Halrloprillalar wrote: »

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

Thank you for this list, and constructive breakdown of PVP issues, @Halrloprillalar.

We currently have several teams looking at the issues called out in this thread (and others) including the PVP team, and the Gameplay team. We are aware of the feedback and concerns regarding AoE caps, specifically; the Gameplay team is actively looking at AoE caps and the issues related to them very closely and carefully before making any further changes.

Well, not quite what we want to hear, but great at last to have a response from ZOS!
Thank you!

Goes to show what an eloquent bit of feedback can get you.

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

To piggyback onto @Jessica's comments about AoE caps, here's what I can tell you about some of the other concerns:


2. Home vs. guesting, and pvp buffs. <--With Campaigns being reduced to 5 in 1.3 we will see how this shakes down but we are aware of the feedback regarding guest vs. home buffs.

3. Emperor trading/former emperor buffs. <-- We are discussing various options/changes to Emperor buffs/former emperor buffs and will comment more when it's ready to be rolled out. Also in 1.3 there are several changes aimed specifically at the farming/trading behaviors (faster degrade on siege weapons so players can't "lock" a keep from defensive siege, higher AP requirement to be Emperor, 3 day lockout on Guest passing/Home campaign, and different durations of campaigns).

4. Forward camps. <--We are also aware of the cross-team issues with this and that players can use up charges in your Camps when deployed that you may not have wanted to. Currently we are discussing a few options but nothing solid yet gang. We also know about the wayshrine/camping and looking into solutions for that too.

5. The rewards/AP/gear system. <-- The cadence for getting rewards slows down the higher level you are so that should help with the frequency worries. In a future patch (not 1.3 but after) very nice items will be added to the leaderboard rewards from Campaigns. As for 1.3 however new merchants are in Cyrodiil that sell higher VR gear!

Thanks, Brian! We've all been wanting to hear from you guys and are glad to finally see it in writing. Keep up the communication, it's what we thrive on.

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

To piggyback onto @Jessica's comments about AoE caps, here's what I can tell you about some of the other concerns:


2. Home vs. guesting, and pvp buffs. <--With Campaigns being reduced to 5 in 1.3 we will see how this shakes down but we are aware of the feedback regarding guest vs. home buffs.

3. Emperor trading/former emperor buffs. <-- We are discussing various options/changes to Emperor buffs/former emperor buffs and will comment more when it's ready to be rolled out. Also in 1.3 there are several changes aimed specifically at the farming/trading behaviors (faster degrade on siege weapons so players can't "lock" a keep from defensive siege, higher AP requirement to be Emperor, 3 day lockout on Guest passing/Home campaign, and different durations of campaigns).

4. Forward camps. <--We are also aware of the cross-team issues with this and that players can use up charges in your Camps when deployed that you may not have wanted to. Currently we are discussing a few options but nothing solid yet gang. We also know about the wayshrine/camping and looking into solutions for that too.

5. The rewards/AP/gear system. <-- The cadence for getting rewards slows down the higher level you are so that should help with the frequency worries. In a future patch (not 1.3 but after) very nice items will be added to the leaderboard rewards from Campaigns. As for 1.3 however new merchants are in Cyrodiil that sell higher VR gear!

Out in Cyrodiil, or actually at the main port in area's?

Because i've not noticed anything really new about the gear there on PTS

Well...except one set i'm going to abuse until you nerf it lawls

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

Thank you for this list, and constructive breakdown of PVP issues, @Halrloprillalar.

We currently have several teams looking at the issues called out in this thread (and others) including the PVP team, and the Gameplay team. We are aware of the feedback and concerns regarding AoE caps, specifically; the Gameplay team is actively looking at AoE caps and the issues related to them very closely and carefully before making any further changes.

Thank you very much.
At least we know you guys are aware of the issues.
If you're interested in more ideas, take a look at the thread in my sig.

I am very hyped about the game lately, and so are a lot of players.
Keep up the good work.

I generally like the ideas put forward so far, but I reject private ownership of camps. Every single guild/group might decide they want their own camp. Some folks don't group or guild. You might have 3, 5, 10, or 20 camps at a single keep and still not have one to which non-guild/non-grouped players can port.

The other suggestions offered already help with this. If you can only port to a forward camp within its shown map radius, then only folks close enough to be involved in the fighting can use it. That means less traffic through the camp and more of that traffic is actively engaged with a particular battle.

Another suggestion from this thread also helps: a penalty after porting to a camp. If people resurrect with half or less of their stats, and a reduced regeneration rate (including debuffs on spells/potions) for something length of time, then along with the limits of only working within a particular radius it wouldn't be as tempting to use a camp even for a short "hop". You could just ride your horse that distance in the same time it would take to recover from going through the tent.

As for bad player behavior, such as spies dropping tents to prevent other camps being used closer to the battle, or players being too cheap or unaware to drop replacement FCs, this is harder to regulate. For the former, perhaps have each camp list who dropped it in a way that would show up on a map for screen captures? Plus, shrink that map radius by maybe 15%-20%. Would also help reduce incidental traffic and make FC sabotage less effective.

For the latter, maybe give a nice AP reward for dropping camps near active battles? That would mean the tent's map radius would have to include a recent battle or keep/resource siege. Say, something that had happened in the last 5 minutes.

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

Game does need Rez Sickness

My opinion is maybe Porting to a Forward Camp will give Rez sickness, porting to keep not under attack might not give rez sickness.

Also something needs to be done with Resources at keep, most of the time people are just blowing through the wall incredibly quickly while completely ignoring the resources.

There should be more incentive to take those resources first before knocking down the walls.

Right now taking resources just serves as a giant warning bell that the keep's about to be under attack. It only matters on a recently taken keep you want to retake (to keep the level low) or if you know there are defenders in there and you want to cut the transit before you hit the walls.

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

Game does need Rez Sickness

My opinion is maybe Porting to a Forward Camp will give Rez sickness, porting to keep not under attack might not give rez sickness.

Also something needs to be done with Resources at keep, most of the time people are just blowing through the wall incredibly quickly while completely ignoring the resources.

There should be more incentive to take those resources first before knocking down the walls.

Right now taking resources just serves as a giant warning bell that the keep's about to be under attack. It only matters on a recently taken keep you want to retake (to keep the level low) or if you know there are defenders in there and you want to cut the transit before you hit the walls.

Yeap...

Hence why you just have people setup 20 Ballista's and break down the wall in about 2 to 3 minutes.

Whats sad is, if the Forward Camps didn't exist like they did right now, There would be no way to defend a keep in time before the walls got knocked down.

So its 2 separate issues, both are bad for the game, but both are needed right now to counter the other.

What I would be interested to see --

A little bit of nerfing to the guards (archers especially) and a buffing of the keep walls (alternatively, weakening the damage of siege on walls). Make it so that the keep flags at 50% on the wall, but transit it lost when the outer wall goes down.

This puts more of the burden on the defenders, but at the same time, they have more time to get there and the building itself is sturdier.

My guild and I have been complaining of these PVP issues since the AOE caps were put in place. We usually only play with 6-8 people and going against 30 people we are not nearly as effective as we used to be due to zerg ball behavior. It really isn't fun and it takes the individual element out of PVP.

One option I'd like to see regarding Forward camps is they should sell the "Light" Forward Camps that you get as your first cyrodiil quest reward. This will allow groups to allow a few people to ress without pulling in a horde of assorted players who don't meaningfully contribute to your group effort and end up taking defense/attack ticks that your group earned.

I think a group leader should have option of making his group siege (including camps) group use-able only. This would prevent people outside of your group from taking the siege you place as well as using up your forward camp. It is extremely frustrating to have to continue to finance siege camps during an assault and have random players continually use them up while they feeding AP to the enemy you are attacking.

One other absurdly broken thing that contributes to zerg balls I think @ZOS_BrianWheeler and his team should look into is Grand Healing. I run with Grand healing on my bar and I can cast it nonstop once morphed and keep an entire group topped off during keep assaults without ever running out of mana. Unlike AOE damage, AOE healing has no cap, and there is no reason a single person should be able to heal thousands of damage a second for nearly no cost.

Grand healing either needs to not stack (currently you can layer the spell on top of itself which increases the healing per second you're doing on every player standing in it) or they need to look at capping the number of people it can heal.

Also I think increasing the decay rate of siege would be a huge mistake. In long sieges inside of keeps you often are manning 2 or 3 oil pots and a meatbag or fire ballista and have to replace all of this siege equipment is going to decrease the enjoyment of using siege. I'm already going through anywhere from 36-48 meatbags and 30 other assorted siege weapons a night.

A much better solution is to put a limit on the number of siege a single player can place at something like 3 or 4. This would eliminate the effectiveness of a enemy "spy" being able to meaningfully impact an assault while not really restricting the majority of players defending/assaulting a keep.

They should eliminate travel to player option for Cyrodiil, that would really help with some things like emp farming.

Forward camps being how they are now is how majority of hordes get to keeps to attack in the first place. Getting to your own keep to defend it is easy. Just transitus to the nearest keep not under attack and ride there. People should be somewhat ready to defend something anyways. Creating a use distance limit would onlt be beneficial and prevent bypassing of transitus limitations.

I really hope they create party based fcs that can be placed seperate from e:erone fcs and other party fcs. They should create a limit on how many party fcs can overlap each other (1party fc per party), and leave everyone fcs at 1.

@ZOS_BrianWheeler

I'm sorry but... could you please confirm about healing target number ? I thought it was restricted to 6 people.

Quoting Jessica Folson area-of-effect abilities thread
http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/89420/area-of-effect-abilities-maximum-target-cap-clarification/p1

All AoE effect abilities in ESO have a max target limit of six, and always have. The exceptions to this are Alliance War-specific abilities, and several others, which are specifically noted (in tooltips) as having a higher or lower limit. So, if an AoE’s ability tooltip does not list it as having a special number (greater than or less than 6) of targets, it was designed to affect 6 targets, maximum.

@ezareth_ESO‌

+ I don't see how you manage to solo heal an entire raid with Grand healing unless you are a healing god....

So I don't see how Grand healing is broken... or am I wrong ?

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

Thank you for this list, and constructive breakdown of PVP issues, @Halrloprillalar.

We currently have several teams looking at the issues called out in this thread (and others) including the PVP team, and the Gameplay team. We are aware of the feedback and concerns regarding AoE caps, specifically; the Gameplay team is actively looking at AoE caps and the issues related to them very closely and carefully before making any further changes.

Oh thank the ESO God's our cries have been heard! Now that we've got their attention quick everybody chant:

"Don't cap AOE, Don't cap AOE, Don't cap AOE, Don't ca....."

lol

P.S. This isn't a request for a petition.... it is a prayer