hope the people who thought a group zone like craglorn aren't in charge of future zones.

Morvul

ADarklore wrote: »

Also, @AngryNord , what MMO meant a few years ago is no longer what MMO means today. In the past, it meant mostly group-oriented content, but today, it simply means a massive amount of people playing the same game at the same time. Gone are the days of WoW and similar titles, so we should stop clinging to what it meant in the past and accept what it means today. Today, MMOs are ruled by casual players who don't always have time to invest in lengthy group content, and solo players, who may want to group on occasion.

and those players should play the singleplayer games they obviously want to play and stop ruining MMOs for the rest of us...

Sausage

I still have some quest left too. Its just hard to find group, and some of the quests require good group. Dailies and group finder is needed for Craglorn. Also they need to reward vets for running them again, like some CP-boost, how about xp-boosters as reward, I might start doing those if I got those.

eviltims

I do not mind group content, I like them even. However ESO being so solo based and then at the end throw a bunch of group content, it is kind of weird and awkward almost. Most players for ESO treat it as a single player game and I think that the content in this game should be more solo. However if group content was the intent then from lvl 1-50 there should have been more group content.

Kuroinu

I don't see why they'd want to make a zone-specific to groups and others solo. In my opinion a mix of both group and solo content like the original zones is how most areas should be developed.

dsalter

Riko_Futatabi wrote: »

I don't see why they'd want to make a zones specific to groups and solo. In my opinion a mix of both group and solo content like the original zones is how most areas should be developed.

this thought exactly.

i find it unhealthy to make entire zones one or the other.

Darkonflare15

eviltims wrote: »

I do not mind group content, I like them even. However ESO being so solo based and then at the end throw a bunch of group content, it is kind of weird and awkward almost. Most players for ESO treat it as a single player game and I think that the content in this game should be more solo. However if group content was the intent then from lvl 1-50 there should have been more group content.

Well world bosses, group dungeons, dolmens, and even some of the public dungeons were group content before they boosted armor skill bonuses and made it easier for our characters to solo content. Plus some of the world bosses and public dungeons are still hard depending on what your build is at that time.

You have 16 group instance dungeons, 3 dolmens in each zone so 18 in 1-50, 6 world bosses in each zone so 36 world bosses 1-50, and 16 public dungeons. Each public dungeon has a group invent and the one in the Alikr dessert actually needs at least one other person to solve the puzzle to fight the group bosses. So there is plenty of group content from 1-50 it just some players can solo it or they do not consider it group content. I think they have a good balance of group content and solo content. They had even stated before that vet content was suppose to be group content back when it was hard to solo but people wanted to solo it just like just 1-50.

ADarklore

Morvul wrote: »

ADarklore wrote: »

Also, @AngryNord , what MMO meant a few years ago is no longer what MMO means today. In the past, it meant mostly group-oriented content, but today, it simply means a massive amount of people playing the same game at the same time. Gone are the days of WoW and similar titles, so we should stop clinging to what it meant in the past and accept what it means today. Today, MMOs are ruled by casual players who don't always have time to invest in lengthy group content, and solo players, who may want to group on occasion.

and those players should play the singleplayer games they obviously want to play and stop ruining MMOs for the rest of us...

You do realize that if they did this, the game would die very quickly, right? In the past, those old fashioned MMOs survived because there were few options, so obviously all the die-hard MMO players converged on the same titles. Today, there are more MMOs to choose from and more on the way, which makes those die-hard MMO players a minority, a niche market, that a hugely expensive MMO cannot afford to cater to.

Why is it such a difficult concept for old school MMO players to grasp: what solo player wouldn't want to play a game that receives frequent updates, patches and content for years? A typical solo game tends to be very cut and dry, with possibly a couple of expansions if you're lucky... but it in no way has the longevity of an online game. For players like me who don't like to game hop, who want to play a game over a very long period of time and enjoy all of the above benefits, then MMOs are appealing. Thankfully, the gaming world has realize this, and with all newer consoles being internet equipped, they now have the opportunity to reach millions more players and provide them with gaming opportunities as well. This is why most newer MMOs are including a vast amount of solo content, because between casual players and solo players, this is where the money is at.