Maintenance for the week of January 20:
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – January 20
• NA megaservers for maintenance – January 22, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
• EU megaservers for maintenance – January 22, 9:00 UTC (4:00AM EST) - 14:00 UTC (9:00AM EST)
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – January 20
• NA megaservers for maintenance – January 22, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
• EU megaservers for maintenance – January 22, 9:00 UTC (4:00AM EST) - 14:00 UTC (9:00AM EST)
We will be performing maintenance for patch 10.3.1 on the PTS on Tuesday at 10:00AM EST (15:00 UTC).
Why We Need IC to be Limited Access / Alliance Controlled
Pirhana7_ESO
✭✭✭✭✭
I understand it is a free for all right now for testing right away but I would like to explain why a limited access mechanic would really make the IC experience so much better for PVP and PVE.
First, both these mechanic were in place in DAOC, Darkness Falls was controlled by one faction winning on the War map. The Labrynth was always open to all 3 sides. Most players will tell you that the Darkness Falls experience was just much superior.
Right now in IC with all 3 sides going in its chaotic and really hard to accomplish anything. While i know some people like this, I think most would want it to be a little more controlled and thats what happens when 1 alliance controls it or atleast cuts off access to 1 enemy side. The big 3way chaotic fights can still happen but just not very often. When 1 sides controls the IC and clears out the enemy zerg, now you can actually accomplish your PVE or do your farming for stones with much more safety. You will still have to watch your back for enemy lurkers but there wont be an enemy zerg and you will have a window to get stuff accomplished. This is also a time that the Pure PVE players from that alliance can actually come to IC because they wont when its a 24/7 gankfest. I am not saying this should be required for PVE players but it is a time that would actually bring them to the IC.
I'd like to run you threw why the Darkness Fall (DF) experience was so great in DAOC with its limited access to one Alliance. When your alliance doesn't always have access to something, it makes it much more special when you do. It makes its exciting and can also even change your plans for the night. When an alliance gained control of DF it first created a MAD RUSH, this was exciting, your side rushed in to CLEAR out the enemy. This was a very fun PVP experience and could last up to an hour. After that you could now do the things you needed to do inside (craft) (stones)(bosses). if you just wanted to PVP you would go back outside to the alliance war. For those thats stayed inside you did what you needed to do knowing your time was limited and while also watching your back because there was still always a few enemies inside. Then when you did see the BIG message that your side lost control it was a big WARNING and also a PANIC. For IC this is teh perfect time to go the vault and bank stones. This was also when your side would fall back to a spot and make your LAST STAND. This was always an epic fight.
For these reasons I hope we atl east see a mechanic where IC access requires you to hold your home keeps + 1 enemy keep.
First, both these mechanic were in place in DAOC, Darkness Falls was controlled by one faction winning on the War map. The Labrynth was always open to all 3 sides. Most players will tell you that the Darkness Falls experience was just much superior.
Right now in IC with all 3 sides going in its chaotic and really hard to accomplish anything. While i know some people like this, I think most would want it to be a little more controlled and thats what happens when 1 alliance controls it or atleast cuts off access to 1 enemy side. The big 3way chaotic fights can still happen but just not very often. When 1 sides controls the IC and clears out the enemy zerg, now you can actually accomplish your PVE or do your farming for stones with much more safety. You will still have to watch your back for enemy lurkers but there wont be an enemy zerg and you will have a window to get stuff accomplished. This is also a time that the Pure PVE players from that alliance can actually come to IC because they wont when its a 24/7 gankfest. I am not saying this should be required for PVE players but it is a time that would actually bring them to the IC.
I'd like to run you threw why the Darkness Fall (DF) experience was so great in DAOC with its limited access to one Alliance. When your alliance doesn't always have access to something, it makes it much more special when you do. It makes its exciting and can also even change your plans for the night. When an alliance gained control of DF it first created a MAD RUSH, this was exciting, your side rushed in to CLEAR out the enemy. This was a very fun PVP experience and could last up to an hour. After that you could now do the things you needed to do inside (craft) (stones)(bosses). if you just wanted to PVP you would go back outside to the alliance war. For those thats stayed inside you did what you needed to do knowing your time was limited and while also watching your back because there was still always a few enemies inside. Then when you did see the BIG message that your side lost control it was a big WARNING and also a PANIC. For IC this is teh perfect time to go the vault and bank stones. This was also when your side would fall back to a spot and make your LAST STAND. This was always an epic fight.
For these reasons I hope we atl east see a mechanic where IC access requires you to hold your home keeps + 1 enemy keep.
0
-
Forestd16b14_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭No .... just no. Holding home keeps or enemy keeps would just cause a repeat of buff servers making all the big time guilds come in and gate camp forcing 3 of the 4 servers to be "city servers" and making the last server of course the actual pvp one and having a entire repeat of buff servers.
No.2 -
Laplace✭✭✭At this point, pure PVE players are gonna either need to piggyback off of friendly zergs, or stick to the dungeons and nothing else for their Tel Var stones.
Honestly, I'm just hoping we don't see a repeat of Cyrodiil proper before the new campaigns: One side completely dominates and soon the other alliances just stop showing up. I have a feeling the moment we see gate campers, it could be inevitable that people just find a campaign where their alliance dominates until IC becomes a de-facto PVE with some PVP elements space.0 -
SkylarkAU✭✭✭✭To make everyone happy I would just convert the sewers in to safe zones for each respective alliance BUT either lower the drop rate of stones or disable the multiplier while you're in that area.Skylärk // v16 Stamina DK (AvA 23)
Elizabeth Skylark // v16 Magicka Sorc (AvA 29)
Tauriel Skylark // v16 Stamina NB (AvA 12)
Alexander Skylark // v2 Magicka Templar
Terra Australis XI // v2 Magicka DK
Nocturnal | RÀGE
<< PC/NA/AD >>
Youtube0 -
Pirhana7_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
YES, just YESForestd16b14_ESO wrote: »No .... just no. Holding home keeps or enemy keeps would just cause a repeat of buff servers making all the big time guilds come in and gate camp forcing 3 of the 4 servers to be "city servers" and making the last server of course the actual pvp one and having a entire repeat of buff servers.
No.
Buff servers required your alliance to hold the entire map to gain the maximum buff. You do not need to hold the entire map for IC access. Only your home keeps +1 enemy
Your home keeps are easier for you to hold and much harder for enemies to push to take. Lets say an enemy does get your keep. Now half of their alliance goes into the IC. they are not going to be able to hold that keep for long now against a full force alliance taking back their home territory keep.
0 -
asteldian✭✭✭✭Actually just home keeps would be fine by me. Pretty easy to do and hard to lock against - especially when the dominant faction actually wants to spend time in IC so weakening numbers outside0 -
Pirhana7_ESO✭✭✭✭✭Actually just home keeps would be fine by me. Pretty easy to do and hard to lock against - especially when the dominant faction actually wants to spend time in IC so weakening numbers outside
I would be OK with this system too.
Personally I would like the +1 enemy keep as this would make it so all 3 alliance could not have access at the same, but 2 still could. i think on alliance NOT having access makes that alliance angry and pushes them to change the map and to get access for them self. I fear that if only home keeps are required we will see everyone with their home keeps 99% of the time and much less of a push to take more keeps because nothing more is required for IC. Exchanging 1 enemy keep would really make things happen and creat more control in IC0 -
djyrb✭✭✭I'm not 100% sure of what mechanic for keep capture (all home keeps, home emp keeps, 1 enemy keep, etc) is best, but I agree that something needs to be in there to keep Cyrodiil strategies tied to the Imperial City.
You think it's bad when CP grinders, role players, and other non-participants lock up your population? Wait until PVP guilds do their version of uselessness to gate camp enemy spawns in the IC and other nonsense.
I agree that a new "city server" meta might manifest, but there is no reason that IC should deviate from the original design and become a free-for-all 24/7 as the outside campaign will definitely suffer.1 -
Pirhana7_ESO✭✭✭✭✭currently the load areas are camped, this shouldnt be a problem once other alliances get access cut off0