PVP Update, June 2015

Snit

kamarob14_ESO wrote: »

Am I the only one that is upset to see the PVE Buffs being removed. The only reason I pvped is to get those buffs so I could get the extra experience. I do not see why removing them fixes anything. Can someone explain? As a pve player I will have no incentive to join pvp anymore. I just feel that this can be fixed in so many other ways.

If you don't like PvP, you never had an incentive anyway. The buffs were a result of joining the right campaign, not actually participating in it.

Snit

Darnathian wrote: »

Please someone start a poll on removing emp buffs. Make sure to include in vote whether you are a former emp or not.

The question isn't whether former emps want to keep the buffs. Of course they do. You need a poll for that?

The question is whether the player behavior caused by those incentives is good for the long-term growth of PvP. That takes a lot more thought than "is it good for my character."

FENGRUSH

PeggymoeXD wrote: »

milthalas wrote: »

JTorus wrote: »

DisgracefulMind wrote: »

I honestly don't like the idea of removing the former emperor passives to players who have gotten it in the past year. Perhaps disable it from happening for future players, but why punish ALL players for a system that others abused. It doesn't seem right or fair to take them away when there are plenty of players who actually and legitimately worked hard to obtain their Emperor status, which ultimately led to the passives of former emperor. I agree that emperor farming has been a problem in the past, but I'm tired of honest players being punished because of dishonest and abusive players. There is no way to sift through who or who wasn't farmed emperor, but because of that, I don't think anyone who obtained it should be punished for the lack of response from ZoS on the issue.

Like I said, restrict it for the future, do not punish the rest of us.

I agree with you, in that I don't think its fair for someone to lose what they legitimately earned. But I also agree with removing incentive for farming, and I don't like that those who farmed in the past would retain the benefits. I think a middle ground solution would be an option. Like a former emperor only ability/ultimate. One that is strictly conducive to group play mechanics and not self-serving at all. One would think that a former emperor would still inspire the troops to go to battle, it isn't unreasonable to take that approach in a game environment.

Hmm, like maybe a spell that increased siege damage by x% for a radius of y meters over a period of z seconds, since increased siege damage is part of an Emperor's repertoire. The numbers would have to be small though to not be gamebreaking. Like 10% increase with 20 meter radius for 30 seconds, with a pretty big spell cost like siege shield. Morphs would affect either radius or duration. Eh, just spitballin'

I too have the former emp passives. And it's kinda sad that the farming of emp has caused those who earned it honestly with hard work and long nights are losing the passives now. But I think it's a necessary step to making Cyrodiil enjoyable once again. Plus, the buffs aren't really all that great. The only one that's really noticeable is the reduced ultimate cost.

Former emp/emp trading doesnt seem to impact cyro anymore. Theyre making a change that should have been in half a year ago at the latest much later now with only a handful of servers.


All of these great ideas dont mean anything unless they address the performance. They just keep posting 'we continue to work on performance' like this sort of moving target is acceptable. People leave the servers when they dont work anymore. Its just that simple.

Implement gameplay changes instead of fixing the code to tolerate the massive zerging. @ZOS_BrianWheeler

Xsorus

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Many AE abilities have 2 LOS checks at the beginning and end of casting by default. Since many of these are instant cast, there's no need for one of those checks, which halves the amount of messages sent back and forth between the client and server. The LOS checks are still needed to ensure you can't PBAE through walls and physics objects that would block the effects from going "through them".

Seems odd why some had that LOS check?

Meteor for example once ya cast it pretty much lands on ya...Unless maybe you go under a roof? trying to remember if it did that.

SG_Celerrimus

@ZOS_BrianWheeler Any updates on the possibility of a 4 player PvP arena for more systems of PvP in the game?

GorraShatan

@ZOS_BrianWheeler - When you say a scroll, keep or whatever lasts for X days, what does that mean exactly? The scroll doesn't teleport itself back to its original alliance after a few days I hope?

SonofThunder

I like how, instead of new content, they just keep changing the rules and mechanics so we can relearn how to play.

Sublime

Enodoc wrote: »

Don't forget guys that these changes are all due in the next major update. i.e, the one that adds Imperial City.

Just to be on the safe side, is there an official confirmation that IC will be the first DLC?

Erlex

@ZOS_BrianWheeler Its great to see that the feedback we talked about is finally getting a chance to be tested!

Question though, is the idea of "fixing" restrictions for rezzing at a keep when it can't be ported to (no resources) being addressed at all? Or the fact that you can rez at another factions "home" keeps when they can never be ported to? Also, what about restricting port privileges at keeps to 2, or even a single, resource being captured?

ItsRejectz

I agree the former emp skills needed removing, but it's still upsetting knowing we will loose them.
The only thing now is there is no incentive to go for emp anymore, not if your just going to get a dye and title.

ZOS_BrianWheeler

We have talked about removing the ability to respawn in enemy controlled keeps if they are not connected to a transit line, but hasn't gotten any traction other than discussions at the moment.

All basic mechanics of keep capture, scroll capture, etc. remain the same in terms of holding a scroll in your temple or in your keeps. They still have to be CTF ran to be captured/recaptured unless they've been "in the wild" for too long of a period (as they currently operate).

wanderlustx5

I agree with almost all changes except decreasing home campaign switch cool down to 12 hours, it should stay 3 days to prevent cross campaign zerging. All other changes rock! This is awsome and I feel some of the concerns are addressed. Zergs will still roll with aoe's though so perhaps a nerf just in cyrodill to the purge skill (so as not to affect pve use). No purge = zerg death

Renan

you spend weeks to become emperor in factions with less population and has no reward for it. great incentive for players make pvp .... and solve the exploits of go through enemies keep doors, where is it?

Erlex

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

We have talked about removing the ability to respawn in enemy controlled keeps if they are not connected to a transit line, but hasn't gotten any traction other than discussions at the moment.

The people you are talking to are...not very smart. Why even have a transit line if it literally means absolutely nothing. Its obviously a work around to the entire system you built.

wanderlustx5

I might add this proves that ESO devs do read the forums.

kamarob14_ESO

Snit wrote: »

kamarob14_ESO wrote: »

Am I the only one that is upset to see the PVE Buffs being removed. The only reason I pvped is to get those buffs so I could get the extra experience. I do not see why removing them fixes anything. Can someone explain? As a pve player I will have no incentive to join pvp anymore. I just feel that this can be fixed in so many other ways.

If you don't like PvP, you never had an incentive anyway. The buffs were a result of joining the right campaign, not actually participating in it.

Soon as i lost the buffs I had plenty of incentive to get back in the fight to get them back. how is this not incentive? People keep saying joining the right campaign I guess I did not know there was a right one. I had a few buffs here and there maybe only 5 times a week. It was switching between factions all the time.

Lefty_Lucy

@ZOS_BrianWheeler , well done my friend! It sounds like our conversation helped a lot! I'm really looking forward to these changes.

P.S. Don't forget about that justice system PvP

Atropos

Hey @ZOS_BrianWheeler, thanks for sharing the details of PvP changes, your post has a lot of great solutions to current problems. I'd like to echo @Erlex' comment, though, about the importance of restricting the ability to resurrect at keeps that are severed from the transit network.

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

We have talked about removing the ability to respawn in enemy controlled keeps if they are not connected to a transit line, but hasn't gotten any traction other than discussions at the moment.

I assume you mean "friendly controlled keeps that are not connected to a transit line". I'm really concerned how this idea has "not gotten any traction". It makes no sense to be able to respawn at a keep your alliance cannot transit to, as it completely sabotages the strategic importance of the travel network. As long as death remains a free and useful means of fast travel "blood porting" will remain a valid Cyrodiil strategy. I don't see how this creates satisfying gameplay.

The design of the transit system clearly implies that you have thought about these issues. You don't want players to be able to teleport into keeps that are actively under siege, or deep within enemy territory. So ... don't let them!

I really don't see how there is even a possible counter-argument to this.

Ace_SiN

What's the word on stopping abilities like Molten Whip from going through dodge roll? There are only a few counters to dodge roll atm that prevent it from becoming a "I win" button(meaning mindlessly pressing a button to gain/maintain a huge advantage)?

Eucken

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Just to clarify, you will keep the Emperor Dye and "former emperor" titles.

do you really think thats incentive enought for the average player to become emperor once @ZOS_BrianWheeler

Enodoc

Sublime wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

Don't forget guys that these changes are all due in the next major update. i.e, the one that adds Imperial City.

Just to be on the safe side, is there an official confirmation that IC will be the first DLC?

Yes. Although right now I can't remember where
Also, I remain hopeful that Imperial City will be free, and not a DLC (per this thread).

Lava_Croft

Good to hear about some possible progress! Sounds great!

Ace_SiN

kamarob14_ESO wrote: »

Soon as i lost the buffs I had plenty of incentive to get back in the fight to get them back. how is this not incentive? People keep saying joining the right campaign I guess I did not know there was a right one. I had a few buffs here and there maybe only 5 times a week. It was switching between factions all the time.

You're one of the few then.. A lot of people are avoiding PvP just to find the easiest server to dominate. That's my 2nd biggest issue with PvP atm. Console release split the community and now those that are left are too busy server hopping for large parts of the day it seems(or maybe they are just PvEing..?).

Glory

I love the direction this pushes PvP in. Fix the causes of PvP issues to fix the symptoms as well.

Super excited to see the new campaign scoring (hoping that Haderus will be small groups everywhere instead of pain trains!). I'd always love to see more changes to incentivize small scale PvP, but these are great.

To those who are sad about losing their former emperor buffs, I feel for those who earned them legitimately in the past. To those who are mad, if the only reason you wanted to get emperor is for those buffs you should be ashamed of yourself as they were perks for accomplishing something not the reason to get emperor.

I am a little worried about hopping to friends, as everyone else is, but I shall wait and see. Either campaign will become balanced or dead depending on the location of different large PvP guilds IMO.

carlmcse

Improving the game like this makes no difference to me. Been 5 days since I managed to even get into Cyrodiil. The queue system is EPIC a total waste of time, the game is a rip off and cannot perform to it's advertised standards. Questing is the only thing on this which works. I feel sorry for PC users as well, those who transferred their characters may be going back in time by 2 years and starting the Beta test for the console users again. More wasted cash, poor guys. Those of you who have seen Cyrodiil then hope you are enjoying it. To me though it's just part of the game where I will never get to see, and Bethesda are not giving a hoot about it cause it ain't their money. Really looking at starting a massive dispute on this. I want some results for my money!

ThatNeonZebraAgain

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

We have talked about removing the ability to respawn in enemy controlled keeps if they are not connected to a transit line, but hasn't gotten any traction other than discussions at the moment.

Oh hell yes, get rid of respawn without transit!

The_Drexill

I worked pretty hard to get emp as a solo against the zerg guilds that were trading.

I'm glad it's going, I never used the title since it was such a hollow achievement.

Agrippa_Invisus

Atropos wrote: »

Hey @ZOS_BrianWheeler, thanks for sharing the details of PvP changes, your post has a lot of great solutions to current problems. I'd like to echo @Erlex' comment, though, about the importance of restricting the ability to resurrect at keeps that are severed from the transit network.

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

We have talked about removing the ability to respawn in enemy controlled keeps if they are not connected to a transit line, but hasn't gotten any traction other than discussions at the moment.

I assume you mean "friendly controlled keeps that are not connected to a transit line". I'm really concerned how this idea has "not gotten any traction". It makes no sense to be able to respawn at a keep your alliance cannot transit to, as it completely sabotages the strategic importance of the travel network. As long as death remains a free and useful means of fast travel "blood porting" will remain a valid Cyrodiil strategy. I don't see how this creates satisfying gameplay.

The design of the transit system clearly implies that you have thought about these issues. You don't want players to be able to teleport into keeps that are actively under siege, or deep within enemy territory. So ... don't let them!

I really don't see how there is even a possible counter-argument to this.

Removing the ability to spawn at disconnected keeps would also change another aspect of the Cyrodiil map.

The two gate keeps of each faction (Rayles, Warden, KC, Farragut, BB, BM) become near impossible to for any long term period of time. If enemies can only respawn at a captured Arrius, Glademist, of Faregyl, it becomes simply a matter of time before the native faction overwhelms the force camping their gates and then closes them.

Pushing for the scrolls would require a concerted organized effort most of the time, as you'd be unlikely to retain those gate keeps without babysitting them or keeping the enemy so busy (defending scroll temples for instance) that they're not attacking the gate keep.

It would also give the faction defending their scrolls much more time to rally and counter attack after any failed attempt to push the gates or take the temple.

Crown

Hello Brian,

First the requisite @ZOS_BrianWheeler in the hopes that you will read this.

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Jump-to-Friend: Social jumping into Cyrodiil or any PVP space is being disabled.

What about the group queue? In a pop locked campaign (which happens often enough), all you need to do is group with someone homed there and then the group leader can queue everyone up. I agree with the social jumping capability being removed, though group queues will be the simple workaround.

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

PVP Bonuses: Keep, Elder Scroll, and the Emperorship bonuses (passive buffs) will apply only in PVP spaces.

This is also an excellent change, as dedicated PvE'ers will stay out of Cyrodiil. Granted it would be nice to get more fresh blood in, but the groups who only come in for ensuring buffs are available for their trials runs will stop doing so.

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Emperor Buffs/Skill Line: The "Former Emperor" buffs are being removed from the game.

I strongly disagree with this. Some of us worked very hard for our first crowning, and while the Former Emperor buff doesn't add a lot of capability/power to a player, every little bit counts. I grant that there were and still are some groups farming for the passives, though if they put the effort in to make the AP and flip the map, they should get something lasting. 2% to resources and siege damage (I love seeing 2040 instead of 2000 from a stone balista) is almost irrelevant in the big picture, though 5% to ult cost reduction is pretty nice. The main issue is when you have two factions coordinating to swap emperor every two hours - this happened back in the pre and early Thornblade days, though I've not seen it much since.

I am one of the more regular leaders in AD. I am usually close to the top of the leaderboards. When there is someone who has never been emperor trying to catch up, being as I've been emperor half a dozen times, I am more than happy to swap and play an alt (now that I have one) to let them get it instead of me. I wouldn't consider that emperor farming, it's more of wanting the best for my people and helping to ensure that they can experience everything that the game has to offer. Being Emperor is an experience that people should aspire to - it's amazingly fun, and again, if someone puts in the effort they should have some permanent reward / reminder that they accomplished this. The red colour is pretty though not to everyone's taste, and the title means little. It's the little things that remind you of it like seeing a non-round number for ultimate cost and that little (40) extra damage on a siege. Don't take the little smile that comes on my face every time I fire a siege away from me!

Removing the Former Emperor buff when outside of Cyrodiil should be enough to keep the PvE groups from coming in and wanting to farm Emperor.

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Home Campaign Reassignment: The cooldown on Home Campaign reassignment has been changed to 12 hours from 3 days, but the cost to switch will be 150,000 AP instead of 15,000.

Be very aware that a good crew of AP farmers can make 150,000 AP in about three hours. A VERY good crew can do it faster (my crew get 75,000 per hour once in a rare-ish while when there's a really really nice farm). What you're doing here is limiting the majority of the players from swapping easily, though those of us who can make the points won't see this as a deterrent.

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Last but certainly not least, we have some changes coming for each of the campaigns. We will be making some scoring adjustments to the campaigns in order to provide 4 different campaign styles, each with with different scoring parameters.

• Azura: Ownership of keeps, resources, Elder Scrolls, and outposts will generate 1 point each per scoring cycle and last 30 days.
• Blackwater Blade: Ownership of keeps, resources, Elder Scrolls, and outposts will generate 1 point each per scoring cycle and last 5 days.
• Chillrend: Keeps, outposts, and resources will generate zero points. Ownership of Elder Scrolls will generate 1 point per scoring cycle and last 7 days.
• Haderus: Keeps, outposts, and Elder Scrolls will generate zero points. Ownership of resources will generate 1 point per scoring cycle and last 7 days.
• Thornblade: Resources, outposts, and Elder Scrolls will generate zero points. Ownership of keeps will generate 1 point per scoring cycle and last 7 days.

This is an interesting change for the soon to be 7 day campaigns, though you seem to have missed the ballance. Owning a keep has value. Owning the resources around it has value. The keep vs the three resources around it are ballanced. Keeps should be worth 3 points. Resources should be worth 1 point each. If you can disable blood porting to a keep whose resources are all owned by opposing factions, then this makes a lot more sense if we were to look at it from a "game world" perspective.

You should also strongly consider changing end of campaign rewards. Right now, the rewards other than Master's weapons are craptacular. Add gold jewlery (Cyrodiil's Light and Ravager). Ensure that players get at least one Master's weapon (three Crest items in the last Azura reset are pretty much liek giving me 3 gold upgrade mats - an insult to the effort I've put into PvP). Perhaps give the winning faction an extra item if top 2%, and one of their purple items (if top 10%) could be upgraded to gold. Make the rewards valued, and people will care about the campaign. As it stands, there's more value in AP farming to get everyone Alliance rank 24 (PvP skill 10) for passives, and then higher ranks for pretty colours.

Psilent

SG_Celerrimus wrote: »

@ZOS_BrianWheeler Any updates on the possibility of a 4 player PvP arena for more systems of PvP in the game?

This campaign is for you!

Haderus: Keeps, outposts, and Elder Scrolls will generate zero points. Ownership of resources will generate 1 point per scoring cycle and last 7 days.

The zerg will not own this campaign; it will be dominated by small group PvP.