Originally posted by MyTabbycat People are still complaining about faction locks even though ZOS has implemented 50+ and 50++ content for the other faction zones?
well they have to have something to complain about, amirite?
although, it is a legit concern for some, its better than complaining about TESO being a Daoc clone and spreading misinformation like a few have been doing around here.
some people are obviously over dramatic about it, but that's just the mmorpg.com forums for ya.
Naw I wasn't drunk, I just saw no tangible reasoning against faction-lock presented aside from personal opinion so I threw out the chebacca defense and tied it into current events for laughs(I was still on point though).
Before I decided to weigh in on this, I read every post prior.
I'm surprised at the length of this thread.
So, I guess I'll weigh in on a few things. But first:
01) I like the Elder Scrolls games and have played them for quite some time.
02) I have NO interest in playing them as an MMORPG.
02a) If I did, I would (as usual) divorce ESO from Elder Scrolls. Being unable to do that will inevitably lead to disappointment. One cannot be the other. You can't design a single-player game for an MMORPG. I do the same thing with books being turned into movies and comics (or graphic novels) being transferred as well.
03) Caliburn's argument that 22 = 2+2 = 4 actually *IS* correct, based on your outlook. That adding schema has been used for thousands of years. It is called Gematria. Regardless if YOU believe it is correct or not (and an added insult since your picture, I believe, is of Merlin), it is very bad form to use it as an argument.
Anyway, ESO I'm uninterested in. Faction lock, therefore, I'm uninterested in.
What I am interested in is the astounding lack of logic in my fellow augmenters:
A rule, as applied to games could be defined as: a principle or regulation governing conduct, procedure, action, or arrangement.
Along with this, why do we have them? They are the basis for society. An MMORPG aims to be a society; therefore it WILL have rules.
Some rules are an understood creation (such as selling in the Commons in EQ1, for example), and some are coded in.
In the second instance, we have enforced locks on societies (and speaking different languages in some settings). Functionally, this isolates the communities and creates the idea of friction where there is none.
My guess is they felt this needed to be done to foster the idea that those sides are at war. In reality, however, such things don't often go as planned. German and US soldiers, for example, exchanged presents across no-mans land in WW II.
In any event, if you like the idea of faction locks or choosing races, they could (and likely will) put in a method (or quest series) for you to change factions with that character. Would that help your concerns?
Arguing ... whatever it was you were attempting about rules is inconsequential. Rules, as such in our instance, define a society as a set of agreements between people that allow for rational discourse and action.
I feel compelled to state the obvious: some people like rules less than others. In fact, some people like society less than others. Mankind (and animals) differ on societal norms.
Along this same thread, some people ENJOY rules and worn paths more than others.
For instance, dear readers, consider the following words in regard to yourself:
Ordinary, Normal, Established, Familiar.
How did they make you feel when applied to yourself?
Abnormal, Extraordinary, Unusual, Exceptional.
How did they make you feel when applied to yourself?
If you liked the first, you're likely a rules-oriented person. The second, you're likely something of a maverick.
These two camps are never going to see eye-to-eye. Historically, they separated themselves.
That having been said, arguing for or against some merit (or in fact an entire game) actually has value.
Sometimes those people are stating how they feel about a game to a group of their peers and look for approval in other people saying "Yes!". That isn't bad. It is a societal behavior.
Sometimes people feel compelled to make their displeasure known in order to avert what they see as a calamity. That's also valid and societal.
Sometimes people are just attempting to prod other people into responding as they feel they need attention. You guessed it, societal.
The point I was attempting to get across in all of this is: rules are necessary for ANY human interaction. Language, for instance, is a set of rules (or agreements if that makes you feel better) as is decorum.
Continuing, rules in games are a necessity but not necessarily written or coded by the game creators.
The creators, in the case of the ever-contentious faction-lock, decided that they needed to impress upon the player base how deeply ingrained the conflict is currently.
In order to alleviate race-lock concerns, they might grant some freedom (as has been done in other games) by giving a group of quests to change sides. Then again, they might not.
What the OP was attempting to argue (along with everyone else, supposedly) was the merits or flaws in that decision.
In that argument, there are two stances:
01) I don't like faction lock. Because: (reasoning here), or
02) I like faction lock. Because: (reasoning here).
I guess now I need to rebut the normal blather after such a comment.
"If u don lik ESO why u open ur kake whole?!" - Because, after 19 pages and no one else had, I helped define the problem or argument so that the various parties could poke each other's eyes out with stunning logic. (And yes, I couldn't type that with a straight face.)
"2 lawng dun't read" - OK. I understand that reading is not the skill that it once was, however, as we're conversing in written text, perhaps you should do me the same courtesy as I've done you. I read 19 long pages of this. Mine, at least, makes sense and is (hopefully) coherent. Reading is the most valuable skill you have.
"I'm not in class 1 or 2 you describe, therefore you're wrong!" - No. If you say you're not in class 1 or 2, you're in class 2. That makes you a maverick. This is a binary state. We all have to live with labels sometimes. This is one.
(Paraphrase) "Ur so smawrt and I don't lik it/u/ur mama!" - I will just have to live with that.
"You're wrong (reason)!" - An excellent beginning and I'd be happy to have an intelligent argument with you. In fact, horror of horrors, I might be wrong. >8)
"U r jus a troawl" - *sigh* No. My troll hat is covered in blood and you don't want to see it.
"U thank u knaw it awl!" - LOL. It kills me that people refuse to understand all that does is make the statement "I am purposefully dense and ignorant" to the world.
Comments
This is a good rule!
A small sized, West Coast, RvR guild.
www.citadelguild.com"Awww! But Maw, I dun wannned to show off my new pistol in Sunday School!"
well they have to have something to complain about, amirite?
although, it is a legit concern for some, its better than complaining about TESO being a Daoc clone and spreading misinformation like a few have been doing around here.
some people are obviously over dramatic about it, but that's just the mmorpg.com forums for ya.
Hunh.
Before I decided to weigh in on this, I read every post prior.
I'm surprised at the length of this thread.
So, I guess I'll weigh in on a few things. But first:
01) I like the Elder Scrolls games and have played them for quite some time.
02) I have NO interest in playing them as an MMORPG.
02a) If I did, I would (as usual) divorce ESO from Elder Scrolls. Being unable to do that will inevitably lead to disappointment. One cannot be the other. You can't design a single-player game for an MMORPG. I do the same thing with books being turned into movies and comics (or graphic novels) being transferred as well.
03) Caliburn's argument that 22 = 2+2 = 4 actually *IS* correct, based on your outlook. That adding schema has been used for thousands of years. It is called Gematria. Regardless if YOU believe it is correct or not (and an added insult since your picture, I believe, is of Merlin), it is very bad form to use it as an argument.
Anyway, ESO I'm uninterested in. Faction lock, therefore, I'm uninterested in.
What I am interested in is the astounding lack of logic in my fellow augmenters:
A rule, as applied to games could be defined as: a principle or regulation governing conduct, procedure, action, or arrangement.
Along with this, why do we have them? They are the basis for society. An MMORPG aims to be a society; therefore it WILL have rules.
Some rules are an understood creation (such as selling in the Commons in EQ1, for example), and some are coded in.
In the second instance, we have enforced locks on societies (and speaking different languages in some settings). Functionally, this isolates the communities and creates the idea of friction where there is none.
My guess is they felt this needed to be done to foster the idea that those sides are at war. In reality, however, such things don't often go as planned. German and US soldiers, for example, exchanged presents across no-mans land in WW II.
In any event, if you like the idea of faction locks or choosing races, they could (and likely will) put in a method (or quest series) for you to change factions with that character. Would that help your concerns?
Arguing ... whatever it was you were attempting about rules is inconsequential. Rules, as such in our instance, define a society as a set of agreements between people that allow for rational discourse and action.
I feel compelled to state the obvious: some people like rules less than others. In fact, some people like society less than others. Mankind (and animals) differ on societal norms.
Along this same thread, some people ENJOY rules and worn paths more than others.
For instance, dear readers, consider the following words in regard to yourself:
Ordinary, Normal, Established, Familiar.
How did they make you feel when applied to yourself?
Abnormal, Extraordinary, Unusual, Exceptional.
How did they make you feel when applied to yourself?
If you liked the first, you're likely a rules-oriented person. The second, you're likely something of a maverick.
These two camps are never going to see eye-to-eye. Historically, they separated themselves.
That having been said, arguing for or against some merit (or in fact an entire game) actually has value.
Sometimes those people are stating how they feel about a game to a group of their peers and look for approval in other people saying "Yes!". That isn't bad. It is a societal behavior.
Sometimes people feel compelled to make their displeasure known in order to avert what they see as a calamity. That's also valid and societal.
Sometimes people are just attempting to prod other people into responding as they feel they need attention. You guessed it, societal.
The point I was attempting to get across in all of this is: rules are necessary for ANY human interaction. Language, for instance, is a set of rules (or agreements if that makes you feel better) as is decorum.
Continuing, rules in games are a necessity but not necessarily written or coded by the game creators.
The creators, in the case of the ever-contentious faction-lock, decided that they needed to impress upon the player base how deeply ingrained the conflict is currently.
In order to alleviate race-lock concerns, they might grant some freedom (as has been done in other games) by giving a group of quests to change sides. Then again, they might not.
What the OP was attempting to argue (along with everyone else, supposedly) was the merits or flaws in that decision.
In that argument, there are two stances:
01) I don't like faction lock. Because: (reasoning here), or
02) I like faction lock. Because: (reasoning here).
I guess now I need to rebut the normal blather after such a comment.
"If u don lik ESO why u open ur kake whole?!" - Because, after 19 pages and no one else had, I helped define the problem or argument so that the various parties could poke each other's eyes out with stunning logic. (And yes, I couldn't type that with a straight face.)
"2 lawng dun't read" - OK. I understand that reading is not the skill that it once was, however, as we're conversing in written text, perhaps you should do me the same courtesy as I've done you. I read 19 long pages of this. Mine, at least, makes sense and is (hopefully) coherent. Reading is the most valuable skill you have.
"I'm not in class 1 or 2 you describe, therefore you're wrong!" - No. If you say you're not in class 1 or 2, you're in class 2. That makes you a maverick. This is a binary state. We all have to live with labels sometimes. This is one.
(Paraphrase) "Ur so smawrt and I don't lik it/u/ur mama!" - I will just have to live with that.
"You're wrong (reason)!" - An excellent beginning and I'd be happy to have an intelligent argument with you. In fact, horror of horrors, I might be wrong. >8)
"U r jus a troawl" - *sigh* No. My troll hat is covered in blood and you don't want to see it.
"U thank u knaw it awl!" - LOL. It kills me that people refuse to understand all that does is make the statement "I am purposefully dense and ignorant" to the world.
I agree, that is pretty much what most of the arguments come down to. It has evolved beyond that though. Now it is more of a
1) I don't like faction lock because of reason, and I would suggest to the devs to allow option XYZ so I too can have fun
versus
2) I like faction lock because of reason, and I feel threatened by the suggestions those who don't like faction lock are presenting here
Whether or not the suggestions are really bad for the game and its design is debatable, but I think this is what is happening right now.
Btw, what you wrote after what I quoted was unnecessary, unless you wanted to show how much of an internet forum veteran you are