Galalin wrote: »

Phaedrus wrote: »

WarrioroftheWind_ESO wrote: »

I am probably one of the more vocal opponents to the practice of Emperor Farming/Trading, where factions collude to distribute passives associated with former emperor among as many people of a guild or group as possible. The means this is carried out often involves guilds purposely withdrawing from combat, leaving keeps undefended so that they may be taken quicker. This results in the emperor title changing hands very frequently and is facilitated through behaviors such as high-density AP farming, ensuring a small clique has more points than they reasonably should have to ensure they and only they will receive the title.

I witnessed some of the more horrid examples of emperor farming with two 'elite' EP guilds on Volendrung season 1 and 2, and in the past few months I've seen it persist albeit in a more subdued fashion. Most of the time recent emps will fight to hold their position as long as able, only losing the title via pvdooring or sheer numbers. Personally it's better for a emp to reign 1-2 days than 30 mins to 1hr, esp when that faction has greater numbers/skill to enforce.

However lately I've seen behaviors from a guild where they will not commit to defense as ardently as others. I've spotted them either attacking worthless objectives or flat out sitting in a keep while associated ring keeps are under attack. To put it in perspective it's rather discouraging when the defending faction is at 2 bars versus 1-2 bars of the enemy faction, and we lose because 1 of our 2 bars is sitting lollygagging in a keep. One member of this guild even said in zone chat:
"Lol, you can stop defending now." in regards to resistance fielded by people seeking honest, competitive pvp.

I firmly believe PVP should involve competition in its truest form, not princess share-and-sharealike teaparty time. This has been going on since the game launched, and this has to stop if PVP is ever going to achieve a semblance of competition. The passives and title should define a player who is of the highest caliber and commitment, not everyone and their literal mom just because they 'want it really bad" or 'need it for trials".

The nature of shorter campaigns means the top tier of players is always in flux. A player that is in the top ten one week might get burnt out or just unable to commit to as much time and drop from rankings entirely.

But seeing players grind up ridiculous amounts of points then drop server after being deposed is absurd and insulting to the idea of competition. Like I've said before it'd be like having the top-winning NFL teams drop out of playoffs to 'give other teams a chance". Those other teams should have to work their butts off and prove themselves to make it to playoffs, let alone the Superbowl, not be awarded the special star sticker so they don't feel like losers.

I would like to assume there will be changes made to the Emperor mechanics packaged with Imperial City, and what remains to be seen, but I would like to know IS this being looked at promptly and WILL it be given the Barney Fife treatment to prevent this from happening in the future. Some of the most consistently good players I've known to have had/held emp have been utter jerks, but they've stayed at the top because they know their game and are on top of their game. Those are the players Emp should be aimed towards, not a bunch of sorry socks who don't even use proper breach tactics.

If you really are so adamant about them becoming emp and then leaving the campaign why can't you simply out-gain them in the ranks, become emperor yourself? Are they doing anything that any other player can't do? They gain AP in the same way as anyone else in the campaign, kill enemies, defend keeps, take keeps...etc.

If you really don't want the hated action to take place then take your own action to prevent it.

If only that we true.... you think they got a GM warning for fair play?

Last I checked there is a gulf in excess of 100k points or more between members of the offending guild on Haderus and one of the more prominent long-term players. Thats very suspect considering that most of the time during sieges I rarely see these guild members participate if ever.

If you really are so adamant about them becoming emp and then leaving the campaign why can't you simply out-gain them in the ranks, become emperor yourself? Are they doing anything that any other player can't do? They gain AP in the same way as anyone else in the campaign, kill enemies, defend keeps, take keeps...etc.

If you really don't want the hated action to take place then take your own action to prevent it.[/quote]

Uh, no they don't gain AP in the same way. Their preferred method is to farm the AD/DC at Nikel. They get AP for kills and defense ticks. Last week one of these "players" got incredibly irate at us when we took Nikel and of course stood on the flag. He didn't want us to flip the outpost because he wanted "to farm them". This guild [snip] is going to have to answer sooner or later for their actions and it needs to be sooner so that other players see that are rules and there are consequences for one's actions.

[Moderator Note: Edited per our rules on Naming & Shaming]

ArcanusMagus wrote: »

If it were simply a matter of ap farming, it wouldn't be a big deal. Even leaving the campaign after being deposed isn't a big deal and is really just the choice of the one who got emperor. I don't like it, but I didn't put in the time that cycle to have the choice to make. The very real problem that the farmers cause is the damage done to their faction and the community.

For example, this week my group and I have seen gate camping, fight clubbing, capping siege at a defending keep with oil pots on ground level, false call-outs of enemy movements in zone to direct people away from Imperial keeps, and people just viciously yelling at keep defenders because we won't just allow the keeps to flip so someone else can be crowned.

The only way to do anything about those practices is to roll a character in another faction and combat it directly because there's nothing we can do about our own faction. This is especially true when, by its inaction, ZOS is as much a problem here as the emp traders.

I have lost count of how many times that I've switched servers to get away from this crap. I've lost count of how many times I've had to make room on my ignore list for these people.

With March 17th looming, this kind of behavior is going to explode with the influx of new players wanting to be emperor. Is this your vision for pvp, ZOS?

The section in bold is the real problem. You are quite correct. I would think that ZOS would consider these kinds of things as TOS violations since they have a very negative impact on the game experience of other players. We'll see. We may see some GM's on Haderus this weekend.

And I already have another character in another faction and I did use him yesterday to directly combat an attempt by the IR group to use an AD scroll to farm AD players behind their own gate. There's not much a single player can do but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Emperor farming/swapping has always been something we are aware causes dissension and was not the desired effect of the Emperor system. There have been discussions about changes to the system, the buffs (both emperor and Ex-emperors) but nothing solid has formed it's way into production.

Appreciate your input. I do think the achievement should somehow be way harder to get than it is now. And it probably should rely a lot less on AP points than it does. I'm betting you and your team can figure out a better way.

I saw a nice post suggesting that the Emperor skill line be reworked so that the entire faction received it. I wish I could remember whether it was here or on reddit and that I could find it. But I'm using that concept as a base for this discussion.

I don't presume to say that any of what follows must be implemented for PvP to survive or any other extreme nonsense in the same vein. Rather, I hope to offer one path of change which may or may not have already been discussed.

I'll be using the buff system included with 1.6, though some new versions of buffs may be used.

The basic idea is that we've identified "Emperor Trading" as the problem and the passives from the Emperor skill line that affect Former Emperors as the incentive for it. One way to combat a problem is by removing the incentive, and this suggestion hopes to accomplish that while also serving to promote team play within your faction. The proposed new system follows.

Changes to how the Emperor skill line is granted:
When the criteria for crowning an Emperor have been met, the person to be crowned Emperor is of course crowned and gains the Emperor skill line. Any player who meets the requirements to receive the offensive AP tick from the capture of the sixth Imperial keep is also granted the Emperor skill line, with greatly reduced buffs. When the Emperor is deposed, his/her Emperor skill line degrades to the same one the supporting players received when the Emperor was crowned. Everyone keeps the Emperor skill line with the reduced buffs.

Changes to related achievements:
An achievement can be added for these supporting players.

• Name: Imperial Army
• Description: You helped lead your alliance to the Ruby Throne. Now it is up to you to defend it!
• Dye Reward: White Gold Tower White (think a Julianos White with an Akatosh's Scales Gold sheen)
• Achievement Points: 15

I'm hesitant to put forth this suggestion, but an argument can be made that the Emperor! achievement point reward should be reduced as the first Emperor crowned is likely the person who can farm the most AP on the first day of the campaign (generally by sitting somewhere and not contributing to overall progress for the faction).

Changes to the Emperor skill line:
All buffs are granted only if your faction holds the throne in the campaign you are currently playing in.

First, the new buffs:

• Lesser Vitality: increases healing taken by 2%
• Grand Vitality: increases healing taken by 50%
• Grand Wellness: increases your max health by 75%
• Grand Wizardry: increases your max magicka by 75%
• Grand Tenacity: increases your max stamina by 75%
• Lesser Intrusion: increase your damage with siege weapons by 4%
• Grand Intrusion: increase your damage with siege weapons by 100%

Second, the skill line:

• Monarch: Grants Lesser Vitality. While you are Emperor, grants Grand Vitality.
• Authority: Grants Minor Heroism on any skill/ability use. While you are Emperor, grants Major Heroism on any skill/ability use.
• Emperor: While you are Emperor, grants Grand Wellness, Grand Wizardry, and Grand Tenacity.
• Domination: Grants Minor Fortitude, Minor Intellect, and Minor Endurance. While you are Emperor, grants Major Fortitude, Major Intellect, and Major Endurance.
• Tactician: Grants Lesser Intrusion. While you are Emperor, grants Grand Intrusion.

These buffs are either entirely new or variations of existing 1.6 buffs. The scale for strength denoted by prefix from low to high is Lesser, Minor, Major, Grand.

I used the 1.6 buff system in the hope that they are easier to track and are less likely to stack in odd ways. For example Minor supersedes Lesser rather than stacking with it. Of course, I could have misinterpreted that ability of the new system

As I said, this is just one idea. Feel free to discuss it

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Emperor farming/swapping has always been something we are aware causes dissension and was not the desired effect of the Emperor system. There have been discussions about changes to the system, the buffs (both emperor and Ex-emperors) but nothing solid has formed it's way into production.

Mr. Wheeler I would like to thank you for taking the time to reply to the subject. I am disappointed that after being a problem since basically season 1 campaigns, there is no concrete solution, but I believe that speaks to the complexity and severity of the issue at hand. I wonder perhaps then, could what is too difficult to solve with code at the present be solved with the Code of Conduct? I will cite an example from another game, and perhaps some people would be familiar with to what I refer to.

Several years ago there was a EU raiding guild in said game. They were noted as the best in the world because they'd raided together since vanilla and always strove to achieve world first raid clears of all raid content for said game. In the third expansion of said game, the final dungeon featured a large-scale normal mode and a large scale challenge mode, with the final boss intended to be one of the most mechanically complex and difficult to date.

During their attempts at the challenge-mode of this boss, one of the raid members noticed that something in their DPS rotation seemed to cause an unusual effect in the boss's environment stage. After analysis and repetition they found out what that thing was, then the guild decreed that more members of their DPS should replicate this. The reason why was because this unusual effect resulted in an advantage against the boss, making what should've been a grueling mechanic to surpass fairly trivial. Several members of this guild objected heavily to this action, because they deemed it as an exploit.

The guild leadership did not seem to care. They ended up getting the world first of this difficult boss kill, the loot associated with it, and the achievement and associated rewards. They didn't see it as an exploit and did not have a problem using these unintended advantages as long as they got what they wanted.

The development company, however, did have a problem with it. To such a degree they not only issued temporary bans to all guild members involved, but stripped all participating members of their loot, achievements, and rewards. The guild subsequently disbanded only to reform under a different name and with most of the 'original' members, and still continued to strive for world firsts. However that stain of what they did is not something that would go away so easily. Hearing the name of this guild is more likely to be associated with their exploitation of that raid boss encounter than with their previous world firsts.

This is my suggestion then: A lot of the prevalent factors in emperor farming result from peer pressure and inter-faction sabotage, or simply put, griefing and harassment. There have been cases where an emperor will be asked to 'step aside' to allow someone else to get the chance, and if they decline for their own beliefs, they are subject to intense verbal bullying. I believe the long-reigning emperors of Volendrung season 1 and Haderus seasons 1++ suffered such treatment. Other factors include examples cited from elsewhere in the forums where efforts to legitimately defend the ring are outright thwarted by guilds within the reigning faction. Oftentimes those who encourage or endorse emperor farming engage in tactics that yield an unrealistic amount of AP in a very short time, ensuring that a small group will have an advantage that more than likely is the result of misusing existing game mechanics.

An example of what I do NOT consider emperor farming: Say you are a working mom/dad, you work 80+ hours, have kids, and just not enough time to really commit to PVP. Then you get a vacation, a week off or more, so you say you know what, I think I'll try for Emperor. Your spouse is one of those kinds who nags at you for wasting time with a game (or in the case of one AD I know of, nags at you TO PLAY the game...) You claw your way to the top, your faction is fairly strong, and after several hours if not days of hard fought fighting, boom Emperor. But that was such a trip. You have time to have fun with the abilities, terrorize the enemy, then eventually you can't help it. You have to go to sleep, or worse yet, vacation time over back to the real world grind. Of course you'll get deposed at some point, but you got there, and you have the bragging rights.

I can think of someone who wanted emperor for such a long time but was unable to get it in a competitive environment as someone else stated earlier in the thread. It took alot of trying, but this guy did get emperor and had his fun, but as with all things, staying awake for 40 hours+ never ends well, so he got deposed, but he got what he wanted and he had fun with it.

A recent example of what DOES constitute emperor farming by the definition of engaging in quick capture of the ring then diminished defense in order for the ring to be retaken by an enemy faction in a short amount of time involves events that occurred on the Haderus campaign earlier this week, as well as what has happened in the past with the older cycle of campaigns.

Basically a guild that is numerous enough to change the momentum of the battle on their own effort will often create a situation where members they desire to gain emperor will have the highest points on the server. They will push for the ring, by proxy encouraging other faction members to participate for points and rewards. After securing an emperor among the guild, this guild then mostly withdraws from action, and often the emperor will not be sighted on the front lines participating in combat. The guild may verbally abuse other members of the controlling faction, and in extreme cases, outright impede defensive measures on/in/around the ring keeps.

What I am ultimately getting at-and this is something I hotly advocated months back when this problem emerged- was to make intentional emperor trading/farming an offense under the COC where instances of siege griefing/trolling, verbal harassment directed at legitimate pvp participants, and exploitative methods such as purposely leaving keeps undefended would result in at first warnings then temporary bans. I'd observed in the past where large guilds would sit stealthed outside a keep being taken by the enemy, despite the fact that defending would've saved the keep and yielded even greater rewards. That was done to encourage emperor trading. I'd observed far more recently an instance where members of a large guild actively thwarted efforts by defending players to set up sieges.

Of course something like this would have to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and each instance investigated intensely, but perhaps that would provide more of an immediate solution to curb damaging behaviors of this sort. At least until a solution CAN be fielded with existing game mechanics or the entire PVP ranking/reward system gets reworked.

Just remove the damn former emperor passives.