If you could remake the Three Banners War...

VaranisArano

psychotrip wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

psychotrip wrote: »

Anumaril wrote: »

the game needed factions

Why?

Because the Dev team's vision for PVP pulls very heavily from Dark Age of Camelot's AvAvA PVP. Since PVP was the original end game content, well, the need for three factions follows from that.

By design, the Devs needed players split into three equal factions, so they built their Alliance quests accordingly to funnel players into PVP ready and willing to fight for their faction.

ESO - as designed - needed factions.

If you take away the need for factions to fuel the original end game PVP side of the base game, then we're probably looking at an entirely different game.


(It should be noted that the ESO Devs seem to have taken a while to grasp what the fans of singleplayer TES games wanted, which was generally not "Let me do one questline and then hang out in PVP forever", and so gradually added Cadwell's Silver and Gold, PVE end game content, and eventually One Tamriel after they realized that mixed PvPvE was not to the taste of the majority of players and they had PVP performance issues. Factions are integral to the original design of the game. If the Devs had a do-over, I'm not sure they would have gone in the same direction.)

Precisely. So this was a want, not a need. I don't recall there being some huge request from the fanbase for an Elder Scrolls MMO focusing on a three-way pvp war.

They tried to shoehorn Dark Age Of Camelot into an Elder Scrolls MMO, and the franchise has been paying for it ever since.

Was it worth it?

We seem to be using "want" and "need" very differently.

The game that the Developers designed required factions in order for PVP to work along theDaoC-inspired lines they chose. There, Anumaril is entirely correct to say, "the game needed factions, so one way or another it had to be done."

Is this the game the fans wanted? Probably not. That ideal game that the fans wanted probably didn't need factions in order to get players invested in Tamriel. ZOS has been downplaying the Three Banners War in their year-long stories every since because the purely PVE side of things doesn't actually need factions for gameplay post-One Tamriel.

But I don't see much use about talking about the hypothetical ESO in which the Devs didn't base PVP around DAoC. Because that would be an entirely different game.


Personally, I'd argue that no matter how much the singleplayer RPG fans detest the DAoC-based PvP, it IS an integral part of ESO, and thus that, yes, ESO requires factions to function as a whole, complete MMORPG. A PVE-only player might feel differently about their portion of the game.

LettuceBrain

Don't the Khajiit blame the Argonians for the Knahatan Flu (did I spell it right)? Why are people saying they would ally? I get the prejudices against both of them but it was my understanding that they dislike each other.

Ryuvain

LettuceBrain wrote: »

Don't the Khajiit blame the Argonians for the Knahatan Flu (did I spell it right)? Why are people saying they would ally? I get the prejudices against both of them but it was my understanding that they dislike each other.

It's been a while but there was a quest dealing with that. In the end I don't think it was the argonian's fault at all. That flu still had no origin ever discovered.

I do think both races could find common ground in how they're both treated horribly by other races. Which brings me to my main point: I hate EP. It is due to racism but another point as well, why were argonians shoehorned into an alliance so hard? Hist just randomly says go with it, how ridiculously convenient. Doesn't help that dunmer went back to using slavery anyway. It just feels like such a huge cop out, but I will admit that all alliances have some of that in them as well.

No offense to EP players, but it's just simply an opinion. Ep was the main story that made me roll my eyes for their reasoning.

TwinLamps

Id add 4th side in that war - Daedra and Imperials, residing on IC islands, from where they attack other 3 alliances.
This faction would consist of Legion Zero, daedra of all kinds and similar.
There would be 3 outpost/keep /forts that this alliance has, but these would be different from regular ones because they would have no resources and double walls to compensate.
Once you control all 3 keeps that these Oblivion forces had to start with, you get to siege IC itself.
If you manage to control IC then you get the Emperorship.
This faction would be joinable by any player, no matter what faction he was to begin with. But doing so would lick that character for next 30 days to be unable to play for his original alliance.
Also, all bs enablers like hammer would have to go.
I find that and similar future items completely broken, clownish and they devalue any effort whatsoever to play Cyrodiil to win.

psychotrip

VaranisArano wrote: »

psychotrip wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

psychotrip wrote: »

Anumaril wrote: »

the game needed factions

Why?

Because the Dev team's vision for PVP pulls very heavily from Dark Age of Camelot's AvAvA PVP. Since PVP was the original end game content, well, the need for three factions follows from that.

By design, the Devs needed players split into three equal factions, so they built their Alliance quests accordingly to funnel players into PVP ready and willing to fight for their faction.

ESO - as designed - needed factions.

If you take away the need for factions to fuel the original end game PVP side of the base game, then we're probably looking at an entirely different game.


(It should be noted that the ESO Devs seem to have taken a while to grasp what the fans of singleplayer TES games wanted, which was generally not "Let me do one questline and then hang out in PVP forever", and so gradually added Cadwell's Silver and Gold, PVE end game content, and eventually One Tamriel after they realized that mixed PvPvE was not to the taste of the majority of players and they had PVP performance issues. Factions are integral to the original design of the game. If the Devs had a do-over, I'm not sure they would have gone in the same direction.)

Precisely. So this was a want, not a need. I don't recall there being some huge request from the fanbase for an Elder Scrolls MMO focusing on a three-way pvp war.

They tried to shoehorn Dark Age Of Camelot into an Elder Scrolls MMO, and the franchise has been paying for it ever since.

Was it worth it?

We seem to be using "want" and "need" very differently.

The game that the Developers designed required factions in order for PVP to work along theDaoC-inspired lines they chose. There, Anumaril is entirely correct to say, "the game needed factions, so one way or another it had to be done."

Is this the game the fans wanted? Probably not. That ideal game that the fans wanted probably didn't need factions in order to get players invested in Tamriel. ZOS has been downplaying the Three Banners War in their year-long stories every since because the purely PVE side of things doesn't actually need factions for gameplay post-One Tamriel.

But I don't see much use about talking about the hypothetical ESO in which the Devs didn't base PVP around DAoC. Because that would be an entirely different game.


Personally, I'd argue that no matter how much the singleplayer RPG fans detest the DAoC-based PvP, it IS an integral part of ESO, and thus that, yes, ESO requires factions to function as a whole, complete MMORPG. A PVE-only player might feel differently about their portion of the game.

You're acting like there was literally no way to make an MMO with pvp in it without jumping through narrative hoops to create a 3 sided faction war that they've spent several years trying their best to justify.

There are plenty of MMOs that do this sort of thing differently. They did not need to shape the entire foundation of the story around such a flimsy premise that, again, I dont think most ES fans were asking for.

I mean, it's like we forget that arenas exist in The Elder Scrolls universe. We didn't necessarily need a massive, poorly optimized warzone that takes up an important part of the world map. And that's just a single suggestion I pulled out of my ass just now.

There were options, here.

VaranisArano

psychotrip wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

psychotrip wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

psychotrip wrote: »

Anumaril wrote: »

the game needed factions

Why?

Because the Dev team's vision for PVP pulls very heavily from Dark Age of Camelot's AvAvA PVP. Since PVP was the original end game content, well, the need for three factions follows from that.

By design, the Devs needed players split into three equal factions, so they built their Alliance quests accordingly to funnel players into PVP ready and willing to fight for their faction.

ESO - as designed - needed factions.

If you take away the need for factions to fuel the original end game PVP side of the base game, then we're probably looking at an entirely different game.


(It should be noted that the ESO Devs seem to have taken a while to grasp what the fans of singleplayer TES games wanted, which was generally not "Let me do one questline and then hang out in PVP forever", and so gradually added Cadwell's Silver and Gold, PVE end game content, and eventually One Tamriel after they realized that mixed PvPvE was not to the taste of the majority of players and they had PVP performance issues. Factions are integral to the original design of the game. If the Devs had a do-over, I'm not sure they would have gone in the same direction.)

Precisely. So this was a want, not a need. I don't recall there being some huge request from the fanbase for an Elder Scrolls MMO focusing on a three-way pvp war.

They tried to shoehorn Dark Age Of Camelot into an Elder Scrolls MMO, and the franchise has been paying for it ever since.

Was it worth it?

We seem to be using "want" and "need" very differently.

The game that the Developers designed required factions in order for PVP to work along theDaoC-inspired lines they chose. There, Anumaril is entirely correct to say, "the game needed factions, so one way or another it had to be done."

Is this the game the fans wanted? Probably not. That ideal game that the fans wanted probably didn't need factions in order to get players invested in Tamriel. ZOS has been downplaying the Three Banners War in their year-long stories every since because the purely PVE side of things doesn't actually need factions for gameplay post-One Tamriel.

But I don't see much use about talking about the hypothetical ESO in which the Devs didn't base PVP around DAoC. Because that would be an entirely different game.


Personally, I'd argue that no matter how much the singleplayer RPG fans detest the DAoC-based PvP, it IS an integral part of ESO, and thus that, yes, ESO requires factions to function as a whole, complete MMORPG. A PVE-only player might feel differently about their portion of the game.

You're acting like there was literally no way to make an MMO with pvp in it without jumping through narrative hoops to create a 3 sided faction war that they've spent several years trying their best to justify.

There are plenty of MMOs that do this sort of thing differently. They did not need to shape the entire foundation of the story around such a flimsy premise that, again, I dont think most ES fans were asking for.

I mean, it's like we forget that arenas exist in The Elder Scrolls universe. We didn't necessarily need a massive, poorly optimized warzone that takes up an important part of the world map. And that's just a single suggestion I pulled out of my ass just now.

There were options, here.

You know, I thought I very specifically said I didn't see much use in talking about the hypothetical ESO in which the Devs didn't base PVP around DAoC because that would be an entirely different game.

I mean, no offense, but what you describe would be an entirely different Elder Scrolls game. That's not remaking the Three Banners War - that's removing it completely.

I will attempt once more to be clear.

When the Devs were dreaming up ESO and how everything would work, they wanted to do a DAoC style AvAvA PVP. They had other options, but chose to go with AvAvA Cyrodiil as the only form of PVP.

Once the Devs committed to that choice, probably quite early since Matt Firor was a producer for DAoC, then ESO needed factions. That style of AvAvA requires more or less equal factions with highly invested players, and DAoC provided a strong model for how that works. And so ESO was designed with factions because factions are an essential part of that model.

You are talking about the first part.

I and Anumaril are talking about the second.

With the understanding that we're talking about two different point of the game development process, both of us are entirely correct. With that, I'm going to just agree to disagree over what's becoming an increasingly semantical issue.

psychotrip

VaranisArano wrote: »

psychotrip wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

psychotrip wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

psychotrip wrote: »

Anumaril wrote: »

the game needed factions

Why?

Because the Dev team's vision for PVP pulls very heavily from Dark Age of Camelot's AvAvA PVP. Since PVP was the original end game content, well, the need for three factions follows from that.

By design, the Devs needed players split into three equal factions, so they built their Alliance quests accordingly to funnel players into PVP ready and willing to fight for their faction.

ESO - as designed - needed factions.

If you take away the need for factions to fuel the original end game PVP side of the base game, then we're probably looking at an entirely different game.


(It should be noted that the ESO Devs seem to have taken a while to grasp what the fans of singleplayer TES games wanted, which was generally not "Let me do one questline and then hang out in PVP forever", and so gradually added Cadwell's Silver and Gold, PVE end game content, and eventually One Tamriel after they realized that mixed PvPvE was not to the taste of the majority of players and they had PVP performance issues. Factions are integral to the original design of the game. If the Devs had a do-over, I'm not sure they would have gone in the same direction.)

Precisely. So this was a want, not a need. I don't recall there being some huge request from the fanbase for an Elder Scrolls MMO focusing on a three-way pvp war.

They tried to shoehorn Dark Age Of Camelot into an Elder Scrolls MMO, and the franchise has been paying for it ever since.

Was it worth it?

We seem to be using "want" and "need" very differently.

The game that the Developers designed required factions in order for PVP to work along theDaoC-inspired lines they chose. There, Anumaril is entirely correct to say, "the game needed factions, so one way or another it had to be done."

Is this the game the fans wanted? Probably not. That ideal game that the fans wanted probably didn't need factions in order to get players invested in Tamriel. ZOS has been downplaying the Three Banners War in their year-long stories every since because the purely PVE side of things doesn't actually need factions for gameplay post-One Tamriel.

But I don't see much use about talking about the hypothetical ESO in which the Devs didn't base PVP around DAoC. Because that would be an entirely different game.


Personally, I'd argue that no matter how much the singleplayer RPG fans detest the DAoC-based PvP, it IS an integral part of ESO, and thus that, yes, ESO requires factions to function as a whole, complete MMORPG. A PVE-only player might feel differently about their portion of the game.

You're acting like there was literally no way to make an MMO with pvp in it without jumping through narrative hoops to create a 3 sided faction war that they've spent several years trying their best to justify.

There are plenty of MMOs that do this sort of thing differently. They did not need to shape the entire foundation of the story around such a flimsy premise that, again, I dont think most ES fans were asking for.

I mean, it's like we forget that arenas exist in The Elder Scrolls universe. We didn't necessarily need a massive, poorly optimized warzone that takes up an important part of the world map. And that's just a single suggestion I pulled out of my ass just now.

There were options, here.

You know, I thought I very specifically said I didn't see much use in talking about the hypothetical ESO in which the Devs didn't base PVP around DAoC because that would be an entirely different game.

I mean, no offense, but what you describe would be an entirely different Elder Scrolls game. That's not remaking the Three Banners War - that's removing it completely.

I will attempt once more to be clear.

When the Devs were dreaming up ESO and how everything would work, they wanted to do a DAoC style AvAvA PVP. They had other options, but chose to go with AvAvA Cyrodiil as the only form of PVP.

Once the Devs committed to that choice, probably quite early since Matt Firor was a producer for DAoC, then ESO needed factions. That style of AvAvA requires more or less equal factions with highly invested players, and DAoC provided a strong model for how that works. And so ESO was designed with factions because factions are an essential part of that model.

You are talking about the first part.

I and Anumaril are talking about the second.

With the understanding that we're talking about two different point of the game development process, both of us are entirely correct. With that, I'm going to just agree to disagree over what's becoming an increasingly semantical issue.

I understand this is a hypothetical situation. I just took issue with the notion that that any of this was necessary in the first place. It wasn't clear to me that you were still separating the hypothetical situation from reality. I understand now.

In my case, it's difficult for me to answer this question because the lore has shifted so much since ESO's inception, in both good and bad ways. I have a lot of ideas for the Aldmeri Dominion, for example, but none of them would make sense with the lore that's already been added / replaced.

So maybe a bit more clarity would help:

In this situation, is the lore still exactly the same? Or are we taking the clock back to the mid 2010s and starting from scratch with the basic concept of a Three Banners War?

VaranisArano

psychotrip wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

psychotrip wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

psychotrip wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

psychotrip wrote: »

Anumaril wrote: »

the game needed factions

Why?

Because the Dev team's vision for PVP pulls very heavily from Dark Age of Camelot's AvAvA PVP. Since PVP was the original end game content, well, the need for three factions follows from that.

By design, the Devs needed players split into three equal factions, so they built their Alliance quests accordingly to funnel players into PVP ready and willing to fight for their faction.

ESO - as designed - needed factions.

If you take away the need for factions to fuel the original end game PVP side of the base game, then we're probably looking at an entirely different game.


(It should be noted that the ESO Devs seem to have taken a while to grasp what the fans of singleplayer TES games wanted, which was generally not "Let me do one questline and then hang out in PVP forever", and so gradually added Cadwell's Silver and Gold, PVE end game content, and eventually One Tamriel after they realized that mixed PvPvE was not to the taste of the majority of players and they had PVP performance issues. Factions are integral to the original design of the game. If the Devs had a do-over, I'm not sure they would have gone in the same direction.)

Precisely. So this was a want, not a need. I don't recall there being some huge request from the fanbase for an Elder Scrolls MMO focusing on a three-way pvp war.

They tried to shoehorn Dark Age Of Camelot into an Elder Scrolls MMO, and the franchise has been paying for it ever since.

Was it worth it?

We seem to be using "want" and "need" very differently.

The game that the Developers designed required factions in order for PVP to work along theDaoC-inspired lines they chose. There, Anumaril is entirely correct to say, "the game needed factions, so one way or another it had to be done."

Is this the game the fans wanted? Probably not. That ideal game that the fans wanted probably didn't need factions in order to get players invested in Tamriel. ZOS has been downplaying the Three Banners War in their year-long stories every since because the purely PVE side of things doesn't actually need factions for gameplay post-One Tamriel.

But I don't see much use about talking about the hypothetical ESO in which the Devs didn't base PVP around DAoC. Because that would be an entirely different game.


Personally, I'd argue that no matter how much the singleplayer RPG fans detest the DAoC-based PvP, it IS an integral part of ESO, and thus that, yes, ESO requires factions to function as a whole, complete MMORPG. A PVE-only player might feel differently about their portion of the game.

You're acting like there was literally no way to make an MMO with pvp in it without jumping through narrative hoops to create a 3 sided faction war that they've spent several years trying their best to justify.

There are plenty of MMOs that do this sort of thing differently. They did not need to shape the entire foundation of the story around such a flimsy premise that, again, I dont think most ES fans were asking for.

I mean, it's like we forget that arenas exist in The Elder Scrolls universe. We didn't necessarily need a massive, poorly optimized warzone that takes up an important part of the world map. And that's just a single suggestion I pulled out of my ass just now.

There were options, here.

You know, I thought I very specifically said I didn't see much use in talking about the hypothetical ESO in which the Devs didn't base PVP around DAoC because that would be an entirely different game.

I mean, no offense, but what you describe would be an entirely different Elder Scrolls game. That's not remaking the Three Banners War - that's removing it completely.

I will attempt once more to be clear.

When the Devs were dreaming up ESO and how everything would work, they wanted to do a DAoC style AvAvA PVP. They had other options, but chose to go with AvAvA Cyrodiil as the only form of PVP.

Once the Devs committed to that choice, probably quite early since Matt Firor was a producer for DAoC, then ESO needed factions. That style of AvAvA requires more or less equal factions with highly invested players, and DAoC provided a strong model for how that works. And so ESO was designed with factions because factions are an essential part of that model.

You are talking about the first part.

I and Anumaril are talking about the second.

With the understanding that we're talking about two different point of the game development process, both of us are entirely correct. With that, I'm going to just agree to disagree over what's becoming an increasingly semantical issue.

I understand this is a hypothetical situation. I just took issue with the notion that that any of this was necessary in the first place. It wasn't clear to me that you were still separating the hypothetical situation from reality. I understand now.

In my case, it's difficult for me to answer this question because the lore has shifted so much since ESO's inception, in both good and bad ways. I have a lot of ideas for the Aldmeri Dominion, for example, but none of them would make sense with the lore that's already been added / replaced.

So maybe a bit more clarity would help:

In this situation, is the lore still exactly the same? Or are we taking the clock back to the mid 2010s and starting from scratch with the basic concept of a Three Banners War?

Cool!

So when I answered the "how would I remake the Three Banners war" question, I took the approach that the Three Banners War was a given, and thus I would have altered the game's questlines in comparatively minor ways to make the Covenant and Dominion have more reasons to hate the Pact and each other. That's because as a Pact player, I thought my questline did a fantastic job of getting me invested in making sure the Pact won the war. I never really got that from the AD or DC questlines, because they don't really deal with the war all that much. I think there are some changes I would make to address that.

For example, we have a small Pact invasion force landing in Auridon. What if we replaced some of the later Maomer invasions with the Pact or the Covenant? Or had the Pact and Covenant taking greater advantage of the Maomer pressing on the Covenant borders? Perhaps instead of the Covenant privateers just talking about using the relic on Betnikh to attack Aldmeri shipping, they actually use something like it to cause a disaster.

Another example: in DC territory, we see several examples of Pact slavers. Why not go all out on the aspect of the Pact that having been stripped of their Argonian slaves, the Dunmer are aggressively seeking to fill their workforce with prisoners of war and civilians, and the Nords are enabling them?

In a sense, what I would most want to address is the level of investment that players have in their alliances. The AD and DC questlines seem designed to get players to think "My queen/king is the best! Go us!" Whereas the EP questline is more like "My alliance might be holding on by the fingertips, but by Azura, we're united in our hatred of those other guys!" It's just a whole different level of player engagement, and I think that of the three, EP really captures the factional nature of warfare the best. In turn, IMO, that makes the experience of Cadwell's Silver and Gold more meaningful, because AD and DC were my real enemies, until I got to experience their stories. It disappointed me that AD and DC had more of a focus on their internal problems and the Three Banners War was mostly a distant backdrop to their inner squabbles.

But as I said, I did the EP questline first. So I'm very biased in my preferences.


If you want to take a different approach, and look at how the game and the lore could have been totally different if we restarted from scratch back in the 2010s, more power to you!

Ryuvain

TwinLamps wrote: »

Id add 4th side in that war - Daedra and Imperials, residing on IC islands, from where they attack other 3 alliances.
This faction would consist of Legion Zero, daedra of all kinds and similar.
There would be 3 outpost/keep /forts that this alliance has, but these would be different from regular ones because they would have no resources and double walls to compensate.
Once you control all 3 keeps that these Oblivion forces had to start with, you get to siege IC itself.
If you manage to control IC then you get the Emperorship.
This faction would be joinable by any player, no matter what faction he was to begin with. But doing so would lick that character for next 30 days to be unable to play for his original alliance.
Also, all bs enablers like hammer would have to go.
I find that and similar future items completely broken, clownish and they devalue any effort whatsoever to play Cyrodiil to win.

Sounds better and more fun than the other 3 sides. When's the last time we could play as an evil or gray character?

They would probably be gray or black colored team. Would be cool to see some forts go black.

Iccotak

The War is here and I agree with @VaranisArano, I do not see much of a point in looking at hypotheticals pertaining to the past and am more interested in making the best of the situation.

There is no remaking that is needed.

EP actually makes sense given the context. I think they did a good job writing out that storyline which was filled with in-fighting & sabotage. It is an alliance of convenience first and foremost, from Avakiri to Daedra attacks.
I also liked that it had a large focus on the war in its storyline, with the threat of other alliances, which then slowly built up to the threat of Coldharbour.

What ESO should explore is why some people/groups did not join the alliance that the rest of their race did and instead joined the opposing sides.

That's what future content should explore more in storylines.

Like Trinimac Orcs for AD - or - Orcs that also their clans to be left alone so they joined EP, who are primarily for independence.
- Argonians who joined AD or DC.
- What about Khajiit who joined EP?
- What about anyone who left all sides and joined up with remnants of the imperials?

These are the stories that should be explored..

Ryuvain

Iccotak wrote: »

The War is here and I agree with @VaranisArano, I do not see much of a point in looking at hypotheticals pertaining to the past and am more interested in making the best of the situation.

There is no remaking that is needed.

EP actually makes sense given the context. I think they did a good job writing out that storyline which was filled with in-fighting & sabotage. It is an alliance of convenience first and foremost, from Avakiri to Daedra attacks.
I also liked that it had a large focus on the war in its storyline, with the threat of other alliances, which then slowly built up to the threat of Coldharbour.

What ESO should explore is why some people/groups did not join the alliance that the rest of their race did and instead joined the opposing sides.

That's what future content should explore more in storylines.

Like Trinimac Orcs for AD - or - Orcs that also their clans to be left alone so they joined EP, who are primarily for independence.
- Argonians who joined AD or DC.
- What about Khajiit who joined EP?
- What about anyone who left all sides and joined up with remnants of the imperials?

These are the stories that should be explored..

Never understood why any Khajiit would join EP. They would just end up slaves since they can't use argonians atm.

VaranisArano

Ryuvain wrote: »

Iccotak wrote: »

The War is here and I agree with @VaranisArano, I do not see much of a point in looking at hypotheticals pertaining to the past and am more interested in making the best of the situation.

There is no remaking that is needed.

EP actually makes sense given the context. I think they did a good job writing out that storyline which was filled with in-fighting & sabotage. It is an alliance of convenience first and foremost, from Avakiri to Daedra attacks.
I also liked that it had a large focus on the war in its storyline, with the threat of other alliances, which then slowly built up to the threat of Coldharbour.

What ESO should explore is why some people/groups did not join the alliance that the rest of their race did and instead joined the opposing sides.

That's what future content should explore more in storylines.

Like Trinimac Orcs for AD - or - Orcs that also their clans to be left alone so they joined EP, who are primarily for independence.
- Argonians who joined AD or DC.
- What about Khajiit who joined EP?
- What about anyone who left all sides and joined up with remnants of the imperials?

These are the stories that should be explored..

Never understood why any Khajiit would join EP. They would just end up slaves since they can't use argonians atm.

Oddly enough, that one seems to depend on the writer. In Stonefalls, we see that the Pact IS enslaving Khajiit, and only offered freedom to Argonians in exchange for their help against the Akavir and in the Pact. With Morrowind's launch, Pact propaganda seems to indicate that the Pact has abolished slavery in its territories entirely. (For now, obviously.)

Ryuvain

VaranisArano wrote: »

Ryuvain wrote: »

Iccotak wrote: »

The War is here and I agree with @VaranisArano, I do not see much of a point in looking at hypotheticals pertaining to the past and am more interested in making the best of the situation.

There is no remaking that is needed.

EP actually makes sense given the context. I think they did a good job writing out that storyline which was filled with in-fighting & sabotage. It is an alliance of convenience first and foremost, from Avakiri to Daedra attacks.
I also liked that it had a large focus on the war in its storyline, with the threat of other alliances, which then slowly built up to the threat of Coldharbour.

What ESO should explore is why some people/groups did not join the alliance that the rest of their race did and instead joined the opposing sides.

That's what future content should explore more in storylines.

Like Trinimac Orcs for AD - or - Orcs that also their clans to be left alone so they joined EP, who are primarily for independence.
- Argonians who joined AD or DC.
- What about Khajiit who joined EP?
- What about anyone who left all sides and joined up with remnants of the imperials?

These are the stories that should be explored..

Never understood why any Khajiit would join EP. They would just end up slaves since they can't use argonians atm.

Oddly enough, that one seems to depend on the writer. In Stonefalls, we see that the Pact IS enslaving Khajiit, and only offered freedom to Argonians in exchange for their help against the Akavir and in the Pact. With Morrowind's launch, Pact propaganda seems to indicate that the Pact has abolished slavery in its territories entirely. (For now, obviously.)

Yeah, I know it tended to change with different areas a little, but it's still the same. Without argonians their workforce took a hit, meaning Khajiit would be sought after to take their place. (Us knowing the future we already know it doesn't stick.)

I do remember a quest in vvardenfell where you go to save some Khajiit but they end up enslaved regardless of what you do. I admit that quest forever cemented my opinion of EP.

Tbh, I would've taken the whole slavery thing out of Elder Scrolls entirely. It just always gives me a bad taste.

Iccotak

Ryuvain wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Ryuvain wrote: »

Iccotak wrote: »

The War is here and I agree with @VaranisArano, I do not see much of a point in looking at hypotheticals pertaining to the past and am more interested in making the best of the situation.

There is no remaking that is needed.

EP actually makes sense given the context. I think they did a good job writing out that storyline which was filled with in-fighting & sabotage. It is an alliance of convenience first and foremost, from Avakiri to Daedra attacks.
I also liked that it had a large focus on the war in its storyline, with the threat of other alliances, which then slowly built up to the threat of Coldharbour.

What ESO should explore is why some people/groups did not join the alliance that the rest of their race did and instead joined the opposing sides.

That's what future content should explore more in storylines.

Like Trinimac Orcs for AD - or - Orcs that also their clans to be left alone so they joined EP, who are primarily for independence.
- Argonians who joined AD or DC.
- What about Khajiit who joined EP?
- What about anyone who left all sides and joined up with remnants of the imperials?

These are the stories that should be explored..

Never understood why any Khajiit would join EP. They would just end up slaves since they can't use argonians atm.

Oddly enough, that one seems to depend on the writer. In Stonefalls, we see that the Pact IS enslaving Khajiit, and only offered freedom to Argonians in exchange for their help against the Akavir and in the Pact. With Morrowind's launch, Pact propaganda seems to indicate that the Pact has abolished slavery in its territories entirely. (For now, obviously.)

Yeah, I know it tended to change with different areas a little, but it's still the same. Without argonians their workforce took a hit, meaning Khajiit would be sought after to take their place. (Us knowing the future we already know it doesn't stick.)

I do remember a quest in vvardenfell where you go to save some Khajiit but they end up enslaved regardless of what you do. I admit that quest forever cemented my opinion of EP.

Tbh, I would've taken the whole slavery thing out of Elder Scrolls entirely. It just always gives me a bad taste.

You know that Vvardenfell is not part of Ebonheart Pact yeah?

They didn't agree with the terms to abolish slavery and did not join EP. Also plenty of Dunmer are against slavery

VaranisArano

Iccotak wrote: »

Ryuvain wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Ryuvain wrote: »

Iccotak wrote: »

The War is here and I agree with @VaranisArano, I do not see much of a point in looking at hypotheticals pertaining to the past and am more interested in making the best of the situation.

There is no remaking that is needed.

EP actually makes sense given the context. I think they did a good job writing out that storyline which was filled with in-fighting & sabotage. It is an alliance of convenience first and foremost, from Avakiri to Daedra attacks.
I also liked that it had a large focus on the war in its storyline, with the threat of other alliances, which then slowly built up to the threat of Coldharbour.

What ESO should explore is why some people/groups did not join the alliance that the rest of their race did and instead joined the opposing sides.

That's what future content should explore more in storylines.

Like Trinimac Orcs for AD - or - Orcs that also their clans to be left alone so they joined EP, who are primarily for independence.
- Argonians who joined AD or DC.
- What about Khajiit who joined EP?
- What about anyone who left all sides and joined up with remnants of the imperials?

These are the stories that should be explored..

Never understood why any Khajiit would join EP. They would just end up slaves since they can't use argonians atm.

Oddly enough, that one seems to depend on the writer. In Stonefalls, we see that the Pact IS enslaving Khajiit, and only offered freedom to Argonians in exchange for their help against the Akavir and in the Pact. With Morrowind's launch, Pact propaganda seems to indicate that the Pact has abolished slavery in its territories entirely. (For now, obviously.)

Yeah, I know it tended to change with different areas a little, but it's still the same. Without argonians their workforce took a hit, meaning Khajiit would be sought after to take their place. (Us knowing the future we already know it doesn't stick.)

I do remember a quest in vvardenfell where you go to save some Khajiit but they end up enslaved regardless of what you do. I admit that quest forever cemented my opinion of EP.

Tbh, I would've taken the whole slavery thing out of Elder Scrolls entirely. It just always gives me a bad taste.

You know that Vvardenfell is not part of Ebonheart Pact yeah?

They didn't agree with the terms to abolish slavery and did not join EP. Also plenty of Dunmer are against slavery

Parts of Vvardenfell are a part of the Pact and parts of it aren't.

According to this Pact propaganda from ESO's Morrowind, House Redoran, Hlaalu, and Indoril territories should have abolished slavery. House Dres and House Telvanni did not. https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Online:Pact_Pamphlet:_Congratulations!

I don't recall where that quest happens. In any case, base game quests make it pretty clear that the Pact isn't really as enlightened with non-Argonian slaves as that pamphlet indicates.

Ryuvain

VaranisArano wrote: »

Iccotak wrote: »

Ryuvain wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Ryuvain wrote: »

Iccotak wrote: »

The War is here and I agree with @VaranisArano, I do not see much of a point in looking at hypotheticals pertaining to the past and am more interested in making the best of the situation.

There is no remaking that is needed.

EP actually makes sense given the context. I think they did a good job writing out that storyline which was filled with in-fighting & sabotage. It is an alliance of convenience first and foremost, from Avakiri to Daedra attacks.
I also liked that it had a large focus on the war in its storyline, with the threat of other alliances, which then slowly built up to the threat of Coldharbour.

What ESO should explore is why some people/groups did not join the alliance that the rest of their race did and instead joined the opposing sides.

That's what future content should explore more in storylines.

Like Trinimac Orcs for AD - or - Orcs that also their clans to be left alone so they joined EP, who are primarily for independence.
- Argonians who joined AD or DC.
- What about Khajiit who joined EP?
- What about anyone who left all sides and joined up with remnants of the imperials?

These are the stories that should be explored..

Never understood why any Khajiit would join EP. They would just end up slaves since they can't use argonians atm.

Oddly enough, that one seems to depend on the writer. In Stonefalls, we see that the Pact IS enslaving Khajiit, and only offered freedom to Argonians in exchange for their help against the Akavir and in the Pact. With Morrowind's launch, Pact propaganda seems to indicate that the Pact has abolished slavery in its territories entirely. (For now, obviously.)

Yeah, I know it tended to change with different areas a little, but it's still the same. Without argonians their workforce took a hit, meaning Khajiit would be sought after to take their place. (Us knowing the future we already know it doesn't stick.)

I do remember a quest in vvardenfell where you go to save some Khajiit but they end up enslaved regardless of what you do. I admit that quest forever cemented my opinion of EP.

Tbh, I would've taken the whole slavery thing out of Elder Scrolls entirely. It just always gives me a bad taste.

You know that Vvardenfell is not part of Ebonheart Pact yeah?

They didn't agree with the terms to abolish slavery and did not join EP. Also plenty of Dunmer are against slavery

Parts of Vvardenfell are a part of the Pact and parts of it aren't.

According to this Pact propaganda from ESO's Morrowind, House Redoran, Hlaalu, and Indoril territories should have abolished slavery. House Dres and House Telvanni did not. https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Online:Pact_Pamphlet:_Congratulations!

I don't recall where that quest happens. In any case, base game quests make it pretty clear that the Pact isn't really as enlightened with non-Argonian slaves as that pamphlet indicates.

Huh, reminds me a lot of a certain... Never mind.

Pretty interesting though, it's just really sad that it didn't work in the long run.

Ryuvain

VaranisArano wrote: »

Iccotak wrote: »

Ryuvain wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Ryuvain wrote: »

Iccotak wrote: »

The War is here and I agree with @VaranisArano, I do not see much of a point in looking at hypotheticals pertaining to the past and am more interested in making the best of the situation.

There is no remaking that is needed.

EP actually makes sense given the context. I think they did a good job writing out that storyline which was filled with in-fighting & sabotage. It is an alliance of convenience first and foremost, from Avakiri to Daedra attacks.
I also liked that it had a large focus on the war in its storyline, with the threat of other alliances, which then slowly built up to the threat of Coldharbour.

What ESO should explore is why some people/groups did not join the alliance that the rest of their race did and instead joined the opposing sides.

That's what future content should explore more in storylines.

Like Trinimac Orcs for AD - or - Orcs that also their clans to be left alone so they joined EP, who are primarily for independence.
- Argonians who joined AD or DC.
- What about Khajiit who joined EP?
- What about anyone who left all sides and joined up with remnants of the imperials?

These are the stories that should be explored..

Never understood why any Khajiit would join EP. They would just end up slaves since they can't use argonians atm.

Oddly enough, that one seems to depend on the writer. In Stonefalls, we see that the Pact IS enslaving Khajiit, and only offered freedom to Argonians in exchange for their help against the Akavir and in the Pact. With Morrowind's launch, Pact propaganda seems to indicate that the Pact has abolished slavery in its territories entirely. (For now, obviously.)

Yeah, I know it tended to change with different areas a little, but it's still the same. Without argonians their workforce took a hit, meaning Khajiit would be sought after to take their place. (Us knowing the future we already know it doesn't stick.)

I do remember a quest in vvardenfell where you go to save some Khajiit but they end up enslaved regardless of what you do. I admit that quest forever cemented my opinion of EP.

Tbh, I would've taken the whole slavery thing out of Elder Scrolls entirely. It just always gives me a bad taste.

You know that Vvardenfell is not part of Ebonheart Pact yeah?

They didn't agree with the terms to abolish slavery and did not join EP. Also plenty of Dunmer are against slavery

Parts of Vvardenfell are a part of the Pact and parts of it aren't.

According to this Pact propaganda from ESO's Morrowind, House Redoran, Hlaalu, and Indoril territories should have abolished slavery. House Dres and House Telvanni did not. https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Online:Pact_Pamphlet:_Congratulations!

I don't recall where that quest happens. In any case, base game quests make it pretty clear that the Pact isn't really as enlightened with non-Argonian slaves as that pamphlet indicates.

Found it, this part truly disgusted me and ticked me off.

https://en.m.uesp.net/wiki/Online:Zashanti

As a khajiit it gave me the 'option' of saving them, only for it to not matter. Still makes me angry thinking about it

VaranisArano

Ryuvain wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Iccotak wrote: »

Ryuvain wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Ryuvain wrote: »

Iccotak wrote: »

The War is here and I agree with @VaranisArano, I do not see much of a point in looking at hypotheticals pertaining to the past and am more interested in making the best of the situation.

There is no remaking that is needed.

EP actually makes sense given the context. I think they did a good job writing out that storyline which was filled with in-fighting & sabotage. It is an alliance of convenience first and foremost, from Avakiri to Daedra attacks.
I also liked that it had a large focus on the war in its storyline, with the threat of other alliances, which then slowly built up to the threat of Coldharbour.

What ESO should explore is why some people/groups did not join the alliance that the rest of their race did and instead joined the opposing sides.

That's what future content should explore more in storylines.

Like Trinimac Orcs for AD - or - Orcs that also their clans to be left alone so they joined EP, who are primarily for independence.
- Argonians who joined AD or DC.
- What about Khajiit who joined EP?
- What about anyone who left all sides and joined up with remnants of the imperials?

These are the stories that should be explored..

Never understood why any Khajiit would join EP. They would just end up slaves since they can't use argonians atm.

Oddly enough, that one seems to depend on the writer. In Stonefalls, we see that the Pact IS enslaving Khajiit, and only offered freedom to Argonians in exchange for their help against the Akavir and in the Pact. With Morrowind's launch, Pact propaganda seems to indicate that the Pact has abolished slavery in its territories entirely. (For now, obviously.)

Yeah, I know it tended to change with different areas a little, but it's still the same. Without argonians their workforce took a hit, meaning Khajiit would be sought after to take their place. (Us knowing the future we already know it doesn't stick.)

I do remember a quest in vvardenfell where you go to save some Khajiit but they end up enslaved regardless of what you do. I admit that quest forever cemented my opinion of EP.

Tbh, I would've taken the whole slavery thing out of Elder Scrolls entirely. It just always gives me a bad taste.

You know that Vvardenfell is not part of Ebonheart Pact yeah?

They didn't agree with the terms to abolish slavery and did not join EP. Also plenty of Dunmer are against slavery

Parts of Vvardenfell are a part of the Pact and parts of it aren't.

According to this Pact propaganda from ESO's Morrowind, House Redoran, Hlaalu, and Indoril territories should have abolished slavery. House Dres and House Telvanni did not. https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Online:Pact_Pamphlet:_Congratulations!

I don't recall where that quest happens. In any case, base game quests make it pretty clear that the Pact isn't really as enlightened with non-Argonian slaves as that pamphlet indicates.

Found it, this part truly disgusted me and ticked me off.

https://en.m.uesp.net/wiki/Online:Zashanti

As a khajiit it gave me the 'option' of saving them, only for it to not matter. Still makes me angry thinking about it

Yeah, that's Telvanni territory. That whole questline was pretty ugh. At least in TES 3 the writers understood that some players would want to free the slaves when they could.

RedMuse

The main thing that bothered me about the war - apart from the fact that it only seem to bear any relevance at all to the story in one faction while in the other two it is a side show at best so why is it even there? - is that none of the racial makeups of the three factions make a least bit of sense.

Dunmer and Argonians would be at each others throats, especially with how casually the Pact is run. Khajiit and Bosmer have zero reason to join with the Altmer no matter what, especially with the increasing evidence of how much most Altmer don't give a [snip]. And putting the Orcs with the Bretons makes even less sense than the two previous and that's saying something.

It's largely why I can neither believe in this supposed war nor bring myself to care about it apart from when I need some AP so I completely suspend all disbelief and go hog-wild in Cyrodiil. It's also why I find faction loyalty to be ridiculous and baffling in the extreme.

If they were to do this they should have made up the factions in a way that at least was not totally implausible and outrageous.

[edited for profanity bypass]

Treshcore

I don't know much about other alliances, but as the Ebonheart Pact player, I think that their story is... morally imbalanced.
As far as I play through stories of other alliances, they're more like facing their inner problems with Worm Cult, other cults, etc. It's their local problems, nothing else.
But when we play as Ebonheart Pact... Well, they get attacked by Covenant on the north, get Dominion invasion in Shadowfen. Feels like all the world is against them. You feel like you want to help them, like it's goodness and kindness to protect poor Skyrim, Morrowind and Black Marsh.

I'd put EP in more equal conditions morally. I'd exclude all the outside enemies, made more inner enemies. Made conditions which would've allowed you to say: "Alright, it was a good trip in EP, now it's time to see if other alliances are worth protecting". Instead you say: "These greedy bretons and arrogant high elves don't know anything about suffering, about losing their loved ones, about seeing their home destroyed - and they are who do this!". Maybe I'm exaggerating a bit, but I feel like it's true.

Eporem

I would add a fourth banner - one to Molag Bal

Hollyniss

Folkb wrote: »

I would get rid of it honestly. I feel it constrains the story more than it helps.

But then cyrodiil would have to be revamped into something else.

I think the three banner war has been played out. Besides it doesn't fit into the larger narrative, as it has no bearing on the story going forward.

Hollyniss

I think the alliances need tweaked/overhauled or removed and replaced with a different pvp system. As it is now makes no sense going forward and it has no impact on the story overall. It's just sort of there. It's more of a standalone feature.

rexagamemnon

Ok i’ll have a crack at this

1) Aldmeri Dominion Stays the same

2) if the Nords don’t go it alone then they would be a Nordic-breton alliance

3)orcs would get whacked as usual, cause no one in tamriel likes them.

4) redguards (the least interesting race of tamriel) would go it alone or a splinter faction of redgaurds would join a splinter faction of bretons

5) the dunmer would just side with whoever helped them keep the status qou so they could continue enslavment of the argonians and khajit

6) imperials would be either allied with a the nords only, or the hypothetical Nordic-breton alliance, or they would be by themselves.

RedBranch

Imperial/Argonian Alliance… everyone else step aside!

ChibchanLawyer

Sounds fun, I personally would have rebalanced the alliances to include a single race of each skill type, so that there was more balance in classes instead of an EP full of tanks or an AD full of magsorcs. However, that would be from a 'strategy' point of view.

Lorewise, I'd place an alliance of Argonians, Khajiit and Bosmer (Southern perisphere, and ESO was before the five year War between Khajits and Bosmer)

Secondly, the humans of Tamriel (Bretons, Nords and Redguards) under the pretense to restore the Empire of Men.

Lastly, there would exist an alliance of Direnni descendants (Altmer, Dunmer and Orcs) where the Orcs are conscripted as the brute force arm of the alliance, and promised elevation as mer.

Also, I would have given slightly more relevance to the Imperial Legions posted on the provinces of the alliances, something along the lines of "Imperial Legionnaires that were posted there, swore allegiance to the alliances after the fall of Cyrodiil', and include a couple of NPC Imperial Tribunes or Centurions that would act as links in each alliance. That way Imperial characters wouldn't seem so off and lost in the alliance wars.

Foto1

I believe that the zos chose the best option possible

moleculardrugs

If they could remake cyrodiil itself. Not at all like the Cyrodiil in TES 4, but yeah there’s a lack of forests and Ayleid ruins.

brylars

If I could rewrite the Three Banners War I would just have the Nords, the Altmer and the Bretons fighting over the throne. The other races would get involved when the battles pour into their lands or they get involved as mercenaries. There would be no canon breaking Alliances. The races I mentioned all have a history of warring over land. Several have had emperial aspirations. It would make more sense than trying to make all races equal in the storyline.

Sparxlost

i would give each faction their own vibe in a way
Ebonheart captured territory would have more wild animals about of which would not attack them..
Daggerfall captured territory would be more populated with slightly more hired mercenaries who would protect their resources
Aldmeri captured territory would make use of some sort of ayleid spell that would give a buff to its npc defenders making them more tanky or more anything really...

this wasn't made with balance or performance in mind just an idea to make factions feel more present in Cyrodiil..