What an MMO is
-
Iccotak✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭SilverBride wrote: »There is no content that is specifically tailored for just the solo player. None. Why is it wrong that we'd like solo dungeons and trials, with the rewards scaled down for the lesser difficulty, so we can enjoy that, too?
tbf there are a couple solo arenas, took a while to release the second one though.
I don't really like the arenas but that's just me. But the point is, end game players can do all the content, including solo arenas. Solo players have nothing but the 2 arenas you just mentioned, compared to how many dungeons and trials?
Are these arenas repeatable? I've never completed one yet to find out. Either way, that is not an acceptable alternative for solo dungeons and trials.
well everyone can do all the content - end game players are not these people with powers and access to content that other don't. They bought the same content that everyone else bought, they just choose to do more than only the overland questing.
my point being that if we were to get a Mode of Dungeons that Caters to a Solo play-style then the Main Story Bosses should get a mode that caters to an End Game play-style.
Make it clear and even across the board. That way both playstyles have a consistent story experience of their choice.0 -
erio✭✭✭✭✭SilverBride wrote: »SilverBride wrote: »
eso is an mmoRPG.
MMORPG
noun
noun: MMORPG; plural noun: MMORPGs
an online role-playing video game in which a very large number of people participate simultaneously
straight from google.
And? Simultaneously means at the same time, not together.
participate.... at the same time.... aka together?2 -
Nowa133✭✭✭SilverBride wrote: »SilverBride wrote: »I would accept the creation of solo (story mode) dungeons, if they did just like ffxiv does, by reducing damage of party members (companions and player as well), which leads to increase in time to finish it.
Solo dungeons should take the same time as any other dungeon. There is absolutely no reason to make them take longer. Nor should player damage be reduced. They would already be scaled for the average player.
What you suggest just sounds like punishment.
That was done there because square didn't want ppl to do dungeons preferebly with ai, but with players, since they earn the same rewards. (and the ai does mechanics flawlessly) Nobody wants to shorten that scarce supply of healers and tank, does it not? Same could happen here.
They would not give the same rewards. The rewards would scale down to the lower difficulty.
Better be 'no rewards' whatsoever. There (ffxiv), they would say those type of things are for ppl that want to do for the 'scenic route', then they usually don't care about the rewards. Ppl only do for the lore or practicing mechanics for the 'real deal' and farming because of the quicker queue. (dps only)1 -
SilverBride✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭SilverBride wrote: »And? Simultaneously means at the same time, not together.
participate.... at the same time.... aka together?
No.
Look at it this way. People go to the grocery store. There are dozens of people shopping simultaneously... at the same time... but they aren't forming groups to pick out produce.
They are shopping simultaneously... at the same time... but not together.PCNA6 -
SilverBride✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭SilverBride wrote: »They would not give the same rewards. The rewards would scale down to the lower difficulty.
Better be 'no rewards' whatsoever. There (ffxiv), they would say those type of things are for ppl that want to do for the 'scenic route', then they usually don't care about the rewards. Ppl only do for the lore or practicing mechanics for the 'real deal' and farming because of the quicker queue. (dps only)
There better be rewards appropriate for the content and difficulty level. Most players wanting to do solo content do want the experience more than the rewards, but to claim we don't earn any reward at all is asinine.
And this isn't ffxiv.PCNA0 -
robertthebard✭✭✭✭✭SilverBride wrote: »
eso is an mmoRPG.
MMORPG
noun
noun: MMORPG; plural noun: MMORPGs
an online role-playing video game in which a very large number of people participate simultaneously
straight from google.
Indeed, and nowhere does it state that they're grouped up to be playing. You see, when you're in town, and you see 100 people running about doing their thing, there's a large number of people participating.
Edit:SilverBride wrote: »SilverBride wrote: »
eso is an mmoRPG.
MMORPG
noun
noun: MMORPG; plural noun: MMORPGs
an online role-playing video game in which a very large number of people participate simultaneously
straight from google.
And? Simultaneously means at the same time, not together.
participate.... at the same time.... aka together?
Nope. Well, technically, yes. We're all together in Davon's Watch, for example, even though we're not in the same group, working on the same things. There can be 1000 people in Stonefalls, but they're not all doing the same things either, but they are together in Stonefalls.Edited by robertthebard on January 31, 2021 7:50PM2 -
erio✭✭✭✭✭SilverBride wrote: »SilverBride wrote: »And? Simultaneously means at the same time, not together.
participate.... at the same time.... aka together?
No.
Look at it this way. People go to the grocery store. There are dozens of people shopping simultaneously... at the same time... but they aren't forming groups to pick out produce.
They are shopping simultaneously... at the same time... but not together.
You dont participate in something alone, "not together" or solo, or whatever you want to call it - You do it together... I dont know what else to tell you...
And at the end of the day, this is a game about doing content together. Thats what the mmorpg genre is about. You gear up, and you do hard content together. Zos shouldnt put a bunch of time and effort into developing content for the 69 solo players who actually play this gameEdited by erio on January 31, 2021 8:19PM2 -
SilverBride✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭You dont participate in something alone, "not together" or solo, or whatever you want to call it - You do it together... I dont know what else to tell you...
And at the end of the day, this is a game about doing content together. Thats what the mmorpg genre is about. You gear up, and you do hard content together. Zos shouldnt put a bunch of time and effort into developing content for the 69 solo players who actually play this game
I participate in almost everything I do in game alone, not together, solo. I don't gear up for harder content because I have less than zero interest in doing vet dungeons and trials.
[Edit to remove bait]Edited by [Deleted User] on January 31, 2021 10:06PMPCNA3 -
FlopsyPrince✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭SilverBride wrote: »SilverBride wrote: »And? Simultaneously means at the same time, not together.
participate.... at the same time.... aka together?
No.
Look at it this way. People go to the grocery store. There are dozens of people shopping simultaneously... at the same time... but they aren't forming groups to pick out produce.
They are shopping simultaneously... at the same time... but not together.
You dont participate in something alone, "not together" or solo, or whatever you want to call it - You do it together... I dont know what else to tell you...
And at the end of the day, this is a game about doing content together. Thats what the mmorpg genre is about. You gear up, and you do hard content together. Zos shouldnt put a bunch of time and effort into developing content for the 69 solo players who actually play this game
Says who? You can believe what you want, but that ship has long since sailed.
It is about being in a shared world, not being tied to others to do content.PC
PS4/PS56 -
Path✭✭✭✭✭Oh my. Old school gamer here.
To me, a perfect MMO is about players helping players, developing the economy, total sandbox.
My best memories of an MMO is SWG. We had no clue what we were doing at launch. No hand holing. No "Go here, kill 10 of these." We relied on players to advance the game.
Still adore that idea.
There was no voice. Players "Talked" in spatial chat. Many friends were made that way.
Yes, I miss the player created, driven game. We will never see that again. Most players now want a hand to hold, experience scrolls to advance their level, and sadly, very little or no interaction with players outside their realm.Fairy Tales Really Do Come True...Kinda.1 -
SilverBride✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭To me, a perfect MMO is about players helping players, developing the economy, total sandbox.
Players do help each other. Every time I've called out in zone for help with a World Boss for instance, people come. And when I hear others requesting help, I go.
When I returned after a long absence a stranger took me under their wing and made me a set of armor and even gave me a mount because they could tell how lost I was by the questions I was asking in zone.
In general people in this game are very helpful, and there is a lot of interaction among the players.
But... that doesn't mean we need to be joined at the hip.PCNA5 -
ke.sardenb14_ESO✭✭✭As I said before the vast majority of this game caterers to the solo player, specifically an casual one. And a much as I hate how brain death fighting is in overland, I like that the story by designed to ecknowledge your character as the sole hero. I'm also all for more solo arenas and soloing 4 man, dungeons I do it all the time for a good challenge. But, leave trials as they are, let them exist as something people actually need to work together towards finishing. I've learned so much from other player trying to beat them, and I have helped teach a lot of first timers, that thought overland would be all they would play.3
-
robertthebard✭✭✭✭✭SilverBride wrote: »SilverBride wrote: »And? Simultaneously means at the same time, not together.
participate.... at the same time.... aka together?
No.
Look at it this way. People go to the grocery store. There are dozens of people shopping simultaneously... at the same time... but they aren't forming groups to pick out produce.
They are shopping simultaneously... at the same time... but not together.
You dont participate in something alone, "not together" or solo, or whatever you want to call it - You do it together... I dont know what else to tell you...
And at the end of the day, this is a game about doing content together. Thats what the mmorpg genre is about. You gear up, and you do hard content together. Zos shouldnt put a bunch of time and effort into developing content for the 69 solo players who actually play this game
There's nobody with me when I'm participating in crafting, although there are lots of people around me. There's nobody with me while I go about getting lore books or skyshards, although there can be lots of people around me. There's nobody with me while I spend a morning fishing, while I have my coffee, and yet, there can be lots of people around me.
So let's compare: I spent a day doing nothing but fishing in AC Valhalla, and never saw another player. Why? Because it's a single player game. I spent a day fishing in ESO, and saw hundreds of people. Why? Because it's an MMO. At the end of the day, if I decide I want to do some group content, there are people available for that. It is not a requirement, unless I'm looking for something specific that only drops in group content. Other than that, I'm free to participate in this game's activities in whatever means I choose.6 -
Mik195✭✭✭✭✭spartaxoxo wrote: »kathandira wrote: »Kiralyn2000 wrote: »
I'm in between the two. I feel like ESO has it's sweet spot just right. There is solo content for those who want it, and there is a group content for those who want it. But to make all content soloable, makes doing the same content in a group pointless.
If the rewards were less powerful, but still powerful enough to do every dungeon and trial in solo mode, then why bother with group mode? Further, at that point, why bother making this an online game at all?
An easy fix to that is make the solo versions of those places not drop gear or non-quest related achievements. That way there is a reason to do group content, which is the current real reason anyone does that stuff, and that is gear.SilverBride wrote: »SilverBride wrote: »I would accept the creation of solo (story mode) dungeons, if they did just like ffxiv does, by reducing damage of party members (companions and player as well), which leads to increase in time to finish it.
Solo dungeons should take the same time as any other dungeon. There is absolutely no reason to make them take longer. Nor should player damage be reduced. They would already be scaled for the average player.
What you suggest just sounds like punishment.
That was done there because square didn't want ppl to do dungeons preferebly with ai, but with players, since they earn the same rewards. (and the ai does mechanics flawlessly) Nobody wants to shorten that scarce supply of healers and tank, does it not? Same could happen here.
They would not give the same rewards. The rewards would scale down to the lower difficulty.
Or maybe cut the difficulty down to 50% for solo players so you have a choice - normal grouping for regular rewards or work twice as hard as a solo for the same rewards. Gives an incentive to group, but people that want to admire the scenery (me! and I probably barely do 10k dps in a dungeon so you really don't want me as part of your group) will have a better chance of soloing.0 -
Rudrani✭✭✭✭✭SilverBride wrote: »MMO
noun
an online video game which can be played by a very large number of people simultaneously.
This is what it is. This is all it is.
sorry, "multiplayer" means playing with other people.
I think it's cool that ESO has so much solo-able content
I think it's all much much too easy to solo
But if they seem to be tailoring to the soloists which is dumb when its an MMO.
I think it happens because a majority of players are TES fans, which is so extremely solo in its aesthetic.0 -
mickeyx✭✭✭✭All I know after playing MMOS since days of Anarachy Online is that players attitude has changed a lot. I had no problem in past playing games which forced me to group with others but now at the age of 40 and *** tone of responsibilities I get turned off by forced grouping features in MMO's. There is a reason why games like WOW are so popular. More solo oriented games with grouping as optional will always do great in the online games market.Edited by mickeyx on February 2, 2021 5:04AM4 -
peacenote✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭SilverBride wrote: »Don't stand on an "MMO definition soapbox" to defend your point... instead think about whether what you're requesting would result in people who play BOTH playstyles to change their habits... especially if it could cause them to reduce grouping. Because even if you'd never, ever ever play another way, there are people in your community - who contribute to making it vibrant - who might.
I will "stand on an "MMO definition soapbox" to defend the correct definition of the term. Too many players erroneously think that playing an MMO means you should be playing with others. As I've explained numerous times, that is not what it's about.
Also, I'm not trying to influence anyone to change their playstyle. I'm telling others who group up for everything to stop pushing their playstyle on those of us who don't.
I think you may have missed at least part of the point of my post.
The official definition doesn't matter. Anyone insisting that "their" way is the right way is likely presenting an inherently flawed view. It doesn't matter how any one of us interprets the official definition an MMO back when the term was first coined. What matters is what works TODAY to accommodate the highest amount of playstyles while still supporting a game model that makes the world feel alive enough to validate its continued existence as an online world with multiple players. The whole POINT, whether you group up or not, is to feel like you are in a world with lots of people. Because without that aspect, we won't have a massively multi-player online world. We'll have a failed glorified RPG.
Solo vs. Group is too simplistic. And no, it's not awesome when players try to "force" their playstyle on someone else. But any view that doesn't acknowledge that we need group activities to encourage the "massively multi-player" part of an MMO to maintain the spirit of ESO doesn't truly get the game.
Imagine all of us logged into a server to play solitaire. Yea, we would all be playing simultaneously, but there is NOTHING about that game which lends itself to a multi-player world. Nobody would notice if they suddenly were playing solitaire by themselves. In an environment rendered by the local computer as opposed to being hosted somewhere centrally.
Regardless of literal word definition, ESO as it exists today only thrives if people want to log into an environment with multiple real players. Anyone who denies this doesn't understand the game experience. Frankly, if you insist that an MMO doesn't require features that encourage group play, then you shouldn't think of ESO as an MMO. It is whatever the term you'd use is for a game that needs group and solo play activities to survive.
Group up, or don't. ESO needs both types of players. Both add value. But when one playstyle wages war on the other, WE ALL LOSE. And if a feature catered to solo players is rolled out that ultimately encourages hybrid players to not group up or benefit from other players being around, WE ALL LOSE. Because a single game doesn't need group play but an MMO game needs both. And many people's default mode of play is solo unless there are ways to nudge them into group play.
No one should force you into group play. But don't use the definition of "MMO" to defend features that cater to "solo-ONLY" play. We need game logic rules that accommodate for both (and uniquely reward group play) in order for ESO to exist because group play is part of its premise. We shouldn't persecute group play encouragement as solo play discrimination. Only features that make it impossible to play the game as a solo player would do this.
For example, if the game didn't allow a solo player the ability to enter a dungeon alone... THAT would be forcing a group play style onto a solo player. People suggesting that an MMO should have content that benefits multiple people working together, either officially grouped or just sort of around in the same area... that just makes sense. Because otherwise... I might as well just play solitaire.3 -
SilverBride✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Group up, or don't. ESO needs both types of players. Both add value. But when one playstyle wages war on the other, WE ALL LOSE.
Who do you think started this "war"?
How many times have we seen threads claiming that overland needs to be made more difficult because "It's an MMO so you should be grouping, and if you aren't then why are you even playing?" Yet when was the last time you saw a solo player say "We need to eliminate all hard content so no one ever has to group for anything"?
I have not once claimed that group play wasn't an important part of the game. But many have claimed that solo play has no place in an MMO. So who is pushing their playstyle on who?PCNA3 -
Rudrani✭✭✭✭✭SilverBride wrote: »How many times have we seen threads claiming that overland needs to be made more difficult because "It's an MMO so you should be grouping, and if you aren't then why are you even playing?"
I think most people say overland should be more challenging and have better rewards because otherwise there is no point in playing it. It is too incredibly ridiculously easy.
I think most people say that overland bosses should require groups or even should pose some challenge to a moderately good player solo.
I think most people say there should be an option to enter a veteran version of a zone.
I don't think anyone has ever said you should have to group up to do the quests in the game.
In short, I dont think anyone has really promoted the idea that solo play has no place in an mmo. The problem is that ZoS is starting to CATER to solo play (or, more accurately "more thoroughly cater"), which is oxymoronic in an MMO.0 -
Rudrani✭✭✭✭✭SilverBride wrote: »How many times have we seen threads claiming that overland needs to be made more difficult because "It's an MMO so you should be grouping, and if you aren't then why are you even playing?"
I think most people say overland should be more challenging and have better rewards because otherwise there is no point in playing it. It is too incredibly ridiculously easy.
I think most people say that overland bosses should require groups or even should pose some challenge to a moderately good player solo. (kinda like the elsewyr dragons)
I think most people say there should be an option to enter a veteran version of a zone.
I don't think anyone has ever said you should have to group up to do the quests in the game.
In short, I dont think anyone has really promoted the idea that solo play has no place in an mmo. The problem is that ZoS is starting to CATER to solo play (or, more accurately "more thoroughly cater"), which is oxymoronic in an MMO.
0 -
robertthebard✭✭✭✭✭SilverBride wrote: »MMO
noun
an online video game which can be played by a very large number of people simultaneously.
This is what it is. This is all it is.
sorry, "multiplayer" means playing with other people.
I think it's cool that ESO has so much solo-able content
I think it's all much much too easy to solo
But if they seem to be tailoring to the soloists which is dumb when its an MMO.
I think it happens because a majority of players are TES fans, which is so extremely solo in its aesthetic.
It's actually closer to multiple people playing. Although, even if I'm in Stonefalls doing crafting writs, and you're fishing in Auridon, if we're online at the same time, we're playing together.
Another thing I'd suggest, play some more MMOs. You're going to find out that what's going on here isn't unique, or even special. I can't, for the life of me, figure out how the vanilla version of swtor, which had 8 complete stories that were solo experiences, each class had it's own "origin" story, has anything to do with TES... I'm not sure how the Neverwinter MMO is even remotely connected to TES? How about Rappelz, or Aion? It's not a TES thing, it's an industry thing.4 -
Alurria✭✭✭✭✭
✭So there is a happy medium here, as a MMO we need both play styles to give the world life. It's when these two play styles intersect that problems occur. So both content types need to be accomadated. As a person who mostly solos I don't want to take anything away from group players. As a person who enjoys this game I want more content tailored to the way I play the game just like group players want more group play. We can have both options are good. I think the Devs know this. PVP players are a whole other group who need love too.
I hope there is one thing we can all agree on and that is we enjoy ESO. The thing we have in common is we want what's best for this game to continue to grow and intice new players of all kinds. Happy Groundhog day! 6 more weeks of winter yuck!0 -
munster1404✭✭✭✭An MMO is an extended single player experience with content updates throughout the game's lifespan. Change my mind.0
-
SilverBride✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭I think most people say overland should be more challenging and have better rewards because otherwise there is no point in playing it. It is too incredibly ridiculously easy.
I think most people say that overland bosses should require groups or even should pose some challenge to a moderately good player solo.
I think most people say there should be an option to enter a veteran version of a zone.
Some... not most. Those players received a lot of opposition when they suggested those things. And overland is not "too incredibly ridiculously easy" for the majority of the players. Overland is for the story. It isn't meant to be a challenge or give vet level rewards, nor should it be altered to cater to a few.I don't think anyone has ever said you should have to group up to do the quests in the game.
In short, I dont think anyone has really promoted the idea that solo play has no place in an mmo.
Then you aren't reading the same forum I am.Edited by SilverBride on February 2, 2021 4:41PMPCNA1 -
Goregrinder✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭munster1404 wrote: »An MMO is an extended single player experience with content updates throughout the game's lifespan. Change my mind.
You've described SWTOR perfectly.0 -
FlopsyPrince✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭I would add: Where is "grouping" in the definition of MMO? That is not a requirement for any definition of MMO except those who lament for an old time (that will never come back) when grouping was forced.PC
PS4/PS52 -
Brenticus12✭✭✭SilverBride wrote: »You guys already get...
Main quests, side quests, public dungeons, delves. World bosses, expansion stories, DLC zones.
Can't group players get some crumbs?
And group guys also get main quests, side quests, public dungeons, delves, world bosses, expansion stories, dlc zones...
plus normal and vet dungeons and trials, better rewards, and achievements that solo players don't.
Can't solo players enjoy this content, too?
That's a weird distinction. The guy you're replying to was talking about who the content was designed for. Questing, delves, stories etc. etc. are clearly designed for the solo player in mind. Hell even public dungeons are designed for solo players considering that its difficulty just comes from large packs, not anything that really needs group dynamics.
But what you're doing is conflating that with content that players have access to, which is not the same thing. Solo players also have access to group dungeons, trials, better rewards and achievements from those group activities. That doesn't mean the content was designed for them in mind.0 -
SilverBride✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Brenticus12 wrote: »The guy you're replying to was talking about who the content was designed for. Questing, delves, stories etc. etc. are clearly designed for the solo player in mind. Hell even public dungeons are designed for solo players considering that its difficulty just comes from large packs, not anything that really needs group dynamics.
But what you're doing is conflating that with content that players have access to, which is not the same thing. Solo players also have access to group dungeons, trials, better rewards and achievements from those group activities. That doesn't mean the content was designed for them in mind.
The problem here is that we are confusing solo play with solo players, and group play with group players. There is a big difference between these terms. One is a type of content while the other is a playstyle preference. So for the sake of this debate I will refer to these as single content, solo players, group content and end game players.
Overland was designed to be single content so everyone could complete it on their own. It's the story and the player is the hero, and many of those who don't pay attention to the story still complete a lot of this content for leveling purposes. It was not designed for the solo player specifically. It was designed for every player of every level and playstyle to be able to complete storyline content.
Overland does have World Bosses and Harrowstorms that require grouping, but any level player can participate in these short term groups and succeed.
Group content such as dungeons and trials were designed to be played in a group. The normal versions are accessible to everyone, so even the solo player can group up and complete these successfully. But vet dungeons and trials are designed specifically for end game players. If you aren't high enough level and wearing vet gear you will fail at this content.
That is the point I was trying to make. There is content designed exclusively for end game players, but none exclusively for the solo player.Edited by SilverBride on February 3, 2021 5:22PMPCNA0 -
SilverBride✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭I want to add this to my above post. This is a screenshot directly from the game today, and shows that Public Dungeons were designed for 4 player groups, not solo players as was claimed.
Edited by SilverBride on February 3, 2021 10:07PMPCNA1