Oblivion online! No one is talking about scaling

DDuke

Dave2836 wrote: »

Lord Xanhorn wrote: »

Dave2836 wrote: »

At that point a good player will find the opportunity to attemp different skilled builds for fun. A poor player will eventually get better through trial and error. If that fails, there is always grouping and learning tactics.

Oh that sounds like great marketing. 'Come play our game where if you are really good, you can just keep trying different builds while you demolish the same crap easy content.'

Its pretty lonely at the top. why not gimp yourself and play a pacifist. Light armor, offhand shield, no weapon, and only the fighter's guild skills? The unarmed combat animations are pretty slick.

Or why not create content for those more dedicated players, rather than tell them to F off from your casual game?

Oh right, $$$-

starkerealm

DDuke wrote: »

Dave2836 wrote: »

Lord Xanhorn wrote: »

Dave2836 wrote: »

At that point a good player will find the opportunity to attemp different skilled builds for fun. A poor player will eventually get better through trial and error. If that fails, there is always grouping and learning tactics.

Oh that sounds like great marketing. 'Come play our game where if you are really good, you can just keep trying different builds while you demolish the same crap easy content.'

Its pretty lonely at the top. why not gimp yourself and play a pacifist. Light armor, offhand shield, no weapon, and only the fighter's guild skills? The unarmed combat animations are pretty slick.

Or why not create content for those more dedicated players, rather than tell them to F off from your casual game?

Oh right, $$$-

I get that you're being sarcastic, but, really, think about this for a second.

You're running a business. Why are you going to throw, say, 10%-20% of your current operational budget at something that will only be consumed by 2%-5% of your customers? With the added bonus that it will alienate some of your customers causing them to leave.

The vet upgraded dungeons are a compromise on this, with content for that 2%-5%, without having to actually commit serious funds to building entirely fresh content, or risking alienating players.

But, we've seen people trying to go and make the ultra-hardcore MMO for the Dark Souls generation. And... Secret World is pretty dead. The starter zones have the population you'll see in ESO's vet zones. Get into the late game content, and you can see a handful of players running around doing their dailies, but that's about it.

DDuke

starkerealm wrote: »

DDuke wrote: »

Dave2836 wrote: »

Lord Xanhorn wrote: »

Dave2836 wrote: »

At that point a good player will find the opportunity to attemp different skilled builds for fun. A poor player will eventually get better through trial and error. If that fails, there is always grouping and learning tactics.

Oh that sounds like great marketing. 'Come play our game where if you are really good, you can just keep trying different builds while you demolish the same crap easy content.'

Its pretty lonely at the top. why not gimp yourself and play a pacifist. Light armor, offhand shield, no weapon, and only the fighter's guild skills? The unarmed combat animations are pretty slick.

Or why not create content for those more dedicated players, rather than tell them to F off from your casual game?

Oh right, $$$-

I get that you're being sarcastic, but, really, think about this for a second.

You're running a business. Why are you going to throw, say, 10%-20% of your current operational budget at something that will only be consumed by 2%-5% of your customers? With the added bonus that it will alienate some of your customers causing them to leave.

The vet upgraded dungeons are a compromise on this, with content for that 2%-5%, without having to actually commit serious funds to building entirely fresh content, or risking alienating players.

But, we've seen people trying to go and make the ultra-hardcore MMO for the Dark Souls generation. And... Secret World is pretty dead. The starter zones have the population you'll see in ESO's vet zones. Get into the late game content, and you can see a handful of players running around doing their dailies, but that's about it.

Vet dungeons content for 2%-5%?
I'd say those are completable for atleast 90% of players.

How the most succesfull MMO out there did it, they had content at launch for both the more dedicated players who spend multiple hours in game, and content for the more casual folk who might not be prepared (no subtle pun intended) for the more difficult content out there.

This is a working combination, because it provides a game for gamers, and it provides a game for casuals (and things they can look forward to).

Catering only to casual player base is a sure way to get a "failed game", just like so so many other F2P/B2P MMOs out there.

Someone here on the forums once said:

While casual players might create the numbers, it's the more hardcore audience that creates excitement for the game.

starkerealm

DDuke wrote: »

Vet dungeons content for 2%-5%?
I'd say those are completable for atleast 90% of players.

No. Because less than 90% players will ever reach vet ranks in the first place. Most will leave long before then.

As a general statistic, roughly 2% to 5% of an MMO's population will ever reach and participate in end game content.

That isn't an ESO specific statistic.

Now, I'll agree that vet dungeons are probably completable for 90% of players based on the skill level required to complete the content, but most players won't put the necessary hundred or so hours into the game. (Or learning the game's systems, for that matter.) So, they'll never see that content, much less complete it.

DDuke

starkerealm wrote: »

DDuke wrote: »

Vet dungeons content for 2%-5%?
I'd say those are completable for atleast 90% of players.

No. Because less than 90% players will ever reach vet ranks in the first place. Most will leave long before then.

As a general statistic, roughly 2% to 5% of an MMO's population will ever reach and participate in end game content.

That isn't an ESO specific statistic.

Now, I'll agree that vet dungeons are probably completable for 90% of players based on the skill level required to complete the content, but most players won't put the necessary hundred or so hours into the game. (Or learning the game's systems, for that matter.) So, they'll never see that content, much less complete it.

Ah, that's a good point.

I think the question then is whether MMOs should be made with the MMO players in mind (ones that stick around), or the ones that want a "Skyrim Online" and then quit midway through.

Do you want long term players, or short term cash grabs.

I think Zenimax's stance is quite clear.

Dave2836

DDuke wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

DDuke wrote: »

Vet dungeons content for 2%-5%?
I'd say those are completable for atleast 90% of players.

No. Because less than 90% players will ever reach vet ranks in the first place. Most will leave long before then.

As a general statistic, roughly 2% to 5% of an MMO's population will ever reach and participate in end game content.

That isn't an ESO specific statistic.

Now, I'll agree that vet dungeons are probably completable for 90% of players based on the skill level required to complete the content, but most players won't put the necessary hundred or so hours into the game. (Or learning the game's systems, for that matter.) So, they'll never see that content, much less complete it.

Ah, that's a good point.

I think the question then is whether MMOs should be made with the MMO players in mind (ones that stick around), or the ones that want a "Skyrim Online" and then quit midway through.

Do you want long term players, or short term cash grabs.

I think Zenimax's stance is quite clear.

A lot of players never really finish single player games either. The amount of good single player games that get pumped out each year is astounding, and each have a multitude of hours of content. Bundled with the fact that the games are geared towards individuals with real life responsibilities limits overall playing time

Carrying over this time restriction into an MMO is not unheard of. This game was never meant for someone to play 8 hours a day, 7 days a week. Of course the game designers love that idea, I'm sure it was not their original intention. Nobody wants the second coming of Evercrack, where its grind, raid, grind, raid, craft, grind, raid all night long like a second job. The fact that we as players can grind into the vet levels within 48 hours is available to us by design, but not as the primary intention.

Someone once told me something interesting about another medium that would be applicable here. If it takes you less than 10 minutes to read through a 24 page comic book, then you clearly missed a lot of the nuances put in by the writers, pencillers, inkers, and editors. I remember going into a solo dungeon with book cases, and just reading the stories kept there. Imagine that, a dungeon where the mobs respawn and want to pound you into the next wayshrine, and here I am reading a piece of lore about some guy explaining about fishing or being the best thief. You vets might have completed 99+% of the achievements available, but have your read all the lore pages collected? Have you completed all the quests available in each zone? I found the story collected in the motifs very interesting as well.

This game is an RPG first, and MMO second, although I'm sure a lot of people will disagree with me.

Lord Xanhorn

starkerealm wrote: »

As a general statistic, roughly 2% to 5% of an MMO's population will ever reach and participate in end game content.

OK I can't let this pass. This statement is absurd.

starkerealm

DDuke wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

DDuke wrote: »

Vet dungeons content for 2%-5%?
I'd say those are completable for atleast 90% of players.

No. Because less than 90% players will ever reach vet ranks in the first place. Most will leave long before then.

As a general statistic, roughly 2% to 5% of an MMO's population will ever reach and participate in end game content.

That isn't an ESO specific statistic.

Now, I'll agree that vet dungeons are probably completable for 90% of players based on the skill level required to complete the content, but most players won't put the necessary hundred or so hours into the game. (Or learning the game's systems, for that matter.) So, they'll never see that content, much less complete it.

Ah, that's a good point.

I think the question then is whether MMOs should be made with the MMO players in mind (ones that stick around), or the ones that want a "Skyrim Online" and then quit midway through.

Do you want long term players, or short term cash grabs.

I think Zenimax's stance is quite clear.

Actually... it's not.

Subscription fees incentive keeping people around. This is where the real danger from the "alienating your audience" thing comes in.

It also incentivizes some of the basic gameplay concepts for the MMO. If you (as the developer) are getting paid because someone is still playing your game, it makes sense to drip feed stuff to them. Drag stuff out, expand the spaces, stick long cooldowns on things.

The result is, you have normal RPGs like, say, Dragon Age: Inquisition that are considered long games. But, completing all the content in that will take roughly 1/3rd the time you'd need to just finish Cadwell's Gold in ESO.

ESO is designed with some of the time fillers you'd expect from an MMO. It cuts out a lot of them as well, but it's still a game that will take a long time to "finish." Or even just get to endgame.

This is part of what creates the environment where players will rush through content. If you're paying for this, you want your money's worth, basically. The developers have the incentive of slowing you down as much as possible to keep pulling money in, you have the incentive of paying as little as possible. And we end up with players who will tear through content, and hit the level cap within hours of a game being released.

Unfortunately, you can't really design content for them, all you can do is insert grinds and hope that keeps them distracted until you do have content for them. You want them to keep paying, but there's just no way to push content fast enough to keep them happy.

On a box purchase, your incentives are almost reversed. Once you've sold the box, you're not (automatically) making any more money off of that player. So there's no reason to keep them around, at least on a very superficial level. They're simply occupying server space. You can incentivize them giving you money (cash shops, subscriber perks), but you can't force them to.

You also get nothing for drip feeding stuff to them. Slowing them down will only frustrate or annoy, so content that is nothing but long grinds is less appealing. Because, hey, they could just go play Skyrim, or DAI, or Grim Dawn, or whatever. And, you don't get money for that.

Now, even on a box sub, there are reasons to keep players around. You don't want to run them out the door. There's a kind of peer pressure, I forget the technical term for it here, but, oddly enough, people like playing with their friends. With an MMO, if your friends are all playing one game, they're going to drag you into that with them. For MMOs this is one of the most important elements of getting players to stick around.

I remember people complaining about how the Ring of Mara item was about couples gaming... and that's probably partially true, it does encourage couples to game together. But, it's also about giving players an incentive to keep dragging friends back in.

The second reason is that veteran players (in the general meaning, not level 50+) function as a sort of first line customer support and as a form of entertainment content in their own right.

...well, that got long fast.

Anyway, we don't know, really which way they're going to jump from here on out. With a box only format, it would be in ZoS' best interests to start smoothing stuff out, and pushing towards faster access to more areas. Which, seems to be what they're doing with the DLC content. But, we'll see.

tplink3r1

Funny, i did feel some character progression in Skyrim(it uses the same mechanic).

Dave2836

In an MMO, the players ARE the content. There is an interactive community here, and just because spindleclutch was done once, doesn't mean we won't have a different experience there with an entirely different group. If we as a community haven't gone into tamriel and improved the experience of another user through daily interactions, then why play an MMO in the first place?

The players unfortunately want to rush through content in general because somehow they believe if "they're not first, they are last" with the shake n bake mentality. The players whom are willing to take their time with the game is the actual target audience, not the players who spend the most hours raiding and hunting, but the players who gradually advance and explore every nook and cranny put in here. The minimalist U.I. along with the lack of a uniformed auction house is evidence of that.

I recently completed a quest in kragenmoor and saw captain rana, now centurion rana. It was like seeing an old friend again, without the hugs or asking for favours, cuz she sure was needy on bleakrock and bal foyen.

starkerealm

Dave2836 wrote: »

The players unfortunately want to rush through content in general because somehow they believe if "they're not first, they are last" with the shake n bake mentality.

Not quite. The proliferation of the rushing psychology in MMOs is more a symptom of players reacting to the subscription system, that the games used to follow. Now it's become a normal approach to the genre, however, and lives on even as sub MMOs are becoming a novelty.

DDuke

Dave2836 wrote: »

You vets might have completed 99+% of the achievements available, but have your read all the lore pages collected? Have you completed all the quests available in each zone? I found the story collected in the motifs very interesting as well.

Being a OCD person, I think I can answer your question: yes

And it doesn't take as long as you think for a person with gaming as primary hobby. You can finish all this game's quests, dungeons, read every book & hireling and even fill out your HarvestMap addon for all zones in less than two months.

Dave2836 wrote: »

This game is an RPG first, and MMO second, although I'm sure a lot of people will disagree with me.

Well... it has done a lousy job on both if you ask me.

Multiple classic archetypes are not viable in PvP, no attributes, generic itemization, streamlined content etc

They sadly went the "Action Adventure" route, similar to Skyrim, instead of where the roots of Elder Scrolls are, RPG (Arena, Daggerfall, Morrowind).

Dave2836

starkerealm wrote: »

Dave2836 wrote: »

The players unfortunately want to rush through content in general because somehow they believe if "they're not first, they are last" with the shake n bake mentality.

Not quite. The proliferation of the rushing psychology in MMOs is more a symptom of players reacting to the subscription system, that the games used to follow. Now it's become a normal approach to the genre, however, and lives on even as sub MMOs are becoming a novelty.

Then I must have been playing with non-typical players in EQ2 when everyone was just grinding for levels so they could start crossing the rivers into new continents while I wanted to play a cavern in the middle of no where... and alas no one else was there because it was super tough and grinding a skeleton mob was much much easier.

starkerealm

DDuke wrote: »

They sadly went the "Action Adventure" route, similar to Skyrim, instead of where the roots of Elder Scrolls are, RPG (Arena, Daggerfall, Morrowind).

The irony is, when you look at the way the game's written and put together, it's a lot more in line with the earlier RPG titles.

When you get into the game mechanics it's more aimed at the modern streamlined stuff.

That said, it would be nice to have the 3rd Era stats back.

starkerealm

Dave2836 wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Dave2836 wrote: »

The players unfortunately want to rush through content in general because somehow they believe if "they're not first, they are last" with the shake n bake mentality.

Not quite. The proliferation of the rushing psychology in MMOs is more a symptom of players reacting to the subscription system, that the games used to follow. Now it's become a normal approach to the genre, however, and lives on even as sub MMOs are becoming a novelty.

Then I must have been playing with non-typical players in EQ2 when everyone was just grinding for levels so they could start crossing the rivers into new continents while I wanted to play a cavern in the middle of no where... and alas no one else was there because it was super tough and grinding a skeleton mob was much much easier.

It depends. Most MMOs have fairly diverse populations. The exceptions would be games where they're pushing really hard for one subset of the market, and willing to drive everyone else away in the process.

But, yeah, the players that rush through content as fast as they can? It's mostly a result of the subscription system actually penalizing players for taking their time and sniffing the flowers.

DDuke

starkerealm wrote: »

DDuke wrote: »

They sadly went the "Action Adventure" route, similar to Skyrim, instead of where the roots of Elder Scrolls are, RPG (Arena, Daggerfall, Morrowind).

The irony is, when you look at the way the game's written and put together, it's a lot more in line with the earlier RPG titles.

When you get into the game mechanics it's more aimed at the modern streamlined stuff.

That said, it would be nice to have the 3rd Era stats back.

They are not easy enough for the Skyrim generation to understand, so they will never happen. Nor will any other addition that would add depth or complexity to the game.

Dave2836

DDuke wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

DDuke wrote: »

They sadly went the "Action Adventure" route, similar to Skyrim, instead of where the roots of Elder Scrolls are, RPG (Arena, Daggerfall, Morrowind).

The irony is, when you look at the way the game's written and put together, it's a lot more in line with the earlier RPG titles.

When you get into the game mechanics it's more aimed at the modern streamlined stuff.

That said, it would be nice to have the 3rd Era stats back.

They are not easy enough for the Skyrim generation to understand, so they will never happen. Nor will any other addition that would add depth or complexity to the game.

Remember the old days of Tomb Raider back when Eidos developed it, or the first two Resident Evil games when we had to try to solve puzzles with a limited number of clues and resources?

There are some aspects here with that, just look at the fishing guide... should someone actually take the time to read and comprehend them. I'm glad I kept all my crawlers and insects and guts, now with fish possibly being a food craftable ingredient. Are there message in a bottle quests in fishing?

starkerealm

Dave2836 wrote: »

DDuke wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

DDuke wrote: »

They sadly went the "Action Adventure" route, similar to Skyrim, instead of where the roots of Elder Scrolls are, RPG (Arena, Daggerfall, Morrowind).

The irony is, when you look at the way the game's written and put together, it's a lot more in line with the earlier RPG titles.

When you get into the game mechanics it's more aimed at the modern streamlined stuff.

That said, it would be nice to have the 3rd Era stats back.

They are not easy enough for the Skyrim generation to understand, so they will never happen. Nor will any other addition that would add depth or complexity to the game.

Remember the old days of Tomb Raider back when Eidos developed it, or the first two Resident Evil games when we had to try to solve puzzles with a limited number of clues and resources our psychic powers?

There are some aspects here with that, just look at the fishing guide... should someone actually take the time to read and comprehend them. I'm glad I kept all my crawlers and insects and guts, now with fish possibly being a food craftable ingredient. Are there message in a bottle quests in fishing?

Minor typo there. At least in regards to the first two RE games.

But, yeah, ESO has, at least, kept the tradition of not telling you anything and expecting you to do the reading. I can't even fault if for that because unlike, something like Dragon Age Inquisition, the reading you need to do is in game, and also not hanging the main plot on supplemental reading. But, hey.

Father

I really like the idea of lvl scaling content. its more challenging and less boring.
I'm not sure why people don't like it. you can play the way you want with a crappy build no one is gonna bother you. Yet why force others with good builds to have a boring gameplay with easy content.

olemanwinter

olemanwinter wrote: »

At that point a good player will find the opportunity to attemp different skilled builds for fun.

So, having encountered cheese easy content, the good player will start slotting less effective skills, wear worse gear, and purposefully achieve less synergy to handicap himself because the game is a cake walk?

Doubtful.

Fun? No freaking way.

Vizier

As great as Oblivion was I was ready to hang it up after a couple weeks because of the scaling. There was no sense of danger or accomplishment as was the case with Morrowind. It was the player modding community that kept me hooked for the years I enjoyed the game. The game was a JOKE otherwise.

If they start scaling encounters I wouldn't play another day.

Dave2836

olemanwinter wrote: »

olemanwinter wrote: »

At that point a good player will find the opportunity to attemp different skilled builds for fun.

So, having encountered cheese easy content, the good player will start slotting less effective skills, wear worse gear, and purposefully achieve less synergy to handicap himself because the game is a cake walk?

Doubtful.

Fun? No freaking way.

In Diablo II, there was a category of players known as "Hardcore" which meant if your toon died, everything it had goes with it. With in this category, there were two main competing camps:

"Ironman", which means everything you have in the game you earned by killing or crafting. No twinking, no buying, no help. The goal is to be a self sufficient to the end of the campaign and see how far you can last.

"Streaking", which you start off as a lvl 1 in the Rogues Encampment and run nekkid through the entire first act to see how far you could get. No equipment, you could kill the mobs if you dared to.

Were these two play styles difficult? Sure was.

Were they fun? If playing solo, then no, but as a competition amongst friends it was interesting to see how far we could make it past the blood moor. My Ranger Paladin lasted until Nightmare difficulty cow level when the king cow and his posse butchered me. So yes, in the right environment, gimping yourself is fun.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

starkerealm wrote: »

DDuke wrote: »

Dave2836 wrote: »

Lord Xanhorn wrote: »

Dave2836 wrote: »

At that point a good player will find the opportunity to attemp different skilled builds for fun. A poor player will eventually get better through trial and error. If that fails, there is always grouping and learning tactics.

Oh that sounds like great marketing. 'Come play our game where if you are really good, you can just keep trying different builds while you demolish the same crap easy content.'

Its pretty lonely at the top. why not gimp yourself and play a pacifist. Light armor, offhand shield, no weapon, and only the fighter's guild skills? The unarmed combat animations are pretty slick.

Or why not create content for those more dedicated players, rather than tell them to F off from your casual game?

Oh right, $$$-

I get that you're being sarcastic, but, really, think about this for a second.

You're running a business. Why are you going to throw, say, 10%-20% of your current operational budget at something that will only be consumed by 2%-5% of your customers? With the added bonus that it will alienate some of your customers causing them to leave.

The vet upgraded dungeons are a compromise on this, with content for that 2%-5%, without having to actually commit serious funds to building entirely fresh content, or risking alienating players.

But, we've seen people trying to go and make the ultra-hardcore MMO for the Dark Souls generation. And... Secret World is pretty dead. The starter zones have the population you'll see in ESO's vet zones. Get into the late game content, and you can see a handful of players running around doing their dailies, but that's about it.

You're actually pretty off base here.

First and foremost, every player eventually becomes better by playing.
No one gates bad by playing the game, so unless someone stops playing for a year, eventually, everyone will be able to tackle and enjoy the content.

Second, if WoW losing millions of subscribers taught us anything, making the game easier is a mistake. The same patern repeated in all games that did the same error.
This hard content is that you do not have acces to, or aren't able to achieve yet, is the carrot. It serves as a motivation to play more to improve both your character and your own skill.
Working as a team to improve your runs provides the social hooks to remain in game too. Those guys need you and you need them and once you achieved something, it is your success, you earned it.

Third, Trials and their leaderboards are a great tool to motivate what I said before, and we need more and harder ones.
Scaling the existing ones would be imposible. How can you have a leaderboard representing a competition of players if they don't all tackle the same challenge.

And finally, and most important point, those 2-5% players are your most loyal fans. They are those releasing videos of their runs, posting guides about builds and content, they are the core members of guilds and the ever present guys necessary for a snowball effect to occur.
If there isn't enough room in a game for hardcore PvEers, then the community cannot prosper.

Optional scalling of some content is fine. The solo instanced ones should have both options. Same for dungeons. But the veteran version, trials and some new added zones need to be a "next step" evolution for your character.

starkerealm

Vizier wrote: »

The game was a JOKE otherwise.

One of the main, narrative, themes for Morrowind was apotheosis. Giving the player the tools necessary to break the game over their knee was kinda, partially, the point.

starkerealm

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

DDuke wrote: »

Dave2836 wrote: »

Lord Xanhorn wrote: »

Dave2836 wrote: »

At that point a good player will find the opportunity to attemp different skilled builds for fun. A poor player will eventually get better through trial and error. If that fails, there is always grouping and learning tactics.

Oh that sounds like great marketing. 'Come play our game where if you are really good, you can just keep trying different builds while you demolish the same crap easy content.'

Its pretty lonely at the top. why not gimp yourself and play a pacifist. Light armor, offhand shield, no weapon, and only the fighter's guild skills? The unarmed combat animations are pretty slick.

Or why not create content for those more dedicated players, rather than tell them to F off from your casual game?

Oh right, $$$-

I get that you're being sarcastic, but, really, think about this for a second.

You're running a business. Why are you going to throw, say, 10%-20% of your current operational budget at something that will only be consumed by 2%-5% of your customers? With the added bonus that it will alienate some of your customers causing them to leave.

The vet upgraded dungeons are a compromise on this, with content for that 2%-5%, without having to actually commit serious funds to building entirely fresh content, or risking alienating players.

But, we've seen people trying to go and make the ultra-hardcore MMO for the Dark Souls generation. And... Secret World is pretty dead. The starter zones have the population you'll see in ESO's vet zones. Get into the late game content, and you can see a handful of players running around doing their dailies, but that's about it.

You're actually pretty off base here.

First and foremost, every player eventually becomes better by playing.
No one gates bad by playing the game, so unless someone stops playing for a year, eventually, everyone will be able to tackle and enjoy the content.

Statistically, no, "everyone won't."

Steam gates achievements based on, "did you actually play the game?" and then counts you against the global pool. What this shows is, with a lot of games, between 5% and 15% of players never even see the first "gimme" achievement (when there is one.)

They start up the game, and for whatever reason never get started.

When you look, at that, (and yes, I'm talking about single player games) there is a sharp drop off in how long people spend playing a game.

Also, some MMO developers in the past have talked more openly about what chunks of their games' populations advance through the content. that's where the 2%-5% number comes from. Which is why I said it isn't just an ESO statistic. This is MMOs in general.

MMOs demand a huge time commitment to get to endgame. Most people don't stick with a single game for years at a time. They'll play a game for 40 to 100 hours, get their money's worth, usually finish it in that time and move on.

It's not a conscious choice, but the game just doesn't hold their attention that long.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Second, if WoW losing millions of subscribers taught us anything, making the game easier is a mistake. The same patern repeated in all games that did the same error.
This hard content is that you do not have acces to, or aren't able to achieve yet, is the carrot. It serves as a motivation to play more to improve both your character and your own skill.
Working as a team to improve your runs provides the social hooks to remain in game too. Those guys need you and you need them and once you achieved something, it is your success, you earned it.

Game difficulty is a completely different issue. Ask The Secret World how they're doing right now.

Dark Souls (and to an extent Demon's Souls) proved to the industry that there is a market for really difficult content. Some players really go for that. Some don't.

Players who don't can just as easily end up frustrated with the game. Especially if their losses feel like the result of things beyond their control. In those cases, simply ramping up the difficulty can result in disgruntled ex-players actually undermining a game's presence elsewhere. Again, go find any Secret World article on someplace like Massivly and look at the comments.

But, even if you make it easy, it won't matter. If content is buried 200 hours into an MMO, most players will simply never see it. For someone who has a life, and can only game for 1 to 2 hours a night, a 200 hours climb through the ranks, can easily mean they're looking at four to eight months of playing the same game, never getting bored, and never switching to an alt, in order to access that content.

In many cases, once they do get there, they'll find themselves presented with players who got there within two weeks of launch, and have worked the content into a finely honed system, and will flip out at any newbie who wanders in and ruins their run.

A lot of time, the reason I see attributed to WoW's declining numbers has nothing to do with the game's difficulty being nerfed. The issue was, all of the new content was gated behind a massive timesink.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Third, Trials and their leaderboards are a great tool to motivate what I said before, and we need more and harder ones.
Scaling the existing ones would be imposible. How can you have a leaderboard representing a competition of players if they don't all tackle the same challenge.

To someone who's specifically looking to be competitive, sure. To literally anyone else? Not so much. To an "average" (yes, I know that's a loaded term) new player firing up the game, the first thing they're not going to do is fire up the leaderboard, and immediately decide how they'll get their name on it.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

And finally, and most important point, those 2-5% players are your most loyal fans. They are those releasing videos of their runs, posting guides about builds and content, they are the core members of guilds and the ever present guys necessary for a snowball effect to occur.

Well, you said your first accurate thing... and then tripped and landed on your face.

2%-5% of the players are the game's most loyal. They will stick around and, in general, a game has to screw the pooch something fierce to chase them off... but, at the same time, they're not the ones making videos.

If a game has a population of 250,000 players, that would mean at least 10,000 of them would be active on youtube, twitch, or someplace else. For your actual content producing entertainers? At a rough estimate, you're looking at something closer to 0.05% of your population. Give or take. Or 50 per 100k.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

If there isn't enough room in a game for hardcore PvEers, then the community cannot prosper.

Without a population an MMO can't survive. Just, flat fact. It doesn't matter how many subscribers you have, the less coherent the community, the more they'll fracture and spin off. Ironically, one of the things ESO doesn't do that well. But, it hasn't been a fatal issue yet.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Optional scalling of some content is fine. The solo instanced ones should have both options. Same for dungeons. But the veteran version, trials and some new added zones need to be a "next step" evolution for your character.

If you get that far. You seem to have some idea that people leave because they get frustrated. That's probably true in some cases, but in general, this is just about people getting bored with playing the same game night after night, and wandering off to find something new.

MasterSpatula

I loathe scaling. The whole concept basically goes against why I love RPGs in the first place. Having to seek out new, more dangerous enemies to challenge me as the the old enemies that used to wipe the floor with me become patsies is straight-up one of the things I love the most in good RPGs.

The sense of progression is essential to me. Once it's lost, it's no longer a good RPG. This is why I never play Oblivion without mods to fix the scaling (though none of them really got it right, IMO).

I'm okay(ish) with it in high-end Instanced content. (After all, I'm kind of going against the rules of good RPGs by doing the same storyline over and over anyway, so what's the big deal?) But I do miss the leveling-content dungeons having a set level. Makes them feel less meaningful to me.

starkerealm

MasterSpatula wrote: »

The sense of progression is essential to me. Once it's lost, it's no longer a good RPG. This is why I never play Oblivion without mods to fix the scaling (though none of them really got it right, IMO).

Not even the one that would completely randomly populate the world, so you could see crap like Land Dreugh wandering around as soon as you exited the sewers?

MasterSpatula

starkerealm wrote: »

The irony is, when you look at the way the game's written and put together, it's a lot more in line with the earlier RPG titles.

When you get into the game mechanics it's more aimed at the modern streamlined stuff.

That's always been one of the most baffling things about ESO to me. It's like they're trying really hard to please two distinct audience that not only don't want the same thing from their games but in fact want the opposite thing from their games.

This comes out the absolute worst in group dungeons, where I never get the chance to appreciate the beautiful storytelling, the supreme attention to detail, the haunting sense of loss and inspiring heroism in the storylines because all the good dungeon groups are made of actions gamers who just want to rush ahead to the next fight.

starkerealm

MasterSpatula wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

The irony is, when you look at the way the game's written and put together, it's a lot more in line with the earlier RPG titles.

When you get into the game mechanics it's more aimed at the modern streamlined stuff.

That's always been one of the most baffling things about ESO to me. It's like they're trying really hard to please two distinct audience that not only don't want the same thing from their games but in fact want the opposite thing from their games.

This comes out the absolute worst in group dungeons, where I never get the chance to appreciate the beautiful storytelling, the supreme attention to detail, the haunting sense of loss and inspiring heroism in all the dungeon storylines because all of the good dungeon groups are made of actions gamers who just want to rush ahead to the next fight.

Having a like minded guild helps with that... but, yeah, I hear you.

MasterSpatula

starkerealm wrote: »

MasterSpatula wrote: »

The sense of progression is essential to me. Once it's lost, it's no longer a good RPG. This is why I never play Oblivion without mods to fix the scaling (though none of them really got it right, IMO).

Not even the one that would completely randomly populate the world, so you could see crap like Land Dreugh wandering around as soon as you exited the sewers?

Especially those ones. The area around the Imperial City is the most civilized part of Tamriel. Having high-end dangers right outside the major population center of a continent made no sense, no matter what my level was. High-end enemies should have dominated the more remote areas of the map, while the dangers in the middle of the map should have been more suited to an area heavily populated by non-combatants.