Should players be assigned to PvP campaigns based on their PvP ranking?

firstdecan

Just a thought. One of the frustrating things about PvP in this game is the fact that it is all or nothing. You have everyone in the same room trying to compete, the no-lifers with the casuals, the high skill with the low skill. Wouldn't it make more sense to group players of similar skill levels together for actual competitive play?

As it currently is, you basically have the equivalent of a professional sports team (no-lifer PvP guilds) matched up against peewee league players (pugs). How that is fun or challenging for most people is beyond me. There doesn't seem to be a mechanism to match up people of similar skill (be they good players or players who need to l2p). I would think the PvP aspects of this game would be a lot more popular if a mechanism to match up players \ teams by skill level existed. The PvP ranking as it currently exists may not be the proper mechanism, but some kind of ranking system to differentiate the players into performance tiers.

Hypertionb14_ESO

sure why not... dont think there is anything else ZOS can do that will elevate or lower my expectations at this point.

leepalmer95

They should just limit campaigns based on cp.

Samadhi

Would rather see PvP campaigns divided by Champion Rank than PvP rank.

None of my Eight characters is high enough to unlock Vigor yet; however, the discrepancy between myself and a high-ranked PvP player is not as significant as the discrepancy between myself and someone with several times more Champion Points than me.

Morimizo

This may be addressed if duels or small-scale skirmishes are ever introduced, but I think most people wouldn't want the community to be divided any more than it already is.

I, however, agree with your sentiment; true glory resides in defeating a superior or at least evenly-matched opponent who is AWARE and PREPARED. Anything less is a form of cheating really, but that is highly encouraged in this game (and many others).

briandivisionb16_ESO

No segregation.

Kammakazi

Rank them by Champion Points...

k2blader

It'd make more sense to tier by level and CPs.

PvP rank doesn't mean much except to show about how much AP someone has received.

Tolmos

Kammakazi wrote: »

Rank them by Champion Points...

This. This would be amazing. Too amazing for me to ever expect ZoS to do it, but just throwing out how amazing I would find that.

Grunim

PvP rank means a lot less than you think it does. For example, I play alts and so my rank is spread among them. I just play enough on a given character to unlock the skills I care about and any rank beyond that is meaningless.

Also, when Imperial City is released people only need to be rank 5 to unlock the vigor skill and that's very quick to achieve.

FilthyMudcrabs

As long as it doesn't affect me joining a guild group in PVP regardless of level

firstdecan

As I said in my post, the current PvP ranking may not be the way to do it, but it's nice to see others are open to the idea of some kind of mechanism to create more even matches. Champion points could be an answer, but those can be ground out in PvE and may not correlate to a good PvPer (although there would be less imbalance). I honestly would not care if someone had more CP than me if we were about 50\50 in matchups (which don't exist in this game, just mentioning to illustrate).

Again, this was just a thought. I appreciate the good discussion.

J2JMC

But how would asser

Morimizo wrote: »

This may be addressed if duels or small-scale skirmishes are ever introduced, but I think most people wouldn't want the community to be divided any more than it already is.

I, however, agree with your sentiment; true glory resides in defeating a superior or at least evenly-matched opponent who is AWARE and PREPARED. Anything less is a form of cheating really, but that is highly encouraged in this game (and many others).

So when a class is designed to hit hard out of stealth while yours is designed for regeneration and raw damage they're cheating because they aren't fighting the way you want them to? Lol ok.

*** the khajit and woodelves I guess lol. All hail imperials, redguards and altmers.

snowmanflvb14_ESO

it would prevent friends from playing with friends so NO

Sausage

Theres no enough population to make multiple campaigns. In PS4 EU we can barely fill one 1 month vet-campaign. Yes, pug vs voice chat teamwork raid is an issue and always been, people need to die so those who work together doesnt get huge upper hand, sadly we are moving away from this. I actually think what I feared the most is coming true, teamwork, high-CP, VR advantage, IC-gears might create some nasty stuff. Winter is coming. Casuals and noobs pay the ultimate price.

Steelshiv

No

Kybotica

If this game's PvP were battleground style, or limited to matches that involved a small number of players at once, I'd agree with you, TC.

The whole point is that the gameplay in Cyrodiil revolves around having a variety of groups of different sizes, styles, and skill levels all running around at the same and/or different times.

The gameplay is more fun and more challenging when skilled groups meet, but that doesn't mean it should be exclusively so. Less organized groups can and do succeed in Cyrodiil, but not when they're pitted against the best a campaign has to offer. That said, they can win battles while the "elite no-lifers" are busy fighting one another.

If one of the less organized groups crashes the party when two organized groups are in a heated battle, the less organized group can (and often does) win the battle by merging with their faction's group.

Cyrodiil PvP isn't about strictly controlled, even matches between players of equal skill. It is a dynamic environment with numerous players of varied skill levels doing various things at once.

If they decide to add battleground style PvP, where smaller groups fight, then I'd expect some sort of ranking system. It doesn't, in my mind, belong in Cyrodiil.

firstdecan

snowmanflvb14_ESO wrote: »

it would prevent friends from playing with friends so NO

It would be entirely possible to keep an "open" campaign and then have other campaigns (let's say 7-14 day campaigns) with some kind of performance based ranking system. At a minimum an "elites" and "casuals" campaign, with adjustments made at the end of each campaign.

Sausage wrote: »

Theres no enough population to make multiple campaigns. In PS4 EU we can barely fill one 1 month vet-campaign. Yes, pug vs voice chat teamwork raid is an issue and always been, people need to die so those who work together doesnt get huge upper hand, sadly we are moving away from this. I actually think what I feared the most is coming true, teamwork, high-CP, VR advantage, IC-gears might create some nasty stuff. Winter is coming. Casuals and noobs pay the ultimate price.

This is kind of my point. This game has a die hard fan base, but outside of that there's not that many people playing. I think there's only one real PvP campaign on each platform. There's probably several reasons for that, but the underwhelming amount of enjoyment from consistently overwhelming matchups could be a significant contributing factor. In the early months of the game there were multiple campaigns running that were lively and PvP was a big draw for many people. Slowly that has faded, and the PvP populations have died. PvP used to be one of my favorite aspects of the game, but as more of a casual player I find it increasingly unenjoyable. It seems to be dominated by a couple zergs of "insiders" who live and breath the fotm builds and the known exploits. There's no reason to penalize them in any way, but I would simply think they would have more fun playing competitively against each other, whereas casual players would have more fun playing against people closer to their skill level.

Morimizo

J2JMC wrote: »

But how would asser

Morimizo wrote: »

This may be addressed if duels or small-scale skirmishes are ever introduced, but I think most people wouldn't want the community to be divided any more than it already is.

I, however, agree with your sentiment; true glory resides in defeating a superior or at least evenly-matched opponent who is AWARE and PREPARED. Anything less is a form of cheating really, but that is highly encouraged in this game (and many others).

So when a class is designed to hit hard out of stealth while yours is designed for regeneration and raw damage they're cheating because they aren't fighting the way you want them to? Lol ok.

*** the khajit and woodelves I guess lol. All hail imperials, redguards and altmers.

I should have been more specific.

I refer not to style of play; I would always be in favor of more classes and abilities; what I mean is the taking advantage of significantly weaker (level/stat-wise) of players, with the same XP gain and rewards. Cheating is not the right word; players can only play the game as it was designed. I personally find no satisfaction/glory in defeating an undermatched opponent (in PVP; can't get away from this in PVE), and have little patience for those that think they are Auriel's gift to Nirn if they do.

Splitting up the overall PVP community is not the answer, but providing separate instances for smaller skirmishes/duels would be welcome.

LarsS

No, would prevent low level guildmembers to participate in guild groups. Pvp is a good way for guilds to integrate people of different experience.

Sausage

firstdecan wrote: »

Sausage wrote: »

Theres no enough population to make multiple campaigns. In PS4 EU we can barely fill one 1 month vet-campaign. Yes, pug vs voice chat teamwork raid is an issue and always been, people need to die so those who work together doesnt get huge upper hand, sadly we are moving away from this. I actually think what I feared the most is coming true, teamwork, high-CP, VR advantage, IC-gears might create some nasty stuff. Winter is coming. Casuals and noobs pay the ultimate price.

This is kind of my point. This game has a die hard fan base, but outside of that there's not that many people playing. I think there's only one real PvP campaign on each platform. There's probably several reasons for that, but the underwhelming amount of enjoyment from consistently overwhelming matchups could be a significant contributing factor. In the early months of the game there were multiple campaigns running that were lively and PvP was a big draw for many people. Slowly that has faded, and the PvP populations have died. PvP used to be one of my favorite aspects of the game, but as more of a casual player I find it increasingly unenjoyable. It seems to be dominated by a couple zergs of "insiders" who live and breath the fotm builds and the known exploits. There's no reason to penalize them in any way, but I would simply think they would have more fun playing competitively against each other, whereas casual players would have more fun playing against people closer to their skill level.

Cyrodil is piece of crap thats the problem. It isnt even nearly on same bar what most PVP games offer these days, see Planetside 2. Cyrodil is same old MMO crap, pocket portable siege weapons, people can stand inside each other, no mounted combat, just some simple siege mechanics. It isnt hard to realize Cyrodil was added to the game hastily after spending 3+ year in PVE zone design, at least. ESO is massive game, and its not first time when devs try to please everyone and end up pleasing no-one, thats even bigger reason not to start to do some stunts right now. Just keep it simple after they have added like 2 expansions and tons of updates.