Will PvP ever get an update?

HairyFairy

I'm asking because it's the only reason that I play this game, and I love it dearly, but i have to take breaks because it's been years...

I'd love to see the Cyrodiil map change.

Different keeps, nord based keeps, orc-based keeps..etc.

Storyline of imp city should continue. Rid of the daedra in it and let the faction that holds emp repair it and utilize it, (for all pvp/pve)

idk give us a bone man

VaranisArano

No, the storyline will probably not progress. For one thing, the current state of Battlegrounds and the Imperial City indicate that the population for new sustainable PVP DLC is simply not there. Second, its far, far easier for ZOS to develop more battleground maps and modes than it is to make fundamental changes to how Cyrodiil functions as a map.

As for all the forts looking the same, well, those are Imperial forts because Cyrodiil is the heartland of the Empire. At most, you could play with Colovian and Nibenese construction, though these forts have the generic appearance they also had in Oblivion. However, you do see appropriate differences in the towns, with Cheydinhal being very Imperial stone construction, Cropsford being an Imperial farming village, Bruma being a much more nordic looking village in accordance with its portrayal in Oblivion, and so on.

For what they are looking to update in PVP, you can look at their December combat update: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/386186/monthly-combat-update-december-2017/p1

HairyFairy

yes but the factions are the ones who own these forts, not the imperials. it would be a lot more interesting to take an orcish fortress once in a while or something!

Lexxypwns

VaranisArano wrote: »

No, the storyline will probably not progress. For one thing, the current state of Battlegrounds and the Imperial City indicate that the population for new sustainable PVP DLC is simply not there. Second, its far, far easier for ZOS to develop more battleground maps and modes than it is to make fundamental changes to how Cyrodiil functions as a map.

As for all the forts looking the same, well, those are Imperial forts because Cyrodiil is the heartland of the Empire. At most, you could play with Colovian and Nibenese construction, though these forts have the generic appearance they also had in Oblivion. However, you do see appropriate differences in the towns, with Cheydinhal being very Imperial stone construction, Cropsford being an Imperial farming village, Bruma being a much more nordic looking village in accordance with its portrayal in Oblivion, and so on.

For what they are looking to update in PVP, you can look at their December combat update: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/386186/monthly-combat-update-december-2017/p1

BGs pop is pretty large. It would be much larger if it wasn’t locked behind a PVE expansion

makreth

HairyFairy wrote: »

Rid of the daedra in it and let the faction that holds emp repair it and utilize it, (for all pvp/pve)

When IC DLC first landed there were gated campaigns, where the access to the sewers was only limited to the faction holding the emperor keeps. This was a nice incentive to actually pvp but people did not like it and prefered the easy way to the loot by joining other campaigns or even abusing it by having a dominant campaign for each of those campaigns permanently.

This only worked in daoc and it was an awesome feature. The gaming population has changed since then sadly. As said above, loot comes first now. Instanced pvp is flawed in general for the reasons explained above. Realm pride is not present either.

geonsocal

absolutely love the idea of updating the keeps to have them race themed...

pieratsos

Lexxypwns wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

No, the storyline will probably not progress. For one thing, the current state of Battlegrounds and the Imperial City indicate that the population for new sustainable PVP DLC is simply not there. Second, its far, far easier for ZOS to develop more battleground maps and modes than it is to make fundamental changes to how Cyrodiil functions as a map.

As for all the forts looking the same, well, those are Imperial forts because Cyrodiil is the heartland of the Empire. At most, you could play with Colovian and Nibenese construction, though these forts have the generic appearance they also had in Oblivion. However, you do see appropriate differences in the towns, with Cheydinhal being very Imperial stone construction, Cropsford being an Imperial farming village, Bruma being a much more nordic looking village in accordance with its portrayal in Oblivion, and so on.

For what they are looking to update in PVP, you can look at their December combat update: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/386186/monthly-combat-update-december-2017/p1

BGs pop is pretty large. It would be much larger if it wasn’t locked behind a PVE expansion

And it would be even larger if it had actual rewards.

The_Brosteen

Completely new aspects being added to pvp is unlikely to happen simply because the demand is not there. If more people would pvp, say every campaign is always poplocked during prime time, then this could be something that would happen, but not right now.

The strategy would most likely continue to be to introduce various things to incentivize people to go pvp. They have attempted and kinda failed doing so with flower satchels, gold jewlery for tel var, the flags in districts (this was by far the laziest attempt to date imo), the golden, the sets sold at the three towns, the overworld boxes, and the battleground's game modes. BG's seemed like alot of thought and work went into them to try and create something that would be different and interesting, but it sort of showed the lack of understanding of the PvP playerbase. I think if they changed BG's to be only deathmatch (no sigil) with two different queues, one with teams and the other free for all more of the I only pvp crowd would be interested in it. Then they could continue to come up with different arenas with various layouts and maybe it would be pretty fun.

The other big thing I think pvp in general lacks is an accurate scoring system for how effective a player is. That being said, I'm not sure a great scoring system could be implemented because of all the variables that would go into it. For example, let's say you play in a group and you utilize a support role where you basically just cc, snare, and debuff your opponets so your team can focus on kills, or maybe you are simply a healer. How do you accurately measure what you bring to the table? Even if it's just based off of total heals if the player just spams breath of life and literally does nothing else they are sure to score relatively high, even though they may not have exactly been good or effective. It's kinda like bragging about having 20 kills when you're a mag sorc, or having over 800k damage on a magic dk, numbers look nice to some but it doesn't necessarily mean something. That is the ultimate challenge for pvp I believe, because this could draw in more competitive pvp players and essentially make the game more popular in general.

Rainraven

VaranisArano wrote: »

For one thing, the current state of Battlegrounds and the Imperial City indicate that the population for new sustainable PVP DLC is simply not there.

Oh, is that what they indicate?

The_Brosteen

Rainraven wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

For one thing, the current state of Battlegrounds and the Imperial City indicate that the population for new sustainable PVP DLC is simply not there.

Oh, is that what they indicate?

Yes. Do you not agree?

Is imperial city constantly full of players? Are the leaderboards for BG's competitive enough to where you basically have to play all day every day to get on it?

Rainraven

The_Brosteen wrote: »

Rainraven wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

For one thing, the current state of Battlegrounds and the Imperial City indicate that the population for new sustainable PVP DLC is simply not there.

Oh, is that what they indicate?

Yes. Do you not agree?

Is imperial city constantly full of players? Are the leaderboards for BG's competitive enough to where you basically have to play all day every day to get on it?

I don't disagree the population is down - way down. Is it down because people don't want to PVP though?

BGs were welcomed with great enthusiasm. The problem is - for many PVPers anyway - they suck. "Oh well I guess nobody wants to PVP," is not the correct conclusion to draw.

Bhaal5

Yes pvp needs an update...
Like a restructure in general (current campaign system is a stale as 2014's christmas lunch),

infrastructure, servers are either in need of replacing or getting another company that knows what they are doing to run them (connection to server seems to be the 1# issue for players in eso, the one type of post they can never answer, and never fixed in 4 years).

Maybe a bit of story for those "pve'er" that pop in for vigor/barrier/caltrops.

The_Brosteen

Rainraven wrote: »

The_Brosteen wrote: »

Rainraven wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

For one thing, the current state of Battlegrounds and the Imperial City indicate that the population for new sustainable PVP DLC is simply not there.

Oh, is that what they indicate?

Yes. Do you not agree?

Is imperial city constantly full of players? Are the leaderboards for BG's competitive enough to where you basically have to play all day every day to get on it?

I don't disagree the population is down - way down. Is it down because people don't want to PVP though?

BGs were welcomed with great enthusiasm. The problem is - for many PVPers anyway - they suck. "Oh well I guess nobody wants to PVP," is not the correct conclusion to draw.

So what you're saying is more people would pvp if we got a pvp oriented dlc. Maybe?

However, it seems like you're mainly saying that there is a large population of players who want to pvp but don't because reasons, but they would pvp if we got a pvp oriented dlc.

I don't think thats very logical. I find it hard to believe that tons of people are playung this game saying "man, I'd love to be pvping instead but there's no new pvp dlc so I guess I'll just fish for 3 hrs instead."

If you're trying to say that people want something new and different pvp wise because they think it has grown stale, thats what bgs was supposed to be. And the fact that they think pvp is boring and stale seems to indicate they don't want to pvp. So in this case it seems you would want to makes changes to pvp, not introduce an entirely new pvp thing.

I really don't see how looking at the number of people who pvp is a bad indicator of how many people want to pvp in this game. It's too low to encourage zos to make a pvp dlc.

Vapirko

The big issue is, before we get any kind of aesthetic overhaul (and holy hell do we need one), we also need some qol improvements like server/node improvements to handle the populations, faction lock per campaign etc. But, it’s very unlikely we get any of this. They have never mentioned, hinted at any Cyro work in the pipeline. Hell, they haven’t even said they won’t be doing it. Cyrodiil is simply there as is and apparently not even worth mentioning.

ArchMikem

Your bone was battlegrounds.

Ragnarock41

getting rid of cheaters would be a good start.

Voxicity

ArchMikem wrote: »

Your bone was battlegrounds.

1) Stupid gamemodes
2) Locked behind DLC paywall
3) No decent rewards

For these reasons, as a primarily PvP player, I barely ever touch BG's. They are more of a toy for casual players to get a taste of PvP (and most likely hate it because of how awful the perma block meta is)

Taysa

I would prefer them look into the load screens they claim they fixed (but didn't), look into dynamic population locking to prevent one faction from completely rolling over the map, boosting appeal for non-CP campaigns, giving us non-CP BGs again, taking a stance against cheaters in PvP like they did for some BS achievement, preventing people from faction hopping on a whim, and other things before making Fort Warden an orcish stronghold.

Rainraven

The_Brosteen wrote: »

Rainraven wrote: »

The_Brosteen wrote: »

Rainraven wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

For one thing, the current state of Battlegrounds and the Imperial City indicate that the population for new sustainable PVP DLC is simply not there.

Oh, is that what they indicate?

Yes. Do you not agree?

Is imperial city constantly full of players? Are the leaderboards for BG's competitive enough to where you basically have to play all day every day to get on it?

I don't disagree the population is down - way down. Is it down because people don't want to PVP though?

BGs were welcomed with great enthusiasm. The problem is - for many PVPers anyway - they suck. "Oh well I guess nobody wants to PVP," is not the correct conclusion to draw.

So what you're saying is more people would pvp if we got a pvp oriented dlc. Maybe?

However, it seems like you're mainly saying that there is a large population of players who want to pvp but don't because reasons, but they would pvp if we got a pvp oriented dlc.

I don't think thats very logical. I find it hard to believe that tons of people are playung this game saying "man, I'd love to be pvping instead but there's no new pvp dlc so I guess I'll just fish for 3 hrs instead."

That would be silly, wouldn't it. I think they're saying something like, "Man, I'd love to be PVPing," and then loading a game that functions reliably, and PVPing there.

Which didn't really need to be pointed out, excuse me. I'm just very tired of "there aren't any PVPers so of course the focus should be PVE" when we got to no PVPers via exactly that kind of neglect and the spectacular fail of BGs.

Eh. I'll be quiet now.

ChuckyPayne

Lexxypwns wrote: »

BGs pop is pretty large. It would be much larger if it wasn’t locked behind a PVE expansion

Yes, maybe, if they would sell BG as a standalone dlc too.

FearlessOne_2014

As long as BDO is successful. My honest guess would be no, since ESO is not a PvP centric MMO. However even so ESO does sport the best RvR in all of the current non PvP centric MMOs atm.

Since I haven't played much of the BGs. Since all of my friends quit the game. It is not my place to compare ESO's Structured PvP(Battlegrounds)x to all of the other Non PvP centric MMOs.

ArchMikem

Voxicity wrote: »

ArchMikem wrote: »

Your bone was battlegrounds.

1) Stupid gamemodes
2) Locked behind DLC paywall
3) No decent rewards

For these reasons, as a primarily PvP player, I barely ever touch BG's. They are more of a toy for casual players to get a taste of PvP (and most likely hate it because of how awful the perma block meta is)

Hah! In my experience Battlegrounds is a much more punishing place for Casuals. At least in Cyrodiil we have zergs to protect us and carry us through fights. In Battlegrounds its the pre-made Gank/Tank groups that *** everyone else.

FearlessOne_2014

ArchMikem wrote: »

Voxicity wrote: »

ArchMikem wrote: »

Your bone was battlegrounds.

1) Stupid gamemodes
2) Locked behind DLC paywall
3) No decent rewards

For these reasons, as a primarily PvP player, I barely ever touch BG's. They are more of a toy for casual players to get a taste of PvP (and most likely hate it because of how awful the perma block meta is)

Hah! In my experience Battlegrounds is a much more punishing place for Casuals. At least in Cyrodiil we have zergs to protect us and carry us through fights. In Battlegrounds its the pre-made Gank/Tank groups that *** everyone else.

What this guy has said is the primary reason I don't play battlegrounds. It's just a meat grinder to boost pre-made gank and tank squads at my expense. Nope I'm good, if I want some structured PvP I'd go play a MOBA.

Neoauspex

I think they should make battleground instances that affect the alliance war. Like, siege tunnel battleground 4v4 to be initiated outside an enemy keep, if you win you pop up inside the keep without having to take the walls down. Etc.

The_Brosteen

Rainraven wrote: »

The_Brosteen wrote: »

Rainraven wrote: »

The_Brosteen wrote: »

Rainraven wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

For one thing, the current state of Battlegrounds and the Imperial City indicate that the population for new sustainable PVP DLC is simply not there.

Oh, is that what they indicate?

Yes. Do you not agree?

Is imperial city constantly full of players? Are the leaderboards for BG's competitive enough to where you basically have to play all day every day to get on it?

I don't disagree the population is down - way down. Is it down because people don't want to PVP though?

BGs were welcomed with great enthusiasm. The problem is - for many PVPers anyway - they suck. "Oh well I guess nobody wants to PVP," is not the correct conclusion to draw.

So what you're saying is more people would pvp if we got a pvp oriented dlc. Maybe?

However, it seems like you're mainly saying that there is a large population of players who want to pvp but don't because reasons, but they would pvp if we got a pvp oriented dlc.

I don't think thats very logical. I find it hard to believe that tons of people are playung this game saying "man, I'd love to be pvping instead but there's no new pvp dlc so I guess I'll just fish for 3 hrs instead."

That would be silly, wouldn't it. I think they're saying something like, "Man, I'd love to be PVPing," and then loading a game that functions reliably, and PVPing there.

Which didn't really need to be pointed out, excuse me. I'm just very tired of "there aren't any PVPers so of course the focus should be PVE" when we got to no PVPers via exactly that kind of neglect and the spectacular fail of BGs.

Eh. I'll be quiet now.

I see, and I agree with that. My point is that there should be changes to pvp we have currently that attracts more players, not a dlc.

One thing I have noticed since switching to pc compared to xbox is that the player base lacks enough motivated players who try and flip keeps for emp. Factions seem to be way more disorganized on pc and big guilds that focus on cyrodiil aren't as prevelant, compared to xbox at least. This is something that we can all work to improve that would make cyrodiil much less bland.

The biggest things I think zos could do to improve pvp would be to separate imperial city from cyrodiil entirely (different queues and pop caps), rework battlegrounds (only deathmatch and a free for all mode) and continue on performance improvements.

SASQUATCH0

A new map would be nice... been running around cyrodiil for almost 3 years now

ParaNostram

I mean I agree with OP's point on advancing the state of Cyrodiil and it's story.

Nerouyn

I'm not unsympathetic to the OP or other PvP'ers but there's two reasons I think this is unlikely.

1) ESO's PvP is transparently stupid. The main storyline says so. Each of the factions are fools being manipulated by Molag Bal and the war is idiotic. There's some inane line from a character telling you to just keep pretending the war is real, because..... um, secrets? Or rather we want people to completely forget about the main storyline and play Cyrodiil.

Seriously.

2) The world has moved on. War is less popular than it once was and that's going to impact on games like ESO.

War is death. Horror. A flood of refugees. Selling people on the idea of war as entertainment is tough.

Nelson_Rebel

Hmmm

I veryyyy much like the idea of changing the Aesthetic of Keep control being changed to the alliance that controls it.


This would actually make MUCH more sense than having a somehow destroyed keep being remade in the image of imperials who are all confined to the Ayleid City. (I refuse to call it imperial because it is structurally Ayleid)


@Wrobel this could be a chance for you to have a very positive influence on PvP changes that aren’t nerfs

Malamar1229

ChuckyPayne wrote: »

Lexxypwns wrote: »

BGs pop is pretty large. It would be much larger if it wasn’t locked behind a PVE expansion

Yes, maybe, if they would sell BG as a standalone dlc too.

Or if they didn't something about the tank meta

Voxicity

ArchMikem wrote: »

Voxicity wrote: »

ArchMikem wrote: »

Your bone was battlegrounds.

1) Stupid gamemodes
2) Locked behind DLC paywall
3) No decent rewards

For these reasons, as a primarily PvP player, I barely ever touch BG's. They are more of a toy for casual players to get a taste of PvP (and most likely hate it because of how awful the perma block meta is)

Hah! In my experience Battlegrounds is a much more punishing place for Casuals. At least in Cyrodiil we have zergs to protect us and carry us through fights. In Battlegrounds its the pre-made Gank/Tank groups that *** everyone else.

Well that's exactly what I mean. BG's are for meta chasers (which includes premades). The only other purpose they serve is to give casuals a taste of broken PvP mechanics and balance. I never said casual players continue playing there. They just play with it a couple of times and quit because of how boring it is