lol if ZOS ever released a PVP DLC they would bleed money for that Quarter of the year.

I would much rather have 20v20 or 20v20v20 battle grounds. I would much rather have some sort of competitive territory control that actually gives you and your guild real meaningful benefits. Keeps/castles that mean something when you own them. Something static and relevant.

lagrue wrote: »

lol if ZOS ever released a PVP DLC they would bleed money for that Quarter of the year.

This is definitely not true in the current iteration of the gamer. The only successful blockbuster titles that are not single player are competitive games. The only way what you suggest would happen were to be if it were trash, in which case you might be right.

You have to remember PvP is player vs player. The flow comes from having to adjust to other players. As players adjust how they do things other players must also adjust. New content isn't needed for PvP to thrive. All that is needed is for players to continue to challenge each other. With PvE the environment stays the same so PvE depends on new environment. Adding new content for PvP dilutes the player pool causing more long term problems that what a short term enthusiasm would be worth.

I would like to see a change to housing though. Allow a home owner to hold events in their home. They could chose from a template of battles. Could be last man standing, dividing into teams whatever. Population allowed in each home would be a limiting factor but still it would be fun to run around in a large manor killing or being killed by guild mates. No rewards or anything like that just some fun carnage.

killahsin wrote: »

I would much rather have 20v20 or 20v20v20 battle grounds. I would much rather have some sort of competitive territory control that actually gives you and your guild real meaningful benefits. Keeps/castles that mean something when you own them. Something static and relevant.

lagrue wrote: »

lol if ZOS ever released a PVP DLC they would bleed money for that Quarter of the year.

This is definitely not true in the current iteration of the gamer. The only successful blockbuster titles that are not single player are competitive games. The only way what you suggest would happen were to be if it were trash, in which case you might be right.

I have a sneaking suspicion that a PVP only DLC would be the least successful DLC in ESO history.

Of course that doesn't mean competitive games are not successful (I have several titles I play), nor that ESO shouldn't add PVP activities with each DLC, just that ESO is not what comes to mind when one thinks of a successful PVP-based game.

templesus wrote: »

This game doesn’t need more Large Scale PvP. It already has that. If anything’s added it would be for small scale. So no 20v20 or anything like that.

we have been fighting in the same exact area for over 5 YEARS.
3 years ago i started to realize i dont even use the map to find places (all memorized)
we need a new place to kill people because we are bored of the same crap over and over for YEARS
nothing wrong with asking for a new place to have ... murder ...

you pve people get a new place every 3 months for the past 5 YEARS and we got 1 = not fair and allowed to ask for more.

killahsin wrote: »

Dawnblade wrote: »

I'd have no issues with them adding more PVP focused content within a DLC (like with the dungeon DLCs), but I don't think a 'PVP DLC' would be well recieved

killahsin wrote: »

I would much rather have 20v20 or 20v20v20 battle grounds. I would much rather have some sort of competitive territory control that actually gives you and your guild real meaningful benefits. Keeps/castles that mean something when you own them. Something static and relevant.

lagrue wrote: »

lol if ZOS ever released a PVP DLC they would bleed money for that Quarter of the year.

This is definitely not true in the current iteration of the gamer. The only successful blockbuster titles that are not single player are competitive games. The only way what you suggest would happen were to be if it were trash, in which case you might be right.

I have a sneaking suspicion that a PVP only DLC would be the least successful DLC in ESO history.

Of course that doesn't mean competitive games are not successful (I have several titles I play), nor that ESO shouldn't add PVP activities with each DLC, just that ESO is not what comes to mind when one thinks of a successful PVP-based game.

In its current iteration it is not remotely considered a competitive game but during its first 6 months it contained almost all the top tier pvp guilds from across the fps and mmo world. But then the ZoS gods over-reacted decisions were made, liquor was drank and they almost all left entirely.

We left because AvAvA was horribly broken and unplayable. During beta and the very, very early days of launch, ESO had some of the most fun PvP ever in a game. There was strategy, teams, excitement, goals, and a sense of accomplishment when you did something.

One patch blew everything up. Cyrodil became an unplayable mess that would drop to single digit FPS or just kick you from the zone during any battle.

This game was originally designed for Cyrodil to be the one and only end game. All of us that were sitting at max level, had done every zone and dungeon had absolutely nothing to do if Cyrodil was broken, so there was a mass exodus from the game.

The game doesn't need PvP DLC, it just needs to fix what already exists. With enough people playing in Cyrodil, the zergs don't mean as much or you can have multiple zergs which really becomes fun. With tons of people, new people can try PvP for the first time in a group and not have to worry about getting constantly ganked the first time they go in.

Maybe some of those PVE'ers would find out that group PvP can actually be fun. They can even wear all their cool costumes and ride their cool mounts in an epic battle.

Make the IC part of the base game (the damn DLC is how old now) as is...... add point value to each district and certain capture points in the sewers that effect the over all campaign victory.... now you would have a real reason to go to the IC.... you will get smaller group pvp in the districts and it would have meaning. It increases variety and gives new landscape to PVP in.

dwemer_paleologist wrote: »

templesus wrote: »

This game doesn’t need more Large Scale PvP. It already has that. If anything’s added it would be for small scale. So no 20v20 or anything like that.

we have been fighting in the same exact area for over 5 YEARS.
3 years ago i started to realize i dont even use the map to find places (all memorized)
we need a new place to kill people because we are bored of the same crap over and over for YEARS
nothing wrong with asking for a new place to have ... murder ...

you pve people get a new place every 3 months for the past 5 YEARS and we got 1 = not fair and allowed to ask for more.

A new place to PvP would placate the masses for maybe a week. Then we would all migrate back to where there are players to actually fight against. New places to fight are not much good if there is no one there to fight.

lagrue wrote: »

killahsin wrote: »

I would much rather have 20v20 or 20v20v20 battle grounds. I would much rather have some sort of competitive territory control that actually gives you and your guild real meaningful benefits. Keeps/castles that mean something when you own them. Something static and relevant.

lagrue wrote: »

lol if ZOS ever released a PVP DLC they would bleed money for that Quarter of the year.

This is definitely not true in the current iteration of the gamer. The only successful blockbuster titles that are not single player are competitive games. The only way what you suggest would happen were to be if it were trash, in which case you might be right.

Nah m8. The reality is you will see far more people playing PVE in this game than PVP. Everytime there is a poll about who plays what more - its PVE. IT doesn't mean there isn't a healthy PVP playerbase, but they are the minority.

Making a DLC that caters to the minority will result in financial loss and player loss both.

IC released as a primarily PVP DLC and its widely regarded as the worst DLC, not even because the PVP aspects are bad (actually its quite fun) - but because its predominantly PVP to begin with and the majority doesn't want that.

When you look at the core demographic of this game they are Bethesda fans... people used to mostly single player games. Even a huge portion of PVE players in this game choose to treat it as single player as much as possible. I know I sure as hell wouldn't buy a PVP oriented DLC, and I'm but one of many who would feel that way. It's bad enough PVE gets Dungeon DLCs which don't bring new players in - only new zones tend to do that.

We need more zone based DLCs if anything, that's what draws people in.

Needs to be pointed out any poll taken in forums is not representative of the playing population. That aside 20v20 probably isn't a good idea in this game because most guilds I have been in struggle to get 12 people together consistently for a trial run even when trials are what they are suppose to be concentrating on.

ayu_fever wrote: »

there just are not enough pvpers in eso to support the expense of developing more pvp content.
those pvp players have “enough” content in eso as it is. they dont need “more.”
be grateful you have what you have because the elder scrolls is a pve oriented franchise.
the whales, care bears, and casuals are the ones who sub and buy crowns, and we also stay in pve land.
zos has no choice to cater to US.
WE have dlc development on lockdown and it will always be more pve.
you want silly pvp nonsense? go play fortnite or call of duty.

Did you know that this game was marketed as a PvP game initially? Yeah... ESOs director Matt firor was a producer and designer to one of the most successful pvp oriented MMORPGs to date. But, you would probably deny it, because your population is catered to... but why?

First, PvP content is as popular as it always has been, what's changed is the market, which is being flooeded by new games, and a new kind of gamer that's easily pleased by being handed cosmetics. WoW really got the ball rolling for MMORPGs, but the biggest factor was the video games industry surpassing the movie industry. That's really when we started seeing standardized models popping up in every game to lure in broader audiences, by dumbing down content and making everything easy. The devs know that they have a huge audience of people that are more interested in simply buying, rather than earning the 'cool items' MMORPGs are known to reward people with. Sure it's quick money, but it comes at a cost to the gaming industry as a whole, just like we're seeing happen with the movie industry. Great movies are rare now, and companies are scrambling to maintain the profits that they're used to by remaking 'the hits'. But, that can only last for so long. Eventually, they will run out of material with substance.

I see it in ESO, ZOS is trying harder to manipulate people into playing the game rather than making a good game that people simply flock to. The subtext of their decisions over the past year resonates along the lines of, "look, all we want is your money... just igve us your money, please, dont force us to make a better video game. Oh... wait, maybe you want free item?". But, what's being referred to as the 'PvE population' is really a new population, a 'cosmetics population' that isn't very loyal, leaving to a different game on a whim. Yet ZOS still caters to you all because youre easy to get money from, as they push away the core base, further and further. Which you shouldn't celebrate, like you wouldn't celebrate cutting your own nose to spite your face; the core base of any game is what gives the game's community substance, and without it you wouldn't have much of a game.

kargen27 wrote: »

lagrue wrote: »

killahsin wrote: »

I would much rather have 20v20 or 20v20v20 battle grounds. I would much rather have some sort of competitive territory control that actually gives you and your guild real meaningful benefits. Keeps/castles that mean something when you own them. Something static and relevant.

lagrue wrote: »

lol if ZOS ever released a PVP DLC they would bleed money for that Quarter of the year.

This is definitely not true in the current iteration of the gamer. The only successful blockbuster titles that are not single player are competitive games. The only way what you suggest would happen were to be if it were trash, in which case you might be right.

Nah m8. The reality is you will see far more people playing PVE in this game than PVP. Everytime there is a poll about who plays what more - its PVE. IT doesn't mean there isn't a healthy PVP playerbase, but they are the minority.

Making a DLC that caters to the minority will result in financial loss and player loss both.

IC released as a primarily PVP DLC and its widely regarded as the worst DLC, not even because the PVP aspects are bad (actually its quite fun) - but because its predominantly PVP to begin with and the majority doesn't want that.

When you look at the core demographic of this game they are Bethesda fans... people used to mostly single player games. Even a huge portion of PVE players in this game choose to treat it as single player as much as possible. I know I sure as hell wouldn't buy a PVP oriented DLC, and I'm but one of many who would feel that way. It's bad enough PVE gets Dungeon DLCs which don't bring new players in - only new zones tend to do that.

We need more zone based DLCs if anything, that's what draws people in.

Needs to be pointed out any poll taken in forums is not representative of the playing population. That aside 20v20 probably isn't a good idea in this game because most guilds I have been in struggle to get 12 people together consistently for a trial run even when trials are what they are suppose to be concentrating on.

I do agree that the forums is only a sample, and a small sample at that. But there is a general consensus that the game's playerbase leans primarily PVE, some both, and then minority PVP only. I do wish we had more numbers.