ESO should allow for cross faction PVE/Dungeons?

NewBlacksmurf

Yes

Bloodfang wrote: »

ESO is not set in a WoW world, where everything is so black and white.
It's more set in a harsh world like Game of Thrones. There are Betrayals at every corner in Tamriel.
Not to mention TES is more about Exploration and Adventures as well.
I'm fine with the players who feel there is some "faction honor", but honestly keep that lie to yourself and stay in PvP.
Cross-Faction in PvE is mandatory and should've been in at launch, there is absolutely no reason why it hasn't made it into the game yet.

I think the dungeons not raids should allow cross faction only via the grouping tools.
All other points you make, are agreeable

The PvP comment is funny tho

UrQuan

Yes

ebls_BR wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

ebls_BR wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

ebls_BR wrote: »

Seriously? People didn't realize that the entire concept of this game is based in choosing a faction and this should define your allies in everything you do?

I'd say you missed the entire concept of this game. The entire concept of this game is about how there are no clear good guys, and how destructive and counter-productive it is for everyone to be at each others throats. That's what the entire main questline and the main storyline of each faction is about.

Lol, who is saying a rival or a adversary have to be the good or bad guy? I did not say that ... (if you understood that... you just not only didn't understand me, but you have a prejudiced and Manichean perspective).

Where in Oblivion are you getting any of that from? Nothing I said even remotely implied anything like that...

ebls_BR wrote: »

Actually, most of the time, it's the rilvary, the competition, the clash that allows opponents grow and become stronger. But they have to exist right? They are part of the lore right? The Three Banners War have PVP and PVE consequences, it's the background where the story takes place. If we don't have that, if you can play with another person whatever the faction like if the diferent faction wasn't exist, without any consequences, what is the point of the story, in realizing the true manace (Oblivion forces) and all the stupidity of that war...

Let's do this... Imagine if they eliminate the consequences in PVP and not PVE: you could today play with your Khajiit for AD in Cyrodiil, and tomorrow you could use the same toon for EP, fighting against the same people who fought alongside you yesterday.

You're confusing the backdrop of the game with the concept of the game. Everything about the alliance war and the rivalries between the alliances is the backdrop of the game. If the main storyline of each of the factions, and if the main questline didn't exist then it would make sense to think of the alliance war as the concept of the game. Because those larger over-arching stories, though, it's clear that the main concept of the game is not the alliance war - the alliance war is the canvas that allows the actual concept of the game to be explored.

"The entire concept of this game is about how there are no clear good guys...". You say "good guys", you implied that, not me. The fact there are 3 enemiy factions, doesn't implie there is a good guy.

So when I pointed out the overarching theme of there being no clear good guys, you somehow made the massive leap to that somehow being me saying that you thought a rivalry had to be between a good guy and a bad guy? How exactly did you jump to that completely unwarranted conclusion? Go back and re-read what I posted. I was describing the overall concept of the game. I wasn't saying that this directly contradicted what you thought of as the overall concept of the game - just that while you were accusing people of missing "the entire concept of the game" you had actually missed it yourself.

ebls_BR wrote: »

Backdrop is also a concept. A theory, a story can contain a concept. I've not said "meaning" or just "concept", but the concept where the story develops. Is this so hard to understand?

So you didn't say it was

ebls_BR wrote: »

the entire concept of this game

? Of course I agree that it is a concept. But it is by no means "the entire concept of this game," rather it's a backdrop on which the primary concept of the game is shown. The overall themes shown in the main storyline and in each alliance's main questline are the primary concept of the game, and those themes are not choosing a faction and having that define your allies in everything you do. Having your faction define your allies is a concept against which the main themes are presented, and in fact many times it's shown to be a flawed concept, as it's very common in the alliance storylines for the "allies" of your faction to turn out to be false.

UrQuan

Yes

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

I think the dungeons not raids should allow cross faction only via the grouping tools.

Do you mean that you don't think it should be possible to just send an invite to group to cross-faction friends and guildies? It seems to me that it would be good to allow that. make it so that you can send invites and group up without any restrictions, but as soon as any of you goes to Cyrodiil if you're in a cross-faction group you get automatically kicked from the group. That way there's no weirdness happening in the PVP zone, and the only way you can group up and actually be in the same place is by going to one of the group dungeons.

ebls_BR

No

Psychobunni wrote: »

lordrichter wrote: »

Psychobunni wrote: »

For all that typing, you still didn't explain/give a reason that allowing cross faction dungeons would effect your game, being that grouping is by choice

The game needs to have a consistent world that covers everyone and does not get split apart. It is not about how one person wants to play and everyone else can just go away, it is about how everyone plays. Cross alliance play is one of those things that needs to be the same for everyone and covered by a game spanning lore.

Again, regardless of how you feel the game should be, or feel the game is.......how exactly would 4 players in an instance that you are not a part of, aren't forced to do, or even see actually effect your game?

That is the question. The only remote downside I can think of is players that only want to play with their own faction *might* have less people to play with as ESO dungeons aren't exactly the "OMG I really have to do this everyday" type....more would likely choose to simply get it done fast.

It's kinda sad there are some very real life comparisons that could be made of people wanting to limit others choices that have no effect on them, yet want to do so because of a belief of how certain things "should" be.....this is just a game folks, why keep others miserable/having a rough time for no reason

Lol, so they should make dragons pets because would make some people happier? And if we not agree with that we are bad people who want to make the life of others miserable?

K, let's forget about the fact this game has a lore which is the reason for thousands still playing this game and make this game an exception between MMO's... Let's make all races equal without passives, just changing the skin; let's make someone be a Dragonborn once a day; let's forget there is a war happenning; let's forget this game is also a RPG (decisions and choices make your character and have consequences) and your first and major decisions have no importance (so, your actions and decisions can be changed anytime paying some crowns).

pema

Yes

Never understood the boundries for the group dungeons, craglorn.
The content is all the same...

Wicked_Wolf

Yes

ebls_BR wrote: »

Psychobunni wrote: »

lordrichter wrote: »

Psychobunni wrote: »

For all that typing, you still didn't explain/give a reason that allowing cross faction dungeons would effect your game, being that grouping is by choice

The game needs to have a consistent world that covers everyone and does not get split apart. It is not about how one person wants to play and everyone else can just go away, it is about how everyone plays. Cross alliance play is one of those things that needs to be the same for everyone and covered by a game spanning lore.

Again, regardless of how you feel the game should be, or feel the game is.......how exactly would 4 players in an instance that you are not a part of, aren't forced to do, or even see actually effect your game?

That is the question. The only remote downside I can think of is players that only want to play with their own faction *might* have less people to play with as ESO dungeons aren't exactly the "OMG I really have to do this everyday" type....more would likely choose to simply get it done fast.

It's kinda sad there are some very real life comparisons that could be made of people wanting to limit others choices that have no effect on them, yet want to do so because of a belief of how certain things "should" be.....this is just a game folks, why keep others miserable/having a rough time for no reason

Lol, so they should make dragons pets because would make some people happier? And if we not agree with that we are bad people who want to make the life of others miserable?

K, let's forget about the fact this game has a lore which is the reason for thousands still playing this game and make this game an exception between MMO's... Let's make all races equal without passives, just changing the skin; let's make someone be a Dragonborn once a day; let's forget there is a war happenning; let's forget this game is also a RPG (decisions and choices make your character and have consequences) and your first and major decisions have no importance (so, your actions and decisions can be changed anytime paying some crowns).

Totally blowing what he said out of proportion and exaggerating. None of what you said has anything to so with his response or the topic.

DaveMoeDee

Yes

Atarax wrote: »

I like this idea. In fact, it would be great if open-world (non-Cyrodiil) zones starting from Craglorn onwards, would allow cross-faction. I still haven't completed all the quests in Craglorn as it's usually too hard to find a group, allowing cross-faction would facilitate grouping at least.

Also, for those saying they don't want to group with other factions, that's fine, don't. Those of use who don't care and / or are roleplaying that the war is already over, should be allowed to do so.

More options > less options.

This.

All the guilds are neutral on the war.

Why does my character have to be obsessed with some petty war when there are real threats to all Tamriel? Why shouldn't I get together with other undaunted to do something useful, especially when Meridia has me walking in everyone else's shoes.

DaveMoeDee

Yes

Earelith wrote: »

Rox83 wrote: »

Tankqull wrote: »

no compleatly destroys my immersion.

Honestly Factions should be limited to Cyrodiil. Not everyone is into PvP and from RP perspective your character could just a civilian/neutral adventurer.

I am not into pvp too, but lore wise and RP it doesn't make sense to fight alongside with the enemy...

Yes. We should not fight alongside the daedra and other enemies.

If you consider every citizen of a country to be an enemy when your country is at war with that country, humanity is doomed.

DaveMoeDee

Yes

Tankqull wrote: »

no compleatly destroys my immersion.

You wouldn't even know the difference.

Psychobunni

Yes

ebls_BR wrote: »

Psychobunni wrote: »

lordrichter wrote: »

Psychobunni wrote: »

For all that typing, you still didn't explain/give a reason that allowing cross faction dungeons would effect your game, being that grouping is by choice

The game needs to have a consistent world that covers everyone and does not get split apart. It is not about how one person wants to play and everyone else can just go away, it is about how everyone plays. Cross alliance play is one of those things that needs to be the same for everyone and covered by a game spanning lore.

Again, regardless of how you feel the game should be, or feel the game is.......how exactly would 4 players in an instance that you are not a part of, aren't forced to do, or even see actually effect your game?

That is the question. The only remote downside I can think of is players that only want to play with their own faction *might* have less people to play with as ESO dungeons aren't exactly the "OMG I really have to do this everyday" type....more would likely choose to simply get it done fast.

It's kinda sad there are some very real life comparisons that could be made of people wanting to limit others choices that have no effect on them, yet want to do so because of a belief of how certain things "should" be.....this is just a game folks, why keep others miserable/having a rough time for no reason

Lol, so they should make dragons pets because would make some people happier? And if we not agree with that we are bad people who want to make the life of others miserable?

K, let's forget about the fact this game has a lore which is the reason for thousands still playing this game and make this game an exception between MMO's... Let's make all races equal without passives, just changing the skin; let's make someone be a Dragonborn once a day; let's forget there is a war happenning; let's forget this game is also a RPG (decisions and choices make your character and have consequences) and your first and major decisions have no importance (so, your actions and decisions can be changed anytime paying some crowns).

Except the current lore SUPPORTS cross faction dungeon grouping the moment you joined Undaunted. The end of any lore argument.....plus once again you avoided how who I instance with breaks your game or prevents you from playing your way :-)

NewBlacksmurf

Yes

UrQuan wrote: »

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

I think the dungeons not raids should allow cross faction only via the grouping tools.

Do you mean that you don't think it should be possible to just send an invite to group to cross-faction friends and guildies? It seems to me that it would be good to allow that. make it so that you can send invites and group up without any restrictions, but as soon as any of you goes to Cyrodiil if you're in a cross-faction group you get automatically kicked from the group. That way there's no weirdness happening in the PVP zone, and the only way you can group up and actually be in the same place is by going to one of the group dungeons.

I do mean we shouldn't be able to send msg and invites because if allowed it also allows cross faction communication which would have a direct effect on PvP (exclusion : Guilds it won't matter as this is already allowed seemingly )

Also I agree with the PvP point you make about weirdness

Elsonso

Yes

Wicked_Wolf wrote: »

None of what you said has anything to so with his response or the topic.

I sort of feel the same way about statements like "how exactly would 4 players in an instance that you are not a part of, aren't forced to do, or even see actually effect your game?" since the question itself is irrelevant from my perspective. The question does not matter, any way it is asked or answered. This is bigger than what 4 people are doing in a dungeon.

Xender wrote: »

Do you think ESO should offer cross faction dungeon access? It shouldn't have impact on pvp so I don't see any obstacles.

I will go back to the original statement. Yes, I think that cross faction dungeon access should be offered, to those players who have completed the main quest. At that point in the game, there is a reason to allow this, one that is based in the game world and what has happened. It is not a perfect reason, but Cadwell Silver and Gold isn't perfect and look how far that idea went.

I will go one step further and say that Craglorn and Coldharbour should be cross-alliance, too, with one Craglorn and one Coldharbour for all players, no matter what alliance. Right now, there are three of each, each identical to the others, for no other reason but to keep the alliances apart. I am pretty sure that the new DLC areas, aside from the Imperial City, will be the same way.

Next, the statement about the impact on PVP is irrelevant, in much the same way that the question above is irrelevant. The issue is not PVP at all. The issue is not Cyrodiil. Everything is about how it impacts PVE and PVE game play, not PVP. Cadwell does not impact PVP and there is no reason that mixed dungeons would, either.

But, there are two perspectives I want to consider.

From a game mechanics perspective... The whole game is designed right to the very core around the idea that there is no mingling outside of Cyrodiil. They apparently want it that way since they went to such extreme lengths to make it that way. There are probably entire systems that assume that there is no mingling; systems that might break and spill their guts all over the floor if that were to change. This, above all else, will likely kill the idea dead.

From a game world perspective... The idea of mixed dungeons should be based on more than just "players just want to play with each other." It should be based in what is going on in the game world... the politics, the lore, and the dynamics that exist between the different alliances. If the game world can be written to allow mingling, group members should be able to walk in the front door of the dungeon and meet up with each other, no matter what Alliance they are in. One should never depend solely upon mechanics like "travel to" in an RPG game world. There are factionless guilds already in the game that can be expanded to be the launching point for a host of different solo and group activities that span all alliances, including mixed alliance group dungeons. There is no reason Undaunted could not fill the purpose of this thread.

See that big red YES at the top of this comment? Yeah, I am for mixed alliance group dungeons. Not just because people want to play with their friends, but because the world, politics, and lore can support the idea if done smartly. After the main quest. As part of an end-game that belongs in the world. Group play from VR1 to VR 14 that can replace CADWELL SILVER AND GOLD because every VR1 to VR14 is already able to play in all Alliances. This is why I consider that question irrelevant.

DaveMoeDee

Yes

Psychobunni wrote: »

ebls_BR wrote: »

Psychobunni wrote: »

lordrichter wrote: »

Psychobunni wrote: »

For all that typing, you still didn't explain/give a reason that allowing cross faction dungeons would effect your game, being that grouping is by choice

The game needs to have a consistent world that covers everyone and does not get split apart. It is not about how one person wants to play and everyone else can just go away, it is about how everyone plays. Cross alliance play is one of those things that needs to be the same for everyone and covered by a game spanning lore.

Again, regardless of how you feel the game should be, or feel the game is.......how exactly would 4 players in an instance that you are not a part of, aren't forced to do, or even see actually effect your game?

That is the question. The only remote downside I can think of is players that only want to play with their own faction *might* have less people to play with as ESO dungeons aren't exactly the "OMG I really have to do this everyday" type....more would likely choose to simply get it done fast.

It's kinda sad there are some very real life comparisons that could be made of people wanting to limit others choices that have no effect on them, yet want to do so because of a belief of how certain things "should" be.....this is just a game folks, why keep others miserable/having a rough time for no reason

Lol, so they should make dragons pets because would make some people happier? And if we not agree with that we are bad people who want to make the life of others miserable?

K, let's forget about the fact this game has a lore which is the reason for thousands still playing this game and make this game an exception between MMO's... Let's make all races equal without passives, just changing the skin; let's make someone be a Dragonborn once a day; let's forget there is a war happenning; let's forget this game is also a RPG (decisions and choices make your character and have consequences) and your first and major decisions have no importance (so, your actions and decisions can be changed anytime paying some crowns).

Except the current lore SUPPORTS cross faction dungeon grouping the moment you joined Undaunted. The end of any lore argument.....plus once again you avoided how who I instance with breaks your game or prevents you from playing your way :-)

Add to that the whole Coldharbour chapter at level 50. Clearly cross-faction. Some things are more important.

UrQuan

Yes

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

I think the dungeons not raids should allow cross faction only via the grouping tools.

Do you mean that you don't think it should be possible to just send an invite to group to cross-faction friends and guildies? It seems to me that it would be good to allow that. make it so that you can send invites and group up without any restrictions, but as soon as any of you goes to Cyrodiil if you're in a cross-faction group you get automatically kicked from the group. That way there's no weirdness happening in the PVP zone, and the only way you can group up and actually be in the same place is by going to one of the group dungeons.

I do mean we shouldn't be able to send msg and invites because if allowed it also allows cross faction communication which would have a direct effect on PvP (exclusion : Guilds it won't matter as this is already allowed seemingly )

Also I agree with the PvP point you make about weirdness

Can't you do that anyway with whispers and guild chat though? I don't really see how being able to directly invite people to group would have any effect on that - as long as you can't group with someone of an opposing faction while one or more of the people in the group is in Cyrodiil anyway.

Being able to group with members of other alliances while in Cyrodiil would clearly be a problem, because you could see exactly where they are on the map, so it'd be really easy for a double agent to set up ambushes and stuff. Heck, imagine if you were, say, an AD character and you were grouped with your EP friend who was acting as a double agent for you. He's in stealth in the middle of a group of EP on their way to attack a keep. You know exactly where he is, so you let your AD friends know, and they prepare an ambush. Because he's in your group you can see him even though he's stealthed, and you know he's right in the middle of the EP group so you drop a Meteor on his head, your friend drops a Nova there, etc.

Yeah, that would be bad.

ebls_BR

No

UrQuan wrote: »

ebls_BR wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

ebls_BR wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

ebls_BR wrote: »

Seriously? People didn't realize that the entire concept of this game is based in choosing a faction and this should define your allies in everything you do?

I'd say you missed the entire concept of this game. The entire concept of this game is about how there are no clear good guys, and how destructive and counter-productive it is for everyone to be at each others throats. That's what the entire main questline and the main storyline of each faction is about.

Lol, who is saying a rival or a adversary have to be the good or bad guy? I did not say that ... (if you understood that... you just not only didn't understand me, but you have a prejudiced and Manichean perspective).

Where in Oblivion are you getting any of that from? Nothing I said even remotely implied anything like that...

ebls_BR wrote: »

Actually, most of the time, it's the rilvary, the competition, the clash that allows opponents grow and become stronger. But they have to exist right? They are part of the lore right? The Three Banners War have PVP and PVE consequences, it's the background where the story takes place. If we don't have that, if you can play with another person whatever the faction like if the diferent faction wasn't exist, without any consequences, what is the point of the story, in realizing the true manace (Oblivion forces) and all the stupidity of that war...

Let's do this... Imagine if they eliminate the consequences in PVP and not PVE: you could today play with your Khajiit for AD in Cyrodiil, and tomorrow you could use the same toon for EP, fighting against the same people who fought alongside you yesterday.

You're confusing the backdrop of the game with the concept of the game. Everything about the alliance war and the rivalries between the alliances is the backdrop of the game. If the main storyline of each of the factions, and if the main questline didn't exist then it would make sense to think of the alliance war as the concept of the game. Because those larger over-arching stories, though, it's clear that the main concept of the game is not the alliance war - the alliance war is the canvas that allows the actual concept of the game to be explored.

"The entire concept of this game is about how there are no clear good guys...". You say "good guys", you implied that, not me. The fact there are 3 enemiy factions, doesn't implie there is a good guy.

So when I pointed out the overarching theme of there being no clear good guys, you somehow made the massive leap to that somehow being me saying that you thought a rivalry had to be between a good guy and a bad guy? How exactly did you jump to that completely unwarranted conclusion? Go back and re-read what I posted. I was describing the overall concept of the game. I wasn't saying that this directly contradicted what you thought of as the overall concept of the game - just that while you were accusing people of missing "the entire concept of the game" you had actually missed it yourself.

ebls_BR wrote: »

Backdrop is also a concept. A theory, a story can contain a concept. I've not said "meaning" or just "concept", but the concept where the story develops. Is this so hard to understand?

So you didn't say it was

ebls_BR wrote: »

the entire concept of this game

? Of course I agree that it is a concept. But it is by no means "the entire concept of this game," rather it's a backdrop on which the primary concept of the game is shown. The overall themes shown in the main storyline and in each alliance's main questline are the primary concept of the game, and those themes are not choosing a faction and having that define your allies in everything you do. Having your faction define your allies is a concept against which the main themes are presented, and in fact many times it's shown to be a flawed concept, as it's very common in the alliance storylines for the "allies" of your faction to turn out to be false.

If you said, the point of this game is "there is no good guy", it implies someone thinks that right? If it's not me, why mentioned in a answer to my post? And you also should read what I wrote... I just didn't write "the entire concept of the game", but "the entire concept of this game is based in choosing a faction and this should define your allies in everything you do". It's a way of saying it is a fundamental concept in the game, a primal choice, determinant of several and subsequent ones. So, what's your first decision in this game? Is it not choose a faction, a race, a name, etc., and this will decide who you are in this game? Your role in the game, the npc you will make contact or get used to, who you will play, who is gonna be your allies, what values you follow, who you will obey, etc.? Yes, several dialogues and quests in the game suggest that the war between the factions or the rivalry between them is something stupid. But these dialogues need to be placed in the context that there is a war and a separation between them.

Psychobunni wrote: »

ebls_BR wrote: »

Psychobunni wrote: »

lordrichter wrote: »

Psychobunni wrote: »

For all that typing, you still didn't explain/give a reason that allowing cross faction dungeons would effect your game, being that grouping is by choice

The game needs to have a consistent world that covers everyone and does not get split apart. It is not about how one person wants to play and everyone else can just go away, it is about how everyone plays. Cross alliance play is one of those things that needs to be the same for everyone and covered by a game spanning lore.

Again, regardless of how you feel the game should be, or feel the game is.......how exactly would 4 players in an instance that you are not a part of, aren't forced to do, or even see actually effect your game?

That is the question. The only remote downside I can think of is players that only want to play with their own faction *might* have less people to play with as ESO dungeons aren't exactly the "OMG I really have to do this everyday" type....more would likely choose to simply get it done fast.

It's kinda sad there are some very real life comparisons that could be made of people wanting to limit others choices that have no effect on them, yet want to do so because of a belief of how certain things "should" be.....this is just a game folks, why keep others miserable/having a rough time for no reason

Lol, so they should make dragons pets because would make some people happier? And if we not agree with that we are bad people who want to make the life of others miserable?

K, let's forget about the fact this game has a lore which is the reason for thousands still playing this game and make this game an exception between MMO's... Let's make all races equal without passives, just changing the skin; let's make someone be a Dragonborn once a day; let's forget there is a war happenning; let's forget this game is also a RPG (decisions and choices make your character and have consequences) and your first and major decisions have no importance (so, your actions and decisions can be changed anytime paying some crowns).

Except the current lore SUPPORTS cross faction dungeon grouping the moment you joined Undaunted. The end of any lore argument.....plus once again you avoided how who I instance with breaks your game or prevents you from playing your way :-)

Yeah, guilds expressly say they don't take any side, they are an exception. But you are not. You are a Champion of your faction, you have to choose an alliance, you fight for it, you go PVP for it, etc.

Psychobunni

Yes

ebls_BR wrote: »

Psychobunni wrote: »

lordrichter wrote: »

Psychobunni wrote: »

For all that typing, you still didn't explain/give a reason that allowing cross faction dungeons would effect your game, being that grouping is by choice

The game needs to have a consistent world that covers everyone and does not get split apart. It is not about how one person wants to play and everyone else can just go away, it is about how everyone plays. Cross alliance play is one of those things that needs to be the same for everyone and covered by a game spanning lore.

Again, regardless of how you feel the game should be, or feel the game is.......how exactly would 4 players in an instance that you are not a part of, aren't forced to do, or even see actually effect your game?

That is the question. The only remote downside I can think of is players that only want to play with their own faction *might* have less people to play with as ESO dungeons aren't exactly the "OMG I really have to do this everyday" type....more would likely choose to simply get it done fast.

It's kinda sad there are some very real life comparisons that could be made of people wanting to limit others choices that have no effect on them, yet want to do so because of a belief of how certain things "should" be.....this is just a game folks, why keep others miserable/having a rough time for no reason

Lol, so they should make dragons pets because would make some people happier? And if we not agree with that we are bad people who want to make the life of others miserable?

K, let's forget about the fact this game has a lore which is the reason for thousands still playing this game and make this game an exception between MMO's... Let's make all races equal without passives, just changing the skin; let's make someone be a Dragonborn once a day; let's forget there is a war happenning; let's forget this game is also a RPG (decisions and choices make your character and have consequences) and your first and major decisions have no importance (so, your actions and decisions can be changed anytime paying some crowns).

Except the current lore SUPPORTS cross faction dungeon grouping the moment you joined Undaunted. The end of any lore argument.....plus once again you avoided how who I instance with breaks your game or prevents you from playing your way

lordrichter wrote: »

Wicked_Wolf wrote: »

None of what you said has anything to so with his response or the topic.

I sort of feel the same way about statements like "how exactly would 4 players in an instance that you are not a part of, aren't forced to do, or even see actually effect your game?" since the question itself is irrelevant from my perspective. The question does not matter, any way it is asked or answered. This is bigger than what 4 people are doing in a dungeon.

Xender wrote: »

Do you think ESO should offer cross faction dungeon access? It shouldn't have impact on pvp so I don't see any obstacles.

I will go back to the original statement. Yes, I think that cross faction dungeon access should be offered, to those players who have completed the main quest. At that point in the game, there is a reason to allow this, one that is based in the game world and what has happened. It is not a perfect reason, but Cadwell Silver and Gold isn't perfect and look how far that idea went.

I will go one step further and say that Craglorn and Coldharbour should be cross-alliance, too, with one Craglorn and one Coldharbour for all players, no matter what alliance. Right now, there are three of each, each identical to the others, for no other reason but to keep the alliances apart. I am pretty sure that the new DLC areas, aside from the Imperial City, will be the same way.

Next, the statement about the impact on PVP is irrelevant, in much the same way that the question above is irrelevant. The issue is not PVP at all. The issue is not Cyrodiil. Everything is about how it impacts PVE and PVE game play, not PVP. Cadwell does not impact PVP and there is no reason that mixed dungeons would, either.

But, there are two perspectives I want to consider.

From a game mechanics perspective... The whole game is designed right to the very core around the idea that there is no mingling outside of Cyrodiil. They apparently want it that way since they went to such extreme lengths to make it that way. There are probably entire systems that assume that there is no mingling; systems that might break and spill their guts all over the floor if that were to change. This, above all else, will likely kill the idea dead.

From a game world perspective... The idea of mixed dungeons should be based on more than just "players just want to play with each other." It should be based in what is going on in the game world... the politics, the lore, and the dynamics that exist between the different alliances. If the game world can be written to allow mingling, group members should be able to walk in the front door of the dungeon and meet up with each other, no matter what Alliance they are in. One should never depend solely upon mechanics like "travel to" in an RPG game world. There are factionless guilds already in the game that can be expanded to be the launching point for a host of different solo and group activities that span all alliances, including mixed alliance group dungeons. There is no reason Undaunted could not fill the purpose of this thread.

See that big red YES at the top of this comment? Yeah, I am for mixed alliance group dungeons. Not just because people want to play with their friends, but because the world, politics, and lore can support the idea if done smartly. After the main quest. As part of an end-game that belongs in the world. Group play from VR1 to VR 14 that can replace CADWELL SILVER AND GOLD because every VR1 to VR14 is already able to play in all Alliances. This is why I consider that question irrelevant.

You don't join Undaunted at VR though, so your restrictions are neither lore or mechanics based. At best you could say 45 with dailies.

DaveMoeDee

Yes

ebls_BR wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

ebls_BR wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

ebls_BR wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

ebls_BR wrote: »

Seriously? People didn't realize that the entire concept of this game is based in choosing a faction and this should define your allies in everything you do?

I'd say you missed the entire concept of this game. The entire concept of this game is about how there are no clear good guys, and how destructive and counter-productive it is for everyone to be at each others throats. That's what the entire main questline and the main storyline of each faction is about.

Lol, who is saying a rival or a adversary have to be the good or bad guy? I did not say that ... (if you understood that... you just not only didn't understand me, but you have a prejudiced and Manichean perspective).

Where in Oblivion are you getting any of that from? Nothing I said even remotely implied anything like that...

ebls_BR wrote: »

Actually, most of the time, it's the rilvary, the competition, the clash that allows opponents grow and become stronger. But they have to exist right? They are part of the lore right? The Three Banners War have PVP and PVE consequences, it's the background where the story takes place. If we don't have that, if you can play with another person whatever the faction like if the diferent faction wasn't exist, without any consequences, what is the point of the story, in realizing the true manace (Oblivion forces) and all the stupidity of that war...

Let's do this... Imagine if they eliminate the consequences in PVP and not PVE: you could today play with your Khajiit for AD in Cyrodiil, and tomorrow you could use the same toon for EP, fighting against the same people who fought alongside you yesterday.

You're confusing the backdrop of the game with the concept of the game. Everything about the alliance war and the rivalries between the alliances is the backdrop of the game. If the main storyline of each of the factions, and if the main questline didn't exist then it would make sense to think of the alliance war as the concept of the game. Because those larger over-arching stories, though, it's clear that the main concept of the game is not the alliance war - the alliance war is the canvas that allows the actual concept of the game to be explored.

"The entire concept of this game is about how there are no clear good guys...". You say "good guys", you implied that, not me. The fact there are 3 enemiy factions, doesn't implie there is a good guy.

So when I pointed out the overarching theme of there being no clear good guys, you somehow made the massive leap to that somehow being me saying that you thought a rivalry had to be between a good guy and a bad guy? How exactly did you jump to that completely unwarranted conclusion? Go back and re-read what I posted. I was describing the overall concept of the game. I wasn't saying that this directly contradicted what you thought of as the overall concept of the game - just that while you were accusing people of missing "the entire concept of the game" you had actually missed it yourself.

ebls_BR wrote: »

Backdrop is also a concept. A theory, a story can contain a concept. I've not said "meaning" or just "concept", but the concept where the story develops. Is this so hard to understand?

So you didn't say it was

ebls_BR wrote: »

the entire concept of this game

? Of course I agree that it is a concept. But it is by no means "the entire concept of this game," rather it's a backdrop on which the primary concept of the game is shown. The overall themes shown in the main storyline and in each alliance's main questline are the primary concept of the game, and those themes are not choosing a faction and having that define your allies in everything you do. Having your faction define your allies is a concept against which the main themes are presented, and in fact many times it's shown to be a flawed concept, as it's very common in the alliance storylines for the "allies" of your faction to turn out to be false.

If you said, the point of this game is "there is no good guy", it implies someone thinks that right? If it's not me, why mentioned in a answer to my post? And you also should read what I wrote... I just didn't write "the entire concept of the game", but "the entire concept of this game is based in choosing a faction and this should define your allies in everything you do". It's a way of saying it is a fundamental concept in the game, a primal choice, determinant of several and subsequent ones. So, what's your first decision in this game? Is it not choose a faction, a race, a name, etc., and this will decide who you are in this game? Your role in the game, the npc you will make contact or get used to, who you will play, who is gonna be your allies, what values you follow, who you will obey, etc.? Yes, several dialogues and quests in the game suggest that the war between the factions or the rivalry between them is something stupid. But these dialogues need to be placed in the context that there is a war and a separation between them.

Psychobunni wrote: »

ebls_BR wrote: »

Psychobunni wrote: »

lordrichter wrote: »

Psychobunni wrote: »

For all that typing, you still didn't explain/give a reason that allowing cross faction dungeons would effect your game, being that grouping is by choice

The game needs to have a consistent world that covers everyone and does not get split apart. It is not about how one person wants to play and everyone else can just go away, it is about how everyone plays. Cross alliance play is one of those things that needs to be the same for everyone and covered by a game spanning lore.

Again, regardless of how you feel the game should be, or feel the game is.......how exactly would 4 players in an instance that you are not a part of, aren't forced to do, or even see actually effect your game?

That is the question. The only remote downside I can think of is players that only want to play with their own faction *might* have less people to play with as ESO dungeons aren't exactly the "OMG I really have to do this everyday" type....more would likely choose to simply get it done fast.

It's kinda sad there are some very real life comparisons that could be made of people wanting to limit others choices that have no effect on them, yet want to do so because of a belief of how certain things "should" be.....this is just a game folks, why keep others miserable/having a rough time for no reason

Lol, so they should make dragons pets because would make some people happier? And if we not agree with that we are bad people who want to make the life of others miserable?

K, let's forget about the fact this game has a lore which is the reason for thousands still playing this game and make this game an exception between MMO's... Let's make all races equal without passives, just changing the skin; let's make someone be a Dragonborn once a day; let's forget there is a war happenning; let's forget this game is also a RPG (decisions and choices make your character and have consequences) and your first and major decisions have no importance (so, your actions and decisions can be changed anytime paying some crowns).

Except the current lore SUPPORTS cross faction dungeon grouping the moment you joined Undaunted. The end of any lore argument.....plus once again you avoided how who I instance with breaks your game or prevents you from playing your way :-)

Yeah, guilds expressly say they don't take any side, they are an exception. But you are not. You are a Champion of your faction, you have to choose an alliance, you fight for it, you go PVP for it, etc.

And dungeons are a guild thing. They are undaunted content. So it makes sense to allow cross-faction grouping on pledges.

You can actually be the champion of all of Tamriel after Cadwell's Gold.

It actually makes more sense to not bother with PvP after Cadwell's Gold than to take part in it. That is one of the continuity flaws of the game.

Elsonso

Yes

Psychobunni wrote: »

ebls_BR wrote: »

Psychobunni wrote: »

lordrichter wrote: »

Psychobunni wrote: »

For all that typing, you still didn't explain/give a reason that allowing cross faction dungeons would effect your game, being that grouping is by choice

The game needs to have a consistent world that covers everyone and does not get split apart. It is not about how one person wants to play and everyone else can just go away, it is about how everyone plays. Cross alliance play is one of those things that needs to be the same for everyone and covered by a game spanning lore.

Again, regardless of how you feel the game should be, or feel the game is.......how exactly would 4 players in an instance that you are not a part of, aren't forced to do, or even see actually effect your game?

That is the question. The only remote downside I can think of is players that only want to play with their own faction *might* have less people to play with as ESO dungeons aren't exactly the "OMG I really have to do this everyday" type....more would likely choose to simply get it done fast.

It's kinda sad there are some very real life comparisons that could be made of people wanting to limit others choices that have no effect on them, yet want to do so because of a belief of how certain things "should" be.....this is just a game folks, why keep others miserable/having a rough time for no reason

Lol, so they should make dragons pets because would make some people happier? And if we not agree with that we are bad people who want to make the life of others miserable?

K, let's forget about the fact this game has a lore which is the reason for thousands still playing this game and make this game an exception between MMO's... Let's make all races equal without passives, just changing the skin; let's make someone be a Dragonborn once a day; let's forget there is a war happenning; let's forget this game is also a RPG (decisions and choices make your character and have consequences) and your first and major decisions have no importance (so, your actions and decisions can be changed anytime paying some crowns).

Except the current lore SUPPORTS cross faction dungeon grouping the moment you joined Undaunted. The end of any lore argument.....plus once again you avoided how who I instance with breaks your game or prevents you from playing your way

lordrichter wrote: »

Wicked_Wolf wrote: »

None of what you said has anything to so with his response or the topic.

I sort of feel the same way about statements like "how exactly would 4 players in an instance that you are not a part of, aren't forced to do, or even see actually effect your game?" since the question itself is irrelevant from my perspective. The question does not matter, any way it is asked or answered. This is bigger than what 4 people are doing in a dungeon.

Xender wrote: »

Do you think ESO should offer cross faction dungeon access? It shouldn't have impact on pvp so I don't see any obstacles.

I will go back to the original statement. Yes, I think that cross faction dungeon access should be offered, to those players who have completed the main quest. At that point in the game, there is a reason to allow this, one that is based in the game world and what has happened. It is not a perfect reason, but Cadwell Silver and Gold isn't perfect and look how far that idea went.

I will go one step further and say that Craglorn and Coldharbour should be cross-alliance, too, with one Craglorn and one Coldharbour for all players, no matter what alliance. Right now, there are three of each, each identical to the others, for no other reason but to keep the alliances apart. I am pretty sure that the new DLC areas, aside from the Imperial City, will be the same way.

Next, the statement about the impact on PVP is irrelevant, in much the same way that the question above is irrelevant. The issue is not PVP at all. The issue is not Cyrodiil. Everything is about how it impacts PVE and PVE game play, not PVP. Cadwell does not impact PVP and there is no reason that mixed dungeons would, either.

But, there are two perspectives I want to consider.

From a game mechanics perspective... The whole game is designed right to the very core around the idea that there is no mingling outside of Cyrodiil. They apparently want it that way since they went to such extreme lengths to make it that way. There are probably entire systems that assume that there is no mingling; systems that might break and spill their guts all over the floor if that were to change. This, above all else, will likely kill the idea dead.

From a game world perspective... The idea of mixed dungeons should be based on more than just "players just want to play with each other." It should be based in what is going on in the game world... the politics, the lore, and the dynamics that exist between the different alliances. If the game world can be written to allow mingling, group members should be able to walk in the front door of the dungeon and meet up with each other, no matter what Alliance they are in. One should never depend solely upon mechanics like "travel to" in an RPG game world. There are factionless guilds already in the game that can be expanded to be the launching point for a host of different solo and group activities that span all alliances, including mixed alliance group dungeons. There is no reason Undaunted could not fill the purpose of this thread.

See that big red YES at the top of this comment? Yeah, I am for mixed alliance group dungeons. Not just because people want to play with their friends, but because the world, politics, and lore can support the idea if done smartly. After the main quest. As part of an end-game that belongs in the world. Group play from VR1 to VR 14 that can replace CADWELL SILVER AND GOLD because every VR1 to VR14 is already able to play in all Alliances. This is why I consider that question irrelevant.

You don't join Undaunted at VR though, so your restrictions are neither lore or mechanics based. At best you could say 45 with dailies.

Obviously, the game has to change. That is part of my point. I don't want mixed alliance dungeons just because players want it. The game itself, from the programs running on the client and server, to the very world we play in, has to change so that it all makes sense. The Undaunted mixed alliance support would be for VR only. For level 45s, it would be as it is today.

UrQuan

Yes

ebls_BR wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

ebls_BR wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

ebls_BR wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

ebls_BR wrote: »

Seriously? People didn't realize that the entire concept of this game is based in choosing a faction and this should define your allies in everything you do?

I'd say you missed the entire concept of this game. The entire concept of this game is about how there are no clear good guys, and how destructive and counter-productive it is for everyone to be at each others throats. That's what the entire main questline and the main storyline of each faction is about.

Lol, who is saying a rival or a adversary have to be the good or bad guy? I did not say that ... (if you understood that... you just not only didn't understand me, but you have a prejudiced and Manichean perspective).

Where in Oblivion are you getting any of that from? Nothing I said even remotely implied anything like that...

ebls_BR wrote: »

Actually, most of the time, it's the rilvary, the competition, the clash that allows opponents grow and become stronger. But they have to exist right? They are part of the lore right? The Three Banners War have PVP and PVE consequences, it's the background where the story takes place. If we don't have that, if you can play with another person whatever the faction like if the diferent faction wasn't exist, without any consequences, what is the point of the story, in realizing the true manace (Oblivion forces) and all the stupidity of that war...

Let's do this... Imagine if they eliminate the consequences in PVP and not PVE: you could today play with your Khajiit for AD in Cyrodiil, and tomorrow you could use the same toon for EP, fighting against the same people who fought alongside you yesterday.

You're confusing the backdrop of the game with the concept of the game. Everything about the alliance war and the rivalries between the alliances is the backdrop of the game. If the main storyline of each of the factions, and if the main questline didn't exist then it would make sense to think of the alliance war as the concept of the game. Because those larger over-arching stories, though, it's clear that the main concept of the game is not the alliance war - the alliance war is the canvas that allows the actual concept of the game to be explored.

"The entire concept of this game is about how there are no clear good guys...". You say "good guys", you implied that, not me. The fact there are 3 enemiy factions, doesn't implie there is a good guy.

So when I pointed out the overarching theme of there being no clear good guys, you somehow made the massive leap to that somehow being me saying that you thought a rivalry had to be between a good guy and a bad guy? How exactly did you jump to that completely unwarranted conclusion? Go back and re-read what I posted. I was describing the overall concept of the game. I wasn't saying that this directly contradicted what you thought of as the overall concept of the game - just that while you were accusing people of missing "the entire concept of the game" you had actually missed it yourself.

ebls_BR wrote: »

Backdrop is also a concept. A theory, a story can contain a concept. I've not said "meaning" or just "concept", but the concept where the story develops. Is this so hard to understand?

So you didn't say it was

ebls_BR wrote: »

the entire concept of this game

? Of course I agree that it is a concept. But it is by no means "the entire concept of this game," rather it's a backdrop on which the primary concept of the game is shown. The overall themes shown in the main storyline and in each alliance's main questline are the primary concept of the game, and those themes are not choosing a faction and having that define your allies in everything you do. Having your faction define your allies is a concept against which the main themes are presented, and in fact many times it's shown to be a flawed concept, as it's very common in the alliance storylines for the "allies" of your faction to turn out to be false.

If you said, the point of this game is "there is no good guy", it implies someone thinks that right? If it's not me, why mentioned in a answer to my post?

No, it doesn't imply that at all. It's flat-out saying that this is a central theme that ZOS is exploring with this game. Since you were talking about what you thought was "the entire concept of this game" (aka the central theme), that was in answer to your post.

ebls_BR wrote: »

And you also should read what I wrote... I just didn't write "the entire concept of the game", but "the entire concept of this game is based in choosing a faction and this should define your allies in everything you do".

That's exactly what I'm talking about. That is not what "the entire concept of the game" is. Not by a long shot. If they hadn't made Cadwell's Silver and Gold a thing, you could maybe make the arguments you're making. And if they hadn't made the neutral guilds such a key element of the game and the linchpin to the main story.

ebls_BR wrote: »

It's a way of saying it is a fundamental concept in the game, a primal choice, determinant of several and subsequent ones. So, what's your first decision in this game? Is it not choose a faction, a race, a name, etc., and this will decide who you are in this game? Your role in the game, the npc you will make contact or be used to, who you will play, who is gonna be your allies, what values you follow, who you will obey, etc.?

Again, if Cadwell's Silver and Gold hadn't been introduced, you could make that argument. But they were, so no it doesn't determine the NPCs who you'll encounter, who you'll follow, etc. It only determines what order you do them in. Also, saying it's "the entire concept of the game" is not a way of saying it's "a fundamental concept in the game". The latter implies it's one amongst many, and probably not the most important. The former implies it's the most important, and all others are significantly less important.

ebls_BR wrote: »

Yes, several dialogues and quests in the game suggest that the war between the factions or the rivalry between them is something stupid. But these dialogues need to be placed in the context that there is a war and a separation between them.

Yes, that's the backdrop. And it's far more than "several dialogues and quests" that paint that picture (also note that the central theme that I'm talking about isn't limited to it being counter-productive for the alliances to be at each others' throats - it extends to different factions within the alliances, and all of the machinations of Molag Bal to keep everyone occupied). It's the majority of the main alliance questlines.

ebls_BR wrote: »

Psychobunni wrote: »

ebls_BR wrote: »

Psychobunni wrote: »

lordrichter wrote: »

Psychobunni wrote: »

For all that typing, you still didn't explain/give a reason that allowing cross faction dungeons would effect your game, being that grouping is by choice

The game needs to have a consistent world that covers everyone and does not get split apart. It is not about how one person wants to play and everyone else can just go away, it is about how everyone plays. Cross alliance play is one of those things that needs to be the same for everyone and covered by a game spanning lore.

Again, regardless of how you feel the game should be, or feel the game is.......how exactly would 4 players in an instance that you are not a part of, aren't forced to do, or even see actually effect your game?

That is the question. The only remote downside I can think of is players that only want to play with their own faction *might* have less people to play with as ESO dungeons aren't exactly the "OMG I really have to do this everyday" type....more would likely choose to simply get it done fast.

It's kinda sad there are some very real life comparisons that could be made of people wanting to limit others choices that have no effect on them, yet want to do so because of a belief of how certain things "should" be.....this is just a game folks, why keep others miserable/having a rough time for no reason

Lol, so they should make dragons pets because would make some people happier? And if we not agree with that we are bad people who want to make the life of others miserable?

K, let's forget about the fact this game has a lore which is the reason for thousands still playing this game and make this game an exception between MMO's... Let's make all races equal without passives, just changing the skin; let's make someone be a Dragonborn once a day; let's forget there is a war happenning; let's forget this game is also a RPG (decisions and choices make your character and have consequences) and your first and major decisions have no importance (so, your actions and decisions can be changed anytime paying some crowns).

Except the current lore SUPPORTS cross faction dungeon grouping the moment you joined Undaunted. The end of any lore argument.....plus once again you avoided how who I instance with breaks your game or prevents you from playing your way :-)

Yeah, guilds expressly say they don't take any side, they are an exception. But you are not. You are a Champion of your faction, you have to choose an alliance, you fight for it, you go PVP for it, etc.

No, you're not. You're a champion of Tamriel. You're a champion of Meridia. You're a champion of the alliance where you happened to wash ashore, but you're also a champion of the other 2 alliances. You're a champion of Mundus against Molag Bal. Also, you're a member of those neutral guilds...

Solariken

Yes

The factions may be at war in Cyrodiil, but everywhere else they can find common cause in the battle against Molag Bal and his minions.

ebls_BR

No

UrQuan wrote: »

ebls_BR wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

ebls_BR wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

ebls_BR wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

ebls_BR wrote: »

Seriously? People didn't realize that the entire concept of this game is based in choosing a faction and this should define your allies in everything you do?

I'd say you missed the entire concept of this game. The entire concept of this game is about how there are no clear good guys, and how destructive and counter-productive it is for everyone to be at each others throats. That's what the entire main questline and the main storyline of each faction is about.

Lol, who is saying a rival or a adversary have to be the good or bad guy? I did not say that ... (if you understood that... you just not only didn't understand me, but you have a prejudiced and Manichean perspective).

Where in Oblivion are you getting any of that from? Nothing I said even remotely implied anything like that...

ebls_BR wrote: »

Actually, most of the time, it's the rilvary, the competition, the clash that allows opponents grow and become stronger. But they have to exist right? They are part of the lore right? The Three Banners War have PVP and PVE consequences, it's the background where the story takes place. If we don't have that, if you can play with another person whatever the faction like if the diferent faction wasn't exist, without any consequences, what is the point of the story, in realizing the true manace (Oblivion forces) and all the stupidity of that war...

Let's do this... Imagine if they eliminate the consequences in PVP and not PVE: you could today play with your Khajiit for AD in Cyrodiil, and tomorrow you could use the same toon for EP, fighting against the same people who fought alongside you yesterday.

You're confusing the backdrop of the game with the concept of the game. Everything about the alliance war and the rivalries between the alliances is the backdrop of the game. If the main storyline of each of the factions, and if the main questline didn't exist then it would make sense to think of the alliance war as the concept of the game. Because those larger over-arching stories, though, it's clear that the main concept of the game is not the alliance war - the alliance war is the canvas that allows the actual concept of the game to be explored.

"The entire concept of this game is about how there are no clear good guys...". You say "good guys", you implied that, not me. The fact there are 3 enemiy factions, doesn't implie there is a good guy.

So when I pointed out the overarching theme of there being no clear good guys, you somehow made the massive leap to that somehow being me saying that you thought a rivalry had to be between a good guy and a bad guy? How exactly did you jump to that completely unwarranted conclusion? Go back and re-read what I posted. I was describing the overall concept of the game. I wasn't saying that this directly contradicted what you thought of as the overall concept of the game - just that while you were accusing people of missing "the entire concept of the game" you had actually missed it yourself.

ebls_BR wrote: »

Backdrop is also a concept. A theory, a story can contain a concept. I've not said "meaning" or just "concept", but the concept where the story develops. Is this so hard to understand?

So you didn't say it was

ebls_BR wrote: »

the entire concept of this game

? Of course I agree that it is a concept. But it is by no means "the entire concept of this game," rather it's a backdrop on which the primary concept of the game is shown. The overall themes shown in the main storyline and in each alliance's main questline are the primary concept of the game, and those themes are not choosing a faction and having that define your allies in everything you do. Having your faction define your allies is a concept against which the main themes are presented, and in fact many times it's shown to be a flawed concept, as it's very common in the alliance storylines for the "allies" of your faction to turn out to be false.

If you said, the point of this game is "there is no good guy", it implies someone thinks that right? If it's not me, why mentioned in a answer to my post?

No, it doesn't imply that at all. It's flat-out saying that this is a central theme that ZOS is exploring with this game. Since you were talking about what you thought was "the entire concept of this game" (aka the central theme), that was in answer to your post.

ebls_BR wrote: »

And you also should read what I wrote... I just didn't write "the entire concept of the game", but "the entire concept of this game is based in choosing a faction and this should define your allies in everything you do".

That's exactly what I'm talking about. That is not what "the entire concept of the game" is. Not by a long shot. If they hadn't made Cadwell's Silver and Gold a thing, you could maybe make the arguments you're making. And if they hadn't made the neutral guilds such a key element of the game and the linchpin to the main story.

ebls_BR wrote: »

It's a way of saying it is a fundamental concept in the game, a primal choice, determinant of several and subsequent ones. So, what's your first decision in this game? Is it not choose a faction, a race, a name, etc., and this will decide who you are in this game? Your role in the game, the npc you will make contact or be used to, who you will play, who is gonna be your allies, what values you follow, who you will obey, etc.?

Again, if Cadwell's Silver and Gold hadn't been introduced, you could make that argument. But they were, so no it doesn't determine the NPCs who you'll encounter, who you'll follow, etc. It only determines what order you do them in. Also, saying it's "the entire concept of the game" is not a way of saying it's "a fundamental concept in the game". The latter implies it's one amongst many, and probably not the most important. The former implies it's the most important, and all others are significantly less important.

ebls_BR wrote: »

Yes, several dialogues and quests in the game suggest that the war between the factions or the rivalry between them is something stupid. But these dialogues need to be placed in the context that there is a war and a separation between them.

Yes, that's the backdrop. And it's far more than "several dialogues and quests" that paint that picture (also note that the central theme that I'm talking about isn't limited to it being counter-productive for the alliances to be at each others' throats - it extends to different factions within the alliances, and all of the machinations of Molag Bal to keep everyone occupied). It's the majority of the main alliance questlines.

ebls_BR wrote: »

Psychobunni wrote: »

ebls_BR wrote: »

Psychobunni wrote: »

lordrichter wrote: »

Psychobunni wrote: »

For all that typing, you still didn't explain/give a reason that allowing cross faction dungeons would effect your game, being that grouping is by choice

The game needs to have a consistent world that covers everyone and does not get split apart. It is not about how one person wants to play and everyone else can just go away, it is about how everyone plays. Cross alliance play is one of those things that needs to be the same for everyone and covered by a game spanning lore.

Again, regardless of how you feel the game should be, or feel the game is.......how exactly would 4 players in an instance that you are not a part of, aren't forced to do, or even see actually effect your game?

That is the question. The only remote downside I can think of is players that only want to play with their own faction *might* have less people to play with as ESO dungeons aren't exactly the "OMG I really have to do this everyday" type....more would likely choose to simply get it done fast.

It's kinda sad there are some very real life comparisons that could be made of people wanting to limit others choices that have no effect on them, yet want to do so because of a belief of how certain things "should" be.....this is just a game folks, why keep others miserable/having a rough time for no reason

Lol, so they should make dragons pets because would make some people happier? And if we not agree with that we are bad people who want to make the life of others miserable?

K, let's forget about the fact this game has a lore which is the reason for thousands still playing this game and make this game an exception between MMO's... Let's make all races equal without passives, just changing the skin; let's make someone be a Dragonborn once a day; let's forget there is a war happenning; let's forget this game is also a RPG (decisions and choices make your character and have consequences) and your first and major decisions have no importance (so, your actions and decisions can be changed anytime paying some crowns).

Except the current lore SUPPORTS cross faction dungeon grouping the moment you joined Undaunted. The end of any lore argument.....plus once again you avoided how who I instance with breaks your game or prevents you from playing your way :-)

Yeah, guilds expressly say they don't take any side, they are an exception. But you are not. You are a Champion of your faction, you have to choose an alliance, you fight for it, you go PVP for it, etc.

No, you're not. You're a champion of Tamriel. You're a champion of Meridia. You're a champion of the alliance where you happened to wash ashore, but you're also a champion of the other 2 alliances. You're a champion of Mundus against Molag Bal. Also, you're a member of those neutral guilds...

Man..., if you don't want to say something you said, don't say it. Or say it cleary.

And should stop repeating "the entire concept of this game" because I didn't say only that... I already explained to you. You didn't agree with my point. But IMO you are wrong. Choosing a faction is a fundamental decision in this game for me, and will define my character in almost everything I want with him/her. Let me ask you something: how many toons do you have? Do you have more than one VR14 in a different faction? Actually, I would like to know, how many people who like this idea, have more than 1 VR14 in different factions... Well, I have 7 VR14 and 1 VR12 (3 AD VR14, 3 EP VR14, 1 VR14 DC and one VR12). I do RP a lot in this game, and races, factions, etc. they matter. Do you know, for instance, dialogues can change if you are member of a race which not follow the NPC's faction? For instance, they do not refer to you by your race, but like a foreign.

When you do Cadwell's gold and silver you have a unique and temporary opportunity, and may give you a better perspective (from the character point of view). But how many players would agree in doing Undaunted quests with another players from other factions, only if they finish (with that toon) Cadwell's Gold and Silver?

And again, you are Tamriel Champion, but you understand the people and leaders of other aliances don't see you like the other Champion or Hero right? So, for everyone else, you are another person... And the only oportunity you appears like a hero and the leaders recognize you, is in Messages Across Tamriel/The Weight of Three Crowns. The quest of your faction.

The fact you are a Undaunted, a Mages guild member, etc. doesn't mean you follow all the rules (they don't follow/obey Daedric Princes, Sees-all-collors does, for instance...). They don't take sides, you took one; they don't engage the war, you did.
Or you are saying you never went to PVP? Well, this should be interesting: you only can play cross faction with toons not engaged in the alliance war...

Psychobunni

Yes

lordrichter wrote: »

Psychobunni wrote: »

ebls_BR wrote: »

Psychobunni wrote: »

lordrichter wrote: »

Psychobunni wrote: »

For all that typing, you still didn't explain/give a reason that allowing cross faction dungeons would effect your game, being that grouping is by choice

The game needs to have a consistent world that covers everyone and does not get split apart. It is not about how one person wants to play and everyone else can just go away, it is about how everyone plays. Cross alliance play is one of those things that needs to be the same for everyone and covered by a game spanning lore.

Again, regardless of how you feel the game should be, or feel the game is.......how exactly would 4 players in an instance that you are not a part of, aren't forced to do, or even see actually effect your game?

That is the question. The only remote downside I can think of is players that only want to play with their own faction *might* have less people to play with as ESO dungeons aren't exactly the "OMG I really have to do this everyday" type....more would likely choose to simply get it done fast.

It's kinda sad there are some very real life comparisons that could be made of people wanting to limit others choices that have no effect on them, yet want to do so because of a belief of how certain things "should" be.....this is just a game folks, why keep others miserable/having a rough time for no reason

Lol, so they should make dragons pets because would make some people happier? And if we not agree with that we are bad people who want to make the life of others miserable?

K, let's forget about the fact this game has a lore which is the reason for thousands still playing this game and make this game an exception between MMO's... Let's make all races equal without passives, just changing the skin; let's make someone be a Dragonborn once a day; let's forget there is a war happenning; let's forget this game is also a RPG (decisions and choices make your character and have consequences) and your first and major decisions have no importance (so, your actions and decisions can be changed anytime paying some crowns).

Except the current lore SUPPORTS cross faction dungeon grouping the moment you joined Undaunted. The end of any lore argument.....plus once again you avoided how who I instance with breaks your game or prevents you from playing your way

lordrichter wrote: »

Wicked_Wolf wrote: »

None of what you said has anything to so with his response or the topic.

I sort of feel the same way about statements like "how exactly would 4 players in an instance that you are not a part of, aren't forced to do, or even see actually effect your game?" since the question itself is irrelevant from my perspective. The question does not matter, any way it is asked or answered. This is bigger than what 4 people are doing in a dungeon.

Xender wrote: »

Do you think ESO should offer cross faction dungeon access? It shouldn't have impact on pvp so I don't see any obstacles.

I will go back to the original statement. Yes, I think that cross faction dungeon access should be offered, to those players who have completed the main quest. At that point in the game, there is a reason to allow this, one that is based in the game world and what has happened. It is not a perfect reason, but Cadwell Silver and Gold isn't perfect and look how far that idea went.

I will go one step further and say that Craglorn and Coldharbour should be cross-alliance, too, with one Craglorn and one Coldharbour for all players, no matter what alliance. Right now, there are three of each, each identical to the others, for no other reason but to keep the alliances apart. I am pretty sure that the new DLC areas, aside from the Imperial City, will be the same way.

Next, the statement about the impact on PVP is irrelevant, in much the same way that the question above is irrelevant. The issue is not PVP at all. The issue is not Cyrodiil. Everything is about how it impacts PVE and PVE game play, not PVP. Cadwell does not impact PVP and there is no reason that mixed dungeons would, either.

But, there are two perspectives I want to consider.

From a game mechanics perspective... The whole game is designed right to the very core around the idea that there is no mingling outside of Cyrodiil. They apparently want it that way since they went to such extreme lengths to make it that way. There are probably entire systems that assume that there is no mingling; systems that might break and spill their guts all over the floor if that were to change. This, above all else, will likely kill the idea dead.

From a game world perspective... The idea of mixed dungeons should be based on more than just "players just want to play with each other." It should be based in what is going on in the game world... the politics, the lore, and the dynamics that exist between the different alliances. If the game world can be written to allow mingling, group members should be able to walk in the front door of the dungeon and meet up with each other, no matter what Alliance they are in. One should never depend solely upon mechanics like "travel to" in an RPG game world. There are factionless guilds already in the game that can be expanded to be the launching point for a host of different solo and group activities that span all alliances, including mixed alliance group dungeons. There is no reason Undaunted could not fill the purpose of this thread.

See that big red YES at the top of this comment? Yeah, I am for mixed alliance group dungeons. Not just because people want to play with their friends, but because the world, politics, and lore can support the idea if done smartly. After the main quest. As part of an end-game that belongs in the world. Group play from VR1 to VR 14 that can replace CADWELL SILVER AND GOLD because every VR1 to VR14 is already able to play in all Alliances. This is why I consider that question irrelevant.

You don't join Undaunted at VR though, so your restrictions are neither lore or mechanics based. At best you could say 45 with dailies.

Obviously, the game has to change. That is part of my point. I don't want mixed alliance dungeons just because players want it. The game itself, from the programs running on the client and server, to the very world we play in, has to change so that it all makes sense. The Undaunted mixed alliance support would be for VR only. For level 45s, it would be as it is today.

I was on the road and answering between stops lol. But I would take VR only over the way it is now. My earlier frustration was more towards the arguments against such an idea, especially those that say it will somehow break their game.

For those of us that play the game as a game and not some sort of SecondLife (which I'm not downing or trying to prevent anyone from playing that way) the current set up just makes it very boring once you have settled into a guild to play/PVE with. By the Eight, I'd kill all of EP myself at this point if I could.... being forced to start there every time just to play with friends.

tplink3r1

Yes

There should be a special zone for cross-faction PVE, an oblivion realm could "justify" the 3 alliances working together.

UrQuan

Yes

ebls_BR wrote: »

Man..., if you don't want to say something you said, don't say it. Or say it cleary.

OK, since you still don't seem to understand, perhaps this will help clear it up. Here's an imaginary conversation that is essentially exactly what happened here (albeit using very different subject matter, and slightly different wording for clarity's sake):
You: The central theme of Reservoir Dogs is a jewelry heist.
Me: No, the central theme of Reservoir Dogs is misplaced trust.
You: What do you mean I don't know where to place my trust?
Me: What are you talking about?
You: You said it's misplaced trust. Since you were replying to me that implies that I don't know where to place my trust.
Me: No it doesn't. I said that the central theme of Reservoir Dogs is misplaced trust. That doesn't mean that I think you do or don't know where to place your trust. That's irrelevant. I was replying to you because you said the central theme was a jewelery heist, when that's actually just the backdrop on which they show the actual central theme of misplaced trust.

Make sense to you now? Go back and re-read the posts, because that's exactly what happened. I was making a statement about what the game is about, and for some bizarre reason you decided that meant that I was talking about what you personally think.

ebls_BR wrote: »

And should stop repeating "the entire concept of this game" because I didn't say only that... I already explained to you. You didn't agree with my point.

No I definitely didn't, an I keep quoting "the entire concept of this game" because that is specifically the part that is wrong. The rest of that sentence changes that part not in the slightest. The rest of what you said is just specifying exactly what you think is "the entire concept of this game".

ebls_BR wrote: »

But IMO you are wrong. Choosing a faction is a fundamental decision in this game for me, and will define my character in almost everything I want with him/her.

That's fine, but there's a massive difference between "a fundamental decision in this game" and "the entire concept of this game". As I explained above, they mean very very different things.

Anyway, it's clear there's no more point in talking with you, so I'm done with this.

Samadhi

No

Am interested in seeing Eyevea and the Earth Forge made into cross-faction zones where players can congregate and interact. These would also be great locations to implement optional duels as a feature to represent practice training sessions within the guild ranks.

Beyond that, have no interest in seeing cross-faction mechanics at play though, and would rather that PvE content and dungeons be redesigned to help provide more meaningfulness to Alliance choice.

UrQuan wrote: »

...
No, you're not. You're a champion of Tamriel. You're a champion of Meridia. You're a champion of the alliance where you happened to wash ashore, but you're also a champion of the other 2 alliances. You're a champion of Mundus against Molag Bal. Also, you're a member of those neutral guilds...

Meridia gave me an opportunity to go on a hallucinatory vision journey which exposed my character to what things would have been like if he or she woke up in one of the other alliances instead of the one that actually occurred.

ZOS may have decided to tack on a lame game mechanic to recycle content for Veteran levels as opposed to developing unique and meaningful content to experience, but even the plot device that Cadwell informed me of when being forced to travel to the new zones in this manner was one that implied that none of the Silver and Gold content is considered to be canonical to my characters' actual lives.

Similarly, just because my approach to gaming in Skyrim lead me to create two copies of a single character to complete the civil war from both sides and experience both questlines, that does not mean that the character actually helped both sides equally win the war and killed the respective leaders on each side. One is the real experience, the other is just an experiment to see what would have happened in taking a differing choice.

Darkeus

Yes

PLS YES!

Psychobunni

Yes

Samadhi wrote: »

Am interested in seeing Eyevea and the Earth Forge made into cross-faction zones where players can congregate and interact. These would also be great locations to implement optional duels as a feature to represent practice training sessions within the guild ranks.

Beyond that, have no interest in seeing cross-faction mechanics at play though, and would rather that PvE content and dungeons be redesigned to help provide more meaningfulness to Alliance choice.

UrQuan wrote: »

...
No, you're not. You're a champion of Tamriel. You're a champion of Meridia. You're a champion of the alliance where you happened to wash ashore, but you're also a champion of the other 2 alliances. You're a champion of Mundus against Molag Bal. Also, you're a member of those neutral guilds...

Meridia gave me an opportunity to go on a hallucinatory vision journey which exposed my character to what things would have been like if he or she woke up in one of the other alliances instead of the one that actually occurred.

ZOS may have decided to tack on a lame game mechanic to recycle content for Veteran levels as opposed to developing unique and meaningful content to experience, but even the plot device that Cadwell informed me of when being forced to travel to the new zones in this manner was one that implied that none of the Silver and Gold content is considered to be canonical to my characters' actual lives.

Similarly, just because my approach to gaming in Skyrim lead me to create two copies of a single character to complete the civil war from both sides and experience both questlines, that does not mean that the character actually helped both sides equally win the war and killed the respective leaders on each side. One is the real experience, the other is just an experiment to see what would have happened in taking a differing choice.

ZOS didn't just open silver and gold "just" because they needed more content, many players begged and begged to be able to experience the map with one toon.

If they had created the game with their 3 factions stuck to their one zone and a forth that was factionless or Undaunted, whatever name you want to call it that didn't have content walled off to them PVE side....I would have chosen that fourth option. I'd bet that I'm not the only one.

Maybe that is the easier answer, a fourth phasing of the game for players that don't care about the war, faction pride, or want to feel bound to a storyline......to date I've spent nothing on the crown store, but THAT, I would pay for.

Robo_Hobo

Yes

lordrichter wrote: »

First, a reminder that the "YES" is conditional upon completion of the main quest. At that time, Messages Across Tamriel has been successfully proven to be a good idea.

Robo_Hobo wrote: »

Earelith wrote: »

Rox83 wrote: »

Tankqull wrote: »

no compleatly destroys my immersion.

Honestly Factions should be limited to Cyrodiil. Not everyone is into PvP and from RP perspective your character could just a civilian/neutral adventurer.

I am not into pvp too, but lore wise and RP it doesn't make sense to fight alongside with the enemy...

I don't get the lore/RP reasons against this - don't get me wrong, I love the lore of Elder Scrolls and I have high respect for people who RP, although I'm not very good at myself - but to say it would not make sense to fight alongside the enemy would be assuming that everyone is a loyal devout member of one of the alliances. That would be like saying no one is allowed to RP as a civilian/unaffiliated member of any of the alliances. There are a lot of NPC's who don't care about the war going on, some who even try to stay out of it specifically - members of any race, why should every player have to RP as a pro-war member of the alliances?

I don't see how it would be immersion breaking, unless of course you see those Argonians hanging around the Grey Mire in Valenwood as immersion breaking or those Khajiit in High Rock Daggerfall. If this were to take place, how difficult would it be to accept that those players aren't affiliated with the war such as those NPC's we see?

To follow that route would mean to say no one can RP as a non-vestige character, for we all lost our souls and escaped coldharbour with Varen's help. Naturally, as far as RP goes, this is debunked for otherwise it'd all be one big paradox of how everyone is the vestige - gameplay wise, of course all players are - RP-wise, no, as that would make no sense.

So with that, then the forced alliance selection at the start can also be dropped for when it comes to RP'ing.

Now again, I don't RP myself, but to say all RP'rs have to follow the gameplay forced mechanics and abide by them in their characters kinda just seems like you dislike the concept of RP'ing by itself - outside of a solo situation anyway. I know some purists who go tooth and nail to the text and therefore don't consider other players to exist in any form - vestige or not.

Edit: whoops, quote box messed up. Fixed now.

DaveMoeDee

Yes

To those who are horrified by the idea of someone who is in DC running pledges with someone from AD, I see lots of Kajiit in DC.

People can travel around. This is not a big deal.

Individual players can interpret their membership in an alliance however they wish. Nothing wrong with being a jingoistic xenophobe. Not all of us have to be.

Samadhi

No

Psychobunni wrote: »

ZOS didn't just open silver and gold "just" because they needed more content, many players begged and begged to be able to experience the map with one toon.

If they had created the game with their 3 factions stuck to their one zone and a forth that was factionless or Undaunted, whatever name you want to call it that didn't have content walled off to them PVE side....I would have chosen that fourth option. I'd bet that I'm not the only one.

Maybe that is the easier answer, a fourth phasing of the game for players that don't care about the war, faction pride, or want to feel bound to a storyline......to date I've spent nothing on the crown store, but THAT, I would pay for.

Could get behind this sort of idea -- would opt to choose such a faction as well, provided that they could also enter Cyrodiil as an unaffiliated party and engage in PvP against all three other factions but with no capabilities to capture objectives. Basically, envisioning playing the role of the NPC Imperials or bandits within the Cyrodiil map with an option to play a civilian character who has all PvP in Cyrodiil turned off.
Would be interested in seeing it arise in some sort of manner of the character originating in one of the towns of Cyrodiil and receiving a refugee status that could either allow freedom of movement through the other alliances without affiliation, or an option to reject that refugee status while in Cyrodiil in favour of the life of a bandit now that Molag Bal's forces have destroyed the character's home.

But beyond that, would still like to see the other PvE content revamped as Veteran experiences.
Rather than sending an Aldmeri character into Ebonheart lands to help Ebonheart overcome the Adlmeri forces attacking Shadowfen, why not provide me with a special mission and ambassador capacity from the Queen: A contingent has gone rogue and it is my mission to negotiate terms with the Ebonheart leaders in Shadowfen to allow me freedom of movement through the province in order to bring the war criminals to justice for engaging in measures that run contradictory to the Queen's values while flying the Aldmeri banner.
Alternatively, let players engage in missions of attack and espionage in enemy zones -- just anything rather than the uninspired approach that exists currently.

The current system just feels too slapped together needlessly, and am not interested in things that further reinforce that.

Perhaps they could implement some system in which the Undaunted have an unaffiliated area in a manner simliar to the Fighter's Guild and Mage's Guild where players from all factions could meet up, take their pledges, organize groups and then enter into instances of the dungeons together in that capacity -- it's not an entirely bad idea to allow for cross-faction interactions, just feel it needs to be implemented in a meaningful matter to feel satisfactory and under no circumstances wish to see it simply tacked on in the manner of Silver and Gold.
Silver and Gold was one of the worst decisions ZOS made with regards to game and content design; however, as you pointed out, ZOS sometimes makes poor judgement calls regarding gameplay based on the cries of some players. We also saw similar happen with the add-on API when a handful of very vocal players decided that other players having access to extra information ruined their immersion; as well as the mess that was made of the starter islands, just to name a couple. Then there was the debacle where the only real redeeming feature of the Veteran zones (the reasonable increase in difficulty compared to pre-vet content) was nerfed into nothingness.

Too bad this game cannot simply be rebuilt more effectively from the ground up, but things happened.