As much as I love ESO, I do wish there was just a co-op Elder Scrolls game. But it is what it is, so enjoy it for that.

drsalvation wrote: »

ESO should either
A) put hard caps on everything, especially PvP, no more meta builds, it would just be a matter of taste
or
remove all sorts of caps, let tank builds be immortal, let players do their full damage in their burst combos, let it be chaotic.

The so called balance for PvP only screws player roles and greately limits how you want to play, it makes it completely unenjoyable.

A co-op skyrim would be nice tho. A game where sword and shield isn't limited to just tanking.

Can we still say "meta" without being sued by zuckerberg?

Destai wrote: »

As much as I love ESO, I do wish there was just a co-op Elder Scrolls game. But it is what it is, so enjoy it for that.

Well the Fallout fans has Fallout 76.
Its how an Skyrim multiplayer would worked out I guess.

I hope to god they never try to shoe-horn multiplayer into the main TES games. Ew.

zaria wrote: »

Destai wrote: »

As much as I love ESO, I do wish there was just a co-op Elder Scrolls game. But it is what it is, so enjoy it for that.

Well the Fallout fans has Fallout 76.
Its how an Skyrim multiplayer would worked out I guess.

As someone who actually plays & enjoys 76, I still want to see singleplayer Fallout 5 (or whichever). 76 is reasonably fun, but those annoying 'other people' just drag it down. (well, along with all the "live service/MP game" baggage)

Sylvermynx wrote: »

Araneae6537 wrote: »

I never wanted “Skyrim with friends” either and sometimes I feel exasperated with hearing about Skyrim-this and that but then I have to remind myself that it was very popular and thus in part responsible for bringing about Elder Scrolls online which I do much enjoy despite not agreeing with all changes and directions but that’s inevitable.

Is this thread all about spell crafting or what is it really? It seems understandable to me such a system might not be balanceable or be more calculation intensive or other such result of all the variables.

And I’m not sure what PVPers are being blamed for here. My understanding was that it was really fun in the beginning but was ruined by cheaters and ever since ZOS has been trying to make the server-side system work better.

I dunno about spellcrafting - that would be a total balls-up in an MMO....

I LOVE Skyrim and Oblivion. I still play them - I've got multiple play-throughs in process in both, even as I play ESO. But yeah, not interested in "extra RL people" in my single player games.

For me, Oblivion and Skyrim were okay but too much standard pseudo-medieval-Europe-with-magic. Morrowind was something totally different, unique and interesting, and I started ESO in large part to visit Morrowind remastered.

But I do actually like MMO’s and playing with and against other people, not that I would want to in every game, but I do enjoy that aspect too. I only didn’t come to ESO sooner because what I heard about it in the early years didn’t appeal to me and instead played GW2 for a few years.

Why play an MMO if you don’t actually want to play an MMO?

I kinda predict a storm of stones flying towards me but, in my humble opinion, PvP has no place in an RPG. An RPG is all about stories, decisions, achievements, journeys and rewards and battles against (AI-controlled) environments. PvP is just an extra, added to satisfy a parcel of players that, most of the time, do not appreciate what an RPG truly is, at its core, and yet to play an RPG like ESO, GW2 and etc. because they know that the developers like ZOS, ArenaNet or whatever other game company will attend to them and because of them, things truly good we used to have are being taken away because "something is too OP" or "something else is not fair".

It's sad, but unfortunately, true, until the day one company, be it ZOS or some other, understand this and create an entirely separated environment, in all due aspects, from skills to equipment.

I never wanted Skyrim with friends, but I did get Oblivion with friends! Ability to cast spells while holding a sword and shield, great sword, or bow? Check! Enchanted arms and armor with the ability to hit the armor cap in a flowing robe? Check! Daedric invasions? Check! No Dragonborn shouts for the player? Check! Play with friends? Check!

It's perfect for me.

Even from just a PvE standpoint, spellcrafting might end up being a challenge to balance. New weapons/skill lines/classes are more reasonable requests.

Not all nerfs stem from PvP. Even if this game had no PvP content, ZOS would still occasionally shake the snow globe due to the horizontal progression of the game.

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

magnusthorek wrote: »

I kinda predict a storm of stones flying towards me but, in my humble opinion, PvP has no place in an RPG. An RPG is all about stories, decisions, achievements, journeys and rewards and battles against (AI-controlled) environments. PvP is just an extra, added to satisfy a parcel of players that, most of the time, do not appreciate what an RPG truly is, at its core, and yet to play an RPG like ESO, GW2 and etc. because they know that the developers like ZOS, ArenaNet or whatever other game company will attend to them and because of them, things truly good we used to have are being taken away because "something is too OP" or "something else is not fair".

It's sad, but unfortunately, true, until the day one company, be it ZOS or some other, understand this and create an entirely separated environment, in all due aspects, from skills to equipment.

Nothing in the definition of an RPG- including the things you listed as important- excludes player vs. player gameplay. "AI-controlled" is not a defining element at all. I think you just made that up.

I know many PvEers that have absolutely no time for any of the RPG aspects of the game. RPG aspects are the butt of jokes amongst many, many PvE groups. I know many PvPers that love the RPG aspects of the game. Maybe a better conclusion is that people don't fit into neat parcels, and that what particular people appreciate isn't all that defined by the type of content they enjoy.

@magnusthorek I don't know about a storm of stones, but your contentions don't support your argument, and your premises are baseless. If this is indeed nothing but a humble opinion, I'd invite you to challenge your own notions and explore your own biases.

Totally agree! When I played SWTOR, I spent a lot of time on a PVP RPG server in an RPG focused guild. We did a LOT of dueling as combat training and out in the world, I played different characters differently, some ruthlessly attacking any enemy while with others would never attack a player from behind but approach them and offer a challenge, etc. An RPG absolutely can have PVE or PVP or both! Balancing elements and how they are implemented is another matter entirely and I don’t believe there’s one right answer.

There is a video of Rich lambert going on record saying that they do want pvp to go back to having 100’s of players in a fight and it running ok, like it kinda used to back at the start, just with everything they have added it’s made it not possible anymore.

He stated they do have a plan and they can fix it, but it’s not simple and with everything going on lately with the world it has put things back.

So I wouldn’t count pvp out for the moment…..but with some people the damage is already been going on far to long which has lead them to leave for other things and don’t blame them.

Also want it to be sorted so we can have a new class and finally new weapons!!!

DavGlen wrote: »

In 5 minutes the maintenance is starting and I'm forever losing mistform and my mistform-centric build because of PvP balance and tanks using it to cheese 1 dungeon.

Maybe adjust it in that specific situation? Nah let's just remove it entirely.

What are they nerfing because of PVP? I thought they are just changing it so it only blocks player damage cause of PVE?

magnusthorek wrote: »

You can read all you want here, here and here

While you will find mentions to Player vs. Player none of the three articles — that's doesn't take much effort to find — characters PvP as part of the root concept of RPG.

But all good, we both can have different opinions. I politely respect yours and I expect you to politely respect mine. Well, guess that's my cue to leave the topic before saying anything I shouldn't and be punished by doing so.

Ah! One last thought. It seems that you had extra care to emphasize the expression "AI-controlled". Well, if it's not an action controlled by a player, whose is it? ;-)

If I was arguing that PvP is a core roleplaying concept, your sources would be relevant. But I'm not, and they aren't. I'm explaining that nothing in RPG excludes player vs. player, including the elements you, yourself listed.

"AI-controlled" wasn't careful emphasis, I was quoting your incorrect statement.

I notice that you haven't recognised that your argument relies on overly-generalising players, which makes it seem like you're trying to outwit or one-up, rather than discuss or take anything on-board. It seems like "with me or against me" mentality. I don't how genuinely "humble" your statements are, and you can say they're all just opinions but if you aren't open to them being discussed, I don't really know what you want here. And if you're alluding to being punished for being rude because you don't like having thoughts challenged, you're probably wasting your time.

People like this blame all the game's faults on PvP players and then wonder why PvP players are "nasty". It's like prodding a lion until he rears back and roars at you, then you call the lion aggressive and demand he be put down.

Could you make an actual logical argument for why spellcrafting wasn't included because of PvP specifically? I'm going to need at least two necessary conditions for that, ideally three, and they have to follow through to a logical conclusion that supports your claim. What about PvP is so different from other forms of minmaxing like Trial running? I could say that we should blame trial groups for why spellcrafting wasn't added because they'd abuse the system to make op spells - doesn't mean I'm right or that that's why it wasn't added.

In all honesty, I think the main reason it wasn't added is because it would make the game slanted towards magic even more so than it already is and put stam specs at an even greater disadvantage. Stamina characters are already not wanted in most endgame PvE content, now imagine magicka characters have an entire elaborate system in place curated for them alone. Where would stam sit in that meta? Nowhere, because there would be absolutely no advantage a group would have by bringing stam specs along, and the stam spec would have a hard time even just carrying their own weight. It's not a "PvP balance" or "Trial balance" issue, it's the entire game's balance. Both Mag and Stam have to have advantages and disadvantages, with one option not being better than the other. Spellcrafting would put mag as the clear winner unambiguously.

This game doesn't exist just for you, if you want that, go play Skyrim Together with a small group of friends and make it tailored specifically to you. There's multiple types of players in this game and thinking you're the only one that matters is not only dumb, but inconsiderate to everyone else.