The real problem with combat in Overland

ZOS_ConnorG · April 2021

Greetings all,

After review we have had to edit or remove several posts for Baiting. Ensure when engaging in a discussion that you keep said discussion civil, constructive, and within the rules. If you see a post that is baiting in nature do not engage it with further hostility and instead report it for the moderators to review.

You are welcome to review the Community Rules here.

poodlemasterb16_ESO · April 2021

"We generally are all in agreement that old Craglorn was not fun and are not asking for something that forces a group."

Old Craglorn was great. The pitiful thing we have now is just another zone. The howls of rage when the first level 50s got to Craglorn and got killed by a swarm of wasps was very funny indeed.

[snip] a dangerous place that was a lot of fun, forced all kinds of learning and was generally fun for us learners, was nerfed to hell. [snip]

[Edited tor remove Baiting]

Hallothiel · April 2021

You are still ignoring the main thing - how is this going to be resourced by ZOS?

Why should they bother with the cost/resources of re-doing Overland just for a very small percentage of players?

If they thought it could be viable, do you not think they would have done it by now?

And Craglorn is relevant. As is what was planned originally for Murkmire. Harder overland areas that people did not like playing. Again, if ZOS thought it (financially) viable they would consider it.

Personally quite fine with Overland as it is.

But do think that having the end bosses of story quests in their own instance, and 2 modes, like dungeons, might help. A bit.

CableBomb · April 2021

Despite overland being too easy I still enjoy dropping Meteor on the squorpians in Reaper's March.

WhereArtThouVampires · April 2021

jle30303 wrote: »

The point being that, if you find certain content too easy, the problem isn't that the content should be more difficult, it's that YOU should move to the more difficult content. If you don't have the skills or the gear for that... that's what having easy content to gain the skill points, as well as the levels, is FOR.

So let me get this straight.

If I'm good at the game I shouldn't play that part that makes up over 70% of what ESO is? Which is the overland and stories.

Solid logic there.

WhereArtThouVampires · April 2021

]

SeaArcanist wrote: »

if people want a challenge, people need to challenge themselves. thats whats wrong with the world nowadays. nobody challenges themselves!

if you want content to be harder, you have the ability to make it harder. remove all champ points, use lower leveled gear. etc

we all have that ability to make things a challenge.

A level 3 can solo literally any quest and kill any mob in the overland.

There becomes a point where the WORLD is the issue, not the player wanting the challenge. I can literally beat every single quest in this game without slotting a single resource point and using only 3 base line skills with no ultimate or any gear equipped.

Also: if you have to gimp yourself to make a game harder then that's pretty bad design, huh? Name another game where the only way to get challenge is by *checks notes* ....not playing the game.

No other game out there suggests "not wearing gear" or "not using skills" as viable methods to obtain a challenge.

No idea where you people got this as a viable strat to make things challenging when every other MMO out there encourages you to actually learn the game and get good over "well, if you want a challenge in overland, just don't play basically."

Morgha_Kul · April 2021

The thing is, they artificially enhance low level characters. I'm not sure exactly how they go about it, but it's a fact.

For example, I created a Bosmer Warden, and equipped him with a bow.
I also have a max level Breton Templar who uses a bow.

I decided to test them, because the Bosmer at around L7 was doing FAR more damage than the max level character, so I equipped them both identically, and used exactly the same skills. The CP were all assigned identically. The ONLY skills they had were their bow skills, and then, only the attacks (I used respecs to clear all the skills and attributes on them both).

The L7 Bosmer was using a heavy bow shot, and was routinely hitting foes for around 12k damage. Snipe would do as much as 17k damage.
The max level Breton heavy shots were doing around 3k damage, and snipe would do around 5k.

So, they're doing something to make low level characters artificially stronger. That's one problem.

The other is that high level characters are able to get so strong that there is no overland content that isn't trivial to them. Anything that wouldn't be is entirely beyond any more casual or lower level characters.

I feel that if they take away the artificial boost they're giving low levels, and if they put a J-curve of diminishing returns on effects that enhance your abilities, it will allow low levels to be more challenged and also allow high levels to be at least somewhat challenged.
This would also mean rebalancing most dungeons and trials and the like, but I think it's worth doing, especially in light of the many complaints about the lack of challenge in general.

CP5 · April 2021

Hallothiel wrote: »

You are still ignoring the main thing - how is this going to be resourced by ZOS?

Why should they bother with the cost/resources of re-doing Overland just for a very small percentage of players?

If they thought it could be viable, do you not think they would have done it by now?

And Craglorn is relevant. As is what was planned originally for Murkmire. Harder overland areas that people did not like playing. Again, if ZOS thought it (financially) viable they would consider it.

Personally quite fine with Overland as it is.

But do think that having the end bosses of story quests in their own instance, and 2 modes, like dungeons, might help. A bit.

Because many players ignore all the story content they make because it is so disengaging? The biggest type of content they make many avoid because of how dull it is.

Old Craglorn is nothing like what people are asking for because old Craglorn, aside from the quest and instancing issues, was made challenging not by having smarter enemies but by just spamming groups so large that fighting them without a group was beyond tedious. That's why old Craglorn is irrelevant, because it isn't what players want, enemies that have enough abilities and actions to make them engaging to fight is what people want.

Iccotak · April 2021

Hallothiel wrote: »

You are still ignoring the main thing - how is this going to be resourced by ZOS?

Why should they bother with the cost/resources of re-doing Overland just for a very small percentage of players?

If they thought it could be viable, do you not think they would have done it by now?

And Craglorn is relevant. As is what was planned originally for Murkmire. Harder overland areas that people did not like playing. Again, if ZOS thought it (financially) viable they would consider it.

Personally quite fine with Overland as it is.

But do think that having the end bosses of story quests in their own instance, and 2 modes, like dungeons, might help. A bit.

I think addressing the Main Story Boss encounters would be a great step that I’d gladly welcome.

sentientomega · April 2021

Morgha_Kul wrote: »

The thing is, they artificially enhance low level characters. I'm not sure exactly how they go about it, but it's a fact.

For example, I created a Bosmer Warden, and equipped him with a bow.
I also have a max level Breton Templar who uses a bow.

I decided to test them, because the Bosmer at around L7 was doing FAR more damage than the max level character, so I equipped them both identically, and used exactly the same skills. The CP were all assigned identically. The ONLY skills they had were their bow skills, and then, only the attacks (I used respecs to clear all the skills and attributes on them both).

The L7 Bosmer was using a heavy bow shot, and was routinely hitting foes for around 12k damage. Snipe would do as much as 17k damage.
The max level Breton heavy shots were doing around 3k damage, and snipe would do around 5k.

So, they're doing something to make low level characters artificially stronger. That's one problem.

The other is that high level characters are able to get so strong that there is no overland content that isn't trivial to them. Anything that wouldn't be is entirely beyond any more casual or lower level characters.

I feel that if they take away the artificial boost they're giving low levels, and if they put a J-curve of diminishing returns on effects that enhance your abilities, it will allow low levels to be more challenged and also allow high levels to be at least somewhat challenged.
This would also mean rebalancing most dungeons and trials and the like, but I think it's worth doing, especially in light of the many complaints about the lack of challenge in general.

I trust you mean in different versions of the zones? That way, those of us could continue to enjoy the battle levelling, while at least one other zone version for each of them could follow something like the original method, where there was no battle levelling, that could be a start, at least. I did not find the game easy when I first played, I'd feel loathe to ever experience anything like that again myself.

Owing to shards and other instances, the playerbase is already quite split, so shutting that stable door is fairly pointless, I would've thought.

Xargas13 · April 2021

I too noticed this, mainly that they in group from 1 to 3, it looks like a coded world instead of a real one sometimes because of that, i do wish they would group up at random, it could pose a threat to the newbies, but I guess they would have just to avoid those big groups or sweat a bit, which isn't a bad thing IMO.

Morgha_Kul · April 2021

sentientomega wrote: »

Morgha_Kul wrote: »

The thing is, they artificially enhance low level characters. I'm not sure exactly how they go about it, but it's a fact.

For example, I created a Bosmer Warden, and equipped him with a bow.
I also have a max level Breton Templar who uses a bow.

I decided to test them, because the Bosmer at around L7 was doing FAR more damage than the max level character, so I equipped them both identically, and used exactly the same skills. The CP were all assigned identically. The ONLY skills they had were their bow skills, and then, only the attacks (I used respecs to clear all the skills and attributes on them both).

The L7 Bosmer was using a heavy bow shot, and was routinely hitting foes for around 12k damage. Snipe would do as much as 17k damage.
The max level Breton heavy shots were doing around 3k damage, and snipe would do around 5k.

So, they're doing something to make low level characters artificially stronger. That's one problem.

The other is that high level characters are able to get so strong that there is no overland content that isn't trivial to them. Anything that wouldn't be is entirely beyond any more casual or lower level characters.

I feel that if they take away the artificial boost they're giving low levels, and if they put a J-curve of diminishing returns on effects that enhance your abilities, it will allow low levels to be more challenged and also allow high levels to be at least somewhat challenged.
This would also mean rebalancing most dungeons and trials and the like, but I think it's worth doing, especially in light of the many complaints about the lack of challenge in general.

I trust you mean in different versions of the zones? That way, those of us could continue to enjoy the battle levelling, while at least one other zone version for each of them could follow something like the original method, where there was no battle levelling, that could be a start, at least. I did not find the game easy when I first played, I'd feel loathe to ever experience anything like that again myself.

Owing to shards and other instances, the playerbase is already quite split, so shutting that stable door is fairly pointless, I would've thought.

I think it would be preferable to NOT have different versions of the zones (with the exception of Cyrodiil, which I feel should have PvP and PvE versions).

There are a couple of ways they could do it.

First, they could cap the abilities of characters. My own characters are about as strong as I think ANY characters should be. I'm capable of doing any public dungeon unassisted, and I can even solo some of the group dungeons. I can solo many of the World Bosses, but not all of them. My dps is around 10k at its peak, but usually sits somewhere around 6-7k, depending on the foe. Characters stronger than that will find most overland content pretty trivial. I do myself, actually. If they capped dps (and relevant defensive numbers, whatever they are) at 10k, then players wouldn't be obliterating things all over. However, the downside of this is that once you reach that cap, there's nothing more to do with the build of your character, and for many that's the whole point of the game, to refine your build until it's as good as you can make it.

The alternative is to put diminishing returns on anything that buffs your abilities, so that by the time you're doing say... 7k dps, it will become MUCH harder to get to 7100, then even HARDER to get to 7200, and so on. The curve should start out fairly flat until you get to a reasonable level of damage and defense, then turn up vertically more and more sharply.

Kind of like this.

This would allow players to keep working to get that extra 0.1% boost at the top end, while keeping that top end low enough to make overland content relevant.

An addition to that is the abilities of the enemies. Easy enemies, like mudcrabs, wolves and other similar kinds of things, should be pretty simple to fight with. More powerful enemies need not be THAT much more powerful if they're more INTERESTING to fight. They should have more abilities, and use them more intelligently. This doesn't just mean tons of stuns and holds, those are annoying... but self heals, summons, teleports and so on would make foes more interesting to fight, and more dangerous besides.

Milli_Rabbit · April 2021

The best solution is create a Veteran Overland. Heck, could even add Hard Mode for main quests. This allows new players and older players to enjoy the content. With the new CP and older players needing more content to get avoid grinding, allow them to redo the zones on Veteran difficulty with new mechanics. At the very least, add this to base game WBs and ALL main questlines.

sentientomega · April 2021

Morgha_Kul wrote: »

sentientomega wrote: »

Morgha_Kul wrote: »

The thing is, they artificially enhance low level characters. I'm not sure exactly how they go about it, but it's a fact.

For example, I created a Bosmer Warden, and equipped him with a bow.
I also have a max level Breton Templar who uses a bow.

I decided to test them, because the Bosmer at around L7 was doing FAR more damage than the max level character, so I equipped them both identically, and used exactly the same skills. The CP were all assigned identically. The ONLY skills they had were their bow skills, and then, only the attacks (I used respecs to clear all the skills and attributes on them both).

The L7 Bosmer was using a heavy bow shot, and was routinely hitting foes for around 12k damage. Snipe would do as much as 17k damage.
The max level Breton heavy shots were doing around 3k damage, and snipe would do around 5k.

So, they're doing something to make low level characters artificially stronger. That's one problem.

The other is that high level characters are able to get so strong that there is no overland content that isn't trivial to them. Anything that wouldn't be is entirely beyond any more casual or lower level characters.

I feel that if they take away the artificial boost they're giving low levels, and if they put a J-curve of diminishing returns on effects that enhance your abilities, it will allow low levels to be more challenged and also allow high levels to be at least somewhat challenged.
This would also mean rebalancing most dungeons and trials and the like, but I think it's worth doing, especially in light of the many complaints about the lack of challenge in general.

I trust you mean in different versions of the zones? That way, those of us could continue to enjoy the battle levelling, while at least one other zone version for each of them could follow something like the original method, where there was no battle levelling, that could be a start, at least. I did not find the game easy when I first played, I'd feel loathe to ever experience anything like that again myself.

Owing to shards and other instances, the playerbase is already quite split, so shutting that stable door is fairly pointless, I would've thought.

I think it would be preferable to NOT have different versions of the zones (with the exception of Cyrodiil, which I feel should have PvP and PvE versions).

There are a couple of ways they could do it.

First, they could cap the abilities of characters. My own characters are about as strong as I think ANY characters should be. I'm capable of doing any public dungeon unassisted, and I can even solo some of the group dungeons. I can solo many of the World Bosses, but not all of them. My dps is around 10k at its peak, but usually sits somewhere around 6-7k, depending on the foe. Characters stronger than that will find most overland content pretty trivial. I do myself, actually. If they capped dps (and relevant defensive numbers, whatever they are) at 10k, then players wouldn't be obliterating things all over. However, the downside of this is that once you reach that cap, there's nothing more to do with the build of your character, and for many that's the whole point of the game, to refine your build until it's as good as you can make it.

The alternative is to put diminishing returns on anything that buffs your abilities, so that by the time you're doing say... 7k dps, it will become MUCH harder to get to 7100, then even HARDER to get to 7200, and so on. The curve should start out fairly flat until you get to a reasonable level of damage and defense, then turn up vertically more and more sharply.

Kind of like this.

This would allow players to keep working to get that extra 0.1% boost at the top end, while keeping that top end low enough to make overland content relevant.

An addition to that is the abilities of the enemies. Easy enemies, like mudcrabs, wolves and other similar kinds of things, should be pretty simple to fight with. More powerful enemies need not be THAT much more powerful if they're more INTERESTING to fight. They should have more abilities, and use them more intelligently. This doesn't just mean tons of stuns and holds, those are annoying... but self heals, summons, teleports and so on would make foes more interesting to fight, and more dangerous besides.

Vet Overland is a much better option, a much more appropriate place to try your ideas. I, for one, do not want my gameplay to be made harder, that's not my idea of fun, unless I actually wanted to go that route, which I can't imagine myself ever thinking anytime soon. Especially since I just got new builds sorted...

We do agree on PvE Cyrodiil, though. However, I think they should make a new Cyrodiil just for the PvE. Have it split up into, say, six different zones (keep that old and rather too large Cyro and IC as they are), one of which would be Imperial City, and have a plot that concerns a ceasefire (maybe temporary) between the alliances in the Three Banners War. Bit by bit, they push back the Daedra, if not conclusively. There'd be new achievements, new titles, etc. There'd be homes there, too! Maybe, my Imperials born in Cyrodiil proper would finally be able to go home. A big maybe, our characters could get to be crowned, and wear a new and interesting take on the Imperial Regalia outfit, based on whatever Imperial theme variation they could come up with for that story.

Kwoung · April 2021

I think most are missing the point of what actually makes content challenging and gets your heart beating... Loss. It is something most games tossed out years ago in order to attract more players, but when it existed, you thought twice about what you were about to do and seriously weighed your chances of success against the possible loss of items and or experience versus the reward you might gain from it.

WOW dumbed it down first and since it was so popular, almost every game since followed suit. This unfortunately took away any possibility of getting your heart beating fast and sitting on the edge of your seat fully engaged in what you were doing ever again. Sure, you can mentally psych yourself into thinking what you are doing is hard, but since you can walk into vCR +3 and die as many times as you can stand... losing nothing but a few repair kits, there is no real fear involved.

Now if Maj destroyed a piece of your gear every time you died and removed it from your stickerbook, then you would have excitement. Same goes for overland content, what seems a complete walk in the park now, would take on a whole different look if you lost experience or gear for messing up.

Loss would also fix the fake tank/healer/DPS issue as well. Only a complete moron would risk losing hard earned XP or gear and getting themselves blacklisted by the entire community for queuing for a role they couldn't perform.

JTD · April 2021

Loss and punishment are not the same thing though. I'd not be ok with losing an item or a sticker-book thing. That would be to punishing... but that is just me. What I'd be ok with is increasing repair costs for dying (great money-sink) and losing (cp)xp to a max of 0 (like path of exile does) for example.

But i agree the risk of consequence is a part of this discussion.

sentientomega · April 2021

Kwoung wrote: »

snip

JTD wrote: »

snip

Not going to fly, many people will leave. Is it really so hard to want to try and accommodate different kinds of players, rather than just making every single game Dark Souls extreme nightmare mode?

BlueRaven · April 2021

Milli_Rabbit wrote: »

The best solution is create a Veteran Overland. Heck, could even add Hard Mode for main quests. This allows new players and older players to enjoy the content. With the new CP and older players needing more content to get avoid grinding, allow them to redo the zones on Veteran difficulty with new mechanics. At the very least, add this to base game WBs and ALL main questlines.

Here are all the problems with that. (From an earlier post I wrote.)

This costs development and upkeep money.
Remember the people asking for “harder content” are not asking for npcs to have more hp and hit harder. They want them to have more abilities. So every mob, up to boss fights needs to be redone and rebalanced. Every encounter and npc interaction as well. So it’s not like zos can just turn a dial.

Splitting up players in already underpopulated zones means less people to group up with to fight such things as wb’s or geysers.

What exactly is the difficulty level aimed to be for? 160 cp? 300? 1000?

Tanks and healers have a hard enough time clearing content as it is. So the fraction of vet players that will use this mode seems small.

If the difficulty level is still too easy for some players, is a third difficulty level justified? A fourth?

Iccotak · April 2021

BlueRaven wrote: »

Milli_Rabbit wrote: »

The best solution is create a Veteran Overland. Heck, could even add Hard Mode for main quests. This allows new players and older players to enjoy the content. With the new CP and older players needing more content to get avoid grinding, allow them to redo the zones on Veteran difficulty with new mechanics. At the very least, add this to base game WBs and ALL main questlines.

Here are all the problems with that. (From an earlier post I wrote.)

———————————————————

This costs development and upkeep money.
Remember the people asking for “harder content” are not asking for npcs to have more hp and hit harder. They want them to have more abilities. So every mob, up to boss fights needs to be redone and rebalanced. Every encounter and npc interaction as well. So it’s not like zos can just turn a dial.

We don’t know the cost of what such an endeavor would entail but also keep in mind that ESO is a successfully running MMO that now has the backing of Microsoft.

Your real question is “would the cost be worth the investment.”

Some people think so as they feel they’d enjoy Overland & Story content more and therefore be more likely to purchase that content.

(EDIT: I would also point out the reason that WoW Classic was so successful and so appealing is that it is harder, that is a big part of what made it more engaging for players, New and Old alike)
——————————————————

Splitting up players in already underpopulated zones means less people to group up with to fight such things as wb’s or geysers.

Zones are not actually that underpopulated they may appear that way due to shards.
(Also maybe the zones not being fun is why they feel underpopulated in some zones)

Also the bigger reason players may not be doing older dolmens has more to do with New Dolmens & Zones

If you want players doing older content more regularly then maybe have more events frequently that reward participation in those activities.
——————————————————

What exactly is the difficulty level aimed to be for? 160 cp? 300? 1000?

That is a good question in light of recent changes to CP System.
In my opinion Level is more important. Because in Normal Overland it’s a breeze by level 15.
——————————————————

Tanks and healers have a hard enough time clearing content as it is. So the fraction of vet players that will use this mode seems small.

I normally play a tank, and I don’t find the appeal in the “cater to the lowest common denominator“ argument. Or the idea that the game shouldn’t ask something of me.

If my character was less than capable of putting out the damage numbers then I changed my build for overland.

It’s not that hard or expensive. Switch to different gear and skills when playing Overland or Dungeons. Just like if I was playing PVP I would change my build to suit the scenario.

(EDIT: also encouraging the player to get better and become more capable, in order to overcome those obstacles is a good thing.

Giving the players goals is a good thing it keeps them engaged keeps them playing)
——————————————————

If the difficulty level is still too easy for some players, is a third difficulty level justified? A fourth?

You are conflating difficulty and “engaging“.

Also using the “slippery slope” argument.
I don’t think people are going to be asking for higher difficulties. Especially when you see people asking for the random dungeon playlist to optionally not include the DLC‘s, because of how hard they are.

I do not see anyone asking for a third or a fourth difficulty for Dungeons, Arenas, or Trials...

I think one separate Veteran instance will be good as long as it’s done right.
——————————————————

Kwoung · April 2021

sentientomega wrote: »

Kwoung wrote: »

snip

JTD wrote: »

snip

Not going to fly, many people will leave. Is it really so hard to want to try and accommodate different kinds of players, rather than just making every single game Dark Souls extreme nightmare mode?

And that's the whole issue right there. The game worlds have been dumbed down and made easy with zero consequences to speak of, because that's what players want and won't tolerate having to deal with repercussions for bad decisions. Now you get a subset people complaining it's too easy, which quite honestly, you could make half the overland mobs one-shot players and it would still be easy, as all you have to do is hit E and keep on going.

Back in EQ when your raid wiped at the bottom of that dungeon, you had 24 hours to collect your body or it would go *poof* with all your items. You had to have a coffin so a necro could re-animate you, you had to have some Monks to drag your bodies back out to be ressed, or you had to have an entire backup set of gear or two (which was really hard to do back then) in order to fight your way back down again.

That got your heart pumping!

BlueRaven · April 2021

Iccotak wrote: »

We don’t know the cost of what such an endeavor would entail but also keep in mind that ESO is a successfully running MMO that now has the backing of Microsoft.

Zos, post Microsoft agreement, just tightened up the oroboros crate giveaways they were doing.

ZOS_Adrikoth wrote: »

This is correct, viewers will need to watch for 1 hour and claim the Ouroboros Crown Crate reward for the Jester's Festival campaign mentioned at the bottom of this page.

Information on this, including a viewer's progress within a campaign, can be found at Twitch.tv/drops

So if they are flush with Microsoft cash they certainly are not showing any signs of passing it along. Even if the giveaways cost them zero dollars.

Also, people on this thread keep coming up with numbers like “70% of the content is overland” or whatever.

Let’s pretend that is true, that means they would need about ...

70% more server space.
70% more maintenance on those servers.
70% more bandwidth to transfer that data.

None of that is free.

Not to mention they need developers to rebalance and re animate all the effected mobs. Including sounds for these new abilities.
AND the development cost of future dlcs would need to increase because they need to rebalance and animate the content twice.

•••

Microsoft and Zos are a business. Nothing they do is because they ”thought it would be cool” or “they are all about gamers”.
At the end of the day they need to show a return on investment, especially now because there are investors they need to answer to. Unlike before when they were a private company.

The best thing they can do, is put in a preference that nerfs you. Just a switch that can be easily turned on and off when you feel like it.
Maybe someone can make an addon that blocks the effects of cp or something like that.
A “they can just spend more money” solution is not a real answer.

Eiregirl · April 2021

"We generally are all in agreement that old Craglorn was not fun and are not asking for something that forces a group."

For me and many other people at the time the main problem that was pointed out to the devs over and over was not just forced group content but people having to be on the same stage of the story quest in order to do the quest. This went on for so long that many people just up and quit the game.

For most people I know the main problem was not the difficulty of the zone but requiring everyone in the group to be on the same stage of the story quest in order to advance the quest. That pissed off more people than anything about craglorn. There was never a problem finding people for pick up groups for all the other content in craglorn just those damn story quests until they finally fixed that problem but it was fixed far to late to stop a mass exodus of people I knew.

ZOS_GregoryV · April 2021

Greetings all,

After removing a handful of post, we would like to remind everyone to be sure to keep all posts on the subject at hand.

Thank you for your understanding,
-Greg-

Raegwyr · April 2021

BlueRaven wrote: »

Also, people on this thread keep coming up with numbers like “70% of the content is overland” or whatever.

Let’s pretend that is true, that means they would need about ...

70% more server space.
70% more maintenance on those servers.
70% more bandwidth to transfer that data.

Most server space is related to player inventories, characters, gear progression, achievements, items etc. Adding more overland content adds almost nothing to "server space".
[snip]
Amount of calculations which transfers between client and server would stay mostly the same (combat calc, trading, etc). If highier then it would be related to more player playing the content which is a good thing.

The only big cost of this change is development cost, not maintenance.
[snip] For overland mobs, we have finite amount of enemy types there. Add 3 new attack types to scorpion enemies and more then half existing zones would receive changes. Like I said, number of different enemy types in game is not that much.
As for questing bosses, they could start with increasing their damage and hp. And connect all those changes to normal/vet toggle.

[edited for baiting]

Hurbster · April 2021

CableBomb wrote: »

Despite overland being too easy I still enjoy dropping Meteor on the squorpians in Reaper's March.

Revenge for the Vet levels!

Syxonas · April 2021

I would like to see a more challenging Overland content ,as the time goes by i can only have fun making dungeons or trails because it's the only way i cannot be mindless passing though everything, ESO have very good quest stories, and you hear about monsters, and caverns, enchanted places, but when you arrive, almost everything die pretty quickly, so the stories lose it sense, what is the point of questing? for me the excitement of getting to new places, exploring areas, finding loot and having a good challenge and feel that i earn a reward, and at first it's okey, you're not that powerful, doesn't have sets, or very structured builds, but they are not going to stay there forever.

I'm not expert though and this is for a player point of view, not looking to offend anyone that thinks different, but they can try some things and see if it works maybe..

what about:

Overland - Hard mode

- No more xp gained, same as normal (for preserving the farmers of xp)
- Improved quest loot (Purple quality) (maybe some crafting sets from the area for those who don't like crafting or don't want to level them up).
- Cosmetics (Reskin from normal versions) (maybe with special effects)
- Group content in some final stages of the quests.
- Penalties higher for dying (give rewards accordingly to the risk, maybe random motif spawn, recipies, etc.)

This are just thoughts.

A better responsive combat would help too, most of the time i feel i hit air, but that is another topic.

Daraklus · April 2021

Well... I have read through the whole thread as it went on, and now I wish to take an opportunity to say my own piece about the combat, as someone who does play with someone who is relatively new. So if you don't want to take my word for it, at least take the word of my playmate.

So, been playing for a while, and I can safely say that the combat in the overland is indeed dull. The enemies don't deal all that much damage, they die very quickly and the only interesting thing that they do is synergize oil and fire combinations to cause an AoE fire effect. Other than that, it's nothing too spectacular.

Frankly one solution that I see to this is to shift yourself to a "Veteran" state of the world, where you will have enemies that can be a threat to you. How to balance it you might wonder? Well I've been playing Maelstrom Arena and the enemies there may die fairly quickly as well if you deal enough damage, but they still put up a fight. The enemies there can kill you if you aren't paying attention, so I can see it be balanced around Maelstrom Arena levels; Where the enemies can still kill you if you don't pay any attention, but if you're super-geared and what have you. Sounds fair, doesn't it?

As mentioned, I am playing the game with someone, my girlfriend. She is fairly new and I don't think either of us are very challenged by the enemies we are fighting. We completed the story in Glenumbra, and it lead up to a great epic showdown against Angof.... Only for him to die in ten seconds. I am not sure how anyone can consider that to be an "Exciting conclusion" to a story, and it is rather annoying to then see people being fine with this, because they are scared that someone with thumbs up his noses would be unable to stand on their own two feet. Though something tells me these people don't actually care about these players having a good experience and likely have a more selfish reason to be against the world being a bit more difficult.

Now there are too many comments to shift through to single out any specific ones, so I will quote some broad concepts that people are sharing here.

"The overworld is supposed to be playable for everyone, and it is supposed to be easy."
While that is true, it does however prove to devalue any kind of story beats when bosses die very fast. The only time a boss didn't die immediately was Faolchu the Zombie Werewolf... Only because somewhere close to death his "Immunity" kicked in and had to take a few extra swings before falling over. Didn't even need fire to kill him.

The overland isn't just "Easy", it's "Very easy". It's novice difficulty for Skyrim, it's the Oblivion difficulty slider set to the very left, it is as if you have set your difficulty to the one where the character has a pacifier in his mouth in any FPS game.

Have it be easy if you want, but the "Lowest common denominator" can't be good design.

"There are new players who struggle, and I take on World events and I die!"
This is strange, because my girlfriend hasn't been struggling. You might say "Well of course she doesn't, she is playing with you, someone who is experienced", but even if she takes on a group of enemies by herself she has no problems. Besides, the only way someone can realistically "Struggle" is if they never played any action RPG game ever, or play games on the easiest difficulty.

And no wonder people would struggle taking on world events. They're group events, not exactly something to take on by yourself. So if you decide to go up to a dragon in Elsweyr by yourself and get killed by it, you shouldn't be acting surprised and think that the overland is somehow "Perfectly balanced" because of it.

"Take off all your armor and Champion Points, see how you will like it then!"
Actually, I've done that when leveling new characters. I can safely say that "Gimping" myself wasn't all that fun, mostly because it was me actively playing against the whole "RPG Purpose".

It really is not a solution. Purposefully avoiding rising power levels is a direct opposite to what an RPG is supposed to be. You level up, you get new stuff, that new stuff should also be there to help you take on further challenges. You don't see that in ESO, or at least not for the overland considering how static it is in difficulty, with only world bosses and events putting up something close to a challenge, mostly in the newer zones.

"Well if you don't like the easy overland difficulty, why don't you go do dungeons and raids then?"
Sorry, but I'm not interested in raiding, and dungeons are fun and all, but I don't like pugs. That, and there is no content that two players can play in. The Arenas would be quite nice if they also had the option for two players to take them on, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Can I also just say that it is really "Elitist" to tell people to do dungeons if they are not too happy with the overland. I thought it was supposed to be "For everyone" and yet people are actively telling people to go away from it? And here I thought dungeon grinders and their unrealistic expectations for DPS were elitists.

BXR_Lonestar wrote: »

Overland content is not endgame content.

This is possibly the rudest thing anyone can say. Who can say what is endgame and what isn't? You might tthink that "Overland isn't endgame", but that is just your opinion. Your endgame might be PvP, another player might see dungeons and raids as the endgame, meanwhile a third player may find crafting and house decoration be their endgame.

There are more things I could put in, but I've got Jubilee boxes to pick up. I'll keep track of this thread further.

SilverBride · April 2021

Daraklus wrote: »

Who can say what is endgame and what isn't? You might tthink that "Overland isn't endgame", but that is just your opinion. Your endgame might be PvP, another player might see dungeons and raids as the endgame, meanwhile a third player may find crafting and house decoration be their endgame.

To paraphrase what another poster pointed out in another thread, for players who chose to develop their character to its fullest, and gear up with all the bis, etc., everything outside of veteran dungeons and trials is going to be too easy for them. But that was their choice. They geared up for veteran content and there is plenty of that to be had.

A veteran player complaining that overland is too easy is like someone with a doctorate degree complaining that their job at McDonald's isn't challenging enough for them. Do the the job you prepared for.

ZoS isn't going to use valuable time and resources to create a completely new world, then maintain it, just because a small minority of players don't want to play the content they developed their character for.

Daraklus · April 2021

SilverBride wrote: »

To paraphrase what another poster pointed out in another thread, for players who chose to develop their character to its fullest, and gear up with all the bis, etc., everything outside of veteran dungeons and trials is going to be too easy for them. But that was their choice. They geared up for veteran content and there is plenty of that to be had.

A veteran player complaining that overland is too easy is like someone with a doctorate degree complaining that their job at McDonald's isn't challenging enough for them. Do the the job you prepared for.

ZoS isn't going to use valuable time and resources to create a completely new world, then maintain it, just because a small minority of players don't want to play the content they developed their character for.

That may be, but you'd figure that as you get your character stronger, the world would get stronger with you as well. Such as as you level the things scale with you. And you know, there is more to the game than just "Dungeons and Trials", and I find it to be very counter-productive and rather counter-to-the-point of the RPG game to see people effectively say "Don't make yourself more powerful if you don't want the rest of the game be too easy then"

Not to mention that things are already easy just leveling new characters, but I digress

And it isn't just "Being geared for veteran", it could easily just as well be that people either aren't "Ready" (I put that in quotation marks because I find it to be nonsensical to say it like that) for things Veteran, despite having the gear for it. I helped my girlfriend gear herself up with the best obtainable items, or at least stuff that she read as good for starters, only to then be met with people wanting to kick her out of the group because she wasn't dealing hundreds of thousands of DPS.

Was a time when I was geared to do Veteran, only to be shunned because I didn't deal a ton of damage, so I was stuck doing insultingly easy content wearing blinged out gear. It was quite annoying and would've welcomed a mid-way difficulty tier between Overland Easy and Veteran Dungeon hard.

I see this being said repeatedly, that it would be "A waste of resources", when the irony is that the framework is already there. Phasing tech is everywhere in the game, I highly doubt that it would be a massive difficulty to make a phase in which monsters are scaled up a bit to make them be a bit more of a threat than just a fly buzzing infront of you.

In B-Four a self-proclaimed coding expert comes in to repeatedly say "You are wrong" with no details as to why.

SilverBride · April 2021

Daraklus wrote: »

...you'd figure that as you get your character stronger, the world would get stronger with you as well.

Why would you figure that? There have never been any claims that this is how ESO works. I don't know any MMO where the base world continues to get harder. Why would ESO be any different?