Reflecting on My ESO Experience: The Tension Between Playing How You Want to Play or Need to Play

thesarahandcompany

I remember when I first started playing deathmatch battlegrounds in ESO. I played a sorcerer with four pets. Playing with pets was something you’d never see many players doing. To be clear, it was a lackluster setup compared to other ways you might play sorcerer in battlegrounds. I didn’t care. I was playing the way I wanted to play. I never finished off anyone. I died a lot. I cost the team the game constantly. Eventually, I got better at playing the build. I didn’t die much. I did a lot more damage or healing than before. I even managed to secure a few finishing blows (without endless fury).

Even though I improved, many players still criticized the way I played because I was a serious limit to my team. If you are like me and believe in rational choice (sometimes), I make the assumption about BG players that we are rational. We enter battlegrounds wanting to win. No rational player enters BGs with the intention to lose. Or, in the famous words of Alyssa Edwards, “winning isn’t everything, but wanting to win is.”

Anyway, my first reaction to my critics was to say they were “elitist.” I took every opportunity to get better at my build with four pets. I was determined to prove everyone wrong; that I could play the way I wanted to play and engage in the upper thresholds of MMR. I did somewhat get there, but it was never enough. Why? Because not every part of ESO allows us to play however we want.

In the context of PvP, it is difficult to play the way I want to play, compared to something like housing. In housing, there’s no formula or code that tells me when I’ve created the most visually stunning house. There’s no function in ESO that tells me when I’ve placed my artwork on the right wall. Housing design comes down to choice and subjectivity (net of the e-physics).

In PvP, and in some cases PvE, there is a formula and code behind the scenes of ESO. I can look at those formulas and prove the condition(s) in which I’ve theoretically maximized, say, damage output in order to complete the obstacle or objective (whether defeating a boss, capturing a flag or eliminating an enemy player).

Since venturing out of my four-pet sorcerer build, I’ve achieved things in battlegrounds I’ve never thought I could do. It comes from an understanding of the combat system, every passive, status effect and proc condition. I’ve made new friends. Have found a part of the community that accepts me for who I am as a person and player.

All this said, I’m left wondering to myself whether I’m elitist or just rational about the game. I by no means want to tell people how to decorate their house or dress their character. For that reason, I don’t feel like an elitist. I do recognize that PvP is a math formula and puzzle, and we can come to a few answers that are righter than others.

How do we reconcile the rational and reasonable goal to win PvP, while also the fact that playing the way you want to play can often go against that rational goal?

Mandragora

For me elitism isn't about telling others the best solution, it is about telling others your solution without understanding or even attempt of understanding what others do actually just to trash them. Nobody is angry if you explain them what they do wrong, but elitist will say very vague statement or throw responsibility on you for something they could do themselves etc.

EDIT:
The driving force behind elitistic attitude is the need to feel superior over others no matter what, so sometimes it is about keeping things as they are, because then they can feel superior - that is elitism for me, but maybe I use wrong term.
I edited a bit, because I don't think elitists will give you good advices actually most of the time - because their interest is to keep it that way.

For me the other BGs were good for optional builds, but for death matches you need just a few builds, so that is why I felt like elitists will want deathmatches only for that reason. But ofcourse that is not the only reason why someone will want them, only that a lot of players with their builds will suffer there more.

Chips_Ahoy

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

in the famous words of Alyssa Edwards, “winning isn’t everything, but wanting to win is.”

First time I hear that name but not those words.

“Winning isn't everything; it's the only thing,”

- Henry Russell Sanders - 1930

drsalvation

Yeah, to be good at PvP you have to play in specific builds. This is why a lot of us hate it.
And it gets worse, I'm so close to getting the centurion title, and after that, it feels like all I'm building for doesn't matter anymore, now that I have a very effective PvP build that also works in PvE, then why should I bother with trials and dungeons other than for story and skill points?
I've never been a fan of PvP in general (not just ESO), but I can still have fun if done right, games like For Honor, PvP can feel harsh, but it's always fair, there's nothing you can't do to get out of a sticky situation, and when I lose, it always feels like it was my own fault I lost.
In ESO, and red dead online for that matter, PvP isn't always fair. In RDO, you can be wandering and get instantly killed by some player with an op rifle and a headshot (apparently there's a perk where if you have a hat, headshots won't insta-kill you, my question for rockstar is why the hell isn't that perk automatically granted! Something your survivability depends on shouldn't depend on a perk you have to unlock!). That's not fair because the only thing you did wrong was not getting that perk you didn't even know existed. But this isn't about RDO...
In ESO, even with my tank build, I can't stress out how many times this has happened.
I'm walking, suddenly I'm down on my knees while my health, of 50k drops down to 8% instantly, so the only thing I can do is break free, and halfway through the break free animation, I'm already dead and drinking some tea that the stealthy nightblade was so kind to offer in my face multiple times.
So what was my mistake there? That I wasn't invisible the whole time? That I wasn't sneaking? That I was walking?
Was there anything I could've done to prevent that? Just like headshots in RDO, insta-kills like those are not fair gameplay.

In most skirmishes in ESO, I can be doing all the right things I do as a player using a gamepad. I have my skills, I use the right rotations, I use the environment to break line of sights, I drink the right potions at the right time, and yet, I accomplish nothing. My biggest burst doesn't do crap to the player I'm fighting against, I could assume the player is a tank? But no, because that player still manages to deal massive damage. Even tho I did all the right things, I still lost because my numbers didn't add up, because my gear wasn't adding to my numbers.

I gave up the idea that I could use sword and shield as a primary source of damage, I gave up the idea that I could have a tanky build in PvP and still be useful, instead I completely rebuilt my character from the ground up, with different weapons I don't enjoy, just so that I could get the numbers, and even tho I'm still doing the same things I thought I was doing wrong, now I'm actually killing other players and being useful to my team.

If I die in ESO's PvP, it never feels like it was my fault, it always feels like it was the numbers' fault.

So this is why many players have an issue with the whole "play as you want"
I tried optimizing my favorite build to play with, I searched for the best armor sets, searched what CP I should invest in, and no luck on PvP.
So now I'm playing a different build I'm not really enjoying, but now I'm "better" in PvP.

This wasn't me improving my skills as a player, this was me improving my character's build, and my latest success in PvP doesn't feel like an accomplishment I earned, it feels like the game is patting itself on the back.

Overland is too easy, so there's no need to optimize any build.
Dungeons requires you to have certain builds for roles.
PvP requires you to have a different build to win.

Bottomline is: you can play as you want in the kiddie pool, or be forced to play in a specific way on the content that matters.
You'll need a specific race with a specific class to make a specific skill you like using effective, or you can play as an imperial templar using sword and shield in the ball pit.

Jusey1

I think a lot of "play how you want" is base around one thing: How well put together is your build? You can play how you want pretty easily (I use a lot of off-meta sets and builds myself while still able to perform extremely well). However, you have to treat them as full builds, learn what can make it good and what needs to be adjusted. Get a balance and commit to what you wanna do to make it work.

Meta is only Meta because it is the easiest or most effective to pull off... It doesn't mean that everything else is bad (though some sets and abilities are flat-out BAD but that is the fun of building a kit for yourself... Figuring out what works, what makes your build tick in your favor).

NerfSeige

drsalvation wrote: »

Yeah, to be good at PvP you have to play in specific builds. This is why a lot of us hate it.

This is so wrong, PVP is the ultimate RP place to play what you want. No numbers to chase, just be effective.

It’s just easier to run meta as a beginner (same as pve) but as long as you can make your build work then it’s gucci (not by hopping on cyro sometimes, but playing on it most of the times).

I just want to remind everyone now that we’re talking “play how you want” that the meta people also “play how they want” by being as efficient and effective as possible.

Danikat

One thing which helps me is to recognise that I have different priorities at different times, and in some situations my top priority is to be as effective as I can possibly be. It's still playing how I want, even if it means using a build I wouldn't normally choose and don't necessarily find fun, because right now what I want isn't to enjoy the combat for it's own sake but to enjoy performing as well as I can.

For example I normally don't use CP, because I'm normally doing overland questing, don't want it to be too easy and I've found that's a good way to manage it. But I do use CP in dungeons with random groups and guild groups who just want to complete it (some guild groups we take our time with it, so that's different) because then the priority is to kill everything as fast as possible. I want to complete the dungeon with that group more than I want to use my usual build.

It sounds like it's the same for you in battlegrounds. You're choosing to use a different build because what you want most is actually to be as good as you can be.

Elitism would be someone else telling you that you have to use the build they've chosen (or more likely one they've heard someone on a website has chosen) and refusing to let you into their groups unless you do that, or you doing the same thing to other people. If every time you see a pet sorc in a battleground you message them to tell them they're doing it wrong and need to change to the build you're using then you're being elitist. Changing your own skills because you've found something better and it would bother you more to stick with an inferior build than to change is just having different priorities.

gariondavey

Edit: removing my joke where I tease Sarah (who is my friend) because I don't trust that I won't get suspended lol

In terms of the question asked at the end, builds come out all the time where people have figured out some interesting and very viable ways to play the way they want to.

I made a ranged mag dk build and did comparable against candle and bambloo's dks in one match (in terms of damage and kda)

Kiralyn2000

I don't really put a lot of stock in "play how you want" - it seems to be a marketing/hype phrase, not something to be taken totally literally.

But even then, when I think about Play How You Want, I tend to include the consequences/requirements of those wants.

If you "want" to just mess around in Overland and Questing - go for it, do whatever.
But if you "want" to do team or competitive stuff, you're going to be sacrificing some of that freedom to the need to contribute to that team.
And if you "want" to chase leaderboard #1's and hardmode trifectas, you're going to have to go meta.

Just because you Want something, doesn't mean you won't have to make compromises to achieve it. And that doesn't mean it isn't "playing how you want" - you're still choosing what you Want to do. /shrug

OBJnoob

If you want to win, and so play a meta build that you otherwise wouldn’t enjoy, then you have already reconciled your priorities and guess which one came out on top? You have played how you want.

Honestly I don’t see a problem, much less a culprit. If there is one it’s probably us here in the online community. Advising new players which sets are best. Doing crazy math formulas and sharing the knowledge. Very few people, by themselves, would be smart enough, patient enough, and concerned enough to figure this game out as in depth as it’s been figured. But now we all know, more or less, don’t we? 10 seconds BEFORE a new patch comes out people are screaming “heartland conqueror OP, crit damage garbage, impen useless, penetration is king,” blah blah blah.

We really pigeonhole ourselves.

And yes, sometimes something truly imbalanced comes around and we can blame the devs for certain trends. But again wasn’t it the players who found it, figured it, and proliferated it?

Honestly I do “good” at pvp. I play close to meta but not meta. I’ve been a competitive person since I was 4 years old kicking a soccer ball. I just wouldn’t enjoy the game as much if I didn’t win a reasonable amount of the time. And I don’t consider this a character flaw. I’m not obsessed. I like games… challenges… and puzzles. I don’t know why I would for example purchase a jigsaw puzzle and then never put it together correctly. I don’t know why I (left footed,) would knowingly play a soccer game with my right foot only.

And one last thing to say… this is an MMORPG. I think theory crafting and character building should be considered skill just like animation canceling and breaking free. Sure some builds are very strong but so do we give the player no props at all for farming vMA for that weapon? For having a max level crafter? For maxing their undaunted skill line and medicinal use? If you haven’t done these things but someone else has… and you lose to them by a margin which can be explained thusly… you’ve been outplayed. Out skilled.

Troodon80

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

I make the assumption about BG players that we are rational.

Having had my fairshare of BGs all the way back to its very first iteration, I think that's probably your first mistake. Many people in BGs (and in general, I don't mean for that to sound like it's a BG issue) are far from rational. Unless you're dealing with a pre-made group of friends, it's just like queuing for a random dungeon. You never know what you're going to get.

Sometimes you get team players, helpful players, players who do some callouts in chat for coordination, players who actually know what they're doing and why stuff happens the way it does, sometimes you get those elitist "it's literally meta yo!" types who don't come up with their own builds at all and rely almost exclusively on content creators, armchair generals (who if you ignore them just stand at the spawn location and basically force your team's defeat by handicapping the group), and just general trash-talkers.

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

We enter battlegrounds wanting to win.

This is almost entirely the extent of the queue system when you're not in a pre-made group, and like PvE queues, you enter with the want or desire to clear the content. That's basically it. How you clear it is up to you. If you join with a "serious" group, or friends, and the objective is to optimise the group as a whole and the expectation is that everyone pulls their weight or performs a certain role, then it's not just up to you unless all agreed upon.

Moreover, because it's PvP, even if you're doing everything right or your friends don't care what sets you're running or how many pets you have, your opponents might still take offence and whisper you. But you could take that as a win in itself.

Though if you know that you're a weak link in some way (too many deaths, not enough damage/healing) and you understand or acknowledge how you can do better, and want to do better, that's personal progression at its finest and you should be congratulated for trying.

peacenote

OP, your whole story is exactly why I keep saying it's important that ZOS understands what people find to be fun, and take care not to nerf it in the process of balancing things.

In any game in the world where the goal is winning, there is always a meta - a best strategy to maximize the chance that you will win; even tic tac toe.

It's OK even in the ZOS "play the way you want" world that some things are stronger than others, because some players excel at one thing vs. another and that balances some things out. But there's definitely a line where if you "play how you want" you are just gimping yourself too much, and unless your own personal definition of fun is simply hitting buttons and seeing pixels move on the screen regardless of outcome, there will always be a tension between what people might like and what is most effective.

With all the options in the game, I think to a point ZOS's strategy is to let the community theorycraft and come up with viable builds on their own. That's part of the fun. But then they really need to listen to players and watch them in the game to truly understand what causes people to say "gee, that was fun" when they log off. Over the years there have been many playstyles that were not OP but were obliterated due to an unintended consequence - ZOS was trying to fix balance issue "x" but it affected a smaller minority of people who were doing and enjoying "y." And sometimes when that happens it is a real shame.

BTW I don't think it is elitist to try and understand the underpinnings of the game, nor is it wrong to share this knowledge in a positive manner with others. I also think a big part of the fun in ESO is trying to come up with creative, unique ways to accomplish things in the game.

"Play the way you want" - at this point in ESO - in my personal opinion is more about being able to have the choice to effectively play any role (tank, heal, DPS, PvE, PvP) with any class or race, so you can have personal preferences and still be viable, though not always BIS. You might not be welcome in all groups if you're not meta, but if you learn your class and your role most people will be reasonable enough to see that you know what you're doing and be inclusive. But to expect to be able to, say, play with a 2H Mace in all Heavy gear and be able to PvE heal as effectively as someone using staves and light armor... well, that would actually dumb the game down to the point where no choice meant anything at all. ZOS does a pretty good job of giving us the tools so that creative and niche builds can be used, but they do paint themselves into a corner sometimes. For example I think it was a mistake to listen to the people that felt too many people were vampires "because it is a curse" and it should be niche, and that the changes that have been made there were a mistake. Many folks want to play vampire and werewolf because it's fun, just like they may like being a templar or an argonian, while still being effective in various roles, and as far as vampire is concerned, with "play how you want," we have taken a huge step backwards. But perhaps with that I digress a little.

My best advice on this is to share in the community, like here on the forums, when things are fun, so that they can maybe be balanced in or they might not be balanced out, but to accept that not every single choice in ZOS can reasonably be expected to be viable in every situation. (Btw, I love pet builds and I'd love to see more ways to use pets in ESO.)

Supreme_Atromancer

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

I remember when I first started playing deathmatch battlegrounds in ESO. I played a sorcerer with four pets. Playing with pets was something you’d never see many players doing. To be clear, it was a lackluster setup compared to other ways you might play sorcerer in battlegrounds. I didn’t care. I was playing the way I wanted to play. I never finished off anyone. I died a lot. I cost the team the game constantly. Eventually, I got better at playing the build. I didn’t die much. I did a lot more damage or healing than before. I even managed to secure a few finishing blows (without endless fury).

Even though I improved, many players still criticized the way I played because I was a serious limit to my team. If you are like me and believe in rational choice (sometimes), I make the assumption about BG players that we are rational. We enter battlegrounds wanting to win. No rational player enters BGs with the intention to lose. Or, in the famous words of Alyssa Edwards, “winning isn’t everything, but wanting to win is.”

Anyway, my first reaction to my critics was to say they were “elitist.” I took every opportunity to get better at my build with four pets. I was determined to prove everyone wrong; that I could play the way I wanted to play and engage in the upper thresholds of MMR. I did somewhat get there, but it was never enough. Why? Because not every part of ESO allows us to play however we want.

In the context of PvP, it is difficult to play the way I want to play, compared to something like housing. In housing, there’s no formula or code that tells me when I’ve created the most visually stunning house. There’s no function in ESO that tells me when I’ve placed my artwork on the right wall. Housing design comes down to choice and subjectivity (net of the e-physics).

In PvP, and in some cases PvE, there is a formula and code behind the scenes of ESO. I can look at those formulas and prove the condition(s) in which I’ve theoretically maximized, say, damage output in order to complete the obstacle or objective (whether defeating a boss, capturing a flag or eliminating an enemy player).

Since venturing out of my four-pet sorcerer build, I’ve achieved things in battlegrounds I’ve never thought I could do. It comes from an understanding of the combat system, every passive, status effect and proc condition. I’ve made new friends. Have found a part of the community that accepts me for who I am as a person and player.

All this said, I’m left wondering to myself whether I’m elitist or just rational about the game. I by no means want to tell people how to decorate their house or dress their character. For that reason, I don’t feel like an elitist. I do recognize that PvP is a math formula and puzzle, and we can come to a few answers that are righter than others.

How do we reconcile the rational and reasonable goal to win PvP, while also the fact that playing the way you want to play can often go against that rational goal?

Sadly, playing in a creative or immersive way will usually leave you dreadfully underpowered in most modes of gameplay. Because of this, "play how you want" usually underperforms, unless "play how you want" explicitly means "I only care about power gaming". The division between expectations around this fact is the main driver for the bad blood between so-called elitists and casuals.

Successful builds are planned not around intuition, or broad expectations about gear or fantasy archetype, but around how you achieve buffs and numbers. The builds serve the numbers.

ZOS says "play how you want", but if you aren't building to numbers, you might as well resign yourself to overworld or public dungeons and just try to never get in the way of the power-gamer's grind.

Supreme_Atromancer

Kiralyn2000 wrote: »

I don't really put a lot of stock in "play how you want" - it seems to be a marketing/hype phrase, not something to be taken totally literally.

But even then, when I think about Play How You Want, I tend to include the consequences/requirements of those wants.

If you "want" to just mess around in Overland and Questing - go for it, do whatever.
But if you "want" to do team or competitive stuff, you're going to be sacrificing some of that freedom to the need to contribute to that team.
And if you "want" to chase leaderboard #1's and hardmode trifectas, you're going to have to go meta.

Just because you Want something, doesn't mean you won't have to make compromises to achieve it. And that doesn't mean it isn't "playing how you want" - you're still choosing what you Want to do. /shrug

This is a great post, but I want to say that the problem isn't having to choose loadouts to reflect challenges, but whether to choose the internal logic and mythology of the world to build an archetype you think should work and behave in an intuitive way, or to completely abandon them and opt for meta (in the sense of just build for numbers).

That's the choice you're forced to make. The far more successful way is the one that favours those who don't really care too much about the mythology or imagination in the first place. Which takes you out of the world. Its not ideal.

Supreme_Atromancer

peacenote wrote: »

It's OK even in the ZOS "play the way you want" world that some things are stronger than others, because some players excel at one thing vs. another and that balances some things out. But there's definitely a line where if you "play how you want" you are just gimping yourself too much, and unless your own personal definition of fun is simply hitting buttons and seeing pixels move on the screen regardless of outcome, there will always be a tension between what people might like and what is most effective.

Firstly, great post.

But what determines which choices will result in gimping? Meta is abstract numbers, and you put on your bar whatever gives you the highest. The animations don't mean jack squat. The character concept doesn't. The problem is that building intuitively, to some kind of archetype should hold some currency, because that's how many people are going to engage the game. But it doesn't. Ironically, your mace-wielding healer isn't actually that inconceivable as the "right" choice if ever that loadout served the almighty group dps output. If that seems absurd, remember how many people race changed to khajiit a patch ago, and ask how much sense it makes that our "mages" are all throwing hunting traps at our enemies and wielding daggers.

FTR, I don't think that every possible random build should meet with the greatest of successes, but building with reasonable assumptions logical to the mythology and genre should take you a long way. Right now, though, doing so is an absolute liability, and therefore the gimp choice. Why should building intuitively be so very vastly underpowered compared to building according to meta? Who does that system reward, and who does it penalise?

Castagere

The term play how you want should include as long as you pick the right race to play that way.

OBJnoob

@Supreme_Atromancer

Not that I really agree or disagree either way but I want to ask you: Is it that you wish people could make their own unique builds and have them be more viable than they currently are? Or is it that you wish the “meta” more accurately represented the lore?

Kwoung

drsalvation wrote: »

Yeah, to be good at PvP you have to play in specific builds. This is why a lot of us hate it.

I don't find that to be true at all, and almost no one I know chases the so called PVP Meta or uses streamer builds. If however you said that you need to make sure certain requirements are met as far as health, resists, mobility, etc... in a build, then I would agree. But you can meet those requirements on any number of builds really easily.

Meta in PVP IMHO, is just getting good with what you do and how you play. I am basically wearing the same gear as years ago, when I used to die constantly and never get any kills. But through years of practice, I do ok now and deal out way more than I take death wise, and I have never played the "prescribed" Sorc builds.

Supreme_Atromancer

OBJnoob wrote: »

@Supreme_Atromancer

Not that I really agree or disagree either way but I want to ask you: Is it that you wish people could make their own unique builds and have them be more viable than they currently are? Or is it that you wish the “meta” more accurately represented the lore?

@OBJnoob

Its more just reflecting on the status quo. I don't think that people coming into the game are typically building super wacky builds; their choices about gear, skills, etc are probably based on assumptions about the challenges in the world, and how that gear and stuff would intuitively behave. You can see what the noob magsorc in heavy armour was thinking, for instance.

That was how zos originally designed the game to be, but it's been lost by the wayside. At the point where you realise abandoning that and embracing abstract numbers make you far more powerful, you're forced between conforming, or being essentially gated out.

I think this disenfranchises the "play how you want" casual, who is, at best tolerated in pugs, but better served staying in the overworld, out of fun stuff like challenging dungeons, until they "stop being resistant to good, mathematically sound meta", and give up on what they want for raw, abstract numbers.

And before you say gear isn't everything, I agree. I had to work on my weaving before I got good, but changing out one skill for the nonsensical meta one got me to 98k, and its when I switch to daggers on my mage that I'll hit over 100.

If power maps broadly to common sense, people engaging the world can be powerful. When it just maps to whatever set randomly happened to have the best 5th line, people embracing the spreadsheet are empowered.

And I'm not against meta. I think if two sets (or five, or forty) make intuitive sense, knowledge of the system should give you the edge. Its just right now nothing makes intuitive sense, so meta is the supreme factor, intuition or common sense so relatively under powered that the edge is so profoundly wide.

Kwoung

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

OBJnoob wrote: »

@Supreme_Atromancer

Not that I really agree or disagree either way but I want to ask you: Is it that you wish people could make their own unique builds and have them be more viable than they currently are? Or is it that you wish the “meta” more accurately represented the lore?

Its more just reflecting on the status quo. I don't think that people coming into the game are typically building super wacky builds; they're choices about gear, skills, etc are probably based on assumptions about the challenges in the world, and how that gear and stuff would intuitively behave. You can see what the noob magsorc in heavy armour was thinking, for instance.

That was how zos originally designed the game to be, but it's been lost by the wayside. At the point where you realise abandoning that and embracing abstract numbers make you far more powerful, you're forced between conforming, or being essentially gated out.

I think this disenfranchises the "play how you want" casual, who is, at best tolerated in pugs, but better served staying in the overworld, out of fun stuff like challenging dungeons, until they "stop being resistant to good, mathematically sound meta", and give up on what they want for raw, abstract numbers.

And before you say gear isn't everything, I agree. I had to work on my weaving before I got good, but changing out one skill for the nonsensical meta one got me to 98k, and its when I switch to daggers on my mage that I'll hit over 100.

If power maps broadly to common sense, people engaging the world can be powerful. When it just maps to whatever set randomly happened to have the best 5th line, people embracing the spreadsheet are empowered.

It is actually kind of sadly funny that ZOS pushes "Play as you want", but once in the game the players are like "Yeah, you don't want to do that", and since it usually takes quite a while to start interacting with other players, being as you are usually solo questing and all that at the start, it makes things pretty difficult for many.

"But ZOS said I could play how I want and I am gonna!", thus the bunch of WitchMages or whatever we have running about who can barely fight their way out of a paper bag, nevermind kill witches or vampires in anything but the easiest content. Which is another issue, as overland/delve questing is soooo easy, it helps reinforce the impression that playing such a character is actually viable.

Lysette

Kwoung wrote: »

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

OBJnoob wrote: »

@Supreme_Atromancer

Not that I really agree or disagree either way but I want to ask you: Is it that you wish people could make their own unique builds and have them be more viable than they currently are? Or is it that you wish the “meta” more accurately represented the lore?

Its more just reflecting on the status quo. I don't think that people coming into the game are typically building super wacky builds; they're choices about gear, skills, etc are probably based on assumptions about the challenges in the world, and how that gear and stuff would intuitively behave. You can see what the noob magsorc in heavy armour was thinking, for instance.

That was how zos originally designed the game to be, but it's been lost by the wayside. At the point where you realise abandoning that and embracing abstract numbers make you far more powerful, you're forced between conforming, or being essentially gated out.

I think this disenfranchises the "play how you want" casual, who is, at best tolerated in pugs, but better served staying in the overworld, out of fun stuff like challenging dungeons, until they "stop being resistant to good, mathematically sound meta", and give up on what they want for raw, abstract numbers.

And before you say gear isn't everything, I agree. I had to work on my weaving before I got good, but changing out one skill for the nonsensical meta one got me to 98k, and its when I switch to daggers on my mage that I'll hit over 100.

If power maps broadly to common sense, people engaging the world can be powerful. When it just maps to whatever set randomly happened to have the best 5th line, people embracing the spreadsheet are empowered.

It is actually kind of sadly funny that ZOS pushes "Play as you want", but once in the game the players are like "Yeah, you don't want to do that", and since it usually takes quite a while to start interacting with other players, being as you are usually solo questing and all that at the start, it makes things pretty difficult for many.

"But ZOS said I could play how I want and I am gonna!", thus the bunch of WitchMages or whatever we have running about who can barely fight their way out of a paper bag, nevermind kill witches or vampires in anything but the easiest content. Which is another issue, as overland/delve questing is soooo easy, it helps reinforce the impression that playing such a character is actually viable.

Well, play as you want doesn't promise anything - you can play as you like, but if you will be good doing it like you want, is another thing. One shouldn't expect to be good in this case - because the one could as well choose to play a pacifist and avoid having to kill enemies as much as possible - that is as well play as you want - and it is not likely to win this way.

Not everyone expects to win anyway - role playing can as well be to play a really weak below average character who is just trying to get along with everything but due to some mental issues he keeps getting in trouble more often than not - this is role play as well and has nothing to do with combat related goals at all - that is what is meant by "play as you want" - you can literally play anything and it doesn't have to be goal oriented or achieve anything.

Supreme_Atromancer

Lysette wrote: »

Kwoung wrote: »

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

OBJnoob wrote: »

@Supreme_Atromancer

Not that I really agree or disagree either way but I want to ask you: Is it that you wish people could make their own unique builds and have them be more viable than they currently are? Or is it that you wish the “meta” more accurately represented the lore?

Its more just reflecting on the status quo. I don't think that people coming into the game are typically building super wacky builds; they're choices about gear, skills, etc are probably based on assumptions about the challenges in the world, and how that gear and stuff would intuitively behave. You can see what the noob magsorc in heavy armour was thinking, for instance.

That was how zos originally designed the game to be, but it's been lost by the wayside. At the point where you realise abandoning that and embracing abstract numbers make you far more powerful, you're forced between conforming, or being essentially gated out.

I think this disenfranchises the "play how you want" casual, who is, at best tolerated in pugs, but better served staying in the overworld, out of fun stuff like challenging dungeons, until they "stop being resistant to good, mathematically sound meta", and give up on what they want for raw, abstract numbers.

And before you say gear isn't everything, I agree. I had to work on my weaving before I got good, but changing out one skill for the nonsensical meta one got me to 98k, and its when I switch to daggers on my mage that I'll hit over 100.

If power maps broadly to common sense, people engaging the world can be powerful. When it just maps to whatever set randomly happened to have the best 5th line, people embracing the spreadsheet are empowered.

It is actually kind of sadly funny that ZOS pushes "Play as you want", but once in the game the players are like "Yeah, you don't want to do that", and since it usually takes quite a while to start interacting with other players, being as you are usually solo questing and all that at the start, it makes things pretty difficult for many.

"But ZOS said I could play how I want and I am gonna!", thus the bunch of WitchMages or whatever we have running about who can barely fight their way out of a paper bag, nevermind kill witches or vampires in anything but the easiest content. Which is another issue, as overland/delve questing is soooo easy, it helps reinforce the impression that playing such a character is actually viable.

Well, play as you want doesn't promise anything - you can play as you like, but if you will be good doing it like you want, is another thing. One shouldn't expect to be good in this case - because the one could as well choose to play a pacifist and avoid having to kill enemies as much as possible - that is as well play as you want - and it is not likely to win this way.

No but the point is, what should determine what is good? Shouldn't basic intuition about how gear behaves have some currency? To what degree should the choice be "meta numbers" and "basic intuition"?

Lysette

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

Kwoung wrote: »

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

OBJnoob wrote: »

@Supreme_Atromancer

Not that I really agree or disagree either way but I want to ask you: Is it that you wish people could make their own unique builds and have them be more viable than they currently are? Or is it that you wish the “meta” more accurately represented the lore?

Its more just reflecting on the status quo. I don't think that people coming into the game are typically building super wacky builds; they're choices about gear, skills, etc are probably based on assumptions about the challenges in the world, and how that gear and stuff would intuitively behave. You can see what the noob magsorc in heavy armour was thinking, for instance.

That was how zos originally designed the game to be, but it's been lost by the wayside. At the point where you realise abandoning that and embracing abstract numbers make you far more powerful, you're forced between conforming, or being essentially gated out.

I think this disenfranchises the "play how you want" casual, who is, at best tolerated in pugs, but better served staying in the overworld, out of fun stuff like challenging dungeons, until they "stop being resistant to good, mathematically sound meta", and give up on what they want for raw, abstract numbers.

And before you say gear isn't everything, I agree. I had to work on my weaving before I got good, but changing out one skill for the nonsensical meta one got me to 98k, and its when I switch to daggers on my mage that I'll hit over 100.

If power maps broadly to common sense, people engaging the world can be powerful. When it just maps to whatever set randomly happened to have the best 5th line, people embracing the spreadsheet are empowered.

It is actually kind of sadly funny that ZOS pushes "Play as you want", but once in the game the players are like "Yeah, you don't want to do that", and since it usually takes quite a while to start interacting with other players, being as you are usually solo questing and all that at the start, it makes things pretty difficult for many.

"But ZOS said I could play how I want and I am gonna!", thus the bunch of WitchMages or whatever we have running about who can barely fight their way out of a paper bag, nevermind kill witches or vampires in anything but the easiest content. Which is another issue, as overland/delve questing is soooo easy, it helps reinforce the impression that playing such a character is actually viable.

Well, play as you want doesn't promise anything - you can play as you like, but if you will be good doing it like you want, is another thing. One shouldn't expect to be good in this case - because the one could as well choose to play a pacifist and avoid having to kill enemies as much as possible - that is as well play as you want - and it is not likely to win this way.

No but the point is, what should determine what is good? Shouldn't basic intuition about how gear behaves have some currency? To what degree should the choice be "meta numbers" and "basic intuition"?

I am a role player, to me the answer is easy - what the character can't know will not be used, what he has not experienced yet, will not influence his decision making. Furthermore I have an idea what kind of personality my characters are and I play them out like this - I start out with an idea for them, but over time they always develop their own idea of what they want to be - I decide from their perspective, regardless what I had in mind, that is not important, important for role playing is the perspective and the mentality of the character - and I leave this to roleplay, what kind of character he/she will be in the end - but it is purely based on what this character is experiencing and what decision he/she made from his/her perspective, not from my perspective - this is quite interesting, because pretty much none of them turned out to be like I expected them to be.

Kwoung

Lysette wrote: »

Kwoung wrote: »

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

OBJnoob wrote: »

@Supreme_Atromancer

Not that I really agree or disagree either way but I want to ask you: Is it that you wish people could make their own unique builds and have them be more viable than they currently are? Or is it that you wish the “meta” more accurately represented the lore?

Its more just reflecting on the status quo. I don't think that people coming into the game are typically building super wacky builds; they're choices about gear, skills, etc are probably based on assumptions about the challenges in the world, and how that gear and stuff would intuitively behave. You can see what the noob magsorc in heavy armour was thinking, for instance.

That was how zos originally designed the game to be, but it's been lost by the wayside. At the point where you realise abandoning that and embracing abstract numbers make you far more powerful, you're forced between conforming, or being essentially gated out.

I think this disenfranchises the "play how you want" casual, who is, at best tolerated in pugs, but better served staying in the overworld, out of fun stuff like challenging dungeons, until they "stop being resistant to good, mathematically sound meta", and give up on what they want for raw, abstract numbers.

And before you say gear isn't everything, I agree. I had to work on my weaving before I got good, but changing out one skill for the nonsensical meta one got me to 98k, and its when I switch to daggers on my mage that I'll hit over 100.

If power maps broadly to common sense, people engaging the world can be powerful. When it just maps to whatever set randomly happened to have the best 5th line, people embracing the spreadsheet are empowered.

It is actually kind of sadly funny that ZOS pushes "Play as you want", but once in the game the players are like "Yeah, you don't want to do that", and since it usually takes quite a while to start interacting with other players, being as you are usually solo questing and all that at the start, it makes things pretty difficult for many.

"But ZOS said I could play how I want and I am gonna!", thus the bunch of WitchMages or whatever we have running about who can barely fight their way out of a paper bag, nevermind kill witches or vampires in anything but the easiest content. Which is another issue, as overland/delve questing is soooo easy, it helps reinforce the impression that playing such a character is actually viable.

Well, play as you want doesn't promise anything - you can play as you like, but if you will be good doing it like you want, is another thing. One shouldn't expect to be good in this case - because the one could as well choose to play a pacifist and avoid having to kill enemies as much as possible - that is as well play as you want - and it is not likely to win this way.

Coming from other games, ESO actually threw me. It is very much not normal to put all your attributes into one thing, or weave, or well... a lot of different things. Which is also another issue, as people also "play as they know", which doesn't work here either. I guess though, since the Internet is pretty much an unlimited source of information these days (it wasn't always when starting a new MMO), ZOS expects new players to go look stuff up for themselves, instead of making some rather important things to know part of the games tutorial, tips and whatnot.

It would go a long ways towards helping new players, to point out a few key points in how the game actually works, then let players make informed decisions, as opposed to leading them down a path, only to let them find out they took a wrong turn way back at level 3. Not than anyone can't change, but to be playing one way you thought was fun and effective, sometimes all the way to CP160, then find it really isn't, is sort of a rude awakening.

Lysette

Kwoung wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

Kwoung wrote: »

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

OBJnoob wrote: »

@Supreme_Atromancer

Not that I really agree or disagree either way but I want to ask you: Is it that you wish people could make their own unique builds and have them be more viable than they currently are? Or is it that you wish the “meta” more accurately represented the lore?

Its more just reflecting on the status quo. I don't think that people coming into the game are typically building super wacky builds; they're choices about gear, skills, etc are probably based on assumptions about the challenges in the world, and how that gear and stuff would intuitively behave. You can see what the noob magsorc in heavy armour was thinking, for instance.

That was how zos originally designed the game to be, but it's been lost by the wayside. At the point where you realise abandoning that and embracing abstract numbers make you far more powerful, you're forced between conforming, or being essentially gated out.

I think this disenfranchises the "play how you want" casual, who is, at best tolerated in pugs, but better served staying in the overworld, out of fun stuff like challenging dungeons, until they "stop being resistant to good, mathematically sound meta", and give up on what they want for raw, abstract numbers.

And before you say gear isn't everything, I agree. I had to work on my weaving before I got good, but changing out one skill for the nonsensical meta one got me to 98k, and its when I switch to daggers on my mage that I'll hit over 100.

If power maps broadly to common sense, people engaging the world can be powerful. When it just maps to whatever set randomly happened to have the best 5th line, people embracing the spreadsheet are empowered.

It is actually kind of sadly funny that ZOS pushes "Play as you want", but once in the game the players are like "Yeah, you don't want to do that", and since it usually takes quite a while to start interacting with other players, being as you are usually solo questing and all that at the start, it makes things pretty difficult for many.

"But ZOS said I could play how I want and I am gonna!", thus the bunch of WitchMages or whatever we have running about who can barely fight their way out of a paper bag, nevermind kill witches or vampires in anything but the easiest content. Which is another issue, as overland/delve questing is soooo easy, it helps reinforce the impression that playing such a character is actually viable.

Well, play as you want doesn't promise anything - you can play as you like, but if you will be good doing it like you want, is another thing. One shouldn't expect to be good in this case - because the one could as well choose to play a pacifist and avoid having to kill enemies as much as possible - that is as well play as you want - and it is not likely to win this way.

Coming from other games, ESO actually threw me. It is very much not normal to put all your attributes into one thing, or weave, or well... a lot of different things. Which is also another issue, as people also "play as they know", which doesn't work here either. I guess though, since the Internet is pretty much an unlimited source of information these days (it wasn't always when starting a new MMO), ZOS expects new players to go look stuff up for themselves, instead of making some rather important things to know part of the games tutorial, tips and whatnot.

It would go a long ways towards helping new players, to point out a few key points in how the game actually works, then let players make informed decisions, as opposed to leading them down a path, only to let them find out they took a wrong turn way back at level 3. Not than anyone can't change, but to be playing one way you thought was fun and effective, sometimes all the way to CP160, then find it really isn't, is sort of a rude awakening.

Yeah, that's true - I tried at first as well to distribute my attribute points, but in the end it is better in ESO to just put it into either stamina or magicka - what is really lame, but that is how it is in ESO. But we have the option to respec - which is role play wise praying to a diety and donate some gold - so even as a role player I can do that, as soon as the character has visited a cathedral and figured that out - I won't let him respec before he is going to do that, because he couldn't possibly know that.

Well, this said, my characters are anyway pretty much hybrids - they have to stand their ground on their own, no one is helping them out and they have no specific role other than to enjoy themselves and trying to stay alive - and for that a hybrid is not the worst - none of them intends to be a hero (yet), but I let this decision to my characters, who knows, what they will be deciding in future from their perspective. It is not very likely that they will engage with group content - because none of them fits into the role of DD, tank or healer, they are a bit of everything but good in none of those roles - so screw group content, not going to happen for my characters, because that part has ZOS not designed for "play as you want" at all - it is just play as you want, if you fit into these predefined roles - and none of my character does that.

Group content is basically where your freedom to play as you want ends - because now others are influenced by your choices and you do not really have the right to steal their time by not trying to be the best you can in your chosen role - and that is not for my characters, they are individualists who don't want to be forced into a predefined role - and there is just DD, tank or healer to choose from - there is no "wet towel" option. Not even my tanky characters could fulfill the role of tank - they cannot taunt anything, but this is what I know as the player, they have no clue that there is a taunt possible.

Kwoung

Lysette wrote: »

Kwoung wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

Kwoung wrote: »

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

OBJnoob wrote: »

@Supreme_Atromancer

Not that I really agree or disagree either way but I want to ask you: Is it that you wish people could make their own unique builds and have them be more viable than they currently are? Or is it that you wish the “meta” more accurately represented the lore?

Its more just reflecting on the status quo. I don't think that people coming into the game are typically building super wacky builds; they're choices about gear, skills, etc are probably based on assumptions about the challenges in the world, and how that gear and stuff would intuitively behave. You can see what the noob magsorc in heavy armour was thinking, for instance.

That was how zos originally designed the game to be, but it's been lost by the wayside. At the point where you realise abandoning that and embracing abstract numbers make you far more powerful, you're forced between conforming, or being essentially gated out.

I think this disenfranchises the "play how you want" casual, who is, at best tolerated in pugs, but better served staying in the overworld, out of fun stuff like challenging dungeons, until they "stop being resistant to good, mathematically sound meta", and give up on what they want for raw, abstract numbers.

And before you say gear isn't everything, I agree. I had to work on my weaving before I got good, but changing out one skill for the nonsensical meta one got me to 98k, and its when I switch to daggers on my mage that I'll hit over 100.

If power maps broadly to common sense, people engaging the world can be powerful. When it just maps to whatever set randomly happened to have the best 5th line, people embracing the spreadsheet are empowered.

It is actually kind of sadly funny that ZOS pushes "Play as you want", but once in the game the players are like "Yeah, you don't want to do that", and since it usually takes quite a while to start interacting with other players, being as you are usually solo questing and all that at the start, it makes things pretty difficult for many.

"But ZOS said I could play how I want and I am gonna!", thus the bunch of WitchMages or whatever we have running about who can barely fight their way out of a paper bag, nevermind kill witches or vampires in anything but the easiest content. Which is another issue, as overland/delve questing is soooo easy, it helps reinforce the impression that playing such a character is actually viable.

Well, play as you want doesn't promise anything - you can play as you like, but if you will be good doing it like you want, is another thing. One shouldn't expect to be good in this case - because the one could as well choose to play a pacifist and avoid having to kill enemies as much as possible - that is as well play as you want - and it is not likely to win this way.

Coming from other games, ESO actually threw me. It is very much not normal to put all your attributes into one thing, or weave, or well... a lot of different things. Which is also another issue, as people also "play as they know", which doesn't work here either. I guess though, since the Internet is pretty much an unlimited source of information these days (it wasn't always when starting a new MMO), ZOS expects new players to go look stuff up for themselves, instead of making some rather important things to know part of the games tutorial, tips and whatnot.

It would go a long ways towards helping new players, to point out a few key points in how the game actually works, then let players make informed decisions, as opposed to leading them down a path, only to let them find out they took a wrong turn way back at level 3. Not than anyone can't change, but to be playing one way you thought was fun and effective, sometimes all the way to CP160, then find it really isn't, is sort of a rude awakening.

Yeah, that's true - I tried at first as well to distribute my attribute points, but in the end it is better in ESO to just put it into either stamina or magicka - what is really lame, but that is how it is in ESO. But we have the option to respec - which is role play wise praying to a diety and donate some gold - so even as a role player I can do that, as soon as the character has visited a cathedral and figured that out - I won't let him respec before he is going to do that, because he couldn't possibly know that.

Well, this said, my characters are anyway pretty much hybrids - they have to stand their ground on their own, no one is helping them out and they have no specific role other than to enjoy themselves and trying to stay alive - and for that a hybrid is not the worst - none of them intends to be a hero (yet), but I let this decision to my characters, who knows, what they will be deciding in future from their perspective. It is not very likely that they will engage with group content - because none of them fits into the role of DD, tank or healer, they are a bit of everything but good in none of those roles - so screw group content, not going to happen for my characters, because that part has ZOS not designed for "play as you want" at all - it is just play as you want, if you fit into these predefined roles - and none of my character does that.

Sounds like you have found a very fun way to enjoy the game.

Lysette

Kwoung wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

Kwoung wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

Kwoung wrote: »

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

OBJnoob wrote: »

@Supreme_Atromancer

Not that I really agree or disagree either way but I want to ask you: Is it that you wish people could make their own unique builds and have them be more viable than they currently are? Or is it that you wish the “meta” more accurately represented the lore?

Its more just reflecting on the status quo. I don't think that people coming into the game are typically building super wacky builds; they're choices about gear, skills, etc are probably based on assumptions about the challenges in the world, and how that gear and stuff would intuitively behave. You can see what the noob magsorc in heavy armour was thinking, for instance.

That was how zos originally designed the game to be, but it's been lost by the wayside. At the point where you realise abandoning that and embracing abstract numbers make you far more powerful, you're forced between conforming, or being essentially gated out.

I think this disenfranchises the "play how you want" casual, who is, at best tolerated in pugs, but better served staying in the overworld, out of fun stuff like challenging dungeons, until they "stop being resistant to good, mathematically sound meta", and give up on what they want for raw, abstract numbers.

And before you say gear isn't everything, I agree. I had to work on my weaving before I got good, but changing out one skill for the nonsensical meta one got me to 98k, and its when I switch to daggers on my mage that I'll hit over 100.

If power maps broadly to common sense, people engaging the world can be powerful. When it just maps to whatever set randomly happened to have the best 5th line, people embracing the spreadsheet are empowered.

It is actually kind of sadly funny that ZOS pushes "Play as you want", but once in the game the players are like "Yeah, you don't want to do that", and since it usually takes quite a while to start interacting with other players, being as you are usually solo questing and all that at the start, it makes things pretty difficult for many.

"But ZOS said I could play how I want and I am gonna!", thus the bunch of WitchMages or whatever we have running about who can barely fight their way out of a paper bag, nevermind kill witches or vampires in anything but the easiest content. Which is another issue, as overland/delve questing is soooo easy, it helps reinforce the impression that playing such a character is actually viable.

Well, play as you want doesn't promise anything - you can play as you like, but if you will be good doing it like you want, is another thing. One shouldn't expect to be good in this case - because the one could as well choose to play a pacifist and avoid having to kill enemies as much as possible - that is as well play as you want - and it is not likely to win this way.

Coming from other games, ESO actually threw me. It is very much not normal to put all your attributes into one thing, or weave, or well... a lot of different things. Which is also another issue, as people also "play as they know", which doesn't work here either. I guess though, since the Internet is pretty much an unlimited source of information these days (it wasn't always when starting a new MMO), ZOS expects new players to go look stuff up for themselves, instead of making some rather important things to know part of the games tutorial, tips and whatnot.

It would go a long ways towards helping new players, to point out a few key points in how the game actually works, then let players make informed decisions, as opposed to leading them down a path, only to let them find out they took a wrong turn way back at level 3. Not than anyone can't change, but to be playing one way you thought was fun and effective, sometimes all the way to CP160, then find it really isn't, is sort of a rude awakening.

Yeah, that's true - I tried at first as well to distribute my attribute points, but in the end it is better in ESO to just put it into either stamina or magicka - what is really lame, but that is how it is in ESO. But we have the option to respec - which is role play wise praying to a diety and donate some gold - so even as a role player I can do that, as soon as the character has visited a cathedral and figured that out - I won't let him respec before he is going to do that, because he couldn't possibly know that.

Well, this said, my characters are anyway pretty much hybrids - they have to stand their ground on their own, no one is helping them out and they have no specific role other than to enjoy themselves and trying to stay alive - and for that a hybrid is not the worst - none of them intends to be a hero (yet), but I let this decision to my characters, who knows, what they will be deciding in future from their perspective. It is not very likely that they will engage with group content - because none of them fits into the role of DD, tank or healer, they are a bit of everything but good in none of those roles - so screw group content, not going to happen for my characters, because that part has ZOS not designed for "play as you want" at all - it is just play as you want, if you fit into these predefined roles - and none of my character does that.

Sounds like you have found a very fun way to enjoy the game.

I come from pen&paper role play and MUDs in the past - it was normal to play like this and base decisions solely on what the character can know and what he has experienced and if he is not that smart, then make some bad decisions as well and not going for the smarter choice - that is role play like it was 15+ years ago - that kind of role play which I see now around in ESO is more like acting than role playing - not my kind of role play, I do it old-school.

schoober

I'm running a magblade ganker, and I'm well aware I can't kill those 35k-50k hp dks, so I just ignore them. Also healers are making everyone's job difficult in BGs.
That being said, PVP is more of learning how to approach, when to heal and when to run. Understand that most players in pvp have extremely low damage.

Auztinito

Jusey1 wrote: »

I think a lot of "play how you want" is base around one thing: How well put together is your build? You can play how you want pretty easily (I use a lot of off-meta sets and builds myself while still able to perform extremely well). However, you have to treat them as full builds, learn what can make it good and what needs to be adjusted. Get a balance and commit to what you wanna do to make it work.

Meta is only Meta because it is the easiest or most effective to pull off... It doesn't mean that everything else is bad (though some sets and abilities are flat-out BAD but that is the fun of building a kit for yourself... Figuring out what works, what makes your build tick in your favor).

I’d agree with this if the difference between the two were minimal. It’s not currently even in PvE. For example, Light Attack Weaving is 20% difference which is a huge number and that’s not adding in weapon swapping. If it were 5% difference it’d be a completely a different story.

What I see people complain about META, they think there shouldn’t be a meta or it should be x. The designers and players of this game have not grasped that they don’t have to change metas. They just need to shift everything else around to be within reach of meta numbers. Be it nerfing meta or buffing things that don’t effect meta.

Fabi95

Kwoung wrote: »

It is actually kind of sadly funny that ZOS pushes "Play as you want", but once in the game the players are like "Yeah, you don't want to do that", and since it usually takes quite a while to start interacting with other players, being as you are usually solo questing and all that at the start, it makes things pretty difficult for many.

Fortunately the hybridization of more items and some skills has done this slogan a lot of good. But yes, I fear while "play how you want" sounds nice, in practice all it means is the choices you can technically do. You can equip a wild mix of armor from six different 5 piece sets. You can play anything in any order. You can do very much any way you want. But is any of it - the choices - optimal? That is then an entirely different story - sometimes literally, because playing in a certain order gives the huge benefit of experiencing events in the timeline it was intended to, characters recognizing you, etc.

Fabi95

Lysette wrote: »

Group content is basically where your freedom to play as you want ends

Given the difficulty of newer DLC dungeon content, I agree. At times I had spoken to casual players who were pretty shocked how wildly different the experience there is. While everything looked fine in overland and solo content, suddenly it's very , very different in (DLC) dungeons.

Fortunately, the first base game dungeons (like Fungal Grotto, Banished Cells) are very good at introducing people to how dungeons feel to play like (though there is no proper introduction on its own, just the gameplay). However, when doing a random dungeon for the first time, you could still end up in a DLC dungeon - if you have ESO+ or happen to own the content. And DLC dungeons are another stepup from base game dungeons. As their difficulty pretty much equals like a mini-trial due to the sheer number of mechanics.

This is something that base game dungeons do much better. You can join, and not have to worry about not knowing 27291 mechanics. DLC dungeon? This can wildly vary. With enemies having dramatically higher health pools and damage outputs in DLC dungeons, proper gear and skill combinations suddenly appear to become mandatory. Even on normal difficulty. The difference is so huge that we see this everyday in zone and guild chats. Most people seek to do Undaunted pledges with the base game dungeons only. DLC? If at all, only on "normal" difficulty. DLC dungeons need to become more welcoming, both in terms of skill levels and rewards.

In my humble opinion, a major question that should be asked in future DLC dungeon development is this:

Will newer players still enjoy casually joining this? Will they experience negative community reactions if their skill and gear level is not appropriate? How to improve this to not discourage players there?