Trending Games | World of Warcraft | Elder Scrolls Online | Guild Wars 2 | EverQuest

  Network:  FPSguru RTSguru
Login:  Password:   Remember?  
Show Quick Gamelist Jump to Random Game
Members:2,905,729 Users Online:0
Games:757  Posts:6,296,211
Zenimax Online Studios | Official Site
MMORPG | Genre:Fantasy | Status:Final  (rel 04/04/14)  | Pub:Bethesda Softworks
Distribution: | Retail Price:$59.99 | Pay Type:Subscription
System Req: PC Mac Playstation 4 Xbox One | Out of date info? Let us know!

Elder Scrolls Online Forum » General Discussion » Will the real ESO please stand-up?

13 Pages First « 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 » Last Search
252 posts found
  Iselin

The Listener

Joined: 3/04/08
Posts: 4034

 
OP  3/31/13 12:20:01 AM#141
Originally posted by elohssa
Originally posted by Iselin

So that's a fair trade off in your mind? Turning a game that was already funky and cartoonish to begin with into a parody of itself because that provides more choice and attracts more people? WOW is just a lobby now where people go off in their own separate (mostly solo or quick little PUGs with starangers) directions to do the tiny little chunk of it that they like. Sounds like you're saying that's the way to do MMOs. By that logic Dancing with the Stars should be the model for future TV series.

To me there's a difference between quality and popularity. The Wire is quality. Dancing with the Stars is popular. The Secret World is quality. WOW is popular.

"Freedom of Choice" at all costs is a piss poor way to develop an MMO...unless of course, all you care about is the $$. Then popular and "something for everyone" is most definitely the way to go.

Vision, focus and artistic integrity is how you get quality. Pandering to the masses is how you get popularity.

 

I am sorry, but did you just say that the Tthe Secret World is good?

wow....I mean, wow!

I lost my wallet once, and that was a wiser expenditure than when I bought TSW.

 

Sales are the best way to determine whether a game is good or not.  Anything else is just subjective opinions.

 So...who's on Dancing with the Stars this week?

  Livnthedream

Novice Member

Joined: 3/20/13
Posts: 582

I like this planet, YOU get off!

3/31/13 12:20:41 AM#142
Originally posted by elohssa

I am sorry, but did you just say that the Tthe Secret World is good?

wow....I mean, wow!

 

Other than that I agree, but GD I hate TSW.  I lost my wallet once, and that was a wiser expenditure than when I bought TSW.

Parts of Tsw are excellent. Parts of it are godawful. I can atleast understand the viewpoint of the game being good. It really is a toss up and deserving of its 7/10 meta score.

http://chroniclesofthenerds.com/nerdfight/

Y U NO FLIP TABLE?!?!?!

  sapphen

Novice Member

Joined: 1/06/07
Posts: 920

3/31/13 12:34:24 AM#143
Originally posted by Livnthedream
Originally posted by sapphen

What makes you think everyone considers TPV the "path of least resistence" ~ What if they have plans to make FPV-only Cyrodiil Campaigns?  Some people may consider FPV more fun than TPV.  Nonetheless it's still an assumption and using a phrase like "small minority" is illogical.  There was a large enough group that asked for FPV, thereforth it is added into the game.

Out of curiosity were you using "illogical" ironically? Cause if not you should check the definition cause yeah...

Anyway, even with ignoring the "what if" you decided to toss in there the number of times experiments like you propose have actually been wildly popular are extremely few and far between. Even then they require a non deviance from the ruleset. Things like the perma death server for Aoc for example. The reason they won't do things like that is because fov matters in terms of balance. They will not rebalance 400+ abilities for that sort of pvp experience. Fov matters.

It is a logical fallacy to say people who are for FPV are in the minority.  You are dismissing someone's view as irrelevant and therefore it is illogical.

Why would they have to rebalance abilities for that, it doesn't make sense.

 


Not even following you on this paragraph.  Are you saying that people who are in favor of FPV have "purse strings" over the developers?  Where are you going with the development costs, none of this makes sense to me.

I'm pretty sure they added FPV because the numbers say they will make more money with it, than without.  Any moneybag investing in the game is most likely to follow these numbers than their personal preference.  You have to design for your audience, there is no secret group of people trying to destroy the game by adding in non-essential features.

Thank you for admitting your ignorance, that is rather big of you. Its called marketing. Very rarely are those sorts of decisions actually made from data, but based on gut. Those shooters I was referring to had multiplayer added because "all shooters much have multiplayer" even though it was not really used and felt tacked on. Many of the big wigs do not know how to listen to their development staff. So when things like fpv get cut and the fans throw a massive bitchfest over it they overreact and put it in. You can see the same thing with raids. I am pissed about that and will likely not be picking up the title because of it. The piss poor "raiding" model they have talked about will not cut it for me. If I do buy the title it will likely to one and done it much like I did Gw2, as zergs are boring. Many of the things that had me interested to begin with they have appeared to have went back on thanks to "true Tes fans" outcry. That saddens me greatly.

What are you even talking about.  You try to insult me and then meander off topic.  What experience do you have in marketing to claim that a company spending millions of dollars relies only on a 'gut feeling'?  I understand that many ideas are wildcards but when developing those ideas you refer to the numbers.  Marketing is all about gathering these numbers and appealing to as many people as possible within the target audience.

I'm sorry but you are trying way too hard for a simple discussion.  I said that we do not know who is in the majority and by saying that you are being illogical.  Try to trim down your responses some, use paragraphs and stay on topic.  I am not here for you to get your jollies off arguing nonsensical rubbish.
  sapphen

Novice Member

Joined: 1/06/07
Posts: 920

3/31/13 12:48:17 AM#144
Originally posted by Iselin
Originally posted by sapphen
Quaility and popularity are not polar opposites, great designers will design with both in mind.

 Sometimes you get both, yes. But that only happens when they focused on the quality not the other way around.

Most of the time they are focused on making a game.  A design is born.  Then they tune the game to appeal to the target audience.  Quality is checked by a different team.

I understand what you are saying, personally prefer quaility over popularity, but I think this only loosely applies here.

  elohssa

Novice Member

Joined: 3/29/13
Posts: 41

3/31/13 12:49:19 AM#145
Originally posted by Iselin
Originally posted by elohssa
Originally posted by Iselin

So that's a fair trade off in your mind? Turning a game that was already funky and cartoonish to begin with into a parody of itself because that provides more choice and attracts more people? WOW is just a lobby now where people go off in their own separate (mostly solo or quick little PUGs with starangers) directions to do the tiny little chunk of it that they like. Sounds like you're saying that's the way to do MMOs. By that logic Dancing with the Stars should be the model for future TV series.

To me there's a difference between quality and popularity. The Wire is quality. Dancing with the Stars is popular. The Secret World is quality. WOW is popular.

"Freedom of Choice" at all costs is a piss poor way to develop an MMO...unless of course, all you care about is the $$. Then popular and "something for everyone" is most definitely the way to go.

Vision, focus and artistic integrity is how you get quality. Pandering to the masses is how you get popularity.

 

I am sorry, but did you just say that the Tthe Secret World is good?

wow....I mean, wow!

I lost my wallet once, and that was a wiser expenditure than when I bought TSW.

 

Sales are the best way to determine whether a game is good or not.  Anything else is just subjective opinions.

 So...who's on Dancing with the Stars this week?

 

Haha, hell if I know.  I don't watch that crap.  That was a good one though.

 

Personally, I hate TSW.   They tried to do some cool stuff, but the execution is very poor.

 

The engine runs like crap.  Crysis 3 on Ultra runs better on my computer than TSW on ultra.  It bog down for absolutely no reason, and then I go into an area with a lot of conflict and it runs perfectly smoothe.   There are numerous bugs still in the game.  Its been out 6 months and the game feels like it should still be in closed beta. 

 

I don't like the questing.  You get one main quest and you often have to run from one side of the map  to the other, and then back to turn it in.  Many quests include puzzles, but they require the use of the in game browser and real life research to figure out.  Personally, I find this completely breaks immersion.  I can see how it could be seen as enjoyable at first, but after awhile it gets old and you just google the walkthrough and get the solution.

 

It only takes a couple weeks to get Quality 10 gear, and there is absolutely no end game content at all.  Leveling content is completely soloable.  There is no need to ever talk to someone else while questing, not that you will likely see many people anyways.  The story and voice acting is rather poor imo.  None of the NPCs really feel as if they have a character, just the same old tired narrative. 

 

Finally, the pvp is terribly balanced.  Almost everyone runs around with the same 2 builds, and everything else isn't really viable.  You die almost instantly in PvP.  It honestly feels like a FPS, except they don't have to aim.    They are all headshots!   It feels like a zerg.  Low level characters are put in warzones (PvP) with people decked in the top gear in the game.  There is a buffer system in place to buff lower geared players, but it doesn't work at all.  There are only 3 warzones, and the most popular is Stonehenge.  In stonehenge everyone spawns together in a small map, so you spawn right beside your enemy.  Whats worse is that this pvp has 3 factions, thus you are spawning beside 2 enermy factions simulatneiously.   Thus you are outnumbered two to 1.  Furthermore, the game is designed around turtling in a corner with movable 'flags'.  Thus regrouping is quite problematic.

This is honestly the worst PvP I have ever seen in any MMO, and seeing as there is no end game PvE content this is the only thing to do.

 

If I was to rate this game on what it tried to accomplish then I can see giving it like a 7/10.  But rating it for what it actually did accomplish and it would seriously be like a 3/10.

 

  Arglebargle

Elite Member

Joined: 6/13/07
Posts: 1165

3/31/13 1:01:27 AM#146

With any big MMO, you are seeing the fossilized thought of 4-5 years previous.  The particular times' percieved wisdom of what would do well in that gaming arena.  I am pretty sure that the implementation of RvRvR was pitched as something to keep people attached to the game at cap.   It doesn't help my interest, as I am more oriented towards position 2, not really caring much about internet pvp stuff.  Much more interested in ES and exploring.  So, the whole implementation of the game's pvp has little draw for me. 

 

I have issues with the meta game decision of locked down racial factions.  That ship has sailed though.  Very hard to redo at this point in the game.   But I imagine if they knew then what they are finding out now, they'd have done it quite differently.  I suspect that they are getting a load of feedback that is unhappy with their set up of things.  And unhappy players are not paying players.  The simplest doable solution, imo, would be to keep the present factions and realm situations, but allow players of any race to join whichever of the three factions they wish.   It's not like you can't find scads of historical situations just like that.  It keeps the basic structure, allows the folks who have serious racial preferences to play with their friends, ameliorates  some discontent. 

 

And I can 100% guarantee you that you will find things like dunmer in breton lands in the PVE  (or whatever combo you want to substitute).   The NPCs will be racially diverse, but for some reason the players just can't be.  

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

  elohssa

Novice Member

Joined: 3/29/13
Posts: 41

3/31/13 1:04:47 AM#147
Originally posted by sapphen
Originally posted by Livnthedream
Originally posted by sapphen

What makes you think everyone considers TPV the "path of least resistence" ~ What if they have plans to make FPV-only Cyrodiil Campaigns?  Some people may consider FPV more fun than TPV.  Nonetheless it's still an assumption and using a phrase like "small minority" is illogical.  There was a large enough group that asked for FPV, thereforth it is added into the game.

Out of curiosity were you using "illogical" ironically? Cause if not you should check the definition cause yeah...

Anyway, even with ignoring the "what if" you decided to toss in there the number of times experiments like you propose have actually been wildly popular are extremely few and far between. Even then they require a non deviance from the ruleset. Things like the perma death server for Aoc for example. The reason they won't do things like that is because fov matters in terms of balance. They will not rebalance 400+ abilities for that sort of pvp experience. Fov matters.

It is a logical fallacy to say people who are for FPV are in the minority.  You are dismissing someone's view as irrelevant and therefore it is illogical.

Why would they have to rebalance abilities for that, it doesn't make sense.

That is not a logical fallacy. 

Past trends can easily be used to predict future trends.  Past trends clearly show us players take the path of least resistance, and they won't use the FPV.

If you have an opposing opinion, but offer no evidence, then your opinion can be rightfully dismissed.

 

Originally posted by Arglebargle

With any big MMO, you are seeing the fossilized thought of 4-5 years previous.  The particular times' percieved wisdom of what would do well in that gaming arena.  I am pretty sure that the implementation of RvRvR was pitched as something to keep people attached to the game at cap.   It doesn't help my interest, as I am more oriented towards position 2, not really caring much about internet pvp stuff.  Much more interested in ES and exploring.  So, the whole implementation of the game's pvp has little draw for me. 

 

I have issues with the meta game decision of locked down racial factions.  That ship has sailed though.  Very hard to redo at this point in the game.   But I imagine if they knew then what they are finding out now, they'd have done it quite differently.  I suspect that they are getting a load of feedback that is unhappy with their set up of things.  And unhappy players are not paying players.  The simplest doable solution, imo, would be to keep the present factions and realm situations, but allow players of any race to join whichever of the three factions they wish.   It's not like you can't find scads of historical situations just like that.  It keeps the basic structure, allows the folks who have serious racial preferences to play with their friends, ameliorates  some discontent. 

 

And I can 100% guarantee you that you will find things like dunmer in breton lands in the PVE  (or whatever combo you want to substitute).   The NPCs will be racially diverse, but for some reason the players just can't be.  

 

What is this locked racial system complaint all about exactly?  You want 3 factions, but you want them to be mixed race?

In the real world race often dictates alliances and foes.  Kids grow up with their parents, and their parents allies and enemies become their allies and enemies.  So, how would this random faction thing make any sense? 

  Iselin

The Listener

Joined: 3/04/08
Posts: 4034

 
OP  3/31/13 1:11:57 AM#148
Originally posted by elohssa
Originally posted by Iselin
Originally posted by elohssa
Originally posted by Iselin

So that's a fair trade off in your mind? Turning a game that was already funky and cartoonish to begin with into a parody of itself because that provides more choice and attracts more people? WOW is just a lobby now where people go off in their own separate (mostly solo or quick little PUGs with starangers) directions to do the tiny little chunk of it that they like. Sounds like you're saying that's the way to do MMOs. By that logic Dancing with the Stars should be the model for future TV series.

To me there's a difference between quality and popularity. The Wire is quality. Dancing with the Stars is popular. The Secret World is quality. WOW is popular.

"Freedom of Choice" at all costs is a piss poor way to develop an MMO...unless of course, all you care about is the $$. Then popular and "something for everyone" is most definitely the way to go.

Vision, focus and artistic integrity is how you get quality. Pandering to the masses is how you get popularity.

 

I am sorry, but did you just say that the Tthe Secret World is good?

wow....I mean, wow!

I lost my wallet once, and that was a wiser expenditure than when I bought TSW.

 

Sales are the best way to determine whether a game is good or not.  Anything else is just subjective opinions.

 So...who's on Dancing with the Stars this week?

 

Haha, hell if I know.  I don't watch that crap.  That was a good one though.

 

Personally, I hate TSW.   They tried to do some cool stuff, but the execution is very poor.

 

The engine runs like crap.  Crysis 3 on Ultra runs better on my computer than TSW on ultra.  It bog down for absolutely no reason, and then I go into an area with a lot of conflict and it runs perfectly smoothe.   There are numerous bugs still in the game.  Its been out 6 months and the game feels like it should still be in closed beta. 

 

I don't like the questing.  You get one main quest and you often have to run from one side of the map  to the other, and then back to turn it in.  Many quests include puzzles, but they require the use of the in game browser and real life research to figure out.  Personally, I find this completely breaks immersion.  I can see how it could be seen as enjoyable at first, but after awhile it gets old and you just google the walkthrough and get the solution.

 

It only takes a couple weeks to get Quality 10 gear, and there is absolutely no end game content at all.  Leveling content is completely soloable.  There is no need to ever talk to someone else while questing, not that you will likely see many people anyways.  The story and voice acting is rather poor imo.  None of the NPCs really feel as if they have a character, just the same old tired narrative. 

 

Finally, the pvp is terribly balanced.  Almost everyone runs around with the same 2 builds, and everything else isn't really viable.  You die almost instantly in PvP.  It honestly feels like a FPS, except they don't have to aim.    They are all headshots!   It feels like a zerg.  Low level characters are put in warzones (PvP) with people decked in the top gear in the game.  There is a buffer system in place to buff lower geared players, but it doesn't work at all.  There are only 3 warzones, and the most popular is Stonehenge.  In stonehenge everyone spawns together in a small map, so you spawn right beside your enemy.  Whats worse is that this pvp has 3 factions, thus you are spawning beside 2 enermy factions simulatneiously.   Thus you are outnumbered two to 1.  Furthermore, the game is designed around turtling in a corner with movable 'flags'.  Thus regrouping is quite problematic.

This is honestly the worst PvP I have ever seen in any MMO, and seeing as there is no end game PvE content this is the only thing to do.

 

If I was to rate this game on what it tried to accomplish then I can see giving it like a 7/10.  But rating it for what it actually did accomplish and it would seriously be like a 3/10.

 

I cut TSW a lot of slack because they set-out to create soem very unique things and advanced the genre and largely succeeded

They showed us how much fun creating your own class from a well-balanced ability wheel could be. They understood that we're not prudes who get in a tizzy when we hear  the word "fuck." They captured the atmosphere of a zombie/conspiracy game brilliantly. Their puzzle quests are second to none. The quest turn-in on the cellphones removed a lot of drudgery.

Yeah it had some problems and could have used a lot more content at release and more focus on the PvP...but all in all, it screams Quality with a capital Q to me.

  Arglebargle

Elite Member

Joined: 6/13/07
Posts: 1165

3/31/13 1:24:38 AM#149
Originally posted by elohssa
Originally posted by sapphen
Originally posted by Livnthedream
Originally posted by sapphen

 

 

 

Originally posted by Arglebargle

With any big MMO, you are seeing the fossilized thought of 4-5 years previous.  The particular times' percieved wisdom of what would do well in that gaming arena.  I am pretty sure that the implementation of RvRvR was pitched as something to keep people attached to the game at cap.   It doesn't help my interest, as I am more oriented towards position 2, not really caring much about internet pvp stuff.  Much more interested in ES and exploring.  So, the whole implementation of the game's pvp has little draw for me. 

 

I have issues with the meta game decision of locked down racial factions.  That ship has sailed though.  Very hard to redo at this point in the game.   But I imagine if they knew then what they are finding out now, they'd have done it quite differently.  I suspect that they are getting a load of feedback that is unhappy with their set up of things.  And unhappy players are not paying players.  The simplest doable solution, imo, would be to keep the present factions and realm situations, but allow players of any race to join whichever of the three factions they wish.   It's not like you can't find scads of historical situations just like that.  It keeps the basic structure, allows the folks who have serious racial preferences to play with their friends, ameliorates  some discontent. 

 

And I can 100% guarantee you that you will find things like dunmer in breton lands in the PVE  (or whatever combo you want to substitute).   The NPCs will be racially diverse, but for some reason the players just can't be.  

 

What is this locked racial system complaint all about exactly?  You want 3 factions, but you want them to be mixed race?

In the real world race often dictates alliances and foes.  How would this random thing make any sense?

Having race locked alliances is a developer conveniance, not some absolute model of historical accuracy.  In WWII for example, there were hundreds of thousands of crossovers:  Russians fighting for the Germans, Italians and Germans in the American camp,  pro axis and pro allied French, etc.  Not even mentioning the high profile 'turncoats'.  You can find this throughout history.   Racial locking is actualy far more unbelievable, to my view.

 

Me, I don't care about the three factions at all.  The PVP is mostly irrelevant.  But as an example, there are four possible players (and buyers) of ESO in my household, each with fairly strong preferences for the race of their characters.   It's a smart thing for the game if we can play together.  The game's design makes that more difficult to do.  If getting rid of that difficulty increases revenue for Zenimax, they seriously need to consider it.  

 

 

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

  Iselin

The Listener

Joined: 3/04/08
Posts: 4034

 
OP  3/31/13 1:26:45 AM#150
Originally posted by sapphen
Originally posted by Iselin
Originally posted by sapphen
Quaility and popularity are not polar opposites, great designers will design with both in mind.

 Sometimes you get both, yes. But that only happens when they focused on the quality not the other way around.

Most of the time they are focused on making a game.  A design is born.  Then they tune the game to appeal to the target audience.  Quality is checked by a different team.

I understand what you are saying, personally prefer quaility over popularity, but I think this only loosely applies here.

Unfortunately I think it applies. Here's how I see it.

They set-out to create and announced a very specific type of game.

They got some negative feedback from people who had some different priorities and ideas about how a TES MMO should be done.

They balked... added FPS mode TES style (with hands now) despite the fact that it's a really awkward way to play an MMO...which they had originally explained. They added a token explorable instanced copy of the other zones to appease those who objected to faction lock for exploring reasons (there are many other reasons why some don't like faction lock as you know.)

They are still designing, not QCing this and they're already showing a disturbing lack of conviction.

Or put another way...they are going with the popuklar flow instead of their vision. I don't have a lot of respect for that kind of "creative" process. I'd much rather get something other than my wet dream because they are designing it the way they think it's best.

I already said in my OP that they could have easily gone the other way with their original design: a non-locked Tamriel with something other than a 3-sided WAR driving the plot. I like the way they originally announced it better, but I could have respect for them had they originally gone the other way and stuck to their vision.

So yeah. Now it seems they're trying to be the most popular girl in school. I hope they don't get the clap.

  Livnthedream

Novice Member

Joined: 3/20/13
Posts: 582

I like this planet, YOU get off!

3/31/13 1:27:24 AM#151
Originally posted by sapphen

It is a logical fallacy to say people who are for FPV are in the minority.  You are dismissing someone's view as irrelevant and therefore it is illogical.

No its not. You can play in fpv in WoW too, are you really going to attempt to state that 51% of the Wow playerbase plays in first person? Of course not, that would be a retarded statment to make. Fov offers too much of an advantage to overcome versus the "fun" you get for being in first person. You see a similar trend with Keyboard vs mouse turning, though the additional bit of performance is sometimes not enough to overcome the cost of relearning the new system, though even that is changing and has been for awhile.

Why would they have to rebalance abilities for that, it doesn't make sense.

 

The strength of abilities is directly linked to how much utility they have. For example there was a period during vanilla Wow when mages kept rank 1 arcane explosion on their bar as it gave them an easy low cost way to get rogues and cats out of stealth. That level 1 spell became so powerful that Blizzard had to go out of their way to nerf it. If for example one was stuck in a fpv then the aoe nature of it would be no where near as good unless you sat in a single place spinning and spamming, which is a very different utilization.

What are you even talking about.  You try to insult me and then meander off topic.  What experience do you have in marketing to claim that a company spending millions of dollars relies only on a 'gut feeling'?  I understand that many ideas are wildcards but when developing those ideas you refer to the numbers.  Marketing is all about gathering these numbers and appealing to as many people as possible within the target audience.

No attempt nor intent to insult. You admitted that you are woefully ignorant, and to be honest you are. What you describe is the disconnect that is currently occuring within the gaming industry. Believe it or not the industry is very much in its infancy. They are not anywhere near as well organized as you seem to believe. Many of those who run the publishing houses try to work things much like other media, primairily tv and movies but the reality is much different. You have a lot of flexibility that you just do not have in gaming in many ways, especially when the developer is trying to do something specific. It is the difference between an indy film and a popcorn flick in that way. The interactive experience allows communication at a much deeper level than any screen ever could. So when you get publishers demanding multiplayer tacked on to your awesome fps game because "the numbers say an fps won't sell without multiplayer", its a gut call when it is simply not true. Which you can see with several games like Spec Ops: the line. Publishers hold all the money, and can therefore demand whatever they please no matter what the developer thinks should be in the game or not. General outcry, especially when it was as loud and widespread as this particular bugbear was, makes these kinds of choices and more happen.

I'm sorry but you are trying way too hard for a simple discussion.  I said that we do not know who is in the majority and by saying that you are being illogical.  Try to trim down your responses some, use paragraphs and stay on topic.  I am not here for you to get your jollies off arguing nonsensical rubbish.

Whatever view gives you the biggest advantage for the lowest cost will be the one used. Plain and simple. That has been third person for the last decade. Saying otherwise is a fools errend.

http://chroniclesofthenerds.com/nerdfight/

Y U NO FLIP TABLE?!?!?!

  rygard49

Novice Member

Joined: 3/22/11
Posts: 987

3/31/13 1:29:17 AM#152
Originally posted by sapphen
Originally posted by Sovrath

Just as DAoC players are expectign a full fledged 3 faction experience. If DAoC 2 was being made and they made it ffa pvp instead of 3 faction, do you think for a minute that DAoC players wouldn't have something to say about it?

ROFL! +1

Face meets mirror.

 

DAoC had FFA PvP. It was very popular for a very long time.

  Sovrath

Elite Member

Joined: 1/06/05
Posts: 17530

3/31/13 1:29:40 AM#153
Originally posted by Iselin
Originally posted by sapphen
Originally posted by Sovrath

Just as DAoC players are expectign a full fledged 3 faction experience. If DAoC 2 was being made and they made it ffa pvp instead of 3 faction, do you think for a minute that DAoC players wouldn't have something to say about it?

ROFL! +1

Face meets mirror.

 

And mirror reflects an inferior cobbled together mess in both a ffa DAoC and a TES lobby game. You do know you want a TES lobby don't you?

But you say that based on what? No one has ever said they wanted a TES lobby game.

  elohssa

Novice Member

Joined: 3/29/13
Posts: 41

3/31/13 1:36:25 AM#154
Originally posted by Arglebargle

Having race locked alliances is a developer conveniance, not some absolute model of historical accuracy.  In WWII for example, there were hundreds of thousands of crossovers:  Russians fighting for the Germans, Italians and Germans in the American camp,  pro axis and pro allied French, etc.  Not even mentioning the high profile 'turncoats'.  You can find this throughout history.   Racial locking is actualy far more unbelievable, to my view.

 

Me, I don't care about the three factions at all.  The PVP is mostly irrelevant.  But as an example, there are four possible players (and buyers) of ESO in my household, each with fairly strong preferences for the race of their characters.   It's a smart thing for the game if we can play together.  The game's design makes that more difficult to do.  If getting rid of that difficulty increases revenue for Zenimax, they seriously need to consider it.  

Sure that happened, but those people were by far the minority.  If its a complete toss up what faction you are alligned with, then that won't be the case. 

I don't know why groups of friends couldn't just compromise on this issue, and pick a race they like on that faction. 

  Iselin

The Listener

Joined: 3/04/08
Posts: 4034

 
OP  3/31/13 1:39:28 AM#155
Originally posted by Sovrath
Originally posted by Iselin
Originally posted by sapphen
Originally posted by Sovrath

Just as DAoC players are expectign a full fledged 3 faction experience. If DAoC 2 was being made and they made it ffa pvp instead of 3 faction, do you think for a minute that DAoC players wouldn't have something to say about it?

ROFL! +1

Face meets mirror.

 

And mirror reflects an inferior cobbled together mess in both a ffa DAoC and a TES lobby game. You do know you want a TES lobby don't you?

But you say that based on what? No one has ever said they wanted a TES lobby game.

Really? Group with whomever from whichever faction and do dungeons and raids with them. Then go to the PvP instance and fight against them. Sounds like 2 totally different and incongrous games to me. That's what a lobby game is: a gateway to different games...it's Richard Garriot's new thing even...the way of the future donchaknow :)

Standing in Stormwind (or Dalaran or wherever) and Q'ing in different matchmaking services is the WOW lobby way...but that's not required. Just piecing together different chunks without a lot of thought for the whole thing is what defines a lobby game.

  sapphen

Novice Member

Joined: 1/06/07
Posts: 920

3/31/13 1:53:54 AM#156
Originally posted by elohssa
Originally posted by sapphen
Originally posted by Livnthedream
Originally posted by sapphen

What makes you think everyone considers TPV the "path of least resistence" ~ What if they have plans to make FPV-only Cyrodiil Campaigns?  Some people may consider FPV more fun than TPV.  Nonetheless it's still an assumption and using a phrase like "small minority" is illogical.  There was a large enough group that asked for FPV, thereforth it is added into the game.

Out of curiosity were you using "illogical" ironically? Cause if not you should check the definition cause yeah...

Anyway, even with ignoring the "what if" you decided to toss in there the number of times experiments like you propose have actually been wildly popular are extremely few and far between. Even then they require a non deviance from the ruleset. Things like the perma death server for Aoc for example. The reason they won't do things like that is because fov matters in terms of balance. They will not rebalance 400+ abilities for that sort of pvp experience. Fov matters.

It is a logical fallacy to say people who are for FPV are in the minority.  You are dismissing someone's view as irrelevant and therefore it is illogical.

Why would they have to rebalance abilities for that, it doesn't make sense.

That is not a logical fallacy. 

Past trends can easily be used to predict future trends.  Past trends clearly show us players take the path of least resistance, and they won't use the FPV.

If you have an opposing opinion, but offer no evidence, then your opinion can be rightfully dismissed.

Logical Fallacy - a fallacy in logical argumentation
Fallacy - a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/logical+fallacy

You are assuming that not many people will play in FPV because TPV has a sight advantage.  I rebute by saying we do not know the minority.  People may play TPV in PvP or dungeons but there will be many people who uses FPV.

If you are using past trends to predict future ones, then wouldn't Skyrim and Oblivion be proof that many people play in FPV (or at least a little of both).  I do not accept that TPV is the path of least resistance, it does have a sight advantage but there are many fine attributes of FPV.

I am not claiming that FPV is in the majority, but saying we simply do not know.  You offer no evidence otherwise so I rightfully dismiss you.

 

 

 

  Iselin

The Listener

Joined: 3/04/08
Posts: 4034

 
OP  3/31/13 2:00:34 AM#157
Originally posted by sapphen
Originally posted by elohssa
Originally posted by sapphen
Originally posted by Livnthedream
Originally posted by sapphen

What makes you think everyone considers TPV the "path of least resistence" ~ What if they have plans to make FPV-only Cyrodiil Campaigns?  Some people may consider FPV more fun than TPV.  Nonetheless it's still an assumption and using a phrase like "small minority" is illogical.  There was a large enough group that asked for FPV, thereforth it is added into the game.

Out of curiosity were you using "illogical" ironically? Cause if not you should check the definition cause yeah...

Anyway, even with ignoring the "what if" you decided to toss in there the number of times experiments like you propose have actually been wildly popular are extremely few and far between. Even then they require a non deviance from the ruleset. Things like the perma death server for Aoc for example. The reason they won't do things like that is because fov matters in terms of balance. They will not rebalance 400+ abilities for that sort of pvp experience. Fov matters.

It is a logical fallacy to say people who are for FPV are in the minority.  You are dismissing someone's view as irrelevant and therefore it is illogical.

Why would they have to rebalance abilities for that, it doesn't make sense.

That is not a logical fallacy. 

Past trends can easily be used to predict future trends.  Past trends clearly show us players take the path of least resistance, and they won't use the FPV.

If you have an opposing opinion, but offer no evidence, then your opinion can be rightfully dismissed.

Logical Fallacy - a fallacy in logical argumentation
Fallacy - a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/logical+fallacy

You are assuming that not many people will play in FPV because TPV has a sight advantage.  I rebute by saying we do not know the minority.  People may play TPV in PvP or dungeons but there will be many people who uses FPV.

If you are using past trends to predict future ones, then wouldn't Skyrim and Oblivion be proof that many people play in FPV (or at least a little of both).  I do not accept that TPV is the path of least resistance, it does have a sight advantage but there are many fine attributes of FPV.

I am not claiming that FPV is in the majority, but saying we simply do not know.  You offer no evidence otherwise so I rightfully dismiss you.

 

 

 

Small advantage? Which MMOs have you ever played in FPV primarily? How did you do in groups? PvP?

Speking of logical fallacies...Faulty Causation...look it up lol.

  elohssa

Novice Member

Joined: 3/29/13
Posts: 41

3/31/13 2:03:39 AM#158
Originally posted by sapphen
Originally posted by elohssa
Originally posted by sapphen
Originally posted by Livnthedream
Originally posted by sapphen

What makes you think everyone considers TPV the "path of least resistence" ~ What if they have plans to make FPV-only Cyrodiil Campaigns?  Some people may consider FPV more fun than TPV.  Nonetheless it's still an assumption and using a phrase like "small minority" is illogical.  There was a large enough group that asked for FPV, thereforth it is added into the game.

Out of curiosity were you using "illogical" ironically? Cause if not you should check the definition cause yeah...

Anyway, even with ignoring the "what if" you decided to toss in there the number of times experiments like you propose have actually been wildly popular are extremely few and far between. Even then they require a non deviance from the ruleset. Things like the perma death server for Aoc for example. The reason they won't do things like that is because fov matters in terms of balance. They will not rebalance 400+ abilities for that sort of pvp experience. Fov matters.

It is a logical fallacy to say people who are for FPV are in the minority.  You are dismissing someone's view as irrelevant and therefore it is illogical.

Why would they have to rebalance abilities for that, it doesn't make sense.

That is not a logical fallacy. 

Past trends can easily be used to predict future trends.  Past trends clearly show us players take the path of least resistance, and they won't use the FPV.

If you have an opposing opinion, but offer no evidence, then your opinion can be rightfully dismissed.

Logical Fallacy - a fallacy in logical argumentation
Fallacy - a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/logical+fallacy

You are assuming that not many people will play in FPV because TPV has a sight advantage.  I rebute by saying we do not know the minority.  People may play TPV in PvP or dungeons but there will be many people who uses FPV.

If you are using past trends to predict future ones, then wouldn't Skyrim and Oblivion be proof that many people play in FPV (or at least a little of both).  I do not accept that TPV is the path of least resistance, it does have a sight advantage but there are many fine attributes of FPV.

I am not claiming that FPV is in the majority, but saying we simply do not know.  You offer no evidence otherwise so I rightfully dismiss you.

 

Actually there is a buttload of reasons I gave earlier, but the most prevalent one is that it is a HUGE advantage.  Not a slight advantage, a HUGE advantage.

 

So you actually believe that past events have no bearing on future events, and we can't use past events to predict furture events?   I think investors would like to have a word with you about that....

Thats almost like saying cause and effect don't exist.

 

This is not a logical fallacy.  Which logical fallacy does this apply to exactly?

  sapphen

Novice Member

Joined: 1/06/07
Posts: 920

3/31/13 2:10:40 AM#159
Originally posted by Iselin
Originally posted by sapphen
Originally posted by Iselin
Originally posted by sapphen
Quaility and popularity are not polar opposites, great designers will design with both in mind.

 Sometimes you get both, yes. But that only happens when they focused on the quality not the other way around.

Most of the time they are focused on making a game.  A design is born.  Then they tune the game to appeal to the target audience.  Quality is checked by a different team.

I understand what you are saying, personally prefer quaility over popularity, but I think this only loosely applies here.

Unfortunately I think it applies. Here's how I see it.

They set-out to create and announced a very specific type of game.

They got some negative feedback from people who had some different priorities and ideas about how a TES MMO should be done.

They balked... added FPS mode TES style (with hands now) despite the fact that it's a really awkward way to play an MMO...which they had originally explained. They added a token explorable instanced copy of the other zones to appease those who objected to faction lock for exploring reasons (there are many other reasons why some don't like faction lock as you know.)

They are still designing, not QCing this and they're already showing a disturbing lack of conviction.

Or put another way...they are going with the popuklar flow instead of their vision. I don't have a lot of respect for that kind of "creative" process. I'd much rather get something other than my wet dream because they are designing it the way they think it's best.

I already said in my OP that they could have easily gone the other way with their original design: a non-locked Tamriel with something other than a 3-sided WAR driving the plot. I like the way they originally announced it better, but I could have respect for them had they originally gone the other way and stuck to their vision.

So yeah. Now it seems they're trying to be the most popular girl in school. I hope they don't get the clap.

Things change while in development... deal with it.  I hate that you guys have to see the uglyness of the design process but it happens all the time in house.  This feedback they are getting are from hired employees, not forum fodder.  You have to remember that this IS a TES game, spin-off or not, and TES fans are one of the target audiences.

They did not popularize or lose conviction, you create those perceptions. That's fine if you want to feel like that this isn't a quality versus popularity issue here - it's a perception issue.  What you feel is "popular garbage" is quality to others.

  Iselin

The Listener

Joined: 3/04/08
Posts: 4034

 
OP  3/31/13 2:22:57 AM#160
Originally posted by sapphen
Originally posted by Iselin
Originally posted by sapphen
Originally posted by Iselin
Originally posted by sapphen
Quaility and popularity are not polar opposites, great designers will design with both in mind.

 Sometimes you get both, yes. But that only happens when they focused on the quality not the other way around.

Most of the time they are focused on making a game.  A design is born.  Then they tune the game to appeal to the target audience.  Quality is checked by a different team.

I understand what you are saying, personally prefer quaility over popularity, but I think this only loosely applies here.

Unfortunately I think it applies. Here's how I see it.

They set-out to create and announced a very specific type of game.

They got some negative feedback from people who had some different priorities and ideas about how a TES MMO should be done.

They balked... added FPS mode TES style (with hands now) despite the fact that it's a really awkward way to play an MMO...which they had originally explained. They added a token explorable instanced copy of the other zones to appease those who objected to faction lock for exploring reasons (there are many other reasons why some don't like faction lock as you know.)

They are still designing, not QCing this and they're already showing a disturbing lack of conviction.

Or put another way...they are going with the popuklar flow instead of their vision. I don't have a lot of respect for that kind of "creative" process. I'd much rather get something other than my wet dream because they are designing it the way they think it's best.

I already said in my OP that they could have easily gone the other way with their original design: a non-locked Tamriel with something other than a 3-sided WAR driving the plot. I like the way they originally announced it better, but I could have respect for them had they originally gone the other way and stuck to their vision.

So yeah. Now it seems they're trying to be the most popular girl in school. I hope they don't get the clap.

Things change while in development... deal with it.  I hate that you guys have to see the uglyness of the design process but it happens all the time in house.  This feedback they are getting are from hired employees, not forum fodder.  You have to remember that this IS a TES game, spin-off or not, and TES fans are one of the target audiences.

They did not popularize or lose conviction, you create those perceptions. That's fine if you want to feel like that this isn't a quality versus popularity issue here - it's a perception issue.  What you feel is "popular garbage" is quality to others.

 Indeed. I couldn't have said it better myself

13 Pages First « 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 » Last Search