[Megathread] Elder Scrolls Online

[vizzle]

I think I know the answer to this one. You're probably remembering when the concept that the game would include an action bar, alot of players were nerveous that it would abandon the classic TES combat system. Developers later revealed that they indeed intend to implement an actionbar for abilities, but that it will be a simplistic one designed to help you select spells and abilities during combat since the ability to pause and swap does not exist in MMO's. They did then later also strongly suggest that it will be simplistic rather than like other MMO's in podcast 17 =)

http://kotaku.com/5907598/first-elde...heelderscrolls

The issue of Game Informer packed with info on the newly-announced Elder Scrolls MMO is already in some people's hands and, well, if you were hoping for a game that was basically Skyrim only with real people, you're in for one hell of a disappointment.

From everything contained in the article, it sounds like "Elder Scrolls Online" is basically "Just Another MMO".

Things start going wrong on the very first page of the story, as ZeniMax Online's Paul Sage says "it needs to be comfortable for people who are coming from a typical massively multiplayer game that has the same control mechanisms, but it also has to appeal to Skyrim players".

A page later? You're playing the game in third-person, and its combat centres around hotbars activating skills. Your attacks have cooldowns. In clear terms, that means no real-time combat. It is literally explained as using "World of Warcraft mechanics".

You can't do something or go some places in the game unless you're appropriately levelled up, just like a regular MMO. ZeniMax is "keeping large areas inaccessible to save them for use as expansion content". Only "some fraction" of the caves and other landmarks in the game are waiting completely unmarked and unexplored. You can't own a house because it's "too hard to implement in an MMO". NPC characters don't run on the same schedules they do in the main games.

These were back in the days when they also said there would be no first-person view.

Then people complained and the game was made better.

So yea, whiners are effective.

[Edge-]

These were back in the days when they also said there would be no first-person view.

Then people complained and the game was made better.

So yea, whiners are effective.

Complaining and pitching a fit works wonders.

Though it also helped that the overwhelming response from the media was "Meh, whatever."

[Deleted]

But also, from the article you linked:
http://www.gamebreaker.tv/mmorpg/eld...ixed-reaction/

Pete Hines, Bethesda‘s head of PR and marketing, said in a recent interview with Eurogamer that they “knew the reaction would be mixed” — largely because it wasn’t Skyrim: The MMO, which is what players wanted but would be impossible:

“I certainly felt that some people were going to expect Skyrim, but massively multiplayer, which, if we could have done that, we would have just done that, right? We would have just done Skyrim that lets you play with a thousand other people.”

According to the article, Hines also believed that much of the negativity surrounding the game came from some early descriptions by journalists but that players would eventually make the decisions for themselves.

“We’re going to give it time and give ourselves a chance to explain all the other things we’re doing, let people see it, let people play it. It’s a marathon, especially with an MMO…

“We want to keep informing, but get it to the point where people play it, because it’s just a wholly different thing experiencing when you play it versus when you watch somebody.”

It all seems a bit too speculatory. If anything, I'd give Edge the 'edge' of this with saying I think the media influenced design changes rather than the playerbase. But I will credit you with saying, if players had not been uncomfortable, the media would have nothing to base their stories and allegations on. So I suppose I'll meet you half way with that and otherwise agree to disagree =D

[Deleted]

Hmm, can't tell if serious.

[...]

ofc not.

How do you do that, if a lot of feedback is subjective? What something is good for person A, it's bad for person B and vice-versa.

You learn this.

When you see GC or some other Blizz employee reply to a suggestion the words Echo Chamber he's saying "that's probably a bunch of parrots instead of a representation of what our customers want.

They explained this various times this specific example. I'm sure there's more. E.g. there's a fellow with a signature on MMOC who's quoting a Blizzard employee saying something which boils down to "we don't listen to argumentum ad populum."

As for whiners, there must be some kind of saying in English which argues a whiner is someone who according to the eye of the beholder spouting negative criticism. With which I mean one man's critique-caster is another man's whiner.

[Last Attempt]

Have they ever said around when they wanna start doing beta invites to be able to play the actual game? like in a month from now 3 months from now anyone know?

[vizzle]

Have they ever said around when they wanna start doing beta invites to be able to play the actual game? like in a month from now 3 months from now anyone know?

They haven't said anything about when, no one knows.

[Deleted]

http://kotaku.com/5907598/first-elde...heelderscrolls



These were back in the days when they also said there would be no first-person view.

Then people complained and the game was made better.

So yea, whiners are effective.

constructive whining isnt really whining, its feedback.

[vizzle]

constructive whining isnt really whining, its feedback.

I've been using the terms interchangeably; I agree.

[Tabbycat]

One thing I wish whining would have fixed with the game is the whole locked territories thing. I can deal with it because you can make multiple characters and go everywhere in the game that way. But it would have been nice to have gone everywhere with just one.

[Pachycrocuta]

I personally have no problem with the locked territories. I can understand the whining other people do about it, but it isn't a dealbreaker for me. Mainly because I plan to have one of each faction (khajiit, orc, and either nord or argonian). I am unsure about the argonians because I don't know what they will look like in the game, as I didn't mind them in Oblivion but they looked like crap in Skyrim, to me. I guess it probably won't matter since the face would be covered up by helms anyway.

[Valeron]

It's not a dealbreaker for me either but I'm very disappointed by it.

[Deleted]

No dealbreaker either. It should actually give 3 times more content if I understand it correct, due to alt longevity. It does put a little bit of nuance to the whole "big server" claim tho. Pretty much makes it 3 different servers.

In WoW you got Kalimdor and Eastern Kingdoms but then only 1 area from TBC and onwards.
In SWTOR you have 2 factions with 4 classes (times 2 if you include mirror classes) with in total 4 starting planet (number includes mirror classes). The two factions have completely different quests, and each class has their own story line, but it boils down to a small amount of content. Ergo, similar to WoW vanilla.
Not sure about RIFT. GW2 AFAICT has 5 completely different leveling paths. At the very least it has 5 different start areas.
TSW, 3 factions, but apart from a small starting area, its all the same quests AFAIK.

[Drakhar]

Locked zones? Someone explain this sorcery to me.

Some genius designer at Zenimax one day thought to himself "hmmm, what is the one of the key components of Elder Scrolls? Aha! Open ended exploration of a massive world!" Then he shat on it, and threw it out the window, just to get a rise out of TES fans.

[Nerevar]

Some genius designer at Zenimax one day thought to himself "hmmm, what is the one of the key components of Elder Scrolls? Aha! Open ended exploration of a massive world!" Then he shat on it, and threw it out the window, just to get a rise out of TES fans.

Actually, judging by one of the interviews, where the developer was asked, will players from faction A be able to join guilds with faction B, he said he'll talk about it later. Meaning, that there is a possibility that they will remove faction, and thus zone locks.

[Orlong]

I can say that each of these guys except for one went to swtor but they all came back to play with that one guy cuz he wouldnt switch. They are pvpers and all the did on swtor was pvp. They all said they didnt have any problems with the game but they came back to WoW anyway.

I can say for certain that im not coming back to WoW because of emotional attachment to my character. I do love my shaman and my frost DK (my two main classes, shaman since i started playing in late BC, frost DK in wrath). But im not going to resub just to play those characters. I played WoW for the group activities aka raiding. And i dont feel my sub is worth playing a game for just that feature. So i quit. Im playing GW2 which may not have raiding but its got everything else an MMO has and its free.

Im hoping TESO doesnt have a sub fee either and has raids because then that would be my new game to play if i liked the combat style, which is somthing im worried about with this game now that ive gotten used to GW2's combat.

Sounds like youre just a cheapskate. I would hope that TESO has a sub fee to keep a lot of the kids and griefers away. Any time a game has no barrier to entry other than a one time fee it attracts lots more idiots than games with a sub as people dont want to waste their money getting banned.

[Lyriok]

Some genius designer at Zenimax one day thought to himself "hmmm, what is the one of the key components of Elder Scrolls? Aha! Open ended exploration of a massive world!" Then he shat on it, and threw it out the window, just to get a rise out of TES fans.

Relax, there have been plenty of missions in Elder Scrolls where you have to go and spy on a enemy undetected I am sure there will be plenty of these missions around so that you can see areas, maybe even phased instances for a quest (Think Wrathgate from WoW)

Does it suck having such a restriction? Yes but it's for the sake of the story.

I dislike it too but it makes the most sense for the setting of the game. 3 Factions are at war, they won't put a pause on the feud just so you can visit the land that they own. You should really be happy just to have all previous areas in a single game. I recall there being a discussion with the devs on a way to by pass this but can't recall the source and besides this it's not even in beta yet (Tho it will be very soon)

[indoordinosaur]

Actually, judging by one of the interviews, where the developer was asked, will players from faction A be able to join guilds with faction B, he said he'll talk about it later. Meaning, that there is a possibility that they will remove faction, and thus zone locks.

Seriously? Where can I find this interview?

[Deleted]

Relax, there have been plenty of missions in Elder Scrolls where you have to go and spy on a enemy undetected I am sure there will be plenty of these missions around so that you can see areas, maybe even phased instances for a quest (Think Wrathgate from WoW)

Does it suck having such a restriction? Yes but it's for the sake of the story.

I dislike it too but it makes the most sense for the setting of the game. 3 Factions are at war, they won't put a pause on the feud just so you can visit the land that they own. You should really be happy just to have all previous areas in a single game. I recall there being a discussion with the devs on a way to by pass this but can't recall the source and besides this it's not even in beta yet (Tho it will be very soon)

Exactly why I'm ruthlessly defending it aswell. I can see it being used as a huge benefit to deliver better and more tailored stories when you don't have to take into consideration that opposing faction members could be trotting around. I mean, let's say you're a Breton and a quest sends you to discover and kill a Nord infiltrator who dastardly crossed into High Rock. How immersion breaking would it be to run across 30 nords exploring along the way? Yeah.

I will say, however, I am running into it with a positive mindset. Unless the game really DOES end up delivering on story and narrative, I'll jump into the bandwagon of "Limiting zone access sucks!" - However knowing TES I don't think that will be relevant. But we've got months before we find out. Best we can do at this point is speculate anyways so I'll take the first steps in a positive light untill I can actualy set the foot down inside the game and give appropriate judgement.

[Xenofreak]

I dislike it too but it makes the most sense for the setting of the game. 3 Factions are at war, they won't put a pause on the feud just so you can visit the land that they own. You should really be happy just to have all previous areas in a single game. I recall there being a discussion with the devs on a way to by pass this but can't recall the source and besides this it's not even in beta yet (Tho it will be very soon)

Except it doesn't make sense. In what war are people respectful of territorial boundaries? In what war are there not spies or soldiers that get sent behind enemy lines to disrupt supply chains and command?

I really hope that doesn't make it into release. I don't care if they make it ludicrously hard to get anywhere near cities or towns because guards rush after you, or players are ready to kick your arse the second they see you. Not to mention the overwhelming possibility for quests and such focusing on the war to do just what I mentioned above.

[Deleted]

the locked zones doesn't bother me too much if im honest. it would be cool to have some quests that require you to enter other factions zones for some sabotaging or spying or what ever, but at least this will stop less populated factions areas getting camped.

also, how will levels work on this game? as on skyrim the world scales with you, im guessing it wont do that in the mmo, so will there be different leveled zones, raids, dungeons ect?