New PvP Campaign Idea

PS4_ZeColmeia

Tl;Dr: Make a persistent PvP campaign that does not reset. This campaign is the method to get BoP sets (including trials) but only by owning keeps for a certain amount of time, and by meeting quotas of investment in those keeps to make the vendors appear and gain access to the vendors (so you can't just jump in buy your set and leave without adding anything to the campaign).

Full disclosure, I hardly PvP in ESO. The only MMO to date that I love more than any other MMO was and is Shadowbane. The reason I loved it had to do with open world pvp and sandbox conquering mechanics. The primary difference between Cyrodiil and Shadowbane was that ownership of areas mattered. You picked locations to build based on skill sets, gear or resources located nearby. If you got a crappy location you couldn't get the sets you wanted without buying them and there were no traders. Gold received could be pumped into your guild keep to defend, produce or refine material.

IMHO it would be cool to have a CP campaign that is persistent (never resets), and all of the trial sets were available to be produced in any non-starter keep. AP and Tel Var were the resources to be used to upgrade vendors to produce gear. I think there should a be a minimum AP/Tel Var contributed to any vendor to access their gear. Vendors for certain sets are located in specific keeps which would give reason to own and keep a keep.

To keep it interesting you should have to hold the keep for 4 days and/or some AP/Tel Var count to allow the vendor to produce sets. I think if you then had some scale of 4d, 7d, 10d for blue/purple/gold items to be available. Make the traits rotate weekly, at different roatations/rng for each keep.

Finally, IC should be able to provide an alternative way to get sets and value owning zones. I think if you made each flag count as a discount at the tel var merchant that it would drive more IC play. I think the difference should be that when you own a flag, that zones monsters turn yellow to that alliance and additionally the mobs populations increases. This effectively do what keep walls do in Cyrodiil, provide defense to keeping the flag. Add flags to each zone. Make the sewers have flags that can be fast traveled to inside the sewers which would make the molag bal more sandbox since you have faster ways of getting back to him. This does not remove the value of the tel var return stone, except if you own a lot of flags in the Sewer.

Wollust

I fear such a campaign would just end up being a buff campaign for the faction that manages to zerg the best or nightcap it consistent over a longer period of time, thus ruining any fun you could have there.
Other than, I would agree that changes to Cyrodiil would be nice.

PS4_ZeColmeia

I like the idea of a real PvP world that has consequences and rewards for playing it

Wollust wrote: »

I fear such a campaign would just end up being a buff campaign for the faction that manages to zerg the best or nightcap it consistent over a longer period of time, thus ruining any fun you could have there.
Other than, I would agree that changes to Cyrodiil would be nice.

If I hadn't played shadowbane, I would agree. The key is group effort to upgrade/access great rewards, and a delay to getting them to make it easy to ruin the investments made by tackling the keep before the upgrade/access can occur. 4d delay (could be more could be less) would really make it hard for people to just get what they want when they want it. Additionally, rotating traits might make it more optimal to drop a keep than keep it, but everyone has an interest in keeping a keep if they want that particular set.

Between individual greed and revenge, I highly highly doubt this would become a trade location campaign. People just anger each other too easily to make this happen.

I'm glad you like the idea!

Asardes

Bad idea / I don't care

Even better idea: a campaign where all proc sets are disabled.

olsborg

I like the idea of a real PvP world that has consequences and rewards for playing it

I like the idea of a cyrodiil that has more to it then simply earning AP, but other rewards such as master weapons or other gear.

AlnilamE

Without end of campaign rewards and the reset of the leaderboards, how would you keep people playing in that campaign though?

DeadlyRecluse

So, I don't necessarily like THIS idea, but I like the idea of them trying drastically different things with a campaign, just to see what happens. The game's been out for long enough, we have a good idea of what different factions/guilds will do to certain minor changes, but not to really large-scale ones like this.

No score reset PvP? sure! But maybe limit the emp system (or remove it entirely, since owning keeps confers a different benefit in your system.

Heck, take it the other way, too: give me an 2/4/8 hour campaign that resets geographically as scoring, so I can play literally the entire campaign!

Try the dynamic popcap idea for a cycle, just to see what actually happens, as opposed to what everyone says will happen.

Try a no-battle spirit camp for a cycle, see how that plays. That kind of thing. Take Haderus, and have like 1 campaign every 4 be an experiment cycle. IDK, could be fun.

PS4_ZeColmeia

I like the idea of a real PvP world that has consequences and rewards for playing it

DeadlyRecluse wrote: »

So, I don't necessarily like THIS idea, but I like the idea of them trying drastically different things with a campaign, just to see what happens. The game's been out for long enough, we have a good idea of what different factions/guilds will do to certain minor changes, but not to really large-scale ones like this.

No score reset PvP? sure! But maybe limit the emp system (or remove it entirely, since owning keeps confers a different benefit in your system.

Heck, take it the other way, too: give me an 2/4/8 hour campaign that resets geographically as scoring, so I can play literally the entire campaign!

Try the dynamic popcap idea for a cycle, just to see what actually happens, as opposed to what everyone says will happen.

Try a no-battle spirit camp for a cycle, see how that plays. That kind of thing. Take Haderus, and have like 1 campaign every 4 be an experiment cycle. IDK, could be fun.

I would keep the emporer system, but make it tied to contribution to vendors (ie a new leaderboard system). I could be down for that resetting, but I think it would be better to have it degrade over time so people that are regularly contributing don't have to do a huge reup on contribution for leader position and vendor access.

Good idea.

vamp_emily

Bad idea / I don't care

It wouldn't work, players would try and wiggle their way into "We will let you have that keep for a week, if you let us have our keep for a week" so you can just get your trial gear. Or players would flip to the other side to get their gear and then go back.

What I suggest is go out and do trials if you want the gear. I personally think that if trial gear is going to be BOP then our PvP rewards should be BOP. I hate the fact that we can't buy/sell trial gear but it is what it is.

As far as the campaigns go, I really think ZOS needs to focus/fix population balance on all campaigns. There is no reason for 3 bars against 1, or a poplock against 1 bar.

Just yesterday we had 10 people defending the finally Emp keep and I look out the inner door as it came tumbling down and 30 or more AD were piling up just to walk all over everyone. I don't understand why ZOS is letting this happen. They created battle leveling to give some kind of fair advantage but they allow one side of the map to be over powering by numbers.

I wish they would allow us to create out own instance of campaigns, allow us to control the campaign and give us options to alter different setting like population and CP, and kick players from the campaign. I don't know how many times I would love to kick players from my own alliance for doing things like cheating, not taking sieges to a fight, or sitting there and watching their own alliance members get beat down because they think it is cool to watch 1v1.

I also think they need to give Cyrodill a face lift, make it look like we are in a new Cyrodill.

PS4_ZeColmeia

I like the idea of a real PvP world that has consequences and rewards for playing it

AlnilamE wrote: »

Without end of campaign rewards and the reset of the leaderboards, how would you keep people playing in that campaign though?

Just posted this, but I think you could have rewards based on contribution for which would produce the leaderboards. I think to make it fair, maybe weekly and monthly rewards for where you are on the leaderboard, and some rewards for the worthy based on amounts of contribution in addition to the normal level up. Everyone wins, but obviously those that play this all the time are rewarded the most.

Like I mentioned, I think a natural degredation of contribution on the board would help keep people moving up and down on the board. Let me try working an example out.

Let's say the rule is 2% loss of contribution per day or 10% per week, which ever is lowest unless you contribute AP in 24 hours or that week. This keeps people playing for position on the leaderboards. The rewards for the worthy are tied to your character's total contribution not subject to degredation to keep people from rocking back and forth on a reward level.

So from this you have a few reasons to keep playing: Leaderboards, rewards from leaderboards, rewards of the worthy for contribution, rewards for the worthy for PvP level, and a path to work up to the leaderboard.

After writing this I think you need to have an emporer reset mechanic to allow people to get it that haven't been playing it for 2 years (slight change on my previous post to DeadlyRecluse). Maybe make rewards of the worthy for contribution actually eat contribution and have the rewards redeemable at a vendor. Would probably make it worth cashing in at somepoint, especially if the color/value of the rewards caps at some point so the value of keeping the contribution is only for emporer title after which it's better to start getting gear with it.

PS4_ZeColmeia

I like the idea of a real PvP world that has consequences and rewards for playing it

vamp_emily wrote: »

It wouldn't work, players would try and wiggle their way into "We will let you have that keep for a week, if you let us have our keep for a week" so you can just get your trial gear. Or players would flip to the other side to get their gear and then go back.

What I suggest is go out and do trials if you want the gear. I personally think that if trial gear is going to be BOP then our PvP rewards should be BOP. I hate the fact that we can't buy/sell trial gear but it is what it is.

As far as the campaigns go, I really think ZOS needs to focus/fix population balance on all campaigns. There is no reason for 3 bars against 1, or a poplock against 1 bar.

Just yesterday we had 10 people defending the finally Emp keep and I look out the inner door as it came tumbling down and 30 or more AD were piling up just to walk all over everyone. I don't understand why ZOS is letting this happen. They created battle leveling to give some kind of fair advantage but they allow one side of the map to be over powering by numbers.

I wish they would allow us to create out own instance of campaigns, allow us to control the campaign and give us options to alter different setting like population and CP, and kick players from the campaign. I don't know how many times I would love to kick players from my own alliance for doing things like cheating, not taking sieges to a fight, or sitting there and watching their own alliance members get beat down because they think it is cool to watch 1v1.

I also think they need to give PvP a face lift, make it look like we are in a new Cyrodill.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Anything that gives balance of population to the control of players is more apt for abuse than not.

I do agree with your point that population imbalance hurts the value of PvP, however I think that has more to do with the lack of reason to play a campaign, and more campaigns than the population can support. People are avoiding conflict because they have too many options and no reward good enough to make them want to fight each other for server dominance.

That's the point of my new campaign idea, the rewards are sooo good (since we know PvPers hate to PvE) that there is little reason to play the other campaigns. By very definition, this forces conflict because everyone will want to play it. I personally think if each keep can only produce sets that the other keeps can't that this makes it more sandbox because the interests of individuals is spread throughout the map instead of just in a few locations.

I would imagine that you would see a lot of the map on fire all of the time because groups will focus on the rewards they want and aggregately all factions will want all of the sets.

Rohamad_Ali

I would like a campaign with no rewards . The only reason to PvP is for the sake of PvP only . No quests , no IC , no rewards . You go there to fight and that's it .

vamp_emily

Bad idea / I don't care

PS4_ZeColmeia wrote: »

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Anything that gives balance of population to the control of players is more apt for abuse than not.

I do agree with your point that population imbalance hurts the value of PvP, however I think that has more to do with the lack of reason to play a campaign, and more campaigns than the population can support. People are avoiding conflict because they have too many options and no reward good enough to make them want to fight each other for server dominance.

That's the point of my new campaign idea, the rewards are sooo good (since we know PvPers hate to PvE) that there is little reason to play the other campaigns. By very definition, this forces conflict because everyone will want to play it. I personally think if each keep can only produce sets that the other keeps can't that this makes it more sandbox because the interests of individuals is spread throughout the map instead of just in a few locations.

I would imagine that you would see a lot of the map on fire all of the time because groups will focus on the rewards they want and aggregately all factions will want all of the sets.

I know my suggestions are not perfect but right now in some campaigns population gaps are ruining the fun. Unbalanced campaigns are worse than anything in this game. The only people that praise it are the ones sitting on the OP side of the map.

I used to play every day for over a year in PvP, for hours at a time. As time went by things changed and people started picking friends over alliances then flipping sides. Just look at the maps and see how each campaign is one color. Maybe I am just full of BS, but ZOS has the numbers and they know the truth on how many people play on each side.

Do you ever listen to the people crying in chat how this game sucks and that they don't want to play it any more? Why do they say that about a game they love so much? It is because of population gaps. Fix the population gaps and you won't have as much gate camping, night caps, and some people will quit crying about some skills being OP because they are not getting gap closed on by 10 players.

Have you ever did a "Baby MoL"? Players find ways to beat the system, your reward system will end up just like a baby MoL.

I find it kind of funny but sad that people try so hard to not do the content for the reward. PvE players come up with silly ideals to get PvP skills but do not want to PvP, and PvP players come up with silly ideals on how to get PvE rewards without doing the PvE content.

Ya we will have to agree to disagree

Also I forgot to mention:

Imperial City, I think they should make it, if one alliance controls all the flags then they get a 50% increase in stones. Kind of like how they did with the event. As of right now, i really don't see the point in taking flags unless I am just bored and want something to do besides grinding stones.

alexkdd99

Bad idea / I don't care

This might work if people were not allowed to have characters in multiple different alliances. Also people would just scheme with the other factions and trade off the key keeps every so often. Kind of like what already happens with emperor.

Greenwood1900

Your ideas sounds good for an open world PvP.

Sadly, Cyrodiil is just a very big PvP instance with a very long take the flag mode. No open world PvP at all.

PS4_ZeColmeia

I like the idea of a real PvP world that has consequences and rewards for playing it

I think it would work, better if open world, with the instance but it'd have to be on one maybe 2 instances. More than that it'll spread the community too thin to force conflict.

RebornV3x

How about a 7 day hardcore PvP server when you die once you can't respawn and you have 10 minutes to get a revive or your kicked from the server tell it resets this server would be open to all players and if you live tell the end and place on the leader boards you get better rewards and you also get triple the amount of AP per kill this would encourage players to fight.