Maintenance for the week of December 16:
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – December 16
• NA megaservers for patch maintenance – December 17, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
• EU megaservers for patch maintenance – December 17, 9:00 UTC (4:00AM EST) - 17:00 UTC (12:00PM EST)
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – December 16
• NA megaservers for patch maintenance – December 17, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
• EU megaservers for patch maintenance – December 17, 9:00 UTC (4:00AM EST) - 17:00 UTC (12:00PM EST)
A Interesting Concept That New World and other games implemented, Would it work for ESO?
-
Casul✭✭✭✭✭
✭Not liking dueling in towns has absolutely nothing to do with "seeing people enjoying themselves" and everything with the jumping around and the sound and flashy graphical effects of skills firing and AoEs on the ground, which can be quite annoying if you just want to do chores or stand around chatting.
But hey, let's just randomly accuse people.
Trust me I hope that I am wrong. But current community climate suggests I'm right. Lots of tension from both sides.Wow I can’t believe how many people can’t read. The suggestion was for opt in only. Also how rigid people are in their thinking. What’s wrong with mixing it up a bit, giving the option of pvp in a pve zone.
Opt in. Yeah. That will stop players determined to be *** trolls from being *** trolls. They'd never do anything like constantly set off aoe spells where pve players are trying to do pve business. Or dance on craft stations, park pets over tables and block as many things as possible. None of them would mudball pve players to *** them off as much as possible to "opt in" to get the harassment to stop. None of them would camp thieves' refuge entries, or quest givers and interfere with pve players doing pve business. Its not like some players don't spam AOEs or force everyone to pull weapons because they can or anything. /sarcasm
No. Mixing pvp and pve in pve zones is a huge NO. When dueling was first brought up as a possibility I was hoping that agreeing to a duel would immediately port the duelers to Boethia's arenas where they could fight to their competitive little hearts content. Didn't happen, unfortunately.
So is the issue trolls or is the issue PvP? Not everyone who PvPs is out to aggravate you intentionally.Edited by Casul on January 25, 2022 6:39PMPvP needs more love.0 -
Tandor✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭I know people who would enjoy it as opt in, myself included, but it probably would never happen just because the general PvE crowd hates the PvP crowd. For now I will keep rooting for PvP housing options.
Not everyone opposed to having PvP in PvE areas hates the PvP crowd, or even hates PvP itself, far from it. They mostly just don't want PvP going on around them while questing and running other PvE activities which isn't unreasonable given their experience with duelling at wayshrines and crafting areas etc, especially if as in other MMOs they're liable to get drawn into it unintentionally, and they feel, as ZOS have clearly stated that they do, that the two playstyles are kept separate.
How about a separate instance of Cyrodiil where there are no campaigns, no factions, just open PvP? Wouldn't that meet the same objective but with everyone who wants to do open PvP concentrated in one area rather than being spread too thinly around Tamriel to be worthwhile, and without bothering the PvEers? The only remaining question is whether there would be enough of them to make it viable for both the players and ZOS.Edited by Tandor on January 25, 2022 7:15PM3 -
Casul✭✭✭✭✭
✭I know people who would enjoy it as opt in, myself included, but it probably would never happen just because the general PvE crowd hates the PvP crowd. For now I will keep rooting for PvP housing options.
Not everyone opposed to having PvP in PvE areas hates the PvP crowd, or even hates PvP itself, far from it. They mostly just don't want PvP going on around them while questing and running other PvE activities which isn't unreasonable given their experience with duelling at wayshrines and crafting areas etc, especially if as in other MMOs they're liable to get drawn into it unintentionally, and they feel, as ZOS have clearly stated that they do, that the two playstyles are kept separate.
How about a separate instance of Cyrodiil where there are no campaigns, no factions, just open PvP? Wouldn't that meet the same objective but with everyone who wants to do open PvP concentrated in one area rather than being spread too thinly around Tamriel to be worthwhile, and without bothering the PvEers? The only remaining question is whether there would be enough of them to make it viable for both the players and ZOS.
For me it wouldn't, I just want more places to PvP. That's the appeal. It makes every encounter potentially dangerous.PvP needs more love.0 -
zaria✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
This, I love IC , note its hard core PvP as in you will be attacked while fishing simply as people will attack enemies as the ranges are to close to take risks. Cyrodil is much more gentleman agreement, yes we let you take that resource as we need it and you don't attack questers or fishers.I know people who would enjoy it as opt in, myself included, but it probably would never happen just because the general PvE crowd hates the PvP crowd. For now I will keep rooting for PvP housing options.
Not everyone opposed to having PvP in PvE areas hates the PvP crowd, or even hates PvP itself, far from it. They mostly just don't want PvP going on around them while questing and running other PvE activities which isn't unreasonable given their experience with duelling at wayshrines and crafting areas etc, especially if as in other MMOs they're liable to get drawn into it unintentionally, and they feel, as ZOS have clearly stated that they do, that the two playstyles are kept separate.
How about a separate instance of Cyrodiil where there are no campaigns, no factions, just open PvP? Wouldn't that meet the same objective but with everyone who wants to do open PvP concentrated in one area rather than being spread too thinly around Tamriel to be worthwhile, and without bothering the PvEers? The only remaining question is whether there would be enough of them to make it viable for both the players and ZOS.
Grinding just make you go in circles.
Asking ZoS for nerfs is as stupid as asking for close air support from the death star.0 -
Kiralyn2000✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
If the system was opt in then how would it inflict PvP on the PvE crowd?
I've seen plenty of "opt-in" systems in the past. Having a pvp fight rampaging through your PvE questing area/NPCs/etc, is "inflicting" PvP on others.
And then there's all the tricks & exploits that 'opt-in' griefers come up with to flag people who don't intend to participate.
----
Meanwhile, another issue with opt-in world PvP in this game is that, while we have "pvp factions", we don't have faction-segregated territory in the open world. Sure, your character might be defined as "Daggerfall Covenant" for Cyro purposes, but when they're in other faction PvE zones, the system considers them to be part of the local faction. So all the things that open-world PvPers use to attract PvP - attacking cities of the opposing faction, obstructing questgivers & travel points, etc - aren't an option here. Because the only "opposing" NPCs there are to attack are the ones defined by the PvE/zone story as the 'invaders'.. which are enemies to everyone, because they're just regular hostile PvE mobs.7 -
cyberjanet✭✭✭✭✭If they do that I stop playing. I am not interested in an open PvP world. If I were, I would be playing one of those games already.Favourite NPC: Wine-For-All
Mostly PC-EU , with a lonely little guy on NA.6 -
Casul✭✭✭✭✭
✭Kiralyn2000 wrote: »
If the system was opt in then how would it inflict PvP on the PvE crowd?
I've seen plenty of "opt-in" systems in the past. Having a pvp fight rampaging through your PvE questing area/NPCs/etc, is "inflicting" PvP on others.
And then there's all the tricks & exploits that 'opt-in' griefers come up with to flag people who don't intend to participate.
----
Meanwhile, another issue with opt-in world PvP in this game is that, while we have "pvp factions", we don't have faction-segregated territory in the open world. Sure, your character might be defined as "Daggerfall Covenant" for Cyro purposes, but when they're in other faction PvE zones, the system considers them to be part of the local faction. So all the things that open-world PvPers use to attract PvP - attacking cities of the opposing faction, obstructing questgivers & travel points, etc - aren't an option here. Because the only "opposing" NPCs there are to attack are the ones defined by the PvE/zone story as the 'invaders'.. which are enemies to everyone, because they're just regular hostile PvE mobs.
I disagree, but it is all the same arguments from both sides.
PvE wants to creep into Cyrodiil, PvP wants to creep into overland.
Both sides claim the other wants to much. Both sides are defensive of defending "their" game.
And also please don't use exploiter as an argument against OPT-IN pvp. Thats like saying trials shouldn't be a thing because people can exploit to get rewards with no effort. Its against the rules, and the people exploiting will risk ramifications. They also do not represent the entirety of this demographic of players who this option.
---
For the final point, who is to say factions have anything to do with it. Maybe I just want pillage willing participants because my character is a bandit. Maybe not every encounter in ESO has to be friendly, maybe for those who want it there can be additional unexpected risks when encountering someone you do not know.
In a universe where the NPC have varying moral and ethical stances, why does every player encounter have to be friendly.Edited by Casul on January 25, 2022 8:38PMPvP needs more love.0 -
JKorr✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Not liking dueling in towns has absolutely nothing to do with "seeing people enjoying themselves" and everything with the jumping around and the sound and flashy graphical effects of skills firing and AoEs on the ground, which can be quite annoying if you just want to do chores or stand around chatting.
But hey, let's just randomly accuse people.
Trust me I hope that I am wrong. But current community climate suggests I'm right. Lots of tension from both sides.Wow I can’t believe how many people can’t read. The suggestion was for opt in only. Also how rigid people are in their thinking. What’s wrong with mixing it up a bit, giving the option of pvp in a pve zone.
Opt in. Yeah. That will stop players determined to be *** trolls from being *** trolls. They'd never do anything like constantly set off aoe spells where pve players are trying to do pve business. Or dance on craft stations, park pets over tables and block as many things as possible. None of them would mudball pve players to *** them off as much as possible to "opt in" to get the harassment to stop. None of them would camp thieves' refuge entries, or quest givers and interfere with pve players doing pve business. Its not like some players don't spam AOEs or force everyone to pull weapons because they can or anything. /sarcasm
No. Mixing pvp and pve in pve zones is a huge NO. When dueling was first brought up as a possibility I was hoping that agreeing to a duel would immediately port the duelers to Boethia's arenas where they could fight to their competitive little hearts content. Didn't happen, unfortunately.
So is the issue trolls or is the issue PvP? Not everyone who PvPs is out to aggravate you intentionally.
Could have fooled me. First time I went to Cyrodiil was the last day of the beta, when a couple of my guilds were getting an all factions welcome party together. Despite the zone chat with multiple people saying no fighting and welcome to the party my character was killed multiple times on the way there. I just shrugged and went back to Deshaan.
Before I start, yes, I know its a pvp area. I intentionally went into a pvp area to do non-pvp things; craft a set of armor for a guildmate. I have no issue with getting killed. I actually know I'm going to get killed because I don't fight back. What aggravated me during this incident was the same pvper kept waiting until after I finished the fights with the npcs and daedra on the way to the crafting station. He never attacked first. If he wanted an "honorable" fight, he wouldn't have waited until I had already been fighting. It took Sir Pvper 6 kills before he got bored and finally let me pass to the crafting station. What kind of "fun" that was for him I will never understand. I sent /feedback to the devs about the attunable stations being the best thing ever including sliced bread because it meant I would never have to go to IC again to do crafting. Not much else there I will ever be interested in, unless they do a pve version of Cyrodiil and IC. I have no interest in proving my character is better or worse than anyone else's.1 -
Casul✭✭✭✭✭
✭Not liking dueling in towns has absolutely nothing to do with "seeing people enjoying themselves" and everything with the jumping around and the sound and flashy graphical effects of skills firing and AoEs on the ground, which can be quite annoying if you just want to do chores or stand around chatting.
But hey, let's just randomly accuse people.
Trust me I hope that I am wrong. But current community climate suggests I'm right. Lots of tension from both sides.Wow I can’t believe how many people can’t read. The suggestion was for opt in only. Also how rigid people are in their thinking. What’s wrong with mixing it up a bit, giving the option of pvp in a pve zone.
Opt in. Yeah. That will stop players determined to be *** trolls from being *** trolls. They'd never do anything like constantly set off aoe spells where pve players are trying to do pve business. Or dance on craft stations, park pets over tables and block as many things as possible. None of them would mudball pve players to *** them off as much as possible to "opt in" to get the harassment to stop. None of them would camp thieves' refuge entries, or quest givers and interfere with pve players doing pve business. Its not like some players don't spam AOEs or force everyone to pull weapons because they can or anything. /sarcasm
No. Mixing pvp and pve in pve zones is a huge NO. When dueling was first brought up as a possibility I was hoping that agreeing to a duel would immediately port the duelers to Boethia's arenas where they could fight to their competitive little hearts content. Didn't happen, unfortunately.
So is the issue trolls or is the issue PvP? Not everyone who PvPs is out to aggravate you intentionally.
Could have fooled me. First time I went to Cyrodiil was the last day of the beta, when a couple of my guilds were getting an all factions welcome party together. Despite the zone chat with multiple people saying no fighting and welcome to the party my character was killed multiple times on the way there. I just shrugged and went back to Deshaan.
Before I start, yes, I know its a pvp area. I intentionally went into a pvp area to do non-pvp things; craft a set of armor for a guildmate. I have no issue with getting killed. I actually know I'm going to get killed because I don't fight back. What aggravated me during this incident was the same pvper kept waiting until after I finished the fights with the npcs and daedra on the way to the crafting station. He never attacked first. If he wanted an "honorable" fight, he wouldn't have waited until I had already been fighting. It took Sir Pvper 6 kills before he got bored and finally let me pass to the crafting station. What kind of "fun" that was for him I will never understand. I sent /feedback to the devs about the attunable stations being the best thing ever including sliced bread because it meant I would never have to go to IC again to do crafting. Not much else there I will ever be interested in, unless they do a pve version of Cyrodiil and IC. I have no interest in proving my character is better or worse than anyone else's.
So you got focused by a troll? Again most people aren't doing that. You are using a small demographic to vilify all PvPers.PvP needs more love.1 -
Tandor✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
The few PvEers that talk about Cyrodiil are asking for a separate PvE-only instance, while the few PvPers that talk about open world PvP want it in the default PvE zones. There's a difference in that respect. What is common to both requests, however, is that the overwhelming majority are opposed to the idea. Neither idea will ever happen.Kiralyn2000 wrote: »
If the system was opt in then how would it inflict PvP on the PvE crowd?
I've seen plenty of "opt-in" systems in the past. Having a pvp fight rampaging through your PvE questing area/NPCs/etc, is "inflicting" PvP on others.
And then there's all the tricks & exploits that 'opt-in' griefers come up with to flag people who don't intend to participate.
----
Meanwhile, another issue with opt-in world PvP in this game is that, while we have "pvp factions", we don't have faction-segregated territory in the open world. Sure, your character might be defined as "Daggerfall Covenant" for Cyro purposes, but when they're in other faction PvE zones, the system considers them to be part of the local faction. So all the things that open-world PvPers use to attract PvP - attacking cities of the opposing faction, obstructing questgivers & travel points, etc - aren't an option here. Because the only "opposing" NPCs there are to attack are the ones defined by the PvE/zone story as the 'invaders'.. which are enemies to everyone, because they're just regular hostile PvE mobs.
I disagree, but it is all the same arguments from both sides.
PvE wants to creep into Cyrodiil, PvP wants to creep into overland.
Both sides claim the other wants to much. Both sides are defensive of defending "their" game.
And also please don't use exploiter as an argument against OPT-IN pvp. Thats like saying trials shouldn't be a thing because people can exploit to get rewards with no effort. Its against the rules, and the people exploiting will risk ramifications. They also do not represent the entirety of this demographic of players who this option.
---
For the final point, who is to say factions have anything to do with it. Maybe I just want pillage willing participants because my character is a bandit. Maybe not every encounter in ESO has to be friendly, maybe for those who want it there can be additional unexpected risks when encountering someone you do not know.
In a universe where the NPC have varying moral and ethical stances, why does every player encounter have to be friendly.
As to your final sentence, not every encounter in ESO is friendly, but in PvE encounters have to be with NPCs while in PvP encounters have to be with other players. That is the basis on which the game was designed, ZOS tried mixing the encounters with Imperial City and failed. They won't repeat that again. However, there are other games that offer open world PvP so there's no reason why ESO should be turned into one, just as there are other games that offer multiple classes per character with no reason why ESO should be turned into one. ESO is what it is.
Edited by Tandor on January 25, 2022 9:08PM3 -
Casul✭✭✭✭✭
✭
The few PvEers that talk about Cyrodiil are asking for a separate PvE-only instance, while the few PvPers that talk about open world PvP want it in the default PvE zones. There's a difference in that respect. What is common to both requests, however, is that the overwhelming majority are opposed to the idea. Neither idea will ever happen.Kiralyn2000 wrote: »
If the system was opt in then how would it inflict PvP on the PvE crowd?
I've seen plenty of "opt-in" systems in the past. Having a pvp fight rampaging through your PvE questing area/NPCs/etc, is "inflicting" PvP on others.
And then there's all the tricks & exploits that 'opt-in' griefers come up with to flag people who don't intend to participate.
----
Meanwhile, another issue with opt-in world PvP in this game is that, while we have "pvp factions", we don't have faction-segregated territory in the open world. Sure, your character might be defined as "Daggerfall Covenant" for Cyro purposes, but when they're in other faction PvE zones, the system considers them to be part of the local faction. So all the things that open-world PvPers use to attract PvP - attacking cities of the opposing faction, obstructing questgivers & travel points, etc - aren't an option here. Because the only "opposing" NPCs there are to attack are the ones defined by the PvE/zone story as the 'invaders'.. which are enemies to everyone, because they're just regular hostile PvE mobs.
I disagree, but it is all the same arguments from both sides.
PvE wants to creep into Cyrodiil, PvP wants to creep into overland.
Both sides claim the other wants to much. Both sides are defensive of defending "their" game.
And also please don't use exploiter as an argument against OPT-IN pvp. Thats like saying trials shouldn't be a thing because people can exploit to get rewards with no effort. Its against the rules, and the people exploiting will risk ramifications. They also do not represent the entirety of this demographic of players who this option.
---
For the final point, who is to say factions have anything to do with it. Maybe I just want pillage willing participants because my character is a bandit. Maybe not every encounter in ESO has to be friendly, maybe for those who want it there can be additional unexpected risks when encountering someone you do not know.
In a universe where the NPC have varying moral and ethical stances, why does every player encounter have to be friendly.
As to your final sentence, not every encounter in ESO is friendly, but in PvE encounters have to be with NPCs while in PvP encounters have to be with other players. That is the basis on which the game was designed, ZOS tried mixing the encounters with Imperial City and failed. They won't repeat that again. However, there are other games that offer open world PvP so there's no reason why ESO should be turned into one, just as there are other games that offer multiple classes per character with no reason why ESO should be turned into one. ESO is what it is.
Yeah the comparisons aren't 1 to 1. Not all, but a decent portion of the PvE Cyrodiil crowd wants access to the rewards though which takes away from the achievement of getting them for PvPers. Kinda in the same way some PvP crowd want town attacks etc. That would disrupt PvE.
From my point of I could pvp in Overland with willing participants I would be fine with PvE Cyrodiil.
But I'm also thinking small scale 4-10 not 40 man zerg battles in stormhaven.PvP needs more love.0 -
Sylvermynx✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭I don't have a problem at all with pvp only Cyrodiil - and I don't want a pve Cyrodiil either. I'm good with going there for fishing, I don't care about the skyshards, and I'm not going to ever pvp again, so if you see me you're free to kill me and get it over with. I don't want open world pvp in this game - because my experience is the same as Kiralyn's with griefing (and you can choose to pooh-pooh that if you want but I KNOW what I experienced).
I pvp'd in WoW and RIFT, and I'm just done with it. It isn't fun, it isn't engaging, and I'm not going to bother with it.Edited by Sylvermynx on January 25, 2022 9:49PM3 -
Tandor✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
The few PvEers that talk about Cyrodiil are asking for a separate PvE-only instance, while the few PvPers that talk about open world PvP want it in the default PvE zones. There's a difference in that respect. What is common to both requests, however, is that the overwhelming majority are opposed to the idea. Neither idea will ever happen.Kiralyn2000 wrote: »
If the system was opt in then how would it inflict PvP on the PvE crowd?
I've seen plenty of "opt-in" systems in the past. Having a pvp fight rampaging through your PvE questing area/NPCs/etc, is "inflicting" PvP on others.
And then there's all the tricks & exploits that 'opt-in' griefers come up with to flag people who don't intend to participate.
----
Meanwhile, another issue with opt-in world PvP in this game is that, while we have "pvp factions", we don't have faction-segregated territory in the open world. Sure, your character might be defined as "Daggerfall Covenant" for Cyro purposes, but when they're in other faction PvE zones, the system considers them to be part of the local faction. So all the things that open-world PvPers use to attract PvP - attacking cities of the opposing faction, obstructing questgivers & travel points, etc - aren't an option here. Because the only "opposing" NPCs there are to attack are the ones defined by the PvE/zone story as the 'invaders'.. which are enemies to everyone, because they're just regular hostile PvE mobs.
I disagree, but it is all the same arguments from both sides.
PvE wants to creep into Cyrodiil, PvP wants to creep into overland.
Both sides claim the other wants to much. Both sides are defensive of defending "their" game.
And also please don't use exploiter as an argument against OPT-IN pvp. Thats like saying trials shouldn't be a thing because people can exploit to get rewards with no effort. Its against the rules, and the people exploiting will risk ramifications. They also do not represent the entirety of this demographic of players who this option.
---
For the final point, who is to say factions have anything to do with it. Maybe I just want pillage willing participants because my character is a bandit. Maybe not every encounter in ESO has to be friendly, maybe for those who want it there can be additional unexpected risks when encountering someone you do not know.
In a universe where the NPC have varying moral and ethical stances, why does every player encounter have to be friendly.
As to your final sentence, not every encounter in ESO is friendly, but in PvE encounters have to be with NPCs while in PvP encounters have to be with other players. That is the basis on which the game was designed, ZOS tried mixing the encounters with Imperial City and failed. They won't repeat that again. However, there are other games that offer open world PvP so there's no reason why ESO should be turned into one, just as there are other games that offer multiple classes per character with no reason why ESO should be turned into one. ESO is what it is.
Yeah the comparisons aren't 1 to 1. Not all, but a decent portion of the PvE Cyrodiil crowd wants access to the rewards though which takes away from the achievement of getting them for PvPers. Kinda in the same way some PvP crowd want town attacks etc. That would disrupt PvE.
From my point of I could pvp in Overland with willing participants I would be fine with PvE Cyrodiil.
But I'm also thinking small scale 4-10 not 40 man zerg battles in stormhaven.
As I recall, scarcely any PvEer wants access to the PvP rewards in Cyrodiil, but you can't blame PvEers who want access to e.g. the skyshards and rare fish that are only found in Cyrodiil, especially as you can't achieve Master Angler without them. Personally I have no interest in PvP and don't support changing Cyrodiil, but in return I don't expect PvPers to support changing Overland. So the only real difference between us is that you would be happy with the status of both areas changing, while I'd be happy with the status of both areas staying the same.3 -
Casul✭✭✭✭✭
✭
The few PvEers that talk about Cyrodiil are asking for a separate PvE-only instance, while the few PvPers that talk about open world PvP want it in the default PvE zones. There's a difference in that respect. What is common to both requests, however, is that the overwhelming majority are opposed to the idea. Neither idea will ever happen.Kiralyn2000 wrote: »
If the system was opt in then how would it inflict PvP on the PvE crowd?
I've seen plenty of "opt-in" systems in the past. Having a pvp fight rampaging through your PvE questing area/NPCs/etc, is "inflicting" PvP on others.
And then there's all the tricks & exploits that 'opt-in' griefers come up with to flag people who don't intend to participate.
----
Meanwhile, another issue with opt-in world PvP in this game is that, while we have "pvp factions", we don't have faction-segregated territory in the open world. Sure, your character might be defined as "Daggerfall Covenant" for Cyro purposes, but when they're in other faction PvE zones, the system considers them to be part of the local faction. So all the things that open-world PvPers use to attract PvP - attacking cities of the opposing faction, obstructing questgivers & travel points, etc - aren't an option here. Because the only "opposing" NPCs there are to attack are the ones defined by the PvE/zone story as the 'invaders'.. which are enemies to everyone, because they're just regular hostile PvE mobs.
I disagree, but it is all the same arguments from both sides.
PvE wants to creep into Cyrodiil, PvP wants to creep into overland.
Both sides claim the other wants to much. Both sides are defensive of defending "their" game.
And also please don't use exploiter as an argument against OPT-IN pvp. Thats like saying trials shouldn't be a thing because people can exploit to get rewards with no effort. Its against the rules, and the people exploiting will risk ramifications. They also do not represent the entirety of this demographic of players who this option.
---
For the final point, who is to say factions have anything to do with it. Maybe I just want pillage willing participants because my character is a bandit. Maybe not every encounter in ESO has to be friendly, maybe for those who want it there can be additional unexpected risks when encountering someone you do not know.
In a universe where the NPC have varying moral and ethical stances, why does every player encounter have to be friendly.
As to your final sentence, not every encounter in ESO is friendly, but in PvE encounters have to be with NPCs while in PvP encounters have to be with other players. That is the basis on which the game was designed, ZOS tried mixing the encounters with Imperial City and failed. They won't repeat that again. However, there are other games that offer open world PvP so there's no reason why ESO should be turned into one, just as there are other games that offer multiple classes per character with no reason why ESO should be turned into one. ESO is what it is.
Yeah the comparisons aren't 1 to 1. Not all, but a decent portion of the PvE Cyrodiil crowd wants access to the rewards though which takes away from the achievement of getting them for PvPers. Kinda in the same way some PvP crowd want town attacks etc. That would disrupt PvE.
From my point of I could pvp in Overland with willing participants I would be fine with PvE Cyrodiil.
But I'm also thinking small scale 4-10 not 40 man zerg battles in stormhaven.
As I recall, scarcely any PvEer wants access to the PvP rewards in Cyrodiil, but you can't blame PvEers who want access to e.g. the skyshards and rare fish that are only found in Cyrodiil, especially as you can't achieve Master Angler without them. Personally I have no interest in PvP and don't support changing Cyrodiil, but in return I don't expect PvPers to support changing Overland. So the only real difference between us is that you would be happy with the status of both areas changing, while I'd be happy with the status of both areas staying the same.
Sorry should have clarified when I meant rewards I meant the skyshards etc. I don't think there would be a way for PvE emperor for example.PvP needs more love.0 -
spartaxoxo✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭So you got focused by a troll? Again most people aren't doing that. You are using a small demographic to vilify all PvPers.
You don't have to be trying to vilify all PvPers to note it's a frequent enough problem. Most games I have seen try this concept end up with a PVE server because griefing becomes an issue that drives away players. Or end up with so many ways around it that fights are hard to find as most opt out. It can be done but I think it's a pretty hard sell and the game needs to be built for it from the ground up.Edited by spartaxoxo on January 25, 2022 11:46PM2 -
Jeffrey530✭✭✭✭Jeffrey530 wrote: »Wow I can’t believe how many people can’t read. The suggestion was for opt in only. Also how rigid people are in their thinking. What’s wrong with mixing it up a bit, giving the option of pvp in a pve zone.
Lol sticking in 'optional' does not make a suggestion immune to criticism. Dev time, resources, direction of the game and many other things also need to be considered.
While we are at it, let's make OPTIONAL:
Single player instances
Pve cyrodil
Survival mode
All are optional so what can go wrong right?
I'd add an optional auction house. Those who don't want it can still use their guild traders, right?
Exactly my point lol some of us will like some of the suggestions added above, but being 'optional' does not mean it can be added and won't affect other players. Question is would you still take the optional guild trader if all the above options are all added into the game, + many more questionable options?1 -
sarahthes✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭
The few PvEers that talk about Cyrodiil are asking for a separate PvE-only instance, while the few PvPers that talk about open world PvP want it in the default PvE zones. There's a difference in that respect. What is common to both requests, however, is that the overwhelming majority are opposed to the idea. Neither idea will ever happen.Kiralyn2000 wrote: »
If the system was opt in then how would it inflict PvP on the PvE crowd?
I've seen plenty of "opt-in" systems in the past. Having a pvp fight rampaging through your PvE questing area/NPCs/etc, is "inflicting" PvP on others.
And then there's all the tricks & exploits that 'opt-in' griefers come up with to flag people who don't intend to participate.
----
Meanwhile, another issue with opt-in world PvP in this game is that, while we have "pvp factions", we don't have faction-segregated territory in the open world. Sure, your character might be defined as "Daggerfall Covenant" for Cyro purposes, but when they're in other faction PvE zones, the system considers them to be part of the local faction. So all the things that open-world PvPers use to attract PvP - attacking cities of the opposing faction, obstructing questgivers & travel points, etc - aren't an option here. Because the only "opposing" NPCs there are to attack are the ones defined by the PvE/zone story as the 'invaders'.. which are enemies to everyone, because they're just regular hostile PvE mobs.
I disagree, but it is all the same arguments from both sides.
PvE wants to creep into Cyrodiil, PvP wants to creep into overland.
Both sides claim the other wants to much. Both sides are defensive of defending "their" game.
And also please don't use exploiter as an argument against OPT-IN pvp. Thats like saying trials shouldn't be a thing because people can exploit to get rewards with no effort. Its against the rules, and the people exploiting will risk ramifications. They also do not represent the entirety of this demographic of players who this option.
---
For the final point, who is to say factions have anything to do with it. Maybe I just want pillage willing participants because my character is a bandit. Maybe not every encounter in ESO has to be friendly, maybe for those who want it there can be additional unexpected risks when encountering someone you do not know.
In a universe where the NPC have varying moral and ethical stances, why does every player encounter have to be friendly.
As to your final sentence, not every encounter in ESO is friendly, but in PvE encounters have to be with NPCs while in PvP encounters have to be with other players. That is the basis on which the game was designed, ZOS tried mixing the encounters with Imperial City and failed. They won't repeat that again. However, there are other games that offer open world PvP so there's no reason why ESO should be turned into one, just as there are other games that offer multiple classes per character with no reason why ESO should be turned into one. ESO is what it is.
Yeah the comparisons aren't 1 to 1. Not all, but a decent portion of the PvE Cyrodiil crowd wants access to the rewards though which takes away from the achievement of getting them for PvPers. Kinda in the same way some PvP crowd want town attacks etc. That would disrupt PvE.
From my point of I could pvp in Overland with willing participants I would be fine with PvE Cyrodiil.
But I'm also thinking small scale 4-10 not 40 man zerg battles in stormhaven.
As I recall, scarcely any PvEer wants access to the PvP rewards in Cyrodiil, but you can't blame PvEers who want access to e.g. the skyshards and rare fish that are only found in Cyrodiil, especially as you can't achieve Master Angler without them. Personally I have no interest in PvP and don't support changing Cyrodiil, but in return I don't expect PvPers to support changing Overland. So the only real difference between us is that you would be happy with the status of both areas changing, while I'd be happy with the status of both areas staying the same.
I've gotten 2 master anglers and got attacked while doing so exactly zero times except when I picked the fight. Fishing in Cyrodiil is low risk. (IC, on the other hand, gets kinda sketchy since half the fishing spots are below the flags).0 -
Sylvermynx✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭I've gotten 2 master anglers and got attacked while doing so exactly zero times except when I picked the fight. Fishing in Cyrodiil is low risk. (IC, on the other hand, gets kinda sketchy since half the fishing spots are below the flags).
My experience: 4 Master Anglers, no Cyro deaths. I'm working on 4 more right now, still no Cyro deaths.
1 -
Alinhbo_Tyaka✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭
The few PvEers that talk about Cyrodiil are asking for a separate PvE-only instance, while the few PvPers that talk about open world PvP want it in the default PvE zones. There's a difference in that respect. What is common to both requests, however, is that the overwhelming majority are opposed to the idea. Neither idea will ever happen.Kiralyn2000 wrote: »
If the system was opt in then how would it inflict PvP on the PvE crowd?
I've seen plenty of "opt-in" systems in the past. Having a pvp fight rampaging through your PvE questing area/NPCs/etc, is "inflicting" PvP on others.
And then there's all the tricks & exploits that 'opt-in' griefers come up with to flag people who don't intend to participate.
----
Meanwhile, another issue with opt-in world PvP in this game is that, while we have "pvp factions", we don't have faction-segregated territory in the open world. Sure, your character might be defined as "Daggerfall Covenant" for Cyro purposes, but when they're in other faction PvE zones, the system considers them to be part of the local faction. So all the things that open-world PvPers use to attract PvP - attacking cities of the opposing faction, obstructing questgivers & travel points, etc - aren't an option here. Because the only "opposing" NPCs there are to attack are the ones defined by the PvE/zone story as the 'invaders'.. which are enemies to everyone, because they're just regular hostile PvE mobs.
I disagree, but it is all the same arguments from both sides.
PvE wants to creep into Cyrodiil, PvP wants to creep into overland.
Both sides claim the other wants to much. Both sides are defensive of defending "their" game.
And also please don't use exploiter as an argument against OPT-IN pvp. Thats like saying trials shouldn't be a thing because people can exploit to get rewards with no effort. Its against the rules, and the people exploiting will risk ramifications. They also do not represent the entirety of this demographic of players who this option.
---
For the final point, who is to say factions have anything to do with it. Maybe I just want pillage willing participants because my character is a bandit. Maybe not every encounter in ESO has to be friendly, maybe for those who want it there can be additional unexpected risks when encountering someone you do not know.
In a universe where the NPC have varying moral and ethical stances, why does every player encounter have to be friendly.
As to your final sentence, not every encounter in ESO is friendly, but in PvE encounters have to be with NPCs while in PvP encounters have to be with other players. That is the basis on which the game was designed, ZOS tried mixing the encounters with Imperial City and failed. They won't repeat that again. However, there are other games that offer open world PvP so there's no reason why ESO should be turned into one, just as there are other games that offer multiple classes per character with no reason why ESO should be turned into one. ESO is what it is.
Yeah the comparisons aren't 1 to 1. Not all, but a decent portion of the PvE Cyrodiil crowd wants access to the rewards though which takes away from the achievement of getting them for PvPers. Kinda in the same way some PvP crowd want town attacks etc. That would disrupt PvE.
From my point of I could pvp in Overland with willing participants I would be fine with PvE Cyrodiil.
But I'm also thinking small scale 4-10 not 40 man zerg battles in stormhaven.
As I recall, scarcely any PvEer wants access to the PvP rewards in Cyrodiil, but you can't blame PvEers who want access to e.g. the skyshards and rare fish that are only found in Cyrodiil, especially as you can't achieve Master Angler without them. Personally I have no interest in PvP and don't support changing Cyrodiil, but in return I don't expect PvPers to support changing Overland. So the only real difference between us is that you would be happy with the status of both areas changing, while I'd be happy with the status of both areas staying the same.
I've gotten 2 master anglers and got attacked while doing so exactly zero times except when I picked the fight. Fishing in Cyrodiil is low risk. (IC, on the other hand, gets kinda sketchy since half the fishing spots are below the flags).
I don't PvP all but do go into Cyrodill during MYM to do some of the PvE activities. I have never been killed or even bothered going after the Master Angler even for the fishing holes that are on top of the opposing faction areas. My experience in delves has also been generally positive but it does take a bit of care of avoiding AOE's and putting pets away if opposing players are present. I think when you go into Cyrodiil you are more than likely to pickup griefers at the daily quest locations. I handle these a couple of different ways. One is I call out in zone chat that there is a player ganking questers and usually a few PvP types pop up to handle them. The other way I handle it is to move on to another area or leave and come back another time. Either way there is nothing so pressing in Cyrodiil that I can't work around PvP in a PvP area.
There is a big difference between Cyrodiil and the PvE open world though. I expect that my PvE activity can be affected by PvP as I am the guest in a PvP area. I do not expect my play in open world PvE to be impacted by PvP but every game I have played where open world PvP is allowed I have been affected. The fact is not that many players flag for PvP in the open world in the games that allow it. Even a good majority of the PvP players opt out when they want to quest or do PvE activities. The result is a small but significant group turn to griefing in the hope of stimulating PvP combat. I think WoW is the best example of the lack of interest in open world PvP with the death and merger of their PvP only servers. It is also a good example of the griefing that takes place by the PvP griefing/ganking subset. Though it is small compared to the overall PvP player base it is large enough to disrupt the play of many PvE players and PvP players who just want to get some PvE time in in peace. Keeping PvP and PvE segregated works best for both groups in the long run.1 -
Xebov✭✭✭✭✭
✭Subjectcrank wrote: »Use City's as safe harborage for open world flaggable pvp? So the concept is simple, run repeatable killing or gathering missions while flagging yourself for pvp? In Any zone. Put a mission NPC for these quests, with also a vender for gear subsequent to your rating in OW-PVP. Could this work without taking away that of which is already set for pvp areas? Also while flagged using your assistants and companions wouldn't be available. and the only way to unflag yourself is being in a city. Where and once you leave the designated flagging/unflagging area you have a 10 second timer Before you can engage in pvp.
It is just a concept. but The one thing I did enjoy from New World was grinding pvp sets while running on foot flagged through the trees, not knowing if or when i would get attacked.
Gameplay wise it wouldnt work.
The thing with open world PvP is that its always centered around some sort of objective. You can see that in Cyrodiil where most fighting takes place around objectives or streets/shortest ways inbetween them. As soon as you go into the wilds you will virtually meet noone.
Games like SWG had this sort of flag like PvP and you could run around for ages without meeting anyone and fights usually happened around specific areas ppl knew there where other players around.
Thats why the duel community has its spots where they meet up.
Given the size of the game and the amount of players that are interested in this sort of PvP you would likely run around forever before meeting anyone flagged as well.
In games like New World it only works because they have these Objectives everywhere, their game world is literally Cyrodiil.0 -
Casul✭✭✭✭✭
✭Alinhbo_Tyaka wrote: »
The few PvEers that talk about Cyrodiil are asking for a separate PvE-only instance, while the few PvPers that talk about open world PvP want it in the default PvE zones. There's a difference in that respect. What is common to both requests, however, is that the overwhelming majority are opposed to the idea. Neither idea will ever happen.Kiralyn2000 wrote: »
If the system was opt in then how would it inflict PvP on the PvE crowd?
I've seen plenty of "opt-in" systems in the past. Having a pvp fight rampaging through your PvE questing area/NPCs/etc, is "inflicting" PvP on others.
And then there's all the tricks & exploits that 'opt-in' griefers come up with to flag people who don't intend to participate.
----
Meanwhile, another issue with opt-in world PvP in this game is that, while we have "pvp factions", we don't have faction-segregated territory in the open world. Sure, your character might be defined as "Daggerfall Covenant" for Cyro purposes, but when they're in other faction PvE zones, the system considers them to be part of the local faction. So all the things that open-world PvPers use to attract PvP - attacking cities of the opposing faction, obstructing questgivers & travel points, etc - aren't an option here. Because the only "opposing" NPCs there are to attack are the ones defined by the PvE/zone story as the 'invaders'.. which are enemies to everyone, because they're just regular hostile PvE mobs.
I disagree, but it is all the same arguments from both sides.
PvE wants to creep into Cyrodiil, PvP wants to creep into overland.
Both sides claim the other wants to much. Both sides are defensive of defending "their" game.
And also please don't use exploiter as an argument against OPT-IN pvp. Thats like saying trials shouldn't be a thing because people can exploit to get rewards with no effort. Its against the rules, and the people exploiting will risk ramifications. They also do not represent the entirety of this demographic of players who this option.
---
For the final point, who is to say factions have anything to do with it. Maybe I just want pillage willing participants because my character is a bandit. Maybe not every encounter in ESO has to be friendly, maybe for those who want it there can be additional unexpected risks when encountering someone you do not know.
In a universe where the NPC have varying moral and ethical stances, why does every player encounter have to be friendly.
As to your final sentence, not every encounter in ESO is friendly, but in PvE encounters have to be with NPCs while in PvP encounters have to be with other players. That is the basis on which the game was designed, ZOS tried mixing the encounters with Imperial City and failed. They won't repeat that again. However, there are other games that offer open world PvP so there's no reason why ESO should be turned into one, just as there are other games that offer multiple classes per character with no reason why ESO should be turned into one. ESO is what it is.
Yeah the comparisons aren't 1 to 1. Not all, but a decent portion of the PvE Cyrodiil crowd wants access to the rewards though which takes away from the achievement of getting them for PvPers. Kinda in the same way some PvP crowd want town attacks etc. That would disrupt PvE.
From my point of I could pvp in Overland with willing participants I would be fine with PvE Cyrodiil.
But I'm also thinking small scale 4-10 not 40 man zerg battles in stormhaven.
As I recall, scarcely any PvEer wants access to the PvP rewards in Cyrodiil, but you can't blame PvEers who want access to e.g. the skyshards and rare fish that are only found in Cyrodiil, especially as you can't achieve Master Angler without them. Personally I have no interest in PvP and don't support changing Cyrodiil, but in return I don't expect PvPers to support changing Overland. So the only real difference between us is that you would be happy with the status of both areas changing, while I'd be happy with the status of both areas staying the same.
I've gotten 2 master anglers and got attacked while doing so exactly zero times except when I picked the fight. Fishing in Cyrodiil is low risk. (IC, on the other hand, gets kinda sketchy since half the fishing spots are below the flags).
I don't PvP all but do go into Cyrodill during MYM to do some of the PvE activities. I have never been killed or even bothered going after the Master Angler even for the fishing holes that are on top of the opposing faction areas. My experience in delves has also been generally positive but it does take a bit of care of avoiding AOE's and putting pets away if opposing players are present. I think when you go into Cyrodiil you are more than likely to pickup griefers at the daily quest locations. I handle these a couple of different ways. One is I call out in zone chat that there is a player ganking questers and usually a few PvP types pop up to handle them. The other way I handle it is to move on to another area or leave and come back another time. Either way there is nothing so pressing in Cyrodiil that I can't work around PvP in a PvP area.
There is a big difference between Cyrodiil and the PvE open world though. I expect that my PvE activity can be affected by PvP as I am the guest in a PvP area. I do not expect my play in open world PvE to be impacted by PvP but every game I have played where open world PvP is allowed I have been affected. The fact is not that many players flag for PvP in the open world in the games that allow it. Even a good majority of the PvP players opt out when they want to quest or do PvE activities. The result is a small but significant group turn to griefing in the hope of stimulating PvP combat. I think WoW is the best example of the lack of interest in open world PvP with the death and merger of their PvP only servers. It is also a good example of the griefing that takes place by the PvP griefing/ganking subset. Though it is small compared to the overall PvP player base it is large enough to disrupt the play of many PvE players and PvP players who just want to get some PvE time in in peace. Keeping PvP and PvE segregated works best for both groups in the long run.
I can respect your opinion, but if the system was opt in how would PvE players be griefed? I keep seeing that argument but no one actually explains it. If the system was opt in then the only grief method would by present currently, no? Since right now no one can engage in combat with each other.
Maybe the healing aspect may be an issue but possible fix, make it to so when you are flagged for pvp you can only heal yourself and group members, likewise with receiving heals.PvP needs more love.0 -
Kiralyn2000✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭I can respect your opinion, but if the system was opt in how would PvE players be griefed?
Ways I saw PvP players try to mess with PvE players in WoW, either just to mess with them, or in an effort to "encourage" PvP (obviously, not all of these are applicable to ESO):
- jumping in the way of their attacks while flagged (since attacking a flagged player would flag you, since you obviously want to PvP)
- messing with overland group fights, to either wipe the people trying to kill the boss, or resetting the boss
- wiping out questgivers, flightmasters, etc in noob areas
- in multi-faction/"neutral" cities, standing flagged on busy questgivers, so that someone trying to click them might accidentally click on the pvp player (which is interpreted as attacking, which flags the person, and gets them attacked by the NPC guards who enforce the neutrality; leading to a PvE death which hit them with repair penalties, unlike PvP deaths)
- lurking near bugged PvE quests that would accidentally flag the quester because they had to attack a mob that was considered part of the opposing 'faction' and therefore attacking it was a PvP action; so they could gank the quester who hadn't realized they were flagged.
Like I said, not all of these would apply to ESO, because we don't actually have "opposing faction" territory. But all of it is an example of the fact that &*%$# PvP Griefer types will, in the words of Ian Malcolm, " uh.. find a way".
Edited by Kiralyn2000 on January 26, 2022 2:32PM8 -
Tommy_The_Gun✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭This idea/concept would not work in ESO. If mixed PvE / PvP would work for ESO, then we would have more zones like this by now. But last time ZOS added mixed PvE / PvP zone was when they introduced Imperial City. And since then we had not seen anything like this. And IC is dead empty zone pretty much 24/7, with small population boost in the weekends (but even then it is not full). It has gotten to the point that ZOS converted IC to a "free" dlc. Because no one wanted to buy it. And despite the fact that it is free dlc - it is pretty much an empty zone. ZOS is trying desperately to populate it somehow (2 PvP events per year with IC exclusive event tickets, no other dlc zone gets this much attention). But even then players from different factions always end up "maining" different campaigns as extreme vast majority of players want to avoid mixed PvE / PvP.
If ZOS learned anything on IC it would be not to add any new PvP zone ever again, as all new pvp content since then is pretty much new BG map here & there.Edited by Tommy_The_Gun on January 26, 2022 2:32PM4 -
JKorr✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭
The few PvEers that talk about Cyrodiil are asking for a separate PvE-only instance, while the few PvPers that talk about open world PvP want it in the default PvE zones. There's a difference in that respect. What is common to both requests, however, is that the overwhelming majority are opposed to the idea. Neither idea will ever happen.Kiralyn2000 wrote: »
If the system was opt in then how would it inflict PvP on the PvE crowd?
I've seen plenty of "opt-in" systems in the past. Having a pvp fight rampaging through your PvE questing area/NPCs/etc, is "inflicting" PvP on others.
And then there's all the tricks & exploits that 'opt-in' griefers come up with to flag people who don't intend to participate.
----
Meanwhile, another issue with opt-in world PvP in this game is that, while we have "pvp factions", we don't have faction-segregated territory in the open world. Sure, your character might be defined as "Daggerfall Covenant" for Cyro purposes, but when they're in other faction PvE zones, the system considers them to be part of the local faction. So all the things that open-world PvPers use to attract PvP - attacking cities of the opposing faction, obstructing questgivers & travel points, etc - aren't an option here. Because the only "opposing" NPCs there are to attack are the ones defined by the PvE/zone story as the 'invaders'.. which are enemies to everyone, because they're just regular hostile PvE mobs.
I disagree, but it is all the same arguments from both sides.
PvE wants to creep into Cyrodiil, PvP wants to creep into overland.
Both sides claim the other wants to much. Both sides are defensive of defending "their" game.
And also please don't use exploiter as an argument against OPT-IN pvp. Thats like saying trials shouldn't be a thing because people can exploit to get rewards with no effort. Its against the rules, and the people exploiting will risk ramifications. They also do not represent the entirety of this demographic of players who this option.
---
For the final point, who is to say factions have anything to do with it. Maybe I just want pillage willing participants because my character is a bandit. Maybe not every encounter in ESO has to be friendly, maybe for those who want it there can be additional unexpected risks when encountering someone you do not know.
In a universe where the NPC have varying moral and ethical stances, why does every player encounter have to be friendly.
As to your final sentence, not every encounter in ESO is friendly, but in PvE encounters have to be with NPCs while in PvP encounters have to be with other players. That is the basis on which the game was designed, ZOS tried mixing the encounters with Imperial City and failed. They won't repeat that again. However, there are other games that offer open world PvP so there's no reason why ESO should be turned into one, just as there are other games that offer multiple classes per character with no reason why ESO should be turned into one. ESO is what it is.
Yeah the comparisons aren't 1 to 1. Not all, but a decent portion of the PvE Cyrodiil crowd wants access to the rewards though which takes away from the achievement of getting them for PvPers. Kinda in the same way some PvP crowd want town attacks etc. That would disrupt PvE.
From my point of I could pvp in Overland with willing participants I would be fine with PvE Cyrodiil.
But I'm also thinking small scale 4-10 not 40 man zerg battles in stormhaven.
For me, personal opinion only, I don't want pvp rewards for a pve Cyrodiil/IC. I wouldn't be doing pvp, so don't deserve any pvp rewards. I would, however, hope that any normal not-related-to-pvp drops like daedra hearts and hammer of frost or miscellaneous loot would still drop. Getting skyshards behind npc enemies would be nice, but not necessary for me. I'd just like the chance to just explore and clear npc enemies in delves and pve stuff. I know it won't happen, but its a nice dream.3 -
tenryuta✭✭✭Subjectcrank wrote: »Use City's as safe harborage for open world flaggable pvp? So the concept is simple, run repeatable killing or gathering missions while flagging yourself for pvp? In Any zone. Put a mission NPC for these quests, with also a vender for gear subsequent to your rating in OW-PVP. Could this work without taking away that of which is already set for pvp areas? Also while flagged using your assistants and companions wouldn't be available. and the only way to unflag yourself is being in a city. Where and once you leave the designated flagging/unflagging area you have a 10 second timer Before you can engage in pvp.
It is just a concept. but The one thing I did enjoy from New World was grinding pvp sets while running on foot flagged through the trees, not knowing if or when i would get attacked.
go to cyrodiil or mortal online 1/2, open world pvp everywhere in these 2 places1 -
spartaxoxo✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Alinhbo_Tyaka wrote: »
The few PvEers that talk about Cyrodiil are asking for a separate PvE-only instance, while the few PvPers that talk about open world PvP want it in the default PvE zones. There's a difference in that respect. What is common to both requests, however, is that the overwhelming majority are opposed to the idea. Neither idea will ever happen.Kiralyn2000 wrote: »
If the system was opt in then how would it inflict PvP on the PvE crowd?
I've seen plenty of "opt-in" systems in the past. Having a pvp fight rampaging through your PvE questing area/NPCs/etc, is "inflicting" PvP on others.
And then there's all the tricks & exploits that 'opt-in' griefers come up with to flag people who don't intend to participate.
----
Meanwhile, another issue with opt-in world PvP in this game is that, while we have "pvp factions", we don't have faction-segregated territory in the open world. Sure, your character might be defined as "Daggerfall Covenant" for Cyro purposes, but when they're in other faction PvE zones, the system considers them to be part of the local faction. So all the things that open-world PvPers use to attract PvP - attacking cities of the opposing faction, obstructing questgivers & travel points, etc - aren't an option here. Because the only "opposing" NPCs there are to attack are the ones defined by the PvE/zone story as the 'invaders'.. which are enemies to everyone, because they're just regular hostile PvE mobs.
I disagree, but it is all the same arguments from both sides.
PvE wants to creep into Cyrodiil, PvP wants to creep into overland.
Both sides claim the other wants to much. Both sides are defensive of defending "their" game.
And also please don't use exploiter as an argument against OPT-IN pvp. Thats like saying trials shouldn't be a thing because people can exploit to get rewards with no effort. Its against the rules, and the people exploiting will risk ramifications. They also do not represent the entirety of this demographic of players who this option.
---
For the final point, who is to say factions have anything to do with it. Maybe I just want pillage willing participants because my character is a bandit. Maybe not every encounter in ESO has to be friendly, maybe for those who want it there can be additional unexpected risks when encountering someone you do not know.
In a universe where the NPC have varying moral and ethical stances, why does every player encounter have to be friendly.
As to your final sentence, not every encounter in ESO is friendly, but in PvE encounters have to be with NPCs while in PvP encounters have to be with other players. That is the basis on which the game was designed, ZOS tried mixing the encounters with Imperial City and failed. They won't repeat that again. However, there are other games that offer open world PvP so there's no reason why ESO should be turned into one, just as there are other games that offer multiple classes per character with no reason why ESO should be turned into one. ESO is what it is.
Yeah the comparisons aren't 1 to 1. Not all, but a decent portion of the PvE Cyrodiil crowd wants access to the rewards though which takes away from the achievement of getting them for PvPers. Kinda in the same way some PvP crowd want town attacks etc. That would disrupt PvE.
From my point of I could pvp in Overland with willing participants I would be fine with PvE Cyrodiil.
But I'm also thinking small scale 4-10 not 40 man zerg battles in stormhaven.
As I recall, scarcely any PvEer wants access to the PvP rewards in Cyrodiil, but you can't blame PvEers who want access to e.g. the skyshards and rare fish that are only found in Cyrodiil, especially as you can't achieve Master Angler without them. Personally I have no interest in PvP and don't support changing Cyrodiil, but in return I don't expect PvPers to support changing Overland. So the only real difference between us is that you would be happy with the status of both areas changing, while I'd be happy with the status of both areas staying the same.
I've gotten 2 master anglers and got attacked while doing so exactly zero times except when I picked the fight. Fishing in Cyrodiil is low risk. (IC, on the other hand, gets kinda sketchy since half the fishing spots are below the flags).
I don't PvP all but do go into Cyrodill during MYM to do some of the PvE activities. I have never been killed or even bothered going after the Master Angler even for the fishing holes that are on top of the opposing faction areas. My experience in delves has also been generally positive but it does take a bit of care of avoiding AOE's and putting pets away if opposing players are present. I think when you go into Cyrodiil you are more than likely to pickup griefers at the daily quest locations. I handle these a couple of different ways. One is I call out in zone chat that there is a player ganking questers and usually a few PvP types pop up to handle them. The other way I handle it is to move on to another area or leave and come back another time. Either way there is nothing so pressing in Cyrodiil that I can't work around PvP in a PvP area.
There is a big difference between Cyrodiil and the PvE open world though. I expect that my PvE activity can be affected by PvP as I am the guest in a PvP area. I do not expect my play in open world PvE to be impacted by PvP but every game I have played where open world PvP is allowed I have been affected. The fact is not that many players flag for PvP in the open world in the games that allow it. Even a good majority of the PvP players opt out when they want to quest or do PvE activities. The result is a small but significant group turn to griefing in the hope of stimulating PvP combat. I think WoW is the best example of the lack of interest in open world PvP with the death and merger of their PvP only servers. It is also a good example of the griefing that takes place by the PvP griefing/ganking subset. Though it is small compared to the overall PvP player base it is large enough to disrupt the play of many PvE players and PvP players who just want to get some PvE time in in peace. Keeping PvP and PvE segregated works best for both groups in the long run.
I can respect your opinion, but if the system was opt in how would PvE players be griefed? I keep seeing that argument but no one actually explains it. If the system was opt in then the only grief method would by present currently, no? Since right now no one can engage in combat with each other.
Maybe the healing aspect may be an issue but possible fix, make it to so when you are flagged for pvp you can only heal yourself and group members, likewise with receiving heals.
Another thing I saw where griefing happened in opt-in systems (not all of which were relevant to this game)
People would pull mobs into people to constantly pester them, in the hopes they'd turn on pvp, especially if attacking that player turned on pvp
They'd stand on top of npcs to try it's use so that people would pvp them
A lot of those games would sometimes randomly cause pvp to be flagged in an area as a bug, and that area became impossible for pve'ers to use
They'd send a lot of hate messages your way to goad you into pvp (I actually recently had someone try this for a duel).
People who had wanted to PVP but then no longer pvp and wanted to go town would often have people trying to prevent that so they couldn't leave pvp.
Of things actually relevant to here
I think people would likely try to take advantage of the game's stuck in combat system to prevent someone from porting or mounting to get them to pvp
Hate whispers
I think they probably already solved people parking flappy birds and bears on popular quest npcs but I still think people would try0 -
spartaxoxo✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Tommy_The_Gun wrote: »This idea/concept would not work in ESO. If mixed PvE / PvP would work for ESO, then we would have more zones like this by now. But last time ZOS added mixed PvE / PvP zone was when they introduced Imperial City. And since then we had not seen anything like this. And IC is dead empty zone pretty much 24/7, with small population boost in the weekends (but even then it is not full). It has gotten to the point that ZOS converted IC to a "free" dlc. Because no one wanted to buy it. And despite the fact that it is free dlc - it is pretty much an empty zone. ZOS is trying desperately to populate it somehow (2 PvP events per year with IC exclusive event tickets, no other dlc zone gets this much attention). But even then players from different factions always end up "maining" different campaigns as extreme vast majority of players want to avoid mixed PvE / PvP.
If ZOS learned anything on IC it would be not to add any new PvP zone ever again, as all new pvp content since then is pretty much new BG map here & there.
While I am not a fan of this idea, I don't think IC is the best comparison upon reflection. IC forces the would be PVErs who'd join that zone into PVP, rather than it happening organically because they want Tel-Var. And then punishes them for not being built for PVP by also taking away currency that they have already obtained.
In doing so, they completely disincentivize participation by PvEers. They could do one or the other of those things, but not both.
The Tel-Var risk also encourages PvPers to engage in risk avoidant behavior, primarily zerging, ganking, and porting out of IC instead of running back to their base. The lack of good fights that results from that behavior then causes other pvpers who enjoy it to go to Cyro or BGs instead because they get better fights. The terrain of IC greatly exacerbating that situation doesn't help.
None of those reasons are things that would be relevant to open world pvp.
0 -
Casul✭✭✭✭✭
✭spartaxoxo wrote: »Alinhbo_Tyaka wrote: »
The few PvEers that talk about Cyrodiil are asking for a separate PvE-only instance, while the few PvPers that talk about open world PvP want it in the default PvE zones. There's a difference in that respect. What is common to both requests, however, is that the overwhelming majority are opposed to the idea. Neither idea will ever happen.Kiralyn2000 wrote: »
If the system was opt in then how would it inflict PvP on the PvE crowd?
I've seen plenty of "opt-in" systems in the past. Having a pvp fight rampaging through your PvE questing area/NPCs/etc, is "inflicting" PvP on others.
And then there's all the tricks & exploits that 'opt-in' griefers come up with to flag people who don't intend to participate.
----
Meanwhile, another issue with opt-in world PvP in this game is that, while we have "pvp factions", we don't have faction-segregated territory in the open world. Sure, your character might be defined as "Daggerfall Covenant" for Cyro purposes, but when they're in other faction PvE zones, the system considers them to be part of the local faction. So all the things that open-world PvPers use to attract PvP - attacking cities of the opposing faction, obstructing questgivers & travel points, etc - aren't an option here. Because the only "opposing" NPCs there are to attack are the ones defined by the PvE/zone story as the 'invaders'.. which are enemies to everyone, because they're just regular hostile PvE mobs.
I disagree, but it is all the same arguments from both sides.
PvE wants to creep into Cyrodiil, PvP wants to creep into overland.
Both sides claim the other wants to much. Both sides are defensive of defending "their" game.
And also please don't use exploiter as an argument against OPT-IN pvp. Thats like saying trials shouldn't be a thing because people can exploit to get rewards with no effort. Its against the rules, and the people exploiting will risk ramifications. They also do not represent the entirety of this demographic of players who this option.
---
For the final point, who is to say factions have anything to do with it. Maybe I just want pillage willing participants because my character is a bandit. Maybe not every encounter in ESO has to be friendly, maybe for those who want it there can be additional unexpected risks when encountering someone you do not know.
In a universe where the NPC have varying moral and ethical stances, why does every player encounter have to be friendly.
As to your final sentence, not every encounter in ESO is friendly, but in PvE encounters have to be with NPCs while in PvP encounters have to be with other players. That is the basis on which the game was designed, ZOS tried mixing the encounters with Imperial City and failed. They won't repeat that again. However, there are other games that offer open world PvP so there's no reason why ESO should be turned into one, just as there are other games that offer multiple classes per character with no reason why ESO should be turned into one. ESO is what it is.
Yeah the comparisons aren't 1 to 1. Not all, but a decent portion of the PvE Cyrodiil crowd wants access to the rewards though which takes away from the achievement of getting them for PvPers. Kinda in the same way some PvP crowd want town attacks etc. That would disrupt PvE.
From my point of I could pvp in Overland with willing participants I would be fine with PvE Cyrodiil.
But I'm also thinking small scale 4-10 not 40 man zerg battles in stormhaven.
As I recall, scarcely any PvEer wants access to the PvP rewards in Cyrodiil, but you can't blame PvEers who want access to e.g. the skyshards and rare fish that are only found in Cyrodiil, especially as you can't achieve Master Angler without them. Personally I have no interest in PvP and don't support changing Cyrodiil, but in return I don't expect PvPers to support changing Overland. So the only real difference between us is that you would be happy with the status of both areas changing, while I'd be happy with the status of both areas staying the same.
I've gotten 2 master anglers and got attacked while doing so exactly zero times except when I picked the fight. Fishing in Cyrodiil is low risk. (IC, on the other hand, gets kinda sketchy since half the fishing spots are below the flags).
I don't PvP all but do go into Cyrodill during MYM to do some of the PvE activities. I have never been killed or even bothered going after the Master Angler even for the fishing holes that are on top of the opposing faction areas. My experience in delves has also been generally positive but it does take a bit of care of avoiding AOE's and putting pets away if opposing players are present. I think when you go into Cyrodiil you are more than likely to pickup griefers at the daily quest locations. I handle these a couple of different ways. One is I call out in zone chat that there is a player ganking questers and usually a few PvP types pop up to handle them. The other way I handle it is to move on to another area or leave and come back another time. Either way there is nothing so pressing in Cyrodiil that I can't work around PvP in a PvP area.
There is a big difference between Cyrodiil and the PvE open world though. I expect that my PvE activity can be affected by PvP as I am the guest in a PvP area. I do not expect my play in open world PvE to be impacted by PvP but every game I have played where open world PvP is allowed I have been affected. The fact is not that many players flag for PvP in the open world in the games that allow it. Even a good majority of the PvP players opt out when they want to quest or do PvE activities. The result is a small but significant group turn to griefing in the hope of stimulating PvP combat. I think WoW is the best example of the lack of interest in open world PvP with the death and merger of their PvP only servers. It is also a good example of the griefing that takes place by the PvP griefing/ganking subset. Though it is small compared to the overall PvP player base it is large enough to disrupt the play of many PvE players and PvP players who just want to get some PvE time in in peace. Keeping PvP and PvE segregated works best for both groups in the long run.
I can respect your opinion, but if the system was opt in how would PvE players be griefed? I keep seeing that argument but no one actually explains it. If the system was opt in then the only grief method would by present currently, no? Since right now no one can engage in combat with each other.
Maybe the healing aspect may be an issue but possible fix, make it to so when you are flagged for pvp you can only heal yourself and group members, likewise with receiving heals.
Another thing I saw where griefing happened in opt-in systems (not all of which were relevant to this game)
People would pull mobs into people to constantly pester them, in the hopes they'd turn on pvp, especially if attacking that player turned on pvp
They'd stand on top of npcs to try it's use so that people would pvp them
A lot of those games would sometimes randomly cause pvp to be flagged in an area as a bug, and that area became impossible for pve'ers to use
They'd send a lot of hate messages your way to goad you into pvp (I actually recently had someone try this for a duel).
People who had wanted to PVP but then no longer pvp and wanted to go town would often have people trying to prevent that so they couldn't leave pvp.
Of things actually relevant to here
I think people would likely try to take advantage of the game's stuck in combat system to prevent someone from porting or mounting to get them to pvp
Hate whispers
I think they probably already solved people parking flappy birds and bears on popular quest npcs but I still think people would try
But for the first relevant issue, how would said person be stuck in combat if they aren't pvp flagged? I'm trying to understand but it's just not making sense to me. And hate whispers are just a behavior issue not gameplay issue.
Kinda like how dungeons can still be ok even if someone is being rude in the group. Maybe the game just needs like a temporary mute button since some people already have a full ignore list.PvP needs more love.0 -
spartaxoxo✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭spartaxoxo wrote: »Alinhbo_Tyaka wrote: »
The few PvEers that talk about Cyrodiil are asking for a separate PvE-only instance, while the few PvPers that talk about open world PvP want it in the default PvE zones. There's a difference in that respect. What is common to both requests, however, is that the overwhelming majority are opposed to the idea. Neither idea will ever happen.Kiralyn2000 wrote: »
If the system was opt in then how would it inflict PvP on the PvE crowd?
I've seen plenty of "opt-in" systems in the past. Having a pvp fight rampaging through your PvE questing area/NPCs/etc, is "inflicting" PvP on others.
And then there's all the tricks & exploits that 'opt-in' griefers come up with to flag people who don't intend to participate.
----
Meanwhile, another issue with opt-in world PvP in this game is that, while we have "pvp factions", we don't have faction-segregated territory in the open world. Sure, your character might be defined as "Daggerfall Covenant" for Cyro purposes, but when they're in other faction PvE zones, the system considers them to be part of the local faction. So all the things that open-world PvPers use to attract PvP - attacking cities of the opposing faction, obstructing questgivers & travel points, etc - aren't an option here. Because the only "opposing" NPCs there are to attack are the ones defined by the PvE/zone story as the 'invaders'.. which are enemies to everyone, because they're just regular hostile PvE mobs.
I disagree, but it is all the same arguments from both sides.
PvE wants to creep into Cyrodiil, PvP wants to creep into overland.
Both sides claim the other wants to much. Both sides are defensive of defending "their" game.
And also please don't use exploiter as an argument against OPT-IN pvp. Thats like saying trials shouldn't be a thing because people can exploit to get rewards with no effort. Its against the rules, and the people exploiting will risk ramifications. They also do not represent the entirety of this demographic of players who this option.
---
For the final point, who is to say factions have anything to do with it. Maybe I just want pillage willing participants because my character is a bandit. Maybe not every encounter in ESO has to be friendly, maybe for those who want it there can be additional unexpected risks when encountering someone you do not know.
In a universe where the NPC have varying moral and ethical stances, why does every player encounter have to be friendly.
As to your final sentence, not every encounter in ESO is friendly, but in PvE encounters have to be with NPCs while in PvP encounters have to be with other players. That is the basis on which the game was designed, ZOS tried mixing the encounters with Imperial City and failed. They won't repeat that again. However, there are other games that offer open world PvP so there's no reason why ESO should be turned into one, just as there are other games that offer multiple classes per character with no reason why ESO should be turned into one. ESO is what it is.
Yeah the comparisons aren't 1 to 1. Not all, but a decent portion of the PvE Cyrodiil crowd wants access to the rewards though which takes away from the achievement of getting them for PvPers. Kinda in the same way some PvP crowd want town attacks etc. That would disrupt PvE.
From my point of I could pvp in Overland with willing participants I would be fine with PvE Cyrodiil.
But I'm also thinking small scale 4-10 not 40 man zerg battles in stormhaven.
As I recall, scarcely any PvEer wants access to the PvP rewards in Cyrodiil, but you can't blame PvEers who want access to e.g. the skyshards and rare fish that are only found in Cyrodiil, especially as you can't achieve Master Angler without them. Personally I have no interest in PvP and don't support changing Cyrodiil, but in return I don't expect PvPers to support changing Overland. So the only real difference between us is that you would be happy with the status of both areas changing, while I'd be happy with the status of both areas staying the same.
I've gotten 2 master anglers and got attacked while doing so exactly zero times except when I picked the fight. Fishing in Cyrodiil is low risk. (IC, on the other hand, gets kinda sketchy since half the fishing spots are below the flags).
I don't PvP all but do go into Cyrodill during MYM to do some of the PvE activities. I have never been killed or even bothered going after the Master Angler even for the fishing holes that are on top of the opposing faction areas. My experience in delves has also been generally positive but it does take a bit of care of avoiding AOE's and putting pets away if opposing players are present. I think when you go into Cyrodiil you are more than likely to pickup griefers at the daily quest locations. I handle these a couple of different ways. One is I call out in zone chat that there is a player ganking questers and usually a few PvP types pop up to handle them. The other way I handle it is to move on to another area or leave and come back another time. Either way there is nothing so pressing in Cyrodiil that I can't work around PvP in a PvP area.
There is a big difference between Cyrodiil and the PvE open world though. I expect that my PvE activity can be affected by PvP as I am the guest in a PvP area. I do not expect my play in open world PvE to be impacted by PvP but every game I have played where open world PvP is allowed I have been affected. The fact is not that many players flag for PvP in the open world in the games that allow it. Even a good majority of the PvP players opt out when they want to quest or do PvE activities. The result is a small but significant group turn to griefing in the hope of stimulating PvP combat. I think WoW is the best example of the lack of interest in open world PvP with the death and merger of their PvP only servers. It is also a good example of the griefing that takes place by the PvP griefing/ganking subset. Though it is small compared to the overall PvP player base it is large enough to disrupt the play of many PvE players and PvP players who just want to get some PvE time in in peace. Keeping PvP and PvE segregated works best for both groups in the long run.
I can respect your opinion, but if the system was opt in how would PvE players be griefed? I keep seeing that argument but no one actually explains it. If the system was opt in then the only grief method would by present currently, no? Since right now no one can engage in combat with each other.
Maybe the healing aspect may be an issue but possible fix, make it to so when you are flagged for pvp you can only heal yourself and group members, likewise with receiving heals.
Another thing I saw where griefing happened in opt-in systems (not all of which were relevant to this game)
People would pull mobs into people to constantly pester them, in the hopes they'd turn on pvp, especially if attacking that player turned on pvp
They'd stand on top of npcs to try it's use so that people would pvp them
A lot of those games would sometimes randomly cause pvp to be flagged in an area as a bug, and that area became impossible for pve'ers to use
They'd send a lot of hate messages your way to goad you into pvp (I actually recently had someone try this for a duel).
People who had wanted to PVP but then no longer pvp and wanted to go town would often have people trying to prevent that so they couldn't leave pvp.
Of things actually relevant to here
I think people would likely try to take advantage of the game's stuck in combat system to prevent someone from porting or mounting to get them to pvp
Hate whispers
I think they probably already solved people parking flappy birds and bears on popular quest npcs but I still think people would try
But for the first relevant issue, how would said person be stuck in combat if they aren't pvp flagged? I'm trying to understand but it's just not making sense to me. And hate whispers are just a behavior issue not gameplay issue.
Kinda like how dungeons can still be ok even if someone is being rude in the group. Maybe the game just needs like a temporary mute button since some people already have a full ignore list.
A temp mute could improve that.
You can get stuck in combat just from people pulling mobs to you right now. I have had people pull that bs just to get a chest over me. But there's little incentive to do it right now. A bored pvper having trouble finding targets though...Edited by spartaxoxo on January 26, 2022 7:22PM0 -
Casul✭✭✭✭✭
✭@spartaxoxo
That quote was messing up my message so following up conversation here.
Assuming that it would even be enough of a widespread issue, it doesn't really seem like a problem. Considering it's already feasible to do in PvE. Having the opt in pvp option doesn't make the issue appear thus its again a behavior issue.
Not liking the idea because some bad player could try to troll and abuse it isn't a good argument to me personally. Hate the player yes. But don't hate the system if there are plenty of people who would leave PvErs alone to themselves; and just want a way to fight other small groups or individuals while they explore or quest.
Not a direct comparison, but imagine you run a trial and someone is being very volatile and yelling at people. The trials arent an issue, it's the individual. And you could run another 10-20 trials and never experience that again.
I feel the fear of bad PvPers trolling PvErs is just a misplaced judgement of character based on the content we play. Same way not every hard-core score pushing trial group is toxic. There are always a few bad apples in the bunch but it shouldn't represent everyone.PvP needs more love.0
