Would you want a new PvP zone?

tinythinker

With IC being given it's own queue, the door is open to adding more zones with PvP enabled (BGs aren't counted as "zones" for this poll/discussion).

Off the top of my head, there are some obvious pros and cons:

Pros:
• Something fresh/different
• More map options to choose from
• Greater creative freedom for new mechanics/concepts for zone-sized PvP
• More lore/more of story of the Three Banners war/new map areas to explore

Cons:
• Could take resources away from/lead to slower updates for Cyrodiil/IC
• Dilutes PvP player base among even more maps/campaigns

I’m not particularly for or against the idea, just curious and wanted to add something else to talk about given the directions hinted at for zone-based PvP.

Personally, I would be curious and give the new zone a try, especially if they took lots of suggestions and feedback from players in shaping the new map’s identity.

Or, instead of truly “all new, all different” maps I would be interested in an idea I and a few others toyed with a while back. That is, you would still have Cyro (and now IC) with different campaigns, but each campaign would be different in some ways to spice things up.

No, not just CP vs. No CP or varying point values for objectives or different campaign durations.

I mean things like:
• A campaign that has the new outposts and one that doesn’t (maybe it has insane world bosses at those locations, or some new type of capturable objective, or both, or is just retro/empty, or something else, etc.)
• A campaign that has the new relic system vs. one that doesn’t (or maybe a different rule set for that system)
• A campaign with much fiercer non-Alliance NPCs that raid (and can fairly quickly capture) keeps/outposts/towns vs. a campaign without such raids
• A campaign with soft/hard caps on stats for Battle Spirit vs. those with the current version of Battle Spirit
• Etc.

These wouldn’t have to all be done or made into a huge number of new campaigns. They could be mixed and matched. It would be especially helpful if prototypes were up for extended periods on the PTS for feedback to see what works well/gets a good reception and what doesn’t.

And yes, “What about lag/performance?”, but that’s been said since the lighting patch so while it’s an issue waiting for it to get fixed before doing any other major changes is pointless. It’s been nearly five years.

tinythinker

And yes, “What about lag/performance?”, but that’s been said since the lighting patch so while it’s an issue waiting for it to get fixed before doing any other major changes is pointless. It’s been nearly five years.

Sharee

No

Not a new zone, no. But a very long and hard look at cyrodiil, refreshing it, adding new mechanics(sometimes fundamentally changing the gameplay)... making it *feel* like a new zone, sure. Something like new frontiers did for DAoC.

tinythinker

Sharee wrote: »

Not a new zone, no. But a very long and hard look at cyrodiil, refreshing it, adding new mechanics(sometimes fundamentally changing the gameplay)... sure. Something like new frontiers did for DAoC.

Good point. Tried to cover some of that with the second half of the original post. It's still Cyrodiil, but re-imagined to a certain extent in terms of the map, the mechanics, etc.

I didn't play DAOC or it's New Frontiers but looking up the latter it sounds like the same concept. It's not really a "new" zone, but it's still significantly different. Players could chose which version they wanted - current standard or variant campaign. Or standard, variant 1, variant 2. Whatever the arrangement.

I tossed out a few quick ideas but there could be so many more things:

• (adding) new or (replacing current models with) different siege engines, greater siege damage/effects vs lesser/fewer, etc.*
• adding a new skill line just for zone-based PvP (perhaps it could change/shift in different versions of a campaign)
• adding new objectives to capture/defend (such as mobile flags like armed escorts for couriers or supply caravans)
• something in the spirit of the affixes from WoW's Mythic+ dungeons, which could rotate/change each campaign
• etc.

(*especially if each Alliance got different equipment to add some flavor to your choice of faction)

And I'm sure other players would have tons of suggestions as well.

Same could be done for IC now that's it's going independent.

VaranisArano

We can't fill the PVP zones we already have.

So without comprehensive perfromance fixes, no. I'm not interested in another PVP zone that will have the same issues as the others.

tinythinker

VaranisArano wrote: »

We can't fill the PVP zones we already have.

So without comprehensive perfromance fixes, no. I'm not interested in another PVP zone that will have the same issues as the others.

Yeah, that's under my own "cons" list.

The counter to that, I suppose, would be the potential to generate additional interest in the game's zone-based PvP. Not sure it would work, but that's the counter-argument.

In terms of performance, it's been nearly five years. Anyone who is going to play already has to accept that or move on (as many have). But some people drop out because on top of performance issues, it's just the same thing over and over and over...

Just for the sake of whatever, *if* (<--) performance improved enough: what changes to mechanics, objectives, layout, etc. would you want to see in a new zone or a major overhaul of Cyro?

VaranisArano

tinythinker wrote: »

show previous quotes

VaranisArano wrote: »

We can't fill the PVP zones we already have.

So without comprehensive perfromance fixes, no. I'm not interested in another PVP zone that will have the same issues as the others.

Yeah, that's under my own "cons" list.

The counter to that, I suppose, would be the potential to generate additional interest in the game's zone-based PvP. Not sure it would work, but that's the counter-argument.

In terms of performance, it's been nearly five years. Anyone who is going to play already has to accept that or move on (as many have). But some people drop out because on top of performance issues, it's just the same thing over and over and over...

Just for the sake of whatever, *if* (<--) performance improved enough: what changes to mechanics, objectives, layout, etc. would you want to see in a new zone or a major overhaul of Cyro?

If performance improved, I'd be thrilled with Cyrodiil, myself. I prefer large scale battles with an organized group.

My objection to new PVP zones of different types is simply that until ZOS fixes the performance, those new zones are subject to crippling population issues and their own performance issues. Battlegrounds is a case in point. It doesnt suffer from the same lag as Cyrodiil, but it has lots of queue issues due to the low population (thus, messed up MMR), and it has its own bugs. Any new mode is going to suffer from the lack of a healthy population and that's simply going to be the case until ZOS fixes the PVP performance issues.

TBois

No

The zones we have would be amazing with a bit more attention.

Ashamray

Yes (includes "Yes!", "Yes, if...", "Yes, but...", etc.)

How can I reject to have a new content.
IC is the greatest DLC, spirit is so strong. And I'm really curious from lore point of view what is happening somewhere else.

eliisra

No

I think it's just gonna be confusing with an entire new and separate PvP zone at this point. I rather they extend Cyrodiil with new interesting areas as well as optimizing it better to reduce lag.

Adding a new type of PvP instance would also be really nice. I'd like something like a large scale version of BGs, with bigger maps, more objectives and more players. Basically something that takes longer than 10-15 minutes to finish.

What they absolutely shouldn't do though, is add more mixed PvE/PvP areas like IC. Doesn't appeal to a large enough playerbase. Mixed areas are normally avoided by PvE'ers, casuals and newer players, because of gankers and being unable to quest peacefully. It's not overly popular among PvP'ers either, because not enough PvP action going on or enemy players to fight.

zyk

No

I would like ZOS to give us some low hanging fruit:

- homestead PVP
- GvG instances

Aside from that I think the best ROI for AvA would be adding more to Cyrodiil.

Amphithoe

No

I hate to sound like a broken record but I think they should improve upon the base game zones before adding new ones.

ScruffyWhiskers

No

You don't want to fracture what is already a pretty limited player base in Cyrodiil.

But. They really need to reinvent what we have. Do a complete overhaul of how scoring and the geography work to funnel players to the same keeps or make having a 40+ man zerg take sej or bleaks a common occurrence.

Emma_Overload

Yes, I want a dedicated deathmatch zone or arena! Must have:

1) CP enabled

2) Fast, convenient respawn points

3) No goofy objectives... just deathmatch

4) AP awarded for killing enemies

5) Rewards like cool new armor sets

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

I'd really like to see larger scale 2 faction staged BGs

So for example you capture the courtyard then capture the keep then assault the scroll temple.

(Wouldn't have to be keep / scroll themed just a rough idea)

I think 32v32with max group queue in of 12 would be nice if the server could handle it.

Additionally housing pvp for custom gvg matches and being able to host your own bg matches for ppl to be invited in (no reward just for fun) would be nice

tinythinker

eliisra wrote: »

I think it's just gonna be confusing with an entire new and separate PvP zone at this point. I rather they extend Cyrodiil with new interesting areas as well as optimizing it better to reduce lag.

zyk wrote: »

Aside from that I think the best ROI for AvA would be adding more to Cyrodiil.

ScruffyWhiskers wrote: »

They really need to reinvent what we have. Do a complete overhaul of how scoring and the geography work to funnel players to the same keeps or make having a 40+ man zerg take sej or bleaks a common occurrence.

*nods*

That's why I included the other ways of making a "new" zone, which is to keep Cyro and IC as the maps but give options that change them up:

• A campaign that has the new outposts and one that doesn’t (maybe it has insane world bosses at those locations, or some new type of capturable objective, or both, or is just retro/empty, or something else, etc.)
• A campaign that has the new relic weapon system vs. one that doesn’t (or maybe a different rule set for that system)
• A campaign with much fiercer non-Alliance NPCs that raid (and can fairly quickly capture) keeps/outposts/towns vs. a campaign without such raids
• A campaign with soft/hard caps on stats for Battle Spirit vs. those with the current version of Battle Spirit
• A campaign with (adding) new or (replacing current models with) different siege engines, greater siege damage/effects vs lesser/fewer, unique siege for each alliance, etc.
• Adding a new skill line just for zone-based PvP (perhaps it could change/shift in different versions of a campaign)
• A campaign with new objectives to capture/defend (such as mobile flags like armed escorts for couriers or supply caravans)
• Adding something in the spirit of the affixes from WoW's Mythic+ dungeons, which could rotate/change each campaign
• ...and so on and so one, etc., etc.

As mentioned before, the new variant campaigns wouldn't have to have these specific ideas (obviously *I* would like to try them) nor would it need to be a new campaign for each of them individually. A bare-bones version of any of these or other new ideas could be added now and again with cheap placeholders (i.e. sans awesome art and animation) to the PTS for feedback. The winners would end up in the new variant campaign(s).

For example:

• Standard (as it is now)
  

• Variant #1
  - new siege engines/siege engines unique to each alliance
  - raiding NPCs
  - mobile flags (guarded envoys/supply caravans)

• Variant #2
  - insane world bosses replace new outposts
  - affix-like* effects that change at the end of each campaign cycle
  - variation on how relic weapons work

(*What is an affix? How might it fit in ESO zone-based PvP Click the spoiler)

Spoiler

An affix is something added to "Mythic Plus" level difficulty in World of Warcraft to add extra challenge and help keep current dungeons from getting stale after running them dozens or hundreds of times. They are typically buffs or debuffs to players, trash mobs, or bosses. A current quick-summary list can be seen here. Reaping, for example, can present a challenge as trash mobs may periodically come back to life and hunt down the players, who may be fighting a boss or a new trash pack. If combined with Bursting, a 4 second stackable DoT that occurs each time a trash mob is killed.

The idea for ESO Cyrodiil or IC variant campaigns isn't to just copy-paste the WoW affix system, but to consider having a list of effects to draw on for each campaign cycle, maybe two or three from the list per cycle. Some may affect mobs (including guards) and could be similar to WoW affixes. Others may affect keep resources or the walls of keeps and outposts -- maybe the bonus from resources is much higher and grows much faster, maybe walls are thicker or thinner. Some may affect siege -- increasing damage or duration of effects on players or changing the effects somehow. And so on.

IC variants could be similar or given how different it is from Cyrodiil it could have its own list of options.

Again, it wouldn't have to be those *specific* shake-ups I listed or any of the others I myself might propose, they are filler to give an idea of the size, scope, and type of changes.

If two variants are too much then just put the best changes into one alternative campaign.

technohic

No

No. Need to fix the one we have. Maybe do things to freshen it up every now and then. They don't seem to be able to do that as is so cant imagine if they had more to work on. An DC already barely fills a campaign.

I'll be curious to see if IC moving does anything. Not just for performance, but I wonder if people will go to IC for different PVP. I doubt more than PVEers who think its safer now that they domt have to traverse Cyrodiil

tinythinker

eliisra wrote: »

Adding a new type of PvP instance would also be really nice. I'd like something like a large scale version of BGs, with bigger maps, more objectives and more players. Basically something that takes longer than 10-15 minutes to finish.

Yeah, I've thought of something *similar* in size and scope. Basically a PvP trial. It isn't the typical "mix PvE and PvP". It's like a more linear BG with extra obstacles and more strategy involved. Definitely *not* for PvE-only players. Or alternatively, more like your description, and extended BG:

Spoiler

tinythinker wrote: »

**Cloud Ruler Temple as a PvP Trial**

I still like this idea if it is done well.

Basics: An eighteen player trial with three starting points for three groups of six and places where the paths of each group intersect. If you stop to ambush you might get an advantage unless you lose or the other groups already went by. Once a group leaves a spot where the paths intersect enemy players can't follow. Choose your strategy but be prepared.

Details: The reason for groups of six is to make it easier to get a group together. It could also be set to three sets of four players to make a group even easier to put together, as this is key. You need to have three different groups going in together so getting in without huge queues is a must.

The idea of a PvP trial is essentially an elaborate battleground in which each team has a path they have to follow. There are options as you proceed in terms of diverging paths and different obstacles along the alternatives. These also offer different buffs or scenarios that are used where the paths of different teams cross. So it isn't just a PvE/PvP mixer with incongruous elements thrown in. The focus is PvP, and the PvE elements are there to support that. The choices you make in the PvE sections directly affect how PvP plays out when you meet one or both of the other teams.

The PvE element adds strategy and tactics by giving an advantage to those teams that synergize their strengths/weaknesses with the options presented, yet in the end the rock-paper-scissors element of those PvE choices add some unpredictability as well. The story involves trying to be the first to reach some lore-based MacGuffin that could turn the tide of the war for the Alliance possessing it. Teams who reach certain checkpoints have members spawn at those locations when they die. Some are unique to each path, some are open to any team (first come, first to claim, but claiming takes time while the flag is capped...).

Overall the trial design emphasizes constant action that directly involves PvP or bolsters the team for the PvP action waiting right around the corner (some boons involve resource management, others focus on speed, so choose wisely). The trial can be very short if you successfully attempt all of the shortcuts and aren't thwarted by a rival group. The unique rewards (with useful PvP traits like Impen!), the shifting map (certain passageways open while others close at different times), and the multi-elevation cross-path areas with lots of cover designed for small-group battles are the big draw, as well as fun and funny achievements for the completionists.

A vitality bonus is added at the end of the run to the winning team. Other teams still get some XP and a lesser reward, but the winning team's loot is far superior, with the second place team still doing better than third place. Thus you don't waste your time if you don't come in first, but, there is a big incentive to practice and get a good team together for the big prizes.

Sample: Your team is to reach some room in CRT. But the planemeld is shifting things, so that CRT keeps changing and is bigger somehow than it looks from the outside. Your team reaches a check point and can take time to use controls to move a bridge or seal a door to slow another team, but if they have already gone by it's a waste. In this case your team would need to fight poison spewing mobs to reach two different rooms and activate a control in each. You decide to skip it.

In other areas the paths intersect, so you can set up your ambush or race ahead. You enter a series of maze-like tunnels where the map doesn't work, where it's pitch black (even if you adjust the settings on your PC/console), and only flashes of light from abilities briefly give any visual images. Do you want to fight the other teams here or try to get out quickly? You decide to wait and take them out, sending them back to a checkpoint.

Your team reaches the end and there is a huge boss filling up the screen, with floating rock platforms in front of it. Other teams have access to different floating rocks, which initially are separated too much to fight each other. So all three teams try to out-DPS each other while needing to tank massive mini-boss adds. Every so often the boss rages, knocking platforms around and allowing the option for the teams to PvP each other before being separated again. The mechanics allow different strategies. How long do you want to cooperate with the other teams? Should you knock them out/slow them down early or wait until the boss is nearly defeated.


**Cloud Ruler Temple as a PvP Battleground**

This has a similar set-up to the Trial version, except there aren't intersecting paths to follow, no bosses to fight for buffs along the way, and so on. The story for this version is to try to claim Cloud Ruler Temple itself, yet mobs still keep spawning and there are environmental hazards as you make your way to the heart of the structure from your spawn point. There is a capture the flag mechanic that gives points the longer a flag is held, and there are also points awarded per enemy kill.

After a flag has been fully captured NPC guards spawn. Some of the flags are in interesting locations that are hard to get to and hard to defend, so teams must choose where to make their stands. Again, the structure is laid out in a multi-level fashion, so access to some flags may require moving up and down stairs. The area is still large, but not as larger as the Trial version, which is warped because of Daedric influence from Coldhabour. Each run of the Battleground is timer-based, with winners having the best score when time expires.

The group size for this version could either be twelve players, for a three-way total of thirty-six per instance, or eight players, for a total of twenty four per instance. Dead players must respawn at the fixed starting location where they entered at the start of the instance. There are buff icons that become available in random locations that function similar to Maelstrom Arena, but not nearly as powerful. Because the area is multi-elevation, boiling oil can be used on level spots near edges, some of which are over flags below...

Rewards are similar in distribution to the Trials version.

But that's just one idea. Could do something fun in IC as well by revamping a section of it. Or some new location. Did you have any particular theme in mind?

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

I'd really like to see larger scale 2 faction staged BGs

So for example you capture the courtyard then capture the keep then assault the scroll temple.

(Wouldn't have to be keep / scroll themed just a rough idea)

I think 32v32with max group queue in of 12 would be nice if the server could handle it.

Additionally housing pvp for custom gvg matches and being able to host your own bg matches for ppl to be invited in (no reward just for fun) would be nice

Interesting. Also has around the same number of people as my PvP trial or extended idea BG at Cloud Ruler. A bit more like the extended BG I sketched, but in a different location. Sounds fun! As above, might be something that could be a new instance but tied into IC.



OK, well, I've tried to "seed" the conversation with some ideas, and I like the stuff other people are proposing. Just for fun, even if you are worried about performance above al, what fun new thing would you like to see?

CyrusArya

It would be nice if the options we have now actually functioned first. When there is server lag in BGs, you know something is really wrong.

tinythinker

PS:

ScruffyWhiskers wrote: »

They really need to reinvent what we have. Do a complete overhaul of how scoring and the geography work to funnel players to the same keeps or make having a 40+ man zerg take sej or bleaks a common occurrence.

While I did lump you into the general overhaul comments for trying to reply to people, what would you think of getting a significant speed boosts on roads vs overland and increasing both AP and giving scoring bonus for certain keeps and outposts. If I recall, they added a bonus for the edge of the map keeps (a standing 8% enticement), which is cool, but what if:

- such bonuses could apply to all keeps
- the bonus varied based on how long it was held by a particular Alliance
- this included a campaign score bonus (instant upon capture, not tied to length of duration you hold it)

In such a scenario, keeps and outposts that get traded 10 times an hour are suddenly giving a pittance for AP and there is no extra score bonus added to the campaign race. A place that has sat unchallenged for a few hours would be worth a fortune.

The longer you hold a keep, the better your scoring (i.e. campaign point value) up to some limit. So now, there is more strategy and just running over the same routes isn't as rewarding.

To avoid exploitation, the low pop bonus mechanism also makes keeps and outposts worth less, so that PvP door against an undersized faction doesn't net a huge windfall from capping. However, by holding over time you eventually get a decent return.

It's not the best solution and has flaws, but that plus the random relic shrines and blowing up bridges and milegates plus other incentives could potentially shift behavior.

That and maybe the old spark idea.

Spoiler

Old spark idea - you cast a costly spell that does increasing damage as it sparks back and forth between an enemy players and that player's allies. Affected allies spark allies near them. Damage increases over time until affected players separate to a distance greater than 4 meters from each other. Since it can chain people together that means balls and zergs need to spread out temporarily when it. Damage scaling makes it inefficient against single players or very small groups.

Similar to:

Sanctum Ophidia model: You get lighting or poison and spread it players within a few meters, and it can keep spreading back and forth.

Others:

Complex version of Spark: too long to put here.

FilteredRiddle

No

I don't want new anything until they fix the plethora of issues currently prevalent in PVP. I shouldn't be guaranteed a disconnect (or two... or three) every time I find a decent sized engagement. I shouldn't constantly be surrounded by a sea of black, faceless bodies because we have a zerg going. I shouldn't miss fights because the transitus-to-transitus travel took so long that I grew a Hrothgar hermit's beard. I don't want new shinies, or changes, or anything done to PVP until the current iteration isn't a broken heap of nonsense.

TheBonesXXX

No

I want to see Cyrodiil brought up to 2019, there are plenty places for new caves, plenty of places for smaller group dungeons.

They can make the map as a whole more important to create more fights that are small scale, like the towns used to do before they added a respawn point and a wayshrine.

They can make the alliance effort process more in-depth and nuanced.

They can take cyrodiil from being a queue, and turn it into a zone. Giving the game that truly open-world feel.

I am not a fan if trying to make cyrodiil a different game with with an Elder Scrolls skin.

TheValar85

No

PVP is so broken in this game so i wouldn't even bother about adding new things untill they dont fix it completly.

Mazbt

As far as pvp content is concerned, I think they're just focusing on making new Battleground maps. At least I think so.

ChefZero

No

Performance, of course.

BUT

I have a question for you. What's the point of being in a PvP guild?

What did they get besides keep traders and heraldry? PvP guilds are the backbone of a healthy PvP community but they suffer since release. It's a good example how neglected AvA is. No ladder boards, no prestige, no reputation, no rewards...

We got classreps. But where are the meetings between PvP devs and leaders of popular PvP guilds like in other MMOs?

Tonnopesce

Yes (includes "Yes!", "Yes, if...", "Yes, but...", etc.)

In my pvp want list i have a big fat keep (not like the ones we have now ) instance with two factions attak/defense with 50ppl per part divided in two phases, where the attak switch with the defense and vice versa.

zyk

No

I've always thought a very large 40v40 version of the post-iconic 2forts with an Alessia-like bridge between two keeps would be popular.

InvictusApollo

I'm not sure if putting only players of similar ping into a match would decrease or at least stabilise ping for all of them. However if it would then I would gladly welcome elimination of all Cyrodill campaigns in favor of instances that have the same rules but match players of similar ping.
Performance over diversity of choices.

Rikumaru

Yes (includes "Yes!", "Yes, if...", "Yes, but...", etc.)

I would love to see a map / area which utilizes verticality for gameplay. I kind of wish IC had this for some parts, idk to mimic a more distorted world with the coldharbour thing and all.

Raudgrani

Yes (includes "Yes!", "Yes, if...", "Yes, but...", etc.)

A whole new map the size of Cyrodiil would be rather amazing, maybe a bit more thought through than Cyrodiil. Still discover new cool places all the time, you see such a tiny part of it despite spending so much time there. I know it's not really realistic in any way, but it sure would be awesome.

Druid40

Yes (includes "Yes!", "Yes, if...", "Yes, but...", etc.)

It would be nice if they eventually ended the Three Alliance War and Cyrodiil was just another PVE map. A new PVP zone on another continent or part of Tamriel could be a good change.