Overland Content Feedback Thread

TaSheen · April 8

@Kallykat - very well stated.

colossalvoids · April 8

Kallykat wrote: »

I would love it if ZOS would add an easier option (story mode) to difficult dungeons and trials just as much as many of you would love a higher difficulty option for overland. I am doubtful that will happen.

Time ago probably Rich said that they're doing story mode dungeons but it would come after some time so no ETA. I'm pretty sure it has way more chances to be in game sooner than an overland that works for players who don't find it enjoyable rn, because one is downgrading already existing closed instance thing to overland level and the other is more compex of an issue as it would probably include behaviours and animation speeds, just a numerical bump can be a thing but I doubt the results would be great.

Muizer · April 8

spartaxoxo wrote: »

The nice thing about a slider as the solution is they can offer multiple settings, so that someone who would rather be punished with death for missing big mechanics can be. And those that like the way things currently are for the most part but just wished the mobs hit slightly harder/lasted slightly longer just so they can hear dialogue can use a lower setting. They could even make things easier, if they wanted to help those who currently find overland challenging. And ofc, you could also opt to not use it at all.

A slider is just a UI element. It's what's behind it that matters. If it only scales the relative strength of existing NPC, a slider will move combat difficulty along a dimension that has 'dodge or die' combat as its endpoint.

That is a very limited form of 'higher difficulty'. This is completely incomparable, for instance, to the higher difficulty you could experience in the old Craglorn or when soloing a dungeon. Those encounters are designed to be tougher in more ways than one, including simply having more NPC that are spread out farther.

Getsugatenso · April 8

I was thinking it would be really cool to see this game add some kind of really powerful world boss that only multiple players can kill at specific points on the map, something extraordinary. With different items and rewards to move OVERWORLD further. Maybe even some open world events. The current bosses are too weak and one player is able to kill them alone. And the TRIALs are very complicated to do due to the high coordination requirement. So maybe big bosses with dozens of players fighting to kill them would be really cool.

Northwold · April 9

I don't mean to disrupt this thread but I find it a little odd that threads are being closed because ANY discussion of overland is supposed to happen here.

I doubt I'm alone in saying that overland is a good 50-75% of what ESO is to me. So it seems a little strange.

Hotdog_23 · April 9

Getsugatenso wrote: »

I was thinking it would be really cool to see this game add some kind of really powerful world boss that only multiple players can kill at specific points on the map, something extraordinary. With different items and rewards to move OVERWORLD further. Maybe even some open world events. The current bosses are too weak and one player is able to kill them alone. And the TRIALs are very complicated to do due to the high coordination requirement. So maybe big bosses with dozens of players fighting to kill them would be really cool.

My only problem with this is that you have to remember that some people play at off times when the population is lower and finding a group to kill a “really powerful world boss” is not always an option. Plus, as zones get older and older, finding other players to help would be even more difficult. Then you have to consider the new players that start the game. What are they to do in older content with fewer players and even less of a possibility to get the “different items and rewards to move OVERWORLD further”.

I think ZOS is doing the right thing by putting harder bosses in grouped instances such as trails.

As far as my thoughts on the overall thread, I have never understood the Overland Content more difficulty issue push so many ask for. If you want the content to be more difficult for yourself. Just use one of your armory slots and equip level one or whatever level you want to use your gear at. Use no CP or food, mundus stone and potions. You can ever limit yourself to only one weapon or even what skills you use. Heck, bare-knuckle fight in only your undies if you want to kill a dragon by yourself and have a real challenge. You always have options if you want it harder on yourself.

Stay safe

sans-culottes · April 9

Hotdog_23 wrote: »

Getsugatenso wrote: »

I was thinking it would be really cool to see this game add some kind of really powerful world boss that only multiple players can kill at specific points on the map, something extraordinary. With different items and rewards to move OVERWORLD further. Maybe even some open world events. The current bosses are too weak and one player is able to kill them alone. And the TRIALs are very complicated to do due to the high coordination requirement. So maybe big bosses with dozens of players fighting to kill them would be really cool.

My only problem with this is that you have to remember that some people play at off times when the population is lower and finding a group to kill a “really powerful world boss” is not always an option. Plus, as zones get older and older, finding other players to help would be even more difficult. Then you have to consider the new players that start the game. What are they to do in older content with fewer players and even less of a possibility to get the “different items and rewards to move OVERWORLD further”.

I think ZOS is doing the right thing by putting harder bosses in grouped instances such as trails.

As far as my thoughts on the overall thread, I have never understood the Overland Content more difficulty issue push so many ask for. If you want the content to be more difficult for yourself. Just use one of your armory slots and equip level one or whatever level you want to use your gear at. Use no CP or food, mundus stone and potions. You can ever limit yourself to only one weapon or even what skills you use. Heck, bare-knuckle fight in only your undies if you want to kill a dragon by yourself and have a real challenge. You always have options if you want it harder on yourself.

Stay safe

@Hotdog_23, I get that you’re trying to offer a practical workaround here, but I think this line of argument actually makes the case for optional difficulty settings rather than against them.

That the current solution for players seeking challenge is to self-nerf into absurdity—unequip CP, wear level 1 gear, fight dragons in your underwear—isn’t a sign that things are working as intended. It’s the opposite. When players are inventing elaborate constraints just to feel something, that usually means the base content isn’t providing meaningful engagement on its own.

And while yes, group-based world bosses come with some logistical concerns, those are solvable (megaserver tech, phasing, scaling mechanics, etc.). Plenty of MMOs have managed it. ESO already does so in smaller ways: dragons, dolmen events, Harrowstorms. Players asking for deeper Overland challenges aren’t looking to replace solo-friendly content; they’re looking for more variety and progression outside of instanced groups.

Optional difficulty or scaling wouldn’t take anything away from the current player base. Instead, it would simply allow more people to enjoy the parts of the game they’re already drawn to in a way that suits their experience level.

Franchise408 · April 9

Hotdog_23 wrote: »

Getsugatenso wrote: »

I was thinking it would be really cool to see this game add some kind of really powerful world boss that only multiple players can kill at specific points on the map, something extraordinary. With different items and rewards to move OVERWORLD further. Maybe even some open world events. The current bosses are too weak and one player is able to kill them alone. And the TRIALs are very complicated to do due to the high coordination requirement. So maybe big bosses with dozens of players fighting to kill them would be really cool.

My only problem with this is that you have to remember that some people play at off times when the population is lower and finding a group to kill a “really powerful world boss” is not always an option. Plus, as zones get older and older, finding other players to help would be even more difficult. Then you have to consider the new players that start the game. What are they to do in older content with fewer players and even less of a possibility to get the “different items and rewards to move OVERWORLD further”.

I think ZOS is doing the right thing by putting harder bosses in grouped instances such as trails.

As far as my thoughts on the overall thread, I have never understood the Overland Content more difficulty issue push so many ask for. If you want the content to be more difficult for yourself. Just use one of your armory slots and equip level one or whatever level you want to use your gear at. Use no CP or food, mundus stone and potions. You can ever limit yourself to only one weapon or even what skills you use. Heck, bare-knuckle fight in only your undies if you want to kill a dragon by yourself and have a real challenge. You always have options if you want it harder on yourself.

Stay safe

"Just use the level 1 armor", which completely disregards the entire point of an RPG which is building up a character in the player's design. It's pretty bad game design to expect a player to disregard the most foundational aspect of an RPG to be able to find any semblance of a challenge in the game's main content.

SilverBride · April 9

There is nothing anyone can say that hasn't been said repeatedly for 3 1/2 years now. We will find out tomorrow what their plan is. I just hope they keep in mind all the players that have been actively playing and supporting their game for years now, and that any changes won't ruin the overland experience for us. Overland is all that many players are able to participate in.

sans-culottes · April 9

SilverBride wrote: »

There is nothing anyone can say that hasn't been said repeatedly for 3 1/2 years now. We will find out tomorrow what their plan is. I just hope they keep in mind all the players that have been actively playing and supporting their game for years now, and that any changes won't ruin the overland experience for us. Overland is all that many players are able to participate in.

@SilverBride, I agree we’ll see soon enough what direction ZOS wants to go. But I do think it’s worth emphasizing: many of the players asking for optional difficulty scaling are long-time supporters, too—myself included. We have not been asking for the current experience to be “ruined,” but to be expanded—just like we’ve seen with dungeons (normal/vet), arenas, and trials.

Overland is already many players’ favorite part of the game. That’s exactly why some of us want more depth there—so that it remains engaging for more types of players, not fewer.

Adding options isn’t a betrayal of existing players. If anything, then it’s a way of keeping more of us invested long-term. No one’s asking to take anything away. Instead, we are just asking to be given something back.

spartaxoxo · April 9

sans-culottes wrote: »

Instead, we are just asking to be given something back.

This line is such an awesome and succinct way of describing what we're looking for.

SilverBride · April 9

ZoS said "Increasing the difficulty of standard overworld combat", not "Optionally increasing the difficulty of standard overworld combat".

Whether or not anyone is asking that the current experience be ruined for the rest of us, that is exactly what a mandatory increase in overland difficulty will do for many.

What bothers me the most is the thought that the preferences of those that haven't played for years could be accommodated over the preferences and needs of those that have been actively playing and supporting this game all this time.

sans-culottes · April 9

spartaxoxo wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

Instead, we are just asking to be given something back.

This line is such an awesome and succinct way of describing what we're looking for.

@spartaxoxo, thanks! I appreciate that. All any of us have requested is a restoration of that sense of purpose and engagement in a part of the game that many of us have grown with for years.

SilverBride wrote: »

ZoS said "Increasing the difficulty of standard overworld combat", not "Optionally increasing the difficulty of standard overworld combat".

Whether or not anyone is asking that the current experience be ruined for the rest of us, that is exactly what a mandatory increase in overland difficulty will do for many.

What bothers me the most is the thought that the preferences of those that haven't played for years could be accommodated over the preferences and needs of those that have been actively playing and supporting this game all this time.

@SilverBride, I understand your worry, but I think it’s a bit of a false split to suggest that either new or returning players get consideration, but not those who’ve been here all along. The reality is that many of us asking for change are long-time, active supporters. Wanting overland content to evolve doesn’t mean we’re trying to “ruin” anything; it means we’d like the same kind of layered, opt-in variety that already exists in other areas of ESO.

And respectfully, I wouldn’t assume intent from one line in the studio director’s letter. “Increasing difficulty” might simply refer to adding scalable or optional systems—something ESO has a strong track record of doing across dungeons, arenas, and even PvP. Until we know more, it’s probably best not to treat it as a zero-sum threat.

If ZOS is aiming to make overland more engaging for more types of players, then that’s a sign of long-term health—not alienation.

SilverBride · April 9

sans-culottes wrote: »

@SilverBride, I understand your worry, but I think it’s a bit of a false split to suggest that either new or returning players get consideration, but not those who’ve been here all along. The reality is that many of us asking for change are long-time, active supporters.

Several posters that have asked for a more difficult overland have stated that they have not played the game in several years. That is not actively supporting.

sans-culottes wrote: »

Wanting overland content to evolve doesn’t mean we’re trying to “ruin” anything; it means we’d like the same kind of layered, opt-in variety that already exists in other areas of ESO.

I never said anyone was trying to ruin anything for anyone else. But if there is a mandatory increase in Overland difficulty that will be the end result for many.

sans-culottes · April 9

SilverBride wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

@SilverBride, I understand your worry, but I think it’s a bit of a false split to suggest that either new or returning players get consideration, but not those who’ve been here all along. The reality is that many of us asking for change are long-time, active supporters.

The reality is that several posters that have asked for a more difficult overland have stated that they have not played the game in several years. That is not actively supporting.

sans-culottes wrote: »

Wanting overland content to evolve doesn’t mean we’re trying to “ruin” anything; it means we’d like the same kind of layered, opt-in variety that already exists in other areas of ESO.

I never said anyone was trying to ruin anything for anyone else. But if there is a mandatory increase in Overland difficulty that will be the end result for many.

@SilverBride, I appreciate the consistency of your position, even if I don’t share the conclusions you draw from it.

But to be fair, pointing out that some posters have inactive accounts doesn’t really undermine the broader request. There are plenty of us in this thread—active, subscribed, and long-term players—who’ve voiced the same concerns. The idea that feedback loses weight because a few people took a break seems like a pretty selective filter for what counts as valid engagement.

And I do understand your concern about mandatory changes. If ZOS had announced “we are removing standard overland and replacing it with Veteran mode only,” then I’d probably be raising an eyebrow as well. But that’s not what’s been proposed. Most people here are advocating for layered, opt-in difficulty—mirroring systems ESO already uses elsewhere

SilverBride · April 9

sans-culottes wrote: »

But to be fair, pointing out that some posters have inactive accounts doesn’t really undermine the broader request.

It does undermine the broader request for me.

sans-culottes · April 9

SilverBride wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

But to be fair, pointing out that some posters have inactive accounts doesn’t really undermine the broader request.

I don't feel it's fair to actvie and supportive players to have their game changed negatively at the request of those that haven't played in years. That does undermine the broader request for me.

@SilverBride, I don’t think anyone’s suggesting that people who aren’t playing at all should be the sole voices shaping design decisions. But the idea that only currently active players should have input—and that their preferences should “have preference”—feels a bit narrow.

Many of the players asking for this are both active and long-time supporters. Others are lapsed players who want to return if overland content offers more engagement. Both perspectives are relevant if the goal is to retain and grow the community. After all, a game’s future can’t be shaped only by those who are happy with its present.

Ultimately, requests for optional systems are precisely what allow varied playstyles to coexist. That seems like a win for everyone—current players, returning players, and even new ones.

SilverBride · April 9

sans-culottes wrote: »

@SilverBride, I don’t think anyone’s suggesting that people who aren’t playing at all should be the sole voices shaping design decisions. But the idea that only currently active players should have input—and that their preferences should “have preference”—feels a bit narrow.

Others may or may not understand my view, but that is how I feel about it.

GatheredMyst · April 9

To be honest, ZOS not taking into account the feedback of the people that are "not playing the game anymore" is a more foolish mistake than listening to a handful few who are replying to near every post like it somehow makes their point more salient than the years of feedback they've gotten.

But alright... let's ignore them a second... all the people who "quit the game" at some point are now off the table...

... it is still disingenuous to suggest that people who are playing the game right now are either OK with things as they are, or wouldn't be OK with more engaging overland content. Someone could have been playing for several years, actively supporting, subscribed on and off, and still been unhappy with the status quo. They just tolerate it because they like the game in totality, all while still wanting it to improve. That's the thing about Live Service titles-- they are an ever-changing product. There's always hope that a developer will decide to do something about it, especially being the current state of Overland difficulty has less to do with a conscious design decision, and is more an artifact of power creep and the scaling system implemented with Tamriel Unlimited.

I'm one of those people. I've done a lot of the most recent story content and enjoyed it, all while wishing, deep down, that I didn't have to turn my brain off entirely while playing. That it required a modicum of risk and attention. Not Dark Souls in Tamriel. Just enough that I feel like i'm engaged.

And there's been years of threads posted on this subject since Tamriel Unlimited came out to back me up. It's been one of the most commonly requested features for the game. Heck, I remember when Necrom's new "much requested feature" was still being masked, "Veteran Overland" made no small number of requested feature lists that people were speculating they could add.

And that's why bringing everyone's feedback into the conversation makes sense. It would be a bigger mistake for Zenimax to ignore them. They're a business. When people leave, they miss out on more revenue. If the reason that people leave is because the majority of the content is not challenging at all, and they keep hearing that, then it's a trend that they will want to address. Clearly, they've heard as much, as they've made the decision that having things in the state they currently are is not sustainable long-term, else they wouldn't even brainstorm a solution to the problem.

I get it. There are some people who like really easy content. They like to feel powerful, blow through things, and see the story. It's a conversation that people have all the time in FFXIV as well. Over there, the devs have been wrestling with the same conundrum for over two expansions now. They only just recently decided to do something about it.

And guess what: It wasn't a mass exodus, at least not for reasons related to content difficulty. Matter of fact, everyone's lauding it. Despite Dawntrail's poor reception from a narrative perspective, and its overall content cadence, the content and its current engagement level has been a frequently cited bright point. It isn't stupid challenging, either, but it requires that you pay just enough attention to keep you engaged.

Let's just say that ESO does the same thing. Let's then say that it's required for everyone. If they do, I can promise it won't be the death knell of the game, and if it follows in the same footsteps as what I mentioned above, i'm pretty sure that grand majority of the people who are "eh" on the notion will find a way to acclimate. They did there. They can here. Often, things aren't as bad as people think in implementation as they are while we're catastrophizing. As I said in a previous post, the room they have for adjustment isn't a gap, it's a gulf.

That's the worst case scenario for the people who are up in arms about any difficulty increase whatsoever, too. If it's an option, then everyone wins. They just won't be a walking Daedric Lord anymore, and quite frankly, that's OK, and is a healthy direction for the game's overall future.

Now all we have to do is wait and see what they do.

(Edit because I'm bad at grammar...

... and sentence structure. And writing in general. And... oof...)

SilverBride · April 9

GatheredMyst wrote: »

To be honest, ZOS not taking into account the feedback of the people that are "not playing the game anymore" is a more foolish mistake than listening to a handful few who are replying to near every post like it somehow makes their point more salient than the years of feedback they've gotten.

It seems reasonable to me to listen to the feedback of the players that have stood beside them and actively supported their game through the years. And it is more than a handful few that are happy with Overland just as it is. I believe those wanting more difficulty are the minority.

GatheredMyst wrote: »

But alright... let's ignore them a second... all the people who "quit the game" at some point are now off the table...

... it is still disingenuous to suggest that people who are playing the game right now are either OK with things as they are, or wouldn't be OK with more engaging overland content. Someone could have been playing for several years, actively supporting, subscribed on and off, and still been unhappy with the status quo.

That may be true but that does not cancel out all those that are happy with things just as they are. Or those that have limitations and could not play a more difficult overland. Or those that just want to be able to continue the game they have been playing the way they have been playing it for the past 8 years. Those players should be taken into consideration before making any changes that could ruin their ability to continue to play this game at all.

Credible_Joe · April 9

There are three demographics here.

Potential players that have yet to join
Former players on hiatus
Presently engaged players

The notion of ignoring two of those, or even weighing one group's voice over the others is ludicrous on it's own. But weighing the one group that definitely won't contribute to any kind of surplus in total player count higher than the other two is so disingenuous that there's no parsing any alleged logic behind it.

Actually, I take that back. There's logic here, but not in relation to the health of the game. We all know that weighing sentiments from all three of these sources equally wouldn't be great for the hardliners' platform. So, the old standby. Diminish, dismiss, ignore, project.

It's the same tactic that problematic churches use to cling to their dwindling numbers. Alienate the out group. Indulge the congregations' vindictive superiority over the non-believers. Don't give an inch on addressing ANY problems.

Presently engaged players will always inevitably leave. No one remains fully committed to any one game unconditionally. We MUST appeal to potential and former players if we want a surplus, or even just to maintain a healthy player count.

AlexanderDeLarge · April 9

SilverBride wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

@SilverBride, I understand your worry, but I think it’s a bit of a false split to suggest that either new or returning players get consideration, but not those who’ve been here all along. The reality is that many of us asking for change are long-time, active supporters.

Several posters that have asked for a more difficult overland have stated that they have not played the game in several years. That is not actively supporting.

I have 32,000 crowns sitting on my account waiting to be used and that's on top of the vast majority of the DLC purchased outright. I've bought collector's editions for chapters I've never been able to stomach playing. I'm as much of a supporter of the game as anyone else here regardless of whether I'm logging in or not. Probably more than most if we're considering how much money I've put into the game actually.

I believe those wanting more difficulty are the minority.

On these forums, which are notoriously difficult to join? Sure. Outside of these forums, which factors in lapsed players and people who couldn't be bothered to voice their concerns on a official forum that is largely perceived as an echo chamber where dissenting opinions are shot down in defense of the status quo? Lack of difficulty is brought up as a point of contention towards the game all the time.

To be clear, I don't think anyone, including ZOS, has reliable data as to what people think about the overland experience one way or another. Lapsed players aren't performing exit interviews when they quit and I'm sure there are plenty of active players that would appreciate a difficulty increase too. I just know that I hear about the lack of difficulty in TESO come up a lot in casual conversation online. You see it on Discord. You see it on Reddit. You see it on YouTube. You see it in the comment section on Facebook and articles where TESO is mentioned and the chain is always upvoted/thumbs up'd with plenty of engagement.

The optics aren't good for something that could've and should've been resolved years ago. Regardless, we'll see what happens. I certainly hope it's an adequate response to the concern after all this time. Five years ago I would've been happy with a debuff memento. Now I'm expecting a little more.

SilverBride · April 9

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

To be clear, I don't think anyone, including ZOS, has reliable data as to what people think about the overland experience one way or another.

But they do. They didn't remove the veteran zones when they introduced One Tamriel for no reason. No one was playing Cadwell's Silver and Gold so they removed them.

AlexanderDeLarge · April 9

We've been over this plenty over the past 4-5 years. Craglorn was a group mandatory zone back when grouping barely functioned. It was borderline unplayable in group play because the phasing tech was broken. Cadwell Silver/Gold content was rejected because the base game content wasn't very satisfying and I don't think ZOS would take issue with that statement either. The base game had a lot of problems and to their credit, they've addressed those problems and improved the quality of their content significantly. Don't you think things have changed a little bit since then? It's in my signature but I'll post it anyways.

11 years. 8 paid expansions. 29 dungeon and zone DLCs. 45 game changing updates including A Realm Reborn-tier overhaul of the game including a permanent CP160 gear cap and ridiculous power creep thereafter. Just because Cadwell Silver&Gold failed doesn't mean the game should be brain dead easy forever.

SilverBride · April 9

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

Just because Cadwell Silver&Gold failed doesn't mean the game should be brain dead easy forever.

Not everyone finds Overland brain dead easy. And not everyone that does find Overland easy thinks that is a bad thing.

sans-culottes · April 10

SilverBride wrote: »

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

Just because Cadwell Silver&Gold failed doesn't mean the game should be brain dead easy forever.

Not everyone finds Overland brain dead easy. And not everyone that does find Overland easy thinks that is a bad thing.

@SilverBride, I appreciate your consistency, but I think there’s a quiet shift in how this conversation is being framed.

Many of us asking for difficulty options are long-time players who’ve supported ESO for years. Some never stopped playing. Others, like @AlexanderDeLarge, are visibly invested despite temporary breaks—breaks that happen in any long-running live service game. Support doesn’t only come from login streaks. It also comes from people who care enough to hope for better.

It’s also worth remembering that ZOS has added optional difficulty everywhere else—trials, dungeons, arenas—precisely because different players want different things. Those systems didn’t ruin the game. They made it more welcoming. That’s all we’re asking for: a way to opt in, not a way to take something away.

As for Cadwell’s Silver and Gold: they didn’t fail because difficulty is bad. They failed because they were a recycled content loop at the end of a linear experience. That’s very different from what’s being requested here. Players aren’t asking to redo Glenumbra at CP1800; we’re asking to be engaged by the new stories we paid for. At present, that engagement often ends the moment we press a single skill.

This doesn’t have to be a referendum on who loves the game more. It’s just a request to make that love more sustainable for a wider group of players.

AlexanderDeLarge · April 10

I don't dispute that even, though I intensely disagree but if there's something like this that is attributable to bleeding players then it should be addressed. There's only so many new players you can chase until you need to do something to keep the ones you have and get lapsed ones to come back.

A lot of us anticipated increased overland difficulty after companions were introduced because what's the point of NPC companions in a game where we're already killing enemies in 3 hits and bosses before they can say how big and bad and intimidating they are? Not all of us but enough of us to necessitate this very thread.

For the last five - seven years, I've consistently been told "you're wrong, it's not a problem and if it's enough of a problem, ZOS has the data and will do something to fix it". Tomorrow I'll either be vindicated on that point or I'll continue to request an adequate solution that allows me to enjoy the content I want to play.

Credible_Joe · April 10

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

A lot of us anticipated increased overland difficulty after companions were introduced because what's the point of NPC companions in a game where we're already killing enemies in 3 hits and bosses before they can say how big and bad and intimidating they are? Not all of us but enough of us to necessitate this very thread.

Sometimes I send them at the delve or quest bosses like pokemon and just watch.

SilverBride · April 10

sans-culottes wrote: »

As for Cadwell’s Silver and Gold: they didn’t fail because difficulty is bad.

I was there and difficulty was a big reason why.

Can we get a vet mode for delves and quests? Uh, so we had that ... at launch. It was called Cadwell's Silver and Cadwell's Gold. Nobody did it and everybody hated it, so we took it out. We put the challenge into World Bosses, and into solo Arenas, and into Dungeons and Trials.

[Speaks about skyshards then returns to the topic.]

People didn't do it because they had to go through their own alliance first? That's not actually true. A ton of people completed their own alliance storylines to get to silver and gold. A ton of people did. People just did not like the extra difficulty in the story stuff.

I get there’s a lot of people that do like the harder difficulty, but a HUGE portion of our player base just wants to do story, and they don’t want to have to struggle with difficult things. And so that was why we did what we did and said story is soloable and crit path will always be soloable and if you want the extra challenge you can go seek out other things to challenge you.

I totally hear you on the difficulty thing. I like things to be more difficult. But you know, the data doesn’t lie. And we have never been more successful than we are today. And a lot of that has to do with just how much freedom players have to go and experience story.

And yes, go look at Craglorn. There’s not a lot of people in Craglorn and that’s not super difficult but it’s more hard than the regular overland.

Would it be an option just to give people the choice? It is not as simple as just flip a switch and make things more difficult. There is a TON of work and then as Lucky mentioned earlier you have to also incentivize that. Like just making something more difficult for no reason, if you’re not going to get anything out of it why do it? The satisfaction's there sure but players are always going to do the thing that is the most efficient and is the least difficult thing for their time.

So, you know like I said, we went down that route. We built the game with difficulty in mind and 2/3rds of the game was never played by players so we changed it.

spartaxoxo · April 10

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

There's only so many new players you can chase until you need to do something to keep the ones you have and get lapsed ones to come back.

I honestly think they know that and they aren't going to do anything forced. They haven't outright stated anything but all the hints in interviews by either that content creator or ZOS has pointed towards optional. I'd be pretty surprised if they announced they were cranking up the difficulty to something like VMA for everybody. It doesn't seem likely.