It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Originally posted by Sovrath Originally posted by Iselin Originally posted by Sovrath Originally posted by Neherun To set some things straight: The game's PvP is not optional; Its a necessity. A lot of crafting materials, possibly even some dungeons reside in Cyrodil, the PvP zone. The game is focused around the PvP endgame. You may stick to non-PvP zones only, but you will lose a large chunk of the game. With these, those who absolutely demand not participating in PvP in their MMO ever. Remove TESO from your waiting list already, this game will not be catered around PvE, its a RvR (*cough* AvA) game.
I don't think you have set anything straight
The pvp is optional. You say a lot of crafting materials are located in the pvp zone, which is true but why did you neglect to mention that makine your way through all the pve areas not only gives players more crafting materials and better gear but it also allows skills to become stronger? I do believe they said that there are multiple ways one can improve your character and that a player can either spend their time in the pvp zone or spend it in the pve zone and "not be gimped".
Secondly you don't know if the game is centered around the pvp endgame since there are larger pve things to do in the pve world. If anyting it's more like GW2 in that a player can go to Cyrodill at level 10 (and be boosted to top level) but a player doesn't ever have to rely upon pvp.
Quite frankly I hope you haven't spread disinformation.
Specifically, I asked Sage to describe ZeniMax's strategy for keeping players occupied once they hit the level cap at 50. His reply included four main activities: questing in enemy alliance zones, four-player dungeons, adventure zones, and the PvP alliance war in Cyrodiil. Read on for all of the details I gleaned from the interview!
So it sounds like there are "4 main" activities". No "one" is set above another.
reading over the article it seems that pvp is "one pillar" in the ESO endgame.
Actually I tend to agree with him more than you.
We don't know what resources are found only in Cyrodiil (if any) and I assume they will all be tradable. I think you're right in that it could be played and enjoyed by some without ever setting foot in Cyrodiil.
However, it's pretty clear to me that their showcase is Cyrodiil and the story line points to the 3-sided alliance war there.
In DaoC it was also possible to just PvE and later on, after they strapped-on their water skis and took a flying leap over the shark, they even created co-op PvE servers once Blizzard and WOW had showed them the way to the promised land full of money for nothing and chicks for free.
But it would be hard to argue that DAoC was not about the RvR and it wil be hard to argue against that here as well--level 50 PvE activities notwithstanding.
Hey it's their words...
there are 4 end game activities.. not one activity where all roads lead to.
Additionally, I do believe there is a video itnerview where they indicate that players don't have to pvp. I just didn't "say that" because I can't link to it yet as I need to go through the available videos.
I don't think it's just about their words in that one article personally, I think it's how they are presenting the game to the public and how it's designed at the core. The main hype has been about the RVR. The game is DESIGNED for that goal, with the 3 faction setup and faction locked races, plus the landlock early. It's all tailored around the biggest deal - RvR. Sure there will be other things but tha't the main deal, at least in my opinion.
Originally posted by Margulis Originally posted by Xepo If you want PVE only content then wait for the next Skyrim expansion of a new installment of ES. This is an MMO and most MMOs have PVP in them. I look to play a MMO that has good PVP in it and I am hoping this game will have a nice balance for PVP, which means controlled faction choices. Not really as big a deal as many are trying to make it out to be. Most MMOs with PVP have those types of choices. WoW has faction controlled races yet people still play that game for PVP and PVE. If done well the cry babies will leave to bash a different game after a while and the true players will stick around and make the game great.
its only flawed and arrogant because you don't agree. for me personally, i totally see where he is coming because when i play mmo's, i want to see how good my character actually is and pvp is the truest test IMO.
when i upgrade my characters, its much more fun for me knowing i am upgrading them to be better in pvp rather than upgrading so i can run the next tier of raids.
i don't know why some gamers just cant understand that some people play games for different reasons than their own.
that goes for pvp'ers, pve'ers, themepark's, sandbox's. or whatever kind of games you like.
complaining because this game should only have pve or only have open pvp is pretty selfish to be perfectly blunt.
also, i see people saying that games that try to do everything fail and that's also been proven false many times over.
so there really is no excuse not to have a game feature optional pvp if it is indeed truly optional.
Originally posted by tkreep Originally posted by baphamet Originally posted by Kinchyle Honeslty asking....what MMO has ever been a widely played and popular "real" sandbox? I can't remember one that hasn't been a disappointment. Also, what about the ESO single player series falls out of the sandbox category? Isn't a sandbox where you can go anywhere at any time? Skyrim very much allowed this. Sure it had a storyline to follow, but you didn't have to follow it to explore the world. As far as the PvP goes...there again. What game has ever done it so the majority loved it (DAoC maybe)? All I ever see is whining about how a certain game or another failed at it. If DAoC did it right, is ESO going along the same lines with RvR? I actually only ever did PvP in DAoC a lot, so I kinda would like to know. Loved DAoC! Just questions...cause I guess I don't get everyone elses opnion of "sandbox" really.
http://skyrim.nexusmods.com/mods/9782 One of the best player made quest i have seen fully voiced by actors and different land with new monsters.
Hell there are modders who are working on making it a mmorpg, they even made a whole new city for the online version...
you are talking about modding, which is also only possible on the PC version of he game.
sure you can make a mod that makes it more of a sandbox, that's great!
but being able to create a mod for a game is not what makes it a sandbox heh
I do wish TESO was more like the single player game, but I don't think the game could stand functionally without PvP elements.
Point to make here being, the TES series has generally maintained either via the main questline or through sidequests the sense of conflict taking place across the territory of the game. The simplest two examples to pull up would be from the last two games.
In Skyrim it was relatively cut and dry on the conflict. There were the Imperials and the Stormcloaks. (stormcloaks suck!)
You were given free choice to side with either end of this conflict and push it towards resolution. The conflict itself was a matter representing the fate of Skyrim in the long run. Depending on which side on it has plenty of long term meaning that exists past the actual game.
In Oblivion it was the main questline and the direct conflict with the daedric faction of Mehrunes Dagon. This was a fight over the fate of the mundus (mortal realm).
Both of these situations were concepts of direct conflict between two factions. It just happens that they took place in a single player game. When translating TES into a multiplayer game it does make sense for these things to become PvP events.
Notably because of the freedom of choice provided in TES.
Like in Skyrim, players will have varying opinions of which people they would agree with and fight for, and consequently we can't expect all players to be on the same factions. So either the conflict has to become phased and personal as well, or it can play into a greater community aspect and be a shared PvP experience.
I don't see this aspect conesquently as a concept that is opposed to TES, but instead rather can compliment the way the narrative and series tends to work.
Mostly my complaints sits more with the way in which things get implemented, and that's a separate complaint for a separate thread.
EDIT: Will comment on modding.
Theres a strong case for it here notably because Bethesda supports it. It's been a longstanding part of the TES series and relation the players have with Bethesda that they have first party and additional tools to tweak the game to their desire.
Sure, modding isn't something particularly inherent to games. In this case though it's been a part of what makes TES so popular for a long time. It's why players on the PC have over a thousand hours in Skyrim and a now almost countless amount of time invested in Morrowind and Oblivion.
To take that aspect away from the series would take away much of the reason Bethesda has such a psychotically loyal fanbase.
I generally consider it a part of TES series sandbox element as a result simply because it's something that's explicitly an attractor to gamers on the PC. An element of the series they expect to be present and utilize.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Originally posted by jdlamson75 I feel so outnumbered right now...
Same.. Dunno what it looked like when you posted, but I chose #3.. Though it was a close one between 2 and 3.
"The problem is that the hardcore folks always want the same thing: 'We want exactly what you gave us before, but it has to be completely different.'-Jesse Schell
"Online gamers are the most ludicrously entitled beings since Caligula made his horse a senator, and at least the horse never said anything stupid."-Luke McKinney
Originally posted by baphamet Originally posted by tkreep Originally posted by baphamet Originally posted by Kinchyle Honeslty asking....what MMO has ever been a widely played and popular "real" sandbox? I can't remember one that hasn't been a disappointment. Also, what about the ESO single player series falls out of the sandbox category? Isn't a sandbox where you can go anywhere at any time? Skyrim very much allowed this. Sure it had a storyline to follow, but you didn't have to follow it to explore the world. As far as the PvP goes...there again. What game has ever done it so the majority loved it (DAoC maybe)? All I ever see is whining about how a certain game or another failed at it. If DAoC did it right, is ESO going along the same lines with RvR? I actually only ever did PvP in DAoC a lot, so I kinda would like to know. Loved DAoC! Just questions...cause I guess I don't get everyone elses opnion of "sandbox" really.
In your opinion
Originally posted by tkreep Originally posted by baphamet you are talking about modding, which is also only possible on the PC version of he game. sure you can make a mod that makes it more of a sandbox, that's great! but being able to create a mod for a game is not what makes it a sandbox heh
Name one MMO with modding, that wouldn't be a sandbox without it.
Keep in mind, if 'in your opinion' modding makes things a sandbox, you would also have to include games like:
in your list of sandboxes.
I don't care about the themepark vs nonsense. What I want from TESO isn't on the drawing board right now.
Originally posted by aesperus Name one MMO with modding, that wouldn't be a sandbox without it. Keep in mind, if 'in your opinion' modding makes things a sandbox, you would also have to include games like: Halflife Unreal Tournament Starcraft Dota in your list of sandboxes.
It depends on where and how the tools work.
In the case of Half Life and later Source engine games, it's because Valve authors the SDK so people can mess with any Source engine based game materials. As it applies to Half Life 2, it's functionally capable of being used as a sandbox, but because of the way levels are build as linear environments most of the time and the assets lack most of the information necessary to easily mess with it in the Half Life 2 game, it makes it hard to use as a sandbox.
Which is why there's Garry's Mod. Which takes all of the Source engine assets (and other things people rip/contribute) and piles it into a new game built off the same engine and system as Half Life 2, but with a lot of modifications and new scripts to enable a much more flexible use of content.
Likewise with UT, anything loaded into that game usually behaves on a relatively finite set of scripts (game and editor uses UnrealScript as well as Kismet to set many things). People can usee the Unreal SDK to make new games using UT assets, but the amount of control they have over modiying or changing things in the UT game itself is limited, generally anything big enough being introdusec as a separate component that players can download and use on custom map packs, like the UT2k4 survival RPG.
Starcraft is a game I would actually place pretty close to being a proper sandbox game even though it suffers similar restrictions to the previously mentioned games and then some. Players can't change the game's engine or introduce new script elements to change the behavior of it like they can with Epic, Source, and Bethesta's Gamebryo games. Instead the editing tool provided has enough plugins of it's own that players can use the built in scripts or some of their own within the editor and map assets to create a variety of gameplay designs that fit within the framework Starcraft 1 and 2 provides.
More notably 2 as it is the most recent and generally flexible editor, though Blizzard imposes certain data limits that makes custom maps hard to pull off at times.
Not sure where one was going with DotA as that was originally a WC3 map mod turned into it's won game genre, and honestly is kind of a hallmark example of the flexibility of the map and script editors giving the capacity to spawn new game concepts. So DotA itself wouldn't be a sandbox, but it was created because of the tools and sandbox capabilities of WC3.
Also I think an easier first question would be 'name an mmo with 'modding'.
There are those that allow UI and minor macro elements, but there's not really any that are springing to mind for me that allows a player to straight up change how the game works aside from Second Life.
And honestly, if that game didn't have it's mod tools and plugins it would he worse to play, I mean think of the average person's opinion of that game now and make it worse.
Originally posted by furbans Why do people constantly come up with these pointless polls? Newsflash... your little opinions don't mean crap to the developers. They have already set the course for the game and nothing is gonna change that. And they sure as hell not gonna take heed of anyone's poll at this site anyways. Now if it was an in depth discussion and trend on the official forums when they become available then they MIGHT listen but they sure as hell not gonna scrap their design.
Old Newsflash - there has already been a concession or two by Zenimax on the issue of core gameplay modes around freedom of exploration on single toons.
Why does everyone who has the kind of mindset which insists 'it cannot be done' then characterise any change as requiring 'scrapping' the design, attempting to validate their 'point' with this kind of gross exaggeration?
Changes rarely require scrapping core design.
'It cannot be done' is usually not the case...
There was a previously highly active poster on these forums who insisted the proposed changes on freedom of exploration at this stage of development were absolutely impossible. He/she was proven wrong on this particular point, and the changes Zenimax proposed even surprised those posters on the topic who had come up with the best forum ideas on what changes could be made.
The question should be - why do people constantly insist all polls are pointless, and the collective opinions of gamers (aka paying customers) don't matter in the slightest to the people hoping to make money from them?
Games companies exists to make money.
Money comes from gamers.
If enough gamers say "I won't buy because X needs to be Y", often enough they get some version of the Y they wanted...
As the old saying goes - "Money talks, bullshit walks..."
Actually I think this poll is fine - the questions are well enough spread.
I voted option 3 - I see I am in the minority by some margin.
Not surprising really, there are a great many TES fans who don't like the idea of factional PvP at all.
However one votes on such polls, then calling the validity poll into question because more people don't agree with your opinion?
Originally posted by Caliburn101 Actually I think this poll is fine - the questions are well enough spread. I voted option 3 - I see I am in the minority by some margin. Not surprising really, there are a great many TES fans who don't like the idea of factional PvP at all. Ah well. However one votes on such polls, then calling the validity poll into question because more people don't agree with your opinion? Predictable...
and also fairly inevitable, i'd like to see more focus on the PVE aspects myself, and limiting PVP to a central area is fairly convenient, what i find inconvenient however is how 'locked in' everything is, i'd like to see more freedom in the game but beyond wishful thinking.. well i can hope
what's the next poll, do you prefer the sun to be blue?
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
Originally posted by Thane what's the next poll, do you prefer the sun to be blue?
A poll about the validity of polls would probably get a high response percentage...
I would prefer an Elder Scrolls game not an elder daoc game so i might not be playing it long term .
That said , I will try it and see can;t really say one way or the other as to how its going to play until i have played it.
Dint vote....I lost faith in mmo studio's.They either get pvp totaly wrong.They create to much focus on pveThey create it with arcade vision pvp, with no heavy loss when getting killedThey create to much wow to less own vision
Only mmo i consider unique is Eve Online and as far is info is out World of Darkness.Both for some reason from CCP...
RPG PvP guidebook.
You see player X killing your friend NPC,you react fast and try to save your friend but some unknown force blocks your action,you cannot act and do what you want to do so you join PvP(RvR,AvA) and so does player X,there you find out that Player X is your friend and your role is be his healer.
So, did ESO have a successful launch? Yes, yes it did.By Ryan Getchell on April 02, 2014.**On the radar:http://cyberpunk.net/**
Originally posted by ShakyMo Tkreep Please explain how rvr games "take away adventure" Have you actually played daoc? It has 99% the same pve as early EQ (it doesn't have the wow style instanced stuff of modern EQ though)
That made me chuckle considering how many have complained about TESO being more DAoC than TES.
DAoC - Had about 250k players at its peak
Skyrim - Sold 7 million copies in the first week
Oblivion - Sold around 5 million
I would take a guess and say that most TES fans looking forward to TESO have not played DAoC.
Originally posted by GrayGhost79 Originally posted by ShakyMo Tkreep Please explain how rvr games "take away adventure" Have you actually played daoc? It has 99% the same pve as early EQ (it doesn't have the wow style instanced stuff of modern EQ though)
But over 80% of TES fans are console gamers. Unless they own a PC most TES fans won't be playing ESO.
Why the assumption that they are mutually exclusive?
You could have a VERY sand boxy 3 realm rvr game, without all the themepark elements TESO is throwing in.
Oh wait, camelot unchained. LOL
Still, I'm going to play TESO, but I know it's going to have the issues that CU is trying to avoid with the themepark stuff and pve/pvp balance that makes neither optimal. (gear creep being a big one)
MMO history - EVE GW2 SWTOR RIFT WAR COH/V EQ2 WOW DAOCTuktz - http://www.heretic.shivtr.com/