[Suggestion] Claiming Districts in Imperial City

HeroOfNone

I suggested on the PTS forums on capturing districts, but after the first few days it's pretty clear we have a zerg problem.

The Problem
As predicted, zergs are running through the city and small group and solo play is pretty rough. Folks that may have soloed previously have to group up to stave off the others larger groups. The risk in the risk/reward is too great when the 15-20 TV stones you get from soloing a mob is wiped out by the waves of enemies farming an area. Add to this strong monsters that require more PVE type builds, it's no surprise this is killing solo and small group game play.

Solution 0: Nothing

If the zergs don't bother you, you feel it's great as it is or how it should be. Let devs and others know you like it as is.

Solution A: Matches/Battlegrounds in the District

As previously posted, we host matches in each district for control. This would mean:

- 2 contested - limited number of people allowed in to fight for control
- 2 conquered - an alliance has locked it down and only they can get in
- 2 free - a reset period after conquered where anyone can enter.

The ways to captured could be handled in multiple ways:
- Through which alliance collects the most telvars in a match
- Capturing and holding control points
- Amount of deaths per side
- Other typical pvp match mechanics

With this 2 district changing setup every hour or so we gain a lot:
- Equal fighting on the 3 factions thanks to a growing player queue
- Small scale and skilled group PVP
- Give greater purpose to surviving and fighting in a district.
- Won't restrict folks from fighting in at least 2 districts
- Gives a good reward to an alliance that doesn't involve making them stronger (buffs)
- zergs still have thier place, but won't absolutely dominate the city.

Solution B: Keeps in Cyrodiil

In this senario, what inner keeps are captured determines what districts are open
- Alliance base ladders will locked based on the keeps taken.
- 6 keeps, 6 districts, 6 ladders, easy math
- Ladders in the PVP area of the sewer will remain open
- Doors between districts are warded for an alliance
- Dieing in enemy districts will respawn you to the nearest friendly district/sewer
- Contested keeps will make a district open to all

With the outside fight affecting the inside fight, what we'll hopefully see:
- Zergs move back out to Cyrodiil to try and capture and hold keeps
- A focus on surviving and not suicide rushing
- A "safe" feeling environment to make folks risk soloing or small grouping
- A potential to gank if you know how to travel the sewers
- Potentially epic sewer fights with groups fighting thier way to a district's sewer entrance

Solution C: Locking the Entrance

This is the solution ZOS has hinted at. I don't exactly like this but...
- Without owning a keep on the inner circle, the sewers entrance will be locked
- With completing the ring you potentially lock everything down for your alliance
- Dieing in the city will potentially send you back to the cyrodiil gates? ? ?

This will get us:
- A PVEer's parodies, a zone to themselves with fewer enemies
- Fewer enemies to form a zerg when the entrance is locked
- potentially more gank targets if you're still inside

I'm still not sure about locking down the entrance, seems counterproductive to me, but they said it would be the solution to the zerg at a few times.

Solution D : Limited Players in the Districts

Another idea tossed out there that we just flat cap how many could get in. Not sure how this work stop a 24 man zerg unless you only allowed a small amount.

Solution E: Allow catapult siege

While ballistas, oil, and trebuchets would be over powered, catapults may be the perfect fit...
- Only allowed in the districts
- lower damage verses NPCs
- a captured keep or ring may be required to allow it to be deployed
- can not be used in spawn areas or safe zones
- potentially unsuitable to place in doors (the houses are falling apart)

While this might be sort of giving a buff to a winning team it will still:
- Can give a disadvantage on enemies without a direct damage burst
- Give low levels a chance to against high levels.
- restrictive but numerous ally ways limits useful spamming of a single choke point

Solution F: The Best Choice...

YOURS!

Give feedback on how you would like to change the zergs. Changes in game mechanics, design, etc. I'll let someone else take to changing skills, there are folks more experienced than I for sure. Just give a reply below.

Thanks for your time if you looked through all of these ideas and see you in the city!

=3

HeroOfNone

Solution A: Matches/Battlegrounds in the District

I'll just name drop a few folks I know who are interested in how the district battles play out...

@ZOS_BrianWheeler @ZOS_RichLambert @yodased @Shunravi @Gorthax @Sypher @MissBizz @JavaWho @vortexman11

Scyantific

This was originally planned, but got scrapped once the carebears started whining about paying for DLC only to get shut out of it (you know, ALL DLC needs to be instant gratification).

HeroOfNone

Solution A: Matches/Battlegrounds in the District

Scyantific wrote: »

This was originally planned, but got scrapped once the carebears started whining about paying for DLC only to get shut out of it (you know, ALL DLC needs to be instant gratification).

"Solution C: Locking the Entrance" was the only alternative I heard about, but honestly it would have been a lot more Carebear and less bloody if only one alliance had access at a time. I think with some of the alternatives I've laid out there can still be some rough fights to get involved but it won't potentially lock everything out.

MissBizz

Solution C: Locking the Entrance

A) I love when people split their posts in spoilers, makes it for an easier read.

B ) I'm biased. " A PVEer's parodise, a zone to themselves with fewer enemies" Although option B was a really close runner up.

Oh, and I would have been fine not having access to IC all the time. Then again, I also have character in all alliances.. soo... likely it wouldn't happen to me on all alliances at the same time. There has been chatter about possibly adding 1 campaign in the future that does do this, but Mr. Wheeler has mentioned it's definitely not an immediate plan.

[EDIT] My B points always turn into

Robbmrp

Solution D : Limited Players in the Districts

Limited players in the districts and also limit the group sizes to no more than 12 players.

Scyantific

Robbmrp wrote: »

Limited players in the districts and also limit the group sizes to no more than 12 players.

This really doesn't do anything though. All it does is push everything into zone chat and then the real winners will be PvP guilds that run 2 groups of 12 and coordinate over Teamspeak/Ventrilo/Mumble.

My suggestion: bring back the district control aspect of IC, but modify it so that it's not just a zergfest and stacking on one flag. Introduce multiple points that need to be capped before obtaining total control of the district. If a district is under alliance control THEN you can respawn inside that district. If not, you either respawn in the sewers or in a district that's neutral or under your alliance's control. The districts are small enough so that people who control the district can focus on doing story/TV content while at the same time forcing them to keep an eye out because if they lose control of the district and die to an enemy player then they don't get to respawn inside the district safe-point.

REzRyder

Solution A: Matches/Battlegrounds in the District

I really like A if we're looking one solution that seems most functional in keeping things fun for everyone. If there is a way to implement both A & B, I think that would work and add to the type of battles we'll come up with to play.

yodased

Solution F: The Best Choice...

My solution is to place fixed siege in crucial chokepoints along the districts and also at spawn points.

This siege should have the capability of decimating zergs immediately, if you want to try and spawn camp and someone is there on this nuke you are in for a world of hurt.

Also it gives a level 10 something to contribute to the war.

BrightnessSyl

Solution A: Matches/Battlegrounds in the District

I love the idea of battle grounds and or less stones/ap for groups larger than 4. The Zerging was so bad last night it was next to impossible to do any kind of quest or even duel.

HeroOfNone

Solution A: Matches/Battlegrounds in the District

Scyantific wrote: »

Robbmrp wrote: »

Limited players in the districts and also limit the group sizes to no more than 12 players.

This really doesn't do anything though. All it does is push everything into zone chat and then the real winners will be PvP guilds that run 2 groups of 12 and coordinate over Teamspeak/Ventrilo/Mumble.

My suggestion: bring back the district control aspect of IC, but modify it so that it's not just a zergfest and stacking on one flag. Introduce multiple points that need to be capped before obtaining total control of the district. If a district is under alliance control THEN you can respawn inside that district. If not, you either respawn in the sewers or in a district that's neutral or under your alliance's control. The districts are small enough so that people who control the district can focus on doing story/TV content while at the same time forcing them to keep an eye out because if they lose control of the district and die to an enemy player then they don't get to respawn inside the district safe-point.

Interesting concept however I'd see a potential issue that a zerg would continue to flood areas with contested flags and still do s rule by numbers thing. That's why with "Solution A: Matches/Battlegrounds in the District" I suggested flag capture as a mechanic bur only for a limited number of folks that joined the queue. So ad has 12, DC has 13, EP has 28, only 12 get in until either AD gets another or till someone quits and needs to be replaced. In contested districts only of course

yodased wrote: »

My solution is to place fixed siege in crucial chokepoints along the districts and also at spawn points.

This siege should have the capability of decimating zergs immediately, if you want to try and spawn camp and someone is there on this nuke you are in for a world of hurt.

Also it gives a level 10 something to contribute to the war.

My concern there are the folks that will fight over for prime spots and how folks will game the system if they know the range and distance. A bubble of deployment around a home base might be a good option, though I'd still say only allow catapults

vortexman11

Solution A: Matches/Battlegrounds in the District

Honestly, I support Solution C, completely locking the entrance unless you own your home keeps. But I chose Solution A as it seems to be a nice balance between open access, and a lock out.

I don't like Solution B as it would pretty much create faction exclusive districts and cause people to quickly flip empty keeps then rush into its corresponding district before it's taken back. Neither do I like Solution D as that's basically putting a population cap on districts within Cyrodiil which already has a population cap, though it might help spread people out.

Solution E should be a given though. Cross faction siege that can be captured and used, placed randomly throughout the map, no argument against it, and they already spoke about doing this on one of their twitch streams.

Anyways, to expand on Solution A, I would have it set up with multiple defensive points within each district that factions can capture, similar to outposts with flags. Whether it be a broken down temple, a crumbling house, or a simple barricade of wood. These points on the map will also be where the pre-set siege would be placed. Then the faction that can capture and control these points for a long enough period of time would then lock off said district (hidden members of the other factions will still be in, but none can enter) for a set amount of time, until it then reopens.

HeroOfNone

Solution A: Matches/Battlegrounds in the District

vortexman11 wrote: »

Honestly, I support Solution C, completely locking the entrance unless you own your home keeps. But I chose Solution A as it seems to be a nice balance between open access, and a lock out.

I don't like Solution B as it would pretty much create faction exclusive districts and cause people to quickly flip empty keeps then rush into its corresponding district before it's taken back. Neither do I like Solution D as that's basically putting a population cap on districts within Cyrodiil which already has a population cap, though it might help spread people out.

Solution E should be a given though. Cross faction siege that can be captured and used, placed randomly throughout the map, no argument against it, and they already spoke about doing this on one of their twitch streams.

Anyways, to expand on Solution A, I would have it set up with multiple defensive points within each district that factions can capture, similar to outposts with flags. Whether it be a broken down temple, a crumbling house, or a simple barricade of wood. These points on the map will also be where the pre-set siege would be placed. Then the faction that can capture and control these points for a long enough period of time would then lock off said district (hidden members of the other factions will still be in, but none can enter) for a set amount of time, until it then reopens.

The issues I see with "Solution C: Locking the Entrance" is it sort of defeats fighting in the city, a major selling point of IC. A lot also complain that if we temporary lock districts then folks won't get thier quests done, but no one will get any quests done if the entrance is locked (unless they hop to another campaign).

With "Solution B: Keeps in Cyrodiil" I can see being more interesting than that. If a keep is empty, folks are likely in the city and not defending, forcing some to leave to help defend it. If they are there and the keep gets flagged, then the district can open up and lead to a rush of folks coming in before the keeps outcome is decided. I think it could be potentially more dynamic depending.

In "Solution A: Matches/Battlegrounds in the District" I could agree to combining it with "Solution E: Allow catapult siege" and allowing siege around capture points, but I'd stress that fixed point siege like @yodased would be gamed and trivialized quickly, so having a small area to set it down in would be prefered. My major thought though is still limiting how many can get in at one time, with a minimum that can enter or like 12, so that one side isn't just over whelping things with numbers, like we've seen.

Xendyn

Solution B: Keeps in Cyrodiil

Picked B as the closest but really I feel the problem is, at the root of it, population imbalance.

This "open access 24/7" is not working. I said from the beginning it would be the worst case scenario for zergs in the city. We need some sort of access lock so an alliance can clean up the city and then get on with their business in there.

The only way that's going to work is if population among alliances is balanced so no one alliance has a huge number advantage in Cyro. Otherwise, we'd just be back to the buff server thing. Neither do I think adding calculations for mob aggro, stone drops or anything else is going to help performance.

Population balance + access requirements will do the trick, imo.

Farorin

District battles is interesting as is the keep/district relattion idea, but I would still like the districts to be open to all, and maybe just the quick travel ladders and re spawn locations sealed off if your alliance doesn't "own" it. That way it would still be possible to get there and it wouldn't be gated, but it would be a pain in the butt and good incentive to try and own as much territory as you can.

HeroOfNone

Solution A: Matches/Battlegrounds in the District

Farorin wrote: »

District battles is interesting as is the keep/district relattion idea, but I would still like the districts to be open to all, and maybe just the quick travel ladders and re spawn locations sealed off if your alliance doesn't "own" it. That way it would still be possible to get there and it wouldn't be gated, but it would be a pain in the butt and good incentive to try and own as much territory as you can.

That is what "Solution B: Keeps in Cyrodiil" is primarily. The only issue I have with it though is the loading times between sewers and districts needs to go down, otherwise it could be too easy to kill folks loading out or loading into an area. It's also one of the better options I think if Solution A were too difficult to program in.

frozywozy

Change the arena district into a new PVP only area with no mobs with 2v2, 3v3, 5v5 brackets. Add a ranking system for each campaign and three top tiers. The more people registered into the arena, the more stones you get for winning into the top tiers, every campaign. Fixed, done.

Pseudolo

I don't think a lock mechanism is the right choice. As a completionist, I don't like being locked outside of content, and since I always end up in a campaign where nobody from my alliance (EP) cares about gaining and keeping territory, I would end up not playing.

Why not introduce player flagging for IC. Like, you flag yourself neutral, you get way less TV stones per kill but you don't get in PvP unless you attack another player first. This would help PvErs and people that suck at PvP enjoy the content without spoiling the fun for everyone.

Recremen

I've been doing PvP for the last couple weeks exclusively in the sewers and districts, and I definitely see the potential for making that a part of the PvP meta. The terrain is incredibly fun to work with. There are only 2 huge problems that I'm seeing now that are holding solid PvP back, and they are as follows

1: Half the population in Cyro doesn't want to fight, period. They only want to PvE, and with the enormous size of the IC they can pretty much have their way, minus a few incidents of Sudden Giant Enemy Zerg. This means there are way fewer fighting folk about per server to tussle with, and since the population is capped that's just how it will remain until they have the new content to farm materials and gear from.

2: There are no PvP objectives in the sewer or districts to create a meta around. No bonuses for districts, no title to fight over, heck we can't even tell if the swords on the map are from the sewers or the districts themselves. We need some way to let other PvPers know where we are (normally done by flagging keeps and resources) to get them to come do fights, and for a lot of people the fights need to be worth something.

There are loads of ways these issues can be addressed.

A popular one among PvPers is to gate access to the city. I personally dislike this because the current patch (from a PvE perspective) is entirely reliant on access to the city for the next tier of gear. Moreover, it encourages leaving the city empty, which is just a dreadful waste if you ask me. Overland Cyro is fun and we probably need some incentives to keep using it, but the Imperial City has lots of unique terrain that we shouldn't pass over.

Capturable districts are a step in the right direction, because it implies that a district could be highlighted as "under attack", which lets PvPers know where the fighting is. It also should be commensurately rewarded for a successful capture and give incentives for other factions to wrest it once more from the victors' hands. If there were some additional achievement/title/bonus for holding all six districts, that would be even more incentive to use the city. I'm sure some similar objectives could be implemented for the sewers.

Obviously one problem with that solution is that population would have the potential to be more spread out, depending on what bonuses/objectives a faction were trying to focus on. With PvEers still being coerced into the PvP zones, this presents a compounded problem, since they are actively trying to spread out. I'm worried that without that issue being addressed, PvP fighting will continue to suffer. It's not really fun to kill them even when you can find them, since they don't put up much of a fight, and I feel like that's an issue that was overlooked while designing the content.

HeroOfNone

Solution A: Matches/Battlegrounds in the District

Pseudolo wrote: »

I don't think a lock mechanism is the right choice. As a completionist, I don't like being locked outside of content, and since I always end up in a campaign where nobody from my alliance (EP) cares about gaining and keeping territory, I would end up not playing.

Why not introduce player flagging for IC. Like, you flag yourself neutral, you get way less TV stones per kill but you don't get in PvP unless you attack another player first. This would help PvErs and people that suck at PvP enjoy the content without spoiling the fun for everyone.

Which is why "Solution A: Matches/Battlegrounds in the District" and "Solution B: Keeps in Cyrodiil" talk about limiting the ways to access by time or quick travel. And "Solution E: Allow catapult siege" allows access but a serious advantage to groups.

The majority of solutions of ZOS or discussed the most however have been "Solution C: Locking the Entrance" and "Solution D : Limited Players in the Districts" which will still limit you in one way or another for possibly a long time if you join a bad campaign. I hope that this shows what a double edge sword the locking down mechanism can be if it's not timed or has some sort of small group bypass in some way.

As for flagging IC, I believe that would upset a lot of folks trying to keep it PVP centric, and has other issues like lore (this is a 3 banner war for the city) farming. Healing, stalking and removing protection, training mobs on enemies, etc.

Cathexis

I think claiming should be a thing, it would be cool if it revolved around securing a safe exit to your base in each district.

ToRelax

Solution C: Locking the Entrance

Pseudolo wrote: »

I don't think a lock mechanism is the right choice. As a completionist, I don't like being locked outside of content, and since I always end up in a campaign where nobody from my alliance (EP) cares about gaining and keeping territory, I would end up not playing.

Why not introduce player flagging for IC. Like, you flag yourself neutral, you get way less TV stones per kill but you don't get in PvP unless you attack another player first. This would help PvErs and people that suck at PvP enjoy the content without spoiling the fun for everyone.

Sounds like a bad idea. First, you'd have to make it so you can only flag/unflag while you're in your home base.
And then I can already see the PvEers qq that they are being penalized for not wanting to be ganked or something...

Recremen wrote: »

I've been doing PvP for the last couple weeks exclusively in the sewers and districts, and I definitely see the potential for making that a part of the PvP meta. The terrain is incredibly fun to work with. There are only 2 huge problems that I'm seeing now that are holding solid PvP back, and they are as follows

1: Half the population in Cyro doesn't want to fight, period. They only want to PvE, and with the enormous size of the IC they can pretty much have their way, minus a few incidents of Sudden Giant Enemy Zerg. This means there are way fewer fighting folk about per server to tussle with, and since the population is capped that's just how it will remain until they have the new content to farm materials and gear from.

2: There are no PvP objectives in the sewer or districts to create a meta around. No bonuses for districts, no title to fight over, heck we can't even tell if the swords on the map are from the sewers or the districts themselves. We need some way to let other PvPers know where we are (normally done by flagging keeps and resources) to get them to come do fights, and for a lot of people the fights need to be worth something.

There are loads of ways these issues can be addressed.

A popular one among PvPers is to gate access to the city. I personally dislike this because the current patch (from a PvE perspective) is entirely reliant on access to the city for the next tier of gear. Moreover, it encourages leaving the city empty, which is just a dreadful waste if you ask me. Overland Cyro is fun and we probably need some incentives to keep using it, but the Imperial City has lots of unique terrain that we shouldn't pass over.

Capturable districts are a step in the right direction, because it implies that a district could be highlighted as "under attack", which lets PvPers know where the fighting is. It also should be commensurately rewarded for a successful capture and give incentives for other factions to wrest it once more from the victors' hands. If there were some additional achievement/title/bonus for holding all six districts, that would be even more incentive to use the city. I'm sure some similar objectives could be implemented for the sewers.

Obviously one problem with that solution is that population would have the potential to be more spread out, depending on what bonuses/objectives a faction were trying to focus on. With PvEers still being coerced into the PvP zones, this presents a compounded problem, since they are actively trying to spread out. I'm worried that without that issue being addressed, PvP fighting will continue to suffer. It's not really fun to kill them even when you can find them, since they don't put up much of a fight, and I feel like that's an issue that was overlooked while designing the content.

What about Cyrodiil? I would love fighting in Cyrodiil much more than in the IC. And right now, that is an empty wasteland.

notimetocare

Solution F: The Best Choice...

Anything that gives an incentive and reward to pvp...

GorraShatan

I do really like the idea of capture points in IC, but I really dislike the idea of having queues between the districts. Sorry. Maybe just a way to deny respawns or something... or deny the ladder from base.

For zergs... I dunno. I don't mind them too much, but I certainly don't enjoy them either. I just avoid them. Maybe more sweepers that are especially attracted to large groups of players?

It'd be nice to have capturable points in the sewers too, and quests to go capture them. It'd give us a reason to go to the enemy sewers.

Starshadw

My suggestions from another thread (that I can no longer find) went something like this:

1. Claiming Emperorship gives that faction sole access to the Imperial City for a certain period of time (I'd say 1-2 hours, tops). As soon as an Emp is crowned, the other two factions are locked out of the City. Any players of the other two factions already inside the City when this happens are given an onscreen message and are removed from area, respawning back in that faction's sewer entrance. This provides incentive for claiming Emperor - unopposed access to the Imperial City both above and below ground.

2. After the above time period has passed, the other two factions have their access to the IC unlocked, and can enter at will (ie, the situation we have now).

3. If, after 24 (or perhaps it should be lower, like 8 or 12) hours of a faction crowning an Emp another faction has not claimed Emp, once again the other two factions are locked out of IC for another 1-2 hours. Thus, incentive is provided for both trying to take the Emperorship away, and also for keeping the Emperorship instead of simply letting it fall. This option only works for the two opposing factions - so one faction couldn't abdicate, then let keeps fall only to grab Emp again to get the access.

4. Each faction should have base camp ladder access to only TWO of the above-ground districts. To get to the other four, they should have to hoof it above-ground. This would ease the insta-spawn crap. Personally, I'd like to see them split, so that instead of two adjoining districts, there are enemy districts in between.

5. I'd like to see ladder access given to the above-ground spawn locations we currently drop down from - it doesn't really make sense for it to not exist. Put three unkillable guards at the bottom of the ladder so they can't be camped by enemy players. This would make it easier for those who are only there to do the quests when they are in their faction's two zones.

Lava_Croft

Solution A: Matches/Battlegrounds in the District

I want to fight over district access, just like ZOS promised us.

Cathexis

Lava_Croft wrote: »

I want to fight over district access, just like ZOS promised us.

Personally I think gated access is a bad idea because populations are imbalanced and just like employees farming it encourages players to only play on the faction that is winning. Only this time, it will mean that one faction will get a decisive advantage in terms of access to better gear, which then leads to further closed access for non-dominant factions.

Closing access is a bad idea.

However, one thing I have noticed is that to return to your base with stones you either have to

(A) Suicide on mobs (lose 10%)

(B) Spend ap on teleport stones (expend 10k ap per run)

Or (C) use your sewer entrance. (Risk ganks squads and potentially run extremely long distances)

One way to encourage non-mandatory competition that involves territorial control, as I suggested before, could be control over safe exits from districts

This could manifest as pipes or portals or way shrines that have faction flags and npcs which can be capped and protected and which provide a tel Var or ap bonus.

The incentive would be enough such that players in the district would compete for access, but their limited utility and reward would not attract zergs

Players who do not have control would still have the option of returning to their base by standard options.

HeroOfNone

Solution A: Matches/Battlegrounds in the District

GorraShatan wrote: »

I do really like the idea of capture points in IC, but I really dislike the idea of having queues between the districts. Sorry. Maybe just a way to deny respawns or something... or deny the ladder from base.

For zergs... I dunno. I don't mind them too much, but I certainly don't enjoy them either. I just avoid them. Maybe more sweepers that are especially attracted to large groups of players?

It'd be nice to have capturable points in the sewers too, and quests to go capture them. It'd give us a reason to go to the enemy sewers.

I get most don't like the thought of queues, but I'm also not talking long queues like the ones that have you wait in Cyrodiil for hours. As an alternative to large queues there could also be an instant swap out from queuee to recently killed. The way I see it though if your not waiting to fight in a match like this then yoir waiting for a zerg to clear a district, get bored, then leave, which can be just as boring on the receiving end and twice as annoying since you don't even get a choice on how many numbers your team has verses the other faction.

Starshadw wrote: »

My suggestions from another thread (that I can no longer find) went something like this:

1. Claiming Emperorship gives that faction sole access to the Imperial City for a certain period of time (I'd say 1-2 hours, tops). As soon as an Emp is crowned, the other two factions are locked out of the City. Any players of the other two factions already inside the City when this happens are given an onscreen message and are removed from area, respawning back in that faction's sewer entrance. This provides incentive for claiming Emperor - unopposed access to the Imperial City both above and below ground.

2. After the above time period has passed, the other two factions have their access to the IC unlocked, and can enter at will (ie, the situation we have now).

3. If, after 24 (or perhaps it should be lower, like 8 or 12) hours of a faction crowning an Emp another faction has not claimed Emp, once again the other two factions are locked out of IC for another 1-2 hours. Thus, incentive is provided for both trying to take the Emperorship away, and also for keeping the Emperorship instead of simply letting it fall. This option only works for the two opposing factions - so one faction couldn't abdicate, then let keeps fall only to grab Emp again to get the access.

4. Each faction should have base camp ladder access to only TWO of the above-ground districts. To get to the other four, they should have to hoof it above-ground. This would ease the insta-spawn crap. Personally, I'd like to see them split, so that instead of two adjoining districts, there are enemy districts in between.

5. I'd like to see ladder access given to the above-ground spawn locations we currently drop down from - it doesn't really make sense for it to not exist. Put three unkillable guards at the bottom of the ladder so they can't be camped by enemy players. This would make it easier for those who are only there to do the quests when they are in their faction's two zones.

Making the lock out temporary with emperorship is interesting, but you'd still likely run into guilds that would cap, let the zone flip, and then cap again to perpetually keep the gate locked, and would likely camp spawns in the small window it's open. I'd prefer to see the shortcuts cut off then the sewer access myself, lest we see this behavior.

Cathexis wrote: »

Lava_Croft wrote: »

I want to fight over district access, just like ZOS promised us.

Personally I think gated access is a bad idea because populations are imbalanced and just like employees farming it encourages players to only play on the faction that is winning. Only this time, it will mean that one faction will get a decisive advantage in terms of access to better gear, which then leads to further closed access for non-dominant factions.

Closing access is a bad idea.

However, one thing I have noticed is that to return to your base with stones you either have to

(A) Suicide on mobs (lose 10%)

(B) Spend ap on teleport stones (expend 10k ap per run)

Or (C) use your sewer entrance. (Risk ganks squads and potentially run extremely long distances)

One way to encourage non-mandatory competition that involves territorial control, as I suggested before, could be control over safe exits from districts

This could manifest as pipes or portals or way shrines that have faction flags and npcs which can be capped and protected and which provide a tel Var or ap bonus.

The incentive would be enough such that players in the district would compete for access, but their limited utility and reward would not attract zergs

Players who do not have control would still have the option of returning to their base by standard options.

Giving safe exits might be another way to control part of the flow, though I'd like to still see more mechanics added to control how that portal is opened.

Starshadw

HeroOfNone wrote: »

Making the lock out temporary with emperorship is interesting, but you'd still likely run into guilds that would cap, let the zone flip, and then cap again to perpetually keep the gate locked, and would likely camp spawns in the small window it's open. I'd prefer to see the shortcuts cut off then the sewer access myself, lest we see this behavior

Add a lockout timer for that faction that would prevent reflipping a campaign in order to keep a perpetual lock on IC.

For example:

EP claims Emperor and their two-hour IC access begins. Their lockout timer starts - meaning that their faction is unable to lock IC again for a period of time, such as six hours. They can reclaim Emperor if another faction comes along and takes it, but doing so won't then re-lock the other two factions out again.

So EP claims Emp at 7am, They now have sole access to the IC until 9am unless AD or DC come along and take Emp. At the same time, EP's lockout clock starts, and they are now unable to lock anyone out of IC again until 1pm.

At 8:30am, DC dethrones EP and takes Emp. EP are kicked out of IC and now DC have sole access until 10:30am. Their lockout clock starts, and they are no unable to lock anyone out of IC again until 2:30pm.

At 9:15am, EP dethrones DC and reclaims Emp. But their lockout clock prevents them from locking anyone out, so at this point, all three factions (including AD, who have been locked out up to this point) now have access to the city.

If nothing happens in Cyrodiil and EP retains Emperorship from this point forward, then all three factions will have access until 9:15am the next day, whereupon the EP will once again have sole access for two hours since they held onto the Emperorship.

It's certainly not a perfect solution - but it's one that will encourage folks to want to take and keep Emp, and also encourage people to dethrone.


As for spawn camping: in another thread, I already said that ZOS needs to do something about the out-of-control spawn location camping. There are quick and easy fixes, and it's disappointing they've still not implemented anything to stop this behavior.

HeroOfNone

Solution A: Matches/Battlegrounds in the District

Starshadw wrote: »

HeroOfNone wrote: »

Making the lock out temporary with emperorship is interesting, but you'd still likely run into guilds that would cap, let the zone flip, and then cap again to perpetually keep the gate locked, and would likely camp spawns in the small window it's open. I'd prefer to see the shortcuts cut off then the sewer access myself, lest we see this behavior

Add a lockout timer for that faction that would prevent reflipping a campaign in order to keep a perpetual lock on IC.

For example:

EP claims Emperor and their two-hour IC access begins. Their lockout timer starts - meaning that their faction is unable to lock IC again for a period of time, such as six hours. They can reclaim Emperor if another faction comes along and takes it, but doing so won't then re-lock the other two factions out again.

So EP claims Emp at 7am, They now have sole access to the IC until 9am unless AD or DC come along and take Emp. At the same time, EP's lockout clock starts, and they are now unable to lock anyone out of IC again until 1pm.

At 8:30am, DC dethrones EP and takes Emp. EP are kicked out of IC and now DC have sole access until 10:30am. Their lockout clock starts, and they are no unable to lock anyone out of IC again until 2:30pm.

At 9:15am, EP dethrones DC and reclaims Emp. But their lockout clock prevents them from locking anyone out, so at this point, all three factions (including AD, who have been locked out up to this point) now have access to the city.

If nothing happens in Cyrodiil and EP retains Emperorship from this point forward, then all three factions will have access until 9:15am the next day, whereupon the EP will once again have sole access for two hours since they held onto the Emperorship.

It's certainly not a perfect solution - but it's one that will encourage folks to want to take and keep Emp, and also encourage people to dethrone.


As for spawn camping: in another thread, I already said that ZOS needs to do something about the out-of-control spawn location camping. There are quick and easy fixes, and it's disappointing they've still not implemented anything to stop this behavior.

More detailed for sure, but there will still be gaming on this system. I'd see that EP, DC, and AD zergs might rotate campaigns (not hard given the group queue and guest campaign) to constantly have one faction locked. In addition you'd have folks willing to let a zone flip just to remove the other factions lock down timers as well. Not saying it's good or bad, but just looking for the potential for abuse.

Also, kicking folks out that are already in the city might be irritating to some, and it would probably be better to give folks a chance to stay inside, say with without dying they are allowed to stay. But even ZOS hasn't gone into detail if folks would be granted to stay or not, just that the entrance would lock.

Either way still not a great fan of lock outs based on emperorship, but good to hear it thought out with more detail.

HeroOfNone

Solution A: Matches/Battlegrounds in the District

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

Cyrodiil Campaign Changes

• We will be closing the Thornblade campaign on the PC/Mac North American and European megaservers with this patch, and introducing our first Imperial City gated access campaign: Axe of Belharza.
• If you have earned at least Tier 1 rewards in Thornblade at the time it is closed, you will receive them shortly after logging in.
• Anyone previously assigned to Thornblade will receive a free home campaign reassignment.
• The Axe of Belharza campaign has the same scoring methods as Thornblade:
  • Resources, outposts, and Elder Scrolls will generate zero points. Ownership of keeps will generate one point per scoring cycle
  • The campaign has a 7-day duration.
  • Both Veteran and non-Veteran player characters may join this new campaign.
• Access to the Imperial City is gated in the Axe of Belharza campaign by owning your native six keeps.

With today's patch let's pay attention to Axe of Belharza and how "Solution C: Locking the Entrance" works out. I still have my doubts this will have any affect to stop zerging and feel it will lead to PVE like campaigns. Most of this won't be seen till there are 3 campaigns with the same rule set.