Future Potential Thornblade Campaign scoring change

Jauriel

Davadin wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

The siege changes going in today may change some of this actually as well. If more people can take more things with less people via using Siege weapons, that too could have the effect desired of spreading people out.

Good stuff.

Also, decimating people with sieges are bloody brilliant. Don't let the haters tell you otherwise. They simply need to look at the ground indicators more often and stop huddling.

But that's not what is happening. More people are taking more things with more siege. There is no spreading out. It has just given the zerg mentality more toys with which to decimate smaller groups. That is the only result of this major change mid campaign.

trimsic_ESO

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

The siege changes going in today may change some of this actually as well. If more people can take more things with less people via using Siege weapons, that too could have the effect desired of spreading people out.

Using weapon sieges to force people to spread out is really not a good idea. Why don't you provide people with abilities they can slot to control and defeat the masses? This would force people to spread out too, but in a more enjoyable way.

Do you think the player skill or the team skill decides the fate of a combat when we just have to deploy a couple of fire balistas?

krim

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Increasing the AP you get for capturing undefended keeps/resources would, as people have pointed out, generate a mentality of "flipping for AP" or "Tower Trading" since they get AP more readily/easier than player killing.

As a clarification as well, the keep and scroll bonuses will remain active as well as the transit lines.

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.

HYPE!

CN_Daniel

Focus on fixing the performance issues, don't waste time on things like this. You've left us PVP'ers out to dry for a long time now. Put some work in.

Valnas

CN_Daniel

I think this is all a horrible idea...

Zhoyzu

NPK Daniel wrote: »

I think this is all a horrible idea...

no ***. thornblade died months ago and you come here for thread necromancy.

AhPook_Is_Here

Psilent

They ended up doing this with the alternate non vet campaign. Where you got 10 AP or so for using a repair kit; whereas on Blackwater you got the standard 25 to 30.

Weberda

I think NPK necro'd this thread simply out of nostalgia. Pretty sure it's close to the last comments issued by Brian Wheeler here-to-date.

Khyras

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Hey gang!

In the continued efforts to help Cyrodiil performance, we are considering some changes to the Thornblade Campaign scoring rules. Currently the scoring is setup to have the most importance on Scrolls, then Keeps, outposts and resources last. We are considering changing that one of the following options:

• Keeps, Scrolls, Outposts and Resources all contribute just 1 point each.
Or
• Scrolls, Outposts and Resources are worth 1 point, and Keeps are worth 3.


The first option puts everything on an even playing field in terms of contribution to the overall score, however being that 54 resources exist in Cyrodiil vs 18 keeps and resources take less people to capture, you have a greater opportunity of point earning via resources. We’re well aware of the requests to make keeps more important with various new additions and reasons to claim for your guild, but that will have to wait for a later patch as that takes some code time we are currently focusing on finding the bugs chewing on wires causing performance issues.

The secondary option has 3 resources equaling the value of a single keep. This would mean you get 54 points from keeps, and 54 points from resources. Catching up in scoring would be similar to what is now, and the emphasis on keeps would still be there. Note, however, these changes are in response to the request to make objectives more meaningful besides the keeps where the knee buckling performance issues occur the most.

We’re using Thornblade as the grounds for this change as that’s the campaign with the most performance issues at the moment, and potentially with the most to gain from these changes. We could fire up a new campaign, or assign these rules to Haderus, however we wouldn’t know if the behavior of encouraging players to take these resources has the effect we want or not simply because it doesn’t have the population and performance issues as Thornblade.

Currently the score in Thornblade with 13 days to go is:

Ebonheart 56864
Daggerfall 56449
Aldmeri 40300

If we make this change, it can be done in two ways:

• The current score stays as is, but the new calculations take place when the patch goes out.
OR
• We end the campaign when the patch comes out, and Thornblade starts fresh.


This change wouldn’t come until later this month when there is roughly 24-48 hours left in the campaign. We will be looking at feedback here over the course of the next week to see what you all think of this change, and if this scoring change goes in and we have to forcefully end the campaign, you will be rewarded appropriately based on the score when the campaign is restarted.

So....thoughts?

You sound... desperate. I like it.

Darklord_Tiberius

So now Thornblade is dead, where are they going to focus on next? I wonder if they even realize how broken their pvp server idea is? Probably not.

PainfulFAFA

With the way AOE caps is, large groups can't fight without performance going out the window but i have an idea on how PvP battles could be changed if we took the second option (or something similar) where resources have a higher value to them both strategically and economically.

I'm not sure exactly how many resources exist that have this ability but many resources give groups the higher ground advantage in which they can fit 2-4 siege weapons in the tower + 2-4 additional siege outside the tower that can actually hit a wall. As a result, defenders have no choice but to take them out over by the resource or let them come to the keep but risking getting wiped. The first result usually ends up in tower farms.
With that in mind, what if ALL resources had similar characteristics in which it allows offensive groups to siege the walls from the resource towers/structures in such as way that it isn't op by giving defenders' keep/castle/fort a catapult of some sort that they could use as a counter (also not being op and 1-shotting tower). That way there are multiple entries into an enemy building and not clogging everybody up in one entry. In addition, resources would have to be changed in a way that it is a bit more challenging and meaningful to claim that it encourages alliance coordination, not a solo sniper or 1 fire-treb (and perhaps include a reward/chest for those that are actually worthy). The tower structure would also have to be changed so that defenders have multiple access (like 2 doors and maybe a ledge of some sort) and a bit more challenging to sustain as an offensive group (like 2 NPCs inside). People wanted ARENAS didn't they? Make the tower the arena. Not only that, make the resource claim so that people can actually gain good exp off of it (meaningful).

Some may argue that
- it would me unfair because offense would tear down all walls but then why not change the positioning of structures?
- more walls down means more walls to repair putting pressure on defenders since they cant respawn but i suppose all ZOS has to do is change some numbers around like timers (flagged status timer and wall not being hit timer).

I only say this because the lag is so terrible and frustrating that groups can't claim objectives because game performance destroys game immersion that I find myself losing interest at times when everybody is rushing through ONE entry, everybody is shooting siege at one specific area, and everybody coordinates to zerg rush (ulti-bomb) ONE area and ONE area only. Azuras NA was extremely discouraging during primetime 3 faction pop-lock several hours ago that it made me realize where Cyrodiil is headed without changes. We all know something won't be done until console release but the question still persists and will continue to persist for the next 26 days: What the hell is ZOS going to do about cyrodiil performance?

RedTalon

Let the dead have their piece necromancers.

RinaldoGandolphi

Armitas

tordr86b16_ESO

When are you going to fix the lag from zergtrains?

Bouvin

Is Brian Wheeler still at ZoS?