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!

10 people are kicking the guy, guess I should too

13468918

Comments

  • LawlmonsterLawlmonster Dallas, TXPosts: 954Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Iselin

    First a disclaimer for the sensitive: I am not writing this about you.

    Is being a Khajiit, who for all practical purposes plays 100% like and Argonian so important to you that you won't play with your best friend over it? Learn to behave and learn to play with others like a civilized, social adult.

    I can't be certain, but it sure seems to me like this post was directed at someone.

    "This is life! We suffer and slave and expire. That's it!" -Bernard Black (Dylan Moran)

  • IselinIselin Vancouver, BCPosts: 5,614Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Pyuk
    Originally posted by steuss

    People are rightly pissed because the TESO devs basically said, we're gonna make TES a MMO, and everyone was happy, but then people see the actual gameplay and think, "Wtf? this is tab, target, WoW clone bullshit, again. This is NOTHING like TES.

     

    I'm pissed. Why aren't you? Are you happy with mediocrity and green text?

    QFT - IMO. But Tabula Rasa fans might be tickled since it seems that a lot of those devs are now fronting what's going into TESO. All 8 Tabula Rasa fans, that is.

     Whose fault is it for not paying attention and thinking they said black when in fact they said white?

    Here's a link to the original Game Informer reveal of the MMO on May 3, 2012: http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/05/03/june-cover-revealed-the-elder-scrolls-online.aspx

    Notice the "... player-driven PvP conflict that pits the three player factions against each other in open-world warfare over the province of Cyrodiil and the Emperor's throne itself." part?

    Then there were more details right here a few days after that: http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/821/feature/6384/ThreeFaction-PVP-a-la-DAOC.html

    I guess people who speculated, assumed or fantasized about what TES online would be like may be dissapointed. Those of us who just read and listened to what they were saying have known for almost a year what was coming.

  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAPosts: 18,460Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by ShakyMo
    Originally posted by baphamet

    people mention they cant go everywhere and do everything but eventually they will be able to go anywhere with the same character, which is a decent compromise.

    i honestly only think it becomes an issue if the world is small.

    if there areas are huge enough i don't see this as much of an issue for most.

    yeah but thats not their agenda.

    The agenda is remove all pvp or ghetto it off into crappy little minigames, so they can have a vanilla wow experience

    read between the lines.

    No the agenda, if one put any thought into it (and if there is even an "agenda") is the desire for the game to be more like the elder scrolls games.

    No one ver said anything about wow. Well, except you.

  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAPosts: 18,460Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Iselin

     

    Compromise is the defining characteristic of civilisation. "Rugged Individualism" is not a good thing, it's anti-social selfish behavior taken to the max. It's not admirable. It's pathological.

    er, doesn't that knife cut both ways?

    What I see here (aside from the compromise that the developers made) are suggestions by some that would allow people their 3 faction war and then allow everyone else to explore the world as a TES game. Except some players are so desirous of a RvRvR game that this compromise is not acceptable to them. They insist it will hurt faction pride when some don't care about faction pride. They just want to play in the Elder Srcolls world.

    Especially to those who don't even care about pvp.

    Just a thought.

     

  • donjuanagaindonjuanagain New Orleans, LAPosts: 132Member
    Maybe its just me but I dont pop off at the mouth about a game I have never played. Reading some articles and seeing some crappy game play footage from someone else just doesnt make my mind up for me to start spouting off how good or how bad the game is going to be. I usually reserve that judgement until after I have had some significant time in the game. 
  • ElRenmazuoElRenmazuo Alexandria, VAPosts: 4,555Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Aerowyn
    Originally posted by stragen001

    The biggest problem is tab targetting. TESO games have always been first/third person action combat style (cant think of the right word here) and thats what everyone was excited to see in an MMO. Then they said "yeah, we're not doing that"

    imho combat was always the weakest part of any TES game... hyrbid gw2 style I think would work well for a game like this but ill save judgement till i get to play it..

    Its not so weak once you have the one-handed crossbow mod and sword on other hand playing like van helsing or something lol

  • PyukPyuk Eugene, ORPosts: 691Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by Pyuk
    Originally posted by steuss

    People are rightly pissed because the TESO devs basically said, we're gonna make TES a MMO, and everyone was happy, but then people see the actual gameplay and think, "Wtf? this is tab, target, WoW clone bullshit, again. This is NOTHING like TES.

     

    I'm pissed. Why aren't you? Are you happy with mediocrity and green text?

    QFT - IMO. But Tabula Rasa fans might be tickled since it seems that a lot of those devs are now fronting what's going into TESO. All 8 Tabula Rasa fans, that is.

     Whose fault is it for not paying attention and thinking they said black when in fact they said white?

    Here's a link to the original Game Informer reveal of the MMO on May 3, 2012: http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/05/03/june-cover-revealed-the-elder-scrolls-online.aspx

    Notice the "... player-driven PvP conflict that pits the three player factions against each other in open-world warfare over the province of Cyrodiil and the Emperor's throne itself." part?

    Then there were more details right here a few days after that: http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/821/feature/6384/ThreeFaction-PVP-a-la-DAOC.html

    I guess people who speculated, assumed or fantasized about what TES online would be like may be dissapointed. Those of us who just read and listened to what they were saying have known for almost a year what was coming.

    Yeah great. Pointless endgame back-and-forth PvP. Sounds like fail, to me. See you on these forums complaining about TESO three months after launch, 'kay buddy? And you will probably be the one rejoicing about the inevitable layoffs that will hit the TESO team once Zeni realizes they've got a SWTOR/Tabula Rasa on their hands. *thumbs-up!*

    I make spreadsheets at work - I don't want to make them for the games I play.

  • ArglebargleArglebargle Austin, TXPosts: 1,417Member Uncommon

    The OP sorta proposes there's a small cabal here that wants to pervert the glorious design of the game.  I personally think he's got it totally backward.   That there's a small group who likes the very traditional aspect of the mechanical design, and a very large group that is uninterested or unhappy with it.  And I think Zenimax is getting that message in feedback from their various avenues of information, across the broad spectrum of game players.

     

    I don't know a soul who's looking forward to this game based on its RvRvR set up.  Every...single....one  is going 'Oooh, Elder Scrolls game!'.   A design based on a pat formula of end game RvR play isn't going to get them to buy this game.  So every developer decision based on that is, generally, of neutral value, and at worst, is a negative.

     

    And the 'Game designers know best.....Grow up' argument is kinda ludacrous.   Many, many examples of just the opposite.

    If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.

  • RamanadjinnRamanadjinn Huntsville, ALPosts: 1,365Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Caliburn101
    Originally posted by Ramanadjinn
     

     

    its not infinitely more, it is 20 minutes more than zero.  

    We don't usually calculate "greater" or "less than" using probability and statistics as you did.  The fault being it can have absurd consequences.  If you do it that way bad things like P(x) > P(y) therefore x > y  ->  so P(x) = P(y) therefore x = y -> P(7) = P(8) therefore 7 = 8.

    In conclusion, Vorthanion may be correct that 20 is a hell of a lot more, if and only if 20 minutes is a hell of a lot.

    imo it is not.  it is just 20 minutes more.  i don't put much faith in either person's opinion of the game based on 0 minutes or 20 minutes.

     

    Foolish me for not knowing that someone would pick up on the maths and go on about it for no particular reason relevant to the thread.

    Anyway!

    My point was, because Nan likes to deal in absolute statements without any real knowledge, I'd take an absolute statement from someone with 20 miniutes experience over his zero every... single... time...

    ...ad infinitum you might say...

    Furthermore, without so much as 5 seconds of in-game experience to back up a thing he ever states, he then turns that on its head and decries 20 minutes of experience as irrelevant. Entirely missing the ultimate irony of the relative validity his own position being based on as much less than 20 minutes as can possibly be.

     

    You misinterpreted my post -- likely my fault for not being clear.  My point was 20 minutes is just 20 minutes and I don't value either posters opinion greatly based on zero or 20 minutes of gameplay.  I understand you value the 20 minute guy's statements more, I just don't.  We have different opinions there on these fellows and that's fine.

    Still, I do wish you had kept the original, longer post. 

    I learned long ago that how much I enjoy a game has no relation whatsoever to the things people say on this site.  I do like the information I get here but the sum of opinions from the staff and other posters here never really correlate well with how much I enjoy any game.

    These problems and issues many are having in this thread, they aren't the same problems and issues that will actually cause those of us who actually buy and play it to not like the game.  They aren't the things that will make many people stop playing the game in frustration.  That will be a different set of problems we will see a month or two after release when we are all familiar with the game on a much more fundamental level.

  • IselinIselin Vancouver, BCPosts: 5,614Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Pyuk
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by Pyuk
    Originally posted by steuss

    People are rightly pissed because the TESO devs basically said, we're gonna make TES a MMO, and everyone was happy, but then people see the actual gameplay and think, "Wtf? this is tab, target, WoW clone bullshit, again. This is NOTHING like TES.

     

    I'm pissed. Why aren't you? Are you happy with mediocrity and green text?

    QFT - IMO. But Tabula Rasa fans might be tickled since it seems that a lot of those devs are now fronting what's going into TESO. All 8 Tabula Rasa fans, that is.

     Whose fault is it for not paying attention and thinking they said black when in fact they said white?

    Here's a link to the original Game Informer reveal of the MMO on May 3, 2012: http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/05/03/june-cover-revealed-the-elder-scrolls-online.aspx

    Notice the "... player-driven PvP conflict that pits the three player factions against each other in open-world warfare over the province of Cyrodiil and the Emperor's throne itself." part?

    Then there were more details right here a few days after that: http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/821/feature/6384/ThreeFaction-PVP-a-la-DAOC.html

    I guess people who speculated, assumed or fantasized about what TES online would be like may be dissapointed. Those of us who just read and listened to what they were saying have known for almost a year what was coming.

    Yeah great. Pointless endgame back-and-forth PvP. Sounds like fail, to me. See you on these forums complaining about TESO three months after launch, 'kay buddy? And you will probably be the one rejoicing about the inevitable layoffs that will hit the TESO team once Zeni realizes they've got a SWTOR/Tabula Rasa on their hands. *thumbs-up!*

     You forgot "...and then a giant meteor will wipe out all life on earth"

  • IselinIselin Vancouver, BCPosts: 5,614Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Sovrath
    Originally posted by Iselin

     

    Compromise is the defining characteristic of civilisation. "Rugged Individualism" is not a good thing, it's anti-social selfish behavior taken to the max. It's not admirable. It's pathological.

    er, doesn't that knife cut both ways?

    What I see here (aside from the compromise that the developers made) are suggestions by some that would allow people their 3 faction war and then allow everyone else to explore the world as a TES game. Except some players are so desirous of a RvRvR game that this compromise is not acceptable to them. They insist it will hurt faction pride when some don't care about faction pride. They just want to play in the Elder Srcolls world.

    Especially to those who don't even care about pvp.

    Just a thought.

     

    They designed a game a certain way... I like it. No compromise required. We're not co-designing and trying to reach consensus. Their game ... their way. Just wtf is wrong with that?

  • IselinIselin Vancouver, BCPosts: 5,614Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Arglebargle

    The OP sorta proposes there's a small cabal here that wants to pervert the glorious design of the game.  I personally think he's got it totally backward.   That there's a small group who likes the very traditional aspect of the mechanical design, and a very large group that is uninterested or unhappy with it.  And I think Zenimax is getting that message in feedback from their various avenues of information, across the broad spectrum of game players.

     

    I don't know a soul who's looking forward to this game based on its RvRvR set up.  Every...single....one  is going 'Oooh, Elder Scrolls game!'.   A design based on a pat formula of end game RvR play isn't going to get them to buy this game.  So every developer decision based on that is, generally, of neutral value, and at worst, is a negative.

     

    And the 'Game designers know best.....Grow up' argument is kinda ludacrous.   Many, many examples of just the opposite.

    Game designers don't have to know best. For 90% of MMOs today, I pass. No one is taking away your right to decide what you spend your money on. You can hate it.

    Trying to change it to suit your personal taste? Making feeble arguments about why your way is better than theirs? Invoking "lore" to try to make your opinion seem righteous? That's a different story.

  • ShakyMoShakyMo BradfordPosts: 7,207Member
    Originally posted by Pyuk
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by Pyuk
    Originally posted by steuss

    People are rightly pissed because the TESO devs basically said, we're gonna make TES a MMO, and everyone was happy, but then people see the actual gameplay and think, "Wtf? this is tab, target, WoW clone bullshit, again. This is NOTHING like TES.

     

    I'm pissed. Why aren't you? Are you happy with mediocrity and green text?

    QFT - IMO. But Tabula Rasa fans might be tickled since it seems that a lot of those devs are now fronting what's going into TESO. All 8 Tabula Rasa fans, that is.

     Whose fault is it for not paying attention and thinking they said black when in fact they said white?

    Here's a link to the original Game Informer reveal of the MMO on May 3, 2012: http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/05/03/june-cover-revealed-the-elder-scrolls-online.aspx

    Notice the "... player-driven PvP conflict that pits the three player factions against each other in open-world warfare over the province of Cyrodiil and the Emperor's throne itself." part?

    Then there were more details right here a few days after that: http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/821/feature/6384/ThreeFaction-PVP-a-la-DAOC.html

    I guess people who speculated, assumed or fantasized about what TES online would be like may be dissapointed. Those of us who just read and listened to what they were saying have known for almost a year what was coming.

    Yeah great. Pointless endgame back-and-forth PvP. Sounds like fail, to me. See you on these forums complaining about TESO three months after launch, 'kay buddy? And you will probably be the one rejoicing about the inevitable layoffs that will hit the TESO team once Zeni realizes they've got a SWTOR/Tabula Rasa on their hands. *thumbs-up!*

    hmmm because the first thing that springs to mind when you think SWTOR is "continuos back and forth PVP"  ?!?!?!?!?!

  • JasonJJasonJ New Port Richey, FLPosts: 395Member
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by Sovrath
    Originally posted by Iselin

    Compromise is the defining characteristic of civilisation. "Rugged Individualism" is not a good thing, it's anti-social selfish behavior taken to the max. It's not admirable. It's pathological.

    er, doesn't that knife cut both ways?

    What I see here (aside from the compromise that the developers made) are suggestions by some that would allow people their 3 faction war and then allow everyone else to explore the world as a TES game. Except some players are so desirous of a RvRvR game that this compromise is not acceptable to them. They insist it will hurt faction pride when some don't care about faction pride. They just want to play in the Elder Srcolls world.

    Especially to those who don't even care about pvp.

    Just a thought.

     

     They designed a game a certain way... I like it. No compromise required.

     

    Having done this, I have zero expectation of it sinking in and perhaps even seeing this post reported as trolling like all non-troll posts do while the actual trolls remain.

    Nothing posted here in defense of DaoC gameplay is going to change the massive amounts of outrage going on across TES related websites nor remove the corporate level worry going on about it. Either the game is changed or heads roll afterwards from the developers right on up to the CEO that has a lot riding on this game and he was lied to that the TES name alone would get the millions of fans to play the game.

  • IselinIselin Vancouver, BCPosts: 5,614Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by JasonJ
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by Sovrath
    Originally posted by Iselin

    Compromise is the defining characteristic of civilisation. "Rugged Individualism" is not a good thing, it's anti-social selfish behavior taken to the max. It's not admirable. It's pathological.

    er, doesn't that knife cut both ways?

    What I see here (aside from the compromise that the developers made) are suggestions by some that would allow people their 3 faction war and then allow everyone else to explore the world as a TES game. Except some players are so desirous of a RvRvR game that this compromise is not acceptable to them. They insist it will hurt faction pride when some don't care about faction pride. They just want to play in the Elder Srcolls world.

    Especially to those who don't even care about pvp.

    Just a thought.

     

     They designed a game a certain way... I like it. No compromise required.

     

    Having done this, I have zero expectation of it sinking in and perhaps even seeing this post reported as trolling like all non-troll posts do while the actual trolls remain.

    Nothing posted here in defense of DaoC gameplay is going to change the massive amounts of outrage going on across TES related websites nor remove the corporate level worry going on about it. Either the game is changed or heads roll afterwards from the developers right on up to the CEO that has a lot riding on this game and he was lied to that the TES name alone would get the millions of fans to play the game.

    "massive outrage"... "corporate worry"... "heads will roll"... "was lied to"...oh my.

    I think your crystal ball needs a tune-up.

  • ShakyMoShakyMo BradfordPosts: 7,207Member
    Only many of the things tes fans are moaning about are WOW DERIVED GAMEPLAY not daoc derived gameplay.

    E.g. linear quest to quest hand held pve where you can't just wander off and find stuff to do
  • jmcdermottukjmcdermottuk LiverpoolPosts: 976Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Eol-
    Originally posted by jmcdermottuk
    Originally posted by Eol-
    Originally posted by Nanfoodle
    And if you have to include PvP (which you really don't) at least implement it in a way that makes sense for the IP instead of borrowing a system from another game which just doesn't make sense.

    So let's stop blaming this all on 3 faction RvR. There's more to it that just that one thing.

    First of all, having three separate realms with endgame RvR is not DAoC. It is similar to DAoC in that way but there are huge differences. For example, entirely different classes in different realms.  And narrow class definitions with very specific class skills/trees. Many skills usable on hotbars.

    Second, its beyond me how you have 3 realm RvR without 3 realms???? If you dont separate the realms, the RvR loses all meaning. Its basically just freestyle PvP. Now maybe you like that - some folks do - but its very different from RvR. It forms a realm cohesion that would be largely absent in a freestyle PvP game. Balance would also be far harder to achieve if anyone could ally with anyone. Basically then you are just asking for the PvP severs on DAoC which didnt take long to degenerate into a few large guilds looking for newbs to kill. I just dont think thats a business viable model for a AAA MMORPG.

    Anyway, I understand you dont like race/alliance restrictions. Fair enough. But you fail to outline another RvR model that would be viable with wide appeal. The alternative models would just alienate other players for different reasons. I am sure they didnt make this decision easily or lightly; they made it because it seemed like the best choice all things considered. I think their main goal is making the endgame fun and balanced, and frankly I think they made the right choice. You feel otherwise, fair enough, but at least be honest and look at the problems with your own proposal rather than just the problems with theirs, because all approaches have pros and cons when you think about it, and its not clear that yours is better than theirs, just the opposite in fact.

    I snipped out all the other stuff because it's to damn big now. I left one part in. I clearly said IF you have to have PvP, which you don't imho.

    All your post here says is that you think there has to be RvR and therefore you have to split up the world into factions. TBH your description of entirely different classes in different realms and narrowly defined classes is exactly what DAoC used. This game is DAoC2 with name changes.

    Again you stick to the same old song and make it all about RvR. You completely ignore the problems with PvE restrictions and class restrictions.

    PvP  or 3 realm RvR can take a running jump for all I care. I don't see why it needs to included at all. If it does though, I'd rather see a system that suits TES games and not a copy of DAoC's RvR with name changes. And I'm a DAoC fan, loved it until ToA ruined everything.

    I don't need to come up with a working solution to point out the problems with the current one. And again you fixate on RvR. I did already make some suggestions which you also overlooked. I'll give them to you again. If you want to keep 3 faction RvR in as an end game incentive to keep players logging in then a) make it optional by allowing players to choose to join the faction. If they decline, they are now free to explore the PvE world freely. or b) allow players to leave the alliance, again allowing free PvE exploration.

    It's just the inclusion of that choice to participate in Alliance based RvR or to opt out that's missing. That would resolve the PvE problems I've highlighted.

    The other problem is with the narrow class definitions, something that has nothing at all to do with RvR. But again you brush that off and blame all the opposition on the "RvR - It's DAoC" complaints.

    Where is there a problem with my proposals so far? Why are Zenimax's ideas so much better when they have absolutely fuck all to do with an Elder Scrolls game and are, in point of fact, a blatant copy of a 13 year old game? I'm taking an honest look and I still think they're making a mistake.

    So before you blow this one off and start fixating on RvR again I'd really like you to do something for me. I want you to just think for a few minutes and then explain to me why there can't be an option to not belong to an alliance, something that will allow a player to play the PvE game anywhere in the world instead of being restricted to just that one section where his starting point alliance is based? Just one good reason, that's all. If Zenimax are so great with their ideas then there must be a good one, right? So lets hear it.

    And while you're at it, explain to me why we have to have narrowly defined classes which are nothing like the way characters could freely develop in the SRPG's. And before you say anything about balancing RvR, I'd just like to point out if you go down that route, you're just reinforcing the idea that Zenimax are copying DAoC. Because if there wasn't RvR there'd be no need for balancing. Think about that.

  • jmcdermottukjmcdermottuk LiverpoolPosts: 976Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by ShakyMo
    Only many of the things tes fans are moaning about are WOW DERIVED GAMEPLAY not daoc derived gameplay.

    E.g. linear quest to quest hand held pve where you can't just wander off and find stuff to do

    I'm all in favour of being able to wander off to find stuff to do. But I can't because of the faction locking. And before you accuse me of wanting all PvP removed, I've already suggested an option for each character to opt out of RvR to allow them the freedom to wander off looking for stuff to do. You can still have your PvP, but let those that want to explore the whole world have that option.

    These people won't take part in the RvR anyway if they're that opposed to PvP so what difference would it make?

  • ZanthornZanthorn Auburn, INPosts: 95Member

    If so many here, are not happy with the design of the game as it stands. Why not all of  you get together and make  a mod with the skyrim mod creator that would approximate the same concept?

    Instead of creating boobs that bounce,mostly non-exsistant female armors and weapons. Mod High Rock,Hammerfell,Morrowind, and all other known areas from the TES games with new quest and teasures from the time line of Skyrim, as one seamless playable area?

    It seams to me that a lot of gamers need to take a vacation from gaming of 6 months or more because of  burn out, as games are a HOBBY just as watching movies,reading books,constructing models,and woodworking are HOBBIES.

     

     

  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAPosts: 18,460Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by Sovrath
    Originally posted by Iselin

     

    Compromise is the defining characteristic of civilisation. "Rugged Individualism" is not a good thing, it's anti-social selfish behavior taken to the max. It's not admirable. It's pathological.

    er, doesn't that knife cut both ways?

    What I see here (aside from the compromise that the developers made) are suggestions by some that would allow people their 3 faction war and then allow everyone else to explore the world as a TES game. Except some players are so desirous of a RvRvR game that this compromise is not acceptable to them. They insist it will hurt faction pride when some don't care about faction pride. They just want to play in the Elder Srcolls world.

    Especially to those who don't even care about pvp.

    Just a thought.

     

    They designed a game a certain way... I like it. No compromise required. We're not co-designing and trying to reach consensus. Their game ... their way. Just wtf is wrong with that?

    Absolutely nothing. And it is their game and they get to design it however they want.

    just responding on your bit about "compromise". And maybe there are more compromises down the road. Doubt it but there very well could be.
  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAPosts: 18,460Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by ShakyMo
    Only many of the things tes fans are moaning about are WOW DERIVED GAMEPLAY not daoc derived gameplay.

    E.g. linear quest to quest hand held pve where you can't just wander off and find stuff to do

    Have you ever played an Elder Scrolls game?

    the quests are linear and the meat of how you play it is "wander off and find stuff to do".

    I would go so far as to suggest that a good many elder scrolls players are NOT looking for wow game play.

  • baphametbaphamet omaha, NEPosts: 2,838Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by ShakyMo
    Originally posted by baphamet people mention they cant go everywhere and do everything but eventually they will be able to go anywhere with the same character, which is a decent compromise. i honestly only think it becomes an issue if the world is small. if there areas are huge enough i don't see this as much of an issue for most.
    yeah but thats not their agenda.

    The agenda is remove all pvp or ghetto it off into crappy little minigames, so they can have a vanilla wow experience

    read between the lines.


    no, that's the way you see it. i see it as them not forcing people to pvp but still making it an option.

    vanilla wow only had open pvp anyways, on their pvp servers with battlegrounds being patched in later.

    that is nothing like what this game will have when i read between the lines.

    it may not be innovative or a fresh new idea but it certainly isn't like what vanilla wow had, or wow at any point for that matter.

    the pvp seems more like Daoc or GW2 minus the battlegrounds.

    also, their pvp area (from what i have read) will also have pve quests and dungeons.

    that's also not like wow. so, the only thing you can say the pvp system is wow like, is the fact that its optional.

    in wow you either pick a pvp server or you join the battlegrounds or arenas.

    ive read your posts before saying that they are just trying to be like wow but sorry, i don't really see the logic.

    no arenas,battlegrounds, or open pvp servers. if they are indeed just trying to be like wow with their pvp system, they are doing a shitty job of it.


  • onlinenow25onlinenow25 San Diego, CAPosts: 275Member
    Originally posted by fisch1002
    Originally posted by Caliburn101
    Originally posted by Ramanadjinn
    Originally posted by Caliburn101
    Originally posted by Vorthanion
    Originally posted by Nanfoodle

     

    Oooo got to play for 20 min and you think you know the game? How cute. Guess most MMOs get to full swing by then who knew.

    His 20 mins is a hell of a lot more exposure to the actual game play than you have had with all of your constant assumptions and accusations.

    You are right Vorthanion - 20 is infinitely more than ZERO.

    If you bet on the zero on a roulette wheel, you have a 35:1 chance to win.

    It's a long bet that is only very rarely the right one, and then only by chance.

    Interestingly, the zero on a roulette wheel is green...

     

    its not infinitely more, it is 20 minutes more than zero.  

    We don't usually calculate "greater" or "less than" using probability and statistics as you did.  The fault being it can have absurd consequences.  If you do it that way bad things like P(x) > P(y) therefore x > y  ->  so P(x) = P(y) therefore x = y -> P(7) = P(8) therefore 7 = 8.

    In conclusion, Vorthanion may be correct that 20 is a hell of a lot more, if and only if 20 minutes is a hell of a lot.

    imo it is not.  it is just 20 minutes more.  i don't put much faith in either person's opinion of the game based on 0 minutes or 20 minutes.

    Ah that didn't take long - my first post before I greatly shortened made a comment about 20 as a multiple of zero and the issue of infinity.

    Then I shortened and simplified it - as being precise and allegorical usually doesn't score you useful points round these parts. 

    Foolish me for not knowing that someone would pick up on the maths and go on about it for no particular reason relevant to the thread.

    Anyway!

    My point was, because Nan likes to deal in absolute statements without any real knowledge, I'd take an absolute statement from someone with 20 miniutes experience over his zero every... single... time...

    ...ad infinitum you might say...

    Furthermore, without so much as 5 seconds of in-game experience to back up a thing he ever states, he then turns that on its head and decries 20 minutes of experience as irrelevant. Entirely missing the ultimate irony of the relative validity his own position being based on as much less than 20 minutes as can possibly be.

     Wow just wow, sorry to say the math is flawed. There are 38 numbers on a roulette wheel 35:1 is what they may pay you, but in no means are they the odds of hitting the number (depending if your friendly casino has downtown or strip odds). The greater than or less than example is no way related to calculating probabilities. In fact 7=8 may be right in some universe, just not this one. It's almost like saying If you roll 2 dice you can come up with a number higher than twelve, because there are 36 combinations. I just came here to read about the game, and to see what people are thinking, and I get treated to "I'm credible, check this out." kind of treatment. Please remove the quote from Einstein, as you make him look bad.

    Actually "the number 7" will never equal "the number 8".  Numbers in gernal are symbols to show quantity.  The number 7 could be called shit and the number 8 could be called piss in another universe but they would still show that there is a specific quanitity of something that they are refearing to.

    An example being say you have 2 cars.  You could call "the number 2" any assortment of words sounds or phrases but the quntitiy of the cars you have will stay what is refeared to us as 2.  The amount of cars will never increase simply because the word used to define how many cars you have is changed.

    So no, you are 100% wrong about 7 = 8 in some other universe.

  • Eol-Eol- houston, TXPosts: 274Member
    Originally posted by jmcdermottuk
    Originally posted by Eol-
    Originally posted by jmcdermottuk
    Originally posted by Eol-
    Originally posted by Nanfoodle
    And if you have to include PvP (which you really don't) at least implement it in a way that makes sense for the IP instead of borrowing a system from another game which just doesn't make sense.

    So let's stop blaming this all on 3 faction RvR. There's more to it that just that one thing.

    First of all, having three separate realms with endgame RvR is not DAoC. It is similar to DAoC in that way but there are huge differences. For example, entirely different classes in different realms.  And narrow class definitions with very specific class skills/trees. Many skills usable on hotbars.

    Second, its beyond me how you have 3 realm RvR without 3 realms???? If you dont separate the realms, the RvR loses all meaning. Its basically just freestyle PvP. Now maybe you like that - some folks do - but its very different from RvR. It forms a realm cohesion that would be largely absent in a freestyle PvP game. Balance would also be far harder to achieve if anyone could ally with anyone. Basically then you are just asking for the PvP severs on DAoC which didnt take long to degenerate into a few large guilds looking for newbs to kill. I just dont think thats a business viable model for a AAA MMORPG.

    Anyway, I understand you dont like race/alliance restrictions. Fair enough. But you fail to outline another RvR model that would be viable with wide appeal. The alternative models would just alienate other players for different reasons. I am sure they didnt make this decision easily or lightly; they made it because it seemed like the best choice all things considered. I think their main goal is making the endgame fun and balanced, and frankly I think they made the right choice. You feel otherwise, fair enough, but at least be honest and look at the problems with your own proposal rather than just the problems with theirs, because all approaches have pros and cons when you think about it, and its not clear that yours is better than theirs, just the opposite in fact.

    I snipped out all the other stuff because it's to damn big now. I left one part in. I clearly said IF you have to have PvP, which you don't imho.

    All your post here says is that you think there has to be RvR and therefore you have to split up the world into factions. TBH your description of entirely different classes in different realms and narrowly defined classes is exactly what DAoC used. This game is DAoC2 with name changes.

    Again you stick to the same old song and make it all about RvR. You completely ignore the problems with PvE restrictions and class restrictions.

    PvP  or 3 realm RvR can take a running jump for all I care. I don't see why it needs to included at all. If it does though, I'd rather see a system that suits TES games and not a copy of DAoC's RvR with name changes. And I'm a DAoC fan, loved it until ToA ruined everything.

    I don't need to come up with a working solution to point out the problems with the current one. And again you fixate on RvR. I did already make some suggestions which you also overlooked. I'll give them to you again. If you want to keep 3 faction RvR in as an end game incentive to keep players logging in then a) make it optional by allowing players to choose to join the faction. If they decline, they are now free to explore the PvE world freely. or b) allow players to leave the alliance, again allowing free PvE exploration.

    It's just the inclusion of that choice to participate in Alliance based RvR or to opt out that's missing. That would resolve the PvE problems I've highlighted.

    The other problem is with the narrow class definitions, something that has nothing at all to do with RvR. But again you brush that off and blame all the opposition on the "RvR - It's DAoC" complaints.

    Where is there a problem with my proposals so far? Why are Zenimax's ideas so much better when they have absolutely fuck all to do with an Elder Scrolls game and are, in point of fact, a blatant copy of a 13 year old game? I'm taking an honest look and I still think they're making a mistake.

    So before you blow this one off and start fixating on RvR again I'd really like you to do something for me. I want you to just think for a few minutes and then explain to me why there can't be an option to not belong to an alliance, something that will allow a player to play the PvE game anywhere in the world instead of being restricted to just that one section where his starting point alliance is based? Just one good reason, that's all. If Zenimax are so great with their ideas then there must be a good one, right? So lets hear it.

    And while you're at it, explain to me why we have to have narrowly defined classes which are nothing like the way characters could freely develop in the SRPG's. And before you say anything about balancing RvR, I'd just like to point out if you go down that route, you're just reinforcing the idea that Zenimax are copying DAoC. Because if there wasn't RvR there'd be no need for balancing. Think about that.

    Basically you are saying PvE only. OK. So what's your endgame? Because they cant possibly create enough material for a Skyrim-online game with exploration and levelling month after month for years. So are you suggesting a raid-based endgame like WoW? Because I am not sure its a good business model to try to out-WoW WoW. Game after game has tried that and failed. For whatever reason, WoW seems very successful at keeping the raid crowd subscribing. I think ESO read the writing on the wall and tried to have a different endgame, a RvR endgame that has not been done well since the heyday of DAoC., and provide that to the market as a different option to the raid endgame or PvP in battlegrounds of WoW.

    Obviously you would have designed a different game than they are doing. Fair enough. But for half a decade or more games have been trying to offer what WoW does and steal much of their huge market share, and they have mostly failed. Like it or not, thats the way it is. These guys are putting down tens of millions of dollars, and I dont blame them for taking the approach they did. If you want a PvE based endgame, obviously this isnt the game for you, just the way WoW and some others arent the game for me.

    And BTW, I dont think ESO has narrow class definitions, in fact they have the most flexible system I have seen. DAoC has extremely narrow class definitions, which is just one of the many ways these games will differ. As far as seeing the lands in other realms, it looks like they will allow that in post-50 play, and of course you are welcome to re-roll in the other realm. I'm really not sure what else can be said. The bottom line is that a game needs to take an approach and try to do it well, and not be all things to all people because then they end up doing lots of things but none of them especially well.  But it is what it is, and if you dont like it, well there are lots of MMORPGs with PvE endgames and there is always the next ES RPG.

     

    Elladan - ESO (AD)
    Camring - SWTOR (Ebon Hawk)
    Eol & Justinian - Rift (Faeblight)
    Ceol and Duri - LotRO (Landroval)
    Kili - WoW
    Eol - Lineage 2
    Camring - SWG
    Justinian (Nimue), Camring - DAoC

  • Eol-Eol- houston, TXPosts: 274Member
    Originally posted by Sovrath
    Originally posted by ShakyMo
    Only many of the things tes fans are moaning about are WOW DERIVED GAMEPLAY not daoc derived gameplay.

    E.g. linear quest to quest hand held pve where you can't just wander off and find stuff to do

    Have you ever played an Elder Scrolls game?

    the quests are linear and the meat of how you play it is "wander off and find stuff to do".

    I would go so far as to suggest that a good many elder scrolls players are NOT looking for wow game play.

    But there will never be enough 'wonder off and do stuff in a MMORPG' material, they simply cant create it fast enough. ESPECIALLY when you factor in levelling, and they cant do what they did in the elder scrolls where they automatically had all the material level along with you, so that every nook and cranny could be level-appropriate. That cant work well in a MMORPG obviously so it makes the job that much harder. And you play Skyrim for what, a month or two? And then run out of stuff to do. Which obviously doesnt keep people subscribing to a MMORPG. The bottom line is that its impossible to create Skyrim online and make money off of it, without adding some sort of a MMORPG endgame. SWTOR was a pretty good game without an endgame and look what happened there. No sensible investor is going to repeat that.

    Elladan - ESO (AD)
    Camring - SWTOR (Ebon Hawk)
    Eol & Justinian - Rift (Faeblight)
    Ceol and Duri - LotRO (Landroval)
    Kili - WoW
    Eol - Lineage 2
    Camring - SWG
    Justinian (Nimue), Camring - DAoC

13468918
This discussion has been closed.