Is PvP really the best aspect of ESO?

LrdRahvin

I agree with the OP 100%. ESO really missed the boat with their groundbreaking and totally new take on PVP.

They really should have figured out a way to expand their PVP into all aspects of the game. My personal idea for a first step in that direction is every time a new player goes to a bank...all the doors seal and a last man standing death match is triggered, with the guards one-shotting anyone who tried to hide in a corner or go afk.

If they REALLY wanted to get groundbreaking and innovative, they could take forced PVP to a whole new level and implement a system where everytime someone levels they are flagged to all the other players around them for 30 minutes.

Hell, if they really wanted to make PVP fun they could make an alternative instance of cyro where all participants are required to play totally naked and smeared with peanut butter.

So many lost opportunities ZOS. FOR SHAME.




/endsarcasm
/begintrollface

Shader_Shibes

Roehamad_Ali wrote: »

I agree ESO has the best setup for PvP but it's broken from neglect and exploitation . Needs a lot of maintaining .

That in a nutshell, oh, and the dev's incompetence or sheer ignorance, or maybe both of those.

BRogueNZ

Roehamad_Ali wrote: »

I agree ESO has the best setup for PvP but it's broken from neglect and exploitation . Needs a lot of maintaining .

and some variety, admittedly i haven't revisited IC but I doubt much has changed.

Not just content either but different builds that work without the mad OP extremes.

It's all I do though, pvp and I'm not even that good at it.

The thought of fighting AI just does not appeal to me at all.
I don't get a sense of accomplishment completing PVE content.

Rohamad_Ali

BRogueNZ wrote: »

Roehamad_Ali wrote: »

I agree ESO has the best setup for PvP but it's broken from neglect and exploitation . Needs a lot of maintaining .

and some variety, admittedly i haven't revisited IC but I doubt much has changed.

Not just content either but different builds that work without the mad OP extremes.

It's all I do though, pvp and I'm not even that good at it.

The thought of fighting AI just does not appeal to me at all.
I don't get a sense of accomplishment completing PVE content.

I have not pvpd in 10 days except for 1 duel , since 5/31's meteors attacked Cyrodiil . I'm so bored with PvE . I finished DB an litany of blood and now just crafting . If they don't fix PvP soon I may seek other places .

Jaronking

Roehamad_Ali wrote: »

BRogueNZ wrote: »

Roehamad_Ali wrote: »

I agree ESO has the best setup for PvP but it's broken from neglect and exploitation . Needs a lot of maintaining .

and some variety, admittedly i haven't revisited IC but I doubt much has changed.

Not just content either but different builds that work without the mad OP extremes.

It's all I do though, pvp and I'm not even that good at it.

The thought of fighting AI just does not appeal to me at all.
I don't get a sense of accomplishment completing PVE content.

I have not pvpd in 10 days except for 1 duel , since 5/31's meteors attacked Cyrodiil . I'm so bored with PvE . I finished DB an litany of blood and now just crafting . If they don't fix PvP soon I may seek other places .

Go to Overwatch that's what am doing until they release Dark Brotherhood for consoles its fun.

dtm_samuraib16_ESO

You folks seem to miss a simple factor: PvP killed PvE.
All this rebalancing crap, which btw is purely for PvP meant, affects PvE extremely badly.

Again, this is why I opted to SEPARATE the PvP from PvE, on different servers.

I for one want nothing to do with the whole PvP crap that still is forced upon me through this "PvP balancing".
It is ALSO why half the game is not there, or lore wise not correct.

Xylphan

LrdRahvin wrote: »

I agree with the OP 100%. ESO really missed the boat with their groundbreaking and totally new take on PVP.

They really should have figured out a way to expand their PVP into all aspects of the game. My personal idea for a first step in that direction is every time a new player goes to a bank...all the doors seal and a last man standing death match is triggered, with the guards one-shotting anyone who tried to hide in a corner or go afk.

If they REALLY wanted to get groundbreaking and innovative, they could take forced PVP to a whole new level and implement a system where everytime someone levels they are flagged to all the other players around them for 30 minutes.

Hell, if they really wanted to make PVP fun they could make an alternative instance of cyro where all participants are required to play totally naked and smeared with peanut butter.

So many lost opportunities ZOS. FOR SHAME.




/endsarcasm
/begintrollface

/triggered
/rant
/meme about comparing troll to plankton

Dubhliam

@LrdRahvin
If you cannot grasp a way of promoting PvP without forcing players into duels, that is your problem.

Just like people can't imagine a grief-proof PvP Justice system.
Or for example, they read "Combat Animation Prioritization" in the patch notes and go: "Great! now people can't animation cancel!"

There are far more subtle ways of reminding players that there is a war going on.

NPCs have various (unprovoked) insults, so why should they not insult you based on your low AvA rank?
NPCs also notice your feats (completed quests) and recognize you as a savior or hero, so why don't they recognize high AvA ranks?

Not everything about PvP is actually fighting other players.

My point is that the two player bases should be brought closer together, bring more empathy for one another instead of segregating them completely.

Rohamad_Ali

Jaronking wrote: »

Roehamad_Ali wrote: »

BRogueNZ wrote: »

Roehamad_Ali wrote: »

I agree ESO has the best setup for PvP but it's broken from neglect and exploitation . Needs a lot of maintaining .

and some variety, admittedly i haven't revisited IC but I doubt much has changed.

Not just content either but different builds that work without the mad OP extremes.

It's all I do though, pvp and I'm not even that good at it.

The thought of fighting AI just does not appeal to me at all.
I don't get a sense of accomplishment completing PVE content.

I have not pvpd in 10 days except for 1 duel , since 5/31's meteors attacked Cyrodiil . I'm so bored with PvE . I finished DB an litany of blood and now just crafting . If they don't fix PvP soon I may seek other places .

Go to Overwatch that's what am doing until they release Dark Brotherhood for consoles its fun.

I'll check it out . Ty

dtm_samuraib16_ESO

Dubhliam wrote: »

@LrdRahvin
If you cannot grasp a way of promoting PvP without forcing players into duels, that is your problem.

Just like people can't imagine a grief-proof PvP Justice system.
Or for example, they read "Combat Animation Prioritization" in the patch notes and go: "Great! now people can't animation cancel!"

There are far more subtle ways of reminding players that there is a war going on.

NPCs have various (unprovoked) insults, so why should they not insult you based on your low AvA rank?
NPCs also notice your feats (completed quests) and recognize you as a savior or hero, so why don't they recognize high AvA ranks?

Not everything about PvP is actually fighting other players.

My point is that the two player bases should be brought closer together, bring more empathy for one another instead of segregating them completely.

No, they should be separated, and we should have a decent PvE game.

LrdRahvin

Xylphan wrote: »

LrdRahvin wrote: »

I agree with the OP 100%. ESO really missed the boat with their groundbreaking and totally new take on PVP.

They really should have figured out a way to expand their PVP into all aspects of the game. My personal idea for a first step in that direction is every time a new player goes to a bank...all the doors seal and a last man standing death match is triggered, with the guards one-shotting anyone who tried to hide in a corner or go afk.

If they REALLY wanted to get groundbreaking and innovative, they could take forced PVP to a whole new level and implement a system where everytime someone levels they are flagged to all the other players around them for 30 minutes.

Hell, if they really wanted to make PVP fun they could make an alternative instance of cyro where all participants are required to play totally naked and smeared with peanut butter.

So many lost opportunities ZOS. FOR SHAME.




/endsarcasm
/begintrollface

/triggered
/rant
/meme about comparing troll to plankton

/doubletriggered
/incoherent rant about "no you"
/idiotic meme about lol didn't read.

Sharakor

im surprised that people would even ask this. PvE is mundane and very easy, everything is calculated and predictable, even the hardest dungeons are easy. as someone else said its a difference of opinion, to emphasize on this, casual players usually quit PvP when they realize they cant Strife a player down and are left in awe, so they stick to PvE. PvP is basically a natural selection haven

NobleNerd

Leslannister wrote: »

RebornV3x wrote: »

The PVE in this game is pretty boring and super easy I don't believe I died questing tell I got to Craglorn and most of the questing in this game can be done solo. Most of the NPCs are bland, the world for the most part doesn't change based on your actions and almost every quest is a fetch quest if this game would embrace its M rating it could be good as well really liked Orsinium's questline since it was a little darker but thats about it the PVP is what keeps TESO alive and its sad to see Zenimax neglect it.

Omg, have you played WoW? Questing in ESO is way way better then WOW's ... I'm not much into questing either way but it honestly seems as good as it gets in ESO.

ESO questing is "as good as it gets".... seriously? I mean the voice acting is nice when it is actually good, but other than that ESO questing is more drawn out per reward for effort than most MMOs! I am still waiting for MMO quests that give you true choice and consequences then it will be "as good as it gets".

Robbmrp

Phinix1 wrote: »

Just a few thoughts...

Not every game has to force PVP onto PVE whether PVE players want it or not.

More players prefer PVE-centric to PVP-centric in MMO's universally across all studies that have been done. A few Google searches will confirm this.

This is an Elder Scrolls game FIRST. Arbitrarily inserting a PVP focus would subtract from those elements and the developers rightly decided the weight of the genre was more important than chasing trendy PVP gimmicks.

PVP in ESO is fine. There are two entire zones (massive Cyrodiil and an entire DLC Imperial Sewers) devoted to PVP. No need to force it on the PVE zones.

A game can do both PVE and PVP well, AND keep them separate. I feel ESO strikes a good balance at that.

Zenimax doesn't even need to do that. They can add in a Justice System and allow people to Opt out of it. Then they can't be hunted down by other players. To not build it, is just a tragedy when there are so many players that would really enjoy that aspect of it.

ESO really does have some great PVP in it whether everyone plays it or not. Zenimax needs to beef things up with it, really concentrate on removing the lag in it that also affects PVE. The more they can offer a player with both PVE/PVP, they longer that player and others will keep logging on.

Shadesofkin

I consider it largely the worst aspect, but I know a lot of people who love it. Personally, if I had my way it'd be given no consideration, but I'm sure lots of pvp enthusiasts feel that way about pve.

Robbmrp

Shadesofkin wrote: »

I consider it largely the worst aspect, but I know a lot of people who love it. Personally, if I had my way it'd be given no consideration, but I'm sure lots of pvp enthusiasts feel that way about pve.

Exactly. By catering to both PVE and PVP players they create a larger player base. And who knows, just because a lot of PVE'ers hate PVP now, they may give it a try at some point and really like it, and vice versa.

The best action to at least offer it with an Off toggle.

DaveMoeDee

Just because the PvP stands out compared to other PvP doesn't mean that it is the best aspect of the game. If you notice in the pcgamer article, they don't repeat any MMOs in a category. Since PvP is not just no-design arenas/battlegrounds, it is striking compared to generic competition. Once they include ESO for that category, it can't be considered for other categories.

DaveMoeDee

LrdRahvin wrote: »

I agree with the OP 100%. ESO really missed the boat with their groundbreaking and totally new take on PVP.

They really should have figured out a way to expand their PVP into all aspects of the game. My personal idea for a first step in that direction is every time a new player goes to a bank...all the doors seal and a last man standing death match is triggered, with the guards one-shotting anyone who tried to hide in a corner or go afk.

If they REALLY wanted to get groundbreaking and innovative, they could take forced PVP to a whole new level and implement a system where everytime someone levels they are flagged to all the other players around them for 30 minutes.

Hell, if they really wanted to make PVP fun they could make an alternative instance of cyro where all participants are required to play totally naked and smeared with peanut butter.

So many lost opportunities ZOS. FOR SHAME.




/endsarcasm
/begintrollface

Yeah, it is bizarre that people respond to an article about how great the current PvP is with complaints that there isn't a completely different form of PvP.

Rune_Relic

Nestor wrote: »

dtm_samuraib16_ESO wrote: »

Yes, and I said it before, it's a PvP game with a tad of PvE.
Hence I said: separate PvP to a different server and fix up ESO.

From my point of view, it is a PvE game with some PvP over in that zone that is not easy to get to.

Which is really the underlying magic that needs to be nurtured and developed to make this game truly legendary, in that people can play the way they want. You can play against, or with, or without, other players.

QFT. Nice post. Surely this should be the primary goal. Seamless transfer into any genre.

AlnilamE

"Is PvP really the best aspect of ESO?"

I just want to point out that that's not the question that was asked (or answered) by PCgamer. They are comparing PvP in ESO to PvP in other games, NOT PvP in ESO to other aspects of the game.

Whether PvP is the best aspect of ESO is entirely subjective and dependent on an individual's preferences.

How it compares to other games is a bit less subjective, and is what the article was getting at.

Personally, PvP is one of the aspects I enjoy in ESO, problems notwithstanding, but it's certainly not the only one. I like being able to do different things on different days.

Tandor

Typhoios wrote: »

Phinix1 wrote: »

Dubhliam wrote: »

Nobody here is "forcing" anything.

Typhoios wrote: »

Chasing trendy PvP gimmicks?

I don't know if you remember, but a year or so back the whole concept of a "justice system" became one of those trendy marketing hooks for a while. Every new MMO coming out was blurbing about it on their con booths.

Know what happens almost universally when introducing PVP integration into open PVE environments (with the exception of SEPARATE PVP servers where people CHOOSE to play there)? It flops. Want to know why? PEOPLE RUIN IT.

It is a sad fact that a lot of people simply live to find new and even illegal (to the TOS) ways to grief and cheat other players. It's the whole reason they play. It gives them a thrill somehow. I don't pretend to understand WHY people are like that, but the end result is always the same. The game goes to hell.

If a system can be exploited griefers WILL exploit it. Look at Cyrodil Look at any game where no-choice (didn't say forced!) open world PVP is a thing. People with time to grind or credit card ultimates to spam gain a ridiculous unfair advantage then set about camping PVE content like quest givers and crafting hubs and kill defenseless lowbies all day, preventing them from accessing and enjoying content they pay for.

I'm not saying a PVP system has to support that, which is why I believe it should ALWAYS be kept separate from PVE, especially in a ROLE PLAY-centric game like the Elder Scrolls franchise.

And before someone trots out that old cliche about how "PVP people are forced to PVE" let me explain the difference. NPC's don't grief you and camp you at quest and crafting hubs and spawn gank you. PVE content doesn't conspire to prevent you from enjoying the content you paid for. It doesn't because they are robots not people, and unless programmed to, robots don't have that psychological need to be a jerk to other people.

I agree that ZOS should continue perma-banning exploiters, improve detection to do so, and generally resolve the many outstanding issues in Cyrodil (lag, balance, etc.) If that is the suggestion than of course I support it. I doubt anyone would argue "no, those PVP players deserve to suffer, make Cyrodil even worse!" All aspects of the game deserve to be maintained and expanded upon.

So long as that expansion doesn't encroach on the PVE experience. I have had enough of bored kids with too much time on their hands grinding out overpowered characters to grief lowbies.

Let that cancer die a quick and silent death on some grindy pay-to-win Korean MMO.

Isn't everything you mentioned nullified by a toggle option? Want to quest and steal in peace? Keep PvP toggled off (it should be off by default). Tired of robbing and killing predictable and wimpy npcs, toggle PvP on and see how good of a criminal you are.

If we add these things there shouldn't be a problem. For one, you shouldn't be attacked unless you have a bounty, and two, if you have PvP toggled off you can enjoy the justice system in peace. No one of any importance from ZOS ever mentioned open world PvP where you could kill anyone for no reason. It was always tied to Enforcers vs Criminals. No bounty; no PvP. And a toggle option for those that don't want PvP.

But that's not what the PvPers wanted or argued for at the time in relation to the Enforcement part of the Justice System. They didn't want PvEers to be able to opt out of PvP altogether, that would have removed their soft targets and meant they could only engage in PvP with committed PvPers which isn't what they saw the extension of PvP to the open world being about. What they argued for instead was a bounty threshold below which you wouldn't qualify for the Enforcement system but above which you would be fair game regardless of whether or not you were a PvPer.

That's why in my earlier post I specifically used the phrase "If anyone wanted to participate fully in the PvE part then they were going to be forced into PvP" - emphasis on "fully". PvPers didn't want PvEers engaging "fully" in the PvE content of the Justice System without also being forced to engage in the PvP Enforcement system.

Plus, of course, PvPers saw the Enforcement system as a foot in the door so far as the introduction of open world PvP was concerned. They were not remotely interested in any suggestion that the Enforcement system should be restricted to PvP areas like Cyrodiil and IC. Fortunately ZOS could see the feedback on both IC as it was implemented and the Enforcement system as it was proposed and wisely decided to keep the two playstyles separate in future.

Volkodav

Dubhliam wrote: »

According to pcgamer.com, ESO has one of the best PvP in MMOs.
There were also other categories where ESO is nowhere to be found:
the best story-focused MMOs ,
the best sandbox MMOs,
the best "theme park" MMOs,

Playing ESO for quite a while now, I believe ZOS focuses far too much on other aspects of the game (like story) and fails to see that they have a gem in their pocket that they can cash in.
The decision to scrap PvP Justice might or might not be relevant to the whole "best PvP MMO" discussion, but it certainly does show their priorities.

Even when they left their PvP part of the game to wither for such a long time, leaving it in poor balance, horrible lag, exploiting and in the end blatant cheating, it still managed to get distinguished among so many other MMOs.
Imagine what would have become of ESO if PvP was nurtured and catered from the beginning. If the story of each DLC was supporting the idea of an ongoing war, instead of just ignoring it as just a separate part of the game.
If I get recognized by some NPCs as a savior of some sorry village, why do my feats in Cyrodill go unnoticed? Why does no NPC acknowledge my Alliance rank or recognizes me as a former emperor? Apart from Clivia in WGT, kudos for that.

ZOS, you better start treating PvP as a part of your game (and the best part, if I might add) before ESO's PvP gets outshadowed by some new and more exciting MMO.
You just might make ESO PvP something every MMO player would like to be a part of.

Well,ESO can do just fine without PvP.I dont mean to remove it.Many people enjoy the heck out of it.
BUT,..is it the BEST of ESO? I dont believe it is.
Also,..this seems like a personal rant.A mild one,but a rant nonetheless.
This game is based on a series of beloved games,TES,that are all about lore and story.So it was meant to be geared for those people who love questing,who love story,and are into a game with lore.Not some hack and slash without soul,or feeling.Not some arena PvP game.
If that is what you think it should be,then you are sadly mistaken.(though you have your right to say so.)
The reason Bethesda allowed ZOS to take hold of the series,and all it's lore and stories,is because they were going to stay as true as they could to all that which you dont seem to enjoy.
If ZOS turns ESO into a mainly PvP focused game,they may well lose a large chunk of their fanbase. Something they dont seem to want to do.Or they would have done what you suggest a long time ago.
So,the loss of their long time fanbase isnt something ZOS wishes to alienate totally.
Besides,ESO is quite a gem already,..and a feather in the cap of ZOS.

Luigi_Vampa

Tandor wrote: »

Typhoios wrote: »

Phinix1 wrote: »

Dubhliam wrote: »

Nobody here is "forcing" anything.

Typhoios wrote: »

Chasing trendy PvP gimmicks?

I don't know if you remember, but a year or so back the whole concept of a "justice system" became one of those trendy marketing hooks for a while. Every new MMO coming out was blurbing about it on their con booths.

Know what happens almost universally when introducing PVP integration into open PVE environments (with the exception of SEPARATE PVP servers where people CHOOSE to play there)? It flops. Want to know why? PEOPLE RUIN IT.

It is a sad fact that a lot of people simply live to find new and even illegal (to the TOS) ways to grief and cheat other players. It's the whole reason they play. It gives them a thrill somehow. I don't pretend to understand WHY people are like that, but the end result is always the same. The game goes to hell.

If a system can be exploited griefers WILL exploit it. Look at Cyrodil Look at any game where no-choice (didn't say forced!) open world PVP is a thing. People with time to grind or credit card ultimates to spam gain a ridiculous unfair advantage then set about camping PVE content like quest givers and crafting hubs and kill defenseless lowbies all day, preventing them from accessing and enjoying content they pay for.

I'm not saying a PVP system has to support that, which is why I believe it should ALWAYS be kept separate from PVE, especially in a ROLE PLAY-centric game like the Elder Scrolls franchise.

And before someone trots out that old cliche about how "PVP people are forced to PVE" let me explain the difference. NPC's don't grief you and camp you at quest and crafting hubs and spawn gank you. PVE content doesn't conspire to prevent you from enjoying the content you paid for. It doesn't because they are robots not people, and unless programmed to, robots don't have that psychological need to be a jerk to other people.

I agree that ZOS should continue perma-banning exploiters, improve detection to do so, and generally resolve the many outstanding issues in Cyrodil (lag, balance, etc.) If that is the suggestion than of course I support it. I doubt anyone would argue "no, those PVP players deserve to suffer, make Cyrodil even worse!" All aspects of the game deserve to be maintained and expanded upon.

So long as that expansion doesn't encroach on the PVE experience. I have had enough of bored kids with too much time on their hands grinding out overpowered characters to grief lowbies.

Let that cancer die a quick and silent death on some grindy pay-to-win Korean MMO.

Isn't everything you mentioned nullified by a toggle option? Want to quest and steal in peace? Keep PvP toggled off (it should be off by default). Tired of robbing and killing predictable and wimpy npcs, toggle PvP on and see how good of a criminal you are.

If we add these things there shouldn't be a problem. For one, you shouldn't be attacked unless you have a bounty, and two, if you have PvP toggled off you can enjoy the justice system in peace. No one of any importance from ZOS ever mentioned open world PvP where you could kill anyone for no reason. It was always tied to Enforcers vs Criminals. No bounty; no PvP. And a toggle option for those that don't want PvP.

But that's not what the PvPers wanted or argued for at the time in relation to the Enforcement part of the Justice System. They didn't want PvEers to be able to opt out of PvP altogether, that would have removed their soft targets and meant they could only engage in PvP with committed PvPers which isn't what they saw the extension of PvP to the open world being about. What they argued for instead was a bounty threshold below which you wouldn't qualify for the Enforcement system but above which you would be fair game regardless of whether or not you were a PvPer.

That's why in my earlier post I specifically used the phrase "If anyone wanted to participate fully in the PvE part then they were going to be forced into PvP" - emphasis on "fully". PvPers didn't want PvEers engaging "fully" in the PvE content of the Justice System without also being forced to engage in the PvP Enforcement system.

Plus, of course, PvPers saw the Enforcement system as a foot in the door so far as the introduction of open world PvP was concerned. They were not remotely interested in any suggestion that the Enforcement system should be restricted to PvP areas like Cyrodiil and IC. Fortunately ZOS could see the feedback on both IC as it was implemented and the Enforcement system as it was proposed and wisely decided to keep the two playstyles separate in future.

You're inferring a lot about random PvPers intentions and motivations. This is why I said no one important at ZOS ever mentioned forcing open world PvP on everyone. If you can show me a developer statement about PvE players being opened up for griefers, then fine.

However, it does no good to talk about what you think PvPers wanted. I'm tired of this notion of soft targets, or PvPers being just plain griefers that only want to fight weak targets. Some are, but a lot want good fights. If I kill a player in Cyrodiil or IC and they put up no fight, I don't stick around and grief them and I likely won't attack them again unless they attack me. I want good fights. If I wanted to faceroll fights, I'd stick to PvE.

If we are going to infer intentions though, what I saw as most PvPers wanting with the justice system was a way to finally have small scale PvP with an escape from the lag and zergs of Cyrodiil. Personally, I just wanted to be able to kill some of my friends without us having to roll alts in other factions.

NativeJoe

It's just game progression.

Solo content>normal dungeons>Vet dungeons>VMA>Trials>PVP

WillhelmBlack

PvP was announced by the original devs as the end game. Zenimax have changed ESO a lot since then, single player DLC's being the most mind boggling.

bedlom

Pomaikai wrote: »

It has a tendency to not bring out the best in people.

That's PVP for ya!

Ravinsild

I think my least favorite thing about ESO is how so many bloody skills are REQUIRED for top DPS builds which require FULL Assault/Support lines.

I don't want to grind that to be good in dungeons and trials...ugh.

Ishammael

PvE in this game -- with the exception of a handful of fights -- is face-to-keyboard easy and therefore incredibly boring. When the original veteran ranks existed it was quite a challenge, but that was all nerfed by patch 1.2 (huge shame).

The setting, world, and art of the game are quite remarkable.

PvP is where the unique combat mechanics of the game truly shine. It is a challenge because you are fighting other players. And even though Cyrodiil has barely changed in two years it is still amazingly fun and the most gorgeous zone in the game. While the PvE part of the game has received 90% of the content updates, 90% of the fun of the game is in Cyrodiil.

Tandor

Typhoios wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

Typhoios wrote: »

Phinix1 wrote: »

Dubhliam wrote: »

Nobody here is "forcing" anything.

Typhoios wrote: »

Chasing trendy PvP gimmicks?

I don't know if you remember, but a year or so back the whole concept of a "justice system" became one of those trendy marketing hooks for a while. Every new MMO coming out was blurbing about it on their con booths.

Know what happens almost universally when introducing PVP integration into open PVE environments (with the exception of SEPARATE PVP servers where people CHOOSE to play there)? It flops. Want to know why? PEOPLE RUIN IT.

It is a sad fact that a lot of people simply live to find new and even illegal (to the TOS) ways to grief and cheat other players. It's the whole reason they play. It gives them a thrill somehow. I don't pretend to understand WHY people are like that, but the end result is always the same. The game goes to hell.

If a system can be exploited griefers WILL exploit it. Look at Cyrodil Look at any game where no-choice (didn't say forced!) open world PVP is a thing. People with time to grind or credit card ultimates to spam gain a ridiculous unfair advantage then set about camping PVE content like quest givers and crafting hubs and kill defenseless lowbies all day, preventing them from accessing and enjoying content they pay for.

I'm not saying a PVP system has to support that, which is why I believe it should ALWAYS be kept separate from PVE, especially in a ROLE PLAY-centric game like the Elder Scrolls franchise.

And before someone trots out that old cliche about how "PVP people are forced to PVE" let me explain the difference. NPC's don't grief you and camp you at quest and crafting hubs and spawn gank you. PVE content doesn't conspire to prevent you from enjoying the content you paid for. It doesn't because they are robots not people, and unless programmed to, robots don't have that psychological need to be a jerk to other people.

I agree that ZOS should continue perma-banning exploiters, improve detection to do so, and generally resolve the many outstanding issues in Cyrodil (lag, balance, etc.) If that is the suggestion than of course I support it. I doubt anyone would argue "no, those PVP players deserve to suffer, make Cyrodil even worse!" All aspects of the game deserve to be maintained and expanded upon.

So long as that expansion doesn't encroach on the PVE experience. I have had enough of bored kids with too much time on their hands grinding out overpowered characters to grief lowbies.

Let that cancer die a quick and silent death on some grindy pay-to-win Korean MMO.

Isn't everything you mentioned nullified by a toggle option? Want to quest and steal in peace? Keep PvP toggled off (it should be off by default). Tired of robbing and killing predictable and wimpy npcs, toggle PvP on and see how good of a criminal you are.

If we add these things there shouldn't be a problem. For one, you shouldn't be attacked unless you have a bounty, and two, if you have PvP toggled off you can enjoy the justice system in peace. No one of any importance from ZOS ever mentioned open world PvP where you could kill anyone for no reason. It was always tied to Enforcers vs Criminals. No bounty; no PvP. And a toggle option for those that don't want PvP.

But that's not what the PvPers wanted or argued for at the time in relation to the Enforcement part of the Justice System. They didn't want PvEers to be able to opt out of PvP altogether, that would have removed their soft targets and meant they could only engage in PvP with committed PvPers which isn't what they saw the extension of PvP to the open world being about. What they argued for instead was a bounty threshold below which you wouldn't qualify for the Enforcement system but above which you would be fair game regardless of whether or not you were a PvPer.

That's why in my earlier post I specifically used the phrase "If anyone wanted to participate fully in the PvE part then they were going to be forced into PvP" - emphasis on "fully". PvPers didn't want PvEers engaging "fully" in the PvE content of the Justice System without also being forced to engage in the PvP Enforcement system.

Plus, of course, PvPers saw the Enforcement system as a foot in the door so far as the introduction of open world PvP was concerned. They were not remotely interested in any suggestion that the Enforcement system should be restricted to PvP areas like Cyrodiil and IC. Fortunately ZOS could see the feedback on both IC as it was implemented and the Enforcement system as it was proposed and wisely decided to keep the two playstyles separate in future.

You're inferring a lot about random PvPers intentions and motivations. This is why I said no one important at ZOS ever mentioned forcing open world PvP on everyone. If you can show me a developer statement about PvE players being opened up for griefers, then fine.

However, it does no good to talk about what you think PvPers wanted. I'm tired of this notion of soft targets, or PvPers being just plain griefers that only want to fight weak targets. Some are, but a lot want good fights. If I kill a player in Cyrodiil or IC and they put up no fight, I don't stick around and grief them and I likely won't attack them again unless they attack me. I want good fights. If I wanted to faceroll fights, I'd stick to PvE.

If we are going to infer intentions though, what I saw as most PvPers wanting with the justice system was a way to finally have small scale PvP with an escape from the lag and zergs of Cyrodiil. Personally, I just wanted to be able to kill some of my friends without us having to roll alts in other factions.

I'm inferring nothing, simply referring back to the stated views of PvPers on the countless occasions the subject of the Enforcer system has been discussed on the forum, both before and after the very direct and clear statement by ZOS on ESO Live announcing the decision not to proceed with it and for all future PvP and PvE content to be kept separate.

I fully accept that not all PvPers are griefers or wannabe griefers, but enough are to have created problems for PvEers doing PvE content in PvE areas if PvP penalties were brought into the mix. As for PvPers wanting small scale PvP outside of Cyrodiil they were given that in IC and it wasn't well received and was largely abused through unintended zerging, and ZOS have stated that additional small-scale PvP incl dueling is coming, so PvPers are getting what they want but it won't be in PvE areas. I'm absolutely fine with that.

Nestor

dtm_samuraib16_ESO wrote: »

I click 2 buttons, and voila, I am in PvP hell.
Not THAT hard, is it? XD

@dtm_samuraib16_ESO

I never said it was hard, I said it was not easy to get there. For every PvE zone that I am able to access, I open up the map, pick a wayshrine and I am there. For me to do PvE content in Cyrodiil, I have to join a campaign, which leads to choosing which one, then I have to wait in a que to get there, then once there, I have to ride a long way on a horse through a boring landscape to get to my objective. I can't get everywhere in the map if some other factions controls the gates or if I can, then I risk being ganked. Then, if I want to group with people and go to Cyrodiil or the IC, then I have to make sure we are all in the same campaign, and if we are not, I don't think I can easily drop a campaign, at least I have never figure out how. This campaign issue may have been made easier in a recent patch, I have not bothered to check, that is how much the few times I have gone there have frustrated me.

I have gone to Cyrodiil 6 times as a group and the least amount of time and hassle was 20 minutes to get to the zone. Another time took a few group dissolves and reforms before we could get everyone in the same place, and another time took almost 45 minutes with que times and group issues. 2 or 3 of the times I went there, the group was so far away on the map that I just gave up after playing horse simulator to get to them (they were in territory controlled by the other alliance so no transit network to use)

You can ask anyone I grouped with on those excursions, I had a stream of cuss words and statements along the line of, "How can anyone think this hassle is fun" as we were working through the issues of getting a group to get over there.

Then, what if I am stuck in a campaign I don't want to be in? I have yet to figure out how to drop a campaign and join another one, without spending a bunch money (or is it AP, that I don't have anyway) to change it.

So, no, it's not click 2 buttons and you are there. It may not be hard, but it is not easy like getting to every other zone in the game. I would imagine if you are playing in a campaign each night, then it might be more like you say, que times not withstanding.

So, playing the same game you are, just not going to say that getting to Cyrodiil is as easy as getting anywhere else. Never has been, never will be.