looks like more people have left the game since IC

kevlarto_ESO · October 2015

Keepercraft wrote: »

When people log and see lags, long loading screen, unbalance PvP, macros to break animations skill, bugged skill mechanics.
Hah, people just feel less fun when see that mess.
But we still waiting for better days.

To much truth here ^^^^

The IC for a while made cyrodiil proper a boring place, the huge population imbalance constant capping of the entire map, broken exploitive game mechanics, it's a wonder any of us are still pvp'ing The golden rule of pvp is both sides of the keyboard need to be having fun or one side side stops playing, seen it happen more than once over all the years I have played mmo's.

newtinmpls · October 2015

Farorin wrote: »

[IC] has no incentive for pvp in what was supposed to be a pvp DLC, on top of this, normal PVP was kind of wrecked as a result as well, it just kind of bummed me out and I am really lacking any motivation to play properly now.

What do you require as motivation?

Lava_Croft · October 2015

newtinmpls wrote: »

PBpsy wrote: »

What was the lie? It was advertised for what it was and people where very enthusiastic around here, even though what was advertised was obviously going to be a steaming pile. On the the topic of IC I do not find any fault with ZOS's honesty.

Lava_Croft wrote: »

Guess you haven't really followed the Imperial City news since it was first shown to us quite a while ago.

Not actually an answer, and now I'm curious too. What was the lie?
.

It was supposed to be a PvP DLC, but instead it is a PvE DLC with a little bit of PvP thrown in.
It was supposed to come with PvP objectives. All of this was removed before release.
It was supposed to be released ages ago. Instead the only development it saw was removal of features.

It just comes down to this being another case of what ZOS says not lining up with what ZOS does.

Tandor · October 2015

ADarklore wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

Both the General Forum and the Live Servers lose players to the PTS Forum and Server when a major DLC is put up for testing.

If this is true, then why aren't more of these players posting their comments on the PTS forum?!?

If you compare the front page of the PTS forum with a page from say a month ago you'll find it's a lot busier than usual. Then again, not everyone these days play on a test server in order to test the content and provide feedback, a lot are drawn there by the opportunity to pick up tips and be ahead of the pack when the content goes live - especially if they've already done all the content currently on the live server.

zornyan · October 2015

Lava_Croft wrote: »

newtinmpls wrote: »

PBpsy wrote: »

What was the lie? It was advertised for what it was and people where very enthusiastic around here, even though what was advertised was obviously going to be a steaming pile. On the the topic of IC I do not find any fault with ZOS's honesty.

Lava_Croft wrote: »

Guess you haven't really followed the Imperial City news since it was first shown to us quite a while ago.

Not actually an answer, and now I'm curious too. What was the lie?
.

It was supposed to be a PvP DLC, but instead it is a PvE DLC with a little bit of PvP thrown in.
It was supposed to come with PvP objectives. All of this was removed before release.
It was supposed to be released ages ago. Instead the only development it saw was removal of features.

It just comes down to this being another case of what ZOS says not lining up with what ZOS does.

The pvp objectives got taken out because the forums went mental with people threatening law suits as it blocked them out of content, so that's everyone on here's fault.
The releaae was delayed due to console release, which was quite obvious they put everything on hold to get it done, they are now sticking to their time lines .

Maybe instead of blaming zos blame all the [SNIP] here that demanded pvp objectives be removed from IC as they shouldn't have to pvp to be able to play.

[Moderator Note: Edited per our rules on Rude and Insulting comments]

newtinmpls · October 2015

Lava_Croft wrote: »

1-It was supposed to be a PvP DLC, but instead it is a PvE DLC with a little bit of PvP thrown in.
2-It was supposed to come with PvP objectives. All of this was removed before release.
3-It was supposed to be released ages ago. Instead the only development it saw was removal of features. It just comes down to this being another case of what ZOS says not lining up with what ZOS does.

Numbers added for clarity.

1-not sure what you mean. It's a PvP zone with a lot more varied terrain and situation awarness than Cyrodiil, and looting (of TV stones) which is a unique PvP experience in ESO. Yes it has quests, so does Cyrodiil.

2-While the gated access would have made sense if it was an expansion, and not a paid/DLC, once ESO dropped the sub model, they kind of had to drop that idea. What would you have liked to seen in it's place? Now I am curious?

3-Sigh... no argument there. Initially the sub model was supposed to allow regular updates & expansions and that pretty much didn't happen. Too bad.

Farorin · October 2015

newtinmpls wrote: »

Farorin wrote: »

[IC] has no incentive for pvp in what was supposed to be a pvp DLC, on top of this, normal PVP was kind of wrecked as a result as well, it just kind of bummed me out and I am really lacking any motivation to play properly now.

What do you require as motivation?

PVP as compared to PVE:

Superiority in:
Speed of leveling: PVE
Best and easiest equipment: PVE
Most content available: PVE
Best potential for meaningful rewards: PVE

There is no other reason to play PVP over PVE if you are looking at it from the perspective of character progression, gain, reward, or incentive in anyway.

The incentives that PVP lacs and that it needs are the things I mentioned above, there needs to be content for PVP, decent rewards gained from PVP, decent character progression gained from PVP, ability to get reasonable equipment from PVP, etc.

Farorin · October 2015

zornyan wrote: »

Lava_Croft wrote: »

newtinmpls wrote: »

PBpsy wrote: »

What was the lie? It was advertised for what it was and people where very enthusiastic around here, even though what was advertised was obviously going to be a steaming pile. On the the topic of IC I do not find any fault with ZOS's honesty.

Lava_Croft wrote: »

Guess you haven't really followed the Imperial City news since it was first shown to us quite a while ago.

Not actually an answer, and now I'm curious too. What was the lie?
.

It was supposed to be a PvP DLC, but instead it is a PvE DLC with a little bit of PvP thrown in.
It was supposed to come with PvP objectives. All of this was removed before release.
It was supposed to be released ages ago. Instead the only development it saw was removal of features.

It just comes down to this being another case of what ZOS says not lining up with what ZOS does.

The pvp objectives got taken out because the forums went mental with people threatening law suits as it blocked them out of content, so that's everyone on here's fault.
The releaae was delayed due to console release, which was quite obvious they put everything on hold to get it done, they are now sticking to their time lines .

So any other completely *** points you want to make?

Maybe instead of blaming zos blame all the self entitled morons on here that demanded pvp objectives be removed from IC as they shouldn't have to pvp to be able to play.

newtinmpls wrote: »

Lava_Croft wrote: »

1-It was supposed to be a PvP DLC, but instead it is a PvE DLC with a little bit of PvP thrown in.
2-It was supposed to come with PvP objectives. All of this was removed before release.
3-It was supposed to be released ages ago. Instead the only development it saw was removal of features. It just comes down to this being another case of what ZOS says not lining up with what ZOS does.

2-While the gated access would have made sense if it was an expansion, and not a paid/DLC, once ESO dropped the sub model, they kind of had to drop that idea. What would you have liked to seen in it's place? Now I am curious?

The gated access issue was separate from the PVP objectives and content originally intended for IC.

IC was originally intended to include actual CONTENT that centered around PVP and actual objectives for PVP, which it still could have had, even without gated access.

newtinmpls · October 2015

newtinmpls wrote: »

What do you require as motivation?

Farorin wrote: »

PVP as compared to PVE:

Superiority in:
Speed of leveling: PVE
Best and easiest equipment: PVE
Most content available: PVE
Best potential for meaningful rewards: PVE
.

Well, YMMV and obviously does.

Leveling: IC (PvP) is the fastest I've participated in, however I imagine that a major keep/expedition would be not only rich in XP but in AP; and I didn't realize (at first) that when you level in AP, you also get skill points.

Equipment: Since I pretty much only use crafted equipment, and most of the crafting stations I go for are in PvE zones (the primary ones being Seducer and Night's Silence), I would agree that PvE offers good stuff. I was potentially interested in the Phoenix set, but it looks like it's only an option at 45th level, which seems needlessly irritating to me. Mostly dropped sets are just annoying.

Most content: Well.... here is where it gets weird. Yes, in terms of numbers of structured activities, I think that PvE kind of has to have more; inherently PvE requires premade "E". However I've learned that even while playing in the same physical area, the "content" in terms of facing off with various people/groups feels very different depending on what is going on and who is doing it.

Meaningful rewards: ??? What constitutes meaningful to you? I have to say I don't care for most of the various dropped items. I would give a lot (see my many posts on the "I would pay X crowns for" thread) for things like being able to upgrade a dropped non-set item to my characters current level, and better yet, being able to name it or put a little description on it. I'm mostly broke since I'm a compulsive deconn-er, I am not super survivable so I don't accumulate TV stones (and I'm not super impressed by what they can buy). Mostly the "reward" I seek is the experience. Not so easy to quantify that, though.

Francescolg · October 2015

The really new thing about the update were the two new (gold) dungeons, here the really interesting items are found. The rest of the innovation is not so interesting... But this content is reduced to a smaller part of gamers, who are able to finish it. The rest of the gamers is left out..
I know many cases, where abuot 50% of all guild members (30+ members) can't play the new content because it is simply too difficult for them, as well as some gold pledges. This applies also to random groups, the more "adventurous" way to paly ESO... No more fun in random groups, as the new dungeons are by far too difficult for a more-or-less coordinated random group, that just wants to have "fun" (see further).

If you add this, to the fact, that this is the first real expansion after 1 year, that comes with the endless-grind, which is needed for vr16 weapons (it wasn't that much work to get purple v14 items before the patch), people do not feel any longer that this game is about "fun", instead, for many players it feels like "work" and, therefore, they decided to do other things in their life.

Most of the forum-users are from the pve-gamer faction, they even want "harder" pve.. So I stop discussing here, as 90% of the readers will not emphasize with me,

newtinmpls · October 2015

Francescolg wrote: »

I know many cases, where abuot 50% of all guild members (30+ members) can't play the new content because it is simply too difficult for them, as well as some gold pledges.

So far, even with a great regular group of players (our vet characters are a mix of 2-16) I've never managed to finish a vet dungeon, and there are a few non-vets that we can only manage about 1 in 3.

JMadFour · October 2015

zornyan wrote: »

Lava_Croft wrote: »

newtinmpls wrote: »

PBpsy wrote: »

What was the lie? It was advertised for what it was and people where very enthusiastic around here, even though what was advertised was obviously going to be a steaming pile. On the the topic of IC I do not find any fault with ZOS's honesty.

Lava_Croft wrote: »

Guess you haven't really followed the Imperial City news since it was first shown to us quite a while ago.

Not actually an answer, and now I'm curious too. What was the lie?
.

It was supposed to be a PvP DLC, but instead it is a PvE DLC with a little bit of PvP thrown in.
It was supposed to come with PvP objectives. All of this was removed before release.
It was supposed to be released ages ago. Instead the only development it saw was removal of features.

It just comes down to this being another case of what ZOS says not lining up with what ZOS does.

The pvp objectives got taken out because the forums went mental with people threatening law suits as it blocked them out of content, so that's everyone on here's fault.
The releaae was delayed due to console release, which was quite obvious they put everything on hold to get it done, they are now sticking to their time lines .

Maybe instead of blaming zos blame all the [SNIP] here that demanded pvp objectives be removed from IC as they shouldn't have to pvp to be able to play.

his point was that it was supposed to be a gankers paradise, and it's not. remember all those "I can't wait to take all the carebear's stones for lulz yuk yuk if you are scared of pvp don't come to IC" posts from before IC's launch? the carebears are rolling in a big mobs through IC because it's the only way to not get ganked, and the wannabe griefers are in their feelings about it. so every time a solo ganker gets rolled by a group of 20 who stick together for safety they come to the forums to cry about IC not being PVP content.

[Moderator Note: Edited quote to match moderated version]

F7sus4 · October 2015

Callous2208 wrote: »

You could be right, but sometimes when people aren't on the forums as much, it's a sign they are a bit happier and in game.

Wait, what? Isn't forum actually the end-game and by writing our posts here we're playing the game now?

Scyantific · October 2015

newtinmpls wrote: »

Lava_Croft wrote: »

1-It was supposed to be a PvP DLC, but instead it is a PvE DLC with a little bit of PvP thrown in.
2-It was supposed to come with PvP objectives. All of this was removed before release.
3-It was supposed to be released ages ago. Instead the only development it saw was removal of features. It just comes down to this being another case of what ZOS says not lining up with what ZOS does.

2-While the gated access would have made sense if it was an expansion, and not a paid/DLC, once ESO dropped the sub model, they kind of had to drop that idea. What would you have liked to seen in it's place? Now I am curious?

...The hell? DLC and X-Pacs are the same f***ing thing.

PBpsy · October 2015

F7sus4 wrote: »

Callous2208 wrote: »

You could be right, but sometimes when people aren't on the forums as much, it's a sign they are a bit happier and in game.

Wait, what? Isn't forum actually the end-game and by writing our posts here we're actually playing the game?

Wouldn't it be weird if the game doesn't even exists and we are all delusional.

Lava_Croft wrote: »

newtinmpls wrote: »

PBpsy wrote: »

What was the lie? It was advertised for what it was and people where very enthusiastic around here, even though what was advertised was obviously going to be a steaming pile. On the the topic of IC I do not find any fault with ZOS's honesty.

Lava_Croft wrote: »

Guess you haven't really followed the Imperial City news since it was first shown to us quite a while ago.

Not actually an answer, and now I'm curious too. What was the lie?
.

It was supposed to be a PvP DLC, but instead it is a PvE DLC with a little bit of PvP thrown in.
It was supposed to come with PvP objectives. All of this was removed before release.
It was supposed to be released ages ago. Instead the only development it saw was removal of features.

It just comes down to this being another case of what ZOS says not lining up with what ZOS does.

1. It was obvious that the IC was going have too much PVE for a PVP zone long before launch. People were already complaining about that since at least Dec 2014.I even remember making a few posts about how I didn't get what PVPers could possibly like about the amount of trash mobs in the the IC some time before the launch.

2. Maybe I am wrong but I never seen ZOS define in any way what those PVP objectives where. The open access to the PVP was I think more to avoid having campaigns locked by PVE guilds. It was more to eliminate Buff/IC campaigns than to appease the "carebears" but that is another thing.

3. I agree with that but then again the feature removals where motivated a lot because PVP drama.

Solariken · October 2015

Yeah I hear you, I was sad to see almost a dozen people who I played with regularly leave when they saw what happened to PvP and and what an awful grind for gear we have now after IC. I fear I won't be around much longer either. I really hate the new directions ZOS is taking.

Elsonso · October 2015

PBpsy wrote: »

Lava_Croft wrote: »

People left because the Imperial City was the last lie/false promise they were able to take after nearly 2 years of lies/false promises.

What was the lie? It was advertised for what it was and people where very enthusiastic around here, even though what was advertised was obviously going to be a steaming pile. On the the topic of IC I do not find any fault with ZOS's honesty.

In this community, if ZOS changes plans, they have lied. Whenever ZOS says something, it is a "super promise" and if, for any reason, that changes, the assumption is that this was planned from the beginning and they knew it when they made the promise.

UltimaJoe777 wrote: »

Mojmir wrote: »

orsinium is a great DLC, but I doubt it will be enough to hold everyone over til the next dlc.

That statement right there... Just plain makes me hang my head down and sigh. Makes me think people treat this game as a game you beat and move on rather than an MMO. I guess I can't really blame them since this game has less of an MMO feel than others but still...

I play this game as a journey. If they say they have 20 hours of new content in Orsinium, I am really excited. That means I will probably spend upwards of 200 hours there.

newtinmpls wrote: »

Lava_Croft wrote: »

1-It was supposed to be a PvP DLC, but instead it is a PvE DLC with a little bit of PvP thrown in.
2-It was supposed to come with PvP objectives. All of this was removed before release.
3-It was supposed to be released ages ago. Instead the only development it saw was removal of features. It just comes down to this being another case of what ZOS says not lining up with what ZOS does.

Numbers added for clarity.

1-not sure what you mean. It's a PvP zone with a lot more varied terrain and situation awarness than Cyrodiil, and looting (of TV stones) which is a unique PvP experience in ESO. Yes it has quests, so does Cyrodiil.

2-While the gated access would have made sense if it was an expansion, and not a paid/DLC, once ESO dropped the sub model, they kind of had to drop that idea. What would you have liked to seen in it's place? Now I am curious?

3-Sigh... no argument there. Initially the sub model was supposed to allow regular updates & expansions and that pretty much didn't happen. Too bad.

1. It is PVP and no one should mistake that. It has a lot of PVE elements in it, and the purpose of PVE is actually to drive a portion of the PVP, but it is PVP and no PVE player should be in there unless they are comfortable with PVP.

2. For B2P they should have scaled back Imperial City and not tried to deliver a massive update. Keep the City, dump the sewers, Daedra, Tel Var stones, and dungeons. Add in campaign objectives that make the Emperor and Alliance more powerful and are part of the end-of-Campaign calculations. Gate based on purchase of the DLC, no Keep requirements, and extend the existing Campaign for those who own the expansion, including new things related to earning Emperor in the non-DLC portion of Cyrodiil. Objectives in the City include conquest of the districts and the central tower. Those who purchase the DLC can participate in the City conquests and whatever else is in the CIty. Those that do not own the DLC just get to stand on the lake shore and watch.

3. Part of the delay was them making a very cool and elaborate mixed mode DLC rather than a more straightforward extension to Cyrodiil. I guess they felt that they needed to release something big and important.

Keepercraft · October 2015

Cyrodil is PvX area (mix PvP & PvE).
For real PvP we need arenas.

UltimaJoe777 · October 2015

ADarklore wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

Both the General Forum and the Live Servers lose players to the PTS Forum and Server when a major DLC is put up for testing.

If this is true, then why aren't more of these players posting their comments on the PTS forum?!? It seems to me it would be a complete waste of time to be spending all your time on PTS when any accomplishments there will not apply to live. I could understand if major mechanics were being changed, so min/maxers would want a head start in learning new systems to have a competitive edge once it goes to live... but since Orsinium is mostly solo content without any major new mechanics being added, what would be the point of spending so much time on PTS on solo content if you're not going to be in the forums sharing your experience?

Keep in mind the PTS is on PC, so all the PC players are usually the ones to hop on over. With ESO out on PC way longer than Console the majority of them have nothing better to do but wait for the next DLC. Also somebody has to test the new content or else Zenimax has a harder time ironing out all the bugs.

Hiero_Glyph · October 2015

zornyan wrote: »

Lava_Croft wrote: »

newtinmpls wrote: »

PBpsy wrote: »

What was the lie? It was advertised for what it was and people where very enthusiastic around here, even though what was advertised was obviously going to be a steaming pile. On the the topic of IC I do not find any fault with ZOS's honesty.

Lava_Croft wrote: »

Guess you haven't really followed the Imperial City news since it was first shown to us quite a while ago.

Not actually an answer, and now I'm curious too. What was the lie?
.

It was supposed to be a PvP DLC, but instead it is a PvE DLC with a little bit of PvP thrown in.
It was supposed to come with PvP objectives. All of this was removed before release.
It was supposed to be released ages ago. Instead the only development it saw was removal of features.

It just comes down to this being another case of what ZOS says not lining up with what ZOS does.

The pvp objectives got taken out because the forums went mental with people threatening law suits as it blocked them out of content, so that's everyone on here's fault.
The releaae was delayed due to console release, which was quite obvious they put everything on hold to get it done, they are now sticking to their time lines .

Maybe instead of blaming zos blame all the [SNIP] here that demanded pvp objectives be removed from IC as they shouldn't have to pvp to be able to play.

If having gated acccess was such a great idea then why didn't ZOS put it in place on the PTS on day 1? That would have been the best place to test the mechanic and see exactly how the players would react. Also, don't blame consoles for how ZOS mismanaged ESO. The game continues to be mismanaged by ZOS despite the console release so obviously the two are not mutually linked.

[Moderator Note: Edited quote to match moderated version]

Tandor · October 2015

lordrichter wrote: »

In this community, if ZOS changes plans, they have lied. Whenever ZOS says something, it is a "super promise" and if, for any reason, that changes, the assumption is that this was planned from the beginning and they knew it when they made the promise.

This. So much this!

It must be great to be the kind of guy who never makes a mistake, never needs to change his mind, and can always stick to the thing he first thought of with no fear of being criticised for it. So far as that kind of guy is concerned, anyone else who indicates his thoughts at the time, but subsequently learns from experience, listens to criticism, or simply changes his mind is a liar, pure and simple. Get rid of that mindset and this forum would be an altogether better place.

Hiero_Glyph · October 2015

Tandor wrote: »

lordrichter wrote: »

In this community, if ZOS changes plans, they have lied. Whenever ZOS says something, it is a "super promise" and if, for any reason, that changes, the assumption is that this was planned from the beginning and they knew it when they made the promise.

This. So much this!

It must be great to be the kind of guy who never makes a mistake, never needs to change his mind, and can always stick to the thing he first thought of with no fear of being criticised for it. So far as that kind of guy is concerned, anyone else who indicates his thoughts at the time, but subsequently learns from experience, listens to criticism, or simply changes his mind is a liar, pure and simple. Get rid of that mindset and this forum would be an altogether better place.

For the record, ZOS has never admitted to making a mistake or apologized for anything. The attitude you mention works both ways.

EDIT: If I am wrong and they have, please link a source.

Tandor · October 2015

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

lordrichter wrote: »

In this community, if ZOS changes plans, they have lied. Whenever ZOS says something, it is a "super promise" and if, for any reason, that changes, the assumption is that this was planned from the beginning and they knew it when they made the promise.

This. So much this!

It must be great to be the kind of guy who never makes a mistake, never needs to change his mind, and can always stick to the thing he first thought of with no fear of being criticised for it. So far as that kind of guy is concerned, anyone else who indicates his thoughts at the time, but subsequently learns from experience, listens to criticism, or simply changes his mind is a liar, pure and simple. Get rid of that mindset and this forum would be an altogether better place.

For the record, ZOS has never admitted to making a mistake or apologized for anything. The attitude you mention works both ways.

I've never personally thought they needed to. Take the business model as an example. A year ago one person said what he thought was the best model for the game, in different circumstances they later decided a different model was better. There was no need for any apology over it, they changed their mind according to circumstance. Yet people feel they were cheated, betrayed, lied to. I don't see it that way.

Craigysmith89 · October 2015

Completly agree with this post, not so much IC but the nerfs etc which has had an effect on the player base, yet no signs of anything happening with changing some of them etc

sadownik · October 2015

Tandor wrote: »

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

lordrichter wrote: »

In this community, if ZOS changes plans, they have lied. Whenever ZOS says something, it is a "super promise" and if, for any reason, that changes, the assumption is that this was planned from the beginning and they knew it when they made the promise.

This. So much this!

It must be great to be the kind of guy who never makes a mistake, never needs to change his mind, and can always stick to the thing he first thought of with no fear of being criticised for it. So far as that kind of guy is concerned, anyone else who indicates his thoughts at the time, but subsequently learns from experience, listens to criticism, or simply changes his mind is a liar, pure and simple. Get rid of that mindset and this forum would be an altogether better place.

For the record, ZOS has never admitted to making a mistake or apologized for anything. The attitude you mention works both ways.

I've never personally thought they needed to. Take the business model as an example. A year ago one person said what he thought was the best model for the game, in different circumstances they later decided a different model was better. There was no need for any apology over it, they changed their mind according to circumstance. Yet people feel they were cheated, betrayed, lied to. I don't see it that way.

The problem is, you dont make such a decision on monday and change different model on wednesday. There was a post about Z. hiring a company specializing in f2p/b2p models (the same that did f2p for SWOTOR was it Sleeping Giant?) back in july. July! And for the next 8 months while preparing for that transition they where charging a sub and luring people with empty promises (IC, ORsiniium, Spellcrafting etc) while they knew exactly that they wont introduce those untill b2p comes.

byrom101b16_ESO · October 2015

zornyan wrote: »

Lava_Croft wrote: »

newtinmpls wrote: »

PBpsy wrote: »

What was the lie? It was advertised for what it was and people where very enthusiastic around here, even though what was advertised was obviously going to be a steaming pile. On the the topic of IC I do not find any fault with ZOS's honesty.

Lava_Croft wrote: »

Guess you haven't really followed the Imperial City news since it was first shown to us quite a while ago.

Not actually an answer, and now I'm curious too. What was the lie?
.

It was supposed to be a PvP DLC, but instead it is a PvE DLC with a little bit of PvP thrown in.
It was supposed to come with PvP objectives. All of this was removed before release.
It was supposed to be released ages ago. Instead the only development it saw was removal of features.

It just comes down to this being another case of what ZOS says not lining up with what ZOS does.

The pvp objectives got taken out because the forums went mental with people threatening law suits as it blocked them out of content, so that's everyone on here's fault.
The releaae was delayed due to console release, which was quite obvious they put everything on hold to get it done, they are now sticking to their time lines .

Maybe instead of blaming zos blame all the [SNIP] here that demanded pvp objectives be removed from IC as they shouldn't have to pvp to be able to play.

No that's ZOS's fault for not understanding the laws covering their product.

If they had made PvP objectives INSIDE IC then it would have been a good expansion, but they wanted to lock entire factions out of it at a time.

Look at Axe of Belharza and the low population and constant lockout for two factions if you think this model would have worked. It's a ghost town.

[Moderator Note: Edited quote to match moderated version]
[Moderator Note: Edited per our rules on Bashing & Slanderous Comments]

Hiero_Glyph · October 2015

Tandor wrote: »

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

lordrichter wrote: »

In this community, if ZOS changes plans, they have lied. Whenever ZOS says something, it is a "super promise" and if, for any reason, that changes, the assumption is that this was planned from the beginning and they knew it when they made the promise.

This. So much this!

It must be great to be the kind of guy who never makes a mistake, never needs to change his mind, and can always stick to the thing he first thought of with no fear of being criticised for it. So far as that kind of guy is concerned, anyone else who indicates his thoughts at the time, but subsequently learns from experience, listens to criticism, or simply changes his mind is a liar, pure and simple. Get rid of that mindset and this forum would be an altogether better place.

For the record, ZOS has never admitted to making a mistake or apologized for anything. The attitude you mention works both ways.

I've never personally thought they needed to. Take the business model as an example. A year ago one person said what he thought was the best model for the game, in different circumstances they later decided a different model was better. There was no need for any apology over it, they changed their mind according to circumstance. Yet people feel they were cheated, betrayed, lied to. I don't see it that way.

Most gamers are informed and have choices as to which developers they support. The best developers are the ones that openly communicate with their customers. They are not always completely honest but they will admit when they made a mistake and/or take action to rectify this mistake. If a company does neither, then the only reasonable conclusion is that they feel they have not made a mistake (or have no plans to correct the mistake).

If you review how ZOS has acted over the past year and look at customer complaints you will also notice that many of the current issues were avoidable. As was noted last night on We Are ESO, the community voted ~90% against AoE caps being added yet ZOS added them anyways. Now we have worse performance (AoE caps require more calculations), a meta that goes against what IC was advertised as supporting (IC was supposed to be for small groups), and skills that work contrary to AoE caps (magicka detonation being a zerg buster yet only hits 5 targets). This is only one example.

The point being that if ZOS communicated with its customers and admitted to/apologized for mistakes, then there would be a reason to believe that they are trying to improve the game. Admitting there is a problem is the first step in correcting it. Do you really think ZOS is trying to fix the issues with ESO or are they focu$$ed on $omething el$e?

SevrenNiarb · October 2015

Just looked at my PS4 Trophies (IC related):

Imperial Arena Champion (Complete the IC Arena...) - Ultra Rare 1.4%
The Sublime Protector (Bring an end to Molag Bal's secret plot...) - Ultra Rare 0.4%

Is someone still playing this game? Look at the PS4 (EU) guild traders... empty wasteland

Tandor · October 2015

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

lordrichter wrote: »

In this community, if ZOS changes plans, they have lied. Whenever ZOS says something, it is a "super promise" and if, for any reason, that changes, the assumption is that this was planned from the beginning and they knew it when they made the promise.

This. So much this!

It must be great to be the kind of guy who never makes a mistake, never needs to change his mind, and can always stick to the thing he first thought of with no fear of being criticised for it. So far as that kind of guy is concerned, anyone else who indicates his thoughts at the time, but subsequently learns from experience, listens to criticism, or simply changes his mind is a liar, pure and simple. Get rid of that mindset and this forum would be an altogether better place.

For the record, ZOS has never admitted to making a mistake or apologized for anything. The attitude you mention works both ways.

I've never personally thought they needed to. Take the business model as an example. A year ago one person said what he thought was the best model for the game, in different circumstances they later decided a different model was better. There was no need for any apology over it, they changed their mind according to circumstance. Yet people feel they were cheated, betrayed, lied to. I don't see it that way.

Most gamers are informed and have choices as to which developers they support. The best developers are the ones that openly communicate with their customers. They are not always completely honest but they will admit when they made a mistake and/or take action to rectify this mistake. If a company does neither, then the only reasonable conclusion is that they feel they have not made a mistake (or have no plans to correct the mistake).

If you review how ZOS has acted over the past year and look at customer complaints you will also notice that many of the current issues were avoidable. As was noted last night on ESO Live, the community voted ~90% against AoE caps being added yet ZOS added them anyways. Now we have worse performance (AoE caps require more calculations), a meta that goes against what IC was advertised as supporting (IC was supposed to be for small groups), and skills that work contrary to AoE caps (magicka detonation being a zerg buster yet only hits 5 targets). This is only one example.

The point being that if ZOS communicated with its customers and admitted to/apologized for mistakes, then there would be a reason to believe that they are trying to improve the game. Admitting there is a problem is the first step in correcting it. Do you really think ZOS is trying to fix the issues with ESO or are they focu$$ed on $omething el$e?

The trouble is that all the complaints relate to much the same few things and come from the same narrow section of the playerbase. Everyone else, myself included, is enjoying the game and most of the time don't see what all the fuss is about.

sadownik · October 2015

Tandor wrote: »

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

lordrichter wrote: »

In this community, if ZOS changes plans, they have lied. Whenever ZOS says something, it is a "super promise" and if, for any reason, that changes, the assumption is that this was planned from the beginning and they knew it when they made the promise.

This. So much this!

It must be great to be the kind of guy who never makes a mistake, never needs to change his mind, and can always stick to the thing he first thought of with no fear of being criticised for it. So far as that kind of guy is concerned, anyone else who indicates his thoughts at the time, but subsequently learns from experience, listens to criticism, or simply changes his mind is a liar, pure and simple. Get rid of that mindset and this forum would be an altogether better place.

For the record, ZOS has never admitted to making a mistake or apologized for anything. The attitude you mention works both ways.

I've never personally thought they needed to. Take the business model as an example. A year ago one person said what he thought was the best model for the game, in different circumstances they later decided a different model was better. There was no need for any apology over it, they changed their mind according to circumstance. Yet people feel they were cheated, betrayed, lied to. I don't see it that way.

Most gamers are informed and have choices as to which developers they support. The best developers are the ones that openly communicate with their customers. They are not always completely honest but they will admit when they made a mistake and/or take action to rectify this mistake. If a company does neither, then the only reasonable conclusion is that they feel they have not made a mistake (or have no plans to correct the mistake).

If you review how ZOS has acted over the past year and look at customer complaints you will also notice that many of the current issues were avoidable. As was noted last night on ESO Live, the community voted ~90% against AoE caps being added yet ZOS added them anyways. Now we have worse performance (AoE caps require more calculations), a meta that goes against what IC was advertised as supporting (IC was supposed to be for small groups), and skills that work contrary to AoE caps (magicka detonation being a zerg buster yet only hits 5 targets). This is only one example.

The point being that if ZOS communicated with its customers and admitted to/apologized for mistakes, then there would be a reason to believe that they are trying to improve the game. Admitting there is a problem is the first step in correcting it. Do you really think ZOS is trying to fix the issues with ESO or are they focu$$ed on $omething el$e?

The trouble is that all the complaints relate to much the same few things and come from the same narrow section of the playerbase. Everyone else, myself included, is enjoying the game and most of the time don't see what all the fuss is about.

"Narrow section of the playerbase" - you might be right there. People who complain here are the last mohicans. Milions of people who bought the game didnt even bother to complain - they simply stopped playing, or when it comes to consoles returned the game.