ESO - sadly - is not an MMO

drogon1

yodased wrote: »

What you are saying is its not the MMORPG that you feel it SHOULD be, which is still fine and acceptable, but should not be presented as fact. (ﾉಥ益ಥ）ﾉ

/sigh

What I am saying - again - is that it is misleading to call ESO an MMO in the traditional sense. This is a fact. I provided my reasons for this which you have not challenged.

I am also saying that ESO should allow players to advance their characters viably in group content. This is my opinion as to how the game should be changed.

drogon1

PhoenixWing wrote: »

Coming from FFXIV, I can assure you the situation is the same there. Although you can level up with group contents (and those were not even remotely viable until recent patches 3 months ago), you have to clear the main storyline to get to endgame contents and dungeons too.

The main difference is that the quests in FFXIV are a lot easier than in ESO, which is one of the things I liked about ESO more but some people might find quests too hard if they specced their chars for group play, though.

But yeah, I understand your feeling. Questing in this game is quite tedious because there are too many quests to do lol.

I came from FFXIV also, and had a great time there. I haven't noticed a big difference in quest difficultly, but I have noticed, for example, that I am not allowed to run dungeons in ESO - if I intend to advance my character before the next cataclysm.

Penumbra

But fundamental xp re-design is needed to see that happen. This is what I'm arguing.

No is not. You started trolling about numerous things all pertaining to the MMO you and your illuminated brilliant mind was expecting ESO to be.

It is not. Move on or make posts that actually help to improve the game.

Btw its so funny that you wrote " for the more challenged" and then start talking about XP % . That was hilarious. Trying to sound more intelligent made you look more stupid than your entire post already is.

You want to be an Olag-hai but you come out more like a cave troll than anything.

drogon1

Penumbra wrote: »

But fundamental xp re-design is needed to see that happen. This is what I'm arguing.

No is not. You started trolling about numerous things all pertaining to the MMO you and your illuminated brilliant mind was expecting ESO to be.

It is not. Move on or make posts that actually help to improve the game.

Btw its so funny that you wrote " for the more challenged" and then start talking about XP % . That was hilarious. Trying to sound more intelligent made you look more stupid than your entire post already is.

You want to be an Olag-hai but you come out more like a cave troll than anything.

Ummm.....ok?

drogon1

Hehe.

Zepheric. Let's make it simple. Forget about words.

Take a fresh lvl 50. What percentage of his total xp was received from group content? What percentage of total xp from content tuned to the single player?

I think about 5% flows from group content. I think this is going to be a big problem for a game purporting to sit in the MMO genre.

But you seem to argue that all MMOs are like this. But this is false, as the other MMOs that I listed allow you to advance your character viably in group content.

liquid_wolf

drogon1 wrote: »

A Bad Post.

You are going to tell us... many of whom are veteran MMORPG players for over a decade... that this is not an MMORPG?

You have to convince us your perspective is valid, and acceptable... and it isn't. Oh I'm certain you have done a great number of things solo... and it might even go faster solo than with multiple people...

But that doesn't negate the fact that you can still do it.

I leveled 12-20 in Cyrodiil.
I leveled 35-40 in Cyrodiil.
I leveled 45-VR2 in Cyrodiil.

Every time I went back to PvE Content, I was 3-5 levels above the area because of the levels I gained in PvP.

It took me a hell of a lot longer... but I enjoyed it.

Massive - Yes
Multiplayer - Yes
Online - Yes
RPG - Yes.

It is a broad category, and ESO fits in it just as well.

I'm confident I'll be able to level quite well in VR dungeons and PvP after 1.1 as well.

drogon1

liquid_wolf wrote: »

drogon1 wrote: »

A Bad Post.

You are going to tell us... many of whom are veteran MMORPG players for over a decade... that this is not an MMORPG?

You have to convince us your perspective is valid, and acceptable... and it isn't. Oh I'm certain you have done a great number of things solo... and it might even go faster solo than with multiple people...

But that doesn't negate the fact that you can still do it.

I leveled 12-20 in Cyrodiil.
I leveled 35-40 in Cyrodiil.
I leveled 45-VR2 in Cyrodiil.

Every time I went back to PvE Content, I was 3-5 levels above the area because of the levels I gained in PvP.

It took me a hell of a lot longer... but I enjoyed it.

Massive - Yes
Multiplayer - Yes
Online - Yes
RPG - Yes.

It is a broad category, and ESO fits in it just as well.

I'm confident I'll be able to level quite well in VR dungeons and PvP after 1.1 as well.

I must be doing something wrong in Cyro. I arrived there late, so I was unable to capitalize on the apparently repeated early use of the-now-changed-to-daily kill quest to get xp. Is this how you were able to get your levels there? I don't care if it takes longer in PvP to get levels, but a "hell of a lot longer" starts to lose my interest.

In any event, I'll head back out to Cyro more dedicated now and re-check my xp bar for movement. If PvP is a viable way to level, then this would probably be enough for me.

drogon1

liquid_wolf wrote: »

drogon1 wrote: »

A Bad Post.

You are going to tell us... many of whom are veteran MMORPG players for over a decade... that this is not an MMORPG?

You have to convince us your perspective is valid, and acceptable... and it isn't. Oh I'm certain you have done a great number of things solo... and it might even go faster solo than with multiple people...

But that doesn't negate the fact that you can still do it.

I leveled 12-20 in Cyrodiil.
I leveled 35-40 in Cyrodiil.
I leveled 45-VR2 in Cyrodiil.

Every time I went back to PvE Content, I was 3-5 levels above the area because of the levels I gained in PvP.

It took me a hell of a lot longer... but I enjoyed it.

Massive - Yes
Multiplayer - Yes
Online - Yes
RPG - Yes.

It is a broad category, and ESO fits in it just as well.

I'm confident I'll be able to level quite well in VR dungeons and PvP after 1.1 as well.

And for the record - AGAIN - I do not say it is not an MMORPG. I said that it is just as misleading to call ESO a traditional MMO, than otherwise.

You argue that PvP is a perfectly viable way to advance your character, even though it takes a "hell of a lot longer." Well there's the rub.

In any event, I'll give Cyro another whirl. Perhaps my assertion that PvP is not actually viable for leveling was incorrect.

Tarwin

I think the confusion is between Sandbox and Themepark ? It's a tough one.

If a Developer wants rich lore in a game, then they kind of have to stick to some sort of rails otherwise it would not make sense. I mean grinding to 45ish, finding a way to just go straight to Mr Bal, then kill him to me would be kind of boring for me

But there is a demand for that sort of game build on S Korea

I will admit, it bugs me when you can't go into a dungeon .. even if to just see whats in it and then die, but really how does a developer keep everyone happy these days anyhow

That being said, ESO is still an MMO (RPG if you care to roleplay),

drogon1

Tarwin wrote: »

I think the confusion is between Sandbox and Themepark ? It's a tough one.

If a Developer wants rich lore in a game, then they kind of have to stick to some sort of rails otherwise it would not make sense. I mean grinding to 45ish, finding a way to just go straight to Mr Bal, then kill him to me would be kind of boring for me

But there is a demand for that sort of game build on S Korea

I will admit, it bugs me when you can't go into a dungeon .. even if to just see whats in it and then die, but really how does a developer keep everyone happy these days anyhow

That being said, ESO is still an MMO (RPG if you care to roleplay),

That's not what this is about.

I do not know how to say it more simply: grouped content xp in ESO pre-VR is nerfed through the floor. This diverges far from traditional games of the MMO genre.

Only one poster has argued otherwise. He claimed that PvP xp was perfectly viable, even though it will take a "hell of a lot longer." So much for viability.

Gix

Aside from the fact that you limit your definition by "tripple A MMOs", MMOs stand for massively multi-player online.

1) you need a LOT of players (in the hundreds/thousands).
2) they need to play together (aka: in the same space).
3) the game needs to be online (aka: not LAN).

That's it. Seeing it any differently just restricts your vision.

DrakEmono

I read it and I disagree in a point:
In EVERY MMOs I tried, I played from level 1 to level max alone. This includes WoW (the old WoW, not the current), and GW2 for instance.

And those game also have group content I did from time to time during my leveling stage, exactly the same as ESO.

In every MMOs, most of the leveling stage is done alone.

It's not that different from other MMOs... Yeah, ESO has a lot of differences from other MMOs. Does it mean it's not a MMO?

And actually, I really enjoy ESO for its differences... It's a very great MMO for me.

drogon1

Gix wrote: »

Aside from the fact that you limit your definition by "tripple A MMOs", MMOs stand for massively multi-player online.

1) you need a LOT of players (in the hundreds/thousands).
2) they need to play together (aka: in the same space).
3) the game needs to be online (aka: not LAN).

That's it. Seeing it any differently just restricts your vision.

My comments are directed primarily to how the game mechanics in ESO differs significantly and unexpectedly from traditional games that use the MMO label.

aleister

drogon1 wrote: »

Because in the other triple-A MMOs, the total xp needed to reach max level can be gotten VIABLY from many different sources. In contrast, in ESO you are pidgeon-holed into single player content to advance your character (gain xp).

QFT - sure, ESO fits any technical definition of "MMO", but it forces the player into a single-player mode of progression most of the time. I was very disappointed to find that I couldn't effectively run dungeon instances with a group to get xp. Once you've finished the quest for that dungeon, you're forced back to tedious solo questing if you want to advance with any pace.

Khuul99

Regardless of the fanboys trying to defend a stupid design descion, the bottomline of the OP is still valid.

For the lvl 1-50 game:

Single player content (nomatter if you choose to play it solo or in a group) makes up easily 90+% of the exp gained unless you choose to level exceedingly slow (as in only do pvp, group dungeons and world bosses).
Single player content in my definition here includes both quests and open world grinding (wether you choose to do it in a big group or not is irrelevant, the mobs themselves are single player toughness)

Group content (4-man group dungeons and world bosses and maybe the anchors) is the group content ESO offers.

I find it hard to argue against this.

Personally I am enjoying mytime in ESO sofar but I wished that the group content was a viable path to level up in a decent time. I am playing most of my time with 4 other friends and we do the quests and stuff because we want to see the content and see the quests.
The replay value for that is low though, if I ever decide to take another toon up, I'll make a list of quests with skill points and do those and AOE grind my way up.

I just feel it's funny to see people so focused on defending the game no matter what. What's wrong with thinking it's a good game but point out some odd descions.

aleister

Khuul99 wrote: »

I just feel it's funny to see people so focused on defending the game no matter what. What's wrong with thinking it's a good game but point out some odd descions.

This has been the case with every MMO ever. Express the slightest criticism and you can expect an attack by a brigade of Patty Hearsts not only defending the game mindlessly, but taking any suggestion to improve it - even ones that wouldn't affect them in the slightest - as a personal affront.

Creslian7

Every MMO on the market is and can be solo'd in the 1-50 bracket and requires no grouping at all. Not one game out currently requires a group to progress in the pregame, which is all the 1-50 bracket is on most games(level depending), the pregame.

Veteran zones, which is 2/3 of the game, yes 2/3 of the game if not more xp wise is vr1-vr10, is much harder and can require a group, not a party per say, but a group, IE: more than 1 person to complete. You won't breeze past anchors and public dungeons in the veteran ranks.

There is a difference between viable group leveling and the availability of group content. They aren't the same thing. Yes, group dungeons should offer more xp, but for that to happen something would need to be in place to prevent abusing it, which was the case when the game initially launched. Group dungeon xp was abused and nerfed accordingly., I would prefer less xp and being able to run the dungeon multiple times to some sort of lockout system.

It's all moot anyway, you are arguing over the route for first 30 miles of a 300 mile or longer trip.

drogon1

Creslian7 wrote: »

Every MMO on the market is and can be solo'd in the 1-50 bracket and requires no grouping at all. Not one game out currently requires a group to progress in the pregame, which is all the 1-50 bracket is on most games(level depending), the pregame.

Veteran zones, which is 2/3 of the game, yes 2/3 of the game if not more xp wise is vr1-vr10, is much harder and can require a group, not a party per say, but a group, IE: more than 1 person to complete. You won't breeze past anchors and public dungeons in the veteran ranks.

There is a difference between viable group leveling and the availability of group content. They aren't the same thing. Yes, group dungeons should offer more xp, but for that to happen something would need to be in place to prevent abusing it, which was the case when the game initially launched. Group dungeon xp was abused and nerfed accordingly., I would prefer less xp and being able to run the dungeon multiple times to some sort of lockout system.

It's all moot anyway, you are arguing over the route for first 30 miles of a 300 mile or longer trip.

I play an MMO primarily for group content. This means dungeons and pvp. For single player content, I look usually to single player games. Others have different preferences, and they are all of them valid and to be celebrated.

This game does not celebrate this variety.

Dungeon xp needs to be un-nerfed. Further, PvP xp needs to be boosted to DAOC levels imho (ok, maybe not that high). Exploits can be controlled easily enough by tuning xp gains down if necessary (but not through the floor as it currently stands). Having more than one path open to advance your character to 50 is healthy for the game.

Having to request MMO devs to permit players to advance their characters via group content seems almost laughably ridiculous to me. But so it is.

PS. I don't understand how players can dismiss the experience of this new game from 1 to 50; this experience, more than the others, I imagine can be directly correlated to their eventual sub numbers.

yodased

drogon1 wrote: »

And for the record - AGAIN - I do not say it is not an MMORPG. I said that it is just as misleading to call ESO a traditional MMO, than otherwise.

Title of thread: ESO - sadly - is not an MMO

Sleepwalker

drogon1 wrote: »

What exactly is your argument that ESO is a traditional MMO? You have none, sir, other than bald assertion, which is worse than having none.

Yes yes, 99% is exaggerated. What, praytell, then is the exact percentage of total xp of a new level 50 that does not come from single player content? 5%?

Here's the thing about arguing with delusional people that get their hands on a dictionary and decide to validate themselves by defending their deliberately provocative threads: It gets... no one... anywhere. But, of course I'm going to indulge anyway...

The forced-solo quests make up ~3% of the total quests. That leaves literally thousands of quests that can be done in groups viably and efficiently. I could go on about the experience from dungeons, world bosses, and anchors, as well as the buying/selling of crafted gear for inspiration gains and the indirect experience gains from wearing said gear. Nail in the coffin though, as someone has said, the 1-50 journey isn't even close to being the whole game anyway, so saying that your lonely experience with that journey is a direct definition of developer failure is incredibly ridiculous.

Whatever your definition of "MMORPG" is, it's wildly incorrect if it causes you to think that ESO isn't one.

And:

drogon1 wrote: »

I am also surprised at how blithely you dismiss the 1-50 content. It is probably the most important content in this new game at the moment.

Completely dismissing its importance is wrong, this is true, but idolizing it is just as foolish.

Penumbra

Well said Creslian. Every MMO in the market is like that. To come and say that is not, and that ESO is not an MMO (Like the title says) thats its a poorly dev decision about how the quest, xp and whatnot is in this game is ridiculous. It sill ridiculous that Im still writing about this post lol.

Im not an ESO fanboy defending the game. I'm arguing about the OP titlle and then what the OP said about that the game penilizes players on their advancements. And I'm also arguing about every single point he wrote that is FALSE. I'm not a fanboy, I'm just someone that don't like people that has probably play just 10 hours or less of a game, think of themselves that they know alot about MMO's, when they even clearly don't even know what the definition of an MMO is, and come to a game's forum writing about things that are just simply not true. If some of his points were true, I would agree and say so. But his points are not.

Every single paragraph he wrote is just FALSE, every single one. Please just name one that he is right on the spot.

In ESO, to reach VR levels, the player has only ONE viable route: single-player content, -FALSE-

In short, ESO is the odd game that offers MMO group content to the player, but prevents him from advancing his character by playing it. -FALSE-

First, there is actually NO reason to play a character specialized for group play.
-FALSE- that he doesnt find that there is an actual reason are 2 different things.

Second, grouping is pointless. -FALSE-

Third, making an alt in the same faction is pointless. -FALSE- Once again that he finds it pointless is another thing. I have a main for pve and pvp. And I have an alt on same faction for crafting. Pointless? NO.

Fourth, although the xp is marginally better in PvP than in PvE group content, advancing your character in PvP is too onerous to be considered viable
-FALSE-

And his last paragraph:
"In sum, it is misleading to advertise ESO as an MMO." -ABSOLUTELY FALSE-

So yes, Im not a fanboy. I'm arguing about how every comment of his, are FALSE.

drogon1

yodased wrote: »

drogon1 wrote: »

And for the record - AGAIN - I do not say it is not an MMORPG. I said that it is just as misleading to call ESO a traditional MMO, than otherwise.

Title of thread: ESO - sadly - is not an MMO

Hehe good one. You'd make a great politician.

But you omitted the first sentence: "Yes, this is slightly misleading. BUT it is no more misleading than claiming that it IS an MMO. Let me explain." And of course you omitted the explanation.

Paper tiger meet literary device. Ever hear of a hook?

When did arguing on the merits get so hard?

skeletorz_ESO

Massive? Check
Multiplayer? Check
Online? Check

OP... are your eyes brown?

Sleepwalker

yodased wrote: »

drogon1 wrote: »

And for the record - AGAIN - I do not say it is not an MMORPG. I said that it is just as misleading to call ESO a traditional MMO, than otherwise.

Title of thread: ESO - sadly - is not an MMO

QFT.

I believe my first post quoted your title and put the word "traditional" in there to provide more clarity. Too bad you immediately dismissed it and went through two pages of nonsense before understanding where you went wrong.

Sleepwalker wrote: »

drogon1 wrote: »

ESO - sadly - is not the type of MMO I'm used to

drogon1 wrote: »

ESO - sadly - is not the traditional MMO

Fixed your title for you.

Just checking... yep, thought I had said that...

Zepheric

drogon1 wrote: »

I imagine

This right here, you have just told me you are making this up in your imagination.

Because you aren't happy doesn't mean crap about their sub numbers

Also no one even knows what their numbers are so to speculate now would be a lot of assumptions

and you know what happens when you assume..

drogon1

Sleepwalker wrote: »

drogon1 wrote: »

What exactly is your argument that ESO is a traditional MMO? You have none, sir, other than bald assertion, which is worse than having none.

Yes yes, 99% is exaggerated. What, praytell, then is the exact percentage of total xp of a new level 50 that does not come from single player content? 5%?

Here's the thing about arguing with delusional people that get their hands on a dictionary and decide to validate themselves by defending their deliberately provocative threads: It gets... no one... anywhere. But, of course I'm going to indulge anyway...

The forced-solo quests make up ~3% of the total quests. That leaves literally thousands of quests that can be done in groups viably and efficiently. I could go on about the experience from dungeons, world bosses, and anchors, as well as the buying/selling of crafted gear for inspiration gains and the indirect experience gains from wearing said gear. Nail in the coffin though, as someone has said, the 1-50 journey isn't even close to being the whole game anyway, so saying that your lonely experience with that journey is a direct definition of developer failure is incredibly ridiculous.

Whatever your definition of "MMORPG" is, it's wildly incorrect if it causes you to think that ESO isn't one.

And:

drogon1 wrote: »

I am also surprised at how blithely you dismiss the 1-50 content. It is probably the most important content in this new game at the moment.

Completely dismissing its importance is wrong, this is true, but idolizing it is just as foolish.

You missed the bus. It's done gone and left.

"Forced-solo quests" - as you put it - is a very small subset of what I called "single player content" (content tuned for a single player). And it is a distinction that is irrelevant to the topic.

I'll try not to be "delusional" - and perhaps you can try bringing something relevant.

yodased

@sleepwalker Not sure why i'm quoted in your response as I believe you are speaking to the OP... Unless you are speaking to me to which I am seriously confused by.

Sleepwalker

Quoted you for pointing out truth. (i.e. QFT - Quoted for truth)

drogon1

Zepheric wrote: »

drogon1 wrote: »

I imagine

This right here, you have just told me you are making this up in your imagination.

Because you aren't happy doesn't mean crap about their sub numbers

Also no one even knows what their numbers are so to speculate now would be a lot of assumptions

and you know what happens when you assume..

I'm making up how xp is distributed in this game, and how it differs significantly from the other MMOs that sit in the genre?

I haven't used the term "fanboi" yet, but something about this post comes close lol.

Gix

drogon1 wrote: »

Gix wrote: »

Aside from the fact that you limit your definition by "tripple A MMOs", MMOs stand for massively multi-player online.

1) you need a LOT of players (in the hundreds/thousands).
2) they need to play together (aka: in the same space).
3) the game needs to be online (aka: not LAN).

That's it. Seeing it any differently just restricts your vision.

My comments are directed primarily to how the game mechanics in ESO differs significantly and unexpectedly from traditional games that use the MMO label

I'm arguing that you have a skewed idea of what a traditional MMO is as it's primarily based on MMOs that follow Everquest's style (popularized/mainstreamed by World of Warcraft).

That's like suggesting that Heroes and Generals isn't really a traditional First-Person shooter and it would be misleading to call it that because it doesn't have a single-player campaign like "traditional FPSs" like Call of Duty and Battlefield (oh, the irony on that one).

drogon1 wrote: »

And for the record - AGAIN - I do not say it is not an MMORPG. I said that it is just as misleading to call ESO a traditional MMO, than otherwise.

Where'd you get the idea that people called it a "traditional MMO" in the first place?

How is GuildWars 2 in your list of "Tranditional MMO" when the game's mechanics and systems are the most unique of the genre?

Your only argument is how much personal progress you can do in a group. Doesn't that seem strangely insignificant to you?