New PvP mode

ThanatosXR

I noticed that world pvp tends to be better before people get on after school/work, and small groups battle it out, these battles seem to be more fun and engaging, then the larger amount of players at night. Instead of say a need map, why not a new smaller world pvp?
Say a small map with objectives, no siege, keeps have no doors or outter walls or lumberyards no resources , a elite npc of the holding side guards a flag that controls the keep, elite needs took down to capture the keep.
Remove quick travel and choosing a respawn point, you always respawn at the nearest point based on control of the keep even if keep is under attack respawn point is nearby and not directly in it, various other objectives and control point such as outposts and camps, same setup elite npc guards flags, outposts near and stuff will buff the nearby keep with a defender buff for say a couple meters ok well gameplay ideas for it is too long to write.
The map should be lets say gold coast size
No campaign system, instead activity based queuing, mode would be dynamically controlled, with say a 50 players per faction, dynamically scalled instance, the mode would beeasy to auto manage, as new instances could be added/and removed to account for players at the current time, when close to population limits a new instance would start or via verisa.
Anywho Im just rambling here, the goal is a smaller, efficient world pvp, wouldnt lag due to being auto managed, battles would be better ,zergs would still be possible persay but risky, since the map would be smaller a player on a team to say see a group trying to cap the keep and since a elite keep npc comander guards the flag its riskier yet do able, hell a tactical player could defend a keep by attacking while enemy group was taking down the elite, or if the enemy caping group is good they could manage the dpsing the commander and take on some defenders till the commander is down.
You objectives and control.
I have alot of ideas for smaller map pvp, I cannot write them all, it would rely on more thinking and actual pvp, simple yet complex do to player tactics, one reason for the zerging in current pvp due to its design is the map is too big, keeps are overbuilt and the building element, walls, bridges all that garbage shouldnt belong in any pvp mode, the whole over complex systems ruins pvp itself no reason not to zerg as its the counter to the bad design.
Over complexity leads to less actual pvp making zerging the only winning option hence it ironically created a less complex outcome!

idk

IC is your small scale PvP design. While it may not be the map you envision your overall idea has already been added to the game. We have a large map, small map and BGs.

Besides, Zos seems to have found it difficult to monetize PvP since they had to move BGs to the base game. If they cannot monetize it they cannot justify it.

ThanatosXR

I went to IC it deader then a doornail, how is it real small world pvp, I dont know much all I saw was random mobs littered, its not really a small world pvp, its just a meta of the larger one, hell you have to walk forever just to play it, also its a really depressing place, i know its not gonna happen but im sharing ideas

idk

I understand we cannot all keep up with what Zos communicates or read the PTS patch notes to see what is coming, but IC is being moved to it's own campaign which should help it since instead of having multiple ICs there will be only one.

Also, IC is not some meta (or anything) of Cyrodiil. It has a very different feel. Granted, I do not think new life breathed into IC with the upcoming change will last long but that just goes to show the small map idea is not so great.

So much of the PvP world left ESO long ago. The game is only able to support one Cyrodiil campaign as it is (the rest of the campaigns are pretty empty) so adding another map makes zero sense. It will not bring back players as most left because they got tired of the game or because they got tired of how poorly this game has been managed under Matt Firor.

Edit: I am not knocking you for sharing. Please do not take it personally.

Beardimus

Folks just need to spread out, its that simple.

But as per the raging debate about faction lock folks don't want to. They wanna sit in 30 day CP zerging.

You are right about smaller scale being fun, i concur hence preference for Sotha / Shor

LoreToo

This idea is reaky realy REALY great. Less ppl->less lag->more fun. Removing siges-idk, this is bad move. Imho how it could be: cut current map to 9 parts with 3 keeps on each + 1 outpost in the middle. Only 60 ppl can enter. Siges are ok. 3 days leaderboards(for rewards).

HowlKimchi

ThanatosXR wrote: »

I noticed that world pvp tends to be better before people get on after school/work, and small groups battle it out, these battles seem to be more fun and engaging, then the larger amount of players at night. Instead of say a need map, why not a new smaller world pvp?
Say a small map with objectives, no siege, keeps have no doors or outter walls or lumberyards no resources , a elite npc of the holding side guards a flag that controls the keep, elite needs took down to capture the keep.
Remove quick travel and choosing a respawn point, you always respawn at the nearest point based on control of the keep even if keep is under attack respawn point is nearby and not directly in it, various other objectives and control point such as outposts and camps, same setup elite npc guards flags, outposts near and stuff will buff the nearby keep with a defender buff for say a couple meters ok well gameplay ideas for it is too long to write.
The map should be lets say gold coast size
No campaign system, instead activity based queuing, mode would be dynamically controlled, with say a 50 players per faction, dynamically scalled instance, the mode would beeasy to auto manage, as new instances could be added/and removed to account for players at the current time, when close to population limits a new instance would start or via verisa.
Anywho Im just rambling here, the goal is a smaller, efficient world pvp, wouldnt lag due to being auto managed, battles would be better ,zergs would still be possible persay but risky, since the map would be smaller a player on a team to say see a group trying to cap the keep and since a elite keep npc comander guards the flag its riskier yet do able, hell a tactical player could defend a keep by attacking while enemy group was taking down the elite, or if the enemy caping group is good they could manage the dpsing the commander and take on some defenders till the commander is down.
You objectives and control.
I have alot of ideas for smaller map pvp, I cannot write them all, it would rely on more thinking and actual pvp, simple yet complex do to player tactics, one reason for the zerging in current pvp due to its design is the map is too big, keeps are overbuilt and the building element, walls, bridges all that garbage shouldnt belong in any pvp mode, the whole over complex systems ruins pvp itself no reason not to zerg as its the counter to the bad design.
Over complexity leads to less actual pvp making zerging the only winning option hence it ironically created a less complex outcome!

With IC being a separate, campaign, I'm hoping it becomes something like this. Does anyone know if the new IC campaigns will have winners?

Marcus684

People say they want smaller campaigns and more small scale, but the vast majority of players flock to the most populated campaigns, and the “small-scalers” and 1vXers that prey on them follow them. ZOS just needs to invest in the hardware and software changes needed to make Cyrodiil work.

Luckylancer

IC with good incentive is what you are looking for. Elite pvpers > gankers > farmers > mobs food chain dont work nicely. People that put effort are at huge disadvantage againts gankers, gankers have nothing to lose. Place get empty because farmers leave, then gankers leave then pvlers leave because it is empty.

Gankers should be in danger and farmers should say "I hope they will ambush us so we can get more telvar from killing them".