[Discussion] Imperial City: What We THINK We Know by Dominoid

Dominoid

Attorneyatlawl wrote: »

@Dominoid , what did you see in the map pictures you mined that made you think the sewers have pve-only sections? I'm not spotting it offhand . EDIT: I'd seen the posts you made about this stuff before and enjoyed it, by the way . Thank you!

"The sewers are pretty much a huge long public dungeon . . . . we're pretty happy with it's kind of a reward zone. Pretty much the fact of once you get access to it, you can go in there with one or two players, have a good time. It's not ncessarily something that is hardcore that's going to require a group or more to run through the content. We want as many people to experience it."

- Brian Wheeler

12m 50s In This Guild Summit Audio

There is some other discussion in there about the PVE only sections of the sewers, but calling them a super long public dungeon pretty much cements it for me. So I didn't see anything per se in the maps, as much as looking at the maps with the Guild Summit audio fresh in my mind to decipher what I believe to be happening.

DragonBorn69

Nice research man good stuff

Attorneyatlawl

Dominoid wrote: »

Attorneyatlawl wrote: »

@Dominoid , what did you see in the map pictures you mined that made you think the sewers have pve-only sections? I'm not spotting it offhand . EDIT: I'd seen the posts you made about this stuff before and enjoyed it, by the way . Thank you!

"The sewers are pretty much a huge long public dungeon . . . . we're pretty happy with it's kind of a reward zone. Pretty much the fact of once you get access to it, you can go in there with one or two players, have a good time. It's not ncessarily something that is hardcore that's going to require a group or more to run through the content. We want as many people to experience it."

- Brian Wheeler

12m 50s In This Guild Summit Audio

There is some other discussion in there about the PVE only sections of the sewers, but calling them a super long public dungeon pretty much cements it for me. So I didn't see anything per se in the maps, as much as looking at the maps with the Guild Summit audio fresh in my mind to decipher what I believe to be happening.

Thanks a lot for the source. That does imply it probably is pve-oriented, but there are pvp-enabled public dungeons in Cyrodiil, too... so I could see it being either way. We'll know soon enough from the sound of it! Again, I appreciate the effort you put into bringing all of this information into a super-easy-to-enjoy format.

alainjbrennanb16_ESO

Let me get this correct i might be a bit dum, we can't get in to the imp city unless we hold all six keeps, thats what i read. If thats the case then there will be an up roar, you are telling sub players that are in campaigns where there alliance never has all six keeps they can not get to the new content, if that is the case big mistake, you will lose a lot of people because of that and have a lot of complaints. secondly the op is saying about ganking etc, which as an Community Ambassador should not be saying. As saying this it makes it clear that zos says this is ok. The new content should be open to all who have paid for it not this if its correct.

Mos-De-Atmo

Awesome info! Can't wait for it. I guess it will come to the PTS first though, as it should.

Dominoid

alainjbrennanb16_ESO wrote: »

secondly the op is saying about ganking etc, which as an Community Ambassador should not be saying. As saying this it makes it clear that zos says this is ok. The new content should be open to all who have paid for it not this if its correct.

I'm an ambassador not a developer. It doesn't indicate a damn thing. Also what is wrong with ganking? It's an integral part of pvp gameplay right now. I think you may be confusing ganking with griefing.

Fecius

Oh, I was hoping that Arena would be a Trial... #NeedNewTrial...

And yep, thank you for investigation and gathering all this information.

Attorneyatlawl

Dominoid wrote: »

alainjbrennanb16_ESO wrote: »

secondly the op is saying about ganking etc, which as an Community Ambassador should not be saying. As saying this it makes it clear that zos says this is should be ope
n to all who have paid for it not this if its correct.

I'm an ambassador not a developer. It doesn't indicate a damn thing. Also what is wrong with ganking? It's an integral part of pvp gameplay right now. I think you may be confusing ganking with griefing.

Small scale PVP is a key part of what makes Cyrodiil fun for many of us. Ganking isn't anything unusual at all, like you said... It's a normal part of pvp in most games where it isn't completely instanced. And there is equal access opportunity to everyone. The city just has to be unlocked through the normal course of gameplay. It is a pvp zone, after all . If some people aren't keen on PvP in a zone designed around that and a mix of pve inside of the PVP zones.... Then they may want to pass on it, or know full well that if they aren't going to contribute to their alliance opening the way into the city, they'll be dependent on other people doing it for them. Hardly much different than a raid, which needs other people too .

If new solo oriented pve only content is someone's interest, orsinium is due out this year, too, and fits that bill. The Imperial City will contain a sizable amount of pve areas as dominoid has shown, but it's not a solo experience give it is smack dab in the center of a brutal war zone called Cyrodiil . Most of the game world already is wide open for solo questing. But if that's your only interest, playing an mmorpg continuously isn't really the best choice of how to use your gaming time in my opinion. You can always just check back in given that there's no subscription very easily once something you like the look of hits.

Replayable multi-player mechanics and zones are a very important thing for an mmorpg to add. I for one am excited to see it coming in at long last. It's been no short wait but it's looking more and more that it will have been worth it !

P. S. As already pointed out, Ambassadors are other players in the community. We are not ZOS .

BuggeX

Nice Work.

•Stendarr: Grants increased Stamina Regeneration while wielding a Shield for the blessed and nearby group members

does this meen i will have stam regen while blocking? even after they gona remove the Stamina reg while blocking?

Septimus_Magna

Dominoid wrote: »

Attorneyatlawl wrote: »

@Dominoid , what did you see in the map pictures you mined that made you think the sewers have pve-only sections? I'm not spotting it offhand . EDIT: I'd seen the posts you made about this stuff before and enjoyed it, by the way . Thank you!

"The sewers are pretty much a huge long public dungeon . . . . we're pretty happy with it's kind of a reward zone. Pretty much the fact of once you get access to it, you can go in there with one or two players, have a good time. It's not ncessarily something that is hardcore that's going to require a group or more to run through the content. We want as many people to experience it."

- Brian Wheeler

12m 50s In This Guild Summit Audio

There is some other discussion in there about the PVE only sections of the sewers, but calling them a super long public dungeon pretty much cements it for me. So I didn't see anything per se in the maps, as much as looking at the maps with the Guild Summit audio fresh in my mind to decipher what I believe to be happening.

I hope it will be more difficult than the current public dungeons though, even "group" challenges can be completed solo if you have a decent build, not to mention how easy its to kill the bosses.

Bashev

BuggeX wrote: »

Nice Work.

•Stendarr: Grants increased Stamina Regeneration while wielding a Shield for the blessed and nearby group members

does this meen i will have stam regen while blocking? even after they gona remove the Stamina reg while blocking?

I really hope that this is the case.

chevalierknight

My magica nightblades going to go all butcherbay in the sewers riddic style

Enodoc

Bashev wrote: »

BuggeX wrote: »

Nice Work.

•Stendarr: Grants increased Stamina Regeneration while wielding a Shield for the blessed and nearby group members

does this meen i will have stam regen while blocking? even after they gona remove the Stamina reg while blocking?

I really hope that this is the case.

Wait for the official info drop to confirm the buff details, then ask that as a question for Wrobel in this week's ESO Live

alainjbrennanb16_ESO wrote: »

Let me get this correct i might be a bit dum, we can't get in to the imp city unless we hold all six keeps, thats what i read. If thats the case then there will be an up roar, you are telling sub players that are in campaigns where there alliance never has all six keeps they can not get to the new content, [...]

Dominoid wrote: »

You would have a whole section of population playing in Cyrodiil that could care less about owning the home keeps if they couldn't access the sewers and to me that spells bad trouble when "playing the map" in Cyrodiil.

Indeed. And that's why it should be completely either/or and not a mix of both.
Either it's paid content and everyone has access, regardless of keeps, or it's free content and access is dependent on (and reward for) home keep ownership.

SLy_Kyti

Thank you for this interesting and informative thread @Dominoid. Well done. Almost salivating at the thought of what's to come.

I thought, if I remember correctly (reading, listening to AmA etc) that there is indeed a "safe zone" for each faction and that access to the dungeons (albeit 3 different sides of the map) was made available by owning those adjacent areas of Imperial City. In other words- Owning the Market district enabled access to the dungeons on that side. Hrm...we'll soon see.
Again thanks for your efforts.

alainjbrennanb16_ESO

Dominoid wrote: »

alainjbrennanb16_ESO wrote: »

secondly the op is saying about ganking etc, which as an Community Ambassador should not be saying. As saying this it makes it clear that zos says this is ok. The new content should be open to all who have paid for it not this if its correct.

I'm an ambassador not a developer. It doesn't indicate a damn thing. Also what is wrong with ganking? It's an integral part of pvp gameplay right now. I think you may be confusing ganking with griefing.

maybe i am, so i get it right in fututre if you have 3-4 players run pve in there and they are set up by a full raid that is griefing (A griefer is a player in a multiplayer video game who deliberately irritates and harasses other players within the game, using aspects of the game in unintended ways.A griefer derives pleasure primarily or exclusively from the act of annoying other users, and as such is a particular nuisance in online gaming communities, since griefers often cannot be deterred by penalties related to in-game goals.In the culture of massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPG) in Taiwan, such as Lineage, griefers are known as "white-eyed"—a metaphor meaning that their eyes have no pupils and so they look without seeing. Behaviors other than griefing which can cause players to be stigmatized as "white-eyed" include cursing, cheating, stealing, and unreasonable killing.) and not ganking (It is a word commonly used in online video games, usualy used in an MMORPG. Ganking is the process in which a group of charecters gang up on one or more players that do not have a chance to defend themselves, Or when one high level player does the same action to a player way below his or her own level)
like i said so i get it right being gang up by a full raid or a blinker on 2-4 players is as said above thankyou

Etaniel

alainjbrennanb16_ESO wrote: »

Let me get this correct i might be a bit dum, we can't get in to the imp city unless we hold all six keeps, thats what i read. If thats the case then there will be an up roar, you are telling sub players that are in campaigns where there alliance never has all six keeps they can not get to the new content, if that is the case big mistake, you will lose a lot of people because of that and have a lot of complaints. secondly the op is saying about ganking etc, which as an Community Ambassador should not be saying. As saying this it makes it clear that zos says this is ok. The new content should be open to all who have paid for it not this if its correct.

The new content IS open to every subscriber... Just like you can't reach a trial's last boss unless you kill the first ones, you can't reach the imperial city unless you grab some keeps... It blows my mind that people can't understand this and want everything handed to them..
If your alliance can't get 6 keeps then it's your bloody fault, not ZoS'.

alainjbrennanb16_ESO wrote: »

Dominoid wrote: »

alainjbrennanb16_ESO wrote: »

secondly the op is saying about ganking etc, which as an Community Ambassador should not be saying. As saying this it makes it clear that zos says this is ok. The new content should be open to all who have paid for it not this if its correct.

I'm an ambassador not a developer. It doesn't indicate a damn thing. Also what is wrong with ganking? It's an integral part of pvp gameplay right now. I think you may be confusing ganking with griefing.

maybe i am, so i get it right in fututre if you have 3-4 players run pve in there and they are set up by a full raid that is griefing (A griefer is a player in a multiplayer video game who deliberately irritates and harasses other players within the game, using aspects of the game in unintended ways.A griefer derives pleasure primarily or exclusively from the act of annoying other users, and as such is a particular nuisance in online gaming communities, since griefers often cannot be deterred by penalties related to in-game goals.In the culture of massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPG) in Taiwan, such as Lineage, griefers are known as "white-eyed"—a metaphor meaning that their eyes have no pupils and so they look without seeing. Behaviors other than griefing which can cause players to be stigmatized as "white-eyed" include cursing, cheating, stealing, and unreasonable killing.) and not ganking (It is a word commonly used in online video games, usualy used in an MMORPG. Ganking is the process in which a group of charecters gang up on one or more players that do not have a chance to defend themselves, Or when one high level player does the same action to a player way below his or her own level)
like i said so i get it right being gang up by a full raid or a blinker on 2-4 players is as said above thankyou

You can consider "unreasonable killing" to be griefing if you want, but it still fits in the rules of PvP

alainjbrennanb16_ESO

Etaniel wrote: »

alainjbrennanb16_ESO wrote: »

Let me get this correct i might be a bit dum, we can't get in to the imp city unless we hold all six keeps, thats what i read. If thats the case then there will be an up roar, you are telling sub players that are in campaigns where there alliance never has all six keeps they can not get to the new content, if that is the case big mistake, you will lose a lot of people because of that and have a lot of complaints. secondly the op is saying about ganking etc, which as an Community Ambassador should not be saying. As saying this it makes it clear that zos says this is ok. The new content should be open to all who have paid for it not this if its correct.

The new content IS open to every subscriber... Just like you can't reach a trial's last boss unless you kill the first ones, you can't reach the imperial city unless you grab some keeps... It blows my mind that people can't understand this and want everything handed to them..
If your alliance can't get 6 keeps then it's your bloody fault, not ZoS'.

alainjbrennanb16_ESO wrote: »

Dominoid wrote: »

alainjbrennanb16_ESO wrote: »

secondly the op is saying about ganking etc, which as an Community Ambassador should not be saying. As saying this it makes it clear that zos says this is ok. The new content should be open to all who have paid for it not this if its correct.

I'm an ambassador not a developer. It doesn't indicate a damn thing. Also what is wrong with ganking? It's an integral part of pvp gameplay right now. I think you may be confusing ganking with griefing.

maybe i am, so i get it right in fututre if you have 3-4 players run pve in there and they are set up by a full raid that is griefing (A griefer is a player in a multiplayer video game who deliberately irritates and harasses other players within the game, using aspects of the game in unintended ways.A griefer derives pleasure primarily or exclusively from the act of annoying other users, and as such is a particular nuisance in online gaming communities, since griefers often cannot be deterred by penalties related to in-game goals.In the culture of massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPG) in Taiwan, such as Lineage, griefers are known as "white-eyed"—a metaphor meaning that their eyes have no pupils and so they look without seeing. Behaviors other than griefing which can cause players to be stigmatized as "white-eyed" include cursing, cheating, stealing, and unreasonable killing.) and not ganking (It is a word commonly used in online video games, usualy used in an MMORPG. Ganking is the process in which a group of charecters gang up on one or more players that do not have a chance to defend themselves, Or when one high level player does the same action to a player way below his or her own level)
like i said so i get it right being gang up by a full raid or a blinker on 2-4 players is as said above thankyou

You can consider "unreasonable killing" to be griefing if you want, but it still fits in the rules of PvP

all i was, was stating a fact to the op that it will cause it alot and he should not be saying, as for me if i get ganked i call for rest of guild we then go find player and kill him over and over, then in public chat shout out his character name

Kharnamatic

Can we get a gentlemen's agreement going? Each campaign going forward is agreed to have one main faction only playing on it, so the entire community can enjoy Imperial City in peace.

Say Haderus: agreed to be held by AD
Azur'as Star: DC
etc.

People have been waiting for new content so long since Craglorn one whole year ago. We don't want to deny the community the chance to explore this new content just because of some PvPers, who can always PvP outside in Cyrodill like the mouth-breathers they are.

I know this is what they do in other MMOs. e.g. in WoW, PvP servers usually have 90% of the population one faction, and Ashran (their version of Cyrodill) is dominated by one faction only depending on server so that people can jump in, quickly gear up with unopposed victories and enjoy the rest of the game (the real pvp, arenas).

Etaniel

Kharnamatic wrote: »

Can we get a gentlemen's agreement going? Each campaign going forward is agreed to have one main faction only playing on it, so the entire community can enjoy Imperial City in peace.

Say Haderus: agreed to be held by AD
Azur'as Star: DC
etc.

People have been waiting for new content so long since Craglorn one whole year ago. We don't want to deny the community the chance to explore this new content just because of some PvPers, who can always PvP outside in Cyrodill like the mouth-breathers they are.

I know this is what they do in other MMOs. e.g. in WoW, PvP servers usually have 90% of the population one faction, and Ashran (their version of Cyrodill) is dominated by one faction only depending on server so that people can jump in, quickly gear up with unopposed victories and enjoy the rest of the game (the real pvp, arenas).

You can't apply Wow logic here... Because indeed arenas are their only pvp, whereas here Cyrodil is our only PvP zone, so no, we can't have a gentleman's agreement.

bertenburnyb16_ESO

u said to gain acces to the IC, u need to have control of all 6 home keeps, was this changed from the original?
it used to be have control of all 6 center keeps around the city

Contraptions

Nice summary.

And I just realised the Valkyn Skoria set is actually in the Xivkyn Motif, albeit recoloured.

Sneaky ZOS, once again sneaking in motifs that we cant craft yet onto NPCs or items. First it was Dwemer on Foreman Llothan, and now this.

Can't wait for IC to be out too!

SLy_Kyti

alainjbrennanb16_ESO wrote: »

all i was, was stating a fact to the op that it will cause it alot and he should not be saying, as for me if i get ganked i call for rest of guild we then go find player and kill him over and over, then in public chat shout out his character name

Lighten up Francis!

https://youtu.be/0OnpkDWbeJs

Enodoc

bertenburnyb16_ESO wrote: »

u said to gain acces to the IC, u need to have control of all 6 home keeps, was this changed from the original?
it used to be have control of all 6 center keeps around the city

@bertenburnyb16_ESO That's the requirement for crowning an Emperor. Crowning an Emperor and accessing Imperial City have different requirements.

SLy_Kyti wrote: »

I thought, if I remember correctly (reading, listening to AmA etc) that there is indeed a "safe zone" for each faction and that access to the dungeons (albeit 3 different sides of the map) was made available by owning those adjacent areas of Imperial City. In other words- Owning the Market district enabled access to the dungeons on that side.

That would indeed be interesting.... Say for example that owning the Market District enabled access to the EP sewer section for whoever controlled that district - that would open up PvP between the owner and EP, since that section is connected to the EP sewer entrance in Cyrodiil, but only if EP control all their home keeps. If EP don't control their home keeps, then only the owner of Market could access the EP sewers. If EP owned Market, then the EP sewers would essentially be "safe" for EP players (barring any leftover enemies).

bertenburnyb16_ESO

Enodoc wrote: »

bertenburnyb16_ESO wrote: »

u said to gain acces to the IC, u need to have control of all 6 home keeps, was this changed from the original?
it used to be have control of all 6 center keeps around the city

@bertenburnyb16_ESO That's the requirement for crowning an Emperor. Crowning an Emperor and accessing Imperial City have different requirements.

SLy_Kyti wrote: »

I thought, if I remember correctly (reading, listening to AmA etc) that there is indeed a "safe zone" for each faction and that access to the dungeons (albeit 3 different sides of the map) was made available by owning those adjacent areas of Imperial City. In other words- Owning the Market district enabled access to the dungeons on that side.

That would indeed be interesting.... Say for example that owning the Market District enabled access to the EP sewer section for whoever controlled that district - that would open up PvP between the owner and EP, since that section is connected to the EP sewer entrance in Cyrodiil, but only if EP control all their home keeps. If EP don't control their home keeps, then only the owner of Market could access the EP sewers. If EP owned Market, then the EP sewers would essentially be "safe" for EP players (barring any leftover enemies).

I know it is for emp,
but it also used to be speculated to gain acces for IC, in this way, acces to IC would revolve the whole time, since alot of players from the faction who had acces would go in IC, and lose alot of players in Cyro, meaning the other alliances would have it easyer to get the 6 center keeps (since population between Cyro and IC is shared) and thus the second alliance gains acces, and start killing whats left of the previous alliance in IC, in the mean time the 3th alliance has the most chance of taking the 6 keeps since the other 2 alliances are still fighting it out in IC, and round it goes
your proposed acces of the home keeps means theres a very good chance nobody will take any keeps and everybody will just get into IC, except for some dedicated pvp players if they even get on a map (the Q's will be awfull I imagine) so that would make it very counter productive for having people pvp in cyro

Enodoc

bertenburnyb16_ESO wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

bertenburnyb16_ESO wrote: »

u said to gain acces to the IC, u need to have control of all 6 home keeps, was this changed from the original?
it used to be have control of all 6 center keeps around the city

@bertenburnyb16_ESO That's the requirement for crowning an Emperor. Crowning an Emperor and accessing Imperial City have different requirements.

I know it is for emp,
but it also used to be speculated to gain acces for IC, in this way, acces to IC would revolve the whole time, since alot of players from the faction who had acces would go in IC, and lose alot of players in Cyro, meaning the other alliances would have it easyer to get the 6 center keeps (since population between Cyro and IC is shared) and thus the second alliance gains acces, and start killing whats left of the previous alliance in IC, in the mean time the 3th alliance has the most chance of taking the 6 keeps since the other 2 alliances are still fighting it out in IC, and round it goes
your proposed acces of the home keeps means theres a very good chance nobody will take any keeps and everybody will just get into IC, except for some dedicated pvp players if they even get on a map (the Q's will be awfull I imagine) so that would make it very counter productive for having people pvp in cyro

Yeah, you may be right actually, I think I remember that being suggested a while back. I think that it was decided against though so more people could get into IC more frequently, and so that PvP was more of a constant thing in the city, rather than just "IC is ours now, let's wipe out the previous guys and have ourselves a PvE zone".

bertenburnyb16_ESO

Enodoc wrote: »

bertenburnyb16_ESO wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

bertenburnyb16_ESO wrote: »

u said to gain acces to the IC, u need to have control of all 6 home keeps, was this changed from the original?
it used to be have control of all 6 center keeps around the city

@bertenburnyb16_ESO That's the requirement for crowning an Emperor. Crowning an Emperor and accessing Imperial City have different requirements.

I know it is for emp,
but it also used to be speculated to gain acces for IC, in this way, acces to IC would revolve the whole time, since alot of players from the faction who had acces would go in IC, and lose alot of players in Cyro, meaning the other alliances would have it easyer to get the 6 center keeps (since population between Cyro and IC is shared) and thus the second alliance gains acces, and start killing whats left of the previous alliance in IC, in the mean time the 3th alliance has the most chance of taking the 6 keeps since the other 2 alliances are still fighting it out in IC, and round it goes
your proposed acces of the home keeps means theres a very good chance nobody will take any keeps and everybody will just get into IC, except for some dedicated pvp players if they even get on a map (the Q's will be awfull I imagine) so that would make it very counter productive for having people pvp in cyro

Yeah, you may be right actually, I think I remember that being suggested a while back. I think that it was decided against though so more people could get into IC more frequently, and so that PvP was more of a constant thing in the city, rather than just "IC is ours now, let's wipe out the previous guys and have ourselves a PvE zone".

ah could be
I think the Center keep idea is the best to keep Cyro fighting tho, and it will flip quick I guess
althought the home keep idea is offcourse easyer, it would kill Cyro pvp I think
anyhow since they are gonna change scoring per campain, maybe they could also test both systems on different campains

pmn100b16_ESO

I wonder how IC will help with the lag in Cyrodiil

Enodoc

pmn100b16_ESO wrote: »

I wonder how IC will help with the lag in Cyrodiil

More players in IC => less players in Cyro => less lag?
The cutting down of server/client transfers by reducing LoS checks should help too.

Krision

OMG. excelent notes

pmn100b16_ESO

Enodoc wrote: »

pmn100b16_ESO wrote: »

I wonder how IC will help with the lag in Cyrodiil

More players in IC => less players in Cyro => less lag?
The cutting down of server/client transfers by reducing LoS checks should help too.

You mean they might unintentionally fix their game? That would be nice, then they could raise pop caps back up, but I doubt it. The unnecessary LoS checks should have been found and removed several months ago. How they went this long without checking AoE skill coding I don't know. At least if loads of PvEers start complaining about lag, something might actually get done.