Tapio75 wrote: »

Kragorn wrote: »

WraithAzraiel wrote: »

[...]

@Tapio75 .. I'd also point out to the many who don't seem to know it, the 'G' doesn't stand for group, nothing about an MMORPG per se means you should have to 'group up', least of all in order simply to level-up a character.

This is really one of the aspects i was trying to point out. It is sad though, that it seems really hard to get good conversation about this thing.

Instead just bunch of people trying to make fun out of it but i guess that is to be expected on the internet these days.

When someone writes something like

People, who state "This is MMO" without really knowing that it really doers not mean all that they think it means,

then I really don't see how you expect to initiate a discussion after you're so basically and gratuitously rude.

I was pointing out I DO know what it means and its meaning doesn't have the connotation you're trying to assert it does: ergo, an MMORPG per se doesn't demand 'grouping' in order to play it and certainly in the 21st century the majority (as evidenced by numerous player populations in many online games) isn't expected to demand grouping simply to 'level up'.

Karmine wrote: »

Tapio75 wrote: »

However, i also play STO(Star Trek Online)

In my mind, it has an exellent system to suit more players with different skill level.. There is difficulty slider, similar to waht previous TES games have.. The more difficult you select, the more difficult the game naturally gets.. Also death penalties are more severe but rewards are better quality and give more currency and XP.. I think something similar to this would suit ESO very well.

The problem I have with difficulty slider is what do you really get ?

Well, there is that.. In case of STO, i have not seen negative effects, at least not seen people complain much or eliti groups forming due that but then again it is in many ways, different game..

In case of any kind of jerks.. There could be some form of player moderator system like reputation but then again this is also something that could potentially be exploited, very hard to make but outside of any other problem, at least peole would be able to choose difficulty setting that suits them..

Maybe that survey they planned to place us in our own instances of game would have been good in this case as well..

Well, personally i would not want any more reward from playing higher difficulty but maybe some would.. Being more challengin is enough for me.

Karmine wrote: »

Tapio75 wrote: »

However, i also play STO(Star Trek Online)

In my mind, it has an exellent system to suit more players with different skill level.. There is difficulty slider, similar to waht previous TES games have.. The more difficult you select, the more difficult the game naturally gets.. Also death penalties are more severe but rewards are better quality and give more currency and XP.. I think something similar to this would suit ESO very well.

The problem I have with difficulty slider is what do you really get ?

Should there be increased XP or Rewards for playing on higher Difficulty ?
This will make the game very unenjoyable for many people.

And if there is no reward difference than there shall be "Elitist" club most likely.
"LOL u nub, you didn't eve set settings on MEDIUM!"

Or should there only be difficulty slider for "Alts" in that case you are forced to play the game once before you increase the difficulty.

There are a lot of decision to made about a system like that and no matter what they do, people will get angry. So safest is more or less to not implement it.


Let just hope they have DLC that will fix this, by having DLC zone where you scale up which is additionally very hard zone.

The higher rewards given are still not the best of course, and can be gained through other means (e.g. auction house / exchange in STO). I don't recall much controversy about the difficulty slider in STO game nor forum, certainly not a bunch of elitists (there will always be some here/there, but certainly not vocal). My main char is also set to elite (hardest of the three options), and it's quite fun.

One thing one many forget there though (I've done it a few times), the group leader's difficulty setting applies to the whole group, obviously something to keep in mind.

All this time I thought MMO was some acronym I didn't know the meaning of that explained why certain things that were awesome in the single player games had to be retconned into something ridiculous for this one. Vampires and Werewolves anyone?

If the developers intended this to be a solo game, they would have made it a standalone game which is much, much, MUCH cheaper and easier to develop and support, even when adding something like 4-8 player co-op. They did not make that game, they made an MMO, which implies a focus on group content (otherwise they would take the far cheaper route of making a single player action RPG). When you make or sign on to play an MMO, they key word is "multiplayer" which is not a synonym for "lots of players". Multiplayer games mean group interaction around the same content (either in opposition like PVP or cooperative as in dungeons), not a bunch of people running around disconnected from one another player the same game. That doesn't mean every encounter should require 20-40 player groups, that's a bit extreme, but needing at least 2 or 4 for most content beyond the main story isn't unreasonable.

The problem ZOS created here is that they made it so that the game's design inadvertently isolates players (due to catering to the whims of people who want this to be a single player game with real-time chat for game help and marketplace functions). This continues to plague ESO and will only be exacerbated when Tamriel Unlimited launches. Throughout the entire experience from level 1 to whatever VR rank a player manages to hit after completing Caldwell's Gold, 99.9% of the content can be soloed and none of it requires a real guild or any sort of affiliation whatsoever. PUGs rule dolmens and world bosses. 4-man dungeons can and are often skipped as the rewards are comparatively weak and won't be used over a piece of crafted set gear for most players. The VR content for both Silver and Gold further encourages this isolation. Even though players want to group up for it, few others seem to as it is possible to solo most things and grouping brings more hassle than good (the group tool sucks, phasing sucks, game population is low and it takes to long to find others to group with). Even when grouping, the quests don't go much faster as 80% of it is travelling and running through dialog and the XP rewards aren't increased. The playerbase has little to no incentive to group until it hits Craglorn, where grouping automatically becomes mandatory. Unfortunately, by then the game has spent the better part of more than 100 hours pushing players away from one another. Even when you've wanted to group going through the story content, phasing has screwed that up in one way or another.

For those of us who already have Veteran characters, many of us are hoping that the B2P change brings back a lot of vets so that we have players to group and form associations with. An influx of level 1 characters doesn't help us as ESO has done everything in its power to elongate the leveling grind which means that most of the new players won't even begin to contribute to alleviating the lack of Vet players for months after re-launch. Many of us Vet players aren't interested in doing that long, tiring grind again as unlike many of the other successful MMOs, ESO wants to keep us away from the level-capped or near-level cap content like Craglorn for as long as humanly possible. The game wasn't like this until the developers made everything, including the Caldwell's Silver and Gold content completely soloable by everyone. There is a better balance to be had between having an MMO that everyone can solo through (which is as utterly ridiculous as having a single player action RPG where you need to engage the co-op mode to beat the final boss or level) and the hardcore MMO where you need to have 10-20 friends or be in a large, competitive guild that can run 40+ player raids for the only content that matters at or near the level cap.

ESO has it's own special brand of difficulty because they can't suddenly make Vet content require a group even if the phasing issues are fixed as there aren't enough Vet players in any one of the factions on a single megaserver online at any given time to allow for that. Finding a player that syncs up with where you're at in the quest line to group with you in a limited player population is nearly impossible (and going back to help someone catch up to you takes too long as grouping doesn't speed up the process so that is prohibitive as well). The B2P switch alone won't fix that as it will take months for enough new players to make it to VR content. ZOS could fix this by doing three things:

1. Make 1.6 the cutoff for this hybrid solo-group ARPG/MMORPG and release no more truly solo content besides maybe random enemy grinding. If you want TES VI, buy the box game and you got it, the rest of us get an MMO. We'll get MMO updates and you'll get a boxed game like Skyrim that has now had some DLC and is in a final state. 1.7 and on, aside from system and skill adjustments, should be MMO level DLC centered around groups.

2. From March 17th until the console launch, ZOS should adjust the XP flow to rapidly advance players into the VR rank content (double or even triple the speed). This will give the Vet population more players to play with and group with in a quick manner. While it will also give rise to some complaints about lack of content from content locusts who game based on the carrot on a stick model , that can always be more or less fixed by making it worthwhile to run the Craglorn content more than a few times. Many MMO and even Online ARPG players (i.e. Diablo 3) run the same content over and over and over again because the encounters are fun, challenging and give players the incentive to do so (rare drops, materials etc...). It's a common system because it works and ESO should have taken advantage of it long before Craglorn dropped.

3. Allow cross-faction play in Adventure zones (so that all 3 factions can play together) Increasing the available playerbase threefold to every Veteran player would go a long way to solving some the issue. Many guilds are cross faction so we already chat and socialize with people from the other camps, why not be able to group with them outside of faction-related content and Cyrodiil.

This game is an MMO? I thought it was singleplayer.

Novesette wrote: »

If the developers intended this to be a solo game, they would have made it a standalone game which is much, much, MUCH cheaper and easier to develop and support, even when adding something like 4-8 player co-op. They did not make that game, they made an MMO, which implies a focus on group content (otherwise they would take the far cheaper route of making a single player action RPG). When you make or sign on to play an MMO, they key word is "multiplayer" which is not a synonym for "lots of players". Multiplayer games mean group interaction around the same content (either in opposition like PVP or cooperative as in dungeons), not a bunch of people running around disconnected from one another player the same game. That doesn't mean every encounter should require 20-40 player groups, that's a bit extreme, but needing at least 2 or 4 for most content beyond the main story isn't unreasonable.

I understand where you are coming from and I agree. Please remember that MMO really only means there are many many players in an instance. If there was a game that was competitive only with absolutely no group functionality or incentive and it had more than a 100 people on a single instance, you still call it an MMO. If there was only a simulation game with many people and absolutely no combat game mechanics or award systems, you'd still be able to call it an MMO, because of two things: Persistent Online instance with Many Many Players inside.

Since the game WAS built with grouping mechanics it is implied that the game should focus (at least some of the time) with content where grouping is given an incentive. This doesn't mean that it should only consist of grouping or that there should be content locked out to the solo player. There are some who complain about there being Solo only quests associated as the Main Story lines, wanting it groupable. If this is considered by ZOS then it would be reasonable to make all content either soloable or groupable.

Even though many people say that the game is 90% soloable (or more), they forget to say that it is also 90% groupable.

Tapio75 wrote: »

Which really means Massively Multiplayer Online and also, it should be remembered that it has RPG after MMO and RPG stands for RolePlaying Game.

So the full name of the genre is MMORPG.

MMORPG does not really define anything other aspects of the game but the fact that there are massive number of player, all playing on the same server, possibly also doing roleplaying.

It does not define how the game world is designed, not at all.

Have a nice day

MULTIPLAYER
/ˈmʌltɪˌpleɪə/
noun
1.
a mode of play involving more than one player at one time in a computer or video game

I've always thought the 'massively' and the 'multiplayer' in Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game implied 'you're going to have to group, you anti-social ***'. That's not what it means? Of course, solo play is an option in an mmo, but if you want exclusively solo play, why not just play an exclusively solo game? Many come to mind: Mass Effect, Oblivion, Skyrim, Final Fantasy, I'm sure there are more but I won't ruin the surprise for you

Sandhya wrote: »

In gaming, you don't play MMO's.

MMO's play you.

Awdwyn wrote: »

Gidorick wrote: »

Wait, so this isn't a single player racing game? Then what have I been playing all this time?

it is to me! I set up my racing wheel to control my horse.

You must be the two guys racing in opposite directions across Alikr Desert yelling "I WIN!!!! I WIN!!!"

Yep pretty much this .

At the end of the day..
The current player base shows that the staff of eso didn't do a good job.
They need to drop to B2P to get people back to be able to stay online, the only people that still play ESO are the die hard fanatic fans of TES, and now maybe a few people who have come back for 1.6 based on some of the changes that were being unveiled way back in the first month of launch.. while 9+ months later.. it finally comes to the game.

I`m in a large gaming community, that is 13 years old and spans several games. We started at launch with 1300 guild members playing ESO.

After the first 4 months of game, we were down to 300 guild members still playing ESO. now after almost a year we have stablized at 240 guild members still playing ESO, the 1150 ish that quit ESO are still in the guild they are just not wasting time in this game.

Game was poorly done, too many broken mechanics, that went unfixed, hell the front gate of Farrgut keep in Cyrodill still glows brilliant white, its been that way, since back in dec 2013 , 4 months before release.

The game by its design is not that good either, anti-social game mechanics, non-functioning LFG tools, bad guild functions, bad guild store design, bad phasing group quest system etc. too long of a list really.

When they announced the B2P you would think a lot of people would return, but out of the 1150 ish that quit ESO, only 5 said they may try it again, the rest of the over than 1100 players said they wouldn`t play it , even with it being free because they already owned a copy, it didn`t matter game wasn`t worth wasting time on.

This game has so much solo content there isn't a reason to call it an mmo. 17 zones of solo content, 1 of group content. That's a lot of solo content. We need more group content.

SteveCampsOut wrote: »

The same tire straw man everyone and his hamster are trotting out in response to anyone asking for more solo content! NOBODY is asking for "exclusively solo play"! We're just asking for more, period! Get over it!

Every zone but Craglon is chock FULL of solo content with only a smattering of actual group content. It seems like you're asking for more of what ESO already has a lot of (solo content) and responding adversely to those that want more of what ESO has very little of (group content). Excuse us if we don't sympathize with your plight.

SteveCampsOut wrote: »

Novesette wrote: »

SteveCampsOut wrote: »

The same tire straw man everyone and his hamster are trotting out in response to anyone asking for more solo content! NOBODY is asking for "exclusively solo play"! We're just asking for more, period! Get over it!

Every zone but Craglon is chock FULL of solo content with only a smattering of actual group content. It seems like you're asking for more of what ESO already has a lot of (solo content) and responding adversely to those that want more of what ESO has very little of (group content). Excuse us if we don't sympathize with your plight.

First of all, it's not "My Plight". I'm not screaming for any new content. I am agreeing with those who want to see some end game content aimed at solo players, of which, there currently is NONE. But it's certainly not my particular hobby horse here.

And second, I'm not asking for anyone's sympathy. You apparently are.

We have so little group end game content lets add more of that before anything single player.