disky wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

When do they usually drop the Q4 announcement? I wonder if this is still on track for this year

Yeah, I dunno, but given the changes at ZOS I'm concerned that there might be adjustments to the feature release schedule.

Yeah. I wouldn't be surprised if this gets pushed back given all the changes in staff.

Mortam wrote: »

There is such an easy solution to the overland lack of challenge.
Give us a slider that effects the level scaling. The more you increase mob power, it adds to higher quality reward chance.
Put the slider to max and you need a group to do the content. (The group leader would set the difficulty for everyone)

Then the group would just need to do a little bit of damage to enemies while another person who is in a different group with the difficulty setting on the easiest setting deals the majority of the damage.

The higher quality rewards would drop for the group that did the least effort because they did some damage to enemies, but the difficulty is completely bypassed by strategically using another person to make farming high difficulty mobs trivial.

nb_rich wrote: »

I read some of the posts and looks like people are 50/50 on vet overland content. To be honest if they add achievements, a skill point for each zone completed on vet difficulty and maybe have purple and gold stuff drop there is really no downside to it. For a lot of us we need something to do and vet overland content can give some of us that like questing something to do.

The idea of awarding Skill Points for completing zones on "veteran" difficulty sounds like a really good idea now that there is such a high demand for Skill Points.

i don't think anything needs to be changed.

if i want something "difficult" and overland, i can do the newer dolmen-style evens in the DLC zones or i can do world bosses. or, i can pop into a public dungeon and slay bosses... among other things.

i don't need or want to fight anything difficult while running around harvesting nodes or going from place to place. trash mobs are called trash mobs for a reason.

Is this the thread where we need to convince zos that overland is and has been too easy for a decade now? Be nice if the 10 years of content I have been paying for was actually somewhat interesting to play through.

• Are mobs that die in one hit and light attack every few seconds supposed to be hard?
• Are zone bosses that I can solo with 2016 pvp gear toon supposed to be hard?
• Does zos really think so little of average gamer that people can't handle harder mobs that get you to invest and improve at the game?
• How does zos explain the success of the dark souls genre?

spartaxoxo wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Is this the thread where we need to convince zos that overland is and has been too easy for a decade now?

No. They already said they're doing something optional about it and that's planned for this year.

Was there a more recent livestream? Last I saw around the 2nd vengeance test they said that they are contemplating whether or not to do it. If they did decide to it would likely be a toggle vet option.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Is this the thread where we need to convince zos that overland is and has been too easy for a decade now?

No. They already said they're doing something optional about it and that's planned for this year.

Was there a more recent livestream? Last I saw around the 2nd vengeance test they said that they are contemplating whether or not to do it. If they did decide to it would likely be a toggle vet option.

The year ahead letter for 2025 outlined that big changes were coming to game this year and next. One of those was harder overland. During that time, Kevin came to this thread and clarified that the current plan was to release overland changes this year. In the chapter reveal Livestream back in April, they clarified that they were going to make it optional. They also clarified at that same time the plan was still this year for release.

Edit:

December 2024 Studio Director letter for the general plan for 2025

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/670691/studio-director-s-letter-2025-beyond/p1

December 2024 statement from Kevin elaborating that we'd know more in 2025 about harder overland.

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

So we should note that we haven't announced what overland changes are yet. We'll have more information to share next year. We wanted to just note that there will be changes to overland difficulty generally. What form that takes will be shared next year.

April 2025 statements about it still being planned to come out for this year's content pass timeline and why.

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

As of right now, the goal is to still have this out during the content pass timeline. But if that changes, we will update once we have a clear picture if anything changes.

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

Totally get it. Understand where you are coming from. Just want to clarify here that we have a team dedicated to overland, so it is getting the focus and time needed. This is an important feature and we want to make sure this is done correctly. So there is a team dedicated to this. Some of the features that you are seeing today have been in the works for a bit. So that is why you are seeing them today. We hope to have more info in the future to share about overland.

And finally someone kindly linked where Rich they said they know some people already struggle so the plan is to make it optional during that April direct stream. So this is the part in the April 2025 Direct Livestream on Twitch where they said that.

Arunei wrote: »

I was gonna toss this in the other thread that just got nuked, didn't think to do it back on the day of the streams lol, but here's a link to where they touch on the harder Overland difficulty if anyone who hasn't seen the stream wants to hear/see for themselves:

Video will start at where they mention it

Ok so they did have some more solid statements confirming it. I just remember an earlier stream where it was still questionable. Still though.....who is struggling and doing what?

spartaxoxo wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Ok so they did have some more solid statements confirming it. I just remember an earlier stream where it was still questionable. Still though.....who is struggling and doing what?

Older people, people with bad Internet, disabilities, etc. Also players that are above level 50 but below CP 160 wearing mismatched gear random level gear until it's worth the time to get good gear. And doing overland content.

Accessibility always sounds nice, but in practice it is impossible to account for someone who cant play a game without invalidating the content for the other 99% of the population. It is a tough pill to swallow, but a certain point you are balancing between the vast majority of the population who wants to play a game and a niche minority who wants to watch a movie. (It doesn't help that I ran with a Veterans guild who had several players in their 60s-70s some of which did plenty of endgame content with literally one hand.)

Bad internet is just a terrible argument too. Yeah it'd be nice if zos had infinite money to account for it, but why should the other 99% of the playerbase suffer because you play on the other side of the world up in the mountains? Again hard for me to give in to this argument anyways simply because some of the best pvpers in the game play with 300+ping across the world.

---

Gear wise is a good point, but this is on zos's part. With one tamriel breaking the vertical progression in the game, there is nothing to stair climb players up in content at their own pace. It would have been smart to put in place a gear progression system that taught players how to collect set bonuses as they move through the zones. For instance a simple version would be to have a zone gear vendor that sold blue armor pieces for the zone sets available and priced for newer players to complete gear.

It would make more sense for gear to have been oriented towards the content. For example overland gear helps you solo mobs groups and bosses. This becomes impossible now due to the pokemon/yugioh effect where ideas for stat sets and proc sets are running dry after years of releases.

I know we keep going over this again and again because new people continue to come into this thread, and so I think it bears repeating that nothing happens with regard to an overland challenge feature unless it's practical to implement within the bounds of ZOS' ability, and those bounds include things like budget constraints, staff availability, technical limitations and time/priority, to say nothing of the feasibility of whatever the idea is in terms of MMO game design. I've seen a couple of people in this thread propose server instancing again, and I really want to underscore how important it is for an MMO to avoid splitting the playerbase, especially when the playerbase is not as massive as something like WoW. MMOs thrive upon the perception of popularity and creating a bunch of (or even just a few) server instances which feel like they're running during off-peak hours at primetime will create the perception that the game is dying when it isn't, and we already have people making that claim.

On top of that, creating a whole new set of rules for a new set of server instances will be significantly more work to implement, will create risk where there didn't need to be, and may fail, which will leave ZOS with a system that cannot easily be rolled back because the infrastructure was already put into place. It's simply not anywhere near as practical as a set of debuff sliders for the individual character which allow them to experience the game in the same server instance as anyone else, and receive what amounts to a very similar experience to a set of server rules laid upon everyone in the instance. Yes, there are edge cases in which a player may not have the experience they want because of an implementation like this, but we have a similar feature in another MMO (LotRO) which seems to be working just fine as far as I'm aware, and the community isn't up in arms about it.

I don't think there is a perfect solution to this issue, but what I want most is for change to actually happen, and proposing impractical solutions and setting expectations for something that is unlikely to happen is an overall negative trajectory for the community to take in my opinion. I think it's best to set your expectations low. No disrespect to ZOS, but as someone who has been waiting years for this, I don't see this as ever being a particularly high priority, nor do I think it will consume a significant level of dev time/budget.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

disky wrote: »

No disrespect to ZOS, but as someone who has been waiting years for this, I don't see this as ever being a particularly high priority, nor do I think it will consume a significant level of dev time/budget.

They have a dedicated team working on it as we speak. It is actually considered important and is getting a significant amount of focus and time. Well, they had one in April. Who knows anymore.

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

Totally get it. Understand where you are coming from. Just want to clarify here that we have a team dedicated to overland, so it is getting the focus and time needed. This is an important feature and we want to make sure this is done correctly. So there is a team dedicated to this. Some of the features that you are seeing today have been in the works for a bit. So that is why you are seeing them today. We hope to have more info in the future to share about overland.

I'm aware they have said there's at least something in the works earlier this year, but my point is that I don't think it will ever be something that they consider high-priority, and I don't think that the design plan will include something as complex as a separate set of servers with different rules. From where I sit, it just doesn't seem like a good idea to handle it that way, not just because I prefer something else, but because it doesn't seem like the best plan for ZOS. My opinion of course.

And let's be clear, that statement says "we have a team dedicated to overland", not "overland challenge" or "a difficulty slider" or "instanced difficulty" or anything like that. Just "overland", which encompasses a wide range of things. From what we've heard, they are supposed to announce something later this year, but things change, and things at ZOS have changed pretty drastically this year.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

disky wrote: »

And let's be clear, that statement says "we have a team dedicated to overland", not "overland challenge" or "a difficulty slider" or "instanced difficulty" or anything like that.

Right after that they say "This is an important feature. . .so there is a team dedicated to this."

So they make it clear there is a team dedicated to the overland feature. The whole question being answered is specifically about the overland difficulty feature.

I also doubt they'll go separate server instances. But they are describing it as a feature that they consider important and making sure they get right. So I expect something (whatever that may be) will be something with real thought put into it.

I don't doubt that whatever they do will have thought put into it, but my point was that practicality is paramount for all of the reasons I listed in my original message. And as someone who has played MMOs since the Ultima Online beta, I have learned not to set my expectations too high over anything I'd like to see implemented. There are only so many hours in the day, only so many staff, only so much money to go around for the entire game to move forward. And finally, it's very easy to say one thing and imply another in a sentence like the one you quoted. Not saying that's what Kevin was doing, but again, I set my expectations low.

Damico wrote: »

We have no real insight into how the game works behind the scenes, we should be careful with statements claiming feasibility of solutions.

And I think that it's important to understand that we live on Earth when we ask for the moon. I've been in this thread for years and I've played MMOs for decades, and I've worked at a major tech company for a very long time as well, so I have an idea of where my expectations should be set...low. But also, I just don't think that a separate set of servers with different rules is a very good idea for ZOS or for players.

Tariq9898 wrote: »

Ideally, at least for me, vet Overland shouldn't just include enemies with more damage and HP, but new set of mechanics as well. This prevents them from being bullet sponges and prolonging a static fight.

What kind of mechanics are you thinking about, which would prolong the fight and, I assume, make it more fun? Which of these mechanics would necessitate an instance versus just being placed into the servers we have now? I'm all for new mechanics but I don't think that it should be necessary to do all of the work and to separate players with different servers just to implement them. I advocate for sliders because they're what I believe to be the simplest path to a satisfactory solution for most people.

And they don't only have to affect damage or HP, there's a whole host of variables which can be adjusted like max player resources, stealth detection radius, potion effect limitations, etc. I wrote a list in this thread some time ago and it was fairly long. That being said, I don't expect to see everything implemented and starting with the basics makes sense to me. I would be fine if the initial feature only contained damage and HP adjustments. And I would fully expect this to be on the PTS for some time.

disky wrote: »

Tariq9898 wrote: »

Ideally, at least for me, vet Overland shouldn't just include enemies with more damage and HP, but new set of mechanics as well. This prevents them from being bullet sponges and prolonging a static fight.

What kind of mechanics are you thinking about, which would prolong the fight and, I assume, make it more fun? Which of these mechanics would necessitate an instance versus just being placed into the servers we have now? I'm all for new mechanics but I don't think that it should be necessary to do all of the work and to separate players with different servers just to implement them. I advocate for sliders because they're what I believe to be the simplest path to a satisfactory solution for most people.

And they don't only have to affect damage or HP, there's a whole host of variables which can be adjusted like max player resources, stealth detection radius, potion effect limitations, etc. I wrote a list in this thread some time ago and it was fairly long. That being said, I don't expect to see everything implemented and starting with the basics makes sense to me. I would be fine if the initial feature only contained damage and HP adjustments. And I would fully expect this to be on the PTS for some time.

What if instead of creating an environment that would take time and space, there was a restriction on the higher end gear so that it could only be used in group dungeons. I think the idea of creating a higher difficulty would only create a demand for higher gear that will perpetuate the scenario at hand.
Adding game mechanics to a fight, especially on overland, will alienate the majority of the game players who are enjoying the story and RPGing. I have watched some great games fall down because the developers followed the less travelled path for the noise it made.

disky wrote: »

shadoza wrote: »

disky wrote: »

Tariq9898 wrote: »

Ideally, at least for me, vet Overland shouldn't just include enemies with more damage and HP, but new set of mechanics as well. This prevents them from being bullet sponges and prolonging a static fight.

What kind of mechanics are you thinking about, which would prolong the fight and, I assume, make it more fun? Which of these mechanics would necessitate an instance versus just being placed into the servers we have now? I'm all for new mechanics but I don't think that it should be necessary to do all of the work and to separate players with different servers just to implement them. I advocate for sliders because they're what I believe to be the simplest path to a satisfactory solution for most people.

And they don't only have to affect damage or HP, there's a whole host of variables which can be adjusted like max player resources, stealth detection radius, potion effect limitations, etc. I wrote a list in this thread some time ago and it was fairly long. That being said, I don't expect to see everything implemented and starting with the basics makes sense to me. I would be fine if the initial feature only contained damage and HP adjustments. And I would fully expect this to be on the PTS for some time.

What if instead of creating an environment that would take time and space, there was a restriction on the higher end gear so that it could only be used in group dungeons. I think the idea of creating a higher difficulty would only create a demand for higher gear that will perpetuate the scenario at hand.
Adding game mechanics to a fight, especially on overland, will alienate the majority of the game players who are enjoying the story and RPGing. I have watched some great games fall down because the developers followed the less travelled path for the noise it made.

I don't really see what value that would have when

- it doesn't make much of a difference in a game where you can do basically everything without gear anyway
- restricting builds based on taking away "higher end gear" doesn't do much except annoy people and diminish player freedom

Personally, I don't think adding mechanics would be a bad thing for anyone, as long as they're done well and aren't egregious, but I know there is a contingent of players who want nothing to change which is why I'm not asking for them. I want the version of overland challenge improvements that is least offensive to as many people as possible because I know how persnickety a lot of MMO players can be. It's frustrating but building something that doesn't bother people who aren't interested in this is the most practical option with the best chance of actually getting coded and implemented, I think.

I've said this before, but I also strongly believe that the reason people want new mechanics is because the current mechanics utilized by overland monsters have almost no effect, and using sliders to increase difficulty in various ways can also have a dramatic effect on how you consider those mechanics. If the game is more lethal, those mechanics are more lethal, more valuable, and more interesting because you have to approach those enemies in new and different ways.

I do not understand why players keep saying that one can play the game naked. They cannot. That sounds like a dismissive statement each time I hear it.
(annoy people and diminish player freedom . . . seriously group-required dungeons do this for me. I am not free to play them.)
You do not see the perpetuation of creating more challenging content? It has already happened and is happening. The demand for more challenging content was met by Trials and vet dungeons. Now those are not enough because the gear is over-powered for that content because the players wanted compensation for the difficulty. I believe the answer to over-powered boredom is will not be found in creating more of the environment that instigated the boredom. Restricting group-dungeon gear to the group dungeons would return the overland to its level of difficulty while leaving the high-end gear available for the purpose of its creation, yes?