A critical discussion on the current state of PvP and suggestions for improvement (LENGTHY thread)

Pirhana7_ESO

While i hope alot of these things get fixed in Cyrodiil I am at the point where im just waiting for Camelot Unchained now and log into ESO and play in Cyrodiil when I need something to do.

Garion

eliisra wrote: »

Garion wrote: »

Finally and in respect to the zerg blob, the siege changes have done absolutely nothing to discourage this type of behaviour. We definitely saw a decrease in the number of blobs immediately after 1.6 but I believe this was due to the fact that people were altering their builds and getting used to the new playstyle that 1.6 demanded. As people have established new builds the zerg blob has returned and sieging them does little to impact them - they can outheal and purge the damage due to their superior numbers while at the same time dealing considerable damage.

Not sure if heals or altered builds are the reason. No zergblob can just stupid stack and outheal+purge multiple sieges. They melt like everyone else, if you actually focus fire and hit them. It's the fact that you cant hit them.

You cant put up siege, due to performance dips cased by zerg blobs and multiple players in the same area. Doesn't matter if a siege does 500k dmg, when you cant place and interact with it. You cant use oil, you cant use pots, you cant use skills, cant mount, cant weapon swap and than you die to 50k fall dmg lol. Cyrodiil is more broken now than ever. It's enough with 40+ players in the same area and everything shuts down.

You're right, no blob however organised could stack and outheal a very concerted siege effort against them. However the reality is that when the siege goes up it does not go up in an organised fashion aimed at the blob. It tends to go up and be aimed all over the places at the mindless zergers (as opposed to the organised zerg blob). Yes one or two people might get killed, but because of the fact that almost the entire alliance runs together nowadays this people can be easily ressed and the sieging continues.

The other fact is that zergblobs have simply become more mobile and this will only increase.They can outheal considerably more siege damage than a smaller group and when it becomes too much they can start moving and any siege that follows them can be outhealed - 2 or 3 sieges for a blob is nothing. For an 8 man group it means death.

You are right however that the zerg blob virtually negates siege in any case though, simply because the lag prevents you from popping siege. I have seen instances where I strongly believe that guilds have been actively exploiting this in the knowledge that no one will be able to use siege against them.

Charadras wrote: »

Some example:
- fire ballista price: 12000 AP
- fire trebuchet price: 18000 AP
- meatbag price: 10000 AP
- oil catapult price: 10000 AP

I agree entirely. Increased costs on siege would be a step in the right direction, although I am strongly behind nerfing the damage in addition to this.

Mojomonkeyman wrote: »

Thank you, Lasto, for this wonderful post. Very well thought out, written and formated.

I wholeheartedly agree with most of your points, I`m torn on the FC issue, though. Originally I was totally supporting the removal, but with 1.6+ I find there`s far too much damage flying around which is not counterable due to lag, visuals or high impact to justify a 5 min ride for 1 min action.

Action is limited to keeps & large groups even moreso than ever before (you pointed out why) and those scenarios always involve mass siege, which makes combined with lag for really crappy pvp.

BR

Thanks, Koma . The forward camp issue is a contentious one and I can see why Zenimax removed them when they did (although I can't say I agree with them being removed before a suitable alternative was found). Having played without them for sometime now though I do think a suitable alternative needs to be introduced and introduced now. I don't want us to be in the same position as we were with mercenaries...

Nermy wrote: »

I read what I could and found it very interesting. I have to disagree on the changes to siege you mention. We have been using them to great effect on zergs and will always put up siege in a fight if we can. It also gives smaller groups the capability to combat larger groups.

I'll try to get reading the rest a bit later...

You are right that in some situations the use of sieges can be viable when a smaller group clashes with a larger group. This is most notable in a situation where one (smaller) organised group hits a larger organised group. In the majority of situations however I believe that this isn't true.

I'm going to use this section of my post to respond to @mike.gaziotisb16_ESO also (hi Maulkin!).

Let's take for instance a keep siege where a smaller group is attempting to defend a keep against a larger group. Before it was possible for a group of only small people to defend the breach for quite some time against a larger group by holding the breach, in a kind of "300" situation. Now a small group of people stood on the breach will be bombarded by 20 sieges which will result in certain death. Granted, we could stay back and siege the breach but when their numbers are so much higher than the defenders we would kill one or two and the rest would get enough heals and purges to go through.

The same situation is true when it comes to taking and holding resource, or even roaming in the open field and using LOS and the environment. When your group is small and a larger group gets the jump on you before you are in a position to use siege, you will face almost certain death.

My key point is that siege was supposed to spread people out. I think it has achieved the opposite because people are more encouraged to run in larger groups. It certainly isn't spreading people out to the extent that it has been suggested.

As someone who plays in smaller groups exclusively - we are virtually never more than 12 as you know - I can safely say that small scale group player has become considerably more difficult with the introduction of siege when clashing with larger groups in the open field. The one time it is a benefit is when we are taking a keep, but that same benefit applies to the zerg also.

Smeag wrote: »

I suggest disabling certain abilities that are believed to be contributing to the lag (healing springs, meteor, etc) for one day and see what happens.

This is not a solution. There are many things that can be done but removing skills is not one. If these skills are indeed the root cause of the problem, Zenimax should be working overtime to improve their infrastructure to ensure it can handle these skills.

woodsro wrote: »

Jauriel wrote: »

Since 1.6 (and indeed before) PvP has suffered a wealth of issues that are simply not acceptable from the perspective of a paying customer. This is why I have removed my ESO Plus subscription. I will continue to play but I will not give money to a game that is failing to deliver on very basic aspects of gameplay and has provided nothing but problem after problem for the dedicated PvPer.

This. My plus sub is also being cancelled. I won't continue to pay for this game when they can't address something they themselves is a huge problem: THE EP POP IMBALANCE.

Same here, their failure to do anything about the pop imbance in this game that has been going on for months will leave me no choice but to pull my card and cut off the money. I want to get ZOS my money, but right now they are not giving me a reason to continue to do so.

Population imbalances are a difficult one and I can understand to an extent why ZOS have difficulty with this. I think that in the first instance I genuinely believe that introducing the changes I have suggested would help to spread people out which would in turn minimise the impact of an imbalanced population.

I also think it's worth placing a lower cap on alliances that have a higher population but that is kind of a different discussion and isn't a huge problem on the EU server, outside of the buff campaign, at least.

m.stollb16_ESO wrote: »

In my opinion, what still encourages blobbing is the unlimited stacking of heals, stacking of damage shields, and purge without target limit.

If a blob of 10 players gets hit by multiple siege weapons several times then all 10 players should die with no way to mitigate that damage (sorry, but if they are stupid enough to blob up and stand still at one spot while multiple siege weapons fire at them they deserve to wipe). Reduce the damage of siege weapons by 50% maybe but let them completely negate all healing on you while you're under the effect of a siege weapon dot (which cannot be purged).

Limiting the use of siege weapons to near keeps, outposts, and resources would be a nice change, in my opinion (and could maybe reduce lag by a tiny bit; although it would really change bridge fights).

Also, siege weapons should not be bought with AP but with a separate resource that slowly refills up to a set maximum (and players should only be able to carry one siege weapon at a time so if they buy a new one the old one gets deleted from their inventory; siege weapons could obviously not be deposited in the bank anymore then; when you leave Cyrodiil your siege weapon item would get deleted as well).

Forward camps would be nice but it's too easy to get them to the desired location (when I compare them to other deployable spawn options you have in PvP MMOGs like Planetside 2). It would be fair, in my opinion, if it takes 60 to 120 seconds to deploy a forward camp and your enemies can see that you're trying to deploy one on the map (or if there is some kind of visual graphic effect so you can easily spot an enemy deploying a forward camp from a certain distance). Deployed forward camps should definitely be visible to your enemies on the map given how immense their influence is on the outcome of a battle.

Thanks for your input. I hope ZOS takes the time to read your suggestions as I do think they are worth consideration. I do think that siege is overpowered though for the reasons I have explained above, but I am certainly not against giving siege additional features outside of raw damage.

Lava_Croft wrote: »

Almost a perfect post, except for

• The changes to siege equipment have been proven to be very effective against the 'zergs' you mention.
• Using siege equipment in open field combat is awesome.
• Please don't bring back the forward camps.
• Changing the maximum group size is a cosmetic change that will probably not have the effect you desire.

Other than that, take note of what OP wrote, @ZOS_BrianWheeler. It's coming from someone who deeply loves PvP, like most of us here do.

Haha, did you agree with anything?!?!

The change to sieges I have further justified above. They are effective vs. certain zergs but they haven't done anything to make people spread out as was the stated intention. See my comments above on this.

Why are you against the return of forward camps?

In regard to the changes in group sizes I admitted above it was to an extent cosmetic. People will still undoubtedly organise in the same TS but it would go some way to reducing AP gain in larger groups and make organisation more difficult.

Rune_Relic wrote: »

Siege Changes - Disagree
They are a great leveller and give noobs a chance to get some AP on the board.
Rather than just the OP elite getting all the AP.
No they didnt help with the zirg...nor did removing the aoecaps which I also said wouldnt work when everyone screamed for it...making lag 10x worse with 10x the hits

Forward Camps - Disagree
Bloodporting and eternal combat [rez on site] was pathetic.
Troll camping just added to the lameness.
Yes you spent more time in combat than traveling to combat and completely bypassed all enemy territory in the process.
That was the point....

Your changes to siege do not negate my arguments, in fact you are agreeing with them! Giving noobs an easy way of making AP was not the intention and it will not go any way to improving the quality of PvP overall.

I do agree to an extent with your points on forward camps however I have indicated that if they are introduced they should be introduced with the caveat that you cannot res outside of their range. I am all for adding them again with no limits, as I very strongly believe that it will help to spread things out, however I appreciate that not everyone agrees with that and therefore I would happy to see them with some limits.

Zahne wrote: »

Remove buffs in PVE, that will stop people wanting a 'buff campaign'

Agreed.

Darklord_Tiberius

The siege changes are fantastic. When all anyone does anymore is zerg around the map to take things, how do you realistically expect and outnumbered EP or DC population to defend? To add to that if you are getting killed by siege and your group cannot survive, I suggest you need a change of strategy for your guild. With how many people are spending AP on PvP bags and gear or selling it, AP is actually being used up on NA side of things.

The single biggest issue for the NA servers is the fact people zerg around anymore. The removal of camps are partly the cause of this, but also the fact that other than keeps; there are no objectives in Cyrodiil to fight over. People are afraid of dying and therefore run with whatever large group they see. Until we get other PvP objectives around Cyrodiil other than keeps, the zerg with dominate and with that the lag.

We have found on the NA servers that if there are more than 100 people fighting, to fight off objectives in open field battles. We never have lag and is a lot of fun.

ToRelax

Increasing the AP cost of siege is a horrible idea unless you split gained AP in two currencies, one to buy siege and one for gear.

Garion

Darklord_Tiberius wrote: »

The siege changes are fantastic. When all anyone does anymore is zerg around the map to take things, how do you realistically expect and outnumbered EP or DC population to defend? To add to that if you are getting killed by siege and your group cannot survive, I suggest you need a change of strategy for your guild. With how many people are spending AP on PvP bags and gear or selling it, AP is actually being used up on NA side of things.

The single biggest issue for the NA servers is the fact people zerg around anymore. The removal of camps are partly the cause of this, but also the fact that other than keeps; there are no objectives in Cyrodiil to fight over. People are afraid of dying and therefore run with whatever large group they see. Until we get other PvP objectives around Cyrodiil other than keeps, the zerg with dominate and with that the lag.

We have found on the NA servers that if there are more than 100 people fighting, to fight off objectives in open field battles. We never have lag and is a lot of fun.

The siege buff does has its uses in certain circumstances, but if you read my original and subsequent posts you will have seen that I strongly believe that the siege changes and the lack of forward camps is the key factor behind people choosing to zerg. If these changes are introduced this zerging behaviour would be discouraged and siege wouldn't be such a huge deciding factor in these fights.

That's my problem - siege is becoming the be all and end all in these fights and they shouldn't!

ToRelax wrote: »

Increasing the AP cost of siege is a horrible idea unless you split gained AP in two currencies, one to buy siege and one for gear.

I think it's a great idea. Then people will be forced to choose between buying a ton of siege and buying gear, which will ultimately reduce the amount of siege in Cyrodiil without it disappearing altogether. This is a good thing.

ToRelax

Garion wrote: »

ToRelax wrote: »

Increasing the AP cost of siege is a horrible idea unless you split gained AP in two currencies, one to buy siege and one for gear.

I think it's a great idea. Then people will be forced to choose between buying a ton of siege and buying gear, which will ultimately reduce the amount of siege in Cyrodiil without it disappearing altogether. This is a good thing.

So I have to choose between having the right gear and enough gold so I can use potions or helping my faction? This idea is simply horrible, I would never choose to sell my AP when siege is needed, I even spend 10s of thousands of gold at times when we ran out of AP and repair kits, so in exchange I am not allowed to play competitive against equally skilled players or larger numbers anymore?
So no, that idea is horrible.

Garion

ToRelax wrote: »

Garion wrote: »

ToRelax wrote: »

Increasing the AP cost of siege is a horrible idea unless you split gained AP in two currencies, one to buy siege and one for gear.

I think it's a great idea. Then people will be forced to choose between buying a ton of siege and buying gear, which will ultimately reduce the amount of siege in Cyrodiil without it disappearing altogether. This is a good thing.

So I have to choose between having the right gear and enough gold so I can use potions or helping my faction? This idea is simply horrible, I would never choose to sell my AP when siege is needed, I even spend 10s of thousands of gold at times when we ran out of AP and repair kits, so in exchange I am not allowed to play competitive against equally skilled players or larger numbers anymore?
So no, that idea is horrible.

AP is incredibly easy to make. You can still do both, but you will have to be more conservative about what you buy and what you drop. They are too cheap at the moment. Increasing the amount still makes it viable to buy siege but you can't fill your inventory with just siege and spam it without even worrying about picking it back up.

ToRelax

Garion wrote: »

ToRelax wrote: »

Garion wrote: »

ToRelax wrote: »

Increasing the AP cost of siege is a horrible idea unless you split gained AP in two currencies, one to buy siege and one for gear.

I think it's a great idea. Then people will be forced to choose between buying a ton of siege and buying gear, which will ultimately reduce the amount of siege in Cyrodiil without it disappearing altogether. This is a good thing.

So I have to choose between having the right gear and enough gold so I can use potions or helping my faction? This idea is simply horrible, I would never choose to sell my AP when siege is needed, I even spend 10s of thousands of gold at times when we ran out of AP and repair kits, so in exchange I am not allowed to play competitive against equally skilled players or larger numbers anymore?
So no, that idea is horrible.

AP is incredibly easy to make. You can still do both, but you will have to be more conservative about what you buy and what you drop. They are too cheap at the moment. Increasing the amount still makes it viable to buy siege but you can't fill your inventory with just siege and spam it without even worrying about picking it back up.

I don't know what you do in Cyrodiil, but I rarely had over 100k AP or 20k gold before Forward Camps were removed, increasing the cost of siege would lead back to that state very fast. I fail to see why anyone would want that. Is it wrong that everyone can use siege at the moment?

Garion

ToRelax wrote: »

Garion wrote: »

ToRelax wrote: »

Garion wrote: »

ToRelax wrote: »

Increasing the AP cost of siege is a horrible idea unless you split gained AP in two currencies, one to buy siege and one for gear.

I think it's a great idea. Then people will be forced to choose between buying a ton of siege and buying gear, which will ultimately reduce the amount of siege in Cyrodiil without it disappearing altogether. This is a good thing.

So I have to choose between having the right gear and enough gold so I can use potions or helping my faction? This idea is simply horrible, I would never choose to sell my AP when siege is needed, I even spend 10s of thousands of gold at times when we ran out of AP and repair kits, so in exchange I am not allowed to play competitive against equally skilled players or larger numbers anymore?
So no, that idea is horrible.

AP is incredibly easy to make. You can still do both, but you will have to be more conservative about what you buy and what you drop. They are too cheap at the moment. Increasing the amount still makes it viable to buy siege but you can't fill your inventory with just siege and spam it without even worrying about picking it back up.

I don't know what you do in Cyrodiil, but I rarely had over 100k AP or 20k gold before Forward Camps were removed, increasing the cost of siege would lead back to that state very fast. I fail to see why anyone would want that. Is it wrong that everyone can use siege at the moment?

I kill stuff and I am consistently selling at least 1x cyrodiil light ring a day, so I am constantly spending AP and having an inventory full of siege. I don't think siege should become totally inaccessible, but I do think it should be slightly more expensive so that it does not become ridiculously easy for everyone to have tons of siege.

What's the problem with people only being able to have one or two siege weapons as opposed to five to ten?? It will encourage people to be less mindless with their sieging, which can only be a good thing.

Soulac

Your *** right.

ToRelax

Garion wrote: »

ToRelax wrote: »

Garion wrote: »

ToRelax wrote: »

Garion wrote: »

ToRelax wrote: »

Increasing the AP cost of siege is a horrible idea unless you split gained AP in two currencies, one to buy siege and one for gear.

I think it's a great idea. Then people will be forced to choose between buying a ton of siege and buying gear, which will ultimately reduce the amount of siege in Cyrodiil without it disappearing altogether. This is a good thing.

So I have to choose between having the right gear and enough gold so I can use potions or helping my faction? This idea is simply horrible, I would never choose to sell my AP when siege is needed, I even spend 10s of thousands of gold at times when we ran out of AP and repair kits, so in exchange I am not allowed to play competitive against equally skilled players or larger numbers anymore?
So no, that idea is horrible.

AP is incredibly easy to make. You can still do both, but you will have to be more conservative about what you buy and what you drop. They are too cheap at the moment. Increasing the amount still makes it viable to buy siege but you can't fill your inventory with just siege and spam it without even worrying about picking it back up.

I don't know what you do in Cyrodiil, but I rarely had over 100k AP or 20k gold before Forward Camps were removed, increasing the cost of siege would lead back to that state very fast. I fail to see why anyone would want that. Is it wrong that everyone can use siege at the moment?

I kill stuff and I am consistently selling at least 1x cyrodiil light ring a day, so I am constantly spending AP and having an inventory full of siege. I don't think siege should become totally inaccessible, but I do think it should be slightly more expensive so that it does not become ridiculously easy for everyone to have tons of siege.

What's the problem with people only being able to have one or two siege weapons as opposed to five to ten?? It will encourage people to be less mindless with their sieging, which can only be a good thing.

I wouldn't have less siege or repair kits. I would have less of the rest. WIth your suggestion I'd get punished for helping my faction. That's the problem. If you wouldn't run into the same problem that indicates another playing style. Good for you, but that doesn't mean it should be balanced around how much AP you earn and how much siege you buy.
Also, if you can sell one ring a day without loosing AP slowly, that would mean you earn at least 248k AP plus everything you spend on siege per day. For most players I would guess that would mean 8-12 hours PvP a day, it's also way more than your so far average of earned AP per day or you'd be rank 50 since for a pretty long time already.

Garion

ToRelax wrote: »

Garion wrote: »

ToRelax wrote: »

Garion wrote: »

ToRelax wrote: »

Garion wrote: »

ToRelax wrote: »

Increasing the AP cost of siege is a horrible idea unless you split gained AP in two currencies, one to buy siege and one for gear.

I think it's a great idea. Then people will be forced to choose between buying a ton of siege and buying gear, which will ultimately reduce the amount of siege in Cyrodiil without it disappearing altogether. This is a good thing.

So I have to choose between having the right gear and enough gold so I can use potions or helping my faction? This idea is simply horrible, I would never choose to sell my AP when siege is needed, I even spend 10s of thousands of gold at times when we ran out of AP and repair kits, so in exchange I am not allowed to play competitive against equally skilled players or larger numbers anymore?
So no, that idea is horrible.

AP is incredibly easy to make. You can still do both, but you will have to be more conservative about what you buy and what you drop. They are too cheap at the moment. Increasing the amount still makes it viable to buy siege but you can't fill your inventory with just siege and spam it without even worrying about picking it back up.

I don't know what you do in Cyrodiil, but I rarely had over 100k AP or 20k gold before Forward Camps were removed, increasing the cost of siege would lead back to that state very fast. I fail to see why anyone would want that. Is it wrong that everyone can use siege at the moment?

I kill stuff and I am consistently selling at least 1x cyrodiil light ring a day, so I am constantly spending AP and having an inventory full of siege. I don't think siege should become totally inaccessible, but I do think it should be slightly more expensive so that it does not become ridiculously easy for everyone to have tons of siege.

What's the problem with people only being able to have one or two siege weapons as opposed to five to ten?? It will encourage people to be less mindless with their sieging, which can only be a good thing.

I wouldn't have less siege or repair kits. I would have less of the rest. With your suggestion I'd get punished for helping my faction. That's the problem. If you wouldn't run into the same problem that indicates another playing style. Good for you, but that doesn't mean it should be balanced around how much AP you earn and how much siege you buy.
Also, if you can sell one ring a day without loosing AP slowly, that would mean you earn at least 248k AP plus everything you spend on siege per day. For most players I would guess that would mean 8-12 hours PvP a day, it's also way more than your so far average of earned AP per day or you'd be rank 50 since for a pretty long time already.

I had saved several million points prior to patch and I guess in an average month make around ~2 Million AP. So it's not impossible. I too would have to make sacrifices, but it's really really not hard to maintain a full inventory of siege and regularly sell PvP gear. My point was that it can be easily done. If I was reduced to 0 AP I could start selling rings after a week or so and keep a modest amount of siege in my inventory with no problem.

You would have to sacrifice the stuff you are buying to sell. Others would choose to neglect siege so they could continue to buy and sell AP bought gear. This is a good thing. I don't think it's penalising people, I think it's helping balance the game and the excessive amount of siege we currently see in Cyrodiil.

However I think it is clear that we won't agree on this point, so we'll leave it at that.

ToRelax

Garion wrote: »

ToRelax wrote: »

Garion wrote: »

ToRelax wrote: »

Garion wrote: »

ToRelax wrote: »

Garion wrote: »

ToRelax wrote: »

Increasing the AP cost of siege is a horrible idea unless you split gained AP in two currencies, one to buy siege and one for gear.

I think it's a great idea. Then people will be forced to choose between buying a ton of siege and buying gear, which will ultimately reduce the amount of siege in Cyrodiil without it disappearing altogether. This is a good thing.

So I have to choose between having the right gear and enough gold so I can use potions or helping my faction? This idea is simply horrible, I would never choose to sell my AP when siege is needed, I even spend 10s of thousands of gold at times when we ran out of AP and repair kits, so in exchange I am not allowed to play competitive against equally skilled players or larger numbers anymore?
So no, that idea is horrible.

AP is incredibly easy to make. You can still do both, but you will have to be more conservative about what you buy and what you drop. They are too cheap at the moment. Increasing the amount still makes it viable to buy siege but you can't fill your inventory with just siege and spam it without even worrying about picking it back up.

I don't know what you do in Cyrodiil, but I rarely had over 100k AP or 20k gold before Forward Camps were removed, increasing the cost of siege would lead back to that state very fast. I fail to see why anyone would want that. Is it wrong that everyone can use siege at the moment?

I kill stuff and I am consistently selling at least 1x cyrodiil light ring a day, so I am constantly spending AP and having an inventory full of siege. I don't think siege should become totally inaccessible, but I do think it should be slightly more expensive so that it does not become ridiculously easy for everyone to have tons of siege.

What's the problem with people only being able to have one or two siege weapons as opposed to five to ten?? It will encourage people to be less mindless with their sieging, which can only be a good thing.

I wouldn't have less siege or repair kits. I would have less of the rest. With your suggestion I'd get punished for helping my faction. That's the problem. If you wouldn't run into the same problem that indicates another playing style. Good for you, but that doesn't mean it should be balanced around how much AP you earn and how much siege you buy.
Also, if you can sell one ring a day without loosing AP slowly, that would mean you earn at least 248k AP plus everything you spend on siege per day. For most players I would guess that would mean 8-12 hours PvP a day, it's also way more than your so far average of earned AP per day or you'd be rank 50 since for a pretty long time already.

I had saved several million points prior to patch and I guess in an average month make around ~2 Million AP. So it's not impossible. I too would have to make sacrifices, but it's really really not hard to maintain a full inventory of siege and regularly sell PvP gear. My point was that it can be easily done. If I was reduced to 0 AP I could start selling rings after a week or so and keep a modest amount of siege in my inventory with no problem.

You would have to sacrifice the stuff you are buying to sell. Others would choose to neglect siege so they could continue to buy and sell AP bought gear. This is a good thing. I don't think it's penalising people, I think it's helping balance the game and the excessive amount of siege we currently see in Cyrodiil.

However I think it is clear that we won't agree on this point, so we'll leave it at that.

We can indeed agree to disagree on a simple increase in siege prices - however, was there any argument agsint this change I proposed earlier?

ToRelax wrote: »

Increasing the AP cost of siege is a horrible idea unless you split gained AP in two currencies, one to buy siege and one for gear.

Garion

ToRelax wrote: »

Garion wrote: »

ToRelax wrote: »

Garion wrote: »

ToRelax wrote: »

Garion wrote: »

ToRelax wrote: »

Garion wrote: »

ToRelax wrote: »

Increasing the AP cost of siege is a horrible idea unless you split gained AP in two currencies, one to buy siege and one for gear.

I think it's a great idea. Then people will be forced to choose between buying a ton of siege and buying gear, which will ultimately reduce the amount of siege in Cyrodiil without it disappearing altogether. This is a good thing.

So I have to choose between having the right gear and enough gold so I can use potions or helping my faction? This idea is simply horrible, I would never choose to sell my AP when siege is needed, I even spend 10s of thousands of gold at times when we ran out of AP and repair kits, so in exchange I am not allowed to play competitive against equally skilled players or larger numbers anymore?
So no, that idea is horrible.

AP is incredibly easy to make. You can still do both, but you will have to be more conservative about what you buy and what you drop. They are too cheap at the moment. Increasing the amount still makes it viable to buy siege but you can't fill your inventory with just siege and spam it without even worrying about picking it back up.

I don't know what you do in Cyrodiil, but I rarely had over 100k AP or 20k gold before Forward Camps were removed, increasing the cost of siege would lead back to that state very fast. I fail to see why anyone would want that. Is it wrong that everyone can use siege at the moment?

I kill stuff and I am consistently selling at least 1x cyrodiil light ring a day, so I am constantly spending AP and having an inventory full of siege. I don't think siege should become totally inaccessible, but I do think it should be slightly more expensive so that it does not become ridiculously easy for everyone to have tons of siege.

What's the problem with people only being able to have one or two siege weapons as opposed to five to ten?? It will encourage people to be less mindless with their sieging, which can only be a good thing.

I wouldn't have less siege or repair kits. I would have less of the rest. With your suggestion I'd get punished for helping my faction. That's the problem. If you wouldn't run into the same problem that indicates another playing style. Good for you, but that doesn't mean it should be balanced around how much AP you earn and how much siege you buy.
Also, if you can sell one ring a day without loosing AP slowly, that would mean you earn at least 248k AP plus everything you spend on siege per day. For most players I would guess that would mean 8-12 hours PvP a day, it's also way more than your so far average of earned AP per day or you'd be rank 50 since for a pretty long time already.

I had saved several million points prior to patch and I guess in an average month make around ~2 Million AP. So it's not impossible. I too would have to make sacrifices, but it's really really not hard to maintain a full inventory of siege and regularly sell PvP gear. My point was that it can be easily done. If I was reduced to 0 AP I could start selling rings after a week or so and keep a modest amount of siege in my inventory with no problem.

You would have to sacrifice the stuff you are buying to sell. Others would choose to neglect siege so they could continue to buy and sell AP bought gear. This is a good thing. I don't think it's penalising people, I think it's helping balance the game and the excessive amount of siege we currently see in Cyrodiil.

However I think it is clear that we won't agree on this point, so we'll leave it at that.

We can indeed agree to disagree on a simple increase in siege prices - however, was there any argument agsint this change I proposed earlier?

ToRelax wrote: »

Increasing the AP cost of siege is a horrible idea unless you split gained AP in two currencies, one to buy siege and one for gear.

If it could work, sure why not. I am not sure how that would be implemented though and realistically (and as I pointed out originally) I don't see that ZOS are willing / able to invest in development and this would require quite some work I guess. Simply increasing the price of siege on the other hand should be relatively simple. If a suitable alternative was
introduced I'd be all for it.

Sublime

The problem I see with increasing siege cost, is that it creates a gap between good and not so good players, the second one will be forced to make a choice that has a significant Impact on their gameplay, not being able to buy the gear/siege engines needed puts players at a huge disadvantage.

Good players on the other side do not have to make that desicion since they have enough AP to buy gear and siege weapons, meaning it only limits the options for casual players while being neglectable for more active players.

Garion

Sublime wrote: »

The problem I see with increasing siege cost, is that it creates a gap between good and not so good players, the second one will be forced to make a choice that has a significant Impact on their gameplay, not being able to buy the gear/siege engines needed puts players at a huge disadvantage.

Good players on the other side do not have to make that desicion since they have enough AP to buy gear and siege weapons, meaning it only limits the options for casual players while being neglectable for more active players.

Good.

What you are saying is that people will have to work harder for rewards and that can only be a good thing, in my opinion. Everyone will have to consider their AP expenditure from the most casual player to the hardcore player. All around we will see a decrease in the amount of siege in Cyrodiil. Which is a good thing.

People will still be able to buy and use siege and so sieging and defending keeps will remain viable.
I mean, I am not suggesting that the cost should be increased to something mad like 50k, but even a modest increase would discourage the spamming of siege I open field fights, for instance, because people would want to keep hold of their siege. For example I will never bother to pack a siege weapon I deploy, even if I only shoot it once. That says to me there is a problem.

You could even increase the cost of siege considersably while at the same time drastically reducing the price in both gold and AP of the siege repair kits which are currently not used for anything apart from maybe camps and Coldharbour siege because most of the time it is more economical to purchase a new siege weapon than repairing it.

I am not saying that we should make siege inaccessible but I do want PvP to be more dynamic than what we have now which is basically "must pop siege!"

Sublime

Siege weapons are a tool not a reward, they are meant to be used to be used as an additional "skill" in combat and not as a goal you are working towards.

"For example I will never bother to pack a siege weapon I deploy, even if I only shoot it once. That says to me there is a problem."

Apart from that, even if you there will always be a bunch of people running around with siege weapons in open fields simply because they are so strong against stationary players, which is nothing bad in my eyes. And most of the casuals only put up one siege at a time, so it's not likey "Dang, now I can only afford to put down 2 sieges instead of the former 4."

The issue is rather the nature of the problem itself, sieges are artillery, very stationary and clunky, but very hard hitting machines. In real life artillery is actually stationary but in ESO it takes like 2s to set them up and fire and you can run away in like 0.2s. I.e. I'd suggest to increase the time to set up siege weapons to 4-5s and add a timer of 0.5-1.5s which have to elapse before a player can leave an engine.

Joy_Division

You put a lot of thought into this, but I can't say I agree with many of your conclusions and it seems much of it is just wishful thinking. To be specific:

• You claimed that the changes to siege has encouraged zerging. I don't see any evidence of this. People who used to fly solo or operated in small four man groups didn't wake up one morning and say, "crap, I better group up with someone with purge." Instead, they themselves have slotted purge, have actually begin to move out of red circles, and, amusingly, have set up single firepot trebs to tag groups who are just standing around or not paying attention. The safety-in-numbers theory has always been in play, but that has nothing to do with siege and everything to do with the fact people hate getting ganked and like winning. I really don't want to see the sort of contrived and inconsistent mechanics of the sort you propose like siege weapons doing X damage except if it hits 8 people now it reduces ultimate. Why does it act so differently when it hits 7 people?
• Implementing Forward Camps will not have the sort of effect you think they do. It is true that their removal has meant mass groups fight at the natural chokepoints on the map: Alessia Bridge, and the Nikel / Ash milegates. But this is simply moving where these mass groups fought. Before they fought at castles. At least now when you die on the way to Ash, there is 45 seconds or so where you are out of the fight, not contributing to the lag whereas before you insta-spawned back into the battle. Just because forward camps increase the number of spawn points, doesn't mean it will encourage people to spread out. You can spawn at Castle Brindle, right? But you never do because nothing is going on there. If there is a forward camp, something is going on there and that is where people will spawn. I liked forward camps and would like them to return, but let's be real: they encouraged these large, drawn-out fights that strained the server.
• I really don't think reducing groups to 12 is a good idea. Can a group of 12 pugs, with no teamspeak coordination, capture a undefended castle? Debatable. If I put just 1 or 2 defenders there who know what they are doing, no way. One of my old guild leaders believed that the threshold for effectiveness for his raiding style was 16 players: fall beneath that and his whole strategy fell apart. And this was an organized guild full of max level VRs in Teamspeak. This is also a social game. One of the reasons I am in a guild with people I enjoy playing with is because my noob sorceror occasionally got invited into their group when there was room. When there was no room, the reply was "Raid full! Sorry!" With your 12 man raid caps, it definitely will limit the amount of opportunities we have to play together and form the very bonds that keep us coming back to this nightly lagfest.
• Is it a "common argument" that AP gain in larger groups should be "significantly reduced"? Can't say I encounter that very often because if I did, I would make it a point to identify its flaws. Right now I could group up with my guild in a 24 man raid. Earn AP, have a fun time. What? Now my AP will be significantly reduced? Umm, you 23 go ahead group up and don't worry about me...I am having problems...yeah, problems...I can't see your chevrons! Don't worry, I'm in TS I'll be following you wherever you go
• New objectives in Cyrodiil: This I do agree with and needs attention sooner rather than later.

I know there are a lot of well-intentioned ideas out there to try to get a handle on reducing the lag, but with limited resources the attempts /theories that are to be done really need to be thought and not have unintended negatives consequences that make the game less enjoyable.

Garion

Joy_Division wrote: »

You put a lot of thought into this, but I can't say I agree with many of your conclusions and it seems much of it is just wishful thinking. To be specific:

First of all, thanks for taking the time to read and reply. It seems clear that we are destined not to agree on these points, but I am grateful that you have taken the time to offer your thoughts on the opinions and ideas I presented. Here are my responses to the points you make

Joy_Division wrote: »

You claimed that the changes to siege has encouraged zerging. I don't see any evidence of this. People who used to fly solo or operated in small four man groups didn't wake up one morning and say, "crap, I better group up with someone with purge." Instead, they themselves have slotted purge, have actually begin to move out of red circles, and, amusingly, have set up single firepot trebs to tag groups who are just standing around or not paying attention. The safety-in-numbers theory has always been in play, but that has nothing to do with siege and everything to do with the fact people hate getting ganked and like winning. I really don't want to see the sort of contrived and inconsistent mechanics of the sort you propose like siege weapons doing X damage except if it hits 8 people now it reduces ultimate. Why does it act so differently when it hits 7 people?

Perhaps it would have been better to say that it has discouraged spreading out, although the point is kind of the same. People who play solo or in very small groups (often gankers) will inevitably stay the same because that 'sneaky' style of game play remains viable. Smaller group play on the other hand is considerably less viable than before and it can be quite frustrating when playing in smaller groups when the larger numbers instantly pop siege which in turn means instant death.

You are correct that a well placed firepot treb can take out a group who aren't paying attention, but it can also take out a group who are fighting huge numbers and trying their best to sustain themselves. In those situations it is an "I win" button that I don't think should exist in any game.

You are also correct in implying that the zerg problem was there before. Which brings me back to my point about discouraging smaller group play as opposed to encouraging zerging. The point is that ZOS have indicated they wish to spread people out and the changes to siege were implemented to encourage that. In actual fact it discourages that because smaller scale play is considerably more difficult when you find the opposing numbers using more siege than you can possibly place when you are more than half their size.

Joy_Division wrote: »

Implementing Forward Camps will not have the sort of effect you think they do. It is true that their removal has meant mass groups fight at the natural chokepoints on the map: Alessia Bridge, and the Nikel / Ash milegates. But this is simply moving where these mass groups fought. Before they fought at castles. At least now when you die on the way to Ash, there is 45 seconds or so where you are out of the fight, not contributing to the lag whereas before you insta-spawned back into the battle. Just because forward camps increase the number of spawn points, doesn't mean it will encourage people to spread out. You can spawn at Castle Brindle, right? But you never do because nothing is going on there. If there is a forward camp, something is going on there and that is where people will spawn. I liked forward camps and would like them to return, but let's be real: they encouraged these large, drawn-out fights that strained the server.

To an extent I agree with what you are saying - it certainly allowed continuous spawn points for bomb squads and so in that respect their removal was welcome. In fact, while I was against the change I did see this as a distinct benefit. Nonetheless as time has gone on I have seen that while they did assist people with repeatedly spawning into the same fight they also offered people a viable alternative when they got sick of that fight or if they wanted to be away from that fight altogether.

Right now when these huge laggy fights take place what do people do? They stay there, because it is the only fight on the map. With camps, it only takes one guy or one small group to think "**** this, I'm going to move to XYZ and start a fight there instead" and then more people will follow when that camp arrives rather than loitering where they are for a res.

I seriously think it will make a difference. If you cast your mind back to when we had camps the number of battle markers were huge compared to what we have now. There is no incentive to spread out and try go somewhere other than the "main" fight when if they move outside of the comfort zone of their alliance when one death will mean the end of that fight.

Joy_Division wrote: »

I really don't think reducing groups to 12 is a good idea. Can a group of 12 pugs, with no teamspeak coordination, capture a undefended castle? Debatable. If I put just 1 or 2 defenders there who know what they are doing, no way. One of my old guild leaders believed that the threshold for effectiveness for his raiding style was 16 players: fall beneath that and his whole strategy fell apart. And this was an organized guild full of max level VRs in Teamspeak. This is also a social game. One of the reasons I am in a guild with people I enjoy playing with is because my noob sorceror occasionally got invited into their group when there was room. When there was no room, the reply was "Raid full! Sorry!" With your 12 man raid caps, it definitely will limit the amount of opportunities we have to play together and form the very bonds that keep us coming back to this nightly lagfest.

Again I can see your point and I am almost inclined to go back on this idea. Nonetheless I do believe it will be an effective way of spreading people out for the reasons I have already explained. There are inevitable drawbacks and if the reductions to siege damage and forward camps were introduced I would have no problem with this not being implemented.

Joy_Division wrote: »

Is it a "common argument" that AP gain in larger groups should be "significantly reduced"? Can't say I encounter that very often because if I did, I would make it a point to identify its flaws. Right now I could group up with my guild in a 24 man raid. Earn AP, have a fun time. What? Now my AP will be significantly reduced? Umm, you 23 go ahead group up and don't worry about me...I am having problems...yeah, problems...I can't see your chevrons! Don't worry, I'm in TS I'll be following you wherever you go

Such a change would indeed have to be carefully looked into. For a start, you will see that my suggestion refers to buffing the AP earned in smaller groups as opposed to nerfing AP in larger groups. Nonetheless if AP was reduced in larger groups you wouldn't simply nerf the amount for 24 man groups, you would reduce it in 18 - 24 man groups and then 12 - 18 man groups etc, so removing one man wouldn't be enough, you'd have to reduce the group size by 25% which would go at least some way to decreasing their organisation and making them easier to kill. This leads me back to the above point however - if group sizes were 12, then this would almost be a moot point.

Joy_Division wrote: »

New objectives in Cyrodiil: This I do agree with and needs attention sooner rather than later.

Yes. Unfortunately I think they are too focussed on the console launch right now to be viable, and aside from this the PvE crowd get far more attention than us PvPers.

Joy_Division wrote: »

I know there are a lot of well-intentioned ideas out there to try to get a handle on reducing the lag, but with limited resources the attempts /theories that are to be done really need to be thought and not have unintended negatives consequences that make the game less enjoyable.

To be honest the game couldn't get much worse than it is now with some of the lag and bugs we have recently experienced. I think things would be more fun with these changes, because PvP would become less mindless and people would have to think about improving their game play.

Sanct16

@OP:
I fully agree.

Joy_Division wrote: »

You claimed that the changes to siege has encouraged zerging. I don't see any evidence of this. People who used to fly solo or operated in small four man groups didn't wake up one morning and say, "crap, I better group up with someone with purge." Instead, they themselves have slotted purge, have actually begin to move out of red circles, and, amusingly, have set up single firepot trebs to tag groups who are just standing around or not paying attention. The safety-in-numbers theory has always been in play, but that has nothing to do with siege and everything to do with the fact people hate getting ganked and like winning. I really don't want to see the sort of contrived and inconsistent mechanics of the sort you propose like siege weapons doing X damage except if it hits 8 people now it reduces ultimate. Why does it act so differently when it hits 7 people?

For a smaller organized group of lets say 8 people getting hit by 1-2 sieges is usually a death sentence when you are fighting another group of bigger size. Even if these are pugs. You lack the damage to kill enemies fast and you lack heal to survive the siege fire. So you are forced to wether play in uncompetitve small groups (~4 people, "ganking") or play as a bigger group (12+). This favors playing in larger organized groups or - if you aren't part of one of these - follow the mindless zerg.

Speaking out of personal experience we used to play with 8-10 people in 1.5 and wiped every single enemy train (>24 players) on the EU server on a regular basis. With the changes to sieges we usually just die to sieges. Group fights should be decided by the skill and organization of the groups, not a noob onehitting half of your group with a fire treb. To stay competitve with other groups, we had to increase the size of our groups.

I know, that 8man is a quite uncommon groupsize, but as far as I understood ZOS they wanted to encourage playing in smaller groups and that did definetly not happen.

Joy_Division wrote: »

Implementing Forward Camps will not have the sort of effect you think they do. It is true that their removal has meant mass groups fight at the natural chokepoints on the map: Alessia Bridge, and the Nikel / Ash milegates. But this is simply moving where these mass groups fought. Before they fought at castles. At least now when you die on the way to Ash, there is 45 seconds or so where you are out of the fight, not contributing to the lag whereas before you insta-spawned back into the battle. Just because forward camps increase the number of spawn points, doesn't mean it will encourage people to spread out. You can spawn at Castle Brindle, right? But you never do because nothing is going on there. If there is a forward camp, something is going on there and that is where people will spawn. I liked forward camps and would like them to return, but let's be real: they encouraged these large, drawn-out fights that strained the server.

Look at it like this: At the moment, there are usually 1-2 "hot spots" on the map on the usual locations around the outposts. Obviously people will keep spawning close to those spots as there are no other fights to be found which will result in 2 mindless zergs pushing each other back and forth.

Forward Camps would definetly spread people out. The reason for this is very simple: At the moment there is usually only 1 spawn option close to a fight. So nearly everywhere will spawn there. With camps being in place, there would more different spawn options at which people would spawn which would make the action spread out. This is so obvious that I won't explain it further. Of course keep sieges would take longer but there would always be more different fights on the map.

The key is bloodporting tho. Camps that would only allow you to respawn after you died the circle would not work as well in order to spread out action as most people are lazy and just take the easiest way.

I would suggest some cooldown on camp usage. 5 minutes maybe. At the same time one player should only be able to resurrect another player with a soulgem every 5 minutes. After you kill one group and push to the next group, the first group will just be resurrected at the spot where they are. I would rather have them running from a FC then just standing up again after you killed them.

Joy_Division wrote: »

I really don't think reducing groups to 12 is a good idea. Can a group of 12 pugs, with no teamspeak coordination, capture a undefended castle? Debatable. If I put just 1 or 2 defenders there who know what they are doing, no way. One of my old guild leaders believed that the threshold for effectiveness for his raiding style was 16 players: fall beneath that and his whole strategy fell apart. And this was an organized guild full of max level VRs in Teamspeak. This is also a social game. One of the reasons I am in a guild with people I enjoy playing with is because my noob sorceror occasionally got invited into their group when there was room. When there was no room, the reply was "Raid full! Sorry!" With your 12 man raid caps, it definitely will limit the amount of opportunities we have to play together and form the very bonds that keep us coming back to this nightly lagfest.

The change is meant to discourage trains as they cause lag. So you actually agree that it would fullfill this perfectly.
I think the aspect of having more enjoyable pvp should be more important than the social aspect. You can make two 12 man groups instead of one 24 man group.

Joy_Division wrote: »

Is it a "common argument" that AP gain in larger groups should be "significantly reduced"? Can't say I encounter that very often because if I did, I would make it a point to identify its flaws. Right now I could group up with my guild in a 24 man raid. Earn AP, have a fun time. What? Now my AP will be significantly reduced? Umm, you 23 go ahead group up and don't worry about me...I am having problems...yeah, problems...I can't see your chevrons! Don't worry, I'm in TS I'll be following you wherever you go

For many players the ap gain is the main reason to play in a train. If they would get more ap in a 12 man group, this group size would be enouraged further.

Oughash

Great post, Sanct. Your experiences with siege against small to mediums groups is exactly mine. These days you either gotta zerg or gank. And getting sniped off a horse is boring and irritating.

golfer.dub17_ESO

The forward camp bug still exists.

Of course forward camps are rare to see these days, but yeah.

Zlater

Did anyone think that maybe ZOS wasnt being completely transparent? I was actually under the impression that another motive for the changes was to make it harder to take a keep. In anticipation of the imperial city addition later on in the year.

A lot of the suggestions are really good too, I liked them ^^

Garion

@Sanct16, I couldn't have put it better myself!

@Zlater , I don't think that's the case but if it was then I would say that the change to siege (which is what I assume you are talking about?) makes it easier than ever to take a keep. Once you have control of the outer keep after your first breach you can bombard the second flag with considerably more siege than those inside, so an organised group can just stack the flag while those outside bombard it with siege so any defenders get melted instantly. Just another reason the changes were ill thought out.

Sanct16

Zlater wrote: »

Did anyone think that maybe ZOS wasnt being completely transparent? I was actually under the impression that another motive for the changes was to make it harder to take a keep. In anticipation of the imperial city addition later on in the year.

A lot of the suggestions are really good too, I liked them ^^

without forward camps taking keeps got way easier as defenders can not get to sieged keeps in time. Maybe the obvioux keeps are easy to defend but as soon as you go for home- or "corner"-keeps you will be only fighting against guards or 1-2 defenders. With camps one defender would have been enough to defend the keep by placing a camp. Now noone who isnt close to the keep already will be able to get there in time to set up an defence.

Zlater

@Garion You're right about having the outer wall down, things usually are a synch after that. I was presuming that ZOS were going to make some BIG changes to PvP with the IMP city update (they're taking a long time testing it, so it's gotta be big), and obviously with the outer keep control affecting the city things might be getting adjusted little by little in preparation for that. You've probably noticed how ZOS like to make small changes to live patches before a big update - if that's the case then it'd explain the nonsense happening at the moment (secret squirrel stuff )

@Sanct16 Didn't ZOS say they plan to bring FC's back?

ToRelax

Zlater wrote: »

@Sanct16 Didn't ZOS say they plan to bring FC's back?

They already said it was temporary when they removed them. Heck it was just temporary when they removed the Mercs... >_> .

Garion

Zlater wrote: »

@Garion You're right about having the outer wall down, things usually are a synch after that. I was presuming that ZOS were going to make some BIG changes to PvP with the IMP city update (they're taking a long time testing it, so it's gotta be big), and obviously with the outer keep control affecting the city things might be getting adjusted little by little in preparation for that. You've probably noticed how ZOS like to make small changes to live patches before a big update - if that's the case then it'd explain the nonsense happening at the moment (secret squirrel stuff )

@Sanct16 Didn't ZOS say they plan to bring FC's back?

You could be right but Imperial City has been coming "soon™" for quite some time and I remain sceptical that it will do anything to improve the current state of PvP. Initially there will be a lot of activity in there, but if it is simply a PvE zone with little benefit to the PvP aspect of gameplay we aren't going to see much action in the longer term. Nonetheless I remain cautiously optimistic that it's going to make a difference and is going to add some zest to PvP. It would be nice if @ZOS_BrianWheeler, @ZOS_GinaBruno or @ZOS_JessicaFolsom could offer some indication as to when we should be expecting the Imperial City? Certainly not before the console launch I understand but...

ToRelax wrote: »

Zlater wrote: »

@Sanct16 Didn't ZOS say they plan to bring FC's back?

They already said it was temporary when they removed them. Heck it was just temporary when they removed the Mercs... >_> .

Quoted for truth!

Joy_Division

Garion wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

You put a lot of thought into this, but I can't say I agree with many of your conclusions and it seems much of it is just wishful thinking. To be specific:

First of all, thanks for taking the time to read and reply. It seems clear that we are destined not to agree on these points, but I am grateful that you have taken the time to offer your thoughts on the opinions and ideas I presented. Here are my responses to the points you make

Joy_Division wrote: »

You claimed that the changes to siege has encouraged zerging. I don't see any evidence of this. People who used to fly solo or operated in small four man groups didn't wake up one morning and say, "crap, I better group up with someone with purge." Instead, they themselves have slotted purge, have actually begin to move out of red circles, and, amusingly, have set up single firepot trebs to tag groups who are just standing around or not paying attention. The safety-in-numbers theory has always been in play, but that has nothing to do with siege and everything to do with the fact people hate getting ganked and like winning. I really don't want to see the sort of contrived and inconsistent mechanics of the sort you propose like siege weapons doing X damage except if it hits 8 people now it reduces ultimate. Why does it act so differently when it hits 7 people?

Perhaps it would have been better to say that it has discouraged spreading out, although the point is kind of the same. People who play solo or in very small groups (often gankers) will inevitably stay the same because that 'sneaky' style of game play remains viable. Smaller group play on the other hand is considerably less viable than before and it can be quite frustrating when playing in smaller groups when the larger numbers instantly pop siege which in turn means instant death.

You are correct that a well placed firepot treb can take out a group who aren't paying attention, but it can also take out a group who are fighting huge numbers and trying their best to sustain themselves. In those situations it is an "I win" button that I don't think should exist in any game.

You are also correct in implying that the zerg problem was there before. Which brings me back to my point about discouraging smaller group play as opposed to encouraging zerging. The point is that ZOS have indicated they wish to spread people out and the changes to siege were implemented to encourage that. In actual fact it discourages that because smaller scale play is considerably more difficult when you find the opposing numbers using more siege than you can possibly place when you are more than half their size.

Joy_Division wrote: »

Implementing Forward Camps will not have the sort of effect you think they do. It is true that their removal has meant mass groups fight at the natural chokepoints on the map: Alessia Bridge, and the Nikel / Ash milegates. But this is simply moving where these mass groups fought. Before they fought at castles. At least now when you die on the way to Ash, there is 45 seconds or so where you are out of the fight, not contributing to the lag whereas before you insta-spawned back into the battle. Just because forward camps increase the number of spawn points, doesn't mean it will encourage people to spread out. You can spawn at Castle Brindle, right? But you never do because nothing is going on there. If there is a forward camp, something is going on there and that is where people will spawn. I liked forward camps and would like them to return, but let's be real: they encouraged these large, drawn-out fights that strained the server.

To an extent I agree with what you are saying - it certainly allowed continuous spawn points for bomb squads and so in that respect their removal was welcome. In fact, while I was against the change I did see this as a distinct benefit. Nonetheless as time has gone on I have seen that while they did assist people with repeatedly spawning into the same fight they also offered people a viable alternative when they got sick of that fight or if they wanted to be away from that fight altogether.

Right now when these huge laggy fights take place what do people do? They stay there, because it is the only fight on the map. With camps, it only takes one guy or one small group to think "**** this, I'm going to move to XYZ and start a fight there instead" and then more people will follow when that camp arrives rather than loitering where they are for a res.

I seriously think it will make a difference. If you cast your mind back to when we had camps the number of battle markers were huge compared to what we have now. There is no incentive to spread out and try go somewhere other than the "main" fight when if they move outside of the comfort zone of their alliance when one death will mean the end of that fight.

Joy_Division wrote: »

I really don't think reducing groups to 12 is a good idea. Can a group of 12 pugs, with no teamspeak coordination, capture a undefended castle? Debatable. If I put just 1 or 2 defenders there who know what they are doing, no way. One of my old guild leaders believed that the threshold for effectiveness for his raiding style was 16 players: fall beneath that and his whole strategy fell apart. And this was an organized guild full of max level VRs in Teamspeak. This is also a social game. One of the reasons I am in a guild with people I enjoy playing with is because my noob sorceror occasionally got invited into their group when there was room. When there was no room, the reply was "Raid full! Sorry!" With your 12 man raid caps, it definitely will limit the amount of opportunities we have to play together and form the very bonds that keep us coming back to this nightly lagfest.

Again I can see your point and I am almost inclined to go back on this idea. Nonetheless I do believe it will be an effective way of spreading people out for the reasons I have already explained. There are inevitable drawbacks and if the reductions to siege damage and forward camps were introduced I would have no problem with this not being implemented.

Joy_Division wrote: »

Is it a "common argument" that AP gain in larger groups should be "significantly reduced"? Can't say I encounter that very often because if I did, I would make it a point to identify its flaws. Right now I could group up with my guild in a 24 man raid. Earn AP, have a fun time. What? Now my AP will be significantly reduced? Umm, you 23 go ahead group up and don't worry about me...I am having problems...yeah, problems...I can't see your chevrons! Don't worry, I'm in TS I'll be following you wherever you go

Such a change would indeed have to be carefully looked into. For a start, you will see that my suggestion refers to buffing the AP earned in smaller groups as opposed to nerfing AP in larger groups. Nonetheless if AP was reduced in larger groups you wouldn't simply nerf the amount for 24 man groups, you would reduce it in 18 - 24 man groups and then 12 - 18 man groups etc, so removing one man wouldn't be enough, you'd have to reduce the group size by 25% which would go at least some way to decreasing their organisation and making them easier to kill. This leads me back to the above point however - if group sizes were 12, then this would almost be a moot point.

Joy_Division wrote: »

New objectives in Cyrodiil: This I do agree with and needs attention sooner rather than later.

Yes. Unfortunately I think they are too focussed on the console launch right now to be viable, and aside from this the PvE crowd get far more attention than us PvPers.

Joy_Division wrote: »

I know there are a lot of well-intentioned ideas out there to try to get a handle on reducing the lag, but with limited resources the attempts /theories that are to be done really need to be thought and not have unintended negatives consequences that make the game less enjoyable.

To be honest the game couldn't get much worse than it is now with some of the lag and bugs we have recently experienced. I think things would be more fun with these changes, because PvP would become less mindless and people would have to think about improving their game play.

You believe as you do and that is fine, but it worries me that the community has become so disillusioned with ZoS that they are willing to try anything on simply the *hope* that it will lower the lag.

WE asked them to raise the siege damage...you and I did and just about everyone else. They did. Now you say it encourages "zerging". Why did you and nobody come up with your theory BEFORE? Now it's a problem. High siege damage = zerging. Low siege damage = game sucks because we dont have an effective castle defense vs Zergs. Ok.... Which is it? What do we want? Siege weapon that somehow do something significant when it hits 8 people as opposed to 7? Sorry, I can;t get behind that.

If you saw that many crossed swords when there were FCs, that was only because the population caps were noticeably higher right now. If you don't think that FCs will bring back these huge mass battle lagfests, all I can say is that you weren't' playing attention. FCs do the very opposite of encouraging people to spread out, they invite people to go where everyone already is. Do you remember what "bloodporting" was? When people who were ALREADY spread out killed themselves in order to quickly get to these huge concentrations of population.

And I see it did not make my point clear about reducing AP reduction mechanics with respect to large groups. It's not that if I drop, the 24 man raid is now 23 and is losing a little AP and thus it doesn't matter. It is that the 23 man raid is losing "significant" AP under your system, whereas I, who is not officially in there group but is following them around and in the same TS, is getting a *lot* more AP because I am unaffiliated. This is why the sort of contrived solutions don't work, because their very unrealistic and artificial way of punishing certain behavior is easily circumvented. How do you plan on discouraging unaffiliated players from "zerging," have the game calculate how many players are withing 96 square meters and adjust the AP accordingly?

I don't mean to sound overly pessimistic but I really think it is a waste of resources willy nilly ask ZoS to implement fundamental changes to how the game is played in the desperate hope to reduce lag. Especially when we already have record of observed behavior and server performance of the very change people are in favor of. I mean, we already play in Cyrodiil with FCs and to argue that somehow and someway this time it would be different is to me wishful thinking I am sorry. When FCs return, so will insta-bloodporting. We played in Cyrodiil with impotent siege and the zerg still remained supreme - in fact, people argued for the very sort of siege damage increase that you now say favors the zerg. You are thinking and at least trying and that should be encouraged. But scarce resources mean that we have limited means to implement *any* sort of change in Cyrodiil and I thus the holes in any sort of theory need to be pointed out to ensure the little resources we have are maximized and most efficiently used.