Why doesn't Cyrodil Map Reset after a campaign ends?

ldwulfub17_ESO

So we got completely trounced in the last campaign. This is non-vet, 5 day resets.

The campaign reset. But the map did not. So we still have nothing.

If this is how we are going to be stuck permanently, what is the point?

ldwulfub17_ESO

No keeps, no scrolls, almost no players for DC.

Obscure

If every keep resets it creates an environment where people will simply stop playing towards the end of a campaign or simply bail out on the campaign when things are too imbalanced and will just leave the place a ghost Town until reset. The cycle willl repeat over and over and over again. High pop at the beginning of a campaign, low pop towards the end.

This would turn Cyrodiil into a game of playing for points, and if you need an example look at Guild Wars 2. It's all about playing the timer to maximize points per tick to win the round, and not about actually fighting anyone. It's a system that actually rewards you better the less you fight as your points flip faster if they're undefended.

Resetting the keeps will turn AvA from a PvP mode to PvWall mode, and players will focus on seeking out undefended capture points rather than seeking out big fights. The game would then get rapidly stale and result in player burn out. If your vastly outnumbered in a campaign and nothing you do seems to gain you any ground, there's other routes to take in an enemy dominated campaign: the enemy of your enemy is your friend. There are three factions. Plan a time for groups on both sides to get online in large numbers and push the dominating faction back until your camping their spawn point. It's an MMO, so get massively multiplayer on their asses!

Too many soft players these days. They just look at the map, throw their hands up in defeat, and leave. If you have a problem, get creative and solve it. It's the difference between those who just survive and those who thrive. Where one man sees rain and just stays in his cave groaning about it, another man invents an umbrella. Take the initiative, solve the problem, you might just make friends or even rivals in the process.

Arsenic_Touch

Obscure wrote: »

If every keep resets it creates an environment where people will simply stop playing towards the end of a campaign or simply bail out on the campaign when things are too imbalanced and will just leave the place a ghost Town until reset. The cycle willl repeat over and over and over again. High pop at the beginning of a campaign, low pop towards the end.

This would turn Cyrodiil into a game of playing for points, and if you need an example look at Guild Wars 2. It's all about playing the timer to maximize points per tick to win the round, and not about actually fighting anyone. It's a system that actually rewards you better the less you fight as your points flip faster if they're undefended.

Resetting the keeps will turn AvA from a PvP mode to PvWall mode, and players will focus on seeking out undefended capture points rather than seeking out big fights. The game would then get rapidly stale and result in player burn out. If your vastly outnumbered in a campaign and nothing you do seems to gain you any ground, there's other routes to take in an enemy dominated campaign: the enemy of your enemy is your friend. There are three factions. Plan a time for groups on both sides to get online in large numbers and push the dominating faction back until your camping their spawn point. It's an MMO, so get massively multiplayer on their asses!

Too many soft players these days. They just look at the map, throw their hands up in defeat, and leave. If you have a problem, get creative and solve it. It's the difference between those who just survive and those who thrive. Where one man sees rain and just stays in his cave groaning about it, another man invents an umbrella. Take the initiative, solve the problem, you might just make friends or even rivals in the process.

You pretty much just described the current game without the reset. So do tell how adding a reset that would actually make things fair to players being dominated, be a bad thing when everything you described is already happening?

Obscure

Arsenic_Touch wrote: »

Obscure wrote: »

If every keep resets it creates an environment where people will simply stop playing towards the end of a campaign or simply bail out on the campaign when things are too imbalanced and will just leave the place a ghost Town until reset. The cycle willl repeat over and over and over again. High pop at the beginning of a campaign, low pop towards the end.

This would turn Cyrodiil into a game of playing for points, and if you need an example look at Guild Wars 2. It's all about playing the timer to maximize points per tick to win the round, and not about actually fighting anyone. It's a system that actually rewards you better the less you fight as your points flip faster if they're undefended.

Resetting the keeps will turn AvA from a PvP mode to PvWall mode, and players will focus on seeking out undefended capture points rather than seeking out big fights. The game would then get rapidly stale and result in player burn out. If your vastly outnumbered in a campaign and nothing you do seems to gain you any ground, there's other routes to take in an enemy dominated campaign: the enemy of your enemy is your friend. There are three factions. Plan a time for groups on both sides to get online in large numbers and push the dominating faction back until your camping their spawn point. It's an MMO, so get massively multiplayer on their asses!

Too many soft players these days. They just look at the map, throw their hands up in defeat, and leave. If you have a problem, get creative and solve it. It's the difference between those who just survive and those who thrive. Where one man sees rain and just stays in his cave groaning about it, another man invents an umbrella. Take the initiative, solve the problem, you might just make friends or even rivals in the process.

You pretty much just described the current game without the reset. So do tell how adding a reset that would actually make things fair to players being dominated, be a bad thing when everything you described is already happening?

Fair to players being dominated or unfair to players doing the dominating? There is no fun to be had in simply taking something away that someone earned to be fair to those who have earned nothing. You want your keeps back? Fight for them, that's the whole point of PvP.

You want points in Cyrodiil? You literally have to fight for the best gains, and defense is the best source of AP gain. This creates big fights for a keep as players who want to earn points get them in bulk by defending. Bigger defending party requires bigger offensives to take them down. This snowballs into large fights for keeps. If were going to reset keeps at the end of the campaign, you're literally removing the opportunity for those fights to occur.

Even still whats the point of pushing into enemy territory today, if you know for a fact they just get to have it back tomorrow? If they just flip, then it doesn't matter if you stand there and defend it with 250 people for 48 straight hours, it gets taken away from you regardless. For what? In the name of being "fair"? Fair to who? You're robbing the underdogs of any earned victory against a dominating force, and robbing the dominating force of any meaningful reason to dominate in the first place.

What is more satisfying? Retaking your home ground against a larger force through hard work, organization, and clever thinking OR Having it all just magically given back to you with no effort whatsoever.

twev

Obscure wrote: »

Fair to players being dominated or unfair to players doing the dominating?
.... <snip the rest of it... go read it above....>

So, at the beginning of the next campaign, when it's seriously lopsided, nobody bothers to sign up and play for the losing side.

It happens in elections all the time, rarely does somebody vote for the blow-out underdog, everyone wants to be on the winning team.
I don't see this being substantially different but for a few diehards, and I'll bet you a crate of mastic that the diehards won't stay steadfast for too many campaigns like that.

Just my opinion.
I have lots of opinions.


<I hate having to edit to correct a speeling error. It sucks all the drama out of the moment.>

ldwulfub17_ESO

Obscure wrote: »

Even still whats the point of pushing into enemy territory today, if you know for a fact they just get to have it back tomorrow? If they just flip, then it doesn't matter if you stand there and defend it with 250 people for 48 straight hours, it gets taken away from you regardless. For what? In the name of being "fair"? Fair to who? You're robbing the underdogs of any earned victory against a dominating force, and robbing the dominating force of any meaningful reason to dominate in the first place.

What is more satisfying? Retaking your home ground against a larger force through hard work, organization, and clever thinking OR Having it all just magically given back to you with no effort whatsoever.

First of all, I'm not sure there even ARE 250 players on the pre-vet server at any time. It seems to be at most 25-40 pre-vet players trying to take a keep defended by vet lvl 5 npcs and enemy players. As you said, they get more points for defending, so lots of people are happy to play for the dominant faction and rack up the points.

Also, you didn't take into account the scrolls which provide substantial bonuses.

Essentially, once a faction is dominant, it is an incredible war of attrition for the other side(s) with less players than the dominant side has, less bonuses than the dominant side has, less AP (as you said, defending gets more) and thus less siege, less FC, less yada yada yada.

What I'm saying is that this is unbalanced in a way that basically hopes the dominant faction gets bored dominating...

Are you on this server? Do you know the dynamics I'm talking about?

killedbyping

Same why doesnt trial recods reset after some changes to damaging\supporting skills are made or when there are confirmed exploit abuse.

zgrssd

Whoever is the biggest in PvP fights 2 against 1. Simply because the other enemies have a hard time reaching one another without running into them first.
And all the bonuses on the map are not doubling the combat power of the dominating factions players.

If the other two factions don't manage to owerwhelm them with sheer numbers chances are what makes the dominant is better coordination/incapable opposition.
And that means they won thier domination fair and square and are holding it fair and square.

Teamwork is the most OP skill in PvP since the invention of multiplayer PvP.

Arsenic_Touch wrote: »

Obscure wrote: »

If every keep resets it creates an environment where people will simply stop playing towards the end of a campaign or simply bail out on the campaign when things are too imbalanced and will just leave the place a ghost Town until reset. The cycle willl repeat over and over and over again. High pop at the beginning of a campaign, low pop towards the end.

This would turn Cyrodiil into a game of playing for points, and if you need an example look at Guild Wars 2. It's all about playing the timer to maximize points per tick to win the round, and not about actually fighting anyone. It's a system that actually rewards you better the less you fight as your points flip faster if they're undefended.

Resetting the keeps will turn AvA from a PvP mode to PvWall mode, and players will focus on seeking out undefended capture points rather than seeking out big fights. The game would then get rapidly stale and result in player burn out. If your vastly outnumbered in a campaign and nothing you do seems to gain you any ground, there's other routes to take in an enemy dominated campaign: the enemy of your enemy is your friend. There are three factions. Plan a time for groups on both sides to get online in large numbers and push the dominating faction back until your camping their spawn point. It's an MMO, so get massively multiplayer on their asses!

Too many soft players these days. They just look at the map, throw their hands up in defeat, and leave. If you have a problem, get creative and solve it. It's the difference between those who just survive and those who thrive. Where one man sees rain and just stays in his cave groaning about it, another man invents an umbrella. Take the initiative, solve the problem, you might just make friends or even rivals in the process.

You pretty much just described the current game without the reset. So do tell how adding a reset that would actually make things fair to players being dominated, be a bad thing when everything you described is already happening?

So people stop playing near the end of a campaign?
Then attack then, goddamit. The enemy is weak, so hit him even harder!
Even Julius Ceasar in Asterix and the Britains figured out to attack during Tee-time and weekends.

It's not quantum physics, only common sense.

k2blader

ldwulfub17_ESO wrote: »

First of all, I'm not sure there even ARE 250 players on the pre-vet server at any time. It seems to be at most 25-40 pre-vet players trying to take a keep defended by vet lvl 5 npcs and enemy players. As you said, they get more points for defending, so lots of people are happy to play for the dominant faction and rack up the points.

Also, you didn't take into account the scrolls which provide substantial bonuses.

Essentially, once a faction is dominant, it is an incredible war of attrition for the other side(s) with less players than the dominant side has, less bonuses than the dominant side has, less AP (as you said, defending gets more) and thus less siege, less FC, less yada yada yada.

What I'm saying is that this is unbalanced in a way that basically hopes the dominant faction gets bored dominating...

Are you on this server? Do you know the dynamics I'm talking about?

Well said.

For a couple hours tonight AD made a very valiant effort to try to take Faregyl. It seemed we had almost as many players as the EP defense. But once we broke through the outer wall it was an uphill battle against their considerable buffs and flame ring spamming emperor. Quite a few folks spent up their AP on sieges and FCs to help the effort. I would say pretty much everyone lost AP rather than gained any. And I'd wager that most if not all of us are playing on mains as opposed to VR12 alt twinks. So it's not hard to imagine a generally dwindling interest in returning to a fight where the "rewards" don't make up for the losses.

ldwulfub17_ESO

zgrssd wrote: »

Whoever is the biggest in PvP fights 2 against 1. Simply because the other enemies have a hard time reaching one another without running into them first.
And all the bonuses on the map are not doubling the combat power of the dominating factions players.

If the other two factions don't manage to owerwhelm them with sheer numbers chances are what makes the dominant is better coordination/incapable opposition.
And that means they won thier domination fair and square and are holding it fair and square.

No, because there are LESS PLAYERS. I'd love to know the actual numbers of active players for each faction, just to confirm what I'm seeing, but that would provide a inappropriate tactical advantage. What I am hearing is that people in the smaller factions just log on, look at the map and log off. Or worse, the "fair weather friends" just go play an a character in the dominant faction.

Regardless, the net result is that it isn't 2:1. The dominant faction's active population exceeds either of the other two. It *might* be even if you add the other two factions together.

Without the real numbers, I'm only going on my experience playing on this specific server, which is very unique compared to all the others.

SFBryan18

Moral of the story, level up in PvE before going to PvP.

twev

SFBryan18 wrote: »

Moral of the story, level up in PvE before going to PvP.

Level up to what?

Are you suggesting we level up to one point short of Vet levels to play the non-Vet campaigns, because anything through Level 49 will still fall under your posted advice.

I'm an AD in there with Level 42, and once we got overwhelmed we stayed overwhelmed.

More to the point:
The topic was about resetting the campaign AFTER THE PREVIOUS CAMPAIGN ENDS, not in the middle of a campaign as much of the discussion seems to be focused on if you follow the logic. Once you win a campaign - the campaign is over. Then a new campaign starts, no?

Otherwise if the campaign is infinite, and doesn't ever actually end, what's the point of a '5' day campaign, or a '7' day campaign?

If one baseball team wins the first game of a doubleheader by 12 runs, they don't start game #2 with a 12 run head start.
When a campaign is over, it's over. Why does the next campaign start as a continuation of the previous campaign?

I understand the logic of the answers, but the many of the answers seem to be addressing the wrong phase of the campaign sequence.

Somebody want to set me straight in the logic sequence?

SFBryan18

I was saying that the vet campaigns are probably more even.

Obscure

ldwulfub17_ESO wrote: »

Obscure wrote: »

Even still whats the point of pushing into enemy territory today, if you know for a fact they just get to have it back tomorrow? If they just flip, then it doesn't matter if you stand there and defend it with 250 people for 48 straight hours, it gets taken away from you regardless. For what? In the name of being "fair"? Fair to who? You're robbing the underdogs of any earned victory against a dominating force, and robbing the dominating force of any meaningful reason to dominate in the first place.

What is more satisfying? Retaking your home ground against a larger force through hard work, organization, and clever thinking OR Having it all just magically given back to you with no effort whatsoever.

First of all, I'm not sure there even ARE 250 players on the pre-vet server at any time. It seems to be at most 25-40 pre-vet players trying to take a keep defended by vet lvl 5 npcs and enemy players. As you said, they get more points for defending, so lots of people are happy to play for the dominant faction and rack up the points.

Also, you didn't take into account the scrolls which provide substantial bonuses.

Essentially, once a faction is dominant, it is an incredible war of attrition for the other side(s) with less players than the dominant side has, less bonuses than the dominant side has, less AP (as you said, defending gets more) and thus less siege, less FC, less yada yada yada.

What I'm saying is that this is unbalanced in a way that basically hopes the dominant faction gets bored dominating...

Are you on this server? Do you know the dynamics I'm talking about?

Those campaigns (Vet only and Non Vet only) face an issue independent of the mechanics as intended. They are an indefensible design oversight on ZOS's behalf, largely because they had no idea how player interest would render them poor choices for the game. They tested the waters and are finding out how few players are interested in such "special events".

The intent is to go where the largest number of players will be. Any restriction to the number, no matter how arbitrary, decreases the opportunity for larger fights. As I mentioned the largest fights yeild the largest gains. Thus the" special events " are treated with a sort of mild neglect by the bulk of the player base.

Taking into account the scrolls, they provide substantial bonuses so that they are desirable. This causes players to fight for them. If one side has them all they're going to need those bonuses should both sides stage a coordinated attack to take them back. Two factions vs One and those bonuses make less of a difference than they do against one uncoordinated group throwing themselves against a well defended enemy superior in strength and number.

Is there a problem with these "special events"? Yes. They aren't taken seriously and have very little legitimacy because of that. A fix would be to remove them from the home/guest system and allow players to just drop into and out of them without restriction. They are short lived campaigns as is and need not have long term restriction. As it stands most players home to the 30/14/7 day standard campaigns, guest to another one of them and completely ignore the "special events". There's simply not enough interest in them. Great for dueling in a quiet corner, but awful for any actual large scale PvP.

Whichever faction has a larger margin of interest in these "special events", which will likely only ever be the winning faction, will always have greater numbers. It is unlikely other players have or can maintain interest in what is viewed as a less legitimate campaign. Special Events simply should not need to be homed or guested to. They aren't taken seriously enough now so no one looking for big fights is on them, at least they could be not taken seriously with a larger population.

driosketch

A light campain where one side has taken everything usually becomes a dead campain. They are no fun to play on either side. But there are maybe better ways to address it than a map reset, especially on short campaigns were it kills any sense of accomplishment.

Cyrodiil offers incentives to push forward and be aggressive in taking objectives, but that has an end point where it's pretty easy to lock up a map. There are two gate points and the transit paths to enemy gate keeps are locked off to prevent an alliance from being pinned back to their spawn point. Or that seems to be the purpose of the map design, but it still happens. So I considered some ways to make holding enemy keeps more difficult without having to resort to a reset.

-No NPC guards spawn when you capture one of your enemy's gate keeps. (You could even extend this to the choke point and outskirt keep as well.)

-Allow transit shrine points elsewhere in you're home area (between the wall gates/bridges), like for instance to a FC without needing to die. At the same time, make FC in enemy home territory only work for those who die in its circle of influence.

This would allow an alliance to push to take a scroll while not leaving a dead campaign behind in their wake. A little volatility should keep things interesting for all sides. You max out bonuses after 9 keeps owned I think, so even those that want their bonus campaigns wouldn't end up killing the action like the 7 day one is now. I know ZOS has some ideas to help underdog factions. But what they are and how they work if they are even implemented I haven't a clue.

SirAndy

driosketch wrote: »

make FC in enemy home territory only work for those who die in its circle of influence

That would go a long way to help with balance ...
;-)

cronius77b14_ESO

no one of the problems is the ability to port around the map at will with forward camps and keeps. For example I play in Haderus 7 day and AD owns everything and all scrolls at all times. This area is usually 2 yellow for AD 1 blue for DC and 1 red for EP. Guilds get messages when their keeps are under attack and any chance of getting 3 or 4 groups together on EP side at least is very quickly destroyed by that instant port garbage in the campaigns. Last night we broke the outer walls to Karra and wiped out about 5 groups of AD just to have them all instantly port right back and defend. It was pointless and everyone just got frustrated and left so hence why day in and day out AD owns everything.

Another thing that is annoying about instant ports everywhere is the fact that you cannot go out and gank anywhere to stop numbers from pouring in. The only thing this works against is attacking realms where gankers can camp the forward camps trying to siege a keep. But morale of my story is if you actually had to run back to a keep being sieged from another keep, those defenders wouldnt hold their keeps long at all. This instant port garbage needs to go bring back the old DAOC and Warhammer vet system and do away with this garbage. Space is supposed to allow time to mass up groups defenses and attacks for great battles not allow people to play stupid die over and over and then just port right back into the fight with ZERO penalty.

ldwulfub17_ESO

They could also prevent FC's from being set up inside the keep. At least this way the attacker would have a chance at destroying the defender's FC. If you cut off the keep from transitus by taking all resources, it shouldn't be bypassed by an FC in the courtyard.

driosketch

ldwulfub17_ESO wrote: »

They could also prevent FC's from being set up inside the keep. At least this way the attacker would have a chance at destroying the defender's FC. If you cut off the keep from transitus by taking all resources, it shouldn't be bypassed by an FC in the courtyard.

See I don't agree with this. Having the FC in the keep also helps an out numbered underdog alliance to repel an attack on a home keep. It represents a cost to maintain and is easily destroyed once an enemy breaks through the outer wall. I'm more surprised so many keep assaults don't make destroying the FC a priority.

You can't just gut the mechanic of the FC. There needs to be a balanced compromise. FC can also help when you need to cut off an enemy making off with your scroll, because usually the transit links are all down at that point. But at the same time they shouldn't be able to be used like a fast travel node to assault deep into enemy territory.