Avatar

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Badges

QuarterStack

About

Username
QuarterStack
Joined
Visits
576
Last Active
Roles
Member
Points
343
Rank
Uncommon
Posts
277
Badges
18
  • BORING

    Gorwe said:

    But what if one doesn't necessarily like TES in itself? I mean its gameplay, all the interesting lore can't replace boring gameplay. And I'm so not a fan of post Morrowind TES(the only good TES since then was Shivering imo).
    Suddenly, out of left field... Gorwe appears, apparently unaware of the discussion taking place...

    What an incredibly, weirdly irrelevant question to ask. I'm discussing the whole idea of meta in MMORPGs.. and you're asking "well what if they aren't into the lore and just find the gameplay boring"?

    But I'll answer you with a more reasonable, obvious question... "Why the hell are you playing a game you find so boring and uninteresting in the first place, whatever that game might be?"

    Gorwe, you are clearly committed to challenging me, and others, on our arguments, and in pushing your view that ESO is not a good game, for whatever your reasons. I respect that. But can you please put more effort into asking relevant questions that you couldn't easily answer yourself?

    gervaise1YashaX
  • BORING



    Nope.  ZoS fails in balance in several ways, the biggest is they design content around the meta that emerges instead of addressing the core of the problem.

    The whole point of getting to higher levels of power is greater challenges.  If you have to conform to a meta in order to complete that content then there is no real build freedom. 

    You can blame the players all you want, but ZoS is the one designing around meta stats.
    Then every single MMO in existence has a lack of build freedom, it's never the players' fault, and always the devs'.

    Every single MMORPG in existence has meta. Every single one of them has people whom, like you, insist that the meta is THE one and only way to play the game, that you would be excluded from the content if you didn't follow it strictly, and that it's the 'devs fault'; not the players restricting themselves.

    I was excluded from end-game content in FFXIV because "I didn't have the right build" (aka I wasn't following "the meta"), even while others who didn't follow the meta but put in the time and effort were clearing that content.

    I was excluded from content even well before end-game in FFXI. CoP content, BCNMs and so forth.. I was unable to participate in those because "I didn't have the right job/build" (aka I wasn't following "the meta").

    I was excluded from content in WoW because "I didn't have the right builds and, further, wasn't using the correct "required" addons".

    I was excluded from Nightmare content in The Secret World if I didn't have "the right build" (aka I wasn't following "the meta").

    And on and on and on.

    Every single MMORPG I've played, or even just casually followed over the last decade+ has had that same group of people at end game, with that same mentality, and they all "blamed the devs" for it.

    Yet, in each of those games, other groups would get together with "non-meta" setups, and somehow clear the content, by adapting and changing their strategies to fit the build they had, rather than trying to adhere to the one dictated by the latest "guide du jour". And, like you, people in those games would never acknowledge this. They would never admit that the "meta"was not the only way to clear that content, until someone found something that worked better (faster clear time, etc)... Then they quickly adopted *that* approach as being "the meta", and insisted that was the "only way to clear the content", and continued to blame the devs for "making it so limited".

    You can keep beating that drum all you like, claiming the problem is somehow "uniquely bad" in ESO, and that it's "the devs fault" that players refuse to go with anything but what they've deemed "the right way to play". This has been the case for as long as such a thing as "end game meta" has existed.

    But, by all means, do provide a break-down of every other build people may feasibly try in said content, for each role, and break down why they absolutely could not work, in any scenario. Demonstrate why only the ones defined by the current "meta" could ever possibly be successful in said content. Show us the math, parse the parser data from all other possible configurations, and demonstrate that you actually know the game well enough to back up your claims.

    Show us that all your bluster isn't just you regurgitating what you've read/heard others say about it, and you aren't only asserting it so fervently because you really want to bash on ESO and "end game meta" is the particular hill you've chosen to die on.

    Demonstrate why anyone should take your word for it, that you know what you're talking about moreso than Iselin or others in these forums who have already disagreed with you and provided explanations why.
    IselinRexKushman
  • So I was playing ESO - captured this screenshot.

    Also, this one was my desktop wallpaper for a time...

    TorvalJean-Luc_Picard
  • So I was playing ESO - captured this screenshot.


    I rather like that shot. Also a very unexpected place to end up considering where that quest begins.

    Kudos to whom ever can identify where that is!
    TorvalJean-Luc_PicardTeala
  • A few questions to decide if I give TESO another try

    Horusra said:

    I have never played a game where basic rats wiped me in the next zone.  That is a strawman generalization you are making. 

    No, they're not at all, actually. You're focusing on the specific example given, and ignoring the greater point. But, if the "scale" of Torval's example is hanging you up, then fine. it works just as fine if we replace the uber powerful rats in the next zone with rats that are not drastically but still notably more powerful at all,  simply because you crossed an invisible line somewhere.

    In a scaled system there is no sense of progress.  Your character is as weak today as he is tomorrow.  Nothing changes.  You get more flashy skills...whoopee.  You still get owned by the very first creature you ever met in the game.  It makes the world feel static. 

    Incorrect. You absolutely do get a sense of progress and you absolutely do not get "owned" by the very first creature (talk about strawman generalizations...).

    For example, earlier this evening, I went into a Delve in ESO. There were two enemies I had to get past, attacked them and the fight took a bit of time, with me having to dodge a number of attacks, taking significant damage. I finish them off with about 1/3 life left. As I approach the next set of enemies, another player runs up behind me and we both attack them. It's over before it begins. The other player annihilates them.

    In a game with level scaling.


    The difference? The other player had more time on their character, and acquired better skills and better gear.

    In a word: Progression.

    YashaXIselinSlyLoK