Justice system sugestion (Addition) - Killing Other players in PVE.

fromtesonlineb16_ESO

smeeprocketnub19_ESO wrote: »

DieAlteHexe wrote: »

smeeprocketnub19_ESO wrote: »

theyancey wrote: »

Having to play ESO with the PvP types that post in these forums around me would greatly diminish my enjoyment of the game. I'm afraid that it will make wandering around a town as peacefully interesting as a crowded bank. The same skeevers will be trying to bother other players outside as they do now inside. I think that it has the potential of completely breaking the game for many.

How badly will it impact my enjoyment? I don't think that any of us can say yet. It concerns me enough that I switched my sub renewal in November from six months to monthly. Time will tell.

It's stuff like that that makes us call you carebears and hope for true world pvp so we can pk you at will.

You get all mad when you get insulted but drop insults yourself like it's just fact.

You are not the center of the universe.

Nor are PvPers, and I would like to ask, politely, that you refrain from using terms like "carebear", well, at least if you want to have a civil conversation. That you want to be able to clobber anyone at will is fine in the games that support that. And there are quite a few. I will never understand why dyed-in-the-wool PvPers buy a game, subscribe *knowing* the PvP (or lack thereof) and then start agitating for PvP. Why not just play a game that is written for PvP/RvR from the ground up? I don't go over to Eve or others of that ilk and start agitating for PvE to become the main focus.

Just boggles my mind.

you could say the same about pve'rs, on launch endgame for this was pvp. devs just caved and added some pve endgame..

LMAO .. they "caved in" so much they added and entire zone and followed it up with two end-game dungeons .. while PVP got nothing new.

Yup, I see that this is a PVP game with some minor PVE elements for the carebears.

LMFAO.

lathbury

So far the devs idea seems good I was concerned about the impact on provisioners. I'm not one but who doesn't need food but they have stated they will ensure the justice system does not gimp that craft.
Now they have stated that I'm really looking forward to it. I will be able to make a character similar to my ones in other tes games. The only difference will be the challenge will remain because there is the chance some gaurd fully specced and skilled will punish any mistakes cause really I'm not planning on paying any bounties .
I say remain because once you were high enough level in most tes games you could face roll guards so it took the element of danger away.
I used to try and only kill my target on db missions with out even getting seen by his/her lackeys to artificially add challenge.
Now with actual human guards it could be great. I'm looking forward to grabbing a few guildies and forming a small criminal gang of thieves and assassins.
The only thing that will suck IMHO is that nearly all buildings have only 1 entrance/exit no upstairs windows balconies or even side doors never mind sewer entrances.

TehMagnus

fromtesonlineb16_ESO wrote: »

smeeprocketnub19_ESO wrote: »

DieAlteHexe wrote: »

smeeprocketnub19_ESO wrote: »

theyancey wrote: »

Having to play ESO with the PvP types that post in these forums around me would greatly diminish my enjoyment of the game. I'm afraid that it will make wandering around a town as peacefully interesting as a crowded bank. The same skeevers will be trying to bother other players outside as they do now inside. I think that it has the potential of completely breaking the game for many.

How badly will it impact my enjoyment? I don't think that any of us can say yet. It concerns me enough that I switched my sub renewal in November from six months to monthly. Time will tell.

It's stuff like that that makes us call you carebears and hope for true world pvp so we can pk you at will.

You get all mad when you get insulted but drop insults yourself like it's just fact.

You are not the center of the universe.

Nor are PvPers, and I would like to ask, politely, that you refrain from using terms like "carebear", well, at least if you want to have a civil conversation. That you want to be able to clobber anyone at will is fine in the games that support that. And there are quite a few. I will never understand why dyed-in-the-wool PvPers buy a game, subscribe *knowing* the PvP (or lack thereof) and then start agitating for PvP. Why not just play a game that is written for PvP/RvR from the ground up? I don't go over to Eve or others of that ilk and start agitating for PvE to become the main focus.

Just boggles my mind.

you could say the same about pve'rs, on launch endgame for this was pvp. devs just caved and added some pve endgame..

LMAO .. they "caved in" so much they added and entire zone and followed it up with two end-game dungeons .. while PVP got nothing new.

Yup, I see that this is a PVP game with some minor PVE elements for the carebears.

LMFAO.

If you read carefully what he said, he didn't imply that this was a PVP game with minor PVE

on launch endgame for this was pvp.

And he is right, as you stated, they had to add new zones for PVE because all the existing en game content was PVP.

"LMFAO"

Anastasia

DieAlteHexe wrote: »

magnusnet wrote: »

yarnevk wrote: »

magnusnet wrote: »

Why would we assume that would change? Because if it wasn't intended to change, they would have released an other solo game and not a "Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game"?

MMOS are not PVP games stop equating the two. Interaction does not mean fighting, in most MMOS PVP is zoned and only opt-in and the majority of the game is PVE cooperative play, giving features to players so that they only have to play with people they want. That is why there is grouping filters, ignore filters, spam filters, guild filters, and instances that take all of that in to account All the PVE players are asking for is not to have to play with the likes of you, it is not going to affect your PVP experience one bit if they do not because they will quit the game before they have to anyways. They are not saying get rid of PVP for you, they are saying get rid of PVP in thier PVE instances. They want to play crime only with PVE consequences and have it affect only their game, just like every quest in the game only affects their game. It does not affect your game for them to make that choice. It would only affect your game if they crusaded to remove the PVP entirely, which nobody is doing because we are tolerant to understand why you want to play PVP, unlike your lack of tolerance for people who only want to play PVE.

Of course the version will be tested on PTS by the griefers, based on past experience they are not going to report the issues so that they can be abused on live because that gives them months of enjoyment before they finally get caught by the admins and fixed by the coders.

I never said "this is an MMO so it's PVP", I said "this is an MMO so it's not solo play".

[Moderator Note: Edited per our rules on Rude and Insulting comments]

And where is it written (hint: it isn't) that MMO means "not solo play". MMO came along to indicate the ability for multiple people to play online at the same time. At one time this was an amazing achievement. It was never meant to convey "must socialise, must group" although to play some of the early MMOs in is understandable where the "must group" idea was born.

MMOs are simply games played online according to the offerings of the developers of said game. Some have nothing but PvP, some a mixture, some rather do push for grouping and/or reward it, some lean more toward soloing.

yarnevk wrote: »

Most MMOs are in fact single player questing with a chat room because that is exactly what players want outside of the end game so that they can quickly level at their fast pace on their own playtime and not have to wait on others to play. ESO does not even have any cooperative quests outside of the the new craglorn, all of the lvl50 quests are single player within your instance phase. Even if you group up you cannot do quests together, all you really get is an extra chat tab and help on mobs. All the modern MMOs have instance phasing primarily because if questing was forced to be interactable with other players, then other players would grief their quests from being completed.

---

I don't even.

I don't even know what the heck other MMO's you've played because THIS:

"Most MMOs are in fact single player questing with a chat room because that is exactly what players want outside of the end game so that they can quickly level at their fast pace on their own playtime and not have to wait on others to play."

is SO totally untrue it has aroma of Stinkhorn Caps. While every mmo obviously has some familiar features and some 'newish' things to do in game, grouping has a super broad definition and IS a core part of MMO's. Yes. The social part of getting together and fighting against npc mobs is a MAIN FEATURE of MMO's since the oldschool years and most definitely is still included in recent years' triple A MMO releases.

While there is certainly nothing wrong with there being some content for a variety of player styles, and while no player will be ecstatic over every included or new and upcoming area/zone/new feature, the two components that have traditionally set an MMO apart from FPS online cooperative type games and certainly from solo console stuff has ALWAYS been grouping within PvP and PvE areas.

And btw saying 'aside from endgame' dismissively is disingenuous and does nothing to support your stance either. Endgame in many mmo's is a sort of 'beginning' for a decent chunk of new content. That some players coming in to TESO might think that also to be true is fairly natural. Since TESO is in its second quarter of its first year, our endgame really hasn't been defined.

I'll tell you what is very clearly defined though: Yes, MMO's always provide a mix of fun for different player styles, including some solo, PvP, PvE and absolutely Grouping. How TESO does this year and in coming years will contribute to the genre. But it will NOT redefine nor delete the core reason for grouping: to learn, progress within a group and figure out your best effectiveness so you can be responsible to those you will team with in endgame grouping which you will face, and lastly but not least importantly, as a social context. I continue to hope grouping motivation will be a priority for TESO staff so that the current consequences which are occurring in what endgame we actually do have will change as this MMO matures.

Also, while almost everyone joins in pick-up-groups some of the time, in most MMO's that is not what players mean when they say 'grouping'. In fact that is exactly why there is this acryonym of 'pugs'. Do not compare what are currently termed p-u-g's with the grouping done amidst Guilds, Alliances or i-r-l friends. Pfft.

TehMagnus

DieAlteHexe wrote: »

magnusnet wrote: »

yarnevk wrote: »

magnusnet wrote: »

Why would we assume that would change? Because if it wasn't intended to change, they would have released an other solo game and not a "Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game"?

MMOS are not PVP games stop equating the two. Interaction does not mean fighting, in most MMOS PVP is zoned and only opt-in and the majority of the game is PVE cooperative play, giving features to players so that they only have to play with people they want. That is why there is grouping filters, ignore filters, spam filters, guild filters, and instances that take all of that in to account All the PVE players are asking for is not to have to play with the likes of you, it is not going to affect your PVP experience one bit if they do not because they will quit the game before they have to anyways. They are not saying get rid of PVP for you, they are saying get rid of PVP in thier PVE instances. They want to play crime only with PVE consequences and have it affect only their game, just like every quest in the game only affects their game. It does not affect your game for them to make that choice. It would only affect your game if they crusaded to remove the PVP entirely, which nobody is doing because we are tolerant to understand why you want to play PVP, unlike your lack of tolerance for people who only want to play PVE.

Of course the version will be tested on PTS by the griefers, based on past experience they are not going to report the issues so that they can be abused on live because that gives them months of enjoyment before they finally get caught by the admins and fixed by the coders.

I never said "this is an MMO so it's PVP", I said "this is an MMO so it's not solo play".

[Moderator Note: Edited per our rules on Rude and Insulting comments]

And where is it written (hint: it isn't) that MMO means "not solo play". MMO came along to indicate the ability for multiple people to play online at the same time. At one time this was an amazing achievement. It was never meant to convey "must socialise, must group" although to play some of the early MMOs in is understandable where the "must group" idea was born.

MMOs are simply games played online according to the offerings of the developers of said game. Some have nothing but PvP, some a mixture, some rather do push for grouping and/or reward it, some lean more toward soloing.

What do you think "Multiplayer" stands for?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplayer_video_game

Multiplayer games allow players interaction with other individuals in partnership, competition or rivalry, providing them with social communication absent from single-player games.

So yeah, it may not force you to group(lately it doesn't since VR content was about grouping before) and play with others but it's pretty much the point of the system.

I can understand & relate if people don't care about the multiplayer part of the game and just want to play for the story (PVE), I'm a fan of SWKOTOR original RPG games and when the SWTOR came out I beta tested it and decided it was not for me since the fact the game was multiplayer (so I had to pay each month to play solo content and the char development was not what it used to be in the RPG games) ruined it for me. I never bought the game and seing it's state now, I'm happy I didn't, I just hope they will make more solo RPG games.

If you like Solo play TES games, ESO might not be for you and in the long run, you'll probably be disappointed since no matter how hard the devs try to please solo players, in the end, it's an MMO and it's what the majority is paying/playing for.

fromtesonlineb16_ESO

magnusnet wrote: »

fromtesonlineb16_ESO wrote: »

smeeprocketnub19_ESO wrote: »

DieAlteHexe wrote: »

smeeprocketnub19_ESO wrote: »

theyancey wrote: »

Having to play ESO with the PvP types that post in these forums around me would greatly diminish my enjoyment of the game. I'm afraid that it will make wandering around a town as peacefully interesting as a crowded bank. The same skeevers will be trying to bother other players outside as they do now inside. I think that it has the potential of completely breaking the game for many.

How badly will it impact my enjoyment? I don't think that any of us can say yet. It concerns me enough that I switched my sub renewal in November from six months to monthly. Time will tell.

It's stuff like that that makes us call you carebears and hope for true world pvp so we can pk you at will.

You get all mad when you get insulted but drop insults yourself like it's just fact.

You are not the center of the universe.

Nor are PvPers, and I would like to ask, politely, that you refrain from using terms like "carebear", well, at least if you want to have a civil conversation. That you want to be able to clobber anyone at will is fine in the games that support that. And there are quite a few. I will never understand why dyed-in-the-wool PvPers buy a game, subscribe *knowing* the PvP (or lack thereof) and then start agitating for PvP. Why not just play a game that is written for PvP/RvR from the ground up? I don't go over to Eve or others of that ilk and start agitating for PvE to become the main focus.

Just boggles my mind.

you could say the same about pve'rs, on launch endgame for this was pvp. devs just caved and added some pve endgame..

LMAO .. they "caved in" so much they added and entire zone and followed it up with two end-game dungeons .. while PVP got nothing new.

Yup, I see that this is a PVP game with some minor PVE elements for the carebears.

LMFAO.

If you read carefully what he said, he didn't imply that this was a PVP game with minor PVE

on launch endgame for this was pvp.

And he is right, as you stated, they had to add new zones for PVE because all the existing en game content was PVP.

"LMFAO"

Gratz on spinning it totally differently from what was said.

/clap

DieAlteHexe

magnusnet wrote: »

DieAlteHexe wrote: »

magnusnet wrote: »

yarnevk wrote: »

magnusnet wrote: »

Why would we assume that would change? Because if it wasn't intended to change, they would have released an other solo game and not a "Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game"?

MMOS are not PVP games stop equating the two. Interaction does not mean fighting, in most MMOS PVP is zoned and only opt-in and the majority of the game is PVE cooperative play, giving features to players so that they only have to play with people they want. That is why there is grouping filters, ignore filters, spam filters, guild filters, and instances that take all of that in to account All the PVE players are asking for is not to have to play with the likes of you, it is not going to affect your PVP experience one bit if they do not because they will quit the game before they have to anyways. They are not saying get rid of PVP for you, they are saying get rid of PVP in thier PVE instances. They want to play crime only with PVE consequences and have it affect only their game, just like every quest in the game only affects their game. It does not affect your game for them to make that choice. It would only affect your game if they crusaded to remove the PVP entirely, which nobody is doing because we are tolerant to understand why you want to play PVP, unlike your lack of tolerance for people who only want to play PVE.

Of course the version will be tested on PTS by the griefers, based on past experience they are not going to report the issues so that they can be abused on live because that gives them months of enjoyment before they finally get caught by the admins and fixed by the coders.

I never said "this is an MMO so it's PVP", I said "this is an MMO so it's not solo play".

[Moderator Note: Edited per our rules on Rude and Insulting comments]

And where is it written (hint: it isn't) that MMO means "not solo play". MMO came along to indicate the ability for multiple people to play online at the same time. At one time this was an amazing achievement. It was never meant to convey "must socialise, must group" although to play some of the early MMOs in is understandable where the "must group" idea was born.

MMOs are simply games played online according to the offerings of the developers of said game. Some have nothing but PvP, some a mixture, some rather do push for grouping and/or reward it, some lean more toward soloing.

What do you think "Multiplayer" stands for?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplayer_video_game

Multiplayer games allow players interaction with other individuals in partnership, competition or rivalry, providing them with social communication absent from single-player games.

So yeah, it may not force you to group(lately it doesn't since VR content was about grouping before) and play with others but it's pretty much the point of the system.

I can understand & relate if people don't care about the multiplayer part of the game and just want to play for the story (PVE), I'm a fan of SWKOTOR original RPG games and when the SWTOR came out I beta tested it and decided it was not for me since the fact the game was multiplayer (so I had to pay each month to play solo content and the char development was not what it used to be in the RPG games) ruined it for me. I never bought the game and seing it's state now, I'm happy I didn't, I just hope they will make more solo RPG games.

If you like Solo play TES games, ESO might not be for you and in the long run, you'll probably be disappointed since no matter how hard the devs try to please solo players, in the end, it's an MMO and it's what the majority is paying/playing for.

I'm perfectly content with ESO, but thanks for the concern! Grouping is fine for those who care to do it, I prefer a more intimate experience with duo or maybe three folks and I will avoid at all costs PUGs. Not sure why you think I'm a solo player. Perhaps you have me mixed up with someone else? Sure, I solo, I duo and occasionally group (not much in ESO so far as I've only been here a week and haven't sorted out the wheat from the chaff).

MMOs cover a variety of playstyles these days and not all involve grouping. Socialising, crafting, grouping, raiding, PvP, RvR etc. Hurrah! So long as there's stuff that I enjoy, I'll continue to do so. But if grouping or PvP gets forced, we'll be moving along. It's a fun game but it's not worth it to us to get embroiled in playstyles that are of no interest.

TehMagnus

DieAlteHexe wrote: »

magnusnet wrote: »

DieAlteHexe wrote: »

magnusnet wrote: »

yarnevk wrote: »

magnusnet wrote: »

Why would we assume that would change? Because if it wasn't intended to change, they would have released an other solo game and not a "Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game"?

MMOS are not PVP games stop equating the two. Interaction does not mean fighting, in most MMOS PVP is zoned and only opt-in and the majority of the game is PVE cooperative play, giving features to players so that they only have to play with people they want. That is why there is grouping filters, ignore filters, spam filters, guild filters, and instances that take all of that in to account All the PVE players are asking for is not to have to play with the likes of you, it is not going to affect your PVP experience one bit if they do not because they will quit the game before they have to anyways. They are not saying get rid of PVP for you, they are saying get rid of PVP in thier PVE instances. They want to play crime only with PVE consequences and have it affect only their game, just like every quest in the game only affects their game. It does not affect your game for them to make that choice. It would only affect your game if they crusaded to remove the PVP entirely, which nobody is doing because we are tolerant to understand why you want to play PVP, unlike your lack of tolerance for people who only want to play PVE.

Of course the version will be tested on PTS by the griefers, based on past experience they are not going to report the issues so that they can be abused on live because that gives them months of enjoyment before they finally get caught by the admins and fixed by the coders.

I never said "this is an MMO so it's PVP", I said "this is an MMO so it's not solo play".

[Moderator Note: Edited per our rules on Rude and Insulting comments]

And where is it written (hint: it isn't) that MMO means "not solo play". MMO came along to indicate the ability for multiple people to play online at the same time. At one time this was an amazing achievement. It was never meant to convey "must socialise, must group" although to play some of the early MMOs in is understandable where the "must group" idea was born.

MMOs are simply games played online according to the offerings of the developers of said game. Some have nothing but PvP, some a mixture, some rather do push for grouping and/or reward it, some lean more toward soloing.

What do you think "Multiplayer" stands for?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplayer_video_game

Multiplayer games allow players interaction with other individuals in partnership, competition or rivalry, providing them with social communication absent from single-player games.

So yeah, it may not force you to group(lately it doesn't since VR content was about grouping before) and play with others but it's pretty much the point of the system.

I can understand & relate if people don't care about the multiplayer part of the game and just want to play for the story (PVE), I'm a fan of SWKOTOR original RPG games and when the SWTOR came out I beta tested it and decided it was not for me since the fact the game was multiplayer (so I had to pay each month to play solo content and the char development was not what it used to be in the RPG games) ruined it for me. I never bought the game and seing it's state now, I'm happy I didn't, I just hope they will make more solo RPG games.

If you like Solo play TES games, ESO might not be for you and in the long run, you'll probably be disappointed since no matter how hard the devs try to please solo players, in the end, it's an MMO and it's what the majority is paying/playing for.

I'm perfectly content with ESO, but thanks for the concern! Grouping is fine for those who care to do it, I prefer a more intimate experience with duo or maybe three folks and I will avoid at all costs PUGs. Not sure why you think I'm a solo player. Perhaps you have me mixed up with someone else? Sure, I solo, I duo and occasionally group (not much in ESO so far as I've only been here a week and haven't sorted out the wheat from the chaff).

MMOs cover a variety of playstyles these days and not all involve grouping. Socialising, crafting, grouping, raiding, PvP, RvR etc. Hurrah! So long as there's stuff that I enjoy, I'll continue to do so. But if grouping or PvP gets forced, we'll be moving along. It's a fun game but it's not worth it to us to get embroiled in playstyles that are of no interest.

There is content that forces grouping: Group & Veteran dungeons / trials. And content that forces PVP: Justice system.

You're free not to engage in actions like stealing that include you in the justice system just as you're free not to do the dungeons or enter Cyrodill.

In the end best content (except for solo players who only want to quest) is grouped and without grouping you won't fully experience the game nor all that it can provide. Thus to fully experience an MMO, it does mean: "not solo play".

DieAlteHexe

magnusnet wrote: »

DieAlteHexe wrote: »

magnusnet wrote: »

DieAlteHexe wrote: »

magnusnet wrote: »

yarnevk wrote: »

magnusnet wrote: »

Why would we assume that would change? Because if it wasn't intended to change, they would have released an other solo game and not a "Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game"?

MMOS are not PVP games stop equating the two. Interaction does not mean fighting, in most MMOS PVP is zoned and only opt-in and the majority of the game is PVE cooperative play, giving features to players so that they only have to play with people they want. That is why there is grouping filters, ignore filters, spam filters, guild filters, and instances that take all of that in to account All the PVE players are asking for is not to have to play with the likes of you, it is not going to affect your PVP experience one bit if they do not because they will quit the game before they have to anyways. They are not saying get rid of PVP for you, they are saying get rid of PVP in thier PVE instances. They want to play crime only with PVE consequences and have it affect only their game, just like every quest in the game only affects their game. It does not affect your game for them to make that choice. It would only affect your game if they crusaded to remove the PVP entirely, which nobody is doing because we are tolerant to understand why you want to play PVP, unlike your lack of tolerance for people who only want to play PVE.

Of course the version will be tested on PTS by the griefers, based on past experience they are not going to report the issues so that they can be abused on live because that gives them months of enjoyment before they finally get caught by the admins and fixed by the coders.

I never said "this is an MMO so it's PVP", I said "this is an MMO so it's not solo play".

[Moderator Note: Edited per our rules on Rude and Insulting comments]

And where is it written (hint: it isn't) that MMO means "not solo play". MMO came along to indicate the ability for multiple people to play online at the same time. At one time this was an amazing achievement. It was never meant to convey "must socialise, must group" although to play some of the early MMOs in is understandable where the "must group" idea was born.

MMOs are simply games played online according to the offerings of the developers of said game. Some have nothing but PvP, some a mixture, some rather do push for grouping and/or reward it, some lean more toward soloing.

What do you think "Multiplayer" stands for?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplayer_video_game

Multiplayer games allow players interaction with other individuals in partnership, competition or rivalry, providing them with social communication absent from single-player games.

So yeah, it may not force you to group(lately it doesn't since VR content was about grouping before) and play with others but it's pretty much the point of the system.

I can understand & relate if people don't care about the multiplayer part of the game and just want to play for the story (PVE), I'm a fan of SWKOTOR original RPG games and when the SWTOR came out I beta tested it and decided it was not for me since the fact the game was multiplayer (so I had to pay each month to play solo content and the char development was not what it used to be in the RPG games) ruined it for me. I never bought the game and seing it's state now, I'm happy I didn't, I just hope they will make more solo RPG games.

If you like Solo play TES games, ESO might not be for you and in the long run, you'll probably be disappointed since no matter how hard the devs try to please solo players, in the end, it's an MMO and it's what the majority is paying/playing for.

I'm perfectly content with ESO, but thanks for the concern! Grouping is fine for those who care to do it, I prefer a more intimate experience with duo or maybe three folks and I will avoid at all costs PUGs. Not sure why you think I'm a solo player. Perhaps you have me mixed up with someone else? Sure, I solo, I duo and occasionally group (not much in ESO so far as I've only been here a week and haven't sorted out the wheat from the chaff).

MMOs cover a variety of playstyles these days and not all involve grouping. Socialising, crafting, grouping, raiding, PvP, RvR etc. Hurrah! So long as there's stuff that I enjoy, I'll continue to do so. But if grouping or PvP gets forced, we'll be moving along. It's a fun game but it's not worth it to us to get embroiled in playstyles that are of no interest.

There is content that forces grouping: Group & Veteran dungeons / trials. And content that forces PVP: Justice system.

You're free not to engage in actions like stealing that include you in the justice system just as you're free not to do the dungeons or enter Cyrodill.

In the end best content (except for solo players who only want to quest) is grouped and without grouping you won't fully experience the game nor all that it can provide. Thus to fully experience an MMO, it does mean: "not solo play".

And if/when the time comes that I am faced with forced grouping, then my time in TESO will be at an end. It's just not of interest to me. If it can be managed with 2 or 3 folks, then we'll give it a go, otherwise, alts or done.

Not sure what you are telling me about the "stealing" thing. I've no issue at all with the upcoming changes provided Zen keeps a close eye out for the inevitable attempts to "sploit". I don't care one iota if folk want to run around beating the snot out of each other so long as I don't have to deal with it.

I think I'll just go ahead with my definition of what I find to be a "full experience" in an MMO as I have since the days of UO. Works for me. TESO is a great deal of fun, and I'll continue to play it, as I have all the other MMOs until it is no longer fun. Plenty of other things to do rather than slogging along doing something that just isn't for me. With TESO, I imagine it'll be awhile before I have to face that decision. In the meantime, we'll carry on just fine.

fromtesonlineb16_ESO

magnusnet wrote: »

DieAlteHexe wrote: »

magnusnet wrote: »

yarnevk wrote: »

magnusnet wrote: »

Why would we assume that would change? Because if it wasn't intended to change, they would have released an other solo game and not a "Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game"?

MMOS are not PVP games stop equating the two. Interaction does not mean fighting, in most MMOS PVP is zoned and only opt-in and the majority of the game is PVE cooperative play, giving features to players so that they only have to play with people they want. That is why there is grouping filters, ignore filters, spam filters, guild filters, and instances that take all of that in to account All the PVE players are asking for is not to have to play with the likes of you, it is not going to affect your PVP experience one bit if they do not because they will quit the game before they have to anyways. They are not saying get rid of PVP for you, they are saying get rid of PVP in thier PVE instances. They want to play crime only with PVE consequences and have it affect only their game, just like every quest in the game only affects their game. It does not affect your game for them to make that choice. It would only affect your game if they crusaded to remove the PVP entirely, which nobody is doing because we are tolerant to understand why you want to play PVP, unlike your lack of tolerance for people who only want to play PVE.

Of course the version will be tested on PTS by the griefers, based on past experience they are not going to report the issues so that they can be abused on live because that gives them months of enjoyment before they finally get caught by the admins and fixed by the coders.

I never said "this is an MMO so it's PVP", I said "this is an MMO so it's not solo play".

[Moderator Note: Edited per our rules on Rude and Insulting comments]

And where is it written (hint: it isn't) that MMO means "not solo play". MMO came along to indicate the ability for multiple people to play online at the same time. At one time this was an amazing achievement. It was never meant to convey "must socialise, must group" although to play some of the early MMOs in is understandable where the "must group" idea was born.

MMOs are simply games played online according to the offerings of the developers of said game. Some have nothing but PvP, some a mixture, some rather do push for grouping and/or reward it, some lean more toward soloing.

What do you think "Multiplayer" stands for?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplayer_video_game

NOTE: the 'G' in MMORPG (to use the full acronym) doesn't stand for group.

Just to help you here: the acronym MMO isn't valid English to refer to something, there is no noun, there's where the 'G' come in.

TehMagnus

DieAlteHexe wrote: »

magnusnet wrote: »

There is content that forces grouping: Group & Veteran dungeons / trials. And content that forces PVP: Justice system.

You're free not to engage in actions like stealing that include you in the justice system just as you're free not to do the dungeons or enter Cyrodill.

In the end best content (except for solo players who only want to quest) is grouped and without grouping you won't fully experience the game nor all that it can provide. Thus to fully experience an MMO, it does mean: "not solo play".

And if/when the time comes that I am faced with forced grouping, then my time in TESO will be at an end. It's just not of interest to me. If it can be managed with 2 or 3 folks, then we'll give it a go, otherwise, alts or done.

Hence why I said this is prolly not the game you're looking for and that in the long run it won't be to your liking since some content will never be soloable or doable in groups of 2/3 folks. Difference between you and other players who don't play alone is that you will leave before them when solo content is exhausted whereas they will keep playing for the multiplayer experience.

fromtesonlineb16_ESO wrote: »

NOTE: the 'G' in MMORPG (to use the full acronym) doesn't stand for group.

Just to help you here: the acronym MMO isn't valid English to refer to something, there is no noun, there's where the 'G' come in.

Just to help you here, MMO is a valid & used term regardless of the validity of the word.

All MMORPGS are MMOs but not all MMOs are MMORPGs so it is correct to talk about an MMORPG using the term MMO. Google would have helped you realize this but I feel generous today so I will even give you a link that explains this to you:

http://internet-games.yoexpert.com/mmorpgs/what-s-the-difference-between-an-mmorpg-and-mmo-1636.html

Note: Google is your friend

Anastasia

DieAlteHexe wrote: »

magnusnet wrote: »

DieAlteHexe wrote: »

magnusnet wrote: »

yarnevk wrote: »

magnusnet wrote: »

Why would we assume that would change? Because if it wasn't intended to change, they would have released an other solo game and not a "Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game"?

MMOS are not PVP games stop equating the two. Interaction does not mean fighting, in most MMOS PVP is zoned and only opt-in and the majority of the game is PVE cooperative play, giving features to players so that they only have to play with people they want. That is why there is grouping filters, ignore filters, spam filters, guild filters, and instances that take all of that in to account All the PVE players are asking for is not to have to play with the likes of you, it is not going to affect your PVP experience one bit if they do not because they will quit the game before they have to anyways. They are not saying get rid of PVP for you, they are saying get rid of PVP in thier PVE instances. They want to play crime only with PVE consequences and have it affect only their game, just like every quest in the game only affects their game. It does not affect your game for them to make that choice. It would only affect your game if they crusaded to remove the PVP entirely, which nobody is doing because we are tolerant to understand why you want to play PVP, unlike your lack of tolerance for people who only want to play PVE.

Of course the version will be tested on PTS by the griefers, based on past experience they are not going to report the issues so that they can be abused on live because that gives them months of enjoyment before they finally get caught by the admins and fixed by the coders.

I never said "this is an MMO so it's PVP", I said "this is an MMO so it's not solo play".

[Moderator Note: Edited per our rules on Rude and Insulting comments]

And where is it written (hint: it isn't) that MMO means "not solo play". MMO came along to indicate the ability for multiple people to play online at the same time. At one time this was an amazing achievement. It was never meant to convey "must socialise, must group" although to play some of the early MMOs in is understandable where the "must group" idea was born.

MMOs are simply games played online according to the offerings of the developers of said game. Some have nothing but PvP, some a mixture, some rather do push for grouping and/or reward it, some lean more toward soloing.

What do you think "Multiplayer" stands for?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplayer_video_game

Multiplayer games allow players interaction with other individuals in partnership, competition or rivalry, providing them with social communication absent from single-player games.

So yeah, it may not force you to group(lately it doesn't since VR content was about grouping before) and play with others but it's pretty much the point of the system.

I can understand & relate if people don't care about the multiplayer part of the game and just want to play for the story (PVE), I'm a fan of SWKOTOR original RPG games and when the SWTOR came out I beta tested it and decided it was not for me since the fact the game was multiplayer (so I had to pay each month to play solo content and the char development was not what it used to be in the RPG games) ruined it for me. I never bought the game and seing it's state now, I'm happy I didn't, I just hope they will make more solo RPG games.

If you like Solo play TES games, ESO might not be for you and in the long run, you'll probably be disappointed since no matter how hard the devs try to please solo players, in the end, it's an MMO and it's what the majority is paying/playing for.

I'm perfectly content with ESO, but thanks for the concern! Grouping is fine for those who care to do it, I prefer a more intimate experience with duo or maybe three folks and I will avoid at all costs PUGs. Not sure why you think I'm a solo player. Perhaps you have me mixed up with someone else? Sure, I solo, I duo and occasionally group (not much in ESO so far as I've only been here a week and haven't sorted out the wheat from the chaff).

MMOs cover a variety of playstyles these days and not all involve grouping. Socialising, crafting, grouping, raiding, PvP, RvR etc. Hurrah! So long as there's stuff that I enjoy, I'll continue to do so. But if grouping or PvP gets forced, we'll be moving along. It's a fun game but it's not worth it to us to get embroiled in playstyles that are of no interest.

---

Duo-ing and trio-ing IS grouping. In TESO, a FULL group would be four players. Intimate or not.

Surely I read your post wrong?

...You've only been here a week? Even surface analysis of TESO's strengths and weaknesses whether its playstyles or Grouping should not be heavily commented on by 'chaff'.

Aenra

title says it all

"Killing other players in PVE"

"PVE"

may i start a new poll?
what's scarier? That your money is as good as mine when it comes to Zeni's incomes, or that people actually respond in earnest to your topic?

TehMagnus

Aenra wrote: »

title says it all

"Killing other players in PVE"

"PVE"

may i start a new poll?
what's scarier? That your money is as good as mine when it comes to Zeni's incomes, or that people actually respond in earnest to your topic?

It's scary that you get scarred by a title and that it leads to you commenting that it's scary my money is as good as yours, thus implying that since my ideas aren't on par with yours and people who think like you, it's a bad thing we are equals in front of ZOS.

The fact you think that other people who are/think differently than you are scary is what's scary to me

DieAlteHexe

magnusnet wrote: »

DieAlteHexe wrote: »

magnusnet wrote: »

There is content that forces grouping: Group & Veteran dungeons / trials. And content that forces PVP: Justice system.

You're free not to engage in actions like stealing that include you in the justice system just as you're free not to do the dungeons or enter Cyrodill.

In the end best content (except for solo players who only want to quest) is grouped and without grouping you won't fully experience the game nor all that it can provide. Thus to fully experience an MMO, it does mean: "not solo play".

And if/when the time comes that I am faced with forced grouping, then my time in TESO will be at an end. It's just not of interest to me. If it can be managed with 2 or 3 folks, then we'll give it a go, otherwise, alts or done.

Hence why I said this is prolly not the game you're looking for and that in the long run it won't be to your liking since some content will never be soloable or doable in groups of 2/3 folks. Difference between you and other players who don't play alone is that you will leave before them when solo content is exhausted whereas they will keep playing for the multiplayer experience.

...

Well, again, I appreciate your concern but I think it's a very nice game and am not sure why you are trying to insist that it's "not the game you're looking for". I am not calling for any changes, I'm totally enjoying the game as it stands. I've already (years ago) come to terms with most MMO's "end-game" being raiding/essentially forced grouping and I'm fine with that. I get plenty of "mileage" from an MMO without going into the need for lots of grouping.

Perhaps you might find someone else to take this up with. I'm not the argument you're seeking.

Enjoy your evening.

DieAlteHexe

Anastasia wrote: »

DieAlteHexe wrote: »

magnusnet wrote: »

DieAlteHexe wrote: »

magnusnet wrote: »

yarnevk wrote: »

magnusnet wrote: »

Why would we assume that would change? Because if it wasn't intended to change, they would have released an other solo game and not a "Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game"?

MMOS are not PVP games stop equating the two. Interaction does not mean fighting, in most MMOS PVP is zoned and only opt-in and the majority of the game is PVE cooperative play, giving features to players so that they only have to play with people they want. That is why there is grouping filters, ignore filters, spam filters, guild filters, and instances that take all of that in to account All the PVE players are asking for is not to have to play with the likes of you, it is not going to affect your PVP experience one bit if they do not because they will quit the game before they have to anyways. They are not saying get rid of PVP for you, they are saying get rid of PVP in thier PVE instances. They want to play crime only with PVE consequences and have it affect only their game, just like every quest in the game only affects their game. It does not affect your game for them to make that choice. It would only affect your game if they crusaded to remove the PVP entirely, which nobody is doing because we are tolerant to understand why you want to play PVP, unlike your lack of tolerance for people who only want to play PVE.

Of course the version will be tested on PTS by the griefers, based on past experience they are not going to report the issues so that they can be abused on live because that gives them months of enjoyment before they finally get caught by the admins and fixed by the coders.

I never said "this is an MMO so it's PVP", I said "this is an MMO so it's not solo play".

[Moderator Note: Edited per our rules on Rude and Insulting comments]

And where is it written (hint: it isn't) that MMO means "not solo play". MMO came along to indicate the ability for multiple people to play online at the same time. At one time this was an amazing achievement. It was never meant to convey "must socialise, must group" although to play some of the early MMOs in is understandable where the "must group" idea was born.

MMOs are simply games played online according to the offerings of the developers of said game. Some have nothing but PvP, some a mixture, some rather do push for grouping and/or reward it, some lean more toward soloing.

What do you think "Multiplayer" stands for?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplayer_video_game

Multiplayer games allow players interaction with other individuals in partnership, competition or rivalry, providing them with social communication absent from single-player games.

So yeah, it may not force you to group(lately it doesn't since VR content was about grouping before) and play with others but it's pretty much the point of the system.

I can understand & relate if people don't care about the multiplayer part of the game and just want to play for the story (PVE), I'm a fan of SWKOTOR original RPG games and when the SWTOR came out I beta tested it and decided it was not for me since the fact the game was multiplayer (so I had to pay each month to play solo content and the char development was not what it used to be in the RPG games) ruined it for me. I never bought the game and seing it's state now, I'm happy I didn't, I just hope they will make more solo RPG games.

If you like Solo play TES games, ESO might not be for you and in the long run, you'll probably be disappointed since no matter how hard the devs try to please solo players, in the end, it's an MMO and it's what the majority is paying/playing for.

I'm perfectly content with ESO, but thanks for the concern! Grouping is fine for those who care to do it, I prefer a more intimate experience with duo or maybe three folks and I will avoid at all costs PUGs. Not sure why you think I'm a solo player. Perhaps you have me mixed up with someone else? Sure, I solo, I duo and occasionally group (not much in ESO so far as I've only been here a week and haven't sorted out the wheat from the chaff).

MMOs cover a variety of playstyles these days and not all involve grouping. Socialising, crafting, grouping, raiding, PvP, RvR etc. Hurrah! So long as there's stuff that I enjoy, I'll continue to do so. But if grouping or PvP gets forced, we'll be moving along. It's a fun game but it's not worth it to us to get embroiled in playstyles that are of no interest.

---

Duo-ing and trio-ing IS grouping. In TESO, a FULL group would be four players. Intimate or not.

Surely I read your post wrong?

...You've only been here a week? Even surface analysis of TESO's strengths and weaknesses whether its playstyles or Grouping should not be heavily commented on by 'chaff'.

I wouldn't call "duo-ing" grouping but if that's what you wish to use, okay. Then we're done with the discussion! Yaaay! I group! Huzzah!

At least I'm a happy "chaff", enjoying a great game, better than I have most MMOs that I've played for nearly 20 year. It's a stand-out to me. It's an MMO, not rocket science. And, the only thing that matters to me is "am I having fun". If yes, then I continue along. If no, then I go do something else.

TehMagnus

DieAlteHexe wrote: »

Well, again, I appreciate your concern but I think it's a very nice game and am not sure why you are trying to insist that it's "not the game you're looking for". I am not calling for any changes, I'm totally enjoying the game as it stands. I've already (years ago) come to terms with most MMO's "end-game" being raiding/essentially forced grouping and I'm fine with that. I get plenty of "mileage" from an MMO without going into the need for lots of grouping.

Perhaps you might find someone else to take this up with. I'm not the argument you're seeking.

Enjoy your evening.

Let's remember how we got to this point shall we? since you rather answer to the part where I tell you you might not be happy here instead of the part where I prove you wrong:

And where is it written (hint: it isn't) that MMO means "not solo play".

I'm just pointing out that you cannot do all the content THIS MMO offers by "solo playing" and that it actually does forces you to group near end game while also pointing out that even if an MMORPG doesn't force you to play in groups, it's pretty much the point behind it: "to play a game where you cooperate with others".

Having only played a week, it's normal you don't realize this now. You'll see when you get to the point where you can't explore, level up or do content in high level PVE areas without grouping.

Yu might enjoy the limited content for a looong time, that's no problem since it's your choice. Doesn't mean it's what was intended when making an online game.

DieAlteHexe

magnusnet wrote: »

DieAlteHexe wrote: »

Well, again, I appreciate your concern but I think it's a very nice game and am not sure why you are trying to insist that it's "not the game you're looking for". I am not calling for any changes, I'm totally enjoying the game as it stands. I've already (years ago) come to terms with most MMO's "end-game" being raiding/essentially forced grouping and I'm fine with that. I get plenty of "mileage" from an MMO without going into the need for lots of grouping.

Perhaps you might find someone else to take this up with. I'm not the argument you're seeking.

Enjoy your evening.

Let's remember how we got to this point shall we? since you rather answer to the part where I tell you you might not be happy here instead of the part where I prove you wrong:

And where is it written (hint: it isn't) that MMO means "not solo play".

I'm just pointing out that you cannot do all the content THIS MMO offers by "solo playing" and that it actually does forces you to group near end game while also pointing out that even if an MMORPG doesn't force you to play in groups, it's pretty much the point behind it: "to play a game where you cooperate with others".

Having only played a week, it's normal you don't realize this now. You'll see when you get to the point where you can't explore, level up or do content in high level PVE areas without grouping.

Why are you still arguing with me? Heh.I know (and have said numerous times) that I will not (unless I have a major change of mind, doubtful given I've not done so over the years) be able to play ALL the content. I get that. I'm fine with that. It's, well, typical of MMOs that end-game almost always consists of needing to group up. I've known this for years and years.

I have also said that when I reach that point (of needing to group to go any further), then my time will be done. It's not a big deal to me. It's kind of akin to going to a buffet, plenty to eat but I'm not necessarily interested in trying to eat all of it. I can enjoy what I do eat without bemoaning the fact that I choose not to eat all of it.

GnatB

Tannakaobi wrote: »

Why do PVE players play MMO's? By and large mmo's are cack. Graphics are poor, gameplay is poor. Reaction timings are poor. When I say poor, I mean in direct comparison to games that are not mmo's. If you are not going to hack chunks out of each other then what is the point?

Why do PvP players play MMORPG's? By and large how well you do is determined by your characters stats and not how good a player you are. If you want to show how good a player you are by competing against other players, why don't you choose to play a genre that's actually based on player skill? Probably the reason why you think gameplay is poor (and possibly why you have an issue with reaction timings). It's the wrong genre for what you're looking for.

cracker81

Best solo dungeons are cyrodiil. Special the ones with hidden lvls.

TehMagnus

DieAlteHexe wrote: »

Why are you still arguing with me?

Because you keep answering .

DieAlteHexe wrote: »

Heh.I know (and have said numerous times) that I will not (unless I have a major change of mind, doubtful given I've not done so over the years) be able to play ALL the content. I get that. I'm fine with that. It's, well, typical of MMOs that end-game almost always consists of needing to group up. I've known this for years and years.

I have also said that when I reach that point (of needing to group to go any further), then my time will be done. It's not a big deal to me. It's kind of akin to going to a buffet, plenty to eat but I'm not necessarily interested in trying to eat all of it. I can enjoy what I do eat without bemoaning the fact that I choose not to eat all of it.

So MMORPGs is not meant for soloplay but for multiplay with a part that is soloable. At last we agree. We can stop arguing then.

GnatB

leandro.800ub17_ESO wrote: »

Loot thing in caverns and outside of town done.
I mean im not gona waist time in low levels waiting for some lv5 to kil la an npc and get no exp for killing him.

Problem is, all the loot worth getting comes from furniture (and backpacks). Not surprisingly, the *vast* majority of furniture is found in towns. If the justice systems comes out as described without some alternate means of procuring recipies (and motifs) than you're practically making provisioning a PvP skill. You'll either have to sign up for PvP to obtain your recipies, or buy them from somebody who has.

When I loot a bank, the only thing I bother searching is the furniture. I'll get enough of the stuff in the other container types while out adventuring.

Audigy wrote: »

The whole purpose of actually paying a sub after buying an MMO is the group activity. Why should someone pay 13 bucks every month, if he or she can get a single player game by paying 30 bucks once? A game this person can mod as much as he want by the way!

Actually, my dad loves MMORPG's, pretty much the only type of game he plays nowadays, but by and large hates the grouping aspect. The reason he likes them is the "frequent" content updates without having to go learn new combat systems/make new characters like he would have to do by actually playing a new/different single player game. As far as he cares they're basically episodic single player games.

Audigy wrote: »

I miss the days of UO, SWG and EQ where people didn't care if you did pvp, pve, rp or something else. People were playing a game together and they accepted other player types. Today its all so hostile, it just makes me sad.

Funny, my memory of EQ was that there effectively was no PvP. There was only a tiny handful of PvP servers that (if memory serves) were pretty much consolidated shortly after release due to low population, and on the rest of the servers people would very rarely duel each other, but that was pretty much it. (I do vaguely remember there was some way to turn yourself PvP, but nobody ever actually seemed to do it. IIRC All it did was effectively make your character immune from everybody elses heals/buffs.) So of course people didn't care about it, it practically didn't exist. I don't even remember any balance alterations due to PvP. Think the devs just pretty much ignored it's existence.

Anyways, my last post in this thread:

1. I tend to feel that, by definition, PvP in an MMORPG will always be incredibly inferior to PvP in a non RPG game, and from my point of view ideally developers shouldn't bother with it. When I want PvP, I play a genre in which PvP actually works. I actually have more than 1 game installed on my computer.
2. I understand why MMORPG developers put in PvP. It's an easy to add* end game hamster wheel, as the players effectively make their own content, and it will help maintain some of the content locusts.
3. I generally have no interest in hamster wheels, whether they are fighting other players over and over, or running raids/instances over and over. If/When I get to "end game" I simply put that game on hold and play something different until more real content is released. (which doesn't happen that frequently, I'm not a content locust) Similarly, I find it completely bizarre that some people actually pay real money to skip the actual content of the game. (a.k.a. people buying powerleveling/leveled characters)
4. The ship has already sailed in ESO. There is PvP.
5. The justice system, particularly PvE directed content like stealing from/killing NPC's, seems like a very odd hook into PvP content from an actual gameplay perspective. (Though I'll admit it makes all kinds of sense "lorewise") If I actually wanted to fight other players in an RPG like this, I'll head into Cyrodill where I can just attack them. I don't think I'm going to want to run around looting drawers in banks for 1gp items (or even killing random NPC's) hopeing some PC guard that is around my level decides it'll be fun to attack me. Similarly, I don't think I'm going to be spending time hanging around the bank as a guard hoping some player around my level decides to rob a cabinet.
6. I suspect the vast majority of PC "guards" lurking in banks will be griefers looking to slaughter some lower level character taking a chance that there isn't a PC guard nearby and trying to get a recipe for his provisioner or trying to make a buck finding a motif.
7. After the novelty wears off, I doubt there will be all that many people looking to PvP actually stealing/murdering in towns.
8. All this justice system seems likely to do, long term, is *dramatically* reduce the flow of items looted from furniture.



*problem is that it's not easy to maintain. There are always imbalance issues and power discrepencies, that eventually cause a whole bunch of headaches for everybody.

nerevarine1138

GnatB wrote: »

leandro.800ub17_ESO wrote: »

Loot thing in caverns and outside of town done.
I mean im not gona waist time in low levels waiting for some lv5 to kil la an npc and get no exp for killing him.

Problem is, all the loot worth getting comes from furniture (and backpacks). Not surprisingly, the *vast* majority of furniture is found in towns. If the justice systems comes out as described without some alternate means of procuring recipies (and motifs) than you're practically making provisioning a PvP skill. You'll either have to sign up for PvP to obtain your recipies, or buy them from somebody who has.

When I loot a bank, the only thing I bother searching is the furniture. I'll get enough of the stuff in the other container types while out adventuring.

So it's going to be harder to obtain things honestly than it will be through stealing? Oh the horror!

smeeprocketnub19_ESO

GnatB wrote: »

leandro.800ub17_ESO wrote: »

Loot thing in caverns and outside of town done.
I mean im not gona waist time in low levels waiting for some lv5 to kil la an npc and get no exp for killing him.

Problem is, all the loot worth getting comes from furniture (and backpacks). Not surprisingly, the *vast* majority of furniture is found in towns. If the justice systems comes out as described without some alternate means of procuring recipies (and motifs) than you're practically making provisioning a PvP skill. You'll either have to sign up for PvP to obtain your recipies, or buy them from somebody who has.

When I loot a bank, the only thing I bother searching is the furniture. I'll get enough of the stuff in the other container types while out adventuring.

Audigy wrote: »

The whole purpose of actually paying a sub after buying an MMO is the group activity. Why should someone pay 13 bucks every month, if he or she can get a single player game by paying 30 bucks once? A game this person can mod as much as he want by the way!

Actually, my dad loves MMORPG's, pretty much the only type of game he plays nowadays, but by and large hates the grouping aspect. The reason he likes them is the "frequent" content updates without having to go learn new combat systems/make new characters like he would have to do by actually playing a new/different single player game. As far as he cares they're basically episodic single player games.

Audigy wrote: »

I miss the days of UO, SWG and EQ where people didn't care if you did pvp, pve, rp or something else. People were playing a game together and they accepted other player types. Today its all so hostile, it just makes me sad.

Funny, my memory of EQ was that there effectively was no PvP. There was only a tiny handful of PvP servers that (if memory serves) were pretty much consolidated shortly after release due to low population, and on the rest of the servers people would very rarely duel each other, but that was pretty much it. (I do vaguely remember there was some way to turn yourself PvP, but nobody ever actually seemed to do it. IIRC All it did was effectively make your character immune from everybody elses heals/buffs.) So of course people didn't care about it, it practically didn't exist. I don't even remember any balance alterations due to PvP. Think the devs just pretty much ignored it's existence.

Anyways, my last post in this thread:

1. I tend to feel that, by definition, PvP in an MMORPG will always be incredibly inferior to PvP in a non RPG game, and from my point of view ideally developers shouldn't bother with it. When I want PvP, I play a genre in which PvP actually works. I actually have more than 1 game installed on my computer.
2. I understand why MMORPG developers put in PvP. It's an easy to add* end game hamster wheel, as the players effectively make their own content, and it will help maintain some of the content locusts.
3. I generally have no interest in hamster wheels, whether they are fighting other players over and over, or running raids/instances over and over. If/When I get to "end game" I simply put that game on hold and play something different until more real content is released. (which doesn't happen that frequently, I'm not a content locust) Similarly, I find it completely bizarre that some people actually pay real money to skip the actual content of the game. (a.k.a. people buying powerleveling/leveled characters)
4. The ship has already sailed in ESO. There is PvP.
5. The justice system, particularly PvE directed content like stealing from/killing NPC's, seems like a very odd hook into PvP content from an actual gameplay perspective. (Though I'll admit it makes all kinds of sense "lorewise") If I actually wanted to fight other players in an RPG like this, I'll head into Cyrodill where I can just attack them. I don't think I'm going to want to run around looting drawers in banks for 1gp items (or even killing random NPC's) hopeing some PC guard that is around my level decides it'll be fun to attack me. Similarly, I don't think I'm going to be spending time hanging around the bank as a guard hoping some player around my level decides to rob a cabinet.
6. I suspect the vast majority of PC "guards" lurking in banks will be griefers looking to slaughter some lower level character taking a chance that there isn't a PC guard nearby and trying to get a recipe for his provisioner or trying to make a buck finding a motif.
7. After the novelty wears off, I doubt there will be all that many people looking to PvP actually stealing/murdering in towns.
8. All this justice system seems likely to do, long term, is *dramatically* reduce the flow of items looted from furniture.



*problem is that it's not easy to maintain. There are always imbalance issues and power discrepencies, that eventually cause a whole bunch of headaches for everybody.

Your memory is wrong on EQ. Those servers lasted for some time, until after WoW crashed EQ mostly into the ground and ALL the servers were getting merged left and right. There was Rallos Zek, basic pvp server, Vallon and Tallon Zek, team pvp servers, and Sullon Zek no rules server.

The team ones were the best while people were still cared about their rep, but eventually people got older and stopped caring about what people online thought of them and cross-teaming started. I am concerned that might be possible with the upcoming justice system but we will have to see.

I do agree with you that I'd like to be able to be flagged without racking up a bounty or having to go re-steal things or murder more npcs. I prefer not to get caught stealing if I can help it, so I don't think I'd intentionally steal to get caught, and murdering npcs is just more pve, if much more fun pve. It's like fighting the faction npcs when taking a resource or a keep, it gets in the way of the pvp experience, even if it is necessary.

Don't get me wrong, I do like pve, someone early referred to the game as a buffet, and if it were, I would be the one with three plates stacked with all the different foods and would go back for seconds. If I'm going to play a game, I want to experience all the content and take advantage of all the features. Why limit yourself when you can have it all?

MercyKilling

We can end the thread now. Firefall just released, it's F2P, and it's open world PvP right from the getgo. Now all you people that want open world PvP can have something that offers it and leave us to our game.

Morgha_Kul

I don't generally like pvp, but I have no problem with it happening in PvE zones, as long as I'm not FORCED to participate. Let me opt out, and you can enjoy the game however you like.

My feeling about MMOs is that they need to cater to as many different playstyles as possible to really succeed. You may be familiar with the Bartle test of gaming psychology. It suggests many playstyles, such as the Explorer, the Acheiver, the Socializer, the Roleplayer, and so on. You want to get the attention of ALL these people, so letting the PvPers have their fun is FINE, even GOOD, so long as it doesn't come at the cost of other kinds of players.

MercyKilling

Morgha_Kul wrote: »

, so letting the PvPers have their fun is FINE, even GOOD, so long as it doesn't come at the cost of other kinds of players.

The problem is....when you give PvP'rs the things they call fun...it IS at the cost of other players' fun. Hence the massive naysay to open world PvP in this game.

Morgha_Kul

MercyKilling wrote: »

Morgha_Kul wrote: »

, so letting the PvPers have their fun is FINE, even GOOD, so long as it doesn't come at the cost of other kinds of players.

The problem is....when you give PvP'rs the things they call fun...it IS at the cost of other players' fun. Hence the massive naysay to open world PvP in this game.

I don't see why. If two players who like PvP are battling somewhere near me, it doesn't affect my play, so I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to do it.

If they get their fun by attacking people who don't want to play, well, that's not PvP anymore, that's griefing. I don't believe for a moment that all or even most PvPers want that.

MercyKilling

Morgha_Kul wrote: »

If they get their fun by attacking people who don't want to play, well, that's not PvP anymore, that's griefing. I don't believe for a moment that all or even most PvPers want that.

Riiight. So say I want to go collect the skyshards that are in Cyrodiil. I don't want anything to do with the PvP going on there....do you really think /anyone/ is going to just let me walk on by?

Even if I don't resist and keep coming back?

No. To the PvP mindset, I'm just an easy mark. Someone to farm kills off of. This is why I haven't set foot in Cyrodiil since the beta weekends when we were supposed to test it.

nerevarine1138

MercyKilling wrote: »

Morgha_Kul wrote: »

If they get their fun by attacking people who don't want to play, well, that's not PvP anymore, that's griefing. I don't believe for a moment that all or even most PvPers want that.

Riiight. So say I want to go collect the skyshards that are in Cyrodiil. I don't want anything to do with the PvP going on there....do you really think /anyone/ is going to just let me walk on by?

Even if I don't resist and keep coming back?

No. To the PvP mindset, I'm just an easy mark. Someone to farm kills off of. This is why I haven't set foot in Cyrodiil since the beta weekends when we were supposed to test it.

Actually, plenty of PvP players will leave you alone. I've even /surrendered to a group that caught me, and they laughed and carried on. Instead of making pre-judgments about people, why not actually try?

I did the entire Cyrodiil Hero achievement without ever getting attacked by another player, let alone farmed (which is impossible anyway, since you don't have to return to your body to resurrect).