Future Potential Thornblade Campaign scoring change

Cody

I'm just glad y'all are finally taking some action.

I personally am leaning towards the keeps being worth 3 points each.

Xsorus

IcyDeadPeople wrote: »

Huntler wrote: »

the reason I say/know this won't work is the scoring is a relatively trivial thing on most peoples' minds these days. They care about killing and AP farm, both of which won't be changed by this change. All this does is trivialize the harder to accomplish tasks such as acquiring a scroll. And promote people trying to avoid fighting by running around PvEing resources.

Yes, agree with Huntler's assessment 100%. When most people log on to Cyrodiil in the evening, we look to see where the action is on the map and travel to where we can get into some fun battles or ganking.

Whether a particular objective will result in a higher score at the end of the campaign does not remotely figure into the decision of where to go for most players.
.

This.....I don't think anyone here remotely cares about scoring because of night capping.

Xsorus

If you want to spread out combat more...

Add more objectives between certain areas.....Like for example..The Aylaid Wells (sping) What if they didn't only give a health buff but also gave say an AP buff for killing people not within the area of a Keep or Tower.

Things like that might spread people out more.

cwewerka1_ESO

Morvul wrote: »

I agree with @Huntler here.
I do not think increasing resources importance via scoring is the way to go.
Instead, i would advocate to increase resources importance on the "capturability" of keeps. Thus forcing attackers to fight at the ressources as well as at the main keep, concurrently.

Basically, make doors and walls close to indestructable while the respective resource is held by the same alliance as the keep. Make NPCguards in keeps ridiculously strong as long as the farm is the right colour.
Changes in resource ownership should affect the keep within 1-2 minutes (or even immidiately), not after hours.

Since this would force attackers to leave players guarding the resources while the main force assaults the inner keep, the entire capture- and defensetick mechanic would have to change to make this viable though...

I agree with this. Objectives need to matter immediately. I remember groups sitting on objectives in Warhammer for 15 minutes, all objectives on a map, to lock down the zone. In ESO we take the resource and move on. There needs to be a reason a keep assault stashes 3 groups of 8-10 players on each resource. Once the inner keep wall is down to 15% the resource defenders can come off the objective and help take the keep.

This would also push some of the defenders out of the keep to take a resource and help delay the keep flip. Or delay it enough the attackers give up.

FadedJeans

I like the idea of resources impacting keep defensibility to a much greater degree, and faster felt.

I also like the idea of things like aylied wells, villages, bridges and other features contributing somehow and being worthwhile/desireable real estate.

Yolokin_Swagonborn

@ZOS_BrianWheeler

I am all for changing things around to see if it helps performance but please be willing to revert any changes back to the way they were QUICKLY if there are unintended side effects. The community is much more forgiving of a change with good intentions being quickly reverted than a change that persists because a development team is afraid of how it looks to keep undoing changes they have made. I have seen that in other games and I like the fact that you appear so open to experimenting with Cyrodill and soliciting advice from the people that spend the most time there.

This is a great direction for the game and I hope you continue communicating in this way.


Edit: I also know that plenty of guilds would enjoy organizing a PTS test of any new mechanic you come up with. It would be a fun experience.

Awe

very bad idae making resourses equal to keps and scrolls.
1 player, that can't even solo pass craglorn can take a resource now, they are very easy.
taking a keep takes a lot more effort, and getting a scroll even more.

imo, leave scoring as is. instead of spreading players, try to find other solution for performance issues.
if we wanted to see less enemies, we'd go to less populated campains.

Lava_Croft

First off, I love the interaction with the community. It very, very much appreciated.

I would vote for the second option, since Keeps are more important than Resources and should be treated as such in relation to the scoring.

The ideas of special scenarios around quest towns and such is something that a lot of us have wanted since the beginning, it's great to see you working on it!

Keep up the good work and I hope you folks are able to purge the sickness that Cyrodiil is suffering from.

WebBull

Both options make keeps and scrolls almost meaningless.......I understand trying to spread people out but this is not the way to do it. You can kiss keep sieges and defenses goodbye. May as well remove scrolls. But, it is a huge positive that there is back and forth communication going on.

Docmandu

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

We have proposed internally putting murderball, CTF and "battleground style games" in the towns since some are tailored for it (Cheydinhal is perfect for a CTF), but for the time being this requires more code/UI time than we currently can spare.

God NO... I hope you're just joking here!!


Anyway on topic.. personally for me, I know how scoring works in Cyrodiil, but I admit I never look at the scores and really don't care about it. I just go where I can find fights.. which usually means the route between 2 enemy structures.. or the quest towns.
What keeps me from going to quest towns, is that it takes a very long time to travel there.. mindlessly driving my character there. Think DAoC did a better job there by providing automated travel if you so wish (ie. boats + skirmishes at the docks)

revcasy

@ZOS_BrianWheeler

I am uncomfortable with the whole idea of adjusting the scoring like this. It seems very likely to have unintended consequences.

I appreciate that you folks are acknowledging and trying to do something about the technical problems in Cyrodiil, but fiddling with the rules of the game is a mistake. It would be one thing if you were trying to improve the balance or the competitiveness purely for the sake of making the game more fun or satisfying to play, but you are proposing doing this for technical reasons.

I mean, yes not having the horrible lag would be more fun, but this is like saying, "Ok, well football is causing head injuries, so we are going to remove the football and make the field longer." At some point it isn't football anymore.

Maybe this wouldn't be as drastic as taking away the football, but we don't really know do we? And where does it end? Small changes can have large, unintended consequences, and once you go down the road of changing the rules to fix performance issues it is going to be tempting to just keep doing it over and over. I'd much rather you make the game you gave us work than give us a different game.

Rammi

The best think you could do as others have said is make capturing keep resources integral to actually taking the keep.

This spreads out players and also creates new dimensions for tactics both attacking and defending.

I don't believe these changes will change much other than in the worst case make people run around the map PVEing taking flags and not actually PVPing

WebBull

revcasy wrote: »

@ZOS_BrianWheeler

I am uncomfortable with the whole idea of adjusting the scoring like this. It seems very likely to have unintended consequences.

I appreciate that you folks are acknowledging and trying to do something about the technical problems in Cyrodiil, but fiddling with the rules of the game is a mistake. It would be one thing if you were trying to improve the balance or the competitiveness purely for the sake of making the game more fun or satisfying to play, but you are proposing doing this for technical reasons.

I mean, yes not having the horrible lag would be more fun, but this is like saying, "Ok, well football is causing head injuries, so we are going to remove the football and make the field longer." At some point it isn't football anymore.

Maybe this wouldn't be as drastic as taking away the football, but we don't really know do we? And where does it end? Small changes can have large, unintended consequences, and once you go down the road of changing the rules to fix performance issues it is going to be tempting to just keep doing it over and over. I'd much rather you make the game you gave us work than give us a different game.

Very well said.

Rammi wrote: »

The best think you could do as others have said is make capturing keep resources integral to actually taking the keep.

This spreads out players and also creates new dimensions for tactics both attacking and defending.

I don't believe these changes will change much other than in the worst case make people run around the map PVEing taking flags and not actually PVPing

I agree. Spread keep defense/offense out away from the keep by making resources more valuable (add more guards for each resource owned, walls significantly strong, if you own all 3 resources then you can rez inside if the inner isnt down, etc).

saintmurray

Option 1 for me and make capping a resource worth more that way small group play is viable.

InvictoNZ

Option 2, but with more.

Make it so you cannot capture the Keep with just the 2 flags.

Maybe 4 corner tower flags. (more or less for bigger or smaller keeps).

Maybe also all 3 resource flags.

Then in a big battle, you'd need your forces spread over 9 flags. 9 smaller battles.

You could increase this to a supply line from the nearest friendly keep, with flags every few hundred meters.

Sky Chancellor

@ZOS_BrianWheeler

It's important that you change resources altogether. Make them similar to DAOC, and make them small castles/tower. Make it so you can respawn at on of the small tower locations as long as you have 2/3 towers taken.

This would put a large emphasis on acquiring resources/towers and then holding onto at least three of them. The important part of this is to allow for an easier time for groups to take keeps (through respawn). Also, this would create more important resource defense, which is much needed.

IT IS NOT A GOOD IDEA to make points equal to all things taken in Cyrodiil.

Hypertionb14_ESO

there are already siginifcant benefits to capturing a keep over a resource...

keeps are Key to controlling the map and therefore the scoreboard no matter how much you get for them..

you

block enemy travel
open friendly travel

the 3 resources around a keep will do only half of this if taken and thats why most keep attacks occur by starting on the keep itself..

I think only 1 point for each makes more sense, maybe at best giving 2 for keeps.

if keeps are equal to all resources, the current situation of people flocking in massive numbers to them will only worsen, potentially dramatically as the guilds that go for wins will focus their Zergs on them..

if resources combined outweigh the keeps then smaller groups who focus on them can have a impact on the campaign outcome as much as the groups that focus on the keeps. This would spread out the combat away from the zerg the keep tactics that completely dominate atm, and thus reduce lag.

people will always prioritize the keeps, because the are keystones in taking other resources due to transit and defense ability.. so why make it worse by giving keeps uber points per controlled?

Tintinabula

I like the idea that everything is worth one point..that way ppl will be just as inclined to take a resource or outpost as a keep..and defend it. If keeps are worth 3 points I am afraid they will be come centers of lag and ppl will ignore resources generally.

Lava_Croft

Anyone with the slightest bit of faction pride will care about scoring, because it makes their faction win the campaign and that's what it's all about.

The rest can keep farming AP at resource towers and Alessia bridge.

Zhoyzu

This is interesting. However, most current "tactics" are take the keep first so it has less resistance. then go for the resources. So in the end the keep will still be a priority for least resistance. so this doesnt exactly help with spreading people out.

On the other hand, it would require more skill form the entire faction to coordinate a 3 point hit on all the resources at the same time to block trans. AND THEN everyone is at the keep in a concentrated area yet again.

Ill support this change because i may as well give it a shot and it'd be interesting to see how it plays out.

On another note. It would make sense to increase the Keeps/castle/fort alliance point ticks out so that the radius encompasses the resources so people dont feel like they werent as important or the role (of taking a resource) is too insignificant to be worth the time. This might aide in the spreading of people as well. @ZOS_BrianWheeler

JDar

Just put alchemy nodes at resources that haven't seen any players for a while with an adjacent opposing keep.

Wolfaen

My personal opinion would be to go with option 2.

I agree with a lot of the comments being made about making resources more important to hold as defenders and to take as attackers.

Just a quick thought about this, but maybe if it was made where defenders of a keep could continue respawning at the keep, even if flagged, as long as they held 2/3 resource points. This would make resource points have a far greater importance during keep sieges than they do currently.

I also agree that the resource points should have an immediate impact on a keep siege when they are taken, instead of taking hours to benefit from them like others have mentioned.

@ZOS_BrianWheeler thanks for asking and listening to our input. I hope this communication continues going forward!

Attorneyatlawl

Huntler wrote: »

No it shouldn't, increasing AP gain from PvEing in a PvP zone is exactly the wrong direction to go when trying to get people to spread out. You'll turn Cyrodiil into a flip fest where people want/allow the opposing faction to take things. It will kill PvP faster than possibly any other decision, its happened many times in many other games.

This... case in point: Warhammer Online. Took a long time for them to recover from that blunder...

Aerieth

Zhoyzu wrote: »

On another note. It would make sense to increase the Keeps/castle/fort alliance point ticks out so that the radius encompasses the resources so people dont feel like they werent as important or the role (of taking a resource) is too insignificant to be worth the time. This might aide in the spreading of people as well. @ZOS_BrianWheeler

This!

I'd comment on it more, but it sums it all up already.

Hypertionb14_ESO

.

Manoekin

I like option 2. Currently you can just keep pace if you hold enemy scrolls even if you lose every other home keep. Scrolls should be at the bottom of importance as far as scoring goes, but with this change the buff from holding enemy scrolls should be increased. Also, when a scroll is capped a faction wide Continuous Attacks buff would be cool.

I don't think this will have a big effect on spreading people out more, but I have another suggestion you could pass along to whomever works on this. Currently the only way people group in cyrodiil is through guilds or zone (and people mostly join guilds through zone the first few times). An improved grouping UI or system specifically for Cyrodiil would do wonders for performance. A lot of the times you end up with 80 AD at a keep simply because everyone is following the person in front of them. Another issue is distance... without camps people won't go past the nearest objective usually. They need to be brought back if you guys are seriously looking at doing this. Either that or as suggested a long time ago, increase horse speed on roads.

Attorneyatlawl

Sky Chancellor wrote: »

@ZOS_BrianWheeler

It's important that you change resources altogether. Make them similar to DAOC, and make them small castles/tower. Make it so you can respawn at on of the small tower locations as long as you have 2/3 towers taken.

This would put a large emphasis on acquiring resources/towers and then holding onto at least three of them. The important part of this is to allow for an easier time for groups to take keeps (through respawn). Also, this would create more important resource defense, which is much needed.

IT IS NOT A GOOD IDEA to make points equal to all things taken in Cyrodiil.

New Frontiers was a clever design, I actually liked it more than old Frontiers. I agree.

AltusVenifus

Awesome. I don't care which TBH. I'm just glad you guys are trying to fix pvp!

Xsorus

What if you couldn't capture a keep unless you controller all 3 resource points. This would force you to keep people there holding those objectives and not just all packed on a flag. This would spread the pvp out in a general area.

Manoekin

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

What if you couldn't capture a keep unless you controller all 3 resource points. This would force you to keep people there holding those objectives and not just all packed on a flag. This would spread the pvp out in a general area.

You'd end up with groups just holding resources then imo.