Future Potential Thornblade Campaign scoring change

KeplerMG · March 2015

It would be a miracle if you find a way to split up the EP zerg. It's the only way they know how to operate. They would be like fish out of water.

It doesnt matter though, its a waste of time trying. EP attacked Thornblade (the server itself) so badly last night that no flag could be flipped anywhere in Cyrodiil for about a half hour.

Muizer · March 2015

Ok something occurred to me. If player kills keep getting scored as they are (i.e. you only have to contribute a fraction to the total) and there is no penalty for dying.............does that not mean awarding kills stimulates the exact kind of play that is causing lag? That is, trying to hit as many targets as possible (i.e. crowded situations) with AoE before dying? If we want to be rid of that, would it not be better to award kills only to those who contribute a high percentage of total damage to a kill, and should dying not be penalized somehow?

Rylana · March 2015

Muizer wrote: »

Ok something occurred to me. If player kills keep getting scored as they are (i.e. you only have to contribute a fraction to the total) and there is no penalty for dying.............does that not mean awarding kills stimulates the exact kind of play that is causing lag? That is, trying to hit as many targets as possible (i.e. crowded situations) with AoE before dying? If we want to be rid of that, would it not be better to award kills only to those who contribute a high percentage of total damage to a kill, and should dying not be penalized somehow?

How do you account for healers or crowd controllers with low damage then?

There are more roles in PvP than just "spam damage"

JaJaLuka · March 2015

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Hey gang!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ebonheart 56864
Daggerfall 56449
Aldmeri 40300

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

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

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

So....thoughts?

Don't end the campaign, DC is finally rallying and doing well it would be such a shame for all of that to go to waste.

As for the actual changes; I really like some of the thought going behind this, but what I like even more is the clarity with which you are showing us before the proposals take place. It shows a little bit of consideration for the consumers.

Some of the other campaigns have been hitting population cap recently as well, which is both awesome (for more active campaigns) and frustrating (for the lag). So perhaps consider the fact that not all of the populations will behave the same as they have different players and temperaments in each one. There I believe is the tricky bit, just because you get one behaviour from Thornblade NA does not mean it will cure the other campaigns or the EU servers. Not a criticism, just some food for thought.

Muizer · March 2015

Rylana wrote: »

Muizer wrote: »

Ok something occurred to me. If player kills keep getting scored as they are (i.e. you only have to contribute a fraction to the total) and there is no penalty for dying.............does that not mean awarding kills stimulates the exact kind of play that is causing lag? That is, trying to hit as many targets as possible (i.e. crowded situations) with AoE before dying? If we want to be rid of that, would it not be better to award kills only to those who contribute a high percentage of total damage to a kill, and should dying not be penalized somehow?

How do you account for healers or crowd controllers with low damage then?

There are more roles in PvP than just "spam damage"

Well I try to set limited, achievable goals. I don't really expect ZoS to suddenly start counting "players saved from death" or "players prevented from dealing damage". For now I'm accepting, reluctantly, that kills will be the measure of combat prowess.

As long as that's the case, however, the way in which those kills are scored will have a big influence on PvP dynamic. That's just how it is. Players in other roles will feel compelled to adapt to the dynamic it generates, one way or another. I'm not saying that's a good thing. More a fact we have to deal with.

kevlarto_ESO · March 2015

There is some good ideas here, what about the ap farmers that could care less about the score only interested in personal gain, some of the ball up tactics, I am sure do not help the lag issue. Lot of factors, I guess.

AhPook_Is_Here · March 2015

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Hey gang!

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

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

Imperial keeps when one side has emperor and only one keep left to protect will still create a player demand for poor server performance, as will situations where only 1 keep remains to crown emperor though usually to a lesser degree.

Maybe you should consider changing the rule-set to becoming emperor and losing it as well; perhaps something like 2/3+ of all keeps to win and less than 1/3 to lose it. That would remove the ring mechanic and spread those final fights of holding on to your last keeps over several keeps instead of one ring keep.

Hutuldur · March 2015

AhPook_Is_Here wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Hey gang!

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

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

Imperial keeps when one side has emperor and only one keep left to protect will still create a player demand for poor server performance, as will situations where only 1 keep remains to crown emperor though usually to a lesser degree.

Maybe you should consider changing the rule-set to becoming emperor and losing it as well; perhaps something like 2/3+ of all keeps to win and less than 1/3 to lose it. That would remove the ring mechanic and spread those final fights of holding on to your last keeps over several keeps instead of one ring keep.

Good point. Also changing emperor requirements from 6 central keeps to 5 would help.

tinythinker · March 2015

(TL;DR Version in Purple)

My apologies if I missed this idea in the previous comments already made on this topic. I know someone talked about more AP for taking undefended strongholds, and I agree with the problems already described with that. But something similar occurs to me.

I also appreciate that making bigger changes, such as walls degrading faster the longer an Alliance controls an enemy stronghold, or having fewer guards for each new enemy stronghold captured, will take much longer to code and test even if they are something the PvP dev team decides to pursue.

So on the quicker-to-implement front, how about making a stronghold worth more points on the campaign scoreboard the longer it is held, and also making them worth more AP if captured or defended the longer they are held?

I am sure there are potential downsides, but it could keep every stronghold in constant play. Can't let the enemy control much of anything for too long, after all. Risking going on the offensive by taking strongholds means losing campaign points if you get back capped, so sure there might be a risk of generating a "bunker down" mentality, but the drive for personal AP would (I believe) still compel groups of players to try.

If there was a threshold at which the AP gains -- which are already scaled -- suddenly dropped precipitously for capturing a stronghold after a certain number of attackers was reached, large offensive groups seeking AP would have an incentive to split up to pursue different targets all across the map. In turn defenders would be less able to bunch up as well.

Upon a successful stronghold capture, because of the fact that the longer you control the new acquisition the better the campaign score will be even those who are more worried about winning the campaign will have to weigh strategic options that take the whole map into consideration.

Again, this works better with some of the types bigger changes I mentioned above, but, even just the campaign scoring/AP earning changes mentioned in purple might be worth trying. Thanks for reading!

Agrippa_Invisus · March 2015

I think it's time that ZOS reconsiders there being a scoreboard on the campaign at all.

This is the same issue that Guild Wars 2 failed to handle well and it is causing continued issues with ESO. I think that it's time to remove the scoreboard entirely. Make it so that the difference between the campaigns is how often the leaderboards resets. Allow the buffs to apply only within PVP, making things such as scrolls, keeps, et al worth going after. Add more AP bonus gains from those buffs.

Give the same rewards that used to be given on campaign ends to leaderboard members and those who have achieved the rewards tiers, same as before, each time the leaderboards reset.

Get rid of scoreboards, end the drama of off hours capping, and reduce the need to zergbomb things (because you gotta win, yo).

Jauriel · March 2015

LonePirate wrote: »

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

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

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

Very insightful but I must ask...are you worried DC might come out on top if the scoring is adjusted mid game because you know we do more actual game play and your side does more actual server trolling?

Jauriel · March 2015

Sharee wrote: »

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

You think most people don't care about the score? Not sure I agree. If ep didn't care about the score there would be no incentive for them to exploit lag. It has no other real purpose than to afford them the ability to keep winning campaign after campaign. People should care about the scoring, tbh. But I'm not sure these tactics would change the behavior they're seeking to change.

Jauriel · March 2015

FENGRUSH wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Ooooooh I like this idea. Fights for the little towns?? Yes!

Jauriel · March 2015

Valnas wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Sorry but you're not thinking clearly. This would result in just mindless killing. A gankers paradise. And gankers are scum IMO. I don't want to be forced into scumdom with them. The game is called Elder SCROLLS for a reason. And the main reason to take an enemy keep is to either crown or take a SCROLL. Scrolls should be worth 3, keeps 2 and resources 1 and change the score now. Haha

Jauriel · March 2015

revcasy wrote: »

@ZOS_BrianWheeler

I am uncomfortable with the whole idea of adjusting the scoring like this. It seems very likely to have unintended consequences.

I appreciate that you folks are acknowledging and trying to do something about the technical problems in Cyrodiil, but fiddling with the rules of the game is a mistake. It would be one thing if you were trying to improve the balance or the competitiveness purely for the sake of making the game more fun or satisfying to play, but you are proposing doing this for technical reasons.

I mean, yes not having the horrible lag would be more fun, but this is like saying, "Ok, well football is causing head injuries, so we are going to remove the football and make the field longer." At some point it isn't football anymore.

Maybe this wouldn't be as drastic as taking away the football, but we don't really know do we? And where does it end? Small changes can have large, unintended consequences, and once you go down the road of changing the rules to fix performance issues it is going to be tempting to just keep doing it over and over. I'd much rather you make the game you gave us work than give us a different game.

I don't see any rule changing per se in their proposals. I see point shifting. And if so many claim they don't "care" about the score....what's the BFD?

Jauriel · March 2015

Lava_Croft wrote: »

Anyone with the slightest bit of faction pride will care about scoring, because it makes their faction win the campaign and that's what it's all about.

The rest can keep farming AP at resource towers and Alessia bridge.

Exaaaaactly.

Jauriel · March 2015

KeplerMG wrote: »

It would be a miracle if you find a way to split up the EP zerg. It's the only way they know how to operate. They would be like fish out of water.

It doesnt matter though, its a waste of time trying. EP attacked Thornblade (the server itself) so badly last night that no flag could be flipped anywhere in Cyrodiil for about a half hour.

I was there. Experienced it and reported the offenders. And reading the lies and denies here daily is better than the Sunday comics.

Skafsgaard · March 2015

First of all, thanks so much for sharing these thought and ideas you and your team is considering. It feels GOOD to be kept in the loop. For that you get an awesome!

Next up, the proposed changes. If I had to choose one it would have to be #2, however, I also agree with many points @Sublime makes in his post. Important is to try some stuff, keep live for 14 days or a month. If it wasnt achieving what you suggested, roll it back through a maintenance or something like that, just please dont leave it if it doesnt serve the purpose. Now personally, I dont really think this will fix the issues, but then again Im not computer expert by far, maybe those changes would be enough to make the server cope better. I also agree with @Lava_Croft that faction pride is/should be important. It is to me anyway, and I think that is how an RvR game is supposed to be - mainly goal is faction position as high as possible through meaningful contributions. Not farming AP where it doesnt mean anything to the campaign as a whole - and this would be my primary concern, maybe. If it did work and cyro was smooth as newborn, then what? At least to me, some of the epicness of a scroll run or other big activites shoud come with a bigger reward. Tbh, I dont pay attention to the buffs from keeps and stuff so much, yes, I do notice the HP buff when we have Emp - but often Im far more concerned with helping my faction - and this need to remain the core. But any changes and risk taking is welcome from me at this point, just needs something to be done. But thinking an easy fix is naïve imo, I think a lot of factors has to change, in order to spread the population as you have proposed.

KeplerMG · March 2015

Deleted
Wrong Thread

monkeyzealer · March 2015

i know this is not the place but is there any possibility of changing the way assault and support skill lines lvl up changing them from being tied to rank and make it like taking a keep would go towards lvling up assault and repairing keeps would go towards lvling up support?

MADshadowman · March 2015

No scoring changes will change the fact that your servers can't handle 20 people fighting in one place.

If 20 people start sieging a keep, there will be at least 15-20 people defending it. Hello Lag! Why would scoring changes change that in any way?

CitraBenzoet_ESO · March 2015

monkeyzealer wrote: »

i know this is not the place but is there any possibility of changing the way assault and support skill lines lvl up changing them from being tied to rank and make it like taking a keep would go towards lvling up assault and repairing keeps would go towards lvling up support?

it kind of works that way already. your alliance rank is based upon AP. so taking a keep/repairing give you AP which goes towards your alliance rank which lets you get new skills eventually! yes it is a very slow process BUT i think it is a rewarding one. Hang in there!

TiberiusTryton · March 2015

So.... in case you never PvP....

To get a SCROLL in the elder SCROLLS online.... You have to take 2 keeps minimum before even trying to pass a gate and then run it allll the way back... No achievement, minimum AP for quest and now you want it to be less important for points?... I really like you guys but FFS sometimes! SOMETIMES!!!!!!!!! ><! Stop messing with things that are not broken, THERE ARE PLENTY THINGS BROKEN!! FOCUS ON THAT PLZZZ PLZZZ PLZZZ! On a serious note, only thing that should be fixed on the scoring should be low pop bonus (DELETE IT) and gaining points during maintenance... Otherwise, I am tired of the invisible walls... maybe have a look at that instead.

Roechacca · March 2015

If this works out today I'm sending Wheels a Halmark .

ZOS_BrianWheeler · March 2015

A lot of the ideas here are good and we'd love to give you guys and gals new stuff to fight over in the future. Some of these ideas we'll be pocketing for later when our coders aren't neck deep in trudging through the code-base to find performance adjustments.

We have mentioned turning off scroll, keep and emperor bonuses outside of the PVP space as suggested here too in some of these fixes. Currently however, the UI would still show you that you're getting them outside of Cyrodiil so that would need adjusting too.

Also note that scoring chnges are not today 3/23/2015. The siege damage changes are though.

tinythinker · March 2015

Roechacca wrote: »

If this works out today I'm sending Wheels a Halmark .

Got ya covered:

https://www.hallmarkecards.com/ecards/moochas-gracias-npg5060

https://www.hallmarkecards.com/ecards/orange-you-nice-npg6144

Pchela · March 2015

A faction conquering cities (Bruma, Cheydinhal, Chorrol, Cropsford, Vlastarus) to add points to the scoreboard would be fantastic and would spice it up a bit, IMO.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO · March 2015

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

A lot of the ideas here are good and we'd love to give you guys and gals new stuff to fight over in the future. Some of these ideas we'll be pocketing for later when our coders aren't neck deep in trudging through the code-base to find performance adjustments.

We have mentioned turning off scroll, keep and emperor bonuses outside of the PVP space as suggested here too in some of these fixes. Currently however, the UI would still show you that you're getting them outside of Cyrodiil so that would need adjusting too.

Also note that scoring chnges are not today 3/23/2015. The siege damage changes are though.

@ZOS_BrianWheeler Good to hear no scoring changes yet. still hopeful of this. Look forward to trying out the siege stuff.

About the PVE buffs. Personally I think there should be PVE buffs for 'winning factions' however these should not be active in Veteran dungeons and trials. There is no reason imo why players shouldn't gain some benefit (speed of grinding mobs / etc) from PVP but just don't bring it into the endgame competition. Like DSA/Trials/Vet Dungeons.

Equally if you introduce smallscale fights like CTF the buffs should be disabled there too imo for better competition.

FENGRUSH · March 2015

Rook_Master wrote: »

Brian, you've been a rockstar this week man.

Keep it up.

Also, Zenimax should give you a raise.

Dont put the cart before the horse here - B Wheeler still has to produce meaningful results. Then we can certainly make the Should Brian Wheeler get a raise at his end of year review poll.

FENGRUSH · March 2015

Suhxtob-yu wrote: »

You want to put an end to the zergs?

Make every AoE scale UPWARDS when hitting more opponents instead of the current DOWNWARD scaling model.

When people figure out that they are being 1-shorted because they are clumped up, they will spread out.

Agreed. I dont know why magicka detonation wasnt exactly this. Put a skill in that discourages grouping up, because it currently doesnt exist.