Maintenance for the week of November 18:
[COMPLETE] PlayStation®: EU megaserver for maintenance – November 19, 23:00 UTC (6:00PM EST) - November 20, 17:00 UTC (12:00PM EST) https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/668861
[COMPLETE] PlayStation®: EU megaserver for maintenance – November 19, 23:00 UTC (6:00PM EST) - November 20, 17:00 UTC (12:00PM EST) https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/668861
Proposal: convert Ravenwatch to a PVE-Coop Campaign (Objectives)
SkaiFaith
✭✭✭✭✭
"Let me cook"...
Xbox EU.
I always play in Ravenwatch because it's the emptiest and I just want to farm my Monthly Transmutes. The downside is this Campaign does not allow Proc Sets nor Champion Points - this means that if I want to simply do scouting missions because I enjoy the scenery I can't take advantage of the unlimited stamina my character has already unlocked! (And have to change build since I use 2 proc sets)
Since many players asked (and I DON'T agree with that) that Cyrodiil would become a completely PVE zone, I think a solution could be making Ravenwatch Campaign able to use CPs and Procs BUT "you are unable to do damage to other players" - here's the explanation:
I've seen many times players in Ravenwatch being chill and cooperating even if on different Alliances. Do you know that often 2 Alliances farm APs rotating the conquest of the same single Keep? It's lovely. I even jumped from one Alliance to the other because they were slower - no one touched me or said anything bad.
On the other hand it happened I was alone, Tank Warden frost staff, and one single player decided to "destroy me"... Attacking me for 5+ minutes straight while I kept my health at 100% just blocking and walking backwards for miles. I had to slaughterfish myself to get rid of that annoying player who then proceeded to insult me in chat.
Since the former experience is the one a lot of people search and love to have, and the latter experience is what a lot of players want to avoid, I think the solution I proposed above would be a nice fix. To be clear, the conquest component of PvP with resources etc would remain, it's just the damage Player to Player I would delete. OR, if people want Ravenwatch untouched, add a new Campaign as I depicted it.
Please, Devs, consider it. Thank you for listening
(Edited to avoid receiving a mod edit.)
In short:
- Only in Ravenwatch Campaign, disable damage Player to Player.
- enable CPs and Procs in Ravenwatch.
- alternatively, add a new Campaign like this to make PvErs happy without hurting PvPers.
Edited by ZOS_Hadeostry on November 4, 2023 3:26AM Xbox EU.
I always play in Ravenwatch because it's the emptiest and I just want to farm my Monthly Transmutes. The downside is this Campaign does not allow Proc Sets nor Champion Points - this means that if I want to simply do scouting missions because I enjoy the scenery I can't take advantage of the unlimited stamina my character has already unlocked! (And have to change build since I use 2 proc sets)
Since many players asked (and I DON'T agree with that) that Cyrodiil would become a completely PVE zone, I think a solution could be making Ravenwatch Campaign able to use CPs and Procs BUT "you are unable to do damage to other players" - here's the explanation:
I've seen many times players in Ravenwatch being chill and cooperating even if on different Alliances. Do you know that often 2 Alliances farm APs rotating the conquest of the same single Keep? It's lovely. I even jumped from one Alliance to the other because they were slower - no one touched me or said anything bad.
On the other hand it happened I was alone, Tank Warden frost staff, and one single player decided to "destroy me"... Attacking me for 5+ minutes straight while I kept my health at 100% just blocking and walking backwards for miles. I had to slaughterfish myself to get rid of that annoying player who then proceeded to insult me in chat.
Since the former experience is the one a lot of people search and love to have, and the latter experience is what a lot of players want to avoid, I think the solution I proposed above would be a nice fix. To be clear, the conquest component of PvP with resources etc would remain, it's just the damage Player to Player I would delete. OR, if people want Ravenwatch untouched, add a new Campaign as I depicted it.
Please, Devs, consider it. Thank you for listening
(Edited to avoid receiving a mod edit.)
In short:
- Only in Ravenwatch Campaign, disable damage Player to Player.
- enable CPs and Procs in Ravenwatch.
- alternatively, add a new Campaign like this to make PvErs happy without hurting PvPers.
A: "We, as humans, should respect and take care of each other like in a Co-op, not a PvP 🌸"
B: "Too many words. Words bad. Won't read. ⚔️"
B: "Too many words. Words bad. Won't read. ⚔️"
6
-
LunaFlora✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭i would be super happy with a pve campaign for cyrodiil.
a new campaign would be better than replacing ravenwatch though.miaow! i'm Luna ( she/her ).
🌸*throws cherry blossom on you*🌸
"Eagles advance, traveler! And may the Green watch and keep you."
🦬🦌🐰
PlayStation and PC EU.
LunaLolaBlossom on psn.
LunaFloraBlossom on pc.4 -
spartaxoxo✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭No, I disagree. Cyrodiil already struggles with population so I don't think it's a good idea to put in a PvE campaign.Edited by spartaxoxo on November 3, 2023 5:19PM12 -
SkaiFaith✭✭✭✭✭spartaxoxo wrote: »No, I disagree. Cyrodiil already struggles with population so I don't think it's a good idea to put in a PvE campaign.
Technically Cyrodiil would become much more populated, just not by "involuntary PvPers".
Right now Ravenwatch it's completely empty most of the time on Xbox EU; this would revamp it, imo...A: "We, as humans, should respect and take care of each other like in a Co-op, not a PvP 🌸"
B: "Too many words. Words bad. Won't read. ⚔️"2 -
SkaiFaith✭✭✭✭✭i would be super happy with a pve campaign for cyrodiil.
a new campaign would be better than replacing ravenwatch though.
But I wouldn't call it PvE. If it's full PvE there's no mean to earn the 50 Transmutes. Instead I want it PvP, but just with APs, and not with player kills, so that I can earn Transmutes farming keeps cooperating with other players instead of fighting them.A: "We, as humans, should respect and take care of each other like in a Co-op, not a PvP 🌸"
B: "Too many words. Words bad. Won't read. ⚔️"0 -
TybaltKaine✭✭✭✭✭
✭I'd be fine with a new server for PVE so long as it takes skyshards out. This way, you can get to see the design and stories of Cyro, but if you want those sweet skyshards you need to actually enter the PVP zone and take some risk to get them.
Right now, there isn't much actual incentive for a PVE player to go to Cyro except to get those skyshards and snatch a couple of titles. This would give those who want to see the story an outlet to do so, and still leave a population booster in place for traditional PVP servers.
I'd also suggest that the PVE server not award AP in any way shape or form. No farming for the tort recipes either. Hide all the goodies in actual PVP. Tort recipes, AP, outfits, all that jazz that you actually have to PVP for.
Give them the zone to explore so they can get the lore books and the dolmens done essentially.- Tybalt Kaine Khajiit Nightblade Aldmeri Dominion
- PC/NA
- Guildmaster- Lucky Raven
- Knight of Marrow - Blackfeather Academy
- Adepti- The Witches Goblet
- "Nightblade healer huh? How does that work?"
- "I drain the blood of our enemies and fire it into you. It's a lot less messy than it sounds, and yeah I'm basically a Vampire without the whole AGH FIRE BAD"
3 -
spartaxoxo✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭spartaxoxo wrote: »No, I disagree. Cyrodiil already struggles with population so I don't think it's a good idea to put in a PvE campaign.
Technically Cyrodiil would become much more populated, just not by "involuntary PvPers".
Right now Ravenwatch it's completely empty most of the time on Xbox EU; this would revamp it, imo...
Cyrodiil is PvP content. PvP would become less populated.6 -
SkaiFaith✭✭✭✭✭TybaltKaine wrote: »I'd be fine with a new server for PVE so long as it takes skyshards out. This way, you can get to see the design and stories of Cyro, but if you want those sweet skyshards you need to actually enter the PVP zone and take some risk to get them.
Right now, there isn't much actual incentive for a PVE player to go to Cyro except to get those skyshards and snatch a couple of titles. This would give those who want to see the story an outlet to do so, and still leave a population booster in place for traditional PVP servers.
I'd also suggest that the PVE server not award AP in any way shape or form. No farming for the tort recipes either. Hide all the goodies in actual PVP. Tort recipes, AP, outfits, all that jazz that you actually have to PVP for.
Give them the zone to explore so they can get the lore books and the dolmens done essentially.
I can get some of these, like achievements, definitely, but Alliance Points are the reason I'm asking in the first place: right now I already avoid ANY PvP and just take resources until I reach 25K AP for my transmutes... My inconvenient is that occasionally someone will force me to abandon for the day and having to log at night to continue where I left - just why? I only need 50 Transmutes XD let me get them and I'm gone for good. I'm not going to touch anyone, I promise.Edited by SkaiFaith on November 3, 2023 5:48PMA: "We, as humans, should respect and take care of each other like in a Co-op, not a PvP 🌸"
B: "Too many words. Words bad. Won't read. ⚔️"0 -
spartaxoxo✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Alliance points are a PvP currency. The only way something like this could work is if you get no rewards. Only story. No skyshards, no AP, no event tickets, nothing but story. Otherwise, the damage done from splitting the playerbase away from PvP is too great. It would be totally unfair to PvPers.
4 -
Twohothardware✭✭✭✭✭
✭So a Cyrodiil campaign where the only thing you can do is capture keeps unopposed and do short daily quests from the towns?
We already have one. It’s called Ravenwatch.5 -
SkaiFaith✭✭✭✭✭spartaxoxo wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »No, I disagree. Cyrodiil already struggles with population so I don't think it's a good idea to put in a PvE campaign.
Technically Cyrodiil would become much more populated, just not by "involuntary PvPers".
Right now Ravenwatch it's completely empty most of the time on Xbox EU; this would revamp it, imo...
Cyrodiil is PvP content. PvP would become less populated.
And here's where I got you @spartaxoxo XP
ToT is considered PvP and you aren't killing any player there... That's what I'm asking for: you'd still have PvP in a "who gather the most APs" form, conquering resources etc... just not killing people from behind while they are scouting a place they run 10 minutes to reach.A: "We, as humans, should respect and take care of each other like in a Co-op, not a PvP 🌸"
B: "Too many words. Words bad. Won't read. ⚔️"2 -
Araneae6537✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭i would be super happy with a pve campaign for cyrodiil.
a new campaign would be better than replacing ravenwatch though.
But I wouldn't call it PvE. If it's full PvE there's no mean to earn the 50 Transmutes. Instead I want it PvP, but just with APs, and not with player kills, so that I can earn Transmutes farming keeps cooperating with other players instead of fighting them.
How is it PvP if players cannot fight one another? Isn’t that what PvP is? Players can choose not to, of course, and I try to let players be who are clearly on PvE quest or collecting skyshards. But the way to earn AP is via PvP activities in PvP content. I don’t think that should change.4 -
spartaxoxo✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭spartaxoxo wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »No, I disagree. Cyrodiil already struggles with population so I don't think it's a good idea to put in a PvE campaign.
Technically Cyrodiil would become much more populated, just not by "involuntary PvPers".
Right now Ravenwatch it's completely empty most of the time on Xbox EU; this would revamp it, imo...
Cyrodiil is PvP content. PvP would become less populated.
And here's where I got you @spartaxoxo XP
ToT is considered PvP and you aren't killing any player there... That's what I'm asking for: you'd still have PvP in a "who gather the most APs" form, conquering resources etc... just not killing people from behind while they are scouting a place they run 10 minutes to reach.
Tales is still one player competing against another player.
PvP means Player vs Player. That means two players competing against one other. One person wins, the other loses.
It doesn't have to involve killing (although Cyrodiil is a player killing type of PvP in particular) but it does have to involve players being against one another rather than working together.
Two players that are cooperating to take down an NPC is PvE content. A leaderboard for PvE content doesn't change that the content itself is PvEEdited by spartaxoxo on November 3, 2023 5:57PM3 -
SkaiFaith✭✭✭✭✭spartaxoxo wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »No, I disagree. Cyrodiil already struggles with population so I don't think it's a good idea to put in a PvE campaign.
Technically Cyrodiil would become much more populated, just not by "involuntary PvPers".
Right now Ravenwatch it's completely empty most of the time on Xbox EU; this would revamp it, imo...
Cyrodiil is PvP content. PvP would become less populated.
And here's where I got you @spartaxoxo XP
ToT is considered PvP and you aren't killing any player there... That's what I'm asking for: you'd still have PvP in a "who gather the most APs" form, conquering resources etc... just not killing people from behind while they are scouting a place they run 10 minutes to reach.
Tales is still one player competing against another player.
PvP means Player vs Player. That means two players competing against one other. One person wins, the other loses.
It doesn't have to involve killing (although Cyrodiil is a player killing type of PvP in particular) but it does have to involve players being against one another rather than working together.
Two players that are cooperating to take down an NPC is PvE content.
I get what you are saying, but since I intend to maintain APs, those would be the PvP aspect, competing for the person who gathers the most - it's still competition, it's still leaderboard. Instead of being more of a Deathmatch it would become more of a conquer the hill. I don't see the "it's not PvP" claim to be accurate.A: "We, as humans, should respect and take care of each other like in a Co-op, not a PvP 🌸"
B: "Too many words. Words bad. Won't read. ⚔️"0 -
spartaxoxo✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭spartaxoxo wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »No, I disagree. Cyrodiil already struggles with population so I don't think it's a good idea to put in a PvE campaign.
Technically Cyrodiil would become much more populated, just not by "involuntary PvPers".
Right now Ravenwatch it's completely empty most of the time on Xbox EU; this would revamp it, imo...
Cyrodiil is PvP content. PvP would become less populated.
And here's where I got you @spartaxoxo XP
ToT is considered PvP and you aren't killing any player there... That's what I'm asking for: you'd still have PvP in a "who gather the most APs" form, conquering resources etc... just not killing people from behind while they are scouting a place they run 10 minutes to reach.
Tales is still one player competing against another player.
PvP means Player vs Player. That means two players competing against one other. One person wins, the other loses.
It doesn't have to involve killing (although Cyrodiil is a player killing type of PvP in particular) but it does have to involve players being against one another rather than working together.
Two players that are cooperating to take down an NPC is PvE content.
I get what you are saying, but since I intend to maintain APs, those would be the PvP aspect, competing for the person who gathers the most - it's still competition, it's still leaderboard. Instead of being more of a Deathmatch it would become more of a conquer the hill. I don't see the "it's not PvP" claim to be accurate.
A leaderboard doesn't make the content itself PvP. Maelstrom is PvE content. Rock Grove Trial is PvE content. The actual gameplay is PvE because the opponent is an NPC and not another human being.Edited by spartaxoxo on November 3, 2023 6:03PM1 -
SkaiFaith✭✭✭✭✭Twohothardware wrote: »So a Cyrodiil campaign where the only thing you can do is capture keeps unopposed and do short daily quests from the towns?
We already have one. It’s called Ravenwatch.
I see what you did there XD
But I assure you that if you are not a PvPer and go in solo, you can find someone ruining your day anyway.A: "We, as humans, should respect and take care of each other like in a Co-op, not a PvP 🌸"
B: "Too many words. Words bad. Won't read. ⚔️"0 -
SkaiFaith✭✭✭✭✭Araneae6537 wrote: »i would be super happy with a pve campaign for cyrodiil.
a new campaign would be better than replacing ravenwatch though.
But I wouldn't call it PvE. If it's full PvE there's no mean to earn the 50 Transmutes. Instead I want it PvP, but just with APs, and not with player kills, so that I can earn Transmutes farming keeps cooperating with other players instead of fighting them.
How is it PvP if players cannot fight one another? Isn’t that what PvP is? Players can choose not to, of course, and I try to let players be who are clearly on PvE quest or collecting skyshards. But the way to earn AP is via PvP activities in PvP content. I don’t think that should change.
Fight for conquering resources. Instead of being everyone in a spot in a 2 hours fight with many deaths, people would spread trying to conquest places where others aren't yet - it's Ravenwatch (already empty), and it's not meant for PvPers, it's meant for chill (in my description, not as of right now).
Leaderboards for whoever gets most APs would still be a thing.Edited by SkaiFaith on November 3, 2023 6:08PMA: "We, as humans, should respect and take care of each other like in a Co-op, not a PvP 🌸"
B: "Too many words. Words bad. Won't read. ⚔️"0 -
kargen27✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Most players are introduced to PvP when they go to Cyrodiil or Imperial City for PvE activities. Some of those players find they actually like PvP and stick around. If there were a PvE option and that is what this suggestion is players may never experience PvP.
PvP needs new players and this idea takes away the incentive to try PvP. This idea has the potential to cause harm to an already fragile PvP population.and then the parrot said, "must be the water mines green too."6 -
fizl101✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭I’m not a pvper, but I agree with others who are saying that AP is a pvp currency designed for player vs player environments. Having a leaderboard saying who gets the highest score isnt pvp just like a trial or arena leaderboard doesnt make them pvp.Soupy twist4 -
SkaiFaith✭✭✭✭✭spartaxoxo wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »No, I disagree. Cyrodiil already struggles with population so I don't think it's a good idea to put in a PvE campaign.
Technically Cyrodiil would become much more populated, just not by "involuntary PvPers".
Right now Ravenwatch it's completely empty most of the time on Xbox EU; this would revamp it, imo...
Cyrodiil is PvP content. PvP would become less populated.
And here's where I got you @spartaxoxo XP
ToT is considered PvP and you aren't killing any player there... That's what I'm asking for: you'd still have PvP in a "who gather the most APs" form, conquering resources etc... just not killing people from behind while they are scouting a place they run 10 minutes to reach.
Tales is still one player competing against another player.
PvP means Player vs Player. That means two players competing against one other. One person wins, the other loses.
It doesn't have to involve killing (although Cyrodiil is a player killing type of PvP in particular) but it does have to involve players being against one another rather than working together.
Two players that are cooperating to take down an NPC is PvE content.
I get what you are saying, but since I intend to maintain APs, those would be the PvP aspect, competing for the person who gathers the most - it's still competition, it's still leaderboard. Instead of being more of a Deathmatch it would become more of a conquer the hill. I don't see the "it's not PvP" claim to be accurate.
A leaderboard doesn't make the content itself PvP. Maelstrom is PvE content. Rock Grove Trial is PvE content. The actual gameplay is PvE because the opponent is an NPC and not another human being.
That's a legitimate observation, fair point. But in those instances the victory isn't dictated by the leaderboard, while in Cyrodiil victory is totally based on leaderboards, as of the Alliance with more points at the end - or am I wrong? Not an expert, I admit.A: "We, as humans, should respect and take care of each other like in a Co-op, not a PvP 🌸"
B: "Too many words. Words bad. Won't read. ⚔️"0 -
spartaxoxo✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭spartaxoxo wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »No, I disagree. Cyrodiil already struggles with population so I don't think it's a good idea to put in a PvE campaign.
Technically Cyrodiil would become much more populated, just not by "involuntary PvPers".
Right now Ravenwatch it's completely empty most of the time on Xbox EU; this would revamp it, imo...
Cyrodiil is PvP content. PvP would become less populated.
And here's where I got you @spartaxoxo XP
ToT is considered PvP and you aren't killing any player there... That's what I'm asking for: you'd still have PvP in a "who gather the most APs" form, conquering resources etc... just not killing people from behind while they are scouting a place they run 10 minutes to reach.
Tales is still one player competing against another player.
PvP means Player vs Player. That means two players competing against one other. One person wins, the other loses.
It doesn't have to involve killing (although Cyrodiil is a player killing type of PvP in particular) but it does have to involve players being against one another rather than working together.
Two players that are cooperating to take down an NPC is PvE content.
I get what you are saying, but since I intend to maintain APs, those would be the PvP aspect, competing for the person who gathers the most - it's still competition, it's still leaderboard. Instead of being more of a Deathmatch it would become more of a conquer the hill. I don't see the "it's not PvP" claim to be accurate.
A leaderboard doesn't make the content itself PvP. Maelstrom is PvE content. Rock Grove Trial is PvE content. The actual gameplay is PvE because the opponent is an NPC and not another human being.
That's a legitimate observation, fair point. But in those instances the victory isn't dictated by the leaderboard, while in Cyrodiil victory is totally based on leaderboards, as of the Alliance with more points at the end - or am I wrong? Not an expert, I admit.
The way the alliance gathers points is what makes the gameplay PvP.
There's really only a singular thing that defines PvP. If during the course of gameplay, your primary opponent is another player.
The way Cyrodiil's leaderboard is structured is to ensure that the leaderboard is an alliance vs alliance thing, it's about group vs solo. It has no bearing on the primary content.
The primary gameplay of Cyrodiil is defined as PvP because the primary opponent is other players. It would become a PvE Cyrodiil if players ceased to be each other's primary opponent through the gameplay itself.Edited by spartaxoxo on November 3, 2023 6:22PM0 -
SkaiFaith✭✭✭✭✭spartaxoxo wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »No, I disagree. Cyrodiil already struggles with population so I don't think it's a good idea to put in a PvE campaign.
Technically Cyrodiil would become much more populated, just not by "involuntary PvPers".
Right now Ravenwatch it's completely empty most of the time on Xbox EU; this would revamp it, imo...
Cyrodiil is PvP content. PvP would become less populated.
And here's where I got you @spartaxoxo XP
ToT is considered PvP and you aren't killing any player there... That's what I'm asking for: you'd still have PvP in a "who gather the most APs" form, conquering resources etc... just not killing people from behind while they are scouting a place they run 10 minutes to reach.
Tales is still one player competing against another player.
PvP means Player vs Player. That means two players competing against one other. One person wins, the other loses.
It doesn't have to involve killing (although Cyrodiil is a player killing type of PvP in particular) but it does have to involve players being against one another rather than working together.
Two players that are cooperating to take down an NPC is PvE content.
I get what you are saying, but since I intend to maintain APs, those would be the PvP aspect, competing for the person who gathers the most - it's still competition, it's still leaderboard. Instead of being more of a Deathmatch it would become more of a conquer the hill. I don't see the "it's not PvP" claim to be accurate.
A leaderboard doesn't make the content itself PvP. Maelstrom is PvE content. Rock Grove Trial is PvE content. The actual gameplay is PvE because the opponent is an NPC and not another human being.
That's a legitimate observation, fair point. But in those instances the victory isn't dictated by the leaderboard, while in Cyrodiil victory is totally based on leaderboards, as of the Alliance with more points at the end - or am I wrong? Not an expert, I admit.
The way the alliance gathers points is what makes the gameplay PvP.
There's really only a singular thing that defines PvP. If during the course of gameplay, your primary opponent is another player.
The way Cyrodiil's leaderboard is structured is to ensure that the leaderboard is an alliance vs alliance thing, it's about group vs solo. It has no bearing on the primary content.
The primary gameplay of Cyrodiil is defined as PvP because the primary opponent is other players. It would become a PvE Cyrodiil if players ceased to be each other's primary opponent through the gameplay itself.
Wait, I don't think I get this. Help me understand: are you saying that in Cyrodiil what determines if you are winning your opponent is if you kill him and not if your Alliance is on top of APs at the end? Is this right?
In my eyes PvP could be a fishing contest in ESO: 2 players see who gets the most fish in same time - technically they are "fighting the fish" but the contest is between the two players. Looking it this way you should understand my reasoning behind why I consider my suggestion still PvP.A: "We, as humans, should respect and take care of each other like in a Co-op, not a PvP 🌸"
B: "Too many words. Words bad. Won't read. ⚔️"0 -
SkaiFaith✭✭✭✭✭PvE co-op to do what, the ~20 daily fetch quests?
As I wrote above, to compete in conquest of the map. It wouldn't change literally anything, aside from not being able to kill players.Edited by SkaiFaith on November 3, 2023 6:34PMA: "We, as humans, should respect and take care of each other like in a Co-op, not a PvP 🌸"
B: "Too many words. Words bad. Won't read. ⚔️"0 -
SkaiFaith✭✭✭✭✭Most players are introduced to PvP when they go to Cyrodiil or Imperial City for PvE activities. Some of those players find they actually like PvP and stick around. If there were a PvE option and that is what this suggestion is players may never experience PvP.
PvP needs new players and this idea takes away the incentive to try PvP. This idea has the potential to cause harm to an already fragile PvP population.
This is well put and I appreciate the insight.
I just wanted to point out that this seems more reasonable than saying "it would hurt PvP population", since that statement to a poor soul of a PvEer sounds a bit like "let us have our sacrificial victims" XDEdited by SkaiFaith on November 3, 2023 6:42PMA: "We, as humans, should respect and take care of each other like in a Co-op, not a PvP 🌸"
B: "Too many words. Words bad. Won't read. ⚔️"0 -
Tommy_The_Gun✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭I can totally see IC & Cyro as a new chapter / dlc zones with a plot involving time travel to the times before / after Three Banners War. So it would be an entirely different zone with no PvP at all, but more like TES IV Oblivion, with quests and exploration and entirely different sets, achievements & rewards.2 -
spartaxoxo✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭spartaxoxo wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »No, I disagree. Cyrodiil already struggles with population so I don't think it's a good idea to put in a PvE campaign.
Technically Cyrodiil would become much more populated, just not by "involuntary PvPers".
Right now Ravenwatch it's completely empty most of the time on Xbox EU; this would revamp it, imo...
Cyrodiil is PvP content. PvP would become less populated.
And here's where I got you @spartaxoxo XP
ToT is considered PvP and you aren't killing any player there... That's what I'm asking for: you'd still have PvP in a "who gather the most APs" form, conquering resources etc... just not killing people from behind while they are scouting a place they run 10 minutes to reach.
Tales is still one player competing against another player.
PvP means Player vs Player. That means two players competing against one other. One person wins, the other loses.
It doesn't have to involve killing (although Cyrodiil is a player killing type of PvP in particular) but it does have to involve players being against one another rather than working together.
Two players that are cooperating to take down an NPC is PvE content.
I get what you are saying, but since I intend to maintain APs, those would be the PvP aspect, competing for the person who gathers the most - it's still competition, it's still leaderboard. Instead of being more of a Deathmatch it would become more of a conquer the hill. I don't see the "it's not PvP" claim to be accurate.
A leaderboard doesn't make the content itself PvP. Maelstrom is PvE content. Rock Grove Trial is PvE content. The actual gameplay is PvE because the opponent is an NPC and not another human being.
That's a legitimate observation, fair point. But in those instances the victory isn't dictated by the leaderboard, while in Cyrodiil victory is totally based on leaderboards, as of the Alliance with more points at the end - or am I wrong? Not an expert, I admit.
The way the alliance gathers points is what makes the gameplay PvP.
There's really only a singular thing that defines PvP. If during the course of gameplay, your primary opponent is another player.
The way Cyrodiil's leaderboard is structured is to ensure that the leaderboard is an alliance vs alliance thing, it's about group vs solo. It has no bearing on the primary content.
The primary gameplay of Cyrodiil is defined as PvP because the primary opponent is other players. It would become a PvE Cyrodiil if players ceased to be each other's primary opponent through the gameplay itself.
Wait, I don't think I get this. Help me understand: are you saying that in Cyrodiil what determines if you are winning your opponent is if you kill him and not if your Alliance is on top of APs at the end? Is this right?
In my eyes PvP could be a fishing contest in ESO: 2 players see who gets the most fish in same time - technically they are "fighting the fish" but the contest is between the two players. Looking it this way you should understand my reasoning behind why I consider my suggestion still PvP.
In terms of the actual gameplay, yes. What determines who is winning is who is getting kills and securing objectives. That's why you can get AP for kills even when they don't serve much purpose in the keep objectives. Because every part of Cyrodiil is meant to be in service to the primary gameplay of killing other opponents.
Again, the leaderboard is a separate thing from the actual gameplay. Trials have leaderboards. Arenas have leaderboards. The main difference (not the only, but the main difference) between them is that the gameplay of a trial is a player against the environment. You're defeating monsters and solving puzzles, not defeating other players to secure objectives.Most players are introduced to PvP when they go to Cyrodiil or Imperial City for PvE activities. Some of those players find they actually like PvP and stick around. If there were a PvE option and that is what this suggestion is players may never experience PvP.
PvP needs new players and this idea takes away the incentive to try PvP. This idea has the potential to cause harm to an already fragile PvP population.
This is well put and I appreciate the insight.
I just wanted to point out that this seems more reasonable than saying "it would hurt PvP population", since that statement to a poor soul of a PvEer sounds a bit like "let us have our sacrificial victims" XD
It is what is meant by hurting the PvP population. It makes it so people who would normally be up to playing PvP (new players, and people who primarily enjoy PvE but don't mind dabbling in PvP now and again) don't bother. It's not about strong players bullying weak ones. It's about having a healthy population by encouraging new people and casual players to join in.Edited by spartaxoxo on November 3, 2023 7:11PM2 -
EdjeSwift✭✭✭✭✭
✭Tommy_The_Gun wrote: »I can totally see IC & Cyro as a new chapter / dlc zones with a plot involving time travel to the times before / after Three Banners War. So it would be an entirely different zone with no PvP at all, but more like TES IV Oblivion, with quests and exploration and entirely different sets, achievements & rewards.
This is an idea I can get behind. As for the OP's suggestion, I don't believe it's necessary, if you want your procs and CP, go to the Standard campaign. The idea of a No player combat Cyrodiil sounds just boring, especially with the power creep as is.Antiquities Addict1 -
SkaiFaith✭✭✭✭✭@spartaxoxo Sorry, managing quotes becomes difficult.
Regarding your last comment, the second part I can get it, but not really the first one.
I see what you are saying, but killing a player is a matter of seconds, winning the Campaign involves even repairing and sieging, and potentially no "PvP" as you mean it: it's literally the game telling you on the 30th day "thanks to you we won" or not, so I count that as my victory or loss, not if I kill you or you kill me. Even more important would be being emperor while winning the Campaign, and not just being emperor once but losing the Campaign. My terminology is what the game retains correct, from what I understand.
If you want to have a victory over a player there are duels, or the leaderboard for who got the most points in Cyro.
Let's put it this way... It's like playing a game of Objectives and claiming the winner or better player is the one who kills the most - well, no. It's an objectives mode.
The reason I DON'T want a new Cyrodill Region for just PvE is because I like the PvP aspect, just not getting killed while I consider Cyrodiil more enjoyable as an Objectives mode. AND I get it, most PvPers enjoy killing players, hence why I'm not asking to abolish classic PvP, but just to reserve an instance for those who prefer the objectives nature of Cyrodiil.
I hope I made my point clear without expressing me too badly...
Edit for typoEdited by SkaiFaith on November 3, 2023 7:54PMA: "We, as humans, should respect and take care of each other like in a Co-op, not a PvP 🌸"
B: "Too many words. Words bad. Won't read. ⚔️"0 -
boi_anachronism_✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭I do have to point out that AP is Alliance Points. The Alliances are at war, you get ap for fighting for your side in cyro. Having co-op people from opposing Alliances kinda doesnt make much sense to me but thats just my opinion..Edited by boi_anachronism_ on November 3, 2023 7:55PM1 -
SkaiFaith✭✭✭✭✭boi_anachronism_ wrote: »I do have to point out that AP is Alliance Points. The Alliances are at war, you get ap for fighting for your side in cyro. Having co-op people from opposing Alliances kinda doesnt make much sense to me but thats just my opinion..
Yeah, I don't mean that the game must force the 3 alliances to cooperate. What I meant is that I already see Alliances cooperate at times in Ravenwatch so that they can farm AP faster. Probably (I don't really know) because like me, they are players that swap character so they can get to 25K AP the most times and get the most Transmutes.
People underestimate how much desirable are Transmutes for players that don't get them easily - if you don't do ToT, don't do BGs, don't do Pledges or Random... The best alternative are those juicy 50 Monthly from Cyro. But many don't want to die to players that crouch on them and write bad things.A: "We, as humans, should respect and take care of each other like in a Co-op, not a PvP 🌸"
B: "Too many words. Words bad. Won't read. ⚔️"0
