There CANNOT be access gates to the Imperial City paid DLC

olemanwinter

I don't even know where to begin with you. Did you even read the original post, or any of my replies on this page for that matter?

Did you just read the title and post?

Cazic wrote: »

olemanwinter wrote: »

BUT I DON'T.

So, you're interested in IC and in PvP, but you don't want to partake in the PvP experience that it provides.

I guess I'll just quote myself.

olemanwinter wrote: »

And this is my frustration:

1/2 the people in here want it to be more like straight PvE content.
(I have no interest in this)

1/2 the people in here want it be a "reward" for PvP domination.
(I have no interest in this)

This is a PvP dlc, so I'd like it to remain PvP focused.

I Just don't want to have to go PvP in 1 place for the chance to go PvP in a 2nd place.

I don't want to have to join a "Bro we smashed their face! Get Wrecked Noob YAH"" type group for a couple hours to get a brief window of access to the Imperial City. Call me crazy, but that's how I feel. And how I feel dictates when I pull out my wallet.

MurrayJnr

I'd like to weigh in as an Australian as it seems like some individuals in this thread do not play in this time zone.

I’ve jumped on during peak server time and I would agree that it’s entirely reasonable that any faction could regularly gain access to IC at those times. However, peak oceanic time is off-peak server time and population imbalance is significantly more pronounced. Even with overland and IC populations being shared, it’s still highly probable and very likely that a DC player playing during those hours would be unable to access IC with heavily gated access.

My vote goes to none or very light restrictions.

sagitter

Get in your head that when a superior zerg force is inside the City, you have the opportunity to retake your home keeps, if all have the acces inside you are going to faceroll the zerg ever and ever. The keeps system it's like a content in the content all for pvp. Do you like lagg and zerg? ok give perma access to all alliance, i'll laugh so hard when you can't do nothing for the lagg.

olemanwinter

sagitter wrote: »

Get in your head that when a superior zerg force is inside the City, you have the opportunity to retake your home keeps, if all have the acces inside you are going to faceroll the zerg ever and ever. The keeps system it's like a content in the content all for pvp. Do you like lagg and zerg? ok give perma access to all alliance, i'll laugh so hard when you can't do nothing for the lagg.

Go on live RIGHT NOW and go to an uncontested campaign. They are dead. There aren't enough members on the losing side to take keeps even without resistance.

I don't have to get your nonsense in my head. I'm not going to be forced to think differently no matter how much you bark at me.

Even if we assume you are correct that once the more powerful alliance goes into the IC the weaker alliance will be able to retake keeps, that still REQUIRES players to spend hours taking keeps in Cyrodiil for the chance to finally get access to the Imperial City.

Nobody wants to do this. Players will either not buy the DLC (my solution), give up on accessing the IC even if they bough it, or just gravitate to the new buff-servers which will be IC access.

I've written this before, but it's worth repeating. Why on earth would you remove PvP buffs from PvE to reduce buff servers and then replace them with an even greater incentive to dominate a campaign and avoid confrontation through imperial city access?

It's not as if this being suggested for a game that currently enjoys balanced PvP. There is no logical reason why this would inspire people to seek out competitive play. It incentivizes the opposite.

See, you need to get in your head that my argument is a MULTI-PART argument. You don't have to agree with me, but don't pretend that addressing one thing makes the rest go away.

sagitter wrote: »

The keeps system it's like a content in the content all for pvp.

Huh? Reading your writing gives me headaches.

sagitter wrote: »

i'll laugh so hard when you can't do nothing for the lagg.

Uhuh. lag is pretty hilarious in this game. So have a good laugh.

Now at this point, I don't think I'll be replying to you further.

KenaPKK

mike.gaziotisb16_ESO wrote: »

A simple solution to the problem US DC are having would be to have 1 campaign in which access to IC is unrestricted. Thus more casual players can home or guest there and always play inside when they feel like it.

But for all other campaigns, there needs to be a lock out mechanism. One of the functions of IC is to work as an incentive to fight for the Cyrodiil map. Another function is to balance out population in campaigns where one faction dominates. You can't remove that.

Also, I personally believe if all factions have access to IC all the time, it will be total chaos in there. Too many players in a relatively small (smaller than the Cyrodiil map) area, too much lag, too much zerging.

So yeah, I feel one unrestricted campaign and one where you have to hold your home keeps is a more balanced solution.

This is dumb. Restricting access in all but one campaign would just make EVERYONE from EVERY alliance want to home or guest and ONLY play in THAT campaign. ZoS would just be contributing even more to the issue of overpopulation in a few campaigns and underpopulation in all the others. It's the path of least resistance.

sadownik

Cazic wrote: »

Restricted access is a good idea, and it's a core element of how the IC is supposed to work. This will create more purpose and tension in Cyro, as well as a more dynamic battlefield. If one faction is controlling IC, their population will be concentrated there, giving the other factions a chance to bounce back. It's a cycle that will run its course several times a day, as others have mentioned.

Some of you seem to be blinded by the whole "I paid for this and you can't tell me how to use it" mentality. It is PvP driven DLC... if you're interested in IC then you're interested in PvP, and if you're interested in PvP then you'll WANT to go fight for the city if your faction doesn't have access to it. The desire to capture it is what drives the content and creates memorable experiences within it. If it's open 24/7 to everyone then it'll just be a gankfest full of randomness... like a constant keep siege but condensed into smaller areas. That doesn't sound all that fun.

For the sake of games continious developement i hope you are right, but somehow i think you strongly undersetimate the situation. Population won the IC access? 15 minutes to get everone who wants to ic - after that another faction comes in. I dont see how it will be any different form gankfest you are describing.

And that is a perfect situation in which population of factions is more or less equal, which is rarely the case. Now afaik people going in dungeons stop counting as pvp campgain population so the ones queued can come in so again - faction with bigger numbers can provide a constant stream of players.

Call me crazy but i see here a perfect recipie for disaster.

Leandor

Read this thread and rethink the function of restricted access to regulate Cyrodiil.

byrom101b16_ESO

olemanwinter wrote: »

I don't even know where to begin with you. Did you even read the original post, or any of my replies on this page for that matter?

Did you just read the title and post?

Cazic wrote: »

olemanwinter wrote: »

BUT I DON'T.

So, you're interested in IC and in PvP, but you don't want to partake in the PvP experience that it provides.

I guess I'll just quote myself.

olemanwinter wrote: »

And this is my frustration:

1/2 the people in here want it to be more like straight PvE content.
(I have no interest in this)

1/2 the people in here want it be a "reward" for PvP domination.
(I have no interest in this)

This is a PvP dlc, so I'd like it to remain PvP focused.

I Just don't want to have to go PvP in 1 place for the chance to go PvP in a 2nd place.

I don't want to have to join a "Bro we smashed their face! Get Wrecked Noob YAH"" type group for a couple hours to get a brief window of access to the Imperial City. Call me crazy, but that's how I feel. And how I feel dictates when I pull out my wallet.

Don't waste your breath debating with this person, they are the type of PvP'er who cannot see past their own navel gazing ego, and unable to put together a decent argument, accuse everyone else of being a 'carebear' the moment they don't agree with their own personal 'one true way'.

My teenage son is more open minded when he's having a fit of hormonal rage, frankly.

AssaultLemming

jnorris91ub17_ESO wrote: »

mike.gaziotisb16_ESO wrote: »

A simple solution to the problem US DC are having would be to have 1 campaign in which access to IC is unrestricted. Thus more casual players can home or guest there and always play inside when they feel like it.

But for all other campaigns, there needs to be a lock out mechanism. One of the functions of IC is to work as an incentive to fight for the Cyrodiil map. Another function is to balance out population in campaigns where one faction dominates. You can't remove that.

Also, I personally believe if all factions have access to IC all the time, it will be total chaos in there. Too many players in a relatively small (smaller than the Cyrodiil map) area, too much lag, too much zerging.

So yeah, I feel one unrestricted campaign and one where you have to hold your home keeps is a more balanced solution.

This is dumb. Restricting access in all but one campaign would just make EVERYONE from EVERY alliance want to home or guest and ONLY play in THAT campaign. ZoS would just be contributing even more to the issue of overpopulation in a few campaigns and underpopulation in all the others. It's the path of least resistance.

Actually this is the best idea imo, make haderus open access. Then incentive people to play the other campaigns by providing a TV stones multiplier for those campaigns. (Or disabling the TV stones multiplier in haderus. Then if your home campaign is getting smashed you can guest on haderus and at least get access to do the quests, get to crafting stations, casual PvP etc.

AssaultLemming

I wonder though...It's possible that the campaigns that don't revolve around keep access might just end up being everyone holding their home keeps the majority of the time. Be interesting to see how this plays out once we have the new campaign rules in place as well...

darthgummibear_ESO

I didn't even realize this was how they had set it up. This is really stupid. There needs to be a way to access IC w/o hitting the lottery of just happening to log on when your side happens to be on top.

Why on earth would I pay for DLC that I don't even know when I'll be able to use it because of factors beyond my control?

Sure, it's their game and they can do whatever they want, but I can't see this going over well if it actually goes live like this.

Hiero_Glyph

olemanwinter wrote: »

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

aCCESS WILL CHANGE HANDS

Writing something doesn't magically make it true. Writing something in ALL CAPS doesn't either.

Or...wait...maybe it does. It's worth a try.

TOMORROW I WIN A MILLION DOLLARS.

*crosses fingers*

FYI, you butchered the code and I was not the one that claimed what was quoted. That being said EP is currently tring to lock other factions out of IC on the PTS so today should be interesting when new players logging in cannot play it on the PTS. Combine this with the lower AD population due to the morph bug and we may actually have an acccurate simulation of the live campaigns.

Elloa

As i'm mostly a non PvPer person, I' ll really not be in the mood of fighting for Keeps, if what I want to do is enjoying myself in IC

Frenkthevile

olemanwinter wrote: »

@ZOS_RichLambert @ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_JessicaFolsom @ZOS_BrianWheeler

The most common suggestion I keep reading for an access gate to the Imperial City is 3 home keeps + 2 additional keeps. I'm going to temporarily work off that assumption.

At the time of writing this, the following campaign conditions would exist: (approx 1am est)
Haderus:
AD (8 keeps) Access
EP (6 keeps) Access
DC (4 keeps) NO Access

Chillrend:
AD (7 keeps) Access
EP (8 keeps) Access
DC (3 keeps) NO Access

Azura's Star:
AD (5 keeps) Access
EP (9 keeps) Access
DC (4 keeps) NO Access

Thornblade:
AD (16 keeps) Access
EP (2 keeps ) NO Access
DC (0 keeps) NO Access

Across all Vet campaigns, no DC player would have access to this Paid content at this time. Every AD player would have access to this Paid content regardless of campaign, and a EP player would have a 75% chance of having access at this time.

POPULATION IMBALANCE/NIGHTCAPPING:
Due to population imbalances, even though DC has a lead in one of the campaigns, it still almost always holds very few keeps at certain times of the day. Not all players play during "peak hours" and not all players exist at the same place as should be obvious. If you logged in at this same time every day you would rarely if ever have access to the Imperial City.

ZERGS:
Nothing contributes more to zerg play than a 2 sided battle. In 75% of these campaigns the same two sides will exclusively be fighting each other in IC until at least the conclusion of the campaign.

BUFF CAMPAIGNS:
Zos, you just removed campaign buffs from PvE because Buff Campaigns weren't good, but this is going to make them much more important and prevalent with Imperial City access instead of the stat buffs. Nobody who is paying for this content will risk playing in a campaign they don't control.

You will also effectively eliminate small scale PvP combat as even a remote possibility. The only way to gain access to the Imperial City will be in a buff server with no competition (See Thornblade current) or in a highly contested max-population main campaign. There will be no middle ground.

EITHER/OR:
I view this as an "either/or" situation. EITHER most players will stay in heavily dominated "buff servers" OR everyone will fight in a main campaign. There will be no incentive to divide the force of your alliance. Collective migration will be an even greater problem in either case. In one case and entire lack of competition effectively ruins PvP (buff servers) and in the other case even more stress will be placed on your servers (Everyone in a single server) which will lead to performance loss.

FAIRNESS:
I fully expect AT LEAST 2/3rds of the population to disagree with me because this is a non-issue for EP or AD players unless they take a very wide and long view of population imbalance and performance described above.

But please remember you are not yet offering an alliance change at this time, be it free or in the crown store. I am a Dedicated DC player. Many players I know also have only DC characters. I don't believe DC players should have dramatically less access to paid DLC. I don't believe they should be forced to create new character, level them, and play in an alliance they don't enjoy to access the paid DLC.

PROFIT:
I LOVE IMPERIAL CITY. LOVE LOVE LOVE IT. I'm not currently subscribed, but I'm absolutely going to resubscribe UNLESS THERE IS A GATE OF ACCESS.

As a DC player with ZERO access in game right now under proposed plans (some or all versions), I can't possibly justify buying a DLC I won't be able to play. I can't imagine many other players doing so either. If an access gate like this goes live, the only DC players that will buy it will be those who don't understand the requirements.

But it get's worse. I'm not going to grind and struggle in vanilla ESO (rare mat drops in pledges) or buy the Imperial City products (from traders) at a premium to compete with players who have access to Imperial City. That's a bridge too far.

CONCLUSION:
The fewer keeps that an alliance controls, the greater the distance through enemy territory one must travel to access the Imperial City sewers. To me, that is enough of a barrier! If any additional barrier to entry was established I would BEG you to make it a SINGLE KEEP ONLY!

Right now on Thornblade, DC has zero keeps. What could a single player be expected to do in such a circumstance? Perhaps gather enough people to capture a keep to gain access, but you cannot expect a losing side in a low-population campaign to rally support for a march across the map from ZERO keeps to 3 or 4 or 5.

It takes hours to take 3 keeps with a medium sized group, by the time you siege, kill NPCs, repair, and travel between them. If you encounter resistance it can take all day to accomplish gaining home keeps. I know because I've spent most of my time doing exactly that, struggling against greater numbers on a low-population campaign to get "a few" keeps. You will leave players in that circumstance no choice but to rehome to a different campaign, which will only exacerbate the population imbalance they are fleeing!

TLDR:
Please make Imperial City accessible to all alliances at all times. To do otherwise is unfair to players of the DC alliance (and perhaps one day other alliances) that could have literally NO ACCESS whatsoever at certain times of the day depending on the access gate requirements. 100% across all campaigns for AD players and ZERO% across all campaigns for DC players is something that can't be tolerated. Nobody can be expected to pay for DLC they will have severely reduced access to.

I believe it may increase population imbalance and/or lag problems. Mass alliance migration and buff servers will be worse than ever before even with the new restrictions because players will have NO OTHER CHOICE. Medium sized conflicts will cease to exist as low populations won't have access to the battlefield at all, which leaves only giant populations that ensure access to meet.

This will also continue to trickle down into imbalance in PvE leaderboards for trials as well, due to dramatically reduced access to new gear for DC players. There has already been a migration of top PvE players months ago to other alliances.

STILL TLDR:
Nobody is going to pay for DLC they can't access. DC would have no access across ALL campaigns at this time, and this is a frequent condition. I REALLY LOVE the Imperial City DLC, but there is ZERO chance I would buy it with access gates.

EDIT: A BLANKET REPLY TO THE MOST COMMON ARGUMENTS CAN BE FOUND HERE

EDIT: BLANKET REPLY #2 HERE

EDIT 2: 12 hours later 1pm EST
Haderus: AD (8) Access, EP (6) Access, DC (4) NO Access. Chillrend: AD (7) Access, EP (8) Access, DC (3) NO Access. Azura's Star: AD (5) Access, EP (8) Access, DC (3) NO Access. Thornblade: AD (16) Access. EP (2) NO Access, DC (0) NO Access. All AD players have access. 75% chance for EP players to have access. ZERO DC players with access across all campaigns.

EDIT: A COMPROMISE I COULD SUPPORT
This post by another user is the only "compromise" I've seen so far that would really satisfy me. I believe all paying customers of this DLC should have unfettered access, but if Zos insists on some type of access gate, I believe a plan like he outlines in this post as an alternative way to access the Imperial City would be acceptable. Not ideal, but acceptable imho.

FINAL EDIT: I'm ignoring this thread until something changes. Most people who posted seemed at least aware of circumstances that were making DC players (and anyone with a wide view) concerned, but most POSTS are now by the same few people trying to tell us we're all idiots. The same couple of people just filling page after page on the bottom half of this thread with the same arguments. I can't bare to respond to them directly any more. My blanket replies linked above cover everything I could say. I may post again closer to 2.1 going live.

Same for me. Not buying 'till they change this access method.

Kartalin

The idea of paying for content and then not being able to access it on a regular basis is ludicrous.

On paper it sounds like a good idea that you have to control a certain number of keeps, or own the adjacent keeps, or some other set of rules, and if the Imperial City were added to the game without any further purchase necessary (like how it was initially put forth when the game was still subscription-based), then I don't think players would take as much issue with it. Now though, with ESO being buy to play and this being a paid DLC, not feeling like you're going to be able to access this content on a consistent basis is going to turn off a lot of potential buyers.

To me, one of the exciting things about the Imperial City is that you're trying to achieve PVE goals in the midst of open PVP combat and the possibility of gankers just around the corner. Or you can just participate in the PVP grand melee if you like. It provides options. If one faction or even two factions cannot access the city at a given time, then the PVE content on its own loses some of its luster, at least to PVPers.

Then again, if one faction gets a massive group going and completely dominates one area of the city it can become a lot less enjoyable. The IC will be one big AP smorgasbord to large groups that may not care as much about tel var stones as you might hope.

Taleof2Cities

@olemanwinter - I'm going to make another post to keep this thread on the top (even with the slightly misshapen way some of the discussion has gone).

Like you, I'm not 100% convinced that N/A DC players like me (no alts on other alliances) are going to be able to enjoy the content on a consistent basis. Moreover, with limited gated access, I'm worried about the disparity growing larger between DC and the other alliances in terms of equipment, skills, etc.

Fortunately, I enjoy PvP and am willing to help fight with my guildies for it.

That said, DC has only won a few recent campaigns on N/A (Azura's, Blackwater). And in Blackwater, EP guilds have recently invaded with mid-level alts to take away that campaign too. Not sure the reasoning behind an increased effort there ... a good part of the IC content requires Vet level or Vet 16 rank. What if DC turns it around and starts winning campaigns resulting in more IC access time? That's at the expense of another Alliance who could be themselves in the same predicament. A moot point anyway, since your original argument is that one shouldn't pay for content if you can't play when IC goes live.


If Imperial City goes South (I'm not 100% convinced it won't), then at least it was discussed. Someone was cognizant enough to have thought about this issue ... with 1-2 posters after that chiming in.

Thought about changing to DC E/U where the campaigns are going better ... but shall not let my N/A DC friends down!

AhPook_Is_Here

A simple way to help the problem is just to make it so when one sever is all 1 bar pop IC is open to all until two factions hit 2 bars and then the default rules set in.

This would also attract gankers to PVE servers like thornblade and chillrend making the game-play there more interesting.

olemanwinter

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

FYI, you butchered the code and I was not the one that claimed what was quoted.

Not surprised. Sorry. Trying to keep from having to quote 2 pages worth of text, I knew I'd mess something up eventually.

No hard feelings. Thanks for pointing it out calmly.

I did that once before and the person went nuclear in spite of my appology.

MyM16sHot

DaveMoeDee wrote: »

As a DC player, I also find this lame.

Lol as a DC player i'd find this UNACCEPTABLE.

Drawberrry

Pirhana7_ESO wrote: »

First you dont get to have everything when you want it just because you paid for it.

What?
W h A t?
Where do you live where buying thing's mean's you don't get access to them? because you should move. Like ASAP. I hope you're not waiting 3 months for your Taco Bell order's bro.

Slylok

If this DLC were free.. Sure whatever. But it isnt. I for one and I think others just dont like the idea of not having access to content that I / we paid for when we want too or is convenient.

kevlarto_ESO

I have read through some of this thread, and it makes me wonder I buy an mmo that has progressive raids where I have to get a certain armor set or defeat certain bosses to progress, I have paid for a game that I do not have full access to unless I meet certain criteria or open gates, is the IC in this DLC not the same as that ? I don't understand the difference

I do understand that population imbalances could leave some factions out of the IC more than others, and I guess that could the difference, guess we will have to see where they go.

olemanwinter

kevlarto_ESO wrote: »

I have read through some of this thread, and it makes me wonder I buy an mmo that has progressive raids where I have to get a certain armor set or defeat certain bosses to progress, I have paid for a game that I do not have full access to unless I meet certain criteria or open gates, is the IC in this DLC not the same as that ? I don't understand the difference

The difference is other players don't work AGAINST YOU in achieving those things. Your personal level of competence and that of your friends combined with your willingness to get those things COMPLETELY DETERMINES your access to those rewards.

It's not as if the boss at the end of Hel Ra Citadel suddenly gets an extra 200% health because of something a group from one alliance did to stop you. It's not as if suddenly you can't do the gold pledge because too many of another alliance did it.

Consider this: Even in pvp, the only single reward in the game that is contingent on the play of others and can be stopped by the opposing faction players.....is Emperor. And everybody knows (including Zos) the entire Emperor dynamic in this game is a MESS.

Literally everything else in the game has a STATIC (unchanging) degree of adversity designed into the game that you and your teammates can overcome. Trials gear, Undaunted sets, Achievements, Champion Points, Levels, Materials, EVERYTHING can be achieved by accomplishing something you know IN ADVANCE, that doesn't change, and with only the game as designed working to inhibit your progress.

Except now, other players will work actively against you to inhibit your progress to the new materials, fastest leveling, newest gear, etc.

Surely you see the difference.


It's not just the ability to go play the game for fun (which is a part of it), but it's also a global force of unbalancing across the board.

If one alliance is already weaker and therefore has reduced access to the Imperial City....and all the newest and highest level gear and materials come from the Imperial City, then every day that already weaker alliance will fall further behind. And that's if nobody abandons the alliance, which they will (as we have already seen when there wasn't even a DLC to access). When you factor in the combination of people moving to other alliances with the remaining players perpetually outgunned by players with better gear, higher levels, etc....it's a huge systemic problem for the long term viability of PvP imo.

scorpo46b16_ESO

olemanwinter wrote: »

sagitter wrote: »

Get in your head that when a superior zerg force is inside the City, you have the opportunity to retake your home keeps, if all have the acces inside you are going to faceroll the zerg ever and ever. The keeps system it's like a content in the content all for pvp. Do you like lagg and zerg? ok give perma access to all alliance, i'll laugh so hard when you can't do nothing for the lagg.

Go on live RIGHT NOW and go to an uncontested campaign. They are dead. There aren't enough members on the losing side to take keeps even without resistance.

a i was playing on a ultra low campaign and i soloed a keep so a heh

Also Sir you missquoted me earlier when is aid populations would spread out. That was under the thought of them reducing the # of campaigns not under current live conditions. With 2 campaigns on NA I am confident populations would be roughly evenly spread between them. Infact the whole point of that post of mine was to point out how buff campaigns are even more looming under changes than in the past despite thier other efforts.

Sharee

olemanwinter wrote: »

kevlarto_ESO wrote: »

I have read through some of this thread, and it makes me wonder I buy an mmo that has progressive raids where I have to get a certain armor set or defeat certain bosses to progress, I have paid for a game that I do not have full access to unless I meet certain criteria or open gates, is the IC in this DLC not the same as that ? I don't understand the difference

The difference is other players don't work AGAINST YOU in achieving those things. Your personal level of competence and that of your friends combined with your willingness to get those things COMPLETELY DETERMINES your access to those rewards.

It's not as if the boss at the end of Hel Ra Citadel suddenly gets an extra 200% health because of something a group from one alliance did to stop you. It's not as if suddenly you can't do the gold pledge because too many of another alliance did it.

Consider this: Even in pvp, the only single reward in the game that is contingent on the play of others and can be stopped by the opposing faction players.....is Emperor. And everybody knows (including Zos) the entire Emperor dynamic in this game is a MESS.

Literally everything else in the game has a STATIC (unchanging) degree of adversity designed into the game that you and your teammates can overcome. Trials gear, Undaunted sets, Achievements, Champion Points, Levels, Materials, EVERYTHING can be achieved by accomplishing something you know IN ADVANCE, that doesn't change, and with only the game as designed working to inhibit your progress.

Except now, other players will work actively against you to inhibit your progress to the new materials, fastest leveling, newest gear, etc.

Surely you see the difference.

For all that difference, the end result is the same - some players will never see the content they paid for.

olemanwinter

Sharee wrote: »

For all that difference, the end result is the same - some players will never see the content they paid for.

Right, and if someone breaks into your house and steals your computer, the end result is the same.

And if someone burns your house down with your computer in it, the end result is the same.

And if we all get killed by an asteroid tonight, the end result is the same.


So I guess none of those things are really different.

*face/palm*

KenaPKK

I will be ROYALLY PISSED if I am denied access to the Imperial City in ANY campaign just because another faction has control of keeps or w/e outside of the IC. I'm not going to pay ZoS for DLC so that they can CHOOSE when to give it to me. I will pay for it to have it ALL THE TIME.

You don't choose when I play ESO. I choose. Same goes for this DLC. There is no acceptable exception to this rule.

Sharee

olemanwinter wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

For all that difference, the end result is the same - some players will never see the content they paid for.

Right, and if someone breaks into your house and steals your computer, the end result is the same.

And if someone burns your house down with your computer in it, the end result is the same.

And if we all get killed by an asteroid tonight, the end result is the same.


So I guess none of those things are really different.

*face/palm*

Yes, the result is the same, but in these examples it is not ZOS who is denying you content access, and as such they are not relevant to this discussion. Let's stick to the relevant ones, shall we.

If you claim that all players who paid for content have the right to said content for no other reason than the fact they have paid, then you also have to support the claim of a very bad PvE player who never gets any better that he should be granted PvE boss loot without having to defeat the boss first. (or granted access to a final boss before defeating the prior required steps first, if you want).

You can not tell him to get better. He does not want to get better. And he shouldn't have to get better before getting the rewards, according to the popular logic - after all, he already paid for them.

Right?

Sacadon

As usual, very valid points and concerns @olemanwinter...

It would be completely insane to sell a DLC with PvE elements gated by in-game PvP progression the player had little to no influence over. (ie: low DC pop) Maybe if it was purely a PvP content release, but it just is not that.

Wrobel did say he would test both approaches. So it will be interesting to see how this pans out.

Hiero_Glyph

Sharee wrote: »

olemanwinter wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

For all that difference, the end result is the same - some players will never see the content they paid for.

Right, and if someone breaks into your house and steals your computer, the end result is the same.

And if someone burns your house down with your computer in it, the end result is the same.

And if we all get killed by an asteroid tonight, the end result is the same.


So I guess none of those things are really different.

*face/palm*

Yes, the result is the same, but in these examples it is not ZOS who is denying you content access, and as such they are not relevant to this discussion. Let's stick to the relevant ones, shall we.

If you claim that all players who paid for content have the right to said content for no other reason than the fact they have paid, then you also have to support the claim of a very bad PvE player who never gets any better that he should be granted PvE boss loot without having to defeat the boss first. (or granted access to a final boss before defeating the prior required steps first, if you want).

You can not tell him to get better. He does not want to get better. And he shouldn't have to get better before getting the rewards, according to the popular logic - after all, he already paid for them.

Right?

They paid for access to the content in the form of being allowed into the new area(s), not for any of the items contained within. This means just as anyone with the IC DLC can play the two new dungeons, they should also be allowed to enter IC in some manner regardless of the factors outside of their control. Nowhere has anyone made claims that they should be given TV stones, vr16 mats, new set items, etc. without having to earn them. The only thing the paid DLC should guarantee is access to the new area(s), or in this case, being able to enter the IC sewers in at least one campaign whenever that player logs in. It really is that simple. Why you keep mentioning being entitled to drops is beyond me as you are the only one making such a claim.