Imperial City Info Released

marcmyb14_ESO

Spectral_Lord wrote: »

marcmyb14_ESO wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

marcmyb14_ESO wrote: »

Attorneyatlawl wrote: »

Don't then. You can buy orsinium when it launches soon. We already had numerous pve additions and none to pvp. That's the great thing about the model here... if a dlc package doesn't offer what you like, you can keep playing without buying it.

I'm much more concerned as to the XP gap between mob grinding in pve versus what we get for pvp'ing. Will this be brought to better parity with the imperial city patch, @ZOS_BrianWheeler ?

Nice logic here. If you don't like it don't buy it. Sure, that works, and then when all of your friends/guildies are vr16 with all the best gear, etc and need people to the dungeons with, you'll just say "sorry, I don't have it." that'll totally work out. I can even foresee people getting kicked from guilds because of this.

Just pay your guildies in gold to have them craft some VR16 IC gear for you and get them to mail it over. Problem solved.

Still missing the point.

Asking us to pay for PvE content that is gated behind PvP is just bad.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but aren't the other two areas - Craglorn and City of Ash - solely PvE oriented?

Not sure if troll...

But I don't believe Craglorn and its trials are being included in the scaling to VR16. City of Ash, maybe, since it's a vet dungeon and they said they're scaling those. But still, even if these WERE scaled to VR16, they're already fairly old and PvE requires fresh content updates on a regular basis (Most games give you new content every 3-4 months).

PvP on the other hand, does not usually need frequent content updates and does fine on its own. That's not to say that PvP shouldn't get updates, but to compare PvP updates and PvE updates is kind of ridiculous, because PvE content gets consumed fairly quick and gets old and boring while PvP tends to stay fresh due to the dynamic and competitive nature of it (the players create the content, basically).

So for those saying "PvE has gotten so many updates and PvP hasn't gotten any", I counter that with PvE hasn't really gotten that much at all when compared to other MMOs and PvP, by the very nature of it, shouldn't need many content updates aside from balancing, systems changes, etc.

marcmyb14_ESO

Joy_Division wrote: »

marcmyb14_ESO wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

marcmyb14_ESO wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

marcmyb14_ESO wrote: »

Attorneyatlawl wrote: »

Don't then. You can buy orsinium when it launches soon. We already had numerous pve additions and none to pvp. That's the great thing about the model here... if a dlc package doesn't offer what you like, you can keep playing without buying it.

I'm much more concerned as to the XP gap between mob grinding in pve versus what we get for pvp'ing. Will this be brought to better parity with the imperial city patch, @ZOS_BrianWheeler ?

Nice logic here. If you don't like it don't buy it. Sure, that works, and then when all of your friends/guildies are vr16 with all the best gear, etc and need people to the dungeons with, you'll just say "sorry, I don't have it." that'll totally work out. I can even foresee people getting kicked from guilds because of this.

Just pay your guildies in gold to have them craft some VR16 IC gear for you and get them to mail it over. Problem solved.

Still missing the point.

Asking us to pay for PvE content that is gated behind PvP is just bad.

I guess I just don't see it that way. I see it as PvP content where there is also a bit of PvE stuff to do, just like the rest of Cyrodiil.

That's fine but that's not what it is. It is PvE content. An entire city with PvE quests, two PvE only group dungeons that drop gear tokens and other items/sets that people will want for their character regardless of whether or not they PvE or PvP.

I don't know how many other MMOs you've played but I've played many, and did endgame raiding in quite a few of them. Most of them have separate gear for PvP and PvE. In fact, the PvE sets are usually no good for PvP and vice versa due to differences in stats (such as a certain stat that is only useful in PvP). In those games, PvE dungeons are completely separate from PvP and drop nothing a PvP'er would want.

The only way to usually get PvP gear is to... guess what? PvP, and then use the currency from PvP to buy the gear, which is basically how the current system works, except that in ESO, PvP gear is best in slot for PvE'ers as well.

The problem with this system is that people are already forced to either PvP or pay lots of gold to buy PvP gear if they want their best in slot gear. This should never be the case. You should never have to PvP to get PvE gear or PvE to get PvP gear. That's just simply bad design.

Imperial city takes it to a whole new level, by requiring PvE'ers to PvP (if your faction doesn't own keeps) to get to the city, and PvP'ers to do PvE dungeons that they would otherwise not be interested in.

The fact remains, if either a pure PvE'er or a pure PvP'er want their best in slot gear, they will be required to do something they aren't interested in.

It's bad, mmkay?

Then leave and go play an MMO that suits your preference.

I for one like the fact that PvP and PvE are intertwined. More than that, I love it.

The world does not revolve around your preferences and thus it is not "simply bad design." Rather it is a design that is contrary to your opinion, that's all.

If i wanted to find another MMO, I would have. I like ESO though. I like the style, the combat, the class/skill system, etc. Most other MMOs are pretty boring in comparison. But they did get gear right.

I know plenty of people who are simply not happy with having to get their BiS gear from PvP because they aren't PvP'ers. That doesn't mean we should just find another game.

A better solution is simple. ESO should either have equivalent gear drop in PvE (trial gear for example is pretty bad), or have PvE and PvP-specific gear sets so that way everyone could be happy.

Isn't that a better solution to telling "if you don't like it you can leave"? Do you really want ZOS to lose more customers?

Rinmaethodain

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

So a question for either @ZOS_GinaBruno or @ZOS_BrianWheeler - does the paywall mean that ownership of specific keeps in Cyrodiil to gain access is no longer on the agenda?

On PTS we will be testing access the following access rules and deciding if certain campaigns have different Access rules or be universal across all Campaigns:

• Everyone has Access
• Access granted by owning your native 6 keeps
• Access granted by owning your native 6 keeps + 1 enemy keep
• Access granted by owning the majority of keeps

For clarification, "Access" means the doors in Cyrodiil around Lake Rumare (non slaughterfish side) that let you into the Sewers/City will let you click on them to go into the Sewers/City or not. These entrances will also be highlighted on your Cyrodiil map.

Im not sure how populated was last PTS when 1.6 was about to go live but wont splitting cyriodiil into 4 camps will make it that there will be barely anyone in each camp or everyone will just crowd in one and stay there?

If this happens then there is risk only one scenario will be properly tested with 'real' competition to gain access while rest of cases will remain untested or results will be false due to low population of campaign?

Maybe better idea would be to have only one campaign where rules regarding access would change periodically

Enodoc

@ZOS_JessicaFolsom @ZOS_BrianWheeler I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere recently -- is capturing Imperial City Districts for your alliance still on the cards?

Bromburak

@ZOS_BrianWheeler

Unfortunately we have campaigns with unbalanced population, lets say groups are camping the access around Lake Rumare, this could result to the fact that people that cannot enter IC might switch campaigns until they find an easier access inside.

Personally I don't mind to fight to get inside, its part of PvP but my concern is that population imbalance would have impact to all campaigns just to gain easy access to IC.

JacksonCarter13

I see what your doing with the 6 + 1 and I like it. Makes pvp outside more essential and it needs to stay that way.

Rinmaethodain

Bromburak wrote: »

@ZOS_BrianWheeler

Unfortunately we have campaigns with unbalanced population, lets say groups are camping the access around Lake Rumare, this could result to the fact that people that cannot enter IC might switch campaigns until they find an easier access inside.

Personally I don't mind to fight to get inside, its part of PvP but my concern is that population imbalance would have impact to all campaigns just to gain easy access to IC.

ZOS made sure to not let easy switching of campaign. They increase cost of changing home camp and i think they make it also harder to switch guest camp? And also no more "travel to player" to other camps.

This way if group of gankers will want to harass other faction players by not letting anyone enter IC you will be stuck in a camp and your access to paid content you spend your money on will be restricted.

Bromburak

MaximusDargus wrote: »

Bromburak wrote: »

@ZOS_BrianWheeler

Unfortunately we have campaigns with unbalanced population, lets say groups are camping the access around Lake Rumare, this could result to the fact that people that cannot enter IC might switch campaigns until they find an easier access inside.

Personally I don't mind to fight to get inside, its part of PvP but my concern is that population imbalance would have impact to all campaigns just to gain easy access to IC.

ZOS made sure to not let easy switching of campaign. They increase cost of changing home camp and i think they make it also harder to switch guest camp? And also no more "travel to player" to other camps.

This doesn't solve the population issue on a current running campaign.
We already have this situation with gates, you out number other factions and keep them under control that way.

When one faction has much more players , there is nothing you can do about possible Rumare access camping.