Can we please get some answers about the future of PVP? @ZOS_Kevin

Tannus15

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

Just wanted to follow up here. Not sure why it was marked as answered also, but wanted to answer since this was directed at me. We do have additional plans for PvP generally. However, they are not ready to be shared just yet. We are looking at feedback from 2-team Battlegrounds and feedback based on the PvP livestream for us to take back and discuss with the team. Unfortunately, we can't provide more than that for now. But we are looking at everything and working on the best way to proceed from here.

Why? Why can't you share the ideas you guys are throwing around?
I don't understand the reluctance to talk to the community and gauge their enthusiasm for ideas until the idea is already locked in.

MZ333

Tannus15 wrote: »

Why? Why can't you share the ideas you guys are throwing around?
I don't understand the reluctance to talk to the community and gauge their enthusiasm for ideas until the idea is already locked in.

Its just in the concept of an idea phase of an idea plan planned, see

Tannus15

I keep thinking about this years "road map"



why is it "PvP related Feature"
it's not, it never was. It was a battle grounds overhaul / rework.

I honestly can't think of a single reason not to just say that from the jump.

Turtle_Bot

Tannus15 wrote: »

I keep thinking about this years "road map"



why is it "PvP related Feature"
it's not, it never was. It was a battle grounds overhaul / rework.

I honestly can't think of a single reason not to just say that from the jump.

My guess is (and we can only speculate here because it is doubtful that ZOS will never answer this for us), there is some company policy/NDA about sharing upcoming content or something (something that is fairly common in the corporate world and especially with software companies).

I do agree that even a bit more information would be helpful here, such as instead of saying "New PVP-related feature" saying something like "Battlegrounds Update" would have been better. It's still vague and doesn't disclose the specifics, but at least narrows down the part of the game that is being updated.
There's a few benefits to this outlined in the spoiler tab in case anyone at ZOS decides to read this:

- There's less random/irrelevant speculation/feedback for the update over the course of the year, as such it's easier to find relevant ideas/feedback earlier which gives more time to understand and potentially implement that feedback/ideas without adding more to the crunch periods that come with the PTS cycles.
- Better communication due to those that the content is aimed at (battlegrounds players) will be more excited, and those that the content is not aimed at (other PvPers) won't falsely get their hopes up, just to be let down by the update not being for their preferred content in the end and will likely be more inclined to try out that other content due to no feeling of disappointment associated with that release.
- Focuses the feedback and speculation on the upcoming changes to be more relevant to what the team is actively working on, so players getting hyped about a Battleground update could give ideas early as to what they would like to see, this would also help ZOS to narrow down some things to look at potentially also implementing alongside their planned changes and the feedback/ideas would be given early enough to give enough time to potentially implement them or address issues/concerns alongside the already planned changes.

For example:

Say there's a plan for a planned cyrodiil update next year in Q4 (hypothetically speaking), then announcing it as "Cyrodiil update" on the initial roadmap (or updating the generic "PvP update" to "Cyrodiil Update" on the chapter release in june) would allow players to hype up/theorize relevant potential ideas over the whole year.

The devs could take those ideas on board at an early enough stage in the development cycle, see which ones are popular or hot button issues, sort out what aligns best with the devs own plans for the patch, and/or are easy enough to add to the schedule on top of the devs own planned changes. It also allows the devs to see early that maybe some of their planned changes might not be well received (the planned idea pops up as a guessed idea) and being early enough and with feedback on that guessed idea being provided, the devs could see potential problems much earlier and look into ways to fix those concerns that would help make the content better.

Due to being a roadmap, which is generally understood that things on the roadmap aren't set in stone (well the specific details at least), but it provides that direction, vision and hype that the players can get behind and provide relevant feedback for, at an early enough stage in the development cycle, for that feedback to actually be helpful and not just too late.

Tannus15

That's exactly what I'm getting at @Turtle_Bot
They don't have to tell us everything, if the detail doesn't exist yet, that's fine. but tell us as much as possible as soon as possible and you never know, you might get useful ideas and feedback early enough in the process.

Overamera

SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

Just wanted to follow up here. Not sure why it was marked as answered also, but wanted to answer since this was directed at me. We do have additional plans for PvP generally. However, they are not ready to be shared just yet. We are looking at feedback from 2-team Battlegrounds and feedback based on the PvP livestream for us to take back and discuss with the team. Unfortunately, we can't provide more than that for now. But we are looking at everything and working on the best way to proceed from here.

The only PvP that matters to me and I believe most of the PvP community is Cyrodiil PvP. Nobody I know plays battlegrounds, but we're in Cyro minimum of 2 hours/day every day. Besides that, the game was originally designed to have Cyrodiil as the premier PvP option /end game option from the beginning.

IMO if ZOS is looking at any PvP options other than improving Cyrodiily then ya'll are missing the mark. I'm speaking from a PvP main though, and I realize there are a lot of other players out there into other aspects of the game.

I 100% agree with that most of the PvP community prefers Cyrodiil over battlegrounds.

I was so exicted when they said Update 44 would come with a new PvP Feature but highly disappoined when it was battleground related. They say they have PvP plans and I hope so much it's actually something new or Cyrodiil related and not battlegrounds.

Also this probably isn't very good for their economy but perhaps keep updating the server hardware will keep the game less laggier. I have no clue how much it costs etc. But when they did update their server hardware cyrodiil was lag free until they started making new patch/maintenance updates and lag started coming back slowly.

MincMincMinc

Tannus15 wrote: »

That's exactly what I'm getting at @Turtle_Bot
They don't have to tell us everything, if the detail doesn't exist yet, that's fine. but tell us as much as possible as soon as possible and you never know, you might get useful ideas and feedback early enough in the process.

Say that again, but instead of talking about cyrodil bring up the word nightblade. Do you think you will get useful ideas and feedback?

Look at how many repeat nightblade threads were on pts this cycle created by people who never even downloaded pts to try the toggle.

Bammlschwamml

Tannus15 wrote: »

I keep thinking about this years "road map"



why is it "PvP related Feature"
it's not, it never was. It was a battle grounds overhaul / rework.

I honestly can't think of a single reason not to just say that from the jump.

Maybe it doesn't take them 2 years to develop new content anymore. Maybe they didn't know what exactly it would be when they made the announcement.