No. segregating the community based on whether or not they bought a sub is just as bad as putting the best gear in a cash shop for the richest players to buy. It is hypocritical and wrong.

also, we need all the people we can get:D I am tired of having to go to thornblade(which I don't btw, this is a hypothetical) just to find high pop competition.

I don't think the population issues are going to be anywhere near what all the chicken littles think they will be. Remember how many dead/empty campaigns there were at launch? What makes people think there will be more people PvPing at launch 2.0?

Pretty much a stupid notion. There will be non - subbed players who will spend more money in this game than people with a sub. Which kind of privileged pvp campaign will they get?

JamilaRaj wrote: »

That would be nonsensical campaign. While with pay to play business model players pay to get into game, with pay to win (by any fancy nickname) business model, because nobody is going to pay more to end up on same level as player who paid less or nothing, players pay to get advantage, therefore they absolutely need less and preferably not at all paying players in PvP for their payment to bring them some value, but that value would not be present in campaign where everybody pays, or would be much less pronounced than in free for all campaign.

Maybe something else than P2P or P2W is possible, we will see.
Makes no sense arguing what a P2W system demands here at least, since it was clearly stated in twitch stream that ZOS does not want the game to go P2W.

PF1901 wrote: »

Pretty much a stupid notion. There will be non - subbed players who will spend more money in this game than people with a sub. Which kind of privileged pvp campaign will they get?

Well they would have paid for something else than as the subbed players would also pay for their own campaign.

ToRelax wrote: »

Maybe something else than P2P or P2W is possible, we will see.
Makes no sense arguing what a P2W system demands here at least, since it was clearly stated in twitch stream that ZOS does not want the game to go P2W.

You say this as if we could trust their word.
Even if they are sincere, no game has ever managed to avoid becoming p2w.
ESO will not be the exception.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

ToRelax wrote: »

Maybe something else than P2P or P2W is possible, we will see.
Makes no sense arguing what a P2W system demands here at least, since it was clearly stated in twitch stream that ZOS does not want the game to go P2W.

You say this as if we could trust their word.
Even if they are sincere, no game has ever managed to avoid becoming p2w.
ESO will not be the exception.

Hm no, I don't trust them. Still mean what I wrote though.

iseko wrote: »

Nop, but subscription players are first in line in queue (skip ahead of f2p players, even if they are already in queue). It's what planetside 2 does for example. Annoying as *** during primetime for the non paying people. But they can still get in for free (eventually). While subscribed players actually can get in faster once F2P hits as opposed to now (if a lot of f2p members start pvping). Noone gets left out of any campaign. But subscribed members get that little something extra. Just a suggestion... unless anyone sees a problem with that?

Yep, I have a problem with that, don't want the playerbase to be split in different classes.

Would be nice but won't happen

gw2only1b14_ESO wrote: »

If it can be night capped/day capped proof , lag free, skills work then yea, hey sounds like just a dream

Thats a huge dream

grimjim398 wrote: »

ToRelax wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

ToRelax wrote: »

Maybe something else than P2P or P2W is possible, we will see.
Makes no sense arguing what a P2W system demands here at least, since it was clearly stated in twitch stream that ZOS does not want the game to go P2W.

You say this as if we could trust their word.
Even if they are sincere, no game has ever managed to avoid becoming p2w.
ESO will not be the exception.

Hm no, I don't trust them. Still mean what I wrote though.

iseko wrote: »

Nop, but subscription players are first in line in queue (skip ahead of f2p players, even if they are already in queue). It's what planetside 2 does for example. Annoying as *** during primetime for the non paying people. But they can still get in for free (eventually). While subscribed players actually can get in faster once F2P hits as opposed to now (if a lot of f2p members start pvping). Noone gets left out of any campaign. But subscribed members get that little something extra. Just a suggestion... unless anyone sees a problem with that?

Yep, I have a problem with that, don't want the playerbase to be split in different classes.

The system coming in already splits the player base into two classes, it's built in to what ZOS is doing. No way around it. The subscribers will *** that the DLC is not worth the price of subscription and the non-subscribers will *** that it costs too much. This will be a two-tiered player base no matter what happens.

And not to mention plus members will be making more gold, crafting faster, rolling out champ points faster, so its broken off in a lot of ways beyound that 10 percent may not seem like much when written but people will be surpised.

So all the need to do to complete the two tier system faster ap gains and a plus members pvp server that we can use has needed

I'm all about universal servers without exclusions. We need to stand strong for all the new players who will be coming to experiment the game.

We need to be there to show that the game is interesting, different and worth playing. All the experienced and hardcore players who have been here since the beginning and who will probably get that premium membership need to be there to teach the newbies how to play and how to get better.

Otherwise if we put them on a different server, they won't get the real taste of the game and we might lose alot of potential great players.

Plus, if for example I wanna get my friends to play, I don't think they would be interested to go for premium membership straight in the beginning to be able to play in the real campaign.

Poxheart wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

We need to be there to show that the game is interesting, different and worth playing. All the experienced and hardcore players who have been here since the beginning and who will probably get that premium membership need to be there to teach the newbies how to play and how to get better.

The first time the hypothetical masses of new players encounter a group of experienced, hardcore players (like the one you run with), they are going to leave PvP & never come back. Or they'll re-roll EP and further skew the balance.

So in other words, what you're saying is that the only experienced players we can find in Cyrodiil are EP?

Well thanks sir.

It would be really bad to segregate any of the pvp community in an MMO, whether B2P or Sub. We all need to whoop each others ass and stay a community in the process. "Being above the free players and separated in any way" with ESO PLUS is precisely what would shoot their own game in the foot with this new model.

PVP has a serious problem from the RED zerg balls of lag. Whether or not PVP should be paying customers only is irrelevant. At the moment I have to pay to be Zerged if I want to play in any other faction than red. . However if the choice is pay to be zerged or not pay to be zerged than I will definitely not be paying.