Maintenance for the week of November 18:
• [IN PROGRESS] ESO Store and Account System for maintenance – November 19, 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC) - 6:00PM EST (23:00 UTC)
• PlayStation®: EU megaserver for maintenance – November 19, 23:00 UTC (6:00PM EST) - November 20, 17:00 UTC (12:00PM EST)
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/668861
• [IN PROGRESS] ESO Store and Account System for maintenance – November 19, 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC) - 6:00PM EST (23:00 UTC)
• PlayStation®: EU megaserver for maintenance – November 19, 23:00 UTC (6:00PM EST) - November 20, 17:00 UTC (12:00PM EST)
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/668861
The Emperor AP System is Broken: Move to a Guild-Based Title
TheGrandAlliance
✭✭✭✭
Ask yourself this: Do you want ESO's PvP to force you to play non-stop and thus have "no-life" simply to obtain the Emperor's title? If not, read on...
The current system rewards players who AFK, ninja-loot, or otherwise join a raid and let them do all the killing. Getting rid of the 20 kill quest is a start but this problem remains. For example: The people leading the /zone channel action (the "true leaders") are forced into doing things simply as duty of leader that may not even give them many points. Things like capping resources, scouting, going between raids to lead battles... these are all things that drain time which in this game is a currency.
As a result the people in your raid group (or A raid group) that have more AP then you wouldn't have that if it wasn't for your efforts organizing the server to wipe the other side in the first place. As a result this rewards player AFKing/Ninja-ing and not leadership.
The current system also rewards suicide tactics such as intentionally losing in order to grief the server, pulling aggro to a seige in order to farm upon seige defense, "scroll trolling" an Elder Scroll without bringing it home, and other undesirable tactics. If the point of AP is to reward "leadership" (hense the Emperor Title), then the point system needs to be restructured in order to do that. Else, the good players have no reason to play, and thus everything falls apart. Granted this is a tall order but a few things can be done at least:
1. Points for kills that you do not engage in are way too generous. You only should be getting points for your own kills not for the entire raid group. I can just stand there for example in a keep and get a boatload of points for being a good spectator.
2. There appears to be no point bonus or a small one for capping objectives. The whole point of the game is to capture keeps and own the map and not to kill the other players. Thus if you are playing at a time when not many others are online to "farm them" you will fall behind the AP point system even if you own the entire map.
3. The capture quests have less AP reward then the 20 kill quest (at 1000). This is not logical... there should be a large point bonus for capture as it is far harder to do. Furthermore "scout" quests are usless at 250 points. It would be advised to simply just get rid of all quests because they are useless in the end and thus adjust the AP/EXP system accordingly.
4. Points are just way too generous in this game. There are points given away for everything combat-related. As a result if you are a new player you have no chance in the AP system if you dont play from the start every day. The total amount of points should be far fewer, rarer, harder to get in order to give them meaning. As a result cost for seige gear should be adjusted.
There is also the matter of whether a AP point system means anything. "Winning" is supposed to be about controlling the map not farming points: Leaders don't just "farm points" to lead they actually have to do something. The PvP in this game isn't a short term 15-min 10-40 player style gameplay: Points are not the objective.
In real world, or Tamriel even, a Emperor gains his power by taking over things. He does this by raising armies and having them conqure. If someone in this game can win the title by never saying a single word then what value does being Emperor reaaly have?
Thus I thought of an way to get around this. Guilds. At the end a guild structure is needed to win anyways so shifting the Emperor rating system from player to guild is the answer. How does this work?
1. Whatever guild "wins" in this system gets to choose their emperor (likely guild leader). Thus it becomes like a House. This makes guilds worth something and almost replicates the RP nature of Emperor title.
2. The way to figure "the winning guild" is to combine all the AP of the guild's members (as they earn it as a guild member not historically) and not just a single player. Thus single AFKers that are unguilded cannot exploit the system but yet the AP system doesn't have to be radically redesigned. Else another method could be acceptable. Because players can be in 5 guilds at once... an option to "Represent" a single time at a time will allow bonuses/AP points to be applied to/from only one guild at a time.
3. Once obtained, a emperor can be overthrown by his own faction if certain condition are met. For every Keep (the 6 used in ratings) that is lost as Emperor the guild in control LOSES points. When they fall below another guild they are deposed. In contrast, the longer any of the 6 keeps are held, the more points the Emperor's guild gets.
4. Place a cap on the amount of times an Emperor can change within the same faction per unit of time. Currently the number 1 ranked, if leaves the server, hands the control to number 2 ranked player. In order to prevent a rotation, a limit such as one per day, needs to be placed. If this were to be broken, the faction would loose Emperor power, and the situation reset for a period of time.
5. Give players in the "Emperor Guild" bonuses as well. What this would be is undefined. This would encourage the guild to help its Emperor and make the title less "selfish".
6. A "Guild Alliance" system. No single guild, well mabye no single guild, can be everywhere and there should be a way both for PvP and outside for guilds that choose to do so to work together. Thus adding more depth to gameplay.
7. If technically possible... an Alliance's AP would be pooled. This could be weighted so that big guilds couldn't merge and own the map thus allowing smaller guilds who normally would not be able to obtain the Emperor title a chance to do so. Else: Lowering the guid population cap would stop big guilds from existing thus solving the problem. The perfect limit is undefined but 100 seems fair. Granted PvEers might not like it but there can be ways around this if that is a problem; such as making guilds locked into a "PvP" or "PvE", or only allowing 100/500 guild member's score to count and the like.
Not only is this system epic... but the rewards will encourage players to do what they need to do to organize to make the PvP system work in the first place. I know that this proposal will take time but I look forward to it no matter. There many be some small issues remaining so please feel free to post on the matter.
Edited by TheGrandAlliance on 8 June 2014 23:50 The current system rewards players who AFK, ninja-loot, or otherwise join a raid and let them do all the killing. Getting rid of the 20 kill quest is a start but this problem remains. For example: The people leading the /zone channel action (the "true leaders") are forced into doing things simply as duty of leader that may not even give them many points. Things like capping resources, scouting, going between raids to lead battles... these are all things that drain time which in this game is a currency.
As a result the people in your raid group (or A raid group) that have more AP then you wouldn't have that if it wasn't for your efforts organizing the server to wipe the other side in the first place. As a result this rewards player AFKing/Ninja-ing and not leadership.
The current system also rewards suicide tactics such as intentionally losing in order to grief the server, pulling aggro to a seige in order to farm upon seige defense, "scroll trolling" an Elder Scroll without bringing it home, and other undesirable tactics. If the point of AP is to reward "leadership" (hense the Emperor Title), then the point system needs to be restructured in order to do that. Else, the good players have no reason to play, and thus everything falls apart. Granted this is a tall order but a few things can be done at least:
1. Points for kills that you do not engage in are way too generous. You only should be getting points for your own kills not for the entire raid group. I can just stand there for example in a keep and get a boatload of points for being a good spectator.
2. There appears to be no point bonus or a small one for capping objectives. The whole point of the game is to capture keeps and own the map and not to kill the other players. Thus if you are playing at a time when not many others are online to "farm them" you will fall behind the AP point system even if you own the entire map.
3. The capture quests have less AP reward then the 20 kill quest (at 1000). This is not logical... there should be a large point bonus for capture as it is far harder to do. Furthermore "scout" quests are usless at 250 points. It would be advised to simply just get rid of all quests because they are useless in the end and thus adjust the AP/EXP system accordingly.
4. Points are just way too generous in this game. There are points given away for everything combat-related. As a result if you are a new player you have no chance in the AP system if you dont play from the start every day. The total amount of points should be far fewer, rarer, harder to get in order to give them meaning. As a result cost for seige gear should be adjusted.
There is also the matter of whether a AP point system means anything. "Winning" is supposed to be about controlling the map not farming points: Leaders don't just "farm points" to lead they actually have to do something. The PvP in this game isn't a short term 15-min 10-40 player style gameplay: Points are not the objective.
In real world, or Tamriel even, a Emperor gains his power by taking over things. He does this by raising armies and having them conqure. If someone in this game can win the title by never saying a single word then what value does being Emperor reaaly have?
Thus I thought of an way to get around this. Guilds. At the end a guild structure is needed to win anyways so shifting the Emperor rating system from player to guild is the answer. How does this work?
1. Whatever guild "wins" in this system gets to choose their emperor (likely guild leader). Thus it becomes like a House. This makes guilds worth something and almost replicates the RP nature of Emperor title.
2. The way to figure "the winning guild" is to combine all the AP of the guild's members (as they earn it as a guild member not historically) and not just a single player. Thus single AFKers that are unguilded cannot exploit the system but yet the AP system doesn't have to be radically redesigned. Else another method could be acceptable. Because players can be in 5 guilds at once... an option to "Represent" a single time at a time will allow bonuses/AP points to be applied to/from only one guild at a time.
3. Once obtained, a emperor can be overthrown by his own faction if certain condition are met. For every Keep (the 6 used in ratings) that is lost as Emperor the guild in control LOSES points. When they fall below another guild they are deposed. In contrast, the longer any of the 6 keeps are held, the more points the Emperor's guild gets.
4. Place a cap on the amount of times an Emperor can change within the same faction per unit of time. Currently the number 1 ranked, if leaves the server, hands the control to number 2 ranked player. In order to prevent a rotation, a limit such as one per day, needs to be placed. If this were to be broken, the faction would loose Emperor power, and the situation reset for a period of time.
5. Give players in the "Emperor Guild" bonuses as well. What this would be is undefined. This would encourage the guild to help its Emperor and make the title less "selfish".
6. A "Guild Alliance" system. No single guild, well mabye no single guild, can be everywhere and there should be a way both for PvP and outside for guilds that choose to do so to work together. Thus adding more depth to gameplay.
7. If technically possible... an Alliance's AP would be pooled. This could be weighted so that big guilds couldn't merge and own the map thus allowing smaller guilds who normally would not be able to obtain the Emperor title a chance to do so. Else: Lowering the guid population cap would stop big guilds from existing thus solving the problem. The perfect limit is undefined but 100 seems fair. Granted PvEers might not like it but there can be ways around this if that is a problem; such as making guilds locked into a "PvP" or "PvE", or only allowing 100/500 guild member's score to count and the like.
Not only is this system epic... but the rewards will encourage players to do what they need to do to organize to make the PvP system work in the first place. I know that this proposal will take time but I look forward to it no matter. There many be some small issues remaining so please feel free to post on the matter.
Indeed it is so...
14
-
TheGrandAlliance✭✭✭✭Make sure to vote on whether you even care about the Emperor Title or not.
IN addition there are some ideas I found on the forums that should also be implemented:
1. @Karner Make scouting quests about holding a postion in time vs just random running there. Also, if the AI is smart enough, should be something important and not just far away somewhere.
2. @Karner Make Bounty quests target a single player not anyone. This player would be someone who caused problems by some definition.
3. @Smellyfed Limit range that AP are rewarded to limit effectiveness of AFKing.
4. @wOOOOt_of_SD This is complicated but as described on this thread basically add more daily quests that rotate and are complex.
5. @darthbelanb14_ESO Being dead shouldn't get you EXP/AP whatever.
6. Rework Combat AI of Guard NPCs. Most of the time they just stand around doing nothing, launch an opening attack, and then many seconds go by. This is a problem with PvE as well as PvP whereas Combat AI isn't always effective.
If there are any others I find I will add them as well.Edited by TheGrandAlliance on 13 April 2014 02:44Indeed it is so...2 -
Karner✭I believe that there -COULD- be some form of "Notoriety" system; while not being a rank it could be a count. Notoriety would be required to build guild reputation within the faction and the power they could obtain with it. While individual guilds can own keeps; I believe it is too versatile to have a guild own a keep for 15 minutes until it's taken or a guild have reign over.
The problem with this is that there is no easy way to define how guilds could gain notoriety. Either threw 1+ point for a guild member that assists in an objective take. 2+ for a guild member that assists with siege and a bonus of 20 points for every 10 members that assist with one objective at one time.
There are a lot of possibilities; I look forward to the implementations.I must not lose my resolve. I will march forward even if I have to do so... Alone.
-0 -
TheGrandAlliance✭✭✭✭@Karner Some good ideas. Forcing the Emperor title to obtain points from gulid member actions and not anyone would force players into guilds into "armies". It is complicated... but not as much as you might imagine.Indeed it is so...0
-
Kamosabe✭Good points. Definitly one of the intelligent threads here regarding PvP and the quest change.1 -
Karner✭@TheGrandAlliance That's just it, forcing politics within guilds (I say forcing lightly) would bring a lot more usage to the guild system as a whole; keeping it between EvE Online's Corporation and the standard MMORPG guild/clan system.
I have tonnes of ideas; probably too many.I must not lose my resolve. I will march forward even if I have to do so... Alone.
-2 -
TheGrandAlliance✭✭✭✭Good points. Definitly one of the intelligent threads here regarding PvP and the quest change.
Yea well it took me a DOOOMULOUS amount of brain power and lots of "beta testing" to come up with the details. It make sense fast though once you think about it. After all Emperor's should have their armies.
In fact this gave me a new idea just as I was typing this: Guild members of a Emperpor Faction should also get some bonus. Therefore everyone who helps the Emperor also shares in the rewards and it isnt' so "selfish" Title after all.
@Kamosabe thanks for the idea:)
Indeed it is so...0 -
Karner✭
I definitely wouldn't complain!TheGrandAlliance wrote: »Keep posting... me and you buddy: We will singlehandedly fix this game. Perhaps they (ZenIMax) will let us play for free?
I must not lose my resolve. I will march forward even if I have to do so... Alone.
-0 -
yea well either way they need to do something and quite quickly because a lot of ppl are waiting and watching this latest.0 -
Azarul✭✭✭✭I think there is problems with the current Emperor system, however I dont think forcing everyone into guilds in order to compete is the answer. That would just cause alot of guild hopping. Also with the 5 guild system do you contribute to all 5 guilds your in?
I think you would end up with Guild vs Guild Vs other 2 Alliances.
Alot of rage would come from this from solo players.Edited by Azarul on 3 April 2014 14:410 -
TheGrandAlliance✭✭✭✭@Azarul
The idea of GvG is intentional... the idea of single player is an issue in theory yes, but what does it mean to be Emperor if you are an Army of One?
In term of the 5 guild system: Your point is valid here. To resolve this issue all would need to be done is to select a guild to "represent" whereas all bonuses/AP apply. Guild Wars 2 does this wereas u can only be in one of your 5 guilds at once effectively so it can be done in theory.
Thus points only go to the guild you have selected. I will edit the top post above to reflect this sitation thank you for ur help.
Edited by TheGrandAlliance on 3 April 2014 18:16Indeed it is so...0 -
Karner✭TheGrandAlliance wrote: »@Azarul The idea of GvG is intentional... the idea of single player is an issue in theory yes, but what does it mean to be Emperor if you are an Army of One?
In term of the 5 guild system: Your point is valid here. To resolve this issue all would need to be done is to select a guild to "represent" whereas all bonuses/AP apply. Guild Wars 2 does this wereas u can only be in one of your 5 guilds at once effectively so it can be done in theory.
Thus points only go to the guild you have selected. I will edit the top post above to reflect this sitation thank you for ur help.
Precisely what I was thinking. There is a difference between GvG being in combat than GvG in competition. It's just regular politics.I must not lose my resolve. I will march forward even if I have to do so... Alone.
-1 -
and the person who's not in a guild but is very active they are just screwed ? The games young... The PVP is outstanding.... The Emperor shouldnt become a popularity reward.... Its about the people who earned the title by their work.... Emperor Roxorboxor for example isn't an afk person he runs around like a maniac out there.... so not everyone manipulating the system for gain....Edited by RoyalPain on 3 April 2014 18:490
-
TheGrandAlliance✭✭✭✭@RoyalPain
The solution would be for them to form their own guild and build an army. Big Guilds can only stay "big" if there isn't a bunch of guids that are competitive. There are many Keeps on the map at guilds can only own 1 at a time. Thus opens up the ability to have at least 1 guild per keep in the competition.
To be fair though @RoyalPain remember: The "buid guilds" already control the PvP anways on top servers... it is just it's nature. It is highly unlikely a single player, other then via exploitation, would be able to able to do anything, anyways. They are "already screwed".Edited by TheGrandAlliance on 3 April 2014 18:55Indeed it is so...0 -
TheGrandAlliance✭✭✭✭The Emperor shouldnt become a popularity reward.... Its about the people who earned the title by their work.... Emperor Roxorboxor for example isn't an afk person he runs around like a maniac out there.... so not everyone manipulating the system for gain....
IT is possible that some servers are different then others... but I can assure you that on my server Dawnbreaker [EU] that is the case.
Indeed it is so...0 -
I run around on the one full server been PVPing since level 10 I have no idea who any of the guilds are.... to me its not an issue Solo grouped whatever its PVP... If you can get kills you can get points if you can get the most points you become Emperor.... Seems fair... If they reset the points at release that would be outstanding and we go from there.... That would eliminate the idea of such and such got there because a bugged quest...
Other Than that pvp is great full zones of lag free for the most part PVP a bit zergy at times but you'll have that in RVR regardless of what game you play...
you can't tell me that guilds dont want control of the Emperor because of the tools that having an emperor offers... Earn it.... Im not guild bashing at all they are fundamental in MMO's...
Just earn it... Thats all.....Edited by RoyalPain on 3 April 2014 19:100 -
TheGrandAlliance✭✭✭✭If you can get kills you can get points if you can get the most points you become Emperor.... Seems fair...
Yes, but to win that means you have to have no-life. 12+ hour days of non-stop PvP action over 90 day campagins. Do we really want the Emperor title to be simply the player who logs the most hours?
Indeed it is so...0 -
90 days is too long... But yeah if the guy put in the time legitimately got the kills yes.... I dont think there should be a cooldown for the title either BUT... I also think there should bonuses for leading a raid... Along with AP rewards for the guilds holding keeps based on the ammount of AP earned during defense.... even a .0001 percent AP bonus would add up distribute that to the guild members.... but yeah limiting this RVR PVP reward to members of LARGE guilds would be a bad idea....0
-
TheGrandAlliance✭✭✭✭90 days is too long... But yeah if the guy put in the time legitimately got the kills yes....
The idea behind my proposal is that players going for Emperor wouldn't have to log all the time. In fact they wouldn't have to play as much as they do now.
At first this doesn't seem fair but remember being in a guild is a CHOICE. If the guild members thinks that GL is slacking they will bail the guild and the GL will never be able to win. Thus the system is balanced.I also think there should bonuses for leading a raid... Along with AP rewards for the guilds holding keeps based on the ammount of AP earned during defense.... even a .0001 percent AP bonus would add up distribute that to the guild members.... but yeah limiting this RVR PVP reward to members of LARGE guilds would be a bad idea....
To have a guild-based AP system you would have to have players be only assigned to one guild. This isn't likely possible unless the entire system is changed to favor guilds. Else you run into problems: Do players only get points if they are online? Which guilds (if more then one) do they get points for? SO on so forth.
Furthermore, although the definintion of "large" is relative, members would likely split up the big guilds if they had a reward for doing so. Making the game guild-based gives everyone the hope to "start their own guild and conqure" vs current system. Right now... players don't get anything for being in a big guild PvP wise other then the right to participate (maybe).
As I posted in my OP... to allow smaller guilds to compete against big guilds a "guild alliance" system would be imposed. Thus, although if used for AP would be complex, would allow guilds to pool their AP together in some fashion. The eventual Emperor would be decided between the alliance through some fashion.
Thus small guilds working together can compete against 1 big guild. Now if multiple "big guids" did this there could be a problem... although one way to solve it is to simply weight the AP pool based upon guild sizes. Bigger guild's total pool would be smaller then a pool of smaller guilds.
Indeed it is so...0 -
but that doesn't work tried it in many other MMOs and SB was a nightmare because of it, the only way to make it fair is cap the size of guilds/alliance to a set number.1
-
TheGrandAlliance✭✭✭✭illipthgore wrote: »but that doesn't work tried it in many other MMOs and SB was a nightmare because of it, the only way to make it fair is cap the size of guilds/alliance to a set number.
LOL! Didn't think about that. However some PvEers might not like the guild cap but doing that at lets say 100 players would solve the problem.
However I would still like to see a Guild Alliance mechanic for PvE reasons as well just as a matter of course.Indeed it is so...0 -
why not create a new NPC PVP type guild in cyrodiil were the GL starts a guild at a NPC at main base but it only functions in cyrodiil.
That way only cyrodiil type stuff is involved once you exit its greayed out till you come back, 1 new guild per campaign ect, just off the top of my head ofc.Edited by illipthgore on 3 April 2014 19:532 -
Karner✭
I like thisillipthgore wrote: »why not create a new NPC PVP type guild in cyrodiil were the GL starts a guild at a NPC at main base but it only functions in cyrodiil.
That wat only cyrodiil type stuff is involved once you exit its greayed out till you come back, 1 new guild per campaign ect, just off the top of my head ofc.I must not lose my resolve. I will march forward even if I have to do so... Alone.
-0 -
TheGrandAlliance✭✭✭✭illipthgore wrote: »why not create a new NPC PVP type guild in cyrodiil were the GL starts a guild at a NPC at main base but it only functions in cyrodiil.
Indeed... this is a good idea. Would also give PvE interaction with the guild system too adding to game depth.
Only problem with this is whether this is technically possible to program this or not IDK...Edited by TheGrandAlliance on 3 April 2014 19:56Indeed it is so...0 -
This is Full Scale 3 Way RVR Realm VS Realm.... Not VGV Guild VS Guild.... Have Fun will see you out there... make it guild vs guild it will discourage people from participating..... As you've seen in past titles.....0
-
TheGrandAlliance✭✭✭✭This is Full Scale 3 Way RVR Realm VS Realm.... Not VGV Guild VS Guild.... make it guild vs guild it will discourage people from participating..... As you've seen in past titles.....
It can be both but it requires players to be smart and not too egotistical. GUilds have to work together to wipe the other faction BUT they also have friendly competition against each other.
And think about this: You could get the other factions to help you out to take out your rivials if you were so inclined. The game DOES technically allow cross-faction conversation so this is possible.
Indeed it is so...0 -
hey I was just responding to his thoughts and how his idea is in general, im not even guilded lol im solo and could care less about emperor.
unfortunately due to the knee jerk fix to the bounty question it seems my guild is holding off coming to see how that pans out, im kinda pissed about but I can understand their reasons not wanting to get invested in yet another BIG IP title that goes *** up.0 -
Leaders will lead but the problem is everyones a leader right now... Nobody knows who can really lead and who pretends, this will be learned in the next few months.
Right Now its Cat Herding on a Giant scale. This will change in a month or two naturally by people recognizing who the real leaders are and who's pretend, thats when its going to get interesting.
Just dont forget that if you can get the cats herded you have something because theres a heck of allot more cats out there than there are owners.0 -
TheGrandAlliance✭✭✭✭@illipthgore
Yea I play on a small(er) server that is (relative) balanced so IDK about how the top servers feel about the game. I do know that the 2 players ranked above me on my faction did use this zerg tatic of the quests and now they are unreachable (40K above) as long as they continue to play.Edited by TheGrandAlliance on 3 April 2014 20:16Indeed it is so...0