There CANNOT be access gates to the Imperial City paid DLC

olemanwinter

SeptimusDova wrote: »

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.

That would be nice. To dream a whole vacation right before your vacation.

The only dreams I've ever had like that were bad, where I missed an exam. and failed only to wake up the morning of the exam. I had those dreams for 10 years after college. LOL

Sharee

olemanwinter wrote: »

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".

Again, the expansion is meant for the PvP player. Are the people seeing 'the issue' PvP players? I really doubt that. These are all (or the majority at least) PvE players complaining that a PvP expansion is not tailored to suit a PvE player's needs. (see your own argument "But there is a player force opposing you!" - well, duh)

It is like the majority of PvP players complaining that they can not kill enemy players in Orsinium. Should orsinium (a PvE expansion) be made into a free-for-all PvP zone because of that? Of course not.

And i also believe many of the PvE player's concerns are unfounded, coming from their lack of PvP experience. Like for instance the assumption that you need a force comparable to a trial raid to take an undefended(or weakly defended) keep. I fully expect the IC access to flip between the 3 alliance on a hourly basis, at most, because the ones cut off will have a numerical advantage most of the time.

AssaultLemming

I hate to tell those people in this thread who are talking about charge backs, but you will not be able to raise a charge back for imperial city, because you didn't buy it on your credit card. What you bought was crowns, a virtual currency, and once the crowns were deposited to your account then the service was delivered, so certain types of chargeback are no longer possible, notably you can't chargeback for service not delivered, or for product not as described, because the service/product is crowns, not the DLC.

Sharee

AssaultLemming wrote: »

I hate to tell those people in this thread who are talking about charge backs, but you will not be able to raise a charge back for imperial city, because you didn't buy it on your credit card. What you bought was crowns, a virtual currency, and once the crowns were deposited to your account then the service was delivered, so certain types of chargeback are no longer possible, notably you can't chargeback for service not delivered, or for product not as described, because the service/product is crowns, not the DLC.

Interesting point. I wonder if this is exactly why the virtual currencies the companies use exist in the firstplace

(on a related note, charge back for IC DLC based on it not having free access at all times would still not be possible, since i am sure if ZOS decides to gate access by keeps owned, they will clearly state so in the DLC description)

olemanwinter

Sharee wrote: »

Again,

Yes, Again. and again and again.

Please don't mistake me not quoting every very lengthy post you made over the last 3 pages with me not being aware of your stance.

Sharee wrote: »

Are the people seeing 'the issue' PvP players? I really doubt that.

Well, considering I almost exclusively PvP and I started this thread, I'd say you missed the mark here by a pretty wide margin.

By PvP players I think you probably mean "zerg-bro" type players that take their marching order from "zerg-bro" guilds. AND THAT'S FINE. But it stands to reason, that if that's the case, if that's the type of PvP you engage in, then you probably view a possible REQUIREMENT of all players to engage in that type of play as a good thing. Additionally, I have a hunch you don't play DC. lol

But I could be wrong. I could be as wrong as you saying no PvP players see this issue. And that's shockingly wrong.

Now, having said all that, I can't keep up with you word for word. If this debate is going to be won by the volume of text, I admit my defeat right now. So, fill page after page with the same statements if you feel it helps your cause. It helps keep this on the top of the forum as well, so it's a double edged sword for everyone involved I reckon. Carry on.

olemanwinter

PLEASE - For the sake of the topic - no matter which side you are on.....stop discussing the LEGALITY of the DLC.
This is a thread about what we think Zos SHOULD do. Not what they CAN do.
As the OP, I have no control over the direction that this conversation goes, but it's run pretty far afield of the original intent.

Hiero_Glyph

AssaultLemming wrote: »

I hate to tell those people in this thread who are talking about charge backs, but you will not be able to raise a charge back for imperial city, because you didn't buy it on your credit card. What you bought was crowns, a virtual currency, and once the crowns were deposited to your account then the service was delivered, so certain types of chargeback are no longer possible, notably you can't chargeback for service not delivered, or for product not as described, because the service/product is crowns, not the DLC.

Fair point but given the recent events with the perma-banning of a somewhat well-known PvP'er I don't think ZoS wants to rely on a gimmick to prevent customers from obtaining a refund if they fail to provide reasonable access for paid DLC as they are already under public scrutiny. Again, I hope they allow all players to access IC in some form but based on their stated intentions it looks as though DC will almost never have access.

EDIT: It is worth noting that ZoS still has not implemented gated access in any form on the PTS despite saying that they would. I really want the community to experience what gated access means during the PTS as this way ZoS can garner honest feedback before release.

Sharee

olemanwinter wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

Are the people seeing 'the issue' PvP players? I really doubt that.

Well, considering I almost exclusively PvP and I started this thread, I'd say you missed the mark here by a pretty wide margin.

That is because you cut my quote short. I also wrote

Sharee wrote:

These are all (or the majority at least) PvE players

...

olemanwinter wrote: »

By PvP players I think you probably mean "zerg-bro" type players that take their marching order from "zerg-bro" guilds.

No. By PvP players i mean players who like to engage enemy players in combat, and welcome the fact that now there is an additional reward for doing so successfully. That includes both the zerg guilds, and players like me, who in the last year were grouped in cyrodiil maybe twice.

olemanwinter wrote: »

Additionally, I have a hunch you don't play DC. lol

I have 8 alts, and they are all in DC. I never played anything but DC since early access. I'd say you missed the mark here by a pretty wide margin.

olemanwinter wrote: »

I could be as wrong as you saying no PvP players see this issue. And that's shockingly wrong.

Except i said no such thing.

Artis

Sharee wrote: »

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.

I already explained it to you twice. Enemy players = it is in principle possible that no matter what you do, you will never see content you paid for. PvE = 1) You get access to fights with no obstacles. 2) It is in principle possible to complete the fights and get rewards if everyone in a group is good enough. The level of "enough" can in principle be reached.

And once again, new location + mechanics(telvar stones) is NOT the same reward as the one you get in trials. The reward analogue would be gear. Compare gear to gear and fights to fights. Or you can say, reward to reward and access to access.
Therefore we have:
1) Trial fights are like fighting in IC. If you paid for it - you should have access to it.

2) Now rewards(gear) depends on how successful you are in those fights. If you kill a boss in trials- you get loot, if you don't - you don't. If you kill players/mobs and get enough stones in IC - you get gear, if not or if they kill you and you lose everything - you don't get gear. This is your obstacle to get a reward. Don't mix it with obstacles to get access to content you paid for. There's no such thing in pve, so don't try to compare. It is unacceptable to have those obstacles too. However, obstacles to get reward will still be there - you need to be successful in your fights. And notice, no one is complaining like "Hey I'm weak and won't be able to win so give me a buff so I can 1v1 experienced PvPers", no, we say "give us access if we pay. our faction will probably never get it or will get it much less often than 2 other factions".

byrom101b16_ESO

For those still ignorant of the facts;

Undue lack of access to a paid for service which is backed up in the terms of a contract can be seen as an 'unfair term' under UK Trading Standards.

All one needs to do is report this to UK Trading Standards to have them investigate it.

No expensive law suit, very little hassle.

You are also free to disseminate the information that you have complained to Trading Standards in whatever public media you wish.

Should UK TS uphold the complaint it provides precedent for the validity of a collective law suit, and next to the risk of that, few companies which rely on good PR would not act to merely modify a bit of code to sidestep the issue.

It's called risk management...

If the US doesn't have the same setup, or the few here denying this is a possibility are just unaware of there being such a service outside the UK, that doesn't make their argument valid, just misinformed.

Assuming the law is always perfectly interpreted in every country by companies or corporations is precisely the kind of thing which leads to abuses - unintentional or otherwise.

If I pay, I get to play - and if that doesn't happen, I call foul.

If you don't, then you are in effect the kind of well programmed and obedient consumer whose passivity encourages abuses, regardless of your actual intentions.

byrom101b16_ESO

To paraphrase a famous saying;

All that is required for corporations to get away with it is for consumers to do nothing.

byrom101b16_ESO

Artemis wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

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.

I already explained it to you twice. Enemy players = it is in principle possible that no matter what you do, you will never see content you paid for. PvE = 1) You get access to fights with no obstacles. 2) It is in principle possible to complete the fights and get rewards if everyone in a group is good enough. The level of "enough" can in principle be reached.

And once again, new location + mechanics(telvar stones) is NOT the same reward as the one you get in trials. The reward analogue would be gear. Compare gear to gear and fights to fights. Or you can say, reward to reward and access to access.
Therefore we have:
1) Trial fights are like fighting in IC. If you paid for it - you should have access to it.

2) Now rewards(gear) depends on how successful you are in those fights. If you kill a boss in trials- you get loot, if you don't - you don't. If you kill players/mobs and get enough stones in IC - you get gear, if not or if they kill you and you lose everything - you don't get gear. This is your obstacle to get a reward. Don't mix it with obstacles to get access to content you paid for. There's no such thing in pve, so don't try to compare. It is unacceptable to have those obstacles too. However, obstacles to get reward will still be there - you need to be successful in your fights. And notice, no one is complaining like "Hey I'm weak and won't be able to win so give me a buff so I can 1v1 experienced PvPers", no, we say "give us access if we pay. our faction will probably never get it or will get it much less often than 2 other factions".

Save your time and effort Artemis. The expansion is am mixture of PvE and PvP, but Sharee characterises it as entirely PvP.

Sharee also thinks that loot is the same as playing the game.

It is self-evident Sharee doesn't understand (or want to acknowledge) the difference between the things he/she needs to, in order to understand your point.

So no point making it...

Leandor

byrom101b16_ESO wrote: »

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.

byrom101b16_ESO wrote: »

It is self-evident Sharee doesn't understand (or want to acknowledge) the difference between the things he/she needs to, in order to understand your point.

I'll just leave this here.

Sharee

Artemis wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

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.

I already explained it to you twice. Enemy players = it is in principle possible that no matter what you do, you will never see content you paid for. PvE = 1) You get access to fights with no obstacles. 2) It is in principle possible to complete the fights and get rewards if everyone in a group is good enough. The level of "enough" can in principle be reached.

I PvE, you will never see the boss unless your group is good enough. In PvP, you will never see IC unless your group is good enough.

It is in principle possible that no matter what you do, you will never see IC, that's right. But the same is also true for PvE - it is theoretically possible that you will never find a group good enough to defeat the trial. The only difference is that the difficulty threshold for PvP is variable, either higher or lower, depending on the composition of your group vs the enemy group.

Neither guarantees a victory tho.

Artemis wrote: »

And once again, new location + mechanics(telvar stones) is NOT the same reward as the one you get in trials. The reward analogue would be gear. Compare gear to gear and fights to fights. Or you can say, reward to reward and access to access.

You are trying to construct an arbitrary definition of what reward is, to suit your cause. But that does not work.

Reward is something that you desire, and that you get for accomplishing a task associated with the reward. If you desire IC access, and the access is awarded to you for taking a keep, then IC access is a reward to you for taking a keep.

Sharee

byrom101b16_ESO wrote: »

For those still ignorant of the facts;

Undue lack of access to a paid for service which is backed up in the terms of a contract can be seen as an 'unfair term' under UK Trading Standards.

All one needs to do is report this to UK Trading Standards to have them investigate it.

No expensive law suit, very little hassle.

Have you ever tried to sue an icecream merchant because you bought vanilla icecream and when you received it, you discovered there is not chocolate in the cone but vanilla?

That is what you are preaching here. You are going to sue ZOS because you can not access IC in the DLC you bought without taking a keep first, when the DLC description clearly stated that you have to take a keep first before you can enter IC - i.e. you got exactly what was promised.

This is one point where i can wholeheartedly agree with olemanwinter - trying to bring laws into this debate is completely silly.

olemanwinter

Sharee wrote: »

snip

Sharee, you are acting as if we all already bought the DLC knowing what the conditions were, and now after the fact, are complaining that it's unfair, etc. You either misunderstand or mischaracterize the issue.
Zos can do whatever it likes. As long as they explain the system before they launch the DLC, players have nothing to complain about IF they buy the DLC.
BUT I (and many others) WONT BUY THE DLC if they make this decision.

To argue against that is absurd. You're effectively arguing that I should have to spend my money on something I don't believe is valuable. That's practically absurd because I can't be forced to spend it and generally unkind to assume that kind of influence over another person.

The points I made were simple and completely unrelated to vast majority of your arguments filling the bottom half of this thread:
1) I believe the power discrepancy in Cyrodiil is so great that it will lead to a reduced number of DC players accessing the DLC. (This point has nothing to do with your Trials vs DLC, "what's content?" long running conversation)
2) The reduced number of DC players will lead to a reduced number of sales of the DLC which is bad for Zos (Again, has nothing to do with the argument you are filling page after page with.)
3) The reduced number of DC players will lead to the same disadvantaged DC PvE leaderboards situation that Zos is trying to remedy by removing pvp buffs. (still nothing to do with your posts)
4) The reduced number of DC players will lead to a perpetually stronger average player on EP and AD and further exacerbate the power discrepancy in Cyrodiil. (still...)
THEREFORE: I believe it's in the best interest of everyone to make the gate for access to the Imperial City as minimal as possible.

So, frankly, the last 3 going on 4 pages of posts by you regarding the equivalent of trials to the IC and the legality of that are not in any way relevant to the original premise of my post.

They COULD make anything in the game like trials. They COULD have made you find 12 friends to enter a crafting station and craft gear. lol That's within their right.......but nobody would buy a game like that (that's within our rights) and would result in a reduced enjoyment for all when the game is underpopulated.

Overwhelming opposition with the volume of rhetoric is not the same thing as making a compelling argument.

I think you should accept the basic premise of my original post and argue against it (Access gates are a bad idea) instead of hijacking the thread to essentially argue something else (Zos is neither hypocritical nor illegal to use access gates) when that was never in question.

Leandor

Taking that advice and trying to help bring back the topic on topic (hah.), I'll restate my point of view and arguments.

1. Limited access to IC is a bad idea, if done wrong. To require a large number of keeps (be it home keeps or home keeps +1) will foster return of buff campaigns, since it is easier to farm all the goodies inside if you do not have an opposition to fight.
2. Unlimited access to IC is the opposing extreme and as bad. It will cause Cyrodiil proper to be completely dead except for the access tunnel gankers. AP is useless now, as are emperor buffs. The only incentive to play Cyrodiil proper are the keep buffs, and those again only foster buff campaigns.
3. Limiting access in a way that can be achieved by slight effort against an oppressing opposition (e.g. "have a transitus route to one of your own emperor keeps" as proposed in the first link in my signature) makes Cyrodiil proper not entirely useless and is easy enough that buff campaigns can be broken up quickly. Combined with "no keep buffs inside IC" (which is a new proposal that just popped into my head), this would be the preferable option.

Sharee

olemanwinter wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

snip

Sharee, you are acting as if we all already bought the DLC knowing what the conditions were, and now after the fact, are complaining that it's unfair, etc. You either misunderstand or mischaracterize the issue.

To clarify, i merely posted that in response to "If ZOE implements restricted access, i have the right to sue them due to my consumer rights"

What i am saying is that *if* ZOS states the conditions, and you buy it regardless, then you have no grounds to complain about the access rules, since you knew about them in advance.

olemanwinter wrote: »

To argue against that is absurd. You're effectively arguing that I should have to spend my money on something I don't believe is valuable. That's practically absurd because I can't be forced to spend it and generally unkind to assume that kind of influence over another person.

How did you come to that conclusion? I am in no way suggesting you should buy something if you do not think it is valuable.

olemanwinter wrote: »

The points I made were simple and completely unrelated to vast majority of your arguments filling the bottom half of this thread:
1) I believe the power discrepancy in Cyrodiil is so great that it will lead to a reduced number of DC players accessing the DLC. (This point has nothing to do with your Trials vs DLC, "what's content?" long running conversation)

That remains to be seen. We neither know what the access rules will be, and we also do not know how hard it will be to fullfill the access requirement (esp. in the light of the fact that population is shared between IC and cyro, weakening the faction that already has access)

olemanwinter wrote: »

So, frankly, the last 3 going on 4 pages of posts by you regarding the equivalent of trials to the IC and the legality of that are not in any way relevant to the original premise of my post.

That is because until recently, i was answering someone else's posts - posts that complained not about power discrepancy in cyrodiil, but about "i paid for it, how can you keep it from me!". There, the trial equivalents come to play (to get a reward, you need to make the effort)

Hiero_Glyph

Yeah, gated access is fine so long as it is fair to all factions regardless of population size. Controlling population size is a separate matter but if the bonus provided is good enough it may encourage fighting against buff campaigns.

Anyway, controlling the 6 home keeps is an extremely rigid requirement and can be exploited by larger alliances. It is also a direct opposition to controlling who is Emperor so if IC > Emperor we may never see one again except in buff campaigns as the effort required to crown one would be immense.

Another popular idea for gated access is to control 1 of the 2 home emporer keeps. This is far more flexible than the original concept but creates the same problem regarding Emperor. In essence ZoS is removing the Emperor fight if IC becomes the highlight of Cyrodiil because no alliance will keep fighting for all 6 Emperor keeps if they can play IC instead. Is the loss of having an Emperor on all but buff campaigns worth it for IC access?

So how do we give factions a way to gain access to IC without making it conflict with the conditions to becoming Emperor? Or is the idea to never have an Emperor in IC while multiple alliances can access it? If the access gate for IC was reduced to controlling any 3 home keeps it would avoid this conflict of interest with Emperor. The only problem now is that the condition may be too simple to maintain unless there is a severe population imbalance, which brings us back to adding some incentive for underpopulated alliances. Perhas just controlling any 4 keeps would keep things competitive without strictly requiring there to never be an Emperor in order to have IC access.

In truth, I just want gated access on the PTS to get actual player feedback. I want to see how players react to losing IC access and more importantly, I want to see what happens if a campaign has a population imbalance. Personally, I think ZoS needs to simulate these conditions without telling the players about them to make it look like they have an equal population size when really one alliance has more players in Cyrodiil. Isn't something like this the point of a PTS? Let's try different gated access conditions and see what happens but I don't think the conditions for access should conflict with having an Emperor.

wraith808

Sharee wrote: »

olemanwinter wrote: »

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".

Again, the expansion is meant for the PvP player. Are the people seeing 'the issue' PvP players? I really doubt that. These are all (or the majority at least) PvE players complaining that a PvP expansion is not tailored to suit a PvE player's needs. (see your own argument "But there is a player force opposing you!" - well, duh)

Actually, yes, there are a lot of PvP players that see the issue. If you can't get access because your faction will never meet the requirements, then that affects PvP, PvE, and PvP/PvE players.

My issue, is that there is a middle ground. And they are testing them, to get to the middle ground. To say that there cannot be access gates to IC content categorically is saying that that middle ground doesn't exist.

Sharee

wraith808 wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

olemanwinter wrote: »

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".

Again, the expansion is meant for the PvP player. Are the people seeing 'the issue' PvP players? I really doubt that. These are all (or the majority at least) PvE players complaining that a PvP expansion is not tailored to suit a PvE player's needs. (see your own argument "But there is a player force opposing you!" - well, duh)

Actually, yes, there are a lot of PvP players that see the issue. If you can't get access because your faction will never meet the requirements, then that affects PvP, PvE, and PvP/PvE players.

As long as the total pvp population cap is split between cyrodiil and IC, i just do not consider it very likely that a faction would never be able to gain access. The faction trying to get in will always outnumber the faction trying to prevent that, even in campaigns where one faction usually dominates numerically.

And let's not forget that a player can choose any campaign he wants. In the unlikely case that all the friendlies in his campaign are PvE'rs incapable of gaining access despite outnumbering the enemy, he can just guest/switch to a more balanced campaign.

wraith808 wrote: »

My issue, is that there is a middle ground. And they are testing them, to get to the middle ground. To say that there cannot be access gates to IC content categorically is saying that that middle ground doesn't exist.

Of course. I'm not saying we need a drastic access requirement like owning all keeps in cyrodiil or something. I am just opposed to the idea (and this is why i originally joined the thread) that "IC must always be accessible, because we paid for it".

This is such a wonderful opportunity to give additional meaning to all the keep fighting we already do every day. It would be a shame if it got wasted.

SeptimusDova

I watched DC on Azura's last night they were doing pretty good. Smoked 16 Smurfs before I got hunted down like a dog and gang killed with relentless fury next to ash mine.It was looking real good for them they even snagged the scroll of Ghartok from the angry red peoples. I am getting ready to log back in and see what the map looks like now after the EP day shift arrived.

I did find a another PVP bug last night and so did a DK. I fired off a spell at him he reflected with flappy flap. I reflected with defensive stance. How come he was not able to reflect it back. We wanted to play spell ping pong .

the volatile nature of the keeps cannot be discounted.
And sharee I do pvp i do not zerg or join zergs. the closet thing to a group zerg i get is when a scroll is being ran.So don not say thinks like " I doubt that the majority of posters on this thread even PVP"

Your arguments bounce all over the place and have erratic logic we will disagree on that you can agree.

Now im off to the pistol range have to recertify with duty sidearm.

Enjoy Cyrodiil

Sharee

SeptimusDova wrote: »

I did find a another PVP bug last night and so did a DK. I fired off a spell at him he reflected with flappy flap. I reflected with defensive stance. How come he was not able to reflect it back. We wanted to play spell ping pong .

This is not a bug. Any given projectile can only be reflected twice (otherwise, any bigger battle would likely make the server melt).

SeptimusDova wrote: »

Your arguments bounce all over the place

That is because i am trying to address several different topics (from multiple people) at once. One is that ZOS can be sued for implementing gating for IC. One is explaining that IC access can be considered a reward in the DLC (and thus not automatically granted). And yet another about cyrodiil balance concerns(and the access concerns tied to it). That can make my posts confusing to some, unfortunately.

cjthibs

This whole argument is akin to this:

Football team A decides to sue the NFL because it has constructed an unfair system in which Football team B has larger players and thus prevents them 'fair access' to the endzone.

Hiero_Glyph

That's why salary caps and a draft system exist. Except Cyrodiil has no such restrictions other than limiting the maximum number of players per alliance. Professional sports encourage fair play even if a few franchises still have better revenue streams and management.

Stikato

After, unfortunately, reading this entire thread, I would like to point out that DC is winning the most populated, competitive campaign at this time.

"Special" content is not as "special" if anyone can just walk in at any time. Trials and vet dungeons require coordination. Higher level zones require leveling. IC may require keep ownership. ZOS, please do not water down the mechanics that many of us have (in)patiently waited for since launch.

cjthibs

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

That's why salary caps and a draft system exist. Except Cyrodiil has no such restrictions other than limiting the maximum number of players per alliance. Professional sports encourage fair play even if a few franchises still have better revenue streams and management.

So should they force people to play a certain faction then?
Or have certain factions' members draft newbies?

Yes, those were sarcastic. The problem isn't the game, the problem is that many folks rather an easy win than putting forth effort. They join the most populated alliances and they cry/whine/scream to make things easier, (Doshia anyone? Molag Bal fight?) which results in a boring game. People will complain until everything gets made easy then they'll quit because they're bored...and run off to ruin another game.

Of course, as a result of the relentless whining, ZOS has lowered the difficulty on all PvE systems resulting in the PvP being the only part of the game that many of us feel -any- sense of accomplishment from anymore.

If you don't like it, or want to make it easier, just go play something easy. I see a lot of folks playing that FarmVille stuff.

In all seriousness, this game used to be challenging and fun, but the whining has resulted in systematic difficulty-lowering across the board, to the point that I auto-piloted my latest character from 1-VR2 only upgrading my gear 1 time at level 24 and then again just at VR1. I think I died once, and that was during a lag spike.

Furthermore, the intent of keep access is to keep activities in Cyrodiil dynamic. As in having to move into the Imperial City and then back out in order shore up defenses to move back in. This will actually help keep things from stagnating. I look forward to it. If we take that bit away, I predict we'll see a wholesale dwindling of activity in Cyrodiil proper and it'll degenerate into a bunch of folks doing the same grind in the sewers and/or PvP in the districts day-in day-out and getting bored.

What I don't understand is that is exactly what these folks seem to want.

cjthibs

*deleted*

NobleNerd

I like PvP and I like PvE, but for me there are many concerns with IC and how it currently is being handled. You have brought up good points and concerns. Another issue is the removal of PvE campaign buffs, especially since ZOS is trying to market IC as a PvP with PvE elements rolled in. The incentives to draw PvErs into the PvP realms will just become less attractive without the campaign buffs.

Artis

Sharee wrote: »

I PvE, you will never see the boss unless your group is good enough. In PvP, you will never see IC unless your group is good enough.

It is in principle possible that no matter what you do, you will never see IC, that's right. But the same is also true for PvE - it is theoretically possible that you will never find a group good enough to defeat the trial. The only difference is that the difficulty threshold for PvP is variable, either higher or lower, depending on the composition of your group vs the enemy group.

Neither guarantees a victory tho.

Artemis wrote: »

And once again, new location + mechanics(telvar stones) is NOT the same reward as the one you get in trials. The reward analogue would be gear. Compare gear to gear and fights to fights. Or you can say, reward to reward and access to access.

You are trying to construct an arbitrary definition of what reward is, to suit your cause. But that does not work.

Reward is something that you desire, and that you get for accomplishing a task associated with the reward. If you desire IC access, and the access is awarded to you for taking a keep, then IC access is a reward to you for taking a keep.

1. You will see the first boss at least. In some dungeons (think Ulduar, Naxx ...) you can defeat bosses in different orders so you can actually see a few bosses. Whereas you might never see IC.
2. Composition is not the only thing that make threshold variable. In PvE it is in principle possible to reach threshold. In PvP in it in principle possible that threshold might be unreachable. Like it is right now for NA DC. That's a huge difference.
3. Yeah no, if that's a reward then next boss is a reward for defeating the previous one. Just don't mention loot again comparing it to IC. Now if every following boss is a reward for defeating the previous one - we see that we get to play new content and just get to play more if we are successful. However, if IC is reward for taking a keep - that's bull. Because you could take keeps since release, there's nothing new in this. Why would they make you pay for IC if it is possible that you will never see it (because other factions will take keeps and you won't)?