You need to realise this is an MMO

SteveCampsOut · February 2015

thelordoffelines wrote: »

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.

I see no reason why they can't do a little bit of both. The world isn't black and white. Why does every one have such narrow viewpoints about what can be done in an open world MMO? I mean Srysly!

newtinmpls · February 2015

Ysne58 wrote: »

I think that grouping is important, but should not be required for most things. I still strongly believe that the world main quest, the mages guild and the fighters guild quests should not be forced solo. I'm pretty good support in groups with funnel health. I can handle most trash mobs. I tend to get in trouble with bosses.

I can/have done most of the main quest stuff grouped with one other person (my spouse) purely out of personal preference. Yes there are bits (a lot of the "prophet" stuff) where you are briefly forced into solo-age, but it's usually fairly short lived.

The mages guild quests are highly annoying in that they are forced solo and are longer. Again, personal preference for me - the main reason I play ESO is to be able to play "with" (mostly spouse, occasionally others).

Fighters guild quests .... um haven't done many, so I really can't speak to them (yet).

Tapio75 · February 2015

Unlike popular belief, most of the game is not solo content, it is content that players can really choose whether to play with someone they know or do it alone. This is as it should be.

Then there is the vast minority of group content like Craglorn and group dungeons... Here, i dont see amy reason why should theyt be restricteds to groups only.. They could be made so, that players scale according to group size to give best challenge for the amoiunt of players involved.

In many games, this group content is missed by assumptious 70% of playerbase. I dont see any viable reason why this content should be restricted from part of playerbase. With content that more people can play as they want, the more will be happy, winwin.

Just tell me this? How does it hurt your playstyle if people are given option to do stuff by themselves? Or how does it hurt your playstyle if players are given option for playing with friends they make while playing instead of forced to either join random people who too often are either jerks or people that never say anything in the chat?

newtinmpls · February 2015

Option being the key word here....

crislevin · February 2015

Another excuse for no new solo content?

Novesette · February 2015

Tapio75 wrote: »

Unlike popular belief, most of the game is not solo content, it is content that players can really choose whether to play with someone they know or do it alone. This is as it should be.

Then there is the vast minority of group content like Craglorn and group dungeons... Here, i dont see amy reason why should theyt be restricteds to groups only.. They could be made so, that players scale according to group size to give best challenge for the amoiunt of players involved.

In many games, this group content is missed by assumptious 70% of playerbase. I dont see any viable reason why this content should be restricted from part of playerbase. With content that more people can play as they want, the more will be happy, winwin.

Just tell me this? How does it hurt your playstyle if people are given option to do stuff by themselves? Or how does it hurt your playstyle if players are given option for playing with friends they make while playing instead of forced to either join random people who too often are either jerks or people that never say anything in the chat?

Those making arguments similar to the two above keep trying to make this an issue of people like me simply not wanting you to have a single player or solo playable experience. I don't presume to think I speak for the community at large, but for myself, quite frankly I don't care at all about your play experience. If the developers could provide you with a solo or mostly solo product without taking something away from the MMO experience (which no matter which way you attempt to twist the concept, has always been developed around the primacy of group involvement) I'd be cool with that. If it were possible for ZOS to make solo content without taking something away from actual MMO content (again, content with group involvement), very few people would care. But that's not possible. Development resources are finite. Ambidextrous content is far more difficult and time consuming than focused content (don't even bother arguing this). How do you make a 12-man encounter that can also be solo'd without being completely generic about it? Figuring out that question requires people and man hours, which means it takes longer to develop and release the content. It needs to be tested in both 12-man groups as well as solo (and once enough people whine based on this new "we develop group content for solo players" precedent, for every number in between).

So we wait for content so you can get what you want, solo content in an MMO. We also get more generic group content where the difficulty scales by a single factor, the number of people. You can't build a group dungeon that requires multiple things to happen simultaneously in this system because a single player can't do multiple things simultaneously. We want challenging group content, and that has always been in the history of modern MMOs designed around phases and multiple objectives occurring in ways that requires each player to do a job or perform a function or role (players 1,2 and 3 tank, player 5 heals, players 6 and 7 DPS the main, 8 and 9 AoE or CC the adds while10,11 and 12 hit switched A,B,C,D and E and cycle X,Y and Z). Now how in the world do you make THAT kind of content in a way that allows a solo player to accomplish it without taking away the very things that make it challenging to the group and not make it painfully linear and silly? Is it somehow possible? Perhaps, but figuring that out would require more development talent, dollars and man hours devoted to every single encounter which increases the cost and lead time, meaning we pay more and wait longer so that you can have solo content in an MMO (which again, is absolutely absurd no matter how you twist the concepts).

Now, maybe you want more solo content that is completely distinct from the group content being added (maybe a new zone). Maybe you want more quests like the story quests, or more zones with packs of enemies that consist or 3 or less (most any class can solo a pack of 3, it's packs of 4,5,6 and larger like we see in Craglorn that make it more difficult). Fine, who pays for the development of all that? More voice acting, more programming, more art assets. Does ZOS hire a different team to do solo content in hopes that they sell enough of it as DLC (again, in an MMO) to make a profit or do they simply take existing development assets and split them (which then impacts the timeline and quality of MMO group content).

Does ZOS simply engage in a complete redesign of the core difficulty system where packs of enemies scale in hit points and damage output to the number of players attacking them on the fly? Sure, except now we'll have 100 solo players running around competing for a finite number of packs of enemies with 100 groups of 4 players instead of 125 groups of 4 (and keep scaling this up as the number of players in a zone increases). How does the system determine how and when to scale and who gets the XP? Based on the first group to attack (e.g. a group of 1 or group of 4)? Based on who does the most damage? Based on who will cry the most on the forums? How long are you willing to wait and how much are you willing to pay for this?

Otherwise, that's an awesome idea...well, except that it's obscenely complex and requires development dollars and time to be pulled from a finite pool of resources which means [AGAIN] those of us that want more actual MMO type group involvement in the content in this MMO will have to wait for it so that players who want MORE solo content can be appeased.

Bouvin · February 2015

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

Alurria · February 2015

I have to say as a returning player that ESO has an opportunity to gain gamers from that other game (the elephant in the room)if they put more solo content in. Not everything should or needs to be groupcentric.

Bloodfang · February 2015

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.

1. Actually I'd say ESO was about the 3rd most played MMO in the West for months. Before the B2P announcement there was hell of a lot players returning back and liking the game. After the B2P announcement ESO lost some players (they didn't gain anything from it yet).

4. I'm neither a big fanatic MMO nor TES fan..I'm a veteran MMORPG and RPG player, and I can admit that ESO is the best mix of these 2 aspects up to this day. For example WoW is in my eyes the best MMO, but also the worst RPG on the market..Great social but souless game, therefore making it a generic average MMORPG.

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.

3. So you managed to keep 1/4 of your total "large gaming community lol", how is that a bad thing again? If ESO managed to pull 25% of players from your "large" community from other MMOs that should put it somewhere at the top on your list.

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.

4. I consider a game bad when it's doing things worse than the competition. Which is funny because ESO is actually doing most of the things better than most of the competition.

+ Graphics, Atmosphere, Combat, Lore, Story, Quests, Voice Acting, World Design, Art, Immersion, Character Creation and Models, Armor / Weapon Models, PvP, Dungeons, Class Diversity, Crafting, Upcoming Horizontal Progression and Justice System...

- Dynamic World (compared to Rift, GW2), Raids (Compared to WoW), Better Grouping tools, phasing is OK now (Compared to nearly all MMOs).

This pretty much sums it up. Not surprisingly ESO is the best RPG by far, while only mediocre MMO. In the end it doesn't even matter much as TES fans and lately even MMO fans prefer playing SOLO. Cattering to that group never did any harm to any gaming company. Also I'd like to note I was playing since pre-launch and ESO had the smoothes Launch I've ever had the chance to be part of.

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.

5. ESO didn't even go B2P yet. It's transition will be on March 17th, expect a flood of players in 1-2 months from now. Also ESO was never aimed at PC but Consoles, I'd expect there about 5-10x bigger playerbase.

Iluvrien · February 2015

newtinmpls wrote: »

Option being the key word here....

This. If you don't accommodate the Solo-only, Solo & Group, Group only etc. crowds then the game loses out on money. It is down to the devs to work out where the balance is between disenfranchising players of a particular style and attempting to develop multi-style systems that cost more (in multiple senses) than they make.

So far they haven't done to bad a job of it. I would have liked to see more solo to duo to group scaling in the pre-vet zones and instances. I would also have liked to see a similar approach to Craglorn. Such is life.

All in all I shall just continue to hope that continuing development is not undertaken with a fundamentally limited view that specifies either solo or group for future content without thought being given to both... but of course nobody would be that dumb, now would they?

Kragorn · February 2015

Sphinx2318 wrote: »

This is an MMO?

If you want to get much higher than VR10, yes it is.

Kragorn · February 2015

thelordoffelines wrote: »

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

How does a non-grouper level beyond VR10?

Answer: he can't, realistically, everything beyond that is forced-grouping or a mindnumbing mob-grind, few can solo VR12+ content.

Majic · February 2015

I think the notion that MMOs must somehow conform to a rigid stereotype underlies most of the problems with MMOs these days.

YMMV.

wafcatb14_ESO · February 2015

So you managed to keep 1/4 of your total "large gaming community lol", how is that a bad thing again? If ESO managed to pull 25% of players from your "large" community from other MMOs that should put it somewhere at the top on your list.

Actually no we didn`t , our total gaming community is around 6k players world wide, only 1300 decided to try ESO and of those in reality only about 200 are still playing it .

Jeremy · February 2015

Accommodating the solo-only crowd would be this game's death knell.

Solo content is both necessary and good (and this game has plenty of it). No one feels like grouping all the time. But to accommodate players who want to only solo would most likely result in removing the incentives for players to multi play and that would be disastrous for any MMORPG.

In other words: no solo-only person is going to be content if they feel forced to join ranks to achieve something. Yet that is a necessary component to incentivize multi-play else it becomes pointless.

Solo-only players should just stick to single-player games. Not play multiplayer games and expect to be able to do everything solo. Because that's an unreasonable expectation.

Tonnopesce · February 2015

What the hell happen here...
Someone trow down a random fact and evryone lose his mind..........
Geezzz

thelordoffelines · February 2015

SteveCampsOut wrote: »

thelordoffelines wrote: »

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.

I see no reason why they can't do a little bit of both. The world isn't black and white. Why does every one have such narrow viewpoints about what can be done in an open world MMO? I mean Srysly!

Its the same reason I can't juggle and do advanced calculus at the same time- they each require dedication and focus to do.

- quote="Kragorn;1561919"]

thelordoffelines wrote: »

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

How does a non-grouper level beyond VR10?

Answer: he can't, realistically, everything beyond that is forced-grouping or a mindnumbing mob-grind, few can solo VR12+ content.[/quote]

You can do cyrodiil dailies to get from v10 to v14. You can also pvp, though some might call that a group activity.

seanvwolf · February 2015

Kragorn wrote: »

thelordoffelines wrote: »

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

How does a non-grouper level beyond VR10?

Answer: he can't, realistically, everything beyond that is forced-grouping or a mindnumbing mob-grind, few can solo VR12+ content.

I soloed to v13 without grinding, only marginal grouping. And I would call myself an average gamer (not a hardcore min-maxer, but not clueless either).

Tonnopesce · February 2015

thelordoffelines wrote: »

SteveCampsOut wrote: »

thelordoffelines wrote: »

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.

I see no reason why they can't do a little bit of both. The world isn't black and white. Why does every one have such narrow viewpoints about what can be done in an open world MMO? I mean Srysly!

Its the same reason I can't juggle and do advanced calculus at the same time- they each require dedication and focus to do.

- quote="Kragorn;1561919"]

thelordoffelines wrote: »

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

How does a non-grouper level beyond VR10?

Answer: he can't, realistically, everything beyond that is forced-grouping or a mindnumbing mob-grind, few can solo VR12+ content.

Craft all your gear with the exploration trait and you will finish the cadwell gold at vr 14

Vahrokh · February 2015

Lord_Kreegan wrote: »

I always thought MMORPG stood for "Many Maliciously Obstinate Ruffians Promoting Grouping"...

No, traditionally it means:

Many Men Online RolePlaying Girls

SteveCampsOut · February 2015

thelordoffelines wrote: »

SteveCampsOut wrote: »

thelordoffelines wrote: »

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.

I see no reason why they can't do a little bit of both. The world isn't black and white. Why does every one have such narrow viewpoints about what can be done in an open world MMO? I mean Srysly!

Its the same reason I can't juggle and do advanced calculus at the same time- they each require dedication and focus to do.

And people say my comparisons are stupid! Give me a break! Comparing creating solo content and group content to juggling and calculus? Not even apples and oranges my friend. You're comparing Sturgen with Tyranasaurus Rex!

Knootewoot · February 2015

What is the minimum of players required to call in a mmo.

Like Vanguard was a mmo, but had (in it's last year) only 250 players online. If i play Warband (great game) there are servers which hold 220 players. So is that also a mmo then? I even roleplay on those servers so then it's even a mmorpg.

Or does the massive not means the amount of players, but the scale of the world. In that case Warband is no mmo. Because the maps are not that big.

But if the massive does not stand for the amount of players, then a game like Borderlands can also be called a mmo. Because the world is massive, it is multiplayer online and you roleplay.

So is the massive the scale of the world or the amount of players. Does a mmorpg loose it's right being called a mmo if the amount of players drop below a treshhold? what is the minumum amount of players required then? How large must the world be? If the world consist of zones, can you still call it massive? Or do you call it levels? Warband also has different maps(levels) where people roleplay and online with 220 players.

Ok i go back to my tea.

Pendrillion · February 2015

You know: Instead of splitting the Community into different interest groups, and pointing fingers, you could very well acknowledge the fact that we all sit in the same boat. And it still does not float only because one group or the other has the majority. What most people forget is that ESO is not your typical run off the mill MMO. And also not TES VI. You can gnaw your teeth all day long about those "short comings". You can even leave and hurt the greater community. But you will probably not change this truth by sheer will.

ZOS definitly has some artistic and economical vision. And that is what they will do. They might even change their mind. But after all, only YOU decide if you like the game or if you don't.

Kragorn · February 2015

Pendrillion wrote: »

What most people forget is that ESO is not your typical run off the mill MMO.

It's entirely a 'typical' MMO, there is nothing significant about the game that differs from any other theme-park MMO, I've never understood those who want to try to portray it as 'nextgen' or anything other than what it is; a run-of-the-mill MMO with solo and group content, PVE and PVP, just like ... WOW, Rift, SW:TOR, GW2, FFXIV, etc. etc. etc.

Some mechanics may be different in detail but all the MMOs I listed have their own unique 'take' on some aspect or other .. Rift's 'soul' system was a novel twist to the 'spec' mechanic for example or FFXIV's multi-classing concept (of course SE did that before in FFXI) .. but none of those kinds of differences make the games fundamentally different from each other.

Actually, I guess I do understand the desire to think ESO is somehow new and different, some people want to think that by playing it they're special, in the vanguard of a 'new wave' of gaming I would imagine. The "Emperor's New Clothes" springs to mind here.

Pendrillion · February 2015

Kragorn wrote: »

Pendrillion wrote: »

What most people forget is that ESO is not your typical run off the mill MMO.

It's entirely a 'typical' MMO, there is nothing significant about the game that differs from any other theme-park MMO, I've never understood those who want to try to portray it as 'nextgen' or anything other than what it is; a run-of-the-mill MMO with solo and group content, PVE and PVP, just like ... WOW, Rift, SW:TOR, GW2, FFXIV, etc. etc. etc.

Some mechanics may be different in detail but all the MMOs I listed have their own unique 'take' on some aspect or other .. Rift's 'soul' system was a novel twist to the 'spec' mechanic for example or FFXIV's multi-classing concept (of course SE did that before in FFXI) .. but none of those kinds of differences make the games fundamentally different from each other.

Actually, I guess I do understand the desire to think ESO is somehow new and different, some people want to think that by playing it they're special, in the vanguard of a 'new wave' of gaming I would imagine. The "Emperor's New Clothes" springs to mind here.

Then we are talking probably also about that it is a computer game because it harbors enough similarities with the branch. But let me rethink about the not typical MMO. I'll explain. I did not think much of MMOs. The only other MMO I played for more than a few months was STO. I tried GW1 back in the day. Even bought me a copy of WOW. Because the medium interests me. Brought back my copy of WOW though and got me a refund.

So yes ESO is different from other MMOs in regard that the focus is on QUEST "grinding" not on Mob - grinding. Even though I don't feel much of the negative connotations . Also it tries to implement a lot of single player elements. It also strives to be graphically appeasing. Which is usually more a thing with single player games....

Other than that I am probably to old that I coould claim to be the vanguard of anything remotely "nextgen". Which is pretty much not my point. But ESO is important to me. And as most other gaming experiences I've had, there are elements that cater to my particular interests and some don't OR I have yet to really appreciate and discover them.

Iluvrien · February 2015

Kragorn wrote: »

Actually, I guess I do understand the desire to think ESO is somehow new and different, some people want to think that by playing it they're special, in the vanguard of a 'new wave' of gaming I would imagine. The "Emperor's New Clothes" springs to mind here.

More like they hope that the game will be new, different and special. It would just be nice if this game actually ended up being half the game some of us hope it will be.