A Way to Split ESO Between PVE and PvP?

Stamicka

As we all know, PVE and PvP are very difficult to balance in this game. We have seen many balance changes that have been good for PVE, but bad for PvP and vice versa. I am curious about the possibility of completely splitting the two.

Observations/ Proposition
Each PTS cycle you guys have shown that it is possible to copy our characters from live servers to the PTS servers. This is interesting to me because the PTS servers run a completely different version of the game. Would it be possible to run a PvP side and a PvE side the same way that live servers and PTS servers coexist? This would allow PvP and PvE to essentially be slightly different games. Such a change would open up tons of possibilities for balance and may potentially increase performance. There would have to be a way to periodically sync your character progress between the two servers, but I would really like to see something like this in the future. We know that ESO is getting absolutely massive in terms of game size, but a split into two applications may solve some of these issues.

Essentially, the PvP side would have Cyrodiil, BGs, Imperial City, and maybe a Craglorn like zone for meeting other players/ dueling. The PvE side would have everything, except Cyrodiil and Imperial City would be PvE only instances. Each side could have different skill behaviors and set options. Maybe the PvP side should also be cross platform for healthy populations.

Thoughts?

bmnoble

Wouldn't that potentially double the operating costs, since they would have to store all the account data twice.

All they need to do to solve most of the quarreling is open up a PVE campaign of Cyrodiil and Imperial city and balance the PVP side of the game more through battle spirit.

Stamicka

bmnoble wrote: »

Wouldn't that potentially double the operating costs, since they would have to store all the account data twice.

All they need to do to solve most of the quarreling is open up a PVE campaign of Cyrodiil and Imperial city and balance the PVP side of the game more through battle spirit.

I’m not sure how they store their data. I also can’t be sure this wouldn’t increase their operating costs. I’m just wondering if this is a possibility cause I think it would be really good for the game.

I would disagree that Battle Spirit could fix all of the balance issues. Battle spirit effects damage/ healing values, but values are only part of the issue. There are many skill behaviors and sets that have a place in PVE, but no place in PvP. Battle Spirit also works as a blanket, meaning all skills are affected by it similarly. Having an entirely different set of rules allows you to fine tune the balance of individual skills and classes.

PvP could really use a bit of a reboot anyway and this would allow for that.

Amottica

Is it possible, Of course, it is possible.

However, Zenimax is copying characters from a live server to one that is not live. They have made it clear they have no interest in building the tool necessary for copying characters to a live server which is very different than what they do with the PTS. They have also stated they have no interest in splitting the population of the servers into smaller groups.

It will also increase the operating costs significantly as that will require six additional server setups to accommodate the NA/EU for all three platforms, doubling what they have now. The PTS uses only one server setup for all the PTS needs.

Basically, it is much more likely that Zenimax would develop AUS/NZ servers before even considering this. This is also an idea they have rejected for the second reason I gave.

Sorry to rain on the parade.

Stamicka

Amottica wrote: »

Is it possible, Of course, it is possible.

However, Zenimax is copying characters from a live server to one that is not live. They have made it clear they have no interest in building the tool necessary for copying characters to a live server which is very different than what they do with the PTS. They have also stated they have no interest in splitting the population of the servers into smaller groups.

It will also increase the operating costs significantly as that will require six additional server setups to accommodate the NA/EU for all three platforms, doubling what they have now. The PTS uses only one server setup for all the PTS needs.

Basically, it is much more likely that Zenimax would develop AUS/NZ servers before even considering this. This is also an idea they have rejected for the second reason I gave.

Sorry to rain on the parade.

There is currently no PvP only server, so it would be the same as copying to the PTS. What I’m describing requires a copy to a server that is not live. They would have to make the PvP servers for this.

As to your comment about having to make 6 different servers, I mentioned that cross platform for the PvP side may be beneficial. With cross platform you would only need one PvP server for NA and one for EU. This would probably be beneficial since PvP is kind of dead with current one server populations.

Amottica

Stamicka wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

Is it possible, Of course, it is possible.

However, Zenimax is copying characters from a live server to one that is not live. They have made it clear they have no interest in building the tool necessary for copying characters to a live server which is very different than what they do with the PTS. They have also stated they have no interest in splitting the population of the servers into smaller groups.

It will also increase the operating costs significantly as that will require six additional server setups to accommodate the NA/EU for all three platforms, doubling what they have now. The PTS uses only one server setup for all the PTS needs.

Basically, it is much more likely that Zenimax would develop AUS/NZ servers before even considering this. This is also an idea they have rejected for the second reason I gave.

Sorry to rain on the parade.

There is currently no PvP only server, so it would be the same as copying to the PTS. What I’m describing requires a copy to a server that is not live. They would have to make the PvP servers for this.

As to your comment about having to make 6 different servers, I mentioned that cross platform for the PvP side may be beneficial. With cross platform you would only need one PvP server for NA and one for EU. This would probably be beneficial since PvP is kind of dead with current one server populations.

There is a reason why there is no cross-platform play between the consoles and PC so we are still talking about six server platforms.

If we sit back and think of this we can see that if Zenimax thought they would increase their profits by making PvP servers they would have long ago. After all, the goal of any business is to find new ways to increase the profits of the company. It is all about ROCE

kargen27

Beyond problems already mentioned you have the problem of PvP skills being useful for PvE and PvE armor being good for PvP. Your idea takes away the opportunity to get armor and/or skills one provides for the other.

You mention periodically synching characters but it would be a one and done thing. Once you put characters in the server is no longer empty so lacks the ability to transfer characters.

LostHorizon1933

This is like that thing that happened in Coldharbour.

LostHorizon1933

LostHorizon1933 wrote: »

This is like that thing that happened in Coldharbour.

I’ll get some antipodal rods ready

hafgood

No, no, no, no.

It is time people put their big boy pants on and accepted that PvE and PvP are both elements of the game and both should be cherished.

Stop with all this anti PvP rubbish as that is what this post it. It's another attempt to push PvP to one side and say its not as important as PvE.

Thats bull. Complete and utter bull.

Both sides of the game need the other side, and many players enjoy both aspects to the game.

Leave the game alone and stop with these attempts to paint PvP as something that shouldn't be part of the game. It is, get over it.

Danikat

Stamicka wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

Is it possible, Of course, it is possible.

However, Zenimax is copying characters from a live server to one that is not live. They have made it clear they have no interest in building the tool necessary for copying characters to a live server which is very different than what they do with the PTS. They have also stated they have no interest in splitting the population of the servers into smaller groups.

It will also increase the operating costs significantly as that will require six additional server setups to accommodate the NA/EU for all three platforms, doubling what they have now. The PTS uses only one server setup for all the PTS needs.

Basically, it is much more likely that Zenimax would develop AUS/NZ servers before even considering this. This is also an idea they have rejected for the second reason I gave.

Sorry to rain on the parade.

There is currently no PvP only server, so it would be the same as copying to the PTS. What I’m describing requires a copy to a server that is not live. They would have to make the PvP servers for this.

As to your comment about having to make 6 different servers, I mentioned that cross platform for the PvP side may be beneficial. With cross platform you would only need one PvP server for NA and one for EU. This would probably be beneficial since PvP is kind of dead with current one server populations.

The problem is periodically synching the two, the PTS doesn't do that. When it's updated everything that was on there before is overwritten and lost. Any progress you've made and any differences between your PTS and live characters are gone and doesn't come back. (And not just because they swap between NA and EU, even when it swaps back anything you did before is gone.) That's why it's not possible to just play on the PTS, every 2 weeks everything you've done gets deleted. (And of course they never copy data from the PTS to live.)

According to ZOS they don't have the technology to do data transfers any other way - they can import data to a blank database but cannot add it in or update it without wiping what was there before. That's why account transfers from PC to consoles could only happen once and all had to happen at the same time.

So they could make a separate PvP server, but it would be the same as the console transfers: you get a one-time copy of your account on the PvP server and then the two are separate from that point on. Anything you do in PvP has no impact on your PvE account and vice versa.

draigwyrdd

No. I like doing PVP content and PVE content interchangeably. I'll do Battlegrounds, then go questing, then do a dungeon etc on the same character in the same play session.

Ksariyu

The biggest issue between the two currently is trying to have the same skill mechanics between the two. PvE and PvP naturally are just completely different beasts, and I really don't think the simple numbers changes allowed with Battle Spirit properly address all those differences. Even worse when PvP itself is split between large-scale Cyro and small-scale BGs. Sets have the same problem; Dark Convergence is a great example of a set that was very well received from the PvE crowd while being heavily despised in PvP. It's essentially two different games where they tried to force the same rules. There's a reason skills in many games today have separate PvP and PvE behaviors.

Stamicka

hafgood wrote: »

No, no, no, no.

It is time people put their big boy pants on and accepted that PvE and PvP are both elements of the game and both should be cherished.

Stop with all this anti PvP rubbish as that is what this post it. It's another attempt to push PvP to one side and say its not as important as PvE.

Thats bull. Complete and utter bull.

Both sides of the game need the other side, and many players enjoy both aspects to the game.

Leave the game alone and stop with these attempts to paint PvP as something that shouldn't be part of the game. It is, get over it.

Not sure where you are getting this from. I have enjoyed PVE and PvP. Having played both I see that they would be better off with different balance. PvP is in a very bad place balance wise while PVE is in a better place than it has been in previous years. As is, PvP is neglected and not worth playing. My proposal would allow for a soft PvP reboot and hopefully a better PvP experience.

Stamicka

Danikat wrote: »

Stamicka wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

Is it possible, Of course, it is possible.

However, Zenimax is copying characters from a live server to one that is not live. They have made it clear they have no interest in building the tool necessary for copying characters to a live server which is very different than what they do with the PTS. They have also stated they have no interest in splitting the population of the servers into smaller groups.

It will also increase the operating costs significantly as that will require six additional server setups to accommodate the NA/EU for all three platforms, doubling what they have now. The PTS uses only one server setup for all the PTS needs.

Basically, it is much more likely that Zenimax would develop AUS/NZ servers before even considering this. This is also an idea they have rejected for the second reason I gave.

Sorry to rain on the parade.

There is currently no PvP only server, so it would be the same as copying to the PTS. What I’m describing requires a copy to a server that is not live. They would have to make the PvP servers for this.

As to your comment about having to make 6 different servers, I mentioned that cross platform for the PvP side may be beneficial. With cross platform you would only need one PvP server for NA and one for EU. This would probably be beneficial since PvP is kind of dead with current one server populations.

The problem is periodically synching the two, the PTS doesn't do that. When it's updated everything that was on there before is overwritten and lost. Any progress you've made and any differences between your PTS and live characters are gone and doesn't come back. (And not just because they swap between NA and EU, even when it swaps back anything you did before is gone.) That's why it's not possible to just play on the PTS, every 2 weeks everything you've done gets deleted. (And of course they never copy data from the PTS to live.)

According to ZOS they don't have the technology to do data transfers any other way - they can import data to a blank database but cannot add it in or update it without wiping what was there before. That's why account transfers from PC to consoles could only happen once and all had to happen at the same time.

So they could make a separate PvP server, but it would be the same as the console transfers: you get a one-time copy of your account on the PvP server and then the two are separate from that point on. Anything you do in PvP has no impact on your PvE account and vice versa.

Yes, they would have to change how data is stored and synced in order to make this change work. I personally think it would be worth the investment.

Rasande_Robin

Sounds like a very bad idea I like to do all content in ESO and still progress my main-character/account.

PvE is more often gated by release of new. PvP is a sandbox you do inbetween aswell as other stuff.

Mythgard1967

draigwyrdd wrote: »

No. I like doing PVP content and PVE content interchangeably. I'll do Battlegrounds, then go questing, then do a dungeon etc on the same character in the same play session.

YES! And then go take a couple tours around Cyrodill. Why is there some expectation that you have to like and use every aspect of a game as big as ESO? There will be things you do not like and you can avoid them. Easy access to all rewards is not a right nor should it be an expectation.

I really hate doing Trials. I really want those dye colors. Either I suck it up and do trials or I accept not having those colors.

And before you say that dye colors do not impact my gameplay....you are wrong....I also spend an hour or more each play session monkeying with colors or moving furniture.

I used to hate dungeons...I find them quite enjoyable now. But I had to do dungeons in order to get undaunted skills. I mean...there was an alternative way to get the skills provided to me that required no dungeons...it just takes longer. And then I discovered that dungeons can actually be fun and arent so bad...which I discovered because I played the content so I could get necrotic orb and the passives faster.

Why must your demands for instant gratification and some sense of fairness that everything in game should be the same amount of effort for YOU to obtain impact gameplay flexibility?

Ksariyu

hafgood wrote: »

Both sides of the game need the other side, and many players enjoy both aspects to the game.

While I agree that there's massive potential for both PvP and PvE, I'd argue there are actually several poor design choices that make the two very much NOT need each other. Aside from forcing players into activities they don't like to get gear/skills for the activities they do like, there's no way for a PvE player to benefit a PvP player, or vice versa. They are more or less completely separate entities with very little interplay between the pools of players, sad though it is. Kind of feeds into this. . .

Mythgard1967 wrote: »

Why is there some expectation that you have to like and use every aspect of a game as big as ESO?

Because the game forces you to. Despite the fact that this is an MMO, there's very few ways for players to benefit other players by specializing in an activity they enjoy, and thereby saving another player from an activity they may not enjoy. Hate crafting? Too bad, research is basically a requirement for every account. Hate PvP? Too bad, the universally beneficial Major Gallop is locked behind a PvP-only skill line (Among other things). Hate PvE? Too bad. A lot of the best sets in the game are from dungeons or overland, and Undaunted requires PvE participation.

So it's not a matter of choosing what activities you enjoy and just doing those, because you are penalized for making that choice. There are far too many barriers between players helping each other that it forces everyone to do everything, which is why we end up with so many complaints about literally every activity in the game.

All that said though, I don't think that's what the OP was about, but rather just the need to separate the balance aspects of each mode.

DreamsUnderStars

hafgood wrote: »

No, no, no, no.

It is time people put their big boy pants on and accepted that PvE and PvP are both elements of the game and both should be cherished.

Stop with all this anti PvP rubbish as that is what this post it. It's another attempt to push PvP to one side and say its not as important as PvE.

Thats bull. Complete and utter bull.

Both sides of the game need the other side, and many players enjoy both aspects to the game.

Leave the game alone and stop with these attempts to paint PvP as something that shouldn't be part of the game. It is, get over it.

I agree with you, but I think *need* is a bit strong... The game would suffer from Player Exodus if they cut pvp from the game completely. The game could survive without it, but I think considering the 3 Banners War being a part of the theme at least at the base (non-expansion part), it would feel weird not to have Cyrodil/Imp City as a pvp zone.

hafgood

Stamicka wrote: »

Not sure where you are getting this from. I have enjoyed PVE and PvP. Having played both I see that they would be better off with different balance. PvP is in a very bad place balance wise while PVE is in a better place than it has been in previous years. As is, PvP is neglected and not worth playing. My proposal would allow for a soft PvP reboot and hopefully a better PvP experience.

Sorry but no. Your post segregates PvP players from the game as if they are second class citizens. It also reduces the chance of a PvE player trying PvP.

This then reduces the new players joining PvP and thus helps accelerate the demise of PvP.

So no, the whole point of endeavours and events that are PvP based is to try to get players to try that content, by trying that content many will find it's not as scary or toxic as many would have you believe and that it can be fun. They then return and play it as and when they fancy.

Take PvP out of ESO and you kill PvP. Its that simple. You can try and market it however you want but this idea is a PvP killer and therefore I am anti it

McTaterskins

hafgood wrote: »

Sorry but no. Your post segregates PvP players from the game as if they are second class citizens. It also reduces the chance of a PvE player trying PvP.

This then reduces the new players joining PvP and thus helps accelerate the demise of PvP.

So no, the whole point of endeavours and events that are PvP based is to try to get players to try that content, by trying that content many will find it's not as scary or toxic as many would have you believe and that it can be fun. They then return and play it as and when they fancy.

Take PvP out of ESO and you kill PvP. Its that simple. You can try and market it however you want but this idea is a PvP killer and therefore I am anti it

and you remove the reason to play the game after a few weeks of tooling around.

It's not that hard to achieve all the things in the PvE side sans HM vet redundant scripted content that has toxic folks making people unnecessarily play to a metronome in order to skip wild mechanics thrown in as band-aids to compensate for rampant power creep. It's just a tedious time sync.

Stamicka

hafgood wrote: »

Stamicka wrote: »

Not sure where you are getting this from. I have enjoyed PVE and PvP. Having played both I see that they would be better off with different balance. PvP is in a very bad place balance wise while PVE is in a better place than it has been in previous years. As is, PvP is neglected and not worth playing. My proposal would allow for a soft PvP reboot and hopefully a better PvP experience.

Sorry but no. Your post segregates PvP players from the game as if they are second class citizens. It also reduces the chance of a PvE player trying PvP.

This then reduces the new players joining PvP and thus helps accelerate the demise of PvP.

So no, the whole point of endeavours and events that are PvP based is to try to get players to try that content, by trying that content many will find it's not as scary or toxic as many would have you believe and that it can be fun. They then return and play it as and when they fancy.

Take PvP out of ESO and you kill PvP. Its that simple. You can try and market it however you want but this idea is a PvP killer and therefore I am anti it

Maybe you are misunderstanding the post. I am making the assumption that if this were implemented, ZOS would also implement a way to sync achievements/ player progress between the servers. I don’t see how this would kill PvP. In its current state, PvP events negatively impact PVE performance and PvE events negatively impact PvP performance. On top of this, balancing stuff for PVE often doesn’t translate into PvP balance. There’s also certain core game mechanics like healing which needs to be addressed. Healing is fine in PVE, but it is not fine in PvP. If you were to balance healing for PvP then it might become unsuitable for end game PVE trials. These are just a few examples. There are many catch 22s that stem from trying to balance PvP and PvE together. They are very different.

If anything, changes and sets introduced with PVE in mind have killed PvP. If ZOS could figure out a way to sync your progress between the two environments, there’s no reason why less people would PvP. Keeping things the way that they are is the real PvP killer. Even if PvP performance was somehow fixed, there’s some major balance issues that can’t be addressed without hurting PVE and removing sets.

Mythgard1967

Ksariyu wrote: »

hafgood wrote: »

Both sides of the game need the other side, and many players enjoy both aspects to the game.

While I agree that there's massive potential for both PvP and PvE, I'd argue there are actually several poor design choices that make the two very much NOT need each other. Aside from forcing players into activities they don't like to get gear/skills for the activities they do like, there's no way for a PvE player to benefit a PvP player, or vice versa. They are more or less completely separate entities with very little interplay between the pools of players, sad though it is. Kind of feeds into this. . .

Mythgard1967 wrote: »

Why is there some expectation that you have to like and use every aspect of a game as big as ESO?

Because the game forces you to. Despite the fact that this is an MMO, there's very few ways for players to benefit other players by specializing in an activity they enjoy, and thereby saving another player from an activity they may not enjoy. Hate crafting? Too bad, research is basically a requirement for every account. Hate PvP? Too bad, the universally beneficial Major Gallop is locked behind a PvP-only skill line (Among other things). Hate PvE? Too bad. A lot of the best sets in the game are from dungeons or overland, and Undaunted requires PvE participation.

So it's not a matter of choosing what activities you enjoy and just doing those, because you are penalized for making that choice. There are far too many barriers between players helping each other that it forces everyone to do everything, which is why we end up with so many complaints about literally every activity in the game.

All that said though, I don't think that's what the OP was about, but rather just the need to separate the balance aspects of each mode.

This is a philosophical difference between us which will not be solved by game design. There is no way to design a game that will suit both of us and that is my point.

Using your example of Major Gallop........the game does not FORCE you to PVP to get it (I am ignoring the fact that you really don't since this can be done from the intro quest without ever seeing an enemy player; for the sake of my point, let us assume you do have to and acknowledge you do not).

Force means you HAVE to get it or the game is severely impacted or close to unplayable, You do not. You can choose not to get Major Gallop. i didn't for quite a long time and it did not impact my play in any measurable way. I am not a min/maxer though. I also rarely use a mount as I must harvest all the nodes and that's faster if I just never get on a mount. Actually, the only time Major Gallop benefits me in any measurable way is in Cyrodill because the zone is so bloody large and there is nothing between point A and B to stop for "on the way". That universal advantage to me isn't entirely true either...it benefits PVP more than PVE.

The issue is that if you do play with other people (I mean this is an MMO); PLAYERS expect you to be min/maxed.

I do agree with you though, the PVP players are WAY more at a disadvantage than PVE players in what they feel required to do to support their gameplay. I can and did successfully ignore anything out of PVP (including Major Gallop) with very little impact to my play. PVP is more challenged without access to PVE obtained skills and sets......more challenged. Not impossible. I do run builds that have neither PVE sets nor Undaunted skills and I got my monsters sets from the Golden.

I guess for me, I have experienced a well integrated PVP and PVE game; where the two aspects worked to support each other based on the game design and it was rewarding and fun to be both PVP and PVE in those campaigns that it seems a shame that the only option anyone can see is a thoroughly devisive and separated experience. I would think a more integrated experience that supports PVE and PVP would lead to a more immersive world.

I think the assumption is that PVP is for people who want to gank each other vs people who want a story driven framework to strategize a battle leveraging honed skills that require more thought because human opponents will never act like an AI opponent. Many PVP'rs are just as interested in story and immersion as PVE players...so finding a way to develop a campaign that both can impact feels better than trying to completely separate people.

S0Z0H

A separate game for pvp would be great. I personally would like a elder scrolls fighting game. Get the team behind Killer Instinct to do it lol

dem0n1k

I always wonder what players are talking about when they talk about 'balance' in PVE. Are the PVE bosses complaining that Necros are too OP!?

Jaded_Jay

dem0n1k wrote: »

I always wonder what players are talking about when they talk about 'balance' in PVE. Are the PVE bosses complaining that Necros are too OP!?

There was a time where if you didn’t bring 7-8 stamblades into a raid, you were significantly gimped. Now you can bring many different assortments of classes into trials and still do very well. The classes are reasonably balanced with each other in terms of damage output. It is not perfect, but it is way better than it has been in the past. This is what PVE balance looks like.

Ksariyu

Mythgard1967 wrote: »

This is a philosophical difference between us which will not be solved by game design. There is no way to design a game that will suit both of us and that is my point.

I don't believe that. Really I don't think what we want is so different, we just have different focuses. But I believe there is something out there that encapsulates both of our perspectives.

Mythgard1967 wrote: »

Force means you HAVE to get it or the game is severely impacted or close to unplayable, You do not. You can choose not to get Major Gallop. i didn't for quite a long time and it did not impact my play in any measurable way. I am not a min/maxer though. I also rarely use a mount as I must harvest all the nodes and that's faster if I just never get on a mount. Actually, the only time Major Gallop benefits me in any measurable way is in Cyrodill because the zone is so bloody large and there is nothing between point A and B to stop for "on the way". That universal advantage to me isn't entirely true either...it benefits PVP more than PVE.

The issue is that if you do play with other people (I mean this is an MMO); PLAYERS expect you to be min/maxed.

Fine, forced may not be exact. We'll just say players are strongly pushed into activities they might not want to participate in. This is not specific to min/maxers or even group players though. If you invest real time into ANY portion of the game, you're likely to hit a wall where you just go, "Well I didn't really want to do this but I guess I have to because it benefits the activity I do want to do." Gear farming is my favorite example: I love theorycrafting, but I hate having to research so many traits just to avoid the potentially endless grind. It's just a poorly utilized system (crafting) superseded by a poor fix (transmutes) that's driven players even further apart. But I digress.

Mythgard1967 wrote: »

I guess for me, I have experienced a well integrated PVP and PVE game; where the two aspects worked to support each other based on the game design and it was rewarding and fun to be both PVP and PVE in those campaigns that it seems a shame that the only option anyone can see is a thoroughly devisive and separated experience. I would think a more integrated experience that supports PVE and PVP would lead to a more immersive world.

This is where I feel like we're almost on the same page. I don't want two separate worlds. I would love if all of the facets of the game to fed into one another, so even a player who chooses to stick to one or two activities in the game can still benefit and affect players in other parts of the game. Of course players should be allowed to move between things as they wish, but it'd be nice if they had more of a choice.

Mythgard1967 wrote: »

I think the assumption is that PVP is for people who want to gank each other vs people who want a story driven framework to strategize a battle leveraging honed skills that require more thought because human opponents will never act like an AI opponent. Many PVP'rs are just as interested in story and immersion as PVE players...so finding a way to develop a campaign that both can impact feels better than trying to completely separate people.

I think your first statement is kind of accurate though. The actual activities of PvE and PvP ARE separate. My main argument is that the rewards should not be so exclusive. Back to the original point of the thread though, the argument is that because those specific activities have such different needs, you can't apply the same rules to each and expect a good outcome for both. And once again, my suggestion for this would be to simply (In theory) change the behaviors/stats of sets and skills between activities, or simply separate which of each can be used in either activity. I would not want them to become entirely separate games.

Amottica

Stamicka wrote: »

Danikat wrote: »

Stamicka wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

Is it possible, Of course, it is possible.

However, Zenimax is copying characters from a live server to one that is not live. They have made it clear they have no interest in building the tool necessary for copying characters to a live server which is very different than what they do with the PTS. They have also stated they have no interest in splitting the population of the servers into smaller groups.

It will also increase the operating costs significantly as that will require six additional server setups to accommodate the NA/EU for all three platforms, doubling what they have now. The PTS uses only one server setup for all the PTS needs.

Basically, it is much more likely that Zenimax would develop AUS/NZ servers before even considering this. This is also an idea they have rejected for the second reason I gave.

Sorry to rain on the parade.

There is currently no PvP only server, so it would be the same as copying to the PTS. What I’m describing requires a copy to a server that is not live. They would have to make the PvP servers for this.

As to your comment about having to make 6 different servers, I mentioned that cross platform for the PvP side may be beneficial. With cross platform you would only need one PvP server for NA and one for EU. This would probably be beneficial since PvP is kind of dead with current one server populations.

The problem is periodically synching the two, the PTS doesn't do that. When it's updated everything that was on there before is overwritten and lost. Any progress you've made and any differences between your PTS and live characters are gone and doesn't come back. (And not just because they swap between NA and EU, even when it swaps back anything you did before is gone.) That's why it's not possible to just play on the PTS, every 2 weeks everything you've done gets deleted. (And of course they never copy data from the PTS to live.)

According to ZOS they don't have the technology to do data transfers any other way - they can import data to a blank database but cannot add it in or update it without wiping what was there before. That's why account transfers from PC to consoles could only happen once and all had to happen at the same time.

So they could make a separate PvP server, but it would be the same as the console transfers: you get a one-time copy of your account on the PvP server and then the two are separate from that point on. Anything you do in PvP has no impact on your PvE account and vice versa.

Yes, they would have to change how data is stored and synced in order to make this change work. I personally think it would be worth the investment.

You originally said this would be copying characters to a server that was not live since these six proposed PvP servers would not be live yet. However, now you want the information to be continuously copied back and forth between live severs. That is something I already pointed out Zenimax has said they do not want to do such a thing.

It is interesting to see the suggestion that this would be worth the investment even though no one has to pay anything beyond ~10 USD (on sale) to play PvP in ESO. It seems more like a huge net loss which would not be a good investment. As I noted previously, Zenimax would have done this long ago if they thought it would increase profits.

Sorry to rain on the parade.

katanagirl1

Jaded_Jay wrote: »

dem0n1k wrote: »

I always wonder what players are talking about when they talk about 'balance' in PVE. Are the PVE bosses complaining that Necros are too OP!?

There was a time where if you didn’t bring 7-8 stamblades into a raid, you were significantly gimped. Now you can bring many different assortments of classes into trials and still do very well. The classes are reasonably balanced with each other in terms of damage output. It is not perfect, but it is way better than it has been in the past. This is what PVE balance looks like.

Lol, I was told if I wanted to try out for trials I’d have to respec my stamblade into a magblade. There is no PvE balance.

Stamicka

Amottica wrote: »

Stamicka wrote: »

Danikat wrote: »

Stamicka wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

Is it possible, Of course, it is possible.

However, Zenimax is copying characters from a live server to one that is not live. They have made it clear they have no interest in building the tool necessary for copying characters to a live server which is very different than what they do with the PTS. They have also stated they have no interest in splitting the population of the servers into smaller groups.

It will also increase the operating costs significantly as that will require six additional server setups to accommodate the NA/EU for all three platforms, doubling what they have now. The PTS uses only one server setup for all the PTS needs.

Basically, it is much more likely that Zenimax would develop AUS/NZ servers before even considering this. This is also an idea they have rejected for the second reason I gave.

Sorry to rain on the parade.

There is currently no PvP only server, so it would be the same as copying to the PTS. What I’m describing requires a copy to a server that is not live. They would have to make the PvP servers for this.

As to your comment about having to make 6 different servers, I mentioned that cross platform for the PvP side may be beneficial. With cross platform you would only need one PvP server for NA and one for EU. This would probably be beneficial since PvP is kind of dead with current one server populations.

The problem is periodically synching the two, the PTS doesn't do that. When it's updated everything that was on there before is overwritten and lost. Any progress you've made and any differences between your PTS and live characters are gone and doesn't come back. (And not just because they swap between NA and EU, even when it swaps back anything you did before is gone.) That's why it's not possible to just play on the PTS, every 2 weeks everything you've done gets deleted. (And of course they never copy data from the PTS to live.)

According to ZOS they don't have the technology to do data transfers any other way - they can import data to a blank database but cannot add it in or update it without wiping what was there before. That's why account transfers from PC to consoles could only happen once and all had to happen at the same time.

So they could make a separate PvP server, but it would be the same as the console transfers: you get a one-time copy of your account on the PvP server and then the two are separate from that point on. Anything you do in PvP has no impact on your PvE account and vice versa.

Yes, they would have to change how data is stored and synced in order to make this change work. I personally think it would be worth the investment.

You originally said this would be copying characters to a server that was not live since these six proposed PvP servers would not be live yet. However, now you want the information to be continuously copied back and forth between live severs. That is something I already pointed out Zenimax has said they do not want to do such a thing.

It is interesting to see the suggestion that this would be worth the investment even though no one has to pay anything beyond ~10 USD (on sale) to play PvP in ESO. It seems more like a huge net loss which would not be a good investment. As I noted previously, Zenimax would have done this long ago if they thought it would increase profits.

Sorry to rain on the parade.

There would still be copying to a server that is not live, which we know is possible. After that initial copy has been done, as you rank up in PvP or maybe when you get an achievement in PVE, this would information would have to be synced maybe once a week so that both servers reflect the same information. It is not possible to rank up in PVE while on the PvP server. Likewise it would not be possible to get a PVE achievement while on the PvP server. This may make it easier to create system that can store and sync these states. I wouldn’t think this would be a hard task, and it would be much different than copying entire characters.

Here’s the thing, they’re going to have to invest something into PvP either way and apparently they currently are. If you’re losing customers because your product is not working (which is what has been happening) then it’s time to invest in some fixes. There’s also the potential for bringing in a new demographic. Don’t act like you know what is financially best for the company unless you work for them.

francesinhalover

Stamicka wrote: »

As we all know, PVE and PvP are very difficult to balance in this game. We have seen many balance changes that have been good for PVE, but bad for PvP and vice versa. I am curious about the possibility of completely splitting the two.

Observations/ Proposition
Each PTS cycle you guys have shown that it is possible to copy our characters from live servers to the PTS servers. This is interesting to me because the PTS servers run a completely different version of the game. Would it be possible to run a PvP side and a PvE side the same way that live servers and PTS servers coexist? This would allow PvP and PvE to essentially be slightly different games. Such a change would open up tons of possibilities for balance and may potentially increase performance. There would have to be a way to periodically sync your character progress between the two servers, but I would really like to see something like this in the future. We know that ESO is getting absolutely massive in terms of game size, but a split into two applications may solve some of these issues.

Essentially, the PvP side would have Cyrodiil, BGs, Imperial City, and maybe a Craglorn like zone for meeting other players/ dueling. The PvE side would have everything, except Cyrodiil and Imperial City would be PvE only instances. Each side could have different skill behaviors and set options. Maybe the PvP side should also be cross platform for healthy populations.

Thoughts?

We don't even have a asian server, and there's constant issues, and you think there would be a way to separate pvp and pve without having to start from zero at least?
Never going to happen, pve players can adapt. has long has the balance is good, everythings fine.

Could there be fixes like disabling proc sets on pvp? yes but pvp players wouldn't be happy. but who knows...