I don't understand what's so wrong with nerfs. If it improves the balance, why not? If it doesn't improve balance, then maybe they nerfed the wrong things, but the same can happen with buffs. Only buffing and never nerfing would make PvE easier and easier to the point where even the hardest content could be facerolled. Is that really something desireable for PvE players?

Also keep in mind, if nerfs make some PvE content too hard, said content can be nerfed too. PvP balance can only be achieved by changes to the Player. PvE balance can be achieved by changes to the Player or the Enviroment.

Rianai wrote: »

I don't understand what's so wrong with nerfs. If it improves the balance, why not? If it doesn't improve balance, then maybe they nerfed the wrong things, but the same can happen with buffs. Only buffing and never nerfing would make PvE easier and easier to the point where even the hardest content could be facerolled. Is that really something desireable for PvE players?

Also keep in mind, if nerfs make some PvE content too hard, said content can be nerfed too. PvP balance can only be achieved by changes to the Player. PvE balance can be achieved by changes to the Player or the Enviroment.

FYI....Many disagree with everything you wrote above because opinions suggest they often mess with the wrong things or in the wrong ways
I suggest balance is impossible for PvE and PvP to use the same skills, items and resources

Totally.

ESO pvp got to be one of the most unfun experiences ive had in 8ish years of gaming. I suppose this game would have managed to somehow squeak by without it. Cyro keep battles and squirmishes are different story, however. Those can be an awesome experience.

phbell wrote: »

2) The continuous whining and crying to nerf different classes and skills.

With that logic, my PvP pet build was nerfed because of PvE. It goes both ways.

Coop Skyrim, while will be amazing, won't last long. There's no incentive for people to sub, they will just buy the game, play through, and move to other games. Things like end-game PvE and PvP are what keep people coming back from time to time after playing through the game.

To all of the short-sighted people who keep saying "but I have fun picking up flowers, crafting gear, farming mats and selling them on the market, and I have never set foot on PvP-land so the game would totally viable without PvP". WRONG. DEAD WRONG. Who do you think will buy your flowers, your gear, and your mats? Roleplayers? So they could send flowers to their roleplaying partners? "My dear Elisa, these are 2 lovely Corn Flowers I bought at the a trade kiosk called "Legoless The Purple" today, hope they will make your day bright and colourful, my beautiful sunshine". Ew. No, PvPers and hard-core competitive PvEers buy those things. They keep your playstyle viable, without them, there will be no demand for your flowers, have fun vendoring Columbine to NPCs for 2g each. Hope this answers your question, @Rainwhisper

This is coming from a TES fan who play both PvE and PvP.

hmsdragonfly wrote: »

Coop Skyrim, while it's amazing, won't last long. There's no incentive for people to sub, they will just buy the game, play through, and move to other games. Things like end-game PvE and PvP are what keep people coming back from time to time after playing through the game.

To all of the short-sighted people who keep saying "but I have fun picking up flowers, crafting gear, farming mats and selling them on the market, and I have never set foot on PvP-land so the game would totally viable without PvP". WRONG. DEAD WRONG. Who do you think will buy your flowers, your gear, and your mats? Roleplayers? So they could send flowers to their roleplaying partner? No, PvPers and hard-core competitive PvEers buy those things. They keep your playstyle viable, without them, there will be no demand for your flowers, have fun vendoring Columbine to NPCs for 2g each.

This is coming from a TES fan who plays both PvE and PvP.

I was thinking about this and I'm not sure I agree.

I honestly think that games in general have been sort of creatively slacking in the PvP department, giving us the same thing over and over again.

PvP means Player vs Player... That can mean a lot of things but at it's base it means competition. It doesn't have to mean killing one another. Players can compete against one another in different ways, we do it all the time in real life. You could conceivably create a mostly PvE game which includes competitive aspects that aren't so twitch heavy, or aren't so based on builds or whatever.

I mean, look at VMA. It's competitive, but it's not PvP. Yeah, that's still really reliant on builds and twitching, but it's just one example.

I mean, I'm sure if we actually think outside the box a little we can come up with other ways for people to compete that aren't necessarily killing one another. I think of games like Civilization where there are multiple ways to claim a victory and not all of them include ruining your opponent. Surely a developer could come up with some manner of analog to the Science victory, or the Diplomatic victory, or the Religious victory.

I guess what I'm saying is, removing PvP -combat- from the game doesn't have to also remove replay-ability and competition. The dev team just has to think a little harder to implement other systems to keep it fun.

ShedsHisTail wrote: »

hmsdragonfly wrote: »

Coop Skyrim, while it's amazing, won't last long. There's no incentive for people to sub, they will just buy the game, play through, and move to other games. Things like end-game PvE and PvP are what keep people coming back from time to time after playing through the game.

To all of the short-sighted people who keep saying "but I have fun picking up flowers, crafting gear, farming mats and selling them on the market, and I have never set foot on PvP-land so the game would totally viable without PvP". WRONG. DEAD WRONG. Who do you think will buy your flowers, your gear, and your mats? Roleplayers? So they could send flowers to their roleplaying partner? No, PvPers and hard-core competitive PvEers buy those things. They keep your playstyle viable, without them, there will be no demand for your flowers, have fun vendoring Columbine to NPCs for 2g each.

This is coming from a TES fan who plays both PvE and PvP.

I was thinking about this and I'm not sure I agree.

I honestly think that games in general have been sort of creatively slacking in the PvP department, giving us the same thing over and over again.

PvP means Player vs Player... That can mean a lot of things but at it's base it means competition. It doesn't have to mean killing one another. Players can compete against one another in different ways, we do it all the time in real life. You could conceivably create a mostly PvE game which includes competitive aspects that aren't so twitch heavy, or aren't so based on builds or whatever.

I mean, look at VMA. It's competitive, but it's not PvP. Yeah, that's still really reliant on builds and twitching, but it's just one example.

I mean, I'm sure if we actually think outside the box a little we can come up with other ways for people to compete that aren't necessarily killing one another. I think of games like Civilization where there are multiple ways to claim a victory and not all of them include ruining your opponent. Surely a developer could come up with some manner of analog to the Science victory, or the Diplomatic victory, or the Religious victory.

I guess what I'm saying is, removing PvP from the game doesn't have to also remove replay-ability and competition. The dev team just has to think a little harder to implement other systems to keep it fun.

People are farming VMA for 2 reasons:
1) PvP
2) Hardcore competitive PvE. (meaning vet trials, score runs)

The thing is, it's pretty scary to rely solely on PvE leaderboard for the competitiveness of the game. The number of people that can actually compete for the leaderboard is really low. Maybe for like, 100 out of 1 million people actually have the skills to compete. If the competition is just about PvE leaderboard, while it might work, most people will realize that they have no chance of competing anyway and will just stop trying. Being average in PvE means you have no chance to compete for a spot on the leaderboard, therefore you will get little sense of accomplishment, so, being average in PvE is no fun. On the other hand, being average in PvP means that you still have a chance against another average player, and if you win the fight, you feel satisfied, you feel accomplished. That's why there are not many competitive PvE titles out there, while all successful competitive games are PvP based.

Losing in PvP doesn't mean my experience is ruined like you think. I like it when I get outplayed by a more skillfull player. I try to figure it out what I have done wrong, what the opponent has done better, learn from it, and try to improve. There's this tradition in Cyrodiil: if you get into a fair fight against an equally skilled opponent, you win but that's a good fight, you /bow or /bow2 to show respect to your opponent. There's as much /bow and /bow2 going on as tbagging and rage whispers. People always see the bad side of something, few people actually pay attention to the good side of it.

The most popular way for people to compete in real life is sport. It doesn't matter what sport you choose, it's all about two teams competing against each other, just like .... PvP.

Btw, if you have any out-of-the-box idea to remove PvP while maintaining a good amount of competitiveness, we are all ears.

PVP ruins MMOs there is no doubt about it have yet to come across it an MMO that has done PVP correctly and successfully combined it with PVE all you end up with is a divided community and divided resources pick one and go with it

It's possible that PvE would have been better if PvP had been left out but at the same time, PvE content becomes stagnant after awhile and considering how long it takes for new content to be added, I'd say that ESO would have been already forgotten if PvP hadn't existed. I mean seriously, they added Craglorn and it took a whole year before they added anything new in. The game would have been stagnant and everyone would have left then and there.

Sure, the time they spent on PvP might have been better suited for more productive PvE elements but considering the complete lack of end game at launch (No trials and only Vet City of Ash was considered a challenge) would it have honestly mattered?

ShedsHisTail wrote: »

hmsdragonfly wrote: »

ShedsHisTail wrote: »

hmsdragonfly wrote: »

Coop Skyrim, while it's amazing, won't last long. There's no incentive for people to sub, they will just buy the game, play through, and move to other games. Things like end-game PvE and PvP are what keep people coming back from time to time after playing through the game.

To all of the short-sighted people who keep saying "but I have fun picking up flowers, crafting gear, farming mats and selling them on the market, and I have never set foot on PvP-land so the game would totally viable without PvP". WRONG. DEAD WRONG. Who do you think will buy your flowers, your gear, and your mats? Roleplayers? So they could send flowers to their roleplaying partner? No, PvPers and hard-core competitive PvEers buy those things. They keep your playstyle viable, without them, there will be no demand for your flowers, have fun vendoring Columbine to NPCs for 2g each.

This is coming from a TES fan who plays both PvE and PvP.

I was thinking about this and I'm not sure I agree.

I honestly think that games in general have been sort of creatively slacking in the PvP department, giving us the same thing over and over again.

PvP means Player vs Player... That can mean a lot of things but at it's base it means competition. It doesn't have to mean killing one another. Players can compete against one another in different ways, we do it all the time in real life. You could conceivably create a mostly PvE game which includes competitive aspects that aren't so twitch heavy, or aren't so based on builds or whatever.

I mean, look at VMA. It's competitive, but it's not PvP. Yeah, that's still really reliant on builds and twitching, but it's just one example.

I mean, I'm sure if we actually think outside the box a little we can come up with other ways for people to compete that aren't necessarily killing one another. I think of games like Civilization where there are multiple ways to claim a victory and not all of them include ruining your opponent. Surely a developer could come up with some manner of analog to the Science victory, or the Diplomatic victory, or the Religious victory.

I guess what I'm saying is, removing PvP from the game doesn't have to also remove replay-ability and competition. The dev team just has to think a little harder to implement other systems to keep it fun.

People are farming VMA for 2 reasons:
1) PvP
2) Hardcore competitive PvE. (meaning vet trials, score runs)

The thing is, it's pretty scary to rely solely on PvE leaderboard for the competitiveness of the game. The number of people that can actually compete for the leaderboard is really low. Maybe for like, 100 out of 1 million people actually have the skills to compete. If the competition is just about PvE leaderboard, while it might work, most people will realize that they have no chance of competing anyway and will just stop trying. Being average in PvE means you have no chance to compete for a spot on the leaderboard, therefore you will get little sense of accomplishment, so, being average in PvE is no fun. On the other hand, being average in PvP means that you still have a chance against another average player, and if you win the fight, you feel satisfied, you feel accomplished. That's why there are not many competitive PvE titles out there, while all successful competitive games are PvP based.

Losing in PvP doesn't mean my experience is ruined. I like it when I get outplayed by a more skillfull player. I try to figure it out what I have done wrong, what the opponent has done better, learn from it, and try to improve. There's this tradition in Cyrodiil: if you get into a fair fight against an equally skilled opponent, you win but that's a good fight, you /bow or /bow2 to show respect to your opponent. There's as much /bow and /bow2 going on as tbagging and rage whispers. People always see the bad side of something, few people actually pay attention to the good side of it.

Btw, if you have any out-of-the-box idea to remove PvP while maintaining a good amount of competitiveness, we are all ears.

As I said... VMA was simply an example of competition without PvP combat. It's an imperfect example, admittedly, which I said.

Now, I didn't say anything about being beaten in PvP ruining the experience for you, I can't speak or you, nor would I attempt to. I simply said that I feel like, as players, we get a little short changed on the PvP side of things because we're served up essentially the same game with different skins over and over and over.

I'm not a developer, I don't know what's possible, nor will I attempt to guess what you mean by a "a good amount of competitiveness" because that's a completely arbitrary figure. I just feel like after decades of the same old death match, capture the flag, hold the objective play I, personally, have become largely disenchanted with traditional PvP formats.

I don't feel like PvP is really contributing anything unique to ESO because I can find the same thing elsewhere... Rather, everywhere. So I don't spend much time with it. If I want PvP, I go to a game the specializes in PvP.

Well,
You can find better questing elsewhere: Bioshock, Mass Effect, Prey, Batman Arkham etc
You can find better combat and gameplay elsewhere: Dark Soul, Nier Automata etc
You can find better lore elsewhere: Mass Effect, Warhammer, TES single player games, Fallout etc
You can find better "dungeon RNG grinder" elsewhere: WoW, Destiny etc
You can find better competitive PvP elsewhere: CSGO, DOTA, LoL, Heroes of the Storm, Overwatch, Battlefield etc
You can find better economic games elsewhere: Roller Coaster Tycoon, Cities Skylines, Anno etc

So, it's perfectly true that PvP isn't really something unique to ESO and you can find better experience elsewhere, it holds true for every other single component of the game. What makes this game unique is the combination of all components above, every single one of them depends on each other, and if one of them collapses, everything else will soon fall as well.

Tbh, ZOS don't have enough resources to fix the group finder and you expect them to have resources to come up with a brilliant and industry-changing formular to turn this game into a PvE only game that is competitive enough to keep players playing for years, and successfully carry it out? I highly doubt it.

hmsdragonfly wrote: »

ShedsHisTail wrote: »

hmsdragonfly wrote: »

ShedsHisTail wrote: »

hmsdragonfly wrote: »

Coop Skyrim, while it's amazing, won't last long. There's no incentive for people to sub, they will just buy the game, play through, and move to other games. Things like end-game PvE and PvP are what keep people coming back from time to time after playing through the game.

To all of the short-sighted people who keep saying "but I have fun picking up flowers, crafting gear, farming mats and selling them on the market, and I have never set foot on PvP-land so the game would totally viable without PvP". WRONG. DEAD WRONG. Who do you think will buy your flowers, your gear, and your mats? Roleplayers? So they could send flowers to their roleplaying partner? No, PvPers and hard-core competitive PvEers buy those things. They keep your playstyle viable, without them, there will be no demand for your flowers, have fun vendoring Columbine to NPCs for 2g each.

This is coming from a TES fan who plays both PvE and PvP.

I was thinking about this and I'm not sure I agree.

I honestly think that games in general have been sort of creatively slacking in the PvP department, giving us the same thing over and over again.

PvP means Player vs Player... That can mean a lot of things but at it's base it means competition. It doesn't have to mean killing one another. Players can compete against one another in different ways, we do it all the time in real life. You could conceivably create a mostly PvE game which includes competitive aspects that aren't so twitch heavy, or aren't so based on builds or whatever.

I mean, look at VMA. It's competitive, but it's not PvP. Yeah, that's still really reliant on builds and twitching, but it's just one example.

I mean, I'm sure if we actually think outside the box a little we can come up with other ways for people to compete that aren't necessarily killing one another. I think of games like Civilization where there are multiple ways to claim a victory and not all of them include ruining your opponent. Surely a developer could come up with some manner of analog to the Science victory, or the Diplomatic victory, or the Religious victory.

I guess what I'm saying is, removing PvP from the game doesn't have to also remove replay-ability and competition. The dev team just has to think a little harder to implement other systems to keep it fun.

People are farming VMA for 2 reasons:
1) PvP
2) Hardcore competitive PvE. (meaning vet trials, score runs)

The thing is, it's pretty scary to rely solely on PvE leaderboard for the competitiveness of the game. The number of people that can actually compete for the leaderboard is really low. Maybe for like, 100 out of 1 million people actually have the skills to compete. If the competition is just about PvE leaderboard, while it might work, most people will realize that they have no chance of competing anyway and will just stop trying. Being average in PvE means you have no chance to compete for a spot on the leaderboard, therefore you will get little sense of accomplishment, so, being average in PvE is no fun. On the other hand, being average in PvP means that you still have a chance against another average player, and if you win the fight, you feel satisfied, you feel accomplished. That's why there are not many competitive PvE titles out there, while all successful competitive games are PvP based.

Losing in PvP doesn't mean my experience is ruined. I like it when I get outplayed by a more skillfull player. I try to figure it out what I have done wrong, what the opponent has done better, learn from it, and try to improve. There's this tradition in Cyrodiil: if you get into a fair fight against an equally skilled opponent, you win but that's a good fight, you /bow or /bow2 to show respect to your opponent. There's as much /bow and /bow2 going on as tbagging and rage whispers. People always see the bad side of something, few people actually pay attention to the good side of it.

Btw, if you have any out-of-the-box idea to remove PvP while maintaining a good amount of competitiveness, we are all ears.

As I said... VMA was simply an example of competition without PvP combat. It's an imperfect example, admittedly, which I said.

Now, I didn't say anything about being beaten in PvP ruining the experience for you, I can't speak or you, nor would I attempt to. I simply said that I feel like, as players, we get a little short changed on the PvP side of things because we're served up essentially the same game with different skins over and over and over.

I'm not a developer, I don't know what's possible, nor will I attempt to guess what you mean by a "a good amount of competitiveness" because that's a completely arbitrary figure. I just feel like after decades of the same old death match, capture the flag, hold the objective play I, personally, have become largely disenchanted with traditional PvP formats.

I don't feel like PvP is really contributing anything unique to ESO because I can find the same thing elsewhere... Rather, everywhere. So I don't spend much time with it. If I want PvP, I go to a game the specializes in PvP.

Well,
You can find better questing elsewhere: Bioshock, Mass Effect, Prey, Batman Arkham etc
You can find better combat and gameplay elsewhere: Dark Soul, Nier Automata etc
You can find better lore elsewhere: Mass Effect, Warhammer, TES single player games, Fallout etc
You can find better "dungeon RNG grinder" elsewhere: WoW, Destiny etc
You can find better competitive PvP elsewhere: CSGO, DOTA, LoL, Heroes of the Storm, Overwatch, Battlefield etc
You can find better economic games elsewhere: Roller Coaster Tycoon, Cities Skylines, Anno etc

So, it's perfectly true that PvP isn't really something unique to ESO and you can find better experience elsewhere, it holds true for every other single component of the game. What makes this game unique is the combination of all components above, every single one of them depends on each other, and if one of them collapses, everything else will soon fall as well.

Tbh, ZOS don't have enough resources to fix the group finder and you expect them to have resources to come up with a brilliant and industry-changing formular to turn this game into a PvE only game that is competitive enough to keep players playing for years, and successfully carry it out? I highly doubt it.

Alright, you win.
I feel like you're missing my point, but I've neither the time nor energy to continue trying to explain it.

phbell wrote: »

hmsdragonfly wrote: »

phbell wrote: »

2) The continuous whining and crying to nerf different classes and skills.

With that logic, my PvP pet build was nerfed because of PvE. It goes both ways.

Show me where PvE cried to have your sorc nerfed. You cant... PvP calls for "balancing" did that. It started with Streak and has gone downhill since. I sympathize as I have a sorc, but don't blame PvE.

Really? Cause last I checked Sorcs were dominating the entirety of the PvE leaderboards as well as the PvP ones. Magic DK is still hanging in there due almost entirely thru chains alone but all other DPS classes, both magic and stamina, have been effectively scrapped off the Leaderboards as a result of Sorc supremacy.

Streak might have been nerfed as a result of PvP but some nerfs NEED to happen. If no nerfs ever happened, we'd still all be Vampire Magic DKs.

I like PVPing, especially after finishing many (most?) of PVE contents.

I think the system is quite good (in principle, im not talking about proc sets and so on),and I enjoy playing this kind of PVP :-)