This would be helpful for casual guilds who like to group up for overland events, but the post quoted below brings up a valid issue and offers a good solution.

Make this a group finder option so all participants know what they're getting into and the lead doesn't have to go through each player to make sure they're all individually set to the right difficulty.

valenwood_vegan wrote: »

So now people joining a random alik'r dolmen group, or randomly grouping up while waiting for a world boss or an encounter to start, or responding to requests for help in zone chat would have to worry about what difficulty the group leader is going to force them onto? Doesn't sound appealing to me - I would no longer join such groups if they could alter my settings; and it would be confusing at best for newer players who are unaware. If an organized group wants everyone on the same difficulty level, they can organize that.

EDIT: I want to be fair so sure I could see it as maybe a group finder thing, where the information can be more clearly communicated up front before people join. But to me it overall seems like more trouble than it's worth.

Just display the difficulty level of each player in the group list and, I dunno, communicate?

DestroyerPewnack wrote: »

virtus753 wrote: »

DestroyerPewnack wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Overland difficulty is an optional system. Forcing it on others is not optional.

Joining a group is an optional system, though. If your group leader queues for a veteran dungeon, you don't get to play with that group on normal difficulty. What's the issue here?

These are not analogous.

An instance’s difficulty is a setting that applies to the instance. It changes the mobs and mechanics in the instance rather than the player characters. The group lead is thus controlling the environment, not the players within it. When the latter was attempted, it took a matter of days for ZOS to shut it down.

Personal difficulty settings for overland are the opposite. They change the player character, not the world around it. Each person has the ability to control that setting for themselves at all times as part of retaining control over their character. If the group wants everyone to choose the same thing together, they are all more than capable of selecting the appropriate setting without someone doing it for them. Friendly reminders here would go a long way towards supporting personal agency, responsibility, and interpersonal relations. If a person needs to have their difficulty settings controlled because they refuse to set it appropriately for the group after a reminder, a difficulty override is not going to address the bigger issues there.

They are absolutely and without exception analogous.

From the player's perspective, whether you make enemies stronger or make the player weaker, the end result is the same: the player takes more damage and deals less damage. It's a distinction without a difference.

Personal difficulty is preserved when you're playing solo, or when you're playing in a group with OP's default setting suggestion, (no override.)

What OP and the rest of us are talking about here is not taking away your personal freedom, but giving guild event leads a tool to make hosting overland guild events seamless. You still have all the freedom in the world to choose whether or not to join a group.

The end result is similar in some respects, though certainly not in all. The mechanisms are directly opposite, in terms of controlling the environment as opposed to one’s character. One consequence of that difference, as pointed out above by another poster, is that overland will have a variety of personal difficulty settings where instanced content literally cannot. So the proposed override for overland difficulty would not actually fully accomplish what the difficulty selection of instanced content does, as your social group lead still could not determine the difficulty for everyone in the instance, whereas the group lead of a dungeon or trial can and does for everyone in that instance without exception.

The outcomes in terms of player agency are also opposite and have the bigger consequences. In the case of dungeons and trials, a non-lead player literally cannot control the instance difficulty for their group. They do not have that agency because it is simply not possible to have the instance’s difficulty attached to multiple personal difficulty settings, one set by each player involved. In the second case, of overland difficulty, the player normally has agency over their own difficulty but would with this proposal be subject to having that agency taken away by an override from another player. While the result is similar to being in a dungeon or trial with the pre-selected difficulty being unable to be changed, the question of agency is fundamentally different because each individual player never had control in setting that dungeon or trial difficulty, only in whether to join that instance at the selected difficulty. They did have said agency in overland but had it overridden.

Now in your social group, presumably people want to be there and have agreed to the difficulty setting. But that’s far from the only case use for groups in overland. Many groups are formed for other purposes.

Right now, for example, I can offer to share a WB daily with anyone in a relevant zone and likely get some takers. But oh, I have Vestige on with override. Suddenly my pick-up group’s having an absolutely terrible experience. They didn’t agree to this. I probably simply forgot to set my group settings to be Adventurer or not be an override at all. Who will then override my override when I forget? This is a momentary issue, sure—as soon as I notice, I can fix it. And I should fix it. That’s my responsibility to the group. But so could and should the group member in your social group who forgot, without needing an override setting that could impact many more people than the social groups designed for specific difficulties.

There is also the outcome beyond the mechanics of the game. Even the best of intentions aimed at making things more convenient for the group can and do have unintended consequences for people whose agency is overridden. When people have agency but have it overridden, even with their consent, they learn not to use it. That’s a well-documented phenomenon well beyond the context of a video game. When we have it, it should be respected so we learn we can and should use it.

Likewise, I wouldn’t want a group lead having control over my other individual settings either. I can and should adjust those myself. I am happy to get reminders or pointers, but I don’t want another player overriding my settings for me, even if I’d choose the very same settings myself. The agency of choice—as both freedom and responsibility—is important.

SilverBride wrote: »

I don't know if it would even be possible for one player to see another player's settings, let alone alter them. They would need access to the player's account for that I assume.

Overland difficulty was set up that we can instantly see others’ choices at a glance. They have the icon and extra filigree on their health bar, and in 4-person groups we even get the icons in the vanilla group HUD.

This option is not in the game with dungeons. The dungeon group leader chooses if they are going to run normal or veteran, which are 2 completely different dungeons. They then queue for the dungeon they choose. There is no setting that needs to be made by or to any player entering. They just go in the dungeon that the group queued for.

We can see other player's titles and other things to when we look at them, but we cannot open their character screen and made any changes to their stats or anything else showing in that screen.

Calling it a temporary override still requires getting into the player's account and changing their setting. No player can change another's settings. That would open a can of worms I don't think they would want.

tomofhyrule wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

virtus753 wrote: »

Likewise, I wouldn’t want a group lead having control over my other individual settings either. I can and should adjust those myself. I am happy to get reminders or pointers, but I don’t want another player overriding my settings for me, even if I’d choose the very same settings myself. The agency of choice—as both freedom and responsibility—is important.

The group setting just places a temporary override. This option is already in the game with dungeons. The group leader can set the dungeon difficulty to veteran and then when teammates port directly into a dungeon it will be on vet. If they leave the group, they'll be back on their own settings without having to adjust anything.

The only player agency it takes away is the opportunity to troll groups by joining with no intention of meeting the group's requirements to be on the proper setting.

We would still get to choose which groups we join and would still retain our individual settings.

I really don't get how people are acting like this would be so much different to guild dungeon grouping.

But virtus did give an example of trolling in the opposite direction.

If I'm in Summerset while everyone's farming dailies for new plans now, I can go into /zone and offer to share my dailies... conveniently not mentioning that I set my difficulty to Vestige/Overwrite. Now all of these people who are just joining the group to get the daily find themselves getting oneshot by the direwolves on the way to the WB and no indication of such.

Whereas as it is now, group leads could still choose to give instructions to their groups and remove people who are not playing along.

Either way has methods for trolling and for agency on one party's part, but the way it is now doesn't need extra dev time.

They could just drop group after the share or pay attention to the setting on groups.

SilverBride wrote: »

This option is not in the game with dungeons. The dungeon group leader chooses if they are going to run normal or veteran, which are 2 completely different dungeons. They then queue for the dungeon they choose. There is no setting that needs to be made by or to any player entering. They just go in the dungeon that the group queued for.

We can see other player's titles and other things to when we look at them, but we cannot open their character screen and made any changes to their stats or anything else showing in that screen.

Calling it a temporary override still requires getting into the player's account and changing their setting. No player can change another's settings. That would open a can of worms I don't think they would want.

Untrue. There's a group setting for dungeons and you don't have to queue into a dungeon to enter it. When you are in a group, the difficulty changes to the group leader's setting. So if you were to walk into a dungeon, you'd be at their setting and not your own. When you leave group, you are on your own setting again.



You can tell which setting your group is on by looking at your map.

You're not messing with anyone else's settings. The group setting simply temporarily overrides the individual settings. The group leader has no access to your account.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

tomofhyrule wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

virtus753 wrote: »

Likewise, I wouldn’t want a group lead having control over my other individual settings either. I can and should adjust those myself. I am happy to get reminders or pointers, but I don’t want another player overriding my settings for me, even if I’d choose the very same settings myself. The agency of choice—as both freedom and responsibility—is important.

The group setting just places a temporary override. This option is already in the game with dungeons. The group leader can set the dungeon difficulty to veteran and then when teammates port directly into a dungeon it will be on vet. If they leave the group, they'll be back on their own settings without having to adjust anything.

The only player agency it takes away is the opportunity to troll groups by joining with no intention of meeting the group's requirements to be on the proper setting.

We would still get to choose which groups we join and would still retain our individual settings.

I really don't get how people are acting like this would be so much different to guild dungeon grouping.

But virtus did give an example of trolling in the opposite direction.

If I'm in Summerset while everyone's farming dailies for new plans now, I can go into /zone and offer to share my dailies... conveniently not mentioning that I set my difficulty to Vestige/Overwrite. Now all of these people who are just joining the group to get the daily find themselves getting oneshot by the direwolves on the way to the WB and no indication of such.

Whereas as it is now, group leads could still choose to give instructions to their groups and remove people who are not playing along.

Either way has methods for trolling and for agency on one party's part, but the way it is now doesn't need extra dev time.

They could just drop group after the share or pay attention to the setting on groups.

So if the goal is to put the onus on the player to check their own difficulty, then what's the major problem with putting the onus on the group leader to check their groupmates instead?

Here's another example that I've actually done (and that I know OP would also like). I run annual Werewolf trials in my social guild, where every group member must be in werewolf form with the exception of one or two healers who must be vampires. I make that part of the announcement in the guild Discord, and we mention it in the MOTD.

Should I therefore demand the devs stop making new content to make a new toggle that forces my groupmates to only have the werewolf ultimate slotted? Or should I just make sure of that by building a relationship with my groupmates and trusting that they got the memo?

Here's another one: last night, another one of my social guilds ran a "bring your pureclass!" trial for fun. Again, is it the responsibility of the devs to specifically set up a mode where Subclassing is banned, or is it on us to just do that with each other?

There is a certain level of 'trolling' that others can do in every case. But if your biggest fear is that group members will specifically not follow the guidelines you have set out for a fun run, then maybe the bigger question is "Why do my groupmates not want to have fun in my way such that I need to force them to do what I want them to?"

This still sounds like a solution in search of a problem. If your entire enjoyment of the game is completely predicated on everyone playing on your mode and in your way and acting as your little puppets, than what makes that different than those hypersweaty trial runs we all meme on for demanding scorepush strategies on normal?

spartaxoxo wrote: »

tomofhyrule wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

virtus753 wrote: »

Likewise, I wouldn’t want a group lead having control over my other individual settings either. I can and should adjust those myself. I am happy to get reminders or pointers, but I don’t want another player overriding my settings for me, even if I’d choose the very same settings myself. The agency of choice—as both freedom and responsibility—is important.

The group setting just places a temporary override. This option is already in the game with dungeons. The group leader can set the dungeon difficulty to veteran and then when teammates port directly into a dungeon it will be on vet. If they leave the group, they'll be back on their own settings without having to adjust anything.

The only player agency it takes away is the opportunity to troll groups by joining with no intention of meeting the group's requirements to be on the proper setting.

We would still get to choose which groups we join and would still retain our individual settings.

I really don't get how people are acting like this would be so much different to guild dungeon grouping.

But virtus did give an example of trolling in the opposite direction.

If I'm in Summerset while everyone's farming dailies for new plans now, I can go into /zone and offer to share my dailies... conveniently not mentioning that I set my difficulty to Vestige/Overwrite. Now all of these people who are just joining the group to get the daily find themselves getting oneshot by the direwolves on the way to the WB and no indication of such.

Whereas as it is now, group leads could still choose to give instructions to their groups and remove people who are not playing along.

Either way has methods for trolling and for agency on one party's part, but the way it is now doesn't need extra dev time.

They could just drop group after the share or pay attention to the setting on groups.

Considering we did not have to do this for as long as groups existed it would be a bid ask. If difficulty level is a setting in GF that is in a prominent place then that is fine. However, if I need to check every group I join during farming that would be a big incovenience.

valenwood_vegan wrote: »

tomofhyrule wrote: »

But virtus did give an example of trolling in the opposite direction.

If I'm in Summerset while everyone's farming dailies for new plans now, I can go into /zone and offer to share my dailies... conveniently not mentioning that I set my difficulty to Vestige/Overwrite. Now all of these people who are just joining the group to get the daily find themselves getting oneshot by the direwolves on the way to the WB and no indication of such.

Right and on top of that, the difficulty setting can't be changed once in combat so people who joined the group could become temporarily stuck on that undesired setting. People joining a group would need some sort of warning that joining the group will change their difficulty setting. The group leader then shouldn't be allowed to change the difficulty from what people accepted when they joined. Suddenly we're adding more and more issues and various extra layers of complexity and dev time that imo aren't necessary when an organized group could just communicate and have everyone set the desired difficulty.

Excellent points here. Fully agree.

The problem here is we're basically talking about two different things.

This idea absolutely sounds cool for a guild run or some kind of organized group where everyone knows what they signed up for. That is why I even suggested maybe allowing it as a group finder option, as a compromise, as that way the information could clearly be communicated up front and people could choose whether to join.

It does not work so great for random grouping that happens when people briefly team up in overland to defeat a boss or an incursion or for an event task or whatever. Not only could group leaders just forget what they have the group set on, but it could absolutely be used to troll. And a burden is being placed on all players to remember to check and monitor the difficulty level of all groups they may join.

In such cases, I do not believe it is appropriate for a group leader to be able change a player's difficulty setting unless the player is specifically warned that this is occurring and has the option to accept / decline (ie: not join or leave the group and immediately return to their chosen difficulty setting regardless of being in combat), which again, goes down the road of added complexity and dev time that I don't see as particularly necessary.

SilverBride wrote: »

All I see in that screenshot is the dungeon difficulty of that particular player.

There you go.

https://youtu.be/4aF8B8hFF24

What the OP is asking for is exactly the same thing. Like, no, nobody has access to your account. They do not have to give group leaders that kind of access to apply temporary overrides while in a group.

As you can see my group setting is normal because my group leader's setting is on normal. I port into the dungeon by myself and it is set to normal difficulty. I kill the first boss to prove it. I drop their group and my settings return to my own default, which is veteran. I go into the same dungeon and it has reset and the enemies are now vet difficulty. I once again kill the first boss to prove it. And then because Fungal Grotto wasn't showing the map difficulty, I go to Black Drake Villa and kill the first trash pack. And the map shows that I'm on Veteran.

My setting was my group leader's setting only for the duration of the group and the second I left it reverted with no extra effort on my part and without having to give the guild leader access to my account.

My setting did change. You can see it in the video. It was set to normal because group leader's setting was normal.

I entered a dungeon the group leader did not queue for and was not inside and it was set to normal





The OP is just asking for this but with challenge difficulty settings inside of dungeon.

SilverBride wrote: »

.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

My setting did change. You can see it in the video. It was set to normal because group leader's setting was normal.

I entered a dungeon the group leader did not queue for and was not inside and it was set to normal.

It was set to normal because group leader's setting was normal. This is exactly what I have been saying. The dungeon was set to normal, not the group member's preferences.

The group leader doesn't have to be in the dungeon for their setting to still be the one the game is using for the group.

Yes. The group leader chose the setting for the group. It changed my setting and their own.

Your option for dungeons to default to veteran is not changed by anything other than you changing it yourself

This is the part that was not accurate. My options for defaulting to veteran was changed to defaulting to normal by joining their group. It wasn't per dungeon. So, long as I'm in that group all dungeons are set to normal and I cannot change it (since I was not group lead) regardless if the group leader selected that dungeon or queued us up or was inside of it

It is a temporary override.

That is not how it works. Players set their dungeon preference to default to normal or veteran for when they are going into a dungeon alone or making their own group. When a group is being formed the game looks only at the group leader's preference and that is what it uses to place the group in the right dungeon mode. It doesn't override or change any of the group members' settings because it doesn't have to. All it cares about is what the group leader has their preference set to.