Agenericname wrote: »No, it isnt a flaw at all. I do the quests and I PvP. I also PvE.
I see it as a flaw. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be so much angst over wanting to quest in the zone without having to PvP. The flaw, to me, is that there are achievements that combine achievements from PvE zones and Cyrodiil. For example, you must complete five questing achievements to get the overall grand achievement, and one of the questing achievements is in Cyrodiil. So you can do all the PvE quests and you still can't get the grand achievement. Why are there even quests in a PvP zone?
The designers should have kept PvP and PvE separate, in zones, achievements, quests, everything.
I see this flaw as similar to the "putting story quests into dungeons" flaw. Another disaster that causes a lot of angst among a specific group of gamers: soloers and those who don't want to rush dungeons.
Having said all that, I don't think Cyrodiil should change. But for me the flaws tarnish the game and obviously cause angst for a significant number of players. That's a design failure.
RisenEclipse wrote: »As a PvE player who currently is trying to get THAT LAST BLOODY SKYSHARD FROM BEYOND THE AD GATE! JUST LET ME IN YOU STUPID BUMBLEBEES!
Have you set the campaign as your home and turned on Cyrodiil notifications?
Also, during the PvP event, some of the maps will be night-capped for a particular faction. So if you are on in the morning, check out the various campaigns and hopefully one will have the gate you need open.
That's with I did with my characters and they all have the skyshards behind enemy gates, even if they don't have any other Cyro skyshards.
xXSilverDragonXx wrote: »Why not just have a PVE map version. Literally a Cyro map that equates to a zone map? That would likely be ridiculously easy to do as it would be the same as going to another zone. And nobody is bothered by it. Frankly, it would be a nice way to complete out the tamriel map because it would actually include the zone as part of the zone maps rather than separate it into a separate queue.
VaranisArano wrote: »
I appreciate your willingness to think about answers, but the truth is the best way to not have neutral flagged players abuse the flag is to not give them one.
Fair response. Personally my only real annoyance with Cyro, which I've tried but just don't like (I don't care about the quests), is that i keep getting masterwrits there which is a total ballache. They can solve that by stopping the damned masterwrits from sending you to Cyro or make it easier by not asking you to take the entire armoury just to use a bloody crafting station.
But I was quite surprised to read the other thread in which people were talking about ganking quest players. It's unnecessary behaviour that makes the game feel unpleasant to new players and in Cyro it's also disrespectful of other people's time seeing as you get blasted back to the nearest keep/outpost your alliance holds.
No, the player cap is a lot lower than at launch as it is. Having a load of neutral players in won't help balance.
No, the player cap is a lot lower than at launch as it is. Having a load of neutral players in won't help balance.
[snip] Of course that neutral players are less CPU and server resources consuming that the fighting ones.
]snip]
COmplexity of one neutral player is one.
Complexity of ten neutral players is ten
complexity of hundred neutral playes is hundred
COmplexity of one active PVP player is much more (as his attacks have effects) let me say it is 10 (simplified model)
Complexity of 2 PVP players is 10*10 as they are fighting healing, interacting each other.
Complexity of 3 PVP players is 10*10*10 as all three are interacting
Complexity of hundred PVP players is 10^100 = 1,e+100 (1 and 100 nulls)
[snip]
Kiralyn2000 wrote: »no, I don't agree with the OP's idea. Because, as others have said, there's a population limit on the zone. Having PvE'ers and tourists taking up space in that isn't good. (of course, I also think it's not good under the current system - they're still taking up space that an actual PvPer could use. They just can be kicked in the head if someone actually finds them out in the wilderness.)
Grizzbeorn wrote: »Kiralyn2000 wrote: »no, I don't agree with the OP's idea. Because, as others have said, there's a population limit on the zone. Having PvE'ers and tourists taking up space in that isn't good. (of course, I also think it's not good under the current system - they're still taking up space that an actual PvPer could use. They just can be kicked in the head if someone actually finds them out in the wilderness.)
I see reasonable arguments from almost everybody in this thread on both sides of the debate, but...
If having PvEers in the zone negatively affects the ability of PvPers to participate due to a population cap (which was put in place to help with the performance issues), then perhaps they (ZOS) need to remove the reasons for PvEers to be there in the first place.
VaranisArano wrote: »If the neutral flag disabled every reward, like fish, achievements, AP, recipes, and skyshards, I'd maybe consider it. I'm against anything that amounts to "I want the same rewards without the intended risk."
But in terms of abusing such a flag, I assure you that I can think of a lot of uses for a "Neutral" EP player who follows around one of the enemy ball groups to call out their movements. You don't have to attack other players to abuse such a set to troll PVPers.
But as I said. I'm stunned how people who don't know anything about programming are making quite big statements in disscusion
JARTHEGREY wrote: »I play PvE with very little interest in playing PvP (because I'm rubbish at fighting) but I do enjoy doing the daily quests, delves etc. I'm quite happy for Cyrodill to be a PvP area and I can put up with getting killed occasionally because I am 'the enemy'.
The problem (for me) in Cyrodill is the travelling and specifically - the resurrection. On occasion I've managed to get deep into the map, in my own alliance area and started doing some quests etc. Then the fighting starts, I get killed by some random and I end up resurrected in my home keep - but now, I can't travel back to where I was because it's been taken over.
I'm not saying that 'resurrecting on the spot' is the answer because I can see how that would annoy PvP players but likewise, having to travel to the alliance's furthest point and then do the rest on horseback is also frustrating.
Maybe the answer is to split it? Have 2 Cyrodiil maps, 1 for PvP and 1 for PvE rather than try to mix them - because that's just like Oil and Water isn't it.
It is not a flaw. There is nothing to suggest that the programming of the game went haywire and created all those quests and more in Cyrodiil. It all points to a conscious and intended design the developers made just as they made a conscious decision to not have PvP in the PvE zones.
So it cannot legitimately be called a flaw.
Kiralyn2000 wrote: »It is not a flaw. There is nothing to suggest that the programming of the game went haywire and created all those quests and more in Cyrodiil. It all points to a conscious and intended design the developers made just as they made a conscious decision to not have PvP in the PvE zones.
So it cannot legitimately be called a flaw.
Eh, deliberate design decisions can still result from flawed thinking or goals. "Flaw" doesn't mean "bug" or "unintentional".
Just saying. /shrug
That is a feature of the game throughout the game. An MMO needs new content, players repeating content and players doing a variety of content to survive long term. That is why gear good for PvP can only be found in PvE content and skills good for PvE can only be found in PvP. Antiquities, endeavors and other things have us returning to old zones. Events take us places we might otherwise not go.
What you see as a flaw is a necessity for the long term health of the game.
If you're saying that mixing PvE and PvP is a feature of the game, then it's a very poor feature. Of course an MMO needs new content and ways for players to repeat content (like antiquities, etc.). The game can do that and still keep PvE and PvP separate. There's no need to combine them to add new content and give players reasons to revisit zones.
As for events taking gamers places they might not otherwise go, that only works if the place the gamers go is enjoyable for them. That's obviously not true when forcing people who only want to PvE into a PvP zone. Players who enjoy PvP don't seem to understand that there are gamers who don't enjoy it and have no interest in it. It's not matter of not having tried it before. It's a matter of no interest or tried it and didn't like it.
Anyway, I don't think Cyrodiil should be changed. A poor design decision was made way back in the beginning, and it's too late to put the genie back into the bottle (though I suppose there's always hope). PvE players can either go into Cyrodiil to complete achievements, or we can move on to another game when there's nothing left but Cyrodiil PvE for us to do.