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!

[POLL] If TES:O Did Not Have AvAvA, Would You Play it?

24

Comments

  • IselinIselin Vancouver, BCPosts: 5,616Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Leiloni
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by meddyck
    Originally posted by Leiloni
    Originally posted by meddyck
    Without AvA, this would for me be a generic fantasy MMO based on an IP from other games I didn't play using mechanics I dislike (limited hotbar skills, no targeted healing). So no I wouldn't be thinking twice about it if it didn't have AvA.

    You really prefer tab target healing? Staring at a UI playing whack a mole all day? In non targeting games, the healing allows you to not only see the fight, but actually be a part of it. It's much more fun and interactive. You should try a game like TERA (really the best at it) or even RaiderZ to see what non targeting healing is like. It's far far better. I will never ever go back to tab target.

    I haven't played TERA or RaiderZ. I asked about PvP in TERA on a different forum recently and was told there was none until level cap. I can see how reticle-based healing could work in a PvE context. In fast paced PvP, you don't have time to locate a member of your group getting focus-fired and move your reticle onto them. You need to be able to immediately target that group member and heal him directly. The only way reticle-based targeting can work in that kind of RvR MMO is if TTK is extremely high so there is no urgency to target your group member and get him healed. But that's not something I like either. I may still try to deal with it in AvA in TESO particularly since I'm not planning on playing a healer there. But it's not my preferred mechanic.

    ESO healing is not reticle based either. It is AOE healing exclusively although some of the AoE is cone shaped and some may be ground-targetted. I also don't think it is either "group exclusive" nor player-limit capped.

    To give tanks some extra healing, one of the properties inherent in heavy armor is +% to healing received.

    Yea that's why I suggested also trying out RaiderZ because their Cleric's use mostly AoE and ground targeted heals. So between the two games you get a feeling for both types of non targeting healing methods.

    I like this way better too and I often play a healer in most MMOs. My all time favorite was my Warrior Priest in Warhammer: you got healed because you were near me and whenever I bashed people over the head with my 2-hd mace, heals happened. Now that's healing without being someonee's robot bitch image

  • GhavriggGhavrigg Halifax, NSPosts: 777Member Uncommon
    I actually have no interest whatsoever in the PvP aspects of the game at the moment. I'm all about the PvE.
  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAPosts: 18,460Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by azzamasin

    No because the game would be to one-dimensional.

     

    I'd still play it but I would get burnt out of doing the same stuff and would likely find myself quitting after the first month or 2.  There jsut wont be enough content to satiate the average gamer.  Hence the reason why I continue to support the AvA style conflict ontop of an amazing Elder Scrolls Experience.

     

    Additing something ontop of something does not take away from it, it enchances it and makes it better but you'll have a bunch of whiney "realists" saying it isnt a TES game when something is added onto the game but they are clearly wrong.

    And I would rebut and say it only "adds to it" if it truly adds anything. As opposed to just smothering the thing it was added to.

     

  • Po_ggPo_gg Twigwarren, WestfarthingPosts: 2,719Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Iselin

    I like this way better too and I often play a healer in most MMOs. My all time favorite was my Warrior Priest in Warhammer: you got healed because you were near me and whenever I bashed people over the head with my 2-hd mace, heals happened. Now that's healing without being someonee's robot bitch image

    Same with the bear shammy in AoC, beside the tank, wrecking the armour of the boss, and every time I bash his head with my 2H hammer the party in an average radius around got Renewal (small HoT) :)

  • DAS1337DAS1337 Parma, OHPosts: 2,404Member
    Originally posted by azzamasin

    No because the game would be to one-dimensional.

     

    I'd still play it but I would get burnt out of doing the same stuff and would likely find myself quitting after the first month or 2.  There jsut wont be enough content to satiate the average gamer.  Hence the reason why I continue to support the AvA style conflict ontop of an amazing Elder Scrolls Experience.

     

    Additing something ontop of something does not take away from it, it enchances it and makes it better but you'll have a bunch of whiney "realists" saying it isnt a TES game when something is added onto the game but they are clearly wrong.

    So, in your opinion, content is AvAvA?  So.. the only games you've ever played is DAoC and GW2?  I highly doubt that.

     

    News flash, there are other things that you can do in a game rather than PvP.  

     

    Call of Duty is screaming your name.

  • pantheronpantheron calhoun, GAPosts: 170Member
    I'd have probably bought and been on the hype train if it had no AvAvA

    I play MMOs for the Forum PVP

  • GravargGravarg Harker Heights, TXPosts: 3,332Member Uncommon
    When this game was first announced the first thing that popped into my mind was PvP and how it would work.  I thought that it would be like Skyrim, where you started out nuetral with everyone, and as you progressed you gained and lost reputations with  the numerous factions.  Players that were friendly with the opposite faction would be able to kill each other in the open world, but I guess how they've done it is still ok.
  • DAS1337DAS1337 Parma, OHPosts: 2,404Member
    Originally posted by Gravarg
    When this game was first announced the first thing that popped into my mind was PvP and how it would work.  I thought that it would be like Skyrim, where you started out nuetral with everyone, and as you progressed you gained and lost reputations with  the numerous factions.  Players that were friendly with the opposite faction would be able to kill each other in the open world, but I guess how they've done it is still ok.

    This would have fit the lore as well I think.  It would have felt like an ES game.  

  • VorthanionVorthanion Laguna Vista, TXPosts: 2,119Member Uncommon
    Absolutely.

    image
  • IselinIselin Vancouver, BCPosts: 5,616Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by azzamasin

    No because the game would be to one-dimensional.

     

    I'd still play it but I would get burnt out of doing the same stuff and would likely find myself quitting after the first month or 2.  There jsut wont be enough content to satiate the average gamer.  Hence the reason why I continue to support the AvA style conflict ontop of an amazing Elder Scrolls Experience.

     

    Yup. That's how I feel too. No one has ever been able to satisfy the appetites of those who live for PvE content consumption. They always pig-out on it faster than they can serve it.

    It's always much better to design a game system that has replayability than constantly adding content. Is AvA in this game going to be worth doing over and over again? Hard to tell at this point. But if it's done right, it has the potential for having much more long-lasting appeal than waiting for yet another top-gear-entry only raid content that is almost identical to the previous content except the bad guys have different names and their bad-shit-on-the-floor-that-must-be-avoided-with-just-a-jump-to-the-left-and-then-a-step-to-the-right is a different shade of puce. image

  • VorthanionVorthanion Laguna Vista, TXPosts: 2,119Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Po_gg
    Originally posted by Iselin

    I like this way better too and I often play a healer in most MMOs. My all time favorite was my Warrior Priest in Warhammer: you got healed because you were near me and whenever I bashed people over the head with my 2-hd mace, heals happened. Now that's healing without being someonee's robot bitch image

    Same with the bear shammy in AoC, beside the tank, wrecking the armour of the boss, and every time I bash his head with my 2H hammer the party in an average radius around got Renewal (small HoT) :)

    More importantly, it was the other players' responsibility for once to place themselves around the warrior priest and not the healers'.  DPSs that were too stupid to stay in range of or near the healer died and the party wouldn't blame the healer, a refreshing change from typical MMO groups.

    image
  • VorthanionVorthanion Laguna Vista, TXPosts: 2,119Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by azzamasin

    No because the game would be to one-dimensional.

     

    I'd still play it but I would get burnt out of doing the same stuff and would likely find myself quitting after the first month or 2.  There jsut wont be enough content to satiate the average gamer.  Hence the reason why I continue to support the AvA style conflict ontop of an amazing Elder Scrolls Experience.

     

    Yup. That's how I feel too. No one has ever been able to satisfy the appetites of those who live for PvE content consumption. They always pig-out on it faster than they can serve it.

    It's always much better to design a game system that has replayability than constantly adding content. Is AvA in this game going to be worth doing over and over again? Hard to tell at this point. But if it's done right, it has the potential for having much more long-lasting appeal than waiting for yet another top-gear-entry only raid content that is almost identical to the previous content except the bad guys have different names and their bad-shit-on-the-floor-that-must-be-avoided-with-just-a-jump-to-the-left-and-then-a-step-to-the-right is a different shade of puce. image

    I can understand that having multiple play styles catered to, adds depth to a game.  The problem is that PvPers are never happy unless PvP is central to the game.  Otherwise, they whine about PvP being tacked on as an afterthought, when they should be happy to get any at all.  Every single MMO I have ever followed had PvPers whining about one thing or another, if it wasn't about primary representation in the game, then it was about class balance at the expense of the PvE game or believing they deserve better loot than regular adventurers and equal to raiders.

     

    Even more insidiously is their constant push to funnel PvE players into PvP areas by tying it into PvE quests and rewards.  This is something I see them push for all the time, a nice constant flow of cannon fodder and easy pickings.

    image
  • sapphensapphen Madison, NCPosts: 911Member Common
    Originally posted by baphamet

    Originally posted by sapphen
    I have been wanting to play a TES MMO since Oblivion, unfortunately AvAvA almost discourages me from playing it.

    i don't see why, the pvp is totally optional and segregated from the rest of the game.

    me personally, i would still try this game if it still had the option to pvp other than just battleground style pvp.

    i mean, sure i could still play it without any pvp or endgame for a while but it wouldn't last long, that is for sure.

    still probably wont last very long for me as far as mmo's go, but we will see.

    Good for you!

    Me personally, I would rather have the freedom of previous TES games than locked into a faction because of RvR.  I don't mind RvR at all but I think it's an awful system to substitute for the glory that is the Elder Scrolls franchise.... but that's just me and a topic for another thread.
  • IselinIselin Vancouver, BCPosts: 5,616Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Vorthanion
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by azzamasin

    No because the game would be to one-dimensional.

     

    I'd still play it but I would get burnt out of doing the same stuff and would likely find myself quitting after the first month or 2.  There jsut wont be enough content to satiate the average gamer.  Hence the reason why I continue to support the AvA style conflict ontop of an amazing Elder Scrolls Experience.

     

    Yup. That's how I feel too. No one has ever been able to satisfy the appetites of those who live for PvE content consumption. They always pig-out on it faster than they can serve it.

    It's always much better to design a game system that has replayability than constantly adding content. Is AvA in this game going to be worth doing over and over again? Hard to tell at this point. But if it's done right, it has the potential for having much more long-lasting appeal than waiting for yet another top-gear-entry only raid content that is almost identical to the previous content except the bad guys have different names and their bad-shit-on-the-floor-that-must-be-avoided-with-just-a-jump-to-the-left-and-then-a-step-to-the-right is a different shade of puce. image

    I can understand that having multiple play styles catered to, adds depth to a game.  The problem is that PvPers are never happy unless PvP is central to the game.  Otherwise, they whine about PvP being tacked on as an afterthought, when they should be happy to get any at all.  Every single MMO I have ever followed had PvPers whining about one thing or another, if it wasn't about primary representation in the game, then it was about class balance at the expense of the PvE game or believing they deserve better loot than regular adventurers and equal to raiders.

     

    Even more insidiously is their constant push to funnel PvE players into PvP areas by tying it into PvE quests and rewards.  This is something I see them push for all the time, a nice constant flow of cannon fodder and easy pickings.

     You're talking about different things than I am and both of yours can be put into the single category of bad development.

    There are creative ways to balance PvP separately from PvE without need for separate gear or bogus PVP-only stats. Rift took a good crack at it with the PvP soul that each class has available...except they didn't go far enough. ESO will also have AvA-only skill progression with 3 separate branches. That has potential for PvP balancing without hurting the PvE. Also don't forget that PvE only games are also constantly being tweaked and rebalkanced based exclusively on PvE criteria. It's a cliche that those nerfed in PvE always blame PvP balancing for the change when often, it was all about PvE balancing the overpowerd heals that were trivializing the content, for example.

    Aslo.. I've never heard PvPers complain about PvP just being a tacked-on ugly step-child except when it is...like in LOTRO... like in vanilla WOW. There are bad development trends, usually motivated by the bottom line, where developers try to be everything to all people. Some players are so used to having it that way, that when a developer has the vision, focus and balls to not do that, all hell breaks lose in the forums with people demanding things like raids, PvE with anyone from all factions, scenario PvP, etc.

    This particular MMO is RvR--or AvA if you prefer-centric. It has been designed that way. It's a horse, not a cow. Horses are for riding and cows are for milking. You can try to do it the opposite way but the results won't be ideal. image

  • VorthanionVorthanion Laguna Vista, TXPosts: 2,119Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by Vorthanion
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by azzamasin

    No because the game would be to one-dimensional.

     

    I'd still play it but I would get burnt out of doing the same stuff and would likely find myself quitting after the first month or 2.  There jsut wont be enough content to satiate the average gamer.  Hence the reason why I continue to support the AvA style conflict ontop of an amazing Elder Scrolls Experience.

     

    Yup. That's how I feel too. No one has ever been able to satisfy the appetites of those who live for PvE content consumption. They always pig-out on it faster than they can serve it.

    It's always much better to design a game system that has replayability than constantly adding content. Is AvA in this game going to be worth doing over and over again? Hard to tell at this point. But if it's done right, it has the potential for having much more long-lasting appeal than waiting for yet another top-gear-entry only raid content that is almost identical to the previous content except the bad guys have different names and their bad-shit-on-the-floor-that-must-be-avoided-with-just-a-jump-to-the-left-and-then-a-step-to-the-right is a different shade of puce. image

    I can understand that having multiple play styles catered to, adds depth to a game.  The problem is that PvPers are never happy unless PvP is central to the game.  Otherwise, they whine about PvP being tacked on as an afterthought, when they should be happy to get any at all.  Every single MMO I have ever followed had PvPers whining about one thing or another, if it wasn't about primary representation in the game, then it was about class balance at the expense of the PvE game or believing they deserve better loot than regular adventurers and equal to raiders.

     

    Even more insidiously is their constant push to funnel PvE players into PvP areas by tying it into PvE quests and rewards.  This is something I see them push for all the time, a nice constant flow of cannon fodder and easy pickings.

     You're talking about different things than I am and both of yours can be put into the single category of bad development.

    There are creative ways to balance PvP separately from PvE without need for separate gear or bogus PVP-only stats. Rift took a good crack at it with the PvP soul that each class has available...except they didn't go far enough. ESO will also have AvA-only skill progression with 3 separate branches. That has potential for PvP balancing without hurting the PvE. Also don't forget that PvE only games are also constantly being tweaked and rebalkanced based exclusively on PvE criteria. It's a cliche that those nerfed in PvE always blame PvP balancing for the change when often, it was all about PvE balancing the overpowerd heals that were trivializing the content, for example.

    Aslo.. I've never heard PvPers complain about PvP just being a tacked-on ugly step-child except when it is...like in LOTRO... like in vanilla WOW. There are bad development trends, usually motivated by the bottom line, where developers try to be everything to all people. Some players are so used to having it that way, that when a developer has the vision, focus and balls to not do that, all hell breaks lose in the forums with people demanding things like raids, PvE with anyone from all factions, scenario PvP, etc.

    This particular MMO is RvR--or AvA if you prefer-centric. It has been designed that way. It's a horse, not a cow. Horses are for riding and cows are for milking. You can try to do it the opposite way but the results won't be ideal. image

    Bad development from your perspective, not mine nor the many, many others who could give a rat's ass about PvP.

     

    You are either new to the genre or new to the world of gaming sites, as the PvP fanatics have been around and complaining since the days I started playing EverQuest back in 1999.  Although I know it had been going on even before that with UO and the whole Trammel affair, but I didn't learn about that till I started lurking other boards besides those for EQ.

    image
  • IselinIselin Vancouver, BCPosts: 5,616Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Vorthanion
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by Vorthanion
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by azzamasin

    No because the game would be to one-dimensional.

     

    I'd still play it but I would get burnt out of doing the same stuff and would likely find myself quitting after the first month or 2.  There jsut wont be enough content to satiate the average gamer.  Hence the reason why I continue to support the AvA style conflict ontop of an amazing Elder Scrolls Experience.

     

    Yup. That's how I feel too. No one has ever been able to satisfy the appetites of those who live for PvE content consumption. They always pig-out on it faster than they can serve it.

    It's always much better to design a game system that has replayability than constantly adding content. Is AvA in this game going to be worth doing over and over again? Hard to tell at this point. But if it's done right, it has the potential for having much more long-lasting appeal than waiting for yet another top-gear-entry only raid content that is almost identical to the previous content except the bad guys have different names and their bad-shit-on-the-floor-that-must-be-avoided-with-just-a-jump-to-the-left-and-then-a-step-to-the-right is a different shade of puce. image

    I can understand that having multiple play styles catered to, adds depth to a game.  The problem is that PvPers are never happy unless PvP is central to the game.  Otherwise, they whine about PvP being tacked on as an afterthought, when they should be happy to get any at all.  Every single MMO I have ever followed had PvPers whining about one thing or another, if it wasn't about primary representation in the game, then it was about class balance at the expense of the PvE game or believing they deserve better loot than regular adventurers and equal to raiders.

     

    Even more insidiously is their constant push to funnel PvE players into PvP areas by tying it into PvE quests and rewards.  This is something I see them push for all the time, a nice constant flow of cannon fodder and easy pickings.

     You're talking about different things than I am and both of yours can be put into the single category of bad development.

    There are creative ways to balance PvP separately from PvE without need for separate gear or bogus PVP-only stats. Rift took a good crack at it with the PvP soul that each class has available...except they didn't go far enough. ESO will also have AvA-only skill progression with 3 separate branches. That has potential for PvP balancing without hurting the PvE. Also don't forget that PvE only games are also constantly being tweaked and rebalkanced based exclusively on PvE criteria. It's a cliche that those nerfed in PvE always blame PvP balancing for the change when often, it was all about PvE balancing the overpowerd heals that were trivializing the content, for example.

    Aslo.. I've never heard PvPers complain about PvP just being a tacked-on ugly step-child except when it is...like in LOTRO... like in vanilla WOW. There are bad development trends, usually motivated by the bottom line, where developers try to be everything to all people. Some players are so used to having it that way, that when a developer has the vision, focus and balls to not do that, all hell breaks lose in the forums with people demanding things like raids, PvE with anyone from all factions, scenario PvP, etc.

    This particular MMO is RvR--or AvA if you prefer-centric. It has been designed that way. It's a horse, not a cow. Horses are for riding and cows are for milking. You can try to do it the opposite way but the results won't be ideal. image

    Bad development from your perspective, not mine nor the many, many others who could give a rat's ass about PvP.

     There....are....other...games.

    Or put differently. I don't give a rat's ass about your rat's ass.

  • VorthanionVorthanion Laguna Vista, TXPosts: 2,119Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by Vorthanion
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by Vorthanion
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by azzamasin

    No because the game would be to one-dimensional.

     

    I'd still play it but I would get burnt out of doing the same stuff and would likely find myself quitting after the first month or 2.  There jsut wont be enough content to satiate the average gamer.  Hence the reason why I continue to support the AvA style conflict ontop of an amazing Elder Scrolls Experience.

     

    Yup. That's how I feel too. No one has ever been able to satisfy the appetites of those who live for PvE content consumption. They always pig-out on it faster than they can serve it.

    It's always much better to design a game system that has replayability than constantly adding content. Is AvA in this game going to be worth doing over and over again? Hard to tell at this point. But if it's done right, it has the potential for having much more long-lasting appeal than waiting for yet another top-gear-entry only raid content that is almost identical to the previous content except the bad guys have different names and their bad-shit-on-the-floor-that-must-be-avoided-with-just-a-jump-to-the-left-and-then-a-step-to-the-right is a different shade of puce. image

    I can understand that having multiple play styles catered to, adds depth to a game.  The problem is that PvPers are never happy unless PvP is central to the game.  Otherwise, they whine about PvP being tacked on as an afterthought, when they should be happy to get any at all.  Every single MMO I have ever followed had PvPers whining about one thing or another, if it wasn't about primary representation in the game, then it was about class balance at the expense of the PvE game or believing they deserve better loot than regular adventurers and equal to raiders.

     

    Even more insidiously is their constant push to funnel PvE players into PvP areas by tying it into PvE quests and rewards.  This is something I see them push for all the time, a nice constant flow of cannon fodder and easy pickings.

     You're talking about different things than I am and both of yours can be put into the single category of bad development.

    There are creative ways to balance PvP separately from PvE without need for separate gear or bogus PVP-only stats. Rift took a good crack at it with the PvP soul that each class has available...except they didn't go far enough. ESO will also have AvA-only skill progression with 3 separate branches. That has potential for PvP balancing without hurting the PvE. Also don't forget that PvE only games are also constantly being tweaked and rebalkanced based exclusively on PvE criteria. It's a cliche that those nerfed in PvE always blame PvP balancing for the change when often, it was all about PvE balancing the overpowerd heals that were trivializing the content, for example.

    Aslo.. I've never heard PvPers complain about PvP just being a tacked-on ugly step-child except when it is...like in LOTRO... like in vanilla WOW. There are bad development trends, usually motivated by the bottom line, where developers try to be everything to all people. Some players are so used to having it that way, that when a developer has the vision, focus and balls to not do that, all hell breaks lose in the forums with people demanding things like raids, PvE with anyone from all factions, scenario PvP, etc.

    This particular MMO is RvR--or AvA if you prefer-centric. It has been designed that way. It's a horse, not a cow. Horses are for riding and cows are for milking. You can try to do it the opposite way but the results won't be ideal. image

    Bad development from your perspective, not mine nor the many, many others who could give a rat's ass about PvP.

     There....are....other...games.

    ...and this one is still in development and the developer is obviously open to criticism and feedback as is evident with the recent level 50 exploration changes.

    image
  • IselinIselin Vancouver, BCPosts: 5,616Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Vorthanion
    ...and this one is still in development and the developer is obviously open to criticism and feedback as is evident with the recent level 50 exploration changes.

     Yes. Let's go over to the Archeage forum and demand a themepark.

  • VorthanionVorthanion Laguna Vista, TXPosts: 2,119Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by Vorthanion
    ...and this one is still in development and the developer is obviously open to criticism and feedback as is evident with the recent level 50 exploration changes.

     Yes. Let's go over to the Archeage forum and demand a themepark.

    More power to you.  I'm not the one trying to suppress opinions here.

    image
  • IselinIselin Vancouver, BCPosts: 5,616Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Vorthanion
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by Vorthanion
    ...and this one is still in development and the developer is obviously open to criticism and feedback as is evident with the recent level 50 exploration changes.

     Yes. Let's go over to the Archeage forum and demand a themepark.

    More power to you.  I'm not the one trying to suppress opinions here.

     And I'm not the one trying to criticize other's opinions dismissively and aggresively.

    I can keep this up all day if you wish.

  • jmcdermottukjmcdermottuk LiverpoolPosts: 976Member Uncommon

    I agree with Spotty Geko. I'd love to play a good MMO based on TES but I just don't feel like this is it. This feels too much like DAoC wrapped in a TES box to me. I'm not gonna get drawn into that debate again though.

    Suffice to say that my opinion is an unpopular one on this forum. So, really it doesn't matter what they do with the PvP in this title, I'll be giving it a miss. If another was to be developed in the future and it had the same 3 locked factions and the same RvR model, I'd pass on that one too. If it wasn't a proper sandbox then forget it.

    On a side note, I see that the very vocal minority of FFA PvP Full Loot fans only managed 2.4% of the vote. If that doesn't tell you something, nothing will.

  • VorthanionVorthanion Laguna Vista, TXPosts: 2,119Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by Vorthanion
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by Vorthanion
    ...and this one is still in development and the developer is obviously open to criticism and feedback as is evident with the recent level 50 exploration changes.

     Yes. Let's go over to the Archeage forum and demand a themepark.

    More power to you.  I'm not the one trying to suppress opinions here.

     And I'm not the one trying to criticize other's opinions dismissively and aggresively.

    I can keep this up all day if you wish.

    Honey, you have been aggressive and dismissive at one point or another in all of these topics about ESO.  Seriously, do you think we are blind to it?

    image
  • sapphensapphen Madison, NCPosts: 911Member Common
    Originally posted by Iselin

    I can keep this up all day if you wish.

    Now don't go Iseling up the thread.  It's Bethesda's fault, they like player input - in the past they have encouraged and responded to it.  Yeah, I know Zenimax is making the game but some of us are just more traditional when it comes to the Elder Scrolls franchise.

    If you want to try and change another game, that's between you and that gathering.  I am here because I am an Elder Scrolls fan and I have a concern for their upcoming product.  I appreciate your input on a lot of matters but criticizing a criticizer is mulling over null.
  • IselinIselin Vancouver, BCPosts: 5,616Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by sapphen
    Originally posted by Iselin

    I can keep this up all day if you wish.

    Now don't go Iseling up the thread.  It's Bethesda's fault, they like player input - in the past they have encouraged and responded to it.  Yeah, I know Zenimax is making the game but some of us are just more traditional when it comes to the Elder Scrolls franchise.

    If you want to try and change another game, that's between you and that gathering.  I am here because I am an Elder Scrolls fan and I have a concern for their upcoming product.  I appreciate your input on a lot of matters but criticizing a criticizer is mulling over null.

    Although I appreciate your intervention and attempt at pay-back humor (Iseling... I do believe I once referred to a thread getting sapphened) just follow the bouncing ball and notice the tone and style of the posts preceding the one you've quoted...if you can be objective that is.

    Notice that he even played the "you must be new to gaming" cliched gaming credential card.

    It's all there in black and white....I'll wait.

  • LeiloniLeiloni None of your beeswax, ALPosts: 432Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Vorthanion
    The problem is that PvPers are never happy unless PvP is central to the game.  Otherwise, they whine about PvP being tacked on as an afterthought, when they should be happy to get any at all. 

    No, we shouldn't. Most MMO's are PvE centric with PvP tacked on and it does not work for players who prefer PvP. We deserve a few PvP centric games when most are PvE centric, don't we? Why shouldn't we get a game that we enjoy as well? How would you feel if the tables were turned and the majority of your gameplay from level 1 onward was PvP only with a tacked on PvE instance as a mere side game?

     

    Here's my question - why are so many PvEers on this website so anti PvP? Why is there so much hatred for it? Most PVPers I know not only tolerate PvE, they enjoy it and participate in it at endgame levels in most of their MMO's. We just happen to also enjoy PvP quite a bit. Why are PvPers more tolerant than the supposedly nice and sweet and friendly PvE crowd? HMM?

Sign In or Register to comment.