Hi, super excited about this!
However, as many have mentioned, the state it's presented in right now is not exactly one that would be fair for everybody. I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with the many suggestions I see about creating instances and split the players by difficulty, but I do have an idea that builds up on the system ZOS has presented.

If...
> De-buffing a player (does less dmg + takes more dmg) playing on higher difficulty --> Another player on lower difficulty joining the fight would just blast though the enemies = not fun ;
> Buffing an enemy (does more dmg + takes less dmg) that a player on higher difficulty engages --> Another player on lower difficulty joining the fight would just be useless against it = not fun ;

...What about a mix of both?
> When a player chooses a higher difficulty, they get a debuff making them take more dmg (depending on the difficulty level) ;
> When they engage an enemy, the enemy gets a buff (visible or invisible), that makes them take less damage (or grants them more health, the outcome is the same but I do believe it "feels" less like a debuff and more real if the damage numbers of a player don't change depending on the difficulty the play on) ;
> That way, a player on higher difficulty will experience more challenging combat as is the goal (taking more damage and the enemy taking less dmg will last longer thus be able to use mechanics etc.).

Now, when different difficulties meet...

My initial idea was to make the buff on the mob determined by the highest difficulty amongst the players that fight it. But that creates issues if higher-difficulty players join mid or at the end of a normal-difficulty fight, getting better rewards unfairly.

So I think the only solution is to make the difficulty tier of the buff applied to the enemy be locked by the difficulty level of the player that first engages it. The balancing and avoiding abusive scenarios will have to be done through the rewards.

Let's observe the scenario :
> Player on normal difficulty engages mob --> Mob is locked on normal difficulty. If a higher-difficulty player joins in, let's say playing on Vestige, although they would have the debuff that makes them take more damage (potentially making the fight a little harder), the mob is taking normal damage. It wouldn't be fair to give them a full Vestige reward. But to give them a normal Adventurer reward would also be unfair because the damage they received during the fight was indeed greater. More importantly, it would remove any motivation for a high-difficulty player to join in a fight (WB etc.) that has already been locked into lower difficulty. A formula has to be determined here for a fair portion of reward base on the difficulty the mob was locked on (maybe 50% more gold or something, you get the idea). That way, higher-difficulty players would still have a "reason" to join in and help even if they don't get the full reward promised by their chosen difficulty level.

Applicable to the opposite scenario:
> Player on Vestige difficulty engages mob --> Mob is locked on Vestige difficulty. If a lower-difficulty player joins in, the enemy is much more resistant but the, let's say, Seasoned-difficulty player takes more damage but not as much as the Vestige tier, so the fight is the same for him, only a bit longer. I *do* realize this affects the lower-difficulty player in the sense that their gameplay isn't completely unchanged, but I think making different difficulties in this way coexist will require some compromises. A reward has to be determined that is greater than the Seasoned level but of course lower than the Vestige one. That way, lower-difficulty players can still participate in fights with other players that are on higher difficulty, without burning through the mobs' health and without getting trampled by it.

I know this probably isn't perfect or free of loopholes, but I feel like it's closer to being fair than what has been proposed right now. Glad to discuss it!

Belthond wrote: »

Hi, super excited about this!
However, as many have mentioned, the state it's presented in right now is not exactly one that would be fair for everybody. I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with the many suggestions I see about creating instances and split the players by difficulty, but I do have an idea that builds up on the system ZOS has presented.

If...
> De-buffing a player (does less dmg + takes more dmg) playing on higher difficulty --> Another player on lower difficulty joining the fight would just blast though the enemies = not fun ;
> Buffing an enemy (does more dmg + takes less dmg) that a player on higher difficulty engages --> Another player on lower difficulty joining the fight would just be useless against it = not fun ;

...What about a mix of both?
> When a player chooses a higher difficulty, they get a debuff making them take more dmg (depending on the difficulty level) ;
> When they engage an enemy, the enemy gets a buff (visible or invisible), that makes them take less damage (or grants them more health, the outcome is the same but I do believe it "feels" less like a debuff and more real if the damage numbers of a player don't change depending on the difficulty the play on) ;
> That way, a player on higher difficulty will experience more challenging combat as is the goal (taking more damage and the enemy taking less dmg will last longer thus be able to use mechanics etc.).

Now, when different difficulties meet...

My initial idea was to make the buff on the mob determined by the highest difficulty amongst the players that fight it. But that creates issues if higher-difficulty players join mid or at the end of a normal-difficulty fight, getting better rewards unfairly.

So I think the only solution is to make the difficulty tier of the buff applied to the enemy be locked by the difficulty level of the player that first engages it. The balancing and avoiding abusive scenarios will have to be done through the rewards.

Let's observe the scenario :
> Player on normal difficulty engages mob --> Mob is locked on normal difficulty. If a higher-difficulty player joins in, let's say playing on Vestige, although they would have the debuff that makes them take more damage (potentially making the fight a little harder), the mob is taking normal damage. It wouldn't be fair to give them a full Vestige reward. But to give them a normal Adventurer reward would also be unfair because the damage they received during the fight was indeed greater. More importantly, it would remove any motivation for a high-difficulty player to join in a fight (WB etc.) that has already been locked into lower difficulty. A formula has to be determined here for a fair portion of reward base on the difficulty the mob was locked on (maybe 50% more gold or something, you get the idea). That way, higher-difficulty players would still have a "reason" to join in and help even if they don't get the full reward promised by their chosen difficulty level.

Applicable to the opposite scenario:
> Player on Vestige difficulty engages mob --> Mob is locked on Vestige difficulty. If a lower-difficulty player joins in, the enemy is much more resistant but the, let's say, Seasoned-difficulty player takes more damage but not as much as the Vestige tier, so the fight is the same for him, only a bit longer. I *do* realize this affects the lower-difficulty player in the sense that their gameplay isn't completely unchanged, but I think making different difficulties in this way coexist will require some compromises. A reward has to be determined that is greater than the Seasoned level but of course lower than the Vestige one. That way, lower-difficulty players can still participate in fights with other players that are on higher difficulty, without burning through the mobs' health and without getting trampled by it.

I know this probably isn't perfect or free of loopholes, but I feel like it's closer to being fair than what has been proposed right now. Glad to discuss it!

I already replied to a similar "tagging" suggestion, so this will be a repeat. I do not think that locking the difficulty based on the difficulty level of the first person to tag the mob is the way to go.

Boss situation: Vestige tags it, Adventure arrives but does not want to fight higher difficulty version for Adventurer rewards. So, they are forced to wait while the Vestige finishes the fight (which might take a while) and then wait for the boss to respawn.

Trash packs: Adventurer tags as many mobs as possible with an AoE and then fights/nukes them at their leisure. Vestige is left with the current state of the mobs.

ESO_player123 wrote: »

I already replied to a similar "tagging" suggestion, so this will be a repeat. I do not think that locking the difficulty based on the difficulty level of the first person to tag the mob is the way to go.

Boss situation: Vestige tags it, Adventure arrives but does not want to fight higher difficulty version for Adventurer rewards. So, they are forced to wait while the Vestige finishes the fight (which might take a while) and then wait for the boss to respawn.

Trash packs: Adventurer tags as many mobs as possible with an AoE and then fights/nukes them at their leisure. Vestige is left with the current state of the mobs.

In the Boss situation, the Adventure wouldn’t be fighting a « fully » higher difficulty mob, as the player would take Adventure damage if on that difficulty. The boss would only have more health/take less damage, so the Adventure could still participate in the fight in a meaningful way, without getting destroyed themselves.
Also as explained, the reward wouldn’t be an Adventurer one, but rather something between the Adventurer and Vestige in this case, to reward them still from participating in a longer fight. I don’t think anybody in this situation would purposely ignore the first player and wait for the boss to respawn and fight it on Adventurer mode.

Belthond wrote: »

ESO_player123 wrote: »

I already replied to a similar "tagging" suggestion, so this will be a repeat. I do not think that locking the difficulty based on the difficulty level of the first person to tag the mob is the way to go.

Boss situation: Vestige tags it, Adventure arrives but does not want to fight higher difficulty version for Adventurer rewards. So, they are forced to wait while the Vestige finishes the fight (which might take a while) and then wait for the boss to respawn.

Trash packs: Adventurer tags as many mobs as possible with an AoE and then fights/nukes them at their leisure. Vestige is left with the current state of the mobs.

In the Boss situation, the Adventure wouldn’t be fighting a « fully » higher difficulty mob, as the player would take Adventure damage if on that difficulty. The boss would only have more health/take less damage, so the Adventure could still participate in the fight in a meaningful way, without getting destroyed themselves.
Also as explained, the reward wouldn’t be an Adventurer one, but rather something between the Adventurer and Vestige in this case, to reward them still from participating in a longer fight. I don’t think anybody in this situation would purposely ignore the first player and wait for the boss to respawn and fight it on Adventurer mode.

With the proposed rewards (a bit more XP and a bit more gold), I would not want a longer fight for a part of that reward on a difficulty I did not sign up for (yes, I know that those rewards are just a starter). I would prefer they separate the players into different instances than implement any form of tagging.

I understand what this is trying to address, but I do have some concerns about the direction and its wider impact.

First, who is this actually aimed at?
Is this intended for a very small percentage of highly optimised players, a broader mid-tier audience, or most of the playerbase? It’s not clear which group this is meant to serve, and without that clarity it’s hard to see how the design can land well.

Second, any form of this risks increasing elitism.
Even if unintentionally, difficulty labels and visible distinctions tend to create social pressure and comparison in a shared world. That rarely ends well in an MMO, especially one that has worked hard to remain accessible.

The naming also feels problematic.
Titles like these don’t just describe difficulty — they signal status. That can easily come across as ego-boosting rather than descriptive, which again feeds into division rather than choice.

It’s also worth noting that genuinely punishing content already exists.
Veteran dungeons, trials, hard modes, arenas, Infinite Archive, and PvP already provide places for players who want to push limits. If the goal is to offer more challenge, expanding or deepening those spaces feels more coherent than redefining overland.

Overland content has a specific role in ESO.
It’s where story, exploration, atmosphere, and world-building live. For many players it’s intentionally a safe, welcoming space — somewhere to exist in the world without pressure. Changing that risks undermining one of the game’s core strengths.

Finally, there’s a tension with the “play your way” message.
In practice, the game already strongly rewards “damage, damage, damage.” Introducing optional difficulty on top of that doesn’t really broaden playstyles — it just asks some players to opt into more friction while the same dominant approach continues to shape shared spaces.

I’m not opposed to challenge — far from it — but I worry that this approach adds complexity and social friction without clearly solving a real problem. It feels like something that could be looked back on and thought, it might have been better to leave overland as it was.

Tariq9898 wrote: »

Taarente wrote: »

I understand what this is trying to address, but I do have some concerns about the direction and its wider impact.

First, who is this actually aimed at?
Is this intended for a very small percentage of highly optimised players, a broader mid-tier audience, or most of the playerbase? It’s not clear which group this is meant to serve, and without that clarity it’s hard to see how the design can land well.

Second, any form of this risks increasing elitism.
Even if unintentionally, difficulty labels and visible distinctions tend to create social pressure and comparison in a shared world. That rarely ends well in an MMO, especially one that has worked hard to remain accessible.

The naming also feels problematic.
Titles like these don’t just describe difficulty — they signal status. That can easily come across as ego-boosting rather than descriptive, which again feeds into division rather than choice.

It’s also worth noting that genuinely punishing content already exists.
Veteran dungeons, trials, hard modes, arenas, Infinite Archive, and PvP already provide places for players who want to push limits. If the goal is to offer more challenge, expanding or deepening those spaces feels more coherent than redefining overland.

Overland content has a specific role in ESO.
It’s where story, exploration, atmosphere, and world-building live. For many players it’s intentionally a safe, welcoming space — somewhere to exist in the world without pressure. Changing that risks undermining one of the game’s core strengths.

Finally, there’s a tension with the “play your way” message.
In practice, the game already strongly rewards “damage, damage, damage.” Introducing optional difficulty on top of that doesn’t really broaden playstyles — it just asks some players to opt into more friction while the same dominant approach continues to shape shared spaces.

I’m not opposed to challenge — far from it — but I worry that this approach adds complexity and social friction without clearly solving a real problem. It feels like something that could be looked back on and thought, it might have been better to leave overland as it was.

Adding in Overland difficulty is worth the trouble and sacrifices. As ZOS said this is a “highly requested feature.”

You’re right, overland is for story and that is exactly why I fight for Overland difficulties - to feel the narrative stakes. To experience the threat of the final boss. To be immersed with the atmospheric realms of Oblivion. Plus, this is also optional and players don’t have to increase the difficulty if they don’t want to.

Many people think:
- solo = casual.
- group = endgame.

They completely neglect solo endgame.

For many players including myself - solo, story, and endgame come together as one. We want to quest alone on hard difficulties.

What you're describing isn't really overland difficulty so much as a solo-RPG version of ESO. That's a valid thing to want, but it isn't what ESO's shared overland is designed to be, nor what it should be forced to become.
Also ZOS gave us Craglorn that everyone complained was too hard. World bosses used to require large groups to take on and dungeons used to be properly difficult.

Taarente wrote: »

I understand what this is trying to address, but I do have some concerns about the direction and its wider impact.

Some good questions. Perhaps as someone who has followed the overland thread for years I can give you some insight in what the variant ZOS is implementing is and is not about.

Taarente wrote: »

First, who is this actually aimed at?
Is this intended for a very small percentage of highly optimised players, a broader mid-tier audience, or most of the playerbase? It’s not clear which group this is meant to serve, and without that clarity it’s hard to see how the design can land well.

The challenge difficulty as it is currently framed is aimed at the bulk of players for whom overland is their main activity who feel they are not being tested enough by that content. It is a scaling solution after all. No amount of scaling will result in the kind of challenge endgame PvE offers (larger number of mobs and unique environmental and boss mechanics). It will be a different animal. At high difficulty levels, it will be much less a matter of 'choreography' than endgame PvE. It will be about increased risk from being hit at all (not dodging/blocking) for longer.

Taarente wrote: »

Second, any form of this risks increasing elitism.
Even if unintentionally, difficulty labels and visible distinctions tend to create social pressure and comparison in a shared world. That rarely ends well in an MMO, especially one that has worked hard to remain accessible.

Personally I doubt this will be a big problem. Unlike is the case for instanced content with forced grouping, we can only guess at what motivates players in overland anyway. If someone is out there on normal difficulty perhaps they are not that good at combat. Much more likely they're just interested in the story or perhaps farming mats. Why should people care?

Taarente wrote: »

The naming also feels problematic.
Titles like these don’t just describe difficulty — they signal status. That can easily come across as ego-boosting rather than descriptive, which again feeds into division rather than choice.

Personally I'm in favour of much more granularity (being able to modify incoming and outgoing damage independently). That would kind of make any kind of naming impossible. Perhaps they can use colours instead.

Taarente wrote: »

It’s also worth noting that genuinely punishing content already exists.
Veteran dungeons, trials, hard modes, arenas, Infinite Archive, and PvP already provide places for players who want to push limits. If the goal is to offer more challenge, expanding or deepening those spaces feels more coherent than redefining overland.

Difficult overland will be categorically different from existing endgame PvE, because the encounters are fundamentally different. It's going to be a completely different experience.

Taarente wrote: »

Overland content has a specific role in ESO.
It’s where story, exploration, atmosphere, and world-building live. For many players it’s intentionally a safe, welcoming space — somewhere to exist in the world without pressure. Changing that risks undermining one of the game’s core strengths.

Actually, the only impact to be expected is for performance in combat to be equalized somewhat, narrowing the perceived skill gap. After all, players with a high combat performance playing at high difficulty will appear to be less good than they would be playing on normal!

Taarente wrote: »

Finally, there’s a tension with the “play your way” message.
In practice, the game already strongly rewards “damage, damage, damage.” Introducing optional difficulty on top of that doesn’t really broaden playstyles — it just asks some players to opt into more friction while the same dominant approach continues to shape shared spaces.

You have a point here. I'd like to see more combinations of incoming and outgoing damage modifiers. That would allow for more diverse play styles. E.g. a tank character could raise incoming damage increase modifier more than that reduction in outgoing damage. A dd might want to do the reverse.

Taarente wrote: »

I’m not opposed to challenge — far from it — but I worry that this approach adds complexity and social friction without clearly solving a real problem. It feels like something that could be looked back on and thought, it might have been better to leave overland as it was.

I would like to think of challenge difficulty as a way for players to fine-tune their own experience. I think as long as that's the goal, we will be fine. The main problem that keeps coming back is the reward system. In theory I don't think there should be any status or accompanying rewards with this system. But, in practice not having any reward would be experienced as a disincentive / losing out. So there's a balance there. But I'm definitely against rewards that are exclusive or categorically different (the way e.g. monster sets are for vet dungeons).

jle30303 wrote: »

I have a bit of a problem with the whole "we want increased difficulty" idea:

The existing areas of the game that ARE already more difficult - things like DLC dungeons, delves, public dungeons and World Bosses, let alone the original "groups and veterans only" Craglorn, which has long since been outstripped in difficulty - are well-nigh deserted.

Including, being well-nigh deserted by exactly the players who claim to want a more difficult experience.

Well, to be fair, you put a lot of different stuff in the same pile here. Delves, public dungeons, and base game world bosses are deserted because they are no longer more difficult. They are trivial. That is why people want them to become challenging again. And that is what is being addressed with the upcoming overland difficulty options. DLC dungeons do not belong to this pile IMO. People still do them in groups and also solo them as a challenge. Also, they are not considered overland and are not the target of these changes.

They are doing it right... higher challenges gives only more gold and XP...I am very interested to see how many people actually engage with the higher challenges ...and what direction the game will take if the vast majority of players stay at the adventure level.....

Warhawke_80 wrote: »

They are doing it right higher challenges gives only more gold and XP...I am very interested to see how many people actually engage with the higher challenges ...and what direction the game will take if the vast majority of players stay at the adventure level.....

Actually, it's much less xp given per hour because it will take longer to kill the mobs. I'll still use it for questing, but it's a shame it'll need to be disabled when I'm doing anything else... 5x longer to kill a mob vs 2x xp, and you're taking 6x incoming damage. I'm a lowbie champion level so I actually need the xp.

Tbh can't really do much about overland difficulty. The cleanest way would be to implement separate instances (much like vet and normal content) for each difficulty but I doubt the game has enough players to sustain this now.

Can we expect something more difficult than vestige though? Something closer to a vDLC boss for quest bosses, that would be so peak

Taarente wrote: »

I understand what this is trying to address, but I do have some concerns about the direction and its wider impact.

First, who is this actually aimed at?
Is this intended for a very small percentage of highly optimised players, a broader mid-tier audience, or most of the playerbase? It’s not clear which group this is meant to serve, and without that clarity it’s hard to see how the design can land well.

Second, any form of this risks increasing elitism.
Even if unintentionally, difficulty labels and visible distinctions tend to create social pressure and comparison in a shared world. That rarely ends well in an MMO, especially one that has worked hard to remain accessible.

The naming also feels problematic.
Titles like these don’t just describe difficulty — they signal status. That can easily come across as ego-boosting rather than descriptive, which again feeds into division rather than choice.

It’s also worth noting that genuinely punishing content already exists.
Veteran dungeons, trials, hard modes, arenas, Infinite Archive, and PvP already provide places for players who want to push limits. If the goal is to offer more challenge, expanding or deepening those spaces feels more coherent than redefining overland.

Overland content has a specific role in ESO.
It’s where story, exploration, atmosphere, and world-building live. For many players it’s intentionally a safe, welcoming space — somewhere to exist in the world without pressure. Changing that risks undermining one of the game’s core strengths.

Finally, there’s a tension with the “play your way” message.
In practice, the game already strongly rewards “damage, damage, damage.” Introducing optional difficulty on top of that doesn’t really broaden playstyles — it just asks some players to opt into more friction while the same dominant approach continues to shape shared spaces.

I’m not opposed to challenge — far from it — but I worry that this approach adds complexity and social friction without clearly solving a real problem. It feels like something that could be looked back on and thought, it might have been better to leave overland as it was.

Fully agree. I am pretty skeptical that this will do anything constructive for the playerbase but I'm willing to wait and see (because what choice do we have).

So, where once it was just for the joy of challenge, now there is additional rewards, with demands for extra shinies.

What of us who have done all the overland quests? Can’t repeat them, as are one and done.

And Account Wide Achievements killed off the need for additional characters (another thing ‘demanded’ by many here).

Also people in this community keep acting like we're 'moving the goalpost' for asking for veteran-level rewards, but y'all are the ones trying to make veteran overland the exception to the rule of more difficulty = more rewards in every other bit of veteran content.

One side is arguing for consistency. The other is arguing for deviating from that consistency. Who is really moving the goalpost here?

coop500 wrote: »

luc76985 wrote: »

Taarente wrote: »

I understand what this is trying to address, but I do have some concerns about the direction and its wider impact.

First, who is this actually aimed at?
Is this intended for a very small percentage of highly optimised players, a broader mid-tier audience, or most of the playerbase? It’s not clear which group this is meant to serve, and without that clarity it’s hard to see how the design can land well.

Second, any form of this risks increasing elitism.
Even if unintentionally, difficulty labels and visible distinctions tend to create social pressure and comparison in a shared world. That rarely ends well in an MMO, especially one that has worked hard to remain accessible.

The naming also feels problematic.
Titles like these don’t just describe difficulty — they signal status. That can easily come across as ego-boosting rather than descriptive, which again feeds into division rather than choice.

It’s also worth noting that genuinely punishing content already exists.
Veteran dungeons, trials, hard modes, arenas, Infinite Archive, and PvP already provide places for players who want to push limits. If the goal is to offer more challenge, expanding or deepening those spaces feels more coherent than redefining overland.

Overland content has a specific role in ESO.
It’s where story, exploration, atmosphere, and world-building live. For many players it’s intentionally a safe, welcoming space — somewhere to exist in the world without pressure. Changing that risks undermining one of the game’s core strengths.

Finally, there’s a tension with the “play your way” message.
In practice, the game already strongly rewards “damage, damage, damage.” Introducing optional difficulty on top of that doesn’t really broaden playstyles — it just asks some players to opt into more friction while the same dominant approach continues to shape shared spaces.

I’m not opposed to challenge — far from it — but I worry that this approach adds complexity and social friction without clearly solving a real problem. It feels like something that could be looked back on and thought, it might have been better to leave overland as it was.

Fully agree. I am pretty skeptical that this will do anything constructive for the playerbase but I'm willing to wait and see (because what choice do we have).

I agree with this concern too. I think a few changes ZOS has done/is doing with this year feels like it's going to pit casual players against elites and vice versa. The community has, in my experience, already become more toxic than it ever was a few years ago, and stuff like this, implemented in this way, is going to make it worse.

Solutions are difficult to formulate that don't bring their own issues, but I do believe the pitting against each other thing should be considered.

Feel like this is a red herring, “elite” players aren’t going to come in droves to play hard overland for XP and gold they don’t need. The system they are putting out offers nothing outside of a more efficient grinding mechanism. There is zero risk in participating in it and the rewards are purely XP/gold grinds.

In short, people will play it, because why not, but it adds no value to the game other than more efficient grinding.