MMO Truth: The larger the PVP community, the less game satisfaction there will be.

Jeremy

Feanor wrote: »

@Jeremy

PvE isn’t balanced either. Balance just doesn’t matter in 95% of PvE content because it’s so easy.

I agree with you that PvE on this game has gotten too easy, especially as it relates to its landscape content. But to me that's a separate issue. No one ever expects dungeon bosses for example to be balanced with other players. And this obsession for everyone to be able to do the same amount of damage didn't start until all these stupid DPS meters were introduced. Something I wish I could go back in time to get rid of and wipe from existence.

I liked the old school approach to PvE much better, when jobs weren't expected to be "balanced" with one another. Instead: they all had their own unique strengths and weaknesses. This made for more interesting and strategic combat - not to mention a lot more variety when it came to classes and roles. Which is sorely needed.

MattT1988

Tannus15 wrote: »

3) No, the best of the PvP MMO's I played was Warhammer online. I wish PvP had player collision. Being able to have tanks physically block pathways was awesome.

New gear set:
Shield of the 300.
2 piece: increase max health
3 piece: increase physical and spell resistance
4 piece: increase max stamina and magic
5 piece: Player collision is enabled for your character.

Make it happen ZOS.

DaveMoeDee

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

Wrong. Yes mmos typically have more pve but endgame is usually pvp.

I haven't played any other MMOs, but I know a few people IRL who are serious MMO veterans and none of them were big on PvP and they seemed to feel that PvP gets pretty toxic.

Pops_ND_Irish

Stop playing PvP, problem solved !

Bhaal5

Mmo turth? Seems like anyother "make cyrodiil pve so i can actually doing something" thread.
There are many single player TES games out there to cater to your needs. But there are people that want diversity in their game, and that does include playing with other people and also versing others.

So where did you source of this information?

eso_lags

ImmortalCX wrote: »

I'm not an MMO historian, but my experience with WOW was that PVPers were the ones who complained the most loudly about balance and performance.

So my questions:

1) Is it any surprise that ESO, a game that leans towards PVP in the endgame, has so many reported problems (here, in forum)?

2) Why would any game developer in their right mind cater to PVPers? Adding PVE content seems to be the sure path to making players happier.

3) Can you name any other MMO that has/had the same level of graphical detail AND scale of PVP combat? Is there another game with a Cyrodil sized map that supports hundreds of players, with high level of graphical detail? (Honestly, I dont know, but it seems unlikely)

This game does not lean towards pvp in the endgame.. PVE is the main focus of the zos team and there are more pve players than there are pvp players, something that zos 100% knows... And the game also has under lv 50 bgs and an under lv 50 campaign so anyone can pvp at almost any level..

Also, almost every update this game gets is focused on pve. We've always had cyrodil, then we got IC, and then we got BGS (which was not a pvp update, or a new pvp zone, just something that came with a pve update)..

IC, orsinum, thieves guild, SOTH, dark brotherhood, one tamriel, homestead, morrowind, HOTR, clockwork city, dragon bones, summerset, wolfhunter, murkmire... Out of all of those DLC's pvp players got IC and BGs.. Throw in dueling if you want. And if you go back and look at the patch notes, from every update, pvp gets very little love every patch.. In murkmire they changed some things but it still hasn't helped the real issues of pvp which, imo, is the terrible performance..

As far as catering to pvp players... Zos has never done that. They are trying to balance pvp together with pve and sadly thats a big mistake. Like it or not a lot of us came to this game for pvp and letting it fail is another big mistake. But IMO zos should always put out more pve content since it impacts more players and makes them more money.. However, they should also have put out some more pvp content and fixed the issues that have been plaguing pvp for years. If they were willing to balance certain sets in pvp, separate from pve, things would be a bit more balanced..

For example, earthgore is aids in pvp. It just is. But its fine in pve.. Same thing with viper and other proc sets. Maybe they were over performing in pve too, but definitely not like they were in pvp..

As for the other games.. Well the first one that comes to mind is guild wars 2. GW2 has battlegrounds and something similar to cyrodil in WvW. So theres your answer.. But i also think its hard to compare since games like BDO, WOW, and archeage have open world pvp. Idk about any other bigger mmos but Im sure there can be large scale fights in those games as well. Regardless it doesnt really matter since large scale fights in eso, at least on console, dont work. You just lag so bad that most of your abilities dont end up working.

If zos fixed the performance issues i wouldnt care about "over powered" stuff as much. It might aggravate me but you stand a much better chance fighting broken sets/builds when the game actually works.. Second to that would be finally getting another pvp zone, but to be honest i dont see either of those thing ever happening.

drkfrontiers

PvP is fun. I sux. So we need more PvP events where I can still sux but have fun!

gepe87

PvP is what it keeps people improving their playstyle and more rewarding. PvE is good with new content releases, but became too boring. And endgame is not for everyone.

Vildebill

Who would else complain about balance issues? The NPC:s?

The only truth I can read out of this thread is that the more people like you the less game satisfaction...

Yolokin_Swagonborn

Game was super healthy and fun back before there were any trials put into the game and PvP was the only endgame.

Tigerseye

In my experience of WoW, the people who complained the most, about pretty much everything (especially anything aimed at "casuals"), were some of the "real" raiders.

So, high end PVE players.

The PVP players would, of course, also complain about things like balance.

Sometimes fairly; although, mostly not.

Mostly, they were trolls, complaining that their chosen prey had been made slightly less facerollingly easy to kill, by pretending to be players with that prey class as their main and saying they felt OP, lol.

It was pretty transparent, but Blizzard (apparently) aren't always the sharpest tools in the box.

So, it often appeared to work.

They could also be pretty sadistic in what they would post and how they would react to people on the (EU) forums.

But, still, the most divisive players were always the few, elitist, high end raiders - or, those who wanted to try to emulate them.

RobZha

Ertosi wrote: »

BDO. Same level? No cause it knocks all the other MMOs out of the park graphics-wise. Also way bigger scale of PvP seeing how it has open world PvP rather than tucking PvP off in its own little region. I still prefer ESO though cause I the world and lore of Nirn, but seeing how you asked, there you go.

If I didn't have issues with going overdrawn at the bank recently would've probably been playing it now. Played it on a 7 day trail a while back and looking forward to going back shortly. I don't know if I'll mainly move over there but am guessing I will do with all of the issues this game is having.

I'm not doing a whine session though, also wanted to add what I personally realised over the last day or so : the only time I'm consistently happy or content playing this game is when I do exactly what I did when I started playing : just roam around the zones doing solo quests/exploring and treat it mainly like a single player game. For ages I've thought that the game was just broken and unplayable, but after going through the main story for the 2nd time last night so another char as Coldharbour access I was actually a lot happier than I usually am, and I just like playing the game solo. As soon as pvp comes into it I'm not happy nearly as much.

That doesn't mean I don't like pvp though. I'll still go in there regularly because when it works I've had some great times and a lot of laughs, and I'd miss it too much if I just stopped playing. From playing hours and hours every day though I usually just log in and play for one or two now and am done. Will keep checking back if I play even less though to see how things change because with some luck the game will get some decent fixes before it's finished. I don't like the idea of things continually declining because there's so much here that should make it a way better game if they focus on the problems instead of mainly focusing on the addition of new content, crown store stuff, etc. So even though it doesn't look good right now I'll keep some hope of that happening.

mague

ImmortalCX wrote: »

I'm not an MMO historian, but my experience with WOW was that PVPers were the ones who complained the most loudly about balance and performance.

So my questions:

1) Is it any surprise that ESO, a game that leans towards PVP in the endgame, has so many reported problems (here, in forum)?

2) Why would any game developer in their right mind cater to PVPers? Adding PVE content seems to be the sure path to making players happier.

3) Can you name any other MMO that has/had the same level of graphical detail AND scale of PVP combat? Is there another game with a Cyrodil sized map that supports hundreds of players, with high level of graphical detail? (Honestly, I dont know, but it seems unlikely)

It is not about balance of PvP. Most games fail to offer real objectives and so PvP turns into a self serving gaming element, and the balance discussion is just one of many replacement objectives.

MaxJrFTW

Have to disagree with you simply based on the fact that you're wrong. The PvP community in WoW is minuscule in terms of the percentage of players that participates in it. The percentage of WoW players that do any sort of PvP beyond the occasional random bg is less than 1%, you were able to see that by going into the rated BG and arena ladders and seeing how many people were ranked. No longer the case because they don't let you go beyond page 10 anymore. ESO while having a smaller playerbase than WoW, has a much higher percentage of the playerbase engaging in PvP.

In WoW the PvP complains go down the drain and nothing happens because practically nobody PvPs, although admittedly PvP activity seems to be growing in BfA while PvE is declining. Go take a look at the biggest WoW streamers and you'll see that most of them are PvE only players. Meanwhile Fengrush who is a PvPer is far and wide the most viewed ESO streamer, and when he is not streaming there's usually another PvPer gathering the most viewers.

The lag in Cyrodiil is unacceptable and makes the game unplayable. There's even lag in battlegrounds since Murkmire. The developers however, seem to be under the impression that like in WoW nobody does PvP. You cannot keep ignoring the community that drives your game, and expect to stick around for long.

Alcast

It is quite obvious towards where ZOS wants to go with the game. Just look at how they market the game.

Sheezabeast

PVPers consume PVE content to obtain gear and skills. And vice versa. Why the dichotomy? It’s never made sense to me, someone who actively does both.

NupidStoob

People who complain that the game is dead or dying usually play on consoles. With the performance the game has there I am not surprised that is happening.

Everyone is free to decide what their endgame in this game is whether it's becoming rich, RPing, Fashion, Achievements, PvE or PvP. You simply choose those you like and ignore the others.

jainiadral

ImmortalCX wrote: »

I'm not an MMO historian, but my experience with WOW was that PVPers were the ones who complained the most loudly about balance and performance.

So my questions:

1) Is it any surprise that ESO, a game that leans towards PVP in the endgame, has so many reported problems (here, in forum)?

2) Why would any game developer in their right mind cater to PVPers? Adding PVE content seems to be the sure path to making players happier.

3) Can you name any other MMO that has/had the same level of graphical detail AND scale of PVP combat? Is there another game with a Cyrodil sized map that supports hundreds of players, with high level of graphical detail? (Honestly, I dont know, but it seems unlikely)

PvPers usually do complain the most loudly about balance and performance in most games I've played-- at least according to what I've read on various gaming forums. SWTOR, GW2, here, probably others I can't think of at the moment. It makes perfect sense, though. PvP players mainly need three things: player skill, good game/network performance, and class balance.

That's not necessarily a bad thing, though. Improving game performance benefits PvE players too. Balance requests can be a problem if devs insist on balancing both sides of a game at the same time, instead of treating them differently. But that's hardly the fault of the players. The responsibility for bad balance decisions rests solely on the devs.

Other than that, PvP players' needs seem to be a lot more modest than PvErs', TBH. They can stretch out small dribbles of content for a lot longer than on the PvE end. Especially the high end.

If you look at ESO specifically, most PvP player requests seem to be reasonable-- at least when it comes to performance. I've read the threads, I've watched the videos players have posted of gameplay in Cyrodiil. If I'd paid for the content and I enjoyed PvP there, I'd be jamming the forums too. There's no excuse for paid content to be unplayable.

So:

1. Yes, it's no surprise. Because from what I've seen reading the forums, performance really is that bad.

2. Because they're usually a lot easier to appease with the least amount of effort, especially if PvP centers around small-scale encounters like warzones, arenas, or battlegrounds. Solo players are a pretty close second-- keep a reasonable amount of story content coming and we'll play it to death. Plus we usually don't give two kittens about balance unless we're getting nerfed to oblivion.

3. GW2 comes to mind, especially WvW. It's not as "pretty" but it's got a beautiful, immersive, spacious feel going on in every map. Then there's BDO. I've never played it thanks to the rootkit it foists on you, so YMMV. Archeage maybe?

BlackMadara

No matter what people may think or feel, ESO's main focus is overland PVE. That is the main desk due to the largest player base being elder scrolls fans.

Past that, it has a good combat system, which will attract people who like to pvp. Pvp in a mmo adds a sense of commitment, drive, and satisfaction that other pvp games don't. You get to train up and build your character to be a possible bad ass and that feels good.

Then this game is an mmorpg, which means the need for endgame pve content. Most of which is going to be dungeons and raids. Again, people feel connected to the characters they build up to put through these trials.

Both communities are vocal because they are passionate. Both are also a minority in the ESO population. Only a few feel divided as only pvp or pve. There is no real divide between the masses.

VaranisArano

Sylvermynx wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

ESO struggles to survive on the merit of new PVE content alone.

We see this as ZOS adds incredible grinds to lengthen player time spent in new DLC content. They've outright said lots of their players come for new chapters and then fall away. They also are forced to artificially generate horizontal progression through rounds of nerfing the meta. This last is true even if the game were PVE only.

Moreover, the easiest ways for ZOS to add new end-game content, the most bang for their buck, are the comparatively limited DLC Dungeon packs (PVE) and Battlegrounds Maps and Modes (PVP). Chapters and quest DLC take a lot of work, and Cyrodiil has performance issues ZOS seems unable to fix.

So this isn't going to change. New Dungeons and new battlegrounds are profitable for the effort they take and tide players over, with the constant rat race of nerfs and grinding and meta chasing to keep players feeling like they are sort of kind of progressing.

Thats true whether the game caters to PVP or PVE or both.

So the only options are to quit, continue your rat race meta-chasing, or be content with being slightly less good than the meta. And in the case of this particular thread, accept that ZOS cares a lot more about profit than they do game balance. This game could be PVE only and ZOS would still tie you up in nerfs, grinds, and changing the meta.

Actually, so far (and yes, I haven't played long at all) I'm not finding this game anywhere close to as grindy as either WoW or RIFT. Perhaps that because I have eschewed fishing....

And it's also because my expectations have changed: I no longer care about "end game". I care about exploring and having fun. After burn out on WoW and RIFT, I refuse to mess with "end game" period.

ESO has gotten grindier. It's perfectly possible to play the game without worrying about the grinds.

But things like jewelcrafting, Welkynar motif, Murkmire dailies, style pages...those are all grinds ZOS added to keep people coming back and playing for a longer time, and it's becoming a habit for ZOS. Any MMO is going to have grinds, but we see ZOS adding more and monetizing them, as with Welkynar or DLC housing recipes. I expect it to get worse, because its profitable for ZOS to keep players grinding.

And ever since One Tamriel when ZOS sawpped to horizontal progression instead of vertical, we've been in a rat race of grinding to chase the meta, then a round of nerfs and buffs, more grinding to chase the meta, more nerfs and a few buffs, and so on. Balance is a myth when the game's progression relies on upseting the meta so players keep chasing it.

The only way out is to do exactly as you've done: play the content you have fun with in the manner you want to play it, and be content with that.

Olupajmibanan

If you want good experience with balanced PvP, don't play MMORPGs. Not a single one in history could create balanced PvP environment (it's caused by the RPG nature).

ESO has some PvP just to survive in very competitive environment of MMORPGs, because all these have it. But there is no way that any MMORPG brings better PvP experience than a game made specifically for PvP purposes, like Mobas or FPS games.

Facefister

mb10 wrote: »

Do anti PVPers really enjoy fighting the same bosses, trials and dungeons over and over again?
Knowing the exact mechanics and exact time to do their skills

Seems so so boring...

You pretend as if every PvP fight is something different.

Yes the human factor varies the fight abit but after a certain time you can pretty much predict what the DK, NB, Sorc and so on will do and react. Yes ofcourse there are exceptions but the majority is as cookie cutter as your dungeon mini-boss.

CatchMeTrolling

DaveMoeDee wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

Wrong. Yes mmos typically have more pve but endgame is usually pvp.

I haven't played any other MMOs, but I know a few people IRL who are serious MMO veterans and none of them were big on PvP and they seemed to feel that PvP gets pretty toxic.

Sounds like they’re predominantly pve players, so I’d expect biased opinions. Pvp and pve gets toxic. If we’re being honest the pve community is usually more toxic when it comes to raids, dungeons, classes, skills/load outs, stat numbers, gear scores etc. can be real elitist.

UppGRAYxDD

dwemer_paleologist wrote: »

but, it is just that.
your opinion.

ImmortalCX

Olupajmibanan wrote: »

If you want good experience with balanced PvP, don't play MMORPGs. Not a single one in history could create balanced PvP environment (it's caused by the RPG nature).

ESO has some PvP just to survive in very competitive environment of MMORPGs, because all these have it. But there is no way that any MMORPG brings better PvP experience than a game made specifically for PvP purposes, like Mobas or FPS games.

I agree with this. There are some really good and popular PvP games. LoL and Fortnite come to mind. Which begs the question, why would anyone play an MMO PvP?

I suspect its a different breed of player. Its the kind of player (and this is a radical idea that no one would ever admit to) that actually *likes* a degree of imbalance.

If you can put together a build that is more effective, perhaps something that not everyone can do (because they dont have an ____), then you can clean up and feel rewarded for "finding" and abusing an "OP" mechanic.

If a person is the kind of player that wants straight up mano a mano combat, he would be playing Fortnight.

The Uninvited

DaveMoeDee wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

Wrong. Yes mmos typically have more pve but endgame is usually pvp.

I haven't played any other MMOs, but I know a few people IRL who are serious MMO veterans and none of them were big on PvP and they seemed to feel that PvP gets pretty toxic.

Funny, in my experience I have come across a lot more toxicity while playing pve than pvp.

Koolio

So game satisfaction should be at an all time high on Ps4 NA

The PvP community is basically about 100 people at least in Cyrodiil

Sky_WK

Not only does ZoS not give a *** about PvP, the majority of the casual players don't either as you can see from this thread, so they have no real incentive to fix it.

karekiz

TRUTH

Agenericname

Jeremy wrote: »

ImmortalCX wrote: »

I'm not an MMO historian, but my experience with WOW was that PVPers were the ones who complained the most loudly about balance and performance.

So my questions:

1) Is it any surprise that ESO, a game that leans towards PVP in the endgame, has so many reported problems (here, in forum)?

2) Why would any game developer in their right mind cater to PVPers? Adding PVE content seems to be the sure path to making players happier.

3) Can you name any other MMO that has/had the same level of graphical detail AND scale of PVP combat? Is there another game with a Cyrodil sized map that supports hundreds of players, with high level of graphical detail? (Honestly, I dont know, but it seems unlikely)

I tend to agree with the sentiment of your title. PvP almost always seems to drag the rest of the game down with it while on its endless and impossible quest to create "balance". I'm frankly so sick of having my builds, skills, and entire play styles endlessly screwed with and "nerfed" to accommodate this misguided perception of PvP that everyone is suppose to be balanced.

It's not going to happen. It's never going to happen. It never has happened. They should focus on making PvP and the rest of the game for that matter more fun and just delete the word balance from their vocabulary.

I realize that the point of the thread is to dichotomize PvE and PvP, and as much as I dislike going with this particular flow, PvP is not the sole source of the crying about balance. Within the last week or so there has a "nerf the maelstrom bow", "redguard sustain", "now that we have nerfed this can we nerf that", I'm sure theres a racial passive thread in there somewhere and even an argonian thread. Mostly from PvE.

You could easily find just as many if not more from PvP. What seems universally true is that people will complain about anything.

"Balance" is like "literally", people use it, but they're not always clear on the definition. If they could explain what they think they mean when they're using "balance" that would be great.