Some thoughts on Veteran Content.

Metronomicon

hamon wrote: »

Metronomicon wrote: »

hamon wrote: »

Metronomicon wrote: »

Thanks for your input,you really made me think about what I posted....

well i can't really agree with your sweeping generalisations. popping everyone into those convenient stereotypical boxes is flawed to put it politely.

and i like how those putting 4-5 hours a day (which to normal people is a part time job ) are "wizards" according to you. rather than dangerously obsessed or some other term. to me if you put 4-5 hours a day then assuming you sleep 7 hours a day minimum. If you have a job that isnt flipping burgers for a few hours a week. doesnt leave much time for the rest of your life does it.

So "wizards" might not be the adjective i would tag onto that type of gamer.

Then you really don't understand the concept of making an example in order to make a point.You have to work with something in order to come to a conclusion. More over not only your post is full of envy to put it as politely as I can it also is inconsiderate and full of insulting implications.This means you didn't even consider the fact that some of us are actually in holidays like myself and can afford the time for now and some others can actually play while at work ....You know some jobs have really long and empty hours.Flipping burgers....rest of your life?Seriously ?This is your input on the game?It's pretty sad to say the least.You know,you just made me realize what that dead horse actually stands for.It's people like you that really don't get the fact that not everyone is the same and they don't even take the time to consider or propose a different model ,while being actually helpful,but only want the game to fit their own gamestyle.To hell with the rest,they don't have a life anyway now do they?

you didn't use an example you used 3 stereotypical generalizations. you were insulting to the first group. "they simply want to faceroll everything" which is insulting to that group. Then you use the term "wizards" to describe the group you feel yourself to be in.

so i used some stereotypical responses that take a differing view and you react with your post above. perhaps if you could be a little more objective with your analysis then we could take you more seriously.

however i do maintain that playing 4-5 hours a day must mean you can't devote enough hours to the rest of your life to remain objective enough to see a game as simply a game. there in lies your problem.
and saying perhaps folk can play at their work is a deflection. tell me exactly how many jobs you can be paid for that you will be in effect be paid to play MMO's?
I grant there are a few. but i would hazard a guess that it comprises a very few of these Gaming "wizards" (your term not mine)

in any realm of experience folk who spend too much time immersed in one activity find it much harder to remain objective with that activity. It's the same as parents who can't see their own kids are problematic. It's much easier to see everyone else's kid as being the problem.

If the term facerolling is offensive for you,then I'm really sorry I had no intention to insult anyone.Also the comments on every category are mere descriptions and examples I derived from my own personal experience.However,being judged for my description of some arbitrary groups is not why I made that post in the first place!I want some valid input on that damned suggestion I made and not off topic comments on how someone is a no lifer.I don't care about your opinion on "wizards" or no lifers,all I care about is comments on my suggestion. If you cant contribute or suggest anything of practical value then please do not post in this thread.You are simply off topic.

Metronomicon

Hilgara wrote: »

hamon wrote: »

however i do maintain that playing 4-5 hours a day must mean you can't devote enough hours to the rest of your life to remain objective enough to see a game as simply a game. there in lies your problem.

Plenty of people can spend 4-5 hours a day watching TV and still lead productive lives. I will finish work at 3:30 today. I will go to the gym for an hour. I will go home make some food then settle down for the night. That's a pretty typical routine but instead of staring at the TV till bed time I will be on ESO.

Thank you Hilgara .But this is not this threads topic.I don't care what Hamon maintains on 4-5 hour gameplay,its off topic.

Metronomicon

Alphashado wrote: »

Metronomicon wrote: »

mips_winnt wrote: »

Metronomicon wrote: »

In my opinion there is a way to keep #1 #2 #3 happy at the same time:
Split the megaserver into 3 (or more) channels. Channel 1 has mobs with lets say -30% Hp and -16%dmg.Channel 2 has mobs with 100% Hp and 100% dmg. Channel 3 has 130%hp and 130%dmg. (The percentages are just a mere example to make my point.)

IMHO This defeats the entire purpose of the "Mega"server concept (keep as much of the playerbase "together" as possible), if they were going to go this route they might as well just follow the WoW model with multiple independent "realms" geared toward specific player "tastes".

That is actually a really valid point .Not everyone wants to play like everyone and with everyone.But as far as I know the Mega server itself is in fact divided into phases ,you could be standing right next to me but you wont see me or my kills.Again correct me if I'm wrong.

You are correct. The mega server is broken up into several phases/shards. Each one is similar in capacity to a standard "server" like you see in games like wow or swtor. Every time you log out and back in, there is a chance you wl be on a different shard. The zone chat you are reading is for that shard only.

There ,you just answered @mips_winnt 's question!Thank you.

Alphashado

Metronomicon wrote: »

Alphashado wrote: »

Metronomicon wrote: »

mips_winnt wrote: »

Metronomicon wrote: »

In my opinion there is a way to keep #1 #2 #3 happy at the same time:
Split the megaserver into 3 (or more) channels. Channel 1 has mobs with lets say -30% Hp and -16%dmg.Channel 2 has mobs with 100% Hp and 100% dmg. Channel 3 has 130%hp and 130%dmg. (The percentages are just a mere example to make my point.)

IMHO This defeats the entire purpose of the "Mega"server concept (keep as much of the playerbase "together" as possible), if they were going to go this route they might as well just follow the WoW model with multiple independent "realms" geared toward specific player "tastes".

That is actually a really valid point .Not everyone wants to play like everyone and with everyone.But as far as I know the Mega server itself is in fact divided into phases ,you could be standing right next to me but you wont see me or my kills.Again correct me if I'm wrong.

You are correct. The mega server is broken up into several phases/shards. Each one is similar in capacity to a standard "server" like you see in games like wow or swtor. Every time you log out and back in, there is a chance you wl be on a different shard. The zone chat you are reading is for that shard only.

There ,you just answered your own question!Thank you.

I didn't ask any question. I am guessing you have me confused with someone else. But either way I'm happy to help clarify

But for the record, I disagree with splitting up the mega server into separate shards at this point. The population is too low to support this as it's already difficult to find groups for vet dungeons as it is. Your suggestion would be more viable with a game that had a population similar to WoW which is still at 6 million,

Metronomicon

Alphashado wrote: »

Metronomicon wrote: »

Alphashado wrote: »

Metronomicon wrote: »

mips_winnt wrote: »

Metronomicon wrote: »

In my opinion there is a way to keep #1 #2 #3 happy at the same time:
Split the megaserver into 3 (or more) channels. Channel 1 has mobs with lets say -30% Hp and -16%dmg.Channel 2 has mobs with 100% Hp and 100% dmg. Channel 3 has 130%hp and 130%dmg. (The percentages are just a mere example to make my point.)

IMHO This defeats the entire purpose of the "Mega"server concept (keep as much of the playerbase "together" as possible), if they were going to go this route they might as well just follow the WoW model with multiple independent "realms" geared toward specific player "tastes".

That is actually a really valid point .Not everyone wants to play like everyone and with everyone.But as far as I know the Mega server itself is in fact divided into phases ,you could be standing right next to me but you wont see me or my kills.Again correct me if I'm wrong.

You are correct. The mega server is broken up into several phases/shards. Each one is similar in capacity to a standard "server" like you see in games like wow or swtor. Every time you log out and back in, there is a chance you wl be on a different shard. The zone chat you are reading is for that shard only.

There ,you just answered your own question!Thank you.

I didn't ask any question. I am guessing you have me confused with someone else. But either way I'm happy to help clarify

But for the record, I disagree with splitting up the mega server into separate shards at this point. The population is too low to support this as it's already difficult to find groups for vet dungeons as it is. Your suggestion would be more viable with a game that had a population similar to WoW which is still at 6 million,

Indeed I have confused you with mips_winnt's comment.Sorry about that.(Edited)
We don't know the exact population to be honest.

hamon

Hilgara wrote: »

hamon wrote: »

however i do maintain that playing 4-5 hours a day must mean you can't devote enough hours to the rest of your life to remain objective enough to see a game as simply a game. there in lies your problem.

Plenty of people can spend 4-5 hours a day watching TV and still lead productive lives. I will finish work at 3:30 today. I will go to the gym for an hour. I will go home make some food then settle down for the night. That's a pretty typical routine but instead of staring at the TV till bed time I will be on ESO.

yes productive. i agree. however not particularly balanced. for example if you spend 7 hours a day sleeping, 8 hours a day working , 5 hours every day gaming or watching tv. that leaves 4 hours a day in which you have to eat, do chores . (shopping, cleaning,etc) socialise. spend time with family/ friends and do everything else that probably should be considered a factor in a healthy life.

so unless you have parents who do your cooking , cleaning, shopping etc and you sure as hell dont have kids , you probably dont get to spend anything like 5 hours a day playing games or watching tv. At least unless your sacrificing everything else like socialising etc.. to do it.

i know that having kids makes 5 hours a day gaming a long forgotten but fondly remembered existance ... not that i would change it now.

purple-magicb16_ESO

You know, with the option of PvP, I really didn't expect the elite to whine so much after the nerf patch. I guess I just figured that PvE would be mainly for levelling and casual play and that PvP would be dominated by the elite (for the challenge obviously). Not sure if this is the elite wanting to have the best of both worlds, having their cake and eating it too sort of thing. BTW I would put myself in the second column. I play for the challenge and research best options for optimal play but don't have the time to commit to.really be effective for pvp raids etc.

Metronomicon

hamon wrote: »

Hilgara wrote: »

hamon wrote: »

however i do maintain that playing 4-5 hours a day must mean you can't devote enough hours to the rest of your life to remain objective enough to see a game as simply a game. there in lies your problem.

Plenty of people can spend 4-5 hours a day watching TV and still lead productive lives. I will finish work at 3:30 today. I will go to the gym for an hour. I will go home make some food then settle down for the night. That's a pretty typical routine but instead of staring at the TV till bed time I will be on ESO.

yes productive. i agree. however not particularly balanced. for example if you spend 7 hours a day sleeping, 8 hours a day working , 5 hours every day gaming or watching tv. that leaves 4 hours a day in which you have to eat, do chores . (shopping, cleaning,etc) socialise. spend time with family/ friends and do everything else that probably should be considered a factor in a healthy life.

so unless you have parents who do your cooking , cleaning, shopping etc and you sure as hell dont have kids , you probably dont get to spend anything like 5 hours a day playing games or watching tv. At least unless your sacrificing everything else like socialising etc.. to do it.

i know that having kids makes 5 hours a day gaming a long forgotten but fondly remembered existance ... not that i would change it now.

DUDE....dude.....please for the love of the eight....stop posting off topic in here,make your own thread and stop derailing mine,I don't care about your opninion on 4-5 hours gaming!!!!!

Metronomicon

purple-magicb16_ESO wrote: »

You know, with the option of PvP, I really didn't expect the elite to whine so much after the nerf patch. I guess I just figured that PvE would be mainly for levelling and casual play and that PvP would be dominated by the elite (for the challenge obviously). Not sure if this is the elite wanting to have the best of both worlds, having their cake and eating it too sort of thing. BTW I would put myself in the second column. I play for the challenge and research best options for optimal play but don't have the time to commit to.really be effective for pvp raids etc.

PVP does not mean elite and PVE does not mean noobs.This is a big misunderstanding.

hamon

Metronomicon wrote: »

hamon wrote: »

Hilgara wrote: »

hamon wrote: »

however i do maintain that playing 4-5 hours a day must mean you can't devote enough hours to the rest of your life to remain objective enough to see a game as simply a game. there in lies your problem.

Plenty of people can spend 4-5 hours a day watching TV and still lead productive lives. I will finish work at 3:30 today. I will go to the gym for an hour. I will go home make some food then settle down for the night. That's a pretty typical routine but instead of staring at the TV till bed time I will be on ESO.

yes productive. i agree. however not particularly balanced. for example if you spend 7 hours a day sleeping, 8 hours a day working , 5 hours every day gaming or watching tv. that leaves 4 hours a day in which you have to eat, do chores . (shopping, cleaning,etc) socialise. spend time with family/ friends and do everything else that probably should be considered a factor in a healthy life.

so unless you have parents who do your cooking , cleaning, shopping etc and you sure as hell dont have kids , you probably dont get to spend anything like 5 hours a day playing games or watching tv. At least unless your sacrificing everything else like socialising etc.. to do it.

i know that having kids makes 5 hours a day gaming a long forgotten but fondly remembered existance ... not that i would change it now.

DUDE....dude.....please for the love of the eight....stop posting off topic in here,make your own thread and stop derailing mine,I don't care about your opninion on 4-5 hours gaming!!!!!

i was answering hilgara, not you. and the reason i spoke about your flawed initial analysis was that you made your OP based on what i considered to be a flawed analysis. If your initial analysis of the problem was flawed and biased then the suggestions you make there after will probably be flawed.

thats my opinion , but since you seem keen to keep answers simply based upon that original statement rather than allow anyone to actually have an opinion on your opinion i,ll leave it there.

so based on your opinion i think its a bad idea.

Hilgara

hamon wrote: »

Hilgara wrote: »

hamon wrote: »

however i do maintain that playing 4-5 hours a day must mean you can't devote enough hours to the rest of your life to remain objective enough to see a game as simply a game. there in lies your problem.

Plenty of people can spend 4-5 hours a day watching TV and still lead productive lives. I will finish work at 3:30 today. I will go to the gym for an hour. I will go home make some food then settle down for the night. That's a pretty typical routine but instead of staring at the TV till bed time I will be on ESO.

yes productive. i agree. however not particularly balanced. for example if you spend 7 hours a day sleeping, 8 hours a day working , 5 hours every day gaming or watching tv. that leaves 4 hours a day in which you have to eat, do chores . (shopping, cleaning,etc) socialise. spend time with family/ friends and do everything else that probably should be considered a factor in a healthy life.

so unless you have parents who do your cooking , cleaning, shopping etc and you sure as hell dont have kids , you probably dont get to spend anything like 5 hours a day playing games or watching tv. At least unless your sacrificing everything else like socialising etc.. to do it.

i know that having kids makes 5 hours a day gaming a long forgotten but fondly remembered existance ... not that i would change it now.

No I don't have kids. They are all grown up. I'm twice divorced and determined to stay that way. No part of my life suffers for my gaming, which for me is a hobby. I do lots of stuff outside gaming and find plenty of time to do it. But the base of your (frankly offensive) assumptions is that anyone who plays well must spend an inordinate amount of time playing the game. That also is not true. Reading tool tips doesn't take hours. Watching a few videos doesn't take hours. Reading a few guides doesn't take hours. Practice may improve your play but understanding the basics is something most people can do as a casual gamer. And casual gamers are just as likely to develop a good strategy and build as those spending lots of time playing

Metronomicon

@Hamon and @Hilgara‌ Please leave this thread.Use the personal messages for your chat or start your own thread,this has nothing to do with what I intialy posted.

Hamon you could have just said that you disagree like you just did and explain why,the rest is irrelevant and of no interest.

hamon

Hilgara wrote: »

hamon wrote: »

Hilgara wrote: »

hamon wrote: »

however i do maintain that playing 4-5 hours a day must mean you can't devote enough hours to the rest of your life to remain objective enough to see a game as simply a game. there in lies your problem.

Plenty of people can spend 4-5 hours a day watching TV and still lead productive lives. I will finish work at 3:30 today. I will go to the gym for an hour. I will go home make some food then settle down for the night. That's a pretty typical routine but instead of staring at the TV till bed time I will be on ESO.

yes productive. i agree. however not particularly balanced. for example if you spend 7 hours a day sleeping, 8 hours a day working , 5 hours every day gaming or watching tv. that leaves 4 hours a day in which you have to eat, do chores . (shopping, cleaning,etc) socialise. spend time with family/ friends and do everything else that probably should be considered a factor in a healthy life.

so unless you have parents who do your cooking , cleaning, shopping etc and you sure as hell dont have kids , you probably dont get to spend anything like 5 hours a day playing games or watching tv. At least unless your sacrificing everything else like socialising etc.. to do it.

i know that having kids makes 5 hours a day gaming a long forgotten but fondly remembered existance ... not that i would change it now.

No I don't have kids. They are all grown up. I'm twice divorced and determined to stay that way. No part of my life suffers for my gaming, which for me is a hobby. I do lots of stuff outside gaming and find plenty of time to do it. But the base of your (frankly offensive) assumptions is that anyone who plays well must spend an inordinate amount of time playing the game. That also is not true. Reading tool tips doesn't take hours. Watching a few videos doesn't take hours. Reading a few guides doesn't take hours. Practice may improve your play but understanding the basics is something most people can do as a casual gamer. And casual gamers are just as likely to develop a good strategy and build as those spending lots of time playing

in which of my statements did i refer to gaming skill or lack of in any way shape or form?
i know folk who play games for huge amounts of time who are terrible. and folk who play little who are very skilled. However i at no point even used the word skill or linked it in any way to amount of time you play.

with any activity practice SHOULD make better. but this is not always the case. however thats a whole other dicussion that i never even began to debate.

Hilgara

Metronomicon wrote: »

@Hamon and @Hilgara‌ Please leave this thread.Use the personal messages for your chat or start your own thread,this has nothing to do with what I intialy posted.

Hamon you could have just said that you disagree like you just did and explain why,the rest is irrelevant and of no interest.

Do one. This is a public forum. And stop interrupting our conversation!

LariahHunding

Hilgara wrote: »

hamon wrote: »

however i do maintain that playing 4-5 hours a day must mean you can't devote enough hours to the rest of your life to remain objective enough to see a game as simply a game. there in lies your problem.

Plenty of people can spend 4-5 hours a day watching TV and still lead productive lives. I will finish work at 3:30 today. I will go to the gym for an hour. I will go home make some food then settle down for the night. That's a pretty typical routine but instead of staring at the TV till bed time I will be on ESO.

Don't agree with Hilgara on many things, but I agree with this point.

I find TV a complete waste of time, but I don't force my viewpoint on others.

hamon

Hilgara wrote: »

Metronomicon wrote: »

@Hamon and @Hilgara‌ Please leave this thread.Use the personal messages for your chat or start your own thread,this has nothing to do with what I intialy posted.

Hamon you could have just said that you disagree like you just did and explain why,the rest is irrelevant and of no interest.

Do one. This is a public forum. And stop interrupting our conversation!

yes i have to agree with hilgara on this one. sorry merto. this is a public forum and we,re being polite and taking part in your thread . what we choose to write is our business. not for you to decide to control or censor

Metronomicon

Hilgara wrote: »

Metronomicon wrote: »

@Hamon and @Hilgara‌ Please leave this thread.Use the personal messages for your chat or start your own thread,this has nothing to do with what I intialy posted.

Hamon you could have just said that you disagree like you just did and explain why,the rest is irrelevant and of no interest.

Do one. This is a public forum. And stop interrupting our conversation!

That's why I have to deal with randomness like this.Your only use is bumping my thread ,at least lol.

Metronomicon

hamon wrote: »

Hilgara wrote: »

Metronomicon wrote: »

@Hamon and @Hilgara‌ Please leave this thread.Use the personal messages for your chat or start your own thread,this has nothing to do with what I intialy posted.

Hamon you could have just said that you disagree like you just did and explain why,the rest is irrelevant and of no interest.

Do one. This is a public forum. And stop interrupting our conversation!

yes i have to agree with hilgara on this one. sorry merto. this is a public forum and we,re being polite and taking part in your thread . what we choose to write is our business. not for you to decide to control or censor

Well,at least your troll behaviour is bumping my thread.Just like smeagol everyone has his use.

steveb16_ESO46

Metronomicon wrote: »

Pleasing a customer is making him not want to leave and remain subbed.That is exactly what will maximise their profits,having everyone pleased and not a percentage.99% is better that 70% you know.

No it's not actually. It depends on the marginal cost. The position of maximum profit for a product is always below the maximum custom. It is where marginal revenue equals marginal cost.

If your costs are low the position of max profit can be a quite low customer base. If the costs of getting and keeping additional customers are too high you will end up with less net profit.

It's kind of how failed MMO's keep going for years. Sunk costs have either been got back through box sales and subs or written off so if you can keep costs very low they can go for years on a core of customers.

If ESO tried to keep everybody happy it could but the development costs would be enormous.

You could see from the whole game design they were gambling that there was a much bigger market for a relatively hard core, relatively narrow focused combat game. They've recently discovered they miscalculated terribly and now like any good business they are looking at cost effective ways of increasing profits.

They most certainly are not looking at how to make the most customers happy. to make some happy they would have to replace the whole other faction story-line with a continuation of the faction story.

That would be very expensive. The marginal cost -marginal revenue calculation breaks down if the number of customers it gains or retains isn't enough.

Or if you run a standard F2P model you aren't interested primarily in customer retention you're interested in customer throughput because your revenue comes from customer churn. The classic - rush them to level cap, fleecing them every inch of the way. They aren't overly interested in making old customers happy because they spend a lot less.

That's why they simply don't care if newer players arrive without the grouping skills older (quite possibly pre-ftp legacy lifers as in lotro's case) players want.

Players can be as happy as they like but if they aren't providing an income they are a cost not a benefit.

Economics is not as straight-forward as making as many customers as happy as possible.

All ESO or any game wants is to hit the planned population for the planned cost. Anything else is marginal cost gravy and anything less is as we're seeing - cause for change.

Metronomicon

steveb16_ESO46 wrote: »

Metronomicon wrote: »

Pleasing a customer is making him not want to leave and remain subbed.That is exactly what will maximise their profits,having everyone pleased and not a percentage.99% is better that 70% you know.

No it's not actually. It depends on the marginal cost. The position of maximum profit for a product is always below the maximum custom. It is where marginal revenue equals marginal cost.

If your costs are low the position of max profit can be a quite low customer base. If the costs of getting and keeping additional customers are too high you will end up with less net profit.

It's kind of how failed MMO's keep going for years. Sunk costs have either been got back through box sales and subs or written off so if you can keep costs very low they can go for years on a core of customers.

If ESO tried to keep everybody happy it could but the development costs would be enormous.

You could see from the whole game design they were gambling that there was a much bigger market for a relatively hard core, relatively narrow focused combat game. They've recently discovered they miscalculated terribly and now like any good business they are looking at cost effective ways of increasing profits.

They most certainly are not looking at how to make the most customers happy. to make some happy they would have to replace the whole other faction story-line with a continuation of the faction story.

That would be very expensive. The marginal cost -marginal revenue calculation breaks down if the number of customers it gains or retains isn't enough.

Or if you run a standard F2P model you aren't interested primarily in customer retention you're interested in customer throughput because your revenue comes from customer churn. The classic - rush them to level cap, fleecing them every inch of the way. They aren't overly interested in making old customers happy because they spend a lot less.

That's why they simply don't care if newer players arrive without the grouping skills older (quite possibly pre-ftp legacy lifers as in lotro's case) players want.

Players can be as happy as they like but if they aren't providing an income they are a cost not a benefit.

Economics is not as straight-forward as making as many customers as happy as possible.

All ESO or any game wants is to hit the planned population for the planned cost. Anything else is marginal cost gravy and anything less is as we're seeing - cause for change.

That makes sense thank you.But I still don't understand how tweaking a few HP and Dps values would be expensive!!Not to mention that the phasing system is already here!!It seems like such a minimal tweak.Can you explain this to me pls.

NewBlacksmurf

THE ENDGAME IS OFF.
It should have honestly stopped all characters at level 50
It should use VR levels for PvP only.

The endgame should provide dungeon running for "Veteran" difficulty but using another term.

Those dungeons should drop blue or better armor sets of all types to assist players with their class and the gear would also enable people to gear up for Crag

The whole VR system is simply dumb. It was something to create a time sink until the developers figure out what "endgame" style promotes sub retention.

The current model creates separation because:
-people can't quantify the abilities of another gamer as skill levels and stats or gear are hidden.
-character level or VR ranks don't signify ability or anything more than achieved VR exp
-it takes a very long time for anyone who just hit VR1 to reach VR12 and forces people to.play through other factions (another pointless but intentional time sink that defeats the point of refilling in another faction)
-The VR model further separates new level "50" characters from others which seems to show an elitist approach rather than a collaborative approach.

In the end, what is the point of VR content. Knowing that it really didn't make sense and now knowing that the levels and other functions are subject to change in 30 days.

My position, though not shared by all, suggests that at each max level the players need to be brought together.

In WoW the problem today are one max level and gear tiered dungeons that separate other players. I hoped this game would take a "gear seek" approach and encourage others to play together.

While those who play more or who seek harder challenges I do feel there should be "difficult" versions of all dungeons and raids the rewards would fall to those difficulty levels but the only separating factor would be character ability and gear bonuses.

Today I'm 100% dis interested in any endgame and I brought this to satisfy my desires to.play online with others in dungeon or raiding environments.

Dare I say that the 1-49 levels are far better than most MMORPGs that exist today but the VR1-etc is the worse endgame of any MMORPG.

There are free to play games that are pay to win whose endgame is better and it's only due to a lack.of thought. The platform is set.


Use Cyrodil in two ways. PvE campaigns (NPCs only vs players)
PvP as it works today. Allow both to serve as endgame but the PvE version would be like Dark Age of Camelot's frontier.

Cyrodil could provide the solo gamer with new and ever changing challenges as they along with other solo players could attack other factions in a quest system to eliminate the need of cross faction VR leveling

Crag would stay as it is but a level 50 raid with a normal version and a difficult version.
The dungeons would have a difficult version(not VR level) and start from 48-50 as the endgame story tends to finish around those levels.

Gear mats, recipes, weapons and armor would be unique in artwork and the number of abilities in these zones as it's a max level.

Even some sets should follow the update 3 with options to choose to some extent the artwork that appears like the Imperial edition option.


This is a good game with so.much potential but with champion levels coming and the VR levels approach people will become.more and.more alienated as PvE MUST be based on caps and max levels not a level extension.

At some point the game would need expansions so either level 50 is it forever or things need to be changed now before it gets confusing and those VR12 characters and players will be frustrated with changes that discount their lo g efforts .


Change now not later @ZOS

claytonjhouserb14_ESO

I completely agree endgame is a decoy for them to make quick money off and later decide if it doesn't work they will do something about it. And of the above post everyone has a different life style some can easily fit in 4-5 hours or 9-11 hours and still be social and active. Assuming differently or based on your lifestyle is quite rude and narrow minded. In fact I get 5-7 hours of sleep, a job and girlfriend and can easily play 5-6 if not more a day and live a normal healthy life. Just because someone choose one activity or hobby over another does not make them have "no life".

steveb16_ESO46

Metronomicon wrote: »

That makes sense thank you.But I still don't understand how tweaking a few HP and Dps values would be expensive!!Not to mention that the phasing system is already here!!It seems like such a minimal tweak.Can you explain this to me pls.

It depends. Tweaking HP and DPS at VR was what ignited the firestorm in the first place. Turned out to be very costly.

The phase engine I think is a much bigger issue. It's fundamental technology yet it has been the cause of so many failures they've had to do band-aid workarounds on. Everything from unspawning quest items to inability to group with people.

I'll bet tinkering with that is both costly, difficult and risky in terms of unintended consequences, especially as Zen don't seem to like testing stuff before releasing it.

To be honest the whole phase thing baffles me. LOTRO has been doing it for years and it just works unobtrusively without quests not working or people not being able to group whenever they like. And turbine aren't exactly the poster boys and girls for, well anything really. Apart from greed of course.

I really want ESO to be great, I really do. That's why I took out a 6 month sub and would have bought a lifetime one if I could. I'm more than beginning to doubt it ever will be unfortunately.

It'll probably be a perfectly good at what it tries to do little MMO with a small but solid base. But I was expecting so much more in terms of both quality and range of gameplay. Maybe one day it'll get there but not before some truly next-gen game comes and changes market expectations so much that things like WoW and ESO will suddenly look very limited and very dated.

It'll be something that does not self-limit by pandering to console limitations.

Metronomicon

claytonjhouserb14_ESO wrote: »

And of the above post everyone has a different life style some can easily fit in 4-5 hours or 9-11 hours and still be social and active. Assuming differently or based on your lifestyle is quite rude and narrow minded. In fact I get 5-7 hours of sleep, a job and girlfriend and can easily play 5-6 if not more a day and live a normal healthy life. Just because someone choose one activity or hobby over another does not make them have "no life".

Exactly,this behaviour is really disgusting to say the least ,almost oppressive.
It's : "If you can play better than me or for a longer period of time,then you are a dangerous psycopathic no-lifer." Not only that but they also want to impose their own braindead gameplay to the rest of us!

Metronomicon

steveb16_ESO46 wrote: »

Metronomicon wrote: »

That makes sense thank you.But I still don't understand how tweaking a few HP and Dps values would be expensive!!Not to mention that the phasing system is already here!!It seems like such a minimal tweak.Can you explain this to me pls.

It depends. Tweaking HP and DPS at VR was what ignited the firestorm in the first place. Turned out to be very costly.

The phase engine I think is a much bigger issue. It's fundamental technology yet it has been the cause of so many failures they've had to do band-aid workarounds on. Everything from unspawning quest items to inability to group with people.

I'll bet tinkering with that is both costly, difficult and risky in terms of unintended consequences, especially as Zen don't seem to like testing stuff before releasing it.

To be honest the whole phase thing baffles me. LOTRO has been doing it for years and it just works unobtrusively without quests not working or people not being able to group whenever they like. And turbine aren't exactly the poster boys and girls for, well anything really. Apart from greed of course.

I really want ESO to be great, I really do. That's why I took out a 6 month sub and would have bought a lifetime one if I could. I'm more than beginning to doubt it ever will be unfortunately.

It'll probably be a perfectly good at what it tries to do little MMO with a small but solid base. But I was expecting so much more in terms of both quality and range of gameplay. Maybe one day it'll get there but not before some truly next-gen game comes and changes market expectations so much that things like WoW and ESO will suddenly look very limited and very dated.

It'll be something that does not self-limit by pandering to console limitations.

I actually learned something from your replies and especially from the first post.Thanks for the constructive comments,the issues you address are indeed a problem.Only a developer could enlighten us at this point as to how easy or risky it is to implement difficulty channels.

Metronomicon

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

THE ENDGAME IS OFF.
It should have honestly stopped all characters at level 50
It should use VR levels for PvP only.

The endgame should provide dungeon running for "Veteran" difficulty but using another term.

Those dungeons should drop blue or better armor sets of all types to assist players with their class and the gear would also enable people to gear up for Crag

The whole VR system is simply dumb. It was something to create a time sink until the developers figure out what "endgame" style promotes sub retention.

The current model creates separation because:
-people can't quantify the abilities of another gamer as skill levels and stats or gear are hidden.
-character level or VR ranks don't signify ability or anything more than achieved VR exp
-it takes a very long time for anyone who just hit VR1 to reach VR12 and forces people to.play through other factions (another pointless but intentional time sink that defeats the point of refilling in another faction)
-The VR model further separates new level "50" characters from others which seems to show an elitist approach rather than a collaborative approach.

In the end, what is the point of VR content. Knowing that it really didn't make sense and now knowing that the levels and other functions are subject to change in 30 days.

My position, though not shared by all, suggests that at each max level the players need to be brought together.

In WoW the problem today are one max level and gear tiered dungeons that separate other players. I hoped this game would take a "gear seek" approach and encourage others to play together.

While those who play more or who seek harder challenges I do feel there should be "difficult" versions of all dungeons and raids the rewards would fall to those difficulty levels but the only separating factor would be character ability and gear bonuses.

Today I'm 100% dis interested in any endgame and I brought this to satisfy my desires to.play online with others in dungeon or raiding environments.

Dare I say that the 1-49 levels are far better than most MMORPGs that exist today but the VR1-etc is the worse endgame of any MMORPG.

There are free to play games that are pay to win whose endgame is better and it's only due to a lack.of thought. The platform is set.


Use Cyrodil in two ways. PvE campaigns (NPCs only vs players)
PvP as it works today. Allow both to serve as endgame but the PvE version would be like Dark Age of Camelot's frontier.

Cyrodil could provide the solo gamer with new and ever changing challenges as they along with other solo players could attack other factions in a quest system to eliminate the need of cross faction VR leveling

Crag would stay as it is but a level 50 raid with a normal version and a difficult version.
The dungeons would have a difficult version(not VR level) and start from 48-50 as the endgame story tends to finish around those levels.

Gear mats, recipes, weapons and armor would be unique in artwork and the number of abilities in these zones as it's a max level.

Even some sets should follow the update 3 with options to choose to some extent the artwork that appears like the Imperial edition option.


This is a good game with so.much potential but with champion levels coming and the VR levels approach people will become.more and.more alienated as PvE MUST be based on caps and max levels not a level extension.

At some point the game would need expansions so either level 50 is it forever or things need to be changed now before it gets confusing and those VR12 characters and players will be frustrated with changes that discount their lo g efforts .


Change now not later @ZOS

You described clearly what is wrong with the current status of the game in your opinion.Also you proposed some solutions.But I would really like to know what you think about the OP's proposal....because that is the main topic .

diamondeyethunderbow_ESO

Metronomicon wrote: »

diamondeyethunderbow_ESO wrote: »

Next time any of you think ZOS doesn't listen to the community, just re-read the OP and you'll know why.

You just created a new account to post ....this...?I'm flattered.

No. I've had this account for some time, and it had nothing to do with this. Any flattery is purely incidental.

Why wouldn't everyone be happy ,when they have access to all the content in every possible difficulty available?I agree that we should hang back a little and I keep my fingers crossed,but with some lurking on forums,I am not so optimistic.Really hope you prove to be right tho!

Because not everyone enjoys the same type of content?

Any game that tries to make everyone happy will make almost no one happy. If someone doesn't like chinese food, they should avoid chinese restaurants, not complain that the buffet doesn't have hamburgers on it when they walk into one, and loudly insist that they need to make hamburger afficionados happy too.

EVE doesn't try to make everyone happy, and does just fine. The community actively drives away people that try to get it to change from what makes it appealing to its market. I'll tell you what they tell whiners on their forums: HTFU

Tannakaobi

I'd rather see an overload of quests for each map and then have easy, medium and hard quests that you can pick an choose from without the need to do them all.

That would solve many issues, including the mind numbing repetitiveness of questing with alts.

Hilgara

Tannakaobi wrote: »

I'd rather see an overload of quests for each map and then have easy, medium and hard quests that you can pick an choose from without the need to do them all.

That would solve many issues, including the mind numbing repetitiveness of questing with alts.

Works for me. I've rarely played a game where you had to be a completionist to keep up with the level of the areas. having more difficult quests that wouldn't leave you behind in progression and be optional is actually a very good idea

Tannakaobi

Hilgara wrote: »

Tannakaobi wrote: »

I'd rather see an overload of quests for each map and then have easy, medium and hard quests that you can pick an choose from without the need to do them all.

That would solve many issues, including the mind numbing repetitiveness of questing with alts.

Works for me. I've rarely played a game where you had to be a completionist to keep up with the level of the areas. having more difficult quests that wouldn't leave you behind in progression and be optional is actually a very good idea

You could even have area events, daily hunting logs. Things like weekly skirmishes, where you have to drive away PVE faction invaders.

Imagine, your randomly going about your own business suddenly the call to arms to defend X village come round, everyone races to the village just in time to save the day...or not. In which case you have to rally and re-take X village.