If ZOS Were to Implement Small Scale PvP - How many players would you prefer?

akray21 · April 2015

ThatNeonZebraAgain · April 2015

Where's the option for "I don't want that format of PvP"?

akray21 · April 2015

ThatNeonZebraAgain wrote: »

Where's the option for "I don't want that format of PvP?"

It is an IF they do question. And it only allows for 10 options, lol

Spottswoode · April 2015

All of the above?

P3ZZL3 · April 2015

I would like to play with 8.34 other people please

Scheneighnay · April 2015

What's wrong with having options?

WebBull · April 2015

12v12v12 or larger as long as all sides are filled.

skarvika · April 2015

12 (my group) v 1

deepseamk20b14_ESO · April 2015

4v4v4

Honestly I want most of it. 1v1, 4v4v4, 24v24v24 would be great.

24v24v24 could be a cool single keep type mode where there is a huge keep, WAY bigger than current keeps, perhaps 6 times bigger. The keep is actually taken over by deadra. The goal is to take the keep from the deadra and stop the other alliances from beating you to it. There would be major bosses, different ways to go to engage the enemy or ways to avoid. There would be places for siege, strategy, leader boards for guilds or groups, and non leader board matches (so pugs don't get butt hurt about always facing pre-mades).

1v1 needs no explination.

4v4v4 could have a few different modes. Capture points, small keeps like sej size, where one team defends against the others but there are no NPC's defending but at certain stages or points the enemy can call NPC reinforcements.

Cyrodiil is fun but making it the only PvP is idiotic. If you have spent more than one second in Cyrodiil you would know the lag is insane. Just last night was a perfect example. We had a flag battle for a good 20 minutes of nothing but reds and our group spamming AoE on the flags, not doing any damage, until one of us flipped the flag. It was the most rediculous crap I have ever seen. It was basically "who can lag the other side better so we can cap the flag". That's Cyrodiil PvP. Small scale would be more than welcome. Separate leader boards, separate rewards and gear. Reasons to still do Cyrodiil but also play new modes.

Ser Lobo · April 2015

3v3

One argument is to limit the number of formats and types available, so that queue's are more likely to be filled and players have a broader playerbase to be matchmade with ... thus increasing the likelyhood of fair and balanced games.

I personally support 1v1, 3v3, and 3v3v3 sets. I feel that three players is an ideal small team, and that this game would do well if it kept these types of fights to as small a scale as possible. We already have big and epic. Imagine how clean the fight would run if it was 9 players, instead of 40?

That said, without appropriate matchmaking, the game becomes just like Neverwinter. Unbalanced as all hell. So matchmaking has further divisions:

- Premade versus Premade. Right from the start, if you come into the match with a group, it prefers you to other matches with groups. PUGS rarely win against even two man premades.
- Limit classes in PUGs. Never put two or three players of the same class in the same match. While each class can fulfill different roles, any battle against three perma templars, three cloaked nightblades, three DK's, etc ... will cease to be fun on the opposing team. Your team may have three tanks, but at least require them to be three different classes for spice and diversity.
- Limit game length. Want an hour long fight? Join Cyrodiil or IC. Want a 5 minute romp before work? Try the Gladiator Arena.
- Limit objectives. Different map types and different objectives are the spice, but if there's one clear rule of multiplayer, it's this: players are trying to kill each other, not capture the flag. One guy in 20 may be objective oriented. The others only care about deathmatch.
- Let us vote on the map and the gametype. Shooters know this, but MMO's ignore the experiences of the PvP powerhouses. A little voting gives the player the impression that they may be in control.

NewBlacksmurf · April 2015

4v4v4

Hmm, I would have liked to also say 4x4x4 and some other opportunity.

I guess when I think of small PvP, I'm thinking of a 1/3rd the size of Cyrodil "small" and not so much an arena style.

I'm sure there are those who are for it but if the game gets away from AvA then I don't see the game structure and logic sustaining much longer.

I don't really see anyone who says they don't like Cyrodil but rather they have complaints about the lag or size/amount of ground to cover or length of battles.

This seems to get away from anything ESO related....maybe TES 6 can do this better.

Mr.Turtlesworth · April 2015

12v12

12v12 all the way..

AND 2v2

if they were to implement those, I would LOVE this game. As for now, I just LIKE it.

Rook_Master · April 2015

No option for "Don't Want"

AhPook_Is_Here · April 2015

I want 12x12x12x12

Kronosphere · April 2015

3v3

4v4 as (and i know no one will follow it anyway but) that leaves room for one of each class, or one of each role and 2 dps like dungeons, tho i know a tank perse wont be as needed.

and i derped and voted 3v3 after saying all that..

Taz · April 2015

I'd like to see a variety as well.

Maybe 1v1 - 4v4
1v1v1 - 4v4v4

Then jump up to 12v12v12 and more battleground type groupings.

pecheckler · April 2015

12v12

These are all too small for current class balance. Try 20v20.

Emma_Overload · April 2015

1v1

I don't have anything against the other formats, but 1v1 MUST be an option, because it's the only way "lonewolfs" can get a fair fight!

ryanmjmcevoy_ESO · April 2015

I like all of them lol Being able to do 2 or 3 alliances i think is an important option, thought ZOS would likely leaning toward all 3 fighting each other. I wouldn't want to go higher than 12 v 12 for 2 alliances and 5v5v5 for all three, but thats just me. My preference would probably be something like 6v6

Ser Lobo · April 2015

3v3

Emma_Eunjung wrote: »

I don't have anything against the other formats, but 1v1 MUST be an option, because it's the only way "lonewolfs" can get a fair fight!

I agree 1v1 should be an option. But I caution against believing that 1v1's are ever 'fair'. The vast majority of duels I've seen still resolve to a higher-level player challenging a lower level player, or a more experienced player trying to 'gank' newer players the older player playing an obvious twink character.

Not to mention the presence of certain classes have more solo survivability than others. Support classes have never held up well under a 1v1 balance test, simply because they are force multipliers, not solo beasts.

There are of course 'duels between friends', which is what I think most of us want and require from ZOS. But I would request that duels be set to 'decline all duels' by default or at least restrict it to an arena format in order to prevent spamming invites.

The Elder Scrolls Online

If ZOS Were to Implement Small Scale PvP - How many players would you prefer?

If ZOS Were to Implement Small Scale PvP - How many players would you prefer? 29 votes