Would ESO have been Viable without PvP?

Galwylin · May 2017

Probably not as profitable because you have a lot of people that like pvp in games. Even when its terrible as long as it there. I guess the thought it can always improve. And balance changes does have some affect on both pve and pvp. Just not to the degree here with the belief they can balance both together. Just little changes are enough to affect both when separated. Together means every single little change will. Still, pvp makes more money for them but I think it would have still been enough players to keep it afloat.

ShedsHisTail · May 2017

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

It would've been waaaaaaaay better if if were The Elder Scrolls - Online

Meaning, TES game that required you to be online to play, however, this would simply mean playing with no more than 24 ppl on one screen people ever (due to guild size 100 per phase or so) but otherwise it would offer

Play solo (online where ppl can join you or them)
Play Open (max of 3,000)
Play Private Network (max of 3,000) selectively allowed on that open server.

Then that's all PvE and the PvP would simply be a game mode Play PvP with diff game types

This could work better for server issues and also allow them to have a diff PvP game with modes than PvE so as to allow balance and changes and maybe even diff characters but the same account

What would be rad is if it worked sort of like Diablo 3, where you can play solo, or you can invite people into your game.

Actually, that might not work for an MMO, but they should definitely add that feature to the next main Elder Scrolls title.

Rohamad_Ali · May 2017

Try not to look at all the posts of PVP complaints as a bad thing or a negative impact on the ESO . Look at it as players caring enough about a game to complain rather then leave . I know some go overboard and it can get irritating but there is no need to read everything posted . There's no need to defend ESO . The more someone rants the more their passion for this game gets exposed .

Bombashaman · May 2017

Yes.

Evergnar · May 2017

(PC/NA) Tough question to answer as it is hard to say what an entire player base would or wouldn't have done.

Me personally I doubt I would have stuck around in the early days just for PvE. Back then PvE had as many bugs and problems as PvP does now. There were a lot of issues with grouping and playing with friends and the game was very bland compared to what it is now.

NewBlacksmurf · May 2017

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

Lord of the Rings is a huge title . Big PVE community . They avoided PVP to make player vs monster characters instead , thinking their gigantic following and the amount of roleplayers would hold the title for years . Now that's a name brand bigger then any other in fantasy ...

They couldn't of been more wrong . Within two years massive boredom and closing of servers despite consistent and large PVE updates . Food for thought . Lesson learned is don't underestimate the amount of PVP players out there . It's more then then a lot of people think .

I think there are people like me as well. Am I good at pvp? No. Do I call myself a pvper? No. But it is what I do when I'm bored. After I finish quest and what not, and that next dlc is months away? Pvp time.

Im sure most games would rather have you here killing time in pvp besides playing another game. You might not make it back.

Exactly . An even though this community is fearful to look at it , World of Warcraft . Open world PVP game . Separated with a toggle system to protect PVE and RP players . That's the MMO giant . That's the Goliath no one can beat after a decade and out dated graphics . End game player retention is higher in fully supported PVP MMOs .

I strongly disagree and so does the current market.
FPS games...sure but an very old medieval style game which happens to be based off an older Single player RPG would actually be better without any PvP at all

I do believe the battle grounds would work but the Cyrodil design is not going to ever work.

The hope was it would be designed and run off Dark Age of Camelot but because it's not.....it's only going to be what it is....lagfest with constant nerfs and changes every 180 days

Ffastyl · May 2017

Maybe... While just my opinion, if ESO were just more Skyrim it would require more churn (new players) to offset the lower retention. Skyrim is a beautiful game, but that beauty came at the expense of writing, mechanics and gameplay in general. ESO's PvE has a similar quality, although I am more inclined to blame its inability to hold interest on the UI than the writing. The speech UI is unfocused, with neither the text nor character centered. Also working at odds is the voice acting and displaying the full text. You can read the text much faster than they can ever say it, so you are more inclined to skip dialogue.

If ESO were designed more like Oblivion or Morrowind, with all the improved writing that entails, quests would be more enjoyable and repeatable. However, since ESO has been designed as theme park MMO, I am unsure if a more open ended experience would fly under the publishers.

In regards to PvP, PvX is the most enjoyable form of play. Having the unpredictability of players sprinkled into the gimmicks of AI makes for near infinite replayability. However for PvX to work you need to balance the game around PvP first and then balance PvE around those finalized player stats. We can see the result of not doing this in ESO: abilities hit for half or more of a player's HP, requiring Battle Spirit as a band-aid. Dark Souls 2 is the best example of PvX I can provide. The PvP is well balanced, and then PvE is balanced using those numbers fine tuned around PvP.

The issue with balancing for PvE first is that you balance for fun over fairness. Wrobel has stated it on ESO Live, their first concern when designing abilities is if they are fun to use. This is ultimately the way to go for PvE. If you ever make an ability too powerful, you increase the health or defense of the AI you want to remain a challenge. But what about PvP in this instance? Do you increase the health and defense of players? Doing so makes all but the overpowered ability underpowered. Doing nothing reduces the complexity and fun. As you balance PvP after PvE, the two become increasingly separate games. Players have about 20k HP while bosses have 3m right now.

It is easier to balance PvX when PvE uses similar or same mechanics to PvP. For example, Dark Souls 3: all enemies have a stamina meter. When a knight swings wildly at you, they do not stop because that is how long their chain is -- they stop because they consumed all their stamina. You can confirm this by attacking their shield immediately after a chain. You will probably break their guard instantly. If combat were balanced around PvP first and then PvE, you would see bosses with closer to 80k HP, providing the same challenge as they do now at 3m HP. Absolute DPS would be reduced while relative DPS would remain the same.

It's not terribly well articulated but that is my two septims on PvPvE.

Enemy-of-Coldharbour · May 2017

Yes.

PlagueSD · May 2017

No, they just need to do PvP completely different than they are doing it now. Want to balance PvP and PvE in the same game? Here's how you do it. SEPARATE PvP from PvE.

PvE:
have access to all class/weapon/guild skill lines. Class skill lines will be balanced for PvE. Each Class skill line will allow specialization into Tank, DPS, or Heal specialty.
Access to Alliance War skills will not be allowed in PvE situations.

PvP:
Access to class lines NOT allowed. You can only slot weapon, guild, and Alliance War skills. These will be balanced for PvP.
Champion points will NOT be in effect while in PvP areas.

Since there is no need for generic "classes" in PvP (everyone will have access to the SAME skills) there will be no "Balance" issues and will allow devs to balance the classes to the normal archetypes (tank, dps, heals)

Rohamad_Ali · May 2017

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

Lord of the Rings is a huge title . Big PVE community . They avoided PVP to make player vs monster characters instead , thinking their gigantic following and the amount of roleplayers would hold the title for years . Now that's a name brand bigger then any other in fantasy ...

They couldn't of been more wrong . Within two years massive boredom and closing of servers despite consistent and large PVE updates . Food for thought . Lesson learned is don't underestimate the amount of PVP players out there . It's more then then a lot of people think .

I think there are people like me as well. Am I good at pvp? No. Do I call myself a pvper? No. But it is what I do when I'm bored. After I finish quest and what not, and that next dlc is months away? Pvp time.

Im sure most games would rather have you here killing time in pvp besides playing another game. You might not make it back.

Exactly . An even though this community is fearful to look at it , World of Warcraft . Open world PVP game . Separated with a toggle system to protect PVE and RP players . That's the MMO giant . That's the Goliath no one can beat after a decade and out dated graphics . End game player retention is higher in fully supported PVP MMOs .

I strongly disagree and so does the current market.
FPS games...sure but an very old medieval style game which happens to be based off an older Single player RPG would actually be better without any PvP at all

I do believe the battle grounds would work but the Cyrodil design is not going to ever work.

The hope was it would be designed and run off Dark Age of Camelot but because it's not.....it's only going to be what it is....lagfest with constant nerfs and changes every 180 days

You can disagree till the cows come home , it won't change the fact of WoW's success . It's not even debatable .

Rainwhisper · May 2017

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

Lord of the Rings is a huge title . Big PVE community . They avoided PVP to make player vs monster characters instead , thinking their gigantic following and the amount of roleplayers would hold the title for years . Now that's a name brand bigger then any other in fantasy

It's probably no accident that this remains, by far, my favorite MMO of all time.

Kendaric · May 2017

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

Lord of the Rings is a huge title . Big PVE community . They avoided PVP to make player vs monster characters instead , thinking their gigantic following and the amount of roleplayers would hold the title for years . Now that's a name brand bigger then any other in fantasy ...

They couldn't of been more wrong . Within two years massive boredom and closing of servers despite consistent and large PVE updates . Food for thought . Lesson learned is don't underestimate the amount of PVP players out there . It's more then then a lot of people think .

There was a lot more leading to LotRO's downfall and almost all of them were PvE-related. Also, how many successful PvP-focused MMORPGs are out there?

Starless06 · May 2017

Uriel_Nocturne wrote: »

For me? Absolutely.

I started playing MMORPG's when there was zero PvP in ANY of them. I'm here for the PvE (though not so much logging in any more that often), and the PvE alone keeps me in all of the MMORPG's that I play.

I don't PvP at all in ANY of my MMO's.

Purely IMO, I don't believe that PvP of any sort should have ever been introduced to MMORPG's.

The first generation mmo's had pvp or dedicated pvp servers. If anything it's PvE only game play that is a more recent introduction.

Rohamad_Ali · May 2017

Rainwhisper wrote: »

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

Lord of the Rings is a huge title . Big PVE community . They avoided PVP to make player vs monster characters instead , thinking their gigantic following and the amount of roleplayers would hold the title for years . Now that's a name brand bigger then any other in fantasy

It's probably no accident that this remains, by far, my favorite MMO of all time.

I understand that . The few that stayed love Lotro very much . It just didn't appeal to a large enough gamer community to stay healthy . That Turbine Dev that went nuts on the forums said a lot of truths about the problems and why population tanked .

It's important in every MMO to give breathing room for most all communities for a game to thrive . Biased games end up on life support very quickly .

NewBlacksmurf · May 2017

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

Lord of the Rings is a huge title . Big PVE community . They avoided PVP to make player vs monster characters instead , thinking their gigantic following and the amount of roleplayers would hold the title for years . Now that's a name brand bigger then any other in fantasy ...

They couldn't of been more wrong . Within two years massive boredom and closing of servers despite consistent and large PVE updates . Food for thought . Lesson learned is don't underestimate the amount of PVP players out there . It's more then then a lot of people think .

I think there are people like me as well. Am I good at pvp? No. Do I call myself a pvper? No. But it is what I do when I'm bored. After I finish quest and what not, and that next dlc is months away? Pvp time.

Im sure most games would rather have you here killing time in pvp besides playing another game. You might not make it back.

Exactly . An even though this community is fearful to look at it , World of Warcraft . Open world PVP game . Separated with a toggle system to protect PVE and RP players . That's the MMO giant . That's the Goliath no one can beat after a decade and out dated graphics . End game player retention is higher in fully supported PVP MMOs .

I strongly disagree and so does the current market.
FPS games...sure but an very old medieval style game which happens to be based off an older Single player RPG would actually be better without any PvP at all

I do believe the battle grounds would work but the Cyrodil design is not going to ever work.

The hope was it would be designed and run off Dark Age of Camelot but because it's not.....it's only going to be what it is....lagfest with constant nerfs and changes every 180 days

You can disagree till the cows come home , it won't change the fact of WoW's success . It's not even debatable .

@Rohamad_Ali

WoWs success is not based on PvP. It's literally their PvE design

Their initial PvP for the first few years caused ppl to quit. Not sure if you played from beta to launch but obtaining accomplishments like the Field Marshall armor and the lack of different PvP modes and the rules was not a contributor to the games success.

Quite the opposite as that drove many to games like Lineage 2 for PvP world gameplay...have you played that?
Notice the PvP games...just die very fast.....it's PvE that makes server type MMO successful long term

Rohamad_Ali · May 2017

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

Lord of the Rings is a huge title . Big PVE community . They avoided PVP to make player vs monster characters instead , thinking their gigantic following and the amount of roleplayers would hold the title for years . Now that's a name brand bigger then any other in fantasy ...

They couldn't of been more wrong . Within two years massive boredom and closing of servers despite consistent and large PVE updates . Food for thought . Lesson learned is don't underestimate the amount of PVP players out there . It's more then then a lot of people think .

I think there are people like me as well. Am I good at pvp? No. Do I call myself a pvper? No. But it is what I do when I'm bored. After I finish quest and what not, and that next dlc is months away? Pvp time.

Im sure most games would rather have you here killing time in pvp besides playing another game. You might not make it back.

Exactly . An even though this community is fearful to look at it , World of Warcraft . Open world PVP game . Separated with a toggle system to protect PVE and RP players . That's the MMO giant . That's the Goliath no one can beat after a decade and out dated graphics . End game player retention is higher in fully supported PVP MMOs .

I strongly disagree and so does the current market.
FPS games...sure but an very old medieval style game which happens to be based off an older Single player RPG would actually be better without any PvP at all

I do believe the battle grounds would work but the Cyrodil design is not going to ever work.

The hope was it would be designed and run off Dark Age of Camelot but because it's not.....it's only going to be what it is....lagfest with constant nerfs and changes every 180 days

You can disagree till the cows come home , it won't change the fact of WoW's success . It's not even debatable .

@Rohamad_Ali

WoWs success is not based on PvP. It's literally their PvE design

Their initial PvP for the first few years caused ppl to quit. Not sure if you played from beta to launch but obtaining accomplishments like the Field Marshall armor and the lack of different PvP modes and the rules was not a contributor to the games success.

Quite the opposite as that drove many to games like Lineage 2 for PvP world gameplay...have you played that?

We just won't agree on this . An that's ok . I had two guilds here go back to wow PVP and stay after VR levels hit here . They would disagree as well . The amount and size of that games PVP raiding guilds is still astronomically stupid for how old it is . I wish we could get that many active PVP guilds here , even a fraction would be impressive . An it's still subscription based . Absolutely mind boggling .

Thealteregoroman · May 2017

@Rainwhisper

Mojmir · May 2017

Would have been viable without alot of things

NewBlacksmurf · May 2017

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

Lord of the Rings is a huge title . Big PVE community . They avoided PVP to make player vs monster characters instead , thinking their gigantic following and the amount of roleplayers would hold the title for years . Now that's a name brand bigger then any other in fantasy ...

They couldn't of been more wrong . Within two years massive boredom and closing of servers despite consistent and large PVE updates . Food for thought . Lesson learned is don't underestimate the amount of PVP players out there . It's more then then a lot of people think .

I think there are people like me as well. Am I good at pvp? No. Do I call myself a pvper? No. But it is what I do when I'm bored. After I finish quest and what not, and that next dlc is months away? Pvp time.

Im sure most games would rather have you here killing time in pvp besides playing another game. You might not make it back.

Exactly . An even though this community is fearful to look at it , World of Warcraft . Open world PVP game . Separated with a toggle system to protect PVE and RP players . That's the MMO giant . That's the Goliath no one can beat after a decade and out dated graphics . End game player retention is higher in fully supported PVP MMOs .

I strongly disagree and so does the current market.
FPS games...sure but an very old medieval style game which happens to be based off an older Single player RPG would actually be better without any PvP at all

I do believe the battle grounds would work but the Cyrodil design is not going to ever work.

The hope was it would be designed and run off Dark Age of Camelot but because it's not.....it's only going to be what it is....lagfest with constant nerfs and changes every 180 days

You can disagree till the cows come home , it won't change the fact of WoW's success . It's not even debatable .

@Rohamad_Ali

WoWs success is not based on PvP. It's literally their PvE design

Their initial PvP for the first few years caused ppl to quit. Not sure if you played from beta to launch but obtaining accomplishments like the Field Marshall armor and the lack of different PvP modes and the rules was not a contributor to the games success.

Quite the opposite as that drove many to games like Lineage 2 for PvP world gameplay...have you played that?

We just won't agree on this . An that's ok . I had two guilds here go back to wow PVP and stay after VR levels hit here . They would disagree as well . The amount and size of that games PVP raiding guilds is still astronomically stupid for how old it is . I wish we could get that many active PVP guilds here , even a fraction would be impressive . An it's still subscription based . Absolutely mind boggling .

@Rohamad_Ali

No because in 2004 ish, WoW did not have good PvP. You're arguing about a handful of people vs millions who play that game for its PvE. The customer base is at least 5-10 million more than active ESO players.

They keep 8 million active subscribers but at other times keep over 12 million active subs for 12 months. Clearly that game is more popular and better overall according to the market. It you're saying people are leaving ESO cause the PvP is what makes the game good. That's extremely inaccurate.
You can literally look at their PvP server population and compare to the RP and PvE servers by how many servers and how populated each are.

Now over 12 years later...heck even 3 years ago A Loooot has changed in World of Warcraft so if people who played this are now going back to WoW.......it's not because WoW has the best PvP.

It's cause they liked WoW and like millions of others, went to try another game, and went back.

Here why:
1. Servers work
2. Game modes work
3. They actually separate PvE from PvP
4. They have more game types
5. You can play at you're own pace vs being extremely limited
6. There are more active players so you're more likely to meet people you'll enjoy playing with
7. They actually have a PvP event/competition outside the base game that ppl pay real money to participate in
8. They actually have real expansions
9. It's cheaper to play even if you buy all the cosmetics
10. You can change servers
11. You can change alliances
12. You can edit your character

In short...their developers actually take feedback and implement desired changes vs create limitations and paywall after paywall all while not addressing or resolving major game breaking issues for 6-12-36 months.

ShedsHisTail · May 2017

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

Lord of the Rings is a huge title . Big PVE community . They avoided PVP to make player vs monster characters instead , thinking their gigantic following and the amount of roleplayers would hold the title for years . Now that's a name brand bigger then any other in fantasy ...

They couldn't of been more wrong . Within two years massive boredom and closing of servers despite consistent and large PVE updates . Food for thought . Lesson learned is don't underestimate the amount of PVP players out there . It's more then then a lot of people think .

I think there are people like me as well. Am I good at pvp? No. Do I call myself a pvper? No. But it is what I do when I'm bored. After I finish quest and what not, and that next dlc is months away? Pvp time.

Im sure most games would rather have you here killing time in pvp besides playing another game. You might not make it back.

Exactly . An even though this community is fearful to look at it , World of Warcraft . Open world PVP game . Separated with a toggle system to protect PVE and RP players . That's the MMO giant . That's the Goliath no one can beat after a decade and out dated graphics . End game player retention is higher in fully supported PVP MMOs .

I strongly disagree and so does the current market.
FPS games...sure but an very old medieval style game which happens to be based off an older Single player RPG would actually be better without any PvP at all

I do believe the battle grounds would work but the Cyrodil design is not going to ever work.

The hope was it would be designed and run off Dark Age of Camelot but because it's not.....it's only going to be what it is....lagfest with constant nerfs and changes every 180 days

You can disagree till the cows come home , it won't change the fact of WoW's success . It's not even debatable .

@Rohamad_Ali

WoWs success is not based on PvP. It's literally their PvE design

Their initial PvP for the first few years caused ppl to quit. Not sure if you played from beta to launch but obtaining accomplishments like the Field Marshall armor and the lack of different PvP modes and the rules was not a contributor to the games success.

Quite the opposite as that drove many to games like Lineage 2 for PvP world gameplay...have you played that?

We just won't agree on this . An that's ok . I had two guilds here go back to wow PVP and stay after VR levels hit here . They would disagree as well . The amount and size of that games PVP raiding guilds is still astronomically stupid for how old it is . I wish we could get that many active PVP guilds here , even a fraction would be impressive . An it's still subscription based . Absolutely mind boggling .

@Rohamad_Ali

No because in 2004 ish, WoW did not have good PvP. You're arguing about a handful of people vs millions who play that game for its PvE. The customer base is at least 5-10 million more than active ESO players.

They keep 8 million active subscribers but at other times keep over 12 million active subs for 12 months. Clearly that game is more popular and better overall according to the market. It you're saying people are leaving ESO cause the PvP is what makes the game good. That's extremely inaccurate.

If I recall correctly, the latest stats put WoW at just a little over 5.5 Million active subscribers, currently.
They've definitely had way more than that in the past, but they don't now.

Rohamad_Ali · May 2017

I said I wouldn't agree with your opinion . Just leave it at that . You started off saying millions of PVE players and a handful of PVP players . You could not get more biased or far from actually statistics if you tried . I'm fine with your opinion though being its what you believe ..

Rohamad_Ali · May 2017

For me this just Deja'vu all over again @NewBlacksmurf . I had a similar discussion in 2014 with a Lotro player . I tried to explain the importance of catering to both PVE and PVP players . He posted endlessly about how there will always be way more PVE players and PVE players are the reason for the games success . PVP he said will destroy the community .

I should log in over there and find that thread to drop a I told you so .

NewBlacksmurf · May 2017

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

I said I wouldn't agree with your opinion . Just leave it at that . You started off saying millions of PVE players and a handful of PVP players . You could not get more biased or far from actually statistics if you tried . I'm fine with your opinion though being its what you believe ..

@Rohamad_Ali

There's a difference in disagreeing and you suggesting something that's inaccurate. It's not that I disagree why people left, it's what you added to that which is false.

You're statement that WoW is successful because it's an open world PvP game with a toggle, and that's what made WoW a success is inaccurate.

The World of Warcraft design lets us see how many servers and the population of those servers who are PvP focused in any world PvP designs. Then you have PvP queues on top of that, however, the PvPis far less populated, and so I'm saying it's very inaccurate to suggest that WoW is so successful due to PvP. Especially because a lot of what you're referring to wasn't added in 2004 it came in later updates and much later expansions.

Malamar1229 · May 2017

@Rainwhisper

One of my favorite MMOs to date was EverQuest. In a perfect world, I think you would have PvP games and PvE games, absolutely hard to balance both within the same game. PvP also tends to bring out the worst in people. I say this being mostly a PvP centered person.

If this was PvE only, then yeah that aspect would absolutely need some beefing. Will it ever get old? I don't know, Everquest is on it's 100th or something expansion (exaggerated).

https://www.everquest.com/expansion-content

139.99 for premium upgrade to a game with like 20 yr old graphics lol. Gotta hand it to them though, if EQ had ESO's graphics...I'd be there in a heartbeat

The_Duke · May 2017

I woudlnt have bought the game without pvp.

vyndral13preub18_ESO · May 2017

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

I said I wouldn't agree with your opinion . Just leave it at that . You started off saying millions of PVE players and a handful of PVP players . You could not get more biased or far from actually statistics if you tried . I'm fine with your opinion though being its what you believe ..

@Rohamad_Ali

There's a difference in disagreeing and you suggesting something that's inaccurate. It's not that I disagree why people left, it's what you added to that which is false.

You're statement that WoW is successful because it's an open world PvP game with a toggle, and that's what made WoW a success is inaccurate.

The World of Warcraft design lets us see how many servers and the population of those servers who are PvP focused in any world PvP designs. Then you have PvP queues on top of that, however, the PvPis far less populated, and so I'm saying it's very inaccurate to suggest that WoW is so successful due to PvP. Especially because a lot of what you're referring to wasn't added in 2004 it came in later updates and much later expansions.

But your numbers dont count me or players like me. People who play on a RP server but actively pvp during down time and played for as long as I did because pvp carried me through the content droughts.

I get what you are saying. And pvp maybe the less popular of the two. But that is totally different then saying the game would have been alright without it.

Pseron_Wyrd · May 2017

If there had been no PvP in this game I would have bought it at launch. So they would have had at least one more sales from me.

I only bought the game recently. And I bought it specifically because sounded as though they had de-emphasized PvP. Now that I have the game I will never set foot in Cyrodiil as long as it remains a PvP zone.

timidobserver · May 2017

I know at least 20-30 people that would not be here if there was no PvP. People that don't like PvP can just abstain.

NewBlacksmurf · May 2017

vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

I said I wouldn't agree with your opinion . Just leave it at that . You started off saying millions of PVE players and a handful of PVP players . You could not get more biased or far from actually statistics if you tried . I'm fine with your opinion though being its what you believe ..

@Rohamad_Ali

There's a difference in disagreeing and you suggesting something that's inaccurate. It's not that I disagree why people left, it's what you added to that which is false.

You're statement that WoW is successful because it's an open world PvP game with a toggle, and that's what made WoW a success is inaccurate.

The World of Warcraft design lets us see how many servers and the population of those servers who are PvP focused in any world PvP designs. Then you have PvP queues on top of that, however, the PvPis far less populated, and so I'm saying it's very inaccurate to suggest that WoW is so successful due to PvP. Especially because a lot of what you're referring to wasn't added in 2004 it came in later updates and much later expansions.

But your numbers dont count me or players like me. People who play on a RP server but actively pvp during down time and played for as long as I did because pvp carried me through the content droughts.

I get what you are saying. And pvp maybe the less popular of the two. But that is totally different then saying the game would have been alright without it.

@vyndral13preub18_ESO

Actually the game itself does. Have you guys played WoW lately?
It's not my numbers it's how it actually works.
The UI by design informs players and queues, etc

ShedsHisTail · May 2017

Malamar1229 wrote: »

@Rainwhisper

One of my favorite MMOs to date was EverQuest. In a perfect world, I think you would have PvP games and PvE games, absolutely hard to balance both within the same game. PvP also tends to bring out the worst in people. I say this being mostly a PvP centered person.

If this was PvE only, then yeah that aspect would absolutely need some beefing. Will it ever get old? I don't know, Everquest is on it's 100th or something expansion (exaggerated).

More MMOs could use a dose of the old EQ opacity.
I was just telling a friend the other day that one of the things I loved about EQ was that, depending on your race, there were certain cities where the guards would just attack you on site, or NPCs just wouldn't talk to you, or a shop keeper might charge you more. Yeah, it made stuff inconvenient sometimes, but it made the world seem more alive.

ESO is great, but I feel like it's almost too inclusive sometimes. Like, it doesn't matter what faction or race I choose, none of the NPCs are gonna care or treat me any differently because of it (except maybe a single altered line of dialogue in certain quests).

EQ also had consentual PvP options.