Do people not realise this game is a MMO foremost?

haelene

LadyNalcarya wrote: »

haelene wrote: »

LadyNalcarya wrote: »

haelene wrote: »

LadyNalcarya wrote: »

haelene wrote: »

LadyNalcarya wrote: »

haelene wrote: »

Anotherone773 wrote: »

Then you need accept the fact that you wont be able to complete and explore all parts of the game if you limit yourself to "single player mode" in a "multiplayer game".

I didn't say that I limit myself at all. In fact, if you'd bothered to read the entire post you'd know I do more than solo - but I like the option. Also, as I stated before in that same post - having options in an MMO keeps it healthy and stable. If all you've got to counter that is "MMO = multiplayer" well then... I don't think we can really have a nuanced conversation about what's best for the game overall.

There's already less options for people who like multiplayer aspect. It's not like everyone is forced to group to do anything.
Grouping 4 times per year (to do all new dungeons) is far from unreasonable.

What are you talking about? Everything but pieces of the main quest can be done in a group. Having a story mode does not mean getting rid of regular dungeon mode or creating less options for people who like multiplayer. It would still be there for you to group up. It does not have to be one or the other, it can be both?

It can be done in group, yeah, but it's very obviously balanced around one player. I can be in group with someone when doing crafting writs but it doesnt mean that crafting is a group activity.
Making solo mode for dungeons is not easy. They would need to completely rebalance the whole thing, remove group mechanics, mechanics that require tanks/healers etc. That's a lot of work, especially in the newer dlc dungeons.

Crafting is a weird and pointless example, given it's solo in every MMO. Being balanced around one player doesn't matter. It's still available to you. You are not being gated from it, period. Nothing is being taken from you. If you want more challenge in overland or whatever to make you feel like grouping up is necessary - that's a different topic, and you should make your own thread on that.

Neither you nor I know how much work that would be, considering it we don't work for ZOS - but I agree it would be work. Some dungeons would need certain mechanics removed - but for the most part, this could be solved by using scaling (that we already have in the game) to make the PC way more powerful. People are doing it for the story, and not to fight enemies, so there's no such thing as "too easy" and therefore a real traditional balancing is unnecessary.

The argument that it takes "work" is also silly. PvP takes work. Vet trials take work. And only a small portion of players take part in those. Should we say it's no longer worth it to work on either of those again? No, of course not.

I think you both underestimate the amount of people story mode would bring in, and overestimate the impact on you. The population that would use this mode (of course assuming loot is no more useful than overland) are either not doing these dungeons (and never will without story mode) or are doing them in premade groups with friends or guilds. Period. So it has no effect on the current amount of people grouping and using dungeon finder.

People who need gear, who like grouping, who like challenge - all of them would still do normal and vet dungeons.

The only real concern is the amount of instances created and the effect that would have on the server - but neither you or I can say for sure if that would be an issue - so it's a moot point until ZOS says otherwise.

It's not just "too easy". There's heavy instancing: when I was helping people with quest bosses back when they used to be quite challenging, I often wasnt able to see them and they werent able to see me. And if someone runs ahead and activates quest objective, you'll essentially miss a part of the quest. This also can happen in dungeons, of course, but to much lesser extent due to how linear they are.
This is a multiplayer game and people should be encouraged to try the mutiplayer component. This game is not a very good rpg because of mmo limitations, but the experience can be greatly improved by cooperating with other players.

I agree that ZOS's grouping mechanics can be a little wonky if you're not consistently grouping with one person and completing things at the same time. That however, has nothing to do with a story mode and is another topic for another thread, One I would happily take part in if you opened it, because I duo all of the story with my wife and it can certainly be a hassle.

The last statement means nothing to me, because outside of saying "it's a mutiplayer game", there is nothing there that isn't entirely based on your personal perspective and opinion. Many people have already told you it isn't improved for them by cooperating with other players and that they play it as an RPG, so.. I'm not going to waste time re-hashing things people have already said to you. And again, if we're back too "MMO = Multiplayer" and that's it, well then... there's nothing more to say because I already gave my reasoning behind why that is short sighted.

I mean... This is a multiplayer game, it's not a matter of opinion. All games of this genre have a certain amount of group content, and the fact that ESO is more solo-friendly than usual doesnt mean that everything should be solo-based. It kinda defeats the purpose of being always online. There's plenty of great single-player games on the market, and most of them have better solo mechanics than ESO.

I didn't take issue with the fact that it's a multiplayer game. I took issue with your insinuation that it's a fact that it's better with other people and a bad RPG. "Bad RPG" and "better with others" are both subjective statements based on your personal opinion that have already been rehashed near to death. I'm not going to talk in circles here.

Being online doesn't have to mean there's content gated behind grouping - it just means you can play with other people. That's it. This is a TES game and an RPG first and it has benefited greatly by being both of those. Ignoring that is both disingenuous and a bad idea.

No one is saying there aren't solo games on the market that people could play - but it's a stupid business decision to turn them away because this game connects to the internet. Besides, we're not talking about the health and population of those other games, we are talking about ESO.

Darkstorne

@iiYuki "It's an MMO, this is how it's always worked, and therefore is how it always has to work" is the worst argument you can ever make, and means you should never pursue a career as a developer if you can't imagine solutions and workarounds to common genre problems. Especially if you're considering a career with ZOS, since they have already solved numerous inherent problems with the MMO genre in ESO, such as removing the level-gating of content and zones, and level cap increases with each expansion forcing people to swap their purples and golds for greens.

At the game's launch there were numerous people like yourself saying "If you don't like not being able to explore anywhere at any level, go play a single player Elder Scrolls game! Do you not realize this is an MMO?" Those comments aged well

And final point of the day - according to the devs, TES is not an MMO "foremost": “We don’t even use the term MMO with The Elder Scrolls Online anymore, because really it’s not,” game director Matt Firor says. “MMO was a term coined in 1997 with Ultima Online, EverQuest, and Dark Age of Camelot – we are not that game.”

Kamatsu

craybest wrote: »

most MMOs I've played included some story parts in dungeons. ffxiv has lots of it in dungeons and it's a good storydriven game. I personally don't see the problem. most of the time I just let people know I want to know the story and have time to read and it works, assuming i ask nicely of course.

Thing is XIV has much better group/party finding tools, as well as a Duty Roulette system which rewards players for doing random dungeons - this way people will always be doing dungeon/trial/alliance-raid roulette's for the endgame rewards, which makes it easy for anyone going through the story to just queue for the dungeon they are up-to doing and get it done.

The way ESO is setup, I don't really see how they could actually do a DR system such as XIV uses, and it's group-finder has many issue's (unless they have actually fixed it? *shrugs*). XIV uses end-game currency as a lure to get ppl to do all the roulettes (or xp bonuses for leveling different classes), what could ESO offer to lure ppl to do a similar thing to get ppl in & through dungeons more often / easier?

Linaleah

Kidgangster101 wrote: »

Tigerseye wrote: »

Kidgangster101 wrote: »

Ohtimbar wrote: »

I have a lot of problems with the game, but I appreciate being free to group or not when and if I choose. I'd like to see it taken much further, actually. It's based on the bloody Elder Scrolls after all, a formerly premiere single player arpg, so no surprise a lot of lone wolves are roaming about.

At the end of the day if people only want to play alone then just play any of the older games (or new solo player games). If they don't put group content in this game what is the actual purpose to have it be an online game where others are around? I never get the argument of "the older games were all single player" because that argument can be used about most games that turn to mmo. Final fantasy put out 10 games before ff11 online released and still continue to put out solo games.

What if they enjoy the social aspect of seeing other players around them and/or of being in guilds, but they don't enjoy the social pressure of doing group content?

Even if the devs did still see this as an MMO, that wouldn't have to mean people are forced to do group content to play it.

MMO just means Massively Multiplayer Online game.

No part of that definition says, or implies, people are forced to group up.

Personally, I like grouping up, sometimes, especially with random people - my favourite part of WoW was LFR - but, not everyone is like that.

If social pressure of a NORMAL dungeon group play to advance a story quest is too much for someone then this game really isn't for that person tbh. Not trying to sound rude but it's not hard to hit 8-10k dps and that is usually all one needs to complete a normal dungeon.

If you are wanting to be there for a story mode then state you are doing the quest at the start when you enter and 9/10 people will go threw it slow. Is it really hard to type to people using the keyboard that psn or Xbox gives you built into the system? PC has a keyboard at all times...... If PEOPLE don't want to say something in chat it is on them if people fly through the dungeon in 5 seconds.

its NOT about dps or social pressure. its being able to explore, to read/listen to ALL the dialogue including those exploratory options that do not advance the quest but rather give you more lore, to be able to talk to NPC's every step of the way, becasue guess what? they have EXTRA dialogue, even if it doesn't progress the quest, to stay back and watch those in game npc interactions, to go out of the normal way to explore and read the scattered lore, to take screen shots and i can keep going.

when you tell people that you are doing the quest, they generally understand it as "I'm trying to get the skill point" and the more reasonable ones will wait long enough for that and might kill an optional boss or 2 that are necessary, but they are NOT going to stand around her for 5 or more minutes after every boss fight, waiting for you to finish all the extra stuff.

it is possible to arrange for a group of other people who are similar enough - its not easy, but its possible.

but its similar enough never exactly the same, it takes serious scheduling finagling in advance, to make sure you are all available at the same time on the same day, long enough. its about putting undue pressure on each other - to hurry up, or to wait. because its rarely perfect groups of 4 people on the same page, if you didn't arrange quickly enough - you may end up left out, or hoping there are enough people kind enough to do that story all over again with you - at your pace.

doing a story is a very different animal from progressing through fights as a team. it has a very different vibe and pace to it.

LadyNalcarya

haelene wrote: »

LadyNalcarya wrote: »

haelene wrote: »

LadyNalcarya wrote: »

haelene wrote: »

LadyNalcarya wrote: »

haelene wrote: »

LadyNalcarya wrote: »

haelene wrote: »

Anotherone773 wrote: »

Then you need accept the fact that you wont be able to complete and explore all parts of the game if you limit yourself to "single player mode" in a "multiplayer game".

I didn't say that I limit myself at all. In fact, if you'd bothered to read the entire post you'd know I do more than solo - but I like the option. Also, as I stated before in that same post - having options in an MMO keeps it healthy and stable. If all you've got to counter that is "MMO = multiplayer" well then... I don't think we can really have a nuanced conversation about what's best for the game overall.

There's already less options for people who like multiplayer aspect. It's not like everyone is forced to group to do anything.
Grouping 4 times per year (to do all new dungeons) is far from unreasonable.

What are you talking about? Everything but pieces of the main quest can be done in a group. Having a story mode does not mean getting rid of regular dungeon mode or creating less options for people who like multiplayer. It would still be there for you to group up. It does not have to be one or the other, it can be both?

It can be done in group, yeah, but it's very obviously balanced around one player. I can be in group with someone when doing crafting writs but it doesnt mean that crafting is a group activity.
Making solo mode for dungeons is not easy. They would need to completely rebalance the whole thing, remove group mechanics, mechanics that require tanks/healers etc. That's a lot of work, especially in the newer dlc dungeons.

Crafting is a weird and pointless example, given it's solo in every MMO. Being balanced around one player doesn't matter. It's still available to you. You are not being gated from it, period. Nothing is being taken from you. If you want more challenge in overland or whatever to make you feel like grouping up is necessary - that's a different topic, and you should make your own thread on that.

Neither you nor I know how much work that would be, considering it we don't work for ZOS - but I agree it would be work. Some dungeons would need certain mechanics removed - but for the most part, this could be solved by using scaling (that we already have in the game) to make the PC way more powerful. People are doing it for the story, and not to fight enemies, so there's no such thing as "too easy" and therefore a real traditional balancing is unnecessary.

The argument that it takes "work" is also silly. PvP takes work. Vet trials take work. And only a small portion of players take part in those. Should we say it's no longer worth it to work on either of those again? No, of course not.

I think you both underestimate the amount of people story mode would bring in, and overestimate the impact on you. The population that would use this mode (of course assuming loot is no more useful than overland) are either not doing these dungeons (and never will without story mode) or are doing them in premade groups with friends or guilds. Period. So it has no effect on the current amount of people grouping and using dungeon finder.

People who need gear, who like grouping, who like challenge - all of them would still do normal and vet dungeons.

The only real concern is the amount of instances created and the effect that would have on the server - but neither you or I can say for sure if that would be an issue - so it's a moot point until ZOS says otherwise.

It's not just "too easy". There's heavy instancing: when I was helping people with quest bosses back when they used to be quite challenging, I often wasnt able to see them and they werent able to see me. And if someone runs ahead and activates quest objective, you'll essentially miss a part of the quest. This also can happen in dungeons, of course, but to much lesser extent due to how linear they are.
This is a multiplayer game and people should be encouraged to try the mutiplayer component. This game is not a very good rpg because of mmo limitations, but the experience can be greatly improved by cooperating with other players.

I agree that ZOS's grouping mechanics can be a little wonky if you're not consistently grouping with one person and completing things at the same time. That however, has nothing to do with a story mode and is another topic for another thread, One I would happily take part in if you opened it, because I duo all of the story with my wife and it can certainly be a hassle.

The last statement means nothing to me, because outside of saying "it's a mutiplayer game", there is nothing there that isn't entirely based on your personal perspective and opinion. Many people have already told you it isn't improved for them by cooperating with other players and that they play it as an RPG, so.. I'm not going to waste time re-hashing things people have already said to you. And again, if we're back too "MMO = Multiplayer" and that's it, well then... there's nothing more to say because I already gave my reasoning behind why that is short sighted.

I mean... This is a multiplayer game, it's not a matter of opinion. All games of this genre have a certain amount of group content, and the fact that ESO is more solo-friendly than usual doesnt mean that everything should be solo-based. It kinda defeats the purpose of being always online. There's plenty of great single-player games on the market, and most of them have better solo mechanics than ESO.

I didn't take issue with the fact that it's a multiplayer game. I took issue with your insinuation that it's a fact that it's better with other people and a bad RPG. "Bad RPG" and "better with others" are both subjective statements based on your personal opinion that have already been rehashed near to death. I'm not going to talk in circles here.

Being online doesn't have to mean there's content gated behind grouping - it just means you can play with other people. That's it. This is a TES game and an RPG first and it has benefited greatly by being both of those. Ignoring that is both disingenuous and a bad idea.

No one is saying there aren't solo games on the market that people could play - but it's a stupid business decision to turn them away because this game connects to the internet. Besides, we're not talking about the health and population of those other games, we are talking about ESO.

Well, thing is, we're talking about 4 dungeons per year. For anyone who plays semi-regulalry it's not even 1% of the playtime. If someone can't handle 4 social interactions online, maybe online games are not for them.
And yes, buying an mmo and hoping to be able to do 100% of the content solo is like buying a shooter and being shocked by the fact that you have to shoot people... Should companies also make violence-free shooters, strategy-free RTS, and simulation-free sims?
ESO already provides a lot of freedom for solo players. But expecting to do everything solo is just very naive.

snoozy

virtus753 wrote: »

iiYuki wrote: »

ESO doesn't pretend to be anything but a MMO, its always been an MMO and its content will reflect that.

I seem to recall watching a stream in which the developers actually stated that they see ESO as an RPG first and foremost. So it doesn't "pretend" to be anything but an MMO, no - the developers explicitly see it otherwise.

ETA (and correct): https://www.pcgamesn.com/the-elder-scrolls-online-tamriel-unlimited/the-elder-scrolls-online-MMORPG

"“We don’t even use the term MMO with The Elder Scrolls Online anymore, because really it’s not,” game director Matt Firor says."

OP rn:

haelene

LadyNalcarya wrote: »

Well, thing is, we're talking about 4 dungeons per year. For anyone who plays semi-regulalry it's not even 1% of the playtime. If someone can't handle 4 social interactions online, maybe online games are not for them.
And yes, buying an mmo and hoping to be able to do 100% of the content solo is like buying a shooter and being shocked by the fact that you have to shoot people... Should companies also make violence-free shooters, strategy-free RTS, and simulation-free sims?
ESO already provides a lot of freedom for solo players. But expecting to do everything solo is just very naive.

MMO is a much broader category than shooter, and simply means there are many people playing online. Doesn't say anything about what the mechanics of a MMO have to be or how it should work. Shooter is, on the other hand, not vague at all, and instead, is a very specific mechanic.

At this point, I can literally just post links to other posts in this same thread to refute your points.

haelene wrote: »

If all you've got to counter that is "MMO = multiplayer" well then... I don't think we can really have a nuanced conversation about what's best for the game overall.

Darkstorne wrote: »

At the game's launch there were numerous people like yourself saying "If you don't like not being able to explore anywhere at any level, go play a single player Elder Scrolls game! Do you not realize this is an MMO?" Those comments aged well

And final point of the day - according to the devs, TES is not an MMO "foremost": “We don’t even use the term MMO with The Elder Scrolls Online anymore, because really it’s not,” game director Matt Firor says. “MMO was a term coined in 1997 with Ultima Online, EverQuest, and Dark Age of Camelot – we are not that game.”

virtus753 wrote: »

ETA (and correct): https://www.pcgamesn.com/the-elder-scrolls-online-tamriel-unlimited/the-elder-scrolls-online-MMORPG

"“We don’t even use the term MMO with The Elder Scrolls Online anymore, because really it’s not,” game director Matt Firor says."

We can even go back to my first post :

haelene wrote: »

I think an MMO that offers options that fulfill all of those moods and player types is ultimately more successful anyways because it can draw in more people and keep those people playing longer. More people spending more valuable time in game means a more financially stable game, which is - at the end of the day - better for everyone.

YandereGirlfriend

After playing and loving the mainline TES games for ages, I was super wary about giving ESO a shot, as multiplayer games had, heretofore, not been my thing at all.

I came into the game, as seemingly many in this thread did, wanting to solo everything and absorb all of the story content... but a combination of (IMO) bland quest dialogue and a lack of Overland challenge led me down the path of more and more difficult group content and then eventually PvP.

I fully agree that an implementation of a single-player "Story Mode" for dungeons (and, heck, even trials) would be a very nice bow to an apparently sizable minority of players. You could scale everything to Overland combat standards and then remove set pieces from the loot table. I don't think that anyone could or should be mad about that.

SeaGtGruff

colossalvoids wrote: »

Most of so called ''tes fans'' was offered story mode in single player games for too long (cheats) so all those who came because marketing speeches like: ''It's not even an mmo, you can do whatever you want and don't really need to group'' don't want to ''learn to play'' like others, they simply seek handholding again so we'll hear those screams as long as game will exist.

Wow, there is so much wrong with your attitude that I almost don't know where to begin.

So-called "TES fans"? Who died and made you judge of which people are "true TES fans" and which ones are merely "so-called TES fans"? Personally, I would argue that a person who has played many-- if not most or all-- of the other TES games, and who then came to ESO because it's an ES game and not specifically because it's an MMO, is most likely a bigger TES fan than, say, someone who came to ESO because it's an MMO and not specifically because it's an ES game. But I wouldn't presume to call the second individual a "so-called TES fan" unless they said something which indicated that they hold the other ES games, or the people who play them, in disdain.

snoozy

Linaleah wrote: »

Kidgangster101 wrote: »

Tigerseye wrote: »

Kidgangster101 wrote: »

Ohtimbar wrote: »

I have a lot of problems with the game, but I appreciate being free to group or not when and if I choose. I'd like to see it taken much further, actually. It's based on the bloody Elder Scrolls after all, a formerly premiere single player arpg, so no surprise a lot of lone wolves are roaming about.

At the end of the day if people only want to play alone then just play any of the older games (or new solo player games). If they don't put group content in this game what is the actual purpose to have it be an online game where others are around? I never get the argument of "the older games were all single player" because that argument can be used about most games that turn to mmo. Final fantasy put out 10 games before ff11 online released and still continue to put out solo games.

What if they enjoy the social aspect of seeing other players around them and/or of being in guilds, but they don't enjoy the social pressure of doing group content?

Even if the devs did still see this as an MMO, that wouldn't have to mean people are forced to do group content to play it.

MMO just means Massively Multiplayer Online game.

No part of that definition says, or implies, people are forced to group up.

Personally, I like grouping up, sometimes, especially with random people - my favourite part of WoW was LFR - but, not everyone is like that.

If social pressure of a NORMAL dungeon group play to advance a story quest is too much for someone then this game really isn't for that person tbh. Not trying to sound rude but it's not hard to hit 8-10k dps and that is usually all one needs to complete a normal dungeon.

If you are wanting to be there for a story mode then state you are doing the quest at the start when you enter and 9/10 people will go threw it slow. Is it really hard to type to people using the keyboard that psn or Xbox gives you built into the system? PC has a keyboard at all times...... If PEOPLE don't want to say something in chat it is on them if people fly through the dungeon in 5 seconds.

its NOT about dps or social pressure. its being able to explore, to read/listen to ALL the dialogue including those exploratory options that do not advance the quest but rather give you more lore, to be able to talk to NPC's every step of the way, becasue guess what? they have EXTRA dialogue, even if it doesn't progress the quest, to stay back and watch those in game npc interactions, to go out of the normal way to explore and read the scattered lore, to take screen shots and i can keep going.

when you tell people that you are doing the quest, they generally understand it as "I'm trying to get the skill point" and the more reasonable ones will wait long enough for that and might kill an optional boss or 2 that are necessary, but they are NOT going to stand around her for 5 or more minutes after every boss fight, waiting for you to finish all the extra stuff.

it is possible to arrange for a group of other people who are similar enough - its not easy, but its possible.

but its similar enough never exactly the same, it takes serious scheduling finagling in advance, to make sure you are all available at the same time on the same day, long enough. its about putting undue pressure on each other - to hurry up, or to wait. because its rarely perfect groups of 4 people on the same page, if you didn't arrange quickly enough - you may end up left out, or hoping there are enough people kind enough to do that story all over again with you - at your pace.

doing a story is a very different animal from progressing through fights as a team. it has a very different vibe and pace to it.

thank you for putting it into words so perfectly. on point!

i just don't get it why some people don't want solo players to have a story mode. it won't take anything away from their group experience... so what is their problem with that?

Anotherone773

haelene wrote: »

LadyNalcarya wrote: »

Well, thing is, we're talking about 4 dungeons per year. For anyone who plays semi-regulalry it's not even 1% of the playtime. If someone can't handle 4 social interactions online, maybe online games are not for them.
And yes, buying an mmo and hoping to be able to do 100% of the content solo is like buying a shooter and being shocked by the fact that you have to shoot people... Should companies also make violence-free shooters, strategy-free RTS, and simulation-free sims?
ESO already provides a lot of freedom for solo players. But expecting to do everything solo is just very naive.

MMO is a much broader category than shooter, and simply means there are many people playing online. Doesn't say anything about what the mechanics of a MMO have to be or how it should work. Shooter is, on the other hand, not vague at all, and instead, is a very specific mechanic.

At this point, I can literally just post links to other posts in this same thread to refute your points.

haelene wrote: »

If all you've got to counter that is "MMO = multiplayer" well then... I don't think we can really have a nuanced conversation about what's best for the game overall.

Darkstorne wrote: »

At the game's launch there were numerous people like yourself saying "If you don't like not being able to explore anywhere at any level, go play a single player Elder Scrolls game! Do you not realize this is an MMO?" Those comments aged well

And final point of the day - according to the devs, TES is not an MMO "foremost": “We don’t even use the term MMO with The Elder Scrolls Online anymore, because really it’s not,” game director Matt Firor says. “MMO was a term coined in 1997 with Ultima Online, EverQuest, and Dark Age of Camelot – we are not that game.”

virtus753 wrote: »

ETA (and correct): https://www.pcgamesn.com/the-elder-scrolls-online-tamriel-unlimited/the-elder-scrolls-online-MMORPG

"“We don’t even use the term MMO with The Elder Scrolls Online anymore, because really it’s not,” game director Matt Firor says."

We can even go back to my first post :

haelene wrote: »

I think an MMO that offers options that fulfill all of those moods and player types is ultimately more successful anyways because it can draw in more people and keep those people playing longer. More people spending more valuable time in game means a more financially stable game, which is - at the end of the day - better for everyone.

It doesnt matter how technical you want to try to make the definition of an MMO. An MMO is a game which encourages social interaction and cooperative group play. The RPG is a sub-genre of MMO. This game has an excessive amount of solo game play available, because they wanted to pander to traditional single player fans of the series as well as fans of MMOs.

On top of that the game has a lot of group content that can be soloed. Like 5%, maybe 10% if your bad, of the content in this game you MUST have a group for. The rest of it you can play solo.

We dont need to make the entire game "social interaction optional".

haelene

Anotherone773 wrote: »

haelene wrote: »

LadyNalcarya wrote: »

Well, thing is, we're talking about 4 dungeons per year. For anyone who plays semi-regulalry it's not even 1% of the playtime. If someone can't handle 4 social interactions online, maybe online games are not for them.
And yes, buying an mmo and hoping to be able to do 100% of the content solo is like buying a shooter and being shocked by the fact that you have to shoot people... Should companies also make violence-free shooters, strategy-free RTS, and simulation-free sims?
ESO already provides a lot of freedom for solo players. But expecting to do everything solo is just very naive.

MMO is a much broader category than shooter, and simply means there are many people playing online. Doesn't say anything about what the mechanics of a MMO have to be or how it should work. Shooter is, on the other hand, not vague at all, and instead, is a very specific mechanic.

At this point, I can literally just post links to other posts in this same thread to refute your points.

haelene wrote: »

If all you've got to counter that is "MMO = multiplayer" well then... I don't think we can really have a nuanced conversation about what's best for the game overall.

Darkstorne wrote: »

At the game's launch there were numerous people like yourself saying "If you don't like not being able to explore anywhere at any level, go play a single player Elder Scrolls game! Do you not realize this is an MMO?" Those comments aged well

And final point of the day - according to the devs, TES is not an MMO "foremost": “We don’t even use the term MMO with The Elder Scrolls Online anymore, because really it’s not,” game director Matt Firor says. “MMO was a term coined in 1997 with Ultima Online, EverQuest, and Dark Age of Camelot – we are not that game.”

virtus753 wrote: »

ETA (and correct): https://www.pcgamesn.com/the-elder-scrolls-online-tamriel-unlimited/the-elder-scrolls-online-MMORPG

"“We don’t even use the term MMO with The Elder Scrolls Online anymore, because really it’s not,” game director Matt Firor says."

We can even go back to my first post :

haelene wrote: »

I think an MMO that offers options that fulfill all of those moods and player types is ultimately more successful anyways because it can draw in more people and keep those people playing longer. More people spending more valuable time in game means a more financially stable game, which is - at the end of the day - better for everyone.

It doesnt matter how technical you want to try to make the definition of an MMO. An MMO is a game which encourages social interaction and cooperative group play. The RPG is a sub-genre of MMO. This game has an excessive amount of solo game play available, because they wanted to pander to traditional single player fans of the series as well as fans of MMOs.

On top of that the game has a lot of group content that can be soloed. Like 5%, maybe 10% if your bad, of the content in this game you MUST have a group for. The rest of it you can play solo.

We dont need to make the entire game "social interaction optional".

You're entirely ignoring my other points about how it's ultimately good for the game to have options and the game dev's have stated it's not an MMO. I only got technical about the definition of an MMO because the previous poster tried to equate things that are not 1:1.

The only thing not already addressed by the post that you replied to is the part about solo'ing content. To that I say : The specific content that sparked this conversation cannot be solo'd by the average player, and especially not the average person asking for this.

TheFM

TheNuminous1 wrote: »

virtus753 wrote: »

iiYuki wrote: »

ESO doesn't pretend to be anything but a MMO, its always been an MMO and its content will reflect that.

I seem to recall watching a stream in which the developers actually stated that they see ESO as an RPG first and foremost. So it doesn't "pretend" to be anything but an MMO, no - the developers explicitly see it otherwise.

ETA (and correct): https://www.pcgamesn.com/the-elder-scrolls-online-tamriel-unlimited/the-elder-scrolls-online-MMORPG

"“We don’t even use the term MMO with The Elder Scrolls Online anymore, because really it’s not,” game director Matt Firor says."

BOOM.

Not even the directors and people who make the game call it an mmo. Whole argument demolished with a quote hell ya!

Yeah they backpedaled on that aged ago, lol.

Also , funny how the actual game description says otherwise

Chaos2088

Hey people can play the game how they want, there are no rules to how you play this game,

But having your own expectations might not meet to what the game is..yes.

They will push content across the whole aspects of the game, up to the player if they want to take part, its not going to change just cas people want it to.

haelene

TheFM wrote: »

TheNuminous1 wrote: »

virtus753 wrote: »

iiYuki wrote: »

ESO doesn't pretend to be anything but a MMO, its always been an MMO and its content will reflect that.

I seem to recall watching a stream in which the developers actually stated that they see ESO as an RPG first and foremost. So it doesn't "pretend" to be anything but an MMO, no - the developers explicitly see it otherwise.

ETA (and correct): https://www.pcgamesn.com/the-elder-scrolls-online-tamriel-unlimited/the-elder-scrolls-online-MMORPG

"“We don’t even use the term MMO with The Elder Scrolls Online anymore, because really it’s not,” game director Matt Firor says."

BOOM.

Not even the directors and people who make the game call it an mmo. Whole argument demolished with a quote hell ya!

Yeah they backpedaled on that aged ago, lol.

Also , funny how the actual game description says otherwise

Interesting, considering this is the game description :

"Join over 13 million players and discover an adventure unlike anything else in The Elder Scrolls Online, the award-winning online RPG set in the Elder Scrolls universe."

Written by the people who made it, on the website, under the header "what is eso?"

https://www.elderscrollsonline.com/en-us/discover

Normally I wouldn't press this kind of issue, but if the argument that keeps getting brought up is basically only "It's an MMO!", then well, we're kind of forced to discuss it.

Gythral

Game
MMO

Think people have the wrong idea
clearly the shareholders thinking it's a
Cash Cow
always to be milked for as much as possible, everything else comes a long long way down their list

myskyrim26

First, ESO is a TES game. It became popular because of us playing solo TES games. We are the majority in ESO, not you playing just for hitting buttons and earning some achivements.

colossalvoids

SeaGtGruff wrote: »

colossalvoids wrote: »

Most of so called ''tes fans'' was offered story mode in single player games for too long (cheats) so all those who came because marketing speeches like: ''It's not even an mmo, you can do whatever you want and don't really need to group'' don't want to ''learn to play'' like others, they simply seek handholding again so we'll hear those screams as long as game will exist.

Wow, there is so much wrong with your attitude that I almost don't know where to begin.

So-called "TES fans"? Who died and made you judge of which people are "true TES fans" and which ones are merely "so-called TES fans"? Personally, I would argue that a person who has played many-- if not most or all-- of the other TES games, and who then came to ESO because it's an ES game and not specifically because it's an MMO, is most likely a bigger TES fan than, say, someone who came to ESO because it's an MMO and not specifically because it's an ES game. But I wouldn't presume to call the second individual a "so-called TES fan" unless they said something which indicated that they hold the other ES games, or the people who play them, in disdain.

If it's not obvious enough I can always elaborate. Quotes means that probably something wrong with them, right? For example not being able to play the game as intended by doing certain mechanics like in singleplayer games and it's mmo variation, but mmo doesn't offer much of crutches right now.
I know it's really heroic and immersive to play single player titles with tmg/tgm but wanting basically same thing here is an issue. Fix quest objectives in dungeons and how npc interact with multiple players? Nah, better give us more overland content that will only help to not engage ever with other players in mmo. And then set forums on fire if game isn't balanced around that particular playstyle.

I personally installed this game due to interest in tes lore at first (to read some new lorebooks as I said to myself), but had zero issues with learning how to actually play mmo title properly and having elder scroll experience not ruined at the same time.
If you're ok with ignoring half of the game because it's not your cup of tea go on, but don't insist on decisions that *might* actually hurt multiplayer content in a multiplayer game.

haelene

colossalvoids wrote: »

If you're ok with ignoring half of the game because it's not your cup of tea go on, but don't insist on decisions that *might* actually hurt multiplayer content in a multiplayer game.

Exactly how might it hurt multiplayer content? Be specific.

colossalvoids

haelene wrote: »

colossalvoids wrote: »

If you're ok with ignoring half of the game because it's not your cup of tea go on, but don't insist on decisions that *might* actually hurt multiplayer content in a multiplayer game.

Exactly how might it hurt multiplayer content? Be specific.

Quite obviously the more single options we have, the less we can expect people wanting or having any need to group for that. Not talking marketing speeches as ''playing the game alone if you want'' but devs actually want people to connect and have fun together (it's easier to milk such players too lol) so trials and dungeons exists with a story involved.

Do they need to improve? Surely, no doubt. Is it doable? Easily actually. But not introducing solo modes just because they can't have some time to time dialogues better and gate some areas before everyone is done with all the activities involved to proceed by quest objective (if one or more players doing it).

People are already not as social as were years ago here, so more options to not engage with others can't sound too healthy for online game right now

zvavi

One thing i have said many times. Solo mode does hurt everyone, the server pc eu is already coughing blood to create enough instances for all the 4 man groups, if the server has to create another instance for every person that wants story mode (and obviously take his time doing it) it will affect performance for everyone. So saying "what does it hurt you, just the option for story mode" is fundamentally incorrect.

colossalvoids

And will not even mention proposals about making dungeons/trials less of a story because of it.

haelene

colossalvoids wrote: »

haelene wrote: »

colossalvoids wrote: »

If you're ok with ignoring half of the game because it's not your cup of tea go on, but don't insist on decisions that *might* actually hurt multiplayer content in a multiplayer game.

Exactly how might it hurt multiplayer content? Be specific.

Quite obviously the more single options we have, the less we can expect people wanting or having any need to group for that. Not talking marketing speeches as ''playing the game alone if you want'' but devs actually want people to connect and have fun together (it's easier to milk such players too lol) so trials and dungeons exists with a story involved.

Do they need to improve? Surely, no doubt. Is it doable? Easily actually. But not introducing solo modes just because they can't have some time to time dialogues better and gate some areas before everyone is done with all the activities involved to proceed by quest objective (if one or more players doing it).

People are already not as social as were years ago here, so more options to not engage with others can't sound too healthy for online game right now

haelene wrote: »

I think you both underestimate the amount of people story mode would bring in, and overestimate the impact on you. The population that would use this mode (of course assuming loot is no more useful than overland) are either not doing these dungeons (and never will without story mode) or are doing them in premade groups with friends or guilds. Period. So it has no effect on the current amount of people grouping and using dungeon finder.

People not being social enough (especially in a game) is a personal perspective thing and has absolutely nothing to do with their social health in general. Additionally, gating content behind socializing will not force people to socialize. They simply won't participate, and more importantly, buy the content. Those that already socialize with friends or guilds to do the content will continue to do so, just in story mode.

Those that want the gear, want to group in pugs, or who want a challenge will continue as if nothing changed.

haelene

zvavi wrote: »

One thing i have said many times. Solo mode does hurt everyone, the server pc eu is already coughing blood to create enough instances for all the 4 man groups, if the server has to create another instance for every person that wants story mode (and obviously take his time doing it) it will affect performance for everyone. So saying "what does it hurt you, just the option for story mode" is fundamentally incorrect.

This is possibly the only valid concern here, but ultimately, it's a moot point because only ZOS can tell us if story mode is viable and if it will affect performance. We don't actually know, so until ZOS tells us it's not possible due to performance, we can only speculate.

zvavi

haelene wrote: »

zvavi wrote: »

One thing i have said many times. Solo mode does hurt everyone, the server pc eu is already coughing blood to create enough instances for all the 4 man groups, if the server has to create another instance for every person that wants story mode (and obviously take his time doing it) it will affect performance for everyone. So saying "what does it hurt you, just the option for story mode" is fundamentally incorrect.

This is possibly the only valid concern here, but ultimately, it's a moot point because only ZOS can tell us if story mode is viable and if it will affect performance. We don't actually know, so until ZOS tells us it's not possible due to performance, we can only speculate.

Uh please, server cant make too many instances, we already experienced it. Story mode means more instances would be created on the server side. 1+1=2.

haelene

zvavi wrote: »

haelene wrote: »

zvavi wrote: »

One thing i have said many times. Solo mode does hurt everyone, the server pc eu is already coughing blood to create enough instances for all the 4 man groups, if the server has to create another instance for every person that wants story mode (and obviously take his time doing it) it will affect performance for everyone. So saying "what does it hurt you, just the option for story mode" is fundamentally incorrect.

This is possibly the only valid concern here, but ultimately, it's a moot point because only ZOS can tell us if story mode is viable and if it will affect performance. We don't actually know, so until ZOS tells us it's not possible due to performance, we can only speculate.

Uh please, server cant make too many instances, we already experienced it. Story mode means more instances would be created on the server side. 1+1=2.

So you agree that no one should be able to Solo dungeons as they are now then, right? Because that creates solo instances. What about groups of two? Three?

Edited to fix weird attachment of another quote.

zvavi

haelene wrote: »

So you agree that no one should be able to Solo dungeons as they are now then, right? Because that creates solo instances. What about groups of two? Three?

No. I dont agree. My reasoning is entirely different though, end game solo content currently has only vMA. The option to improvise endgame solo content is important by itself

Also the amount of instances created that way now vs the amount of instances created if they introduced story mode is on another scale.

LadyNalcarya

haelene wrote: »

LadyNalcarya wrote: »

Well, thing is, we're talking about 4 dungeons per year. For anyone who plays semi-regulalry it's not even 1% of the playtime. If someone can't handle 4 social interactions online, maybe online games are not for them.
And yes, buying an mmo and hoping to be able to do 100% of the content solo is like buying a shooter and being shocked by the fact that you have to shoot people... Should companies also make violence-free shooters, strategy-free RTS, and simulation-free sims?
ESO already provides a lot of freedom for solo players. But expecting to do everything solo is just very naive.

MMO is a much broader category than shooter, and simply means there are many people playing online. Doesn't say anything about what the mechanics of a MMO have to be or how it should work. Shooter is, on the other hand, not vague at all, and instead, is a very specific mechanic.

At this point, I can literally just post links to other posts in this same thread to refute your points.

haelene wrote: »

If all you've got to counter that is "MMO = multiplayer" well then... I don't think we can really have a nuanced conversation about what's best for the game overall.

Darkstorne wrote: »

At the game's launch there were numerous people like yourself saying "If you don't like not being able to explore anywhere at any level, go play a single player Elder Scrolls game! Do you not realize this is an MMO?" Those comments aged well

And final point of the day - according to the devs, TES is not an MMO "foremost": “We don’t even use the term MMO with The Elder Scrolls Online anymore, because really it’s not,” game director Matt Firor says. “MMO was a term coined in 1997 with Ultima Online, EverQuest, and Dark Age of Camelot – we are not that game.”

virtus753 wrote: »

ETA (and correct): https://www.pcgamesn.com/the-elder-scrolls-online-tamriel-unlimited/the-elder-scrolls-online-MMORPG

"“We don’t even use the term MMO with The Elder Scrolls Online anymore, because really it’s not,” game director Matt Firor says."

We can even go back to my first post :

haelene wrote: »

I think an MMO that offers options that fulfill all of those moods and player types is ultimately more successful anyways because it can draw in more people and keep those people playing longer. More people spending more valuable time in game means a more financially stable game, which is - at the end of the day - better for everyone.

ESO actually follows pretty typical mmo routines. There is a difference between a regular RPG and online RPG. And if devs dont actually treat ESO as an mmo, then why do they keep nominating it for the "best mmo"?
And if we're talking about financial incentives, repeatable group activities add much more replayability then story quests. I like story dlcs, but it's months worth of hard work resulting in something that you will burn through in a few days. Dungeons, trials and pvp. on the other hand, are something that people would play over and over again. Finding friends is also important, a lot of people are willing to overlook the issues of the game as long as their friends keep playing it. So there should be some sort of incentive to encourage people to try it.
And again, we're talking about very small portion of the content, and if its anything like Wrathstone, you will learn about the story regardless. They'll just tell you that someone else found the artifacts or whatever is hidden in these new dungeons.

haelene

zvavi wrote: »

haelene wrote: »

So you agree that no one should be able to Solo dungeons as they are now then, right? Because that creates solo instances. What about groups of two? Three?

No. I dont agree. My reasoning is entirely different though, end game solo content currently has only vMA. The option to improvise endgame solo content is important by itself

Then the idea that people creating solo instances is moot. It can and does happen already and unless we're going to say a solo normal instance is more valuable because it's normal and not story mode, then there really isn't a point to be made here unless ZOS says another mode will blow things up.

Story mode has no effect on end game solo content. Yes, we need more end game solo content - but that's neither here nor there, and is a different issue. Having one doesn't mean we can't have the other. My point, as it's been this entire thread, is that the more options we have, the better.

zvavi

haelene wrote: »

zvavi wrote: »

haelene wrote: »

So you agree that no one should be able to Solo dungeons as they are now then, right? Because that creates solo instances. What about groups of two? Three?

No. I dont agree. My reasoning is entirely different though, end game solo content currently has only vMA. The option to improvise endgame solo content is important by itself

Then the idea that people creating solo instances is moot. It can and does happen already and unless we're going to say a solo normal instance is more valuable because it's normal and not story mode, then there really isn't a point to be made here unless ZOS says another mode will blow things up.

Story mode has no effect on end game solo content. Yes, we need more end game solo content - but that's neither here nor there, and is a different issue. Having one doesn't mean we can't have the other. My point, as it's been this entire thread, is that the more options we have, the better.

If, if they are able to create the extra instances it will generate, without making half the eu server have 300 ping, or lag behind creating new instances, i will agree. More options is better. And story mode can be an option.