Maintenance for the week of February 23:
· [COMPLETE] NA megaservers for maintenance – February 23, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] EU megaservers for maintenance – February 23, 9:00 UTC (4:00AM EST) - 17:00 UTC (12:00PM EST)
· [COMPLETE] ESO Store and Account System for maintenance – February 23, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] NA megaservers for maintenance – February 23, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] EU megaservers for maintenance – February 23, 9:00 UTC (4:00AM EST) - 17:00 UTC (12:00PM EST)
· [COMPLETE] ESO Store and Account System for maintenance – February 23, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
PvP could really use a ranked 4v4 and 8v8 arena mode and 12v12 mini siege mode.
Nyladreas
✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭
(making this short cause I'm typing this out on my phone during lunch)
It's simple, the demand for something new to pvp has been at all time high recently, plus this would really give the "pros" something to stick to more seriously, while leaving BGs to a more casual PvP community which would surely freshen it up for many players. Not to mention it might generate more breathing room for newbies (who sadly in our current state give up on PVP extremely easily due to getting wrecked in BGs left and right).
I'm thinking 4v4 could be a smaller traditional arena-like setting with a possibility of moving/ascending/descending platforms focused on hardcore teamwork.
8v8 could then be a slightly larger arena with that could even be split into multiple parts where not only teamwork but timing and a awareness would play a large role as well. Especially if filled with mechanics like the IC battleground where there are multiple teleporters and high grounds.
Lastly 12v12 imho could be played on a semi-large scale map where a team would be able to access siege weapons. It could be a couple caputre nodes on each side, which would have to be captured and then each team would have to (within a certain time limit) destroy the "heart" of an enemy base. Losing the aforementioned nodes would "lock" the "heart" until you recapture them. I'm sure old unreal tournament fans know exactly what I'm talking about and will agree that this is a wonderful idea.
Last but not least, dmg/healing/defense/speed modifier bonuses could make a glorious return and completely turn the flow of battle around.
I've talked about this with a couple friends at work and they all agree it sounds great.
Lemme know what y'all think.
Edited by Nyladreas on September 1, 2020 7:07PM It's simple, the demand for something new to pvp has been at all time high recently, plus this would really give the "pros" something to stick to more seriously, while leaving BGs to a more casual PvP community which would surely freshen it up for many players. Not to mention it might generate more breathing room for newbies (who sadly in our current state give up on PVP extremely easily due to getting wrecked in BGs left and right).
I'm thinking 4v4 could be a smaller traditional arena-like setting with a possibility of moving/ascending/descending platforms focused on hardcore teamwork.
8v8 could then be a slightly larger arena with that could even be split into multiple parts where not only teamwork but timing and a awareness would play a large role as well. Especially if filled with mechanics like the IC battleground where there are multiple teleporters and high grounds.
Lastly 12v12 imho could be played on a semi-large scale map where a team would be able to access siege weapons. It could be a couple caputre nodes on each side, which would have to be captured and then each team would have to (within a certain time limit) destroy the "heart" of an enemy base. Losing the aforementioned nodes would "lock" the "heart" until you recapture them. I'm sure old unreal tournament fans know exactly what I'm talking about and will agree that this is a wonderful idea.
Last but not least, dmg/healing/defense/speed modifier bonuses could make a glorious return and completely turn the flow of battle around.
I've talked about this with a couple friends at work and they all agree it sounds great.
Lemme know what y'all think.
7
-
SweepsAllClowns✭✭✭✭Great ideas, however in reality most matches would be probably something like 1-3v3-4, 5-6v6-8 or 8-10v10-12, not so great and soon many would probably tell how amazingly well the third team balances the matches. Even numbers of players is very important no matter how many teams in matches or players in teams in total there are.0
-
Nyladreas✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭SweepsAllClowns wrote: »Great ideas, however in reality most matches would be probably something like 1-3v3-4, 5-6v6-8 or 8-10v10-12, not so great and soon many would probably tell how amazingly well the third team balances the matches. Even numbers of players is very important no matter how many teams in matches or players in teams in total there are.
Well in a ranked system, the only way the game would even let you queue let alone start is with a fully filled pre-made. That's a necessary prerequisite.
It would be worse if you wanted a solo queue casual version. We'd have the same problem we already know from BGs.0 -
Sergykid✭✭✭✭✭
✭if people get wrecked in 4v4v4 what would they do when there isn't a second enemy team to passively "help" them against the dominant team?
this game with its horrible balance would find no efficiency in standard matchups. It must leave space for cheese to fight cheese. I don't mean horrible as in general, but in the immense gap between floor and ceiling, and between specs.
also even if a system like this is implemented, it would not grant enough efficiency to be worth the work, you barely have enough competitive pvp as it is-PC EU- / battlegrounds on my youtube0 -
stybbe17b16_ESO✭✭✭if people get wrecked in 4v4v4 what would they do when there isn't a second enemy team to passively "help" them against the dominant team?
this game with its horrible balance would find no efficiency in standard matchups. It must leave space for cheese to fight cheese. I don't mean horrible as in general, but in the immense gap between floor and ceiling, and between specs.
also even if a system like this is implemented, it would not grant enough efficiency to be worth the work, you barely have enough competitive pvp as it is
What do you think "ranked" is for? If one team is more dominant then they go up the rank and the other team go down. Reducing the chance they meet again, rocket science I know.
The game doesn't have any "competitive pvp" because there is nothing implemented for it. Ranked pvp would do good for this game, just compare it to world of warcraft. You wont find any good players doing normal battlegrounds in that game because they all busy try harding in ranked modes. Leaving the battlegrounds for less dedicated players to have some fun in pvp. Meanwhile the game is still an unbalanced mess but the try hards are fighting them self in ranked mode.
While in this game you have veteran players bullying casual players all day long because they have no other place to pvp.Edited by stybbe17b16_ESO on September 1, 2020 9:58PM2 -
Nyladreas✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭stybbe17b16_ESO wrote: »if people get wrecked in 4v4v4 what would they do when there isn't a second enemy team to passively "help" them against the dominant team?
this game with its horrible balance would find no efficiency in standard matchups. It must leave space for cheese to fight cheese. I don't mean horrible as in general, but in the immense gap between floor and ceiling, and between specs.
also even if a system like this is implemented, it would not grant enough efficiency to be worth the work, you barely have enough competitive pvp as it is
What do you think "ranked" is for? If one team is more dominant then they go up the rank and the other team go down. Reducing the chance they meet again, rocket science I know.
The game doesn't have any "competitive pvp" because there is nothing implemented for it. Ranked pvp would do good for this game, just compare it to world of warcraft. You wont find any good players doing normal battlegrounds in that game because they all busy try harding in ranked modes. Leaving the battlegrounds for less dedicated players to have some fun in pvp. Meanwhile the game is still an unbalanced mess but the try hards are fighting them self in ranked mode.
While in this game you have veteran players bullying casual players all day long because they have no other place to pvp.
Exactly a point i tried to briefly make in my OP. I mean it's just an idea but you said it yourself. This is how it works in WoW and I honestly was thankful for it there.
If ZOS put enough effort into it and made certain restrictions that would only apply in the arena, as well as introduce special ranked PvP sets, it could go a looong way.0 -
Mayrael✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭And why no 1v1 mode? I'd like that
I'm done with this game because of ZOS pushing us into Vengeance, because they don't know how to fix Cyrodiil.0 -
alainjbrennanb16_ESO✭✭✭✭✭good ideas but it would turn out to be 4v1,8v1,12v1, as the other team would target one person at a time, just like most of pvp at the moMain character dk - Vanikifar whitestrike0
-
Nyladreas✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭alainjbrennanb16_ESO wrote: »good ideas but it would turn out to be 4v1,8v1,12v1, as the other team would target one person at a time, just like most of pvp at the mo
And that's why we need a separate debuff or restrictions in ranked, or mechanics that would shuffle it up a bit and really push the teams to cooperate.
More or less it's always like that in any game though. Always has been.Edited by Nyladreas on September 2, 2020 9:56AM0 -
Gythral✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Best option is choose to play one of the "billions" of games that do this already & leave the game alone for the existing players
Edited by Gythral on September 2, 2020 9:58AM“Be as a tower, that, firmly set,
Shakes not its top for any blast that blows!”
Dante Alighieri, The Divine Comedy2 -
alainjbrennanb16_ESO✭✭✭✭✭alainjbrennanb16_ESO wrote: »good ideas but it would turn out to be 4v1,8v1,12v1, as the other team would target one person at a time, just like most of pvp at the mo
And that's why we need a separate debuff or restrictions in ranked, or mechanics that would shuffle it up a bit and really push the teams to cooperate.
More or less it's always like that in any game though. Always has been.
having the stuff you mentioned is good but it will still not negate 4/8/12 chasing down 1, this is it would leave these new areas suggested void of most players and be pre made groups onlyMain character dk - Vanikifar whitestrike0 -
Nyladreas✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭alainjbrennanb16_ESO wrote: »alainjbrennanb16_ESO wrote: »good ideas but it would turn out to be 4v1,8v1,12v1, as the other team would target one person at a time, just like most of pvp at the mo
And that's why we need a separate debuff or restrictions in ranked, or mechanics that would shuffle it up a bit and really push the teams to cooperate.
More or less it's always like that in any game though. Always has been.
having the stuff you mentioned is good but it will still not negate 4/8/12 chasing down 1, this is it would leave these new areas suggested void of most players and be pre made groups only
It's supposed to be pre-made groups only.
0 -
Mayrael✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭OlumoGarbag wrote: »
Nope and nope. Let me explain on an example.
First of all we have no ranked or rewarded 1v1 system. Secondly in Aion there were 1v1 arenas, where not only the kill/death ratio was meaningful but also your ability to kill mobs, run fast or being agile. These arenas can have secondary goals like kill boss for extra points, find hidden buffs, use environment to kill opponent, even things like healing np - it doesn't have to be simple 1v1 death match. Each match can be made of few random rounds with mixed secondary objectives (primary is always killing your opponent) during which you can't swap gear and skills, so we would have to find universal setups. Sky is the limit. Using secondary objectives and mixed tasks guarantees that even stalemates would have a winner and even weaker brawlers could win thanks to speed, better burst, healing power etc. etc.I'm done with this game because of ZOS pushing us into Vengeance, because they don't know how to fix Cyrodiil.1 -
Gythral✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭[snip]
Why is pointing out that there are lots of games, designed from the ground up that meet the requirements of a few, not a valid answer,
You get to play a game that is balanced and meets your needs, rather than one redisnged to meet them!
Guess that's the difference in us
If I want solo PVP I go play a game designed for it, not force DEVs to redesgn for me!
[edited to remove quote]
Edited by ZOS_Lunar on September 3, 2020 12:28PM“Be as a tower, that, firmly set,
Shakes not its top for any blast that blows!”
Dante Alighieri, The Divine Comedy0 -
Dusk_Coven✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Let's just start with the "ranked" part first -- if your rank is too far apart, you cannot be matched even if that means everyone is sitting in the queue with no matches. That's the beginnings of a proper league system that should have been implemented from the very start.
All the fancy matchups and scenarios won't help without proper PvP administration.Edited by Dusk_Coven on September 4, 2020 12:15AM0 -
Dusk_Coven✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭stybbe17b16_ESO wrote: »While in this game you have veteran players bullying casual players all day long because they have no other place to pvp.
Why do you think they have event tickets in PvP events? ZOS needs the numbers to show people are "willing" to PvP and they are willing to lure people there for reasons other than what it is intended.
There was a Rich Lambert interview where he was asked about the return of grouping for BGs and he said the numbers still looked healthy with the mandatory solo-grouping.
So they are all about the numbers. They apparently don't care that people are doing things but feeling disgruntled about it or doing it for reasons other than what it is intended.
Probably the same with AP Boosting in Cyrodiil. Players see an easy exploit but ZOS sees "healthy numbers" of players in Cyrodiil. Evidently enough to risk wrecking the game everywhere with extensive fundamental changes to AoEs.
Edited by Dusk_Coven on September 4, 2020 12:21AM0
