Maintenance for the week of December 23:
• NA megaservers for maintenance – December 23, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
• EU megaservers for maintenance – December 23, 9:00 UTC (4:00AM EST) - 14:00 UTC (9:00AM EST)
• NA megaservers for maintenance – December 23, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
• EU megaservers for maintenance – December 23, 9:00 UTC (4:00AM EST) - 14:00 UTC (9:00AM EST)
There CANNOT be access gates to the Imperial City paid DLC
-
Mawgusta✭✭✭Let's stop with the suing of the mmo company discussions. Their aim isn't to alienate DC or hurt DC intentionally. I'm sure they're more worried about the implementation even more than we are.
Edited by Mawgusta on August 5, 2015 3:04AM2 -
Casdha✭✭✭✭✭
✭I think the real problem here is someone forgot to tell the design folks that this game went B2P. When IC was first announced and through a lot of the development, the game plan was for this game to be subscription based. If the game was still sub based I don't think an access gate would have been that big of a deal but now that some folks will have to pay extra for it, well If I have to pay extra for something, I dang well better get to play it.
Just to be up front here, I still pay my subscription and also have 9000+ crowns that I haven't used, having access to the DLC will not be a problem. With that said, I still have no desire to play it in its present form.Proud member of the Psijic Order - The first wave - The 0.016%2 -
Sharee✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
But you don't already have the reward.
You are fighting that boss because you desire a reward - the new gear. You will not get that gear unless you kill boss first.
In case of IC, that reward is access. If you desire that reward, you have to capture keeps.
You say access to a new place and items from a dungeon are a different thing. I say, they are both rewards.Here, people were discussing that you can't get an access to new content whatsoever.
But that is not true. You can get access to it - by fulfilling certain criteria.
To get raid gear, that criteria is killing raid boss.
To get IC access, that criteria is capturing a certain amount of keeps.
Finally, here is a quote for you:
http://wowwiki.wikia.com/Gates_of_Ahn'QirajAhn'Qiraj was opened for the first time in the realm Medivh on January 23, 2006, and has been opened on all other realms since. Opening the gates is a process spanning weeks or even months that requires the cooperation of hundreds of players from all races and factions, involving monsters and quests from all corners of the world map.
How many did sue Blizzard for not being able to access the content they bought for weeks or even months? No-one. Because they understood the access is meant as a reward that requires considerable effort first.Edited by Sharee on August 5, 2015 6:59AM0 -
Mawgusta✭✭✭Sharee please, you're obviously not DC and don't have the DC dilemma . You've been countered 10005040006 times that you don't want to accept. Go buy the DLC and zerg with EP. Its all good.
Edited by Mawgusta on August 5, 2015 5:54AM0 -
Sharee✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Sharee please, you're obviously not DC and don't have the DC dilemma . You've been countered 10005040006 times that you don't want to accept. Go buy the DLC and zerg with EP. Its all good.
Since early access, i have never played anything but DC. I have 8 alts that are all DC.
However, you are right in that i already sufficiently explained my view of things (that IC access is to be considered a DLC reward) and there is no point in continuing the debate. If someone does not understand it by now, he is unlikely to ever.Edited by Sharee on August 5, 2015 6:58AM0 -
Jofish✭✭✭Ya, know after reading the OP's remarks I am in entire agreement with him... there is no way ZOS can control who wants to be AD, DC, EP or IUD... So full access to the paid content or it's a crash... I didn't hafta read the whole 8 pages to figger it out... neither should ZOS...
2 -
Jofish✭✭✭If I may go further; when the new crafting tables opened up in Craglorn and 2 of my level 50 crafters were still player level 12, I made a point to bring them up to v1... It didn't cost me anything but In-game time and effort... But when access to a certain dlc is paid for by real cash money it should in no way be accessed only by "game rules". If they were to make it "ya gotta do this or you gotta do that inside the game, well fine... but don't sell something in the RL that you cannot deliver....
If you say, "Well you are only buying a chance to have access to the new stuff", then you have become a lottery syndicate... do you have a license for that?... Edited by Jofish on August 5, 2015 6:46AM0 -
byrom101b16_ESO✭✭✭✭✭byrom101b16_ESO wrote: »byrom101b16_ESO wrote: »This is wrong-footed. It's CONTENT which is gated, so it's not the same as your example.
Content is content, whether it is imperial city or gear. In both cases, you have to work for it before you can get what you desire. If you desire raid gear, you have to raid. If you desire IC access, you have to cap keeps. Same underlying principle.
NO.
Gear is something you get from playing CONTENT.
CONTENT is the activity you are doing to have fun... and you don't have to rely on your entire Faction winning a contest of some sort to go on the Raid now do you?
Content should not be gated in a way which prevents you from accessing it for factors outside of your own control, and no matter how you slice it, there will be a sizeable number of players denied access with no recourse to fix the problem by their own effort.
This is fundamentally wrong.
No. You are just trying to define content in such a way that it suits your cause.
Content is everything that comes with the expansion. That includes the dungeons, and that also includes the items you get from those dungeons. Having players put in some effort before they get the expansion's 'desirables' is common practice. Here, the 'desirables' include access to IC, in addition to other things (like gear).
You are still making the same fundamental mistake.
You PAY to PLAY, you do not PAY for LOOT.
Whether or not you get pixelbooty is based on your efforts, efforts you cannot make if you can't get in if IC is locked out to your faction et al.
It is a separate issue to your right to experience the entertainment you have purchased... which is 95% gated behind factors you cannot individually resolve.
5 -
byrom101b16_ESO✭✭✭✭✭DaveMoeDee wrote: »There is an argument here regarding getting what you pay for.
Before you pay, learn about what you are buying. If the thing you are buying properly represents itself, where is the problem?
Clearly, some people should not buy this DLC. I might be one of those people. I get the feeling I won't bother with IC for the time being, mostly because I am DC and I am skeptical that it is worth getting this DLC as DC based on player numbers.
No contract or service provision can ignore your statutory rights.
So Zenimax can say whatever they damn well please in their T&Cs, and you can even click 'Yes'... but you'll be able to sue them all the same for denial of service if they gate nearly all of it (as they are currently doing) behind factors outside of your individual control.
Those without the required legal knowledge think that pixelbooty or access to part of a questline or a trial requiring pre-quests is the same thing.
It isn't even close.
They are small elements of a paid-for service which the service allows you to resolve by your own actions.
What Zenimax are currently proposing is the same as selling you an upgrade package to your service you cannot use on demand...
... if they stubbornly insist on sticking with this contractual foolishness, all it will take is one letter from a solicitor and it will get hotfixed faster than you can blink.
Bean Counters & Solicitors > Devs...
Edited by byrom101b16_ESO on August 5, 2015 7:44AM4 -
Leandor✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Let's call it the "Godammit's Rule", as a tribute to the old BBS rule. The moment that comes in any gaming related discussion where someone instigates a law suit in order to increase the validity of his righteous point of view.
Similar to the original rule, it indicates strongly that it's time to hightail out of this thread.
Edited by Leandor on August 5, 2015 8:40AM1 -
byrom101b16_ESO✭✭✭✭✭Let's call it the "Godammit's Rule", as a tribute to the old BBS rule. The moment that comes in any gaming related discussion where someone instigates a law suit in order to increase the validity of his righteous point of view.
Similar to the original rule, it indicates strongly that it's time to hightail out of this thread.
That's great news! I would actively encourage you to leave the thread and stop commenting on things you have no practical understanding of (the law). Then the rest of us can talk about it without pointless posts from those who think labelling other people to critique their arguments is a valid forum modus operandi.
Was that righteous enough for you?
People who don't demand their rights be respected when they pay for a service are no better than sheep - to be led around by someone else, and taken advantage of by whoever feels like it.Edited by byrom101b16_ESO on August 5, 2015 8:46AM3 -
Sharee✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭byrom101b16_ESO wrote: »byrom101b16_ESO wrote: »byrom101b16_ESO wrote: »This is wrong-footed. It's CONTENT which is gated, so it's not the same as your example.
Content is content, whether it is imperial city or gear. In both cases, you have to work for it before you can get what you desire. If you desire raid gear, you have to raid. If you desire IC access, you have to cap keeps. Same underlying principle.
NO.
Gear is something you get from playing CONTENT.
CONTENT is the activity you are doing to have fun... and you don't have to rely on your entire Faction winning a contest of some sort to go on the Raid now do you?
Content should not be gated in a way which prevents you from accessing it for factors outside of your own control, and no matter how you slice it, there will be a sizeable number of players denied access with no recourse to fix the problem by their own effort.
This is fundamentally wrong.
No. You are just trying to define content in such a way that it suits your cause.
Content is everything that comes with the expansion. That includes the dungeons, and that also includes the items you get from those dungeons. Having players put in some effort before they get the expansion's 'desirables' is common practice. Here, the 'desirables' include access to IC, in addition to other things (like gear).
You are still making the same fundamental mistake.
You PAY to PLAY, you do not PAY for LOOT.
Whether or not you get pixelbooty is based on your efforts, efforts you cannot make if you can't get in if IC is locked out to your faction et al.
It is a separate issue to your right to experience the entertainment you have purchased... which is 95% gated behind factors you cannot individually resolve.
Yes, you pay to play. And you can play. The play consists of 1) taking keeps in cyrodiil, and 2) entering IC, in that order. Nothing is preventing you from doing this.
Your complaint is merely that you can not skip step 1 and go right to step 2. Are you also going to sue ZOS because you cannot enter veteran Crypt of hearts without first completing normal CoH? You can not individually resolve this either - you need a group that is outside of your control. Not to mention trials - you will never see what is beyond the first room unless you get a competent group first.
How do you explain that Blizzard, back in WoW, blocked the access to an entire area by a huge gate that only opened after the whole server worked on it for weeks or months? How many lawsuits did the company have to face because of it? None. That's because there is no legal issue.Edited by Sharee on August 5, 2015 10:05AM0 -
Leandor✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭
You're right, I am no lawyer. I only have common sense. You are also more principled than I am if you are willing to field the cost and endure the hassle of going through a law suit for a total value of 25$.byrom101b16_ESO wrote: »Let's call it the "Godammit's Rule", as a tribute to the old BBS rule. The moment that comes in any gaming related discussion where someone instigates a law suit in order to increase the validity of his righteous point of view.
Similar to the original rule, it indicates strongly that it's time to hightail out of this thread.
That's great news! I would actively encourage you to leave the thread and stop commenting on things you have no practical understanding of (the law). Then the rest of us can talk about it without pointless posts from those who think labelling other people to critique their arguments is a valid forum modus operandi.
Was that righteous enough for you?
People who don't demand their rights be respected when they pay for a service are no better than sheep - to be led around by someone else, and taken advantage of by whoever feels like it.
The validity of the claim that a certain access rule for a paid DLC requiring you to achieve something in order to enter, constitutes a breach of contract in case you are not automatically granted that achievement, is still very doubtful, since you have the possibility to do so and are hindered only by your own choice (of alliance) and your own lack of skills (to coordinate your faction to gain it).
Other than that, you seem to be very angry at me. I'm sorry for that, kind of. Does not justify you calling me sheep, though.
Btw, if you feel you do not get what you deserve for the payment you are fielding - don't make the payment. That would be the non-sheep reaction.Edited by Leandor on August 5, 2015 9:33AM2 -
ewhite106b16_ESO✭✭✭Makes no sense to lock access to Imperial City (only place where pvpers can hopefully enjoy smaller group/solo pvp) behind taking keeps in Cyrodil which has turned into "player blobs" vs pvp/pain trains. Making an impact on the Cyrodil map by taking keeps these days involves joining a tight 24 man group and casting the same few skills over and over again-total opposite of smaller scale pvp IC is aimed at. Forcing players into the sort of zergy pvp they are trying to get away from to access IC is counterproductive - need at least one open access campaign for IC badly.1
-
Sharee✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭ewhite106b16_ESO wrote: »Makes no sense to lock access to Imperial City (only place where pvpers can hopefully enjoy smaller group/solo pvp) behind taking keeps in Cyrodil which has turned into "player blobs" vs pvp/pain trains. Making an impact on the Cyrodil map by taking keeps these days involves joining a tight 24 man group and casting the same few skills over and over again-total opposite of smaller scale pvp IC is aimed at. Forcing players into the sort of zergy pvp they are trying to get away from to access IC is counterproductive - need at least one open access campaign for IC badly.
Remember that IC and Cyrodiil share the same population cap. So unless the players on the faction that won access to IC completely forfeit their right to enter it, that faction will become underpopulated in the overworld, making it easy for the other factions to cap the keeps and get access themselves.
In addition to that, a faction that loses access does not get kicked out of IC (currently not even if they die). That means the total population of a faction will eventually get split between up to 17 separate zones: cyro, 6 IC districts, and 10 sewer sections (and it might be more, im not sure i got the # of sewers right). If cyro cap is 200 per faction, then on an even split there will be only 10-11 players in each zone from that faction - a small group PvP scenario.0 -
wraith808✭✭✭✭byrom101b16_ESO wrote: »Let's call it the "Godammit's Rule", as a tribute to the old BBS rule. The moment that comes in any gaming related discussion where someone instigates a law suit in order to increase the validity of his righteous point of view.
Similar to the original rule, it indicates strongly that it's time to hightail out of this thread.
That's great news! I would actively encourage you to leave the thread and stop commenting on things you have no practical understanding of (the law). Then the rest of us can talk about it without pointless posts from those who think labelling other people to critique their arguments is a valid forum modus operandi.
Was that righteous enough for you?
People who don't demand their rights be respected when they pay for a service are no better than sheep - to be led around by someone else, and taken advantage of by whoever feels like it.
What practical understanding do you have that you're willing to make such statements? And the proof thereof? And the money to go along with it, because it would definitely take that...
... in other words, leave off the conversation, as it's already been quite obvious that none of these are in effect here.Quasim ibn-Muhammad - VR 12 Redguard Dragon Knight
Taladriel Vanima - VR 5 Altmer Nightblade
Ambalyo iyo Bogaadin - VR 1 Redguard Sorceror0 -
SeptimusDova✭✭✭✭✭
✭An educated consumer is the best customer. Zos will make it clear the access method before payment is requested.
As for myself I do not play for rewards I play for the challenge. if I beat a boss with the gear I am currently wearing what do I need the bird head for ? I am not materialistic so the Reward thing is moot. Access must be obtainable with reasonable factors.
Force calculations cannot be ignored as they are immutable. As a science and an art how people shoot, move and communicate has a complexity that is difficult to grasp. Any strategy based game adheres to these principles. Maybe not so much in the design but moreso from the interactions of the players. Nothing is new under the sun. As per my previous post in regards to Lawrence's calculations you could also throw in Clausewitz and the economy of force, Mahan's time to movement and Napoleons application of Artillery "focus of force to cause a delay".
Guessing what numbers may or may not be present over-world as opposed to underground is inefficient and lacking in substance. And should not be a considering factor for access. You have three opponents with 6 primary fronts.
Now let us look at probable scenarios.
probable scenario #1 initial IC release
EP pop capped
AD Pop capped
DC three bars
We will for now defer the zerg tactics as we are doing force calculations
apply Clausewitz's economy of force
EP pushes against DC by westward movement
AD pushes north to DC's South
this is known as Alexanders "Hammer and Anvil"
DC counters across two fronts. DC may or may not have the numbers to attempt rear echelon operations against EP or AD.
EP and AD secure the required number of keeps.( This is where assumptions are being made and shouldn't be)
EP and AD forces enter into IC (amounts to be decided based on force requirements IOT maintain keeps)
Since the requisites to free and unfettered access are already known, AD and EP will maintain a force posture strong enough to continue denial operations against DC. A combined force of three bars is all that is required across two fronts to keep DC in check.
Personnel required; EP and AD
Tools: Team Speak or Vent or Razor comms
Guild Participation: Insert big baddies here
Time zone mapping of DC peak hours.
Siege equipment placement. High ground,Choke points,Canalization of forces that OCOKA thing.
FPL would be optimal at DC IC access point.
I will work on more scenarios but in summation of this one
Denial to IC would be in two parts
Part One the requisites for entry
Part Two the opposing Factions.
To say this is improbable would be to ignore the reality that this has already occurred in campaigns.
This will place an importance on spies and intelligence in the future.
Enjoy Cyrodiil2 -
Galbsadi✭✭✭http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/200571/pts-patch-notes-v2-1#latest
Note that access is unrestricted on Haderus per this.0 -
Reverb✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/200571/pts-patch-notes-v2-1#latest
Note that access is unrestricted on Haderus per this.
That's for testing purposes, Haderus is the only campaign on the PTS and has unrestricted access. That is not what they intend to move live, though it's fair to say that their initial plans for access restriction are being discussed and possibly reconsidered.Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. ~Friedrich Nietzsche2 -
Artis✭✭✭✭✭
✭
But you don't already have the reward.
You are fighting that boss because you desire a reward - the new gear. You will not get that gear unless you kill boss first.
In case of IC, that reward is access. If you desire that reward, you have to capture keeps.
You say access to a new place and items from a dungeon are a different thing. I say, they are both rewards.
But that is not true. You can get access to it - by fulfilling certain criteria.
To get raid gear, that criteria is killing raid boss.
To get IC access, that criteria is capturing a certain amount of keeps.
Finally, here is a quote for you:
http://wowwiki.wikia.com/Gates_of_Ahn'QirajAhn'Qiraj was opened for the first time in the realm Medivh on January 23, 2006, and has been opened on all other realms since. Opening the gates is a process spanning weeks or even months that requires the cooperation of hundreds of players from all races and factions, involving monsters and quests from all corners of the world map.
How many did sue Blizzard for not being able to access the content they bought for weeks or even months? No-one. Because they understood the access is meant as a reward that requires considerable effort first.
1. I don't care about reward. An item is just a bunch of pixels. As long as I get to complete the raid and have fun doing fights, I don't mind if I get no gear out of it. If players wanted gear, companies would simply sell gear. Now access to new content is a completely different type of reward (if reward at all). Here, we are talking about experiencing new content - new zone with new bosses/monsters/landscape/crafting stations etc etc. Access to new content includes new rewards, not the other way around. Rewards are a subset of new content, not the same thing. On an Euler diagram it would be a circle that lies completely inside a bigger circle.
2. And these are two completely different things. As I already saidThat's a bad analogy. In case of a raid expansion, everything depends on a player (or 12). Not on whether thousands of other players wanna let you see content or not.. In case of working against bosses you know FOR SURE that it is 100% possible to overcome their resistance, once you figure out what gear/strats to use in the raid. In case of working against other players there is no way to know whether you will see content in the end, because we are talking about thousands of players. Just like OP said, no matter how much you want to work for it, you can't do much by yourself if your faction is underpopulated. Besides, others work for it too and if in case of PvE it would only affect your place on leaderboards, here their effort automatically works against you. PvE raid is made so that you can complete it, PvP in Cyro is not balanced at all. Think about WoW's battlegrounds - at least there you knew you have as many players as your enemies. But you can't win a 100+ raid with a 12ppl raid.
of course you didn't say anything... I already explained for what reason those are not the same things. In PvE you know you can do it, everything depends on your raid. In PvP - you have absolutely no control whatsoever. As OP demonstrated, lately, DC players wouldn't be able to get access to IC, no matter how good they play. And we all know there is quite a few good PvP players in DC...Here, people were discussing that you can't get an access to new content whatsoever. Imagine, your access to new trial is only opened when your faction's online is precisely 123321 or if it's greater than online of another faction... These are factors that don't depend on you. It doesn't even get to the point when you rely on your group. When you rely on a group it's up to the group to come up with the way of killing the boss or to replace players that can't grasp it.
3. Access is not the same reward as items. Besides, you're forgetting that WoW is a sub-based game(p2p), therefore no one paid for AQ, people simply paid sub. Also, in case of AQ you knew 100% that you will get access sooner or later and it was fair for everyone on a particular server because everyone would get access at the same time and would have it for equal amount of time.No. You are just trying to define content in such a way that it suits your cause.
Content is everything that comes with the expansion. That includes the dungeons, and that also includes the items you get from those dungeons. Having players put in some effort before they get the expansion's 'desirables' is common practice. Here, the 'desirables' include access to IC, in addition to other things (like gear).
Yes, you pay to play. And you can play. The play consists of 1) taking keeps in cyrodiil, and 2) entering IC, in that order. Nothing is preventing you from doing this.
How do you explain that Blizzard, back in WoW, blocked the access to an entire area by a huge gate that only opened after the whole server worked on it for weeks or months? How many lawsuits did the company have to face because of it? None. That's because there is no legal issue.
4. Exactly. Therefore items/rewards are simply a subset of content. Simple logic.
5. Taking keeps in cyrodiil is nothing new, it is unfair if you pay more to do the same thing in a b2p game. Let me repeat it again, DC players as it seems so far can only play "1) taking keeps in cyrodiil" whereas others can play both 1) and 2). Don't you see what is wrong with it?
6. This is easy to explain. 1) It was a p2p game. 2) Everyone on a server would get equal access and would get it at the same time once the requirements are met by a server.
Let's be honest, since we know that the more stones you have, the greater the multiplying factor is, there is absolutely no guarantee that pvp guilds will not form raids and farm the [snip] out of your small groups and players that came solo.ewhite106b16_ESO wrote: »Makes no sense to lock access to Imperial City (only place where pvpers can hopefully enjoy smaller group/solo pvp)Edited by Artis on August 5, 2015 5:03PM2 -
Galbsadi✭✭✭http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/200571/pts-patch-notes-v2-1#latest
Note that access is unrestricted on Haderus per this.
That's for testing purposes, Haderus is the only campaign on the PTS and has unrestricted access. That is not what they intend to move live, though it's fair to say that their initial plans for access restriction are being discussed and possibly reconsidered.
Was not aware that was only for testing. Thank you for the information.
In that case, access gates creates another problem for PvE players: if you have to PvP to access IC, the "two dungeons open to everybody" argument goes away, assuming that dungeon travel will work how it has on live...i.e. you must 'discover' a dungeon before you can use the wayshrine system to get in. In that event, pure PvE players who are not of the appropriate faction may be disinclined to purchase a DLC that they literally cannot access at all if their faction does not perform well enough.
0 -
ewhite106b16_ESO✭✭✭Let's be honest, since we know that the more stones you have, the greater the multiplying factor is, there is absolutely no guarantee that pvp guilds will not form raids and farm the [snip] out of your small groups and players that came solo.
You're right - if post-patch the PVP metagame is all about blobs of players and pain trains, and that works in Imperial city we'll probably see the same thing there. But if that's the case, the Imperial City and in a way ESO PVP in general become pointless/not worthwhile for anyone who doesn't want to stack on crown in a blob the whole time and spam the same skills over and over again.2 -
AssaultLemming✭✭✭✭http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/200571/pts-patch-notes-v2-1#latest
Note that access is unrestricted on Haderus per this.
That's for testing purposes, Haderus is the only campaign on the PTS and has unrestricted access. That is not what they intend to move live, though it's fair to say that their initial plans for access restriction are being discussed and possibly reconsidered.
Was not aware that was only for testing. Thank you for the information.
In that case, access gates creates another problem for PvE players: if you have to PvP to access IC, the "two dungeons open to everybody" argument goes away, assuming that dungeon travel will work how it has on live...i.e. you must 'discover' a dungeon before you can use the wayshrine system to get in. In that event, pure PvE players who are not of the appropriate faction may be disinclined to purchase a DLC that they literally cannot access at all if their faction does not perform well enough.
So long as one person in your group has discovered the dungeon you will be able to port to them and discover it yourself afaik.0 -
sagitter✭✭✭✭✭I like much the fact that we need to work on pvp to get inside the IC it's like a minigame, i really hope they choose for it. I'm on DC eu, i proud to be part of underdog alliance, mo enemies mo ap.Edited by sagitter on August 6, 2015 3:49AM0 -
olemanwinter✭✭✭✭✭I've been enjoying a 72 hour holiday, so to speak, and now wanted to reply to some of the conversations that took place over the last few days.
1) LEGALITY
Lets please stay focused and get real. This is a conversation about what Zos SHOULD do, not what they can or cannot legally do. It's in this companies own best interest to create a system that treats players equally and incentivizes game-play. I think I've laid out a good argument along those lines. We cannot brow-beat a company into doing something based on empty threats of legal challenge. In short, lets get real.
2) THIS IS NOT LIKE "TRIALS"
Several people have equated reduced access to the Imperial City with being unable to complete a trial. This is not a fair comparison and I'll explain why.
There is no player force working against your ability to complete a trial. No opposing players can stop you from accessing this content. Additionally, you may need many players to complete a trial in the same way that you need many players to capture keeps, HOWEVER you don't need many players to ACCESS the trial. You can, and many do, take smaller groups into trials to farm gear from mobs.
Speaking of trials, what's the purpose of removing PvP buffs from PvE content if you're just going to replace those advantages with gear that's more easily attainable for some factions? As the man said, "The more things change the more they stay the same".
3) WHAT'S THE DEAL? IT'S JUST THE PTS.
A few people have seemed to think I'm taking issue with PTS Access. The PTS is testing possible access restrictions for the Imperial City DLC. These could range from none whatsoever (which I advocate for) to all campaigns having 6 keep requirements for access. THE TIME IS NOW to express what we prefer so that they can use that as a consideration for the final decision. I have no problem with different gates tested on the PTS, in fact the stricter the requirements the better so their inevitably poor results can eliminate them as options!
4) TO ZOS; ANOTHER THOUGHT
Not sure if anyone is still lurking this thread or not, but when testing these conditions please be aware that the PTS will not accurately reflect the barrier that will exist for a couple of reasons:
a) The PTS is not being fully tested. Nobody seems interested with anything except the Imperial City, so there will be no motivation to hold keeps. I think I can confidently say 99% of the people on the PTS will not care anything about what keeps they gain or lose unless it blocks their access to the IC. Once live there will still people that enjoy traditional PvP and seek to capture all the keeps.
b) 100% of the people on the PTS have access to the DLC. Not 100% of the people on live will purchase the DLC (Even though they should ;-P) Therefore, anyone without the DLC who wants to PvP will be doing so in Cyrodiil which again points to a discrepancy between live and the PTS regarding the % of players who will do the bare minimum and those who will engage FULLY in Cyrodiil PvP.
FINALLY: I'll post more thoughts (If anyone cares) after any additional comment from Zos. I think I've covered everything for now.3 -
olemanwinter✭✭✭✭✭SeptimusDova wrote: »Thank you olemanwinter
Enjoy your holiday
Oh I'm back. I just returned from my 72 hours holiday. I feel so refreshed.
You should see the rest of the internet this time of year. The colors are....amazingggggEdited by olemanwinter on August 6, 2015 5:37AM0 -
Sharee✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭olemanwinter wrote: »
2) THIS IS NOT LIKE "TRIALS"
Several people have equated reduced access to the Imperial City with being unable to complete a trial. This is not a fair comparison and I'll explain why.
There is no player force working against your ability to complete a trial. No opposing players can stop you from accessing this content.
I don't see how this is relevant. In both cases, you have to overcome an obstacle to claim a reward. Yes, in the case of IC, the obstacle involves defeating enemy players, but considering this is a PvP expansion, i think that is only fitting.
Additionally, it is very likely gaining IC access will be easier than a completing trial in general, because the opposing force(the one that already has access) will be weakened by having more players inside IC (and thus less players available to oppose you).olemanwinter wrote: »Additionally, you may need many players to complete a trial in the same way that you need many players to capture keeps, HOWEVER you don't need many players to ACCESS the trial. You can, and many do, take smaller groups into trials to farm gear from mobs.
Technically, it is possible to take a keep with just two players. It may take more depending on what opposition is present of course, but again, this is a PvP expansion, meant for the PvP players (by dev's own words) so i don't see an issue (or rather, this would only be an issue for the people this expansion is not meant for, and thus should not be altered to suit their needs).0 -
SeptimusDova✭✭✭✭✭
✭No no no your clock is wrong you still have 72 hours. You slept and had a dream..LOL
I hope your holiday was memorable and relaxing.1 -
olemanwinter✭✭✭✭✭[/b]SNIP
We're just going to have to disagree. I didn't respond to you directly because there was just too much to quote. The last 2 pages or so seem pretty dominated by your arguments, so I was just making a blanket reply.
To avoid repeating myself to that extent, I'll just have to say we are on polar opposites in our views and only time will tell who is correct.
You've written that you "don't see an issue" several times. I can appreciate that. I truly believe you don't see it.
But A LOT of people are seeing the issue. And if you want Zos to make $$$ by selling this DLC, I think perhaps you should embrace the idea that it's a legitimate concern even if you "don't see it".
Edited by olemanwinter on August 6, 2015 5:44AM0