Attorneyatlawl wrote: »

Now I'll definitely use it while questing as I want the better challenge, but it needs further rewards to be worth bothering when not doing story quests.

I frankly don't see a reason why this isn't enough. You're not supposed to have this turned on (or all the way up) all the time. It doesn't need to be worth bothering when doing surveys or whatnot, or worth grinding.

Yes, this isn't worth it for the rewards. And that's fine.

I would also like to see the data on just how many players actually choose the harder options. I get the feeling it might be significantly less than from what is said here, as it has been shown many times that this forum does not represent the average player.

But know that won’t happen.

Hurbster wrote: »

Er, isn't the difficulty increase enough without extra rewards as well? If all people wanted were more rewards when they wanted a greater difficulty for overland, then they should have said so.

I can understand more XP since it's harder, even gold maybe.

Haven't played the game in 2 years, this was one of the things that would have got me to at least try the game again. However mixing players of different difficulties makes it pointless, no point me playing on a higher difficulty if there are people in the same instance playing on the default difficulty that will just come by and one shot stuff.

Mixing players on difficulties sort of works in some games like LOTRO because the game has a lower population overall, has traditional servers (so player numbers on each world are limited) and a bigger world, so players are spread out more. But unless the ESO population has completely collapsed since I last played there would simply be too many players and ruin it.

They should have had an instance for each difficulty level, they could still have had a default instance that everyone goes into initially and then some UI that lets those who want to, move to an instance for their specific difficulty.

Hurbster wrote: »

Oh, so it was never really about the challenge?

What a disingenuous line of thinking when I could say the same exact thing about veteran dungeons, arenas and trials.

Hurbster wrote: »

Er, isn't the difficulty increase enough without extra rewards as well? If all people wanted were more rewards when they wanted a greater difficulty for overland, then they should have said so.

Why should veteran overland break away from the general design philosophy of more difficulty = more reward? The only thing I'm personally asking for is purple/gold drops in veteran overland to remain consistent with the rest of the game, because otherwise it becomes some weird rare exception and encourages "wiki gaming" because the game's breaking its own rules.

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

SerafinaWaterstar wrote: »

I would also like to see the data on just how many players actually choose the harder options. I get the feeling it might be significantly less than from what is said here, as it has been shown many times that this forum does not represent the average player.

But know that won’t happen.

Even if the system is used less than expected, this is a simple damage multiplier balancing act that is a one time effort. I'm just hoping they put the effort this warrants given that it is one of the top complaints about the game outside these forums. I agree, this forum doesn't represent the average player, in either direction, because this game has probably lost 100 players for every five it manages to keep.

Addressing those concerns is good for business. TESO has suffered because previous leadership was endlessly chasing new players with little regard for the existing playerbase and existing content. A year or two of housekeeping is warranted since they neglected those tasks for the past ten years.

SerafinaWaterstar wrote: »

Having played this game for too many years, I have seen the discussions about this from the beginning.

I find it interesting that initially, and for many years, it was all about just wanting extra difficulty, and that would be reward enough - it was the challenge, the need for strategy & for fights to have meaning that people missed.

But now? Demands for better rewards.

Is not the challenge enough?

I've been here since the start of these conversations too and I've always opposed the position that a veteran overland should be without reward. The people pushing this narrative are trying to have the game break its own rules. More difficulty = more reward without exception. Every other piece of veteran and challenging content is rewarding but overland is expected to be the only exception to that? Why?

The challenge is not enough. See:

BananaBender wrote: »

The game already gives additional rewards for engaging in harder content and ZOS has been very consistent with that stance. There are achievements for completing veteran dungeons and trials, there are also extra achievements with additional challenges only for veteran and Hard Mode content. I don't see why would overland content be any different? I think extra achievements and titles would make vestige mode way more inviting for people without increasing the financial gain.

I don't personally really care about the gold or XP increase, I have enough of both, but there should definitely be a noticeable increase in rewards to make up for all the gold you are losing by using potions, foods, repairs etc. Again, for me the gold isn't the problem, but this system has be fair for newer players who are looking for a challenge. A player shouldn't be punished with a net negative gold gain just because they want a challenge. This doesn't apply just for vestige, but the other difficulties as well.

Why is the challenge not enough?

It is understandable for dungeons & trials.

For overland & questing? Nah.

SerafinaWaterstar wrote: »

Why is the challenge not enough?

The challenge is not enough. See:

BananaBender wrote: »

The game already gives additional rewards for engaging in harder content and ZOS has been very consistent with that stance. There are achievements for completing veteran dungeons and trials, there are also extra achievements with additional challenges only for veteran and Hard Mode content. I don't see why would overland content be any different? I think extra achievements and titles would make vestige mode way more inviting for people without increasing the financial gain.

I don't personally really care about the gold or XP increase, I have enough of both, but there should definitely be a noticeable increase in rewards to make up for all the gold you are losing by using potions, foods, repairs etc. Again, for me the gold isn't the problem, but this system has be fair for newer players who are looking for a challenge. A player shouldn't be punished with a net negative gold gain just because they want a challenge. This doesn't apply just for vestige, but the other difficulties as well.

SerafinaWaterstar wrote: »

It is understandable for dungeons & trials.

For overland & questing? Nah.

Is there any logic behind that or is it just "it's different because I say so"? Because no one has been able to explain why a veteran overland implementation should be exempt from comparable rewards in the 5 years that this topic has been pinned to the top of this forum.

A game's reward structure should be consistent and predictable.

Hi everyone,
I wanted to share some feedback regarding the recent "Challenge Difficulty" deep dive for Season Zero. While I am excited that we are finally seeing a "Veteran" overland option, the current implementation as a character-based debuff within shared instances creates several issues that could turn this into a meaningless time-sink rather than an engaging feature.

1. The "Nuking" and Griefing Problem
Because there is no separation by instance, a player on Vestige difficulty could spend 10 minutes carefully fighting a World Boss, only for an Adventurer player to walk by and "nuke" it in 30 seconds. This completely destroys the narrative stakes and the sense of accomplishment the system is supposed to provide.
Furthermore, the 600% damage taken on Vestige makes high-difficulty players easy targets for trolling; a player on normal difficulty can intentionally "train" or pull mobs onto a struggling Vestige player to cause a cheap death. Even well-meaning "help" from random passersby ends up ruining the specific challenge the veteran player opted into.

2. The Reward vs. Time Sink Paradox
As it stands, the rewards are only increased Gold and XP. However:
Efficiency: On Vestige, you deal 80% less damage. This means it takes roughly 5x longer to kill an enemy for only 2x the XP. Mathematically, the "Challenge" mode is actually a nerf to your rewards per hour.
Exploitation: ZOS mentioned they are avoiding rare loot (motifs, mats) to prevent "exploitation." But the current shared-world system actually encourages exploitation, where a Vestige player can simply group with an Adventurer "carrier" to farm the bonus XP without facing any of the difficulty.

3. The Solution is Sharded Instances
The only way to solve both the griefing and the reward issue is Difficulty-Based Sharding (Instances).
If Vestige players are only placed in instances with other Vestige/Master players:
Fairness: You won't have your 10-minute boss fight ruined by a one-shot from a player on "Easy" mode.
Meaningful Rewards: If the world is instanced by difficulty, you guys can safely offer Rare Materials, Motifs, and Style Pages because everyone in that shard has earned the right to be there. We can finally have a drop rate that scales with the danger we face.

4. Group Play:
This would make group questing a top-tier pastime. Groups would actually need roles (Tanks/Healers) in the open world, making the experience fun, rewarding, and cooperative rather than a solo speedrun.

My Last Thoughts
As it stands now, this feels like a "check the box" mechanic, a low-effort debuff that adds grind without adding true engagement. Let's make ESO fun for both solo and group players by giving the Challenge Difficulty the infrastructure it deserves. Please consider sharding so that high-difficulty play feels like a engaging activity in the world where our time and skill are actually respected. As for the player base splitting further, we already have "megaserver sharding". We need cross play and cross save. Also, I’d argue that this implementation will bring more players back and it's a smooth way to get players to improve at playing the game. If a player gets better and plays harder difficulties, they should be rewarded. Also, group questing will also be a thing. It will allow for a good challenge while experiencing the story together with friends and family. Even if we have to wait a whole year, I think it's worth it.

tomofhyrule wrote: »

I get that a lot of people want sharded instances, but that would completely ruin the experience of new players in the basic difficulty.

The way zones work, you only see /zone chat in your specific instance. That means that if someone in the basic 'shard' is struggling to kill a 10m HP world boss like Ghishzor and calls for help, nobody in the "sweaty no noobs allowed" shard would be able to hear it. As such, "I want exclusive shards for the high difficulty" ends up sounding a lot like "I want to not have any new players in my game!"

Besides, most story bosses (which is what the point of the overland difficulty was, not world bosses or world events) are already instanced to you. People are now jumping to "I should be able to solo literally everything in the game and shut everyone else out." That... is not as charitable of an outlook.

As for rewards, more gold and higher-tier sets are reasonable. But any big new things exclusive to that mode are going back on the "we don't want to make anyone feel forced into it" concept.

There are ways of sharing zone chat regardless of shard. See: Basegame Quest areas/PoIs

In basegame quest areas, you are sharded on the fly, without loading screen, depending on your quest progress. You can literally be in the same group as someone and they will vanish from your shard (except their name tag of course) if you've done the quest but they have not, or they have but they've chosen a different outcome. However, zone chat is still shared in this case. And of course, once you're both out of the quest PoI, you'll see each other again instantly.

As for quests, main quests are not the only ones. Side quests struggle a lot with the same issues with the even more added downside that their content is not instanced. Some sidequests have you killing a boss inside a delve (even if it isn't the delve boss) or sometimes it is the delve boss for example. And you have the same issue of being melted, with the added downside you can't even go naked/not attack/etc. Now, sure, if there's 20 people on Vestige difficulty it'll still get melted. But I think you're overestimating the amount of people that'll go on the super hard difficulties. And yeah, the sidequest issue can literally not be solved without private instances entirely, which we won't see of course. But with difficulty shards it can be mitigated.

Another solution could be not sharding all 4 difficulties, but just two each. Adventurer and Seasoned can share a shard, with Master & Vestige sharing another. These are still different difficulties of course, but they're of a closer approach than putting all 4 in the same worldspace. And again, you can share zone chat regardless of sharding as seen in base game quest PoIs.

tomofhyrule wrote: »

I get that a lot of people want sharded instances, but that would completely ruin the experience of new players in the basic difficulty.

The way zones work, you only see /zone chat in your specific instance. That means that if someone in the basic 'shard' is struggling to kill a 10m HP world boss like Ghishzor and calls for help, nobody in the "sweaty no noobs allowed" shard would be able to hear it. As such, "I want exclusive shards for the high difficulty" ends up sounding a lot like "I want to not have any new players in my game!"

Besides, most story bosses (which is what the point of the overland difficulty was, not world bosses or world events) are already instanced to you. People are now jumping to "I should be able to solo literally everything in the game and shut everyone else out." That... is not as charitable of an outlook.

As for rewards, more gold and higher-tier sets are reasonable. But any big new things exclusive to that mode are going back on the "we don't want to make anyone feel forced into it" concept.

On first point, the game is already massively catered to "new players" to the point it has ruined the entire game fundamentally. As to the second point, i'm -fairly- not guaranteed as I have not tested it in many many many years; but fairly sure that sharding does not "instance" the zone chat. Can test this with various zone main questlines in the base game. And if not well... refer back to first point. The "but the new players" has been a dreadful enough excuse for so long now I'm sick of hearing it while I have been unable to play any of the expansions to date because I literally cannot stand how boringly easy and unimmersive the overland is. All because "some" new player might get lost... and quit which if they are that easy to quit, they were never invested in the first place. Completely moot point, I'm really tired of hearing this every single time. Vet instancing and vertical progression is what this game LAUNCHED with and it was taken away from me.

It's not the job of any individual player to help another. But it is the job of an MMO to provide enough players in a shared world that help is more likely to be offered by some kind individual.

It's not your failing if you choose not to help. But it is ZOS's failing if they do not keep new player experience in mind. An MMO must take all sides interests into account when designing the game.

Lord_Hev wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

It's not the job of any individual player to help another. But it is the job of an MMO to provide enough players in a shared world that help is more likely to be offered by some kind individual.

It's not your failing if you choose not to help. But it is ZOS's failing if they do not keep new player experience in mind. An MMO must take all sides interests into account when designing the game.

Zos have already done way more than enough for the new player experience. Enough is enough, it's been such a detriment to the game's growth. A new player will decide early on if they are going to invest or not, all these capitulations ultimately mean nothing for actual player retention. There has been nothing but a constant neglect for all the dedicated veteran players. Overland is the vast majority of the game's content and its ALL tailored to these mythical "lets not make a new player feel lost" that still play the game for a few days then move on to something else because they were never going to invest in this game to begin with. Why does the entire game, and thus the entire dedicated player-base have to be held hostage so that the new players don't feel lost?

The entire game isn't held hostage by it being a shared overworld in the game. It's an MMO. That's to be expected.

They should have given us difficulty options a long time ago. But most MMOs I have played offer a shared overworld and that's part of the appeal for them. Many people pick up MMOs specifically for that experience, even if they end up not liking this MMO in particular.

Why do we need a shared overland in an MMO is like asking arguing fps games don't need sniper rifles or other long range weapons. Yeah, technically you could do without one, but it's such a genre staple that it would feel like something's missing without it.

Lord_Hev wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Lord_Hev wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

It's not the job of any individual player to help another. But it is the job of an MMO to provide enough players in a shared world that help is more likely to be offered by some kind individual.

It's not your failing if you choose not to help. But it is ZOS's failing if they do not keep new player experience in mind. An MMO must take all sides interests into account when designing the game.

Zos have already done way more than enough for the new player experience. Enough is enough, it's been such a detriment to the game's growth. A new player will decide early on if they are going to invest or not, all these capitulations ultimately mean nothing for actual player retention. There has been nothing but a constant neglect for all the dedicated veteran players. Overland is the vast majority of the game's content and its ALL tailored to these mythical "lets not make a new player feel lost" that still play the game for a few days then move on to something else because they were never going to invest in this game to begin with. Why does the entire game, and thus the entire dedicated player-base have to be held hostage so that the new players don't feel lost?

The entire game isn't held hostage by it being a shared overworld in the game. It's an MMO. That's to be expected.

They should have given us difficulty options a long time ago. But most MMOs I have played offer a shared overworld and that's part of the appeal for them. Many people pick up MMOs specifically for that experience, even if they end up not liking this MMO in particular.

Why do we need a shared overland in an MMO is like asking arguing fps games don't need sniper rifles or other long range weapons. Yeah, technically you could do without one, but it's such a genre staple that it would feel like something's missing without it.

Difficulty options do not work in a shared overworld. We are being held hostage if the whole reasoning behind not sharding or instancing aka "separating" players in favor of increased difficulty option is so that we are forced to be in "their" zone because we have a non-agreed expectation to drop what we are doing and help the hypothetical new player.

They have worked in other MMOs so why not this one? This one already uses phasing to avoid things being too congested outside of events/new content drops.

-snipped for brevity-

tomofhyrule wrote: »

Or should I just come back in a few minutes once that person is gone, since the mobs will respawn over time, by which point the other guy is long gone?

Honestly, I agree with much of what you said about sharing. The reason that I'm not worried about sharing as a vet player is because I actually already play in the overland. Most of the people I come across are only around for a little while and I am not constantly running into them. Also a good chunk of the story is already privately instanced including much of the main quests. Sometimes they'll have you go into a public dungeon but then go through some door that secretly leads you to a quest boss encounter that is privately instanced. It's not everything. There's still plenty of stuff that's not. But they've gotten a lot better over the years of trying to keep the bigger stuff private while smaller side quests and enemies still aren't.

Attorneyatlawl wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Lord_Hev wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Lord_Hev wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

It's not the job of any individual player to help another. But it is the job of an MMO to provide enough players in a shared world that help is more likely to be offered by some kind individual.

It's not your failing if you choose not to help. But it is ZOS's failing if they do not keep new player experience in mind. An MMO must take all sides interests into account when designing the game.

Zos have already done way more than enough for the new player experience. Enough is enough, it's been such a detriment to the game's growth. A new player will decide early on if they are going to invest or not, all these capitulations ultimately mean nothing for actual player retention. There has been nothing but a constant neglect for all the dedicated veteran players. Overland is the vast majority of the game's content and its ALL tailored to these mythical "lets not make a new player feel lost" that still play the game for a few days then move on to something else because they were never going to invest in this game to begin with. Why does the entire game, and thus the entire dedicated player-base have to be held hostage so that the new players don't feel lost?

The entire game isn't held hostage by it being a shared overworld in the game. It's an MMO. That's to be expected.

They should have given us difficulty options a long time ago. But most MMOs I have played offer a shared overworld and that's part of the appeal for them. Many people pick up MMOs specifically for that experience, even if they end up not liking this MMO in particular.

Why do we need a shared overland in an MMO is like asking arguing fps games don't need sniper rifles or other long range weapons. Yeah, technically you could do without one, but it's such a genre staple that it would feel like something's missing without it.

Difficulty options do not work in a shared overworld. We are being held hostage if the whole reasoning behind not sharding or instancing aka "separating" players in favor of increased difficulty option is so that we are forced to be in "their" zone because we have a non-agreed expectation to drop what we are doing and help the hypothetical new player.

They have worked in other MMOs so why not this one? This one already uses phasing to avoid things being too congested outside of events/new content drops.

So, why not phase/shard by difficulty then?

P. S. I shouldn't take a huge net negative in xp for wanting to have a challenge.

Because then you won't see the other player or be able to communicate with them.

And I agree with you about the exp. I was annoyed when I saw the exp modifier but it's better than nothing. At this point I'm fine with it as long as I ain't gotta keep playing this game like a walking sim.