Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
What ESO PvP is Lacking
RollieJoe
Member UncommonPosts: 451
My friends and I were all excited for ESO. We played the Beta and unlike what seems like others didn't mind leveling from 1-10. We liked the combat, we liked the progression, we liked the graphics, sound and skills. We pretty much liked everything except for the bugged out quests and when the servers were overloaded and non-functioning (takes 30 minutes to load into a zone).
Then we hit level 10 and jump into PvP, which is what we were really looking forward to, especially with ESO's combat system which we really liked. After 4-6 hours of Cyrodil though, we all decided ESO wasn't the game for us and we wouldn't be playing it. There are two main reasons why, and I'm posting them here not only to share our thoughts but also in case among all the fanboys and/or trolls there is an insightful player that can perhaps point out something we've overlooked.
1) No risk and little reward - We enjoy PvP where when you die, you lose something more than a few minutes spent running back to the fight. The rated arena play of Guild Wars 1, TERA, or WoW for example, where losing costs you ranking. Or better yet, the PvP in EVE or Darkfall, where losing costs you your items/money. In ESO when you die it is only a slight inconvenience caused by the time it takes to teleport back to a forward camp or ride your mount back to where you were. As for rewards there is a similar issue. Alliance points can be earned simply by spending a great deal of time running around with the zerg, even if you do next to nothing. In other words, they are a grind, not a challenge. There is never a question of "can I get X alliance points?" The answer is always "yes, just need to grind more." To compare this to WoW/TERA for example, it is the equivalent of farming non-rated battlegrounds for hours/days/weeks. You can basically play semi-afk and get the same rewards as the very best players. Of course, your alliance gets some temporary bonuses for holding keeps, but you have little influence on this. Even if you manage to help a zerg take a keep, as soon as you leave/log off that reward can (and likely will) be quickly taken away.
TLDR: There is no significant death penalty and the only rewards are based on grinding rather than skill or performance.
2) The outcome is mostly beyond our control - We enjoy PvP where, if we play better than our opponents, we win. By "we" here I'm referring to my group of 4-5 people who game together. In ESO no matter how fantastic a group of say, 4 people, is, the outcome of PvP is largely out of their hands. Just like in GW2, large zergs cannot be fought by small groups. Overwhelming numbers trump skill every time. A small group can break off from the zergs of course and choose not to siege or defend, but rather go behind enemy lines to try to capture lesser objectives or get some random kills, but the effect these tactics have on the overall battle is small. A perfect example is during the beta at one point our group of 4 had managed to kill over 30 enemies (obviously not all at once, but we did win a 7-8 vs 4) without a single death on our side and yet our faction still lost 2 keeps during this time period. So even though the 4 of us "won" our fights, we actually "lost" the battle, because our zergs weren't as good as the opponent's zergs.
TLDR: If our group plays better than our opponents, we want to win. We don't want victory/defeat to be primarily dependent upon the actions of dozens of other people on our "team."
Of course, I realize that these two complaints are personal in nature. I'm sure other players hate PvP where they might lose something significant for dying, feeling that that would make the game too stressful or challenging and they just want to play a game to relax (nothing wrong with that). I'm also sure other players enjoy the large scale battles that are more about the communication and movement of giant groups rather than small scale encounters. But we don't enjoy these things, and are disappointed that the ONLY option for PvP in ESO is Cyrodil. By all means, keep Cyrodil, I'm sure many players have and will continue to enjoy it. But until/unless they add other PvP options where small groups can be rewarded appropriately for skillful play, ESO will hold no interest for a significant number of MMO gamers.
Comments
Lol, so no skill, awesome design.
For a themepark, ESO's pvp is alright. It's not great, too limited, but couple it with character development and combat, it just might work for a bit.
For me it's lacking some sort of physics. Take a look at Planetside 2. You aim higher for more distance. Most likely EQN will be the same. In ESO you shoot a max of 27 meters no mater what. This is extra silly to me.
MMORPGs are a very bad genre for the experience you seek.
I have played WoW since vanilla and stopped with cataclysm. I have played Arena Season 1 through 8 and got Gladiator in S8 in 3v3. Withing the 12.000 arenamatches that I played, countless of them I have lost even though me and my team played a lot better than the enemy. Why? Because MMORPGs are near impossible to balance from an eSport point of view. You either make a level playingfield with every class and gear being available to everyone, like GW2, or you end up having severe imbalances within the game, no matter what you do. If you, however, open up everything to everyone from the beginning, its incredibly boring. I dont know why, but it just doesnt work. Not for me, not for many other PvPers that I've known in WoW.
If you want to play an eSport, I suggest you play Dota2 or the similar games. MMORPGs are not suited to be eSports. And for me, it is much more fun this way.
Seriously? That's beyond retarded.
That kind of idiocy together with no penalty for losing and, what is equally stupid, NO COLLISION fights will get old and uninteresting real fast.
@DMKano - Even if this were a good solution (and I don't think it is), it will only last until most players are 50.
@Soki123 - I agree that no risk or little risk (beyond a few minutes of running) takes most of the fun out of PvP. I'm not a fan of the zerg warfare personally, however both of these things are a matter of taste. Ideally ESO would have PvP to cater to both, instead of just 1 total PvP option.
@Galadorn - The PvP points can be used for a number of things and are part of character progression (in PvP), so they have a point up until you buy the things you want, then they no longer have any point at all. The other "point" to PvP in ESO is to try to control keeps in Cyrodil for buffs/bonuses to your character. These buffs are temporary however and keeps are constantly changing control as the zergs move around, taking and re-taking them.
@jidakra - I think MMORPG's are the ideal genre for the experience I'm looking for. I just don't think ESO will be that experience due to having such limited PvP options. I agree that balancing in an MMO is very difficult, but "perfect balance" isn't something my friends or I require. We're just looking for some risk/reward PvP where skillful play is rewarded. (On a side note, I also played arena PvP heavily in WoW although only during TBC and managed to get top 3 in my battlegroup in both 2's and 3's. While I wouldn't say PvP was "perfectly balanced" by a long shot, one thing that was definitely true was that ANY class could reach top ranks in rated arena then, if played well and with an appropriate group. No, a 3-healer team couldn't get gladiator of course, but in the top 10 of 2's and 3's every single class in the game was represented.)
lol. this isn't WoW or SWTOR or w/e game.
the difference between 49-50 isn't massive like those games. Also, there isn't a resil stat. By the time people grind the 10 veteran ranks required to get the best items in the game, most people will be 50. An AMA on reddit with an internal tester said 2-3 weeks if you play like crazy to get that.
Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.
I'm sorry but pvp in DFUW (and DF1) is equally meaningless.
Then you probably know that, while it is true that every class could become a Gladiator, it is equally true that some classes needed to be played exponentially more skillfully than others to do so. A Hunter in Season 1-4 had virtually no chances of getting into the cutoff-range unless he was playing 45 minute matches with a Druid. Meanwhile, a SL/SL Warlock could faceroll his way to Gladtiator. This is one of many examples (S5 DK/Pala, S6 RMP, S7 Beastcleave, S8 Castercleaves, etcetc).
It is much more satisfying for me to own people 1v3 and have them remember my name. Being known on your server/in the PvP community for "raping face". Winning duels against the best players on the server. Much more satisfying and fun than having a higher "number" than someone in my PvP-Tab in a system that is broken and imbalanced.
I was only missing the many coordination helpers GW2 has.
- Commander Tags you can see on the map: it makes it so easy to know "I can go there and follow this dude I know was a good leader".
- minimap: knowing your immediate surroundings and being able to coordinate
- name tags and chat bubbles: how do I know if "INCOMING" is in my vincinity or all over the map if I have neither name tags nor chat bubbles?
- free rez: Good riddance, being forced to walk 10+ minutes back to the battle or having people buy expensive soul gems is ridiculous. Offer a free rez for all as in GW2 or give some classes a rez skill line. The Soul Gem rez is the most absurd idea, especially in a giant PVP map.
The basic system of PVP is cool, but as in so many areas the detailled things a MMO usually has made PVP a chore for me.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
OK. This part here just made me laugh. What do you expect to accomplish with a team of only 4 players in a much grander world of RvR? It's hilarious to me how people expect this God mode for themselves and their teammates but not everybody else. Like they're this elite force of Achilles and his dozen mermen taking out an entire army. It's just NOT GOING TO HAPPEN unless the entire opposing side decides to take a pizza break or something.
Look, I sympathize with those who think that zergs with 3-4 times your numbers have an unfair advantage. But expecting a small force of 6-12 people to take on a 200 man strong zerg is just expecting too much. Even good tactics won't save your ass. What I personally expect and look forward to is a 50 man army taking on a 200 man zerg with really good tactics. That's what good RvR is supposed to be about. If you continue to believe that there will be an RvR game that will cater to "Achilles and his army of 10 mermen" against a vastly superior force, keep dreaming. It's not going to happen.
@Badaboom/Galadourn - If ESO could have a server or even just an optional zone with DF:UW's ruleset (specifically FFA/Loot PvP) I'd personally love that. Some real risk/reward. I liked almost everything in ESO except for the PvP ruleset. While I liked almost nothing about DF:UW except for the PvP ruleset.
@jidakra - The point I was making was that, despite the imbalances, a small group of prepared and skilled players could "win" there, in rated arena. Even if it took extra skill, even if it took careful group composition, even if others had it easier, a small group that was skilled enough would be rewarded. That isn't the case in ESO, where for example, 3 players, no matter how good, can't have a determinate effect on the outcome in Cyrodil. To be sure they can help, they can contribute, they can swing the balance slightly in their team's favor, but that of course isn't at all the same. Some players undoubtedly like being a small part of a larger force and not having the outcome rest solely on their shoulders, and that's fine. But it would be nice to have an option for the other players who don't prefer that.
@Satarious - I'm not sure what post you were reading but it doesn't appear to be mine. Of course I'm not expecting a small group to have any real impact on the outcome of combat in ESO, as it is currently designed. What I would like, is another PvP option where skillful play in a small group CAN have a real impact, which is an option that ESO completely lacks atm, and the reason we won't be playing it.
This is a DAOC thing. There was much more massive CC in DAOC and zerg breaking small groups became a thing. So now in any game that has vaguely or not so vaguely DAOC like RvR setup you get some people agitating for the return of the zerg breaking 8 man groups.
I am not saying yay or nay to this, merely explaining why it keep cropping up.
Personally, I think free rez is a stupid idea, because it trivializes death, and encourages zergs, while limiting the ability of smaller well organized groups to beat zergs.
Frankly, that's something that GW2 can keep, gladly.
Much like DAoC, you need to interact with other players in order to get the most out of this style of PvP... it is an MMO afterall. People can res you where you die - but you probably need to be communicating to other people that you need a res. If you like small scale arena / BG's, I wouldn't play this.
Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.
^^^^ AMEN. Somebody gets it! ^^^^
Stopped taking your post seriously at the point where you compare TESO AVA to RANKED ARENA PLAY (small team deathmatch) and FFA-PVP games with full loot which are built around those core features from the ground up.
Atleast try to compare to similar senarios.
The argument is not for small scale arena. The argument is that extremely good and solid interconnect gameplay should be a significant force multiplier.
In other words 4 groups of 4 operating together extremely well with a smart strategy should be a match for a zerg that is 4 times that size (these are arbitrary numbers of course).
In DAOC this was possible because of things like CC dedicated speed buffers, healing and extremely coordinated spike damage etc.
In more modern games most of these tactics have hard capped limits so the force multiplication does not really work out and you basically have a herd mentality massive aoe spike zerg winning everything. Once someone start getting zapped everyone completely overkills it in a school of fish like behavior. Thus the zerg dominance. Will TESO turn out this way? I dunno but unless there is some sort of force multiplier the answer is almost certainly "Yes".
Thus the burden for people who admit zerging is an issue in general, yet think TESO will be different is to identify the force multiplers and show how they can solve this problem.
I understand that is what some ppl want, but truth be told, DAoC wasn't such a roaring success. It too suffered form needless inconveniences, and people quickly left to newer MMOs (EQ2, WoW) and only the few hardcore gamers were left. Not such a good model to emulate as pink tinted glass memories make it.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
PVP in TESO is a group effort. It's not in place to punisch the individual player aka harsh deathpenalty. It's in place to conquer as a team/group or guild.
I just have taking baby steps into TESO's Pvp and so far its everything I expected from all the info Zenimax shared. So not sure why OP complains about something that was already known it wouldn't be ingame?
I was never a big fan of the power CC had in early DaoC, to be honest. It essentially turned PvP into a wild west game of who was quicker on the draw with the CC gun. And while it made it possible to take out forces many times your size, it came at the expense of group tactics. The tactics basically boiled down to exactly ONE tactic: Everybody /follows on the driver (which was usually the CCer), the CCer fires off the MEZZ gun, everybody else simply /assists on killing one statue after another. That sort of gameplay gets old after awhile. There's no variety to it.