Alliance War future plans and update!

Kewljag_66_ESO

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

A lot of these points should also be mentioned in the new combat threads We are aware of the crashing issues and the team of engineers are working on fixes for them as fast as they can. Also note we have a cap of the amount of players that can influence a flag at 6 players since launch but that could always be adjusted if the rate of capture is seemingly too fast/slow.

We're still collecting data about the populations in each of the campaigns (for the US and EU)and will make the decision to introduce a 6th Campaign or convert a current campaign in the future. This will hopefully go in conjunction with the campaign buffs conversion of only getting the buffs of the Campaign you're physically in while playing in Cyrodiil.

There have been discussions about Forward camps as well and currently we're leaning towards having "guild forward camps" where only guildmates can resurrect at a guild forward camp. This would be a new item entirely to go along with the forward camps already in the game. We're still working on getting this nailed down along with other forward camp issues that have lingered.

Forward Camps

The idea is great, its an offensive staging point and works great for that and lets attackers revive at it. But there are 2 big problems with it and the combination of the 2 is what really does it.

(1) A forward camp is much stronger as a defensive tool in a keep defense even tho thats not what it is designed for. It is a keep defense game changer. You can be tactical and take all 3 resources and cut of the keep port but they will lay down a FC inside and it completely takes that tactic away. Further more there is no risk when you die because you can release right back inside. You will see impulse bomb groups go outside and attack with no worry of being taken out of the defense because they can release to the FC back inside. When you are killed in keep defense and dont get a rez you should have to release and try to come back.

(2) intentually dieing so you can release to a FC across the map to instantly defend. You should never have a reason to die intentually for a benefit and even take away all your travel time. Combine this with (1) and it really hurts the system of the game.

I have 2 ideas, if only 1 was to be done i think it would still really help the siege / defense PVP in Cyrodiil and integrety of the game

(1) Forward camps have a certain range that they can only be released to. Example the area of a keep and its 3 resources. This way only people who are apart of that siege or defense can use that FC. This would take away 99% of the benefit to die intentually just so you can release and instantly travel across the map to the action.

(2) Forward Camps can ONLY be placed at resources. (maybe a designated protected spot) This would compliment the idea of a FC perfectly. You take a resource and stage your attack on the keep. People defending the keep could place one at a resource for defenders to come, but yous till have to get to the keep. Attackers could take all 3 resources and truely cut off all ports to that keep for defenders. Defenders could also send a group to take back a resource so they can lay a FC.

Ive played since launch and i really think these 2 changes would really help the PVP system.

Pirhana Shadowblade
V12 NB Bow / DW
Alliance Rank 33

Neizir

Brian, in what update is the Imperial City scheduled to release?

Myrdrett

Kewljag_66_ESO wrote: »

(2) Forward Camps can ONLY be placed at resources. (maybe a designated protected spot) This would compliment the idea of a FC perfectly. You take a resource and stage your attack on the keep. People defending the keep could place one at a resource for defenders to come, but yous till have to get to the keep. Attackers could take all 3 resources and truely cut off all ports to that keep for defenders. Defenders could also send a group to take back a resource so they can lay a FC.

Pirhana Shadowblade
V12 NB Bow / DW
Alliance Rank 33

Your Suggestion sounds very good for me.

But it is important that attackers or defenders must GO over the field to reach the contested Ressource, before they can use the resurrection. Not spawning instantly from all arround across the map.

- one Option for that is a Resurrection-Radius 800 Meter arround the ressource/Forward-camp.

- or binding on it - on a Ressource-Bindstone or Bind-NPC.

Engelin

Omg get a room .. and discuss forward camps there

liversledge

Love the new changes, especially adding in a campaign for non-veteran rank players. I specifically bought the game for the PvP, but because I don't have the free time that some other players have I quickly fell behind the masses and would constantly be killed by VR players every time I entered Cyrodil.

Is there a reason you cannot level your combat skills in Cyrodil, or is it just so slow that I haven't noticed?

arkansas_ESO

Pixysticks wrote: »

Lord_Draevan wrote: »

Pixysticks wrote: »

5.) Uncap AOE abilities when inside Cyrodiil.

In all seriousness, the main problem is that healing AoE always goes to the lowest-health person while damage AoE hits people at random. Plus, their Immovable prevents them from being stopped, ergo Negate Magic Ultimate is useless as they'll run out in about 2 seconds. The only way to beat them is to use their tactic.

Cyrodiil isn't very fun at the moment on regular and high population campaigns.

Immovable shouldn't be in the game, period. Or if it is, it needs a 1-2 minute cooldown. An ability that makes you immune to every possible CC in the game, including silence, and can be permanently kept on, is ridiculous.

I'm sure it's been said before, but Immovable doesn't apply to soft CC like DK's Talons, Sorc's Encase, or NB's Aspect of Terror.

MrGhosty

I would very much like it if we had some better diagnostic tools for considering our performance in game. What I mean by this is that I have no way to figure out whether I got killed seemingly instantly because of really bad lag or that I went up against someone dealing a lot of damage. This sort of instance is incredibly frustrating as it gives me very little means of improving or refining a particular build. Lag is of a considerable issue as it is often times impossible to even tell if your CC actually took or not.

Secondly, I think there should be some skills that do not work in PvP at all as well as a limit to the number of skills available in a hotbar. In an ideal world we would get three slots for class/weapon skills and two slots could only have an assault and support skill placed in each.

Thirdly, If the game essentially scales up our attributes to level 50 when we enter cyrodiil, we should be able to equip lvl 50 weapons and armor, short of running in the non vet campaign there is very little opportunity for a lower leveled player to contribute meaningfully to their campaign and it would seem this causes them to just run with the zerg blobs if they want to have any hope of staying alive more than a few seconds.

Vortimere

Kewljag_66_ESO wrote: »

(2) Forward Camps can ONLY be placed at resources. (maybe a designated protected spot)

Terrible idea... eliminates the possibility of engaging in open combat on the field with forward camp support (like escorting a scroll or advancing a force to a forward position to attack at keep).

Myrdrett wrote: »

- one Option for that is a Resurrection-Radius 800 Meter around the resource/Forward-camp.

Great idea... I'm not keen on the way FCs are used to by-pass transitus restrictions and this suggestion would solve that problem.

It was mentioned earlier but bears repeating--the guild camps and the normal camps need to have separate radius placement rules so that one does not preclude the other in the same area or the issue of "I can't place a camp" is going to kill the tactical usage of them (as often happens now... I hear them referred to as "troll camps" sometimes). Troll camps are going to happen because people lack tactical knowledge and just dump a camp anywhere or because they are saboteurs working for another faction. Troll camps should be a lot less of a problem if guild camps are introduced and the radius for placement is independent of existing normal camps.

Myrdrett wrote: »

- or binding on it - on a Resource-Bindstone or Bind-NPC.

Terrible idea... when things get hot, you want to be able to have the last person in your group that used up the camp be able to put a replacement camp down and USE IT... not force everyone to stop combat and have to re-bind every time a new camp is dropped.

Myrdrett

Vortimere wrote: »

Myrdrett wrote: »

- or binding on it - on a Resource-Bindstone or Bind-NPC.

Terrible idea... when things get hot, you want to be able to have the last person in your group that used up the camp be able to put a replacement camp down and USE IT... not force everyone to stop combat and have to re-bind every time a new camp is dropped.

I am aware of this. And thats what i want.
When a Forward camp gets destroyed - the attack broke down.
No endless attackwaves on keeps. If the defenders succeed with destroying the Forward camp, the battle should be nearly over.

I want faster desicions in Keepfights.

Hours of keepfights with nothing to do, except of destroying keepwalls or repairing keepwalls after the next sensless charge of the attackers - stopped by forwardcamp-respawn.

Actually the defenders can`t take advantage, because "the last man Standing" of the attackers plant a FC. And the attackers can't take advantage, because the defenders plant there FC.

So the boring Siegeweapon-Firing go on and on for hours, thanks to the Forwardcamps.

My opinion: A nerv for FC - to bring more fight between the keeps on open field.

cazlonb16_ESO

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

There have been discussions about Forward camps as well and currently we're leaning towards having "guild forward camps" where only guildmates can resurrect at a guild forward camp. This would be a new item entirely to go along with the forward camps already in the game. We're still working on getting this nailed down along with other forward camp issues that have lingered.

Last I checked, the game mode was called Alliance vs Alliance vs Alliance, not Guild vs Guild vs Guild. I'd like you to keep it that way.

Given the current reward structure it is difficult enough to get people to actually try to win the campaign, even without dividing the community further via guild only features.

Amserauq

Last time I checked, you should be in a guild that does PvP to make it AvA or else you aren't contributing anyways. So I'd like you to keep it that way and join a PvP guild instead of crying on the forums.

Guilds will actually be able to accomplish bigger things with their own forward camps instead of AP hoarders who are to lazy or not willing to lay down a camp after they use one of the slots.

Merlin13KAGL

liversledge wrote: »

Love the new changes, especially adding in a campaign for non-veteran rank players. I specifically bought the game for the PvP, but because I don't have the free time that some other players have I quickly fell behind the masses and would constantly be killed by VR players every time I entered Cyrodil.

Is there a reason you cannot level your combat skills in Cyrodil, or is it just so slow that I haven't noticed?

@liversledge‌, the way Battle Leveling used to work, it wouldn't matter if you put on L50 gear, except for the attributes/set bonuses in some cases.

Armor, Spell Resist, Regen's, Damages, and Main's were all scaled to the same. Basically, if you went in with full heavy, you'd have the same AC after the buff as you would if you went in buck naked. (Why do you think so many people didn't wear clothes at one time - 0 repair bills)

As a side effect, most PvE type buff spells had zero effect. Add Bound Armor - no change. Use a skill that adds 100 health, no change.

The only time you could truly buff yourself was if you were 50 or higher on entry.

I actually remember around L47 going there and having some of my numbers go down

Your skills very much still level in Cyrodiil. Probably seems slower because it takes more to drop the enemies and longer in transit than what it does in not-Cyrodiil.

The XP's are better than what you are probably getting outside, but when you factor the added time, unless you're slaughtering other characters, it may not be the fastest way to level your skills.

Have the lowered the NPC's to 50, or are they still VR5 in the non-vet campaign? Haven't been in the new version yet.

liversledge

Merlin13KAGL wrote: »

liversledge wrote: »

Love the new changes, especially adding in a campaign for non-veteran rank players. I specifically bought the game for the PvP, but because I don't have the free time that some other players have I quickly fell behind the masses and would constantly be killed by VR players every time I entered Cyrodil.

Is there a reason you cannot level your combat skills in Cyrodil, or is it just so slow that I haven't noticed?

@liversledge‌, the way Battle Leveling used to work, it wouldn't matter if you put on L50 gear, except for the attributes/set bonuses in some cases.

Armor, Spell Resist, Regen's, Damages, and Main's were all scaled to the same. Basically, if you went in with full heavy, you'd have the same AC after the buff as you would if you went in buck naked. (Why do you think so many people didn't wear clothes at one time - 0 repair bills)

As a side effect, most PvE type buff spells had zero effect. Add Bound Armor - no change. Use a skill that adds 100 health, no change.

The only time you could truly buff yourself was if you were 50 or higher on entry.

I actually remember around L47 going there and having some of my numbers go down

Your skills very much still level in Cyrodiil. Probably seems slower because it takes more to drop the enemies and longer in transit than what it does in not-Cyrodiil.

The XP's are better than what you are probably getting outside, but when you factor the added time, unless you're slaughtering other characters, it may not be the fastest way to level your skills.

Have the lowered the NPC's to 50, or are they still VR5 in the non-vet campaign? Haven't been in the new version yet.

The non-vet campaign still has VR5 guards. I've been in 30 minute battles racking up a ton of AP, but no noticeable skill point experience. I'm still not convinced I'm getting any lol.

KriHavok

Regarding the future Alliance War content after Imperial City, has the remainder of Cyrodiil been considered yet? This includes places such as Anvil, Leyawiin, Kvatch, etc. (However, I am unsure if these places existed in the 2nd Era.) Perhaps even the infamous city Sutch known to have not made it into TES:IV other than a fort named after it.

Lionxoft

@ZOS_BrianWheeler‌

Just remove the Farmer Emperor (Yes,Farmer) buffs altogether. Emp trading solution found.

jamie.goddenrwb17_ESO

Erock25 wrote: »

Can I call you Wheels?

Dude....dude....."Hotwheels" sounds way more badass

trimsic_ESO

The game mechanics encourage people to stack in a huge blob and to equip in their hotbar a lot of powerful PBAOE spells (PBAOE heal, DPS, support, etc...). This situation is killing Cyrodiil and contributes to the decline of the game.

As suggested in an earlier thread:

• Add anti-zerg techniques to the game, mainly powerful and efficient CC techniques, so it is possible to counter the mass. People shall be strong when they stack together, but when stacking they should take huge risks.
• Limit the range of respawn for the forward camps to their zone of action
• Add a 5 pieces of heavy armor requirement for immovable
• Immovable shall not be able to counter the negate magic zone
• Add friend / foe collision.
• Balance stamina with respect to magika
• Increase a lot the damage dealt by dual wields and 2H weapon skills, especially single target damage. They currently do less damage than the single target bow skills, which can be used safely at range...

liversledge

trimsic_ESO wrote: »

[*] Add friend / foe collision.

I think this would add a lot of realism to the PvP.

Wall of a keep goes down and the defenders make a human wall to prevent breach! (at which point they are seiged to death - but that's besides the point)

timidobserver

With future pvp gear, can you make the traits not garbage. Why would you put explorer on V12 pvp gear.

KriHavok

trimsic_ESO wrote: »

[*] Add a 5 pieces of heavy armor requirement for immovable

This means that other armors would have to have 5 pieces for the armor ability.
This means that it would not be biased.
This means that those who play a combo of armors and abilities will not be able to play like that anymore.

That is why I do not believe they would change it for immovable.

Myrdrett

trimsic_ESO wrote: »

As suggested in an earlier thread:

• Add anti-zerg techniques to the game, mainly powerful and efficient CC techniques, so it is possible to counter the mass. People shall be strong when they stack together, but when stacking they should take huge risks.

Fully agree - Mezz-Skills and Anti-Mezz-Skills like "Dark Age of Camelot Style" would be nice. Maybe a little bit weaker than in DaoC. Twenty-Seconds-Mezz duration would be enough.

trimsic_ESO wrote: »

[*] Limit the range of respawn for the forward camps to their zone of Action

Fully agree - i hope this comes soon. It is the urgents change I want to see in this game.

trimsic_ESO wrote: »

[*] Add a 5 pieces of heavy armor requirement for immovable
[*] Immovable shall not be able to counter the negate magic zone
[*] Balance stamina with respect to magika
[*] Increase a lot the damage dealt by dual wields and 2H weapon skills, especially single target damage. They currently do less damage than the single target bow skills, which can be used safely at range...

Don´t care about that. Ok, maybe lightly increased damage for Stamina-Singletarget-Skills.

trimsic_ESO wrote: »

[*] Add friend / foe collision.

No - would be a nice feature. I know it from Warhammer online. But causes more lags - stability is more important than this Feature.

Mujuro

liversledge wrote: »

trimsic_ESO wrote: »

[*] Add friend / foe collision.

I think this would add a lot of realism to the PvP.

Wall of a keep goes down and the defenders make a human wall to prevent breach! (at which point they are seiged to death - but that's besides the point)

I'd been thinking about this myself and, while I'm generally in support of such a measure, it'd need to be balanced carefully such that BE sorcs/mist form vamps wouldn't be the only folks who would be able to escape being surrounded (e.g., to "push past" would require use of stamina, and a lot of it at that, or do something like what UO did such that pushing past another player would be impossible unless at full stamina).

Mendoze

Lord_Draevan wrote: »

Pixysticks wrote: »

Immovable shouldn't be in the game, period. Or if it is, it needs a 1-2 minute cooldown. An ability that makes you immune to every possible CC in the game, including silence, and can be permanently kept on, is ridiculous.

Or it should be only available if you're wearing 7/7 pieces of Heavy Armor. That would stop the blobbers, they'd have to sacrifice all their Light Armor magicka bonuses.

This would be awesome change. Also it probably would make life a bit harder for those impulse spam trains, when you could CC those in the back. And last but not least, maybe somebody would slot sorcerer negating field again, if it wasn't useless anymore.

As a side note, maybe you could look at the sorcerer skills at some point, since couple of our class defining skill have become almost useless, ever since people learned more about game mechanics. Currently sorcerer is the only class that needs to use healing staff to heal, while everybody else has other ways to heal. This is mainly because everybody and their mother are running in impenetrable suits nowadays, and our self heal requires critical hits.

Traveller

Sorry to go off thread here, but I know you are looking at population numbers in the new campaigns and with the no-vet EU campaign the numbers are low. Congratulations to the Dominion every keep scroll and resource, the Covenant tried to turn this around this week. It was fun new players came in we took 2 or 3 keeps then the Dominion came back it must have been fun for them. However a lot of players come in see the map, Dominion everywhere and just leave or farm. I think the numbers are there, however I think it can go two ways. One, the Covenant and Pact form great large no-vet PVP groups and turn it around (don't forget the Dominion get all the bonuses). Two, everyone join the Dominion little if any PVP action and all the rewards.
OK here it come and you can guess what it is. Reset the whole non-vet campaign each time, everything keeps, scrolls, resource, yes even the quests. Time it to start at peak time and let the fun begin, don't put no-vets of PVP please.

Evarwyn

"We’re also looking to add more Alliance-specific gear to give more options for individual identity to the Aldmeri, Ebonheart and Daggerfall communities."

Does this mean more PvP specific gear?

PvP/PvE specific gear only creates a divide between the content and the community, as this type of gear becomes more prevalent in the game. I disagree with this move.

Everything else sounds great though. Keep up the great work and thank you!

dracobains_ESO

Limiting the range of forward camps would cripple some of the attack blitzing where a small group sends some scouts down to prep a keep and then all rez there to take it. So while the complaint is using this mechanic for defensive maneuvers it would also destroy some of the offensive uses as well.

If it is deemed to be an issue then simply do not allow them inside a keep. if they are outside anywhere they are vulnerable. Have players scout and destroy them or cut off the reinforcing forces.

I don't see much wrong with the FC uses but I don't mind some changes either. I think making the construction time take a bit more would be beneficial. They are too easy to plop down right now and even when you get one destroyed they just bring another right back up. make them a bit easier to disrupt.

Limit the total number of FCs to something smaller and make them more strategic instead of these constantly maintained camps everywhere. You could also take away the ability to repair them so as they degrade they can't be maintained all night long.

meh.. not a big deal to me but there are certainly some easy things that can be done rather than significant alterations. Guild FC sounds nice though.

Merlight

dracobains_ESO wrote: »

Limiting the range of forward camps would cripple some of the attack blitzing where a small group sends some scouts down to prep a keep and then all rez there to take it. So while the complaint is using this mechanic for defensive maneuvers it would also destroy some of the offensive uses as well.

That's the whole point. Being able to suicide and repop on the opposite side of the map deep behind enemy lines is plain wrong, no matter if it's 8 people or 80.

Yshaar

Brian, I would like to thank you for coming here and posting here. This is very needed and welcomed by the pvp community.

Furthermore I love Kewljag_66_ESO proposals.

Head.hunter

For all the wrongs people might find in this game, you have to admit Zenimax have a kickass team. Every time they add on something to the game it's always awesome, something you don't expect, something that adds to the game's quality in a smart way.

FENGRUSH

@ZOS_BrianWheeler‌

Nothing on AOE caps in all of that? You mentioned you were going to do something about the issue in another thread, but havent offered any ideas. Just cancelled my sub with my friends and wont be interested in touching the game without a change here.

If you have one in mind, please put it forth sooner than later.