ESO - sadly - is not an MMO

Khafar

What I am saying - again - is that it is misleading to call ESO an MMO in the traditional sense. This is a fact.

No, it's not. It's an opinion. By your definition of an MMO, your assertions may be a "fact". However, MMOs vary widely. My first (and the one I grouped in by far the most, ironically) was Asheron's Call (1999). It had very nearly zero "group content", especially at launch. No raids. No group-only dungeons. Almost no quests which required a group to complete, even on-level. No "classes", per se, so no fixed group roles.

So why would I and so many others choose to group in such a game? Lots? Because 1) the lack of fixed group roles meant that the group could easily adjust to content without any sort of re-spec, and 2) the game was set up so the larger the group, the more XP you'd earn for each kill (and typically, the more loot you'd collect). Basically, it was "the more the merrier", with pretty much zero fussing about getting the right "mix" in your group. This made spontaneous grouping easy, fun, and rewarding. Not particularly "challenging" of course, but I don't need constant challenge in my entertainment.

I'd be fine if ESO went more that route (bigger group means larger XP multipliers), without majorly shifting the content to group-required. Otherwise, though, I like this MMO fine as it is.

drogon1

Gix wrote: »

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?

Every word has a customary usage (some have multiple). "MMO" has a customary usage expressed by the shared traits of games that fall under it. One of those traits is being able to viably advance your character in group content.

In this limited sense, applying the label to ESO is misleading because group content is not a viable way to currently level your character to 50 (pre-VR content).

Do you agree? Are you finding it viable to level your character to 50 via group content?

yodased

Yes it is completely 100% viable to level any character in ESO 1-50 EXCLUSIVELY in groups.

You simply have to role play, do the quests together and make sure that you choose the same options.

Its more of a fantasy simulator than you may like, but think about it, if you have a quest to kill someone or save someone and you share that with another person.

If you kill them and they save them, how could you possibly expect the same outcome? You have taken different paths.

There is a VAST majority (over 95%) of quests that can be completed in a group with no problems as long as you play the game the way it was designed and not how you feel it should be.

Edit: There are people ON THIS FORUM that have leveled doing nothing but groups

drogon1

Khafar wrote: »

What I am saying - again - is that it is misleading to call ESO an MMO in the traditional sense. This is a fact.

No, it's not. It's an opinion. By your definition of an MMO, your assertions may be a "fact".

Most or at least - many - folks who play MMOs expect to be able to advance their characters via group content. They expect to group with friends to overcome the challenges of dungeons, pvp, etc. - and to be able to advance their characters in this manner.

ESO - unlike the other major MMOs out there - does not allow you to viably do this.

This I claim is a fact. And it is empirically proveable: take the playerbase at 50, and compare the total xp received between single player content and group content (assuming that there is a rough equivalency between time spent and xp received). Simple stuff.

You can argue that I am incorrect because in fact the total xp from group content is much more than I assert. Or you can argue that most MMOs out there don't allow you to advance your character via group content and that my expectation is fubar.

But please make an argument. Dismissing my claim as an "opinion" - which says nothing and does less - is like saying that pink is a color. Hint: it's not even an argument.

Moonchilde

Arreyanne wrote: »

And that's the problem with MMO's once you leave a zone the zone is now worthless for you.

Someday maybe they will make a MMO that will have all zones replayable, maybe someday

^ Another achiever pronouncing their subjective judgements on behalf of the rest of the player base.

What about returning to zones to find materials that you need to craft for yourself or another character? Some places have better opportunities for finding enchantment items or more furniture for farming recipes.

There is also the opportunity to help other members of your guild, or even random players.

Some places are just nice to travel through and explore areas you didn't spend much time in - quite often, there are hidden things you missed.

There are also many great places in these 'useless zones' to stage roleplays. God forbid you should roleplay in an RPG, but I digress..

yodased

See I understand what the OP is actually trying to say here. He is saying that this is not a MMO because you can't group with people and simply spam dungeons and level up. You have to quest and actually talk to NPCs and do things instead of raid/dungeon grinding for 20 hours a day.

OP needs to play Diablo III

drogon1

yodased wrote: »

Yes it is completely 100% viable to level any character in ESO 1-50 EXCLUSIVELY in groups.

You simply have to role play, do the quests together and make sure that you choose the same options.

Its more of a fantasy simulator than you may like, but think about it, if you have a quest to kill someone or save someone and you share that with another person.

If you kill them and they save them, how could you possibly expect the same outcome? You have taken different paths.

There is a VAST majority (over 95%) of quests that can be completed in a group with no problems as long as you play the game the way it was designed and not how you feel it should be.

Edit: There are people ON THIS FORUM that have leveled doing nothing but groups

My points have nothing to do with solo versus group play. They are about MMO game content tuned for single players, versus content tuned for groups.

Gix

drogon1 wrote: »

In this limited sense, applying the label to ESO is misleading because group content is not a viable way to currently level your character to 50 (pre-VR content).

Do you agree? Are you finding it viable to level your character to 50 via group content?

With this in mind, we'd have to establish what you consider group content. Frankly, that could vary in definition as well.

I personally have only done a handful of quests on my own (except for the obvious main story and guild quests) as I spend most of my time with my friends and sharing the moment and kills together (not to mention dungeons and PvP). Hell, I even do crafting in a group environment as we're constantly trading crafted items and materials around.

So yeah, I find it perfectly viable.

With that said, if you believe that group content is something that is specifically designed for a group of people and would be nearly impossible to accomplish solo, such as Anchors and dungeons, etc. Then you'll probably find it really slow.

yodased

You points actually have everything to do with solo vs group play. Its actually the basis of your "argument".

How can this be 'tuned' for single players when you can group and do ~95% of the game?

drogon1

yodased wrote: »

You points actually have everything to do with solo vs group play. Its actually the basis of your "argument".

How can this be 'tuned' for single players when you can group and do ~95% of the game?

Sorry I don't know how to respond to you.

GeeYouWhy

It's an MMO, just not a well thought out one, but it's getting better.

yodased

that is not my issue

dietlime

drogon1 wrote: »

The amount of obtuseness (excepting the first poster) in this thread is ridiculous. If you have no problem calling an online game an MMO if it REQUIRES you to play single player content 99% of the time, then there is nothing to say.

In reply to the intelligent post of the first responder, I hope that they will make adjustments to xp sooner rather than later. Because they are losing my sub and most of my friends' subs sooner rather than later.

Basically every time I play I invite a random stranger near me doing the quests I am doing and almost always end up co-op questing.

dietlime

You should try it, almost everyone is just waiting for an invite. It's like a dance with all wallflowers.

Kaelis33

Ok just checked in after the patch and still no fix to the shoddy dungeon system. It's unbelievable, it is the last time I get talked into buying another MMO. This has to be the krappiest MMO I have ever played. I literally cannot do group content, and its why I buy and play MMOs, needless to say this game will be losing one sub.

The single player ADD quests are really quite a bore, SKyrim is far superior in everyway and there is no group content effectively in this game. Zenimax is outright refusing to make group play viable. I sincerely hope that MMOs like this fail hard.

Moonchilde

drogon1 wrote: »

First, there is actually NO reason to play a character specialized for group play. Playing a healer or tank through exclusively single player content can be fun, but for the average MMO player, it will not be done.

What about threads like this? forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/97836/too-many-fights-are-just-stupid-hard

TheGrandAlliance

@drogon1‌

MMORPG: Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game


IT is massive? Yes.

Can multiple people play it at same time? Yes.

Internet-based? Yes.

Role Playing? Yes.

A game? Yes.


Therefore ESO=MMORPG. This thread is thus /epicfail.

drogon1

TheGrandAlliance wrote: »

@drogon1‌

MMORPG: Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game


IT is massive? Yes.

Can multiple people play it at same time? Yes.

Internet-based? Yes.

Role Playing? Yes.

A game? Yes.


Therefore ESO=MMORPG. This thread is thus /epicfail.

Hehe so trite. But honestly not surprising on an video game forum lol.

TheGrandAlliance

...I didn't say it was a GOOD MMORPG. Meerly stating that it IS a MMORPG by a dictonary definition.

Khafar

Most or at least - many - folks who play MMOs expect to be able to advance their characters via group content. They expect to group with friends to overcome the challenges of dungeons, pvp, etc. - and to be able to advance their characters in this manner.

I'm sure some people do. However, people play MMOs for all sorts of reasons, and a great many don't actually play them in order to go on group activities with strangers. Or if they do, it's for an occasional outing, not a way of life. Grouping with friends is better of course, but availability is a common problem.

MMOs are entertainment services, offering a little something for all sorts of players: explorers, builder/crafters, roleplayers, solo adventurers, group adventurers, virtual entrepeneurs, virtual socializers, competitive activities, etc, etc. It's like an amusement park with many rides, and few players will engage deeply in all of them. The depth in each category varies by MMO.

This I claim is a fact.

But that's not what you claimed as "fact" in the post I quoted - you claimed it was a fact that calling ESO an MMO is misleading, which is just an opinion (and a thoroughly contested one, at that). It's pretty self-evident that it's an MMO - it just may not be quite the flavor of MMO that you enjoy most.

Travail

drogon1 wrote: »

Khafar wrote: »

What I am saying - again - is that it is misleading to call ESO an MMO in the traditional sense. This is a fact.

No, it's not. It's an opinion. By your definition of an MMO, your assertions may be a "fact".

Most or at least - many - folks who play MMOs expect to be able to advance their characters via group content. They expect to group with friends to overcome the challenges of dungeons, pvp, etc. - and to be able to advance their characters in this manner.

ESO - unlike the other major MMOs out there - does not allow you to viably do this.

This I claim is a fact. And it is empirically proveable: take the playerbase at 50, and compare the total xp received between single player content and group content (assuming that there is a rough equivalency between time spent and xp received). Simple stuff.

You can argue that I am incorrect because in fact the total xp from group content is much more than I assert. Or you can argue that most MMOs out there don't allow you to advance your character via group content and that my expectation is fubar.

But please make an argument. Dismissing my claim as an "opinion" - which says nothing and does less - is like saying that pink is a color. Hint: it's not even an argument.

All you've asserted here is that ESO fails to meet "most, or at least many" gamers' expectations of an MMO. Not only have you failed to prove this as fact, but you have all of your work ahead of you if you wish to then prove that that this disqualifies ESO from being listed as an MMO entirely.

The reason you are objectively wrong is that your core criteria is based on game balance, not functionality.

- Does ESO have dungeons? Yes.
- Do these dungeons range through every level range in the game? Yes.

However, you would have us believe that unless these dungeons are balanced so that they offer a viable way to level, then this cannot be considered an MMO. If that were the case, MMOs would be gaining and losing their status as an MMO on a regular basis, as they fine-tuned their experience gain rates. That's simply not the way this works.

In reality, you don't even need dungeons/group content to be an MMO. Tibia has no dungeons, and you can solo anything at a high enough level, but it is an MMO. Tabula Rasa (RIP) had some dungeons, but all of them could be solo'd (and it offered no endgame to speak of) yet it was an MMO. If I remember right, Age of Conan didn't have a dungeon to span every possible level range at launch, yet it was an MMO. I don't believe Darkfall has dungeons, though I could be wrong on that since I haven't played it myself. Age of Wushu, and many other Korean/eastern MMOs, would have to be stripped of that title also, if we were judging them based on this narrow criteria. EQN:Landmark has no dungeons or group content of any kind (it released without even having combat!) and EQN may not fit your narrow definition, either (hard to say, it's still a long way off.)

ESO is more of a "mainstream" MMO than any of these games I mentioned. I don't see how it fails to qualify. ESO isn't just an MMO, but it's basically a model example of a theme park MMO (it's really only missing small-scale instanced PvP.)

-Travail.

CapuchinSeven

dietlime wrote: »

I gotta say now that the major rush of players is thinned out, the game is a lot more compelling. Yesterday me and my GF did an anchor, and by the time we were done it slowly grew to about ~10 people; but just starting it was a real challenge without help so each player joining made it easier.

Then everyone organically ran off in different directions, and it was neat.

I agree here, my grouping friend and I have noticed the same. It's thinned out, not lessened as such, just thinned so not everyone is in the same area anymore.

Lindexx

drogon1 wrote: »

This is a cute counter-argument. But vapid.

Simple question should get a simple answer. What percentage of a new level 50 total xp flows from single player content? What % from group content?

Note: for the more obtuse, whether you were grouped for the single player content does not make it "group content."

I disagree with the way you choose to perceive the division of the game in Group and Single player content.

My definitions
Group content: "Content you can choose to do in a group."
Single player content: "Content you are forced to play through alone."

By my definition you can play from lvl 3 until lvl 50 grouped with your friends, and after your first character you can choose to start play as lvl 3. So nearly 100% of the game is group content if you so choose.


I like the PvE zones.
I like that I can play through the zones with my friends, or take an hour and play by myself without loosing my momentum.
I like that the game force you to spend points (however few) on your character to make him viable in PvE
I like that this game gives me the feel of the older single player elder scrolls games.

I bought this game based on what it was marketed as, and reviews on youtube. I would not have bought it if it if all there were to this game was grouping up and PvP. So I can't imagine how you could buy this game and not expect it to be how it is. And I can't imagine why you would buy a game without checking out what it is first.


A piece of advice for you:
Next time you buy a game follow this simple list:
1. Check reviews.
2. Check the publishers material
3. Don't expect people in general to have the same view of what a MMORPG is, so don't buy a game based on what you feel an MMORPG should be, instead buy the game based on what it offer you.

Shaun98ca2

Been playing MMO's for 15+ years now. ONLY a few MMO's I have ever player truly had a MASS amount of grouping.

1. EQLive was ONLY grouping when I played it back in its prime. There was SOME soloing but only certain classes with HARSH penalties for dieing.

2. WOW had the ability to run dungeons at nausea till you reach end game but that game sucked and there was the rest of the game that was solo from beginning to end. So the game felt divided VERY divided.

3. Rift was by far one of the best grouping games I have seen in a LONG time. Grouping up was fast and simple you made yourself available for a group and people joined you if they need help in your area. There were dungeons to run, Invasions, Rifts. But again you still solo level all your quests but along the way there was much more opportunity for grouping than WOW in my opinion but still not as much as EQLive.

4. TESO has CONSTANT grouping all the time. They may not be in "party" with me but fighting next to people we are all equally rewarded as long as we damaged the mob. I can EASILY heal people around me (this is almost found NOWHERE in mmo's except EQLive cause you had like 20 min to target and cast). Im grouping SO Much in this game at times I WISH there wasn't people around so I can try some of the content on my own for story bosses.

To say TESO isn't an MMO is flat dumb. You can say it lacks leveling VIA dungeons as that may be true but I imagine its being working on.

The LFG tool for dungeons in this game needs SERIOUS work. I would like to be thrown into a group AFTER it finds all 4 members. I would like to que for more than just one dungeon.

This game needs WOW/Rifts LFG tool and SHOULD of had it from the start.

yodased

Lol this thread fails so hard

steveb16_ESO46

It might technically be an MMO but it's one that goes out of its way, turns around and then goes out of its way all over again to make meaningful grouping hard unless you are all marching in lockstep through the plot.

Where you want to group you can't. When you want to appreciate the game-play solo you can't. I mean - you're in a dream and there's half a dozen other heroes in the same dream. Give me a break.

Singular

grahamz1b14_ESO wrote: »

It's not an MMO? Does that mean that those guys I grouped with this past evening for 3 dungeons were npcs? What about the Dark Anchors? Those people who helped me take out the bosses for the achievements, they were my imagination? The guys that clog up the bank making it difficult to reach the banker, those were npcs put there by Zenimax to fool me?

Ah, rats. We are going to have to have the Santa talk now. Listen, sorry...

Singular

drogon1 wrote: »

snip
Enter ESO that UNDERMINES this basic MMO experience and expectation.

In ESO, to reach VR levels, the player has only ONE viable route: single-player content, exclusively. The game offers the plethora of MMO group content (dungeons, pvp), but has - astonishly - decided that you CANNOT advance your character by doing it.

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.

This has a number of negative consequences:

First, there is actually NO reason to play a character specialized for group play. Playing a healer or tank through exclusively single player content can be fun, but for the average MMO player, it will not be done.

Second, grouping is pointless. I am not talking about the phasing mechanics here. The single player content in ESO as in most MMOs is common denominator and fairly faceroll. Grouping to do it makes it even less challenging - and unfun - than it already is.

Third, making an alt in the same faction is pointless, unless you enjoy performing the same quests (designed for the single-player) that you already did.

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 (especially as being underleveled you will expect to be facerolled out there).

In sum, it is misleading to advertise ESO as an MMO. Bizarrely, it tells the MMO player - "Look at all this wonderful group content we offer, just DON'T TOUCH!" I bought the Imperial Edition of this game expecting an MMO. You can say I'm pretty angry.

I kind of agree with you, OP.

It's ironic and slightly irritating that, no matter how you advance, you need to stop and do solo quests, or most of the game is forbidden to you. And, yes, that penalizes characters built for support roles in groups.

I don't mind doing the same quests twice - it's odd to me that you can't do them twice on the same character as I'm from DDO.

But it's not misleading to label this an MMO. It is one - lots of people all playing the same game.

Otherwise, to add to what you wrote, I find the grouping tools miserable. I don't like the random, forced nature of it. They really need to start an F2P account over at DDO to see how a good grouping system is designed.

Falmer

I guess I just played in a different era. Back in EQ, which was my first MMO (not counting MUDs), leveling was a very long process. All you had was grinding. In the later levels you were lucky to level once a week with extensive playing.

I think what you are failing to realize though is that pre-VR, there is a ton of content. Imagine, if they did add any kind of significant xp for group grinding.
Can you imagine the number of complaints about OUTLEVELING the content should you happen to spend a few hours in a dungeon with a few friends, only to emerge a few levels later and have every single quest you have greyed out?

The developers wanted this to be a story and content driven game, not a grinding game. I certainly admire that decision.

aleister

It's certainly not the MMO I expected. I was expecting/hoping for a game that gave me choice in how I wanted to progress. One that offered more reasons and benefits to grouping and would allow me to gain xp and progress that way rather than being forced into tedious, over-scripted solo quests (frequently forced solo with no option to group). Let me do the quests only if I want to. If I'm not interested, I shouldn't be forced to do them and I should have other ways to progress at the same rate.