Cyrodiil Overhaul (less "PvDoor", more Strategy, new skill line, & more)

tinythinker

In this thread I suggest a direction for the Alliance War to make PvP more accessible/fun for players at any skill level. In the process of writing up my idea I realized I was drawing on some other ideas I had come up with in the past, so I am including them as well for things like zerging and PvDooring. I invite you to share your own ideas, expand or modify mine, or just let me know what you think of the idea in general. I use spoilers to break up the text so it isn't an unscalable wall.

Rather than blaming "elites", "bads", or some other label, how about people of all skill level and available play time come together to work out/suggest ideas for ZOS that could benefit all of us? Or at least try to work toward that goal?

My goals:

- make hand-to-hand combat more fun for skilled players when fighting each other in 1v1 and 2v2

This means that people who like to jump directly into a fight, using weapon and class abilities to CC, debuff, and damage opponents can still feel as if there skill matters and that if they make the right choices they have an advantage. It means when fighting other skilled players they don't get bored. Don't get me wrong, skilled players still have an advantage post-2.1, and I am not talking about update 1.6 level insta-gibbing.

- make Cyrodiil fun for those who don't have the time or talent to be successful at such fighting

This means more options/roles for those who die a lot in hand-to-hand combat and feel like getting in a big group for safety in numbers. Specifically this means giving them a vital role that is beneficial to others and lets them make a meaningful, appreciated contribution other than joining a giant blob/zerg. Some of my ideas for this kind of depend on other ideas for changes to Cyrodiil, so, as mentioned they are worked in as well. Anyway, the idea is to make the ideal group a balance of both types of players. Those less skilled players may learn from the group and eventually switch to another role.

- make the War more dynamic and add a bit more strategy

This of course requires that winning campaigns is something people would really want, so I'm open to suggestions about bonuses/rewards/honors to give such motivation. One idea might be (Alliance specific) seasonal gear for top warriors in a winning campaign? Win a enough campaigns this fall and get the complete set? I'm sure folks have better ideas but I wanted to get the ball rolling.

- provide more challenges that can include various skill levels and play styles

Not sure this need elaboration

The suggestions for helping to realize those goals are described in the following sections.

Addressing map domination/PvDoor and adding a bit more strategy to the conquest of Cyrodiil:

- have tougher stronghold walls/gates and more or stronger NPCs guards at all times. Make the "quick cap" something truly extraordinary to pull off and give defenders more time to arrive/slow down PvDoor. Make it worth capping resources prior to sieging rather than going straight to attacking the walls or gate. See the next spoiler for details on changes to taking strongholds No really, it needed a separate section but it helps this section make more sense. There are other bullets below and suggestions in another spoiler for encouraging players to spread out so they don't all end up trying to take or defend only one or two strongholds.

- have something like a low pop bonus for stronghold defense, but unlike the old version of a low pop for campaign scoring bonus don't make it so exploitable or too-late-able. How this would manifest in game mechanics I leave open for discussion, but it might include: bonuses to PCs, bonuses to keep wall/gate strength, bonuses to NPC strength or abilities, bonuses to repairs, etc. My own preference is that these bonuses be tied to how many strongholds (castles, keeps, forts) remain under your Alliance's control rather than to how many players are on during a given interval. This would still benefit a low pop Alliance without the delay of counting heads every so often. If you control all of your starting strongholds, no bonus. For each one you lose, you get a bonus/the bonus increases automatically.

- have a domination penalty. Yes, you still get the fighting and AP/gold bonuses for controlling home and enemy strongholds to encourage taking more of them (and I recommend buffing them!!) but also new weaknesses to holding most or all of them at once, like the inverse of the last bullet point (weaker walls/gate strength, penalties to NPC strength or abilities, penalties to repairs, etc). After all, soldiers and resources can begin to tire and be stretched thin.

- have additional domination penalties on a timer. Related to the last bullet point, what about uprisings, insurrections, sabotage, or espionage? For every X hours you hold an enemy stronghold, the greater the chance that one of these events will happen. These events could in fact explain some of the domination penalties from the previous bullet or could be added on top of those. Weakening of a random section of a wall at a rate that gets faster over time that (will or could eventually) lead to a breach, having NPC guards patrolling outside the stronghold go missing/turn up dead (and not be replaced/no respawn), having new Nightblade-based NPCs that are placed outside of strongholds in (undetectable) stealth that are ready to ambush unwary PCs that are riding into/out of the stronghold, etc.

- make strongholds worth more points on the campaign scoreboard/worth more AP if captured or defended the longer they are held. This idea was intentionally suggested for helping to spread out players in a campaign but it also further incentivizes action against a dominant Alliance. If one Alliance has been controlling most or all of a map for days for weeks on a particular campaign, AP farmers/seekers will see that as a gold mine and a bonus to the campaign scoreboard for the capture helps get the other Alliances back into the competition.

-make strongholds worth more points in campaign scoring the longer they are held. Add a point each hour to the value of a stronghold to its value in scoring updates for the campaign, up to some cap.

-add unique crafting stations to the far-out strongholds (Dragonclaw, Drakelowe, and Brindle). Can't find the comment or post where I originally suggested this, but, each stronghold would have a unique set that could only be crafted there. Either than or give these strongholds greater strategic value similar to what the "ring strongholds" have. Either way increase their worth to encourage players to spread out.

- make it a little easier to take back your own strongholds. The other things in this list would still be in play, but everything would be a bit (20% maybe?) easier for recapping your own stuff.

Revising the way strongholds are captured:

Currently, if you are interested in capturing a stronghold, the reasons for taking resources are limited to:
1. Good place to siege from.
2. A fallback position with a quartermaster.
3. To cut off transit even if the stronghold unflags.
4. Uhh, just coz, you dig?

There is a mechanic that is supposed to help you cap the stronghold, wherein you can weaken the walls, gates, and NPC guards by taking the mine, lumbermill, and farm respectively. There is currently no point to bother with it since the degrading takes too long and does too little. Just set up a bunch of siege, punch the wall down fast, and rush in. You can wipe the NPCs no sweat because the best strategy rewards having everyone together on siege, then together through the breach.

How about this instead?

Greatly speed up how quickly stronghold degradation happens and increase the impact *IF* players stay at the resource, the more the better, up to some cap. So if you get 1-2 or 4-5 or ???? many people to *stay at the farm* until the stronghold is capped, the guards will be easier, especially if you cap the farm first and have the players stay while others go off to siege. The same for weakening the walls by taking the mine. And why bother? See the previous section about map domination/PvDoor. The hit points of walls, gates, and guards would be boosted a ton. No resources would mean even at siege limit you are going to be taking a reaaaaally long time to get inside. Don't want to weaken the guards? Get your zerg rekt by guards.

To be clear, the effects of holding a resource would not take forever to manifest, and doing so would make strongholds the same strength they are at present. Taking stronholds wouldn't be impossible it would just require coordination and a little bit more strategy. However, you couldn't just have everyone together at the same place. The sieging force would have to spread out as people would need to stay at the resources to get the easier cap. That makes the resources a target for defenders as well, and losing control of the resource means the debuffs go away, so imagine a force ready to charge the inner breach take a flag and they suddenly lose the farm... "Oopsy."

Bringing Specialists to the battlefield:

I'm still working on this one, but I wanted to get the basic concept out in case other people wanted to share their spin on it. I'm sure I will think of more/better ideas later, but here goes...

- limit each character to one Alliance War skill line at a time. If you want to run Support, fine, but you can't pick anything from the Assault tree. You can always respec, of course, to change specializations. Maybe something at one of the Gates? Get your skill point from the Alliance War skill line back and be free to choose another. For a modest fee, of course, perhaps using AP?

- Modify the existing Alliance War skill lines to reflect specialization. For those upset about the 50% Battle Spirit Nerf, how about one of the passives (maybe Battle Frenzy?) add in something that makes it 40% instead. It can be done/worded various ways, but the idea is still there. Or maybe add it to Continuous Attack? Who knows? Maybe add a new passive? This would be balanced by a similar change under Support. Effectively, those who choose Assault have their healing nerfed at present (or even slightly higher levels), and those who choose Support see mirror results. Other changes could be made to make different specialists valuable to any group (might update later with some examples). There could also be changes that that would limit how often things like Barrier and Purge could be cast/the effects received, or, see the next bullet...

- Add a new Alliance War skill line. My preference would be for something like an Engineer type. Deploy/retrieve siege faster than at present (and have others do so slower), do more damage with siege equipment/have additional or boosted effects, etc. For example, an active or passive skill at the bottom of the list (high rank) where (at least some) siege effects cannot be purged/cleansed. Partially mitigated by such abilities? Maybe. But not always entirely erased for all effects. There could be some some fun and creative skills thought up for this that are not immediately obvious as well, so put on your thinking caps. Should be at least one that is useful for open-field play that would be powerful and something you'd want to have for your group.

- Add new mechanics/deployable equipment/personal gear to take advantage of specialization. We see this with a couple of gear sets added in 2.1 but more would be needed to take advantage of the new specialist roles, especially for Engineers in the field. Maybe some kind of fast arming trap? Or a mobile defense structure? Again, get creative! Specific engines I would add include moveable siege towers that could allow people to climb over walls and net throwers (for AoE snares that can't be purged, have to hack/burn through them with normal weapon attacks).

-Add new Alliance War gear to encourage specialiazation. I gave some examples in another thread and republish them here:


Siegeproof - Wearer takes 50% less from siege engines.

Engineer - Siege engines decay 50% slower when run by the wearer and fire 25% faster for 25% more damage.

Standard Bearer - Wearer takes 60% less damage and deals 40% more damage when fighting on a capturable flag.

These sets encourage people who enjoy different roles. Not everyone wants to play extreme damage dealer/ganker or clutch healer. Siegeproof has obvious benefits at battles for strongholds and outposts, especially as siege damage is getting buffed. Many players like to run siege when taking/defending strongholds and outposts, and Engineer makes them much more effective by allowing them to fire faster and hit harder for longer. Standard Bearer is kind of strange when you first look at it, but it could produce some interesting results on cap and defense fights. It creates a role for flag-taker/defender. While the generic DPS may die quickly on the flag, the Standard Bearer can outlast several opponents. The numbers for these support sets are high because they need to be to make the roles worth it and encourage diversity.


The idea here with these various bullets, again, is to spice things up and let people of varying levels of skill make meaningful contributions/be desirable for groups without "nerfing" how other, more skilled players who would want to jump on the revised "Assault" skill line like to play. Tired of playing Support or Engineer and want to play Assault? OK, but you need to practice, gain experience with combat, use the right gear, etc. And make sure things are not only useful from each specialization but challenging to play as well in their own ways. Again, skill line, gear, and equipment would need to be designed with this in mind.

Add "moving flags" for small group objectives:

There was a thread about supply lines a good while back, but it was more about capping stronghold resources. What if there were supply convoys, like a wagon, that acted like a moving "flag" to be defended or capped, no new quest needed. They would periodically leave from one stronghold or town to a destination with a contingent of NPC guards. You could choose to escort or not at any time, either because you planned to or just ran across one of them. They would stop moving when attacked, and you would get an O-tick for capturing the wagon or a D-tick for defending it, just like a stronghold or outpost.

There are already NPC guards who escort captured NPC prisoners in Cyrodiil, so that could be added as another type of "moving flag".

Capping these moving flags could have benefits beyond AP, such as loot. For supply convoys, add special loot like two or three supply crates of 30 potions, 30 provisions, etc. of the variety sold at keeps by the merchants, as well as a small amount of crafting material sold at such merchants and a chance at a motif page from that Alliance's style.

But capping and defending them could also have additional effects, either on resources, strongholds, or the players involved in he fight. Buffs, debuffs, etc.

Create more synergy between Cyro/IC and put all of both maps in play:

There seems to have been an increase in wanting to make IC more relevant, fun, and populated. It's a beautiful zone that the devs worked really hard to get right in terms of sites, sounds, challenges, and so on. So here are six steps to create more AvA synergy between Cyro and IC that helps make all both maps relevant (i.e. worthwhile targets):

1. Give unique to bonuses for each IC district that take effect when captured and that apply to members of your Alliance in overland Cyrodiil too.

2. Give each of the current six Elder Scrolls a connection to particular district, so that holding the right scroll and the right district gives a special bonus to all members of your alliance in your campaign, whether in IC or Cyro.

3. Only allow districts in IC to be captured if an Alliance controls at least one ring keep. You can enter IC without any ring keeps but you can't capture districts. Because of the dangers of IC and the size of the Daedric incursion, each Alliance can only capture one district at a time, unless they have Emperor. So, there will always be two and sometimes three districts that are not claimed by a provisional militia (i.e. Alliance army).

4. Capturing the two corner keeps closest to your home base gives a "secure borders" bonus, increasing the number of NPC troops that can be sent to IC, making it harder for the enemy to take a district your Alliance is holding. Or it gives some other similarly useful IC bonus. (For EP this would meaning holding Dragonclaw and Drakelowe, for DC it would be Dragonclaw and Brindle, and for AD it would be Drakelowe and Brindle.)

5. Three new Elder Scrolls could be added for IC only (i.e. cannot be removed from the city). But they work differently in IC than in overland Cyro. They spawn in random locations in the uncaptured districts and once found must be brought to a specific location to be used. Once used the successful Alliance gets a bonus that lasts for a period of time but the scroll vanishes and will respawn in an uncontrolled district again. To keep the bonus your Alliance will have to go out and find it again once it respawns. There will be a number of possible locations you need to take it to to use it so it won't be 100% obvious to the enemy which place you will have to go until the runner gets close to it. Again, the bonus applies to everyone in the campaign, whether they are in IC or Cyro.

6. Spying and sabotage missions can be a part of the district capture and defense mechanics to make things more fun and interesting in IC and encourage play there even more while moving flags in Cyro can add additional targets (that could be made strategic).


Basically, #1 and #5 encourages players to go to IC and fight in/over all six districts, while #2 gives the original Scrolls more value again. Both #2 and #3 encourage capturing the six ring keeps and the nine temple gate keeps, while #4 encourages capturing the three corner keeps (Dragonclaw, Drakelowe, Brindle). So, there is plenty of synergy between the AvA zones of a campaign and plenty of reason to spread out across the whole Cyro map and IC map. Lastly, #6 adds a missing dimension to the Alliance War that gives additional flavor to playing in IC and indirectly supports the other elements described.

Generate more campaign and alliance pride to increase and maintain participation in AvA:

So what encourages pride in such things? What diminishes pride in such things?

I don't claim to have an accurate or complete list of answers to such questions, so please feel free to share your own thoughts on the matter.

As for me, here are some issues to consider:

You can play any race and class regardless of Alliance

Initially, being any race despite your Alliance was only available to those who pre-ordered the game on PC, but, with the cash shop came the ability to buy this option, because of course. There are only four classes, so naturally it wouldn't make sense to restrict them by Alliance. The result is that people chose a race because of appearance, lore, or min-maxing, but there is nothing that ties the race choice to an Alliance. Therefore, choosing an Alliance gives you no real connection to or bonus bound to race. It's all generic. It's swappable mix-n-match. Just whatever suits you.

Trying *now* to restrict races and classes by Alliance would, of course, be an unworkable nightmare.

Yet there are things that can be added under the "Yes you can play as you want but choices have consequences" philosophy, especially since ZOS is working on things like race changes. I am not suggesting any or all of these must be implemented, just spit-balling some basic ideas:

- a bonus to AP earned (something small like 4-6%) for playing a native race.
- a bonus to resistance for wearing Alliance specific armor in Cyrodiil/Imperial City (again something useful but not too larger, see below for more on such armor) while playing a native race
- add a background system for customization but modify it to take race *and* Alliance into account; the options may be different or limited depending on your Alliance

Again, these changes do no prohibit one from playing an Orc in the Pact or a Nord in the Dominion, but it encourages players to consider their race choice based on the Alliance with which they plan to AvA. Yes, native races get a small to moderate advantage here and there but nothing outrageous. You can play as you want, but choice matters.

As for classes, I know some players want new classes, while others feel that the game is hard enough to balance with the current four. That's why many of us advocate class morphs or specializations, which I support but as a limited thing not a whole new class brought in but called a morph. A rough prototype of that is given here. I think that limited class specialization would jazz up the game, and now I am thinking that such specialization should be Alliance specific. Want to play a Dragonknight in any Alliance? Go for it! Want to have access to a particular specialization once you hit the appropriate level (10? 30? 50?). Better choose the right Alliance.

So, again, yes, you can play any race and class in any Alliance. You can play the way you want. But choice matters. There isn't total homogenization between the Alliances.


You can get the same gear in any Alliance

I've previously suggested adding gear sets available only to members of a particular Alliance as part of a concept of Alliance specific bonuses. I later updated the set bonuses to fit changes in the game. Here they are in their current iteration:

Blood for the Pact - Killing an enemy player has a 4% chance of restoring 20% of player's total health.

The Lion's Roar - When the wearer's health drops below 20% an irresistible fear effect is triggered on nearby enemy players for 5 seconds. This can happen once every 15 seconds.

The Eagle Banner - When the wearer's magicka or stamina drops below 20% the wearer gains a 5000 point damage shield. This can happen once every 15 seconds.

Whether or not you like these set bonuses or would like to see them altered or replaced isn't really the point here. Should they be two-piece like monster sets or 5 piece? Debate it all you want. The important thing is that they are unique set bonuses only available to those who fight for the Pact, the Covenant, or the Dominion. I've suggested different ways to get them, through crafting stations only your Alliance can use at their corner keep (i.e. Drakelowe, Dragonsclaw, Brindle), or as a reward for reaching a certain rank, or something else. But again, it runs counter to homogenization. Want to wear The Lion's Roar set? Roll a DC and earn the right to wear that set by fighting for King Emeric. You can play the way you want, but choice matters.

And by the way, around the same time I was thinking of the idea for adding such gear, in a separate post about plans for the future of the Alliance War and playing in Cyrodiil by PvP Lead Brian Wheeler had independently come up with a similar idea:

Alliance War Future – After Imperial City launches, we are looking to add more content into Cyrodiil in some of the emptier locations. We will, of course, continue adding to the Keep system, too. We’re also looking to add more Alliance-specific gear to give more options for individual identity to the Aldmeri, Ebonheart and Daggerfall communities.

Hopefully this idea hasn't been scrapped.


The Campaigns primarily only differ in scoring and length and switching Campaigns is easy

Yes, technically one campaign has gated access to IC and some will be made CP-free, but still, there is nothing that different about the campaigns. This was something else that I had previously thought of and was worried about, so a couple of years ago I suggested adding some variety to campaigns. I would like to suggest that notion of adding variety again, even if those linked ideas are not adopted. That said, I particularly like the Standard of Akatosh idea, whatever the actual MacGuffin turns out to be. It fits nicely with other changes I and others have suggested to spread players out, such as having moving capturable flags. The MacGuffin and the reward for chasing it down could be unique to each campaign. Just what bonuses your Alliance gets for capturing and keeping it isn't the point. Let's debate what the different MacGuffins should be for different campaigns and what they should offer, but first, let's agree that campaign uniqueness important to campaign pride and that campaign pride should matter.

Next is the short campaign duration and the ease of switching campaigns. I appreciate why we no longer have 90 day campaigns. I was there. If you got too far behind, you had no chance of winning and had to wait months for a new start. I also appreciate why people want to be able to travel to groups if their friends are in a different campaign or if their home campaign is dead. But at the same time, it makes campaign choice trivial. You can't have pride in something you can swap or jump out of so easily. Triviality and pride are anathema to each other. Just go where you can PvDoor your way to Emp, just go where you can farm weaker Alliances and troll other players. Just go where the action is at any given moment. Whatever. Log back in the next day and ask in /zone, "What campaign is this?" Who cares, LOL? Yeah, that's not really conducive to actually caring about your particular allies and foes and the state of your home campaign.

Well, if agree that campaign pride can make for more enjoyable play over an extended period, something needs to change in terms of how willing people are to jump ship. The cost for switching to a new home in the middle of a campaign cycle is going up, but it's still free at the end of the cycle and you can still group your way anywhere. You only get on the leaderboards by playing on your home campaign but if you aren't doing an Emp run it only takes a day or two, depending on how long your play session lasts, to get to Reward Tier 3.

I don't think it should take longer to get to Tier 3, but what about a Tier 4 that takes three times as long to reach as Tier 3? Maybe a Tier 5 that take even longer to reach, something even hardcore players would have to really keep working at to achieve? Sure you can still campaign hop with a group but there is an incentive to spend more time on your home campaign.

As for switching campaigns, institute a loyalty program. For each campaign cycle you keep the same home campaign you get a cumulative reward. Maybe it's more gold at the end of the campaign. Maybe it's a small bonus to AP earned. Maybe it's both of those, neither, or those plus something else. But make it a worthwhile reward that you lose and have to start accumulating all over again each time you switch your home campaign. So if you get a 1% AP bonus the first cycle on your home campaign, maybe it goes to 2% if you stay another cycle, to 3% for another cycle, and caps at 4%. But that bonus only applies while on your home campaign. You could add that to the above suggested 4% bonus for playing a race native to your Alliance. That's an 8% bonus, on top of anything else, based on choice and pride. Play as you want, but choice matters.

Another thing to consider to facilitate campaign pride is having a more dynamic map that changes based on player activity. Yes, town capture in overland Cyrodiil is coming and district capture in the Imperial City is coming, and those are definitely steps in the right directions. But I strongly recommend addition changes, such as destroying chokepoints. Moreover, I would suggest adding some way to alter the map or the way things work in the campaign that persists for the whole campaign cycle or that only resets very slowly. I am sure players and devs could think of some fun and exciting ways to do that, and by doing so, particular campaigns take on more of their own character and flavor based on the actions of players.

Add a lot of new achievements for AvA:

New achievements from a list I started back in September of 2014, another smaller set from last month, and a few new to this thread...

Righteous Vengeance - Score 50 Revenge kills in the Alliance War
Deadly Avenger - Score 50 Avenge kills in the Alliance War

Unending Retribution - Score 100 Revenge kill in the Alliance War
Dedicated Vigilante - Score 100 Avenge kills in the Alliance War


Exalted Dragonknight Slayer - Kill 250 enemy Dragonknights
Exalted Sorcerer Slayer - Kill 250 enemy Sorcerers
Exalted Templar Slayer - Kill 250 enemy Templars
Exalted Nightblade Slayer - Kill 250 enemy Nightblades

Illustrious Dragonknight Slayer - Kill 500 enemy Dragonknights
Illustrious Sorcerer Slayer - Kill 500 enemy Sorcerers
Illustrious Templar Slayer - Kill 500 enemy Templar
Illustrious Nightblade Slayer - Kill 500 enemy Nightblades

Supreme Dragonknight Slayer - Kill 1000 enemy Dragonknights
Supreme Sorcerer Slayer - Kill 1000 enemy Sorcerers
Supreme Templar Slayer - Kill 1000 enemy Templars
Supreme Nightblade Slayer - Kill 1000 enemy Nightblades


Ravager - Score 5 enemy kills in a minute
Decimator - Score 10 enemy kills in a minute
Devastator - Score 15 enemy kills in a minute
Annihilator - Score 20 enemy kills in a minute

King Maker - Help capture every ring keep on the day your Alliance crowns a new Emperor.
Defender of the Crown - Help successfully defend the last ring keep when your Alliance has Emperor.



Alliance Defender - Defend every home keep in your Alliance's starting territory once.
Cyrodiil Defender - Defend every keep in Cyrodiil once.

Alliance Conqueror - Capture every home keep in the other Alliances' starting territories once.
Cyrodiil Conqueror - Capture every keep in Cyrodiil once.

Resource Management - Defend every resource in your Alliance's starting territory once.
Extended Supply Chain - Defend every resource in Cyrodiil once.

Resource Procurement - Capture every resource in the other Alliances' starting territories once.
Outsourcing - Capture every resource in Cyrodiil once.


Ten in Five - Defeat 5 enemy players from each rival alliance in 5 minutes
Twenty in Ten - Defeat 10 enemy players from each rival alliance in 10 minutes


Scroll Thief - Steal a scroll from an enemy keep.
Scroll Keeper - Place an enemy scroll at a keep controlled by your Alliance.


Buff This - Kill a player while wearing no armor.
Killing Streaker - Kill 10 players while wearing no armor.
Naked Ambition - Kill 50 players while wearing no armor.

With Your Bare Hands - Strike a killing blow with no weapon equipped.
Pernicious Pugilist - Strike 5 killing blows with no weapon equipped.
Unarmed and Extremely Dangerous - Strike 20 killing blows with no weapon equipped.


TBA - Placeholder for future ideas. [new]


All except those marked as new from are from these threads/comments:
http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/131606/small-ish-item-alliance-war-wish-list-for-future-updates
http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/243683/naked-and-unarmed-achievements
http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/2789575/#Comment_2789575

Add a few group ("world") bosses and a couple of trials to AvA:

So, this post about Cloud Ruler Temple was interesting, and it got me to thinking. Like the other ideas I have for AvA, assuming that lag and other performance issues were sufficiently improved, why not put some great PvE experiences in a PvP environment to make it even more challenging? (And the trials would have their own instances anyway.)

For trials, I use the aforementioned for Cloud Ruler Temple as an example. My version looks like this: An eighteen player trial with three starting points for three groups of six and places where the paths of each group intersect. If you stop to ambush you might get an advantage unless you lose or the other groups already went by. Once a group leaves a spot where the paths intersect enemy players can't follow. Choose your strategy but be prepared.

Basically, you are doing all of the challenging things you need to do in any trial but scaled for a team of six. You could try for eight maybe, but you have to account for the other two teams and system performance, so six is better. Each time starts at one of three different locations and has their own path to follow, with different bosses along the way and unique buffs or temporary (i.e. during the run) items of power to acquire and use. At at least three points all three paths intersect before reaching the final boss, which is the same for all groups.

In addition to having such a trial at Cloud Ruler there should also be one in the Imperial City itself. One of these trials could use the shifting terrain I've asked for elsewhere to create a final boss fight were you stand on and jump between floating and moving rocks while fighting avoiding or fighting enemy players. Because that would be #%$&*% awesome.

I also mentioned world bosses, and I mean like the ones from Wrothgar but even more intense and dangerous. I don't want Cyrodiil to feel crowded or AvA pushed aside, but there is plenty of room to put one of these in each Alliance's starting territory. They would offer more to do in Cyro for those who don't like PvE and would drop some really kick-ass stuff if you survived the boss and the enemy players who show up. I'm thinking one of them could be underground, maybe in one of those "for show" Ayleid ruins.

Add Dynamic Power to Elder Scrolls:

The relative value and power of an Elder Scroll are in flux as mortals make choices and decisions. At key times the power of a scroll might be greater or lesser. In gameplay, this is revealed by a message "The Elder Scroll of Ghartok waxes in power" followed by having that scroll gaining a special highlight on the map. After half an hour the message "The Elder Scrolls of Ghartok is revealed" and that scrolls bonuses are increased (could be a new bonus, could just buff the existing bonuses) for an hour or two. When it returns to normal this is accompanied by the message "The Elder Scroll of Ghartok wanes in power" and the special highlight disappears.

This adds a fun new twist to capturing and holding scrolls.

So, would you want to play in this version of Cyrodiil? What would you add/keep/modify/remove? Thanks for reading! Extra thanks for thoughtful comments

Edits:
- Added Campaign Pride section
- Added the concept of dynamic value for strongholds in scoring to the section on "Revising the way strongholds are captured"
- Added specific loot types to the section on "Adding mobile flags for small group objectives"
- Added Dynamic Power of Elder Scrolls section

Rune_Relic

Some nice ideas.
Initially I bulked a the idea of gear sets thinking...here we go again with another power grab.
But then you made it clear it for specialist roles and diversity. Which sounded interesting after reading it.

I think player population is kind of red herring to deal with the issues.
I mean its important but pop bonuses don't help you take back keeps.
So it needs far more, but without bonus abuse.

To me the issue is campaign dominance rather population.
We want to help those who have been destroyed to rebuild.
We want make dominance and incredibly hard feat to pull off even if well rewarded.
So....

0-6 keeps - 3x guard levels / resource held - 3x wall strength / resource held - 100% stats - 1x AP reward
7-12 keeps - 2x guard levels / resource held - 2x wall strength / resource held - 66% stats - 3x AP reward
13-18 keeps - 1x guard level / resource held - 1x wall strength / resource held - 33% stats - 9x AP reward

This means if everyone just has their own keeps they are well guarded and players are at full strength.
If 1 alliance wipes a 2nd alliance and takes their keeps, they will all be running at 2/3 strength and the players too.
If 1 alliance wiped the 2nd/3rd alliance and wipes the map, they will be running at 1/3rd keep strength and the players too.

In other words dominance is incredibly hard...BUT....very well rewarded.
So even if scrolls and emperor and the war are meaningless to some....the AP gains are irresistible.
This forces people (nay whole factions) to get real good if they want bonus AP.

EXTRAs.
The 1vX brigade get to experience that if they have no keeps and face a dominant force.
They will have 3x the power of their enemies and could realistically take down 3x their numbers (solving the population issue).
Keeps will take a long time to siege against weakened enemies..but will be much quicker vs dominant ones.

The Default will always be for the keeps to revert to 6 home keeps and typical AP gain.
Emperorship will be thoroughly earned.

PVP Debuffs.
Rather than the current 50% for everyone.. the penalty depends on jow many keeps you own.
Some said 25% was too low
Some said 50% was too high
So this allow 100/66/33% PVP buffs all at once (0/33/66% penalties).
So TTK will depend on how many keeps you own.

tinythinker

Rune_Relic wrote: »

Some nice ideas.
Initially I bulked a the idea of gear sets thinking...here we go again with another power grab.
But then you made it clear it for specialist roles and diversity. Which sounded interesting after reading it.

Yeah, we need diversity in roles to match the diversity of players and the time/interest they have to invest as well as how they can/want to contribute.

Rune_Relic wrote: »

I think player population is kind of red herring to deal with the issues.
I mean its important but pop bonuses don't help you take back keeps.
So it needs far more, but without bonus abuse.

To me the issue is campaign dominance rather population.
We want to help those who have been destroyed to rebuild.
We want make dominance and incredibly hard feat to pull off even if well rewarded.

That's why I prefer the bonuses/penalties to be "like" pop bonuses but based on actual number of strongholds. Much harder to abuse that way and no waiting for the system to count heads. But I didn't want to put in specific numbers because people might focus on those rather than the concept itself when first starting to read the original post. Thanks for filling that part in!

Rune_Relic wrote: »

So....

0-6 keeps - 3x guard levels / resource held - 3x wall strength / resource held - 100% stats - 1x AP reward
7-12 keeps - 2x guard levels / resource held - 2x wall strength / resource held - 66% stats - 3x AP reward
13-18 keeps - 1x guard level / resource held - 1x wall strength / resource held - 33% stats - 9x AP reward

This means if everyone just has their own keeps they are well guarded and players are at full strength.
If 1 alliance wipes a 2nd alliance and takes their keeps, they will all be running at 2/3 strength and the players too.
If 1 alliance wiped the 2nd/3rd alliance and wipes the map, they will be running at 1/3rd keep strength and the players too.

In other words dominance is incredibly hard...BUT....very well rewarded.
So even if scrolls and emperor and the war are meaningless to some....the AP gains are irresistible.
This forces people (nay whole factions) to get real good if they want bonus AP.

EXTRAs.
The 1vX brigade get to experience that if they have no keeps and face a dominant force.
They will have 3x the power of their enemies.

I think adding players into the mix will get some pushback, as it might encourage more zerging, but it's definitely an interesting twist.

Thanks for the helpful and insightful comment!

Merlight

tinythinker wrote: »

- have a domination penalty. Yes, you still get the fighting and AP/gold bonuses for controlling home and enemy strongholds to encourage taking more of them (and I recommend buffing them!!) but also new weaknesses to holding most or all of them at once, like the inverse of the last bullet point (weaker walls/gate strength, penalties to NPC strength or abilities, penalties to repairs, etc). After all, soldiers and resources can begin to tire and be stretched thin.

I may have already suggested this somewhere else:

- cap scroll gate keeps' level at 3 if held by enemy
- cap Glade, Arrius, Faregyl level at 4 if held by enemy
- cap Dragonclaw level at 3 if held by AD
- cap Drakelowe level at 3 if held by DC
- cap Brindle level at 3 if held by EP
- same for resources

tinythinker wrote: »

Greatly speed up how quickly stronghold degradation happens and increase the impact *IF* players stay at the resource, the more the better, up to some cap. So if you get 1-2 or 4-5 or ???? many people to *stay at the farm* until the stronghold is capped, the guards will be easier, especially if you cap the farm first and have the players stay while others go off to siege. The same for weakening the walls by taking the mine. And why bother? See the previous section about map domination/PvDoor. The hit points of walls, gates, and guards would be boosted a ton. No resources would mean even at siege limit you are going to be taking a reaaaaally long time to get inside. Don't want to weaken the guards? Get your zerg rekt by guards.

The *stay at the farm* requirement might be difficult to implement, but luckily is redundant. Once you make the farm relevant, it will naturally become a target, and attackers will have to leave someone there, or risk losing it without warning.

I'd suggest some possibly harsh changes:

- defenders lose Mine - they can't repair walls at all. Mine level determines how much HP each wall repair kit restores. With tougher walls this could be e.g. 1x the current amount at lv1 and 3x at lv5.
- defenders lose Lumber - they can't repair doors. Lumber level -> door repair kit power.
- defenders lose Farm - NPCs don't respawn. Farm level -> NPC respawn rate. (Consider this with capped distant keep level)
- for attackers, controlling Lumber could increase their siege limit - e.g. make it 10 without and 20 with Lumber. If they take Lumber, deploy 20 siege weapons, then lose Lumber, simply prevent them from deploying more until they're down to 9, proper counter-siege will take care of that.

Sublime

ZOS really should consider adding a necromance class to the game, especially as it already exists on the forums.

Merlight

Sublime wrote: »

ZOS really should consider adding a necromance class to the game, especially as it already exists on the forums.

I came here through a link the OP posted in a recent thread, and commented on the topic. Your turn.

tinythinker

Merlight wrote: »

tinythinker wrote: »

- have a domination penalty. Yes, you still get the fighting and AP/gold bonuses for controlling home and enemy strongholds to encourage taking more of them (and I recommend buffing them!!) but also new weaknesses to holding most or all of them at once, like the inverse of the last bullet point (weaker walls/gate strength, penalties to NPC strength or abilities, penalties to repairs, etc). After all, soldiers and resources can begin to tire and be stretched thin.

I may have already suggested this somewhere else:

- cap scroll gate keeps' level at 3 if held by enemy
- cap Glade, Arrius, Faregyl level at 4 if held by enemy
- cap Dragonclaw level at 3 if held by AD
- cap Drakelowe level at 3 if held by DC
- cap Brindle level at 3 if held by EP
- same for resources

If it slows down PvDoor it's worth consideration.

Merlight wrote: »

tinythinker wrote: »

Greatly speed up how quickly stronghold degradation happens and increase the impact *IF* players stay at the resource, the more the better, up to some cap. So if you get 1-2 or 4-5 or ???? many people to *stay at the farm* until the stronghold is capped, the guards will be easier, especially if you cap the farm first and have the players stay while others go off to siege. The same for weakening the walls by taking the mine. And why bother? See the previous section about map domination/PvDoor. The hit points of walls, gates, and guards would be boosted a ton. No resources would mean even at siege limit you are going to be taking a reaaaaally long time to get inside. Don't want to weaken the guards? Get your zerg rekt by guards.

The *stay at the farm* requirement might be difficult to implement, but luckily is redundant. Once you make the farm relevant, it will naturally become a target, and attackers will have to leave someone there, or risk losing it without warning.

I'd suggest some possibly harsh changes:

- defenders lose Mine - they can't repair walls at all. Mine level determines how much HP each wall repair kit restores. With tougher walls this could be e.g. 1x the current amount at lv1 and 3x at lv5.
- defenders lose Lumber - they can't repair doors. Lumber level -> door repair kit power.
- defenders lose Farm - NPCs don't respawn. Farm level -> NPC respawn rate. (Consider this with capped distant keep level)
- for attackers, controlling Lumber could increase their siege limit - e.g. make it 10 without and 20 with Lumber. If they take Lumber, deploy 20 siege weapons, then lose Lumber, simply prevent them from deploying more until they're down to 9, proper counter-siege will take care of that.

Your additions are fine by me, but they mostly have to do with getting things fixed up after either a capture or a successful defense. The addition of lumber allowing more siege for attackers is OK, but it's more of the same general idea I had offered, which is that capping resources makes taking the stronghold possible for small groups and easier/quicker for larger groups. If you combined my "you really ought to take resources to be successful at sieging" suggestion with your "take back resources to rebuild/repair" idea it could help spread people out at a particular siege event (there are other ideas for spreading people across different siege events) and slow down caps, including PvDoor.

If Wheeler's idea of putting resource flags inside/on top of the towers is added in, the dynamic changes even more

Sublime

Merlight wrote: »

Sublime wrote: »

ZOS really should consider adding a necromance class to the game, especially as it already exists on the forums.

I came here through a link the OP posted in a recent thread, and commented on the topic. Your turn.

Beaten.

Dyride

I like the premise but feel many of these ideas would open to exploiting and force people to travel in even larger groups.

People getting extra AP/power when they don't own many keeps is a bad idea because it would reinforce "AP farming."

People getting extra AP by controlling more of the map is also a bad idea because it would reinforce single faction dominance of campaigns. Having players run weaker just means more people required to do anything which is NOT a solution.

Guild versus Guild battles are commonly decided by minute advantages in skill and tactical initiative.

Nobody would pay a game where you could lose even a small amount of your power due to actions taken by your faction that are outside your control.


Slowing down keep taking will just allow more people getting drawn to the action and create more lag.

I do feel that resources should matter and there should be more objectives that encourage small group and solo players.

tinythinker

Dyride wrote: »

I like the premise but feel many of these ideas would open to exploiting and force people to travel in even larger groups.

People getting extra AP/power when they don't own many keeps is a bad idea because it would reinforce "AP farming."

This was recommended in a comment left here, but my own preference is to change the strength of strongholds and NPCs rather than players. The AP bonuses I advocate would be for capturing strongholds held for a long time, to make out of the way targets and those behind enemy lines more appealing.

Dyride wrote: »

People getting extra AP by controlling more of the map is also a bad idea because it would reinforce single faction dominance of campaigns.

People already get that kind of bonus, but it looks like you are referring to another person's comment about making the bonus bigger under certain situations.

Dyride wrote: »

Having players run weaker just means more people required to do anything which is NOT a solution.

Again, that's why I prefer to talk about penalties to NPCs/strongholds rather than players.

Dyride wrote: »

Slowing down keep taking will just allow more people getting drawn to the action and create more lag.

It might if there aren't other incentives to spread out. If the AP per stronghold capture is greatly lowered for each player at the battle, and if those unmolested strongholds gain more AP the longer they sit idle, the more reason to not just bunch up in one spot but to go after other targets. I and others have suggested additional motivations to spread out on the map but the original post was already a bit long.

Dyride wrote: »

I do feel that resources should matter and there should be more objectives that encourage small group and solo players.

Yeah, they've have this whole stronghold debuff system in place since at least beta yet it is too slow/weak for anyone to bother with it. Having to keep people at resources throughout a siege means fewer people spamming AoE on the stronghold flags.