"Claiming" a District (AKA making the street brawls mean something)

HeroOfNone · August 2015

Currently the District fights are fun, but a lot of folks, myself included, have noticed the mindless killing seems to lack purpose and goals. I aim to change that with "Claiming" a district: a system that will only allow a winning faction into it and will slowly kick out others that die in the district after another faction has claimed it.

Claiming
Claiming would take place every 2-3 or so hours for an hour long match. After that match, the faction that wins will be given free access to the district for an hour. All other faction members that participated may remain, run away, or fight in the hopes for easy kills. After the free access time is up there will be a cool down time that the district will be an all out war that it is now, leading to total mayhem as the other two factions they and sweep up kills for those unfortunate enough to lose. the system I envision will hopefully lead to 2 districts being contested, 2 being claimed, and 2 being a free for all, in a rotation.

Matches
When a match starts, players in the district will be given teleported to their faction's safe areas if they are not in a safe zone already (crafting, quest area, or side balcony). During this time most balconies will have a blue wall around it, warded to keep After which, a team of players, 12 - 24, will be allowed to enter after talking to a specific NPC. These walls will prevent off spectator heals and damage, but if a stray support spell or two gets through, then folks shouldn't be camping another groups spawn! if you die during a match you have a chance to respawn and come in within 15 seconds, otherwise others offering their queue can enter in. During this fight you have one goal and one goal alone, collect as many Tel Var stones as you can over the other factions.

Queuing up or getting out
After a match starts, players can find various alliance war coordinators that will help a small number slip through the wards. This will work as the balancer in our match, letting in 12 initially for each faction and then more as each side queues up, up to a total of possibly 24 or higher. If your side has too many you can still queue up and watch from the sidelines until someone leaves or the match is over. Folks that die can still come back in almost immediately, but it they wait over 15-30 seconds they will lose their spot in queue and theur tel var stones wont count in scoring. Your corpse will also be teleported back to yoir base in a short time as well, a little shorter than a djngeon kick out timer. Telporting in will also be locked down during the last half of a match, ensuring folks that have been NPC suiciding don't drop in with a large share of stones.

If you want to leave the match can exit through the hatch back to your base, escape through the Sewers, or side doors. If you're stuck in a safe area the a coordinator can teleport you into the public sewer entrance (NOT your alliance base!). Beware! Large groups may be porting in as a match begins or ends, so there will likely be an all out brawl at certain points.

Scoring
Scoring is done with tel var stones your faction earns and still has at the last few minutes of a round for those on the ground. You can earn them by killing others & taking them from mobs. You can take ones from your bank to increase your multiplier, but you ris losing them to enemy players. If you die to NPCs with a mixture of bank tel vars and match tel vars, then the match ones are always the first to go. You can also choose to run to the bank and store your tel var stones... but if you do you'll be leaving the match and your team loses credit for them. There are times though you may want to do this though, after scoring a kill on a hard to kill opponent, removing your squishy build before they can get you. An additional option is to artificially increase participants multipliers the further the round goes on, so folks can still get up from behind and promote folks to stay till the end.

Scoring we will be tallied on either the UI or an alliance war tab, letting you know the other groups total (but not who is holding the most). This may lead to the other two ganging up on one side to get more stones, but then turning on each other to get their share.

Will you stealth fully kill mobs? run in a pack? try and take on the big sweeper for a higher bonus? The tactics change when you know your matching up similar sized forces.

Rewards!
What do you get for winning? the telvar stones! maybe also some medium, heavy, and light boxes as well, for each group's ranking and for participating. in addition, vault tokens for the district you play in, a handful to compensate you. This also has the potential for a leader board, but I feel this basic concept needs to be worked out better

What some of this will bring to the game
This will give a few things we've been asking for and help various groups
- Carebear types and lowbies will have a district they can PVE in for a short time thanks for the experienced PVPers.
- The sewers will be even more important, since folks surviving the fights may not have adjacent districts to escape to.
- Hardcore PVPErs will have small scale and controled PVP, to introduce some skills and tactics rather than flat out numbers zerging
- a daily/hourly objective to each district to keep it fun and exciting.
- more ways to get stones and a reason to survive and not run away from the zone with a bunch of stones.
- more reason to get out and kill NPCs in the district to try and get more stones than the other guys.
- If the drop rates are toyed with, this could make leaving through the Sewers or uding recall stones much more important.
- something is always open, something is always contested, and sometimes something is "safe" for a short while, and assuming you found the gankers.
- promotes players to explore and fight in other districts.

When can we see it?
I don't see this as a simple task for ZOS, so I'd be doubtful this could be done by August release. I think it really depends on community support and how much time they'll have with the next DLC, which will come on a few more months.

How can I support this?
- Reply back saying you like this idea.
- Reply back with changes and improvements (It's not set in stone!)
- Tag friends like @Shunravi so they can read this and suport it.
- Tag ZOS devs like @ZOS_BrianWheeler to let them know you like it.
- Reply back with specific elements you like in quotes

Thank you for your time (if you actually read through this) and hope to see you on the streets!

Beesting · August 2015

The lack of defensible choke points and the fact you can be back in the fight 2 secs after defeat does make the streetfights on the memorial district very mindless and also boring after a while, i agree

In 2 hours of pvp ing you still have not seen more than the same 50 meters of street. But people can always leave and go to another district. I think this will most likely happen, the map is designed so each alliance has 2 home districts

But on the pts most people gather on memorial district because there is always action there

What i love the most about ic is you dont need a horse once you get past the enemy gankers at your alliances tunnel entrance

+1 for no horseriding in eso pvp

HeroOfNone · August 2015

Beesting wrote: »

The lack of defensible choke points and the fact you can be back in the fight 2 secs after defeat does make the streetfights on the memorial district very mindless and also boring after a while, i agree

In 2 hours of pvp ing you still have not seen more than the same 50 meters of street. But people can always leave and go to another district. I think this will most likely happen, the map is designed so each alliance has 2 home districts

But on the pts most people gather on memorial district because there is always action there

What i love the most about ic is you dont need a horse once you get past the enemy gankers at your alliances tunnel entrance

+1 for no horseriding in eso pvp

We'll still have the option for open free for all fights in districts as they rotate from contested to claimed. This would help adders other issues though:

- Puts limits on large zergs that just wipe an area with numbers
- Gives options to PVE players without giving them a PVE grind campaign
- Gives meaning toward death and collecting stones in the short term, rather than suicide suicide suicide kill leave with the stone's

While folks gather in the memorial district now, I suspect on live thing will be a lot more zerg and possibly more mindless in certain spots. It's akin to the warmup round to counterstrike. Lets get to the match and play =3

Enodoc · August 2015

No I haven't read the whole thing (will do so later), but anything that aims to brings back the District Control idea that they scrapped has my support.

Stalwart385 · August 2015

I would like to see a capture the hill type game mixed in the districts. Three faction oriented areas, loosing your area looses your spawn in the district for 10-15 mins would be cool.

Just another idea, but it would be neat to see some objective based game to the districts.

Still we can't get to ahead of ourselves until we see how the main campaign and IC interact when IC isn't fully open.

HeroOfNone · August 2015

Enodoc wrote: »

No I haven't read the whole thing (will do so later), but anything that aims to brings back the District Control idea that they scrapped has my support.

I know, I type too long -.-. If any want to type in a short summary before I attempt it I'll gladly post it up for those skimmers. @crazmadsci or @MissBizz might want to try their hands at it, I might be just too technical in my writing =3

Stalwart385 wrote: »

I would like to see a capture the hill type game mixed in the districts. Three faction oriented areas, loosing your area looses your spawn in the district for 10-15 mins would be cool.

Just another idea, but it would be neat to see some objective based game to the districts.

Still we can't get to ahead of ourselves until we see how the main campaign and IC interact when IC isn't fully open.

I think king of the hill and flag capture could work in some districts but not all. There might have to be a serious redesign to make sure all points are on equal ground, mobs aren't creating a disadvantage for one group, etc. In addition, capture games have spawn camping issues when one side is in the lead, denying the folks from getting to a flag is important. But with rapid redpawns, it might not work out.

Ultimately this was a way to let the tel var stone system loss and recovery shine, and put more emphasis on staying alive while collecting them... or ganking the rich farmers... or mass group against mass group (on equal footing)

Max2497 · August 2015

I definitely support some mechanism for capturing districts. Otherwise, the fighting in the streets is meaningless.

I would rather see some king of the hill idea for controlling a district. Perhaps 3 different locations with flags, (similar to the lumber mill, farm, etc). To control the district, your alliance has to hold all the flags in the district. Controlling the district allows you to respawn in the district (just like we can only respawn at controlled keeps in cyrodil). Award bonuses, similar to the pvp buffs, for each controlled district. Perhaps reset every 2 hours with tel var stone rewards for the number of districts controlled at the end of the 2 hour cycle.

It really needs to be something simple to have any hopes of them implementing it any time soon.

Glory · August 2015

Normally I haven't supported anything that gates entrance to the Imperial City, but I think this sort of idea would give a MUCH needed incentive to actually playing smart in the Imperial City.

I think something like this (owning districts) while leaving the rest of the city available (read as no home keeps required to enter).

Currently it's just players running into a fight, dying with no consequence (since they started with no stones), and running back in until they win. Then they go deposit all their stones, rinse and repeat dying until they win a fight and suicide to NPCs.

Enodoc · August 2015

(Read the whole thing now.) A very interesting idea. How would this work with the PvE questing in the districts? If certain factions are locked out at certain times (due to them not being in control), that would mean players will be cut off from the story and daily quests in that district for a period of time. I think a necessary part of any system involving faction control is the removal of spawning within the district for anyone but the controlling faction; the ladders in the Alliance Bases lead straight up to those places, so there's no real need for them to be respawn points as well.

I think some sort of benefit for the controlling faction is definitely needed, but perhaps not exclusive access. Maybe though it would lock off the ladder access from the other Alliance Bases so they would have to enter from the main sewer entrance or one of the other districts (and therefore can't access their safe-zones). Some of the things that were scrapped would be good to see though; the controlling faction could get a buff while in the district, for example, and they could have a separate spawn point within the district that could be accessed from the Transitus Network in Cyrodiil.

HeroOfNone · August 2015

Enodoc wrote: »

(Read the whole thing now.) A very interesting idea. How would this work with the PvE questing in the districts? If certain factions are locked out at certain times (due to them not being in control), that would mean players will be cut off from the story and daily quests in that district for a period of time. I think a necessary part of any system involving faction control is the removal of spawning within the district for anyone but the controlling faction; the ladders in the Alliance Bases lead straight up to those places, so there's no real need for them to be respawn points as well.

I think some sort of benefit for the controlling faction is definitely needed, but perhaps not exclusive access. Maybe though it would lock off the ladder access from the other Alliance Bases so they would have to enter from the main sewer entrance or one of the other districts (and therefore can't access their safe-zones). Some of the things that were scrapped would be good to see though; the controlling faction could get a buff while in the district, for example, and they could have a separate spawn point within the district that could be accessed from the Transitus Network in Cyrodiil.

For the main quest, some of those can be done independently, so I'd recommend giving the player 2 to 3 at a time. the contested and captured districts would give a natural time sink for them. I didn't consider if but we could possibly permit the sewer entrance the sole way to get in when the district is claimed, making the sewers even more important to travel through, and potentially more dangerous.

AssaultLemming · August 2015

Max2497 wrote: »

I definitely support some mechanism for capturing districts. Otherwise, the fighting in the streets is meaningless.

I would rather see some king of the hill idea for controlling a district. Perhaps 3 different locations with flags, (similar to the lumber mill, farm, etc). To control the district, your alliance has to hold all the flags in the district. Controlling the district allows you to respawn in the district (just like we can only respawn at controlled keeps in cyrodil). Award bonuses, similar to the pvp buffs, for each controlled district. Perhaps reset every 2 hours with tel var stone rewards for the number of districts controlled at the end of the 2 hour cycle.

It really needs to be something simple to have any hopes of them implementing it any time soon.

I think this style of idea is the most likely to succeed. 3 flags per district, control all 3 flags and then only your alliance can spawn there. Other alliances need to choose another district or the sewers. Control enough districts and get some bonus (double stones multiplier?)

Etharian · August 2015

Another arm chair Dev.. yay

Enodoc · August 2015

Etharian wrote: »

Another arm chair Dev.. yay

This isn't so much armchair devving - it's more like asking ZOS to reconsider something that had already been in development and was then scrapped. Much of the time needed to develop this feature has already occurred; I think it would be a shame for that to ultimately go to waste, as I think this would be a good feature to have to make IC PvP more structured and more meaningful.

HeroOfNone · August 2015

AssaultLemming wrote: »

Max2497 wrote: »

I definitely support some mechanism for capturing districts. Otherwise, the fighting in the streets is meaningless.

I would rather see some king of the hill idea for controlling a district. Perhaps 3 different locations with flags, (similar to the lumber mill, farm, etc). To control the district, your alliance has to hold all the flags in the district. Controlling the district allows you to respawn in the district (just like we can only respawn at controlled keeps in cyrodil). Award bonuses, similar to the pvp buffs, for each controlled district. Perhaps reset every 2 hours with tel var stone rewards for the number of districts controlled at the end of the 2 hour cycle.

It really needs to be something simple to have any hopes of them implementing it any time soon.

I think this style of idea is the most likely to succeed. 3 flags per district, control all 3 flags and then only your alliance can spawn there. Other alliances need to choose another district or the sewers. Control enough districts and get some bonus (double stones multiplier?)

Again, the districts would likely have to be redone to balance the control points. In addition this would be similar to the fights in Cyrodiil and still run into the same issue with zerging forces.

Etharian wrote: »

Another arm chair Dev.. yay

Another? Look at my profile. If they had a forum group for us I'd probably be in the first 10 to be assigned =3.

As @Enodoc said though, this isn't attempting to add on a totally new system, as I've advocated in the past, but dovetailing into the existing system.

asteldian · August 2015

I have not yet tries the IC, are there respawns in each district? If so, rather than a lock out, could it be that only the faction that own the District can respawn there?

Enodoc · August 2015

asteldian wrote: »

I have not yet tries the IC, are there respawns in each district? If so, rather than a lock out, could it be that only the faction that own the District can respawn there?

Yes, but the respawns are right at the same place as where the direct access ladders from the Alliance Bases come out -- the respawns may as well just not exist at all, to make the return-to-battle time a bit longer than the current 3 seconds. If this suggestion is going to lock out the respawns, it also needs to lock out the direct access, as they are in the same place. But for a bit of interesting gameplay, you could keep the other access routes (from the main sewers or the other districts) available.

HeroOfNone · August 2015

Enodoc wrote: »

asteldian wrote: »

I have not yet tries the IC, are there respawns in each district? If so, rather than a lock out, could it be that only the faction that own the District can respawn there?

Yes, but the respawns are right at the same place as where the direct access ladders from the Alliance Bases come out -- the respawns may as well just not exist at all, to make the return-to-battle time a bit longer than the current 3 seconds. If this suggestion is going to lock out the respawns, it also needs to lock out the direct access, as they are in the same place. But for a bit of interesting gameplay, you could keep the other access routes (from the main sewers or the other districts) available.

Yup, though I imagines that you could still use the hatch and look out, just the way out is warded. This means a group can mount up and be ready when the free for all was ready.

The side doors I had also recommended be warded iff, since it's easy to port into a neighboring district and wander in, assuming you have a low wait time.

The sewer access is interesting, but not sure on specifics. Lets say AD controlled a district but EP's sewers are right underneath, you'd potentially still have a large influx from that group, though at least just 2 factions. In addition if the Sewers are open, how would we handle it during contested (queued access) events? Port sewer trekkers to the respawn?

Saturn · August 2015

I don't think "claiming" a district will be implemented since all alliances by default have access to every district from their home base. I mean how is it supposed to work, does the "winning alliance" in a district go around and steal the ladders connected from alliance respawn points to the home bases? Plus this would mean that zerging will be more prevalent in the districts, which is not something that should be encouraged

HeroOfNone · August 2015

Saturn wrote: »

I don't think "claiming" a district will be implemented since all alliances by default have access to every district from their home base. I mean how is it supposed to work, does the "winning alliance" in a district go around and steal the ladders connected from alliance respawn points to the home bases? Plus this would mean that zerging will be more prevalent in the districts, which is not something that should be encouraged

Read through the suggestion a little more closely. The idea would be a factions mage's ward off a district form the others 2 at a time. Ladders still work, but magics (possibly fueled by tel vars) determine who can get in.

In addition the zerg yoi fearwould more likely to control things if they remain as they are now in a free for all, which will still be available in 2 other districts at a time. When a district is "contested" however, the idea is only an equal number of alliance war players be allowed in, to encourage small and skill based PVP, over "kill with numbers" pvp we all see.

Soris · August 2015

Bumping this excellent thread.
Honestly PvP in districts is fun. That BG/arena type of gameplay is quite enjoying. But it becomes so stale after some time due to the lack of any objective. Ganking people for tel var stones has its purpose for those pesky gankers. But for those who just want brawl, there is no real gain, no point, nothing.

Saturn · August 2015

HeroOfNone wrote: »

Saturn wrote: »

I don't think "claiming" a district will be implemented since all alliances by default have access to every district from their home base. I mean how is it supposed to work, does the "winning alliance" in a district go around and steal the ladders connected from alliance respawn points to the home bases? Plus this would mean that zerging will be more prevalent in the districts, which is not something that should be encouraged

Read through the suggestion a little more closely. The idea would be a factions mage's ward off a district form the others 2 at a time. Ladders still work, but magics (possibly fueled by tel vars) determine who can get in.

In addition the zerg yoi fearwould more likely to control things if they remain as they are now in a free for all, which will still be available in 2 other districts at a time. When a district is "contested" however, the idea is only an equal number of alliance war players be allowed in, to encourage small and skill based PVP, over "kill with numbers" pvp we all see.

In theory that sounds good, but it just wouldn't work. I don't think they would ever institute battlegrounds-like player limits, which means the underpopulated teams are gonna get rolled over by the overpopulated team.. as have always been the case.

HeroOfNone · August 2015

Saturn wrote: »

HeroOfNone wrote: »

Saturn wrote: »

I don't think "claiming" a district will be implemented since all alliances by default have access to every district from their home base. I mean how is it supposed to work, does the "winning alliance" in a district go around and steal the ladders connected from alliance respawn points to the home bases? Plus this would mean that zerging will be more prevalent in the districts, which is not something that should be encouraged

Read through the suggestion a little more closely. The idea would be a factions mage's ward off a district form the others 2 at a time. Ladders still work, but magics (possibly fueled by tel vars) determine who can get in.

In addition the zerg yoi fearwould more likely to control things if they remain as they are now in a free for all, which will still be available in 2 other districts at a time. When a district is "contested" however, the idea is only an equal number of alliance war players be allowed in, to encourage small and skill based PVP, over "kill with numbers" pvp we all see.

In theory that sounds good, but it just wouldn't work. I don't think they would ever institute battlegrounds-like player limits, which means the underpopulated teams are gonna get rolled over by the overpopulated team.. as have always been the case.

I hear two different statements here. If it won't work the way I've stated please let me know why, part of suggestions like this is to vet it and hopefully some part will be used by a dev.

As for what ZOS will and won't do I try not to assume either or when it comes to suggestions. Enough folks get behind something and they start looking into it (player housing). Enough complain and they will change setups (champion point refund for 1.6). They can do a lot, but some of it involves player hype and some of it involves an idea striking the right cord (like, is it easy to add).

Enodoc · August 2015

Saturn wrote: »

HeroOfNone wrote: »

Saturn wrote: »

I don't think "claiming" a district will be implemented since all alliances by default have access to every district from their home base. I mean how is it supposed to work, does the "winning alliance" in a district go around and steal the ladders connected from alliance respawn points to the home bases? Plus this would mean that zerging will be more prevalent in the districts, which is not something that should be encouraged

Read through the suggestion a little more closely. The idea would be a factions mage's ward off a district form the others 2 at a time. Ladders still work, but magics (possibly fueled by tel vars) determine who can get in.

In addition the zerg yoi fearwould more likely to control things if they remain as they are now in a free for all, which will still be available in 2 other districts at a time. When a district is "contested" however, the idea is only an equal number of alliance war players be allowed in, to encourage small and skill based PVP, over "kill with numbers" pvp we all see.

In theory that sounds good, but it just wouldn't work. I don't think they would ever institute battlegrounds-like player limits, which means the underpopulated teams are gonna get rolled over by the overpopulated team.. as have always been the case.

That's probably true... I personally am thinking of a slightly different situation, where "control" would mean the following things:

The controlling alliance is able to respawn in the district (the others aren't)
The controlling alliance gets some buff when in the Imperial City
The other alliances cannot use their direct access ladders, but can still get into the district through the sewers, and maybe the doors between districts
An alliance is able to port directly into the Sewers from the Transitus Network if they control any district

HeroOfNone · August 2015

Enodoc wrote: »

Saturn wrote: »

HeroOfNone wrote: »

Saturn wrote: »

I don't think "claiming" a district will be implemented since all alliances by default have access to every district from their home base. I mean how is it supposed to work, does the "winning alliance" in a district go around and steal the ladders connected from alliance respawn points to the home bases? Plus this would mean that zerging will be more prevalent in the districts, which is not something that should be encouraged

Read through the suggestion a little more closely. The idea would be a factions mage's ward off a district form the others 2 at a time. Ladders still work, but magics (possibly fueled by tel vars) determine who can get in.

In addition the zerg yoi fearwould more likely to control things if they remain as they are now in a free for all, which will still be available in 2 other districts at a time. When a district is "contested" however, the idea is only an equal number of alliance war players be allowed in, to encourage small and skill based PVP, over "kill with numbers" pvp we all see.

In theory that sounds good, but it just wouldn't work. I don't think they would ever institute battlegrounds-like player limits, which means the underpopulated teams are gonna get rolled over by the overpopulated team.. as have always been the case.

That's probably true... I personally am thinking of a slightly different situation, where "control" would mean the following things:
The controlling alliance is able to respawn in the district (the others aren't)

The controlling alliance gets some buff when in the Imperial City

The other alliances cannot use their direct access ladders, but can still get into the district through the sewers, and maybe the doors between districts

An alliance is able to port directly into the Sewers from the Transitus Network if they control any district

Like I mentioned I'm not sure how much of a disadvantage it is if the side doors are still accessible, and the sewers are still open on an opposing side's district. Restrictions access, rather than limited access, would give a lot more gravity to winning.

Enodoc · August 2015

HeroOfNone wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

Saturn wrote: »

HeroOfNone wrote: »

Saturn wrote: »

I don't think "claiming" a district will be implemented since all alliances by default have access to every district from their home base. I mean how is it supposed to work, does the "winning alliance" in a district go around and steal the ladders connected from alliance respawn points to the home bases? Plus this would mean that zerging will be more prevalent in the districts, which is not something that should be encouraged

Read through the suggestion a little more closely. The idea would be a factions mage's ward off a district form the others 2 at a time. Ladders still work, but magics (possibly fueled by tel vars) determine who can get in.

In addition the zerg yoi fearwould more likely to control things if they remain as they are now in a free for all, which will still be available in 2 other districts at a time. When a district is "contested" however, the idea is only an equal number of alliance war players be allowed in, to encourage small and skill based PVP, over "kill with numbers" pvp we all see.

In theory that sounds good, but it just wouldn't work. I don't think they would ever institute battlegrounds-like player limits, which means the underpopulated teams are gonna get rolled over by the overpopulated team.. as have always been the case.

That's probably true... I personally am thinking of a slightly different situation, where "control" would mean the following things:
The controlling alliance is able to respawn in the district (the others aren't)

The controlling alliance gets some buff when in the Imperial City

The other alliances cannot use their direct access ladders, but can still get into the district through the sewers, and maybe the doors between districts

An alliance is able to port directly into the Sewers from the Transitus Network if they control any district

Like I mentioned I'm not sure how much of a disadvantage it is if the side doors are still accessible, and the sewers are still open on an opposing side's district. Restrictions access, rather than limited access, would give a lot more gravity to winning.

Yeah sure, knocking out the doors may be necessary. But I still think people need some way to get in to do the quests; you can only do one main quest at a time, so if you logged off in the middle of one of them, and your alliance "lost" the control battle while you were gone, you wouldn't be able to do any quests unless you abandoned all you'd done in that one already, or waited until control went neutral again. That's why I think anything based on control should give good bonuses to the controlling alliance, but not many detriments to the losers.

Beesting · August 2015

[/quote]
Yeah sure, knocking out the doors may be necessary. But I still think people need some way to get in to do the quests; you can only do one main quest at a time, so if you logged off in the middle of one of them, and your alliance "lost" the control battle while you were gone, you wouldn't be able to do any quests unless you abandoned all you'd done in that one already, or waited until control went neutral again. That's why I think anything based on control should give good bonuses to the controlling alliance, but not many detriments to the losers.[/quote]

As there only 6 quests to do, i assume it would only take 6 days to complete them? Or do you get new daily quest for districts you allready completed?

i did not play on the pts long enough to find this out

HeroOfNone · August 2015

There are daily quests, but your lock out is for an hour or two, depending how long they want to make a match for that campaign. In addition to that, you'd also have a chance to do the quest uninterrupted if you win control. If you log out in a quest area and came back in, you'd still be able to enter the balcony of the district, but an npc on the balcony would give you the choice of the other districts connected, sewers, or respawn.

I get what you're saying some would want to instantly complete the quest, but without this, it could be a player based lock down. I would, at the very least, lockbox down during contested games, keeping both sides on similar numbers

Saturn · August 2015

Enodoc wrote: »

Saturn wrote: »

HeroOfNone wrote: »

Saturn wrote: »

I don't think "claiming" a district will be implemented since all alliances by default have access to every district from their home base. I mean how is it supposed to work, does the "winning alliance" in a district go around and steal the ladders connected from alliance respawn points to the home bases? Plus this would mean that zerging will be more prevalent in the districts, which is not something that should be encouraged

Read through the suggestion a little more closely. The idea would be a factions mage's ward off a district form the others 2 at a time. Ladders still work, but magics (possibly fueled by tel vars) determine who can get in.

In addition the zerg yoi fearwould more likely to control things if they remain as they are now in a free for all, which will still be available in 2 other districts at a time. When a district is "contested" however, the idea is only an equal number of alliance war players be allowed in, to encourage small and skill based PVP, over "kill with numbers" pvp we all see.

In theory that sounds good, but it just wouldn't work. I don't think they would ever institute battlegrounds-like player limits, which means the underpopulated teams are gonna get rolled over by the overpopulated team.. as have always been the case.

That's probably true... I personally am thinking of a slightly different situation, where "control" would mean the following things:
The controlling alliance is able to respawn in the district (the others aren't)

The controlling alliance gets some buff when in the Imperial City

The other alliances cannot use their direct access ladders, but can still get into the district through the sewers, and maybe the doors between districts

An alliance is able to port directly into the Sewers from the Transitus Network if they control any district

That doesn't do anything for an underpopulated team though. It just makes the biggest team have that much more of an uncontested foothold of a certain district, or who knows, maybe all of them. Do you know how often DC players get rolled over by humongous zerg balls in normal cyrodiil pvp on the NA? Imagine that inside a confined space like a district. Encouraging it won't do the underpopulated team any favours, and it's not like two sides will actually work together to defeat the overpopulated one, that doesn't happen.

driosketch · August 2015

Beesting wrote: »

The lack of defensible choke points and the fact you can be back in the fight 2 secs after defeat does make the streetfights on the memorial district very mindless and also boring after a while, i agree

Last time I was on, it was only about a half dozen from each alliance. Just a plain old street fight, and instant back in the action if you died. I had to think about it, but in the end I conclude that was fun for me. I waste so much time in PvP waiting for action, this was a nice change of pace.

Not sure if I'll agree once it sees the larger numbers on live.

Enodoc wrote: »

[*] The controlling alliance gets some buff when in the Imperial City

Not a fan of making winning sides stronger. I see it as something that compounds the problem of population imbalances. Speaking of, I think they would need to open access to the IC all the time to make district capture meaningful.

Enodoc · August 2015

driosketch wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

[*] The controlling alliance gets some buff when in the Imperial City

Not a fan of making winning sides stronger. I see it as something that compounds the problem of population imbalances.

Yeah true. The only reason I mentioned it was because it was in ZOS' original district control plan.

Speaking of, I think they would need to open access to the IC all the time to make district capture meaningful.

Maybe, but if access was 6 home keeps I think it would still work. That's the most balanced access option (aside from access for all), and district control would just tip that balance slightly.

HeroOfNone · August 2015

Saturn wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

Saturn wrote: »

HeroOfNone wrote: »

Saturn wrote: »

I don't think "claiming" a district will be implemented since all alliances by default have access to every district from their home base. I mean how is it supposed to work, does the "winning alliance" in a district go around and steal the ladders connected from alliance respawn points to the home bases? Plus this would mean that zerging will be more prevalent in the districts, which is not something that should be encouraged

Read through the suggestion a little more closely. The idea would be a factions mage's ward off a district form the others 2 at a time. Ladders still work, but magics (possibly fueled by tel vars) determine who can get in.

In addition the zerg yoi fearwould more likely to control things if they remain as they are now in a free for all, which will still be available in 2 other districts at a time. When a district is "contested" however, the idea is only an equal number of alliance war players be allowed in, to encourage small and skill based PVP, over "kill with numbers" pvp we all see.

In theory that sounds good, but it just wouldn't work. I don't think they would ever institute battlegrounds-like player limits, which means the underpopulated teams are gonna get rolled over by the overpopulated team.. as have always been the case.

That's probably true... I personally am thinking of a slightly different situation, where "control" would mean the following things:
The controlling alliance is able to respawn in the district (the others aren't)

The controlling alliance gets some buff when in the Imperial City

The other alliances cannot use their direct access ladders, but can still get into the district through the sewers, and maybe the doors between districts

An alliance is able to port directly into the Sewers from the Transitus Network if they control any district

That doesn't do anything for an underpopulated team though. It just makes the biggest team have that much more of an uncontested foothold of a certain district, or who knows, maybe all of them. Do you know how often DC players get rolled over by humongous zerg balls in normal cyrodiil pvp on the NA? Imagine that inside a confined space like a district. Encouraging it won't do the underpopulated team any favours, and it's not like two sides will actually work together to defeat the overpopulated one, that doesn't happen.

Agreed, this was to offer at least an option for a set number of opponents on all sides for a brief match while giving the zergs an opportunity in the free districts.

driosketch wrote: »

Beesting wrote: »

The lack of defensible choke points and the fact you can be back in the fight 2 secs after defeat does make the streetfights on the memorial district very mindless and also boring after a while, i agree

Last time I was on, it was only about a half dozen from each alliance. Just a plain old street fight, and instant back in the action if you died. I had to think about it, but in the end I conclude that was fun for me. I waste so much time in PvP waiting for action, this was a nice change of pace.

Not sure if I'll agree once it sees the larger numbers on live.

Enodoc wrote: »

[*] The controlling alliance gets some buff when in the Imperial City

Not a fan of making winning sides stronger. I see it as something that compounds the problem of population imbalances. Speaking of, I think they would need to open access to the IC all the time to make district capture meaningful.

Fighting back and forth for a while was fun, but I can see the novelty running out quickly. It's the equivalent of a free for all fight on Counter Strike: GO, fast paced but no points or penalties that matter. With the 80% lose there might be a bit more banking, but I can see where a lot of loses its appeal to fight and instead turns to tel var farming. Imagine instead cyrodiil without the keeps to capture or redpawn, would the PVP be as rewarding?

I can also agree not to make a winning faction stronger in the sense they are harder to beat. Even cyrodiil buffs are only a few percentages. If it's going to give them a high multiplier that could be ok, but that puts targets on their back rather than give them a real advantage.

Enodoc wrote: »

driosketch wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

[*] The controlling alliance gets some buff when in the Imperial City

Not a fan of making winning sides stronger. I see it as something that compounds the problem of population imbalances.

Yeah true. The only reason I mentioned it was because it was in ZOS' original district control plan.

Speaking of, I think they would need to open access to the IC all the time to make district capture meaningful.

Maybe, but if access was 6 home keeps I think it would still work. That's the most balanced access option (aside from access for all), and district control would just tip that balance slightly.

Depending how they do access maybe. The way I understood it folks that are already in can't be kicked out till they leave. In addition if they make it so you only need to control one keep in the circle to get access.