Myself? Worried after guild summit

AngryNord

Aenra conveniently "forgot" the two rounds of major layoffs...

Aenra

not in the slightest..again, --personally-- speaking, i CAN see both good and bad. Let alone all the grey in between

all teams lay folks off come post-launch settle down. This had been happening since before this genre was even named as it is now. What's only changed is that in recent years, it has become a trend to see it as a negative aspect. It is just how it's done in their business. Extra note on the differentiation between support staff and developing/core staff. You want to generalise, do. Said distinction signifies it all. For everyone else.

Do remind yourself which of the two it was that was made to leave in this game
Then remind yourself just how many (an actual number) MMOs you know of that six months(?) later, WITHOUT an expansion at works, went ahead and increased in developer numbers. Let alone what it signifies for said games' health status

do not mix random, unrelated stuff in the same thread. All it accomplishes is muddying the waters..to no one's benefit

fromtesonlineb16_ESO

Aenra wrote: »

if i may just take a step back and be a bit more general..

1) define forced solo content..no really..
solo, you do alone. By definition. It's solo. It is designed, and supposed, to be played by you. Alone. Hence...solo
so define -forced- solo. No do, cause me, i find it superfluous a touch

I know you're being deliberately obtuse but I'll humour you anyway.

Something may be DESIGNED TO BE SOLOABLE but that doesn't mean that it SHOULD ONLY BE SOLOLABLE. Many, many players had big problems with the original level 8 Doshia, and the game prevented them being able to have a friend come to help them.

There is no justification whatsoever of gating progression in that way, none at all. Forced-soloing like forced-grouping should be for marginal and optional content, not core game or story stuff.

Just like there should be no forced-group core game gating, such as infests FFXIV, neither should there be forced-solo core game gating: FFXI has a horrible example in the level 70 fight which if you can't beat it means your leveling and pretty much your entire time in the game is at an end, ESO has several (or had, ZOS had to nerf them to prevent large numbers of players here too being forced to stop playing at they couldn't progress).

starkerealm

Aenra wrote: »

@starkerealm thanks, am not "out" of things to do thankfully
this was not a complaint, just..my thinking in response to what came out of the guild summit; Or let us be straight, what they wanted to come out in the first place, bathed in as positive a light as possible, hence the handpicking of "representatives"

the fact that so many months later (other MMOs don't even last this long prior to major cutbacks) they are increasing their team size has a lot to say for the game. A positive lot. As however it only relates to gameplays directed at specific target groups, well i thought i'd enquire.

Well, and my perspective on the single player content is a little skewed, because I love playing werewolves in PvE. I get the arguments about them being non-viable in PvP, but at least for me, that's some really neat new toys to play with. But, at the same time, I get that's not everyone, and I do have reservations on some of the decisions.

The biggest red flag for me is the decision to scale the guild and main quest forced solo content. On one hand, it means if you just ignore The Prophet or the Guild quests, wander off and derp around for 20 levels, you can come back to meaningful content. It also means that Dark Brotherhood and Thieves Guild could get meaningful PvE content for them, when they drop, without simultaneously locking new players off from those guilds. But, it also means that if you honestly can't get through them on your own, you cannot put out a call for aid.

Ideally I'd love to see those moved to the same instancing as the optional-solo instances, like the battle with most of the zone bosses, where if you're alone, you're alone, but if you're in a team, your buddies come with, even if they don't have the quest.

Aenra

bandying words with me won't get you far;
you are mixing an oversight/absense due to deadline with the explanation (arbitrary or otherwise) of a very, very simple concept.
i know you saw this on MMORPG.COM or equivalent fora and deemed it essential to use it yourself as a characterisation. The essense remains intact however:

you make solo content for solo playing. Per word definition
you make group/social content for collective playing. Per word definition

what was left out, or implemented wrongly, ie phasing, people locked out of group content, etc, has or is been fixed. Unrelated in terms of meaning. Hence my telling you before, superfluous.
this is not the place for linguistic liberties and arbitrary re-definitions, what they require goes above the forum's purpose. Way in fact

Aenra

can't edit with IE11 (cave man, shoot me) the above was directed to @fromtesonlineb16_ESO , startkerealm ninjaed me, apologies

starkerealm

Aenra wrote: »

can't edit with IE11 (cave man, shoot me) the above was directed to @fromtesonlineb16_ESO , startkerealm ninjaed me, apologies

*Sighs and solemnly hauls Aenra out behind the woodshed, as requested.*

theyancey

I'm with the OP on this. I have 7 playing toons and one mule. I have done everything through lvl 50, many multiple times. I have no desire to do so again. No solo PvE content = no game for me.

Aenra

had so many suggestions in regards to this, none of which would have required new land addition. Which is one of the major hurdles in any game..so many parts

in ESO, way they did the zones, just not possible. You always, always leave a bit of land unused, you always, always benefit by making two zones be interconnected with more than one entry point.
It's what, in between expanding, you can later on build upon..elsewhere that is..

which to their defense, is precisely why they are adding solo content in the form that they are adding it in. Not much more they can pull off in between. Which does not change the end result of course..but anyway..

starkerealm

Aenra wrote: »

had so many suggestions in regards to this, none of which would have required new land addition. Which is one of the major hurdles in any game..so many parts

in ESO, way they did the zones, just not possible. You always, always leave a bit of land unused, you always, always benefit by making two zones be interconnected with more than one entry point.
It's what, in between expanding, you can later on build upon..elsewhere that is..

which to their defense, is precisely why they are adding solo content in the form that they are adding it in. Not much more they can pull off in between. Which does not change the end result of course..but anyway..

Long term, they can actually just run new roads out of zones into new ones. That's not actually that big an issue. We might even see specific faction v faction zones, like Colovia or The Gold Coast, The Reach and Blackwood as specific PvP buffer zones for the Covenant v. Dominion, Pact v. Covenant, and Dominion v. Pact conflicts outside of the current cyrodil map. It's interesting that, if that was actually the long term plan, the current map loadout would put low level characters in the most protected areas of the various alliances, with them gradually getting closer to the front. Though, it would also open the door to free range PvP which wouldn't appeal to most players.