be something other than what it is,” you’re implying that the current state is inherently correct...

That is exactly how I feel.

I have supported optional difficulty features for those that want it, but not because I feel that Overland is broken or wrong. Just as a quality of life feature for those that prefer more difficulty.

But repeatedly hearing that Overland is trivial and boring and broken and that the majority of players want difficulty is wearing down my sense of support for optional changes.

spartaxoxo · April 4

sans-culottes wrote: »

spartaxoxo, I think we are talking past each other. I’ve never suggested that you personally oppose difficulty options. On the contrary, you’ve consistently supported optional adjustments—and that’s something we agree on completely.

However, my earlier point was specifically about other contributors who have explicitly opposed even optional difficulty settings at various points throughout this thread. I’m not attributing that position to you or anyone else incorrectly, simply pointing out that such opposition genuinely exists and has influenced the tone and direction of these discussions.

Your point about context is well taken, and I appreciate your clarification. Still, acknowledging that certain participants oppose optional difficulty settings does not negate your own stance—it merely reflects the varied perspectives that exist in this conversation. Recognizing this isn’t creating a binary; it’s accurately representing the full range of views here.

Ultimately, I think most of us (including you and I) agree that providing difficulty options would benefit everyone, and we both support a solution that accommodates diverse player preferences. I’m simply pointing out that opposition—even to optional solutions—isn’t hypothetical; it has been clearly articulated by others in this very thread.

I am not saying that you thought I did that or that I think it negates my own. I apologize as that was not clear. It's just frustrating watching that happen again and again because I have been the target of it several times. I am speaking to the most recent posters, who have definitely all have voiced support for difficulty options repeatedly but still get labeled as against them. I know some support sliders or some support separate instances.

But I am just tired of seeing this same comment loop play out where someone says "I think forced is good," people oppose it and their comment is taken out of context and viewed as opposition to all options including things like sliders. I have had that happen to me multiple times and it is frustrating. I don't think it happened to me this time but I did see it about to happen again and I wanted to say something because it has been one of the most negative parts of this thread for my own personal experience.

sans-culottes · April 4

@spartaxoxo, I appreciate the additional context. No need to apologize. In fact, my point might need to be clarified. My bad for being unclear.

While some participants have said they don’t oppose difficulty options outright, they’ve consistently argued that such options shouldn’t yield additional XP, rewards, or incentives. In other words, they’ve maintained that challenge should strictly be “its own reward,” without tangible gameplay incentives. This stance effectively undermines the viability of implementing meaningful optional difficulty systems, as genuine player engagement often depends on clear and motivating reward structures.

So when we’re evaluating who supports genuine optional difficulty settings and who doesn’t, we need to look beyond just surface-level agreement. If a player’s idea of “optional difficulty” involves stripping it of any incentives—thereby rendering it effectively inert—then they’re not truly advocating for the kind of optional solutions that many players have been requesting throughout this thread.

This difference matters because it affects whether a proposed solution is genuinely meaningful or merely nominal.

SilverBride wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

@SilverBride, your response ironically highlights the exact contradiction I’ve been pointing out.

You argue that difficulty is purely subjective, yet confidently claim that most players don’t find Overland trivial. But if triviality is entirely subjective, how can you speak definitively about the experience of “many” or even the “majority”? Your argument can’t have it both ways.

I was responding to and countering the opinion that Overland is trivial for the majority of players.

sans-culottes wrote: »

When you dismiss calls for optional difficulty as “wanting Overland to be something other than what it is,” you’re implying that the current state is inherently correct...

That is exactly how I feel.

I have supported optional difficulty features for those that want it, but not because I feel that Overland is broken or wrong. Just as a quality of life feature for those that prefer more difficulty.

But repeatedly hearing that Overland is trivial and boring and broken and that the majority of players want difficulty is wearing down my sense of support for optional changes.

@SilverBride, thanks for clarifying your position. It helps highlight some of the underlying tensions in this discussion.

You mention that you’re beginning to lose support for optional difficulty simply because others describe Overland as “trivial” or “boring.” But this raises an important question: If support for a feature vanishes the moment players explain why they want it, then is that truly support?

Optional systems, by design, are meant to accommodate a range of perspectives—including the view that certain content feels trivial. That shouldn’t be seen as an invalidation of others’ preferences. If players can’t express their own experience without risking the erosion of proposed solutions, then we aren’t really discussing “options.” Instead, we’re defending the status quo.

Likewise, I appreciate that you feel the current Overland structure is how things should be. But that’s precisely why some of us are advocating for change. This is not to eliminate your experience; it’s to add a layer that acknowledges the full range of how players engage with the game.

The goal isn’t to impose a hierarchy of playstyles but instead to make space for them.

BananaBender · April 4

SilverBride wrote: »

I feel that the difficulty curve is not trivial for the majority of players. I suspect it is a minority rather than a majority that want overland to be a challenge.

We don't have any official data on that so points like this make no sense. In fact I feel the opposite, I haven't met a player who doesn't find overland very easy in all my thousands of hours played, but of course all of this is very anecdotal, which is why I wouldn't use it as an argument at all. We all live in our bubbles and that is reflected in this thread very clearly.

SilverBride wrote: »

In my opinion wanting Overland to be something other than what it is is the exception. And no one is enforcing triviality on anyone because whether or not something is trivial is a personal opinion, not a fact. Many of us don't find Overland trivial at all, and many find it challenging

What I'm wondering is that what would be considered trivial if the current overland isn't? Spamming one skill over and over to kill a boss is as trivial as it gets if you ask me. I agree that the newer world bosses and some public dungeon group events take a little bit more effort than that, but for majority of overland content you can get away with literally one skill.

SilverBride · April 4

sans-culottes wrote: »

@SilverBride, thanks for clarifying your position. It helps highlight some of the underlying tensions in this discussion.

You mention that you’re beginning to lose support for optional difficulty simply because others describe Overland as “trivial” or “boring.” But this raises an important question: If support for a feature vanishes the moment players explain why they want it, then is that truly support?

It's hard to continue to support something that I disagree with.

If a player states something like "I prefer more difficulty because it adds to my immersion" then I can support that.

But if a player states something like "Overland is trivial and boring for the majority of players, and needs to be fixed, and shouldn't be built around the demographic that find it difficult" then I can't support that because that is not something that I agree with.

SilverBride · April 4

BananaBender wrote: »

What I'm wondering is that what would be considered trivial if the current overland isn't? Spamming one skill over and over to kill a boss is as trivial as it gets if you ask me. I agree that the newer world bosses and some public dungeon group events take a little bit more effort than that, but for majority of overland content you can get away with literally one skill.

A lot of us enjoy that we don't have to have detailed rotations to quest and enjoy the story. What some consider trivial others consider relaxing.

spartaxoxo · April 4

sans-culottes wrote: »

spartaxoxo, I appreciate the additional context. No need to apologize. In fact, my point might need to be clarified. My bad for being unclear.

While some participants have said they don’t oppose difficulty options outright, they’ve consistently argued that such options shouldn’t yield additional XP, rewards, or incentives. In other words, they’ve maintained that challenge should strictly be “its own reward,” without tangible gameplay incentives. This stance effectively undermines the viability of implementing meaningful optional difficulty systems, as genuine player engagement often depends on clear and motivating reward structures.

So when we’re evaluating who supports genuine optional difficulty settings and who doesn’t, we need to look beyond just surface-level agreement. If a player’s idea of “optional difficulty” involves stripping it of any incentives—thereby rendering it effectively inert—then they’re not truly advocating for the kind of optional solutions that many players have been requesting throughout this thread.

This difference matters because it affects whether a proposed solution is genuinely meaningful or merely nominal.

Thank you for the additional clarification. I do agree that having no rewards period, not even exp, would greatly undermine any difficulty options. While I don't think there should be exclusives since questing is one and done, a player also should not be worse off because they wanted to enjoy the story. It seems obvious to me that there must be something done though. Otherwise, players won't do it because they rightfully don't want to be punished for wanting to enjoy a story.

Deserrick · April 4

BananaBender wrote: »

Spamming one skill over and over to kill a boss is as trivial as it gets if you ask me.

That's not possible unless very well-geared or benefitting from the low level stat boost.

Being very well-geared is approximately equivalent to level/skill/item grinding in other games, the time spent preparing your character results in less time spent in the fight. Getting high quality matched sets with good enchantments and traits needs (as far as I can tell) to result in a marked increase in power in order to provide a reason to engage with the equipment system; maybe there is a theoretical appealing equipment system that doesn't increase power to a significant degree, but I have not yet seen one. Facing a boss with high-power equipment can be trivial, just like in most other games; but just using what you get as you progress naturally without grinding is a completely different experience.

disky · April 4

Deserrick wrote: »

BananaBender wrote: »

Spamming one skill over and over to kill a boss is as trivial as it gets if you ask me.

That's not possible unless very well-geared or benefitting from the low level stat boost.

Being very well-geared is approximately equivalent to level/skill/item grinding in other games, the time spent preparing your character results in less time spent in the fight. Getting high quality matched sets with good enchantments and traits needs (as far as I can tell) to result in a marked increase in power in order to provide a reason to engage with the equipment system; maybe there is a theoretical appealing equipment system that doesn't increase power to a significant degree, but I have not yet seen one. Facing a boss with high-power equipment can be trivial, just like in most other games; but just using what you get as you progress naturally without grinding is a completely different experience.

I don't personally agree that it should result in a dramatic power increase, although most people clearly hold that expectation. While I want there to be a noticeable result, what I want more than anything is to feel like the build suits my character and playstyle. I don't actually enjoy smashing through everything I come across without any resistance. That's incredibly boring as far as I'm concerned. What I want is to be challenged and to put thought into building a fun, effective character. I know that's a difficult line to walk for the devs, especially with so many build possibilities, but that's my perspective. As long as any challenge system is made optional, I don't see why anyone would disagree.

Muizer · April 4

@sans-culottes, your arguments will never resonate with those who are opposed to the very fact you are making any. You may in this thread encounter people who believe any interest expressed in higher overland difficulty increases the chance of ZOS acting, and that that in itself poses a risk to the existing overland experience. It's not what you're saying about overland difficulty that bothers them, but the fact you're talking about it at all.

BananaBender · April 4

Deserrick wrote: »

BananaBender wrote: »

Spamming one skill over and over to kill a boss is as trivial as it gets if you ask me.

That's not possible unless very well-geared or benefitting from the low level stat boost.

Being very well-geared is approximately equivalent to level/skill/item grinding in other games, the time spent preparing your character results in less time spent in the fight. Getting high quality matched sets with good enchantments and traits needs (as far as I can tell) to result in a marked increase in power in order to provide a reason to engage with the equipment system; maybe there is a theoretical appealing equipment system that doesn't increase power to a significant degree, but I have not yet seen one. Facing a boss with high-power equipment can be trivial, just like in most other games; but just using what you get as you progress naturally without grinding is a completely different experience.

I wish that was the case... I did an experiment where I played through the West Weald story, only using purple crafted gear and a single skill. Main quest lines, public dungeons etc. are fully and comfortably beatable by using only a single skill. I made a post about it in this thread so I'll just quote it for context.

BananaBender wrote: »

I wanted to see how easy/difficult the questing experience would be for a beginner player, so I played through the West Weald main quest line. (not all the way through since it requires completing Necrom questline as well and I didn't have the time nor the interest to complete that for this test)

Of course I can't just remove thousands of hours of experience, so I limited myself with a few criteria,
No light attacks. None what so ever to negate the benefits from weaving.

Heavy attack only for resources.

I'm only allowed to use a single skill, which in this case was Puncturing Sweeps.

Only purple crafted gear with purple enchants. No monster sets, mythics or arena weapons.

No CP (remembered the existence of CP only at the last boss, though it made minimal difference)

Minimal movement. I moved only if the boss jumped out of reach.

No companion or any outside help.

I logged all boss pulls, so you don't have to take my word for it, but I will break down the logs for people who don't know how to read logs.

SPOILER ALERT Minor spoilers about the West Weald story line (boss names)
I used the same setup the whole time, Order's Wrath and Claw of the Forest Wraith with 2pc Assassin's Guile. I had a normal skill bar, but as stated in the rules I only used Puncturing Sweeps.

So, how was the final boss of the quest line? It was mind blowingly simple and easy. There is no really other way to put it. Even when restricting myself as much as possible to a point where I was using the Crown Recovery food you get for free from login rewards to try to make my HP move even a little bit. As I will show you, it barely did. None of the heavy attacks from any of the bosses dealt ANY damage to me, even when in 6pc light armor. There was a fight where a quest follower gives you a shield, and during the whole fight the enemy DID NOT EVEN MANAGE TO BREAK IT.
I genuinely do not know how I could further restrict myself for there to be a single bit of challenge, apart from wearing actively harmful sets or nothing at all.

These are all taken from the Shardmarshal Vargas fight, which is the last fight before you are required to complete Necrom.
Here is every single cast I used from skills to potions and everything in between.

(Abolisher is the mechanic given to you in the fight)

This picture shows my HP during the fight, while actively standing in everything that could hurt me. It also shows that I had a max HP of 17,680. I was a nord with every attribute point put into Magicka.

Here is my damage taken sources, note that not a single attack was blocked.

Full logs for anyone interested ↓
https://www.esologs.com/reports/a:TVdMpafqrmRQYnA2

At this point I don't really even know what to think. I know this won't change anyone's opinion or anything and at this point I don't really care.
I'm just so disappointed honestly... How has this been the acceptable state of the quests for this long? The questing experience isn't easy, it's a joke.

I was under the impression that the fights were really easy only because of my build and overall knowledge of the game and its mechanics, but that just wasn't the case. The enemy won't deal damage even if you give them time to. You don't have to have damage, weaving, healing, shielding, resistances, buffs or anything, literally nothing is required or expected. You have to show up and that's it. I know I was using a skill which heals and deals damage and not all classes have access to it, so some classes might have to use a second key to finish the last fight. At this point might as well have the forced quest companions fight the battle for you.

The visuals were amazing and I absolutely loved how the quest areas looked now that I had more time to look around. The story was solid in my opinion. But all that world building and story telling was completely broken by the encounters. There was no immersion as if we were actually invading a daedric price's realm, as her loyal followers were not even able to break through the shield given to me automatically by a quest NPC, as if that was ever required when my passive HP regen was almost enough to out heal the incoming damage.

I was hoping to be more objective than this, but I just simply cannot. I don't see a single reason why one skill is all you need to breeze through everything. I gave my best attempt at seeing the other side of the argument, but at this point I just cannot. I don't know what would I have to do to make this even a close fight. I could go on and on about how much of a disappointment all of this was, but I think I'm done for now.

Deserrick · April 4

disky wrote: »

I don't personally agree that it should result in a dramatic power increase, although most people clearly hold that expectation.

I don't prefer it either. I like horizontal options, like the differences in light/medium/heavy armor and combining weights to get the stat distribution desired. But, I have to concede that vertical increases are what give a reason (for most people) to engage with equipment systems, and these increases in power will have an effect on combat.

disky wrote: »

What I want is to be challenged and to put thought into building a fun, effective character. I know that's a difficult line to walk for the devs, especially with so many build possibilities, but that's my perspective. As long as any challenge system is made optional, I don't see why anyone would disagree.

I don't disagree. I disagree that overland is trivial without grinding. Fights can be trivialized by grinding, but that doesn't make them trivial as a baseline.

spartaxoxo · April 4

BananaBender wrote: »

Deserrick wrote: »

BananaBender wrote: »

Spamming one skill over and over to kill a boss is as trivial as it gets if you ask me.

That's not possible unless very well-geared or benefitting from the low level stat boost.

Being very well-geared is approximately equivalent to level/skill/item grinding in other games, the time spent preparing your character results in less time spent in the fight. Getting high quality matched sets with good enchantments and traits needs (as far as I can tell) to result in a marked increase in power in order to provide a reason to engage with the equipment system; maybe there is a theoretical appealing equipment system that doesn't increase power to a significant degree, but I have not yet seen one. Facing a boss with high-power equipment can be trivial, just like in most other games; but just using what you get as you progress naturally without grinding is a completely different experience.

I wish that was the case... I did an experiment where I played through the West Weald story, only using purple crafted gear and a single skill. Main quest lines, public dungeons etc. are fully and comfortably beatable by using only a single skill. I made a post about it in this thread so I'll just quote it for context.

BananaBender wrote: »

I wanted to see how easy/difficult the questing experience would be for a beginner player, so I played through the West Weald main quest line. (not all the way through since it requires completing Necrom questline as well and I didn't have the time nor the interest to complete that for this test)

Of course I can't just remove thousands of hours of experience, so I limited myself with a few criteria,
No light attacks. None what so ever to negate the benefits from weaving.

Heavy attack only for resources.

I'm only allowed to use a single skill, which in this case was Puncturing Sweeps.

Only purple crafted gear with purple enchants. No monster sets, mythics or arena weapons.

No CP (remembered the existence of CP only at the last boss, though it made minimal difference)

Minimal movement. I moved only if the boss jumped out of reach.

No companion or any outside help.

I logged all boss pulls, so you don't have to take my word for it, but I will break down the logs for people who don't know how to read logs.

SPOILER ALERT Minor spoilers about the West Weald story line (boss names)
I used the same setup the whole time, Order's Wrath and Claw of the Forest Wraith with 2pc Assassin's Guile. I had a normal skill bar, but as stated in the rules I only used Puncturing Sweeps.

So, how was the final boss of the quest line? It was mind blowingly simple and easy. There is no really other way to put it. Even when restricting myself as much as possible to a point where I was using the Crown Recovery food you get for free from login rewards to try to make my HP move even a little bit. As I will show you, it barely did. None of the heavy attacks from any of the bosses dealt ANY damage to me, even when in 6pc light armor. There was a fight where a quest follower gives you a shield, and during the whole fight the enemy DID NOT EVEN MANAGE TO BREAK IT.
I genuinely do not know how I could further restrict myself for there to be a single bit of challenge, apart from wearing actively harmful sets or nothing at all.

These are all taken from the Shardmarshal Vargas fight, which is the last fight before you are required to complete Necrom.
Here is every single cast I used from skills to potions and everything in between.

(Abolisher is the mechanic given to you in the fight)

This picture shows my HP during the fight, while actively standing in everything that could hurt me. It also shows that I had a max HP of 17,680. I was a nord with every attribute point put into Magicka.

Here is my damage taken sources, note that not a single attack was blocked.

Full logs for anyone interested ↓
https://www.esologs.com/reports/a:TVdMpafqrmRQYnA2

At this point I don't really even know what to think. I know this won't change anyone's opinion or anything and at this point I don't really care.
I'm just so disappointed honestly... How has this been the acceptable state of the quests for this long? The questing experience isn't easy, it's a joke.

I was under the impression that the fights were really easy only because of my build and overall knowledge of the game and its mechanics, but that just wasn't the case. The enemy won't deal damage even if you give them time to. You don't have to have damage, weaving, healing, shielding, resistances, buffs or anything, literally nothing is required or expected. You have to show up and that's it. I know I was using a skill which heals and deals damage and not all classes have access to it, so some classes might have to use a second key to finish the last fight. At this point might as well have the forced quest companions fight the battle for you.

The visuals were amazing and I absolutely loved how the quest areas looked now that I had more time to look around. The story was solid in my opinion. But all that world building and story telling was completely broken by the encounters. There was no immersion as if we were actually invading a daedric price's realm, as her loyal followers were not even able to break through the shield given to me automatically by a quest NPC, as if that was ever required when my passive HP regen was almost enough to out heal the incoming damage.

I was hoping to be more objective than this, but I just simply cannot. I don't see a single reason why one skill is all you need to breeze through everything. I gave my best attempt at seeing the other side of the argument, but at this point I just cannot. I don't know what would I have to do to make this even a close fight. I could go on and on about how much of a disappointment all of this was, but I think I'm done for now.

Was this on a new character or an above 50 character? It makes a huge difference.

spartaxoxo · April 4

Deserrick wrote: »

I don't disagree. I disagree that overland is trivial without grinding. Fights can be trivialized by grinding, but that doesn't make them trivial as a baseline.

I think the majority of users would probably find them pretty easy as a baseline. It's not all and there's certainly valid reasons why the people who struggle with it have difficulty. But I think the majority experience is that it's easy. I think for most their opinion is going to instead be around whether or not they view that difficulty postively or negatively. One person's boring, trivial, and unengaging is another's relaxing, interesting, and power fantasy fulfilling.

BananaBender · April 4

spartaxoxo wrote: »

BananaBender wrote: »

Deserrick wrote: »

BananaBender wrote: »

Spamming one skill over and over to kill a boss is as trivial as it gets if you ask me.

That's not possible unless very well-geared or benefitting from the low level stat boost.

Being very well-geared is approximately equivalent to level/skill/item grinding in other games, the time spent preparing your character results in less time spent in the fight. Getting high quality matched sets with good enchantments and traits needs (as far as I can tell) to result in a marked increase in power in order to provide a reason to engage with the equipment system; maybe there is a theoretical appealing equipment system that doesn't increase power to a significant degree, but I have not yet seen one. Facing a boss with high-power equipment can be trivial, just like in most other games; but just using what you get as you progress naturally without grinding is a completely different experience.

I wish that was the case... I did an experiment where I played through the West Weald story, only using purple crafted gear and a single skill. Main quest lines, public dungeons etc. are fully and comfortably beatable by using only a single skill. I made a post about it in this thread so I'll just quote it for context.

BananaBender wrote: »

I wanted to see how easy/difficult the questing experience would be for a beginner player, so I played through the West Weald main quest line. (not all the way through since it requires completing Necrom questline as well and I didn't have the time nor the interest to complete that for this test)

Of course I can't just remove thousands of hours of experience, so I limited myself with a few criteria,
No light attacks. None what so ever to negate the benefits from weaving.

Heavy attack only for resources.

I'm only allowed to use a single skill, which in this case was Puncturing Sweeps.

Only purple crafted gear with purple enchants. No monster sets, mythics or arena weapons.

No CP (remembered the existence of CP only at the last boss, though it made minimal difference)

Minimal movement. I moved only if the boss jumped out of reach.

No companion or any outside help.

I logged all boss pulls, so you don't have to take my word for it, but I will break down the logs for people who don't know how to read logs.

SPOILER ALERT Minor spoilers about the West Weald story line (boss names)
I used the same setup the whole time, Order's Wrath and Claw of the Forest Wraith with 2pc Assassin's Guile. I had a normal skill bar, but as stated in the rules I only used Puncturing Sweeps.

So, how was the final boss of the quest line? It was mind blowingly simple and easy. There is no really other way to put it. Even when restricting myself as much as possible to a point where I was using the Crown Recovery food you get for free from login rewards to try to make my HP move even a little bit. As I will show you, it barely did. None of the heavy attacks from any of the bosses dealt ANY damage to me, even when in 6pc light armor. There was a fight where a quest follower gives you a shield, and during the whole fight the enemy DID NOT EVEN MANAGE TO BREAK IT.
I genuinely do not know how I could further restrict myself for there to be a single bit of challenge, apart from wearing actively harmful sets or nothing at all.

These are all taken from the Shardmarshal Vargas fight, which is the last fight before you are required to complete Necrom.
Here is every single cast I used from skills to potions and everything in between.

(Abolisher is the mechanic given to you in the fight)

This picture shows my HP during the fight, while actively standing in everything that could hurt me. It also shows that I had a max HP of 17,680. I was a nord with every attribute point put into Magicka.

Here is my damage taken sources, note that not a single attack was blocked.

Full logs for anyone interested ↓
https://www.esologs.com/reports/a:TVdMpafqrmRQYnA2

At this point I don't really even know what to think. I know this won't change anyone's opinion or anything and at this point I don't really care.
I'm just so disappointed honestly... How has this been the acceptable state of the quests for this long? The questing experience isn't easy, it's a joke.

I was under the impression that the fights were really easy only because of my build and overall knowledge of the game and its mechanics, but that just wasn't the case. The enemy won't deal damage even if you give them time to. You don't have to have damage, weaving, healing, shielding, resistances, buffs or anything, literally nothing is required or expected. You have to show up and that's it. I know I was using a skill which heals and deals damage and not all classes have access to it, so some classes might have to use a second key to finish the last fight. At this point might as well have the forced quest companions fight the battle for you.

The visuals were amazing and I absolutely loved how the quest areas looked now that I had more time to look around. The story was solid in my opinion. But all that world building and story telling was completely broken by the encounters. There was no immersion as if we were actually invading a daedric price's realm, as her loyal followers were not even able to break through the shield given to me automatically by a quest NPC, as if that was ever required when my passive HP regen was almost enough to out heal the incoming damage.

I was hoping to be more objective than this, but I just simply cannot. I don't see a single reason why one skill is all you need to breeze through everything. I gave my best attempt at seeing the other side of the argument, but at this point I just cannot. I don't know what would I have to do to make this even a close fight. I could go on and on about how much of a disappointment all of this was, but I think I'm done for now.

Was this on a new character or an above 50 character? It makes a huge difference.

Above 50. You can see my max health being at 17 600 which is not possible with the low level buffs.

spartaxoxo · April 4

BananaBender wrote: »

Above 50. You can see my max health being at 17 600 which is not possible with the low level buffs.

I didn't click the pictures because of spoilers and because I can't read logs well as a console user anyway. I'm surprised it was above 50 as that wasn't my experience with no-cp above 50 but I wasn't using purple crafted gear in that test either but rather I attempted to simulate using whatever was lying around when questing.

Here's that

spartaxoxo wrote: »

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.