Why is the Imperial City still a PvP zone? Why was it ever?

Lord_Archaic

Now more than ever, since its release I always looked at the City and its Sewers and wondered: Why? It could be much better suited as an endgame PvE fixture. It's supposed to be the place we need to join together as tamriel to expell Molag Bal's hold on Tamriel, but it is no more than Little Cyrodiil.

You could have it kept competitive by making it still be alliance centric, ie only allowing groups of the same alliance as it is. You could have it be which alliance collects the most Tel Var in a single Campaign, with leaderboards of individual contribution at the top. For rank specific rewards to drive motivation to get that high on the board.

You increase the difficulty, up to trial levels of difficult mobs and zone bosses, increase the Telvar requirements for rewards, as there wouldn't be anymore losses by player kills. And make it alliance locked when you join that campaign series.

DinoZavr

Number of PVE zones: 41
Number of PVP zones: 2

why there are too few PVP zones in ESO, may i ask?

Amphithoe

Why can't they be both? I'd be interested in having base-game zones instanced for PvP and PvE. Make it tied to the campaign in Cyrodiil. Whichever faction hast the lead can expand the campaign into the enemies' base-game zones.

Lord_Archaic

DinoZavr wrote: »

Number of PVE zones: 41
Number of PVP zones: 2

why there are too few PVP zones in ESO, may i ask?

If you think one PvE zone is any different than any other PvE zone, then you're attacking the argument incorrectly.

Currently, there are 4 different PvP experiences: Cyrodiil with mass groups of players and seiging, Imperial City/Sewers with small groups of guerrilla tactics, BGs with 3 teams fighting over objectives, and one on one duels that can take place virtually anywhere. For PvE you have two.

You have your overworld, which is your questing and zone activities like daedric incursions and world bosses. Nothing new in any new zone we see. In necrom theres gonna be some type of daedric incursions, a few world bosses and delves. And then you have the Underworld activites which are your dungeons, trials, and solo arenas. Which for all intents and purposes are classified as one because they're derivative of dungeons. Trials are just dungeons with tougher enemies, and solo arenas are just dungeons to test a player's mettle.

When a change comes to the PvE sandbox, is because it affected pvp players the most. PvP is given preferential treatment because that is where you're gonna have your more hardcore players. Whenever there's hard backlash that the devs listen to, it comes from the PvP side of players.

UnabashedlyHonest

Lord_Archaic wrote: »

Now more than ever, since its release I always looked at the City and its Sewers and wondered: Why? It could be much better suited as an endgame PvE fixture. It's supposed to be the place we need to join together as tamriel to expell Molag Bal's hold on Tamriel, but it is no more than Little Cyrodiil.

You could have it kept competitive by making it still be alliance centric, ie only allowing groups of the same alliance as it is. You could have it be which alliance collects the most Tel Var in a single Campaign, with leaderboards of individual contribution at the top. For rank specific rewards to drive motivation to get that high on the board.

You increase the difficulty, up to trial levels of difficult mobs and zone bosses, increase the Telvar requirements for rewards, as there wouldn't be anymore losses by player kills. And make it alliance locked when you join that campaign series.

Why can't we have a PvP option for every PvE zone?

Lord_Archaic

UnabashedlyHonest wrote: »

Lord_Archaic wrote: »

Now more than ever, since its release I always looked at the City and its Sewers and wondered: Why? It could be much better suited as an endgame PvE fixture. It's supposed to be the place we need to join together as tamriel to expell Molag Bal's hold on Tamriel, but it is no more than Little Cyrodiil.

You could have it kept competitive by making it still be alliance centric, ie only allowing groups of the same alliance as it is. You could have it be which alliance collects the most Tel Var in a single Campaign, with leaderboards of individual contribution at the top. For rank specific rewards to drive motivation to get that high on the board.

You increase the difficulty, up to trial levels of difficult mobs and zone bosses, increase the Telvar requirements for rewards, as there wouldn't be anymore losses by player kills. And make it alliance locked when you join that campaign series.

Why can't we have a PvP option for every PvE zone?

You do, it's called duels. Or if you want group battles, that's what you have cyrodiil, the city/sewers, and BGs for your pvp. The scales are unbalanced. 4 different pvp playstyles verses 2 pve playstyles. When you try to mix PvE and PvP like they did with the city/sewers, it just becomes PvP.

Soarora

The way I see it is imperial city is small group PvPvE. Don’t get me wrong I hate imperial city but I think it’s fine as a pvp zone. I’m sure it could do with improvements to make it more enjoyed, like easier solo tel var farm and no-cp (WITH PROC) but it’s fine as a pvp zone to me.

Lord_Archaic

Soarora wrote: »

The way I see it is imperial city is small group PvPvE. Don’t get me wrong I hate imperial city but I think it’s fine as a pvp zone. I’m sure it could do with improvements to make it more enjoyed, like easier solo tel var farm and no-cp (WITH PROC) but it’s fine as a pvp zone to me.

Having PvPvE zone that is "Fine" for PvP, makes it not Fine for PvE. You can't be both. Forcing players to engage in PvP will always lead up to a smaller player base in those areas. And will lead newer player exploring the areas to learn: Oh I shouldn't come here, there's no reward to being here. If you make a zone have the option of PvP, you'll see a large influx of players around when it's first launched and then the playerbase drops off the cliff real quick.

Take Rare and Sea of Thieves, it'd be a great casual game, have lots of users, but they went the route of allowing forced PvP. And as such you see a large chunk of players up and leave. You can't even suggest or even ask about PvE lobbies in their forums without the thread being locked and having the mods blame the players that hate PvP or wanting a PvE lobby for not liking the game as is.

So again, PvE and PvP does not mix, it will always devolve into PvP. It can't be both.

RaddlemanNumber7

I go to IC for PvE only, and I love it. The extra feeling of jeopardy in IC is in stark contract to all the other zones. There is constant danger of death in IC, constant care and attention is required in order to survive, while in other zones all I have to bother about is whether it's going to be one click or two to wipe out the next group of trash.

IC is unique. Leave it alone.

fred4

It's just astonishing how the OP wants to destroy what he/she doesn't appreciate. I love IC. It's a small patch within the game. Please leave it to the people who like it.

sharquez

Op You're not the first and you won't be the last to say some iteration of this. This is shouting into the void and asking for a dogpile of people who grew up in IC like myself to tell you why its a silly thought to entertain changing anything about it. Save everyone the trouble. If its not for you then move on.

Urzigurumash

Lord_Archaic wrote: »

4 different pvp playstyles verses 2 pve playstyles.

Cyro, BGs, Dueling, IC

Dungeons, Trials, Solo Arenas, World Bosses, Quests

4 PvP modes, 5 PvE modes

What IC needs is a Leaderboard and a Mayoralty buff

Lord_Archaic

Urzigurumash wrote: »

Lord_Archaic wrote: »

4 different pvp playstyles verses 2 pve playstyles.

Cyro, BGs, Dueling, IC

Dungeons, Trials, Solo Arenas, World Bosses, Quests

4 PvP modes, 5 PvE modes

What IC needs is a Leaderboard and a Mayoralty buff

World bosses and quests fall under overland content, A trial is just a dungeon with 12 people instead of 4, a solo arena is a dungeon for 1. I'm open to have solo arenas be a third item, but it's still unbalanced 3-4. Compromise: Have a PvE lobby for The City/Sewers, but then you'll see no one in the PvP instances, and why would you? The only ones that actively want it kept around are PKers and griefers.

Aektann

Lord_Archaic wrote: »

World bosses and quests fall under overland content, A trial is just a dungeon with 12 people instead of 4, a solo arena is a dungeon for 1. I'm open to have solo arenas be a third item, but it's still unbalanced 3-4. Compromise: Have a PvE lobby for The City/Sewers, but then you'll see no one in the PvP instances, and why would you? The only ones that actively want it kept around are PKers and griefers.

IC and bg is Cyrodiil for smaller groups. And you forgot about stealing, dark brotherhood, crafting. So it's 2 PvP modes vs 6 pve - so unbalanced.
Do not get into modes that do not interest you and do not ask them to change. They won't change. There have already been many "only pve" people like you and they have all sunk into oblivion with their ideas about pve cyro or IC.

Lord_Archaic

Aektann wrote: »

Lord_Archaic wrote: »

World bosses and quests fall under overland content, A trial is just a dungeon with 12 people instead of 4, a solo arena is a dungeon for 1. I'm open to have solo arenas be a third item, but it's still unbalanced 3-4. Compromise: Have a PvE lobby for The City/Sewers, but then you'll see no one in the PvP instances, and why would you? The only ones that actively want it kept around are PKers and griefers.

IC and bg is Cyrodiil for smaller groups. And you forgot about stealing, dark brotherhood, crafting. So it's 2 PvP modes vs 6 pve - so unbalanced.
Do not get into modes that do not interest you and do not ask them to change. They won't change. There have already been many "only pve" people like you and they have all sunk into oblivion with their ideas about pve cyro or IC.

Did I say I was a PvE only person? No I didn't, I put in the work to get Emperor, I've drudged through BGs to get the titles and accolades, I've gotten more done for PvP than I do for PvE. I still have like 8 trials to complete, the majority of vet dlc dungeons to do. Whether I like it or not, I'm more PvP than I am PvE.

Aektann

Lord_Archaic wrote: »

The only ones that actively want it kept around are PKers and griefers.

So you trying to casually farm tel vars in IC and some evil nightblade kill you?
[snip]
[edited for baiting]

Lord_Archaic

Aektann wrote: »

Lord_Archaic wrote: »

The only ones that actively want it kept around are PKers and griefers.

So you trying to casually farm tel vars in IC and some evil nightblade kill you?
[snip]

I couldn't care less about telvar, whether is telvar or AP isn't the issue. The issue is mixing PvE and PvP, always has been. And let's be frank, the rewards for the telvar....not that great. Oooh a daedra skin, or a scamp.....I got 10 of those.....

[edited to remove quote]

Durham

PVP zone or Unsupported zone? I think all PVP zones are also unsupported zones!

NordSwordnBoard

You heard it here first folks! There is now more PvP content than PvE content in ESO. It's not just to prove a point in a thread, the OP has numbers to back it up!

Iriidius

Claiming that there are 4 different PvP styles but only 2 PvE styles is ***.
Counting Imperial City and Cyrodiil as 2 different styles because they have different group sizes and Trials, Dungeons and solo arenas(what about 4 man arenas like DSA, Blackrose and Asylum?) as one althought they have different group sizes is double standards. Althought IC is Intended for smaller groups than Cyrodiil often the same groups with the same size play in both zones. Duelling doesnt have its own instance, if you count duelling as an own pvp experience than you should also count dummy parsing as an own pve experience.
PvE and PvP also shouldnt be compared by number of different modes but by number of instances.
There are 41 PvE zones with public dungeon(s) and delves, 9 trials, 52 dungeons, 3 4man arenas, 2 solo arenas, but only 1 Cyrodiil Zone(4 campaigns but same map and PvE zones can also have multiple instances if needed), 1 IC zone(2 campaign but same map) and 6 battleground maps.
2 dlc dungeons are enaugh for 1 dungeon dlc.
Cyrodiil exists since game beginning, IC shared a dlc with 2 dungeons and battlegrounds were just a bonus for morrowind chapter in 2017, since then only Volendrung, destructible bridges and milegates, 3 outposts(2019) and 1 or 2 battlegrounds were added and non of them recently, while PvE gets 2 dungeon dlcs with 4 dungeons, 1 Trial, 2 Zones overland zones with public dungeons and delves, questline and sometimes an arena. 4 out of 4 updates every year add pve content, 0 add pvp content. There hasnt been major new pvp content for almost 20 updates I think.

Soarora

Lord_Archaic wrote: »

Soarora wrote: »

The way I see it is imperial city is small group PvPvE. Don’t get me wrong I hate imperial city but I think it’s fine as a pvp zone. I’m sure it could do with improvements to make it more enjoyed, like easier solo tel var farm and no-cp (WITH PROC) but it’s fine as a pvp zone to me.

Having PvPvE zone that is "Fine" for PvP, makes it not Fine for PvE. You can't be both. Forcing players to engage in PvP will always lead up to a smaller player base in those areas. And will lead newer player exploring the areas to learn: Oh I shouldn't come here, there's no reward to being here. If you make a zone have the option of PvP, you'll see a large influx of players around when it's first launched and then the playerbase drops off the cliff real quick.

Take Rare and Sea of Thieves, it'd be a great casual game, have lots of users, but they went the route of allowing forced PvP. And as such you see a large chunk of players up and leave. You can't even suggest or even ask about PvE lobbies in their forums without the thread being locked and having the mods blame the players that hate PvP or wanting a PvE lobby for not liking the game as is.

So again, PvE and PvP does not mix, it will always devolve into PvP. It can't be both.

"it will always devolve into PvP", yeah that's why I called it a pvp zone. If you don't like PvPvE don't play Sea of Thieves, if you don't like PvPvE don't play in imperial city, I don't see the problem. Not everything needs to be for PvE players we have so much content already. No-cp with proc would probably be the best bet for a "PvE imperial city" because the intense PvPers probably want to do CP and a lot of PvE sets are proc sets. I don't go to no-cp purely because it's no proc.

Brrrofski

If anything, it needs more PvP inventive.

PvE is more rewarding than PvE there.

Necrotech_Master

IC is one of the best zones in the game as is (with the exception of being unable to respawn on the surface if your faction owns no flags, the only really dumb part of the zone)

i still enjoy farming there, its got great farm loops and its not mind numbingly boring because you do have to keep on your toes, you never know if theres another enemy player around the corner (if your near your own base in the sewer its highly unlikely)

the tel var minigame also makes it interesting too (just make sure you deposit when you go back to the safe area)

Lord_Archaic

Iriidius wrote: »

........There hasnt been major new pvp content for almost 20 updates I think.

You saying there hasn't been a change to PvP in like 20 updates is no different than saying there hasn't been a change to PvE in 20 updates either.

Each chapter zone has had the same elements every single iteration, has been this way since summerset dropped. So answer me this: Why should I play Necrom when I know exactly what's going to happen and everthing it's going have? Why should anyone play it over any previous zone? Because this is what its going to have:

Judging on the size of the landmass, it'll be another 6 world bosses, 6 delves, more than likely in keeping with previous chapters, it will have 6 or 7 incursion spots. These are your vents, geysers, dragons, etc. And associated dailies to go with them. You're gonna want to be saving all your reward crates for until after the second or third patch after it drops for the furnishing plans and motifs that will be added into them.

There's gonna be 6 or 7 Necrom Main Quests; and from what they've shown us we're going to be more than likely investigating some reports with a telvanni mage or that one's gone missing and it will lead to either Herma Mora being released or him controlling the telvanni mage to do his bidding to gain some type of forbidden telvanni secret, and thus we the adventurer have to stop the telvanni secret from getting out to prevent the telvanni from being ruined.... Yada yada yada.

Nothing's changed in PvE either, that's the whole point, boo hoo, so we have "more" zones. Well guess what, they are the same. They haven't changed the chapter zone formula since summerset.

ZoS have said they wanted to move away from cataclysmic narratives and more geopolitical, what more geopolitical than Herma Mora getting his slimy tentacles on juicy telvanni secrets? I'm guessing that's what the underlying tones to the dungeons were, him ripping holes through time to find a good spot to start the search, and scriveners to find the info in which time to start looking.

"There's always an alien battle cruiser, or a corellian death ray, or an intergalactic plague that's about to wipe out life on this miserable little planet. The only way these people get on with their happy little lives is if they do not know about it."

To drive this point home, do you know what the "Illusion of Choice" is? It's a very powerful tool in a game developer's arsenal, they've been deploying it since what.....2016? The base game zones, those are all the same, just different textures. You're not doing anything differently in those zones that you wouldn't be doing in anyother, unless you're in the rift on x1na, in which case: May God have mercy on your soul.

The only exception is on the off years in between new projects for ESO like murkmire, wrothgar, Hew's Bane, Gold Coast. These places where designed to be small in nature with little to no extra content. Now you may argue: "Oh but what about the DB/TG dailies?" Alright I'll concede that, one point to you, but it's just one type of quest element created to satiate the player base in between chapter cycles. One they didn't bother changing too much, ie instead of not killing anyone, you gotta kill everyone.

Now, before you bring up the elephants in the room: Craglorn. Yes, at it's launch, Craglorn was for all intents and purposes supposed to be group endgame content. However, with recent years of constantly evolving DPS explosions, Craglorn has become 97% Solo-able, with the remaining 3% the Trials located within. Not any of the delves, WBs public dungeons, skyreach or spellscar instances require groups to complete. They'd be nice to have, but they're no longer required. So a solo-able zone like everyother zone, so it goes onto the stack of zones that share it's playability with the others.

And Tales of Tribute: Introduced with High Isle, it was flashy, grabbed eyes, and turned heads. And then it largely died, at least on x1na. Everyone I've spoken to about it, that have acces to it, says that it's cool, but they don't really play it. Those that want the rewards from tribute, like tapestries or misc mats are able to buy them. So they don't bother with playing it. So sure, another point to you,

So if your eyes glazed over at this dissertation I decided to write, here's the TL;DR synopsis again:

The large PvE zones aren't diferent than any other zone. They've been recycling the same zone elements since 2016 and are carbon copies of each other. Dungeons, trials, and solo arenas are the same, they just require different number of players to complete them.

P.s. To those that say the City/Sewers could do with a pvp leaderboard....

Trust me you do not want that. And here's why: the uber hardcore Cyro PvPers will descend on the city to kick you out of it. They will take what ever it is that lies at the top of that leaderboard and the six capture points that surround it and you will never touch it.

Amottica

DinoZavr wrote: »

Number of PVE zones: 41
Number of PVP zones: 2

why there are too few PVP zones in ESO, may i ask?

This.

And Cyrodiil was created specifically to be a PvP zone. Early in the concept phase of developing ESO the devs made a firm choice to not have PvP in the main part of the world. As part of this they chose to create Cyrodiil as a large combat zone because they understood there are players who enjoy PvP.

As such it is at the foundation of the design of this game that Cyrodiil is PvP for the same reason players do not have to look over their shoulders while questing in the majority of the game.

Alchimiste1

IC is arguable the best type of pvp when the even rolls around. I know myself and others far prefer it to cyrodiil when its populated. There is absolutely no need to make that zone pve only.

VaranisArano

Why was Imperial City ever a PVP zone?

Because just like Cyrodiil is based on Dark Age of Camelot, Imperial City was originally based on DAoC's Darkness Falls.

You can see it in a lot of the original design choices, particularly the sewer gates that were used to gain entrance to the city. There was the idea that the clash of alliances in Cyrodiil could control access to the Imperial City. As long as your alliance was winning outside, you'd have a safer experience farming in the city once you drove out the old alliance and your factionmates kept out the new one. That idea didn't stick around long.

Over time, Imperial City changed in response to PVPers. ZOS added the flags. We asked for seperate campaigns. Now you've got an Imperial City where it's easy for anyone who wants to go there can get in and get out without much trouble.

(Personally, as much of a fan of the seperate campaigns as I am, I sort of miss the ride to the sewer gates. If nothing else, making players ride through a PVP campaign to get Imperial City in the first place drove home "this ain't gonna be your normal friendly PVE questing zone, bud.")


Why is IC still a PVP zone?

A. Because ZOS generally isn't in the business of taking away gameplay from players, and yes, giving players an easy PVE-only version of the zone would take away gameplay. Tell me that PVP players wouldn't go to the easier version to get skyshards, etc. and I'll send you some brochures for oceanfront property in Arizona.

B. Because the majority of players who complain about Imperial City are in fact willing to queue up and go to the PvP version as soon as there's something they really want.
- quest
- event tickets
- Tel var
- monster helms
- leads
- skyshards, etc.
Over and over again we see that complaining players will go brave PvP Imperial City for stuff they really want. Sure, they complain bitterly about it, but what they've shown ZOS is that they clearly don't hate it enough to not engage.

C. Because ZOS makes money from it being a PVP zone. The corollary to the players who complain bitterly but participate anyway are the players who will pay to avoid it.
-players who buy event tickets to avoid Imperial City during Whitestrakes Mayhem and its own event
-players who spend event tickets from past events on those rewards so they can skip the event
-players who buy the skyshard packs from Cyrodiil and Imperial City so they can avoid PvP after unlocking them once.
-players who buy the Alliance War skill lines so they can avoid PvP after unlocking them once

(Personally, as a PVP player who loves Cyrodiil but dislikes IC, I've been asking ZOS for years to go back to the old Mayhem where you got all your tickets from doing one PVP daily of your choice instead of splitting the tickets between Cyro&BGs /IC. ZOS keeps splitting the tickets. I'm pretty sure they make more money that way.)


Conclusion
While it's never wise to say never where ZOS is concerned, I don't think it's likely we'll see a revamp of a free DLC. Nor do I think it's likely we'll get a PVE-only farming zone when lots of complaining players engage during events and many of those who refuse to engage are willing to spend money to avoid it. Either way, a PVP Imperial City gives ZOS what it wants.

Baconlad

Ooo sea of thieves...I love that game but don't play it because everyone who does just wants to PvP. Impossible for solo players to really accomplish anything of value.

Lord_Archaic

VaranisArano wrote: »

Why is IC still a PVP zone?

A. Because ZOS generally isn't in the business of taking away gameplay from players, and yes, giving players an easy PVE-only version of the zone would take away gameplay. Tell me that PVP players wouldn't go to the easier version to get skyshards, etc.......

If they did make a PvE only instance of the City/Sewer there would not be any gameplay lost as there is PvP elsewhere in the game. And I said in an earlier post that of course everyone would abandon the PvP instance for a PvE instance of the city.

When you have a choice of being forced into PvP when there is another option, whenever possible the majority will choose not PvP, because when you just want to play the game.

And to the PvE content itself in the sewers, I have no idea what the center area in the sewers even looks like, I can only guess from what the loading screen looks like. I have never been able to make it that far without running into groups of PKers If you want to compromise, make the sewers PvE and the City Proper PvP. The PvE-ers get to do sewers, and the PvPers get to participate in little Cyro.

Here's an idea for PvPing in the City/ Sewers:

To initiate PvP in the City, an alliance needs to own the flags of all 6 districts. Now the players that attack the flags allow for retaliatory defenders. There may have to be cooldown times or a limit for PvE-ers back into the city, or make it like Cyro Proper where each flag needs to be flipped, but when that happens, thats where the cooldown timer starts.

Now for the Sewers: First off, the central area is a neutral zone(non-PvP). But each triad of the sewer is where the danger is. The alliance that owns a specific wing are able to start the PvP encounter; meaning if you're EP, you'll be safe in your section of the sewer from attacks from other alliances, but when you venture into DC/AD territory, you can be attacked from the people in that zone. To promote risk/reward for this, you get stunted telvar in your safe zones and the central neutral zone, but you gain an increased amount of telvar in PvP danger zones. Same with the City Proper, stunted when PvP isn't active but increased when it is.

For telvar loss, in PvP, it is increases to total lost on death, but the killing player/s gain 25%. Death to PvE monsters is 75% loss.

VaranisArano

Lord_Archaic wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Why is IC still a PVP zone?

A. Because ZOS generally isn't in the business of taking away gameplay from players, and yes, giving players an easy PVE-only version of the zone would take away gameplay. Tell me that PVP players wouldn't go to the easier version to get skyshards, etc.......

If they did make a PvE only instance of the City/Sewer there would not be any gameplay lost as there is PvP elsewhere in the game. And I said in an earlier post that of course everyone would abandon the PvP instance for a PvE instance of the city.

When you have a choice of being forced into PvP when there is another option, whenever possible the majority will choose not PvP, because when you just want to play the game.

And to the PvE content itself in the sewers, I have no idea what the center area in the sewers even looks like, I can only guess from what the loading screen looks like. I have never been able to make it that far without running into groups of PKers If you want to compromise, make the sewers PvE and the City Proper PvP. The PvE-ers get to do sewers, and the PvPers get to participate in little Cyro.

Here's an idea for PvPing in the City/ Sewers:

To initiate PvP in the City, an alliance needs to own the flags of all 6 districts. Now the players that attack the flags allow for retaliatory defenders. There may have to be cooldown times or a limit for PvE-ers back into the city, or make it like Cyro Proper where each flag needs to be flipped, but when that happens, thats where the cooldown timer starts.

Now for the Sewers: First off, the central area is a neutral zone(non-PvP). But each triad of the sewer is where the danger is. The alliance that owns a specific wing are able to start the PvP encounter; meaning if you're EP, you'll be safe in your section of the sewer from attacks from other alliances, but when you venture into DC/AD territory, you can be attacked from the people in that zone. To promote risk/reward for this, you get stunted telvar in your safe zones and the central neutral zone, but you gain an increased amount of telvar in PvP danger zones. Same with the City Proper, stunted when PvP isn't active but increased when it is.

For telvar loss, in PvP, it is increases to total lost on death, but the killing player/s gain 25%. Death to PvE monsters is 75% loss.

Have you considered that everyone abandoning the PvP IC for the PVE version is in fact a loss of gameplay for the people who like IC the way it is? The content in PVP zones is other players. Those players leaving for another PVE version of the zone is a loss of gameplay. Additionally, Cyrodiil and Battlegrounds are not really equivalent gameplay for those players, you know. Imperial City's close quarters and Tel Var mechanics are unique.

It sounds like you consider that an acceptable loss. I do not. There's nothing that ZOS has said or done to indicate they feel it's acceptable either.


This whole proposal is unrealistic and amounts to "Hey, PVP players who enjoy Imperial City now, would you give up what you enjoy in the hopes that ZOS will pump the time, money, and effort into revamping a free DLC, a revamp that leaves you with less players, spending more effort up to PVP in the districts, and only a part of the sewers to PVP in?"

Yeah...I'm gonna say that's a bad deal. How on earth do you think that's a fair suggestion for PVPers?

Lord_Archaic

VaranisArano wrote: »

Lord_Archaic wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Why is IC still a PVP zone?

A. Because ZOS generally isn't in the business of taking away gameplay from players, and yes, giving players an easy PVE-only version of the zone would take away gameplay. Tell me that PVP players wouldn't go to the easier version to get skyshards, etc.......

If they did make a PvE only instance of the City/Sewer there would not be any gameplay lost as there is PvP elsewhere in the game. And I said in an earlier post that of course everyone would abandon the PvP instance for a PvE instance of the city.

When you have a choice of being forced into PvP when there is another option, whenever possible the majority will choose not PvP, because when you just want to play the game.

And to the PvE content itself in the sewers, I have no idea what the center area in the sewers even looks like, I can only guess from what the loading screen looks like. I have never been able to make it that far without running into groups of PKers If you want to compromise, make the sewers PvE and the City Proper PvP. The PvE-ers get to do sewers, and the PvPers get to participate in little Cyro.

Here's an idea for PvPing in the City/ Sewers:

To initiate PvP in the City, an alliance needs to own the flags of all 6 districts. Now the players that attack the flags allow for retaliatory defenders. There may have to be cooldown times or a limit for PvE-ers back into the city, or make it like Cyro Proper where each flag needs to be flipped, but when that happens, thats where the cooldown timer starts.

Now for the Sewers: First off, the central area is a neutral zone(non-PvP). But each triad of the sewer is where the danger is. The alliance that owns a specific wing are able to start the PvP encounter; meaning if you're EP, you'll be safe in your section of the sewer from attacks from other alliances, but when you venture into DC/AD territory, you can be attacked from the people in that zone. To promote risk/reward for this, you get stunted telvar in your safe zones and the central neutral zone, but you gain an increased amount of telvar in PvP danger zones. Same with the City Proper, stunted when PvP isn't active but increased when it is.

For telvar loss, in PvP, it is increases to total lost on death, but the killing player/s gain 25%. Death to PvE monsters is 75% loss.

Have you considered that everyone abandoning the PvP IC for the PVE version is in fact a loss of gameplay for the people

Yeah...I'm gonna say that's a bad deal. How on earth do you think that's a fair suggestion for PVPers?

See, that statement of yours is equal proportionally applied to the PvE content of the city. Having forced PvP is a loss of gameplay for those who want to PvE But not PvP. It's just as bad a deal for casual players that want to explor the city or it's sewers, but are unable to due to violent players. Why is it fair to PvE-ers to have explicit PvE content and be unallowed to complete it?