Alliance War future plans and update!

ZOS_BrianWheeler

We have talked about resurrections only be allowed within the radius of the Forward Camp and shrinking the size of the radius as well with increasing the respawns. This is a bit more tricky than it sounds and the programmers want to make sure it's clean as can be before putting it out there.

Rune_Relic

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

We have talked about resurrections only be allowed within the radius of the Forward Camp and shrinking the size of the radius as well with increasing the respawns. This is a bit more tricky than it sounds and the programmers want to make sure it's clean as can be before putting it out there.

Reasonable....let us know how the testing is going. Keeping is in the loop at least is warmly appreciated.

Zheg

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

We have talked about resurrections only be allowed within the radius of the Forward Camp and shrinking the size of the radius as well with increasing the respawns. This is a bit more tricky than it sounds and the programmers want to make sure it's clean as can be before putting it out there.

The intended change of limiting these to alliance rank will have negligible effects and surely the dev team must realize this. I'm literally baffled why you are spending so much time trying to feel your way around in the dark making fixes to forward camps instead of just removing them. When mercenary contracts blew up in your face, you just took them out of the game and that was that. They weren't necessary to pvp with. Forward Camps are not necessary to pvp with. With a fully buffed speed horse, traversing the map isn't a big deal, and it forces players to strategically make use of transit lines and break enemy transit lines. Why are you guys being so stubborn with forward camps by refusing to throw in the towel and take them out, but you are perfectly fine having the transit line mechanic be entirely neglected in place of the broken foward camps?

Again, I'm baffled. Try as I might, I just can't follow your logic, and I've been trying for a while now.

DDuke

Suggestion: take away the forward camps entirely, until there is a good, properly working version of them.

ghengis_dhan

I think if ZOS added a second Cyrodiil campaign map, we would see a more even number of players between the two highest population campaigns. Everything is the same, they just need to rename and move the keeps and outposts. Maybe add some more outpost along the edge of the map.

Give players a choice, and some will go with the old map, and others the new map.

I also feel that "Blood Porting" is an exploit.
1.) Death in Cyrodiil should have a penalty even if slight. I suggest you lose some AP ranking when your character dies.
2.) Make it so you can only respawn at a forward camp if you die within its white circle. or...
3,) Make it so you can only re-spawn at a wayshrine, but add forward camps to the transit network if a friendly keep is within the white circle. If you can fast-travel to the keep, you can also fast travel to a forward camp near it.

ghengis_dhan

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

We have talked about resurrections only be allowed within the radius of the Forward Camp and shrinking the size of the radius as well with increasing the respawns. This is a bit more tricky than it sounds and the programmers want to make sure it's clean as can be before putting it out there.

As a programmer for business applications, I understand. Users don't always understand that some requests are much harder to implement than they look because it would require changing core classes and so on.

Cody

Mendoze wrote: »

I played a lot of PVP last weekend, and noticed a lot of non-veteran players in the 7 days campaign I've been playing in ( EU AD side ). Of course that's a great sign that new players are coming to the game, but in the same time it's quite annoying for veteran players, since none of these non-veterans ever seem to have a forward camp, and lets be honest, they die a lot against veterans. So is it possible that non-veterans would only take 0.5 from forward camp's spawn limit, and they couldn't use the last spawn chance, so it wouldn't be so costly to have low level players on your side?

That being said, I do understand that non-veterans don't want to invest 7k for a forward camp, since most of them are still saving for the PVP gear, but it's unfair for veterans to pay the bill all the time, and also on top of that lose sieges because non-veteran uses the last spawn chance from the existing camp. So could you consider this kind of change?

veterans also use the last spawn chance......

demonlkojipub19_ESO

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

We have talked about resurrections only be allowed within the radius of the Forward Camp and shrinking the size of the radius as well with increasing the respawns. This is a bit more tricky than it sounds and the programmers want to make sure it's clean as can be before putting it out there.

Increased respawns will be good with all that. I always thought for their cost 20 respawns is too little for all that happens in cyrodil with their cost.

Still, the combat team needs to step up their adjustment of skills that are causing cyrodils headaches. The oil adjustment idea is exactly what I thought should happen with oils, but unless the ability to zergball through people is removed defending against that is going to be much harder to impossible with the oil change.

JamilaRaj

I doubt oil nerf will have any impact on ability to defend against zergballs, because a) in open/level field where zergball can move directly on oil, a guy with oil is able to fire 2x at most before he dies, and b) zergballs have so many people spamming shields, purges and heals, that they don't even notice some oil was there.

It's almost sad to see troll camps fixed (well, it's effectiveness is dubious at best, but let's assume it is a fix), because while it was indeed an issue, it was also a counter to the other two (and far more detrimental) FC issues, wich are blood porting and perpetual camp spam. I wonder when that will be fixed...

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

What is so hard about removing the aoe target caps?

As a bug you had some abilities ignore it, it shouldn't be too hard to reproduce it and make it a feature.
Player behavior changing would also mean that no caps would improve performances. It really doesn't seem like a technical choice.

Can the combat team come forward and explain their fears?
Because where we're standing, there are no reasons to retain a generalist target cap. Maybe we would be more patient if we could relate with your concerns.

Abagaile

Removing Forward Camps would fix 99% of the issues with the current PVP system.

#1 It would reduce load in latency. You wouldn't instantly have 23509823509825 players spawn from a Forward Camp which causes stress to the server.

#2 It would force players to work together

#3 It would reduce if not eliminate AOE spamming on keep breaches to cause latency during keep take overs.

There are a hundred reasons why Forward Camps being removed would improve the state of PVP, these are just the top three. I believe the PVP aspect of ESO would be improved with this removal.

Luvsfuzzybunnies

Keron wrote: »

Merlight wrote: »

There's a pathological case lurking in your scheme. If one faction is practically absent, and the other two have similar pop, the higher would be penalized greatly for no reason. Not very likely, but still not fair.

I see your point. Maybe include a sanity check to prevent it.

Step one: Check whether the difference between absolute pop of (highest pop faction) and average pop of (the two highest pop factions) deviates by less than 10% of the (average pop of the two high pop factions). If yes, don't apply deduction. If no, proceed to step two.

Step two: Check whether the difference between absolute pop of (medium pop faction) and average pop of (the two lowest pop factions) deviates by more than 50% of the (absolute pop of the lowest pop faction). If yes, calculate deduction for (highest pop faction) based on the difference between (absolute pop of highest pop) and (average pop of the two highest pop factions). If no, proceed to step three.

Step three: As described before, check whether the difference between absolute pop of (highest pop faction) and the average of (the two lowest pop factions) deviates by more than 10% of the (average pop of the two lowest pop factions). If yes, calculate the deduction for highest pop faction based on difference between absolute pop of (highest pop faction) and average pop of (the two lowest pop factions). If no, back to no deduction.

Woah, baby, it's getting complicated. @Merlight, give me some time to think about your formula. But generally, I would tend to only penalize the highest pop faction and not modify the two "underdogs".

That is also @Rune_Relic, after some additional thought I would not include any kind of bonus for low pop factions in any case, personal or faction wise. Too much room for exploitation - imagine a coordinated 20-man train getting into a campaign that has their faction severly underpopulated and then just going for AP farming at a ressource tower... a behaviour that shouldn't be supported in any way.

But if there is a significant difference in the low two populations this system will not work...

Davadin

Just for the record, I'm all for keeping FC, but do tweak them.


But let's talk about the bigger issue shall we? Zerg ball. How do we stop them? Yes, it's a bigger issue, and yes, it's the main reason the servers choked.


Or... the previous few commenters are zergball supportive that wanted to change the subject?



TL;DR Who the ngentot cares about FC and its fixes. Nobody really complaint about it or at least FAR from the level of zerg balls.

Lord Stark

Lol so sick of the zerg complaints, zerg is not an issue... you guys are playing the wrong MMO to hate zergs. This pvp setup supports it, it is built around massive amounts of people grouping up for a greater good. GET OVER IT. its ALLIANCE WAR not player war.

There are 50 other mmo's out there with the kind of player on player experience you are looking for.. You guys chose to play this one! Live with it!

Sahtiva

dsoegiartob16_ESO wrote: »

Just for the record, I'm all for keeping FC, but do tweak them.


But let's talk about the bigger issue shall we? Zerg ball. How do we stop them? Yes, it's a bigger issue, and yes, it's the main reason the servers choked.


Or... the previous few commenters are zergball supportive that wanted to change the subject?



TL;DR Who the ngentot cares about FC and its fixes. Nobody really complaint about it or at least FAR from the level of zerg balls.

This is ridiculous. What is the true reason you don't like large groups? If it is truly a matter of the effects it has on the server, definitely needs to be addressed within the server, but why is the suggested answer to stop the large groups? Why is it acceptable for you to want to have a small group because it's your preference, but it's NOT okay for those who enjoy being in a larger group to get to do that?

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

To the two previous posters: @Sahtiva‌ and @Lord Stark‌

Maybe you don't follow the forums much but zerg balling isn't zerging.
It isn't about numbers and it isn't against the concept of AvA, quite the contrary.

Zerg balling is the name of a tactic in the game that consists of stacking an entire group in the same physical space in order to exploit the aoe target cap.
By doing so, members of the group all gain a passive dodge chance that increases the more people stack.

It is a lame move but unfortunately, it is a dominant strategy and there are no reasons not to do it. Either you stack or you gimp yourself.

"zerg balling" is a bad term that causes a lot of confusion, but it stuck because it does look like a ball made out of zerging.
I much prefer call it "stacking".

Any way, this issue is caused by the presence of an arbitrary target cap.
Removing it is the only solution to not only fix the stale gameplay of stacking but also indirectly nerf aoe abilities.

Davadin

Lord Stark wrote: »

Lol so sick of the zerg complaints, zerg is not an issue... you guys are playing the wrong MMO to hate zergs. This pvp setup supports it, it is built around massive amounts of people grouping up for a greater good. GET OVER IT. its ALLIANCE WAR not player war.

There are 50 other mmo's out there with the kind of player on player experience you are looking for.. You guys chose to play this one! Live with it!

Sahtiva wrote: »

dsoegiartob16_ESO wrote: »

Just for the record, I'm all for keeping FC, but do tweak them.


But let's talk about the bigger issue shall we? Zerg ball. How do we stop them? Yes, it's a bigger issue, and yes, it's the main reason the servers choked.


Or... the previous few commenters are zergball supportive that wanted to change the subject?



TL;DR Who the ngentot cares about FC and its fixes. Nobody really complaint about it or at least FAR from the level of zerg balls.

This is ridiculous. What is the true reason you don't like large groups? If it is truly a matter of the effects it has on the server, definitely needs to be addressed within the server, but why is the suggested answer to stop the large groups? Why is it acceptable for you to want to have a small group because it's your preference, but it's NOT okay for those who enjoy being in a larger group to get to do that?

apologies for not being clear.

i personally LOVE playing with large group. i love being part of a battle, not guerrilla ambushes/skirmishes.... i LOVE being in a siege/defend where i have hundreds vs hundreds...


but ESO PvP's issue, commonly mentioned in this forum as "zerg ball", is a big group of people stacked into the smallest space possible, moving in concert while spamming 1, maybe 2, AoE skills, obliterating everything in their path.

It's unreal, unfun (mostly for the victims, i admit), unbalanced, and completely unstable for the servers.


That's the bigger issue.

Troll-camping, FC abuse, or its fixes, is PALE IN COMPARISON (in my honest opinion).

Thank you for reading.

DaisyK

i'd hate to see FC go... just limit their use or range. Cyrodiil is so big and riding around can already be so boring and time consuming. a lot of low level characters are just new toons of experienced players.. i don't see how a level requirement would help.. vr14s can place troll camps aswell. i'm missing something cause i fail to see the logic, explain please

Rune_Relic

DaisyK wrote: »

i'd hate to see FC go... just limit their use or range. Cyrodiil is so big and riding around can already be so boring and time consuming. a lot of low level characters are just new toons of experienced players.. i don't see how a level requirement would help.. vr14s can place troll camps aswell. i'm missing something cause i fail to see the logic, explain please

Not many alts are vr14s. So it minimises the likelihood of noob created troll camps who don't know any better and opportunistic troll camps by people that have an alt made on the fly.

Mendoze

Is there any news about impenetrable trait? That trait is so good that it negates all spell and melee critical builds, and also makes certain critical hit skills non-functional in PVP. For example sorcerers' Critical Surge depends on critical hits, and that leaves us sorcerers only class in the game that can´t heal without resto staff. So any chance you could talk with combat team about this, and maybe they could take a look at that?

p_tsakirisb16_ESO

Impenetrable is fine as it is, until there is a cap at ~20% for critical. Trying to crit stack and make the game bigger fragfest than it is already is absurd.

Except they place a 80% damage nerf across the board in Cyrodiil, removing half the CC abilities, and fixing the ridiculous mechanics of CC and breaking.

Especially Talons & Dodge cost discrepancies.

Davadin

I wonder if ESO has the statistics on how many people actually running Impenetrable in Cyro....

c0rp

Zheg wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

We have talked about resurrections only be allowed within the radius of the Forward Camp and shrinking the size of the radius as well with increasing the respawns. This is a bit more tricky than it sounds and the programmers want to make sure it's clean as can be before putting it out there.

Why are you guys being so stubborn with forward camps by refusing to throw in the towel and take them out, but you are perfectly fine having the transit line mechanic be entirely neglected in place of the broken foward camps?

I really want to hear the answer to this....I am sure I never will.

reften

Problems = Cyrodiil player caps too large = too much lag + no action on other servers

Solution - Lower the caps and have the below.

Campaign #1 = Thornblade as it is now (only home campaign)
Campaign #2 = Imperial City

Can port in either, and each has separate caps/wait times.

Add a PvP Skirmish mode 24vs24vs24 with one keep 100 lives winning faction (whoever captures the keep) gets +100 hitpoints. Game starts when you have 72 participants. After 1hr winner determined by AP if nobody gets the keep.

Two nights in a row I haven't been able to play because I logged on too late and didn't want to wait the hour+ to get in Cyrodiil. If this continues, I'm will not renew.

Davadin

oren74 wrote: »

Problems = Cyrodiil player caps too large = too much lag + no action on other servers

Solution - Lower the caps and have the below.

Disagree. The problem is the zerg balls creating unexpected spike in server load by stacking ridicolous number of players in a small space, using multiple (well, a few) skills rapidly.

Kill the pain train and you'll get your stable servers back.

I don't want to play in a low-cap campaign. This is Alliance vs Alliance. Not small groups vs small groups. I got counter-strike for that.

reften

Davadin wrote: »

oren74 wrote: »

Problems = Cyrodiil player caps too large = too much lag + no action on other servers

Solution - Lower the caps and have the below.

Disagree. The problem is the zerg balls creating unexpected spike in server load by stacking ridicolous number of players in a small space, using multiple (well, a few) skills rapidly.

Kill the pain train and you'll get your stable servers back.

I don't want to play in a low-cap campaign. This is Alliance vs Alliance. Not small groups vs small groups. I got counter-strike for that.

Lag is lag. Yeah gets worse with AoE spam, but when 3 alliances collide heavy in one spot, it's over, AoE spam or not.

Davadin

oren74 wrote: »

Davadin wrote: »

oren74 wrote: »

Problems = Cyrodiil player caps too large = too much lag + no action on other servers

Solution - Lower the caps and have the below.

Disagree. The problem is the zerg balls creating unexpected spike in server load by stacking ridicolous number of players in a small space, using multiple (well, a few) skills rapidly.

Kill the pain train and you'll get your stable servers back.

I don't want to play in a low-cap campaign. This is Alliance vs Alliance. Not small groups vs small groups. I got counter-strike for that.

Lag is lag. Yeah gets worse with AoE spam, but when 3 alliances collide heavy in one spot, it's over, AoE spam or not.

I dunno, dude. Might be wrong, but last night or the night before, Chalman was on FIRE - ok 2 nights ago - with 3 alliances crashing together.
It was fun.

It was great.

Some people crashed, yes, most people lag, of course.... but generally no one's complaining.

Then pain train arrived and BAM! Half the players are GONE. Finito. Kaput. Game resets. The dead got stuck at loading screen while the rest are looking at their desktop.

That's just silly.

ghengis_dhan

Davadin wrote: »

but ESO PvP's issue, commonly mentioned in this forum as "zerg ball", is a big group of people stacked into the smallest space possible, moving in concert while spamming 1, maybe 2, AoE skills, obliterating everything in their path.

It's unreal, unfun (mostly for the victims, i admit), unbalanced, and completely unstable for the servers.

The reason I re-spec'd to a healer build is because of the poor performance I experienced while in large fights in Cyrodiil. I'd see maybe 2/3s of the enemy players, sometimes less. One time, I ran up to (what I thought) were two low-health players, but after toggling off my death recap, I saw that it was a group of five. As a healer, I can run around my group spamming Rapid Regeneration, Healing Ward, and Purge without seeing a single player.

People seem to assume that players run in "Zerg Balls" because they lack skill, and maybe that's case for some. But, it is just as likely that this is how they compensate for poor system performance. If it's true that Zergs degrade system performance, then their activity is a feedback loop reinforcing their behavior. Well, that and the number of kills they get.

Improving system performance might not stop "Zerg Balls", but it might encourage them to use other skills more often or even to <gasp> spread out.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

And it's also a matter of playing to win.
If a tactic is just superior to all others, why would you gimp yourself?
Any player understanding the game should attempt to stack, and eventually, this is all there will be to ESO's PvP.

JamilaRaj

oren74 wrote: »

Problems = Cyrodiil player caps too large = too much lag + no action on other servers

Solution - Lower the caps and have the below.

Campaign #1 = Thornblade as it is now (only home campaign)
Campaign #2 = Imperial City

Can port in either, and each has separate caps/wait times.

Add a PvP Skirmish mode 24vs24vs24 with one keep 100 lives winning faction (whoever captures the keep) gets +100 hitpoints. Game starts when you have 72 participants. After 1hr winner determined by AP if nobody gets the keep.

Two nights in a row I haven't been able to play because I logged on too late and didn't want to wait the hour+ to get in Cyrodiil. If this continues, I'm will not renew.

Lower population caps would only extend queues, because depopulated/one-sided campaigns suffer from vicious circle, where especially random, individual players have little to nothing to do and even groups hard time to start action, and at this point existence or length of queues does not matter.
Also, caps would not prevent concentration of zergballs neither fix glitches in the game.

Skirmish mode makes me sick and utterly bored just by reading about it.

ghengis_dhan wrote: »

Davadin wrote: »

but ESO PvP's issue, commonly mentioned in this forum as "zerg ball", is a big group of people stacked into the smallest space possible, moving in concert while spamming 1, maybe 2, AoE skills, obliterating everything in their path.

It's unreal, unfun (mostly for the victims, i admit), unbalanced, and completely unstable for the servers.

The reason I re-spec'd to a healer build is because of the poor performance I experienced while in large fights in Cyrodiil. I'd see maybe 2/3s of the enemy players, sometimes less. One time, I ran up to (what I thought) were two low-health players, but after toggling off my death recap, I saw that it was a group of five. As a healer, I can run around my group spamming Rapid Regeneration, Healing Ward, and Purge without seeing a single player.

People seem to assume that players run in "Zerg Balls" because they lack skill, and maybe that's case for some. But, it is just as likely that this is how they compensate for poor system performance. If it's true that Zergs degrade system performance, then their activity is a feedback loop reinforcing their behavior. Well, that and the number of kills they get.

Improving system performance might not stop "Zerg Balls", but it might encourage them to use other skills more often or even to <gasp> spread out.

And one would expect that players with poor performance would disperse into countryside to murder stray individuals and stay away from AoE heal spam.