Crisscross wrote: »

Speaking for myself, I really don't care about the content. Dark Brotherhood, Justice system, whathaveyou - I can't bring myself to care when I still can't play a heavy armor melee character in PVP without being gimped. I find the fundamentals of the game that are flawed, and so I can't even begin to enjoy the fluff even if I otherwise would.

In my case, the balancing changes are definitely what might be "too little, too late" for me. I'm just wondering why they didn't mind knee-jerk nerfing shield bash into the ground after a week of forum outcry, yet we have been screaming about heavy armor and stamina uselessness for months and the devs' stance is "We make class balance changes very slowly because they can have a big impact on your play experience."

Well as you can see by looking at the changes this major overhaul will in fact effect everyone in multiple ways, why would u not want them to do it with carefully( which takes time). They rush changing one move that is not working right because of exactly that its not working right. Bash was not intended to replace all melee, seeing that it did, they had to Nerf it.

renton1x1x1 wrote: »

Personally i'm still enjoying the game it's holding my interest. In MMO terms there isn't much else that i'm going to play in the next year. Wildstar and Archage both look kinda MEH. I have my previous game the secret world if i get bored but havent logged into that for 2 months.

Check out Skyforge and Black Desert - new shinies on the horizon

shehieb17_ESO wrote: »

kewl wrote: »

jeevin wrote: »

That leaves me with just over one week left on my sub. I've played most of the solo content available. I feel to get the most out of the upcoming changes I would really have to start again. But the game is so linear and themepark by design I can't really fathom going through all the same quests again.

If you haven't tried PvP yet you should, it's thrilling.

Why? The original concept-holder, Guild Wars 2, has the better version of it. Why would I try the copycat, when there is the original?!

Are you even kidding me.......

DAOC was the original, with the copycats being ESO, WAR, and GW2. And for the record, Cyrodiil in ESO is lightyears better than the PvDoor blobfest of GW2. Cyrodiil's size actually promotes spread out, dynamic battles over large areas. GW2 is just Musical Chairs with keeps.

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO wrote: »

Crisscross wrote: »

Speaking for myself, I really don't care about the content. Dark Brotherhood, Justice system, whathaveyou - I can't bring myself to care when I still can't play a heavy armor melee character in PVP without being gimped. I find the fundamentals of the game that are flawed, and so I can't even begin to enjoy the fluff even if I otherwise would.

In my case, the balancing changes are definitely what might be "too little, too late" for me. I'm just wondering why they didn't mind knee-jerk nerfing shield bash into the ground after a week of forum outcry, yet we have been screaming about heavy armor and stamina uselessness for months and the devs' stance is "We make class balance changes very slowly because they can have a big impact on your play experience."

Well as you can see by looking at the changes this major overhaul will in fact effect everyone in multiple ways, why would u not want them to do it with carefully( which takes time). They rush changing one move that is not working right because of exactly that its not working right. Bash was not intended to replace all melee, seeing that it did, they had to Nerf it.

First of all, what major overhaul?

Second of all, you're right about bash, it wasn't intended to replace all melee so they nerfed it.

Following that logic, staffs are not intended to replace all weapons. Light armor is not intended to replace all armor. Aren't they, in turn, deserving of immediate nerfs as well?

As I said in another thread, it's just confusing and disheartening seeing this sort of behavior from ZOS with no explanation. They're ready to shoot from the hip and nerf certain things, but they drag their feet and are tight lipped with others.

Crisscross wrote: »

Context. He was comparing the single player market to MMOs, which is a very different landscape. The mandatory sub fee makes people disgruntled when progress isn't being made, and almost every MMO is in competition with one another. Think about it, what competition does Skyrim have? The only games like it are other Bethesda games, or obscure non-AAA titles that could never pose a threat. Meanwhile everyone is ready to butt heads during ESO vs Wildstar discussions, which are in all honesty pretty different.

On top of that, we still have no idea when "later" is.

MMO's are in competition with anything that competes for your leisure time, not just MMO's. ESO I suspect, as it is a very solo oriented game, is in competition with solo games. My sub comes up for renewal round about the time Dragon Age Inquisition comes out so that's probably going to be a several month gap even if ESO has got good by then.

Sub based games, particularly ones like ESO just cannot afford to gamble with their customers by releasing in the state it did, taking so long to make basic balance fixes and continually breaking stuff.

Much as I want ESO to thrive as a great sub based game I think they blew that chance the moment someone decided it was in a fit state for release back in April.

It's very easy to lose customers, it's very hard to win them back.

fromtesonlineb16_ESO wrote: »

Pallmor wrote: »

I've been playing since April

Elapsed time is meaningless, when people say something like they they're not saying what they think they are.

It's PLAY time that matters, and how much per week you can put in, saying you've been playing for nearly 4 months doesn't mean anything in this context.

I assume you mean /played time.

But even then, that doesn't mean what you think it means either... there are those who explore, read all the lore books, listen to the dialog, go on long flower picking expeditions... and those who dash from one farming location to another and never do any quests--to underline the extremes, mind you, I'm not valuing one over the other. A very different gaming experience, which may actually have the same /played value.

So I agree, these time comparisons are meaningless, whatever yardstick you use.

However, longevity, and history, with the game does mean something. The perspective on how the game has changed. How far along you've brought your characters, to what levels, in what alliances, to say nothing of PvP & Veteran content... all that counts, too.

As time goes by, I think it gets pretty clear who knows what they're talking about, and who doesn't, who's perspective is based on hard won game wisdom, and who is talking through their hat and making purely emotional arguments. One doesn't need to appeal to "time played" to make a good case for something.

CapuchinSeven wrote: »

It's not that the new content doesn't look great, it's just that many of us are getting sick of games that do things like this. It's the old Microsoft tactic from the 80-90s and we've seen it in games like AoC as well.

Features, features, features (some of which you never really end up seeing) features, features, is what they throw at us when many of us really just want...

Bug fixes, broken borked combat system fixed to stop animation skipping, and spell casters holding block while casting hugely hard hitting instant spells, performance upgrades and optimisation to the awful awful lag and server crashes (which seem never ending) in PVP. And so on.

The features and new things all sound great, it's not that they don't, it's just they are dumping stuff on top of stuff that doesn't work (yet or ever) and frankly I doubt their ability to not break a ton more stuff as they do it.

Great post!

You really nailed my thoughts on this.