A Interesting Concept That New World and other games implemented, Would it work for ESO?

spartaxoxo

@BuildMan

To be honest certain systems encourage and even reward that kind of behavior, and OPT-IN PvP is one of those. I have had exactly two types of experiences with multiple times over many years of playing.

1) The system is rampant with grief
2) The sysrem is barely used

I don't see either outcome being valuable. You are trying to argue that game design has no influence on player behavior and that is simply not the case. Some PvP design systems encourage griefing and some don't.

Casul

spartaxoxo wrote: »

@BuildMan

To be honest certain systems encourage and even reward that kind of behavior, and OPT-IN PvP is one of those. I have had exactly two types of experiences with multiple times over many years of playing.

1) The system is rampant with grief
2) The sysrem is barely used

I don't see either outcome being valuable.

I am still doubtful, if we are aware of the observed behavioral risks of the system then build the system to dissuade them.

Like I had argued for housing pvp a while ago, someone had mentioned runescape having a major exploit to allow open world pvp via a glitchvwith housing. It seems like instead of suppressing the idea because of what ifs, why not build the system to account for those issues. I know it wouldn't be fool proof, and you can never really account for the unpredictability of the players. But not even acknowledging the idea because it "could" be an issue seems unconstructive.

I know this conversation will probably just keep going in circles, which is ok cause it's still showing the maturity and civility of both demographics. Which is very good thing given the current tension.

spartaxoxo

BuildMan wrote: »

I am still doubtful, if we are aware of the observed behavioral risks of the system then build the system to dissuade them.

Implementing it without the ability to grief outside of bugged areas would lead to it barely being used. Which is one if the reasons this system leads to griefing so often in so many different games or literally very low usage.

The only way to do it is to build it from the ground up to be that way, so that maps can have chokepoints and other such things where PVP is likely to occur. And other types of systems to encourage pvp while incentivizing better battles. The reward structure funnels would be PvPers into those chokes without including content that feels mandatory to PVE.

So often just slapping it on some big open world questing system encourages griefing so often is because the maps aren't built to create PVP, so PVPers get bored with a lack of targets and try to cause some mayhem in order to gain some.

When they cannot even do that, the system dies and it's only very rarely leading to PVP.

PVP is it's own game type and needs maps and rewards built for it from the ground up. This is the reason it so often works better just being done standalone. It gets the time and attention it deserves and eliminates most of the appeal of trying to goad people into it that don't want to participate.

themaddaedra

What makes you think it works in New World? Pretty much nothing works in New World, along with open world pvp.

Only times people do open world pvp are either when they do influence runs in large numbers, or when they outnumber some poor guy trying to lurk around with flag on because it supposedly gives extra luck. Nobody in New World -as far as i see, and i played a lot- flags up and wanders into map like "okay let's see if i can find a good match in this vast open world".

Not even mentioning the problematic importance of pvp in New World. Controlling zones, shifting factions, taxing, the toxicity... Many servers are either controlled by one faction -in which everyone is- or dead. Endgame is spamming WTS in global chat. Tho they made mutations to dungeons with yesterday's patch, which i think isn't gonna bring anyone back.

Would any of this work in ESO? Thankfully no.

Alinhbo_Tyaka

BuildMan wrote: »

Alinhbo_Tyaka wrote: »

sarahthes wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

BuildMan wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

BuildMan wrote: »

Kiralyn2000 wrote: »

BuildMan 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.

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.

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.

I gave an example in a previous post but have no problem repeating it. I played WoW on a normal server. In other words the default was PvE and you had to flag for PvP. I would be out fishing and a PvP player would come along and block my view to the bobber, continually use combat actions or drag mobs to my location. The only way to end it was to interrupt my activity by leaving or flagging and dying only to have them corpse camp. In other cases they would go around the quest paths killing quest givers or the one million NPCs we were expected to kill to complete the quest. Again this was all in an attempt to get players to lose their temper and flag for PvP. The fact is open world PvP is not very popular in MMOs that are not specifically designed to be PvP and instead decided to put their emphasis on PvE. The result is the an open world PvP player might not ever find another flagged player to compete against. It is this lack of PvP that triggers a subset to grief and troll other players in an attempt to force a PvP situation. Yes the PvE player can avoid the situation by leaving but that in itself is often looked at as a victory by the griefer. Why, as a paying customer, do I have to interrupt and alter my play for the sake of someone who plays a part of the game I have no desire to? I shouldn't and in ESO and Final Fantasty XIV I don't have to.

Kiralyn2000

BuildMan wrote: »

There are always a few bad apples in the bunch but it shouldn't represent everyone.

As they say, a few bad apples spoil the bunch. Even if it's just 10% griefers (and I'd say that PvP has a higher % than PvE, if only due to the fact that all PvPers by definition are 'competitive', while not all PvE'ers are; and it's that competitive urge that fuels toxicity), that's plenty to make everyone else form a strong dislike of PvP and it's participants.

I've been playing games for a long time, and MMOs since at least vanilla WoW. Nearly every encounter I've had with PvP & PvPers has been bad. Particularly in "open world" systems. So even though I at least tried some PvP in the olden days, I've long sworn off ever touching the stuff again.

(and then there were things like the WoW PvP forums, where you'd get griefers crowing about how they corpse-camped someone for an hour until they finally gave up and logged out, and how they hoped that they'd hounded them out of the game entirely. Or the people saying that a max level stomping all over a lv20 noob was "true PvP" because "it involved 2 players". Etc, etc, etc. It really wasn't great advertising for "no, really, PvPers aren't awful people, honest!")

Sylvermynx

Alinhbo_Tyaka wrote: »

I gave an example in a previous post but have no problem repeating it. I played WoW on a normal server. In other words the default was PvE and you had to flag for PvP. I would be out fishing and a PvP player would come along and block my view to the bobber, continually use combat actions or drag mobs to my location. The only way to end it was to interrupt my activity by leaving or flagging and dying only to have them corpse camp. In other cases they would go around the quest paths killing quest givers or the one million NPCs we were expected to kill to complete the quest. Again this was all in an attempt to get players to lose their temper and flag for PvP. The fact is open world PvP is not very popular in MMOs that are not specifically designed to be PvP and instead decided to put their emphasis on PvE. The result is the an open world PvP player might not ever find another flagged player to compete against. It is this lack of PvP that triggers a subset to grief and troll other players in an attempt to force a PvP situation. Yes the PvE player can avoid the situation by leaving but that in itself is often looked at as a victory by the griefer. Why, as a paying customer, do I have to interrupt and alter my play for the sake of someone who plays a part of the game I have no desire to? I shouldn't and in ESO and Final Fantasty XIV I don't have to.

Yep, that was one of my many experiences in WoW and RIFT. Not interested in open world pvp, ever. When I did pvp in WoW, it was in a friend's guild on a pvp server. I hated every minute of it, it was NOT fun.

Alinhbo_Tyaka

Sylvermynx wrote: »

Alinhbo_Tyaka wrote: »

I gave an example in a previous post but have no problem repeating it. I played WoW on a normal server. In other words the default was PvE and you had to flag for PvP. I would be out fishing and a PvP player would come along and block my view to the bobber, continually use combat actions or drag mobs to my location. The only way to end it was to interrupt my activity by leaving or flagging and dying only to have them corpse camp. In other cases they would go around the quest paths killing quest givers or the one million NPCs we were expected to kill to complete the quest. Again this was all in an attempt to get players to lose their temper and flag for PvP. The fact is open world PvP is not very popular in MMOs that are not specifically designed to be PvP and instead decided to put their emphasis on PvE. The result is the an open world PvP player might not ever find another flagged player to compete against. It is this lack of PvP that triggers a subset to grief and troll other players in an attempt to force a PvP situation. Yes the PvE player can avoid the situation by leaving but that in itself is often looked at as a victory by the griefer. Why, as a paying customer, do I have to interrupt and alter my play for the sake of someone who plays a part of the game I have no desire to? I shouldn't and in ESO and Final Fantasty XIV I don't have to.

Yep, that was one of my many experiences in WoW and RIFT. Not interested in open world pvp, ever. When I did pvp in WoW, it was in a friend's guild on a pvp server. I hated every minute of it, it was NOT fun.

I think one thing that tends to get lost in these types of threads is it isn't only PvE players that don't want the intrusion of PvP into the open world. There are many PvP players who feel the same way for when they are doing PvE things.

ajkb78

hafgood wrote: »

[snip]

This is hardly a new idea and the answer is no. If this was implemented it could be done three ways.

1. Compulsory to all players
2. Optional to all players
3. PvP instance of the game.

Let's look at these.

1. Compulsory - so cities are safe zones? OK griefers will just flock to those areas of high traffic such as Alikr Dolmens, Spellscar, etc. And of its Compulsory then individuals trying to level up at Dolmens would be getting killed by everyone else as well as the monsters. Cue lots of players leaving the game.
2. Optional - this is even worse than Compulsory believe it or not from a Devs point of view. All that work put into the feature only for 99.9% of the playerbase to turn it off.
3. PvP instance. Again a lot of work and for what? So the three players that want to PvP can run around an empty world with no one tonplay against while they try to find each other to kill?

ESO was not designed with Openworld PvP in mind, there is too much space, too few choke points.

If it was introduced I would leave the game as would many many other players who just don't want it.

I would respectfully suggest that if you want openworld PvP you go play a game designed for it rather than trying to introduce it into a game played by millions, many of whom play it because it doesn't have openworld PvP

[edited for baiting]

It does have open world PvP in pve zones though, have you never seen players duelling?

I think an opt-in system would be fine, and given the mechanics for duelling already exist might not even be a huge amount of work. Could be done in the way the OP suggests, or as group-vs-group duels maybe (crown challenges crown and an XvX duel starts). And maybe any rewards get linked to the duels having to be in places like hammerdeath arena or the coliseum if the old ways, to reinvigorate these locations.

hafgood

I've put in a couple of anti openworld PvP comments, what I haven't said is I'm working on Grand Overlord at the moment and have recently made level 44 in PvP.

I enjoy PvP, I enjoy it on Cyrodiil, in IC, in BG's. I'm not particularly good at it but have very few PvP achievements left to get.

I enjoy PvP when I PvP, I enjoy PvE when I PvE. Outside of getting the PvE achievements skyshards, books, etc in IC & Cyro I do not want them mixed.

When not in a PvP environment I do not expect to be ganked, or zerged. While I'd love to stick a ballista down in some dungeons I accept that I can't.

I don't want to see seige weaponry on too of crafting stations. I don't want to see it on top of quest givers. It's bad enough that those spamming heals, etc in PvE areas can pull you out of what you were doing. I then don't want a griefer on top of that.

PvP needs love, it really does but taking that environment and putting it into the PvE environment is not the answer.

A PvEr is merely someone that has yet to discover the joys of PvP. Yes I understand some of you hate PvP, that's fine I have no issue with that but if we want people joining PvP we don't need their first experiences being toxic players dumping seige weapons to inconvenience people.

The thing to understand is these are not PvPers, these are griefers, most PvPers wouldn't be interested in doing this because they know where the PvP takes place.

Roukoru

imho, this idea (obviously) will never to be implemented, because ESO have to stay as "player-friendly" as possible to keep as much as possible players in it.
For myself, after other well-known open-pvp CRPGs, this is not a big trouble (because of _cheap_ respawn, no item drop, no PC pilfering or pillaging, no XP loss, and so on, and so on...). But, weak-willed players may be intimidated.
upd. ... and people have to learn travel in (big) groups and always be prepared to be killed. Just... because.

Kiralyn2000

hafgood wrote: »

A PvEr is merely someone that has yet to discover the joys of PvP.

This idea that PvE'ers are just ignorant, and if they'd just try it and become Enlightened, they'll love PvP; the idea that PvP is the end achievement of gaming and what all should aspire to... is one of the more annoying attitudes that PvPers have.

Khami

Go to Cyrodiil take a look around.

See any critters to kill for bait? No, you don't.

Like the lag? You'll have the entire game laggy like that if the entire game was open PvP.

If this game went open world PvP, I would quit instantly. I hate open world PvP, I'm not a PvPer.

Want open world PvP, go park your behind in Cryodiil.

EDIT: The justice system was suppose to have the players be part of the justice. Game can't handle it without gutting performance. Devs said that back in 2015.

I was playing AAU last night with friends I'm trying to bring over to ESO at some point. One person took out a party of 5 and I never knew what hit us. I do not want that garbage in ESO. Cryodiil is bad enough with the lag, ganking, and zergs.

hafgood

Kiralyn2000 wrote: »

This idea that PvE'ers are just ignorant, and if they'd just try it and become Enlightened, they'll love PvP; the idea that PvP is the end achievement of gaming and what all should aspire to... is one of the more annoying attitudes that PvPers have.

My comment was a bit tongue in cheek, there are plenty of PvErs that will never have any interest in PvP. I have no issues with that.

However, there are many that are put off PvP by tales of griefing (which are often exaggerated) and by being on the receiving end of griefing if they could get past that they may find they enjoy PvP.

By no means is it the be all and end all, I spend more time in PvE activities than in PvP, I consider myself neither a PvEr nor a PvPer, rather I consider myself as someone who enjoys many aspects of this game (except fashion, I don't get fashion)

So if I implied PvErs were ignorant then I unreservedly apologise for doing so.

However, as I have states throughout I don't want PvP to spread out into zones designated for PvE. I'd like to see duelling moved to its own space as well.

Leogon

Short answer: No
Long answer: Nope

Tandor

Roukoru wrote: »

But, weak-willed players may be intimidated.

I'm sorry, weak-willed players?

Elsonso

Khami wrote: »

EDIT: The justice system was suppose to have the players be part of the justice. Game can't handle it without gutting performance. Devs said that back in 2015.

I would love to see that quote. As I recall, "performance" was the only thing not mentioned. It was mainly a mix of "our player base would not like this" and "there is too much risk for exploiting the system".

Tandor

What Matt Firor actually said in 'The Year Ahead' in January 2016 was:-

"We will not be adding in the previously discussed PvP component of the Justice System. We caveated this many times - as I said at the ESO QuakeCon presentation in 2014, it was always going to be very difficult making it fun, but not exploitable. When introducing new systems to the game, our number one goal is to make sure that we don't introduce new problems. Having players enforce justice on the criminal activity of other players has the potential to introduce imbalances and other issues that greatly outweigh any potential gameplay benefits. The game's central concept of "PvP in PvP areas and be safe in safe areas" needs to stay the way it is."

https://bethesda.net/en/article/2Wf71RtAhikiKaOIUqGUEK/the-elder-scrolls-online-the-year-ahead (under General Status Updates)

LightningWitch

TheImperfect wrote: »

I doubt that it would work in Eso, it's a very different world. It would drive role-playing pvers crazy if pvp fights got in the way of quest givers and objects.

This doesn't make sense if there's an option to set the PvP flag.

If someone turns it on, they should expect to be ambushed at any time.

fizl101

LightningWitch wrote: »

TheImperfect wrote: »

I doubt that it would work in Eso, it's a very different world. It would drive role-playing pvers crazy if pvp fights got in the way of quest givers and objects.

This doesn't make sense if there's an option to set the PvP flag.

If someone turns it on, they should expect to be ambushed at any time.

If you are immersed in the story and role-playing a conversation with a quest giver, then yes it would really be bizarre if two or more people are suddenly fighting and bouncing on, siege engines going off around or between the player and the quest giver. Its not about being flagged or not in all cases.

Kiralyn2000

The Southshore/Tarren Mill zergfest certainly interfered with PvE questing/etc back in the early days in WoW.

(huh, looking at Google, it seems that they commemorated it by making an actual battleground map for that fight)

Danikat

Kiralyn2000 wrote: »

hafgood wrote: »

A PvEr is merely someone that has yet to discover the joys of PvP.

This idea that PvE'ers are just ignorant, and if they'd just try it and become Enlightened, they'll love PvP; the idea that PvP is the end achievement of gaming and what all should aspire to... is one of the more annoying attitudes that PvPers have.

I once saw someone take it a step further and claim that the ultimate goal of all computer games is for players to compete against each other, and that single-player games either revolve around competition in the form of high scores, speed runs etc. or exist purely as "training" to prepare their players for competitive games.

Even weirder the basis for this claim was them thinking Pong was the first ever computer game, and of course that's competitive, therefore apparently all games ever made have been building on that and are therefore ultimately about competing against other players.

In case anyone's wondering the actual first ever computer game is hard to determine. It depends on how you define computer, and for that matter game. But I think Spacewar! is a pretty good candidate.)

But I suppose if most or all your enjoyment of games comes from competing against other players it might be confusing to learn there are people who have absolutely no interest in it. It still seems weird to me to think they just need to try it and then they'll like it as much as you do though. That's basically the same thinking as all the people who are convinced we'd all stop wasting our time and money on games entirely if only we'd try whatever their hobby is.

Elsonso

Danikat wrote: »

Kiralyn2000 wrote: »

hafgood wrote: »

A PvEr is merely someone that has yet to discover the joys of PvP.

This idea that PvE'ers are just ignorant, and if they'd just try it and become Enlightened, they'll love PvP; the idea that PvP is the end achievement of gaming and what all should aspire to... is one of the more annoying attitudes that PvPers have.

I once saw someone take it a step further and claim that the ultimate goal of all computer games is for players to compete against each other, and that single-player games either revolve around competition in the form of high scores, speed runs etc. or exist purely as "training" to prepare their players for competitive games.

Even weirder the basis for this claim was them thinking Pong was the first ever computer game, and of course that's competitive, therefore apparently all games ever made have been building on that and are therefore ultimately about competing against other players.

It is easy to draw that conclusion, as there was not a suitable AI for early games. The only challenging opponents were other players. Computer players tended to just be random numbers.

Now, I expect that the ultimate goal isn't to compete against other players, but to develop an AI so that players don't have to.

majulook

fizl101 wrote: »

LightningWitch wrote: »

TheImperfect wrote: »

I doubt that it would work in Eso, it's a very different world. It would drive role-playing pvers crazy if pvp fights got in the way of quest givers and objects.

This doesn't make sense if there's an option to set the PvP flag.

If someone turns it on, they should expect to be ambushed at any time.

If you are immersed in the story and role-playing a conversation with a quest giver, then yes it would really be bizarre if two or more people are suddenly fighting and bouncing on, siege engines going off around or between the player and the quest giver. Its not about being flagged or not in all cases.

Just imagine a multi-player PVP battle in a bank, at a crafting area, or at one of the quest hubs. Now image the lag, and lag caused disconnects for non-pvp players attempting to use those areas.

Casul

Kiralyn2000 wrote: »

hafgood wrote: »

A PvEr is merely someone that has yet to discover the joys of PvP.

This idea that PvE'ers are just ignorant, and if they'd just try it and become Enlightened, they'll love PvP; the idea that PvP is the end achievement of gaming and what all should aspire to... is one of the more annoying attitudes that PvPers have.

I don't think all PvErs would be enlightened, but I have already seen many people introduced to PvP in a constructive format that end up loving it. Whether anyone wants to admit it, most people who don't PvP usually have a bad experience and make it known to anyone who will listen. This then influences people who haven't tried it because of the supposed "widespread trolling" or "toxic PvPers". Endgame trials have the same issue with their image of "build variety suppressing elitist who won't play with you unless you hit 120k dps"

Varana

The more specific issue in ESO is also that PvE players are regularly invited to try out PvP - during events. Which are the times that have the worst of PvP players gather like flies around the spots PvE players tend to frequent. The bad image is often not just from hearsay but actual experience - even if it's not typical PvP, it is PvP.

PvP can be fun. In a tightly sealed environment, with groups guided by experienced leaders.

Casul

Varana wrote: »

The more specific issue in ESO is also that PvE players are regularly invited to try out PvP - during events. Which are the times that have the worst of PvP players gather like flies around the spots PvE players tend to frequent. The bad image is often not just from hearsay but actual experience - even if it's not typical PvP, it is PvP.

PvP can be fun. In a tightly sealed environment, with groups guided by experienced leaders.

Not sure about PC since I haven't been in MYM on here yet, but PSN whenever you got ganked as a PvEr if you would say something in chat people would ride there just to kill and t-bag the gankers. Most of us know PvErs are kind of a protected class in Cyrodiil. We want more players and trolling the people who barely step in to begin with doesn't sit well for the longevity of PvP.

JKorr

LightningWitch wrote: »

TheImperfect wrote: »

I doubt that it would work in Eso, it's a very different world. It would drive role-playing pvers crazy if pvp fights got in the way of quest givers and objects.

This doesn't make sense if there's an option to set the PvP flag.

If someone turns it on, they should expect to be ambushed at any time.

Read that again.

It would drive role-playing pvers crazy if pvp fights interfered with quest givers and objects. It isn't the pvers who turned on pvp. Its the PVP players who are fighting in close proximity to guest givers and objects. Like when some special snowflakes duel directly in front of the bank. Or in the crafting area where pets can park themselves on objects like crafting tables or anvils. You try to make your smithing writ when a spirit bear is engulfing the anvil so you can't see it.

The pvpers who toggled the flag on can be expected to be ambushed at any time. But the pvers who are trying to do pve things in the pve zone would be blocked from doing that. This actually already happens when people decide to duel in town, or don't move far enough away from the wayshrine and anyone who ports in ends up inside the dueling circle.

JKorr

BuildMan wrote: »

Varana wrote: »

The more specific issue in ESO is also that PvE players are regularly invited to try out PvP - during events. Which are the times that have the worst of PvP players gather like flies around the spots PvE players tend to frequent. The bad image is often not just from hearsay but actual experience - even if it's not typical PvP, it is PvP.

PvP can be fun. In a tightly sealed environment, with groups guided by experienced leaders.

Not sure about PC since I haven't been in MYM on here yet, but PSN whenever you got ganked as a PvEr if you would say something in chat people would ride there just to kill and t-bag the gankers. Most of us know PvErs are kind of a protected class in Cyrodiil. We want more players and trolling the people who barely step in to begin with doesn't sit well for the longevity of PvP.

Some really "nice" pvpers found a great kill zone in one event in Cyrodiil. They waited behind a door, and kept killing the pvers doing the quest during the loading screen when they entered the house. And after the pvers respawned and tried again, they got killed again. Several times. The only point seemed to be harassing the pvers who didn't have the gear or the builds to do pvp. And they came to the forum to brag/boast about how frustrated some of their "targets" were getting. Not how I want to play the game.