Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

A Very Simple Solution...

145679

Comments

  • jimdandy26jimdandy26 salem, ORPosts: 527Member
    Originally posted by colddog04

    I think you missed the point.

     

    In WoW, you do have 2 factions and so your race selection is limited to what faction you play for (7 races per side). But no matter what faction you pick, you are allowed to go anywhere in the world - to the point where you can actually invade an opposing factions city, kill their leader and get an achievement. And almost every single faction based game allows you to go anywhere.

     

    From what I've read, in ESO, the areas you will be able to go are based on faction with the exception of Cyrodill which is a PvP zone.

     

    This isn't a limited design philosophy for the ESO series, this is limited design for an MMORPG in general. It's lack of freedom just gets accentuated by the fact that it is using the TES IP.

    You say "limited design" as though thats a bad thing. You do realize that literally every game ever has numurous limitations in its design. Its what, by definition, makes them games. Every single rule, every single bit of structure is a limiter. Past that, you speak of "lack of freedom" as a poor thing, when some of the most critically acclaimed games ever have it as a core game mechanic. Look at Spec Ops: The Line as a rather amazing example.

     

    As for your rant about not being catered to as an explorer, the devs have already stated that they are playing into that with how you get quests, and several hidden things placed around zones. Keep in mind each of the 3 pve zones are supposed to be roughly the size of Skyrim. Whats especially funny is you throw games like WoW, and Rift up there are shining examples of freedom, when the truth is, they are catering to you less than ESO is. Going to those other zones is pretty meaningless. There are no quests there, all of the npcs are hostile. Rift atleast had puzzles I guess, but even that pales in comparison to a hefty amount of quests, and "hidden goodies" that the devs have aludded to. This whole spiel about "I'm being oppressed" is pretty foolish.

    I did battle with ignorance today, and ignorance won.

    To exercise power costs effort and demands courage. That is why so many fail to assert rights to which they are perfectly entitled - because a right is a kind of power but they are too lazy or too cowardly to exercise it. The virtues which cloak these faults are called patience and forbearance.

  • BeansnBreadBeansnBread PshPosts: 5,501Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Iselin

     Yup. Did that. Got the warbear.

    I played WOW for years in a PVP server (Emerald Dream), belonged to an Alliance PVP-oriented guild (Mo Mercy Mafia)... I know WOW PVP intimately

    WOW has casual, tacked-on PVP on top of a PVE game. Their emphasis is grinding a second set of gear in Battlegrounds. Open World PVP happens once in a blue moon and mostly just in order to get the achievement and mount.

    In other wrords, WOW PVP is about as casual and light as PVP gets.

    DAoC PVP was a whole diferent story: it was persistent, it wasn't gear driven, it was very active, it was brutal and unforgiving. There was a real sense of danger whenever you ventured into the RvR zones. There was no waving to the other guy to indicate you didn't want to fight and were just questing---which is the norm in both WOW and Rift PVP servers.

    Isn't it obvious by now that they're going the DAoC way, not the WOW way?

    Maybe they're wrong about PVE faction locks being a key element in creating the us vs. them hardcore feel. But I don't think they are. Just like not being able to talk to them is key, so is not running into them frequently in the carebear areas, questing side by side as if they actually could stand each other...

    So why not just have war everywhere? Because you and I and they know damn well that griefers will grief and those games ust degenerate into unorganized gank fests. They're going for a simulation of organized warfare with large nubers of players, sieges, etc. That is a different kind of PVP and it only works if it's focused and controlled.

    It's not just a bunch of random decissions by a bunch of amateur developers. It's calculated to produce a certain end result: Organized, large scale PVP...a.k.a. RvR.

    None of that actually addresses the point. But I suppose your opinion that WoW is the epitome of casual PvP and DAoC is the epitome of hardcore PvP is noted. I also do see how faction pride might come into play more with what they are doing with the game. On the other hand in other games I've played you usually see one faction consistantly do worse than the other 2 which leads to the whole, "this faction sucks!" spiral as people move to other, stronger factions.

     

    But, based on what you are saying, perhaps my main issue really is that the entire game design seems to be based around PvP. It's something that maybe traditional TES fans aren't really all that interested in. What is strange is that I am a huge fan of PvP. But then, I'm more of a small scale, ladder based PvP system fan than an RvR zerg type of PvP fan.

  • azarhalazarhal Somewhere, BCPosts: 761Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Ramanadjinn

    I wonder what the actual problems with this game will be.

    Because there are those problems we all have with a game before it releases.

    Then there are those actual problems we have with the game after release.

    They are never really the same problems.

    Not only are they never the same problems, they also tend to be different between players depending on their interest.

    I expect these three after open beta/release:

    • action combat sucks, bring back MMO combat and point-to-click
    • healing/tanking sucks
    • it's not like Skyrim
  • BeansnBreadBeansnBread PshPosts: 5,501Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by jimdandy26
    Originally posted by colddog04

    I think you missed the point.

     

    In WoW, you do have 2 factions and so your race selection is limited to what faction you play for (7 races per side). But no matter what faction you pick, you are allowed to go anywhere in the world - to the point where you can actually invade an opposing factions city, kill their leader and get an achievement. And almost every single faction based game allows you to go anywhere.

     

    From what I've read, in ESO, the areas you will be able to go are based on faction with the exception of Cyrodill which is a PvP zone.

     

    This isn't a limited design philosophy for the ESO series, this is limited design for an MMORPG in general. It's lack of freedom just gets accentuated by the fact that it is using the TES IP.

    You say "limited design" as though thats a bad thing. You do realize that literally every game ever has numurous limitations in its design. Its what, by definition, makes them games. Every single rule, every single bit of structure is a limiter. Past that, you speak of "lack of freedom" as a poor thing, when some of the most critically acclaimed games ever have it as a core game mechanic. Look at Spec Ops: The Line as a rather amazing example.

     

    As for your rant about not being catered to as an explorer, the devs have already stated that they are playing into that with how you get quests, and several hidden things placed around zones. Keep in mind each of the 3 pve zones are supposed to be roughly the size of Skyrim. Whats especially funny is you throw games like WoW, and Rift up there are shining examples of freedom, when the truth is, they are catering to you less than ESO is. Going to those other zones is pretty meaningless. There are no quests there, all of the npcs are hostile. Rift atleast had puzzles I guess, but even that pales in comparison to a hefty amount of quests, and "hidden goodies" that the devs have aludded to. This whole spiel about "I'm being oppressed" is pretty foolish.

    I should have been more clear. I meant limited in design in this very specific area compared to every other MMORPG. Certainly it will and should feel less limited than Spec Ops. But really, I was comparing it to every other MMORPG and not, say, Super Mario Brothers.

     

    I never threw those games up as shining examples. I was actually responding to Nanfoodle that used WoW as his shining example. Then I went on to explain how they are vastly different than the design in ESO. I'm not sure where you are getting, "I am being oppressed." That just looks like a weak straw man to me.

  • IselinIselin Vancouver, BCPosts: 5,612Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by colddog04
    Originally posted by Iselin

     Yup. Did that. Got the warbear.

    I played WOW for years in a PVP server (Emerald Dream), belonged to an Alliance PVP-oriented guild (Mo Mercy Mafia)... I know WOW PVP intimately

    WOW has casual, tacked-on PVP on top of a PVE game. Their emphasis is grinding a second set of gear in Battlegrounds. Open World PVP happens once in a blue moon and mostly just in order to get the achievement and mount.

    In other wrords, WOW PVP is about as casual and light as PVP gets.

    DAoC PVP was a whole diferent story: it was persistent, it wasn't gear driven, it was very active, it was brutal and unforgiving. There was a real sense of danger whenever you ventured into the RvR zones. There was no waving to the other guy to indicate you didn't want to fight and were just questing---which is the norm in both WOW and Rift PVP servers.

    Isn't it obvious by now that they're going the DAoC way, not the WOW way?

    Maybe they're wrong about PVE faction locks being a key element in creating the us vs. them hardcore feel. But I don't think they are. Just like not being able to talk to them is key, so is not running into them frequently in the carebear areas, questing side by side as if they actually could stand each other...

    So why not just have war everywhere? Because you and I and they know damn well that griefers will grief and those games ust degenerate into unorganized gank fests. They're going for a simulation of organized warfare with large nubers of players, sieges, etc. That is a different kind of PVP and it only works if it's focused and controlled.

    It's not just a bunch of random decissions by a bunch of amateur developers. It's calculated to produce a certain end result: Organized, large scale PVP...a.k.a. RvR.

    None of that actually addresses the point. But I suppose your opinion that WoW is the epitome of casual PvP and DAoC is the epitome of hardcore PvP is noted. I also do see how faction pride might come into play more with what they are doing with the game. On the other hand in other games I've played you usually see one faction consistantly do worse than the other 2 which leads to the whole, "this faction sucks!" spiral as people move to other, stronger factions.

     

    But, based on what you are saying, perhaps my main issue really is that the entire game design seems to be based around PvP. It's something that maybe traditional TES fans aren't really all that interested in. What is strange is that I am a huge fan of PvP. But then, I'm more of a small scale, ladder based PvP system fan than an RvR zerg type of PvP fan.

    Yes it is. Just like DAoC was - it's all about the war. Having said that, DAoC aslo had very good PVE. It was not , by any means neglected

    I take it you didn't play DAoC. If you had, you'd know it was much more han a zerg. There was also the startegically placed stealthed scouts watching for reinforcements. The couple of groups with speed strategically located to fight a delaying action if those reinforcements did come. The wall climbers sneaking in to kill their healers. And there was the "hey, the Hibs are going after the Midgard relics, let's see what we can put together to go after theirs while they're not defending" game of cat and mouse...it them where they ain't etc.

    If you're not aware that all that is going on, sure it just looks like a mindless zerg beating on a door...but there was much more to it than that. When I played there we had several guild members who were in the military that just absolutely loved the strategic and tactical possibilities.

    But that was 15 years ago lol. I just hope this generation raised on WOW can buy-in and duplicate that kind of PVP goodness. 

  • IselinIselin Vancouver, BCPosts: 5,612Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by azarhal
    Originally posted by Ramanadjinn

    I wonder what the actual problems with this game will be.

    Because there are those problems we all have with a game before it releases.

    Then there are those actual problems we have with the game after release.

    They are never really the same problems.

    Not only are they never the same problems, they also tend to be different between players depending on their interest.

    I expect these three after open beta/release:

    • action combat sucks, bring back MMO combat and point-to-click
    • healing/tanking sucks
    • it's not like Skyrim

     That one is already here.

  • jimdandy26jimdandy26 salem, ORPosts: 527Member
    Originally posted by colddog04

    I should have been more clear. I meant limited in design in this very specific area compared to every other MMORPG. Certainly it will and should feel less limited than Spec Ops. But really, I was comparing it to every other MMORPG and not, say, Super Mario Brothers.

    For someone telling others that they are missing points you certainly missed mine. The point was that "freedom" is not always a good thing. What allowed Spec Ops to be so damn amazing was that it WAS limited. The constraints allowed them to do things both mechanics wise, and story wise, that would not have worked if the player had been given freedom.

     

    I never threw those games up as shining examples. I was actually responding to Nanfoodle that used WoW as his shining example. Then I went on to explain how they are vastly different than the design in ESO. I'm not sure where you are getting, "I am being oppressed." That just looks like a weak straw man to me.

    Here, I will use caps again so maybe you will actually read and process the information. NO THEY ARE NOT. Merely having "wide open freedom" is pointless if there is nothing for you to explore. For you to actually get anything worthwhile out of those zones you would still have had to reroll. The devs have already said that they have not forgotten about you explorer types, they have set aside quests, and doodads and all sorts of awesome shit for you to explore your little butts off for. As for your pathetic strawman retort I say actually look at what I am saying in comparison to how you are acting. At best, based on current information, that they can cater to explorers more. AT BEST. Until we know true sizes of zones, and how much there is to do/find its not a viable complaint, nor one that is likely to change since it conflicts with too many core gameplay principles. This "But, but, but INVISIBLE WALLSSSS" whine makes about as much sense as those crying because they cannot become werewolves, or Vampires, cause you know thats totally balanced! Or the ones who will be crying for the ever popular FUS DO RAH!

    I did battle with ignorance today, and ignorance won.

    To exercise power costs effort and demands courage. That is why so many fail to assert rights to which they are perfectly entitled - because a right is a kind of power but they are too lazy or too cowardly to exercise it. The virtues which cloak these faults are called patience and forbearance.

  • BeansnBreadBeansnBread PshPosts: 5,501Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Iselin

    Yes it is. Just like DAoC was - it's all about the war. Having said that, DAoC aslo had very good PVE. It was not , by any means neglected

    I take it you didn't play DAoC. If you had, you'd know it was much more han a zerg. There was also the startegically placed stealthed scouts watching for reinforcements. The couple of groups with speed strategically located to fight a delaying action if those reinforcements did come. The wall climbers sneaking in to kill their healers. And there was the "hey, the Hibs are going after the Midgard relics, let's see what we can put together to go after theirs while they're not defending" game of cat and mouse...it them where they ain't etc.

    If you're not aware that all that is going on, sure it just looks like a mindless zerg beating on a door...but there was much more to it than that. When I played there we had several guild members who were in the military that just absolutely loved the strategic and tactical possibilities.

    But that was 15 years ago lol. I just hope this generation raised on WOW can buy-in and duplicate that kind of PVP goodness. 

    Yeah, I didn't play DAoC (well, for a bit on a trial and felt the gameplay was too clunky). I've been learning a lot about it lately because of the recent Camelot Unchained thing. I just skipped over that one for whatever reason.

     

    But, that does sound fun to me if they can execute that. I just think it would have been possible (if designed from the beginning) and a good idea to have a more open concept while executing what you are describing. I don't think it would have been impossible to allow you to pick any race and then a faction and still have what you are describing work well. I don't think it would have been impossible for to allow people to go to each others lands (and even possibly have content in those lands for your faction).

     

    The more I look at it, it looks like is they picked DAoC as a model and refused to stray from the formula at all. Which is fine. A lot of people will likely prefer the model. I'd just prefer it to be different in a couple of regards.

  • jimdandy26jimdandy26 salem, ORPosts: 527Member
    Originally posted by Iselin

    Yes it is. Just like DAoC was - it's all about the war. Having said that, DAoC aslo had very good PVE. It was not , by any means neglected

    I take it you didn't play DAoC. If you had, you'd know it was much more han a zerg. There was also the startegically placed stealthed scouts watching for reinforcements. The couple of groups with speed strategically located to fight a delaying action if those reinforcements did come. The wall climbers sneaking in to kill their healers. And there was the "hey, the Hibs are going after the Midgard relics, let's see what we can put together to go after theirs while they're not defending" game of cat and mouse...it them where they ain't etc.

    If you're not aware that all that is going on, sure it just looks like a mindless zerg beating on a door...but there was much more to it than that. When I played there we had several guild members who were in the military that just absolutely loved the strategic and tactical possibilities.

    But that was 15 years ago lol. I just hope this generation raised on WOW can buy-in and duplicate that kind of PVP goodness. 

    They can't. They do not know how, and do not have the patience to learn. It will be another "omg this game is fail" and go back to WoW. That traditional argument for 3 faction, that the 2 lower popped team up against the larger is a complete fallacy. It doesn't happen in Rift, or Gw2, or Ps2, or Tsw. Its always the middle running from the bigger and eating the smaller.

    I did battle with ignorance today, and ignorance won.

    To exercise power costs effort and demands courage. That is why so many fail to assert rights to which they are perfectly entitled - because a right is a kind of power but they are too lazy or too cowardly to exercise it. The virtues which cloak these faults are called patience and forbearance.

  • BeansnBreadBeansnBread PshPosts: 5,501Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by jimdandy26
    Originally posted by Iselin

    Yes it is. Just like DAoC was - it's all about the war. Having said that, DAoC aslo had very good PVE. It was not , by any means neglected

    I take it you didn't play DAoC. If you had, you'd know it was much more han a zerg. There was also the startegically placed stealthed scouts watching for reinforcements. The couple of groups with speed strategically located to fight a delaying action if those reinforcements did come. The wall climbers sneaking in to kill their healers. And there was the "hey, the Hibs are going after the Midgard relics, let's see what we can put together to go after theirs while they're not defending" game of cat and mouse...it them where they ain't etc.

    If you're not aware that all that is going on, sure it just looks like a mindless zerg beating on a door...but there was much more to it than that. When I played there we had several guild members who were in the military that just absolutely loved the strategic and tactical possibilities.

    But that was 15 years ago lol. I just hope this generation raised on WOW can buy-in and duplicate that kind of PVP goodness. 

    They can't. They do not know how, and do not have the patience to learn. It will be another "omg this game is fail" and go back to WoW. That traditional argument for 3 faction, that the 2 lower popped team up against the larger is a complete fallacy. It doesn't happen in Rift, or Gw2, or Ps2, or Tsw. Its always the middle running from the bigger and eating the smaller.

    Yes it does. People faction hop to the more powerful team all the time in those games (well, the ones that actually have RvR). As well as that, there is usually a more dominant faction on a given server. Did you follow the free transfers in GW2? Tons of server hopping going on there.

  • BeansnBreadBeansnBread PshPosts: 5,501Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by jimdandy26
    Originally posted by colddog04

    I should have been more clear. I meant limited in design in this very specific area compared to every other MMORPG. Certainly it will and should feel less limited than Spec Ops. But really, I was comparing it to every other MMORPG and not, say, Super Mario Brothers.

    For someone telling others that they are missing points you certainly missed mine. The point was that "freedom" is not always a good thing. What allowed Spec Ops to be so damn amazing was that it WAS limited. The constraints allowed them to do things both mechanics wise, and story wise, that would not have worked if the player had been given freedom.

    Yeah, just like Super Mario Brothers. It's limited in ways that make sense for the type of game. In it's case, a sidescrolling platformer. In the case of Spec Ops, a linear shooter. Which is exactly my point. Compared to other titles in the genre, they have chosen a more limited design. Nothing wrong with that to many people, but I prefer MMORPGs to be more open.

     

    I never threw those games up as shining examples. I was actually responding to Nanfoodle that used WoW as his shining example. Then I went on to explain how they are vastly different than the design in ESO. I'm not sure where you are getting, "I am being oppressed." That just looks like a weak straw man to me.

    Here, I will use caps again so maybe you will actually read and process the information. NO THEY ARE NOT. Merely having "wide open freedom" is pointless if there is nothing for you to explore. For you to actually get anything worthwhile out of those zones you would still have had to reroll. The devs have already said that they have not forgotten about you explorer types, they have set aside quests, and doodads and all sorts of awesome shit for you to explore your little butts off for. As for your pathetic strawman retort I say actually look at what I am saying in comparison to how you are acting. At best, based on current information, that they can cater to explorers more. AT BEST. Until we know true sizes of zones, and how much there is to do/find its not a viable complaint, nor one that is likely to change since it conflicts with too many core gameplay principles. This "But, but, but INVISIBLE WALLSSSS" whine makes about as much sense as those crying because they cannot become werewolves, or Vampires, cause you know thats totally balanced! Or the ones who will be crying for the ever popular FUS DO RAH!

    Your hostility doesn't make your argument any better (or worse for that matter). 

     

    You think wide open areas are pointless. You think it's pointless for people to be able to experience 2/3 of the world they created with your character. After all, what would you do?

     

    I would argue that they should make something to do for all factions across all of Tamriel. I don't see how that makes having three factions impossible. You could even create storylines that involve a war between the factions where one faction has gained a lot of ground in enemy territory. And why would they restrict you from going into enemy territory at all? It's a riskier place to be and adds to the sense of danger (as well as adding to the amount of griefers). 

  • IselinIselin Vancouver, BCPosts: 5,612Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by jimdandy26
    Originally posted by Iselin

    Yes it is. Just like DAoC was - it's all about the war. Having said that, DAoC aslo had very good PVE. It was not , by any means neglected

    I take it you didn't play DAoC. If you had, you'd know it was much more han a zerg. There was also the startegically placed stealthed scouts watching for reinforcements. The couple of groups with speed strategically located to fight a delaying action if those reinforcements did come. The wall climbers sneaking in to kill their healers. And there was the "hey, the Hibs are going after the Midgard relics, let's see what we can put together to go after theirs while they're not defending" game of cat and mouse...it them where they ain't etc.

    If you're not aware that all that is going on, sure it just looks like a mindless zerg beating on a door...but there was much more to it than that. When I played there we had several guild members who were in the military that just absolutely loved the strategic and tactical possibilities.

    But that was 15 years ago lol. I just hope this generation raised on WOW can buy-in and duplicate that kind of PVP goodness. 

    They can't. They do not know how, and do not have the patience to learn. It will be another "omg this game is fail" and go back to WoW. That traditional argument for 3 faction, that the 2 lower popped team up against the larger is a complete fallacy. It doesn't happen in Rift, or Gw2, or Ps2, or Tsw. Its always the middle running from the bigger and eating the smaller.

     Myabe you're right but I'm going to be optimistic until they prove me wrong :)

    RvR is PvP raiding...and not everyone is a raider in PvE. I think you do need to have a more long-term view kind of approach to enjoy it.

  • BeansnBreadBeansnBread PshPosts: 5,501Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Iselin

     Myabe you're right but I'm going to be optimistic until they prove me wrong :)

    RvR is PvP raiding...and not everyone is a raider in PvE. I think you do need to have a more long-term view kind of approach to enjoy it.

    I don't think anyone has a problem with RvR in Cyrodiil the way you personally want it implemented. I certainly don't. I'm not sure why you get that impression.

  • jimdandy26jimdandy26 salem, ORPosts: 527Member
    Originally posted by colddog04
    Originally posted by jimdandy26
    Originally posted by colddog04

    I should have been more clear. I meant limited in design in this very specific area compared to every other MMORPG. Certainly it will and should feel less limited than Spec Ops. But really, I was comparing it to every other MMORPG and not, say, Super Mario Brothers.

    For someone telling others that they are missing points you certainly missed mine. The point was that "freedom" is not always a good thing. What allowed Spec Ops to be so damn amazing was that it WAS limited. The constraints allowed them to do things both mechanics wise, and story wise, that would not have worked if the player had been given freedom.

    Yeah, just like Super Mario Brothers. It's limited in ways that make sense for the type of game. In it's case, a sidescrolling platformer. In the case of Spec Ops, a linear shooter. Which is exactly my point. Compared to other titles in the genre, they have chosen a more limited design. Nothing wrong with that to many people, but I prefer MMORPGs to be more open.

     

    I never threw those games up as shining examples. I was actually responding to Nanfoodle that used WoW as his shining example. Then I went on to explain how they are vastly different than the design in ESO. I'm not sure where you are getting, "I am being oppressed." That just looks like a weak straw man to me.

    Here, I will use caps again so maybe you will actually read and process the information. NO THEY ARE NOT. Merely having "wide open freedom" is pointless if there is nothing for you to explore. For you to actually get anything worthwhile out of those zones you would still have had to reroll. The devs have already said that they have not forgotten about you explorer types, they have set aside quests, and doodads and all sorts of awesome shit for you to explore your little butts off for. As for your pathetic strawman retort I say actually look at what I am saying in comparison to how you are acting. At best, based on current information, that they can cater to explorers more. AT BEST. Until we know true sizes of zones, and how much there is to do/find its not a viable complaint, nor one that is likely to change since it conflicts with too many core gameplay principles. This "But, but, but INVISIBLE WALLSSSS" whine makes about as much sense as those crying because they cannot become werewolves, or Vampires, cause you know thats totally balanced! Or the ones who will be crying for the ever popular FUS DO RAH!

    Your hostility doesn't make your argument any better (or worse for that matter). 

     

    You think wide open areas are pointless. You think it's pointless for people to be able to experience 2/3 of the world they created with your character. After all, what would you do?

     

    I would argue that they should make something to do for all factions across all of Tamriel. I don't see how that makes having three factions impossible. You could even create storylines that involve a war between the factions where one faction has gained a lot of ground in enemy territory. And why would they restrict you from going into enemy territory at all? It's a riskier place to be and adds to the sense of danger (as well as adding to the amount of griefers). 

    Watch this http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/aesthetics-of-play

    Maybe it will get the point better across than repeating myself constantly. Though really I can sum it up as science. Well, that and your playing the game wrong.

    I did battle with ignorance today, and ignorance won.

    To exercise power costs effort and demands courage. That is why so many fail to assert rights to which they are perfectly entitled - because a right is a kind of power but they are too lazy or too cowardly to exercise it. The virtues which cloak these faults are called patience and forbearance.

  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Posts: 5,451Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by jimdandy26
    Originally posted by Iselin

    Yes it is. Just like DAoC was - it's all about the war. Having said that, DAoC aslo had very good PVE. It was not , by any means neglected

    I take it you didn't play DAoC. If you had, you'd know it was much more han a zerg. There was also the startegically placed stealthed scouts watching for reinforcements. The couple of groups with speed strategically located to fight a delaying action if those reinforcements did come. The wall climbers sneaking in to kill their healers. And there was the "hey, the Hibs are going after the Midgard relics, let's see what we can put together to go after theirs while they're not defending" game of cat and mouse...it them where they ain't etc.

    If you're not aware that all that is going on, sure it just looks like a mindless zerg beating on a door...but there was much more to it than that. When I played there we had several guild members who were in the military that just absolutely loved the strategic and tactical possibilities.

    But that was 15 years ago lol. I just hope this generation raised on WOW can buy-in and duplicate that kind of PVP goodness. 

    They can't. They do not know how, and do not have the patience to learn. It will be another "omg this game is fail" and go back to WoW. That traditional argument for 3 faction, that the 2 lower popped team up against the larger is a complete fallacy. It doesn't happen in Rift, or Gw2, or Ps2, or Tsw. Its always the middle running from the bigger and eating the smaller.

     Myabe you're right but I'm going to be optimistic until they prove me wrong :)

    RvR is PvP raiding...and not everyone is a raider in PvE. I think you do need to have a more long-term view kind of approach to enjoy it.

    Since DAoC thats never happened because no one has recreated the elements that made that happen. GW2 every 2 weeks you have a new war. There is no time to get to know the other sides guilds. The factions weakness. That takes time to organicaly grow. ESO is the first real 3 faction RvR style PvP to be even tried post DAoC. Cant wait... if its half the game DAoC was, ESO will be the best PvP game post DAoC.


    =-D Only on a forum can optimism be called bad and pessimism the good thing =-D Welcome to the internet and forums. 


  • jimdandy26jimdandy26 salem, ORPosts: 527Member
    Originally posted by colddog04

    Yes it does. People faction hop to the more powerful team all the time in those games (well, the ones that actually have RvR). As well as that, there is usually a more dominant faction on a given server. Did you follow the free transfers in GW2? Tons of server hopping going on there.

    Exactly, they faction hop instead of coming together as a faction. Not to say that there weren't those who switched sides in Daoc, hell they started the trend, but its grown worse. Even at the mere perception, whether true or not, the claws come out and people start rerolling. The very idea that it could not possibly be them, that it must be a cheat, or some class is op etc has ruined a lot of things. And that is not just coming from forums unfortunately. It really is spread wide.

    I did battle with ignorance today, and ignorance won.

    To exercise power costs effort and demands courage. That is why so many fail to assert rights to which they are perfectly entitled - because a right is a kind of power but they are too lazy or too cowardly to exercise it. The virtues which cloak these faults are called patience and forbearance.

  • BeansnBreadBeansnBread PshPosts: 5,501Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by jimdandy26
    Originally posted by colddog04
    Originally posted by jimdandy26
    Originally posted by colddog04

    I should have been more clear. I meant limited in design in this very specific area compared to every other MMORPG. Certainly it will and should feel less limited than Spec Ops. But really, I was comparing it to every other MMORPG and not, say, Super Mario Brothers.

    For someone telling others that they are missing points you certainly missed mine. The point was that "freedom" is not always a good thing. What allowed Spec Ops to be so damn amazing was that it WAS limited. The constraints allowed them to do things both mechanics wise, and story wise, that would not have worked if the player had been given freedom.

    Yeah, just like Super Mario Brothers. It's limited in ways that make sense for the type of game. In it's case, a sidescrolling platformer. In the case of Spec Ops, a linear shooter. Which is exactly my point. Compared to other titles in the genre, they have chosen a more limited design. Nothing wrong with that to many people, but I prefer MMORPGs to be more open.

     

    I never threw those games up as shining examples. I was actually responding to Nanfoodle that used WoW as his shining example. Then I went on to explain how they are vastly different than the design in ESO. I'm not sure where you are getting, "I am being oppressed." That just looks like a weak straw man to me.

    Here, I will use caps again so maybe you will actually read and process the information. NO THEY ARE NOT. Merely having "wide open freedom" is pointless if there is nothing for you to explore. For you to actually get anything worthwhile out of those zones you would still have had to reroll. The devs have already said that they have not forgotten about you explorer types, they have set aside quests, and doodads and all sorts of awesome shit for you to explore your little butts off for. As for your pathetic strawman retort I say actually look at what I am saying in comparison to how you are acting. At best, based on current information, that they can cater to explorers more. AT BEST. Until we know true sizes of zones, and how much there is to do/find its not a viable complaint, nor one that is likely to change since it conflicts with too many core gameplay principles. This "But, but, but INVISIBLE WALLSSSS" whine makes about as much sense as those crying because they cannot become werewolves, or Vampires, cause you know thats totally balanced! Or the ones who will be crying for the ever popular FUS DO RAH!

    Your hostility doesn't make your argument any better (or worse for that matter). 

     

    You think wide open areas are pointless. You think it's pointless for people to be able to experience 2/3 of the world they created with your character. After all, what would you do?

     

    I would argue that they should make something to do for all factions across all of Tamriel. I don't see how that makes having three factions impossible. You could even create storylines that involve a war between the factions where one faction has gained a lot of ground in enemy territory. And why would they restrict you from going into enemy territory at all? It's a riskier place to be and adds to the sense of danger (as well as adding to the amount of griefers). 

    Watch this http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/aesthetics-of-play

    Maybe it will get the point better across than repeating myself constantly. Though really I can sum it up as science. Well, that and your playing the game wrong.

    I've seen all of those things. They are top notch.

     

    Playing the game wrong... I think you need to watch that video again. Specificall at about 1:40.

    "Unfortunately, this leaves many designers so focused on the mechanics that they're not actually thinking about the aesthetics of play they're trying to deliver. Or perhaps worse, they think that specific mechanics ALWAYS deliver specific aesthetics."

     

    He goes on to say that leveling in Mass Effect and Call of duty have a completely different aesthic - something that I was tring to point out to you when I was talking about the difference between Spec Ops being limited and an MMORPG being limited. Their expectations are different and the aesthetics of play are different.

     

    I assume your point though would be that I am trying to force attributes onto this game that exist in most other MMORPGs. Basically, defining a game based on genre is stupid. I agree somewhat.

     

    But really, from my perspective, I see a developer that is making a clone of an RvR system and giving very little consideration for anything else. They are sacrificing gameplay aesthetics that traditional players not only from the MMORPG realm have (with the exception of one game), but also the traditional TES realm have in order to create something based on a video game with RvR that came out 12 years ago. So I think I'm really asking if they are sacrificing too much in order to accomplish their goal of recreating (instead of making a new game) this game from 12 years ago. 

  • jimdandy26jimdandy26 salem, ORPosts: 527Member
    Originally posted by colddog04

    I've seen all of those things. They are top notch.

     

    Playing the game wrong... I think you need to watch that video again. Specificall at about 1:40.

    "Unfortunately, this leaves many designers so focused on the mechanics that they're not actually thinking about the aesthetics of play they're trying to deliver. Or perhaps worse, they think that specific mechanics ALWAYS deliver specific aesthetics."

     

    He goes on to say that leveling in Mass Effect and Call of duty have a completely different aesthic - something that I was tring to point out to you when I was talking about the difference between Spec Ops being limited and an MMORPG being limited. Their expectations are different and the aesthetics of play are different.

     

    I assume your point though would be that I am trying to force attributes onto this game that exist in most other MMORPGs. Basically, defining a game based on genre is stupid. I agree somewhat.

    Partially, but more along the lines of near the end of the video, when they cover how most games only ever really touch on 3-4 as core aesthetics. While most mmos touch on exploration, and include those elements, the case can be made for most of them that exploration is not at their core.

     

    But really, from my perspective, I see a developer that is making a clone of an RvR system and giving very little consideration for anything else. They are sacrificing gameplay aesthetics that traditional players not only from the MMORPG realm have (with the exception of one game), but also the traditional TES realm have in order to create something based on a video game with RvR that came out 12 years ago. So I think I'm really asking if they are sacrificing too much in order to accomplish their goal of recreating (instead of making a new game) this game from 12 years ago. 

    No. Because its an unfair question. Its not the first time that games have crossed genre's within an ip, nor is it even the first time that Tes has done it. You as a consumer should not be attempting to dictate what the game should be, or how the game should be done, only if you want to play it and if you do whether its well executed or not. For example, I am a Star Wars fan, Disney is supposedly making a side movie dedicated to Boba Fett. I personally do not care for the character, so more likely than not, I will never watch the film. It is not my place to rant about how they need to include this character and that character and change the narrative of the film, or to even question the legitimacy of making the film in the first place. I neither funded the project, nor is it obviously aimed at me.

    They have obviously set out to create a pvp game. Apparently from the only "good" model ever. I say good because if it were all that great it would not have been slaughtered by the All Mighty WoW, but thats a nother discussion entirely. Of course they have included some stuff for explorers, and some group content of various sizes, and they likely even snuck in some rp stuff when no one was looking. Merely having some of those elements does not make the game raid or die, or an rp haven, or designed with exploration in mind, nor should it.

    I did battle with ignorance today, and ignorance won.

    To exercise power costs effort and demands courage. That is why so many fail to assert rights to which they are perfectly entitled - because a right is a kind of power but they are too lazy or too cowardly to exercise it. The virtues which cloak these faults are called patience and forbearance.

  • Caliburn101Caliburn101 LondonPosts: 636Member
    Originally posted by jimdandy26

     

    You as a consumer should not be attempting to dictate what the game should be, or how the game should be done, only if you want to play it and if you do whether its well executed or not.

    If this is in fact the case, why do a plethora of consumer pressure groups and customer-focussed regulators exist?

    Do you really believe that as a consumer you have no right to try to change the nature of what you are consuming?

    Sheep have no choice which grass they are forced to eat, and no way to communicate with the farmer about their desire to move to a better field...

    ... consumers, fortunately, are not sheep (at least literally...)... and are not limited to voting with their wallets alone...

  • jimdandy26jimdandy26 salem, ORPosts: 527Member
    Originally posted by Caliburn101
    Originally posted by jimdandy26

     

    You as a consumer should not be attempting to dictate what the game should be, or how the game should be done, only if you want to play it and if you do whether its well executed or not.

    If this is in fact the case, why do a plethora of consumer pressure groups and customer-focussed regulators exist?

    Do you really believe that as a consumer you have no right to try to change the nature of what you are consuming?

    Sheep have no choice which grass they are forced to eat, and no way to communicate with the farmer about their desire to move to a better field...

    ... consumers, fortunately, are not sheep (at least literally...)... and are not limited to voting with their wallets alone...

    Because people are stupid? Seriosly. For someone extolling the virtues of being given freedom you sure are endeavoring to take away that very freedom from the games creators. I am all for being up in arms over things like false advertising (Me3, WarZ) but the sheer amount of stupid shit those advocacy groups flip their shit over is appaling, and often times are out to do more damage than they fix. If you honestly feel this is one of those situations then I highly recommend you re-examine not only the ip, but also why and how you game.

    I did battle with ignorance today, and ignorance won.

    To exercise power costs effort and demands courage. That is why so many fail to assert rights to which they are perfectly entitled - because a right is a kind of power but they are too lazy or too cowardly to exercise it. The virtues which cloak these faults are called patience and forbearance.

  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Posts: 5,451Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by jimdandy26
    Originally posted by Caliburn101
    Originally posted by jimdandy26

     

    You as a consumer should not be attempting to dictate what the game should be, or how the game should be done, only if you want to play it and if you do whether its well executed or not.

    If this is in fact the case, why do a plethora of consumer pressure groups and customer-focussed regulators exist?

    Do you really believe that as a consumer you have no right to try to change the nature of what you are consuming?

    Sheep have no choice which grass they are forced to eat, and no way to communicate with the farmer about their desire to move to a better field...

    ... consumers, fortunately, are not sheep (at least literally...)... and are not limited to voting with their wallets alone...

    Because people are stupid? Seriosly. For someone extolling the virtues of being given freedom you sure are endeavoring to take away that very freedom from the games creators. I am all for being up in arms over things like false advertising (Me3, WarZ) but the sheer amount of stupid shit those advocacy groups flip their shit over is appaling, and often times are out to do more damage than they fix. If you honestly feel this is one of those situations then I highly recommend you re-examine not only the ip, but also why and how you game.

    Most times the developers only listen, really listen, is when we vote with our money =-) 


    =-D Only on a forum can optimism be called bad and pessimism the good thing =-D Welcome to the internet and forums. 


  • jimdandy26jimdandy26 salem, ORPosts: 527Member
    Originally posted by Nanfoodle

    Most times the developers only listen, really listen, is when we vote with our money =-) 

    That is rarely a developer thing (only the lead generally gets money reports, if ever) and is generally an investor thing. The very same investors all of you constantly bitch about for "dumbing down" gameplay, and aiming for the masses. While it is entirely dependent on the dev team themselves, crowd sourced development is horrible.

    I did battle with ignorance today, and ignorance won.

    To exercise power costs effort and demands courage. That is why so many fail to assert rights to which they are perfectly entitled - because a right is a kind of power but they are too lazy or too cowardly to exercise it. The virtues which cloak these faults are called patience and forbearance.

  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Posts: 5,451Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by jimdandy26
    Originally posted by Nanfoodle

    Most times the developers only listen, really listen, is when we vote with our money =-) 

    That is rarely a developer thing (only the lead generally gets money reports, if ever) and is generally an investor thing. The very same investors all of you constantly bitch about for "dumbing down" gameplay, and aiming for the masses. While it is entirely dependent on the dev team themselves, crowd sourced development is horrible.

    Thats one of the reasons I like games like GW1 with no sub. Developers make content and post it up in their cash shop. If players like it they buy it. If they dont, they know not to make that kinda of content as often. Sub based MMOs have to run metrics to find out what players are doing but sub games dont show why people quite because they dont like their options. Its less organic then a solid cash shop that shows "buy" people voting with money what they are looking for =--) 

    As for dumbing down for the masses. I agree with that and dont. Some games try and just go for a large market share of customers but as of late we see games focusing on small customer bases with only 1 or 2 types of content to make that set of customers happy. I find it funny that ESO is trying to give a deep meaningful game when it comes to both PvP and PvE with DAoC style faction PvP and open worlds focus on PvE. Bringing back open world dungeons for groups and 2 man and fans are upset with just one option not given. Go anywhere on one char. Seems like they are missing the big picture on how really meaningful game play is and that setup with very defined rules to create that. How carebearish of a stand.


    =-D Only on a forum can optimism be called bad and pessimism the good thing =-D Welcome to the internet and forums. 


  • Caliburn101Caliburn101 LondonPosts: 636Member
    Originally posted by jimdandy26
    Originally posted by Caliburn101
    Originally posted by jimdandy26

     

    You as a consumer should not be attempting to dictate what the game should be, or how the game should be done, only if you want to play it and if you do whether its well executed or not.

    If this is in fact the case, why do a plethora of consumer pressure groups and customer-focussed regulators exist?

    Do you really believe that as a consumer you have no right to try to change the nature of what you are consuming?

    Sheep have no choice which grass they are forced to eat, and no way to communicate with the farmer about their desire to move to a better field...

    ... consumers, fortunately, are not sheep (at least literally...)... and are not limited to voting with their wallets alone...

    Because people are stupid? Seriosly. For someone extolling the virtues of being given freedom you sure are endeavoring to take away that very freedom from the games creators. I am all for being up in arms over things like false advertising (Me3, WarZ) but the sheer amount of stupid shit those advocacy groups flip their shit over is appaling, and often times are out to do more damage than they fix. If you honestly feel this is one of those situations then I highly recommend you re-examine not only the ip, but also why and how you game.

    Once again you insist on re-creating my response to suit your counter argument...

    ... lazy...

    To make things clear - I am talking about consumers, not game creators. it is the freedom of consumers I care about, not the freedom of game creators.

    As for the rest - I take it that your opinion is that advocacy groups are only involved in 'stupid shit' and 'appaling' (sic) behaviour?

    Why is that?

    As for the last line of your response - I would recommend you look up the term 'projection' in a psychology textbook...

  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAPosts: 18,455Member Uncommon

    w00t!!!!!!!!!!!!

     

    Another new announcement came from the team about exploring the whole world of the game. For a while, it sounded like you could only explore the faction that you had joined at the beginning of the game. So the Ebonhearts would only explore Skyrim and so on. This has now been changed. Players who complete all of the PvE in their zone will now get the chance to unlock another zone at Level 50. Therefore, Ebonheart players can explore the content of the Daggerfall Covenant or the Aldmeri Dominion at Level 50. Once you make the choice the entire zone opens up to your character to explore. Matt did say that the loot you will get in the other zones will be really good, and after finishing the 2nd, you unlock the third. When you unlock the third zone that will give some of the best loot in the game.

     

    I'll add that apparently, even "this late" in develpment, it wasn't much of an issue to make this happen. This is what I call listening to the players image

Sign In or Register to comment.