Overland Content Feedback Thread

AlexanderDeLarge · April 10

I was there too and as mentioned, TESO had many other problems that contributed to Craglorn and Cadwell Silver/Gold's cold reception. Primarily the game being completely broken and borderline unplayable at time of release on top of a mandatory subscription fee.

It is absolutely baffling that this is the only official communication/line of thinking we have regarding the state of overland difficulty as of April 9th 2025. Hoping tomorrow's is far more satisfactory because I've been calling that out for years. Citing a version of the game that hasn't existed for nearly a decade is ridiculous.

My signature exists for a reason.

sans-culottes · April 10

SilverBride wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

As for Cadwell’s Silver and Gold: they didn’t fail because difficulty is bad.

I was there and difficulty was a big reason why.
Can we get a vet mode for delves and quests? Uh, so we had that ... at launch. It was called Cadwell's Silver and Cadwell's Gold. Nobody did it and everybody hated it, so we took it out. We put the challenge into World Bosses, and into solo Arenas, and into Dungeons and Trials.

[Speaks about skyshards then returns to the topic.]

People didn't do it because they had to go through their own alliance first? That's not actually true. A ton of people completed their own alliance storylines to get to silver and gold. A ton of people did. People just did not like the extra difficulty in the story stuff.

I get there’s a lot of people that do like the harder difficulty, but a HUGE portion of our player base just wants to do story, and they don’t want to have to struggle with difficult things. And so that was why we did what we did and said story is soloable and crit path will always be soloable and if you want the extra challenge you can go seek out other things to challenge you.

I totally hear you on the difficulty thing. I like things to be more difficult. But you know, the data doesn’t lie. And we have never been more successful than we are today. And a lot of that has to do with just how much freedom players have to go and experience story.

And yes, go look at Craglorn. There’s not a lot of people in Craglorn and that’s not super difficult but it’s more hard than the regular overland.

Would it be an option just to give people the choice? It is not as simple as just flip a switch and make things more difficult. There is a TON of work and then as Lucky mentioned earlier you have to also incentivize that. Like just making something more difficult for no reason, if you’re not going to get anything out of it why do it? The satisfaction's there sure but players are always going to do the thing that is the most efficient and is the least difficult thing for their time.

So, you know like I said, we went down that route. We built the game with difficulty in mind and 2/3rds of the game was never played by players so we changed it.

@SilverBride, while I appreciate the historical reference, I think it’s important to note that the issue with Cadwell’s Silver/Gold wasn’t just “difficulty.” It was the lack of incentive, the repetition, and the fact that it was mandatory—not optional—to experience the full story.

The very quote you’re citing even acknowledges that many players do want more challenge and that the key is how and where it’s implemented. That’s why people are asking for optional difficulty modes, not a repeat of Cadwell’s design.

The game has evolved enormously since then—armory builds, CP reworks, accessibility tools, UI improvements. Optional difficulty scaling in story zones would be part of that same evolution, much like what we already see with dungeons and arenas.

I don’t think revisiting challenge—in a new and better format—is the same as repeating an old mistake.

SilverBride · April 10

sans-culottes wrote: »

@SilverBride, while I appreciate the historical reference, I think it’s important to note that the issue with Cadwell’s Silver/Gold wasn’t just “difficulty.”

I never once said the problem was just difficulty. But as we can see from that transcript it was absolutely a big factor.

So let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

AlexanderDeLarge · April 10

spartaxoxo wrote: »

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

There's only so many new players you can chase until you need to do something to keep the ones you have and get lapsed ones to come back.

I honestly think they know that and they aren't going to do anything forced. They haven't outright stated anything but all the hints in interviews by either that content creator or ZOS has pointed towards optional. I'd be pretty surprised if they announced they were cranking up the difficulty to something like VMA for everybody. It doesn't seem likely.

I agree, I don't want anything forced, I see the lack of veteran overland difficulty as a massive missing piece of the progression curve and despite how annoyed I am that a large portion of the game's lifespan has been wasted waiting for tomorrow's announcement, I can sympathize with the situation they've been put in. Operating a buy2play game where they're incentivized to create the hot new thing that'll serve as an entry point for new customers and keeping existing players happy is really difficult when you're putting out a new expansion every year on top of two dungeon DLCs and possibly even a DLC zone.

There's no doubt that if the game were still subscription-based, we would've gotten this years ago.

Their "season of the ___" release cadence was their own worst enemy. It was stale and formulaic for a lot of us by the time Greymoor rolled around. That director's letter was the first time I was optimistic about the state of the game in years because it seems like they're going to be a little less rigid with their cadence... and that opens up new opportunities. I'd love to see them iterate on what they already have rather than adding more. Veteran overland is an example of that. Perhaps we get iteration on Dark Brotherhood sacraments and Thieves Guild heists next. New content in previously released zones perhaps?

Hard to iterate on what you already have when you're going into production on the next expansion/dungeon pack the day after you ship the last one.

spartaxoxo · April 10

Here's a quote compilation of some reasons I think it is likely to be optional. I figure looking back at what they had to say in 2024 besides only the end of year letter would be good. We will see what happens but I honestly think the whole thing about forced will end up moo.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Reasons to believe that overland will not be forced....

1. They said in prior several interviews including their last that they have to be careful with any overland adjustments to not make things too hard for their casual player
2. They listed whatever happens under the systems/ideas category. All prior systems have been optional
3. Previously forced difficulty almost killed the game and corporations are inherently risk adverse
4. Previous feedback in this thread was near universal that whatever happened needed to be optional
5. When a player started panicking about it being forced, Kevin came in here and told them they didn't even know it what was yet. He can't tell us what it is yet but IMO this is a strong hint that such panic was not necessary. There's really no other reason to post this to that feedback
6. The last time similar hints were dropped we got Infinite Archive
7. Devs have stated repeatedly that the number of vets who want this is smaller than the number of casuals and that the majority of players enjoy the story. Corporations are risk adverse
8. They already did forced difficulty increases without announcements. They walked some of it back (e.g. public dungeon boss in Silorn). Unlike those changes, this one was announced

Here's what a streamer teased.

old_scopie1945 wrote: »

There is a link below. Timed @ 3:40.
https://youtu.be/jZ7E_X_byD4

...And one final point is that a lot of people were in my comments saying "increasing the overland difficulty is horrible! Never do that!" I just want to point out, that there are not going to make the mudcrabs have 100k health. That's not what they mean when they are talking about addressing overland content. It's either doing limited time incursion style events or maybe a random base game zone gets invaded and all the players can go over there and fight in a trial-esque style boss fight, you know in an incursion style event. That's not the same as like "now the mudcrabs have 100k health." There was also conversations about allowing you to do higher difficulties but these would all be self-imposed things. Its' not instead of being able to one shot chickens down the road, well now the chickens have one million health like they do in the real world. And they'll attack you like they do in the real world. BTW don't wear red around chickens. They hate it.

A streamer teasing what was coming after they dropped the studio letter. We don't know how much of this changed since their conversation about their thoughts, how much he knows, etc. So, can't treat this the same as a developer statement.

But given all the developer statements repeatedly against the idea of forced difficulty, it seems highly unlikely they've done a 180. And we know the streamer was right about the incursions being updated.

Here's what they said back in January about Overland of 2024

https://massivelyop.com/2024/01/18/elder-scrolls-onlines-gold-road-chapter-takes-players-back-to-oblivions-best-city-on-june-3/

Similarly, open-world content is balanced for casual play; ZOS is not going to make the open-world game or story content too hard because they don’t want people to quit. People who want challenge are funneled into dungeons.

And here's what they said back in April of 2024, long before the studio letter.

https://www.thegamer.com/the-elder-scrolls-online-creative-director-rich-lambert-10-year-anniversary-interview/

Of course, ten years means ESO has accrued its own veterans, and with One Tamriel stripping away the level restrictions and putting all zones - even new ones - on the same level playing field, many old-timers now find the game too easy. It’s an interesting contrast as ESO being too hard was what once pushed so many away.

“We do hear that feedback all the time,” Lambert says. “‘Give us a difficulty slider, let us do hard modes.’ There’s things we’re looking at but it’s not a simple problem because ten different people can play the game and they all play it ten different ways and it’s hard for some and easy for others. So we have to find the happy medium ground where the most amount of people can enjoy it.”

spartaxoxo · April 10

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

Perhaps we get iteration on Dark Brotherhood sacraments and Thieves Guild heists next. New content in previously released zones perhaps?

Oh! Speaking of that. I think you'd be interested in seeing something my guild mate stumbled onto when escaping from a guard in Vivec. On the island West of the battlegrounds stuff behind the guild traders.

sans-culottes · April 10

spartaxoxo wrote: »

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

Perhaps we get iteration on Dark Brotherhood sacraments and Thieves Guild heists next. New content in previously released zones perhaps?

Oh! Speaking of that. I think you'd be interested in seeing something my guild mate stumbled onto when escaping from a guard in Vivec. On the island West of the battlegrounds stuff behind the guild traders.

I’ve been curious about this, too. You have the option to talk with Bearra, the juvenile gryphon. However, attempting to interact with this creature has no effect.

Snamyap · April 10

SilverBride wrote: »

ZoS said "Increasing the difficulty of standard overworld combat", not "Optionally increasing the difficulty of standard overworld combat".

Whether or not anyone is asking that the current experience be ruined for the rest of us, that is exactly what a mandatory increase in overland difficulty will do for many.

Zenimax just dropping in that line, which could interpreted in a myriad of ways, and then not giving any further information for months has to be one of the poorest communication attempts of them yet, and that's saying something. They know it's a hot topic, hence this stickied thread, they should know better. Making people worry for that long is just rude.

SilverBride · April 10

Snamyap wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

ZoS said "Increasing the difficulty of standard overworld combat", not "Optionally increasing the difficulty of standard overworld combat".

Whether or not anyone is asking that the current experience be ruined for the rest of us, that is exactly what a mandatory increase in overland difficulty will do for many.

Zenimax just dropping in that line, which could interpreted in a myriad of ways, and then not giving any further information for months has to be one of the poorest communication attempts of them yet, and that's saying something. They know it's a hot topic, hence this stickied thread, they should know better. Making people worry for that long is just rude.

The way it was worded points to it being a mandatory difficulty increase. I expressed disappointment at this and Kevin was very quick to respond, which I appreciated. But the doubts are still there and just a little more info would have gone a long way to alleviate fears.

No matter how anyone feels about overland difficulty, if this is a mandatory increase it can be devastating for many players, even causing some to no longer be able to play.

Well the wait is almost over.

DeathStalker · April 10

Snamyap wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

ZoS said "Increasing the difficulty of standard overworld combat", not "Optionally increasing the difficulty of standard overworld combat".

Whether or not anyone is asking that the current experience be ruined for the rest of us, that is exactly what a mandatory increase in overland difficulty will do for many.

Zenimax just dropping in that line, which could interpreted in a myriad of ways, and then not giving any further information for months has to be one of the poorest communication attempts of them yet, and that's saying something. They know it's a hot topic, hence this stickied thread, they should know better. Making people worry for that long is just rude.

This thought has been a part of my problem as well. All they had to say was " yes or no it will be mandatory". No plans or surprises would have been ruined. But they didn't care enough about their players to try to alleviate the worry and fear. which leaves the outliers like me struggling with being bitter,

SilverBride · April 10

I'm not struggling with being bitter. I am bitter. Being left imagining the worse for 3 months could have been avoided with just 2 little words... not mandatory.

Credible_Joe · April 10

Let's speculate on signaling vs reception on the term 'Mandatory'

Scenario A: They signal it's mandatory. Lots of people have a meltdown and a hurricane stirs up on the forums. Bad ending.

Scenario B: They signal it's not mandatory, or that it's optional. But then they announce a system where there's incentive or reward. Technically not mandatory, but the meltdown will still happen because very few people here can keep their FOMO in check and will argue they are compelled to participate or else miss out on rewards or content. Bad ending.

Scenario C: They signal it's not mandatory, or that it's optional. The announcement rolls by, and there's absolutely no incentive to participate in the new system. This is practically the same as scenario B, because people are so addicted to rewards that any system that doesn't give any is perceived as wasted dev time. The other side of FOMO. Bad ending.

Scenario

They don't signal anything at all, no one can argue bad signaling one way or the other, and the announcement is received with no pre-conceptions or expectations. Except, of course, the ones we're basically making up based un previous signaling tangentially related to this topic.

Let's not conflate our own speculation with what the studio has actually signaled, which is nothing. We can argue one way or the other what we expect or want it to be, we can't put words in their mouths based on what they have or have not said.

edit: leaving the emoji

SilverBride · April 10

Credible_Joe wrote: »

Let's not conflate our own speculation with what the studio has actually signaled, which is nothing. We can argue one way or the other what we expect or want it to be, we can't put words in their mouths based on what they have or have not said.

We didn't put the words ""Increasing the difficulty of standard overworld combat" in their mouths. That is exactly how it was presented, which comes across as mandatory.

sans-culottes · April 10

SilverBride wrote: »

Credible_Joe wrote: »

Let's not conflate our own speculation with what the studio has actually signaled, which is nothing. We can argue one way or the other what we expect or want it to be, we can't put words in their mouths based on what they have or have not said.

We didn't put the words ""Increasing the difficulty of standard overworld combat" in their mouths. That is exactly how it was presented, which comes across as mandatory.

@SilverBride, with respect, I think you’re collapsing a pretty important distinction.

No one is denying that ZOS used the phrase “increasing the difficulty of standard overworld combat.” That much is clear. But interpreting that line as a definitive, mandatory, across-the-board change—especially in the absence of further context—is speculation. Reasonable speculation, perhaps, but speculation all the same.

Plenty of other systems in ESO have been described in general terms before release and ended up with toggles, menus, opt-ins, or difficulty tiers. “Increasing difficulty” doesn’t automatically exclude the possibility of optionality—particularly in a game where optional difficulty is the norm in dungeons, trials, arenas, and even PvP scaling.

Until ZOS clarifies the implementation, I don’t think we can treat one phrase as a binding manifesto.

SilverBride · April 10

sans-culottes wrote: »

No one is denying that ZOS used the phrase “increasing the difficulty of standard overworld combat.” That much is clear. But interpreting that line as a definitive, mandatory, across-the-board change—especially in the absence of further context—is speculation. Reasonable speculation, perhaps, but speculation all the same.

Of course it's speculation. Without getting any further information to go on, speculation is all we have.

Credible_Joe · April 10

SilverBride wrote: »

Credible_Joe wrote: »

Let's not conflate our own speculation with what the studio has actually signaled, which is nothing. We can argue one way or the other what we expect or want it to be, we can't put words in their mouths based on what they have or have not said.

We didn't put the words ""Increasing the difficulty of standard overworld combat" in their mouths. That is exactly how it was presented, which comes across as mandatory.

Yeah, and they've been silent on every request to clarify on whether or not it's mandatory, which makes the answer to that question extremely ambiguous. We're right back where we started.

Pick a lane. Are you sure it'll be mandatory because of the initial announcement, or because they won't respond to requests for clarification? Or is switching from one to the other every time one is addressed just the best way to drag on this back and forth?

SilverBride · April 10

Credible_Joe wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Credible_Joe wrote: »

Let's not conflate our own speculation with what the studio has actually signaled, which is nothing. We can argue one way or the other what we expect or want it to be, we can't put words in their mouths based on what they have or have not said.

We didn't put the words ""Increasing the difficulty of standard overworld combat" in their mouths. That is exactly how it was presented, which comes across as mandatory.

Yeah, and they've been silent on every request to clarify on whether or not it's mandatory, which makes the answer to that question extremely ambiguous. We're right back where we started.

Pick a lane. Are you sure it'll be mandatory because of the initial announcement, or because they won't respond to requests for clarification? Or is switching from one to the other every time one is addressed just the best way to drag on this back and forth?

I am not sure of anything except that having even a tiny bit of clarification could have alleviated fears and led to more productive discussion.

Credible_Joe · April 10

SilverBride wrote: »

Credible_Joe wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Credible_Joe wrote: »

Let's not conflate our own speculation with what the studio has actually signaled, which is nothing. We can argue one way or the other what we expect or want it to be, we can't put words in their mouths based on what they have or have not said.

We didn't put the words ""Increasing the difficulty of standard overworld combat" in their mouths. That is exactly how it was presented, which comes across as mandatory.

Yeah, and they've been silent on every request to clarify on whether or not it's mandatory, which makes the answer to that question extremely ambiguous. We're right back where we started.

Pick a lane. Are you sure it'll be mandatory because of the initial announcement, or because they won't respond to requests for clarification? Or is switching from one to the other every time one is addressed just the best way to drag on this back and forth?

I am not sure of anything except that having even a tiny bit of clarification could have alleviated fears and led to more productive discussion.

In that case, I already wrote it out. Clarifying one way or the other before the announcement is a bad idea that will inevitably lead to a PR nightmare. In case you didn't read my comment except for the last line, or context for readers skimming the discourse:

Scenario A: They signal it's mandatory. Lots of people have a meltdown and a hurricane stirs up on the forums. Bad ending.

Scenario B: They signal it's not mandatory, or that it's optional. But then they announce a system where there's incentive or reward. Technically not mandatory, but the meltdown will still happen because very few people here can keep their FOMO in check and will argue they are compelled to participate or else miss out on rewards or content. Bad ending.

Scenario C: They signal it's not mandatory, or that it's optional. The announcement rolls by, and there's absolutely no incentive to participate in the new system. This is practically the same as scenario B, because people are so addicted to rewards that any system that doesn't give any is perceived as wasted dev time. The other side of FOMO. Bad ending.

Scenario

They don't signal anything at all, no one can argue bad signaling one way or the other, and the announcement is received with no pre-conceptions or expectations. Except, of course, the ones we're basically making up based un previous signaling tangentially related to this topic.

I believe the most likely outcome is scenario B. It gives the most incentive for the studio to stay silent, as 'Mandatory' is a black-and-white word applied to a technical outcome.

The engaged users will always split hairs and find every possible misstep and gaffe in communication a studio can possibly make. Sometimes the best approach is not to communicate at all. There's no possible good that can come from any more from the studio on this topic any amount of time between the initial tease and the official announcement.

SilverBride · April 10

Credible_Joe wrote: »

There's no possible good that can come from any more from the studio on this topic any amount of time between the initial tease and the official announcement.

I disagree. This announcement has caused 3 months of stress for a lot of players.

Maybe they should have just said something like "We are going to look at overland difficulty" which would not have set off alarms like saying an increase in overland difficulty without specifying if it is mandatory or not.

sans-culottes · April 10

SilverBride wrote: »

Credible_Joe wrote: »

There's no possible good that can come from any more from the studio on this topic any amount of time between the initial tease and the official announcement.

I disagree. This announcement has caused 3 months of stress for a lot of players.

Maybe they should have just said something like "We are going to look at overland difficulty" which would not have set off alarms like saying an increase in overland difficulty without specifying if it is mandatory or not.

@SilverBride, I understand the impulse to want more clarity upfront, but I think it’s worth asking: how much of the “three months of stress” is coming from the actual wording of the teaser, and how much is coming from the way some players have responded to it?

“Catastrophizing” might be too strong a word, but there’s definitely been a lot of assuming the worst. That’s not necessarily on ZOS. As @Credible_Joe laid out, any early clarification could have created new waves of backlash depending on what was (or wasn’t) promised. In that light, staying quiet until they have a finalized plan may have been the most measured option.

Credible_Joe · April 10

SilverBride wrote: »

Credible_Joe wrote: »

There's no possible good that can come from any more from the studio on this topic any amount of time between the initial tease and the official announcement.

I disagree. This announcement has caused 3 months of stress for a lot of players.

Maybe they should have just said something like "We are going to look at overland difficulty" which would not have set off alarms like saying an increase in overland difficulty without specifying if it is mandatory or not.

This back and forth is fully circular at this point.

If we argue that their initial tease shouldn't be interpreted as a concrete assertion, you cite their lack of response to follow-up questions.

If we present the silence as evidence that it's almost certainly not mandatory, we're back to extrapolating the initial tease to a concrete assertion.

It's pretty clear that catastrophizing this is you're only platform, and further discourse is fully unproductive. But what's also clear is that there are many reasons to expect this not to be mandatory. The two that don't each rely on the other being false in a circular loop that mutually precludes both.

edits for clarity and quote-reply-sequence

Muizer · April 10

AlexanderDeLarge wrote: »

I'd love to see them iterate on what they already have rather than adding more. Veteran overland is an example of that. Perhaps we get iteration on Dark Brotherhood sacraments and Thieves Guild heists next. New content in previously released zones perhaps?

Hard to iterate on what you already have when you're going into production on the next expansion/dungeon pack the day after you ship the last one.

I actually expect inserting new content in the existing overland will be their way to address overland difficulty. Compared to massive undertaking inserting and rebalancing difficulty levels, it has major benefits for ZOS. Mainly, it would be new content, so it can be sold as such and it would be low risk because it is the kind of thing they have experience with and therefore can be planned with some confidence. Anyway, that's where I place my bets for today's reveal.

spartaxoxo · April 10

-snipped for brevity-

Quoted post has been removed

Some of the "nothing can be optional everything is mandatory always," perception that has ZOS has garnered on this topic and other unrelated topics is the launch of AWA and how communication surrounded that. They did not initially present it as mandatory purely for performance reasons but instead presented AWA as something many players had asked for. Most player requests for AWA was optional but then what we got was mandatory.

ETA: This created a hostility towards optional requests out of fear it would be implemented in a way that was mandatory.

It's important to remember though that the reason it was mandatory is because of performance. They technologically speaking needed to do what they did to keep the game performant. That's a very different type of change than things made to suit other player requests. It should not be used as a piece of evidence for mandatory because there's not really performance gains to get from making the game more difficult, no matter the implementation.

spartaxoxo · April 10

Muizer wrote: »

I actually expect inserting new content in the existing overland will be their way to address overland difficulty. Compared to massive undertaking inserting and rebalancing difficulty levels, it has major benefits for ZOS. Mainly, it would be new content, so it can be sold as such and it would be low risk because it is the kind of thing they have experience with and therefore can be planned with some confidence. Anyway, that's where I place my bets for today's reveal.

I think there is a decent chance there you're correct. If they did mandatory, I think this would be how rather than overhauling everything.

It's true that the phrasing of the letter was pretty concrete so this is a distinct possibility. We'll see on the live.

ZOS_GregoryV · April 10

Greetings all,

After removing a handful of posts, we feel a need to remind all members of the community to be sure that all posts stay within the guidelines of the Community Rules. Flaming is a violation of these rules, and is stated as follows:

Flaming: It’s okay to disagree and debate on the official ESO forums, but we do ask that you keep all disagreements civil, constructive, and on-topic. If a discussion gets heated and turns into a debate, remember that you should stick to debating the post and/or thread topic. It is never appropriate to resort to personal comments or jabs about those participating in the thread discussion.

If there may be any questions in regards to the rules, please take a few moments to review them here.

Regards,
-Greg-

AlexanderDeLarge · April 10

I really hope overland difficulty is discussed in the post-show because it wasn't mentioned at all in the direct today.

Credible_Joe · April 10

Credible_Joe wrote: »

Let's speculate on signaling vs reception on the term 'Mandatory'

Scenario A: They signal it's mandatory. Lots of people have a meltdown and a hurricane stirs up on the forums. Bad ending.

Scenario B: They signal it's not mandatory, or that it's optional. But then they announce a system where there's incentive or reward. Technically not mandatory, but the meltdown will still happen because very few people here can keep their FOMO in check and will argue they are compelled to participate or else miss out on rewards or content. Bad ending.

Scenario C: They signal it's not mandatory, or that it's optional. The announcement rolls by, and there's absolutely no incentive to participate in the new system. This is practically the same as scenario B, because people are so addicted to rewards that any system that doesn't give any is perceived as wasted dev time. The other side of FOMO. Bad ending.

Scenario They don't signal anything at all, no one can argue bad signaling one way or the other, and the announcement is received with no pre-conceptions or expectations. Except, of course, the ones we're basically making up based un previous signaling tangentially related to this topic.

Let's not conflate our own speculation with what the studio has actually signaled, which is nothing. We can argue one way or the other what we expect or want it to be, we can't put words in their mouths based on what they have or have not said.

edit: leaving the emoji

Plot twist, it's scenario E: Don't signal anything at all, don't mention this topic in the announcement stream.

Don't know which ending this is. But hey-- sounds like this season's content will have much larger scope than anything before. Server wide story progression sounds cool.

sans-culottes · April 10

It was a notable omission.

disky · April 10

So...did I miss something, or was overland difficulty not actually discussed in the live? I'm watching the aftershow now, but I was under the impression that I was going to see something in the main show.

I guess I'll reserve my full reaction until the aftershow is over, but...huh. Subclassing looks great, but if the game is going to continue to be a cakewalk anyway then I'm still not excited for the future of the game.

Snamyap · April 10

disky wrote: »

So...did I miss something, or was overland difficulty not actually discussed in the live? I'm watching the aftershow now, but I was under the impression that I was going to see something in the main show.

I guess I'll reserve my full reaction until the aftershow is over, but...huh. Subclassing looks great, but if the game is going to continue to be a cakewalk anyway then I'm still not excited for the future of the game.

I like the idea of subclassing, but it's probably going to create even more powerful characters compared to the environment.