...and they know damn well that only a very small minority will ever use it extensively.
You see, I have a seriously problem with that phrase. You have NO IDEA how many people would be using it. Do you really think a multimillion dollar project will be altered because a "few" people wanted FPV? You are not privy to their statistics but I can guarantee it was A LOT MORE than just a few people. Forum users like us are the minority, we do not know what the silent majority wants.
Actually I do for numerous reasons.
1stPV is drastically inferior to 3rdPV in an MMO for PvE, and especially in PvP.
Most people use what works fist, and what is flavor second.
The devs didn't have it in the game originally, thus they considered it to be an unimportant feature that would spacely be used.
In an interview the devs said that it was inferior view for an MMO.
The devs only put it in the game because of feedback from ES fans. Also said in the same interview.
None of this supports that FPV players are in the minority. Where are the numbers, you only listed personal assumptions. The devs put it in because of the feedback from PLAYERS/TESTERS (not 'es fans'), we do not know how many asked for it. It is illogical to assume that they changed their game for a 'few' people.
Originally posted by sapphen
Originally posted by jtcgs
So yes, reducing the choice's available is, in every way, foolish and limting.
I agree with this, moreso because it's an Elder Scrolls game. If they would've made up an IP, locked the races into factions and I wouldn't have cared the least bit.
Limiting players choice such as factions is quite foolish considering the franchise they are trying to represent. It is not needed, players would still have faction pride (maybe even more) if they was able to choose their own factions.
You guys are INSANE!
You call us insane yet you think a company is going to alter a multimillion dollar project to please a 'few' people.
None of this supports that FPV players are in the minority. Where are the numbers, you only listed personal assumptions. The devs put it in because of the feedback from PLAYERS/TESTERS (not 'es fans'), we do not know how many asked for it. It is illogical to assume that they changed their game for a 'few' people.
Sure it does. Players almost in their entirety play in the path of least resistence, especially when the the difference between what is considered "fun" and what is considered "not fun" is large. Direct numbers do not need to be given or even found if the previous trends are shown to be true. It is not hard to draw the conclusion.
You call us insane yet you think a company is going to alter a multimillion dollar project to please a 'few' people.
It happens all the time thanks to those who hold the purse strings having more power than the actual developers. You see it all the time with games that get "features" that are obviously tacked on. Every amazing single player shooter that has had multiplayer tacked on in the last 5 years for example. Beyond that, look at the sheer amount of work that goes into making the demo builds for the convention circuit? Some studios go so far as splitting off 10-15 people to form their own team just to make builds to showcase. Think of the sheer amounts of money that alone entails for a little bit of marketing!
Originally posted by hMJem WoW effectively killed the MMORPG genre by taking Everquest and expanding upon it with its good parts. Everyone is looking for the next universally played MMO in majority. I still think WoW is a good game in its current state, but everyones expectations are "I want to be addictted and play it for years" with every new MMO that comes out.
WoW would of been a much bigger and better MMO if they didnt focus on the casualification of its systems. LOL @ Pokemon. Game is in serious need of player and guild housing and real open world content.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
None of this supports that FPV players are in the minority. Where are the numbers, you only listed personal assumptions. The devs put it in because of the feedback from PLAYERS/TESTERS (not 'es fans'), we do not know how many asked for it. It is illogical to assume that they changed their game for a 'few' people.
Sure it does. Players almost in their entirety play in the path of least resistence, especially when the the difference between what is considered "fun" and what is considered "not fun" is large. Direct numbers do not need to be given or even found if the previous trends are shown to be true. It is not hard to draw the conclusion.
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.
You call us insane yet you think a company is going to alter a multimillion dollar project to please a 'few' people.
It happens all the time thanks to those who hold the purse strings having more power than the actual developers. You see it all the time with games that get "features" that are obviously tacked on. Every amazing single player shooter that has had multiplayer tacked on in the last 5 years for example. Beyond that, look at the sheer amount of work that goes into making the demo builds for the convention circuit? Some studios go so far as splitting off 10-15 people to form their own team just to make builds to showcase. Think of the sheer amounts of money that alone entails for a little bit of marketing!
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.
Originally posted by hMJem WoW effectively killed the MMORPG genre by taking Everquest and expanding upon it with its good parts. Everyone is looking for the next universally played MMO in majority. I still think WoW is a good game in its current state, but everyones expectations are "I want to be addictted and play it for years" with every new MMO that comes out.
WoW would of been a much bigger and better MMO if they didnt focus on the casualification of its systems. LOL @ Pokemon. Game is in serious need of player and guild housing and real open world content.
Personally, I would like WoW better if they didn't go casual BUT I think by moving to casual, they became big. There is so much in WoW that they can cater to casual players, hardcore arena PvP'rs, ranked battleground PvP'rs, and hardcore raiders (although I miss the 40 man runs, it seemed a lot more hardcore to me).
He is 100% correct. The vocal ES fans are competely delusional in their expectations. Despite the fact they are being catered to infinitely more than SW or WC were.
FFS they are creating a First person view JUST for these people, and they know damn well that only a very small minority will ever use it extensively.
I don't think the "Vocal ES fans" are delusional at all.
What do they want?
Open world with freedom to go where they want. Seems to me the thrust of many of these forum conversations are about why mmo's have moved from open world design to claustrophobic maps or a linear world with quest hub, quest hubs QUEST HUBS!
For a group of players who have played a game that is solely pve the want to share that experience with others. There are plenty of games that have pve servers for players who dont' want to pve and who want to engage in social play and questing and exploring. Granted, ESO is partly a pvp game now and to some ES fans they are baffled as to the "why".
As far as first person view, I know this is going to come as a shock to you but there is a large portion of ES players who prefer first person view. This is partly because the first games seemed to be all about the first person view and even though the ES games have evolved with a better third person view, many still play solely in first person view. Todd Howard even said himself that that is his preferred way to play ES games. If anyting it's an incredible immersion tool and quite frankly I think more games should solely have first person combat. Why should you be able to see a bird's eye view all around you. How much more tactical combat would be if you had to make a choice as to where you were facing, what was at your back, etc.
It being an mmo doesn't mitigate that 1st person view is immersive and does work. So for the pve portions there will be many ES players playing in first person view.
Once again, the problem with this title is that you have pvp players, mmo players and then the ES players. Of course there is overlap but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that those who have been ES players all these years might actually be interested in an actual ES mmo as a multiplayer ES game. This shouldn't be surprising.
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?
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Originally posted by hMJem WoW effectively killed the MMORPG genre by taking Everquest and expanding upon it with its good parts. Everyone is looking for the next universally played MMO in majority. I still think WoW is a good game in its current state, but everyones expectations are "I want to be addictted and play it for years" with every new MMO that comes out.
WoW would of been a much bigger and better MMO if they didnt focus on the casualification of its systems. LOL @ Pokemon. Game is in serious need of player and guild housing and real open world content.
Personally, I would like WoW better if they didn't go casual BUT I think by moving to casual, they became big. There is so much in WoW that they can cater to casual players, hardcore arena PvP'rs, ranked battleground PvP'rs, and hardcore raiders (although I miss the 40 man runs, it seemed a lot more hardcore to me).
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.
"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
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?
None of this supports that FPV players are in the minority. Where are the numbers, you only listed personal assumptions. The devs put it in because of the feedback from PLAYERS/TESTERS (not 'es fans'), we do not know how many asked for it. It is illogical to assume that they changed their game for a 'few' people.
Of course they do..... You are just stomping your feet and holding your breath while screaming it isn't so. Any unbiased person can look at the above data and say that most won't use it. And your sole argument to prove me wrong is to demand info that you damn well know doesn't exist. Past trrends do exist however, and we can easily conclude from them that what I said was true.
I didn't say a few people. Skyrim sold like 15 million copies on PC and Console total. That is a huge audience of people you want to please. However, only a small portion of them will play ESO, and only a portion of those will ever use the single player view, and only an extremely small portion will continue to use said view as it is drastically inferior to 3rd person, and only a small portion of those players will continue playing beyond the first few months.
Also this, well said,
Originally posted by Livnthedream
Originally posted by sapphen
None of this supports that FPV players are in the minority. Where are the numbers, you only listed personal assumptions. The devs put it in because of the feedback from PLAYERS/TESTERS (not 'es fans'), we do not know how many asked for it. It is illogical to assume that they changed their game for a 'few' people.
Sure it does. Players almost in their entirety play in the path of least resistence, especially when the the difference between what is considered "fun" and what is considered "not fun" is large. Direct numbers do not need to be given or even found if the previous trends are shown to be true. It is not hard to draw the conclusion.
You call us insane yet you think a company is going to alter a multimillion dollar project to please a 'few' people.
It happens all the time thanks to those who hold the purse strings having more power than the actual developers. You see it all the time with games that get "features" that are obviously tacked on. Every amazing single player shooter that has had multiplayer tacked on in the last 5 years for example. Beyond that, look at the sheer amount of work that goes into making the demo builds for the convention circuit? Some studios go so far as splitting off 10-15 people to form their own team just to make builds to showcase. Think of the sheer amounts of money that alone entails for a little bit of marketing!
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?
"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
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.
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.
Personally, I would like WoW better if they didn't go casual BUT I think by moving to casual, they became big. There is so much in WoW that they can cater to casual players, hardcore arena PvP'rs, ranked battleground PvP'rs, and hardcore raiders (although I miss the 40 man runs, it seemed a lot more hardcore to me).
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) 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.
Quaility and popularity are not polar opposites, great designers will design with both in mind.
Personally, I would like WoW better if they didn't go casual BUT I think by moving to casual, they became big. There is so much in WoW that they can cater to casual players, hardcore arena PvP'rs, ranked battleground PvP'rs, and hardcore raiders (although I miss the 40 man runs, it seemed a lot more hardcore to me).
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) 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 $$. Then popular and "something for everyone" is most definitely the way to go.
Vision, focus and artistic integrity is how you get quality. Pandering to the masses is how you get popularity.
Quaility and popularity are not polar opposites, great designers will design with both in mind.
Sometimes you get both, yes. But that only happens when they focused on the quality not the other way around.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
So that's a fair trade off in your mind? Turning a game that was already funky and cartoonish to begin with into a parody of itself because that provides more choice and attracts more people? WOW is just a lobby now where people go off in their own separate (mostly solo or quick little PUGs with starangers) directions to do the tiny little chunk of it that they like. Sounds like you're saying that's the way to do MMOs. By that logic Dancing with the Stars should be the model for future TV series.
To me there's a difference between quality and popularity. The Wire is quality. Dancing with the Stars is popular. The Secret World is quality. WOW is popular.
"Freedom of Choice" at all costs is a piss poor way to develop an MMO...unless of course, all you care about is the $$. 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 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?
"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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
"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
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.
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.
"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
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.
Comments
None of this supports that FPV players are in the minority. Where are the numbers, you only listed personal assumptions. The devs put it in because of the feedback from PLAYERS/TESTERS (not 'es fans'), we do not know how many asked for it. It is illogical to assume that they changed their game for a 'few' people.
You call us insane yet you think a company is going to alter a multimillion dollar project to please a 'few' people.
Sure it does. Players almost in their entirety play in the path of least resistence, especially when the the difference between what is considered "fun" and what is considered "not fun" is large. Direct numbers do not need to be given or even found if the previous trends are shown to be true. It is not hard to draw the conclusion.
It happens all the time thanks to those who hold the purse strings having more power than the actual developers. You see it all the time with games that get "features" that are obviously tacked on. Every amazing single player shooter that has had multiplayer tacked on in the last 5 years for example. Beyond that, look at the sheer amount of work that goes into making the demo builds for the convention circuit? Some studios go so far as splitting off 10-15 people to form their own team just to make builds to showcase. Think of the sheer amounts of money that alone entails for a little bit of marketing!
http://chroniclesofthenerds.com/nerdfight/
Y U NO FLIP TABLE?!?!?!
WoW would of been a much bigger and better MMO if they didnt focus on the casualification of its systems. LOL @ Pokemon. Game is in serious need of player and guild housing and real open world content.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
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.
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.Personally, I would like WoW better if they didn't go casual BUT I think by moving to casual, they became big. There is so much in WoW that they can cater to casual players, hardcore arena PvP'rs, ranked battleground PvP'rs, and hardcore raiders (although I miss the 40 man runs, it seemed a lot more hardcore to me).
I don't think the "Vocal ES fans" are delusional at all.
What do they want?
Open world with freedom to go where they want. Seems to me the thrust of many of these forum conversations are about why mmo's have moved from open world design to claustrophobic maps or a linear world with quest hub, quest hubs QUEST HUBS!
For a group of players who have played a game that is solely pve the want to share that experience with others. There are plenty of games that have pve servers for players who dont' want to pve and who want to engage in social play and questing and exploring. Granted, ESO is partly a pvp game now and to some ES fans they are baffled as to the "why".
As far as first person view, I know this is going to come as a shock to you but there is a large portion of ES players who prefer first person view. This is partly because the first games seemed to be all about the first person view and even though the ES games have evolved with a better third person view, many still play solely in first person view. Todd Howard even said himself that that is his preferred way to play ES games. If anyting it's an incredible immersion tool and quite frankly I think more games should solely have first person combat. Why should you be able to see a bird's eye view all around you. How much more tactical combat would be if you had to make a choice as to where you were facing, what was at your back, etc.
It being an mmo doesn't mitigate that 1st person view is immersive and does work. So for the pve portions there will be many ES players playing in first person view.
Once again, the problem with this title is that you have pvp players, mmo players and then the ES players. Of course there is overlap but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that those who have been ES players all these years might actually be interested in an actual ES mmo as a multiplayer ES game. This shouldn't be surprising.
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?
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
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.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
ROFL! +1
Face meets mirror.
Of course they do..... You are just stomping your feet and holding your breath while screaming it isn't so. Any unbiased person can look at the above data and say that most won't use it. And your sole argument to prove me wrong is to demand info that you damn well know doesn't exist. Past trrends do exist however, and we can easily conclude from them that what I said was true.
I didn't say a few people. Skyrim sold like 15 million copies on PC and Console total. That is a huge audience of people you want to please. However, only a small portion of them will play ESO, and only a portion of those will ever use the single player view, and only an extremely small portion will continue to use said view as it is drastically inferior to 3rd person, and only a small portion of those players will continue playing beyond the first few months.
Also this, well said,
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?
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
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.
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.
http://chroniclesofthenerds.com/nerdfight/
Y U NO FLIP TABLE?!?!?!
Sometimes you get both, yes. But that only happens when they focused on the quality not the other way around.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
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?
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
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?!?!?!
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.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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
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.
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.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
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.
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.
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.
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?!?!?!