Maintenance for the week of April 6:
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – April 6
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – April 6
can Cyrodill please get a redesign / overhaul?
Wing
✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
I personally feel one of the reasons the pvp community is so bitter right now is its being ignored to the point of losing all its players and NO communication of any kind from ZOS.
but I digress
Cyrodill just needs a bit of a redesign.
the basis of its design worked fine (DaoC) but they started tweaking and went way to far in ESO.
having a pvp system designed around faction loyalty alone to promote a community is fine and tends to work. and having a pvp system designed around essentially rounds or matches (campaigns) works fine too (however in most instances these are relegated to minutes rather then days / weeks / months)
DaoC was far more faction based with a slight nudge into the strategic aspect for an interesting layer or option for the pvp rather then the point of it excluding all else.
ESO leans heavily into the strategic aspect of it, keep battles are frequent and often fast, scroll caps are fast (in DaoC you had to jump through a few more hoops to get access to what were its version of scrolls, and taking a scroll required sitting on it for 5 minutes uninterrupted and a server message was broadcast telling everyone what was going on)
you might say *well how are you supposed to take scrolls then?!*
well, you were not really supposed to, the design, the time required, and the server alert was all designed around forcing a pvp encounter, not avoiding one.
keeps were more "in the way" (the maps were a bit more narrow) and designed as a bottleneck to, you guessed it, force a pvp encounter.
the current point system, strategic element and its priority over gameplay (scroll buffs, emp buffs, etc) and campaign system are fairly unrelated to pvp, you get points for holding scrolls and keeps, not killing players. the fastest way to both of those things is to actually avoid fights and pvdoor undefended keeps before people show up.
then we have duration on top of it, in casual games that last a round or session, things like league or cod, you can expect to be in a match for an hour at most, and that's a big AT MOST. so if you lose, it sucks but its over and done and you play again, maybe win the next one, cool.
the main pvp campaign equivalent is ONE MONTH, not only that, but because its three factions there are two losers, and only one winner. so the majority of players have to be in the losing factions, for weeks on end. this causes faction swap and the issue to only get worse.
sure there will be people who don't care about the campaign (or at least say as much) and really only pvp for their faction casually, but in the grand scheme of things this is the minority, in games as in life people prefer to win.
I personally feel a large shift away from the strategic and point focus of pvp should occur, and more of a focus on preferred faction player vs player encounters, but that's not to the exclusion of a more current system.
1) keep the current pvp design, but limit it to week long campaigns, every OTHER week, so more like a micro season. the reason for week long breaks would be to prevent burn out and more emphasize the legit score and strategic based pvp and having a slight deprivation would provide further incentive to play hard during the limited time frame, same as almost any competitive structure. (this would essentially be your competitive strategic based environment)
2) re design the base pvp system to simply not have things like overall scoring, scroll buffs, emperor, etc. (this would all be alive and well in the new competitive week long campaigns) reduce the ap gain from capture / defense and increase the ap gain from killing players. I would go so far as to make the two gate home keeps unable to be sieged in this environment to further promote faster player vs player encounters and clashes. (and this would be casual team deathmatch)
by the way all this stuff requires VERY LITTLE work on ZOS's end, just the requirement of mustering a little effort directed at PvP.
@ZOS_RichLambert
@ZOS_MattFiror
@ZOS_GinaBruno
@ZOS_BrianWheeler
@ zos etc.
Edited by Wing on February 17, 2020 4:55PM but I digress
Cyrodill just needs a bit of a redesign.
the basis of its design worked fine (DaoC) but they started tweaking and went way to far in ESO.
having a pvp system designed around faction loyalty alone to promote a community is fine and tends to work. and having a pvp system designed around essentially rounds or matches (campaigns) works fine too (however in most instances these are relegated to minutes rather then days / weeks / months)
DaoC was far more faction based with a slight nudge into the strategic aspect for an interesting layer or option for the pvp rather then the point of it excluding all else.
ESO leans heavily into the strategic aspect of it, keep battles are frequent and often fast, scroll caps are fast (in DaoC you had to jump through a few more hoops to get access to what were its version of scrolls, and taking a scroll required sitting on it for 5 minutes uninterrupted and a server message was broadcast telling everyone what was going on)
you might say *well how are you supposed to take scrolls then?!*
well, you were not really supposed to, the design, the time required, and the server alert was all designed around forcing a pvp encounter, not avoiding one.
keeps were more "in the way" (the maps were a bit more narrow) and designed as a bottleneck to, you guessed it, force a pvp encounter.
the current point system, strategic element and its priority over gameplay (scroll buffs, emp buffs, etc) and campaign system are fairly unrelated to pvp, you get points for holding scrolls and keeps, not killing players. the fastest way to both of those things is to actually avoid fights and pvdoor undefended keeps before people show up.
then we have duration on top of it, in casual games that last a round or session, things like league or cod, you can expect to be in a match for an hour at most, and that's a big AT MOST. so if you lose, it sucks but its over and done and you play again, maybe win the next one, cool.
the main pvp campaign equivalent is ONE MONTH, not only that, but because its three factions there are two losers, and only one winner. so the majority of players have to be in the losing factions, for weeks on end. this causes faction swap and the issue to only get worse.
sure there will be people who don't care about the campaign (or at least say as much) and really only pvp for their faction casually, but in the grand scheme of things this is the minority, in games as in life people prefer to win.
I personally feel a large shift away from the strategic and point focus of pvp should occur, and more of a focus on preferred faction player vs player encounters, but that's not to the exclusion of a more current system.
1) keep the current pvp design, but limit it to week long campaigns, every OTHER week, so more like a micro season. the reason for week long breaks would be to prevent burn out and more emphasize the legit score and strategic based pvp and having a slight deprivation would provide further incentive to play hard during the limited time frame, same as almost any competitive structure. (this would essentially be your competitive strategic based environment)
2) re design the base pvp system to simply not have things like overall scoring, scroll buffs, emperor, etc. (this would all be alive and well in the new competitive week long campaigns) reduce the ap gain from capture / defense and increase the ap gain from killing players. I would go so far as to make the two gate home keeps unable to be sieged in this environment to further promote faster player vs player encounters and clashes. (and this would be casual team deathmatch)
by the way all this stuff requires VERY LITTLE work on ZOS's end, just the requirement of mustering a little effort directed at PvP.
@ZOS_RichLambert
@ZOS_MattFiror
@ZOS_GinaBruno
@ZOS_BrianWheeler
@ zos etc.
ESO player since beta.
game got too disappointing.
game got too disappointing.
9
-
VaranisArano✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭The basic redesign I want is for performance, lag, and known bugs to get fixed. Make it so everyone can reliably play Cyrodiil as intended and I suspect we'd see a lot less fed up PVPers.14 -
Mister_DMC✭✭✭✭✭And reduce the overall size, it should not 5 minutes to reach a keep on a max speed horse with rapids.7 -
xXMeowMeowXx✭✭✭✭✭
✭VaranisArano wrote: »The basic redesign I want is for performance, lag, and known bugs to get fixed. Make it so everyone can reliably play Cyrodiil as intended and I suspect we'd see a lot less fed up PVPers.
This ^ Tired of the being dcd, lag, stuck in combat, etc.
@VaranisArano is right !!
It is the performance that needs all the attention because rn it is even more horrible.
If players can’t reliably play a game, that is a critical issue, imo1 -
rumple9✭✭✭✭✭
✭They should make it into seasons with a different map and scoring bonuses every quarter0 -
MajThorax✭✭✭✭✭ZoS should redesign Cyrodiil, all the towns and the Imperial City and release it as a new pve expansion. I am tired of all the provinces, give us the heart of the Empire please!7 -
FierceSam✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭It doesn’t matter what the rules are if the performance is garbage and new players are alienated.2 -
Dusk_Coven✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Don't see any of the issues that happen to me in Cyrodiil when I'm in regular PvE zones.
Pretty sure ZOS has basically abandoned Cyrodiil / IC / open world PvP given that they can't even be bothered to respond to bugs and issues such as https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/512385/shocking-repeated-cheating-by-a-guild-pc-na-kaal/ and https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/511054/laatvulon-another-dc-rollback
Just make Cyrodiil a regular PvE zone and move PvP into a more controllable and smaller area -- Battlegrounds.
Expand BG to include 1v1v1, 2v2v2, 3v3v3 and possibly more, to help with matching.
You want keeps? Towns? Throw that into BG as well as a type of map.
In BG, with ZOS able to control the number of participants, the size of groups can impact performance less (remember when people couldn't group at all and performance in Cyrodiil improved?) and the number of unbalancing group combinations is more limited and can better be analyzed.Edited by Dusk_Coven on February 17, 2020 6:07PM2 -
Fur_like_snow✭✭✭✭✭
✭End the three banner war. Bring home the troops. We need a new PvP zone to bring back old players and attract new ones. Populations have been shrinking every year. We need something fresh.6 -
oXI_Viper_IXo✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Fur_like_snow wrote: »End the three banner war. Bring home the troops. We need a new PvP zone to bring back old players and attract new ones. Populations have been shrinking every year. We need something fresh.
The population has been shrinking mostly due to the poor performance and bizarre balance changes, not so much the zone itself.4 -
Dusk_Coven✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Fur_like_snow wrote: »End the three banner war. Bring home the troops. We need a new PvP zone to bring back old players and attract new ones. Populations have been shrinking every year. We need something fresh.
Maybe population is shrinking because people who try it don't bother continuing?
A fresh zone won't change the fact that there are no proper leagues in ESO for PvP.
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/512485/cyrodiil-what-in-the-blue-blazes
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/510816/low-level-bg-twinking-makes-you-feel-absolutely-hopeless-disgusted-depressed-regretful-and-angryEdited by Dusk_Coven on February 17, 2020 6:49PM0 -
stevenyaub16_ESO✭✭✭✭I would prefer a whole map overhaul. Different border keeps linked to major keeps with a surrounding town. Quests and vendor unlock when captured. Everything just lacks in diversity and atmosphere.
Just a dead zone with copy paste keeps3 -
Gilvoth✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭we need to go deeper into elder scrolls
NOT Deeper into (DaoC)
this is elderscrolls title = it needs to actually BE eldrscrolls game and elderscrolls design culture and methods.1 -
PrimusNephilim✭✭✭✭✭VaranisArano wrote: »The basic redesign I want is for performance, lag, and known bugs to get fixed. Make it so everyone can reliably play Cyrodiil as intended and I suspect we'd see a lot less fed up PVPers.
This right here, stop what you're doing and fix the lag. This is, above anything else, is what's driving people away from PvP.1 -
redgreensunset✭✭✭✭✭
✭Fur_like_snow wrote: »End the three banner war. Bring home the troops. We need a new PvP zone to bring back old players and attract new ones. Populations have been shrinking every year. We need something fresh.
I'm fairly new to pvp in this game, tried out Cyrodiil during MYM and I loved it. Have kept it up on a casual basis since the event ended. So have many of my guildies.
Funny thing is for me and those of my guildies that stuck around lots of what OP mentions as issues, (capturing scrolls and keeps, the scoring, ect), are the very things that made it fun for us and why we came back. And tbh if they get removed and Cyrodiil gets turned into just a big battleground with no greater purpose than killing other players for the sake of doing that, I'll likely be out in a hot second and so would most of my guildies as well I think.2 -
TequilaFire✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭How can anyone in their right mind ask for changes to Cyrodiil till performance is straightened out.
Boggles the mind.1 -
ArchMikem✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Fur_like_snow wrote: »End the three banner war. Bring home the troops. We need a new PvP zone to bring back old players and attract new ones. Populations have been shrinking every year. We need something fresh.
I'd completely support this, but that's because I've been here for five years, the Alliance War has already been played out for me and I'm tired of it, tired of the constant pointless fighting. But if it were to be given a legit end, what would that do for new players? The Alliance War plays a huge part in the three Alliance PvE questlines. New players would go through their alliance zones hearing all about this big war, even fighting the other faction's NPC armies here and there, but then complete the final quest and suddenly the game tells them the war is over? It's long overdue for veteran players but a shell shock to new ones.CP2,100 Master Explorer - AvA Two Star Warlord - Console Peasant - Khajiiti Aficionado - The Clan
Quest Objective: OMG Go Talk To That Kitty!0 -
Shardaxx✭✭✭✭✭A map overhaul is long overdue, and some friends and I were discussing recently how cool it would be to have a cyro campaign set up[ like BG. So you jump in there, and it randomly assigns you a color like in BG, and off you go. This would mix up the teams and the players much more, you'd be battling alongside your old enemies and against your friends for a change.PS4 - Europe - Shardaxx - Wood Elf Nightblade - Aldmeri Dominion1 -
AlnilamE✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭The strategy is why I PvP.
I don't care about killing players that are not in the way of my strategic objective.
People who want to do that can play battlegrounds, which are quick and hopefully satisfying for those who enjoy them.
They could try making the campaigns 7-day instead of 30, but I find the 30-day works fine for me.The Moot Councillor3 -
TX12001rwb17_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭Well how about they just get rid of alliances from CC altogether and isolate it to PvP ONLY and keep it hell away from the main part of the game.
When you begin a campaign in Cyrodiil or the IC it asks what alliance you would like to fight for and you will be alliance locked for however long that campaign is, once it is over you can change to another alliance on that character.
As for the character menu, just have it as whatever region your character is in.Edited by TX12001rwb17_ESO on February 18, 2020 12:23AM0 -
MaGicBush✭✭✭What's with all the PvE comments? Let's get rid of a chunk of the player base and remove PvP features! What a great idea, not.
I agree the map could use a overhaul(more choke points and smaller) , and week long campaigns do sound more action packed and funner. Once a long campaign has a clear winner after a week or two most stop caring. So if they fix performance and do a map overhaul it would benefit everyone that likes pvp. Also keep BGs separate. I agree the posts were getting scarier and scarier in this thread as someone above put it lol.Edited by MaGicBush on February 18, 2020 1:09AM0 -
Donny_Vito✭✭✭✭✭
✭+1 for the good ideas.
But this quote doesn't seem accurate, or at least verified.by the way all this stuff requires VERY LITTLE work on ZOS's end, just the requirement of mustering a little effort directed at PvP.0 -
I think the map would benefit from being smaller- there is just too much dead space and boring rides where nothing happens.
Maybe introduce shorter campaigns- 30 days is way too long.
Random assignment based on current numbers on a map rather than faction lock might help but might not be well received by playing teams.
0 -
KillsAllElves✭✭✭✭✭TX12001rwb17_ESO wrote: »Well how about they just get rid of alliances from CC altogether and isolate it to PvP ONLY and keep it hell away from the main part of the game.
When you begin a campaign in Cyrodiil or the IC it asks what alliance you would like to fight for and you will be alliance locked for however long that campaign is, once it is over you can change to another alliance on that character.
As for the character menu, just have it as whatever region your character is in.
Alliances outside of cyrodiil mean NOTHING. The game is based around the 3 banners war and saving tamriel from daedric forces while using the faction leaders for support. The eso timeline 2E580-2E583 was chosen to make an mmo on because this was perfect for PvP players and PVE players to. Both play the same video game and it made sense to do so in the ES franchise.
If you do not like pvp and or do not participate in pvp you have absolutely zero reasoning to talk about cyrodiil.0 -
MellowMagic✭✭✭✭They should just spend a whole quarter and do a complete cyro overhaul.
Address all the current performance issues with cyro
the entire patch should be mainly focused on revitalizing pvp in cyro.
Than to satisfy the pvers the next quarter they can focus on a PVE instance of cyrodiil that is post 3 banners war.
1 -
StShoot✭✭✭✭The main problem is that zos never listens to what the communety wants:
Lots of players wanted incentive for the players to streatch out, less lag and less power to ballgroups. What did we get ? Volendrung.
Players wanted the bg solo queue in ADDITION to the group queue. What did we get ? only solo queue, i bet next zos will remove teams from bgs so we finaly have our eSo bAtTlErOyAl =X
The things i want to be changed:
1. I want a complete redesign of the keeps, every keep should feel unique and not a singe f****** keep should be in a valley
2. rework the buff/debuff system, outnumberd faction should recive real combat buffs. Atm the strongest (mostly the largest) faction gets the most buffs, whitch makes it even easyer to steamrole other factions.
3. Rework Volendrung, Artifacts could be interesting if they were reworked correctly
- It should never spawn behind milegates (only to help out an outnumberded faction)
- The Empirefaction should not be able to take that hammer up (for obvious reasons)
- If Volendrung appears the spawn location should be revealed X minuts before it spawns, so the factions can prepare and
fight for it. Yeah that would maybe result in big laggy battles and ballgroups would farm that area but thats no different
from the current situation.
- give players the option the banish the hammer (pick it up with e/banish it with x), so the faction has to choose if they want
to use it and risk loosing it to the enemy or just banish it (if the other factions outnumber you so you would loose it anyway to them).
4. give players a motivation to play on the edges of the map, atm everyone zergs between the emp keeps, adding the citys and outer outposts was a nice start but it wasnt enaugh.
5. change the way how milegates work, they should work like the bridges and not give one side an advantage if the middle
gets destroyed
7. Raise the reward.... i dont play pvp for the reward but its still meh, ap is nearly worthless these days (if the golden has nothing nice to offer) and the golden jewelery and some thousand gold you get for playing 30 days is not a great reward
6. less lagMellowMagic wrote: »They should just spend a whole quarter and do a complete cyro overhaul.
Address all the current performance issues with cyro
the entire patch should be mainly focused on revitalizing pvp in cyro.
Than to satisfy the pvers the next quarter they can focus on a PVE instance of cyrodiil that is post 3 banners war.
You know the reason why we get 2 new dungeons dlcs (4 new dungeons) every year is that zos can make money with it. They cant earn money with remaking cyro.
It would be a great message to the pvp community if zos would skip one of the pve dungeon dlcs in order to remake cyro and make it more intersting. It has been what ? 5 years ? since we got a pvp oriented dlc (not counting bgs), its time we get something nice. But i doubt that it will happen
Edited by StShoot on February 18, 2020 1:24AM2 -
Mr_Walker✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭Dusk_Coven wrote: »Pretty sure ZOS has basically abandoned Cyrodiil / IC / open world PvP given that they can't even be bothered to respond to bugs and issues such as https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/512385/shocking-repeated-cheating-by-a-guild-pc-na-kaal/ and https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/511054/laatvulon-another-dc-rollback
It wouldn't surprise me either. Every pvp event I have to remind folk that the pvp base is shrinking, and they may not want to be complete arsehats to new visitors, and every pvp event it's the same old crap.
I've given up, too many folk are self-absorbed simpletons.
0 -
Rave the Histborn✭✭✭✭✭
✭I personally feel one of the reasons the pvp community is so bitter right now is its being ignored to the point of losing all its players and NO communication of any kind from ZOS.
but I digress
Cyrodill just needs a bit of a redesign.
the basis of its design worked fine (DaoC) but they started tweaking and went way to far in ESO.
having a pvp system designed around faction loyalty alone to promote a community is fine and tends to work. and having a pvp system designed around essentially rounds or matches (campaigns) works fine too (however in most instances these are relegated to minutes rather then days / weeks / months)
DaoC was far more faction based with a slight nudge into the strategic aspect for an interesting layer or option for the pvp rather then the point of it excluding all else.
ESO leans heavily into the strategic aspect of it, keep battles are frequent and often fast, scroll caps are fast (in DaoC you had to jump through a few more hoops to get access to what were its version of scrolls, and taking a scroll required sitting on it for 5 minutes uninterrupted and a server message was broadcast telling everyone what was going on)
you might say *well how are you supposed to take scrolls then?!*
well, you were not really supposed to, the design, the time required, and the server alert was all designed around forcing a pvp encounter, not avoiding one.
keeps were more "in the way" (the maps were a bit more narrow) and designed as a bottleneck to, you guessed it, force a pvp encounter.
the current point system, strategic element and its priority over gameplay (scroll buffs, emp buffs, etc) and campaign system are fairly unrelated to pvp, you get points for holding scrolls and keeps, not killing players. the fastest way to both of those things is to actually avoid fights and pvdoor undefended keeps before people show up.
then we have duration on top of it, in casual games that last a round or session, things like league or cod, you can expect to be in a match for an hour at most, and that's a big AT MOST. so if you lose, it sucks but its over and done and you play again, maybe win the next one, cool.
the main pvp campaign equivalent is ONE MONTH, not only that, but because its three factions there are two losers, and only one winner. so the majority of players have to be in the losing factions, for weeks on end. this causes faction swap and the issue to only get worse.
sure there will be people who don't care about the campaign (or at least say as much) and really only pvp for their faction casually, but in the grand scheme of things this is the minority, in games as in life people prefer to win.
I personally feel a large shift away from the strategic and point focus of pvp should occur, and more of a focus on preferred faction player vs player encounters, but that's not to the exclusion of a more current system.
1) keep the current pvp design, but limit it to week long campaigns, every OTHER week, so more like a micro season. the reason for week long breaks would be to prevent burn out and more emphasize the legit score and strategic based pvp and having a slight deprivation would provide further incentive to play hard during the limited time frame, same as almost any competitive structure. (this would essentially be your competitive strategic based environment)
2) re design the base pvp system to simply not have things like overall scoring, scroll buffs, emperor, etc. (this would all be alive and well in the new competitive week long campaigns) reduce the ap gain from capture / defense and increase the ap gain from killing players. I would go so far as to make the two gate home keeps unable to be sieged in this environment to further promote faster player vs player encounters and clashes. (and this would be casual team deathmatch)
by the way all this stuff requires VERY LITTLE work on ZOS's end, just the requirement of mustering a little effort directed at PvP.
@ZOS_RichLambert
@ZOS_MattFiror
@ZOS_GinaBruno
@ZOS_BrianWheeler
@ zos etc.
All of this is from the perspective of a non PVPer and you can tell. Just fix the servers and people will be happy. Redesigning the system into a glorified and mediocre TDM isnt going to fix what's wrong with PVP.
2 -
Mr_Walker✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭Rave the Histborn wrote: »I personally feel one of the reasons the pvp community is so bitter right now is its being ignored to the point of losing all its players and NO communication of any kind from ZOS.
but I digress
Cyrodill just needs a bit of a redesign.
the basis of its design worked fine (DaoC) but they started tweaking and went way to far in ESO.
having a pvp system designed around faction loyalty alone to promote a community is fine and tends to work. and having a pvp system designed around essentially rounds or matches (campaigns) works fine too (however in most instances these are relegated to minutes rather then days / weeks / months)
DaoC was far more faction based with a slight nudge into the strategic aspect for an interesting layer or option for the pvp rather then the point of it excluding all else.
ESO leans heavily into the strategic aspect of it, keep battles are frequent and often fast, scroll caps are fast (in DaoC you had to jump through a few more hoops to get access to what were its version of scrolls, and taking a scroll required sitting on it for 5 minutes uninterrupted and a server message was broadcast telling everyone what was going on)
you might say *well how are you supposed to take scrolls then?!*
well, you were not really supposed to, the design, the time required, and the server alert was all designed around forcing a pvp encounter, not avoiding one.
keeps were more "in the way" (the maps were a bit more narrow) and designed as a bottleneck to, you guessed it, force a pvp encounter.
the current point system, strategic element and its priority over gameplay (scroll buffs, emp buffs, etc) and campaign system are fairly unrelated to pvp, you get points for holding scrolls and keeps, not killing players. the fastest way to both of those things is to actually avoid fights and pvdoor undefended keeps before people show up.
then we have duration on top of it, in casual games that last a round or session, things like league or cod, you can expect to be in a match for an hour at most, and that's a big AT MOST. so if you lose, it sucks but its over and done and you play again, maybe win the next one, cool.
the main pvp campaign equivalent is ONE MONTH, not only that, but because its three factions there are two losers, and only one winner. so the majority of players have to be in the losing factions, for weeks on end. this causes faction swap and the issue to only get worse.
sure there will be people who don't care about the campaign (or at least say as much) and really only pvp for their faction casually, but in the grand scheme of things this is the minority, in games as in life people prefer to win.
I personally feel a large shift away from the strategic and point focus of pvp should occur, and more of a focus on preferred faction player vs player encounters, but that's not to the exclusion of a more current system.
1) keep the current pvp design, but limit it to week long campaigns, every OTHER week, so more like a micro season. the reason for week long breaks would be to prevent burn out and more emphasize the legit score and strategic based pvp and having a slight deprivation would provide further incentive to play hard during the limited time frame, same as almost any competitive structure. (this would essentially be your competitive strategic based environment)
2) re design the base pvp system to simply not have things like overall scoring, scroll buffs, emperor, etc. (this would all be alive and well in the new competitive week long campaigns) reduce the ap gain from capture / defense and increase the ap gain from killing players. I would go so far as to make the two gate home keeps unable to be sieged in this environment to further promote faster player vs player encounters and clashes. (and this would be casual team deathmatch)
by the way all this stuff requires VERY LITTLE work on ZOS's end, just the requirement of mustering a little effort directed at PvP.
@ZOS_RichLambert
@ZOS_MattFiror
@ZOS_GinaBruno
@ZOS_BrianWheeler
@ zos etc.
All of this is from the perspective of a non PVPer and you can tell.
Most of his observations on what happens are actually pretty accurate....
1
