Actions will use stamina (or mana) - that will be the constraint, not cooldowns. Use up your stamina and you will be very vulnerable to enemies. I think they said there wont be autoattacks.

And the other poster was correct, balance the game for PvP and then for PvE you can balance the mobs. Very hard to balance for PvP as an afterthought, especially since PvP plays such an important role in the endgame..

Originally posted by k11keeper
Anime looking races.... Have you watched anime? Or even looked at the character models up close? The character models look very realistic especially when compared to current popular games. Are they a tad on the youthful side? Sure but only game i can think of that looks more realistic is maybe AoC and who even plays that anymore?

You must not have looked at the Ferre female. Seems like asian games always have a child-looking female like that. Kinda creey to think of a guy playing that avatar...

Originally posted by tixylix
[mod edit]

and for every person like you there are probably half a dozen for whom open world PvP would be a no sale.

The developers need to pick an approach, stick with it, and do it well. No approach will please everybody. Every approach will turn off some players and appeal to others. If they do a PvE game with endgame raids, people will say its a WoW clone. If they do RvR people will say its a DAoC clone. If they focus on open world exploration without an immediate endgame for hardcore players, people will say its a themepark. People are going to criticize them no matter what they do simply because we all want something different than the next guy.

Personally I think they've picked a pretty good approach that should fill a good sized niche in the mmorpg market. It will be nice to have a game where they try to instill some pride in your realm/alliance in an ongoing campaign rather than have PvP be just queued battlegrounds and such. But it sounds like there will be plenty of PvE also. Should be a nice mix with a reasonably wide appeal.

Originally posted by Miblet

Originally posted by jacktors

Originally posted by hMJem
The thing you guys are overlooking is that.. you're the minority. Casual gamers are the target. It would be stupid for a business to cater towards hardcores if they can cater to casuals for bigger numbers and more easily. Fact is, just because you post on MMORPG doesnt mean everyone does. In fact, id be willing to bet less than 1% of a games player/fanbase bothers to post online on forums. Most casuals just want a game they can pick up and play for an hour or 2 at a time, then go about their day. You put money up on a business and you make a game that caters towards a minority.. Let us know how it goes. Phasing and instancing is done because its more popular, and no, it isnt false just because youre posting here saying it isnt. Most casuals dont go on message boards.

If that was true, then SWTOR would not have failed. I think you are wrong about your assessment. I think the people who post on this forum are a good representation of gamers out there. You are just assuming that we are the exact opposite of the representation of the gamers out there. I dont understand why you feel this way. 

The biggest problem SWToR had was lack of end game content.  When hardcore players race ahead and run out of content thats one thing, when even the casual players are doing it the game has issues.  The whole concept of keeping players in an MMO revolves around keeping them entertained, and SWToR did that for a month or two.  It had expected 4-6 months of time before players reached that stage and so players had nothing to do so a lot unsubbed and went elsewhere for their entertainment.  SWToR had a lesson to teach, have content ready before your current content is exhausted or have something to keep players entertained enough to keep subbing.  Also last I checked SWToR was chugging along, or does failed mean it failed to retain it's initial sub base?  It's switch to freemium?  I will agree it failed to reach it's projected profits but equally by that measure very few games are successes.

I also have yet to see a forum that is like the in game community.  Most forums are far more hostile, polarised and vocal than the vast majority you will meet in game.  (Note that I said majority, you will still find such people in game).

I totally agree.

And by the way, I dont agree with the assumption from the other poster that SWTOR was a bad game. My son and I have been playing it for the last couple months and having a lot of fun. Its a good, fun, game and the graphics are nice. That being said, I agree there isnt much of an endgame (we just hit level 55) and so for hardcore players who raced through the content, naturally they wouldnt like the game as much and would be frustrated. But the lack of an endgame doesnt mean the levelling part of the game isnt good. Its a themepark MMORPG which isnt everyone's cup of tea. But my boy is a star wars fan, doesnt care about raids and such, and he has had a great time levelling up. That being said, it wouldnt surprise me if we move on in a couple months, but still they will have gotten 5 months of subs from two people plus 2 purchases of the expansion, which isnt bad.

Originally posted by jacktors

Originally posted by hMJem
The thing you guys are overlooking is that.. you're the minority. Casual gamers are the target. It would be stupid for a business to cater towards hardcores if they can cater to casuals for bigger numbers and more easily. Fact is, just because you post on MMORPG doesnt mean everyone does. In fact, id be willing to bet less than 1% of a games player/fanbase bothers to post online on forums. Most casuals just want a game they can pick up and play for an hour or 2 at a time, then go about their day. You put money up on a business and you make a game that caters towards a minority.. Let us know how it goes. Phasing and instancing is done because its more popular, and no, it isnt false just because youre posting here saying it isnt. Most casuals dont go on message boards.

If that was true, then SWTOR would not have failed. I think you are wrong about your assessment. I think the people who post on this forum are a good representation of gamers out there. You are just assuming that we are the exact opposite of the representation of the gamers out there. I dont understand why you feel this way. 

You have to be kidding me. In no way shape or form are the MMORPG.com forums 'representative' of gamers. Most gamers dont bother to come to a forum and argue about games that havent even come out yet. Most players dont post in forums of games they DO play. If they do go to forums, its to look something up, not argue. Its just not worth their (limited) time, so they dont do it. By their very nature the forums tend to gather the harder core players, and MMORPG is the epitomy of that. There are literally millions of people who play MMORPGs, but most of them have not played nearly as much in terms of hours and number of games as the people who tend to post here. I remember in DAoC when people would argue on the forums, and try to act like a few hundred people commenting on the forums somehow accurately represented the tens of thousands who were playing the game. Ludicrous.

Originally posted by Yamota

Originally posted by Eol-

Originally posted by AlBQuirky

 

---

Originally posted by Eol-
If we sat down 10 TES players in a room, we would probably get 10 different opinions about what they want from ESO. Dont act like there is this unanimous mindset, because its not remotely true. In fact, the only thing we know for sure about the TES fanbase is that they like playing the TES RPGs... and the problem is that a MMORPG is going to be different than an RPG designed for a hundred or two hours of single player gaming. No matter what the developers of ESO do, they are going to have to alienate some of the TES fans simply because its impossible to design Skyrim online and still have lots of players in 6 months.

---

I would wager that 9 out 10 would say, "Open world exploration."

 

and I want a new Ferrari for $40,000. A lot of good that does me.

As I pointed out, TES players like open world exploration but its the one thing that ESO the MMORPG cant possibly give them, because its impossible to create enough material in a MMORPG as fast as people go through it. TES needs to be translated into a MMORPG and that means making major changes; they cant just create a Skyrim where the content never ends (and hell even in Skyrim it seems there is much more content than there is because to a large extent the mobs level up as you do, unlike a MMORPG where the mobs are different levels and there needs to be content for every level). My point was that there isnt one thing or set of things that TES players want from a MMORPG. If people on this forum cant agree how to translate TES into ESO the MMORPG, why in the world would you think there is some agreement among the much larger group of TES players?

Complete and utter nonsense. There have been plenty of MMORPGs with enough content for open world explorers and those games were made a decade ago. Ever heard of SWG? EQ 1? Asheron's Call?

You are making the misstake to think that a ThemePark is the only way to create an MMO and since in a ThemePark you cannot keep up with how fast players consume content then no MMO can do it. But that is a ThemePark problem, NOT an MMO problem.

ThemeParks are much easier for devs to create then a full fledged open world MMO like the one's mentioned above. It is easy to box the world into neat little zones with level bracketed content and static quests. It is much harder to create a huge world, which you can explore and create your own content by interacting with people.

Harder means more time, which means more development cost and that is what the issue is, NOT that MMOs cannot be possibly be done which centers around open world exploration. That has been done and can be done.

Sorry, but you are completely wrong. You mention SWG, there is no way there was enough 'exporation' content. Sure the planets were big but it was just the same mobs spread all over the planet. I love exploring, and I remember my disappointment going into dangerous areas solo and just finding more of the same mile after mile. Few landmarks of interest, just the same mobs, forever. As far as EQ1, that  largely developed into a raid endgame which is not the same as 'open world exploration'.

Also, those games had much slower levelling than today's games, there were many time-sinks built into the game to slow down players from levelling too fast. By streamlining these things, WoW significantly increased the rate at which players level, for better or worse. In DAoC at release it took even the hardest core player several months to reach level 50, and when WoW came out players were doing that in weeks; casual players could take 6-12 months to hit level 50 in DAoC. DAoC slowed down crafting simply by having a timebar so it took minutes to do a single crafting action. Thats just a time sink, forcing players to slow down. Likewise with long slow horse routes and such, versus teleporting right to a spot like many games do it today. Or what about being forced to go back to your corpse, just another way to slow down players.

The point is, if you just want to go out and explore new areas, and if you play say a couple hours a day, there is no way there can be enough exploration material for you to play for years. No way. If you are a hardcore player and play 4+ hours a day, you will go through the material in weeks. Like I pointed out, they were able to create a hundred hours of content in Skyrim because the mobs levelled to some extent as you did, so most places you went to were level appropriate. A MMORPG cant even do that because they have to have level-specific content for all players, which means they need to create MUCH more material overall.

Its been shown over and over that hardcore players will rip through content at a rapid place to get to the 'endgame'. More casual players will take longer, but they will run out of exploration content too. Thats why MMORPGs need endgames, because sooner or later most players will hit max level. The question for ESO isnt 'do we have an endgame?', rather, its 'what type of an endgame will do provide?'. Open world exploration with many months of new material just isnt feasible. And this has nothing to do with 'sandbox' or 'themepark', which is an entirely different argument, it just has to do with the inherent economic limit on material they can include.

Originally posted by AlBQuirky

 

---

Originally posted by Eol-
If we sat down 10 TES players in a room, we would probably get 10 different opinions about what they want from ESO. Dont act like there is this unanimous mindset, because its not remotely true. In fact, the only thing we know for sure about the TES fanbase is that they like playing the TES RPGs... and the problem is that a MMORPG is going to be different than an RPG designed for a hundred or two hours of single player gaming. No matter what the developers of ESO do, they are going to have to alienate some of the TES fans simply because its impossible to design Skyrim online and still have lots of players in 6 months.

---

I would wager that 9 out 10 would say, "Open world exploration."

 

and I want a new Ferrari for $40,000. A lot of good that does me.

As I pointed out, TES players like open world exploration but its the one thing that ESO the MMORPG cant possibly give them, because its impossible to create enough material in a MMORPG as fast as people go through it. TES needs to be translated into a MMORPG and that means making major changes; they cant just create a Skyrim where the content never ends (and hell even in Skyrim it seems there is much more content than there is because to a large extent the mobs level up as you do, unlike a MMORPG where the mobs are different levels and there needs to be content for every level). My point was that there isnt one thing or set of things that TES players want from a MMORPG. If people on this forum cant agree how to translate TES into ESO the MMORPG, why in the world would you think there is some agreement among the much larger group of TES players?

Originally posted by AlBQuirky

 

---

Originally posted by JasonJ
Quick, send in the same 4 people that will say the same things they always say even though Zenimax themselves address this worry publicly. They were not targetting the extremely low quantity of diehard DaoC players, they want the TES fanbase, and they dont understand why they are so upset. Sure sign of a future full of trouble for a game when the makers are that disconnected from reality.

---

Quoted for truth, and my agreeing opinion :)

 

Please tell me what 'the TES fanbase' wants. How exactly do you know that 'they' are so upset? When did 'they' make you their appointed spokesperson?

Jeesh. If we sat down 10 TES players in a room, we would probably get 10 different opinions about what they want from ESO. Dont act like there is this unanimous mindset, because its not remotely true. In fact, the only thing we know for sure about the TES fanbase is that they like playing the TES RPGs... and the problem is that a MMORPG is going to be different than an RPG designed for a hundred or two hours of single player gaming. No matter what the developers of ESO do, they are going to have to alienate some of the TES fans simply because its impossible to design Skyrim online and still have lots of players in 6 months.

Originally posted by Maelwydd

Originally posted by immodium

I'm not really speaking for everyone in that post. I clearly start the sentence with 'I prefer'. The rest of my post is all my opinions.

I don't see me claiming this is what TES fans want in any of my posts.

Well the point is, we all exagerate to make our points from time to time. So even if you were to claim it I would take it with a pinch of salt.

The difference is when people take exception to people using generic statements like "TES fans" MMO fans" or any other type of generalisation and draws the discussion off on a tangent away from the point being made. It is a tactic used to hide the real point of discussion.

You see the real issue here is that Nano thinks there isn't any other way then how the developers way...unless they change that way in which case the new way is the only way...unless the developers change that way and then the new way is the only way...

[mod edit]

Of course there are other ways. The developers obviously considered those. But there is only one way that will end up happening, and thats the path that the developers chose. I dont understand all of the discussion about what certain people would have preferred. Its a moot point. They are choosing an approach, and either you can buy that game and play it, or not buy it. And if you're not going to buy it and play it, whats the point of talking about other approaches that could have happened? And just because a few people on a forum would have preferred a different approach, that doesnt mean they speak for the majority, or for ES fans, or for MMORPG fans, or anyone else. There are plenty of games with plenty of rulesets out there for people to choose from.

Originally posted by ShakyMo
Udon
Why would it cost $50 million to add 2 different rulesets.

The whole of daoc cost $2.5 million to make.

The coop server is easy.
Turn off pvp in cyrodil
Let players go anywhere
Let players group and guild with anyone

The ffa server Is tougher, but the let players go anywhere and let players group and guild with anyone bit you've already done for the coop server. You then need to flag pvp on in more areas of the world (except maybe noob zones or cities) and add done mechanic for guilds claiming keeps.

Both sound like less work than this 50+ and 50++ endgame pve in special phases fudge.

If this would gain them enough additional players and revenues to justify the added costs, then I expect they will add them. But its not at all evident that would be the case. The DAoC coop server and PvP servers were a pretty small fraction of the player base, especially the PvP servers which started out with lots of players but rapidly lost most of them. IMO most of the people on those servers in DAoC were already DAoC players anyway, with ongoing subs and characters on other servers. I wonder if they really created additional profit or just cannibalized the other servers.

Personally I think its best if the developers decide to take one approach, and put all their effort into making that a success. If they develop a fun game, people will play it, period. And if they dont, the additional rulesets wont save them. Besides, they could always add those down the road if there was enough demand. But not at the expense of resources devoted to the core game.

Originally posted by jmcdermottuk

It's more accurate to say that you pick a race and your alliance is then forced on you, there's no choice involved in alliance membership. That's part of the TES fan's problems with this game.

All this happens at character creation when you pick your race.

Thats true of any RvR game, where races are part of a realm. And frankly it makes a lot more sense than letting races split up and join any alliance they want. Because in the ES lore I have seen, each race tends to be all on one side and sticks together. So if you did it your way, it would be even less consistent with ES lore, because then race would have no bearing on alliance whatsoever.

Originally posted by NeVeRLiFt

TESO will fail simple reason being it's a lame themepark mmo with some elements of DAOC RvR.

The players will ride the rides and then grow tired of the game it's just how it is with all these new themepark mmo's coming out.

 

TESO should first and foremost been a sandbox hybrid themepark .... look at ArcheAge as a perfect example of what TESO should have strived towards.

Once people  ride the rides there is nothing to do in the game, no player housing, guild halls, crafting or other social elements to pass the time. They think people will just run dungeons over and over chasing the carrot for gear?

Sorry but WoW already has this done and and ran it into the ground.

 

I personally won't play another mmo unless it gives me something else to do beside run dungeons and chase the carrot on stick loot grind.

This post doesnt make sense. In particular, how you dismiss RvR. First you say its a themepark, then you admit it has 'elements' of RvR (it doesnt have 'elements', it has RvR, period), then you say there's nothing left to do except run dungeons???? Thats the whole point of the RvR: they are NOT going the WoW route of instanced raids and gear, they are going the DAoC route which is very different. Personally I think thats a wise choice because while it may alienate some players who dont like any type of PvP, I agree that copying WoW's endgame is a mistake because WoW does that very well and other games have tried and failed to out-WoW WoW. And yes, while WoW has done this and run it into the ground, they also have millions of subscribers who have been paying every month for years to keep doing that. So going after a different niche in the market makes good sense IMO.

And I am totally confused why you say there is no crafting or social elements??? I swear,  its like you took all these criticisms of MMORPGs and threw them at ESO regardless of if they apply or not.

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.

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.

Originally posted by jmcdermottuk

Originally posted by Eol-

Originally posted by Nanfoodle

Originally posted by GrayGhost79

 

When developers or publishers choose a target audience they have to appeal to that target audience or they will fail to achieve the level of success they both predict and have based spending on. 

Age of Conan, TERA, and SWTOR just to name a few picked an audience, failed to listen to and appeal to said audience and didn't meet their goals. This hurts both players and the developer. Players end up feeling ripped off because a game touted as a game made for them turned out not to be and yet another $60+ goes down the drain, it hurts developers because then they are scrambling to fix things when its already to late. Content has to be pounded out in a short amount of time, the business model needs to be reworked, mechanics and systems need to be changed and tweaked, then they have to deal with all of this and much more while being forced to lay off the bulk of their staff. 

TESO has chosen TES fans as their target audience and this was done so the moment they decided to go with the name and the lore. If they fail to appeal and listen to their target audience it will end up causing everyone a lot of headaches and dissapointment down the road which has been proven time and time again. Look at FFXIV and what it had to go through after failing to appeal to its target audience and listen to them. They ended up having to spend twice as much as planned to develop the game in the end and their earning potential has been severely reduced after the failed first launch. 

 

Though that isn't the point of your post. You wanted to say that even though it may seem like the majority doesn't agree with the direction they are taking TESO you want Zenimax to know that its just a vocal minority and that far more people like it and just don't post on this forum. The games I listed had people saying the same thing you are saying now about them, the silent majority never materialized though and the games struggled. Would you like me to post similar posts from the FFXIV forums saying pretty much the same thing about it that you are saying now?

 

I am one of many fans of ESO is who the target audience. Been playing TES games forever. I have played them to death. I am a HUGE TES fan. I will admit my fav PvP I have ever played was DAoC but this game has more then enough TES in it to make any fan happy if they would take time to look past the mob. 

I agree with the second poster.

As far as the first poster, who said they should appeal to Elder Scrolls fans as their primary audience, please tell me, exactly what MMORPG endgame do those players want? Because they can not do Elder Scrolls levelling content forever. For hardcore players, maybe a month or two even with slow levelling. Then what? They have to go beyond RPG content and have MMORPG endgame content that can keep players interested for many months. Basically there are two MMORPG models for doing that: 1) the Everquest/WoW model of PvE dungeons with epic bosses that only large well coordinated groups can do, and 2) a PvP model such as DAoC or other PvP endgame games. They seem to be offering mostly the latter, with a bit of the former. THERE IS NO REAL WAY TO SAY WHAT ELDER SCROLLS FANS PREFER BECAUSE NEITHER OF THOSE THINGS IS IN ELDER SCROLL RPG'S.

ESO can NOT just be Elder Scrolls RPGs in groups, there is no way to provide enough content to last beyond a few months. They have to add an MMORPG endgame which by definition means it cant just be Skyrim online. Thats the reality.  People keep saying that they should just stay loyal to the Elder Scrolls RPG but those people do not say how they can provide endgame content by doing that... because they cant.

It seems that both you and Nanfoodle are fixating on this RvR aspect of the game and blaming all opposition on it's inclusion.

That's just not the case. I and many others have brought up other aspects of the game which we feel don't properly reflect the franchise.

Lets leave the 3 faction RvR aside as an end game mechanic and talk about something else that is affected by it. Elder Scrolls games have always allowed you the freedom to explore Tamriel. Regardless of your point of origin you can go anywhere. So lets say I want to be a Redguard. Now I'm faction locked into an alliance I have no choice over. I'm restricted in where I can go to play the PvE game until I hit the level cap.

Now that's nothing to do with RvR at all, this is the PvE game we're talking about, and not end game PvE either. That restriction goes against every Elder Scrolls game to date.

Maybe I'm not interested in RvR. Why isn't it a choice to join this alliance? Why is there no option to leave it, allowing me to leave the area and PvE in other regions? Wouldn't that be more in keeping with a real Elder Scrolls game? Allowing the player that choice? Lets' face it, every Elder Scrolls game to date has been a PvE game. They had to be, being single player games. Now we're suddenly given the MMO and it's PvP centric. I can see that rationalisation for Warhammer, or Warcraft or a number of other IP's, but not for TES.

Now lets move on to another subject which has nothing to do with RvR at all. Classes. Classes in Elder Scrolls games have always been used as templates and nothing more. There was always an option to use no template and just mix and match what you wanted. If you did use a template, you weren't locked in to some list of class skills and abilities. You were free to use any skill, ability or spell you wanted to. And yet here we are with classes. Not Elder Scrolls is it?

 

I'm going to be guilty of saying what a lot of others have said now, but I'll explain my reason for it. This feels like DAoC with a TES name. There I've gone and done it. Ok, so now the reason.

Faction locking: Ok so I used Redguards as an example already so let's stick with that. I make a Redguard, I'm now locked to that Alliance, my PvE game is restricted to that region, and I will RvR at end game, playing the class I chose when I created my character.

How is this different to me making a Briton, being part of the Albion Realm, levelling up in PvE inside that realm's borders and doing RvR at end game as, let's pick a Paladin, the class I picked at character creation?

I'll tell you what the difference is. The names. That's it. Nothing else, just the names.

 

Now you can call me a hater all you like, you can accuse me of being short sighted and not understanding that they need some sort of end game. You can use whatever justification you like to try and deny what I'm saying. The simple truth is, this is DAoC with different names. Now I loved DAoC, until they fucked it with ToA, and I'd like nothing better than to see a new DAoC released. I just object to it being called The Elder Scrolls Online. I'd much rather it was called something more appropriate, and "The Elder Scrolls Online" was used for an MMO that was based on the design philosophy of the single player games. Classless, no skill resrictions, free roaming open exploration. It needs to be more sandbox than themepark. There need to be more player choices in all areas of the game. 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.

Originally posted by Nanfoodle

Originally posted by GrayGhost79

 

When developers or publishers choose a target audience they have to appeal to that target audience or they will fail to achieve the level of success they both predict and have based spending on. 

Age of Conan, TERA, and SWTOR just to name a few picked an audience, failed to listen to and appeal to said audience and didn't meet their goals. This hurts both players and the developer. Players end up feeling ripped off because a game touted as a game made for them turned out not to be and yet another $60+ goes down the drain, it hurts developers because then they are scrambling to fix things when its already to late. Content has to be pounded out in a short amount of time, the business model needs to be reworked, mechanics and systems need to be changed and tweaked, then they have to deal with all of this and much more while being forced to lay off the bulk of their staff. 

TESO has chosen TES fans as their target audience and this was done so the moment they decided to go with the name and the lore. If they fail to appeal and listen to their target audience it will end up causing everyone a lot of headaches and dissapointment down the road which has been proven time and time again. Look at FFXIV and what it had to go through after failing to appeal to its target audience and listen to them. They ended up having to spend twice as much as planned to develop the game in the end and their earning potential has been severely reduced after the failed first launch. 

 

Though that isn't the point of your post. You wanted to say that even though it may seem like the majority doesn't agree with the direction they are taking TESO you want Zenimax to know that its just a vocal minority and that far more people like it and just don't post on this forum. The games I listed had people saying the same thing you are saying now about them, the silent majority never materialized though and the games struggled. Would you like me to post similar posts from the FFXIV forums saying pretty much the same thing about it that you are saying now?

 

I am one of many fans of ESO is who the target audience. Been playing TES games forever. I have played them to death. I am a HUGE TES fan. I will admit my fav PvP I have ever played was DAoC but this game has more then enough TES in it to make any fan happy if they would take time to look past the mob. 

I agree with the second poster.

As far as the first poster, who said they should appeal to Elder Scrolls fans as their primary audience, please tell me, exactly what MMORPG endgame do those players want? Because they can not do Elder Scrolls levelling content forever. For hardcore players, maybe a month or two even with slow levelling. Then what? They have to go beyond RPG content and have MMORPG endgame content that can keep players interested for many months. Basically there are two MMORPG models for doing that: 1) the Everquest/WoW model of PvE dungeons with epic bosses that only large well coordinated groups can do, and 2) a PvP model such as DAoC or other PvP endgame games. They seem to be offering mostly the latter, with a bit of the former. THERE IS NO REAL WAY TO SAY WHAT ELDER SCROLLS FANS PREFER BECAUSE NEITHER OF THOSE THINGS IS IN ELDER SCROLL RPG'S.

ESO can NOT just be Elder Scrolls RPGs in groups, there is no way to provide enough content to last beyond a few months. They have to add an MMORPG endgame which by definition means it cant just be Skyrim online. Thats the reality.  People keep saying that they should just stay loyal to the Elder Scrolls RPG but those people do not say how they can provide endgame content by doing that... because they cant.

Originally posted by tkreep

Originally posted by Purutzil
Then you would of realized how insanely difficult your work would be to be pulled off in an MMO setting and no where remotely near as easy and would of stopped production and worked on the TESO that exists today due to limitations of both the average consumer's computer and network limitations among other things.

SWG did it in many ways it was like this and it was a success before they decided to revamp the game into WoW clone.  So yes it is very possible. And SWG had high PC spec requirements too for its time.

SWG was not nearly as successful as they had hoped, which is why they changed it. Admittedly changing it was a mistake in hindsight because they lost more players than they added, but to be fair, it wasnt like the game was a huge success before the change. They didnt make a star wars game, they made a sims in space game, and while a group of players really liked that game, it didnt have the market appeal they had wanted or hoped. A lot of people had tried and quit SWG long before the change, a lot of the player made cities were ghost towns. People who really like games tend to idealize the game in hindsight and blame its failure on some designer mistake, when in reality the causes were more numerous and complicated than that (eg, SWG, DAoC, etc).

Originally posted by WellzyC

 

 

So this is basically what you said in one sentence.

 

 

I would make Skryim, but online with some slight modifications.

 

 

 

Not tying to dis, everything you said sounds great, and I think we all were hoping for Skyrim online, but we wont be getting that.

We just have to accept ESO for what is it, and get over it.

I am curious, the people who say they want Skyrim but online with slight modifications, what would happen when hardcore players roll through all the material in a couple weeks and are at max level? In Skyrim RPG you either reroll or go play something else. But that isnt a good business model for a MMORPG. As SWTOR saw, you need to have an endgame even if your levelling game is very good because some (many?) people will roll through that material quickly, and even a slow player will be through it in several months. Then what?

You need to have an endgame model for a MMORPG, which makes it VERY different from Skyrim or any RPG. You can NOT make Skyrim online and have it be successful because you cant begin to create content as fast as people level through it, because people will level through it 100 times faster than your team can create it. So when we say Skyrim online as a MMORPG, what we really mean is Skyrim online plus some type of endgame that isnt in Skyrim. That means the WoW model of raiding for the best gear, or a PvP model like DAoC that means PvPing for abilities/gear, or something else (which few if any MMORPGs have found). They seem to have chosen the second approach. People blame them for taking this approach and 'changing' Skyrim, but to be fair, they had no choice: they HAD to change Skyrim if they wanted to make any money. The only question was HOW do they change it. IMO they took the best possible approach because IMO its a losing strategy to try to out-WoW WoW. However IMO there is plenty of room in the market for a good game with RvR PvP as an endgame.

Originally posted by Moraxo

Originally posted by Eol-

 

Well it sounds like they are struggling to get to $2M much less $5M, but fine, lets say they get $5M. $5M would NOT pay for a 20 professional business for 2-3 years. Its not just salaries and some computers, its also workspace and benefits and utilities and PR and everything else that goes into a business that has to create and market a product.

 I hope it happens, because hey more MMORPGs is always better than less, but I guess I am pretty dubious. And overall, I think the very idea that ESO needs to worry about CU is borderline ludicrous...and after all that is the premise of the thread.

My other main thought is that CU sounds very much like a glorified battleground, and I really wonder how - without the other trappings found in most MMORPGs - will it really have any long-lasting appeal.

Since they're shooting fur such a small niche crowd, they don't have to waste millions on PR. Mark Jacobs himself will put in 2 Million and they've secured another investor for 1 Million, provided the game funds. And i vaguely remember reading somewhere that the total budget is in the 10 Million range and that they would get additional investors involved at some point, but only if there is a market for the game. That's what the kickstarter's supposed to prove, and i'll admit that it is on a slippery slope since the total number of backers is low, but the premise of this thread is that CU gets funded and actually becomes a thing (what would we be discussing otherwise?).

As to CU not affecting ESO at all, i completely agree. That's not the purpose of CU. There's been enough MMORPGs trying to offer a similar but better experience than the market leader ("WoW killers"), and there's players chasing after them. CU won't attract those people. I just had to disagree with your claim that CU was going to be heavily affected by ESO, i think i made my opinion clear on that.

The long lasting appeal will be created just like in any other MMOG, with new content, character progression etc.. Pride's gonna play an important role. You'll want to stick around and make your realm matter. And the sandbox-style of building houses and fortifications will play right into that.

And some people get sick of the trappings that major MMOGs offer. Gear becoming obsolete with every new Add-on, grinding over and over again for new gadgets because you don't stand a chance without them, artificially slowing your progress down... CU might have those as well, but they'll actually be fun and challenging to achieve in a constant struggle with your realm enemies rather than a tedious grind that you only do so you may possibly get to have fun sometime later.

Again, provided it'll be as good in reality as it sounds in concept...

The problem with your description is that it doesnt provide much growth for the character. You call it grinding, but without the push for new gear or new abilities, there might not be much sense of progression. You would just be going out and fighting the same enemies with the same gear and same abilities day after day.... which now that I've decribed it, sounds like a different type of 'grinding'. Even DAoC had realm ranks, earned in PvP and used to purchase special abilities for PvP... and some of those abilities were absolutely vital to be competitive. Other games use gear, but either way, its a method to allow characters to progress and be better in combat. Its not clear to me that a game that lacks that will be successful, especially in a PvP game which has some very hardcore players who are used to having better characters due to the endless hours they PvP and the abilities/gear they get from that.