Maintenance for the week of September 8:
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – September 8
• PC/Mac: EU megaserver for maintenance – September 9, 22:00 UTC (6:00PM EDT) - September 10, 16:00 UTC (12:00PM EDT) https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/682784

One Tamriel - A Step in the Right Direction for Both PvE AND PvP Camps?

Talemire
Talemire
✭✭✭
Is this even possible? Well... At first glance, I didn't think so. In fact, my original post on my guild's forums was quite against the idea of One Tamriel, until I took a step back and looked at the bigger picture. My first thought was "Blah blah blah, carebear this, carebear that, I miss the old times when there was a real open-world conflict," then I analyzed the changes presented and saw potential here.

Here's my pitch:

What ZoS could do is enable the faction-territory conflict (which was the initial plan that never made it to live), but give players a choice; a choice in which they cannot change so long as they have zoned into an enemy faction territory, to either be a part of the conflict or not. If you choose to take part, you are fair game, meaning you can be attacked by the enemy faction (both players and NPCs), but in turn can also impact the world by taking over cities and major landmarks. If you choose not to partake, you are flagged for PvE and can do nothing to hinder nor advance the conflict, playing the game just as ZoS plans for us to play it once the One Tamriel changes are implemented. The only time you can freely change whether or not you're flagged is when you are in your own faction territory since you are faced with the immediate choice of whether or not to help defend your faction's cities and landmarks . This alleviates the need for separate servers AND satisfies both PvE and PvP camps, WITH the full freedom of choice.

This system just simply can't be abused. You either flag yourself upon entering enemy territory and enjoy the content, feeling free to smell the roses without fear of getting overrun, OR you don't and enjoy the faction conflict that constantly unfolds and changes before you. The major pitch here is choice. You can choose to make as much or as little of a personal/individual impact on Tamriel as you wish.

So this is why I say One Tamriel IS a good thing - ZoS has already solved the PvE problem with this implementation. Now let's take this one step further and do something for us PvPers. Don't forget about us; there is a lot of potential here.
Edited by Talemire on June 13, 2016 8:12PM
  • Ffastyl
    Ffastyl
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    I do see one abuse: Defending home soil. Since players can toggle it on and off while on home ground, they can toggle it on, fight enemy players, and as soon as the tides look unfavorable, toggle off to live another day.

    Personally, I think the Normal/Veteran toggle for dungeons can be applied to zones. Changing the toggle will change the zone instance you enter next, as opposed to taking effect immediately in your current zone. This can be applied in the way you describe, becoming a PvP flag, or as a way to access Veteran zones, enjoying content at a higher level and/or a method to reduce overcrowding.
    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."

    PC NA
    Daggerfall Covenant

    Ffastyl - Level 50 Templar
    Arturus Amitis - Level 50 Nightblade
    Sulac the Wanderer - Level 50 Dragonknight
    Arcturus Leland - Level 50 Sorcerer
    Azrog rus-Oliphet - Level 50 Templar
    Tienc - Level 50 Warden
    Aldmeri Dominion
    Ashen Willow Knight - Level 50 Templar
    Champion Rank 938

    Check out:
    Old vs New Intro Cinematics


    "My strength is that I have no weaknesses. My weakness is that I have no strengths."
    Member since May 4th, 2014.
  • ArchMikem
    ArchMikem
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Talemire wrote: »
    What ZoS could do is enable the faction-territory conflict (which was the initial plan that never made it to live), but give players a choice; a choice in which they cannot change so long as they have zoned into an enemy faction territory, to either be a part of the conflict or not. If you choose to take part, you are fair game, meaning you can be attacked by the enemy faction (both players and NPCs), but in turn can also impact the world by taking over cities and major landmarks. If you choose not to partake, you are flagged for PvE and can do nothing to hinder nor advance the conflict, playing the game just as ZoS plans for us to play it once the One Tamriel changes are implemented.

    I started a thread with this very suggestion, but just pertaining to the Campaigns of Cyrodiil.

    Everyone laughed at me and threw their PvP superiority in my face.
    CP2,000 Master Explorer - AvA One Star General - Console Peasant - Khajiiti Aficionado - The Clan
    Quest Objective: OMG Go Talk To That Kitty!
  • Talemire
    Talemire
    ✭✭✭
    Ffastyl wrote: »
    I do see one abuse: Defending home soil. Since players can toggle it on and off while on home ground, they can toggle it on, fight enemy players, and as soon as the tides look unfavorable, toggle off to live another day.

    Personally, I think the Normal/Veteran toggle for dungeons can be applied to zones. Changing the toggle will change the zone instance you enter next, as opposed to taking effect immediately in your current zone. This can be applied in the way you describe, becoming a PvP flag, or as a way to access Veteran zones, enjoying content at a higher level and/or a method to reduce overcrowding.

    Well, if they do that then their cities will be taken over without any resistance lol. Would just be easier for the enemy to truck through I guess, but it's their choice (with the applied consequences). Now if you are talking about the invaders, they cannot change their flag status while already in enemy territory. They would have to leave the enemy faction, flag for PvE, then come back to the zone to not be attacked. It's basically a retreat mechanic if you will. The defenders can toggle as they please since they are in their own faction's territory and have a right to take back what is originally theirs.

    However, I do like your alternative instancing idea. It would be a good Plan B to the idea, that is for sure. It's smart to be able to approach the same idea from different angles.
    Edited by Talemire on June 13, 2016 9:12PM
  • Talemire
    Talemire
    ✭✭✭
    ArchMikem wrote: »
    Talemire wrote: »
    What ZoS could do is enable the faction-territory conflict (which was the initial plan that never made it to live), but give players a choice; a choice in which they cannot change so long as they have zoned into an enemy faction territory, to either be a part of the conflict or not. If you choose to take part, you are fair game, meaning you can be attacked by the enemy faction (both players and NPCs), but in turn can also impact the world by taking over cities and major landmarks. If you choose not to partake, you are flagged for PvE and can do nothing to hinder nor advance the conflict, playing the game just as ZoS plans for us to play it once the One Tamriel changes are implemented.

    I started a thread with this very suggestion, but just pertaining to the Campaigns of Cyrodiil.

    Everyone laughed at me and threw their PvP superiority in my face.

    Aye, but why stop at Cyrodiil when the entire concept can be applied Tamriel-wide?! :smile:
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User]
    Soul Shriven
    Hello everyone,

    Recently there have many threads created around the same topic, One Tamriel and plans for the road ahead. We greatly appreciate your input and ideas on the matter, though we would like to keep these discussion of ideas on one thread, to make it easier to collect everyone's input on the matter. With this is mind, we've gone ahead and closed this thread, for continuation of this discussion, we would like to suggest moving over to this thread here to share your ideas.

    Thank you for understanding!
    Staff Post
This discussion has been closed.