The Tamriel map as we know it. How are the Alliances going to work any other way then how the Dev's have placed them?
If they went free roam everywhere then the dev's would have to scrap 6 YEARS of work and start over. Do we really want that? Or, make it every race for themselves, which stil means recoding a major chuck of the game.
Something to think about.
Have the Factions be Independent Groups, with no ties or affiliations to any of the Nations or Races specifically. These 3 Factions are fighting to control the Nation of Cyrodiil. Not too different than how they have it now.
Players of any Race or Nationality could choose to join one of the Independant Faction groups if they choose to fight.
Maybe even have some (or all) the other Nations secretly supporting one of the Factions, but publicly denying any involvement.
They wouldnt have to scrap 6 years of work. They would have to make some changes yes, but nothing so drastic as you claim.
*edit. When you look at that map, you can totally see how Firor took one look at it and saw how he could squeeze DAOC to fit into Tamriel.
Ill bet he even got wood.
Actually you raise an excellent point, this map is a natural for the RVR combat model, and it really is no wonder why they felt this world would be a natural fit to their design, IP considerations be damned.
Makes sense really, if you are trying to design a DAOC style game, and not so much TES.
Here's an idea, maybe they could offer players "Visas" to travel in foreign lands, and basically would permit them to travel unmolested in the other territory. Yeah, I know, just the flagging argument all over again, but at least it offers more of a roleplaying reason for permitting it. (a dirty word, I know)
Heck, you could even make them limited in availabilty, perhaps even let players of the current realm view them on a map of where the foreign nationals are, and charge fees for them. All sorts of possibilities I think.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
My point is not that the devs dont know where the quests are. My point is what most of you are asking is much bigger change then you grasp. How much do they have to unravel to bring us to a generic any faction can quest anywhere? After the change how much would need to be brought back to alph testing to get ready for beta testers?? How much of that 6 years of work would need to be thrown away? At what point have the spent to much money and time that its ok to just chuck out the time and money invested? How would you feel as an investor if after 6 years of your money being used to develop this game, the company you invested in just changed directions a few months before product release? lol How likely is suggestions like this going to take? My main point in bringing all this out is this. Make suggestions that can make the cut. Anything that changes the core of the game is chaff in the wind to the devs ears.
Originally posted by Nanfoodle So what do you do once you can wander anywhere? By your suggestion there would be no PvP, if I read right you cant enter the other factions dungeons. Quests and story are writen for the faction that map is made for? So were there just to look around?
Why do you insist on believing that every dungeon, ever questline and every damn thing you can dop in each faction area is keyed to faction members alone?
You have NO basis for this assumption.
Sure - the story stuff will be.
But Zenimax have made it very clear indeed that there is stuff to explore for and stumble across - just like TES, where, by the way, there is lot on non-factional, non-main-storyline, non-specific stuff to do.
It would this content that could be acessed by all - and unless this is tte FIRST MMO in history to have entirely factional-focussed content and personal storyline with their PvE content, then there would be plenty to do.
Everywhere you post your contentions that touching the game would be like kicking a pil of Jenga blocks; that the whole thing in each factional area is all inextricably tied up with targetted plots that 'wouldn't work' if used by others.
This is 100% assumption on your part Nan...
Ok, lets look at it with a simple line of thinking. You are a writer, you are given the lore of ESO, the player has lost his soul (personal level) and there is a war between 3 factions (global game scale). Here is your faction your writing for and the map it will take place on. (this is the core of development for 6 years) If you are even just a little bit creative what would you do? Write generic quests any faction could do? Or would you be writing a story (with VO) that showed how this war affected your faction and your char? Would you be so shallow a writer as to ignore this common thread? As a writer would you ignore the 2 biggest points of the game in your writing? Only reason you fail to see this is your hope to break this down to it being simple to change the faction lock. Think for a few min as a writer and tell me what you would have done as a writer with the lore handed to you?
It is beyond ridiculous to ASSUME that all, or even the majority of PvE content in each faction area is faction only material.
There has never been an MMO that was so focussed on one aspect of play experience - even in those whose personal or factional stories were important.
So according you you there will be no drop-in dungeons, no peasants needing wolves run off, no haunted ruins populated by undead, no mages/fighters/rogues etc, guild quests, no wandering mobs who will attack 'anyone', no random events that have nothing to do with the war, no lairs of dangerous monsters, no bandits, no thieves, IN FACT - no way of interacting with any content unless you are a card-carrying faction member..?
What a crock!
Your standpoint is absolutely ridiculous, and you simply won't be shown otherwise.
Astounding...
No just said a large %, lets says 25% of the quests and story are about the war. Would that 25% be all around one part of the map? Or would it be organicly spread out thoughtout the land? How do you root that out with ease? This is no quantum leap. Its like when we found out there is tanks in the game. The jump that I am going to need a healer at some point is not a big jump but follows logic. My point is this is not as easy to remove as many of you claim it to be. Also even if only 25% of the quests and stories are about the war, what about the other quests the tie into that, point to that, or are part of a chain of quests? They also would need to be rewriten. Not ridiculous just simple logic you cant grasp.
You really think the people who took six years to make the game - mapped out in detail every questline and designed the entire non-factional and faction questlines etc. DON'T KNOW where they are!!??
Well I think that's the last time I feel the need to say anything on the matter to you Nan - you just holed your own ship below the waterline...
... my grasp of logic is just fine - you need to do some reading on what 'projection' means in this partcular context if you don't already know...
... wow..!
Ok, just be honest for a min, as the lead writer of this game. Given the 2 major themes of the game, your soul taken (personal story) and 3 faction wars with each faction being locked to each map. How would you have directed your writers to write the quests and story? 99% Generic quests and stories?
I'll respond in this one instance as I added to my post whilst you were responding to the lesser version.
I work with people who manipulate statistics for their own ends with skill.
You on the other hand can't make up your mind whether it's 75% one minute, or 99% the next.
The numbers are as hopelessly confused as your argument...
Being dismissive or dodging a line of debate speaks more of the ground on whitch your opponent stands. Hows the sand? (((grins))))
Originally posted by Nanfoodle My point is not that the devs dont know where the quests are. My point is what most of you are asking is much bigger change then you grasp. How much do they have to unravel to bring us to a generic any faction can quest anywhere? After the change how much would need to be brought back to alph testing to get ready for beta testers?? How much of that 6 years of work would need to be thrown away? At what point have the spent to much money and time that its ok to just chuck out the time and money invested? How would you feel as an investor if after 6 years of your money being used to develop this game, the company you invested in just changed directions a few months before product release? lol How likely is suggestions like this going to take? My main point in bringing all this out is this. Make suggestions that can make the cut. Anything that changes the core of the game is chaff in the wind to the devs ears.
Well, several things...
First I think I'd prefer to hear from an actual developer, maybe even get the opinion of the OP's wife who is a devleoper.
Once I was sitting on a train with a friend on my way to N.Y. She finished reading an article in a magazine and started expounding upon how "some people" were so brilliant that they could come up with such things and that "we" would have to struggle to create such a thing. I took one look at this "so called brilliant" article and immediately thought "what, are you kidding? I could do that in my sleep". (wasn't that brilliant of an article)
Point being is that sometimes, when one isn't in a particular field they view things as being very difficult and arcane wheras someone in that field might view the same things as "the easy parts". Heck, happened to me yesterday while talking about a piece I had written for violin, flute, classical Guitar and Cello. A coworker was saying "oh how smart you have to be to do such a thing" and my reaction was "well, no not really". At least with that piece.
Of course things in development are going to be hard but are they all as hard as you are making it? Maybe, maybe not.
The other thing is that the op's suggestion (or even Kyleran's) might be viewed as distasteful because there are people who are invested in the game and its DAoC roots. To them this is a great way to make it and, as you have said before, if you are going to make a RvR game you might not want to diverge from what is known to work.
Whereas TES fans who aren't invested in the DAoC way just don't care about RvR and are interested in a Daggerfall, Morrowind, Skyrim experience. RVR doesn't fit into that. It's not an important part of the experience and they don't care about getting the DAoC things "down".
Unfortunatley there will never be an agreement because various people have different preferences. Of course, the game is already in an advanced stage so regardless, I don't see them making any changes. It's just shockingly horrible to some that this is the way they opted to make it. Already, a friend of mine and I are having a hard time deciding our race (should we play it) because he wants one faction and I want another. Those who are engaged with the DAoC roots are vocal in keeping Realm Pride and those who were always desiring a game in the spirit of the TES games see choice being taken them and their game play funnelled into what the devs want.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Originally posted by Nanfoodle My point is not that the devs dont know where the quests are. My point is what most of you are asking is much bigger change then you grasp. How much do they have to unravel to bring us to a generic any faction can quest anywhere? After the change how much would need to be brought back to alph testing to get ready for beta testers?? How much of that 6 years of work would need to be thrown away? At what point have the spent to much money and time that its ok to just chuck out the time and money invested? How would you feel as an investor if after 6 years of your money being used to develop this game, the company you invested in just changed directions a few months before product release? lol How likely is suggestions like this going to take? My main point in bringing all this out is this. Make suggestions that can make the cut. Anything that changes the core of the game is chaff in the wind to the devs ears.
Well, several things...
First I think I'd prefer to hear from an actual developer, maybe even get the opinion of the OP's wife who is a devleoper.
Once I was sitting on a train with a friend on my way to N.Y. She finished reading an article in a magazine and started expounding upon how "some people" were so brilliant that they could come up with such things and that "we" would have to struggle to create such a thing. I took one look at this "so called brilliant" article and immediately thought "what, are you kidding? I could do that in my sleep". (wasn't that brilliant of an article)
Point being is that sometimes, when one isn't in a particular field they view things as being very difficult and arcane wheras someone in that field might view the same things as "the easy parts". Heck, happened to me yesterday while talking about a piece I had written for violin, flute, classical Guitar and Cello. A coworker was saying "oh how smart you have to be to do such a thing" and my reaction was "well, no not really". At least with that piece.
Of course things in development are going to be hard but are they all as hard as you are making it? Maybe, maybe not.
The other thing is that the op's suggestion (or even Kyleran's) might be viewed as distasteful because there are people who are invested in the game and its DAoC roots. To them this is a great way to make it and, as you have said before, if you are going to make a RvR game you might not want to diverge from what is known to work.
Whereas TES fans who aren't invested in the DAoC way just don't care about RvR and are interested in a Daggerfall, Morrowind, Skyrim experience. RVR doesn't fit into that. It's not an important part of the experience and they don't care about getting the DAoC things "down".
Unfortunatley there will never be an agreement because various people have different preferences. Of course, the game is already in an advanced stage so regardless, I don't see them making any changes. It's just shockingly horrible to some that this is the way they opted to make it. Already, a friend of mine and I are having a hard time deciding our race (should we play it) because he wants one faction and I want another. Those who are engaged with the DAoC roots are vocal in keeping Realm Pride and those who were always desiring a game in the spirit of the TES games see choice being taken them and their game play funnelled into what the devs want.
This is my point. If there is a way the group of TES fans to get what they want by some changes to the game I am all for it. But make suggestions that may catch the devs ears. When they see the scope of most of the suggestions I am sure they dont even read them. But banded together we come up with ideas that are easier to change that may catch the devs ears. Like Make every race have the option of 2 factions. Add a top level quest you have to unlock that lets you play as a spy in the other factions map for a limited scope. When you reach top level you earn the right to make a char in the other faction that gets a 50% exp boots so that by doing just the main story you will reach top level. I would love to see ideas that could make it be suggested we all could get behind and maybe bring to the devs ears.
EDIT: Or guesting with a twist, Your a highelf char, you can guest another faction and your Highelf is magicly changed into a Darkelf with all the same gear and stats etc. You can play the other factions map (team with friends) with no PvP worries for pure PvE fans and not breaking the other players imersion but you cant take part in AvA.
Even in Tes games though you can't "do it all". Doing guild quests generally locks you from doing others as you have to do things that offend those other guilds during gameplay. Its a large part of what gives it replayability.
Actualy that hasn't been true since Morrowind.
And yes I'm disapointed about that as well.
I dunno, I skipped Oblivion, and It did not take much of Vanilla Skyrim before I just went heavily modded. Slaughtering the theives guild, adding the fighters etc. Based on complaints I have read on forums, and not seeing any difference from my own gameplay I took it at face value.
Now, I've loved every elder scrolls game I've played but I think Morrowind was the best.
However, this is an interesting listen for people who have played several of the games.
I don't agree with everything he says but he makes some very valid observations.
Funny that video. Talks mostly about how your choices dont mean anything any more and how real solid RPGs, your choices should really impact the game. So picking a faction should drive everything that came after that. Kinda made me giggle when I thought of it. With the current system, you get just that and people are flipping out. My guess is by this video and all the people that call themselves real TES fans, that they really dont want that level of impact in their game or they would be fine with faction lock once you pick your faction. Or who really is a hard core RPG fan here and wants their choices to matter?
I don't agree with everything he says but he makes some very valid observations.
Funny that video. Talks mostly about how your choices dont mean anything any more and how real solid RPGs, your choices should really impact the game. So picking a faction should drive everything that came after that. Kinda made me giggle when I thought of it. With the current system, you get just that and people are flipping out. My guess is by this video and all the people that call themselves real TES fans, that they really dont want that level of impact in their game or they would be fine with faction lock once you pick your faction. Or who really is a hard core RPG fan here and wants their choices to matter?
I don't think TES fans have a problem with picking a faction nor do they have a problem with picking a faction and having it have consequences.
They do have a problem with picking a faction that cuts off the world or making it so that they can't bow out of the conflict and just be the character they want and group with who they want.
In morrowind, if you joined certain factions then other factions might not like you or might attack you. That was choice. Heck, even in Skyrim you have a choice of Stormcloaks and Imperials should you choose to get involved in it. But choosing stormcloaks didn't cut you off from entering imperial territory. I will add that skyrim should have it that if you are a stormcloak you are attacked by all imperials in an imperial city but the game doesn't want to go there.
That's why I love the idea of "the armies of the Ebonpact, the armies of the Aldmeri Dominion, the armies of the Daggerfall Covenant" and then allow players to have choice of race as well as factoni (or no faction!) and then reap consequences. But "no" we can't have that because DAoC had the world partitioned.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I don't agree with everything he says but he makes some very valid observations.
Funny that video. Talks mostly about how your choices dont mean anything any more and how real solid RPGs, your choices should really impact the game. So picking a faction should drive everything that came after that. Kinda made me giggle when I thought of it. With the current system, you get just that and people are flipping out. My guess is by this video and all the people that call themselves real TES fans, that they really dont want that level of impact in their game or they would be fine with faction lock once you pick your faction. Or who really is a hard core RPG fan here and wants their choices to matter?
I don't think TES fans have a problem with picking a faction nor do they have a problem with picking a faction and having it have consequences.
They do have a problem with picking a faction that cuts off the world or making it so that they can't bow out of the conflict and just be the character they want and group with who they want.
In morrowind, if you joined certain factions then other factions might not like you or might attack you. That was choice. Heck, even in Skyrim you have a choice of Stormcloaks and Imperials should you choose to get involved in it. But choosing stormcloaks didn't cut you off from entering imperial territory. I will add that skyrim should have it that if you are a stormcloak you are attacked by all imperials in an imperial city but the game doesn't want to go there.
That's why I love the idea of "the armies of the Ebonpact, the armies of the Aldmeri Dominion, the armies of the Daggerfall Covenant" and then allow players to have choice of race as well as factoni (or no faction!) and then reap consequences. But "no" we can't have that because DAoC had the world partitioned.
Sorry on a simple ironic level it is funny. So choices have deep meaning as long as its not at the cost of going anywhere. Another would say, deep meaning as long as I could fix it if I change my mind. Deep meaning as long as _______________ <------ enter reason.
I just saw a trailer for the upcoming Game of Thrones season and oddly enough it made me wonder what that series would look like if we could influence George to make the changes we want. I mean...there have been a ton of plot twists there I would have done differently and a lot of side-stories I would have just dropped...
But then I came to my senses and realized I was being disrespectful to the author: it's his story and he can write it however the hell he wishes to write it. Me? I'm just a reader who can read his story or not. A bit arrogant and presumptuous of me to want him to change it to suit my preferences... just saying...
Sorry for the interruption. The arguments can start again in ...3....2...1....go!
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I don't agree with everything he says but he makes some very valid observations.
Funny that video. Talks mostly about how your choices dont mean anything any more and how real solid RPGs, your choices should really impact the game. So picking a faction should drive everything that came after that. Kinda made me giggle when I thought of it. With the current system, you get just that and people are flipping out. My guess is by this video and all the people that call themselves real TES fans, that they really dont want that level of impact in their game or they would be fine with faction lock once you pick your faction. Or who really is a hard core RPG fan here and wants their choices to matter?
I don't think TES fans have a problem with picking a faction nor do they have a problem with picking a faction and having it have consequences.
They do have a problem with picking a faction that cuts off the world or making it so that they can't bow out of the conflict and just be the character they want and group with who they want.
In morrowind, if you joined certain factions then other factions might not like you or might attack you. That was choice. Heck, even in Skyrim you have a choice of Stormcloaks and Imperials should you choose to get involved in it. But choosing stormcloaks didn't cut you off from entering imperial territory. I will add that skyrim should have it that if you are a stormcloak you are attacked by all imperials in an imperial city but the game doesn't want to go there.
That's why I love the idea of "the armies of the Ebonpact, the armies of the Aldmeri Dominion, the armies of the Daggerfall Covenant" and then allow players to have choice of race as well as factoni (or no faction!) and then reap consequences. But "no" we can't have that because DAoC had the world partitioned.
Sorry on a simple ironic level it is funny. So choices have deep meaning as long as its not at the cost of going anywhere. Another would say, deep meaning as long as I could fix it if I change my mind. Deep meaning as long as _______________ <------ enter reason.
Well, take it on a simple level, what TES game made it so that you were completely blocked off from going to a certain area by your choices?
What actually happened is that you killed an ordinator, stole his armor and they attacked you on site with viscious abandon. That made that choice a fun choice.
choices have deep meaning when, in this example, when your choice takes an area that used to be "one thing" such as friendly and turns it into a hostile enviroment forcing the player to play in a different manner. It's not very deep to say "ok, you are now on the Red Team and here is your goal. Because quite frankly, you being on the Blue Team means same type of objective, just that your goal is on the other side of the field. Making that choice doesn't affect how you play just which direction you go.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I don't agree with everything he says but he makes some very valid observations.
Funny that video. Talks mostly about how your choices dont mean anything any more and how real solid RPGs, your choices should really impact the game. So picking a faction should drive everything that came after that. Kinda made me giggle when I thought of it. With the current system, you get just that and people are flipping out. My guess is by this video and all the people that call themselves real TES fans, that they really dont want that level of impact in their game or they would be fine with faction lock once you pick your faction. Or who really is a hard core RPG fan here and wants their choices to matter?
I don't think TES fans have a problem with picking a faction nor do they have a problem with picking a faction and having it have consequences.
They do have a problem with picking a faction that cuts off the world or making it so that they can't bow out of the conflict and just be the character they want and group with who they want.
In morrowind, if you joined certain factions then other factions might not like you or might attack you. That was choice. Heck, even in Skyrim you have a choice of Stormcloaks and Imperials should you choose to get involved in it. But choosing stormcloaks didn't cut you off from entering imperial territory. I will add that skyrim should have it that if you are a stormcloak you are attacked by all imperials in an imperial city but the game doesn't want to go there.
That's why I love the idea of "the armies of the Ebonpact, the armies of the Aldmeri Dominion, the armies of the Daggerfall Covenant" and then allow players to have choice of race as well as factoni (or no faction!) and then reap consequences. But "no" we can't have that because DAoC had the world partitioned.
Sorry on a simple ironic level it is funny. So choices have deep meaning as long as its not at the cost of going anywhere. Another would say, deep meaning as long as I could fix it if I change my mind. Deep meaning as long as _______________ <------ enter reason.
Well, take it on a simple level, what TES game made it so that you were completely blocked off from going to a certain area by your choices?
What actually happened is that you killed an ordinator, stole his armor and they attacked you on site with viscious abandon. That made that choice a fun choice.
choices have deep meaning when, in this example, when your choice takes an area that used to be "one thing" such as friendly and turns it into a hostile enviroment forcing the player to play in a different manner. It's not very deep to say "ok, you are now on the Red Team and here is your goal. Because quite frankly, you being on the Blue Team means same type of objective, just that your goal is on the other side of the field. Making that choice doesn't affect how you play just which direction you go.
Sure I see your point of view and that is one way to do it to make choices have meaning. But it does not change the fact that the current system does the same thing. In the video he also talked that impacting meaning really added to the replay value. Thats one of the big reasons to do this. Well the replay value as it stands is so big you would not even see the same maps =-) Now thats a impacting choices.
I don't agree with everything he says but he makes some very valid observations.
Funny that video. Talks mostly about how your choices dont mean anything any more and how real solid RPGs, your choices should really impact the game. So picking a faction should drive everything that came after that. Kinda made me giggle when I thought of it. With the current system, you get just that and people are flipping out. My guess is by this video and all the people that call themselves real TES fans, that they really dont want that level of impact in their game or they would be fine with faction lock once you pick your faction. Or who really is a hard core RPG fan here and wants their choices to matter?
That's interesting. And true. Many of the users here want to play a roleplaying game, but want to eschew one of the key defining factors of the genre: Taking on a role.
They rally against the loss of "freedom", while never considering the loss of integrity to the genre they enjoy.
I just saw a trailer for the upcoming Game of Thrones season and oddly enough it made me wonder what that series would look like if we could influence George to make the changes we want. I mean...there have been a ton of plot twists there I would have done differently and a lot of side-stories I would have just dropped...
But then I came to my senses and realized I was being disrespectful to the author: it's his story and he can write it however the hell he wishes to write it. Me? I'm just a reader who can read his story or not. A bit arrogant and presumptuous of me to want him to change it to suit my preferences... just saying...
Sorry for the interruption. The arguments can start again in ...3....2...1....go!
I just saw a trailer for the upcoming Game of Thrones season and oddly enough it made me wonder what that series would look like if we could influence George to make the changes we want. I mean...there have been a ton of plot twists there I would have done differently and a lot of side-stories I would have just dropped...
But then I came to my senses and realized I was being disrespectful to the author: it's his story and he can write it however the hell he wishes to write it. Me? I'm just a reader who can read his story or not. A bit arrogant and presumptuous of me to want him to change it to suit my preferences... just saying...
Sorry for the interruption. The arguments can start again in ...3....2...1....go!
Disrespectful to the author? People are disappointed all the time by various television series and the direction they take. You can use Game of Thrones as an example or you can use Hercules: The Legendary Journeys. If Hercules: The Legendary Journeys was done differently, I might have actually watched it. I watch Game of Thrones because I like what they are doing.
Am I being disrespectful to the "author" of Hercules because I say that I would have liked it way more if it was done differently? I think it was just targeted at a different audience. Very similar to the way ESO appears to be targeted at a different audience. And is it surprising to you that we are discussing those differences on a site that is intended to discuss MMORPGs on? You really think we are being "disrespectful" to the "author?" Has the "author" done anything to earn our respect in the first place?
I just saw a trailer for the upcoming Game of Thrones season and oddly enough it made me wonder what that series would look like if we could influence George to make the changes we want. I mean...there have been a ton of plot twists there I would have done differently and a lot of side-stories I would have just dropped...
But then I came to my senses and realized I was being disrespectful to the author: it's his story and he can write it however the hell he wishes to write it. Me? I'm just a reader who can read his story or not. A bit arrogant and presumptuous of me to want him to change it to suit my preferences... just saying...
Sorry for the interruption. The arguments can start again in ...3....2...1....go!
Disrespectful to the author? People are disappointed all the time by various television series and the direction they take. You can use Game of Thrones as an example or you can use Hercules: The Legendary Journeys. If Hercules: The Legendary Journeys was done differently, I might have actually watched it. I watch Game of Thrones because I like what they are doing.
Am I being disrespectful to the "author" of Hercules because I say that I would have liked it way more if it was done differently? I think it was just targeted at a different audience. Very similar to the way ESO appears to be targeted at a different audience. And is it surprising to you that we are discussing those differences on a site that is intended to discuss MMORPGs on? You really think we are being "disrespectful" to the "author?" Has the "author" done anything to earn our respect in the first place?
There's a large difference between "I would have liked it if... " and "Here's how you should have made it...".
In this forum we have mainly the latter, few of the former.
And yes, the second statement philosophy is disrespectful to the artist. It's the arrogant implication that you would have done it better.
I just saw a trailer for the upcoming Game of Thrones season and oddly enough it made me wonder what that series would look like if we could influence George to make the changes we want. I mean...there have been a ton of plot twists there I would have done differently and a lot of side-stories I would have just dropped...
But then I came to my senses and realized I was being disrespectful to the author: it's his story and he can write it however the hell he wishes to write it. Me? I'm just a reader who can read his story or not. A bit arrogant and presumptuous of me to want him to change it to suit my preferences... just saying...
Sorry for the interruption. The arguments can start again in ...3....2...1....go!
Disrespectful to the author? People are disappointed all the time by various television series and the direction they take. You can use Game of Thrones as an example or you can use Hercules: The Legendary Journeys. If Hercules: The Legendary Journeys was done differently, I might have actually watched it. I watch Game of Thrones because I like what they are doing.
Am I being disrespectful to the "author" of Hercules because I say that I would have liked it way more if it was done differently? I think it was just targeted at a different audience. Very similar to the way ESO appears to be targeted at a different audience. And is it surprising to you that we are discussing those differences on a site that is intended to discuss MMORPGs on? You really think we are being "disrespectful" to the "author?" Has the "author" done anything to earn our respect in the first place?
But we don't know yet do we? I mean, we're all critics. We can't help it. But we usually criticize books and movies after we've read them and watched them. Here there's a lot of passion about how people think the game will play after it has been released--or at least "betaed."
Some people are convinced what they've carefully designed just won't work or won't be enough.
One of the arguments we keep hearing over and over has to do with the differences between the TES single player games and this MMO version. The TES games are held-up as the gold standard that must be complied with... all this before playing 5 minutes of the game to see if what they did works or not.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I don't think TES fans have a problem with picking a faction nor do they have a problem with picking a faction and having it have consequences.
They do have a problem with picking a faction that cuts off the world or making it so that they can't bow out of the conflict and just be the character they want and group with who they want.
Yeah agree with you. Personally it starts with the fact I do NOT have a choice about faction or race because one is locked into another. For it to have been a choice I should have two or more options available. If I play a Breton I have 1 faction to choose from so not a choice. I have to compromise something at the base level of gameplay.
And I titally agree, the option to NOT join a faction is missing.
In morrowind, if you joined certain factions then other factions might not like you or might attack you. That was choice. Heck, even in Skyrim you have a choice of Stormcloaks and Imperials should you choose to get involved in it. But choosing stormcloaks didn't cut you off from entering imperial territory. I will add that skyrim should have it that if you are a stormcloak you are attacked by all imperials in an imperial city but the game doesn't want to go there.
That's why I love the idea of "the armies of the Ebonpact, the armies of the Aldmeri Dominion, the armies of the Daggerfall Covenant" and then allow players to have choice of race as well as factoni (or no faction!) and then reap consequences. But "no" we can't have that because DAoC had the world partitioned.
Yeah. I would love to actually be recruited to the war. As it is we are all effectively slaves to the war effor with zero personal choice. I know, just know, that if I create an Orc and get to Cyrodil I will have in the back on my mind the "I want to backstab and betray these Breton fools but I can't!!!".
I just saw a trailer for the upcoming Game of Thrones season and oddly enough it made me wonder what that series would look like if we could influence George to make the changes we want. I mean...there have been a ton of plot twists there I would have done differently and a lot of side-stories I would have just dropped...
But then I came to my senses and realized I was being disrespectful to the author: it's his story and he can write it however the hell he wishes to write it. Me? I'm just a reader who can read his story or not. A bit arrogant and presumptuous of me to want him to change it to suit my preferences... just saying...
Sorry for the interruption. The arguments can start again in ...3....2...1....go!
Disrespectful to the author? People are disappointed all the time by various television series and the direction they take. You can use Game of Thrones as an example or you can use Hercules: The Legendary Journeys. If Hercules: The Legendary Journeys was done differently, I might have actually watched it. I watch Game of Thrones because I like what they are doing.
Am I being disrespectful to the "author" of Hercules because I say that I would have liked it way more if it was done differently? I think it was just targeted at a different audience. Very similar to the way ESO appears to be targeted at a different audience. And is it surprising to you that we are discussing those differences on a site that is intended to discuss MMORPGs on? You really think we are being "disrespectful" to the "author?" Has the "author" done anything to earn our respect in the first place?
How about changing the story before hearing or reading it? Thats what we are asking for here.
There's a large difference between "I would have liked it if... " and "Here's how you should have made it...".
In this forum we have mainly the latter, few of the former.
That's just semantics.
I want it to be this way
I would like it more if it was this way
It should be this way
Here's how you should have made it
I have some ideas about what could make this better
It whould have been this way
You made it wrong and here is how you can make it right
It would be way better this way
You should do it this way
They should have made it this way
I just assume when people say all of these things that it's their opinion and they want something to be different. I certainly don't see why that's "disrespectful to the author."
Everyone has an opinion about MMORPGs that post in this forum. There are a lot of people that seem to share the opinion that, for an Elder Scrolls IP, this game seems to be far more closed off than it should be. It looks more like they wanted to make a certain type of MMORPG and knew they could sell it by using the IP instead of trying to make an MMORPG that tried to stay true to the IP.
But the truth is, the only way this game changes now is if it flops and they have to rethink their approach. And to be honest, I don't want it to flop. I want it to be freaking amazing, but I also wish they weren't staying so strict on the whole race/faction thing.
I don't think TES fans have a problem with picking a faction nor do they have a problem with picking a faction and having it have consequences.
They do have a problem with picking a faction that cuts off the world or making it so that they can't bow out of the conflict and just be the character they want and group with who they want.
Yeah agree with you. Personally it starts with the fact I do NOT have a choice about faction or race because one is locked into another. For it to have been a choice I should have two or more options available. If I play a Breton I have 1 faction to choose from so not a choice. I have to compromise something at the base level of gameplay.
And I titally agree, the option to NOT join a faction is missing.
In morrowind, if you joined certain factions then other factions might not like you or might attack you. That was choice. Heck, even in Skyrim you have a choice of Stormcloaks and Imperials should you choose to get involved in it. But choosing stormcloaks didn't cut you off from entering imperial territory. I will add that skyrim should have it that if you are a stormcloak you are attacked by all imperials in an imperial city but the game doesn't want to go there.
That's why I love the idea of "the armies of the Ebonpact, the armies of the Aldmeri Dominion, the armies of the Daggerfall Covenant" and then allow players to have choice of race as well as factoni (or no faction!) and then reap consequences. But "no" we can't have that because DAoC had the world partitioned.
Yeah. I would love to actually be recruited to the war. As it is we are all effectively slaves to the war effor with zero personal choice. I know, just know, that if I create an Orc and get to Cyrodil I will have in the back on my mind the "I want to backstab and betray these Breton fools but I can't!!!".
As always you dodge or are dismisive of the view thats counter to what you want. You cut out my reply from your reply to keep away from it. LOL. Try replying to my post on the last page lol. Ooo wait, that wont happen. So for you, you want deep meaningful choices as long as it does not impact freedom to go anywhere. Whats the diff if you pick your faction in the game or before you start the game? Its still picking and has a very deep impact to your choices. Adds reply as well. Its everything any real RPG fan could ask for when it comes to choices that matter.
all this before playing 5 minutes of the game to see if what they did works or not.
Either the information release via official posts and video's are lies or we are discussing the very facts they have released. So which is it, are they lying to us or not?
I am willing to accept their publications at face value and discuss the information they release and I will not defend my position or accept they they are willingly lying to us. If you think they are lying then fair enough but I haven't seen any information to support that. In fat I am convinced they are trlling the truth because you wouldn't make up a lie that is so controversial.
So yes, I have problems with their design and will say so because I am alowed to do so and discussion is good. And I will argue my points based on the official information released about the game because until I reed or see otherwise that is how it is.
But getting back to your point, does the same logic apply to those who say our thoughts are wrong because the DOAC model is the "Gold standard" of PvP and is great and we are all haters for not liking it or is it, as it seems, only a one way statment about people that don't like certain aspect of the game?
There's a large difference between "I would have liked it if... " and "Here's how you should have made it...".
In this forum we have mainly the latter, few of the former.
That's just semantics.
I want it to be this way
I would like it more if it was this way
It should be this way
Here's how you should have made it
I have some ideas about what could make this better
It whould have been this way
You made it wrong and here is how you can make it right
It would be way better this way
You should do it this way
They should have made it this way
I just assume when people say all of these things that it's their opinion and they want something to be different. I certainly don't see why that's "disrespectful to the author."
Everyone has an opinion about MMORPGs that post in this forum. There are a lot of people that seem to share the opinion that, for an Elder Scrolls IP, this game seems to be far more closed off than it should be. It looks more like they wanted to make a certain type of MMORPG and knew they could sell it by using the IP instead of trying to make an MMORPG that tried to stay true to the IP.
But the truth is, the only way this game changes now is if it flops and they have to rethink their approach. And to be honest, I don't want it to flop. I want it to be freaking amazing, but I also wish they weren't staying so strict on the whole race/faction thing.
Me: Let me read you a story
TES fans on this forum: No I dont like it, can you change it for me
Me: But I have not read it to you
TES fans on this forum: I dont care I know I wont like it
Comments
Actually you raise an excellent point, this map is a natural for the RVR combat model, and it really is no wonder why they felt this world would be a natural fit to their design, IP considerations be damned.
Makes sense really, if you are trying to design a DAOC style game, and not so much TES.
Here's an idea, maybe they could offer players "Visas" to travel in foreign lands, and basically would permit them to travel unmolested in the other territory. Yeah, I know, just the flagging argument all over again, but at least it offers more of a roleplaying reason for permitting it. (a dirty word, I know)
Heck, you could even make them limited in availabilty, perhaps even let players of the current realm view them on a map of where the foreign nationals are, and charge fees for them. All sorts of possibilities I think.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Being dismissive or dodging a line of debate speaks more of the ground on whitch your opponent stands. Hows the sand? (((grins))))
Well, several things...
First I think I'd prefer to hear from an actual developer, maybe even get the opinion of the OP's wife who is a devleoper.
Once I was sitting on a train with a friend on my way to N.Y. She finished reading an article in a magazine and started expounding upon how "some people" were so brilliant that they could come up with such things and that "we" would have to struggle to create such a thing. I took one look at this "so called brilliant" article and immediately thought "what, are you kidding? I could do that in my sleep". (wasn't that brilliant of an article)
Point being is that sometimes, when one isn't in a particular field they view things as being very difficult and arcane wheras someone in that field might view the same things as "the easy parts". Heck, happened to me yesterday while talking about a piece I had written for violin, flute, classical Guitar and Cello. A coworker was saying "oh how smart you have to be to do such a thing" and my reaction was "well, no not really". At least with that piece.
Of course things in development are going to be hard but are they all as hard as you are making it? Maybe, maybe not.
The other thing is that the op's suggestion (or even Kyleran's) might be viewed as distasteful because there are people who are invested in the game and its DAoC roots. To them this is a great way to make it and, as you have said before, if you are going to make a RvR game you might not want to diverge from what is known to work.
Whereas TES fans who aren't invested in the DAoC way just don't care about RvR and are interested in a Daggerfall, Morrowind, Skyrim experience. RVR doesn't fit into that. It's not an important part of the experience and they don't care about getting the DAoC things "down".
Unfortunatley there will never be an agreement because various people have different preferences. Of course, the game is already in an advanced stage so regardless, I don't see them making any changes. It's just shockingly horrible to some that this is the way they opted to make it. Already, a friend of mine and I are having a hard time deciding our race (should we play it) because he wants one faction and I want another. Those who are engaged with the DAoC roots are vocal in keeping Realm Pride and those who were always desiring a game in the spirit of the TES games see choice being taken them and their game play funnelled into what the devs want.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
This is my point. If there is a way the group of TES fans to get what they want by some changes to the game I am all for it. But make suggestions that may catch the devs ears. When they see the scope of most of the suggestions I am sure they dont even read them. But banded together we come up with ideas that are easier to change that may catch the devs ears. Like Make every race have the option of 2 factions. Add a top level quest you have to unlock that lets you play as a spy in the other factions map for a limited scope. When you reach top level you earn the right to make a char in the other faction that gets a 50% exp boots so that by doing just the main story you will reach top level. I would love to see ideas that could make it be suggested we all could get behind and maybe bring to the devs ears.
EDIT: Or guesting with a twist, Your a highelf char, you can guest another faction and your Highelf is magicly changed into a Darkelf with all the same gear and stats etc. You can play the other factions map (team with friends) with no PvP worries for pure PvE fans and not breaking the other players imersion but you cant take part in AvA.
Funny that video. Talks mostly about how your choices dont mean anything any more and how real solid RPGs, your choices should really impact the game. So picking a faction should drive everything that came after that. Kinda made me giggle when I thought of it. With the current system, you get just that and people are flipping out. My guess is by this video and all the people that call themselves real TES fans, that they really dont want that level of impact in their game or they would be fine with faction lock once you pick your faction. Or who really is a hard core RPG fan here and wants their choices to matter?
I don't think TES fans have a problem with picking a faction nor do they have a problem with picking a faction and having it have consequences.
They do have a problem with picking a faction that cuts off the world or making it so that they can't bow out of the conflict and just be the character they want and group with who they want.
In morrowind, if you joined certain factions then other factions might not like you or might attack you. That was choice. Heck, even in Skyrim you have a choice of Stormcloaks and Imperials should you choose to get involved in it. But choosing stormcloaks didn't cut you off from entering imperial territory. I will add that skyrim should have it that if you are a stormcloak you are attacked by all imperials in an imperial city but the game doesn't want to go there.
That's why I love the idea of "the armies of the Ebonpact, the armies of the Aldmeri Dominion, the armies of the Daggerfall Covenant" and then allow players to have choice of race as well as factoni (or no faction!) and then reap consequences. But "no" we can't have that because DAoC had the world partitioned.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Sorry on a simple ironic level it is funny. So choices have deep meaning as long as its not at the cost of going anywhere. Another would say, deep meaning as long as I could fix it if I change my mind. Deep meaning as long as _______________ <------ enter reason.
I just saw a trailer for the upcoming Game of Thrones season and oddly enough it made me wonder what that series would look like if we could influence George to make the changes we want. I mean...there have been a ton of plot twists there I would have done differently and a lot of side-stories I would have just dropped...
But then I came to my senses and realized I was being disrespectful to the author: it's his story and he can write it however the hell he wishes to write it. Me? I'm just a reader who can read his story or not. A bit arrogant and presumptuous of me to want him to change it to suit my preferences... just saying...
Sorry for the interruption. The arguments can start again in ...3....2...1....go!
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Well, take it on a simple level, what TES game made it so that you were completely blocked off from going to a certain area by your choices?
What actually happened is that you killed an ordinator, stole his armor and they attacked you on site with viscious abandon. That made that choice a fun choice.
choices have deep meaning when, in this example, when your choice takes an area that used to be "one thing" such as friendly and turns it into a hostile enviroment forcing the player to play in a different manner. It's not very deep to say "ok, you are now on the Red Team and here is your goal. Because quite frankly, you being on the Blue Team means same type of objective, just that your goal is on the other side of the field. Making that choice doesn't affect how you play just which direction you go.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Sure I see your point of view and that is one way to do it to make choices have meaning. But it does not change the fact that the current system does the same thing. In the video he also talked that impacting meaning really added to the replay value. Thats one of the big reasons to do this. Well the replay value as it stands is so big you would not even see the same maps =-) Now thats a impacting choices.
That's interesting. And true. Many of the users here want to play a roleplaying game, but want to eschew one of the key defining factors of the genre: Taking on a role.
They rally against the loss of "freedom", while never considering the loss of integrity to the genre they enjoy.
((snickers)) Good point.
Disrespectful to the author? People are disappointed all the time by various television series and the direction they take. You can use Game of Thrones as an example or you can use Hercules: The Legendary Journeys. If Hercules: The Legendary Journeys was done differently, I might have actually watched it. I watch Game of Thrones because I like what they are doing.
Am I being disrespectful to the "author" of Hercules because I say that I would have liked it way more if it was done differently? I think it was just targeted at a different audience. Very similar to the way ESO appears to be targeted at a different audience. And is it surprising to you that we are discussing those differences on a site that is intended to discuss MMORPGs on? You really think we are being "disrespectful" to the "author?" Has the "author" done anything to earn our respect in the first place?
There's a large difference between "I would have liked it if... " and "Here's how you should have made it...".
In this forum we have mainly the latter, few of the former.
And yes, the second statement philosophy is disrespectful to the artist. It's the arrogant implication that you would have done it better.
But we don't know yet do we? I mean, we're all critics. We can't help it. But we usually criticize books and movies after we've read them and watched them. Here there's a lot of passion about how people think the game will play after it has been released--or at least "betaed."
Some people are convinced what they've carefully designed just won't work or won't be enough.
One of the arguments we keep hearing over and over has to do with the differences between the TES single player games and this MMO version. The TES games are held-up as the gold standard that must be complied with... all this before playing 5 minutes of the game to see if what they did works or not.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Yeah agree with you. Personally it starts with the fact I do NOT have a choice about faction or race because one is locked into another. For it to have been a choice I should have two or more options available. If I play a Breton I have 1 faction to choose from so not a choice. I have to compromise something at the base level of gameplay.
And I titally agree, the option to NOT join a faction is missing.
Yeah. I would love to actually be recruited to the war. As it is we are all effectively slaves to the war effor with zero personal choice. I know, just know, that if I create an Orc and get to Cyrodil I will have in the back on my mind the "I want to backstab and betray these Breton fools but I can't!!!".
How about changing the story before hearing or reading it? Thats what we are asking for here.
That's just semantics.
I want it to be this way
I would like it more if it was this way
It should be this way
Here's how you should have made it
I have some ideas about what could make this better
It whould have been this way
You made it wrong and here is how you can make it right
It would be way better this way
You should do it this way
They should have made it this way
I just assume when people say all of these things that it's their opinion and they want something to be different. I certainly don't see why that's "disrespectful to the author."
Everyone has an opinion about MMORPGs that post in this forum. There are a lot of people that seem to share the opinion that, for an Elder Scrolls IP, this game seems to be far more closed off than it should be. It looks more like they wanted to make a certain type of MMORPG and knew they could sell it by using the IP instead of trying to make an MMORPG that tried to stay true to the IP.
But the truth is, the only way this game changes now is if it flops and they have to rethink their approach. And to be honest, I don't want it to flop. I want it to be freaking amazing, but I also wish they weren't staying so strict on the whole race/faction thing.
As always you dodge or are dismisive of the view thats counter to what you want. You cut out my reply from your reply to keep away from it. LOL. Try replying to my post on the last page lol. Ooo wait, that wont happen. So for you, you want deep meaningful choices as long as it does not impact freedom to go anywhere. Whats the diff if you pick your faction in the game or before you start the game? Its still picking and has a very deep impact to your choices. Adds reply as well. Its everything any real RPG fan could ask for when it comes to choices that matter.
So then all criticism is disrespectful since it implies you would have done it better.
I disagree with that.
Either the information release via official posts and video's are lies or we are discussing the very facts they have released. So which is it, are they lying to us or not?
I am willing to accept their publications at face value and discuss the information they release and I will not defend my position or accept they they are willingly lying to us. If you think they are lying then fair enough but I haven't seen any information to support that. In fat I am convinced they are trlling the truth because you wouldn't make up a lie that is so controversial.
So yes, I have problems with their design and will say so because I am alowed to do so and discussion is good. And I will argue my points based on the official information released about the game because until I reed or see otherwise that is how it is.
But getting back to your point, does the same logic apply to those who say our thoughts are wrong because the DOAC model is the "Gold standard" of PvP and is great and we are all haters for not liking it or is it, as it seems, only a one way statment about people that don't like certain aspect of the game?
Me: Let me read you a story
TES fans on this forum: No I dont like it, can you change it for me
Me: But I have not read it to you
TES fans on this forum: I dont care I know I wont like it
No, that's not what is happening. We are actually discussing information that has been released about the game.
I get this thread is about core mechanics =-) But it still is impacting the writing team.