AlexDougherty wrote: »I can't see why a cure woud make you immune to the condition.
naatokb14_ESO wrote: »Here is my explanation for my 'no' vote.
If my fellow vampires (or our lycan counterparts) are seriously interested in controlling the population, then WHY do so many of us *** out the gifts of our Daedric tainted blood?!?! (and I say 'us' as a whole, not because I do this).
It is an absolute DISGRACE that ANY vampire or lycan would bestow the Dark Gift or the Wolf's Bite to someone they do not even know....for PAY!!!
Speaking purely from a vampire roleplayer perspective, this is [snip], and it turns the Shrine of Mother Lamae into a BROTHEL!!!
So if you're seriously concerned about the number of vampires and werewolves in the game, and the cheapening of these Daedric gifts/curses.....IT IS TOO LATE!
Pimps and *** have spread the disease far and wide on greased palms, giving our blessings to THE UNWORTHY!!!
It sickens me as a player, and my characters as bretheren of the Black Blood, that other vampires are little more than prostitutes! And I know there are many prostitute lycans out there as well!
Despite the bias I voted, vampirism can be contracted and cured an unlimited amount of times in the TES universe, why would ESO be different?
Ethromelb14_ESO wrote: »Another thing players/posting peers aren't considering, is that its for this very reason of the game being liable to go through future changes that some permanence needs to extend to these two classes. Lets say that in the future playing as a vampire truly becomes ***, what then? Making it easy for players to now flock to the nearest blood ritual shrine (with a friend), and cause an otherwise avoidable epidemic would be a bad move on the devs, is not cool at all, and will give cause for players to believe this game is just becoming a vamp/ww fest.
Despite future changes..... If a player has already exhausted their opportunity to stay a paranormal by having taken the cure, just knowing that they would have to make a new character in order to experience and benefit from the new changes might deter them from even bothering, therefore the population of vamps/ww is more likely to stay reasonable. Of course its always possible players will choose the prerogative to make that new character, but there aren't many who would because the game is already big as it is, and steadily expanding.
I think making curing permanent is not bad at all in high-sight. It would actually improve the experience.
starkerealm wrote: »Ethromelb14_ESO wrote: »redspecter23 wrote: »This is a game that will hopefully go on for years. Rebalancing will happen from time to time, You're suggesting that just because I started as a werewolf, then became a vampire, that I should never be allowed to become a werewolf again on that character? Even 4 years from now when werewolves are dominating (speculation)? So my option, if I wish to become a werewolf at that time is to abandon a 4 year old toon and start from scratch, pun intended.
That's a huge no. I really don't think you gave this much thought at all other than from a RP standpoint. In a game such as this, lore and RP can be a factor, but overall balance and player satisfaction should always drive design decisions first.
I'm actually not suggesting anything. I'm asking a question.
It's a legitimate answer though. Right now, werewolves are underwhelming. I find them a lot of fun, but I can certainly see where, for some players, they're just not enjoyable.
With vampires, you're taking on some very specific build choices by getting infected. If you ever change your mind, especially because a nerf or meta shift screws you, your choices would be to assume things would never get better or shelve that character until the game was fixed.
So, no. It's not a good idea at all.
smeeprocketnub19_ESO wrote: »Ethromelb14_ESO wrote: »Another thing players/posting peers aren't considering, is that its for this very reason of the game being liable to go through future changes that some permanence needs to extend to these two classes. Lets say that in the future playing as a vampire truly becomes ***, what then? Making it easy for players to now flock to the nearest blood ritual shrine (with a friend), and cause an otherwise avoidable epidemic would be a bad move on the devs, is not cool at all, and will give cause for players to believe this game is just becoming a vamp/ww fest.
Despite future changes..... If a player has already exhausted their opportunity to stay a paranormal by having taken the cure, just knowing that they would have to make a new character in order to experience and benefit from the new changes might deter them from even bothering, therefore the population of vamps/ww is more likely to stay reasonable. Of course its always possible players will choose the prerogative to make that new character, but there aren't many who would because the game is already big as it is, and steadily expanding.
I think making curing permanent is not bad at all in high-sight. It would actually improve the experience.
Why do we care what the pop of wws and vamps is? It's not like they actually prowl the countryside feeding off of people and murdering them. lol
Unfortunately, my opinion doesn't matter on this issue.
You're fighting a losing battle if you're trying to have "consequences" or "repercussions" for actions of this player base. Welcome to the "I want" or "It's not fair" crowd.
the idea you propose seems somewhat restrictive, and if there's anything people don't want in games like these, it's restriction.
Ethromelb14_ESO wrote: »Actually it is a class, do your homework.
MornaBaine wrote: »Ethromelb14_ESO wrote: »If nothing else, the pole results reflect on a small scale just how much of the population don't really role-play and based on a real life perspective, don't want anything to be limited. And for anybody that couldn't understand why there are so many vampires and werewolves, you are witnessing it right now.
In MMOs and probably many other games, most people always want the "edge" before they'll stand their ground and hold their position. It means that people are always "dying" to be stronger even if that means they have to jump from the proverbial cliff of something they originally wanted, so that they can fall in to something they probably don't need, regardless of the impact.
Some day they will make a game FOR roleplayers... Someday....
*insert sad, long suffering sigh here*
starkerealm wrote: »AlexDougherty wrote: »I can't see why a cure woud make you immune to the condition.
There's some lore examples that do though. The Vampire cure in Morrowind leaves the player immune to future infections. I can't remember if the Oblivion cure was repeatable or not. I only ever had one vampire in that game. In Skyrim the easiest way to cure lycanthropy is to get Serana to munch on you and then cure your newfound vampirism.
smeeprocketnub19_ESO wrote: »Merlin13KAGL wrote: »Ethromelb14_ESO wrote: »I mean curing the full condition, meaning they are a full fledged vampire and or werewolf. However, after being cured they can still contract the disease, but it only causes negatives to their stats rather than giving the opportunity to be turned again. This could also control the population of vamps and werewolves. It would add a sense of realism for many, and ultimately make a player want to be sure of their choice. I think it also will stress these are dark gifts not easily acquired and should be taken "seriously".
@Ethromelb14_ESO, if you offered more choices, you might get more poll results, even adding a simple 'Yes' or 'No.'
On that, I vote 'No.' There are many factors involved here. I expect, at some point, they will expand the line. Being unable to foresee that, people should not be banned from the option later. Perhaps a more difficult quest to reacquire and 'Prove your worth," etc.
If it is to be the way your suggest, then longevity should produce more power (a fairly normal benefit in vamp related lore.) Generally, the longer you've had the gift, the worse your negative become, but the greater your benefits.
And I'm not talking short term regarding Stages or L1-10.
A vamp of two weeks was to be feared. A vamp of 100 years was a force to be reckoned with, respected by the greatest monster hunters that would dare tread nearby, and normally given a very wide berth.
And yet I annihilated Harkon when I was just a fledgling.
naatokb14_ESO wrote: »Here is my explanation for my 'no' vote.
If my fellow vampires (or our lycan counterparts) are seriously interested in controlling the population, then WHY do so many of us [snip] out the gifts of our Daedric tainted blood?!?! (and I say 'us' as a whole, not because I do this. I most certainly do not).
It is an absolute DISGRACE that ANY vampire or lycan would bestow the Dark Gift or the Wolf's Bite to someone they do not even know....for PAY!!!
Speaking purely from a vampire roleplayer perspective, this is [snip], and it turns the Shrine of Mother Lamae into a BROTHEL!!!
So if you're seriously concerned about the number of vampires and werewolves in the game, and the cheapening of these Daedric gifts/curses.....IT IS TOO LATE!
Pimps and *** have spread the disease far and wide on greased palms, giving our blessings to THE UNWORTHY!!!
It sickens me as a player, and my characters as bretheren of the Black Blood, that other vampires are little more than prostitutes! And I know there are many prostitute lycans out there as well!
[Moderator Note: Edited per our rules on Cursing & Profanity]
Merlin13KAGL wrote: »Ethromelb14_ESO wrote: »I mean curing the full condition, meaning they are a full fledged vampire and or werewolf. However, after being cured they can still contract the disease, but it only causes negatives to their stats rather than giving the opportunity to be turned again. This could also control the population of vamps and werewolves. It would add a sense of realism for many, and ultimately make a player want to be sure of their choice. I think it also will stress these are dark gifts not easily acquired and should be taken "seriously".
@Ethromelb14_ESO, if you offered more choices, you might get more poll results, even adding a simple 'Yes' or 'No.'
On that, I vote 'No.' There are many factors involved here. I expect, at some point, they will expand the line. Being unable to foresee that, people should not be banned from the option later. Perhaps a more difficult quest to reacquire and 'Prove your worth," etc.
If it is to be the way your suggest, then longevity should produce more power (a fairly normal benefit in vamp related lore.) Generally, the longer you've had the gift, the worse your negative become, but the greater your benefits.
And I'm not talking short term regarding Stages or L1-10.
A vamp of two weeks was to be feared. A vamp of 100 years was a force to be reckoned with, respected by the greatest monster hunters that would dare tread nearby, and normally given a very wide berth.
naatokb14_ESO wrote: »...
It sickens me as a player, and my characters as bretheren of the Black Blood, that other vampires are little more than prostitutes! And I know there are many prostitute lycans out there as well!
[Moderator Note: Edited per our rules on Cursing & Profanity]
If this was a static game then sure. But preventing any change on a character in a living, breathing world that is full of bugs and gets changed / updated would be ridiculous. Like when the werewolf changes get published, there will be a huge influx of players who actually want to try werewolf again. Seems like this suggestion only benefits RP'ers, huge impact on game-play though.
Ethromelb14_ESO wrote: »If this was a static game then sure. But preventing any change on a character in a living, breathing world that is full of bugs and gets changed / updated would be ridiculous. Like when the werewolf changes get published, there will be a huge influx of players who actually want to try werewolf again. Seems like this suggestion only benefits RP'ers, huge impact on game-play though.
In a way I wanted to see just how much of the community were RPG-ers. Apparently not many lol.
Ethromelb14_ESO wrote: »Despite the bias I voted, vampirism can be contracted and cured an unlimited amount of times in the TES universe, why would ESO be different?
Well lets not forget the ability to do so was in a game premise that solely revolved around you, and your decisions therein also ONLY affected you. In this case we are speaking of a situation where it is possible for there to be thousands of vampires.
smeeprocketnub19_ESO wrote: »Merlin13KAGL wrote: »Ethromelb14_ESO wrote: »I mean curing the full condition, meaning they are a full fledged vampire and or werewolf. However, after being cured they can still contract the disease, but it only causes negatives to their stats rather than giving the opportunity to be turned again. This could also control the population of vamps and werewolves. It would add a sense of realism for many, and ultimately make a player want to be sure of their choice. I think it also will stress these are dark gifts not easily acquired and should be taken "seriously".
@Ethromelb14_ESO, if you offered more choices, you might get more poll results, even adding a simple 'Yes' or 'No.'
On that, I vote 'No.' There are many factors involved here. I expect, at some point, they will expand the line. Being unable to foresee that, people should not be banned from the option later. Perhaps a more difficult quest to reacquire and 'Prove your worth," etc.
If it is to be the way your suggest, then longevity should produce more power (a fairly normal benefit in vamp related lore.) Generally, the longer you've had the gift, the worse your negative become, but the greater your benefits.
And I'm not talking short term regarding Stages or L1-10.
A vamp of two weeks was to be feared. A vamp of 100 years was a force to be reckoned with, respected by the greatest monster hunters that would dare tread nearby, and normally given a very wide berth.
And yet I annihilated Harkon when I was just a fledgling.
Ethromelb14_ESO wrote: »Despite the bias I voted, vampirism can be contracted and cured an unlimited amount of times in the TES universe, why would ESO be different?
Well lets not forget the ability to do so was in a game premise that solely revolved around you, and your decisions therein also ONLY affected you. In this case we are speaking of a situation where it is possible for there to be thousands of vampires.
That doesn't change the lore surrounding the disease. Precedent is set that there isn't an existing immunity (unless you're already afflicted with the opposite disease) so by lore there is no reason for this to not happen.
Aett_Thorn wrote: »Ethromelb14_ESO wrote: »If this was a static game then sure. But preventing any change on a character in a living, breathing world that is full of bugs and gets changed / updated would be ridiculous. Like when the werewolf changes get published, there will be a huge influx of players who actually want to try werewolf again. Seems like this suggestion only benefits RP'ers, huge impact on game-play though.
In a way I wanted to see just how much of the community were RPG-ers. Apparently not many lol.
No, you wanted to see how many people wanted to RP it JUST the way that you did. Other people don't need your arbitrary restrictions in order to RP. I can RP many ways around the current system.