Not asking for nerfing of anything. Simply asking for an option to allow cooperative play throughout this MMO.

Make the instances harder for those who want to cooperatively play currently solo-only dungeons. Perhaps that will assuage the damaged egos of others who are threatened by the idea.

yelloweyedemon wrote: »

GreySix wrote: »

Not asking for nerfing of anything. Simply asking for an option to allow cooperative play throughout this MMO.

Make the instances harder for those who want to cooperatively play currently solo-only dungeons. Perhaps that will assuage the damaged egos of others who are threatened by the idea.

You can play with others in this game anywhere but the main story.

Incorrect. You cannot play cooperatively in the following quest lines:

• Mages Guild
• Fighters Guld

yelloweyedemon wrote: »

It would not make any sense anyways to be able to "duo" or more Molag Bal. What did Tharn split the Amulet's power in half? I would not even suggest something like group play in main story line since it would completelly destroy the atmosphere.

Plenty of other MMOs allow cooperative play in main story instances where "one hero" is facing off against the master villain, and the master villain doesn't address the other player - just the "one hero" player. It does nothing to break immersion or ruin the story.

Moreover, if you are still allowed to solo the instances, why should you care what others see or do, since it would in no way affect your own game play or immersion. Is your ego really so fragile, that what others do bothers you so much?

yelloweyedemon wrote: »

It's people that just need to stop crying on the forum after 1 death (pvp or pve) and learn from their deaths.

Straw Man fallacy: My stance has nothing to do with that. Cooperative players see their characters killed all the time, and then they go back and level some more, change their tactics, and try again.

Again, if you're allowed to solo the same instances, why should you care about how others play?

yelloweyedemon wrote: »

Yes I forgot about the fighters n' mages storylines.

1: Yes it would definatelly break the immersion.

If you are still allowed to solo the instances, why should you care if others co-op them, since your own immersion would be completely unaffected?

yelloweyedemon wrote: »

Your character should be the one to defeat Molag bal. Not you with a couple of friends.

I disagree. ESO is an MMO, and we bought two copies of the game and two subscriptions, so that we could play cooperatively completely through the game. What I am proposing would in no way affect your ability to continue soloing the very same instances. So why do you so vehemently oppose the choice of others to co-op content that you could still solo, when it would in no way, shape, or form adversely impact your own immersion and game play?

yelloweyedemon wrote: »

I don't care what other MMO's do. There are no good MMO examples I can think of. Main story in 99% of the MMO's I have played can be completed by a 10 year old that clicks 1,2,3. They are THAT facerolling easy.

So, since you could still solo the instances that others would choose to co-op, you oppose the choice because your ego would be threatened? Sorry, but I'm seeing no logical reason there for your continued dogged opposition to the choice to co-op or not the main story content.

yelloweyedemon wrote: »

2: Giving the quest a group option would not ruin my experience yes, but it would affect the game. If ZoS keeps "nerfing" the game just because of some complains, this game gonna end up a f2p facerolling MMO like all the ones out there, much sooner than what it is expected to do so.

Straw Man distortion again, my friend. You really should work to avoid those. You'll note that I did not ask for nerfing, even stating that the dungeons could be made more difficult for those co-oping them.

yelloweyedemon wrote: »

Again if you (not especially you, I mean anyone) wants group play, he can do it in the remaining quests of the game. The main story quests are like ..10 quests. Some of them are slightly more challenging than the rest 95% of the game so far. They should not change them.

Again, if you were still allowed to solo the instances, why should you care ... other than possibly seeing your ego threatened?

yelloweyedemon wrote: »

First of all, Nowhere in your subscription, there was a written agreement, that you can play 100% of the game while grouped. Just to clear things out.

Yeah, most simply assumed they'd follow what most AAA MMOs have done. It is clear that they didn't, instead choosing to wall off a significant amount of content behind forced-solo instances. That's stupid and short-sighted.

yelloweyedemon wrote: »

As I said, I don't care if it would affect me or not. It would hurt the game. End of story.

Your made an assertion, so back it up with evidence. Else, concede the point and admit your opposition has zero logical basis. This is Debate 101 stuff, my friend.

yelloweyedemon wrote: »

Throwing another player in a solo designed instance = major nerf in my book. Even if the difficulty is doubled, 1 healer 1 dps = Facerolling.

Again, your flat statement does not equate to evidence in support of your position. So provide evidence in support of your claim, or concede.

yelloweyedemon wrote: »

Again, if your problem is that you can't group with your friends, there are the rest 95% of the quests in which you can do so.

Yet the remaining percentage involves the main story quest, without completion of such, a great deal of content is walled off. So that inane decision by developers of this MMO demonstrably hampers those who greatly desire to co-op the entire game.

yelloweyedemon wrote: »

If your problem is that you can't defeat MB due to the difficulty, I suggest you try another more viable build. If you use block , rolls and a couple of pots, the fight is fairly easy without a single HoT ability on your bar.

Straw Man distortion ... again. Since you seem to suffer challenges from failing to recognize those, I'll show you what a Straw Man fallacy is:

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X. (In this case, I am Person A, and my position is in favor of cooperative play throughout the game)
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X). (In this case, you are Person B, presenting position Y b]opposition to "nerfing"[/b, which is a distorted version of my own position)
3. Person B attacks position Y. (Person B - you - then attack position Y b]"nerfing" of content[/b, the distorted version of my own position)
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed. (Leveraging that logical fallacy, you then attempt to assert that my position is flawed)

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

Again, please try to avoid the tiresome Straw Man distortions. They're not helping your case.

McUsher wrote: »

I'll do the straw man for u:
Me and my wife did MB tonight, we're both 40+
Yes, it was challenging. We both haven't good builds and mainly did
the fight with light attacks and running away from him to reg...
(Actually the buggy Harvester at the start was the most challenging mob in there)

Good for you and your wife.

McUsher wrote: »

We both agreed, that this challenge was more fun, than the easy peasy questing
before. You actually really achieved something.

Again ... good for you and your wife.

McUsher wrote: »

In my opinion this straw man talk is just whining on a philosophical meta-level..

Incorrect. This is a straw man:

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

Posted the definition again, because for some reason there still seems to be confusion on what that particular logical fallacy entails.

But what you wrote wasn't a straw man distortion. It was simply your experience playing in forced-solo instances (sort of) with your wife, along with your experience and subsequent opinion.

My commentary further above may have seemed snide, but the purpose was to demonstrate that your post did not address my concern and associated request to developers:

This is a Massive Multiplayer Online (MMO) game, not a Massive Single-player Online (MSO) game, so it is perfectly reasonable to expect cooperative play completely throughout this particular MMO, especially in the case of the main story. In the case of this game, the forced-solo instances effectively serve as a gate for most of the game's content - and that simply should not be the case.

But really - it's good that you and your wife successfully completed a work-around to this broken mechanic, but many others cannot or will not. And those others will unsubscribe (or have already), spreading negative reviews of this MMO to others, which will equate to lost subscriptions and lost revenue - which could result in this MMO going F2P.

None (or very few) of us here want this game to go F2P, so wouldn't it be in the developers' best interests to make the game accessible to all kinds of players? That being the case, why would it not make sense to provide a simple toggle for players entering main quest areas, giving them the choice to either solo or co-op the content?

It would be a win-win.

... vice the lose-win it is now.

Let common-sense prevail, where it is currently lacking.