Maintenance for the week of April 6:
• [COMPLETE] ESO Store and Account System for maintenance – April 8, 9:00AM EDT (13:00 UTC) - 6:00PM EDT (22:00 UTC)
• [COMPLETE] ESO Store and Account System for maintenance – April 8, 9:00AM EDT (13:00 UTC) - 6:00PM EDT (22:00 UTC)
Midyear Blues
-
Amottica✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭@Amottica your logic is flawed. What you call facts are misunderstandings. The people who make this game seem to have the same problem. They do not see the connections. Or maybe they just want to ignore them for some reason. People have been trying to explain this for years. Even in this short thread you should already have more than enough info to understand. I hope one day someone will look at PvP with open eyes, finally see the potential and give it the attention it deserves.
@Lebkuchen
I respect your opinion on the matter but since no one has to spend any money to PvP outside of purchasing the base game there is no question to the fact that PvP is not monetized. Everything added to PvP is free where most things added to PvE require us to pay. So my flawed logic is proven accurate but the facts of the game's design.
2 -
I_killed_Vivec✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭@Amottica Again, you misunderstand and you don't see the whole picture. I am sure if you try to take a step back and think about it for 5 minutes you will see.
You don't know the figures, @Amottica doesn't, I don't.
But ZoS do - and by their actions ye shall know them!
If 90% of the players are PvEers who never PvP then who do you think ZoS will work to keep happy?
Obviously they will also want to attract and keep happy as many PvPers as possible... but if it isn't economical then they will go back to their main player base. They aren't idiots, and we do not know better (no matter how much some of us think we do).
[snip]
[edited for bashing]Edited by ZOS_Icy on March 3, 2023 7:00PM3 -
SaffronCitrusflower✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭PvP has a problem in ESO and that is it does not generate revenue. I am told that Zenimax attempted to generate revenue with BGs by making them part of a chapter but that not enough PvP players were interested in paying for it so Zenimax was forced to make it part of the base game.
If it does not generate revenue then it will be second fiddle.
It's not factually accurate to claim PvP doesn't generate significant revenue for ZOS. There may be fewer PvP players, but essentially all of them buy every expansion for the new gear, and they spend money in the crown store for fancy mounts, race change tokens and many other items at least as often, and likely more often than PvE players. Most PvP players have been around longer and spent more money per capita on ESO than most PvE players.
It's just simply not true that PvP players don't spend significant money on ESO. ZOS gets away with not investing in PvP because the PvP players are the most addicted portion of the player base and have proven they'll stick around through thick and thin, no matter how poorly they are treated....at least until something else comes along that has similar combat systems.10 -
SaffronCitrusflower✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭I never understand the idea that PvP doesn't generate revenue. PvPers grind for new dungeon sets, arena weapons, mythics, and guild skill lines too. They own houses and fill them with transmute stations, mundus stones, and crafting tables. They enjoy having a crafting bag.
It is important to stay up to date in PvP as with anything else.
I'm not sure what Tim is asking for exactly-- what level of commitment would satisfy him-- but for the most part we'd be easy enough to satisfy. A lot of people like the idea of some sort of competitive arena system with only two teams. So that's one thing that's kinda a big ask. Everything else is small and wouldn't take a whole lot of money or time.
Incentivize people to go to Imperial City more. Nothing needs to be created to do this. Increase drops. Offer more items to buy with tel var. Have an event or two about it.
Double the likelihood of getting Deathmatch in Bgs. And I say this as a lover of OBJ, obviously, but how many YEARS do we have to suffer through various shifting scenarios that invariably *** off 50% of people? Just design something equitable.
Cyrodiil? Fix the lag. Already working on it? Perfect, thank you. Now fix the stupid in-combat bug. Fix the block bug. Just fix every god damn thing that's broken because it's your job. And I don't even mean "broken" like out of balance I mean broken like YOUR GAME DOESN'T WORK RIGHT.
Oh, and make a list of sets that work in Ravenwatch. Double check it. Then check it again.
Most people I talk to only want two things from ZOS to improve PvP.
They want improved performance and population caps brought back to at least 200 players/faction.
That's all. This means ZOS will have to invest a bit more into servers to support PvP is all.6 -
SaffronCitrusflower✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭@Amottica your logic is flawed. What you call facts are misunderstandings. The people who make this game seem to have the same problem. They do not see the connections. Or maybe they just want to ignore them for some reason. People have been trying to explain this for years. Even in this short thread you should already have more than enough info to understand. I hope one day someone will look at PvP with open eyes, finally see the potential and give it the attention it deserves.
@Lebkuchen
I respect your opinion on the matter but since no one has to spend any money to PvP outside of purchasing the base game there is no question to the fact that PvP is not monetized. Everything added to PvP is free where most things added to PvE require us to pay. So my flawed logic is proven accurate but the facts of the game's design.
Again, this is simply not true. PvP players must buy all the newest expansions to get the new gear to stay meta and competitive in PvP. There is more incentive for PvP players to buy all the new content than there is for PvE players. PvP absolutely is monetized in this sense.13 -
Amottica✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »@Amottica your logic is flawed. What you call facts are misunderstandings. The people who make this game seem to have the same problem. They do not see the connections. Or maybe they just want to ignore them for some reason. People have been trying to explain this for years. Even in this short thread you should already have more than enough info to understand. I hope one day someone will look at PvP with open eyes, finally see the potential and give it the attention it deserves.
@Lebkuchen
I respect your opinion on the matter but since no one has to spend any money to PvP outside of purchasing the base game there is no question to the fact that PvP is not monetized. Everything added to PvP is free where most things added to PvE require us to pay. So my flawed logic is proven accurate but the facts of the game's design.
Again, this is simply not true. PvP players must buy all the newest expansions to get the new gear to stay meta and competitive in PvP. There is more incentive for PvP players to buy all the new content than there is for PvE players. PvP absolutely is monetized in this sense.
I never said PvP players do not spend money on the game. Please do not put words into my mouth.
Thank you.
2 -
Amottica✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »PvP has a problem in ESO and that is it does not generate revenue. I am told that Zenimax attempted to generate revenue with BGs by making them part of a chapter but that not enough PvP players were interested in paying for it so Zenimax was forced to make it part of the base game.
If it does not generate revenue then it will be second fiddle.
It's not factually accurate to claim PvP doesn't generate significant revenue for ZOS. There may be fewer PvP players, but essentially all of them buy every expansion for the new gear, and they spend money in the crown store for fancy mounts, race change tokens and many other items at least as often, and likely more often than PvE players. Most PvP players have been around longer and spent more money per capita on ESO than most PvE players.
It's just simply not true that PvP players don't spend significant money on ESO. ZOS gets away with not investing in PvP because the PvP players are the most addicted portion of the player base and have proven they'll stick around through thick and thin, no matter how poorly they are treated....at least until something else comes along that has similar combat systems.
Again, I never said PvP players do not spend any money on the game. I have said that PvP itself is not monetized and the comments above pretty much support that comment. Comments about spending money on PvE or the cash shop are immaterial and irrelevant to that.
If anything, comments that PvP players spend money on PvE are counterintuitive to the discussion of this thread. I would suggest putting the energy towards a means to successfully monetize PvP if we truly want Zenimax to start investing in ESO PvP.
I say that as a person who pays to play two games. ESO and another for my PvP. In other words, few probably want a decent PvP scene in ESO more than I do.
Have a good day.
3 -
The_Titan_Tim✭✭✭✭✭SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »PvP has a problem in ESO and that is it does not generate revenue. I am told that Zenimax attempted to generate revenue with BGs by making them part of a chapter but that not enough PvP players were interested in paying for it so Zenimax was forced to make it part of the base game.
If it does not generate revenue then it will be second fiddle.
It's not factually accurate to claim PvP doesn't generate significant revenue for ZOS. There may be fewer PvP players, but essentially all of them buy every expansion for the new gear, and they spend money in the crown store for fancy mounts, race change tokens and many other items at least as often, and likely more often than PvE players. Most PvP players have been around longer and spent more money per capita on ESO than most PvE players.
It's just simply not true that PvP players don't spend significant money on ESO. ZOS gets away with not investing in PvP because the PvP players are the most addicted portion of the player base and have proven they'll stick around through thick and thin, no matter how poorly they are treated....at least until something else comes along that has similar combat systems.
Again, I never said PvP players do not spend any money on the game. I have said that PvP itself is not monetized and the comments above pretty much support that comment. Comments about spending money on PvE or the cash shop are immaterial and irrelevant to that.
If anything, comments that PvP players spend money on PvE are counterintuitive to the discussion of this thread. I would suggest putting the energy towards a means to successfully monetize PvP if we truly want Zenimax to start investing in ESO PvP.
I say that as a person who pays to play two games. ESO and another for my PvP. In other words, few probably want a decent PvP scene in ESO more than I do.
Have a good day.
You’ve made some valuable points that should be considered within this discussion, and I would never write that off, but what I can’t get behind is the ideology that PvP isn’t worth the investment.
This game has been on a steady decline ever since PvE has been the focus point of sales.
Moments of success in the history of ESO are found around releases that cater to everyone, not one side of the playing field, or the other.
Population is low after High Isle, and stats show Dunmer are extremely popular within the fanbase. People are going to come back, play the chapter, experience the new class, then after a few months drop the game again.
No Trial, Dungeon, or Arena has changed this, we have years of the same pattern.
Systems keep people around, as was recently stated by Matt Firor in his address to us, unless you consider fighting Arcanists as a system, this chapter has none.
We’re getting a new PvE endless dungeon Q4, and that will be our new system. If this game is to compete with other titles, it has to do just that, and unfortunately, it hasn’t been.
I want to see ESO in the top 10 for paid games, and right now it’s not even top 100 on the Microsoft Store.
It’s the 454th.Edited by The_Titan_Tim on March 3, 2023 7:47PM3 -
sup✭✭✭SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »PvP has a problem in ESO and that is it does not generate revenue. I am told that Zenimax attempted to generate revenue with BGs by making them part of a chapter but that not enough PvP players were interested in paying for it so Zenimax was forced to make it part of the base game.
If it does not generate revenue then it will be second fiddle.
It's not factually accurate to claim PvP doesn't generate significant revenue for ZOS. There may be fewer PvP players, but essentially all of them buy every expansion for the new gear, and they spend money in the crown store for fancy mounts, race change tokens and many other items at least as often, and likely more often than PvE players. Most PvP players have been around longer and spent more money per capita on ESO than most PvE players.
It's just simply not true that PvP players don't spend significant money on ESO. ZOS gets away with not investing in PvP because the PvP players are the most addicted portion of the player base and have proven they'll stick around through thick and thin, no matter how poorly they are treated....at least until something else comes along that has similar combat systems.
Again, I never said PvP players do not spend any money on the game. I have said that PvP itself is not monetized and the comments above pretty much support that comment. Comments about spending money on PvE or the cash shop are immaterial and irrelevant to that.
If anything, comments that PvP players spend money on PvE are counterintuitive to the discussion of this thread. I would suggest putting the energy towards a means to successfully monetize PvP if we truly want Zenimax to start investing in ESO PvP.
I say that as a person who pays to play two games. ESO and another for my PvP. In other words, few probably want a decent PvP scene in ESO more than I do.
Have a good day.
- PVP players have to buy the new expansion to get the meta gear (which is usually nerfed a few months later). Usually it is a mythic item which requires participating in a variety of content. I don't think it's fair to say that only a new PVP map locked behind a purchase would count as monetizing PVP. There is a very clear pattern to how these items are rolled out and over tuned in PVP, driving sales of expansions.
- Mounts are used in groups most often in Cyro, so it is weird to say that those cosmetic purchases are strictly PVE related.
- The dungeon dlcs are included in ESO+ so any talk about that stuff trickling down later would apply to both types of players.
- What are PVE only players buying that is direct PVE monetization beyond the expansion, which both groups of players need to buy? Almost all serious players have ESO+.
- PVE players do not buy alliance skill experience scrolls while both types of players need regular experience scrolls.
- PVP games need a lot of players so the type of monetization I think you are talking about (directly locking certain maps or scenarios behind an expansion) probably isn't a great idea, especially after they have driven away so many PVPers with lack of updates and the lag.Edited by sup on March 3, 2023 8:00PM6 -
Alinhbo_Tyaka✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭What revenue does PvE generate?
As I said before-- PvPers and PvErs alike buy new content so they can get gear. Does running a dungeon 25 times generate more money than only running it twice? Or is the money really just from the original purchase?
I wonder... If the game was released with just overland and dungeons were added later... How PvErs would feel if they tried to "monetize" dungeons and trials. Which, again, I'm not even sure what "monetize" means in this context because all you have to do is buy it once, which is already the way.
Comparing PvP to dungeons is not really valid. Many if not most dungeons are only accessible via DLC's. These either have to be purchased or accessed via ESO+. So they are fully monetized. This has not been the case for PvP. The times ZOS has tried to monetize PvP in a similar way it did not appear to work and the result was battle grounds being added to the base chapter and Imperial City becoming a free giveaway.
I couldn't tell you if the failure of the DLC model being applied to PvP content is the result of bad content or the PvP player base. I can see with ZOS being so driven by monetization that they would not have much incentive to try to find a away to monetize PvP with some form of direct revenue given their failures. The end result is what you have today.Edited by Alinhbo_Tyaka on March 3, 2023 8:14PM2 -
Amottica✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »PvP has a problem in ESO and that is it does not generate revenue. I am told that Zenimax attempted to generate revenue with BGs by making them part of a chapter but that not enough PvP players were interested in paying for it so Zenimax was forced to make it part of the base game.
If it does not generate revenue then it will be second fiddle.
It's not factually accurate to claim PvP doesn't generate significant revenue for ZOS. There may be fewer PvP players, but essentially all of them buy every expansion for the new gear, and they spend money in the crown store for fancy mounts, race change tokens and many other items at least as often, and likely more often than PvE players. Most PvP players have been around longer and spent more money per capita on ESO than most PvE players.
It's just simply not true that PvP players don't spend significant money on ESO. ZOS gets away with not investing in PvP because the PvP players are the most addicted portion of the player base and have proven they'll stick around through thick and thin, no matter how poorly they are treated....at least until something else comes along that has similar combat systems.
Again, I never said PvP players do not spend any money on the game. I have said that PvP itself is not monetized and the comments above pretty much support that comment. Comments about spending money on PvE or the cash shop are immaterial and irrelevant to that.
If anything, comments that PvP players spend money on PvE are counterintuitive to the discussion of this thread. I would suggest putting the energy towards a means to successfully monetize PvP if we truly want Zenimax to start investing in ESO PvP.
I say that as a person who pays to play two games. ESO and another for my PvP. In other words, few probably want a decent PvP scene in ESO more than I do.
Have a good day.
- PVP players have to buy the new expansion to get the meta gear (which is usually nerfed a few months later). Usually it is a mythic item which requires participating in a variety of content. I don't think it's fair to say that only a new PVP map locked behind a purchase would count as monetizing PVP. There is a very clear pattern to how these items are rolled out and over tuned in PVP, driving sales of expansions.
- Mounts are used in groups most often in Cyro, so it is weird to say that those cosmetic purchases are strictly PVE related.
- The dungeon dlcs are included in ESO+ so any talk about that stuff trickling down later would apply to both types of players.
- What are PVE only players buying that is direct PVE monetization beyond the expansion, which both groups of players need to buy? Almost all serious players have ESO+.
- PVE players do not buy alliance skill experience scrolls while both types of players need regular experience scrolls.
- PVP games need a lot of players so the type of monetization I think you are talking about (directly locking certain maps or scenarios behind an expansion) probably isn't a great idea, especially after they have driven away so many PVPers with lack of updates and the lag.
Thank you for your thoughts. I will reiterate that I have not said pure PvP players do not spend any money on the game, merely that PvP itself is not monetized directly.
What I find interesting is people keep responding to my statements but no one has contested the fact I presented that PvP is not monetized directly like PvE is.
I bring up that point because it is likely one that needs to be addressed instead is side stepping it if we want real change in ESO PvP.
2 -
Jaraal✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »I never understand the idea that PvP doesn't generate revenue. PvPers grind for new dungeon sets, arena weapons, mythics, and guild skill lines too. They own houses and fill them with transmute stations, mundus stones, and crafting tables. They enjoy having a crafting bag.
It is important to stay up to date in PvP as with anything else.
I'm not sure what Tim is asking for exactly-- what level of commitment would satisfy him-- but for the most part we'd be easy enough to satisfy. A lot of people like the idea of some sort of competitive arena system with only two teams. So that's one thing that's kinda a big ask. Everything else is small and wouldn't take a whole lot of money or time.
Incentivize people to go to Imperial City more. Nothing needs to be created to do this. Increase drops. Offer more items to buy with tel var. Have an event or two about it.
Double the likelihood of getting Deathmatch in Bgs. And I say this as a lover of OBJ, obviously, but how many YEARS do we have to suffer through various shifting scenarios that invariably *** off 50% of people? Just design something equitable.
Cyrodiil? Fix the lag. Already working on it? Perfect, thank you. Now fix the stupid in-combat bug. Fix the block bug. Just fix every god damn thing that's broken because it's your job. And I don't even mean "broken" like out of balance I mean broken like YOUR GAME DOESN'T WORK RIGHT.
Oh, and make a list of sets that work in Ravenwatch. Double check it. Then check it again.
Most people I talk to only want two things from ZOS to improve PvP.
They want improved performance and population caps brought back to at least 200 players/faction.
That's all. This means ZOS will have to invest a bit more into servers to support PvP is all.
This, plus bringing back the 24 person groups (at least in Cyrodiil, where they can't use the companion performance excuse). And also stop introducing anti-ball group sets that are most effective when used by actual ball groups.8 -
The_Titan_Tim✭✭✭✭✭SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »PvP has a problem in ESO and that is it does not generate revenue. I am told that Zenimax attempted to generate revenue with BGs by making them part of a chapter but that not enough PvP players were interested in paying for it so Zenimax was forced to make it part of the base game.
If it does not generate revenue then it will be second fiddle.
It's not factually accurate to claim PvP doesn't generate significant revenue for ZOS. There may be fewer PvP players, but essentially all of them buy every expansion for the new gear, and they spend money in the crown store for fancy mounts, race change tokens and many other items at least as often, and likely more often than PvE players. Most PvP players have been around longer and spent more money per capita on ESO than most PvE players.
It's just simply not true that PvP players don't spend significant money on ESO. ZOS gets away with not investing in PvP because the PvP players are the most addicted portion of the player base and have proven they'll stick around through thick and thin, no matter how poorly they are treated....at least until something else comes along that has similar combat systems.
Again, I never said PvP players do not spend any money on the game. I have said that PvP itself is not monetized and the comments above pretty much support that comment. Comments about spending money on PvE or the cash shop are immaterial and irrelevant to that.
If anything, comments that PvP players spend money on PvE are counterintuitive to the discussion of this thread. I would suggest putting the energy towards a means to successfully monetize PvP if we truly want Zenimax to start investing in ESO PvP.
I say that as a person who pays to play two games. ESO and another for my PvP. In other words, few probably want a decent PvP scene in ESO more than I do.
Have a good day.
- PVP players have to buy the new expansion to get the meta gear (which is usually nerfed a few months later). Usually it is a mythic item which requires participating in a variety of content. I don't think it's fair to say that only a new PVP map locked behind a purchase would count as monetizing PVP. There is a very clear pattern to how these items are rolled out and over tuned in PVP, driving sales of expansions.
- Mounts are used in groups most often in Cyro, so it is weird to say that those cosmetic purchases are strictly PVE related.
- The dungeon dlcs are included in ESO+ so any talk about that stuff trickling down later would apply to both types of players.
- What are PVE only players buying that is direct PVE monetization beyond the expansion, which both groups of players need to buy? Almost all serious players have ESO+.
- PVE players do not buy alliance skill experience scrolls while both types of players need regular experience scrolls.
- PVP games need a lot of players so the type of monetization I think you are talking about (directly locking certain maps or scenarios behind an expansion) probably isn't a great idea, especially after they have driven away so many PVPers with lack of updates and the lag.
Thank you for your thoughts. I will reiterate that I have not said pure PvP players do not spend any money on the game, merely that PvP itself is not monetized directly.
What I find interesting is people keep responding to my statements but no one has contested the fact I presented that PvP is not monetized directly like PvE is.
I bring up that point because it is likely one that needs to be addressed instead is side stepping it if we want real change in ESO PvP.
Zenimax have chosen not to release exclusively PvP content packs because Live Service PvP Games have proven time and again, that when you paygate that type of content, it is too divisive. Map Packs do not succeed. Monetizing variants of the same mode, likewise.
ESO is a Live Service Game, like Apex Legends, the difference is that Apex is free-to-play, and releases all content free of charge. There’s no yearly chapter 40$ payout because it’s unnecessary. People undersell how much money Cash Shops really make.
Their cosmetic store funds all of it.
Like how ours should be funding our content.
Happy players spend more money than unhappy ones and like mentioned earlier, ESO+ is paid for by all areas of play as it provides benefits necessary to anyone that hasn’t been playing long enough to acquire all of the household chests.
When half of the community is unhappy, half of our community is spending less. Of course you can make a correlation between a neglected party spending less, support would change that.Edited by The_Titan_Tim on March 3, 2023 8:59PM4 -
ProudMary✭✭✭✭✭
✭SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »PvP has a problem in ESO and that is it does not generate revenue. I am told that Zenimax attempted to generate revenue with BGs by making them part of a chapter but that not enough PvP players were interested in paying for it so Zenimax was forced to make it part of the base game.
If it does not generate revenue then it will be second fiddle.
It's not factually accurate to claim PvP doesn't generate significant revenue for ZOS. There may be fewer PvP players, but essentially all of them buy every expansion for the new gear, and they spend money in the crown store for fancy mounts, race change tokens and many other items at least as often, and likely more often than PvE players. Most PvP players have been around longer and spent more money per capita on ESO than most PvE players.
It's just simply not true that PvP players don't spend significant money on ESO. ZOS gets away with not investing in PvP because the PvP players are the most addicted portion of the player base and have proven they'll stick around through thick and thin, no matter how poorly they are treated....at least until something else comes along that has similar combat systems.
Again, I never said PvP players do not spend any money on the game. I have said that PvP itself is not monetized and the comments above pretty much support that comment. Comments about spending money on PvE or the cash shop are immaterial and irrelevant to that.
If anything, comments that PvP players spend money on PvE are counterintuitive to the discussion of this thread. I would suggest putting the energy towards a means to successfully monetize PvP if we truly want Zenimax to start investing in ESO PvP.
I say that as a person who pays to play two games. ESO and another for my PvP. In other words, few probably want a decent PvP scene in ESO more than I do.
Have a good day.
- PVP players have to buy the new expansion to get the meta gear (which is usually nerfed a few months later). Usually it is a mythic item which requires participating in a variety of content. I don't think it's fair to say that only a new PVP map locked behind a purchase would count as monetizing PVP. There is a very clear pattern to how these items are rolled out and over tuned in PVP, driving sales of expansions.
- Mounts are used in groups most often in Cyro, so it is weird to say that those cosmetic purchases are strictly PVE related.
- The dungeon dlcs are included in ESO+ so any talk about that stuff trickling down later would apply to both types of players.
- What are PVE only players buying that is direct PVE monetization beyond the expansion, which both groups of players need to buy? Almost all serious players have ESO+.
- PVE players do not buy alliance skill experience scrolls while both types of players need regular experience scrolls.
- PVP games need a lot of players so the type of monetization I think you are talking about (directly locking certain maps or scenarios behind an expansion) probably isn't a great idea, especially after they have driven away so many PVPers with lack of updates and the lag.
Thank you for your thoughts. I will reiterate that I have not said pure PvP players do not spend any money on the game, merely that PvP itself is not monetized directly.
What I find interesting is people keep responding to my statements but no one has contested the fact I presented that PvP is not monetized directly like PvE is.
I bring up that point because it is likely one that needs to be addressed instead is side stepping it if we want real change in ESO PvP.
PvP in ESO is directly and overtly monetized in the sense that ZOS puts overtuned sets in new content releases that PvP players must purchase if they want to remain competitive. PvP is overtly monetized in ESO in this way. It has been this way since inception and with every release of new content with new gear sets.
If anything PvP is more overtly monetized than PvE. Nobody needs new sets immediately upon release to run PvE content to remain competitive.7 -
tomofhyrule✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
This is blatantly false. Three of the four sets from Dreadsail Reef are very important endgame PvE sets right now (Pearlescent Ward for off-tanks, Whorl of the Depths is a great DPS set, and Pillager's Profit is essentially replacing Hollowfang for healers). And of course the big heavy attack meta that's come about is because of the Oakensoul ring, also part of High Isle, and very important because of the permanent Empower (which doesn't work in PvP...though the other buffs do). And all of these are from buying the Chapter - it's not even available for ESO+ until June.Nobody needs new sets immediately upon release to run PvE content to remain competitive.
Meanwhile, those big Rewards for the Worthy sets added in the patches like Mara's Balm or Dark Convergence were added to basegame. The DLC for those respective patches is not needed to access those.
Now yes, the mythics can be important for PvP which does require them to be purchased (or gained through ESO+). But, as an example, if a PvP player wants to use the upcoming Snake in the Stars set, they do not need to have ESO+ or access the DLC.
Anyway, the argument here is devolving into who spends more money, and I think it is missing the point. If you want to follow the money, you need to look at what the content pays for. Yes, PvP players do spend a lot of money on the game... for cosmetics and crate goods. Everyone in Cyrodiil has a paid mount. But a PvPer buying a mount is not giving money to PvP. PvErs can also spend the same money to buy the same mount. As such, ZOS isn't seeing "the PvP community spends money so we should focus on them," they're seeing "the playerbase spends money on flashy mounts, so let's make more of them!"
If the goal is to show ZOS that the PvP community will spend money on the game, then that means the PvPers needed to have spent money on the IC and Morrowind DLCs to access those PvP modes (BGs and IC). And spend money on them, not just use the ESO+ sub. And ZOS saw they weren't selling, so that's why both ended up going free, in hopes to entire more people to play.
Imagine this scenario: Let's say a player loves BGs and can do 8 hours of BGs a day. How many games does this player get to play? Are they stuck waiting in queues for long periods because of the complex MMR system not being able to match 12 players into a game? And now, let's say they release a PvP DLC, something like a 48-player tourney bracket. But maybe the first player likes to play healer so the duels are not their thing. Do they still get to play their BGs now that a lot of the PvPers who would be in the BG queue are now in the tourney queue?
That's what is meant by monetization. Anyone can buy cosmetics. But will enough people contribute to any potential 'new mode?' And will that essentially 'kill off' existing modes in the process?8 -
The_Titan_Tim✭✭✭✭✭tomofhyrule wrote: »
This is blatantly false. Three of the four sets from Dreadsail Reef are very important endgame PvE sets right now (Pearlescent Ward for off-tanks, Whorl of the Depths is a great DPS set, and Pillager's Profit is essentially replacing Hollowfang for healers). And of course the big heavy attack meta that's come about is because of the Oakensoul ring, also part of High Isle, and very important because of the permanent Empower (which doesn't work in PvP...though the other buffs do). And all of these are from buying the Chapter - it's not even available for ESO+ until June.Nobody needs new sets immediately upon release to run PvE content to remain competitive.
Meanwhile, those big Rewards for the Worthy sets added in the patches like Mara's Balm or Dark Convergence were added to basegame. The DLC for those respective patches is not needed to access those.
Now yes, the mythics can be important for PvP which does require them to be purchased (or gained through ESO+). But, as an example, if a PvP player wants to use the upcoming Snake in the Stars set, they do not need to have ESO+ or access the DLC.
Anyway, the argument here is devolving into who spends more money, and I think it is missing the point. If you want to follow the money, you need to look at what the content pays for. Yes, PvP players do spend a lot of money on the game... for cosmetics and crate goods. Everyone in Cyrodiil has a paid mount. But a PvPer buying a mount is not giving money to PvP. PvErs can also spend the same money to buy the same mount. As such, ZOS isn't seeing "the PvP community spends money so we should focus on them," they're seeing "the playerbase spends money on flashy mounts, so let's make more of them!"
If the goal is to show ZOS that the PvP community will spend money on the game, then that means the PvPers needed to have spent money on the IC and Morrowind DLCs to access those PvP modes (BGs and IC). And spend money on them, not just use the ESO+ sub. And ZOS saw they weren't selling, so that's why both ended up going free, in hopes to entire more people to play.
Imagine this scenario: Let's say a player loves BGs and can do 8 hours of BGs a day. How many games does this player get to play? Are they stuck waiting in queues for long periods because of the complex MMR system not being able to match 12 players into a game? And now, let's say they release a PvP DLC, something like a 48-player tourney bracket. But maybe the first player likes to play healer so the duels are not their thing. Do they still get to play their BGs now that a lot of the PvPers who would be in the BG queue are now in the tourney queue?
That's what is meant by monetization. Anyone can buy cosmetics. But will enough people contribute to any potential 'new mode?' And will that essentially 'kill off' existing modes in the process?
Monetizing PvP game modes and maps does not work in Live Service Games, I mentioned it earlier in the thread.
The most successful games today provide free updates, including new free content to their playerbases regularly.
Those updates are funded by the Cash Shop. Our money is going somewhere else, any net gain over previous profits is being sent elsewhere, not funneled into new content, yet every other game uses at least a fraction of the sales of cosmetics to create at the very least what is required to keep people happy enough to continue spending.
Instead, everyone I know is either leaving or have left already and it feels like I’m playing a ghost of a game because I’m one of the forgotten members of this playerbase.Edited by The_Titan_Tim on March 3, 2023 9:47PM3 -
OBJnoob✭✭✭✭✭
✭Alinhbo_Tyaka wrote: »What revenue does PvE generate?
As I said before-- PvPers and PvErs alike buy new content so they can get gear. Does running a dungeon 25 times generate more money than only running it twice? Or is the money really just from the original purchase?
I wonder... If the game was released with just overland and dungeons were added later... How PvErs would feel if they tried to "monetize" dungeons and trials. Which, again, I'm not even sure what "monetize" means in this context because all you have to do is buy it once, which is already the way.
Comparing PvP to dungeons is not really valid. Many if not most dungeons are only accessible via DLC's. These either have to be purchased or accessed via ESO+. So they are fully monetized. This has not been the case for PvP. The times ZOS has tried to monetize PvP in a similar way it did not appear to work and the result was battle grounds being added to the base chapter and Imperial City becoming a free giveaway.
I couldn't tell you if the failure of the DLC model being applied to PvP content is the result of bad content or the PvP player base. I can see with ZOS being so driven by monetization that they would not have much incentive to try to find a away to monetize PvP with some form of direct revenue given their failures. The end result is what you have today.
The comparison doesn't have to be valid it was really just meant to make someone briefly understand the other point of view. I'm not asking for it to be this way... I'm asking how you would feel if it was.
The way it works now is gear that everybody needs is given through PvE content. PvPers and PvErs alike buy it for the gear. PvErs maybe enjoy the dungeon for other reasons and so repeat the content more-- but this adds 0 dollars to the monetization of it. PvPers buy PvE content as much as PvErs, and therefore contribute as much money, and therefore should be compensated equally.
Just because PvE content is where the money comes from does not mean it only comes from PvErs. PvPers have to buy the PvE content too.
So again I'd like to ask you all to imagine... If new battleground maps were added every DLC instead of dungeons, and 3 new state of the art sets could only be gotten this way, how would you feel?
If you love the game you'd probably buy the DLC. If you don't like PvP you'd probably still do it just a little to get the gear you need and then return to PvE. And when someone later told you that you don't deserve new dungeons because PvE doesn't generate money you'd feel neglected.
Edited by OBJnoob on March 3, 2023 9:56PM4 -
The_Titan_Tim✭✭✭✭✭Alinhbo_Tyaka wrote: »What revenue does PvE generate?
As I said before-- PvPers and PvErs alike buy new content so they can get gear. Does running a dungeon 25 times generate more money than only running it twice? Or is the money really just from the original purchase?
I wonder... If the game was released with just overland and dungeons were added later... How PvErs would feel if they tried to "monetize" dungeons and trials. Which, again, I'm not even sure what "monetize" means in this context because all you have to do is buy it once, which is already the way.
Comparing PvP to dungeons is not really valid. Many if not most dungeons are only accessible via DLC's. These either have to be purchased or accessed via ESO+. So they are fully monetized. This has not been the case for PvP. The times ZOS has tried to monetize PvP in a similar way it did not appear to work and the result was battle grounds being added to the base chapter and Imperial City becoming a free giveaway.
I couldn't tell you if the failure of the DLC model being applied to PvP content is the result of bad content or the PvP player base. I can see with ZOS being so driven by monetization that they would not have much incentive to try to find a away to monetize PvP with some form of direct revenue given their failures. The end result is what you have today.
The comparison doesn't have to be valid it was really just meant to make someone briefly understand the other point of view. I'm not asking for it to be this way... I'm asking how you would feel if it was.
The way it works now is gear that everybody needs is given through PvE content. PvPers and PvErs alike buy it for the gear. PvErs maybe enjoy the dungeon for other reasons and so repeat the content more-- but this adds 0 dollars to the monetization of it. PvPers buy PvE content as much as PvErs, and therefore contribute as much money, and therefore should be compensated equally.
Just because PvE content is where the money comes from does not mean it only comes from PvErs. PvPers have to buy the PvE content too.
So again I'd like to ask you all to imagine... If new battleground maps were added every DLC instead of dungeons, and 3 new state of the art sets could only be gotten this way, how would you feel?
If you love the game you'd probably buy the DLC. If you don't like PvP you'd probably still do it just a little to get the gear you need and then return to PvE. And when someone later told you that you don't deserve new dungeons because PvE doesn't generate money you'd feel neglected.
Right, I honestly don’t get how anyone could view the treatment of us consumers as acceptable.
We’ve been bringing dinner to PvEs table with our funding for years and when we ask for scraps, it’s so easily written off.4 -
OBJnoob✭✭✭✭✭
✭I think people are hung up on the difference between "PvE brings money" and "PvErs bring money."
PvE brings money because that's how you go and get new things. Because that's the system they created. It actually has very little to do with what the players enjoy doing and more to do with how much they like the game and how competitive they want to be.
You could hide gear ANYWHERE and loyal competitive customers would go get it. Looking at you, Murkmire Strong Box.
4 -
Amottica✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭The_Titan_Tim wrote: »SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »PvP has a problem in ESO and that is it does not generate revenue. I am told that Zenimax attempted to generate revenue with BGs by making them part of a chapter but that not enough PvP players were interested in paying for it so Zenimax was forced to make it part of the base game.
If it does not generate revenue then it will be second fiddle.
It's not factually accurate to claim PvP doesn't generate significant revenue for ZOS. There may be fewer PvP players, but essentially all of them buy every expansion for the new gear, and they spend money in the crown store for fancy mounts, race change tokens and many other items at least as often, and likely more often than PvE players. Most PvP players have been around longer and spent more money per capita on ESO than most PvE players.
It's just simply not true that PvP players don't spend significant money on ESO. ZOS gets away with not investing in PvP because the PvP players are the most addicted portion of the player base and have proven they'll stick around through thick and thin, no matter how poorly they are treated....at least until something else comes along that has similar combat systems.
Again, I never said PvP players do not spend any money on the game. I have said that PvP itself is not monetized and the comments above pretty much support that comment. Comments about spending money on PvE or the cash shop are immaterial and irrelevant to that.
If anything, comments that PvP players spend money on PvE are counterintuitive to the discussion of this thread. I would suggest putting the energy towards a means to successfully monetize PvP if we truly want Zenimax to start investing in ESO PvP.
I say that as a person who pays to play two games. ESO and another for my PvP. In other words, few probably want a decent PvP scene in ESO more than I do.
Have a good day.
- PVP players have to buy the new expansion to get the meta gear (which is usually nerfed a few months later). Usually it is a mythic item which requires participating in a variety of content. I don't think it's fair to say that only a new PVP map locked behind a purchase would count as monetizing PVP. There is a very clear pattern to how these items are rolled out and over tuned in PVP, driving sales of expansions.
- Mounts are used in groups most often in Cyro, so it is weird to say that those cosmetic purchases are strictly PVE related.
- The dungeon dlcs are included in ESO+ so any talk about that stuff trickling down later would apply to both types of players.
- What are PVE only players buying that is direct PVE monetization beyond the expansion, which both groups of players need to buy? Almost all serious players have ESO+.
- PVE players do not buy alliance skill experience scrolls while both types of players need regular experience scrolls.
- PVP games need a lot of players so the type of monetization I think you are talking about (directly locking certain maps or scenarios behind an expansion) probably isn't a great idea, especially after they have driven away so many PVPers with lack of updates and the lag.
Thank you for your thoughts. I will reiterate that I have not said pure PvP players do not spend any money on the game, merely that PvP itself is not monetized directly.
What I find interesting is people keep responding to my statements but no one has contested the fact I presented that PvP is not monetized directly like PvE is.
I bring up that point because it is likely one that needs to be addressed instead is side stepping it if we want real change in ESO PvP.
Zenimax have chosen not to release exclusively PvP content packs because Live Service PvP Games have proven time and again, that when you paygate that type of content, it is too divisive. Map Packs do not succeed. Monetizing variants of the same mode, likewise.
ESO is a Live Service Game, like Apex Legends, the difference is that Apex is free-to-play, and releases all content free of charge. There’s no yearly chapter 40$ payout because it’s unnecessary. People undersell how much money Cash Shops really make.
Their cosmetic store funds all of it.
Like how ours should be funding our content.
Happy players spend more money than unhappy ones and like mentioned earlier, ESO+ is paid for by all areas of play as it provides benefits necessary to anyone that hasn’t been playing long enough to acquire all of the household chests.
When half of the community is unhappy, half of our community is spending less. Of course you can make a correlation between a neglected party spending less, support would change that.
Divisive with whom? I know of a few games where you must pay to play PvP. One I am thinking of is considered to have a decent PvP program in the esports community. You do not get much more serious in PvP than esports. Even outside of their esport their PvP is considered fairly good. You may have heard of WoW. No one plays WoW without paying outside of their trial. Granted, subscription systems are the best business model but do not seem to hold up well in today market.
So yes, PvP behind a paywall does work. Even SWTOR, which cratered years ago, still has a good PvP scene considering how small their active player pool is now. Unless someone is subscribed they can only play a few matches a week. There are no division issues there and they have a dual monetization system somewhat like ESO has.
So it does not seem that the pay gate is all the divisive outside of maybe some being upset they cannot PvP because they do not play.
0 -
The_Titan_Tim✭✭✭✭✭@Amottica, WoW has been consistently losing huge portions of it’s playerbase every update, similar to this game. Then SWTOR?You realize that the times when those games came out, map packs and expansions that divided people were commonplace. There were no references with how things should be done, therefore it was easy for those companies to cultivate a community that didn’t know better. As people watch competitors follow better business models, and communities receive better support, they migrate.
Nowadays, your average consumer is a lot smarter and more likely to pass on games like those, which explains why those games are declining.
I would love to see any top ten modern game on any platform that has DLC dividing its PvP playerbase, not some games made in the early 2000s that represent outdated models, proven to be inferior to modern ones.Edited by The_Titan_Tim on March 4, 2023 6:29AM3 -
Sarannah✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭
Have been thinking about a new zone which encompasses all these things.-Remove Cyrodiil, BG's, and the Imperial city. Replace these with one much smaller zone(1/4th of Cyrodiil in size) which includes all those things in one. This to consolidate all PvP and all PvP players in one zone, to keep the population healthy.
Idea: And I think a few major changes to just the Imperial city could do this. Take the current Imperial City, including it's flags(let players immediately spawn in the district they died in). Place a major capturable castle/structure in the centre topside, which can be accessed from ALL district flags by a huge destroyable door behind each district flag. Place the district bosses on the district flags, and make them respawn quickly like the current flag mobs. This centre structure filled with enemy NPC's and doors to take down(like a Cyrodiil keep) can only be captured by the alliance which holds all 6 district flags, but everyone can attack it at any time. Tel var will now only drop in the sewers, and can only be lost in the sewers. This will make topside the major PvP event, while the sewers remain for tel var farmers(which is basically already happening now). Make sure this zone is the only PvP available in the game, so the zone will always be heavily populated. Causing for endless PvP, even if not many players are online, because flags are 'easily' capturable. But at the same time making it extremely hard to capture the centre structure with only a few players. So this zone would accommodate both small and large populations.
So basically one attackable keep with constant PvP around/for it, either for the flags and/or for the centre structure itself. While at the same time enemies can stop you from capturing the central structure as they can 'easily' retake a flag to stop you. So it would require quite some coordination and quite an amount of players to capture the centre structure.
Just an idea.
Edit: To add some thoughts to my idea:
1: The centre structure, would have an outer wall with an inner structure like a keep, the outer wall would hold the 6 gates to the different districts.
2: The alliance owning the centre structure can only re-spawn inside the centre structure if they own all 6 districts as well.
3: Whenever a district flag is captured or recaptured, the corresponding district gate behind it respawns/refills its health.
4: This IC set-up would be easier for players new to PvP, as it is easier to figure out where to go: The centre. And no annoying 10 minute mount rides to get there(again).
5: All players topside in the districts/centre structure would be included in defensive and offensive AP ticks. Making it easier to participate in the PvP, as everyone is included in the rewards. Everyone topside plays a part in the PvP action/risks being there.
Maybe a PvPer can refine this idea somewhat, as I am a PvE player.Edited by Sarannah on March 4, 2023 11:36AM0 -
OBJnoob✭✭✭✭✭
✭You have to pay to PvP in WoW these days? LOL that's unfortunate. I used to play WoW and you didn't used to have to pay. I don't recall them having an alliance war type thing, but they had larger scale battlegrounds than we have and they also had arenas. Also, I used to play on a PvP server meaning there was overland PvP as well.
Hard to imagine making someone pay extra playing on one server than another -shudders- I'm not sure WoW is what we need to emulate.2 -
The_Titan_Tim✭✭✭✭✭Maybe a PvPer can refine this idea somewhat, as I am a PvE player.
If there ever came a day that Cyrodiil was removed, if the team came to the realization that they will never be able to fix it with the coding structure this game is built upon, a simple remedy to this without any one zone, would be to have matchmade Siege or Castle Wars where you have either one keep with attackers and defenders, or two keeps and your goal would be to take the flag of your opponents castle.This would also allow objective game modes to be removed from Battlegrounds, as there would be a substitute within the matchmaking system, leaving it as Deathmatch without disrespecting people who love those game modes.
The team sizes could be 36v36 and there could be a group queue and a solo queue like Battlegrounds, this would solve the problem of consistently being outnumbered in Cyrodiil, while fixing the lag, as each match would be it’s own instance, similar to Battlegrounds.
Siege Weapons could be usable within those game modes, and players could emulate the Cyrodiil experience that way, without the forced respawn and ride nonsense, this could come with a story progression arc, ending the Three Banners War.
Now if we wanna talk rewards, it could be as simple as maintaining the same AP structure we have currently, unlike the Battlegrounds one, and creating more AP vendors located within the new Cyrodiil. Former Emperor could be a reward to anyone who lands themselves on the top of the new leaderboards for the rotating Siege and Castle Wars game modes.
For Imperial City, it would be as simple as reskinning the content, and throwing it in some Daedric Realm, and that could be how they explain it with the end of the war.3 -
The_Titan_Tim✭✭✭✭✭@Sarannah, now I personally would not want to get rid of Cyrodiil because I have seen when it works, and it can be really great, but we haven’t had that since 2016, even then you had weird bugs like the Crit Rush one that sent you through the map, but you could at least experience your game.
When even one ball group gets on, it doesn’t matter where you are on a server, you could be in your home base, yet you are experiencing their server input. If an alternative is the ONLY way, I would take that route.
I have to give this team props for the humility they have, because if I was a developer, every time anyone levied a complaint of server performance at me it would feel like I’m getting a black-eye, they just shrug it off, and give us assurances it will be better.1 -
Jaraal✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭The_Titan_Tim wrote: »I have to give this team props for the humility they have, because if I was a developer, every time anyone levied a complaint of server performance at me it would feel like I’m getting a black-eye, they just shrug it off, and give us assurances it will be better.
The devs know exactly what it would take to fix the Cyrodiil performance issues. But they can only do what the management allows them to do, with the resources they are willing to provide. And any dev reading the complaints knows their hands are tied, so I'm sure they don't take it personally.
3 -
tspecherb14_ESO✭✭✭I always enjoyed Alterac Valley in WoW. Would interesting to see contained lore friendly fights with a definitive goal and endpoint with appropriate (not crap) rewards. Open it up from the traditional 3-banner war, randomize sides, join with group or solo.1 -
Amottica✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭I_killed_Vivec wrote: »@Amottica Again, you misunderstand and you don't see the whole picture. I am sure if you try to take a step back and think about it for 5 minutes you will see.
You don't know the figures, @Amottica doesn't, I don't.
But ZoS do - and by their actions ye shall know them!
If 90% of the players are PvEers who never PvP then who do you think ZoS will work to keep happy?
Obviously they will also want to attract and keep happy as many PvPers as possible... but if it isn't economical then they will go back to their main player base. They aren't idiots, and we do not know better (no matter how much some of us think we do).
[snip]
[edited for bashing]
Thank you.
I’ve only pointed out one aspect that may be influencing Zenimax’s choices.
While I respect everyone’s opinions, Zenimax sees the full picture in a much more accurate picture than any of us could even come close to. They make choices based on that informationThe_Titan_Tim wrote: »@Amottica, WoW has been consistently losing huge portions of it’s playerbase every update, similar to this game. Then SWTOR?You realize that the times when those games came out, map packs and expansions that divided people were commonplace. There were no references with how things should be done, therefore it was easy for those companies to cultivate a community that didn’t know better. As people watch competitors follow better business models, and communities receive better support, they migrate.
Nowadays, your average consumer is a lot smarter and more likely to pass on games like those, which explains why those games are declining.
I would love to see any top ten modern game on any platform that has DLC dividing its PvP playerbase, not some games made in the early 2000s that represent outdated models, proven to be inferior to modern ones.
Considering the age of WoW, it is not a surprise. However, they are still by far the king of MMORPGs. Their PvP casts a shadow so large that ESO PvP seems to disappear into the void.
All I did hear was point out a very valid possible reason for Zenimax not wanting to invest much into PvP. I also expect Zenimax a significantly better grasp on the business side of all of this than we do. It is their business and expertise and they have the incentive to be successful and profitable. We know what we would like to see in the game but we do not know the business side intricacies.
0 -
Amottica✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭The_Titan_Tim wrote: »Maybe a PvPer can refine this idea somewhat, as I am a PvE player.
If there ever came a day that Cyrodiil was removed, if the team came to the realization that they will never be able to fix it with the coding structure this game is built upon, a simple remedy to this without any one zone, would be to have matchmade Siege or Castle Wars where you have either one keep with attackers and defenders, or two keeps and your goal would be to take the flag of your opponents castle.This would also allow objective game modes to be removed from Battlegrounds, as there would be a substitute within the matchmaking system, leaving it as Deathmatch without disrespecting people who love those game modes.
The team sizes could be 36v36 and there could be a group queue and a solo queue like Battlegrounds, this would solve the problem of consistently being outnumbered in Cyrodiil, while fixing the lag, as each match would be it’s own instance, similar to Battlegrounds.
Siege Weapons could be usable within those game modes, and players could emulate the Cyrodiil experience that way, without the forced respawn and ride nonsense, this could come with a story progression arc, ending the Three Banners War.
Now if we wanna talk rewards, it could be as simple as maintaining the same AP structure we have currently, unlike the Battlegrounds one, and creating more AP vendors located within the new Cyrodiil. Former Emperor could be a reward to anyone who lands themselves on the top of the new leaderboards for the rotating Siege and Castle Wars game modes.
For Imperial City, it would be as simple as reskinning the content, and throwing it in some Daedric Realm, and that could be how they explain it with the end of the war.
Unfortunately this would bring to an end the persistent open world pvp as it would push it into an instance. It would also limit the hours for such PvP as it would be hard to get a few dozen members from each alliance during much of the day.
Also, that persistent open world environment pvp environment was a deliberate choice the devs made on the early concept development of ESO. Two of those developers currently hold the two tops spots on Zos.
The biggest issue Cyrodiil faces is performance. I would suggest that until Zenimax finishes the current work to try to improve performance there should be no consideration for a wholesale reworked of what Cyrodiil is. Granted, we are not going to hold our breath on notable improvement improvement until we see it but it needs to be given a chance.
1