Give OPTIOn to not iclude random people at delve instances

Tapio75

Please, just please make this happen allready.. Those dangerous forgotten ruins do not feel like any forgotten, abandoned ruin/Cave/Den of nasty people/whatever since it still is rush hour most of the time and while it is slightly better than at launch, there is still too often too many people inside resulting in empty places with nothing to slay or fight.. Some quests get completed because someone else happened to do something somewhere there and i missed the whole part of that story...

I love to play with other but i prefer to play with my friends, not including random people in the instances where we should be the only ragtag team of adventurers.. It just ruins immersion when those steamrollers go through everything with haste and leave all the places empty..

I do not think that in game like TES online, random people just not fit inside areas like these.. Outside world should be free for all but anything like quest area inside a cave, ruin, fort, house or any other area inside should be infested with random people.. We should have option to play with random people or exclude those random people from these places and go with only the people we want to go there with.. Or alone if that is the way we want to play this limited Tamriel Unlimited...

Reykice

Yea it might be a good option... after all they should be small solo dungeons. Can`t hurt anyway.

Audigy

I like the design, its similar to the design of dungeons in the late 90s of MMOs. I dont understand why this system should be changed, quite the opposite actually, all dungeons should work like that. I honestly hate all that "instancing" where you must go through a portal and form a premade.

It takes away the immersion and becomes an Arcade game similar to a shooter.

Our chars are the hero and they shouldn't need the assistance of others to enter something and if by coincidence others are at the exact same location as we are, then we can still fight together.


The game we don't speak of has no public dungeons and its such a pain You don't meet any people in that MMO, quite sad for the genre.

MornaBaine

I would cheerfully maim and kill for instancing of MANY areas. Does it have a door or other marked entrance? Instance it for groups already! I only want to go in there with the people I have with me thanks.

Tapio75

Audigy wrote: »

The game we don't speak of has no public dungeons and its such a pain You don't meet any people in that MMO, quite sad for the genre.

I am actually asking for an option, like a checkbox in sett9ings.. I want the current system stay as is and only add option to it.

What i want in this option, is that we scale to the instance we go according to level and number of players in the group so you can do it alone with a friend, 2 friends, 3 friends.. Get the point That too, should be optional though.

From late 90' players have changed quite a bit, even while there are many more players playing these days, i dont find them nearly as nice persons as MMORPG players once used to be.

nerevarine1138

Tapio75 wrote: »

Audigy wrote: »

The game we don't speak of has no public dungeons and its such a pain You don't meet any people in that MMO, quite sad for the genre.

I am actually asking for an option, like a checkbox in sett9ings.. I want the current system stay as is and only add option to it.

What i want in this option, is that we scale to the instance we go according to level and number of players in the group so you can do it alone with a friend, 2 friends, 3 friends.. Get the point That too, should be optional though.

Every time someone falls back on the "I just want the option," argument, Stendarr kills a kitten.

Yes, you want the option. But that's a ton of developer resources devoted to coding the now-different delves/public dungeons just to assuage the very few people who don't like playing with others. And making it an option, in this case, would actually be more resource-intensive, because they'd have to make sure they were creating the different instance without creating the possibility of exploiting the private delve for chests, etc.

This is an MMO. You're going to have to deal with the fact that every time an NPC says that an area is "undiscovered", they're lying.

Egonieser

No thanks.
I love the openness and freedom to do the dungeon with anybody. I have always hated x or y amount of people in instaces, it kills immersion and turns it into a scripted grindfest.
Besides the mob respwn times in dungeons are very fast so i have no clue what are you complaining about, just wait 20 seconds for a respawn and move on if someone killed your mob, or better yet, ask them to join their group or invite them yourself.
I like this game because it is unique in it's lore and mechanics, not because it is the same as 99% of other MMO's.
If you don't like doing it with other people, do it at a different time of the day when there are less players around.

talon_vib14_ESO

The point of an MMO is to have a populated world inhabited by other players. If you only want to play with friends you should probably stick with co-op games. I'm pretty sure you can even get a mod for Skyrim that will allow you to play co-op.

yodased

I think its ironic that the term immersion is used to justify putting up some of magic portal that transports everyone who walks through that same door or cave entrance into an identical reality that only shows the interior of said cave or house or whatever, separated by who's character name is showing on your screen lol.

I'm fine with you wanting to be able to roleplay or whatever, but this is a weak argument at best and I happen to love running into someone and not actually grouping with them, but still doing the dungeon/delve/conga line with them.

So no, if you give people the option you are ruining my immersion! Such a funny concept that, immersion.

stefan.gustavsonb16_ESO

Immersion would be better if the NPC dialog in some delves didn't contain lines like "You are the first living soul to set foot in these ruins for centuries". An NPC saying this while you see dozens of other players running around in the delve killing everything in sight makes for some unintentional comedy.

I can understand why people would want an option to make "solo dungeons" instanced, but it's not a big deal to me. However, the glitch where other players can complete a goal for you without your participation, like putting out a certain number of fires or killing certain monsters, is a bug which I would like to see fixed. You should not accidentally get credit for a kill where you contributed exactly nothing to the damage or healing, nor should you take benefit from what other players do unless you are grouped with them.

P3ZZL3

This is an MMO. You're going to have to deal with the fact that every time an NPC says that an area is "undiscovered", they're lying.

All of my beliefs and my dreams have been torn down by this one statement

AlnilamE

Just wait till you get to Silver/Gold. You'll never see anybody.

LordSkyKnight

I am not trying to be a butt but I think what the OP is asking for is one of the major reasons MMOs have taken a hit over the years and changed direction from what the genre used to be like in the early days. I feel the causals and solo types have helped transform the genre over the years and changed it into something I don't want to see. They want more solo play, more instances, more immersion. You get that kind of play from single player games so why would you want to take an MMO and change it to the style of a single player game?

Playing an MMO is about playing the game with numerous other players in a persistent world. You have Skyrim if want that solo immersive experience and you have Elder Scrolls Online for the MMO play mixed with some Elder Scrolls lore.

Lirkin

I don't agree just because you are playing a game online with a bunch of other people playing it also doesn't mean it needs to be with other people!
Games that are not online are not a replacement for online games because they are static and not evolving. Developers don't put as much into them and do updates to them like the online games. Online games offer much more than a single player game installed on your PC. I play solo most of the time but that doesn't mean that I want to play in an empty world or be limited to games that don't have the features of an online game. I pay the same money but don't look for the same things in a game that people that want to group do. I don't want to force others to play my way why do you want to force me to play your way?
Trying to make the games that are online be group only or slanted that way using the logic that you should play Skyrim if you want to solo is not a valid argument. I see this used a lot but the logic is flawed.

yodased

@C00lmon, that game doesn't exist.

A single player experience with the updates of a MMO can't possibly exist simply because everyone will want something different.

The only reason a MMO can be profitable and stay alive is because it appeals to the least common denominator of gamers, playing with friends. An aggregate of those who are interested in the lore, or the art direction or the concept of the gameplay keeps them playing and paying. Some sort of bond that makes them log in every day.

What another person may want in a game very well may be completely different than what I want. In that case, what do the developers do? Create two different experiences for each person? For EVERY person? That isn't feasible.

I mean, the only thing I could think of that would even fit into a category like that would be something like a choose your own adventure type game or a procedural generated game like diablo, but that is still aimed at playing with other people.

The online world is not a world for being alone, it was created and still is a place to share with other people. I mean you can make your youtube videos private, but why put them online in the first place if you aren't going to share them.

Facebook and twitter and social media exist because people want to interact online, wikipedia exists because people want to share knowledge.

*** exists, well cause its ***.

Point being, connecting (even the word itself) to the internet is about being with other people of like minded, or sometimes, completely not like minded, people.

Lirkin

You missed my point and read into what I said what you thought I said. I am not saying that a game has to be only solo! It should allow anyone to play the way they want.
I see people that want to only have group games using the justification that if you want to play solo play an offline game. I say bull! I should be able to play solo in an online game. My money is as good as a groupers money.
I am not saying that like to op says that I should be the only one in a dungeon. But that LordSkyNight is using logic that is flawed when they suggest that I should play Skyrim because I want to play solo. He seems to be saying that the game should only be for group play. I see this in forums of many MMOs and it's just flawed logic!

MMOs do not need any one type of player but many players paying for the game and to think that because I connect to the Internet I need to do things that involve others all the time is wrong.

I never said that I don't want to communicate with others in the game or not see them. (This seems to be an assumption you have made.). I just prefer to play the game solo. I pay my money to play. If they don't make the game the allows me to play solo I will go somewhere else and pay my money to them.

yodased

You can play solo in this game though, this is what I'm not understanding I guess about the point...

I don't think I misread what you wrote, you want solo instances, which this game has I can think of 6 off the top of my head.

The fact that it says solo dungeon simply means you can tackle it alone, not that its just for you.

There is literally nothing stopping you from never grouping with another person in this game.

nerevarine1138

c00lmon wrote: »

You missed my point and read into what I said what you thought I said. I am not saying that a game has to be only solo! It should allow anyone to play the way they want.
I see people that want to only have group games using the justification that if you want to play solo play an offline game. I say bull! I should be able to play solo in an online game. My money is as good as a groupers money.
I am not saying that like to op says that I should be the only one in a dungeon. But that LordSkyNight is using logic that is flawed when they suggest that I should play Skyrim because I want to play solo. He seems to be saying that the game should only be for group play. I see this in forums of many MMOs and it's just flawed logic!

MMOs do not need any one type of player but many players paying for the game and to think that because I connect to the Internet I need to do things that involve others all the time is wrong.

I never said that I don't want to communicate with others in the game or not see them. (This seems to be an assumption you have made.). I just prefer to play the game solo. I pay my money to play. If they don't make the game the allows me to play solo I will go somewhere else and pay my money to them.

You already can play solo, but the very nature of an MMO is that there will always be others in the game with you. You don't have to group with them, but they're going to be present.

If you're asking for an MMO that can instance everything on a whim and just remove other players from the game world, that's not an MMO. It's great that you're spending money to play, but when you spend that money, that indicates that you enjoy the gameplay you're getting. It doesn't entitle you to a complete overhaul of the game design to fit your needs.

Kaizxen

Even disregarding the immersion argument, the areas are balanced, designed, and laid out to be solo'ed, not played in groups. For me, that's the primary issue.

When I walk into a "solo" area and find that other people have already cleared mobs before I get there, it can ruin my experience. I've gone into several of these areas and had no enemies to fight, including whatever mini-boss was supposed to give me the associated achievement. I end up circling back around to the beginning and waiting until things respawn. Then, I have to do the whole thing again. In the best case scenario, I catch up to the player that's in front of me, and we work together, which is great, except that we each get maybe one hit on each mob. There's no fighting. The mobs basically just fall over.

As a comparison, think about walking into a raid and finding that all of the trash mobs and bosses are already dead. Or, that each mob can be killed with one hit. That sound like a TON of fun, right?

Lirkin

Again you are defining a MMO as what you want or think if should be. I say MMO just means that multiple players can play in it at the same time. How if is setup is not defined by calling it a MMO.

Have I said anywhere in my post that I want this or want that? I have not defined what I want other than that I am able to play solo.

I could define what my perfect MMO would be but this is not the place for it.

I was just trying to point out that people keep defining MMO as what they want it to be and I see many people like LordSkyKnight trying to tell people that if they don't want to group to go play an offline game and not a MMO.

What does MMO represent = massively multiplayer online

Nothing there saying grouping or playing together.

nerevarine1138

c00lmon wrote: »

Again you are defining a MMO as what you want or think if should be. I say MMO just means that multiple players can play in it at the same time. How if is setup is not defined by calling it a MMO.

Have I said anywhere in my post that I want this or want that? I have not defined what I want other than that I am able to play solo.

I could define what my perfect MMO would be but this is not the place for it.

I was just trying to point out that people keep defining MMO as what they want it to be and I see many people like LordSkyKnight trying to tell people that if they don't want to group to go play an offline game and not a MMO.

What does MMO represent = massively multiplayer online

Nothing there saying grouping or playing together.

Massively Multiplayer. That already says that you're going to be playing alongside other people.

Doesn't mean you have to group with them. Doesn't mean you have to even acknowledge their presence. But there are going to be other people in an MMO. If there were a way to turn that off, it wouldn't be an MMO; it would be a game with multiplayer elements.

Grapdjan

So you're fine with overland stuff being full of people but want to go in a ruin and have it all to yourself? For me that would be off colour, surely there are already dungeons for that?

radiostar

Ya, they can't really run all of it like disneyland where you wait single-file in line for your turn at all the content. Sometimes if you see others doing your quest leg or at the ruins before you, you hang back a bit or wander off and return.

Knootewoot

No caves where instanced in Vanguard. And i loved it when i ventured deep into those dungeons just to find a group very far in. Instanced caves makes it a small game. I'd rather have everything open.

Also tamriel has many (npc and pc) inhabitants. The world is to small to have 'forgotten caves'. I always found it odd nobody in Skyrim looted those caves which where in their backyard.

AngryNord

This is TES Online, not TES VI. Live with it.

Kragorn

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Yes, you want the option. But that's a ton of developer resources devoted to coding the now-different delves/public dungeons just to assuage the very few people who don't like playing with others. .

I don't see any "now-different delves" involved, strawman much?

All the OP is asking for is to be able to enter a SOLO instance (the loading screen says that), SOLO!

That said, I expect there are some good server reasons this can't/won't happen. While delves are instances I see no reason to think there's more than one such per layer and that it's actually 'persistent' (unlike private group instances).

So, on the server every time someone with this option set enters a delve a new instance has to be created and reset, I can see huge potential server loading problems with potentially tens/scores of delve instances being created endlessly whereas now the instance runs continuously.

nerevarine1138

Kragorn wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Yes, you want the option. But that's a ton of developer resources devoted to coding the now-different delves/public dungeons just to assuage the very few people who don't like playing with others. .

I don't see any "now-different delves" involved, strawman much?

All the OP is asking for is to be able to enter a SOLO instance (the loading screen says that), SOLO!

That said, I expect there are some good server reasons this can't/won't happen. While delves are instances I see no reason to think there's more than one such per layer and that it's actually 'persistent' (unlike private group instances).

So, on the server every time someone with this option set enters a delve a new instance has to be created and reset, I can see huge potential server loading problems with potentially tens/scores of delve instances being created endlessly whereas now the instance runs continuously.

When I said "now-different," I was referring to the OP's hypothetically instanced delves. And yes, the delves would be different, because now they'd be coded as solo instances and as public ones. Which, as you so astutely point out, would be a massive loading issue.

MornaBaine

It's just never made sense to me that "solo" dungeons are not instanced so you HAVE to play them SOLO. Why call it a solo dungeon then? And it DOES suck when everything has already been wiped out when you get there. Ideally, delves should be instanced with the option to run it "open" just as it is now, to take in a group (where it is ONLY your group and the delve scales like dungeons do depending upon who has group lead) or to go in solo, as in truly solo, alone. Is it a lot of work? Yep. but it's the way this should have been set up to begin with. Flexibility of play style leads to more players...which leads to SEEING more players out in the rest of the open world.

TehMagnus

I'm sure that in a single player game, they will feel lonely.

yodased

It's called solo because you can complete it solo, as in you don't NEED a group to do it. The difference is in the [ ]. Aka the harborage is [solo] any 'solo dungeon' is not the same thing.

There are clear markers to be seen that are ignored by those who wish things were changed.

Edit to respond to "how it should have been"

You wanting something doesn't make it how it should be.

LordSkyKnight

c00lmon wrote: »

Again you are defining a MMO as what you want or think if should be. I say MMO just means that multiple players can play in it at the same time. How if is setup is not defined by calling it a MMO.

Have I said anywhere in my post that I want this or want that? I have not defined what I want other than that I am able to play solo.

I could define what my perfect MMO would be but this is not the place for it.

I was just trying to point out that people keep defining MMO as what they want it to be and I see many people like LordSkyKnight trying to tell people that if they don't want to group to go play an offline game and not a MMO.

What does MMO represent = massively multiplayer online

Nothing there saying grouping or playing together.

No, I think you are completely missing the point and trying to change what the established meaning of what the definition of what MMO means.

Massively Multiplayer Online not,

Massively Soloplayer Online.

There is plenty of solo content of in the game. There is no need for them taking more development time in adding more or instancing off existing content so you can run around solo and turn the game into Skyrim Online.

No, just no....