With respect to 2 vs 3 team PvP:

I'm pretty sure the whole 3-team concept comes from Dark Age of Camelot, which supposedly had amazing PvP. The claim from people who advocated for 3 team PvP was that it resulted in more balanced matches because the two losing teams would gang up on the winning team.

Personally, I'm not convinced it actually plays out like that very often. More often than not, what I see is the losing teams basically fighting amongst themselves while the winning team takes advantage by either focusing on the objective or killing off their weakened/distracted opponents.

the1andonlyskwex wrote: »

With respect to 2 vs 3 team PvP:

I'm pretty sure the whole 3-team concept comes from Dark Age of Camelot, which supposedly had amazing PvP. The claim from people who advocated for 3 team PvP was that it resulted in more balanced matches because the two losing teams would gang up on the winning team.

Personally, I'm not convinced it actually plays out like that very often. More often than not, what I see is the losing teams basically fighting amongst themselves while the winning team takes advantage by either focusing on the objective or killing off their weakened/distracted opponents.

I played DAoC, and the Cyrodiil concept was probably taken from DAoC as it's the very close to the three realm pvp system. The only, difference is that ESO has one pvp zone, while in DAoC each realm had it's own pvp enabled zone. There was also darkness falls which could be compared to Imperial City.

DAoC got large scale pvp "right", so it was a good concept to draw from. They should have looked at games that got instanced pvp right when it came time to implement that (WoW, Rift), but unfortunately we ended up with 4v4v4.