Zos, Can we get larger battlegrounds?

LegacyDM

I don't like comparing to other games but I think wow got it right. 12v12, 24x24, 48x48 and etc large scale bgs. don't get me wrong, the 4v4v4 is ok and a nice change from cyrodil from time to time for small scale but cyrodil itself is stale. We need even, open field battles with bg objectives. Sieging keeps back and forth is boring. Pvp vs wall is boring. I love the open field battles with even numbers between sej and brk. There is such a sense of accomplishment from beating the other faction Zerg with even numbers on even terms on a level playing field.

We have 3 unused pvp servers on NA. I'm sure you can find a better use for them. Turn one into a large scale bg server. It's a win win. Large Guilds will have incentives to fight. lag will be less due to less people in cyrodil.

ecru

Yeah, that's what I've been advocating for awhile. 12v12 or 8v8 for somewhat larger maps while restricting premades to one per team only, which would mean one strong premade wouldn't be able to completely dominate as they'd have another premade on the other side (hopefully), and 8 other pugs to play with/against.

Same objectives would be fine. Capture points, deathmatch, etc. It works in every other game for a reason.

This would allow for a decent matchmaking system too, which you can't have with three teams since you can't account for how the third team will interact with the other two teams.

brandonv516

Personally I say no thanks. I don't like playing horse simulator to get where I'm going.

Bhaal5

Isnt 12v12 and 48v48, just cyrodiil?

Should have a pvp zone (within or outside cyrodiil, just somewhere it does not effect server performance for cyrodiil)
where its a free for all so guilds can go in to fight other guilds in organised fun matches/competition (player ran)

Kram8ion

Yes it's called cyrodil

ecru

brandonv516 wrote: »

Personally I say no thanks. I don't like playing horse simulator to get where I'm going.

Where did you come up with the idea that all instanced pvp that isn't 4v4v4 would require mounts?

Bhaal5 wrote: »

Isnt 12v12 and 48v48, just cyrodiil?

Should have a pvp zone (within or outside cyrodiil, just somewhere it does not effect server performance for cyrodiil)
where its a free for all so guilds can go in to fight other guilds in organised fun matches/competition (player ran)

No, it isn't Cyrodiil. Cyrodiil isn't instanced, it's a very large static zone, and I have no idea why you would compare any sort of small scale instanced pvp to Cyrodiil.

Kram8ion wrote: »

Yes it's called cyrodil

Again, Cyrodiil isn't instanced, and is huge.

Honestly, have any of you ever pvp'd in any other mmorpg besides ESO? I'm getting the feeling none of you have any experience beyond what you've experienced here for the past few years. There are other games with much, much more popular instanced pvp, who have matches that are larger than one tiny group vs another, and these game modes are the most popular form of pvp.

It's time to think about what it is that makes instanced pvp a huge success in these games, but a failure in ESO.

DosPanchos

LegacyDM wrote: »

I don't like comparing to other games but I think wow got it right. 12v12, 24x24, 48x48 and etc large scale bgs. don't get me wrong, the 4v4v4 is ok and a nice change from cyrodil from time to time for small scale but cyrodil itself is stale. We need even, open field battles with bg objectives. Sieging keeps back and forth is boring. Pvp vs wall is boring. I love the open field battles with even numbers between sej and brk. There is such a sense of accomplishment from beating the other faction Zerg with even numbers on even terms on a level playing field.

We have 3 unused pvp servers on NA. I'm sure you can find a better use for them. Turn one into a large scale bg server. It's a win win. Large Guilds will have incentives to fight. lag will be less due to less people in cyrodil.

I like this idea. I wonder how most people feel about an outright replacement of Cyrodiil...

brandonv516

ecru wrote: »

Where did you come up with the idea that all instanced pvp that isn't 4v4v4 would require mounts?

Oh I don't know, the part suggesting LARGE open field battles in BG. Make them any larger and you will need your mount.

ecru

brandonv516 wrote: »

ecru wrote: »

Where did you come up with the idea that all instanced pvp that isn't 4v4v4 would require mounts?

Oh I don't know, the part suggesting LARGE open field battles in BG. Make them any larger and you will need your mount.

"LARGE" is an approximation, and could have meant anything larger than the current BG maps. Not every map that is larger than the current BG maps would require a mount, but a 12v12 map that may allow mounts (but not require) wouldn't be a bad thing. Taking 20 seconds to get from one end of the map to the other on your mount is not in any way comparable to the long runs you have to endure in Cyrodiil.

Some instanced pvp maps in other games do allow mounts, and some don't. It really depends on the size of the map, but none of these maps in any of these games are anywhere close to being even 5% the size of Cyrodiil.

Either way, 8v8 or 12v12 would solve many of the problems in BG's that we have today, like stolen killing blows, premades doing too well, no viable way to implement proper matchmaking, etc. I'd personally like to see 4v4v4 maps phased out entirely in favor of these modes, but it's very uncommon for a company to say, "We made a mistake, and we're removing and replacing it".

A premade only 4v4 queue could be implemented to satisfy people who want competitive, small-scale pvp. The other larger maps would be for everyone else who just wants to click the queue button and pvp a bit.