A critical discussion on the current state of PvP and suggestions for improvement (LENGTHY thread)

Garion

This is a long thread! However I would be grateful if PvPers could take the time to read it and contribute to the discussion, because I very strongly believe that Zenimax needs to start actively listening to the PvP community if we are going to continue to see active and enjoyable PvP in the coming months.

Introduction

To open I would like to explain that I am a virtually exclusive PvPer, who plays with individuals considered amongst the better PvPers on the European server (EU). I also speak regularly with individuals across all factions and therefore the opinions herein are an indication of both my opinions and those of the individuals I speak to.

Since 1.6 (and indeed before) PvP has suffered a wealth of issues that are simply not acceptable from the perspective of a paying customer. This is why I have removed my ESO Plus subscription. I will continue to play but I will not give money to a game that is failing to deliver on very basic aspects of gameplay and has provided nothing but problem after problem for the dedicated PvPer.

This discussion will focus almost entirely on gameplay and features of the alliance war as a whole (i.e. the aspects managed by @ZOS_BrianWheeler and team) rather than combat and combat mechanics, although this will be touched on. I would therefore ask that people do not use this discussion as a QQ thread about skills and discuss the points that are made and indeed, any additional points that they believe may be valid.

I will first touch on some of the problems we as PvPers have experienced historically, to give some context to my points regarding the considerable amount of game breaking bugs we have experienced and carried on with regardless.

Historic PvP Issues

• Caltrops negating siege damge - getting oiled? No worries, pop caltrops! People sieging an open breach? No worries, pop caltrops! This was a huge bug that made RvR PvP incredibly difficult for quite some time and was not fixed for a number of weeks.
• FPS Bug - Play in Cyrodiil for more than a couple of hours? FPS crashes down to less than 5. Again, this bug continued for quite some time and was in fact one of the biggest reasons a number of well known PvPers left the game. It simply took too long to fix.
• Game Crashes - Sometime after the FPS bug, we experienced issues (particularly in groups) of individuals in that group crashing.
• Bugged sieges - popping sieges (even outside of lag) to find they do not work at all. This still happens in lag now and there are also issues with the siege not aiming correctly. In the earlier stages of the game, there was a bug where siege could not be placed as you would receive the "terrain" error message even on flat ground.
• Postern door bug - this didn't get fixed for 9 months+. Sometimes people just couldn't use postern doors on keeps, and this often meant death if you picked the wrong door when entering a sieged keep!
• Camp bug - for quite some time some forward camps would bug out and you would not be able to use them. You would have to wait for them to decay (which took quite some time!) before a new one could be placed. This could often destroy sieges / defences.
• Shield and fall damage bug - if you shielded immediately after taking fall damage, your game would crash.
• Stuck in combat bug - we all know about this one, and it persists even now.
• Endless and lengthy loading screens - the latter of which remains a problem.
• Health bar bug / alliance war indicators - after a game crash or logging out of the game, you could not see enemy health bar bugs or alliance indicators.
• PURGE BUG - we all know about the dmg ground effects would do after purging! This was a game destroyer, as it meant you couldn't remove the heal debuffs that could stack to 100%
  
  Most of these bugs have all been fixed (although some occasionally rear their ugly head) and so you may wonder why I bother mentioning them. I bring them up because I want to draw attention to the fact that PvP really, really needs some love and has very obviously been neglected this past year. When serious, game breaking issues are not fixed for quite some time one really wonders if Zenimax are truly dedicated to achieving their goal of epic PvP as stated in their marketing material.
  
  This lack of developer attention is most noticeable since the advent of 1.6. While we face severe lag problems across virtually every campaign, we have seen changes introduced that require very little effort from a development point of view (increased siege damage, special siege weapons on dolmens and the AP buff in dungeons). To me, this indicates two things. Evidently PvP development is far down on the list of priorities for Zenimax and secondly the resource dedicated to PvP is minimal at best. I think it is time that ZOS dedicates more resource to PvP or at the very least be honest with us in regard to their PvP priorities.
  
  This brings me on to the next stages of my discussion, a look at the recent changes on sieges and why I believe they were a ill thought out solution to the "zergblob" and corresponding lag problem.
  
  Siege Changes
  
  The changes to siege encourage zerging. This is the central point of my discussion relating to sieges and I strongly believe that this is the case. With that said, it should become evident that I do not agree with the siege changes and below I will explain why.
  
  The changes to siege were introduced in an apparent effort to get people to spread out which in turn was supposed to have reduced server strain and lag. This does not work, in fact - the lag is simply aggravated by the change because it encourages people to move in very large groups.
  
  The insane siege damage results in people being forced to run in larger groups. If you choose to run in a smaller group you find that you lack the heals and purges required to adequately defend yourselves in a situation where you encounter larger groups who utilise siege, particular in the open field. In introducing the changes to siege ZOS have destroyed the viability of smaller groups. When a group of 8 - 12 meet a group of even 15+ it becomes difficult to attempt to fight because as soon as you demonstrate that your group is able to sustain itself the opposing (larger) group will pop siege because they have the numbers on you. Prior to siege changes, this confrontation would have been decided by the skill of the two groups that clash but now it is decided by how many sieges the bigger group can pop.
  
  I know that you will say "spam heals / shields / purge" and yes, we could do that, but in smaller groups sacrificing even one individual who isn't a designated support player / healer to be hitting purge constantly or having group members rely on self sustainability means your DPS drops massively and if you aren't killing anything you quickly run out of stamina (no repentance) and get overrun.
  
  From a general PvP perspective I am finding that pugs and "part-time PvPers" are more likely to seek safety in numbers than ever before. While they might not blob up (I will come to this) like the bomb groups, they will move in one giant zerg because they know that in smaller numbers they will wipe when hit by even one siege. If you want to play a damage build, you are forced to run with the mass of your alliance to ensure you are on the receiving end of heals and purges.
  
  Finally and in respect to the zerg blob, the siege changes have done absolutely nothing to discourage this type of behaviour. We definitely saw a decrease in the number of blobs immediately after 1.6 but I believe this was due to the fact that people were altering their builds and getting used to the new playstyle that 1.6 demanded. As people have established new builds the zerg blob has returned and sieging them does little to impact them - they can outheal and purge the damage due to their superior numbers while at the same time dealing considerable damage.
  
  In summary then I believe the siege changes have failed to achieve the purpose for which they were implemented (spreading people out and in turn reducing lag) and therefore I strongly believe that the current siege damage should be altered. Ideally I think we should be looking at either
  
  • A 50% reduction in damage but to compensate this additional negative effects from sieges such as new and inventive debuffs aimed at countering the zerg. For instance, reducing ultimate generation by 50% if the siege hits 8 or more people, or something similar.
  • If the above is not possible or faces too much opposition (and I fear it will) then please make it so that sieges can be used in the vicinity of keeps and outposts only. You removed ground oil from the game but popping a fire ballista in an open field is the new equivalent.
  
  The buff to siege is excessive and undoubtedly discourages smaller scale play. If you have any better suggestions for changes please feel free to post them and I will add them here.
  
  I feel compelled to provide at least one counter to the point I know some people are going to make in this thread regarding siege and that is something along the lines of "IN REAL LIFE SIEGE HIT HARD". Please don't bother with the 'real life' argument. Because real siege weapons took TIME to construct, often had to be brought to the battlefield by horse and cart and were often operated by 2 or more people. This is a GAME. Realism doesn't come into it and should not have anything to do with changes that are made to the game, particularly if it compromises balance.
  
  I also know that a ton of people will come in to defend these changes because they enjoy the fact they can get a number of kills simply by spamming sieges all over the place and that "siege actually does something now!". If the changes I suggest are implemented then siege will still do something, but it won't be the deciding factor in a fight. People should be multiskilled in PvP. Siege in its current meta removes skill from the game and mindlessly defending it for what it is only strengthens my argument because it becomes clear that it is only encouraging mindless gameplay.
  
  Forward Camps
  
  Moving on and directly related to the "spreading out" issue that Zenimax has highlighted and siege changes failed to resolve. I strongly believe that the reintroduction of Forward Camps will help to spread people out in Cyrodiil. I know that a lot of people will be against this change, but before I go into detail I ask you to think back to before forward camps were removed and think about the number of fights that were spread across the map. I genuinely believe that the removal of forward camps has meant that fights are forced into corridors which results in the zerg type behaviour.
  
  Take for instance TB EU. There are rarely more than two large fight markers on the map and this is genuinely in the corridor between the keeps of two opposing factions.
  
  The main argument against forward camps is that they will mean lots of people spawn in one place but I think the opposite is true. By reintroducing forward camps you are increasing the number of viable spawn points across the map which means people are more likely to spread out. For instance, that one group of 24 might choose to take a keep in the emperor ring while the rest of their faction are elsewhere. The removal of camps means it is only really viable to fight in one place - their reintroduction would mean creating fights in different locations and, more importantly, maintaining those battles once they have been created.
  
  When the 'issue' of forward camps was discussed several excellent suggestions were proposed as solutions to the problem. These included creating transitus shrines outside of the normal network that could be captured and defending, increasing the spawn points across Cyrodiil through to making it so you could only spawn if you died within the radius of a camp. Personally, I am all for the return of camps in their original form however I understand that would meet a lot of opposition and therefore I am very open to suggestions for alternatives.
  
  Above all, ZOS promised us quite some time ago when camps were removed in 1.4 that they would be reintroduced in a different format. We are now quite some way down the line and nothing has been delivered. I believe it is high time something is introduced, as we have tolerated the lag - and other issues (see above!) for quite some time now.
  
  Groups
  
  Cyrodiil group sizes should be reduced to a maximum of 12. Why? Because this is going to encourage people to move in smaller groups and therefore move around the map to separate objectives. Pug raids for instance will keep recruiting until they are full - by halving the size the pug raids twinned with the forward camp changes I mention above, I strongly believe you will encourage people to spread out more.
  
  In regard to the lag blobs, very obviously they will simply form multiple groups of 12 and run in the same TS however there are benefits to this reduction that might make people think twice about zerg blobbing:
  
  
  • Coordination will be marginally more difficult and countering them will become slightly easier as a result.
  • AP gain will be impacted as the AP earned will be reduced either because your group of 12 didn't tag the players your fellow 12 man group hit OR if both groups tag them, AP rate is decreased regardless.
  
  This is a simple change that could have some hugely positive repercussions. If you want people to spread out, this is most definitely a viable way of doing this without drastically altering the actual combat meta game.
  
  AP Gain
  
  Closely related to the above, I believe it is important to take a look at how AP is earned both in groups and from offensive and defensive ticks. A common argument is that AP gain in the larger groups should be significantly reduced and if group sizes remain at 24 then I believe AP gain for groups of 12+ should be at least halved from the current amounts. This again is a simple change that would encourage people to spread out and move away from the lagblob meta.
  
  If however group sizes are reduced to 12, as I think they should be, I believe that AP gain should be buffed for smaller groups as opposed to reduced in larger groups.
  
  So for instance for each kill:
  
  • Average solo kill = 1000 AP
  • Duo kill = 600 AP
  • Groups of 4 or less = 400 AP
  • Groups of 5 - 8 = 300 AP
  • Groups of 9 - 12 = 200 AP
  
  This is a very basic example and I don't want to go into too much detail as I am already conscious about thread length, but I think you get the idea. You are rewarding players for playing in smaller groups and in smaller scale PvP which will encourage people to player in smaller groups rather than the blobs they are currently attracted to.
  
  I also think a minor change to defensive ticks is in order. This one is very simple and has been discussed numerous times - if you have contributed to a fight the tick you receive should 'scale' off of your contribution (i.e. the number of people you were involved in killing / the length of time you were defending) and this tick should follow you after you leave the keep. Currently you have people hanging around keeps and waiting for the tick and once it is received they all run off together in one blob. If you are going to receive the tick regardless of whether you wait or not - this is just a simple tactic to keep people moving.
  
  Cyrodiil and AvA Objectives
  
  I will touch only briefly on this because I honestly don't believe Zenimax are in a position to be able to deliver on changes as drastic as this. However, I think (at the very least) Zenimax need to consider implementing these kinds of changes in the longer term. These include things such as:
  
  • Increasing the number of environmental features in areas that currently lack them (i.e. the corridor between Roebeck and Nikel, for instance). This means things such as villages, ruins and rocky terrain. This breaks up the environment and therefore the battles that take place in those regions.
  • Providing increased rewards when taking smaller objectives such as resources.
  • Add flags to gates and bridges at key locations (i.e. the infamous Alessia bridge) that do not interrupt transitus but do spawn NPCs and offer modest benefits to scoring.
  
  Summary / Conclusion
  
  In summary I think it has become very clear that PvP has been neglected since ESO launched. ZOS evidently does not see that PvP offers them enough of a return to consider investing considerable time and resource. Their solution to the lag has been some very poor attempts at introducing alternatives to the current zerg meta which are simply not enough to change the game as it currently stands. In an ideal world, Zenimax would heavily invest in development and quickly bring us the Imperial City and additionally change the Cyrodiil map quite dramatically with the introduction of new objectives.
  
  However it has become quite obvious this will not happen and therefore we are evidently stuck with minor changes to gameplay. The suggestions I make above should not be too difficult to implement, but I do believe they will go quite some way to improve the current situation in Cyrodiil. I urge ZOS to consider them and I welcome everyone's opinions on these matters and any others they believe are relevant!
  
  Thank you for taking the time for reading and please accept my apologies for any spelling or grammatical errors. This has taken me quite some time to write and I am rather tired at the time of writing after a full day at work!

themdogesbite

TL;DR

jk.

Garion

TL;DR - PvP is in crisis and has been a buggy mess since day one. Please fix it Zenimax, for the sake of PvPers everywhere!!

Seriously though, read it

kkravaritieb17_ESO

Very detailed thread. Thx for summing everything up. I hope ZoS devs take the time to read this and actually start doing something to put the mess named Cyrodiil into some kind of order.

Oughash

Great post, OP.

eliisra

Garion wrote: »

Finally and in respect to the zerg blob, the siege changes have done absolutely nothing to discourage this type of behaviour. We definitely saw a decrease in the number of blobs immediately after 1.6 but I believe this was due to the fact that people were altering their builds and getting used to the new playstyle that 1.6 demanded. As people have established new builds the zerg blob has returned and sieging them does little to impact them - they can outheal and purge the damage due to their superior numbers while at the same time dealing considerable damage.

Not sure if heals or altered builds are the reason. No zergblob can just stupid stack and outheal+purge multiple sieges. They melt like everyone else, if you actually focus fire and hit them. It's the fact that you cant hit them.

You cant put up siege, due to performance dips cased by zerg blobs and multiple players in the same area. Doesn't matter if a siege does 500k dmg, when you cant place and interact with it. You cant use oil, you cant use pots, you cant use skills, cant mount, cant weapon swap and than you die to 50k fall dmg lol. Cyrodiil is more broken now than ever. It's enough with 40+ players in the same area and everything shuts down.

Charadras

I can only agree with you. PVP now is a run where who put siege for first win. In addition to your post i think that if the actual siege damage is what ZOS want, siege price need a change:

- All stone Siege and RAM need a x 5 increase in AP price and a price in game gold because everyone need an opportunity to siege a keep;
- All fire, ice, lighting, disease, etc... siege need about a x 10 increase in Ap price, in relation to their actual efficiency on the battle field.

Some example:
- fire ballista price: 12000 AP
- fire trebuchet price: 18000 AP
- meatbag price: 10000 AP
- oil catapult price: 10000 AP

I think this change can discourage people from fulling an inventory with siege and encourage an optimal use of siege.

Mojomonkeyman

Thank you, Lasto, for this wonderful post. Very well thought out, written and formated.

I wholeheartedly agree with most of your points, I`m torn on the FC issue, though. Originally I was totally supporting the removal, but with 1.6+ I find there`s far too much damage flying around which is not counterable due to lag, visuals or high impact to justify a 5 min ride for 1 min action.

Action is limited to keeps & large groups even moreso than ever before (you pointed out why) and those scenarios always involve mass siege, which makes combined with lag for really crappy pvp.

BR

Nermy

I read what I could and found it very interesting. I have to disagree on the changes to siege you mention. We have been using them to great effect on zergs and will always put up siege in a fight if we can. It also gives smaller groups the capability to combat larger groups.

I'll try to get reading the rest a bit later...

Juraigr

PvP sucks booooooo

RinaldoGandolphi

The first thing they need to fix is the stupid lopsided pop problems. Its not even a 3 alliance war anymore when ep has at least 3 players for the other factions 1.

Everything else is a waste of time until that is addressed. Until then everywhere you look is just a red zerg that can steamroll any campaign they want with sheer numbers any time it suits them. That's a pvp experience that flat out sucks and I want no part of.

ToRelax

I completely disagree with you regarding siege - it does wipe zergblobs if you manage to hit them a few times and the server doesn't lag out. Problem is the lag, the siege is fine. And please don't tell me I am a bad player or don't get kills without siege or outnubering the enemy.

I wouldn't really like to see camps back at the vendor, but I wouldn't mind it much if you could only spawn close to the camp and with a cooldown, like was mentioned by ZOS already.

olsborg

Theres also the bug where your damage shield doesnt stop displaying on your healthbar even if its used up/expired. And when this bug first has happened, it keeps growing, so in the end your hp bar is showing a giant damage shield diplayed, like 150k. Only way to fix it is relogging. Then it happens again 10 minutes later.

yamadas

Smeag

I suggest disabling certain abilities that are believed to be contributing to the lag (healing springs, meteor, etc) for one day and see what happens.

kevlarto_ESO

You did sum it up op, I am afraid at this point in the game, most of the team is focused on console release, which puts any significant advances toward a lot of those problems on hold.

Jauriel

Since 1.6 (and indeed before) PvP has suffered a wealth of issues that are simply not acceptable from the perspective of a paying customer. This is why I have removed my ESO Plus subscription. I will continue to play but I will not give money to a game that is failing to deliver on very basic aspects of gameplay and has provided nothing but problem after problem for the dedicated PvPer.

This. My plus sub is also being cancelled. I won't continue to pay for this game when they can't address something they themselves is a huge problem: THE EP POP IMBALANCE.

RinaldoGandolphi

Jauriel wrote: »

show previous quotes

Since 1.6 (and indeed before) PvP has suffered a wealth of issues that are simply not acceptable from the perspective of a paying customer. This is why I have removed my ESO Plus subscription. I will continue to play but I will not give money to a game that is failing to deliver on very basic aspects of gameplay and has provided nothing but problem after problem for the dedicated PvPer.

This. My plus sub is also being cancelled. I won't continue to pay for this game when they can't address something they themselves is a huge problem: THE EP POP IMBALANCE.

Same here, their failure to do anything about the pop imbance in this game that has been going on for months will leave me no choice but to pull my card and cut off the money. I want to get ZOS my money, but right now they are not giving me a reason to continue to do so.

GaldorP

In my opinion, what still encourages blobbing is the unlimited stacking of heals, stacking of damage shields, and purge without target limit.

If a blob of 10 players gets hit by multiple siege weapons several times then all 10 players should die with no way to mitigate that damage (sorry, but if they are stupid enough to blob up and stand still at one spot while multiple siege weapons fire at them they deserve to wipe). Reduce the damage of siege weapons by 50% maybe but let them completely negate all healing on you while you're under the effect of a siege weapon dot (which cannot be purged).

Limiting the use of siege weapons to near keeps, outposts, and resources would be a nice change, in my opinion (and could maybe reduce lag by a tiny bit; although it would really change bridge fights).

Also, siege weapons should not be bought with AP but with a separate resource that slowly refills up to a set maximum (and players should only be able to carry one siege weapon at a time so if they buy a new one the old one gets deleted from their inventory; siege weapons could obviously not be deposited in the bank anymore then; when you leave Cyrodiil your siege weapon item would get deleted as well).

Forward camps would be nice but it's too easy to get them to the desired location (when I compare them to other deployable spawn options you have in PvP MMOGs like Planetside 2). It would be fair, in my opinion, if it takes 60 to 120 seconds to deploy a forward camp and your enemies can see that you're trying to deploy one on the map (or if there is some kind of visual graphic effect so you can easily spot an enemy deploying a forward camp from a certain distance). Deployed forward camps should definitely be visible to your enemies on the map given how immense their influence is on the outcome of a battle.

Maulkin

Nice post Lasto.

I've been shouting about the reintroduction of FCs but not without the core changes of a) not being able to spawn if outside the ring b) some form of death penalty / rez sickness. Without FCs PvP is focused on the same corridors as you mentioned and it's not spread out.

I disagree on the siege, because I believe it can be used to great effect to wipe bigger groups/zergs. I think the problem you're having is that you don't want to use siege because you find it stupid and un-challenging sitting there pressing one button, while the opposition has no qualms about using that against you.

What you need is Battlegrounds, but I don't think how that would work for eso in terms of keeping cyrodiil alive as well

ToRelax wrote: »

And please don't tell me I am a bad player or don't get kills without siege or outnubering the enemy.

You're a bad player who doesn't get kills without siege or outnumbering the enemy. There I said it.

Lava_Croft

Almost a perfect post, except for

• The changes to siege equipment have been proven to be very effective against the 'zergs' you mention.
• Using siege equipment in open field combat is awesome.
• Please don't bring back the forward camps.
• Changing the maximum group size is a cosmetic change that will probably not have the effect you desire.

Other than that, take note of what OP wrote, @ZOS_BrianWheeler. It's coming from someone who deeply loves PvP, like most of us here do.

iseko

The changes to siege vs zergs is not black and white. OP is right in the fact that taking a keep which is defend by 24 needs far bigger numbers on the siege side. 24 organized vs 24 organized: defending side wins 9/10.

Garion

I just wanted to quickly post and say thank you to everyone for taking the time to read the thread and write a response. I am at work at the moment and so can't respond in depth to everyone, but I will respond to each individual post this evening to offer my own point of view on your arguments and counter arguments, particularly in respect to those people who have talked favourably about the siege. I do understand your perspective but I do think that the negatives to siege outweigh the positives you have highlighted in your posts. Anyway, more to follow and thanks again for reading.

Sublime

The Problem

There were two Solutions attemts against bomb squads so far: Increased siege damage and the skill Magicka Detonation. While those solutions work in theory, the lag created by bomb squads make it impossible to use them. Individually they deal up to 18k damage per target, this is barely ot enough to oneshot the squishiest of those players.

Since we are dealing with bomb squads we have to consider two scenarios:

Lag: Deactivated

Given the nature of bomb squads (>50k HPS per player + >40k shields), at least four players are required to perfectly time (<100ms) their counters to have an effect. Unfortunately it takes at least 5.8s for either counter to take effect, assuming a perfect angle and teamplay. While the Magicka Bomb is rather easy to aim it is almost impossible to get 4 players to hit their trebuchet shots on a moving target in a timeframe of <100ms.

Lag: Activated

The trebuchets cannot be placed, so they fall out of the equation. Magicka Detonation takes about 20s to arm and explodes at a random moment, the inability to determine the explosion instant of the bomb makes in impossible to combo multiple bombs on top of each other removing the second counter from the board.

Summary

The only way to reliably kill a bomb squad, and keep the lag at a minimum, is to get a good angle on the enemy while they are moving between objectives using the Magicka Detonation (which only very rarely is the case). The trebuchet only works against <medicore teams that play very stationary

Solution Attempt

Now we know why the intented counters don't, so how do we fix them? Some of you might now that Stamina abilities get prioritized over magicka abilities, which also is one of the reasons why so many players are using Stamina builds. Giving priority to siege weapons wouldn't work since it would still be very hard to land a good combo on a group, so we have to look into Magicka Detonation.

Assuming Magicka Detonation could be givien top priority in combat, which would put its cast time at a steady 1.8s and its explosion at a 5.8s after activation, it would give teamed players a reliable tool to kill bombsquads and solo Players and opportunity to give them some Trouble.

If the priority only works on the damage delay (fixing it at 4s after cast), but still suffers from extended channeling it suggest to remove the cast time and nerf the damage, while this would require a medium group of players to combo their bombs it would at least give them the opportunity to play lag police.

For Clarification: I'm not talking about the 40man zerg creating 300-800 ping but about the bunched up bomb squad vs bomb squad fights, where they stand on top of each other creating 10k ping.

Rune_Relic

Siege Changes - Disagree
They are a great leveller and give noobs a chance to get some AP on the board.
Rather than just the OP elite getting all the AP.
No they didnt help with the zirg...nor did removing the aoecaps which I also said wouldnt work when everyone screamed for it...making lag 10x worse with 10x the hits

Forward Camps - Disagree
Bloodporting and eternal combat [rez on site] was pathetic.
Troll camping just added to the lameness.
Yes you spent more time in combat than traveling to combat and completely bypassed all enemy territory in the process.
That was the point....

Groups - Agree
AP Gain - Agree
Cyrodiil and AvA Objectives - Agree

Combat is a moot point with lag.
Adding more combat to a lagging server isnt going to fix lag.
Thats why I suggested a stun bomb/granade with knockback outside healing/damage radius (30s cooldown no delay - Deathswind style).
Attacker cant aoe/ulti the zerg because its blown apart.
Zerg cant aoe/ulti or do any damage as its stunned and too far apart when the stun wears off.
Lag reduces as the combat backlog is cleared with no aoe/ulti firing.
ie. Less combat when lagged.

Zahne

Remove buffs in PVE, that will stop people wanting a 'buff campaign'

kkravaritieb17_ESO

Camps need to come back...ofc not as they used to be to prevent the suicide/spawning on them...but as Maulkin said a little back up with smaller radius for rez and death penalties. Because Cyrodiil is only sieging, riding and zerging lately.

Sublime

I've got an idea concerning the population balances:

Make outnumbered alliances get more AP than on a 50/50 campaign, this will draw more AP thirsty players and give guilds an incentive to challenge dominated campaigns, outnumbering alliances on the other hand would get less AP making it less desirable for them to defend the existing campaign.

Here's about how much it would differentiate:

Populations in percent: AP gained in percent

33/33/33: 100/100/100
40/30/30: 60/120/120
50/25/25: 50/125/125

It would be calculated based on the population in the last 24 hours.

Lava_Croft

Sublime wrote: »

I've got an idea concerning the population balances:

Make outnumbered alliances get more AP than on a 50/50 campaign, this will draw more AP thirsty players and give guilds an incentive to challenge dominated campaigns, outnumbering alliances on the other hand would get less AP making it less desirable for them to defend the existing campaign.

Here's about how much it would differentiate:

Populations in percent: AP gained in percent

33/33/33: 100/100/100
40/30/30: 60/120/120
50/25/25: 50/125/125

It would be calculated based on the population in the last 24 hours.

Good idea if AP wasn't directly tied to for example Emperorship.

Sublime

Lava_Croft wrote: »

show previous quotes

Sublime wrote: »

I've got an idea concerning the population balances:

Make outnumbered alliances get more AP than on a 50/50 campaign, this will draw more AP thirsty players and give guilds an incentive to challenge dominated campaigns, outnumbering alliances on the other hand would get less AP making it less desirable for them to defend the existing campaign.

Here's about how much it would differentiate:

Populations in percent: AP gained in percent

33/33/33: 100/100/100
40/30/30: 60/120/120
50/25/25: 50/125/125

It would be calculated based on the population in the last 24 hours.

Good idea if AP wasn't directly tied to for example Emperorship.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but I assume you are refering to different players having different online times?

Zhoyzu

good read, cant comment at work, will prob forget to come back. +1