jelliedsoup wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Emma_Eunjung wrote: »

The problem isn't so much a lack of solo content, it's the fact that there is no VR11-VR14 solo content.

I'm not frustrated with ESO because I'm bored and can't find anything to do - there's plenty to do! I'm frustrated with ESO because there's no way for solo players to feel like they've reached the "top" of the game. Sure, you can grind to VR14 like I did, but you still can't fight any mobs that drop best-in-slot gear like the Trial stuff.

It's not like solo players are some tiny minority making unreasonable demands... we're the vast majority! ZoS needs to figure out who their real customers are and create content accordingly.

First off, you have no idea whether you're the majority here. But as this as an MMO, you're being extremely unreasonable.

I know of no MMO in the history of gaming that has allowed someone to get the best-in-slot gear through solo content. Not one. Ever. It makes zero sense in a world where a developer wants to encourage group cooperation.

Why are they so focussed on group cooperation? ES was a solo game you can keep pushing the multi player mantra but many people play this game to solo as it's an ES game. They marketed this game as such. if they sold it as a group only game then sure.

Personally i dont care what other MMOs do.

I'm not sure who "They" are but this was definately marketed as a MMO and not TES6. Now you may have got caught up in another website/news/magazine marketing that was after click-bait but this has been a MMO at its core.

ZOS marketed this as a MMO that has combat "like" a solo game. Thats about the extent of it.

ZOS_TristanK wrote: »

Hey, @jelliedsoup. We definitely have plans for more content both for groups and solo-players. At QuakeCon 2014, we showed off Wrothgar for the first time, which will be a solo PvE zone. You can check it out on youtube here.

We showed off some of the other planned DLC in a recent episode of ESO Live, which you can catch here. We'll have more details about each zone later on!

Wonderful, thanks.
I might have missed the finer points on this, but I am concerned with the 'solo PvE zone' of Wrothgar. I certainly hope it's 'solo' like most of the other zones in the game: where most of the content/storylines are solo, but there are group bosses, an open group dungeon (or more!), and one or more private dungeons in the zone.

Having a zone either all solo, or all group is a mistake. Having a mix of both is - as I'm sure development knows - is obviously ideal. This is quite important primarily due to keeping the community together. For example; a player solo, quest etc if you don't have a group whilst keeping an eye on /zone chat, or asking yourself for a group for some of the harder content. Having both types of content in the same zone, means players can do something whilst looking for a group, rather than just standing around.

In my opinion this is the one failing of Craglorn: Players should have been given something they could do alone whilst looking for a group.

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

jelliedsoup wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

jelliedsoup wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Emma_Eunjung wrote: »

The problem isn't so much a lack of solo content, it's the fact that there is no VR11-VR14 solo content.

I'm not frustrated with ESO because I'm bored and can't find anything to do - there's plenty to do! I'm frustrated with ESO because there's no way for solo players to feel like they've reached the "top" of the game. Sure, you can grind to VR14 like I did, but you still can't fight any mobs that drop best-in-slot gear like the Trial stuff.

It's not like solo players are some tiny minority making unreasonable demands... we're the vast majority! ZoS needs to figure out who their real customers are and create content accordingly.

First off, you have no idea whether you're the majority here. But as this as an MMO, you're being extremely unreasonable.

I know of no MMO in the history of gaming that has allowed someone to get the best-in-slot gear through solo content. Not one. Ever. It makes zero sense in a world where a developer wants to encourage group cooperation.

Why are they so focussed on group cooperation? ES was a solo game you can keep pushing the multi player mantra but many people play this game to solo as it's an ES game. They marketed this game as such. if they sold it as a group only game then sure.

Personally i dont care what other MMOs do.

This is the Elder Scrolls Online. Your argument is akin to complaining that WoW isn't a strategy game.

If you want a single-player Elder Scrolls experience, you have five excellent games to choose from. This game is an MMO, not a single-player game that happens to have other people running around in it.

You're constructing a strawman to justify all new pve should be group based.

i play in groups in pve and pvp but this game is lacking in single player pve at end game.

I doubt that those es players who solo have stuck around which just justifies your generic mmo definition.

I'm not saying all new content should be group-only. But I am saying that expecting solo content to be the focus of MMO content updates is flat-out ridiculous.

Single-player endgame takes on one form: daily quests. If that is ever the main thrust of a content update, no one will want to pay for it.

How is a request for some solo pve content at end game requesting solo content to be the focus?

You're conflating the request to justify your aversion to it.

i have also played since morrowind, but this is my first mmo. There were many people like me but this game has failed to be an ES game and has just focused on the mmo component.

Lord Xanhorn wrote: »

This is the stupidest thread I've ever seen on the forums and there have been some doozies!

There is actually more than 1 person arguing that ESO is a single player experience set in a game where multiple players are playing alongside each other and that devs should somehow create content for these kooks.

MMOs are multiplayer games. That means you are supposed to play cooperatively and against other players. The only reason solo content exists is so you have something to do while your friends and guildmates aren't on. It is NOT the focus of the game nor should it be.

No it only means there are multiple players. Grouping is only a part of it. Just like pvp and pve.

Heruthema wrote: »

No it only means there are multiple players. Grouping is only a part of it. Just like pvp and pve.

No it doesnt really. Single player games have structures and systems that revolve around the player feeling like they are the hero. MMOs have structures and systems that revolve around players feeling like they and their friends are the heroes. No MMO marketing in the history of the world would sell itself as a single player game where you play alongside other players that you arent supposed to interact with.

jelliedsoup wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

jelliedsoup wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

jelliedsoup wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Emma_Eunjung wrote: »

The problem isn't so much a lack of solo content, it's the fact that there is no VR11-VR14 solo content.

I'm not frustrated with ESO because I'm bored and can't find anything to do - there's plenty to do! I'm frustrated with ESO because there's no way for solo players to feel like they've reached the "top" of the game. Sure, you can grind to VR14 like I did, but you still can't fight any mobs that drop best-in-slot gear like the Trial stuff.

It's not like solo players are some tiny minority making unreasonable demands... we're the vast majority! ZoS needs to figure out who their real customers are and create content accordingly.

First off, you have no idea whether you're the majority here. But as this as an MMO, you're being extremely unreasonable.

I know of no MMO in the history of gaming that has allowed someone to get the best-in-slot gear through solo content. Not one. Ever. It makes zero sense in a world where a developer wants to encourage group cooperation.

Why are they so focussed on group cooperation? ES was a solo game you can keep pushing the multi player mantra but many people play this game to solo as it's an ES game. They marketed this game as such. if they sold it as a group only game then sure.

Personally i dont care what other MMOs do.

This is the Elder Scrolls Online. Your argument is akin to complaining that WoW isn't a strategy game.

If you want a single-player Elder Scrolls experience, you have five excellent games to choose from. This game is an MMO, not a single-player game that happens to have other people running around in it.

You're constructing a strawman to justify all new pve should be group based.

i play in groups in pve and pvp but this game is lacking in single player pve at end game.

I doubt that those es players who solo have stuck around which just justifies your generic mmo definition.

I'm not saying all new content should be group-only. But I am saying that expecting solo content to be the focus of MMO content updates is flat-out ridiculous.

Single-player endgame takes on one form: daily quests. If that is ever the main thrust of a content update, no one will want to pay for it.

How is a request for some solo pve content at end game requesting solo content to be the focus?

You're conflating the request to justify your aversion to it.

i have also played since morrowind, but this is my first mmo. There were many people like me but this game has failed to be an ES game and has just focused on the mmo component.

Well, welcome to the MMO world. Now that you've been here for a year, I assume you've seen how things work.

There is no reason whatsoever for ZO to concentrate on delivering a single-player-centric experience with this game, because Bethesda already has that covered. It's absolutely ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

The goal of ESO was to try and recreate the feel of the Elder Scrolls universe in a multiplayer format. That has been the developers' stated aim since they started working on this. MMOs have to focus on content for the larger community, not just for those people who really like single-player games and (for Stendarr knows what reason) thought this was going to be exactly the same but somehow involve other people that you never really had to interact with.

Tandor wrote: »

Varicite wrote: »

ZOS_TristanK wrote: »

Hey, @jelliedsoup. We definitely have plans for more content both for groups and solo-players. At QuakeCon 2014, we showed off Wrothgar for the first time, which will be a solo PvE zone. You can check it out on youtube here.

We showed off some of the other planned DLC in a recent episode of ESO Live, which you can catch here. We'll have more details about each zone later on!

"Other planned DLC".

You did show off Wrothgar at Quakecon in 2014. A lot of players had been eagerly anticipating this, and paying you a subscription fee to develop it.

Now you're asking them to pay for it as DLC. Classy move.

Simply not true. If you continue to pay a subscription as you were expecting to do all along, then you will not have to pay for DLC.

You do not have to pay for DLC if you don't mind just "renting" it. The second your sub ends, you no longer have access to that DLC.

So yes, you do have to pay for it if you actually want to own it.

Better save up those crowns they're giving you w/ your sub. : )

Lord Xanhorn wrote: »

Heruthema wrote: »

No it only means there are multiple players. Grouping is only a part of it. Just like pvp and pve.

No it doesnt really. Single player games have structures and systems that revolve around the player feeling like they are the hero. MMOs have structures and systems that revolve around players feeling like they and their friends are the heroes. No MMO marketing in the history of the world would sell itself as a single player game where you play alongside other players that you arent supposed to interact with.

Yes it does. MMO never meant grouping. That was a feature just like pve. Just because you and others have decided to group and that is what you enjoy does not mean the definition of MMO is primarily grouping.
Again it only means that a lot of people are playing in the same environment. If they choose to group then great they group. If they choose to play solo then they can do that also.
But it never meant nor will it ever mean primarily a game for groups. If it did it would be an MMOG.

Varicite wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

Varicite wrote: »

ZOS_TristanK wrote: »

Hey, @jelliedsoup. We definitely have plans for more content both for groups and solo-players. At QuakeCon 2014, we showed off Wrothgar for the first time, which will be a solo PvE zone. You can check it out on youtube here.

We showed off some of the other planned DLC in a recent episode of ESO Live, which you can catch here. We'll have more details about each zone later on!

"Other planned DLC".

You did show off Wrothgar at Quakecon in 2014. A lot of players had been eagerly anticipating this, and paying you a subscription fee to develop it.

Now you're asking them to pay for it as DLC. Classy move.

Simply not true. If you continue to pay a subscription as you were expecting to do all along, then you will not have to pay for DLC.

You do not have to pay for DLC if you don't mind just "renting" it. The second your sub ends, you no longer have access to that DLC.

So yes, you do have to pay for it if you actually want to own it.

Better save up those crowns they're giving you w/ your sub. : )

If you intended to subscribe then the position is no different while you are paying a subscription.

However, if you choose to suspend your subscription for a period then you will, under the new arrangements, be able to continue to play most of the game free of charge whereas previously you would have been locked out if it. When you renew your subscription you'll have full access again. In the meantime you will also have the option of buying access to the DLC separately without needing to renew the subscription, if you prefer that. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Varicite wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Exactly. Please quit it with the "They took away our content," arguments.

You were going to pay a subscription to get it, so you will be getting the exact same thing when you continue as an ESO Plus member. If you aren't an ESO Plus member, then you get to not pay for the months leading up to Wrothgar and simply pay a one-time fee for the DLC itself. Either way, you're ending up with a better financial deal.

There are other issues coming with the new payment model (mainly related to the quality of the community), but this is not one of them.

I won't "quit it", because subscribers have already paid for the development of this content, and now have the privilege to pay for the same content some more.

Wrong. See my last comment. Subscribers won't pay a penny more for the DLC while subscribing, as would have been the case before. However, if they suspend their subscription they can either continue to play the rest of the game for nothing or buy the DLC separately, whereas before they would have been locked out of the game entirely while not subscribing.

Actually, he is telling the truth.

Look at WoW, the Secret World, LoTRO, SWTOR or EQ2 for example. Virtually no-one groups through the main levelling quests in those games, group-play is designed mainly for dungeons, PvP and raids including endgame. A couple of those games feature, like ESO, heavily story-based quest-lines that are specifically intended to be undertaken solo.

However, when soloing through those games most players will want to interact with other players through trading, chatting, and guild membership, as well as adventuring co-operatively with other players as they do in TESO with dolvens, outdoor boss mobs, and public dungeons etc.

See my earlier quote from the back of the box. The game wasn't designed primarily for group play, it was designed for players to "adventure alone or together with friends". That is no different from most other MMOs.

[Moderator Note: Removed moderated quote]

Tandor wrote: »

Actually, he is telling the truth.

Look at WoW, the Secret World, LoTRO, SWTOR or EQ2 for example. Virtually no-one groups through the main levelling quests in those games, group-play is designed mainly for dungeons, PvP and raids including endgame. A couple of those games feature, like ESO, heavily story-based quest-lines that are specifically intended to be undertaken solo.

However, when soloing through those games most players will want to interact with other players through trading, chatting, and guild membership, as well as adventuring co-operatively with other players as they do in TESO with dolvens, outdoor boss mobs, and public dungeons etc.

See my earlier quote from the back of the box. The game wasn't designed primarily for group play, it was designed for players to "adventure alone or together with friends". That is no different from most other MMOs.

[Moderator Note: Removed moderated quote]

Only when it comes to MMORPGs do I see the argument made that multiplayer games should focus on single-player gameplay. In other video game genres - people understand multiplayer games should have multiplayer gameplay.

Yes: you can choose to play solo if you want as the box implies. But that's irrelevant really. Because If Elder Scrolls Online was meant to be a single-player game then it would be a single player game.

In other words: multiplayer does not mean it's just a single player game with a chat room slapped on it. And many of those games you mentioned - such as WoW or LOTRO for example - were very heavy on multiplayer gameplay when they were first released. They were only changed later to be more solo-oriented because that's what the newer players demanded. But they were never intended to be that way.

Jeremy wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

Actually, he is telling the truth.

Look at WoW, the Secret World, LoTRO, SWTOR or EQ2 for example. Virtually no-one groups through the main levelling quests in those games, group-play is designed mainly for dungeons, PvP and raids including endgame. A couple of those games feature, like ESO, heavily story-based quest-lines that are specifically intended to be undertaken solo.

However, when soloing through those games most players will want to interact with other players through trading, chatting, and guild membership, as well as adventuring co-operatively with other players as they do in TESO with dolvens, outdoor boss mobs, and public dungeons etc.

See my earlier quote from the back of the box. The game wasn't designed primarily for group play, it was designed for players to "adventure alone or together with friends". That is no different from most other MMOs.

[Moderator Note: Removed moderated quote]

Only when it comes to MMORPGs do I see the argument made that multiplayer games should focus on single-player gameplay. In other video game genres - people understand multiplayer games should have multiplayer gameplay.

You refer to the argument being made that multiplayer games should focus on single-player gameplay , but to be honest I never see that argument nor do I ever make it. I see the argument that multiplayer games should focus on a variety of content and play-styles, including solo, group and raid content, PvE and PvP content, plus other things like crafting and housing.

I see the argument that people like to solo adventure within multiplayer games in which they like to interact in many ways with other players outside of combat. I believe most people understand that multiplayer games should have multiplayer gameplay, but a few still fail to understand that multiplayer gameplay doesn't just mean grouped combat.

Against those points I see the argument that it's a MMO therefore people shouldn't solo. I wholeheartedly reject that argument which mitigates against the whole principle of providing a balanced variety of content and play-styles and represents some players seeking to force other players into "Play My Way" when the industry as a whole has moved to "Play Your Way".

This topic is typical of the arguments I see, rather than the argument you describe, in that people are saying that it is right that the game should provide both solo and group content but that as the additional content provided since launch has been largely group-oriented they hope there will be additional solo content in order to maintain the variety of content necessary for any MMO to thrive.

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

There is no reason whatsoever for ZO to concentrate on delivering a single-player-centric experience with this game, because Bethesda already has that covered. It's absolutely ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

The goal of ESO was to try and recreate the feel of the Elder Scrolls universe in a multiplayer format. That has been the developers' stated aim since they started working on this. MMOs have to focus on content for the larger community, not just for those people who really like single-player games and (for Stendarr knows what reason) thought this was going to be exactly the same but somehow involve other people that you never really had to interact with.

This is very true.

There are some risks to being an Elder Scrolls title outside of the main Elder Scrolls universe, like ESO is. The dedicated TES fans will be very quick to leave ESO for TES 6. When they return, if they return, they will be coming from a state of the art game back to a game that seems much more antiquated than when they left it.

ZOS would do well to cultivate the MMO player in addition to the TES player.