How Often Do You Play Solo?

frogthroat

About 50%

Nihilr wrote: »

My husband and I play duo when I play, but he plays solo mostly. This includes pvp. If most players are TES fans and not so much MMO fans, then maybe ZoS should be making co-op (duo/4-player) OPTIONS for the 12-player trials... Hmm? Less rewards, but also less headache and faster to group.

Before people butt in:
• No, we don't want to be forced to join guilds and make weird/fake friendships for some loot...
• No, we don't want to sit in zone chat for hours waiting for nothing instead of going around doing things productively...
• And the group-finder tool isn't used hardly as much as it should be used...

To make content aimed at 12 people accessible for even 4 people groups would require an immense amount of game balancing. They are not designed for that and to balance them that way is not really feasible. There should be some content for 12 people groups, too. Most of the content in this game can be completed solo. Trials are almost the only thing where you really must have more people (excluding AS).

For smaller groups there already is content. Lots of solo content in overland/quests, IA, two arenas. IA is for duo, too. And those 12-player trials for 4 people? There already is an option like that: dungeons and two arenas.

There's so much different kind of content in this game ranging from solo to 12 players game balancing is already extremely difficult and we tend to forget how great job zos is doing. We find all the faults and forget that to make the game accessible for everyone and keep the interest of more advanced players requires huge work.

And I appreciate that you can pick the activities that interest you and leave out those you do not want to participate in with minimal impact to your overall experience. I also do not want some things. For you it might be not wanting to find a 12 player group, but that blocks you from some content. For me it's card games. I really want those ToT goodies like the golden dye and the companion achievement. But because I really, really dislike card games I have to make a decision. So I do not have that dye or the achievement. I don't want that zos would change the game so that I could get those without playing cards. That would take away the accomplishment away from those who do like to play card games. I can find other things to do in this game.

But going back to game balancing and how difficult it is. Trials can already be completed with a smaller group. AA has a hard lock: the portals work only when there are 12 players standing on them. I don't like that. The content should be balanced for the intended number of players but there shouldn't be any physical barriers to stop you from trying with fewer people. Every other trial can be completed with single digit group. Most dungeons can be completed solo, even on hard mode. I like that it is possible and I do that myself, but that just goes to show how difficult the balancing is already.

Without doing some ridiculously extensive balancing work the only other option I would see is to remove the need for it completely in the way of introducing a story mode.

For example, all enemies nerfed 99% or something. No rewards, no achievements, but you can listen to the story. I would also want that the dungeon stories are repeatable but only give you rewards the first time. You need a new character for the story and the story gives you a skill point so there is no incentive to save the quest for later when you are levelling up your character. When all the rewards and xp are removed, there is no need for balancing and they could effectively "turn off" all the enemies in the story mode. But to make content designed for 12 players still interesting for 4 players would be a herculean task.

GloatingSwine

About 75%

Most of the content is solo, and at the moment I'm doing a chronological playthrough on a new character so that's pushing me to mostly be solo so I can do it all at my own pace. Once that's finished I'll start grouping more again.

peacenote

25% or less

I am here (and always have been here) for the "MMO" part of ESO vs. the "RPG" part of it. Most of my time in ESO is spent in trials, chasing dungeon trifectas, or PvPing. And when I play solo, most of that solo time is done to support my group activities... earn gold, farm a mythic, etc.

I do continue to chase achievements and will log in on my own to do this, but at the moment I'm doing that less and less, for a variety of reasons, including the fact that AwA ruined a lot of that for me, it's getting warm out, work is busy, and what little time I have to play solo games I tend to use towards games I can only play solo when my friends aren't around to play ESO.

I agree that the poll is a well structured poll and not biased, and the choice of "100% All the Time" probably needs little clarification, save for the fact that the point of whether solo means "ungrouped" vs "completely alone, including no activities that require playing against other players, like BG's, ToT, etc. might be worth exploring. However for anyone who isn't 100%, I have often thought that a better question might be "What activity keeps you logging into ESO over all else" to determine what drives the various community members. How much time is spent in game leads to an assumption that this is the preferred activity for the player, which isn't always true. For example, up until recently, my number might have been 75% or 50% solo activity but none of the things I was doing solo would have kept me here if my friends quit the game. My activities varied, but the reason I play and subscribe is for the group stuff.

Rick_S1

50%.I belong to two guilds that I run with, but our internal clocks don't match. I'm a morning person, and most players that I play with are night owls.

araminta63

100% All The Time

I play ESO because I can play solo.

I am caregiver to three adults. When they call... I go. That tends to make people in Raids really, really mad. And also generally results in a dead Araminta. I will join a group for the Halloween. But as soon as it's down I'm like "Good Job Everyone. Thanks for the group".. and I'm outta there.

There is some cool stuff that comes from the DLC dungeons that I can't solo. It's the price I pay for having a life and a family. It's worth it. Besides.. if I'm not doing trials then I don't need trial gear, right? I would have liked those ToT cards but since I only ever play PVE it's not like I need them.

ADarklore

100% All The Time

It's amazing that, even with this poll... some players still will make comments in threads about solo activities with, "But this is an MMO" when clearly, VERY CLEARLY, ESO hasn't been a traditional MMO in many many years. I wish people would just stop with that outdated and false argument. It doesn't apply to ESO, it doesn't apply to SWTOR, and many other current online multi-player games that are now mostly filled with solo players.

sans-culottes

About 50%

ADarklore wrote: »

It's amazing that, even with this poll... some players still will make comments in threads about solo activities with, "But this is an MMO" when clearly, VERY CLEARLY, ESO hasn't been a traditional MMO in many many years. I wish people would just stop with that outdated and false argument. It doesn't apply to ESO, it doesn't apply to SWTOR, and many other current online multi-player games that are now mostly filled with solo players.

This isn’t a scientific poll, @ADarklore. At best, it’s anecdotal evidence from a self-selected group of forum users. If you genuinely believe this is a representative sample of ESO’s entire playerbase, then I have some news for you.

And while we’re at it, saying “ESO hasn’t been a traditional MMO in many years” isn’t the mic drop you seem to think it is. ESO still hinges on shared systems, economies, and group-based scaling. Power shifts like subclassing affect everyone, including solo players, precisely because this is a multiplayer game. You can’t just wave that away when the consequences don’t go your way.

Credible_Joe

About 75%

.

sans-culottes wrote: »

ADarklore wrote: »

It's amazing that, even with this poll... some players still will make comments in threads about solo activities with, "But this is an MMO" when clearly, VERY CLEARLY, ESO hasn't been a traditional MMO in many many years. I wish people would just stop with that outdated and false argument. It doesn't apply to ESO, it doesn't apply to SWTOR, and many other current online multi-player games that are now mostly filled with solo players.

This isn’t a scientific poll, @ADarklore. At best, it’s anecdotal evidence from a self-selected group of forum users. If you genuinely believe this is a representative sample of ESO’s entire playerbase, then I have some news for you.

And while we’re at it, saying “ESO hasn’t been a traditional MMO in many years” isn’t the mic drop you seem to think it is. ESO still hinges on shared systems, economies, and group-based scaling. Power shifts like subclassing affect everyone, including solo players, precisely because this is a multiplayer game. You can’t just wave that away when the consequences don’t go your way.

Self selection bias applies when the poll or survey determines cause and effect, and is flawed in its assumption or assertion of cause. It's the same as bad infomercials where the hook is "Has this ever happened to YOU?" If that's the leading survey, you could say that purchasers of the product represent 100% of the population. Another example is if a poll is trying to determine if a crash course improves test scores, the only likely result is "yes." But not because of the crash course, but because people already inclined to do extra studying are taking that course, and therefore are just likely in and of themselves to have better test scores.

This poll is not self selective. We're answering about metrics we can easily reference, and likely know off the top of our head. No factor related to the poll itself is affecting our choices or leading the results to a presumed conclusion.

In fact, it's fully qualified as primary research and could be cited academically. Even though the sample size is small relative to the number of players, it's extremely unlikely the results are skewed by non-ESO players or bad actors trying to influence the results. In many cases, being able to concretely prove your sample size as fully relevant is more important than having a large sample size.

sans-culottes

About 50%

Credible_Joe wrote: »

.

sans-culottes wrote: »

ADarklore wrote: »

It's amazing that, even with this poll... some players still will make comments in threads about solo activities with, "But this is an MMO" when clearly, VERY CLEARLY, ESO hasn't been a traditional MMO in many many years. I wish people would just stop with that outdated and false argument. It doesn't apply to ESO, it doesn't apply to SWTOR, and many other current online multi-player games that are now mostly filled with solo players.

This isn’t a scientific poll, @ADarklore. At best, it’s anecdotal evidence from a self-selected group of forum users. If you genuinely believe this is a representative sample of ESO’s entire playerbase, then I have some news for you.

And while we’re at it, saying “ESO hasn’t been a traditional MMO in many years” isn’t the mic drop you seem to think it is. ESO still hinges on shared systems, economies, and group-based scaling. Power shifts like subclassing affect everyone, including solo players, precisely because this is a multiplayer game. You can’t just wave that away when the consequences don’t go your way.

Self selection bias applies when the poll or survey determines cause and effect, and is flawed in its assumption or assertion of cause. It's the same as bad infomercials where the hook is "Has this ever happened to YOU?" If that's the leading survey, you could say that purchasers of the product represent 100% of the population. Another example is if a poll is trying to determine if a crash course improves test scores, the only likely result is "yes." But not because of the crash course, but because people already inclined to do extra studying are taking that course, and therefore are just likely in and of themselves to have better test scores.

This poll is not self selective. We're answering about metrics we can easily reference, and likely know off the top of our head. No factor related to the poll itself is affecting our choices or leading the results to a presumed conclusion.

In fact, it's fully qualified as primary research and could be cited academically. Even though the sample size is small relative to the number of players, it's extremely unlikely the results are skewed by non-ESO players or bad actors trying to influence the results. In many cases, being able to concretely prove your sample size as fully relevant is more important than having a large sample size.

@Credible_Joe, this is not what “primary research” means.

You claim that a forum poll on player behavior is “fully qualified as primary research” and “could be cited academically.” You even reference Purdue OWL to bolster this argument. But unfortunately, that’s a fundamental misreading of what that page says, and of how research validity works in the social sciences.

The Purdue OWL page on surveying is a basic pedagogical guide, designed to help undergraduate students think critically about collecting firsthand data. It explicitly notes that surveys must be carefully constructed, account for sample bias, and include demographic considerations.

This is precisely where your claim collapses. A self-selecting forum poll—distributed in a thread about a controversial upcoming feature—fails every criterion of methodological rigor. There’s no effort to define population parameters, no randomization, no demographic controls, no response validation, and certainly no institutional review.

That’s exactly what’s happening here. This poll cannot tell us what “ESO players” think. It tells us what a small group of people who read and choose to post on the forums—and were already invested enough to vote—felt inclined to share. That’s not a representative sample. That’s the textbook definition of self-selection bias.

To call this “primary research that could be cited academically” is not just wrong but misleading. If you submitted this in a research methods class, then you’d receive a gentle correction at best. If you insisted on its scientific rigor in a graduate seminar, then you’d be laughed out of the room.

Finally, a poll reporting that “75% of 300 forum users answered X” isn’t “science.” It’s a barometer of sentiment among a tiny and disproportionately vocal subset of the ESO community. Let’s stop pretending otherwise.

Hurbster

100% All The Time

If I need a skill or an armour set takes my fancy I'll group up, otherwise its mostly solo,

TempusFugit

100% All The Time

I play solo all the time.

Credible_Joe

About 75%

sans-culottes wrote: »

@Credible_Joe, this is not what “primary research” means.

You claim that a forum poll on player behavior is “fully qualified as primary research” and “could be cited academically.” You even reference Purdue OWL to bolster this argument. But unfortunately, that’s a fundamental misreading of what that page says, and of how research validity works in the social sciences.

The Purdue OWL page on surveying is a basic pedagogical guide, designed to help undergraduate students think critically about collecting firsthand data. It explicitly notes that surveys must be carefully constructed, account for sample bias, and include demographic considerations.

This is precisely where your claim collapses. A self-selecting forum poll—distributed in a thread about a controversial upcoming feature—fails every criterion of methodological rigor. There’s no effort to define population parameters, no randomization, no demographic controls, no response validation, and certainly no institutional review.

That’s exactly what’s happening here. This poll cannot tell us what “ESO players” think. It tells us what a small group of people who read and choose to post on the forums—and were already invested enough to vote—felt inclined to share. That’s not a representative sample. That’s the textbook definition of self-selection bias.

To call this “primary research that could be cited academically” is not just wrong but misleading. If you submitted this in a research methods class, then you’d receive a gentle correction at best. If you insisted on its scientific rigor in a graduate seminar, then you’d be laughed out of the room.

Finally, a poll reporting that “75% of 300 forum users answered X” isn’t “science.” It’s a barometer of sentiment among a tiny and disproportionately vocal subset of the ESO community. Let’s stop pretending otherwise.

There's a lot to unpack so I'll just outline the sticking points here.

1. Implying respondents on the forums can't be reliably qualified as "ESO Players"
   • Asserting no effort was given to define population, while at the same time asserting that the sample size is too small to represent accurate metrics
   • To be clear, my argument here is that posting this poll on the forums defines a population very well, and both of the above assertions preclude each other
2. Asserting the poll relates directly to an upcoming new feature when no mention of any feature is in the title, description, or poll options
   • Presumably, the self-reporting bias claim is founded on this assertion
   • Baselessly asserting the minority metrics are less inclined to vote in this poll because of this new feature, or that majority metrics are more inclined
   • In fact, the exact opposite assertion can be made with the same level of confidence. Wouldn't power gamers flock to this poll to prove that their voice has the strongest foundation? Even without the minutia of qualified academics, insisting one way or the other is equally unfounded.
3. Conflating academic standards with scientific standards
   • The only purpose you have on holding this poll to rigid scientific standards on its own in a vacuum is to discredit it, and is wildly disingenuous. Yes, basing a full thesis in a scientific program on just this poll would go over pretty badly in high level academia. But it does check every box for general research in fields that cannot be quantified the same way science can (social, economic, etc), and can absolutely be cited in a larger research project.
     • Yes, the surveyed population is defined: Forum Users
     • The distribution is random: No bias was present to encourage or discourage any type of respondent
     • Poll options are are close-ended
     • No poll option is leading
     • The poll itself is not leading or biased

TL;DR: no one claimed this is science, except technically you, with the sole intent of discrediting and disqualifying it scientifically. I'm asserting it qualifies as academic, and presents useful metrics that can be cited when defining the polled population and proving its presentation was not leading or biased.

spartaxoxo

About 75%

It's well known in the video game industry that video game forums tend to skew pretty heavily towards core users. As in, those players who have a significant time and/or interest investment into the game. More casual users aren't likely to make any video game forum accounts and this one is more restrictive than most so it would not surprise me if that was especially the case here.

That said, IMO, I think that generally speaking these are the people running your group content as well. I think they sell stuff like leveling scrolls and werewolf bites in the shop because casual users will buy them since they aren't interacting much with other people. They're just playing the game like Skyrim and doing quick pickup and play sessions. Given how at various points the devs have hunted a large portion of players just play the story and do little exploration stuff like collecting lore books, I seriously doubt these respondents would push things much further into favoring group play.

Elder Scrolls is a single player franchise primarily. It's not a surprise that its solo friendly MMO would capture a lot of solo players

Sleep

100% All The Time

actually not 100% but pretty close

Parasaurolophus

25% or less

Whenever people say they’re solo players, I always have a genuine question — where do you guys find content for yourselves? Each new chapter only has around 30 hours of quests (according to official statements). I usually finish all the quests in just a couple of days. What do you do after that?

licenturion

About 75%

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

Whenever people say they’re solo players, I always have a genuine question — where do you guys find content for yourselves? Each new chapter only has around 30 hours of quests (according to official statements). I usually finish all the quests in just a couple of days. What do you do after that?

It could be alts.

It could also be that people joined recently and have years of content to catch up.

For me, I identity myself as a solo player although I do group content. I do dungeons, trials, battlegrounds. I use the group finder and people are like NPC's for me. I never interact with chat or people in the game. I am also in a trader guild where the motto is 'shut up and sell'. So I play technically in group, yet I still consider myself a pure solo player.

Khold90

100% All The Time

Also another "not actually 100% but easily over 90%"

Used to do much more group stuff years ago, but now I'm happy puttering around, questing and failing to get companion gear to drop.

SilverBride

About 75%

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

Whenever people say they’re solo players, I always have a genuine question — where do you guys find content for yourselves? Each new chapter only has around 30 hours of quests (according to official statements). I usually finish all the quests in just a couple of days. What do you do after that?

I do new content on all 7 of my characters, so that is around 210 hours. Then 3 of my characters still have several zones to complete which will take me quite awhile even without buying this year's content.

Then there are daily writs, master writs, surveys, endeavors, house decorating, trading, achievements, Golden Pursuits and Events when there are some going on.

Gankform

50% of the forum players are playing solo..interesting. healthy mmo:P

JeroenB

100% All The Time

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

Whenever people say they’re solo players, I always have a genuine question — where do you guys find content for yourselves? Each new chapter only has around 30 hours of quests (according to official statements). I usually finish all the quests in just a couple of days. What do you do after that?

- inventory management
- actually listening to all the voiced NPC dialogue including all dialogue trees and checking secondary quest characters for unique incidental comments at individual quest stages
- endeavours
- events
- more inventory management

sans-culottes

About 50%

Credible_Joe wrote: »

sans-culottes wrote: »

@Credible_Joe, this is not what “primary research” means.

You claim that a forum poll on player behavior is “fully qualified as primary research” and “could be cited academically.” You even reference Purdue OWL to bolster this argument. But unfortunately, that’s a fundamental misreading of what that page says, and of how research validity works in the social sciences.

The Purdue OWL page on surveying is a basic pedagogical guide, designed to help undergraduate students think critically about collecting firsthand data. It explicitly notes that surveys must be carefully constructed, account for sample bias, and include demographic considerations.

This is precisely where your claim collapses. A self-selecting forum poll—distributed in a thread about a controversial upcoming feature—fails every criterion of methodological rigor. There’s no effort to define population parameters, no randomization, no demographic controls, no response validation, and certainly no institutional review.

That’s exactly what’s happening here. This poll cannot tell us what “ESO players” think. It tells us what a small group of people who read and choose to post on the forums—and were already invested enough to vote—felt inclined to share. That’s not a representative sample. That’s the textbook definition of self-selection bias.

To call this “primary research that could be cited academically” is not just wrong but misleading. If you submitted this in a research methods class, then you’d receive a gentle correction at best. If you insisted on its scientific rigor in a graduate seminar, then you’d be laughed out of the room.

Finally, a poll reporting that “75% of 300 forum users answered X” isn’t “science.” It’s a barometer of sentiment among a tiny and disproportionately vocal subset of the ESO community. Let’s stop pretending otherwise.

There's a lot to unpack so I'll just outline the sticking points here.

1. Implying respondents on the forums can't be reliably qualified as "ESO Players"
   • Asserting no effort was given to define population, while at the same time asserting that the sample size is too small to represent accurate metrics
   • To be clear, my argument here is that posting this poll on the forums defines a population very well, and both of the above assertions preclude each other
2. Asserting the poll relates directly to an upcoming new feature when no mention of any feature is in the title, description, or poll options
   • Presumably, the self-reporting bias claim is founded on this assertion
   • Baselessly asserting the minority metrics are less inclined to vote in this poll because of this new feature, or that majority metrics are more inclined
   • In fact, the exact opposite assertion can be made with the same level of confidence. Wouldn't power gamers flock to this poll to prove that their voice has the strongest foundation? Even without the minutia of qualified academics, insisting one way or the other is equally unfounded.
3. Conflating academic standards with scientific standards
   • The only purpose you have on holding this poll to rigid scientific standards on its own in a vacuum is to discredit it, and is wildly disingenuous. Yes, basing a full thesis in a scientific program on just this poll would go over pretty badly in high level academia. But it does check every box for general research in fields that cannot be quantified the same way science can (social, economic, etc), and can absolutely be cited in a larger research project.
     • Yes, the surveyed population is defined: Forum Users
     • The distribution is random: No bias was present to encourage or discourage any type of respondent
     • Poll options are are close-ended
     • No poll option is leading
     • The poll itself is not leading or biased

TL;DR: no one claimed this is science, except technically you, with the sole intent of discrediting and disqualifying it scientifically. I'm asserting it qualifies as academic, and presents useful metrics that can be cited when defining the polled population and proving its presentation was not leading or biased.

@Credible_Joe, your response is elaborate, but it fundamentally misunderstands both what constitutes primary research and how sampling validity works in any kind of academically credible study—whether in the natural sciences or the social sciences.

You’re correct that no one claimed this was scientific, except you, when you asserted that this poll “qualifies as primary research and could be cited academically.” That is a strong claim, and it deserves scrutiny.

Let’s unpack:

1. Forum users are not a well-defined research population. They are a self-selecting, highly vocal minority, already biased by virtue of participation. This is not the same as a defined and randomized population sample. Posting a poll to a public forum does not establish a legitimate sampling frame. Even casual polling best practices (see Purdue OWL’s own survey guidance) make this distinction very clear.
2. Self-selection bias applies. Whether you call this anecdotal, informal, or “useful in context,” what it is not is academically reliable. The moment a poll is distributed via voluntary opt-in from a vocal niche of the player base, you lose generalizability. This is not about who is qualified to vote, but about who chooses to engage. That is textbook self-selection bias.
3. Your attempt to pivot from scientific to “academic” standards is rhetorical sleight of hand. All social science still requires methodological transparency. You cannot just say, “It’s not scientific, it’s academic,” and hope that floats. If a poll lacks a documented sampling strategy, replicability, controls for confounding variables, and a disclosed margin of error or sample representativeness, then it fails to meet even basic academic standards.
4. Claiming the poll is unbiased because it did not “lead” the responses ignores structural bias. The poll does not exist in a vacuum. It sits in the middle of an emotionally charged forum discourse, one where certain narratives dominate. The wording of the options is not the only factor in determining bias. Platform context matters.

In short, if this poll were submitted in an undergraduate research methods course as an example of valid survey-based primary research, then it would be returned with extensive margin notes. The feedback would say something like, “Define your population. Disclose your sampling method. Acknowledge platform and response bias.”

You are free to treat informal data as persuasive. But labeling this “primary research” or “academic” is not just inaccurate but false.

Credible_Joe

About 75%

sans-culottes wrote: »

@Credible_Joe, your response is elaborate, but it fundamentally misunderstands both what constitutes primary research and how sampling validity works in any kind of academically credible study—whether in the natural sciences or the social sciences.

You’re correct that no one claimed this was scientific, except you, when you asserted that this poll “qualifies as primary research and could be cited academically.” That is a strong claim, and it deserves scrutiny.

Let’s unpack:

1. Forum users are not a well-defined research population. They are a self-selecting, highly vocal minority, already biased by virtue of participation. This is not the same as a defined and randomized population sample. Posting a poll to a public forum does not establish a legitimate sampling frame. Even casual polling best practices (see Purdue OWL’s own survey guidance) make this distinction very clear.
2. Self-selection bias applies. Whether you call this anecdotal, informal, or “useful in context,” what it is not is academically reliable. The moment a poll is distributed via voluntary opt-in from a vocal niche of the player base, you lose generalizability. This is not about who is qualified to vote, but about who chooses to engage. That is textbook self-selection bias.
3. Your attempt to pivot from scientific to “academic” standards is rhetorical sleight of hand. All social science still requires methodological transparency. You cannot just say, “It’s not scientific, it’s academic,” and hope that floats. If a poll lacks a documented sampling strategy, replicability, controls for confounding variables, and a disclosed margin of error or sample representativeness, then it fails to meet even basic academic standards.
4. Claiming the poll is unbiased because it did not “lead” the responses ignores structural bias. The poll does not exist in a vacuum. It sits in the middle of an emotionally charged forum discourse, one where certain narratives dominate. The wording of the options is not the only factor in determining bias. Platform context matters.

In short, if this poll were submitted in an undergraduate research methods course as an example of valid survey-based primary research, then it would be returned with extensive margin notes. The feedback would say something like, “Define your population. Disclose your sampling method. Acknowledge platform and response bias.”

You are free to treat informal data as persuasive. But labeling this “primary research” or “academic” is not just inaccurate but false.

1. Asserting forum users are not well-defined while at the same time generalizing them very narrowly and incorrectly
   • Yet another pair of assertions that preclude each other. Forgetting about lurkers, infrequent visitors, new participants, old participants, devs, moderators.
     • To be fair, I'm not sure what the rules are for devs and mods participating in things like polls. But if any of them are players inclined to participate anonymously in the discourse, and have accounts separate from their work handle, it is possible their voice is present in any given poll
   • Regardless, in an academic citation, outlining this sample group as forum users within the above context of a greater population of ESO players does fully qualify it as defined
   • Not to mention that all forum users, including poll respondents, require an ESO game account to participate. This platform was likely chosen specifically to preclude non-players from skewing the results, which makes a stronger case for definition than just about anywhere else this could have been posted. The only stronger contenders are an e-blast to registered game account emails and from within the game itself.
2. Asserting that the sample group is self selecting by virtue of the platform the poll is posted to
   • Earlier I had to guess what the self-selecting assertion was founded on, so I won't accuse this of being a pivot
   • Either way, this is a weak attempt to discredit the poll results and can be made of any platform
   • If polls or surveys were disqualified for self-selection because online social platform users are more likely to participate than the rest of the contextual population, the only qualified polls in academia would either have been physically distributed, or pre-date the internet
3. Asserting the poll results are skewed by the overall forum discourse
   • If survey or poll results are disqualified by the zeitgeist, then polls and surveys need to be disqualified as research entirely
4. Misrepresenting the consistency of my argument
   • My original assertion was that this is academic, and I never pivoted from scientific
   • My original argument was founded on cited research standards, which I linked. Not "rhetorical sleight of hand"
     • To review, your original assertion was that this poll is not scientific. I argued it qualifies academically as primary research. You argued that it would not hold muster under scrutiny at high-level scientific methodology, and I argued that it does not need to be presented at that level on its own to simply be cited. This does not preclude scrutiny over the methodology of population, sample size, or distribution, but all of that can easily be accounted for and documented, fully qualifying it as primary research
   • You keep telling me to review these standards to find that my arguments aren't holding up. As much as I re-read the fairly brief guidelines for surveys in both the primary research guidelines, or even the institutional data analytics survey resources, I haven't found any language that precludes my arguments
   • I'm not going to insist you cite these claims. That's a weak ploy to establish an authority and a deferent. But I will reiterate that my arguments are founded on these resources and that I believe they hold weight.
   • We can't exactly present our arguments to a professor, so speculating on what we believe would pass in class is moot. All I can say is with all of the above discourse accounted for, I would confidently turn this in and expect positive and constructive feedback.

If you don't like these results this much, and if you're so confident they're skewed, I suggest finding a way to poll more players and confirming their game accounts. Maybe note the differences in methodology you use. At this point the onus is fully on you to validate these claims; just discrediting the results isn't enough. Sorry, that was a bit vindictive, especially after the authority / deferent sentiment I just expressed. It's probably more accurate to say the onus is on both of us at this point.

Maybe we can suggest to the mods to distribute this poll via e-blast. I'd be very interested in seeing a broader sample group and noting any differences between forum users and overall players.

It would be absolutely hilarious if the general player pop just reinforced the forum user results, but even if it's the opposite, both sets of data would be qualified to cite academically.

johnbonne

100% All The Time

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

Whenever people say they’re solo players, I always have a genuine question — where do you guys find content for yourselves? Each new chapter only has around 30 hours of quests (according to official statements). I usually finish all the quests in just a couple of days. What do you do after that?

Once upon a time in my life, saying an area had "only" 30 hours of content was a criticism. Nowadays that's more than enough to tide me over when I'm playing, on average, 10 hours a week, and I spend about a third of that playing this game.

Assuming I don't scratch my Elder Scrolls itch (the doctors call it Corprus, but never mind that) before I see all the content, I'll just stop playing. To me, this is an Elder Scrolls game first and foremost, and like any other I'll move on to the next game once I'm satisfied. TESO being an MMO is a 'nice to have', not a requirement to play and/or enjoy it. I'm done with the 'forever game' that I sought with WoW and FFXIV, but I won't yuck anyone's yum.

In short: I'll do the quests, and any other activities I enjoy (I love the game's crafting system), and then I'll move on to another game I want to play. I'm here for the Elder Scrolls component long before the Online component. ^_^

Al_Ex_Andre

100% All The Time

100% all the time, these days on

licenturion

About 75%

Credible_Joe wrote: »

It would be absolutely hilarious if the general player pop just reinforced the forum user results, but even if it's the opposite, both sets of data would be qualified to cite academically.

Even if ZOS would release official numbers, then some select people over here would not believe them it if it doesn't fit their own narrative.

Cardhwion

100% All The Time

100% all the time. I am excluding the three or four instances, where I was doing a world boss and joined a sponanous group for it.

tom6143346

About 75%

Until last year I played almost every day with my raid buddy’s so at that time it was almost 100% with others . Then a lot friends left the game and over time I played Les and Les . nowadays I play most of the time solo , on the rare occasion when I lock into the game. I m not playing much at all anymore.

Elrond87

25% or less

must be why its hard finding a group, all these solo players

sleepy_worm

About 50%

I feel like a lot of people conflate "solo" with "overland questing." Don't do that, a lot of people.

Muizer

About 75%

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

Whenever people say they’re solo players, I always have a genuine question — where do you guys find content for yourselves? Each new chapter only has around 30 hours of quests (according to official statements). I usually finish all the quests in just a couple of days. What do you do after that?

Hmm, your question is more apt to PvE vs PvP than solo vs multiplayer. In terms of content, two dungeons and a trial per year don't really add that much. I mean, to keep people busy they rely on a reward system, not on novel content. If you add the element of 'shortest time to complete a game', then even noughts and crosses has infinite replayability .