Future Potential Thornblade Campaign scoring change

ZOS_BrianWheeler

Hey gang!

In the continued efforts to help Cyrodiil performance, we are considering some changes to the Thornblade Campaign scoring rules. Currently the scoring is setup to have the most importance on Scrolls, then Keeps, outposts and resources last. We are considering changing that one of the following options:

• Keeps, Scrolls, Outposts and Resources all contribute just 1 point each.
Or
• Scrolls, Outposts and Resources are worth 1 point, and Keeps are worth 3.


The first option puts everything on an even playing field in terms of contribution to the overall score, however being that 54 resources exist in Cyrodiil vs 18 keeps and resources take less people to capture, you have a greater opportunity of point earning via resources. We’re well aware of the requests to make keeps more important with various new additions and reasons to claim for your guild, but that will have to wait for a later patch as that takes some code time we are currently focusing on finding the bugs chewing on wires causing performance issues.

The secondary option has 3 resources equaling the value of a single keep. This would mean you get 54 points from keeps, and 54 points from resources. Catching up in scoring would be similar to what is now, and the emphasis on keeps would still be there. Note, however, these changes are in response to the request to make objectives more meaningful besides the keeps where the knee buckling performance issues occur the most.

We’re using Thornblade as the grounds for this change as that’s the campaign with the most performance issues at the moment, and potentially with the most to gain from these changes. We could fire up a new campaign, or assign these rules to Haderus, however we wouldn’t know if the behavior of encouraging players to take these resources has the effect we want or not simply because it doesn’t have the population and performance issues as Thornblade.

Currently the score in Thornblade with 13 days to go is:

Ebonheart 56864
Daggerfall 56449
Aldmeri 40300

If we make this change, it can be done in two ways:

• The current score stays as is, but the new calculations take place when the patch goes out.
OR
• We end the campaign when the patch comes out, and Thornblade starts fresh.


This change wouldn’t come until later this month when there is roughly 24-48 hours left in the campaign. We will be looking at feedback here over the course of the next week to see what you all think of this change, and if this scoring change goes in and we have to forcefully end the campaign, you will be rewarded appropriately based on the score when the campaign is restarted.

So....thoughts?

Durandal

Yes, please either of these changes will be a big improvement on performance.

I personally like option 1, but either is good. In addition, please make the AP you get for capturing resources greater than what it is now. Since resources will be giving more points toward the leader board it makes sense to increase the AP. Make it so that capturing or defending resources is a good way to generate AP. This will make taking and holding these objectives worthwhile.

Part of the reason zergs clump up so much is because that is where the ap farm occurs. AP is a much bigger incentive than the leader board so addressing AP gain as well is the second side of the coin that needs to be changed.

Thank you for your continued attention to these issues.

Orihara_Izaya

Option 2 sounds good, and end the campaign is my vote.

Huntler

Thoughts are as follows:

I do not think scoring is going to really have much of an impact on performance in a server or even remotely make the gameplay at all better. The scoring is fine, it makes no sense that something as hard to get as a scroll would either be equal to a keep or worth less (3 to 1). It further doesn't make sense to make resources worth the same as a keep or scroll, while I understand the logic to do this behind the idea of getting players to care/spread out about them, this is not the way to do it. It presumes people will care regardless. Changing the scoring metric is not the way to solve this problem, instead it really is just promoting running from fights and just PvEing your way to victory through score. If you are going to make keeps worth more the least you could do is scale it so outside keeps like Drake,Brindle,Dragonclaw are worth little, but inner keeps or the 3 scroll keeps are worth more.


Holding resources should have an impact on that battlefield, but not like this through the scoring change. Taking resources should change how one can take a keep. I know the impact partially at the moment, but they should do more. Losing resources should change how many siege weapons you can run inside the keep, it should change the number of guards, the health of the walls, overall the ease of taking the keep. At the moment it is virtually ignorable save for the porting change.


Thats just one thought, but my overall point is I disagree with these solutions as I do not see them fixing the problem, only turning the game into one large ring around the rosie of taking resources without fighting.

Edit: oh and the reason I say/know this won't work is the scoring is a relatively trivial thing on most peoples' minds these days. They care about killing and AP farm, both of which won't be changed by this change. All this does is trivialize the harder to accomplish tasks such as acquiring a scroll. And promote people trying to avoid fighting by running around PvEing resources.

Cogo

First. Thanks a lot for this info and communicating with us!

But did the EU Thornblade fall off the map? Or is this NA Thornblade only?

ZOS_BrianWheeler

This would be EU as well. Kai has posted in the EU forums

Cogo

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

This would be EU as well. Kai has posted in the EU forums

Sowwy! Didn't see Kai's post!

Valnas

I like option 2. In conjunction with more npc xp for kills, i think resources can play a more important part.

However, they are still an albatross in the ava mechanic.

You guys put in a TON of work to make the tiers (1-5) of the resource give specific buffs to npcs and the structure of the keep. Then the game meta dictated that ninja takes (max siege on undefended keeps) or use of ideal positions really ignores the entire idea of reducing the keep defenses before taking it. 10/10 surprise or using large scale raid tactics (srs healing and removal of debuffs) to just run in and sieze it.

It takes almost an hour before a resource take impacts the keep in question in a tangible way. Can you make the keep building/degredation process initiate right when a resource is taken (the 10 minute countdown clock to reduce/increase the keep status).

I feel like this would make taking and holding resources during a capture viable.

LonePirate

I am homed on Thornblade NA and I would definitely welcome some experimentation with the scoring when the next campaign begins in a couple of weeks. Some players might feel a bias is in place if the scoring is changed during the middle of a campaign.

Of the two options, I prefer the second one as the added difficulty of capturing a keep warrants the additional points.

I would actually prefer a third point system where keeps and scrolls were worth 3 points each while resources and outposts were worth 1 point each. The extra challenge and coordination necessary for capturing a scroll is deserving of a couple of additional points.

washlov

Keeps, Scrolls, Outposts and Resources all contribute just 1 point each.

sounds good but give more AP and XP for capturing so everybody is motivated for

Huntler

Valnas wrote: »

I like option 2. In conjunction with more npc xp for kills, i think resources can play a more important part.

Yes, lets make the only PvP zone more of a PvE experience with guard killing. This isn't the solution to the blobbing up problem. Incentives towards spreading out should be increased, but not through scoring. Given exp, ap, etc. bonuses to fighting in other parts of the map. Give larger underdog bonuses, etc. Couple this with changes in game balance so that smaller groups can actually bust up zergs effectively then we are good to go. Don't get me started on the siege changes, while many people see it as a gift from god, you'll soon realize zergs will use siege too and when the smaller group is trying to deal with a zerg, they'll just get crushed now. Zerg all day inc.

WebBull

I will have to put some more thought in this but at fist glance I am not sure I like either option. In both scenarios I feel like keeps and scrolls will become meaningless. Based on the ease of taking resources, time is much better spend riding around capping resources that any type of keep battle. The entire game would change into a huge area of rotating capture the flag.

Xupacabra

Restart the campaign, as always the end and the start of a campaign bring much more player on it and best for test it.

Valnas

My real suggestion is just ground oil at 6/900 tick strength as a cureall for this whole lag problem

RedTalon

Like option one myself everything worth the same, and ending the campaign early and starting anew would be great

Angavar

Appreciate the post and opportunity to give feedback.

Personally, I'm an advocate of any changes which will spread out populations until the lag can be resolved.

With that in mind, I do believe keeps should have a higher point value for a few reasons:

Much harder to capture while defended
Longer travel time between keeps to defend (with transit down)
Required for buffs, incentive needed to hold them (emp, keep bonuses)

It can be difficult to catch a small group which is using hit and run tactics to quickly cap resources and move on to the next. Because there are so many resources, its hard to predict where they will head next, and this would encourage scouts and small counter parties.

With points from keeps being equal to resources, cyrodiil would likely become a giant game of cat and mouse. While this might be entertaining to watch, it doesn't sound very appealing to play.

I think even with keeps being worth 3 points, there would be enough players running small groups harassing enemy resources to achieve the goal of spreading the populations out.

IcyDeadPeople

Huntler wrote: »

the reason I say/know this won't work is the scoring is a relatively trivial thing on most peoples' minds these days. They care about killing and AP farm, both of which won't be changed by this change. All this does is trivialize the harder to accomplish tasks such as acquiring a scroll. And promote people trying to avoid fighting by running around PvEing resources.

Yes, agree with Huntler's assessment 100%. When most people log on to Cyrodiil in the evening, we look to see where the action is on the map and travel to where we can get into some fun battles or ganking.

Whether a particular objective will result in a higher score at the end of the campaign does not remotely figure into the decision of where to go for most players.
.

Valnas

[/quote]Huntler sees the zergpocalypse of siege zerg too[/quote]

You said scoring, i just mean xp which they stated is happening already.

I think scoring (AP) should just be from player kills. Just detatch it from obectives.

You can't make people not zerg, you can only make a scenario where 10 people away from a keep impact a keep take enought to make 10 people leave that keep and deal with it rather than turtle the flag.

DHale

Scoring is only part of the equation. I think scoring is fine but consider that we take resources when we have small groups and cannot take a keep or just to get points in most cases. Let the strength to the keep and from the keep be dependent on the resources and the impact is immediately felt don’t take the resources and alert everyone then there will be really tough guards, tough walls and tough doors. Take the resources and then the keep will be easier to take overall. By no means soloing a keep or anything drastic. This will incentivize ppl to defend multiple fronts at one time and spread out more. Many raid groups are now two full groups of 24 and that causes the other factions to run two full groups running together. This might encourage groups to split off knowing that the keeps will be less guarded and defended as resources are taken.

What do you think?

Panda244

Honestly, I'd say Option One, because it has the better chance of spreading people out to gain points, I'd rather have a bunch of smaller fights over resources, than blob-wars at a keep. Both options are still good ideas, but personally I'd prefer the first one, despite it being a little unbalanced in terms of having a lot more resources than keeps.

Lord_Hev

The only way to solve clump ups, is to add other objectives. Only 10% of Cyrodiil is used on a daily and consistent basis... Cyrodiil is a huge map... only 10% of it matters...

Sharee

I have to agree with Huntler up there. I don't see how a change in scoring would have any measurable impact on people's behavior in cyrodiil. Most people don't even know how it works, they just follow the zerg, and of those that do know, few really care.

Morvul

I agree with @Huntler here.
I do not think increasing resources importance via scoring is the way to go.
Instead, i would advocate to increase resources importance on the "capturability" of keeps. Thus forcing attackers to fight at the ressources as well as at the main keep, concurrently.

Basically, make doors and walls close to indestructable while the respective resource is held by the same alliance as the keep. Make NPCguards in keeps ridiculously strong as long as the farm is the right colour.
Changes in resource ownership should affect the keep within 1-2 minutes (or even immidiately), not after hours.

Since this would force attackers to leave players guarding the resources while the main force assaults the inner keep, the entire capture- and defensetick mechanic would have to change to make this viable though...

Dazin93

IcyDeadPeople wrote: »

Huntler wrote: »

the reason I say/know this won't work is the scoring is a relatively trivial thing on most peoples' minds these days. They care about killing and AP farm, both of which won't be changed by this change. All this does is trivialize the harder to accomplish tasks such as acquiring a scroll. And promote people trying to avoid fighting by running around PvEing resources.

Yes, agree with Huntler's assessment 100%. When most people log on to Cyrodiil in the evening, we look to see where the action is on the map and travel to where we can get into some fun battles or ganking.

Whether a particular objective will result in a higher score at the end of the campaign does not remotely figure into the decision of where to go for most players.
.

Agree as well with both statements. Score changes in of itself won't change player behavior, and as a non-stop DC player I stopped caring about scoring or any faction objectives long time ago.

Domander

qcampbellub17_ESO wrote: »

Yes, please either of these changes will be a big improvement on performance.

I personally like option 1, but either is good. In addition, please make the AP you get for capturing resources greater than what it is now. Since resources will be giving more points toward the leader board it makes sense to increase the AP. Make it so that capturing or defending resources is a good way to generate AP. This will make taking and holding these objectives worthwhile.

Part of the reason zergs clump up so much is because that is where the ap farm occurs. AP is a much bigger incentive than the leader board so addressing AP gain as well is the second side of the coin that needs to be changed.

Thank you for your continued attention to these issues.

I agree the small amount of AP you get for capture should be increased.

Huntler

Domander wrote: »

qcampbellub17_ESO wrote: »

Yes, please either of these changes will be a big improvement on performance.

I personally like option 1, but either is good. In addition, please make the AP you get for capturing resources greater than what it is now. Since resources will be giving more points toward the leader board it makes sense to increase the AP. Make it so that capturing or defending resources is a good way to generate AP. This will make taking and holding these objectives worthwhile.

Part of the reason zergs clump up so much is because that is where the ap farm occurs. AP is a much bigger incentive than the leader board so addressing AP gain as well is the second side of the coin that needs to be changed.

Thank you for your continued attention to these issues.

I agree the small amount of AP you get for capture should be increased.

No it shouldn't, increasing AP gain from PvEing in a PvP zone is exactly the wrong direction to go when trying to get people to spread out. You'll turn Cyrodiil into a flip fest where people want/allow the opposing faction to take things. It will kill PvP faster than possibly any other decision, its happened many times in many other games.

FENGRUSH

BrianWheeler I bust ur balls all day on these forums. But youre making bold strides this week proving me wrong - making a post and asking for thoughts?! Keep up the good work man.

Thoughts on this - Option 2 for sure if I had to pick one in the short term. I honestly dont care about the campaign winning/losing, I care about the battle. Speaking frankly because theres a lot of people in the same boat Id imagine.

So theres my answer to the thread, it will split people to the side fronts at least. It will not stop the raid group+ sized forces from playing the way they play though. A lot of those players will not have similar success outside of their large groups. Their success is a product of the group, thats why the server lags from players who know they are about to lag the server.

Make towns more desireable. Fighting battles in cheydinhal and bruma are literally some of the most enjoyable and equally irrelevant fights Ive ever had PvPing in ESO. You already have the unique landscape in place, which is what makes it fun. I know you cant flip a switch to make them more useful. Making quests worth more is a good start. But Itd be nice to add another layer here that plays into the factions/keeps of the towns.

ZOS_BrianWheeler

Increasing the AP you get for capturing undefended keeps/resources would, as people have pointed out, generate a mentality of "flipping for AP" or "Tower Trading" since they get AP more readily/easier than player killing.

As a clarification as well, the keep and scroll bonuses will remain active as well as the transit lines.

We have proposed internally putting murderball, CTF and "battleground style games" in the towns since some are tailored for it (Cheydinhal is perfect for a CTF), but for the time being this requires more code/UI time than we currently can spare.

Rune_Relic

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Hey gang!

In the continued efforts to help Cyrodiil performance, we are considering some changes to the Thornblade Campaign scoring rules. Currently the scoring is setup to have the most importance on Scrolls, then Keeps, outposts and resources last. We are considering changing that one of the following options:

• Keeps, Scrolls, Outposts and Resources all contribute just 1 point each.
Or
• Scrolls, Outposts and Resources are worth 1 point, and Keeps are worth 3.

So....thoughts?

I was thinking option B.
6 scrolls ~ 3 outposts ~ 18 keeps ~ 54 resources.
But it trivialises the scrolls to the point of meaningless.
No point takings scrolls = No point building a line of keeps as a defensive line to port along = No point taking keeps other than Emp.

But then again outgunned factions can resort to gorilla warfare and hit and run instead of open warfare at the keeps.
Giving the option to tie the campaign if you don't have the fire power and numbers.
Its a good equalizer for a rapid focused stealthy unit.
EXCEPT...the resources are right next to the Keep.
So those who own the keep will simply take them back by force instantly as they can port to any keep.
Giving you open warfare and lag regardless.

You MUST move the resources far away from the keeps if you want a gorilla warfare scenario to play out.
OR disable keep shrines as soon as 1 of 3 resources has been taken.
Then everyone has the same horse ride to take/defend resources/keeps ....should they die.
Unless they had the forsight to station defenders at all keeps.
[Keeps shouldnt be able to function without 100% resources anyway]

Travel time (reinforcements) plays a fundmental role here
It also gives those reinforcements the chance of being ganked as they spread out on both sides.
I would however...ad multifaction fixed wayshrines that cant be controlled between keeps.
Surely people reduced travel when cyrodiil wasn't at war.
1. To lower the travel time.
2. Create a ganking spot [reduce range of det pots].
3. Encourage scouts.
4. Becomes a tactical waypoint like a bridge or gate.

This is not a performance improvement....its a work around until its fixed

FENGRUSH

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Increasing the AP you get for capturing undefended keeps/resources would, as people have pointed out, generate a mentality of "flipping for AP" or "Tower Trading" since they get AP more readily/easier than player killing.

As a clarification as well, the keep and scroll bonuses will remain active as well as the transit lines.

We have proposed internally putting murderball, CTF and "battleground style games" in the towns since some are tailored for it (Cheydinhal is perfect for a CTF), but for the time being this requires more code/UI time than we currently can spare.

Awesome ideas. Despite the chance of being a bit buggy, anything new would be fun at the very least and you cant go wrong there.

Fengrush approves of Brian Wheeler 2015. <

Durandal

Huntler wrote: »

No it shouldn't, increasing AP gain from PvEing in a PvP zone is exactly the wrong direction to go when trying to get people to spread out. You'll turn Cyrodiil into a flip fest where people want/allow the opposing faction to take things. It will kill PvP faster than possibly any other decision, its happened many times in many other games.

On a low pop server this would be a bigger issue. The point is to give incentives for people to actually attack and defend resources. The problem now is that it takes no time at all to roll in and flip a resource. They should make some changes to the resources so that they require enough time to take so that the defending faction, if they act quickly enough, can defend it.

If there is the AP incentive to capture the resource (or defend it) as well as the possibility for an underdog campaign to wage a war against a fortified larger pop faction that controls more keeps, the proposed change can have an affect on spreading out the population.

You could also make players worth more AP when killed in the radius of a resource. A good wolf pack group could stealth and await the incoming "PvE" resource flippers. You just make it sound like no one will ever actually fight over resources. If the incentives are right, they will.