State of the Game Address

Ser Lobo

Thevenin wrote: »

I'm surprised the nerf bat hasn't swung harder, and broader.
The amount of suscribers this vampire / broken talons / bolt escape *** must have already driven away might be quite astounding. Given that they fixed quests pretty fast, I think most people would have coped with the buggy launch, as long as the only end game - PvP - was fun to play. But this really looked too amateurish, a large chunk of my guild has already left because they think a team that can release a game with such crazy balance issues can't properly deal with a MMO. And I think they're right.

The sad truth, is that any player who would have already dropped the game within the first 30 days due to those issues, would not have stayed with any MMO on the market, or probably already had a 'main' and were only giving this a try.

The first law of MMO's is that there is no perfect product. Even with a perfect code (which does not exist), put it into the hands of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of bored, often intelligent and rather adventurous gamers, some of which know as much or more about coding than the developers, and your product will be found broken.

PvP is still fun for me, and the guilds I am apart of. Fanboy? Must be. There can be no other explanation for why any player would have fun with this game?

I personally feel that anybody who's already taken off, wouldn't have stayed no matter WHAT the game looked like, for any number of reasons, and that it's better to not even fret about the loss.

Ser Lobo

cjtignub17_ESO wrote: »

Was on dawnbreaker for about 6 hrs last night dont think saw a single bat swarm. Highly doubt 90% r vamps maybe 15%. If u think bay swarm is good then roll vamp. They really should rethink this massive nerf to vampire. They r swinging the pendulum wayyy to far to the wrong direction.

I don't see vampires near as much or as often as many claim. Then again, I don't think they nerf bat they are swinging is as horrible as many who ARE relying on a very powerful combination of stats and abilities are trying to make it out to be.

The truth is, some players who use bat swarm and mist form right now would not be as good as they currently are, were it not for the perfect synergy of those abilities and attributes. Take away that probably overpowered ability, and they would have to work as hard as the rest of us.



Then you have the other side: take away bat swarm, and those types of players will switch to dragon knights with dark talons. Take that away, they'll switch to something else. They will keep pushing the most powerful combination of skills and abilities, creating the endless revolution of nerfs that is common in MMO's.

Some just don't get that. They fight on these forums for one nerf, and then 90 days later when THEIR powerful combination is nerfed, all of a sudden it's unfair. They know they are min-maxing the system already, and that there is just better combo's out there. But as soon as their power is questioned? It becomes too much.

Luckily, it doesn't look like ZOS is really swinging the nerfbat too hard. Some say too much, others not enough, which in my mind does more to say it's perfect.

Gravord

cjtignub17_ESO wrote: »

Please consider making vamp cost reduction 10% per level

Why? Why should they be so much more privilaged than rest of mortals?

cjtignub17_ESO wrote: »

If u think bay swarm is good then roll vamp. They really should rethink this massive nerf to vampire. They r swinging the pendulum wayyy to far to the wrong direction.

Bat Swarm is not good, its *** overpowered. And im not easy moder going after every exploit like Bat Swarm, Shield Bash spam and all else but someone who like balanced pvp where actually player skills matter, not spamming 1 button that make you win most fights because its broken ***.

Gravord

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8IenVaRIq8&feature=youtu.be

All good, Batshit work as intendend.

Ser Lobo

Gravord wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8IenVaRIq8&feature=youtu.be

All good, Batshit work as intendend.

With each post, you lose more of your credibility. Game designers need reasonable criticism and suggestions, which you made long ago. Now you sound like you are trying to create a cause (instead of simply reporting on one) by using inflammatory speech and repetitive, hateful posts. This is akin to what politicians and terrorists do and why nobody with any sense ever takes them seriously.

But the dumb mob will listen. And like always happens, they'll push to break something completely, because a mob doesn't know when to use a half measure, when to take things in steps.

What comes out as 'catch the criminal' ends up with somebody who was actually innocent lynched on a lightpost. And while that's not what's going to happen here, this kind of negative cheerleading can lead to people losing faith in a game, people who would otherwise have been perfectly happy with the changes ZOS will eventually roll out.

If you know this (and now, you do), and continue doing what your doing, then that means your intent isn't a fix, but to ruin the game for others. It means you are intentionally trying to hurt ZOS. That's very negative.

I hope others read this, and take away my point: don't listen to hate.

Gravord

You are mistaken. Its not a hate. I like most aspects of this game and intend to continue playing it. But lack of dev response on official forum for so long time is disturbing while issue remain in game pushing more ppl to stop play it. And there is still no date for when patch is rolling out, to at least partially take care of this problem.

Ser Lobo

Gravord wrote: »

You are mistaken. Its not a hate. I like most aspects of this game and intend to continue playing it. But lack of dev response on official forum for so long time is disturbing while issue remain in game pushing more ppl to stop play it. And there is still no date for when patch is rolling out, to at least partially take care of this problem.

So you make your complaint starting late Saturday into Sunday? Do game designers not have weekends? Are they somehow slaves to gamers, forced to work for no pay and no days off?

And who has more priority? Gamers like me, who can't change characters and who still experience load failure when going through doorways? Macintosh gamers who can't PvP at all due to a memory leak? European gamers who have such severe ping that they can't do many boss fights?

What about players who cannot complete their main quest, or are missing items from inventory slots, or the botters who fill up local channels and server resources with spam?

What about their 'four-to-six week' content release promises, for those players who have already met VR10 and are even now bored, because they don't care a bit about PvP and are wanting that new content?


There's no right answer. They all need addressed, and rather immediately. My Nightblade is missing a third of his abilities due to bugs and/or bad tooltips.

Not saying that you aren't right. That they SHOULD address this. Simply that its telling to see so many customers so obviously put their own interests above the needs of others, completely ignoring anyone elses plight in their demand to be heard ... and addressed ... first.

We're selfish (screw those other guys who are ALSO quitting because they have issues). We need it now (instead of within a reasonable timeframe like any other job allows). We throw temper tantrums if we don't get our way (because a customer throwing a fit gets more attention, just like that kid laying in the aisle at Walmart). And we don't care that it makes us look like idiot children (though those developers better not treat us as such).

Ser Lobo

Short and sweet: at least you can PvP at a decent rank reliably. Your opponents may be hard/impossible to kill, but you can move on to another fight, another campaign, etc. There is a rather easy workaround for your issue.

Many other gamers aren't so lucky.

frodoteabaginz

one of my biggest complaints is this

i play a healer orginaly i wanted to use plate but do to the fact plate passive's. do not support healer's i was forced to use cloth. i guess in batheasda's eyes healer's do not use plate. only cloth normally this would be a game breaker for me. as i prefer the survivability of plate healer's but in ESO while a healer can use plate. its not efficient enough to be a feasible healer because plate just doe's not have the passive's to support your magicka. both regen and reduced spell costs and max magicka because of this bathesda is basically saying. that if you want to play a fully functionable healer you must where cloth. but wasn't one of the games main aspects that any class can use any armor type. and stille be fully functionable?

this is an easy fix though give plate 2 set's of passives one for tank and one for healer's but make it so that player's can only chose one or the other not both so that it's not OP

Gravord

ruze84b14_ESO wrote: »

Gravord wrote: »

You are mistaken. Its not a hate. I like most aspects of this game and intend to continue playing it. But lack of dev response on official forum for so long time is disturbing while issue remain in game pushing more ppl to stop play it. And there is still no date for when patch is rolling out, to at least partially take care of this problem.

So you make your complaint starting late Saturday into Sunday? Do game designers not have weekends? Are they somehow slaves to gamers, forced to work for no pay and no days off?

And who has more priority? Gamers like me, who can't change characters and who still experience load failure when going through doorways? Macintosh gamers who can't PvP at all due to a memory leak? European gamers who have such severe ping that they can't do many boss fights?

What about players who cannot complete their main quest, or are missing items from inventory slots, or the botters who fill up local channels and server resources with spam?

What about their 'four-to-six week' content release promises, for those players who have already met VR10 and are even now bored, because they don't care a bit about PvP and are wanting that new content?


There's no right answer. They all need addressed, and rather immediately. My Nightblade is missing a third of his abilities due to bugs and/or bad tooltips.

Not saying that you aren't right. That they SHOULD address this. Simply that its telling to see so many customers so obviously put their own interests above the needs of others, completely ignoring anyone elses plight in their demand to be heard ... and addressed ... first.

We're selfish (screw those other guys who are ALSO quitting because they have issues). We need it now (instead of within a reasonable timeframe like any other job allows). We throw temper tantrums if we don't get our way (because a customer throwing a fit gets more attention, just like that kid laying in the aisle at Walmart). And we don't care that it makes us look like idiot children (though those developers better not treat us as such).

I make complains about it from 2 weeks, not 2 days. They remain without answer on this forum.
And yes, its selfish to care about state of pvp. But do you think im not crashing 15 times a day? Not stucking on Cyrodiil load screen 5 times before able to enter campaign? Ofc i am, but when i finally get there watching Bat Swarm stopping ppl from playing is much more discouraging that those problems. Spending 1 hour on load screen just to enter and see amount of Bat Swarms deciding whos gonna win most fights feels totally pointless.

Xaei

I think my biggest problem with ESO at the moment is that I don't know what's it trying to be: a MMORPG or a CO-RPG, or a single player game. There's parts of the game that follows each of them, and they all clash together awkwardly.

Personally, I don't think ESO should try to be a MMORPG, it should try to be a CO-RPG like DDO or GW1. TES is about being engulfed and lost in a massive world, about experiencing that freedom and where you're special (in the good way) and the actions you do has consequences and matters. That's basically everything a MMORPG is not: there's no exploration or feeling lost when you got people everywhere already, you're 'special' amongst the other 10000000000 special chosen ones, and your actions cannot matter because theres all those people to share that consequence, which would break the game.

Instead, if they make in a CO-RPG, its your world. You're alone in the world with your small band of adventurers, you are the special adventurer who lead his small band and became the legendary hero who saved all existence (or whatever), your actions can matter and the world is free to change around you because it won't affect anyone else.

frodoteabaginz

my other bigest complaint is that there is way to much leaning on quests that i offten feel like i'm playing a solo game exept for when i do dungeons whitch is 3 times per level gap

after you do that dungeon once and complete the quest there is no need what so ever to return to said dungeon until you reach the vet levels the reason for this is because you simply do not get enough XP from kills and useable gear to return to though's dungeons

my other thing is why does it take longer to learn a new trait after having learned the last one they are completely different traits it should not take me 5 hour's to learn the first one then 10 hour's to learn the next i could see this being the case if it was an enhanced version of the previous trait but its not its a completely different trait

lotharlocnar_ESO

A good measure of how powerful vamp skills are just look at what the players are charging for a bite these days...lol

djwhitedevil

I would personally like to see coop play being more friendly. By that I mean if your quest tells you to free 5 prisoners, if one player rescues one, it should count for the party, not just the player who has done the work. Another possible option is to scale the quest length higher depending on how many players are in a party. for example using the same scenario as above. Alone, you must rescue 3 prisoners, in a party of 2, you must rescue 5, etc. There are a few quests that I've seen where such objectives weren't updated across the party but instead acted as a solo objective. For an MMORPG, I'm finding quite a lack of coop based play. Even though I chose to cancel my current subscription, I may decide to come back at a later time to see how things have changed and if they are for the better.

Keep up the good work!

VagabondAngel

frodoteabaginz wrote: »

one of my biggest complaints is this

i play a healer orginaly i wanted to use plate but do to the fact plate passive's. do not support healer's i was forced to use cloth. i guess in batheasda's eyes healer's do not use plate. only cloth normally this would be a game breaker for me. as i prefer the survivability of plate healer's but in ESO while a healer can use plate. its not efficient enough to be a feasible healer because plate just doe's not have the passive's to support your magicka. both regen and reduced spell costs and max magicka because of this bathesda is basically saying. that if you want to play a fully functionable healer you must where cloth. but wasn't one of the games main aspects that any class can use any armor type. and stille be fully functionable?

this is an easy fix though give plate 2 set's of passives one for tank and one for healer's but make it so that player's can only chose one or the other not both so that it's not OP

Ability choices are about compromise, just like anything in life. Why should a game be any different? The fact that some combinations of abilities lead to being massively over-powered notwithstanding (which is something that does need a fix), if you choose to play a healer, your obvious choice of armour is light because of complimentary passives; in this case you are compromising your armour rating. If you choose to play a healer who wears heavy armour, you take the advantage that heavy armour gives but compromise your passive abilities to enhance your healing. That's fair isn't it? Work around it....

I also play a healer.... I am a Templar who wears heavy armour and uses a Restoration Staff, maximising my healing abilities by best use of my available passives and topping up my magicka max and regeneration with the right combination of enchantments and food items. Luckily for me, my guild and core dungeon questing team have both an enchanter and a competent chef - between these factors, my healing abilities have been more than enough for us to successfully conquer dungeons at or exceeding our current character levels. What's more, my heavy armour has been more of a benefit than a drawback and I certainly do not feel nerfed by its passives.

Many of the complaints here are genuine and concern fixable problems. many are also simply a result of impatience, poor character choices and display an inability to adapt. This is a massive world with many many combinations of choices on character development - think creatively about those choices instead of trying to nerf the whole process by asking for it to made into a cut-along-the-dotted-line pre-set pattern.

popatiberiuoneb18_ESO

Khuul99 wrote: »

Ok, this latest "fix" for the bosses are just ridiculous.

Having the timer being global (as in not boss specific) just makes it silly. You go in and kill a group challenge in a public dungeon (the one in cold harbour) and killed the little sub boss and then killed the masin boss and noone gets anything from it because we already killed a "boss".

This timer can't be there if it's so lazyily coded so it's global. I can't understand how that didn't get caught before it got implemented.

The timer as it has been implemented just punishes people that want to play the game.

The biggest problem with this timer "fix" they came up with is it will trigger even when you dont do enough damage to the boss to get any loot. It took me 9 kills on a low level instance on the boss to actualy get ANY LOOT from its corpse. Instead of this poorly designed workaround they should simply make the completion achievement award the loot (that blue unqique and whatever) and make the boss itself to drop same junk and experience as a normal monster. Heck..every player suggestion i seen so far is ways better then what they choose to implement...bad decision after bad decision...

popatiberiuoneb18_ESO

frodoteabaginz wrote: »

one of my biggest complaints is this

i play a healer orginaly i wanted to use plate but do to the fact plate passive's. do not support healer's i was forced to use cloth. i guess in batheasda's eyes healer's do not use plate. only cloth normally this would be a game breaker for me. as i prefer the survivability of plate healer's but in ESO while a healer can use plate. its not efficient enough to be a feasible healer because plate just doe's not have the passive's to support your magicka. both regen and reduced spell costs and max magicka because of this bathesda is basically saying. that if you want to play a fully functionable healer you must where cloth. but wasn't one of the games main aspects that any class can use any armor type. and stille be fully functionable?

this is an easy fix though give plate 2 set's of passives one for tank and one for healer's but make it so that player's can only chose one or the other not both so that it's not OP

You are clearly doing something wrong, healing is the easiest thing in this game for any class, grab a resto staff and click the same 2-3 buttons depending (or not) on the sittuation, there is no way to mess it up with being a healer besides spamming your moast expensive magika skill until you run dry (even then you have potions and class/mage guild abilities *cough...equili...cough..brium* for restoring your magika).

You are talking about passives but you dont even need armour to heal. I can doit just fine by being naked (both rl and my ingame character) and did it plenty of times before/after 50, with fully broken gear (since no room to store it to when i farm and the repair price just not worth it when you farm).

Disclaimer: if you group with drooling idiots that do not know how to doge/block and generaly move out of harms way there is nothing you can do as a healer and should not even bother trying

Valfodr

Dear diary.. er developers.
I am here to offer constructive criticism and offer some suggestions for implementing or adjusting game content. I do pray these ideas are at least noted, as well as some of the other interesting ideas people are putting forward admist the incessant whine of forum trolls. A lot of people like me want this already promising mmo to succeed. Let's proceed...

Subs tend to sink
It was perhaps the biggest fault of your marketing staff to steer the game into a subscription model. I am unsure of what research led them to this decision but every MMO that has gone from subscription to f2p with a cash shop model has succeeded where it was otherwise failing. And conversely, I have personally watched the failure of over 20 mmos due to launching with a subscription model. Your average gamer is not happy to pay a sub even if they can easily afford it.

F2P generates an insanely higher player base in comparison to subscription model, and with this largely increased player base you are going to generate far more revenue. I can give several examples to this, but the most notable and perhaps relevant (due to its immersive quest-driven structure akin to ESO) is DDO.

Server populations in ESO are already dwindling rapidly. In Alliance War, most campaigns remain at 1 bar of population, forums are empty and group finder takes too long. Remaining subscribers are becoming less satisfied simply due to lack of people to enjoy content with and releasing more endgame content won't attract new customers either.

ESO needs to be free to play with a well-constructed cash shop that offers cosmetics and items which provide convenience (things that do not alter pvp balance). Things that might provide convenience include a personal banker summon for example. I've known players to spend over $100 a month in a cash shop for an MMO they enjoy. And players will enjoy the MMO if there's more content and enough people playing it. It's really a simple decision. You do it soon or you do it a year down the track when ESO is a ghost town.

When all's said and done
Finishing the primary quest line for my first faction, Daggerfall, was fantastic. I was so excited to see what was next and what it would take to rise to VR10... Only to be thoroughly disappointed upon being forced to go and be a level 1 Aldmeri Dominion player... per se. Now, while a lot of players might not mind excessively that they are now completing quests to aid the opposing faction, I for one found it offensive that I wasn't just stabbing all these people instead. And I say forced on a technicality, I will happily return to Cyrodiil to increase my VR when Deadly Bash is fixed, but I would still like to enjoy PVE content too. Especially since its much easier to farm for VR gear in a VR zone; farming for VR gear in Cyrodiil is impractical.

So what else could be added?

Well, every map in ESO is designed so beautifully it is simply as a shame that there is no reason to return once you have finished quests located there. So how about veteran instances for our home faction and, instead of repeating the quests, we are given a randomized bounty board to hunt named mobs or complete unique tasks in each zone. Also maybe zone bosses that take a large number of players to kill and spawn periodically like an anchor.

Give us reasons to go back through our own faction's zones

Hey you, get out of my head
ESO is a quest-driven and highly immersive game. But why are there others players running around in this dream sequence I'm having with a pivotal quest NPC? Please implement a function to allow a unique solo instance for such areas where there is no logical reason for other players to be there, or by players being there it stifles immersion. This will also prevent mobs of players farming solo dungeon bosses. Group members could be allowed in these instances but it should be unique to the party leader.

Stacks on
Campaign stacking is occurring in a very noticable way. Auriel's Bow is stacked by Alderi, Wabbajack by Ebonheart and Bloodthorn by Daggerfall. While the other servers are too underpopulated to be truly enjoyable. I'm not entirely sure how to go around correcting the population imbalances but this is evidently a problem because most players do not wants to play on a faction with zero elder scrolls and no hope of gaining any because they are out-numbered 3:1.

The loner mmo?
There is no rewards for grouping unless everyone is doing the same quest, which makes playing with friends a lot harder.

Not sure how feasible this may be to change now, but GW2 nailed it by allowing any player level to scale down to a zones level to do the content- this meant that you could play with friends no matter the level difference and still progress due to flat xp scaling and level-scaled rewards.

---

TL;DR CONCLUSION...

1. Free to play
2. More logical VR 1-10 content
3. Solo quest instances
4. Fix/balance alliance war pops
5. Make it worth our while to group with lower level friends.

Thanks for your time ! ESO to me is the spiritual successor to DaoC and I truly hope this game grows and succeeds for years to come.

fleebag

Zenimax need to sort the Farming Bots out, they are getting out of hand, was around Fort Arand Wayshrine and there was probably over 40 Bots farming unlimited jute respawn, GM's need to give a group of players throughout the day/night the ability to ban these Bots, then GM's don't even need to enter game to get rid of them, these certain player would be playing there game as normal, and when someone in chat channel says there's bots about in a certain area, these players go and have a look and if they are farming Bots they ban them, or if there is a player exploiting game, they can warn them they will be banned if they are caught again.

Ser Lobo

Valfodr wrote: »

TL;DR CONCLUSION...

1. Free to play
2. More logical VR 1-10 content
3. Solo quest instances
4. Fix/balance alliance war pops
5. Make it worth our while to group with lower level friends.

World of Warcraft and EvE Online (as well as even Everquest 1 and Ultima Online, which are both hitting record numbers) are both pay-to-play subscription models which are incredibly successful. Dark Age of Camelot was also a subscription that saw it's peak. Subscription models bring content updates and patches faster than free-to-play, which is a proven fact. They also tend to last longer, time wise.

Plus, the number of F2P champions that are reporting consumer losses due to the tendency for power gear to creep into a promised 'vanity only' marketplace is rather staggering. The company doesn't make enough money off of vanity, they introduce a pack of potions or a set of armor, and people start leaving.

And while they obviously have fewer players than free-to-play, this means that fewer server assets and bot headaches to manage. More players don't mean better, unless those players all spend money.



Agree with the VR1-10 concern. While I personally LOVE the ability to play all sides, I also wish it was somehow from the perspective of a player loyal to my alliance. Some creative quest dialogue could do it better than the band-aid we have.

That said, I'm actually really enjoying the veteran zones.



I agree with solo content, but I also agree with public content. There needs to be a careful balance, and right now as far as dungeons go, that balance is in favor of public.

All that said, I do not support removing content from one to make it available for both. Much like a PvP-only Cyrodiil, I like that there are 'requirements' to enter. Want to visit Cyrodiil? Accept that you may PvP. Want to do that one public dungeon? Accept it is public. But in that same vein, if there is a private solo/duo dungeon, players should not try to make it public. Individual, specialized content that is unique to a playstyle.


Alliance Campaigns are exactly what many of us predicted they would be in Beta. PvP competitors are very much team oriented, and will pit themselves in favorable circumstances because very few players want to be the underdog. Take Horde versus Alliance in World of Warcraft. Once it was determined that Horde would represent the 'competitive PvP' angle, battlegrounds remained uniquely unbalanced. This always happens.

While balancing via rewards and assets would be nice, I don't know how you would stop the tendency of players to want to choose the 'winning team'. I haven't seen a game yet, outside of first person shooters and quick matches, that can really find that balance.



The grouping mechanics are awful. Grouping outside of questing (world bosses, public dungeons, even regular dungeons) is fine. Questing is simply a clusterfrack.

Luckily, they seem to admit to a problem and are debating fixing it. But until ZOS does fix it, they must realize many players like myself are simply not making the social connections that we would, connections needed to survive in a game like this. It really is that bad.

Larira

Valfodr wrote: »

1. Free to play

OMG, no. Do you really want that the most new content will be new items for the item shop? Look at the other F2P-games and their patch notes.

Greetings

KerinKor

Larira wrote: »

Valfodr wrote: »

1. Free to play

OMG, no. Do you really want that the most new content will be new items for the item shop? Look at the other F2P-games and their patch notes.

Indeed, history shows no matter how vocal the developer is that the 'store' will only contain 'fluff' it never stays like that as 'fluff' doesn't pay the bills.

LOTRO to my mind is the most egregious I have played. Turbine were ADAMANT that the Store wouldn't affect game design, yet Helm's Deep shows just how much the game design is now used to 'drive' Store revenues.

Turbine parroted an nauseum that there would be nothing vital to playing the game which would be Store-exclusive and as far as I know that's still true .. what is also true though that now some very important items such as buff pots are only acquirable in-game for barter tokens that are rarer than hen's teeth as drops.

Trion are in the same state with Rift, the 'fluff' is still there and I'll be honest I've bought a couple of 'fun' things, but in spite of Trion's endless protestations there are now BiS items for sale.

I can't find it now but there was a blog written recently explaining the economic realities that mean 'fluff only' isn't a viable business model. If God forbid ZOS ever do take this game 'hybrid' like LOTRO, Rift and SW:TOR (those I have played that didn't abandon subscriptions entirely) you can expect the same claims .. and the same failure to adhere to promises made at the time will follow as surely as night follows day.

Xaei

It can be done. The cash shop in GW1 and at least to the extent of the cash shop itself in GW2 (ie, you can trade gems for gold), it was pure fluff. There are a few 'non-fluff' things in them but they are so trivial no one really spends gems in them.

But I guess it works because the whole game was about fluff. The endgame gearing is about making your character look badass in both games, so the fluff in the cash shop is actually very attractive to their players.

KerinKor

Xaei wrote: »

It can be done. The cash shop in GW1 and at least to the extent of the cash shop itself in GW2 (ie, you can trade gems for gold), it was pure fluff. There are a few 'non-fluff' things in them but they are so trivial no one really spends gems in them.

But I guess it works because the whole game was about fluff. The endgame gearing is about making your character look badass in both games, so the fluff in the cash shop is actually very attractive to their players.

I played GW1 only briefly so the 'shop' never came up as an issue. I have played GW2 a lot, I have 5 level 80s and enjoyed getting them there and certainly bought basic things like inventory and bank expansions.

I view GW2 as fundamentally different from games that started out as a subscription game that failed in that mode and had to switch to a hybrid.

When you play GW2 you are under no illusion that you'll probably have to pay out some cash in order to get round blocks of some sort. There's nothing wrong with that, it's their business model and they're 100% up-front about their intentions.

However, neither LOTRO nor Rift not SW:TOR were released like that, but morphed into MT-driven games and thus 'nickel and diming' came in via the back-door, and as I laid out in the case of LOTRO the whole ethos of the game designers clearly changed or the worse.

I play Runescape as well and am quite happy with the MT model, I knew what I was getting into and it's fine. Turbine OTOH sold their integrity to WB and then opened the Store and the game degenerated as a result.

Valfodr

ruze84b14_ESO wrote: »

World of Warcraft and EvE Online (as well as even Everquest 1 and Ultima Online, which are both hitting record numbers) are both pay-to-play subscription models which are incredibly successful. Dark Age of Camelot was also a subscription that saw it's peak. Subscription models bring content updates and patches faster than free-to-play, which is a proven fact. They also tend to last longer, time wise.

Plus, the number of F2P champions that are reporting consumer losses due to the tendency for power gear to creep into a promised 'vanity only' marketplace is rather staggering. The company doesn't make enough money off of vanity, they introduce a pack of potions or a set of armor, and people start leaving.

And while they obviously have fewer players than free-to-play, this means that fewer server assets and bot headaches to manage. More players don't mean better, unless those players all spend money.

WoW, Eve, EQ and UO are all over a decade old. They were produced in the dawn of MMOs and had/have a loyal player base to justify the sub. New sub-based MMOs cannot compete against the staggering amount of f2p options available.

Some points you say are valid, like the increase in numbers resulting in increased server constraints and more prevalent botting. But this is far outweighed by the increased revenue from sheer numbers. Yes, there will be a high percentage of players who don't spend a cent on a cash shop, but there is also a large amount that spend well in excess of $15 per month. The box cost doesn't have to be removed, only the subscription. General consumers don't like being pigeon-holed into a subscription model. I would happily stake my career in marketing to prove that a f2p model would generate more revenue in this instance.

As Xaei mentioned, look at GW2 for an example of a pure cosmetic/convenience cash shop model that functions perfectly. Or DDO, as it is the most recent and relevant example of a dying mmo transformed into a thriving mmo.

steveb16_ESO46

KerinKor wrote: »

LOTRO to my mind is the most egregious I have played. Turbine were ADAMANT that the Store wouldn't affect game design, yet Helm's Deep shows just how much the game design is now used to 'drive' Store revenues.

Turbine parroted an nauseum that there would be nothing vital to playing the game which would be Store-exclusive and as far as I know that's still true .. what is also true though that now some very important items such as buff pots are only acquirable in-game for barter tokens that are rarer than hen's teeth as drops.

Yea. LOTRO. The Store with a Game Attached. Turbine specialise now in removing gameplay elements and selling them back to you. The mechanics are driven to force you to take Store short-cuts.

That's what happens with FTP, as sure as night follows day.

It was insane to release ESO in the state they did. They practically doomed it to be FTP in 12 months.

I really want this to be a quality sub based game.

Volkodav

I am not sure this is the place to put this,but I could find no other place. I have found that for solo players,it is quite rough going. Everything is priced very high,and the amount of gold or items,armor,etc,you get from quests are slim. Many quests,you just get a furtherance of the quest itself,and no reward.Also,most everything I check,wardrobes,desk,crates,backpacks,etc,..
have only a few ingredients,or lockpicks. In Morrowind,you had hope of finding random bits of real good armor,or weapons.Not so in TESO.Why did you make it this rough for solo players? I love the game,dont get me wrong,but,Jeez is it rough. And a mount? Forget that.What with repairing armor,and weapons,one can never afford one.Unles you pay more money,..$15.00. Wasnt $59.00 enough?

Ser Lobo

Valfodr wrote: »

WoW, Eve, EQ and UO are all over a decade old. They were produced in the dawn of MMOs and had/have a loyal player base to justify the sub. New sub-based MMOs cannot compete against the staggering amount of f2p options available.

Some points you say are valid, like the increase in numbers resulting in increased server constraints and more prevalent botting. But this is far outweighed by the increased revenue from sheer numbers. Yes, there will be a high percentage of players who don't spend a cent on a cash shop, but there is also a large amount that spend well in excess of $15 per month. The box cost doesn't have to be removed, only the subscription. General consumers don't like being pigeon-holed into a subscription model. I would happily stake my career in marketing to prove that a f2p model would generate more revenue in this instance.

As Xaei mentioned, look at GW2 for an example of a pure cosmetic/convenience cash shop model that functions perfectly. Or DDO, as it is the most recent and relevant example of a dying mmo transformed into a thriving mmo.

Guild Wars 2, as other players here have mentioned, is a game build entirely around it's cash shop. The actual gear-drive of the game is moot because players are artificially 'leveled' by the system, meaning in the end the only important factor IS fluff and vanity.

And while GW2 is a success in it's own rights, much like it's predecessor, it's fairly unique in the free-to-play world because of it's basic premise. It was designed free-to-play and intended to be free-to-play, and it's unique server system, single-player co-op sharding, and the gameplay mechanics themselves were all designed to handle massive server load and spread it out by separating the players out.

And even GW2 starts to lose it's fanbase. So many other F2P games out there don't cost a dime, and the complaint I've seen so much of is dedicated to that box cost. Whereas GW1 brought F2P to MMO's, F2P is evolving and many feel GW2 isn't keeping up.



DDO, and SWTOR, and many other games that contain a cash shop as an afterthought, are such parodies of game design because it's so blaringly obvious their games weren't capable of standing on their own. Add in that a game like DDO or Star Trek Online are run by larger MMO managing houses, and it becomes obvious that development resources are shared between the various MMO's under that house, giving less content and less dedicated feedback to any individual product.

This changes in the single-product MMO companies. I feel that Zenimax was ambitious with their game design, and their aggressive content will be interesting to watch. They will be putting out major updates and simple fixes far faster than any other company out there. But of course, they will be paid to do so.

The headaches involved with bringing the F2P customer base (which has become very unique in MMO's, very separated from that of the subscriber) into this MMO would be horrendous.

What you are calling for, is essentially a ruining of the game, so that someone who cannot afford $15 a month of leisure money (but somehow has time to still play games) would be given a chance to play an MMO that already cost them $60 just to buy the box. Those players, with all that time and no money? What do they bring in for the company?

If the vaunted 'nickle and dime' cash shop items are so much more worthy, we'll probably still see them added into this game. I know that I would probably buy from it.

Ser Lobo

As an aside, to the 'Old MMO's' comment: I feel that an Elder Scrolls game will earn a loyal playerbase. I feel that a Dark Age of Camelot spiritual successor will earn a loyal playerbase. And I feel that the quality in graphics and world design alone set this game apart and ahead of many of it's peers, especially avoiding the cartoony and fanciful elements so common in MMO's now. And as of right now, they game is all of this.

I do not feel the current guild mechanics, quest system or lack of drive to AvAvA will earn a loyal playerbase. If Zenimax can improve this in a quick manner, with good communication, they will see that playerbase become loyal.

popatiberiuoneb18_ESO

WhiskeyRiver.AZub17_ESO wrote: »

I am not sure this is the place to put this,but I could find no other place. I have found that for solo players,it is quite rough going. Everything is priced very high,and the amount of gold or items,armor,etc,you get from quests are slim. Many quests,you just get a furtherance of the quest itself,and no reward.Also,most everything I check,wardrobes,desk,crates,backpacks,etc,..
have only a few ingredients,or lockpicks. In Morrowind,you had hope of finding random bits of real good armor,or weapons.Not so in TESO.Why did you make it this rough for solo players? I love the game,dont get me wrong,but,Jeez is it rough. And a mount? Forget that.What with repairing armor,and weapons,one can never afford one.Unles you pay more money,..$15.00. Wasnt $59.00 enough?

Welcome to the mmo world. Farming is your best friend!