Scrolls should count at least as much as keeps imo.

I am not sure about the resources. They should at least not give as much as keeps. But I also would like if a faction that successfully holds a good part of the map or scrolls is rewarded for it. WIth this change they would loos because they can not defend every resource against 2 factions and certainly not spare the players to capture enemy objectives.
What I do like of this change is that it would make small groups more viable for their faction's scoring. Then again, I do not like the idea that I would help my faction more if I'd just order everyone to go and solo as many resources as possible. That's not much fun.

Like was said already, capturing resources should immediately lower the defensive capabilities of a keep. For example make it so the keep's buffs are decreased to level 3 everytime you take the connected resource (as long as the keep was above level 3, of course).

Manoekin wrote: »

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

What if you couldn't capture a keep unless you controller all 3 resource points. This would force you to keep people there holding those objectives and not just all packed on a flag. This would spread the pvp out in a general area.

You'd end up with groups just holding resources then imo.

And that would be bad how? It'd force people to hold those resources and to defend them and would spread the combat out. Another idea would be to tie it to the scoring system, number 1 scoring team would need all 3, 2nd place would need 2 and third place would just need 1 resource

Get rid of emp and emp bonus = no reason to farm ap, no zerg, problem solved.

Rhaenir wrote: »

NadiusMaximus wrote: »

Get rid of emp and emp bonus = no reason to farm ap, no zerg, problem solved.

Get rid of the Emp bonus and get rid of the bonuses carrying over to PVE. Emp itself is an interesting game mechanic and I wouldn't want to see it go away.

I'll agree with that being better.

It wont work. The reason everyone travels together is no one likes the gank game. Thus travel in zergs or be susceptible to the ganks. There are whole guilds on all the time that DO NOT move unless it is together.

These proposed changes will do nothing.

Why hasn't a dev answered my other post? You say its because too many are in one small area. Well, we all know you can have two full raid groups meet with no lag, then at other times 10 people will lag you out.

Please stop barking up the wrong tree and solve the issue that didnt exist prior to 1.6.

Oh further note. I dont PvP 24/7 so I have clarity when it comes to score. Your rank and scoring system is bogus anyway. It means nothing since the ones at the top are the ones that play 8+ hours a day. It also is pretty much irrelevant because the first few days decide the campaign, with 1 pulling ahead and then doing whats necessary to maintain the lead. The other factor is population imbalance. It was shown that EP has more pop when the rest of the US sleeps (yup Europeans) so they get ~ 8 free hours of bonus points from controlling the wee small hours.

Need anymore evidence to show why these changes wont solve a thing?

There will always be a draw towards the center circle of keeps and to scrolls. The majority will always go for those. But, you can break it up by a ton if you award AP for ALL activities in Cyrodiil. PvE quests, dolmens and dungeons should grant significant AP. Possibly even grant a 4hour buff to AP gain if you complete every daily quest in Cyrodiil.

Pros of this proposition:

1. It will make objective play more important. More things will happen in more places
2. Individual and small group contribution will have more impact in the overall score.

Cons of the proposition (and yes I am very aware there are many more than Pros)

1. Objectives that are inherently far more difficult to take (scrolls behind two three-tier keeps and a major choke full of guards at the gate) now score the same as a simple resource node with four guards. People will take the path of least resistance and the scrolls and home keeps will no longer be in play
2. Because of the nature of how keeps and resources level up and level down, the valuation of farms, mines, and mills degrades further. Currently you have to hold a resource for one hour for max buffs (which are not much when you really consider the difference between 200k and 260k wall strength vs 20 ballistas firing 2k a shot, its literally adding one salvo of fire and that is all).
3. Large group style play will suffer dramatically. Perhaps this is the point, but with such low valuations on defending objectives, most people wont even bother attacking a keep that is guarded, no one will defend a keep that is uncontested, and the like. Essentially the map becomes a roaming PvDoor fest of "enemy avoidance" to try to keep the score up as nodes are flipped back and forth.
4. As stated in 3, PvP in and of itself suffers a hit, as actually fighting people is now no longer desirable in the scoring. You want to take anything empty you can as fast as you can, and move on to the next, for maximum efficiency. Mass production vs holding something truly strategic that will affect scoring over the next couple of hours (such as taking Glademist from blue in primetime causing their whole faction to respond and shutting down all of their offense usually).
5. Overall map strategy becomes moot. No longer will groups be trying to manipulate the enemy into making mistakes or sacrificing *** for tat. As in above example, they would just let glade go because its worth so little in the grand scheme, and just speed flipping three resources at say Roebeck would counter it effectively.
6. It makes the whole zonal feel of home/enemy home territory feel clunky. The map will look very rainbowesque as the cycle progresses, move very quickly, and would make no logical sense. Youd have blue resources all over the place, red keeps, a yellow outpost over there, a red resource next to it, no fights happening but just a multicolored mess with no "lines" drawn.


I know I ramble, but I am trying to be coherent. The scoring system has never been the problem, and I dont think changing it is the solution.

I don't get why max group size matters?
Max 5 would just turn into 5 groups running together =25 players
Max 12 would be the same...
The only way that would break up a zerg is if the entire campaign was locked at 40 or so players.
That's not what I bought the game for, I want 100s vs 100s vs 100s.

Each campaign needs it's own mega server. No way around it. No matter what they do its not going to break up the strength in numbers formula.



Edit..

Remove all npc guards from Cyrodil. Boost the tick that happens at owned keeps and resources making it viable to stand guard duty. Make each unguarded keep, resource, town, turn gray if not guarded and said places will not count towards your score. Make the minimum needed to guard the keeps the same as the number of guards now.

What about pop imbalance ? Eliminate campaigns, and just have a que for pvp servers. If you want to join pvp, enter que by yourself, or join a group and enter, or be invited to a group already in and enter a que to join them, before you or your group are put into pvp the other factions must have the same number of people waiting in que, or you enter one by one. Like every other mmo ever made. ( but is horrible because if one faction doesn't pvp, the other two are locked in an endless que - a LA SWTOR 3 hour que once)

If I had to chose one of the two it would be the first suggestion, here's why:

To start, let's see what we get for each objective, scoreboard points excluded:

Keeps:

• Respawn Point
• Fast travel (supply line)
• easily defendable stronghold
• possible emperor bonus
• passive AvA buff

Scrolls:

• passive AvA buff

Outpost:

• Fast travel (supply line, toward Outpost only!)
• defendable stronghold

Ressources:

• secures fast travel (supply line)
• hardly defendable objective
• bonuses to keeps

The respawn possibility, the defensive streanght and the possible emperor bonus make keeps so by far the most rewarding objectives, meaning they are already worth taking if they don't yield many points.

Outpost go into this direction because they also provide a supply line as long as they are not under attack, they are however much easier to take, because of the lack of the second wall.

While Ressources allow players to cut of the supply line, dead players can still respawn at the keep, making it really easy to take them back after 3-5 mins. Meaning if the attack doesn't happen within that timeframe, taking a ressource is not worth anything from a strategic point of view. Yes they give a bonus to the keeps defensive values, but it just takes too long to have an effect in order to efficiently use it for planning.

Scrolls on the other hand have basically zero bonuses the the holding faction except for the slight buff and the , currently, huge scoreboard bouns.

Since we're trying to encourage people to spread out over the map, each objective has to have a comparable value. I.e. if a faction commits a lot of players to taking an objective and don't manage to get it in a short amount of time, the other alliances need means to punish them for their commitment. For example AD sends 40 players to get an EP scroll but looses a lot of time at the temple and the gate because 10 EP managed to stall them out. The 30 other EP's need targets that force some of the AD players back to defend, because otherwise the overall AD Operation would be a deficit.

So how much is an objective worth?

• Keeps already give huge bonuses to the alliance through they overall strategic importance, so I'd give them 4 points.
• Outposts are not as valuable as keeps but they are also required for the large fast travel networks, so they're basically mini-keeps, to make them a comparable objective I'd give them 6 Points.
  
• Ressources have almost no value right now, at first I'd, once all three are captured, not only disable the transitus Network but also the respawn mechanism. Now in the Scenario that they don't disable the respawn mechanism I'd give them 2 points. This puts them just over the keep itself, making the ressource capturing a serious threat for the opposing faction. In the Scenario that the respawn is disabled I'd give them 1 point, simply because would make it possible to shut down a lot of respawn points for a faction in a very short amount of time.
• While Scrolls are really hard to take, they give basically zero reward, it however should not drag the entire server to the same spot, so I'd give them 8 points.
  
  Apart from that I know a lot of people who care about the AvA scoreboard. First because of the reward at the end of the campaign and second because ist the main goal of my guild.

I like #2. If nothing else it sets a whole new dynamic to cyrodiil.

Just throwing out ideas.

One of the game design problems in Cyrodiil is that the fastest way to gain AP is to farm it, or run back and forth in ongoing skirmishes without actually capturing anything. So the best way for players to achieve a personal, selfish goal (gaining AP) is not the best way for players to achieve a team goal (winning the campaign).

We want the best way to gain AP to also be the best way to help your team win, and we also want to reduce the size of some very large fights.

Two part solution:

1. Have small group/solo enemy kills contribute to the campaign score somehow, and have small group captures of reasonable objectives (resources, not keeps) reward more AP, but only if there is some player opposition.

2. When a portion of the map becomes over-populated with players, reduce the rate at which players in that area gain AP. You could call this a "dead zone" or something similar. You set the threshold as high as you can, because we don't want to discourage large group fights completely.

So, you encourage small group play and spreading out in two different ways, and simultaneously address a game design issue.

Is this technically feasible? I'm not going to even pretend to know (though I am sure others will).