Making the Emperor more meaningful and relevant to AvA

Imperator_Clydus · June 2014

Greetings and salutations members of the Elder Scrolls Online community,

As I imagine many of you have likely seen, there are a few noticeable issues with the emperorship as it currently stands. The number one player at the top of the leaderboard has the ability to maintain and hoard the emperorship, largely because the emperor passives make it more efficient and easier to farm AP. The other glaring issue is how the emperorship, itself, functions. The passives give the individual player major boosts to regeneration, ultimate gains, stat increases, siege damage, etc.

I'll explain what's wrong with only one player being able to have access to the emperorship. First, I'll give a lore justification. The Interregnum is a time of great instability. While this time period progresses, many emperors are being crowned and deposed on a relative frequent basis. It does not make sense in the slightest that the same player can be deposed and crowned again infinitely. Being deposed in real life generally means you are dead.

Here is the issue from a game play perspective. People having a shot at the emperorship keeps AvA competitive and players coming back. If one player has a permanent hold on the emperorship, it causes players to lose interest in the game, transfer campaigns, or quit entirely. I have witnessed dozens of players, if not more, leave just because they felt the emperor was being "selfish" and not accommodating the alliance.

I don't personally blame the player in the slightest. The game allows him/her to do this, so why wouldn't they? The issue is poor game design on ZOS' part. My solution to fix one player hoarding emperorship is to implement a term limit. This limit would last the duration of the campaign until reset, so whether you get one or two terms, after that you cannot be emperor for the duration of the campaign. This would provide a lot more flexibility in the system, promote competition, and wouldn't lead to the emperors hoarding or trading that is rampant in the game currently with guilds who get it. This also makes the emperor care about maintaining the map and not being apathetic and expecting to be emperor all the time.

Once the player has reached their term limit with the emperorship, they would be placed on a former emperor leaderboard to keep the emperor leaderboard organized and consistent. This would allow the top ten players on the emperor a shot at actually being emperor, as well as still maintaining the exclusivity of emperor and competitiveness. Now lets talk about how to resolve the issues with how the emperor functions.

The emperor, in theory, is meant to be the leader of his/her alliance. The problem with how the emperor works in this game is the actual passives do not accommodate what an emperor should do. The 250 health boost is nice, but the emperor should be more built directly to help the alliance. The passives only give the player individual boosts, making him/her tougher to kill. What I believe the emperorship passives should do instead is provide support via group buffs and rally calls.

Having an emperor should inspire the troops, boost morale, and make everyone in that area more efficient. Obviously, these group buffs wouldn't make everyone as powerful as the current emperor passives do, but certainly make them a force to be reckoned with. The major issue with emperor as it stands is many are after the passives one gains from holding the title. Remove the individual passives, make emperor a support/group buffer, and min/maxers and the rest wouldn't try to figure out ways of abusing and exploiting the system for all of their buddies.

These solutions would make those who become emperor more alert and attentive. They would fight harder to maintain the emperorship, as they know their time with it would be limited. This would provide others at the top with a chance to be emperor, and give more competition and flexibility on the leaderboard. The emperorship would also be more useful for AvA rather than just one individual player, as their passives would provide benefits to groups and not just one person.

Feel free to leave your comments below as I have discussed this with many players in AvA and they agree that the emperorship should have term limits and that they should be leaders of their alliance rather than just one over-powered player. Do you have other suggestions to make emperors more meaningful and relevant? Do you disagree? All feedback is welcome.

Regards,

Imperator Clydus

Oblongship · June 2014

Can you make this post into a book on tape? It seems like a interesting subject I could listen to on my way home from work.

Joking aside, the Emperor system is by far one of the biggest let downs...if someone went "DUDE YOU WANNA BE EMP" my response is merely "meh" cause it just isn't exciting. Not in this crap hole pvp.

nukeyoo · June 2014

The current system definitely needs some attention and these are some great ideas. I don't think there should be anything besides a title for the former emperors. The current passives or the suggested passives just create more needless imbalance in an already largely imbalanced system.

The selection definitely needs some reworking. If not cool down or selection from a pool of top players then at least require the person to be online and in cyrodiil on their home campaign when the final keep is captured. Eliminate emperor/home campaign buffs when guesting also.

Imperator_Clydus · June 2014

Oblongship wrote: »

Can you make this post into a book on tape? It seems like a interesting subject I could listen to on my way home from work.

Joking aside, the Emperor system is by far one of the biggest let downs...if someone went "DUDE YOU WANNA BE EMP" my response is merely "meh" cause it just isn't exciting. Not in this crap hole pvp.

There is a lot of room for improvement, which is exactly why I created this thread. As it currently stands, the emperorship is largely worthless and really is not a benefit to the actual alliance in most cases.

Imperator_Clydus · June 2014

nukeyoo wrote: »

The current system definitely needs some attention and these are some great ideas. I don't think there should be anything besides a title for the former emperors. The current passives or the suggested passives just create more needless imbalance in an already largely imbalanced system.

The selection definitely needs some reworking. If not cool down or selection from a pool of top players then at least require the person to be online and in cyrodiil on their home campaign when the final keep is captured. Eliminate emperor/home campaign buffs when guesting also.

Agreed. Players can retain the former emperor title, but the permanent reduced passives should be removed entirely. It's not an issue if one individual player has it. However, when entire guilds are farming the emperorship for all of their buddies, it leads to major balancing issues in the long run.

I agree entirely with your guesting suggestion. If you are currently emperor of a dead campaign and decide to guest, you should not retain your emperor passives. As it currently stands, you only lose access to one of the passives as you have to be on your home campaign. That should be changed.

Imperator_Clydus · June 2014

No one else has anything to add to the discussion? Whether you are for reform or not, I'm sure many have an opinion on the matter of emperorship and how it should function. Please, post your comments below as the forums are a great avenue to get discussion going. If we are fortunate, ZOS may even consider some of our more reasonable ideas as potential new features.

Mendoze · June 2014

Nice ideas, I especially like the idea that emperor bonuses should be buffs for his/her raid rather than make emperor a solo killing machine. Good siege weapon bonuses and maybe small weapon/spell power bonuses ( lets call it inspiration from being lead by an emperor ) to group members sound about right to me. Other than that it should just be a title.

As for what comes to hoarding the title, hopefully shorter campaigns will fix that ( if ZOS decides to implement those ). Also I agree that former emperors should not be able to become emperor again before campaign resets. Maybe we could even have a zone wide voting where winning alliance players in Cyrodiil could choose between top 10 online players ( not including former emperors ). Then who gets the most votes would become the new emperor. Yes yes, I know this is not a democracy, but still

Mephos · June 2014

deleted

galiumb16_ESO · June 2014

I agree with the idea of making the emperor buffs more group based instead of individual based for the reasons you describe.

I am not sure the term limit idea will work that well with them shifting to just one 30 day campaign, the rest being 5-7 days (assuming this doesnt change). Probably work for the 30 day one, but not so well for the short campaigns.

I am still of the opinion that the former emperor skill tree should be renamed and just be given a different form of currency to earn. Keep takes/defenses, an achievement list like the undaunted but AvA based, online when emperor is crowned, etc.

Emperor imo should be a title and skills to help your alliance fight the objective war, that's it.

frwinters_ESO · June 2014

I have said this before on other threads about the Emperor ship so Im going to say it here.

I feel something like this punishes someone for becoming emperor. If they are the best PvP'er on the campaign and remain at the top through changes in Emperor ship, why penalize them?

Not everyone deserves a shot if they cant put in the time or cant play well enough to get your points.

If I became emperor, then lost it because another faction took over, then now I have no aspirations to attain it again, I wouldn't play. Would you want to lose the best PVP'er in your alliance for the duration of the campaign? I am sure others who have attained Emperorship may agree.

What I would suggest is to make it harder to be the Emperor. Originally, it was said that not only does your alliance have to take the inner keeps, but then you had to go into the imperial city and physically take the throne. If you could not do this, you don't get the crown. I know they have plans to implement the Imperial City so I am hoping this mechanic idea comes back. Then this will make it more meaningful to take the seat and wear the crown.

Nitratas · June 2014

The only thing i agree with is the acquiring the emperor title. For me it seems unfair that only the Nr1 guy gets it whenever hes online, offline, just farming somewhere on the different side of the map or else.

Emperor should be granted to the high ranked player who actually participates in capturing the last or, lets say, 2 or 3 last keeps for the 6 required. Now it seems that current emperors guaranteed their way there by exploiting vampire ultimate and earning craploads of AP back in the day. Theres no way other players to catch up to their points

demonlkojipub19_ESO · June 2014

I guess thats the reason my alliance really doesn't go for emperor on my campaign. People don't want to get some other person emperorship, they want to be emperor themselves and the leaderboard system works against that.

I'm think a 5 day system of selecting the person who was most helpful in cyrodil during those days based on a point system. Being a scroll carrier and captor being the highest, Capturing and defending enemy home keeps giving the 2nd most points towards it, Aiding in capturing a scroll the 3nd most (counted by killing enemy players within 150 meters of scroll, or whatever measures out best), capturing misc keeps (central keeps becoming misc keeps) the 4rd, and killing random enemy players the lowest.

Perhaps even some even more minor factors like Damage dealt to enemy keeps and siege equipment, Repairs done to keeps and siege equipment, Foraward camps placed, forward camps destroyed, burning forward camps and siege equipment stopped, damage dealt to players, healing that is not overhealing done, damage taken, times killed, players revived, quests completed (yes helping NPC peoples across cyrodil should increase chances of emperorship), etc.

It should start on Wednesday and end on sunday, with monday and tuesday cooldowns. Pretty much.... resetting the whole scoreboard every 5 days with a different way of being crowned emperor, but not being tied to the campaign duration for overall reward. That is probably what they are aiming at with their upcoming 5-day campaigns, but I think that is too short for overall campaign reward.

Sunday would decide who is crowned emperor and they stay that way until next sundays decision. Or the whole process could be more days. I don't really know how many points are gained for what. What currently gives points and for however much might be good enough, but the whole capture the center keeps and get emperor for whoever is highest on the scoreboard is just too exploitable and shuts out a crap ton of people from ever seeing emperor for the duration of the campaign, except in the upcoming 5 and 7-day campaigns maybe.

Imperator_Clydus · June 2014

frwinters_ESO wrote: »

I have said this before on other threads about the Emperor ship so Im going to say it here.

I feel something like this punishes someone for becoming emperor. If they are the best PvP'er on the campaign and remain at the top through changes in Emperor ship, why penalize them?

Not everyone deserves a shot if they cant put in the time or cant play well enough to get your points.

If I became emperor, then lost it because another faction took over, then now I have no aspirations to attain it again, I wouldn't play. Would you want to lose the best PVP'er in your alliance for the duration of the campaign? I am sure others who have attained Emperorship may agree.

What I would suggest is to make it harder to be the Emperor. Originally, it was said that not only does your alliance have to take the inner keeps, but then you had to go into the imperial city and physically take the throne. If you could not do this, you don't get the crown. I know they have plans to implement the Imperial City so I am hoping this mechanic idea comes back. Then this will make it more meaningful to take the seat and wear the crown.

This isn't punishing anyone in the slightest. It's making a system that is not working as intended, work as intended.

First and foremost, most of the players who have been crowned emperor aren't the "best PvPer" on their campaign. Those who are getting to the top generally are building farm groups to accumulate as much AP as possible at the expense of their alliance and AvA. These players, in my opinion, shouldn't have any chance of becoming emperor at all.

The other issue is since all these players do is grind AP, they will continue to do so when they are emperor. I don't know if you know this, but it's incredibly easy and accumulate AP as an emperor and no one will catch you. It's not because you are the "best PvPer." It's purely because the emperor passives make you extremely powerful and you can just kill more efficiently. This is how hoarding begins.

Another issue, is if all these emperors ever do is farm AP and never help their alliance, they are absolutely worthless for AvA. The only thing you can depend these players to do is defend the imperial keeps to maintain their emperorship, even if that means losing all of your home keeps and elder scrolls, which ultimately are much more important.

Suffice it to say, the emperorship is currently leading to bad behavior that contradicts the core principles of AvA. Most of the players who are being crowned do not deserve it and rarely are liked in their own alliance, for good reason. It has nothing to do with jealous. It has to do with the fact they are literally a detriment and aren't contributing to AvA in any way.

You make an interesting case with crowning an emperor after taking the Imperial City, which should be difficult. Again, as I listed above, there are an alarming amount of issues with how the system works and who is generally crowned. My ideas don't make emperor easier to get, but rather limits those who have it if they are deposed, and gives more folks at the top of the leaderboard, those who may have played correctly, a chance at being crowned.

Imperator_Clydus · June 2014

Nitratas wrote: »

The only thing i agree with is the acquiring the emperor title. For me it seems unfair that only the Nr1 guy gets it whenever hes online, offline, just farming somewhere on the different side of the map or else.

Emperor should be granted to the high ranked player who actually participates in capturing the last or, lets say, 2 or 3 last keeps for the 6 required. Now it seems that current emperors guaranteed their way there by exploiting vampire ultimate and earning craploads of AP back in the day. Theres no way other players to catch up to their points

Exactly. The people at the top of the leaderboard rarely are actually participating in AvA. They exploited or farmed to get to where they are, and this kind of behavior should be discouraged.

Imperator_Clydus · June 2014

demonlkojipub19_ESO wrote: »

I guess thats the reason my alliance really doesn't go for emperor on my campaign. People don't want to get some other person emperorship, they want to be emperor themselves and the leaderboard system works against that.

I'm think a 5 day system of selecting the person who was most helpful in cyrodil during those days based on a point system. Being a scroll carrier and captor being the highest, Capturing and defending enemy home keeps giving the 2nd most points towards it, Aiding in capturing a scroll the 3nd most (counted by killing enemy players within 150 meters of scroll, or whatever measures out best), capturing misc keeps (central keeps becoming misc keeps) the 4rd, and killing random enemy players the lowest.

Perhaps even some even more minor factors like Damage dealt to enemy keeps and siege equipment, Repairs done to keeps and siege equipment, Foraward camps placed, forward camps destroyed, burning forward camps and siege equipment stopped, damage dealt to players, healing that is not overhealing done, damage taken, times killed, players revived, quests completed (yes helping NPC peoples across cyrodil should increase chances of emperorship), etc.

It should start on Wednesday and end on sunday, with monday and tuesday cooldowns. Pretty much.... resetting the whole scoreboard every 5 days with a different way of being crowned emperor, but not being tied to the campaign duration for overall reward. That is probably what they are aiming at with their upcoming 5-day campaigns, but I think that is too short for overall campaign reward.

Sunday would decide who is crowned emperor and they stay that way until next sundays decision. Or the whole process could be more days. I don't really know how many points are gained for what. What currently gives points and for however much might be good enough, but the whole capture the center keeps and get emperor for whoever is highest on the scoreboard is just too exploitable and shuts out a crap ton of people from ever seeing emperor for the duration of the campaign, except in the upcoming 5 and 7-day campaigns maybe.

I agree that AP gains currently are easily exploitable and players should be rewarded more for objectives rather than mindless killing and farming.

My fear with the five and seven day campaigns is we'll see a situation where everybody is farming the emperorship. I don't expect to have quality AvA on any of those campaigns at all. 90 days was perhaps too long, but five and seven seem way too short. I think many wanting a quality AvA experience will go to the 30 day campaign.

Imperator_Clydus · June 2014

I would just like to state that this thread was created before the announcement of these potential new campaigns, and their short durations would largely fix the issue of hoarding the emperorship.

My only concern is that they are largely too short, and many would focus only on the emperorship and not actual AvA, which should be the focus. I know I personally will go to the 30 day campaign at this point, as I believe it will be the only campaign with quality AvA.

Still, I believe the emperor should be more of a support role as a leader rather than an over-powered player and I believe there should be more flexibility at the top so we don't have situations of trading emperorship amongst guildies or someone hoarding it for themselves. I'm not sure five and seven days are the solution for that.

Braidas · June 2014

I definitely agree w/ your points op. The emperor shouldn't be particularly more powerful than anyone else, but should buff those around him (there are passives, but a rally ability for players like you suggested would be better than buffing just the emp). I really like the idea of a term limit too, definitely makes your ranking more worthwhile, and the emp more inclined to make sure he doesn't lose his title. As of now, if you're not 1st, you may as well be last. To add to your ideas, I think there should be a time limit on inactive emperors. The emperor for DC on my sever hasn't really played for at least a couple weeks, but is still far ahead of anyone else on the leaderboard. Kind of sucks. Since anyone can just login w/o really playing just to keep emp, I'd suggest making the emp get a certain amount of AP a week or so to keep his title. At least something like that.

Braidas · June 2014

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

frwinters_ESO wrote: »

I have said this before on other threads about the Emperor ship so Im going to say it here.

I feel something like this punishes someone for becoming emperor. If they are the best PvP'er on the campaign and remain at the top through changes in Emperor ship, why penalize them?

Not everyone deserves a shot if they cant put in the time or cant play well enough to get your points.

If I became emperor, then lost it because another faction took over, then now I have no aspirations to attain it again, I wouldn't play. Would you want to lose the best PVP'er in your alliance for the duration of the campaign? I am sure others who have attained Emperorship may agree.

What I would suggest is to make it harder to be the Emperor. Originally, it was said that not only does your alliance have to take the inner keeps, but then you had to go into the imperial city and physically take the throne. If you could not do this, you don't get the crown. I know they have plans to implement the Imperial City so I am hoping this mechanic idea comes back. Then this will make it more meaningful to take the seat and wear the crown.

This isn't punishing anyone in the slightest. It's making a system that is not working as intended, work as intended.

First and foremost, most of the players who have been crowned emperor aren't the "best PvPer" on their campaign. Those who are getting to the top generally are building farm groups to accumulate as much AP as possible at the expense of their alliance and AvA. These players, in my opinion, shouldn't have any chance of becoming emperor at all.

The other issue is since all these players do is grind AP, they will continue to do so when they are emperor. I don't know if you know this, but it's incredibly easy and accumulate AP as an emperor and no one will catch you. It's not because you are the "best PvPer." It's purely because the emperor passives make you extremely powerful and you can just kill more efficiently. This is how hoarding begins.

Another issue, is if all these emperors ever do is farm AP and never help their alliance, they are absolutely worthless for AvA. The only thing you can depend these players to do is defend the imperial keeps to maintain their emperorship, even if that means losing all of your home keeps and elder scrolls, which ultimately are much more important.

Suffice it to say, the emperorship is currently leading to bad behavior that contradicts the core principles of AvA. Most of the players who are being crowned do not deserve it and rarely are liked in their own alliance, for good reason. It has nothing to do with jealous. It has to do with the fact they are literally a detriment and aren't contributing to AvA in any way.

You make an interesting case with crowning an emperor after taking the Imperial City, which should be difficult. Again, as I listed above, there are an alarming amount of issues with how the system works and who is generally crowned. My ideas don't make emperor easier to get, but rather limits those who have it if they are deposed, and gives more folks at the top of the leaderboard, those who may have played correctly, a chance at being crowned.

After reading his post I was going to respond in a similar way, thank you for doing it for me.

Rojnaar · June 2014

Devs, there are some good ideas here.

Tintinabula · June 2014

Im concerned with the Emperor system..maybe justified maybe not..but I watch Emperors..mostly because I wonder how theyre getting so much AP....while afk...standing near the fight...hidden...rushing "to" the fight..to stand still on the stairs.

Don't get me wrong, I see them fighting..I see them killing stuff...but exactly what is the passive that allows them to get so much AP?..and do they simply need to be near a fight to soak it up?...while giving no AOE buffs at all?

Kaytlin · June 2014

The way the game is currently designed the emperor is not the "best PvP player on the server" they are simply someone who can dedicate the majority of their life to playing ESO. People with jobs, and family cannot dedicate the time to accrue the necessary AvA points to ever become emperor.
If you want the emperor to be the "best" then the system needs to be redesigned to account for their leadership skills, and their individual combat skills. The current system does not do this, nor could we expect it to do so in the near future.
I have posted a suggestion elsewhere from my guild leader. His idea is that former emperors should have recognition for their efforts. A pretty uniform and funny hat should be all that they possess once they are deposed as emperor. The current Emperor should only have buffs, whether for him/herself or for their troops when they are actually leading others. Individual emperors running around alone or with only a few players, should have little or no bonus, only their pretty uniform and funny hat.

Imperator_Clydus · June 2014

Kaytlin wrote: »

The way the game is currently designed the emperor is not the "best PvP player on the server" they are simply someone who can dedicate the majority of their life to playing ESO. People with jobs, and family cannot dedicate the time to accrue the necessary AvA points to ever become emperor.
If you want the emperor to be the "best" then the system needs to be redesigned to account for their leadership skills, and their individual combat skills. The current system does not do this, nor could we expect it to do so in the near future.
I have posted a suggestion elsewhere from my guild leader. His idea is that former emperors should have recognition for their efforts. A pretty uniform and funny hat should be all that they possess once they are deposed as emperor. The current Emperor should only have buffs, whether for him/herself or for their troops when they are actually leading others. Individual emperors running around alone or with only a few players, should have little or no bonus, only their pretty uniform and funny hat.

It's not even necessarily the players with the most free time. In fact, at least on my campaign, nothing happens most of the day until it's prime time when people are home from work. The ones accumulating AP are those who farm incredible amounts of it when they do play, hijacking elder scrolls or farming zergs at a choke point or outpost. These players intentionally neglect the point of AvA to farm AP and move up the leaderboard.

I do agree that the system should be represent actual contribution to AvA and emperors should be players who exhibit leadership qualities as well as those who support and encourage their alliance. The current system does not do that in the slightest so the emperorship as a result is very meaningless and only trolls and farmers ever really have a shot at the title.

Lowbei · June 2014

give emperors the ability to create alliance pvp quests, like "take X keep" for example, allowing them to feel more in control and giving players a way to actively work for the emperor. also emperor zone txt color should be different.

the.dzeneralb16_ESO · June 2014

I like the suggestion, especially making emperor a group buff sort of deal. I would also suggest that emperor should be changed from gaining most AP points (because realistically you don't even need to PvP to get emperor), to making it based off player kills/Presence at defending keeps/presence at capturing keeps/ etc...

This forces anyone wanting to be emperor to actually PvP.

Lowbei wrote: »

give emperors the ability to create alliance pvp quests, like "take X keep" for example, allowing them to feel more in control and giving players a way to actively work for the emperor. also emperor zone txt color should be different.

Also +1, the give quest idea sounds really good actually.

Make them have a like a gold color or something

edit: It'd be cool if it was like the 'share' option and it pops up like : <player name>, the emperor, has decided to give a reward for doing x, do you wish to accept

Cody · June 2014

i like this idea. If something like this gets implemented, maybe the title would actually mean something.

Lowbei · June 2014

all of these things i recommended during early beta

the forums are ignored.

Imperator_Clydus · June 2014

ZOS could learn a lot about how the emperor should function from DICE and how their commander mode works in Battlefield 2 and 4. It is a system built on providing intelligence, support, and organization to your forces.

The emperor, as I have stated before, should be much more of a support and leadership role. One individual should not reap the benefits of the emperorship. The emperor should be a leader who uses the system to further improve and refine his/her alliance in the Alliance War.