Alliance Point accumulation needs to be re-evaluated.

Imperator_Clydus

Greetings members of The Elder Scrolls Online community,

ESO is an extremely community-driven experience. Whether we look at public dungeons, group dungeons, crafting, overland bosses, dark anchors, AvA, guild banks, guild stores, veteran areas and soon to be Adventure Zones, having friends and being social can go a long way to one's success.

This is common practice and honestly is expected in an MMORPG. In regards to AvA, however, ZOS's philosophy of grouping doesn't apply nearly as well. For those who may not know already, the way alliance points are currently accumulated in AvA is incredibly contradicting.

Here is the issue. Alliance Points are predominantly gained by killing other players. The less players who happen to be in your group, the more alliance points you will receive per kill. Now, theoretically speaking, this makes sense. Being in a large group would mean it should be easier to kill players, hence easier to accumulate alliance points.

While in most cases this is true, the issue lies within the percentage disparity between a large group of 24 players, versus a solo player. For instance, a full, large group will receive approximately eight alliance points per player killed. In contrast, a solo player will receive approximately eight hundred alliance points per player killed.

Now, it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to realize a hundred times increase in AP for solo players doesn't make a lot of sense for AvA. The reason I say this is because AvA is Alliance versus Alliance. It is a large, open world, massive PvP experience where hundreds, if not thousands of players, are fighting each other for control over Cyrodiil.

What the current AP system currently does is promotes and encourages smaller groups and solo players vastly over large groups. I enjoy leading large group parties on my campaign. Yesterday alone, my group claimed most of the keeps in Cyrodiil throughout the day. Unfortunately, one does not receive a lot of AP for claiming keeps.

Unless the keep, itself, is actually defended, playing tactically and having foresight actually works against one with how AvA currently works. Besides myself, every single emperor for the DC has either been a solo player or played in small groups, farming kills to generate a colossal amount of AP.

This mentality, in my personal opinion, is bad for AvA. The experience should be focused on defending keeps, securing elder scrolls, and claiming territory. Pure death matching should be a secondary component that doesn't lead to better rewards and benefits.

Especially with how large and massive AvA is, with hundreds of players participating in sieges, it should be these players who accumulate the most AP. As it currently stands, the large groups AvA was built for do not even compare to small groups and solo players. For an MMORPG, that is an incredibly confusing and frustrating predicament.

Am I the only individual who believes the AP system needs to be reassessed and that large groups should be encouraged rather than discouraged? Please post your thoughts as I personally understood AvA to be about faction camaraderie and unity, not solo play and grinding kills disregarding the alliance war as a whole.

I am eager to hear everyone's thoughts on AP accumulation and hopefully ZOS will continue to tweak and refine the great system that AvA truly is.

Regards,

Imperator Clydus

Bramir

If they want anything other than zerg vs zerg, which isn't even really pvp for anyone but the leaders, they need to reward smaller groups. Otherwise, most players will take the easy road to alliance points, and do nothing but stay with the zerg, because that way they don't have think, react or even really pay attention. The leaders of the zerg do all the work for them...

The last MMO I played, Rift, had a pvp instance called Conquest, which bears some similarities to the pvp in ESO. Because there was basically no reward for small groups and solo players (they would be lucky to get a few hundred favor in a match as opposed to many thousands for the zergers), noone did anything but zerg. The same will happen here if you reward the zergers anywhere close what those in a smaller group gain.

Imperator_Clydus

Bramir wrote: »

If they want anything other than zerg vs zerg, which isn't even really pvp for anyone but the leaders, they need to reward smaller groups. Otherwise, most players will take the easy road to alliance points, and do nothing but stay with the zerg, because that way they don't have think, react or even really pay attention. The leaders of the zerg do all the work for them...

The last MMO I played, Rift, had a pvp instance called Conquest, which bears some similarities to the pvp in ESO. Because there was basically no reward for small groups and solo players (they would be lucky to get a few hundred favor in a match as opposed to many thousands for the zergers), noone did anything but zerg. The same will happen here if you reward the zergers anywhere close what those in a smaller group gain.

This is a false perception. Anyone with a decent understanding of AvA can recognize that mindless zergs are bad. Dedicating so many troops to attack one point leaves many openings for attack at other points. I do not zerg and I have never supported such a terrible tactic. Making use of a zerg merely places one at a disadvantage and makes them easily exploitable for the enemy.

It should also be clarified that a large group party is not actually a zerg. A zerg would be two and really even more large group parties all hitting the same place without any regard for tactics or planning. Very few quality PvPers would endorse such a strategy as it would be to their detriment.

Part of the reason zergs do not work well in this game, versus GW2, WoW, or Rift, is because of how expansive Cyrodiil actually is. There is just too much territory to cover and bullying your way around with numbers generally doesn't work very well.

While I understand ZOS wants to try and be fair to those who may prefer to solo versus those who actually want to form large groups and participate in siege battles, one can't have their cake and eat it too. AvA at its core is built for large groups with up to 200 players on the screen.

It does not seem fair or right, in my opinion, to penalize players who participate in a massively multiplayer fashion to accommodate solo players or smaller groups. This is an MMORPG. This is not a single player game. Especially in AvA, if one even wants to gain elder scrolls or crown an emperor, it requires the effort of the entire alliance. One player cannot do this.

I'm not even asking for solo players or smaller groups to be completely irrelevant. Far from that, actually. One of the strengths of Cyrodiil is how sandbox in nature the zone is, and how many forms of PvP can spawn out of it. That being said, AvA is the main point of the zone, and it should be the large groups who benefit the most.

The way AP works currently, there is little motivation to form large groups and actually siege as the rewards are outweighed by just playing in a small group or by yourself. This inherently contradicts what I believe ZOS intended for AvA as they want to have the largest, most epic PvP experience available in the genre.

Bramir

Basing reward changes on the idea that the average player knows or cares about alliance war tactics is a great way to totally screw the entire system, because that stance is simply not based on reality. A huge number of those in your zerg that isn't a zerg somehow, can be counted on to do nothing but zerg, because that is what they came for. Meanwhile, those running around in small groups capturing objectives might actually have a clue and should be rewarded as such. The only people that get screwed in the current system are those who lead the zergs, but they get the glory instead...followers are being rewarded appropriately if following is what they are doing...

Imperator_Clydus

Bramir wrote: »

Basing reward changes on the idea that the average player knows or cares about alliance war tactics is a great way to totally screw the entire system, because that stance is simply not based on reality. A huge number of those in your zerg that isn't a zerg somehow, can be counted on to do nothing but zerg, because that is what they came for. Meanwhile, those running around in small groups capturing objectives might actually have a clue and should be rewarded as such. The only people that get screwed in the current system are those who lead the zergs, but they get the glory instead...followers are being rewarded appropriately if following is what they are doing...

You apparently don't know what a zerg is... I'll break it down for you. Large group parties are an intended feature. ZOS purposely capped large groups at 24 players, as that is what they believe to be a reasonable size for AvA. A "zerg" would be going far above what is intended, stacking many large groups, and throwing numbers at a particular point or an objective.

Zergs do not perform well in PvP. Zergs are easily countered. There is not a point or benefit to be in a zerg. The revamping of AP that I would put into place would not benefit a zerg, as they are not objective-based nor tactically sound. The point of this thread is for an intended group size, which is not a zerg, to actually have meaning when they are playing strategically and as the game intends.

Right now, this is not the case. If I understand your line of thinking, you believe the current setup discourages zergs because of the lack of AP accumulated. One will not gain a lot of AP in a zerg regardless, even if AP were to be changed to favor large groups more. The changes I recommend wouldn't be killing players, but rather taking objectives, cutting transitus, running elder scrolls, and overall playing as the game intends.

I seriously doubt ZOS intended for AvA to be nothing more than solo players and small groups farming AP by death matching. That is how the system currently works. This isn't a benefit to anyone except a small minority of the community which generally does not even work with the rest of the alliance. Why should these players who don't even communicate obtain all the best rewards?

My suggestion would actually encourage playing smart, capturing objectives, and working as a team. If one can play smart and successfully achieve this in a large group that ZOS intended, they should be rewarded for the coordination and effort. It's a lot harder to organize 24 players than it is four. Zergs will be zergs and will never benefit due to their mentality.

Bramir

No, what I am saying is that small groups completing the same objectives should be rewarded more per capita than a large one, which I believe is the current setup and a good one. If you even make it even, only a few people will bother with the harder route of taking those objectives with a smaller group, and so you end up with a zerg, or whatever you want to call it that makes you feel better about leading it.

Imperator_Clydus

Bramir wrote: »

No, what I am saying is that small groups completing the same objectives should be rewarded more per capita than a large one, which I believe is the current setup and a good one. If you even make it even, only a few people will bother with the harder route of taking those objectives with a smaller group, and so you end up with a zerg, or whatever you want to call it that makes you feel better about leading it.

Part of the problem is you don't really receive AP for doing objectives, which is one of my points. Most AP is generated from killing players. That means small groups or solo players just going around death matching is generally the best way to accumulate AP. Defense is a decent way of gaining AP with offense being the worst.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. AvA is about large groups and large siege battles. That is where a majority of the AP should be going towards. Smaller groups should still be viable, especially if they are cutting transitus, taking resources, etc. However, it should not be the only sole option for accumulating a massive amount of AP efficiently.

You clearly prefer small or solo groups and that's perfectly fine. AvA isn't an arena or battleground, however. AvA is open world PvP, and it is massive and requires a lot of players to function properly. It doesn't make sense in the slightest that the minority of players end up gaining the most. That is illogical.

Bramir

Actually I really love the sieges...I just don't think most people are doing much of value beyond showing up (hopefully with a siege engine).

I guess I was mistaken about the AP rewards for objectives though...I'm not sure where else most of my AP from the other day came from because our 15-20 person army scored maybe 10 kills, but we took a bunch of objectives and I gained 5k AP. If you really don't get any AP for an objective, that needs to be changed to have it be a fairly large reward and divided among the attackers, and then you can safely increase the amount of AP for kills when in a large group without sidelining the reward for smaller groups.

Qujz

Cause those who choice the tougher path should be rewarded more and being in a small group or going solo is a lot tougher. Like others said the larger a group the less you have to or get to do.

Imperator_Clydus

Qujz wrote: »

Cause those who choice the tougher path should be rewarded more and being in a small group or going solo is a lot tougher. Like others said the larger a group the less you have to or get to do.

What you said is illogical. Being in a smaller group does not correlate to things being more difficult. On the contrary, things are generally a lot easier. First and foremost, it depends on how you are using that smaller group.

If you are focusing on claiming resources and ganking wandering players, that doesn't require a lot of skill or effort. It's also generally easier to organize small groups, making focus fire and executing missions incredibly simple.

It is organizing and successfully using large groups that is the hard part. Many will degenerate into zergs, which are not successful groups and generally are defeated through superior tactics. The groups who do use tactics and do perform well, however, shouldn't be penalized as a result.

Bramir

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

Qujz wrote: »

Cause those who choice the tougher path should be rewarded more and being in a small group or going solo is a lot tougher. Like others said the larger a group the less you have to or get to do.

What you said is illogical. Being in a smaller group does not correlate to things being more difficult. On the contrary, things are generally a lot easier. First and foremost, it depends on how you are using that smaller group.

If you are focusing on claiming resources and ganking wandering players, that doesn't require a lot of skill or effort. It's also generally easier to organize small groups, making focus fire and executing missions incredibly simple.

It is organizing and successfully using large groups that is the hard part. Many will degenerate into zergs, which are not successful groups and generally are defeated through superior tactics. The groups who do use tactics and do perform well, however, shouldn't be penalized as a result.

I think I see the disconnect here. You are 'using' groups while the rest of us are 'joining' them for the most part. It is certainly easier to 'use' a small group, and harder to 'use' a large one. But the people doing the 'using' are such a tiny subgroup of a subgroup...the leaders. For most people (the followers), the larger group is easier to be a part of, because pretty much nothing is expected of you. Join a five person resource squad and each member is going to have to carry their weight and contribute or the squad will fail, so that is the tougher course.

The first mistake most wannabee sociologists make is projecting their own motivations on others, which is what you are doing. You speak for yourself and the few others who are leading these armies...and if there was a way to give you guys more xp than the tool sleeping next to his buddy's catapult, I'd be all for it. But I am not down with giving that tool more xp than the guys busting ass trying to take resources. You misunderstand the motivations of the masses. Almost everyone will take the quicker, easier path because they aren't after glory, they are after rewards.

Imperator_Clydus

Bramir wrote: »

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

Qujz wrote: »

Cause those who choice the tougher path should be rewarded more and being in a small group or going solo is a lot tougher. Like others said the larger a group the less you have to or get to do.

What you said is illogical. Being in a smaller group does not correlate to things being more difficult. On the contrary, things are generally a lot easier. First and foremost, it depends on how you are using that smaller group.

If you are focusing on claiming resources and ganking wandering players, that doesn't require a lot of skill or effort. It's also generally easier to organize small groups, making focus fire and executing missions incredibly simple.

It is organizing and successfully using large groups that is the hard part. Many will degenerate into zergs, which are not successful groups and generally are defeated through superior tactics. The groups who do use tactics and do perform well, however, shouldn't be penalized as a result.

I think I see the disconnect here. You are 'using' groups while the rest of us are 'joining' them for the most part. It is certainly easier to 'use' a small group, and harder to 'use' a large one. But the people doing the 'using' are such a tiny subgroup of a subgroup...the leaders. For most people (the followers), the larger group is easier to be a part of, because pretty much nothing is expected of you. Join a five person resource squad and each member is going to have to carry their weight and contribute or the squad will fail, so that is the tougher course.

The first mistake most wannabee sociologists make is projecting their own motivations on others, which is what you are doing. You speak for yourself and the few others who are leading these armies...and if there was a way to give you guys more xp than the tool sleeping next to his buddy's catapult, I'd be all for it. But I am not down with giving that tool more xp than the guys busting ass trying to take resources. You misunderstand the motivations of the masses. Almost everyone will take the quicker, easier path because they aren't after glory, they are after rewards.

The problem, again, is when people realize the easiest way to accumulate AP is by being in small groups and death matching, ganking, or camping towers with oil, we will have a breakdown of what actually matters in AvA.

I am happy to admit that I am a leader and we are the minority in AvA. I'm not asking for special treatment or recognition. I thoroughly enjoy leading, strategizing, and outwitting the enemy. I just don't agree that small groups should receive such a much larger chunk of AP than large groups.

A one hundred times difference between a large group and a solo player is ridiculous as it is. Large groups, of which would be the majority of players in AvA, will ultimately be at the largest disadvantage.

The argument that this would discourage zergs wouldn't hold either, as more than likely we will see mass zergs breaking into many small groups following the next guy. The current way AP is generated isn't a solution.

Overall, I believe we can all agree that AP should be generated more through objectives rather than killing. AvA is about playing objectives and playing them well. Right now killing is the main source of AP and as a result detracts largely from AvA.

Qujz

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

The problem, again, is when people realize the easiest way to accumulate AP is by being in small groups and death matching, ganking, or camping towers with oil, we will have a breakdown of what actually matters in AvA.

You are only viewing the negatives of small groups (which what you said can still can happen with a large by the way). I`ve seen small groups take keeps and its no different than a large one doing.

Now think about this:
You move in with your large group and take a keep but there is an enemy group not that far behind that you don`t know is coming. In that situation it would be best for small group or solo person to stay behind and call for help and hold off the attackers.

Another situation: Separating the haves from the have not`s
Not everyone has a house to ride around on meaning they will more than likely be excluded from most large groups.

Next situation: Divide and Conquer
Your factions corner of the map is completely take over a large running around taking keeps is going to alert the other factions to a keep being taken they can easily wipe that group. Now if there are more smaller groups they can easily pick a keep to retake which will force the other sides to split up or tie them up at one keep long enough for the other small group.

Final situation: Not enough people
This is the situation that the majority is dealing. Now your telling me that cause there stuck on a server where there side does not have enough people or one that has the majority of its players on in your off time.

In each of these situations why should someone get less for something that's out of there control?

Imperator_Clydus

Qujz wrote: »

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

The problem, again, is when people realize the easiest way to accumulate AP is by being in small groups and death matching, ganking, or camping towers with oil, we will have a breakdown of what actually matters in AvA.

You are only viewing the negatives of small groups (which what you said can still can happen with a large by the way). I`ve seen small groups take keeps and its no different than a large one doing.

Now think about this:
You move in with your large group and take a keep but there is an enemy group not that far behind that you don`t know is coming. In that situation it would be best for small group or solo person to stay behind and call for help and hold off the attackers.

Another situation: Separating the haves from the have not`s
Not everyone has a house to ride around on meaning they will more than likely be excluded from most large groups.

Next situation: Divide and Conquer
Your factions corner of the map is completely take over a large running around taking keeps is going to alert the other factions to a keep being taken they can easily wipe that group. Now if there are more smaller groups they can easily pick a keep to retake which will force the other sides to split up or tie them up at one keep long enough for the other small group.

Final situation: Not enough people
This is the situation that the majority is dealing. Now your telling me that cause there stuck on a server where there side does not have enough people or one that has the majority of its players on in your off time.

In each of these situations why should someone get less for something that's out of there control?

My point, and the point of the thread, is that large groups are not efficient for gaining AP. Small groups can do a lot and certainly well-coordinated ones can take keeps. That's not my argument. What my argument actually is goes back to the fact that there is a huge disparity between small group benefits and large groups.

All I'm suggesting is large groups should receive more AP and smaller groups, in particular just solo players, should receive less AP. Gaining eight AP for a kill in a large group versus eight hundred AP for a kill solo is ridiculous.

Censorious

Interesting point.

I often wondered why anyone would spend several minutes, possibly an hour or more, hiding in some choke point or quest-giver location, on the off chance that a suitable victim would come along. ( A clothie for sure - preferably an up-level).
It always struck me as a seriously boring occupation.

If you get a lot of points for that sort of thing, it makes sense.

Igolbug

If I am solo and someone from your group of 24 helps me kill someone I get like 8 alliance ponts too!

Pryda

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Hta9USZuA8&hd=1

Check the AP counter top of the screen. You're just doing it wrong

7,64m AP and counting..

Imperator_Clydus

Pryda wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Hta9USZuA8&hd=1

Check the AP counter top of the screen. You're just doing it wrong

7,64m AP and counting..

Not at all actually. As stated in the original post, large groups receive a mere fraction of the amount of AP from one kill that a solo player will receive. This video merely indicates what is already known, that one would have to engage in endless zerg vs zerg to grind kills to receive mediocre AP gains.

Just watch any of the players at the top of the leaderboard on any of the campaigns. More than likely they either exclusively run small groups or are solo, and focus primarily on grinding kills.

I am suggesting, for one, to change how AP gains are processed. It needs to be more objective-based and less grinding kills. I'm also suggesting large groups should receive more AP for playing objectives, rather than mindlessly zerging, like the video you depicted.

With the way the system is currently, the best way to accumulate AP is to disregard the Alliance War and grind kills. This mentality should be discouraged as the alliance point system should compliment what players should be doing. Right now, that is not the case.

Pryda

Nerfing AP on kills will just put everyone into a big giant zerg capping points, that's not a solution either. People would just flip structures without defending so they can capture it again after (karma train like on GW2).

rawne1980b16_ESO

As a solo roamer ... or scout as we like to think of ourselves ... I will say, leave our damn AP alone.

Imperator_Clydus

Pryda wrote: »

Nerfing AP on kills will just put everyone into a big giant zerg capping points, that's not a solution either. People would just flip structures without defending so they can capture it again after (karma train like on GW2).

Not necessarily. First and foremost, other MMOs, such as WoW, already have done something similar to what I have suggested. Rewarding players more for completing objectives, and giving less for just mindless killing. This is a rather straightforward approach that isn't new to MMOs.

As far as just objective trading is concerned, one would still receive a significant amount of AP for defending objectives, encouraging players to defend what they have. As it stands, one receives more for defending than attacking anyways, so this wouldn't be an issue for those AP grinding.

I really don't see a downside at all towards making AP more objective-oriented and reducing the amount gained from kills. Obviously, large groups still need to receive more and solo/small groups need to receive less to equalize the disparity more.

Imperator_Clydus

rawne1980b16_ESO wrote: »

As a solo roamer ... or scout as we like to think of ourselves ... I will say, leave our damn AP alone.

You are entitled to your opinion. ESO is a Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game. AvA is a large-scale, massive open world PvP system which can handle up to 200 players on screen at once. This is not a solo experience. Solo players should not reap the most benefits, regardless of how you may feel about it. That is nonsensical in every sense of the word.

rawne1980b16_ESO

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

rawne1980b16_ESO wrote: »

As a solo roamer ... or scout as we like to think of ourselves ... I will say, leave our damn AP alone.

You are entitled to your opinion. ESO is a Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game. AvA is a large-scale, massive open world PvP system which can handle up to 200 players on screen at once. This is not a solo experience. Solo players should not reap the most benefits, regardless of how you may feel about it. That is nonsensical in every sense of the word.

You are aware that you NEED scouts and roamers right?

You want to know what needs help, where the enemy zergs are and where they have ambush groups.

Or are you one of the zerglings that has no idea how large scale PvP works?

Lower roamer AP and you remove the roamers.

You lose information on the field.

We then join zergs just so we can get our AP.

PvP then becomes one massive zerg fest with no need for anything else.

jwwputnam_ESO

To improve the encouragement of action and rewards (AP) of group actions, perhaps the addition of the following might aid in resolving the issue and allow for improved leveling opportunities:

Additional Objective Boards
The addition of Large Group Objectives and another for Guild Objectives which reward AP may result in improved tactics while in PvP.

Large Group Objectives (LGO) could vary from capping resources to siege of a keep or even holding a point on the map. The LGO would have an assigned time limit with a set amount of AP; for takeover objectives the AP would reduce over time and be automatically rewarded upon completion. For holding control point objectives (i.e.: bridges, gates, prevention of keep takeover, etc...) the AP reward would build as the time increased - this could also be scaled to reflect the size of the enemy force attempting to take the action.

Guild Objectives (GO) would cover larger actions that could be performed and would required a bounty board. There would be a limit to the number of GOs available to be posted and would also require either guild leaders or generals to be able to post the GO. (Potentially, this could include an Alliance Emperor Objective which would allow the emperor to assign a task for the alliance on a daily basis.)

Syndy

@Imperator_Clydus‌

So, from reading this thread you think, big groups should get more AP for doing something, compared to small groups doing something?

You like to run in big groups more power to you. You have numbers to handle almost any situation, there is a security in that. It also makes taking objectives easier. What you propose would make small groups pointless and encourage zerg v zerg warfare, that I personally HATE.

Small groups and solo players have a harder time doing the same stuff your large group does, they should get more AP for it.

You want to run in large groups, you can, it is your choice. You know the benefits of it as well as the downside. But saying large groups should get better rewards compared to smaller groups is, as you so eloquently put it, "That is nonsensical in every sense of the word. ".

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

All I'm suggesting is large groups should receive more AP and smaller groups, in particular just solo players, should receive less AP. Gaining eight AP for a kill in a large group versus eight hundred AP for a kill solo is ridiculous.

Why should the 50 people that just ran over one guy get more rewards than the 1v1 fights?

What you are proposing there makes no sense what so ever.

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

This is not a solo experience. Solo players should not reap the most benefits, regardless of how you may feel about it.

That is your opinion. You are right it is not a solo experience. It is an MMO, if I want to play the MMO solo I can. If I want to zerg I can. Forcing your way of play on others is not how MMOs work. MMOs are about freedom of play. When it comes to forcing a playstyle, that is when things break down.

Solo Players should reap the most benefits, regardless of how you may feel about it. If I do something by myself that would be insanely easier with 20 more people, why should I not get justly rewarded?

As far as you views on making rewards for fighting over objectives, I can see where you are coming from.

Edit: Spelling

mjmisita_ESO

@Imperator_Clydus

MrDDT

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

Not at all actually. As stated in the original post, large groups receive a mere fraction of the amount of AP from one kill that a solo player will receive. This video merely indicates what is already known, that one would have to engage in endless zerg vs zerg to grind kills to receive mediocre AP gains.

Just watch any of the players at the top of the leaderboard on any of the campaigns. More than likely they either exclusively run small groups or are solo, and focus primarily on grinding kills.

I am suggesting, for one, to change how AP gains are processed. It needs to be more objective-based and less grinding kills. I'm also suggesting large groups should receive more AP for playing objectives, rather than mindlessly zerging, like the video you depicted.

With the way the system is currently, the best way to accumulate AP is to disregard the Alliance War and grind kills. This mentality should be discouraged as the alliance point system should compliment what players should be doing. Right now, that is not the case.

Actually, you are wrong, and the original post is wrong.

I'm not sure where you getting this 8ap vs 800ap, but that is not true.

The best way to get AP is be the most effective for whatever size you are, if you are able to kill many high ranking people as a solo person you are likely to do great, assuming you can stay effective (ie getting randos to rez you or heals etc).

If you are an effective large or med size group you can do the same. IMO the most effective way to get AP is 10 to 15 highly effective people taking on 2x at a point where they are either defending, or where the other forces and easy respawn.

Many times in a 24 man raid, I can get 50 to 100 AP per kill. If you are killing level 10 players with no AP expect to get crap AP.

People have different ideas what a zerg is, but the point is that you can be highly effective at getting AP without outnumbering the other size, and IMO solo is not even remotely the best way unless you have a bunch of bads you are grouped with normally.

The top people on the leaderboards of the #1 PVP servers both EU and NA (Auriel's Bow) are doing it by being in groups. As Pyrda said to you already.
Being a former Emperor myself, I can tell you I did it through being in a group (large groups mostly).

Imperator_Clydus

rawne1980b16_ESO wrote: »

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

rawne1980b16_ESO wrote: »

As a solo roamer ... or scout as we like to think of ourselves ... I will say, leave our damn AP alone.

You are entitled to your opinion. ESO is a Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game. AvA is a large-scale, massive open world PvP system which can handle up to 200 players on screen at once. This is not a solo experience. Solo players should not reap the most benefits, regardless of how you may feel about it. That is nonsensical in every sense of the word.

You are aware that you NEED scouts and roamers right?

You want to know what needs help, where the enemy zergs are and where they have ambush groups.

Or are you one of the zerglings that has no idea how large scale PvP works?

Lower roamer AP and you remove the roamers.

You lose information on the field.

We then join zergs just so we can get our AP.

PvP then becomes one massive zerg fest with no need for anything else.

Not at all. I'm not saying to remove AP for small groups/solo players at all. What I am saying is that large groups should receive more than they already do, as the game discourages large group player currently.

Imperator_Clydus

f0rgiv3n27b14_ESO wrote: »

@Imperator_Clydus‌

So, from reading this thread you think, big groups should get more AP for doing something, compared to small groups doing something?

You like to run in big groups more power to you. You have numbers to handle almost any situation, there is a security in that. It also makes taking objectives easier. What you propose would make small groups pointless and encourage zerg v zerg warfare, that I personally HATE.

Small groups and solo players have a harder time doing the same stuff your large group does, they should get more AP for it.

You want to run in large groups, you can, it is your choice. You know the benefits of it as well as the downside. But saying large groups should get better rewards compared to smaller groups is, as you so eloquently put it, "That is nonsensical in every sense of the word. ".

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

All I'm suggesting is large groups should receive more AP and smaller groups, in particular just solo players, should receive less AP. Gaining eight AP for a kill in a large group versus eight hundred AP for a kill solo is ridiculous.

Why should the 50 people that just ran over one guy get more rewards than the 1v1 fights?

What you are proposing there makes no sense what so ever.

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

This is not a solo experience. Solo players should not reap the most benefits, regardless of how you may feel about it.

That is your opinion. You are right it is not a solo experience. It is an MMO, if I want to play the MMO solo I can. If I want to zerg I can. Forcing your way of play on others is not how MMOs work. MMOs are about freedom of play. When it comes to forcing a playstyle, that is when things break down.

Solo Players should reap the most benefits, regardless of how you may feel about it. If I do something by myself that would be insanely easier with 20 more people, why should I not get justly rewarded?

As far as you views on making rewards for fighting over objectives, I can see where you are coming from.

Edit: Spelling

Ultimately AvA is about Alliance versus Alliance. The large groups and well-coordinated AvA guilds will be the ones that determine the fate of the campaign. Smaller groups will certainly play a role, but they are useful for complimenting the larger groups and guild groups.

I am not proposing zerg vs zerg in the slightest. If you actually did read through my posts, you would realize I'm against that. Currently, that is entirely how large group parties work for AvA. I absolutely hate that AP is generated by grinding kills and not predominantly by playing objectives.

AvA again stands for Alliance versus Alliance. PvP has never been a solo experience. I'm happy ZOS is supporting it for those who prefer to be solo, but that player should never accumulate AP faster than anyone else. MMOs have always been about team work, and in particular, large-scale team work.

AvA is about the siege battles, cutting transitus, running elder scrolls, and outwitting the enemy. The way it is now, groups are discouraged and AP is purely a killing grind fest. This is not acceptable in the slightest and will not be healthy for AvA in the long term, which should be about objectives.

Actually, MMOs have never been about the solo experience. MMOs are Massively Multiplayer Online games, and are built for people to work with others to achieve goals. This isn't Skyrim.

I'm happy MMOs have become more well-rounded to support other play styles that never existed in previous MMOs, but we cannot forget the roots of the genre. AvA is a perfect example of a system where the people you play with matter and you can't win the alliance war alone.

What you are saying is not practical. Lets take scale into consideration. A large group will more than likely go against a large group. A small group, by contrast, will more than likely go against a small group. Regardless of the outcome, the small group will always gain more AP because of the amount per kill.

Being in a smaller group or solo isn't more skillful or difficult. Most solo players are hiding behind trees waiting to gank players while they are questing. These players shouldn't accumulate AP faster than the ones actually participating in AvA and in the keep battles.

I clearly come from a different generation of MMO players than you do, and that's entirely fine. What you have to realize, however, is that AvA is based off of RvR, a PvP system that came from DAoC. The system itself is very much old school and group-oriented, as is AvA.

All I want is for AP to be accumulated more from objectives and less from kills. I also want large groups to gain more than eight AP per kill as solo players receive eight hundred AP per kill.

It doesn't make sense in the slightest that a large group would have to kill a hundred players just to match the one kill a solo player did. Especially if that one kill happened to be a fresh level 10 that they were stalking...

I guarantee you if ZOS does not address this in one way or another, they will largely kill their own AvA system. Before you know it no one will be grouping and everybody will be solo grinding kills. That's not the AvA experience I want. I'm certain that's not the AvA experience you want either.

Imperator_Clydus

MrDDT wrote: »

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

Not at all actually. As stated in the original post, large groups receive a mere fraction of the amount of AP from one kill that a solo player will receive. This video merely indicates what is already known, that one would have to engage in endless zerg vs zerg to grind kills to receive mediocre AP gains.

Just watch any of the players at the top of the leaderboard on any of the campaigns. More than likely they either exclusively run small groups or are solo, and focus primarily on grinding kills.

I am suggesting, for one, to change how AP gains are processed. It needs to be more objective-based and less grinding kills. I'm also suggesting large groups should receive more AP for playing objectives, rather than mindlessly zerging, like the video you depicted.

With the way the system is currently, the best way to accumulate AP is to disregard the Alliance War and grind kills. This mentality should be discouraged as the alliance point system should compliment what players should be doing. Right now, that is not the case.

Actually, you are wrong, and the original post is wrong.

I'm not sure where you getting this 8ap vs 800ap, but that is not true.

The best way to get AP is be the most effective for whatever size you are, if you are able to kill many high ranking people as a solo person you are likely to do great, assuming you can stay effective (ie getting randos to rez you or heals etc).

If you are an effective large or med size group you can do the same. IMO the most effective way to get AP is 10 to 15 highly effective people taking on 2x at a point where they are either defending, or where the other forces and easy respawn.

Many times in a 24 man raid, I can get 50 to 100 AP per kill. If you are killing level 10 players with no AP expect to get crap AP.

People have different ideas what a zerg is, but the point is that you can be highly effective at getting AP without outnumbering the other size, and IMO solo is not even remotely the best way unless you have a bunch of bads you are grouped with normally.

The top people on the leaderboards of the #1 PVP servers both EU and NA (Auriel's Bow) are doing it by being in groups. As Pyrda said to you already.
Being a former Emperor myself, I can tell you I did it through being in a group (large groups mostly).

Or perhaps you are wrong?

I have calculated this as well as my guildies. We have tested how AP is accumulated in large parties, small parties, and solo. I have been crowned emperor multiple times in beta and during live. I know exactly how this system works. Are you sure you do?

Solo players and small groups will always accumulate AP faster and more efficiently. This cannot be disputed. All of the top players on Bloodthorn (NA) generally always play solo or in small groups grinding kills. To even suggest this is not how the system works shows your lack of understanding of how AP is accumulated.

This thread is created to educate posters, like yourself, with how broken AP gains actually are. AP is largely gained solely through killing players. The only decent objective-based AP as it stands is defending objectives. Solo and small groups have always received a significantly greater amount of AP than large groups. The proportion isn't even equal in the slightest.

If I can build enough awareness of how utterly broken AP gains actually are, then perhaps AP can actually work the way we expect.

MrDDT

I think it's funny you say it can't be disputed but the person with the most AP out of all the servers is doing it in a med to large group.

You do not get 100x less AP by being in a 24 man raid. Fact.

You will find that the best way to get AP is be being the most effective you can be, solo can be for some people but from what I've seen it's normally 8 to 15 man groups holding choke points or defending.
You are correct objectives are not the best way to get AP and not really a large part of the effective AP gains, nor is healing (healing does add to the AP amount though, so the highest AP gains would be a healer in an effective group)

Having said that, I once got close to 50k AP for an objective. There are ways to work the objective system.