AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

Sotha_Sil wrote: »

Increased difficulty is great if the gameplay is satisfying. If not, it makes the game a chore. It works in a single player TES game but for ESO, the gameplay has a long way to go before we enjoy doing difficult encounters. I don't see how this is gonna make ESO better right now. The gameplay is the main issue, adding another layer of difficulty won't change that.

Counterpoint: The enemies becoming "damage sponges" will expose their mechanics, which are currently non-existent because of the power creep. There are mechanics in the game, just like the questing bosses have dialog to say, problem is we're killing them faster before we can see any of it.

I really hope that is the case!

This was the feature I was looking forward to the most. It was going to be the main reason for me to continue playing eso because there is so much story content I haven't touched.

However, this implementation falls completely flat.

There is one clear dealbreaker: sharing instances with players on lower difficulties. I absolutely hate this. I am not fighting the same monsters as other players at massive disadvantages. it makes no sense. I can already fight monsters naked if I want to. And at least then other players would understand why I'm performing insanely poorly. I hope I've misunderstood this.

It would be impractical to have instances for each difficulty, so perhaps consider one new difficulty which would be tuned to be similar to the original vet difficulty. What you did with the original IC before you nerfed it, but perhaps a little tougher to account for power creep.

I'd welcome a difficulty level that is even greater than the original vet gold/original IC difficulty, but I'm using that as a baseline compromise that would allow for separate instances, which I think is key.

The implementation of the difficulty seems off and of course is completely untuned. A serious effort in this regard would need specific tuning for each mob type. I understand it would be impractical to adjust all content, but you could apply adjustments for each tier of monster.


I don't like the rewards. I think there is a place for perfected overland gear. At least one set per zone as a compromise maybe?

tl;dr: just return to us vet difficulty in separate instances with one perfected overland set per zone where applicable. I'm talking the launch cadwell's gold vet difficulty, not the nerfed vet difficulty that preceded 1T.

CP5 wrote: »

Red_Feather wrote: »

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

Sotha_Sil wrote: »

Increased difficulty is great if the gameplay is satisfying. If not, it makes the game a chore. It works in a single player TES game but for ESO, the gameplay has a long way to go before we enjoy doing difficult encounters. I don't see how this is gonna make ESO better right now. The gameplay is the main issue, adding another layer of difficulty won't change that.

Counterpoint: The enemies becoming "damage sponges" will expose their mechanics, which are currently non-existent because of the power creep. There are mechanics in the game, just like the questing bosses have dialog to say, problem is we're killing them faster before we can see any of it.

I really hope that is the case!

Kinda. Years ago when I was active in the other thread, I went around looking for such things. Some enemies are cool, if only they lived long enough to show it off. I remember the generic tank enemies in Wrothgar would enrage if you didn't kill them before all their allies, and I thought it was rather neat. It only amounted to a 5% increase in their damage, or something like that, so while not impressive, it was there. I know most enemies, when left to their own, will just spend a lot of time on an attack that's more for show than anything, but I hope to be surprised as well.

That's wild. I wonder how much the game would be different if enemies lasted longer. I just sprint through them and turn around a do 3 arrow sprays to kill the legion. Or I'll just take all their hits as I click on whatever I need to click on. It's so *** boring.

Varana wrote: »

robwolf666 wrote: »

Here’s the concern I have with Challenge Difficulty if players aren’t separated.

Imagine two players engage the same overland enemy:

• Player A (me) is on Adventurer. I’m CP2000+, and I have zero interest in opting into higher difficulty.
• Player B is on Vestige because they want longer, harder fights.

We’re attacking the same enemy in the same shared world.

I do full damage and burn it down quickly — exactly as Adventurer difficulty is designed to allow. Player B is also playing exactly as intended… but their fight ends early anyway because the enemy is dead.

No one did anything wrong. I didn’t “ruin” anything. I simply chose the default difficulty that fits how I want to play.

That’s why this system isn’t really a traditional difficulty setting — it’s a personal debuff layered onto a shared space. As long as difficulties aren’t separated, one player’s choice will directly affect another player’s experience.

And to be clear: I’ll be staying on Adventurer. I play ESO to relax, not to make overland punishing. That’s precisely why I think difficulty should be separate — so people who want challenge can have it without being affected by players like me who don’t.

Otherwise, this is going to lead to frustration on both sides:
• Higher-difficulty players losing the challenge they opted into
• Default players being blamed for simply playing the game as designed

That’s not a player behaviour problem — it’s a design trade-off that needs to be acknowledged.

But that's already how the game is now.

I have deliberately slowed down my damage now and then to see the mechanics of a boss. (As others have noted, they do have them.) And then have someone else sprint up to the boss and mow it down immediately.

Or more often, the other way around - I see a player struggle against public dungeon packs, delve bosses, and things like that, and then I stand there asking myself whether I should help them by quickly vaporising the enemies or let them continue the fight.

Quest bosses are often separated into individual instances, but other bosses aren't.

This disparity in time-to-kill already exists in the game. The difficulty modes don't introduce a new situation. (They might make more players be on the other side of that disparity, though.)

Yes — that’s exactly my point.

The disparity already exists, and players already hesitate or self-police because of it. My concern isn’t that Challenge Difficulty creates the problem, but that it formalises it as a choice, which makes social friction more likely rather than less.

I’m happy playing my CP characters on Adventurer. Others opting into a debuff shouldn’t change how I’m expected to play shared content.

Plus, this is why I think difficulty separation would be the better way to go.

Rungar wrote: »

temporarily corrupted/invaded zone rehashes for low usage zones would of been a better use of development time and more logical and fit with the story of eso. I dont think anyone will actually use this. Players who say they want a challenge are never being completely honest. They just want challenge level rewards and this system as described doesnt meet that need.

it could work if ther was a chance for gold items on the higher settings but as it stands it looks like a low effort system to tick something off a list.

As someone who was there when the feedback thread was originally made, I think this is a good post to reply to so I can explain my reason for wanting this. I, as a player, want to feel meaningfully engaged when playing a game. By requiring agency, my attention, I am able to create memorable and enjoyable moments that outlast whatever 'in the moment' joy the game brings. When, in ESO, I'm tasked with saving the world, and I know the only danger is my attention span, I don't remember those moments and if I'm just going to watch a video on the side, why bother launching the game at all?

When I install survival mods for Skyrim, doing things like needing to seek shelter from a blizzard, it's not because I want a reward, it's because the challenge presented to me, a hostile environment, makes me engage with the game more, going to a ruin that most players likely would never bother glancing at twice. Like when I went to the Deadlands the first time, that place, for all the flash, is no less threatening than the outer wall of Wayrest, the tornados kept in their tiny pens, the wildlife just as tame. There is no texture between the zones and enemies without the force to back up their differences, there's no difference between a rebelling group of farmers or deadra from oblivion when both amount to the exact same thing in combat, with combat being the main way to engage with the world in this game.

For me, enemies have to matter, they need to last long enough to be a threat, and do things that are threatening, increasing their health helps with that so they aren't made of paper, but tank enemies aren't any more durable nor are mages more squishy. Increasing their damage helps, but it doesn't fix the issue of many enemies putting on firework shows rather than fighting. It's why I have always pushed for the instances to be used, so enemies in the harder instance could do things like have a higher attack frequency, or simply more threatening versions of their usual abilities, so I have to recognize who I'm fighting and feel agency in making choices. As it is, combat is dull for many experienced players because we know how powerful it is to just poke a bunch of groups of enemies, run around a corner, nuke everything down, and move on, if we don't just run past them.

That is my brief reply on why I want more difficulty, because I want moments I can actually remember, like when I first fought Doshia in 2014, dropping a storm atronach on her only to have her transform, heal to full, and have me on the ropes until I figured out how harvester orbs worked. Memorable experiences like that don't come to me when I don't need to even pay attention.

I don't think overland difficulty is going to be filled with powerful players who will come and ruin your epic boss fight. Most people on regular Adventurer difficulty are light attackers who do 5k DPS.

I do think the names are overdone though. What is wrong with having difficulty settings that correspond to existing terminology? I.e. Normal, Veteran, Hardmode, Legendary? I'm a busy person and I don't like relearning what each difficulty means.

I had a weird dream last night and it is kind of relevant? I have to post it.

I dreamt in ESO that those talking ravens were all sitting on the Mundus Stones throughout the game. 😯And they gave me an egg and told me secret things would happen if I went around tamriel with that egg. But the egg was super fragile and I had to worry about protecting it during combat.

edit: It made everything a lot harder protecting that egg. That is why I felt the need to post. Sorry for going off-track. 😂

The original driving factor behind asking for an increase in overland content was simplly because it becomes trivial even before hittling level 50. Get past CP160 and it's so absurdly trivial that it borders on obscene.

So how did we come to this convoluted complicated mess of a solution?

All that needed to be done to bring overland back to just enough difficulty to keep it interesting, would have been to simply redesign the method or formula for level scaling, and expand it to continue past CP 1500-1800 (which is where additional CP points are meaningless). It just needed to be so that regardless of level, the difficulty remained identical to a brand spankin new 1st time player.

That's it. That's all that was needed. So how did it come to this?

My apologies if this was asked. Are these 'challenge difficulties' the same as the 'story mode' that Jessica mentioned in the reveal? I was/am looking forward to something like that!

indigomeadows_ESO wrote: »

My apologies if this was asked. Are these 'challenge difficulties' the same as the 'story mode' that Jessica mentioned in the reveal? I was/am looking forward to something like that!

That's in reference to the solo dungeons, where they're going to offer a difficulty to allow players to not only go into the dungeons without a group, but to face a 'story mode' level difficulty should they wish to focus on the story and location without having to worry about the combat encounters. As it stands, current overland difficulty will be the base difficulty on offer, and the optional overland difficulties are exclusively for higher difficulty.

I just did a delve and all I could think about is that someday I might have to utilize stuff like off-balance and blocking for these! I am hyped. 👌

AScarlato wrote: »

Twohothardware wrote: »

AScarlato wrote: »

DenverRalphy wrote: »

That's it. That's all that was needed. So how did it come to this?

Because at this point there is a certain part of the playerbase that *likes* overland being this easy/accessible.

The idea is to let those people continue to play as is where nothing provides really any resistance.

Raising the difficulty floor so there is always more challenge may push away players who use it as "story mode" and just like to casually enjoy the stories or exploring.

Having the zero resistance setting being the default overland has also pushed away a lot of new players who have tried the game. There has to be a balance.

Well now there will be. The years of discussing this is why we have the *option* to increase difficulty.

Frankly, the game would be well served to have a higher default difficulty, and the current one be non default "story mode". People are left woefully unprepared by the game for multiplayer, or just harder content, later thanks to how simple the default is.

I also wouldn't expect the people bouncing off from the current low difficulty to see the option to raise it in time before just quitting.

Finally, as proposed, it is a PENALTY to use the challenge modes. You spend at least 5-6x as much time killing the mobs, but only get 2x xp. That's not even factoring in that it's, you know harder and thus should have extra rewards, not just breakeven.

I'll use it for questing for the challenge, but I not going to penalize myself just to have a better time with normal farming. Also, many players don't even need xp nowadays...

AScarlato wrote: »

Attorneyatlawl wrote: »

AScarlato wrote: »

Twohothardware wrote: »

AScarlato wrote: »

DenverRalphy wrote: »

That's it. That's all that was needed. So how did it come to this?

Because at this point there is a certain part of the playerbase that *likes* overland being this easy/accessible.

The idea is to let those people continue to play as is where nothing provides really any resistance.

Raising the difficulty floor so there is always more challenge may push away players who use it as "story mode" and just like to casually enjoy the stories or exploring.

Having the zero resistance setting being the default overland has also pushed away a lot of new players who have tried the game. There has to be a balance.

Well now there will be. The years of discussing this is why we have the *option* to increase difficulty.

Frankly, the game would be well served to have a higher default difficulty, and the current one be non default "story mode". People are left woefully unprepared by the game for multiplayer, or just harder content, later thanks to how simple the default is.

I also wouldn't expect the people bouncing off from the current low difficulty to see the option to raise it in time before just quitting.

Finally, as proposed, it is a PENALTY to use the challenge modes. You spend at least 5-6x as much time killing the mobs, but only get 2x xp. That's not even factoring in that it's, you know harder and thus should have extra rewards, not just breakeven.

I'll use it for questing for the challenge, but I not going to penalize myself just to have a better time with normal farming. Also, many players don't even need xp nowadays...

I'm indifferent as to whether they rearrange what is the base difficulty as I don't think that matters that much. All they have to do is have a new character or player select their difficulty in character creation or upon a return log-in instead and relabel the present as Story and maybe the next tier as Normal.

As far as "punishment" the goal isn't to add massive rewards that make playing the higher difficulties necessary or all that efficient. It's there for the joy of the challenge itself.

That probably isn't compelling to some people but it's there for those that do want it. And for those still complaining about playing on Story - well that's their own fault.

It's there to provide a challenge, not punish those who use it which is what it will do as proposed. Math doesn't lie. I don't need "massive rewards", but I do need it to be equally efficient or better for the effort if I'm ever going to use it outside of story bosses.

Please scrap this and just give us what we have been asking for: VETERAN overland.

Or if it is insisted this must be the way, please shard us, use the sharding architecture for selected difficulties. The people who's entire play experience DEPENDS on being default normal mode do not want to be in the same instance as me, and I do not want to be in the same instance as them. I want to be in the same instance as fellow-minded adventurers wanting engaging and immersive experiences. Separate us.

They way I would prefer difficulty implemented:

1. Just one hard difficulty, not 3 like it is suggested. Just call it veteran, to stay consistent. It is way easier to balance one difficulty instead of 3 and it just isn't necessary, imo. Also, it would only split up the playerbase into 2 layers/shards.
2. Separate the players into their respective difficulties! Having every difficulty in one worldspace will lead to griefing and I think many players already voiced that opinion.