ESO_player123 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

shadoza wrote: »

Tariq9898 wrote: »

alpha_synuclein wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Fun Fact: Enemies did used to have various elemental resistances and elemental weaknesses! This was removed with Summerset.

Monsters & NPCs
Monsters are no longer vulnerable to elements.
They will not proc Explosion, Disintegration, Deep Freeze, Pestilence, or Venom due to Fire, Shock, Frost, Disease, or Poison attacks used against them.
Likewise, monsters no longer have resistance values reduced against damage dealt by these elements.
Monsters are no longer resistant to elements.
They can now proc Burning, Concussion, Chill, Diseased, or Poison due to Fire, Shock, Frost, Disease, or Poison attacks used against them.
Likewise, monsters no longer have resistance values raised against damage dealt by these elements.
Monsters that dodge roll no longer always move in the same direction.
Injured soldiers in Eagle’s Strand can no longer be attacked.
Attacking or killing a critter no longer takes you into combat.
Skavenger critters will no longer grant Ultimate.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/5145975#Comment_5145975

It's been so many years that I no longer remember why. I think, if I am remembering correctly, it was because they wanted people to be able to play anything they wanted in content. So, as an example, they didn't want Magicka Dragon Knights to be at a disadvantage in content with a lot of fire monsters. But, I could be remembering that wrong because it's been a very long time.

With subclassing in place maybe we could have that back? The disadvantage argument is not valid anymore and it would be an interesting refresher to have enemies actually interacting with builds.

To add what others have said, this would put pure class at an even further disadvantage. I’d rather ZOS balance pure and subclassing, making pure close to/on par with subclassing builds. Not everyone wants to subclass and it has caused a lot of gatekeeping in group content, but that’s a separate topic.

This topic is overland feedback, so I think gatekeeping in group content is appropriate as there are group events in overland.

It's almost impossible to gatekeep overland group events. Players have almost no influence over who attacks the world bosses/events. The only things is socialization e.g. please don't help I want to see if I can solo it. Or not inviting someone to a Bastian Nymic because for some reason they decided to make those private instances. Only the latter can be considered a form of gatekeeping.

I think we can safely say that Bastion Nymic is not truly overland content regardless of how many times ZoS may say that it is.

ESO_player123 wrote: »

alpha_synuclein wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Fun Fact: Enemies did used to have various elemental resistances and elemental weaknesses! This was removed with Summerset.

Monsters & NPCs
Monsters are no longer vulnerable to elements.
They will not proc Explosion, Disintegration, Deep Freeze, Pestilence, or Venom due to Fire, Shock, Frost, Disease, or Poison attacks used against them.
Likewise, monsters no longer have resistance values reduced against damage dealt by these elements.
Monsters are no longer resistant to elements.
They can now proc Burning, Concussion, Chill, Diseased, or Poison due to Fire, Shock, Frost, Disease, or Poison attacks used against them.
Likewise, monsters no longer have resistance values raised against damage dealt by these elements.
Monsters that dodge roll no longer always move in the same direction.
Injured soldiers in Eagle’s Strand can no longer be attacked.
Attacking or killing a critter no longer takes you into combat.
Skavenger critters will no longer grant Ultimate.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/5145975#Comment_5145975

It's been so many years that I no longer remember why. I think, if I am remembering correctly, it was because they wanted people to be able to play anything they wanted in content. So, as an example, they didn't want Magicka Dragon Knights to be at a disadvantage in content with a lot of fire monsters. But, I could be remembering that wrong because it's been a very long time.

With subclassing in place maybe we could have that back? The disadvantage argument is not valid anymore and it would be an interesting refresher to have enemies actually interacting with builds.

While it could be interesting, I would not want to haul several sets of equipment just to traverse the zone and do several activities one after another.

alpha_synuclein wrote: »

Tariq9898 wrote: »

alpha_synuclein wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Fun Fact: Enemies did used to have various elemental resistances and elemental weaknesses! This was removed with Summerset.

Monsters & NPCs
Monsters are no longer vulnerable to elements.
They will not proc Explosion, Disintegration, Deep Freeze, Pestilence, or Venom due to Fire, Shock, Frost, Disease, or Poison attacks used against them.
Likewise, monsters no longer have resistance values reduced against damage dealt by these elements.
Monsters are no longer resistant to elements.
They can now proc Burning, Concussion, Chill, Diseased, or Poison due to Fire, Shock, Frost, Disease, or Poison attacks used against them.
Likewise, monsters no longer have resistance values raised against damage dealt by these elements.
Monsters that dodge roll no longer always move in the same direction.
Injured soldiers in Eagle’s Strand can no longer be attacked.
Attacking or killing a critter no longer takes you into combat.
Skavenger critters will no longer grant Ultimate.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/5145975#Comment_5145975

It's been so many years that I no longer remember why. I think, if I am remembering correctly, it was because they wanted people to be able to play anything they wanted in content. So, as an example, they didn't want Magicka Dragon Knights to be at a disadvantage in content with a lot of fire monsters. But, I could be remembering that wrong because it's been a very long time.

With subclassing in place maybe we could have that back? The disadvantage argument is not valid anymore and it would be an interesting refresher to have enemies actually interacting with builds.

To add what others have said, this would put pure class at an even further disadvantage. I’d rather ZOS balance pure and subclassing, making pure close to/on par with subclassing builds. Not everyone wants to subclass and it has caused a lot of gatekeeping in group content, but that’s a separate topic.

shadoza wrote: »

alpha_synuclein wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Fun Fact: Enemies did used to have various elemental resistances and elemental weaknesses! This was removed with Summerset.

Monsters & NPCs
Monsters are no longer vulnerable to elements.
They will not proc Explosion, Disintegration, Deep Freeze, Pestilence, or Venom due to Fire, Shock, Frost, Disease, or Poison attacks used against them.
Likewise, monsters no longer have resistance values reduced against damage dealt by these elements.
Monsters are no longer resistant to elements.
They can now proc Burning, Concussion, Chill, Diseased, or Poison due to Fire, Shock, Frost, Disease, or Poison attacks used against them.
Likewise, monsters no longer have resistance values raised against damage dealt by these elements.
Monsters that dodge roll no longer always move in the same direction.
Injured soldiers in Eagle’s Strand can no longer be attacked.
Attacking or killing a critter no longer takes you into combat.
Skavenger critters will no longer grant Ultimate.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/5145975#Comment_5145975

It's been so many years that I no longer remember why. I think, if I am remembering correctly, it was because they wanted people to be able to play anything they wanted in content. So, as an example, they didn't want Magicka Dragon Knights to be at a disadvantage in content with a lot of fire monsters. But, I could be remembering that wrong because it's been a very long time.

With subclassing in place maybe we could have that back? The disadvantage argument is not valid anymore and it would be an interesting refresher to have enemies actually interacting with builds.

The disadvantage is valid. I believe most players will not want to carry three weapons on their person. Most (monsters are already immune to poison so it little sense to put it one a class attack. The disadvantage is not only still valid, it still exists.

I'm one of the players who don't like to subclass. But there is a difference between not wanting to do something and not being able to. It's not the games fault that you choose things that put you in a disadvantage, while you have other options available.

shadoza wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

shadoza wrote: »

Other players are not interfering with YOUR experience. They are interfering with mine.

A player questing or running through delves or public dungeons is just playing as intended. A player may prefer to not see other players when they play but that is a not how MMOs work. I don't want to see this game turned into a single player game.

I'll repeat my statement because I think it was important. My post isn't about single play or even solo play. It is about some players not respecting other players.

"The bad behavior makes every game day feel like black Friday.

• I was playing a level 16 character on a new player island map. One or two players (both CP levels) farming an area fast-running from resource to resource, leaving the area resource bare. I waited for the resources to start spawning. Before the first one spawned, the one of the two was back collecting again. I just needed a couple plays to craft with. It took more than an hour because of these two farming the area.
• Just doing the quests there were players that ran pass me and 1-hit what I was fighting. Why? Right here in these threads, I am told that players are farming, they have a right to farm, the game encourages farming . . . What about my 'right' to play the game I paid for? That seems to amount to nothing compared to those who want to farm.
• Went into a dungeon to complete a quest. The dungeon was empty. Nothing to kill. I needed to collect items from the foes in the dungeon but had to wait for them to spawn. When the first foe spawned, it was a group of three. I started fighting. A CP 2700 jumped in with a AOE and all three were done. I got nothing. The dungeon took three times as long as it should have because two CP level players were making a circuit through the dungeon killing everything without even stopping. They were farming for leads.

As I stated, I just want to enjoy the game again. Farming players are an issue for those not playing that economy game because too many of those that are farming are disrespectful of other players. Not addressing these issues will lead to players who came for the story and questing to leave."

vingarmo wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Also here are some responses from Rich Lambert that I had compiled in another thread that I think are pertinent here.


On Vet Overland: [Source for both following responses]

"So, we had that, Jeulen, at launch. It was called Cadwell's Silver and Cadwell's Gold. Nobody did it and everybody hated it, so we took it out and we put the challenge into world bosses and into solo arenas and into dungeons and trials."

“People just did not like the extra difficulty in the story stuff. I get that 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.”

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

On a Toggle:

"Uh, 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, you know? The satisfaction is 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 like I said, we went down that route. We built the game with difficulty in mind and 2/3 of the game was never played by players, so we changed it.”

On Splitting the playerbase using different difficulty [Source]

'We get this question or request a lot too. We built overland content to be inclusive because as an MMO we want to unify as much of the player base as possible in a given zone. Difficulty sliders and settings are a detriment to that."

On what content players want to do (this was NOT said about Vet Overland, but instead was in an different interview where they asked him this question. While this response was never meant by him to address Vet Overland, I do think it's pertinent to know what is the vast majority of content that players engage in)[Source]

The vast majority of our player base loves the exploration, loves the lore, loves the story side of things. So we focus a lot of our time and effort on that. Two of our four major updates every year are focused on story and exploration. The other two are focused on quality of life, are focused on group-oriented activities with the dungeons or adding new systems.

Personally, I found his response flawed and the arguments he made contradict one another.

On Vet Overland:

"So, we had that, Jeulen, at launch. It was called Cadwell's Silver and Cadwell's Gold. Nobody did it and everybody hated it, so we took it out and we put the challenge into world bosses and into solo arenas and into dungeons and trials."

“People just did not like the extra difficulty in the story stuff. I get that 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.”
So let me get that straight: if HUGE part of player base “just wants to do story, and they don’t want to have to struggle with difficult things” then, following that logic, why put challenge in game at all, let alone release dlcs dedicated to combat challenges if majority of your player base don’t want it? Why do major combat and balancing reworks every patch if it is barely relevant to those players? Wouldn’t focusing on releasing 3 or maybe even 4 zone dlcs with nothing but quests per year instead of 2 be more beneficial and profitable for the game? Because if it’s true game already following wrong direction.
Furthermore, I completely don’t understand how idea of vet overland even related to Cadwell silver and gold. If anything it’s a clear example how streamlining difficulty for everyone made game unfun in a long run. If you chose to follow only main quest line, ignoring most of the side quests you ended up constantly underleveled and facing enemies of higher levels even in you alliance zone. And if you decided to return to finish those side quests you ended up facerolling enemies as you do now if not worse and get close to no xp or useful loot for that. In the end you had to follow strict path to progress through questing in this game, but was it really challenging if you was appropriate or higher level and had proper sets on? No, not really. So, again, how flawed progression system from release comparable to what we have now and does it really justify avoiding any sort of complains or suggestion to improve it?
“I totally hear you on the difficulty thing. I like things to be more difficult. But the data doesn’t lie. And we have never been more successful than where we are today. And a lot of that has to do with just how much freedom players have to go an experience story.”
Hard to argue against data, especially if you can’t review it personally so I suppose I’ll take it as a fact (not that any developer would ever say that population is stale or declining even if it’s true).
The second part though sounds a bit weird in context of this question. If eso players’ value freedom wouldn’t difficulty options to experience story enchant that freedom and attract even more potential customers? (That, of course, assuming that we don’t divide player base by segments and throw away the ones that not quite fit in the picture)
“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.”
I was frequent Craglorn for years and I never consider it dead. In fact even now it’s one of the most populated zones and top trader location especially in comparison to recent chapters. Or does he wonder why people not eager to do 20-30 minutes long dailies to get trash overland sets and a CHANCE to get one of the cheapest and unwanted motifs? Or slay world bosses for literally nothing? On top of that, outside of trials, zone itself has no titles or meaningful achievements associated with it and probably the most uninspiring questline. So why bother? If anything, idea of adventure zone was interesting but unrefined and they never revisited it to make it more appealing or tried anything similar but with learned mistakes. The only change that was added there is parts of antiquities and pretty sure those who wanted them farmed them despite “difficulty” of the zone and moved on. So, again, what was initial expectations?
And most importantly both Crgalorn and Cadwell zones didn’t have optional difficulty, forcing anyone into one so they are not much better than what we currently have where everyone forced into casual paradise without any alternatives to experience story.

On a Toggle:

"Uh, 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, you know? The satisfaction is 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.
I can agree here. Like I mentioned in in my post rewards are unbalanced as it is in existing content so adding something new without reviewing discrepancies of the present might be a bit shortsighted and will lead to failure.
So like I said, we went down that route. We built the game with difficulty in mind and 2/3 of the game was never played by players, so we changed it.”
I kind of get issue with that statement because a lot of the downsides was unrelated to difficulty itself but rather a consequence of bad design decisions (like tedious leveling, faction locking, lack of pve endgame and build diversity at the time of release) which was fixed and unrelated to the game in its current state. Wouldn’t it be more logical to make a comparison to recently released Vateshran Hollows if he had that data?
Solo arena with both normal and veteran mode, which can clearly relate to the request of harder solo content. It was released a year ago, 5 years after first solo arena (Maelstrom) so it was 2 precedents but not kind of feature we see regularly, not at this year anyway. But why?
What comparable numbers are for clearing arena on normal vs completing main dlc quest?
How many total clears of arena vs quest completes/hours spent?
Was that content not popular enough comparing to dungeons and trials of the same year?
What was the development cost for arena in comparison to zone dlc itself/2 dungeon dlc?
Why is it not economically feasible to introduce such arenas as individual dlcs every year?
And if it was not popular what was the reasons for that? Was it difficulty alone or something else?
Any of my answers to these questions would be pure speculation because I don’t have the data and analysis of said data to back my claims but answering them would provide much better insights on the matter rather than arguments about why zone with completely different idea flopped 7 years ago.
I mean I don’t live in magic bubble and can assume some answers to those questions. That population of new/casual players obviously higher but the way Rich describe it other spectrum is totally nonexistent. Obviously, it is not the case and game has healthy end game community. In that case, wouldn’t working on a way to make their dlcs enjoyable for everyone be a better solution than just stuff one part of the player base in overland with premise to “get gut” and other part in dungeons and trials with premise to “get bad” to experience other parts of the game?

Phen0meenal wrote: »

any updates? just checking in every few months until this is released so I can play the game again.

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

Just to level set, while overland difficulty is in active development, it's not something that will be ready to be released before the end of the year. We're definitely excited to share more information on it as development progresses, though!

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

We don't want to exclude anyone with this feature, and I'd like to reiterate the core values that Finn mentioned during the AMA:

• This will be optional and no one will be forced into it
• There will be varied levels of difficulty players can opt into
• We will NOT be separating players

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

Fair question. Caveat of "this is still in development" but part of this feature will include proper incentives to opting into more difficult content, without making it feel like you are being punished for not doing it.

mocap wrote: »

ZOS seems to want to make PvP more casual and overland PvE more challenging. But if that's the case, it's unclear what goal they're pursuing, outside of money.