Tariq9898 wrote: »

Dungeons and trials should NOT be the only places to encounter hard difficulties. Challenging content that is optional need to also exist when soloing and questing as well! We only have two hard solo content in the form of Maelstrom and Vateshran arenas against the flood of challenging group content. This is counting the entirety of the game in the span of 11 years. Add to that, majority of ESO players prefer to play alone and treat it as another singleplayer title.

Yeah... we need more flexibility of enjoyment for solo playing by adding an optional difficulty slider.

Are you suggesting that the slider go both directions? That difficult group play be toggled down to a solo or partnered level?

shadoza wrote: »

Tariq9898 wrote: »

Dungeons and trials should NOT be the only places to encounter hard difficulties. Challenging content that is optional need to also exist when soloing and questing as well! We only have two hard solo content in the form of Maelstrom and Vateshran arenas against the flood of challenging group content. This is counting the entirety of the game in the span of 11 years. Add to that, majority of ESO players prefer to play alone and treat it as another singleplayer title.

Yeah... we need more flexibility of enjoyment for solo playing by adding an optional difficulty slider.

Are you suggesting that the slider go both directions? That difficult group play be toggled down to a solo or partnered level?

I think they said that they are thinking about a story mode for group dungeons. I personally would welcome it so that everyone can enjoy the dialogs in peace and can explore the dungeons at their own pace. The difficulty of combat for such mode should be lowered IMO and rewards adjusted accordingly (no set items or leads to prevent abusing this feature).

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Kallykat wrote: »

Some players have one sugar cookie they can enjoy and a whole plate of various cookies they are allergic to and cannot enjoy.

Yeah, no. Vets being unable to play it because it's not designed to include them is very different from someone who doesn't enjoy group play. Normal trials and dungeons are already in the game. And many casual users play and enjoy them. They aren't allergic. It's existence does not cause them harm. Some of them don't feel like eating the sugar cookie with blue frosting because they don't like blue. But it's still a cookie baked to the taste of sugar cookie enjoyers.

It's more like I hate peanut butter so I should be the only with a sugar cookie, if we're going to treat the other content as cookies on this plate.

Obviously, I don't mean by using the term "allergic to" in this analogy that I think any part of playing a game actually harms anyone. To clarify, I was just using the metaphor to express that some players can't participate in most of the non-overland content, and that includes so-called "normal" difficulty in dungeons and trials. I won't rehash all the reasons why here as we've been over them in this thread before, but I will amend the analogy as follows: I stipulate that of the people just eating the sugar cookie, some are allergic to the other cookies (can't play the rest), some could eat the other cookies only after seeing a doctor and getting a shot or otherwise preparing and jumping through hoops, and some just don't like the taste of the other cookies just as the people in the second group don't like the taste of the original sugar cookie.

To clarify another point, there are obviously other players I didn't mention in the analogy who like sugar cookies and some of the other cookies but not all of them. This is an analogy. I was simplifying to make a point.

I don't think one group should be the only one with a sugar cookie, but whether or not they get a sugar cookie made to their exact taste is the real question. They already have access to the sugar cookie.

Analogy aside, as I've said before, I don't necessarily mind an optional increased overland difficulty solution if it doesn't affect my game play. I'm not so sure it won't affect me, but we won't know until we hear the details about ZOS's answer to the issue and test it out. I do have concerns about what a reward system that doesn't punish players who opt out of increased difficulty could possibly look like. We'll see, I guess. I do think there should be a story mode in other content as a balance, and I appreciate your support in that.

The whole reason I responded to your initial analogy is because I didn't think it was a fair assessment of the context of the overland difficulty debate. It seems to me the those who object to an increase in overland difficulty are frequently told, in so many words, that they are just selfish and unjust. It's not that simple. I don't think the arguments against increased overland difficulty (or against exceptional rewards for increased overland difficulty, as we already know the increased difficulty itself is coming in some form) are being given a fair shake. They are often just being dismissed out of hand. I was modifying your analogy to point out that there is another way to look at the whole of the situation from the other side and to hopefully dissuade people from just assuming that anyone who objects to overland difficulty is just doing so for selfish or unfair reasons.

For some reason new Vengeance "perks" screen gives me a thought or two about what they're might be working on, for better or worse. Modifiable and customisable suffix/prefix thing can surely work but after hearing confirmation about "no player separation" I'm kinda less optimistic about all of it.

shadoza wrote: »

Tariq9898 wrote: »

Dungeons and trials should NOT be the only places to encounter hard difficulties. Challenging content that is optional need to also exist when soloing and questing as well! We only have two hard solo content in the form of Maelstrom and Vateshran arenas against the flood of challenging group content. This is counting the entirety of the game in the span of 11 years. Add to that, majority of ESO players prefer to play alone and treat it as another singleplayer title.

Yeah... we need more flexibility of enjoyment for solo playing by adding an optional difficulty slider.

Are you suggesting that the slider go both directions? That difficult group play be toggled down to a solo or partnered level?

Sounds fine to me. Play the level of difficulty you want.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Kallykat wrote: »

I don't think the arguments against increased overland difficulty (or against exceptional rewards for increased overland difficulty, as we already know the increased difficulty itself is coming in some form) are being given a fair shake. They are often just being dismissed out of hand. I was modifying your analogy to point out that there is another way to look at the whole of the situation from the other side and to hopefully dissuade people from just assuming that anyone who objects to overland difficulty is just doing so for selfish or unfair reasons.

I don't know that I would use the word selfish. That seems a bit too strong of language.

But...right now the position against overland feels like, to me, at least these last few pages, it feels like this would be the summary.

"It shouldn't be happening at all. That space is not for vets. But since apparently it is happening.... you should be punished for using it. You can't have incentives for using it and you shouldn't be able to turn it off. This way you have to give up fast crafting surveys and world boss dailies. It would be abuse if you got to enjoy the story with no economic disadvantages. Also they should really do something about the way you guys farm leads, kill mobs before other people, and collect mats for sell. You shouldn't get to do that either."

I'm not saying anyone used these exact words. But that's how it has come across to me lately. How it made me feel. But imo overland is supposed to be a shared space for all of us to enjoy.

Vet players in this thread have often promoted and agreed with things meant to ensure that casual players still feel welcomed. People have, myself included, voiced opposition to mandatory difficulty increases. We've voiced opposition to exclusive rewards. Some of us (though not all) even agree that they didn't want to be split from newbies so that those players could still get the help they need and see a bustling game rather than a dead one. Although that's admittedly quite far from consensus on either side of the fence. Regardless, I still believe all of those things.

But there doesn't seem to be much of the same consideration for what it would feel like as a vet player to be permanently punished for wanting to enjoy the story. And that doesn't get into how much worse that idea would feel for people with chronic illnesses/disabilities or new players who could suddenly find themselves locked out of being able to enjoy the game entirely.

I apologize if it felt like I was attacking you personally. Again, I appreciate your (and others') support of the other side in certain aspects of the issue. That particular original analogy just seemed to me to be symptomatic of widespread sentiment that I find unjust (in that it oversimplifies the other side's point of view in order to make them look bad).

I understand the reaction against some of the more recent issues brought up on this board, and I myself don't agree with everything suggested on either side of the fence. (For example, I have mixed feelings about elite players intervening to one-shot enemies I'm fighting. It's extremely frustrating when I've been working hard to kill a boss alone and have almost finished him off, but I appreciate it when I'm in a hurry and just want the job done. I also have mixed feelings about being able to switch difficulties at will ad infinitum.) However, I am sympathetic to the concerns of those who feel like, as casual or low-end players, they have the short end of the stick don't want to see their own play in their one corner of the content sacrificed.

While overland is supposed to be a shared space and vets/sweaty players do and should have access to it, ZOS has made it clear in the past that they were not the primary audience intended for this particular content. They are adjusting their position now, which is their prerogative. I'm worried about how it will affect casual players, yes, but I'm not saying there should be active punishments implemented against players who opt in to high-difficulty mode. (I also don't think both sides always see eye-to-eye when it comes to defining "punishment" as regards this issue.)

If ZOS can come up with a solution to the issues of increased overland difficulty and its incentives that makes both sides happy, gives one side what it wants without negatively impacting the other side, and truly doesn't punish those who opt out, then great! I hope that's the case--I'm just not sure it's possible.

Tariq9898 wrote: »

Kallykat wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Kallykat wrote: »

Some players have one sugar cookie they can enjoy and a whole plate of various cookies they are allergic to and cannot enjoy.

Yeah, no. Vets being unable to play it because it's not designed to include them is very different from someone who doesn't enjoy group play. Normal trials and dungeons are already in the game. And many casual users play and enjoy them. They aren't allergic. It's existence does not cause them harm. Some of them don't feel like eating the sugar cookie with blue frosting because they don't like blue. But it's still a cookie baked to the taste of sugar cookie enjoyers.

It's more like I hate peanut butter so I should be the only with a sugar cookie, if we're going to treat the other content as cookies on this plate.

Obviously, I don't mean by using the term "allergic to" in this analogy that I think any part of playing a game actually harms anyone. To clarify, I was just using the metaphor to express that some players can't participate in most of the non-overland content, and that includes so-called "normal" difficulty in dungeons and trials. I won't rehash all the reasons why here as we've been over them in this thread before, but I will amend the analogy as follows: I stipulate that of the people just eating the sugar cookie, some are allergic to the other cookies (can't play the rest), some could eat the other cookies only after seeing a doctor and getting a shot or otherwise preparing and jumping through hoops, and some just don't like the taste of the other cookies just as the people in the second group don't like the taste of the original sugar cookie.

To clarify another point, there are obviously other players I didn't mention in the analogy who like sugar cookies and some of the other cookies but not all of them. This is an analogy. I was simplifying to make a point.

I don't think one group should be the only one with a sugar cookie, but whether or not they get a sugar cookie made to their exact taste is the real question. They already have access to the sugar cookie.

Analogy aside, as I've said before, I don't necessarily mind an optional increased overland difficulty solution if it doesn't affect my game play. I'm not so sure it won't affect me, but we won't know until we hear the details about ZOS's answer to the issue and test it out. I do have concerns about what a reward system that doesn't punish players who opt out of increased difficulty could possibly look like. We'll see, I guess. I do think there should be a story mode in other content as a balance, and I appreciate your support in that.

The whole reason I responded to your initial analogy is because I didn't think it was a fair assessment of the context of the overland difficulty debate. It seems to me the those who object to an increase in overland difficulty are frequently told, in so many words, that they are just selfish and unjust. It's not that simple. I don't think the arguments against increased overland difficulty (or against exceptional rewards for increased overland difficulty, as we already know the increased difficulty itself is coming in some form) are being given a fair shake. They are often just being dismissed out of hand. I was modifying your analogy to point out that there is another way to look at the whole of the situation from the other side and to hopefully dissuade people from just assuming that anyone who objects to overland difficulty is just doing so for selfish or unfair reasons.

Coming from someone who's passionate about fighting for Overland difficulty, I also do not think there should be exceptional rewards. I can't speak for everyone here, but I think extra XP and gold is enough. In fact, I'm just happy with extra gold, I don't care about any other rewards. I also do not think there should be exclusive bonuses that can't be obtained outside of Overland difficulty, such as pets, mounts, skins, personalities, etc. I'm very minimal when it comes to extra rewards. In my opinion, players who choose to not partake in any Overland difficulty should not feel like they're missing out on any prizes.

I appreciate you saying you don't think there should be exceptional rewards for higher overland difficulty. Though, I have seen people on this board argue for them. Personally, I wouldn't care about increased XP, gold, or even higher-tier gear. However, I think the latter two options might have some negative ramifications for players who opt out. Increased gold affects the economy, for example, which affects all players. Still, I'd prefer these types of incentives to unique collectibles or special content.

Um... nope. It's fine the way it is. The few players who want everything faster, harder, God knows what... could give them their own area. Cyrodil, maybe

Kallykat wrote: »

While overland is supposed to be a shared space and vets/sweaty players do and should have access to it, ZOS has made it clear in the past that they were not the primary audience intended for this particular content.

I'm going to need a citation on that one. Because everything that I have seen them say is they wanted it to be for everyone. Not to mention all the "play the way you want," marketing. They did state it was balanced so new players would be able to join in at any point that they wanted to join. So it has to be balanced at tutorial difficulty. But that's not the same thing as saying vets aren't the primary audience. They very much seemed under the impression almost everyone was having fun with it regardless. And their philosophy seemed to be "find the difficulty level that the greatest number of people could enjoy."

Lekjih wrote: »

Honestly First Descendant does overland toggle really well, in terms of you just turn it off and on from the map. It IS instanced, so doubles the amount of locations, but there's no penalty or cost for going up and down difficulties, you just swap and travel to their version of a way shrine. Their gameplay loop is different, so they do have added rewards for doing things on hard mode, but that's because it's a looter shooter not an mmorpg. I don't think there should be any added rewards in ESO at all. The mode is being added because people want to fight harder content. It is it's own reward.
The big thing I AM seeing in this thread though is that less capable players are essentially wanting to punish more capable players. I am sure that's not the intention, but telling people they should have to pay real money to change game difficulties is wild. Trying to outcast players who are better than you (let's face it, killing it faster means they know their class/playstyle better) to different zones like Cyrodiil is such an odd take. This game is meant to be about fun. It is not "abusing the system" to want to do surveys quickly but also wanting a challenging fight when you're in the mood to play it.
Either way there are two options - they add a vet overland toggle or they don't. If they don't, it stays the same as now with mobs being stacked and slaughtered and everyone quite upset. If they do add it, there will be times this doesn't happen. It's a net gain so long as they actual servers can handle it.

Why are you assuming that those who do not want a quick toggle on difficulty are less "capable."