Two Years of ESO PvP - Rylana's comments for ZOS

Wollust

While I really appreciate an answer from @ZOS_BrianWheeler and @ZOS_RichLambert and this exactly the communication is we need, though not once every year, but on a more regular basis, it doesn't change the fact that the things you guys stated, although nice changes which I fully support, won't do much for us in PvP regarding the biggest issue, the lag and the second big issue, the class imbalance. As you said, it's Wroebels territory regarding the combat, but he doesn't have a forum account (which is kinda disrespectful towards his customer base, although I can kinda see why he chose so). Now if you want to calm down the crowd here, the best thing to do would be to get someone from his team here, stating what is being done and if our feedbacks (from which there are plenty here) are being regarded and with a potential ETA on that stuff. It doesn't help with being silent. We don't want to hear the same sentences all the time. We want to hear concrete stuff. We want to know what is being worked on. We simply need more communication, direct communication between the players and the devs.
PvP is at the moment just incredibly frustrating. My guild is not playing much anymore in Cyrodiil and I fully understand it. We tried 2 hours ago, it was just a pure nightmare. Nothing working properly, just huge zergs running around and the FPS is not even worth mentioning anymore. This can't be the game you guys wanted to have. I simply can not believe this is how you want Cyrodiil to be like. Give us reasons to stay, because your game is definitely not doing so at this very moment.

Minno

Manoekin wrote: »

Jhunn wrote: »

Manoekin wrote: »

So he communicates. Then what? You're going to wait the same amount of time for any changes anyway. Believe it or not, most of the changes to the game have been from forum feedback. I can only think of a handful of things that I didn't see one person complain about that for some reason got changed. Stuff like bashable heavy attacks, aoe caps, etc. Now, shame on ZOS for accepting *** feedback, but the community is mostly to blame.

Absolutely zero communication leaves a completely frustrated PVP player base. We have no clue what they're actually doing, what their plans are and if we're just waiting our time. Cannot be defended in any way.

Just gonna leave this here.

http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/88049/do-you-think-there-should-be-an-aoe-cap/p1
http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/224997/myth-aoe-cap/p1

N-o-t-h-i-n-g.

So you want daily screenshots of their progress? There will be a Road Ahead, an ESO Live featuring Wrobel, or whatever else when there will be one. If you can't wait, then take a step away from the game for a bit. That's what I always do. If you want an update on AOE Caps, Brian gave you one in this very thread. It's being discussed. That's far better than before, so why are you linking those threads again?

This. He also gave an expected deadline, which works with current games going to be released soon or yesterday. I'd suggest playing those games as a break.

Rylana

Jhunn wrote: »

Manoekin wrote: »

So he communicates. Then what? You're going to wait the same amount of time for any changes anyway. Believe it or not, most of the changes to the game have been from forum feedback. I can only think of a handful of things that I didn't see one person complain about that for some reason got changed. Stuff like bashable heavy attacks, aoe caps, etc. Now, shame on ZOS for accepting *** feedback, but the community is mostly to blame.

Absolutely zero communication leaves a completely frustrated PVP player base. We have no clue what they're actually doing, what their plans are and if we're just waiting our time. Cannot be defended in any way.

Just gonna leave this here.

http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/88049/do-you-think-there-should-be-an-aoe-cap/p1
http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/224997/myth-aoe-cap/p1

N-o-t-h-i-n-g.

Dude dont be toxic. In this thread alone two different devs have replied six times. While their responses are thin on details, they have noticed and are talking to us. The demanding right now mentality where you expect results and massive plan boards with graphs and charts and some kinda presentation with powerpoint and the president of the united states giving a speech (yeah totally went hyperbole here) is just going to drive them back into silence.

Dont be that guy. When I wrote this thread a few days ago I felt a lot worse about the future of the game than I do now. Even though there hasnt been much meat to chew on, the voice was heard and acknowledged. Now we see what they do. There is a ton of constructive discussion going on here between a lot of the more prominent players. Frankly its become a bit of a goldmine on what the player pulse really is right now. Lets not rehash old stuff that clearly doesnt really get us anywhere.

Publius_Scipio

rfennell_ESO wrote: »

So... you do know that this thread is created by someone that runs around with a character in his zerg named "brianwheeler" (it's not out of respect) and blixxxxxy (you are aware of who that is, right?).

I mean lol, way to pick what to listen to.

So I assume this "brianwheeler" is part/or a buddy of Guild of Sissies? Not out of respect is an understatement. A sarcastic and disrespectful showing by some [snip].

Whoever this individual is that is disrespecting a dev yet playing the very game the devs have worked hard to create is a little [snip].

People have had name changes forced upon them (and rightfully so). Why hasn't this clown been caught?

News flash. We are ALL here because and ONLY because of the developers' work. Don't like it? Leave.

Jura23

Manoekin wrote: »

LegendaryChef wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

AOE caps are discussions reserved for the combat team and Wrobel to answer. They are well aware of the AE cap concerns (not just by posts but also with numerous conversations), but it is not within my realm to speak for them, nor make any changes to combat or mechanics.

Last time we got an answer from Wrobel was.... ehh..... moment plz.... Nope can't remember!

I do have to say thanks for taking the time to answer us but Mr. Wrobel seriously needs to find his way onto the forums so we know where to direct our feedback! So if you could politely pass on the message to him that I would like to talk to him and I will be waiting in his office when he is ready, that would be great thanks.

Yours Sincerely,

Bald Mage

Direct your feedback to the forums. There are combat and skill forums as well. The mod team usually goes around collecting feedback and pointing it to the right teams afaik. Some things will slip through the cracks, and others might just not get fixed in a timely manner for whatever reason(not because they hate you).

hammayolettuce wrote: »

I might also put out that we must seem to be a bunch of whiny, angry children to the devs judging by this thread lol. We have justifiable complaints but we've been awfully childish about voicing them.

This. A lot of posters in here asking to read Wrobel's Diary or something idk.

Do they really? From what I see on the forums, some devs go and read the stuff, which I appreaciate, but I don't think mods are passing any info on rest of them. Most of the time it seems like ZOS devs and forum ppl don't talk to each other so much, if at all.

Minno

Rylana wrote: »

Jhunn wrote: »

Manoekin wrote: »

So he communicates. Then what? You're going to wait the same amount of time for any changes anyway. Believe it or not, most of the changes to the game have been from forum feedback. I can only think of a handful of things that I didn't see one person complain about that for some reason got changed. Stuff like bashable heavy attacks, aoe caps, etc. Now, shame on ZOS for accepting *** feedback, but the community is mostly to blame.

Absolutely zero communication leaves a completely frustrated PVP player base. We have no clue what they're actually doing, what their plans are and if we're just waiting our time. Cannot be defended in any way.

Just gonna leave this here.

http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/88049/do-you-think-there-should-be-an-aoe-cap/p1
http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/224997/myth-aoe-cap/p1

N-o-t-h-i-n-g.

Dude dont be toxic. In this thread alone two different devs have replied six times. While their responses are thin on details, they have noticed and are talking to us. The demanding right now mentality where you expect results and massive plan boards with graphs and charts and some kinda presentation with powerpoint and the president of the united states giving a speech (yeah totally went hyperbole here) is just going to drive them back into silence.

Dont be that guy. When I wrote this thread a few days ago I felt a lot worse about the future of the game than I do now. Even though there hasnt been much meat to chew on, the voice was heard and acknowledged. Now we see what they do. There is a ton of constructive discussion going on here between a lot of the more prominent players. Frankly its become a bit of a goldmine on what the player pulse really is right now. Lets not rehash old stuff that clearly doesnt really get us anywhere.

ZOS done the right thing here and laid out a loose deadline. Next major update expect some major changes.

While we want it faster, players need to think about the stages in which ZOS rolls out content. We have to respect that.

Thank you @rylana for this thread.
Thank you @BrianWheeler

Manoekin

Jura23 wrote: »

Manoekin wrote: »

LegendaryChef wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

AOE caps are discussions reserved for the combat team and Wrobel to answer. They are well aware of the AE cap concerns (not just by posts but also with numerous conversations), but it is not within my realm to speak for them, nor make any changes to combat or mechanics.

Last time we got an answer from Wrobel was.... ehh..... moment plz.... Nope can't remember!

I do have to say thanks for taking the time to answer us but Mr. Wrobel seriously needs to find his way onto the forums so we know where to direct our feedback! So if you could politely pass on the message to him that I would like to talk to him and I will be waiting in his office when he is ready, that would be great thanks.

Yours Sincerely,

Bald Mage

Direct your feedback to the forums. There are combat and skill forums as well. The mod team usually goes around collecting feedback and pointing it to the right teams afaik. Some things will slip through the cracks, and others might just not get fixed in a timely manner for whatever reason(not because they hate you).

hammayolettuce wrote: »

I might also put out that we must seem to be a bunch of whiny, angry children to the devs judging by this thread lol. We have justifiable complaints but we've been awfully childish about voicing them.

This. A lot of posters in here asking to read Wrobel's Diary or something idk.

Do they really? From what I see on the forums, some devs go and read the stuff, which I appreaciate, but I don't think mods are passing any info on rest of them. Most of the time it seems like ZOS devs and forum ppl don't talk to each other so much, if at all.

At the very least I know Jessica/Gina do or have done it. They may just be the only ones with the authority to make it known they're doing it.

Enodoc

Starshadw wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

Rylana wrote: »

- Put resource flags inside/on top of the towers,

Pleased to see I'm not the only one who would like to see this! Resource capping is too easy with the flag outside, and I also think the resources themselves have a limited benefit overall. Sure they strengthen the keep, but there needs to be more to them so they're not just steamrolled over by the alliance who just capped the keep.

Ummm - I think perhaps this hasn't been thought through. Because what we're talking about is having to siege the tower down on any/every resource to take it. Do we really want to add that much more time spent on siege weapons smacking walls? I really don't. Don't get me wrong, sieging a keep looks very cool and it can be fun - but I really would rather not have to do it four times per keep now (one for the keep itself, and then three more times for the resource).

I suspect that, were this implemented, you'd see people all but ignoring resources - they'd take just one to open transit, and that would be it.

I'd suggest keeping the flag outside, but adding in more guards if folks feel like they are too easily taken.

Yeah, I know what you mean, but time to capture at a resource right now is so short that mounting a defence is neither manageable nor worth it, as people just wait for the previous group to go, then recapture it without much effort. Increasing the number of guards still wouldn't increase the time to capture sufficiently enough for a defence to be organised, as an exterior flag is only marked under attack when it is in the process of being flipped. Conversely, with the flag in the tower, the resource would be marked under attack when the tower reaches 50%. This would give defenders time enough to reach the resource and try to stop the attack. As I said though, if there is more effort involved in capturing the resource, then the resource itself needs to be worth the effort. Currently, the limited things that a resource does would not be worth the extra effort. Simple things that would make the resource worth it would be increasing the bonuses they provide, adding a few new things specific to resources, and perhaps debuffing the keep if the resource is not controlled.

frozywozy

Sentinel wrote: »

@ZOS_BrianWheeler
With server performance in mind, it seems the biggest candidate for more server lag has to be AoE caps, which while Wrobel's territory, pertains immensely to PvP balance and quality. There was a post somewhere on the forums from a player who supplied data about the approximate server struggles between AoE caps, restricted AoE caps, and no AoE caps, and from what it came off as, removing AoE caps (unrestricted, not 6 people take 100%, next six less damage, etc) will be a major gain to server performance. Removing AoE caps would be a step forward towards this goal.

As for forward camps, these mean that fights will occur for a longer duration, and more stress on the servers more often. This can be tricky to server performance if allowed back, and might be a step back. Groups might be split up into more of a funnel rather than a ball with Forward camps, but if the funnel's amount of action is still too much for the server, then Forward camps would result in more stress on the servers. I would hold off forward camps until after AoE caps are removed, as in its current state, it would prolong fights and cause more lag than less.

He said they would be reintroduced with a global cooldown. This is perfectly what was needed to encourage people to hit deep in enemy territory more often while still discouraging people to jump into the fight without precautions. Dying would still be penalized.

Mojomonkeyman wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Since most of this information is scattered about the forums here's a nice condensed "short answer" list:

• Reintroducing forward camps with smaller radius', restrictive respawning within radius only and global cooldown.
• Refactoring Siege damage (again)
• Removing alliance campaign restrictions on your account
• Allowing you to unassign yourself with cooldowns
• Redo'ing the guards at the Scroll gates and putting them on the ground
• More things to spend your AP on and updating current sets to higher levels

Most, if not all, of these changes should be in the next major update (barring issues with testing).

We are also staying vigilant about improving performance in Cyrodiil. There were a few ability changes made earlier this week and we're watching the performance after those changes, but we're still digging into getting the performance better.

Honest question, Brian:

That all is stuff that you tried before (sieges, forward camps, npcs). Sieges in particular never stopped ball groups, instead they used it. Purge is just too mighty.

Why not focus on the roots of the problems instead of bandaids that have proven to not work or relocate problems from one front to another? A lot of the things you brought up above do not affect a solo player or smaller group (the ones spreading out, according to you not influencing performance negatively) in any positive way or promote smaller groups.

I mean, isn`t there a saying that it isn`t necessarily the smartest thinking to try the same thing over and over and expect different outcomes?!

The list above is a list catering to ballgroups more than to smaller ones... again.

Buffing sieges promote smaller groups alot. Just imagine any siege defense situation where a balling group pvedoor a keep without proper defense already there. Smaller numbers need to be able to hold the large assaulting group with sieges. When the outter wall goes down, properly placed siege weapons such as oil catapults (if it was not purgable), meatbags (with the old healing debuff reduction), fire balistas while purges cooldown on players at 4seconds would actually give a chance to stop the 25men barrier and purge spam group going in. It would convince them to either spread out in smaller group while going in or open an additional wall, while giving time to reinforcements to ride to the keep and defend it with even numbers.

riverdragon72 wrote: »

There should be a campaign where grouping is turned off.

Maybe not turned off but with lower brackets (24-16-12).

JamilaRaj

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

[*] Redo'ing the guards at the Scroll gates and putting them on the ground

Waste of time, because guards hit like wet noodles anyway and, if you ramp up siege damage as you did in the first round, NPC guards will literally vaporize after one shot.

Tomato

Either remove aoe caps or apply them to all aoe's. Then fix the cc system that is broken and that's a huge start. Then after that you can look at class balances.

Manoekin

frozywozy wrote: »

Mojomonkeyman wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Since most of this information is scattered about the forums here's a nice condensed "short answer" list:

• Reintroducing forward camps with smaller radius', restrictive respawning within radius only and global cooldown.
• Refactoring Siege damage (again)
• Removing alliance campaign restrictions on your account
• Allowing you to unassign yourself with cooldowns
• Redo'ing the guards at the Scroll gates and putting them on the ground
• More things to spend your AP on and updating current sets to higher levels

Most, if not all, of these changes should be in the next major update (barring issues with testing).

We are also staying vigilant about improving performance in Cyrodiil. There were a few ability changes made earlier this week and we're watching the performance after those changes, but we're still digging into getting the performance better.

Honest question, Brian:

That all is stuff that you tried before (sieges, forward camps, npcs). Sieges in particular never stopped ball groups, instead they used it. Purge is just too mighty.

Why not focus on the roots of the problems instead of bandaids that have proven to not work or relocate problems from one front to another? A lot of the things you brought up above do not affect a solo player or smaller group (the ones spreading out, according to you not influencing performance negatively) in any positive way or promote smaller groups.

I mean, isn`t there a saying that it isn`t necessarily the smartest thinking to try the same thing over and over and expect different outcomes?!

The list above is a list catering to ballgroups more than to smaller ones... again.

Buffing sieges promote smaller groups alot. Just imagine any siege defense situation where a balling group pvedoor a keep without proper defense already there. Smaller numbers need to be able to hold the large assaulting group with sieges. When the outter wall goes down, properly placed siege weapons such as oil catapults (if it was not purgable), meatbags (with the old healing debuff reduction), fire balistas while purges cooldown on players at 4seconds would actually give a chance to stop the 25men barrier and purge spam group going in. It would convince them to either spread out in smaller group while going in or open an additional wall, while giving time to reinforcements to ride to the keep and defend it with even numbers.

We've been through this before, buffing siege benefits the zerg far more than any bonus it provides to a small group. You want siege buffed to help you defend? All you're going to be doing is defending because the moment you step outside the keep walls you're being bombarded with siege in the open field while being swarmed by a zerg. Also, what you described as changes for siege is not just buffing, it's basically an I-Win button. The point of siege is to supplement the PvP, not be the main focus. How can people still not realize this? I can agree with a slight damage buff for siege, but everyone I've seen is going way overboard with the "why can't I 1shot that group of people with my meatbag?" type of arguments. Everyone talks about the fun days of 1.5 and before when things were balanced. Guess what we didn't have back then? Broken siege. There was a point where oil cata wasn't able to be purged and ZOS rightly saw that as ruining the PvP experience because you completely lost control of your character if you were hit just one time. Other than that the only thing you could say was OP were ground oils, but that's only if you're stupid enough to stand in all of them or not bash the person setting them down. The siege people didn't use back then are the same siege people don't use now. Simply buffing the siege damage to insane amounts is not fixing ***.

Draxys

hammayolettuce wrote: »

I might also put out that we must seem to be a bunch of whiny, angry children to the devs judging by this thread lol. We have justifiable complaints but we've been awfully childish about voicing them.

Thnu, the voithe of reathon

Wycks

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

AOE caps are discussions reserved for the combat team and Wrobel to answer.

That right there sums up pretty much every problem in PvP....... we are all ears....oh wait.... the lead combat designer doesn't talk.

Fengrush calls him out pretty much every day on twitch lately, his reputation with the gamers is I would say the lowest I have ever seen in an MMO.

2 years of changes the degrade the experience and not a word...and we all know your hands are tied Brain.

Starshadw

Enodoc wrote: »

Yeah, I know what you mean, but time to capture at a resource right now is so short that mounting a defence is neither manageable nor worth it, as people just wait for the previous group to go, then recapture it without much effort. Increasing the number of guards still wouldn't increase the time to capture sufficiently enough for a defence to be organised, as an exterior flag is only marked under attack when it is in the process of being flipped. Conversely, with the flag in the tower, the resource would be marked under attack when the tower reaches 50%. This would give defenders time enough to reach the resource and try to stop the attack. As I said though, if there is more effort involved in capturing the resource, then the resource itself needs to be worth the effort. Currently, the limited things that a resource does would not be worth the extra effort. Simple things that would make the resource worth it would be increasing the bonuses they provide, adding a few new things specific to resources, and perhaps debuffing the keep if the resource is not controlled.

Eh, smaller groups take longer to capture resources. While at the same time, there are people who can solo them (some quite easily, others with difficulty). The difficulty definitely needs to be upped, but I still don't think making it necessary to siege the resource tower is the answer. That doesn't make it more difficult - it just makes it more tedious.

In addition, it actually won't do much to slow the big zergs and blobs down - they can easily throw up enough siege to have the tower down in no time. Putting the flag inside the resource would, in fact, be another nail in the coffin for smaller groups, who are already finding it tough to be viable on the field.

Drewzi

Starshadw wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

Yeah, I know what you mean, but time to capture at a resource right now is so short that mounting a defence is neither manageable nor worth it, as people just wait for the previous group to go, then recapture it without much effort. Increasing the number of guards still wouldn't increase the time to capture sufficiently enough for a defence to be organised, as an exterior flag is only marked under attack when it is in the process of being flipped. Conversely, with the flag in the tower, the resource would be marked under attack when the tower reaches 50%. This would give defenders time enough to reach the resource and try to stop the attack. As I said though, if there is more effort involved in capturing the resource, then the resource itself needs to be worth the effort. Currently, the limited things that a resource does would not be worth the extra effort. Simple things that would make the resource worth it would be increasing the bonuses they provide, adding a few new things specific to resources, and perhaps debuffing the keep if the resource is not controlled.

Eh, smaller groups take longer to capture resources. While at the same time, there are people who can solo them (some quite easily, others with difficulty). The difficulty definitely needs to be upped, but I still don't think making it necessary to siege the resource tower is the answer. That doesn't make it more difficult - it just makes it more tedious.

In addition, it actually won't do much to slow the big zergs and blobs down - they can easily throw up enough siege to have the tower down in no time. Putting the flag inside the resource would, in fact, be another nail in the coffin for smaller groups, who are already finding it tough to be viable on the field.

I agree with this so much. Due to the lag from ball groups all I do in pvp is go and solo a rescource, cap it, then wait and hope a couple people show up that I can fight. If a zerg shows up I leave. I can't successfully pvp in large battles anymore do to fps drops and lag. It's just not fun. Really a shame since I remember what this game was like on release and the massive lag free fights we used to have. Other than the friends that I have made in game there isn't a whole lot of fun to be had or reason to login and pvp.

Darnathian

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

babanovac wrote: »

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

Thanks for (somehow) squeezing this information out of them @Rylana this thread has become a beacon of hope for the community.

I have to say i disagree. The replies from Brian and Rich contain absolutely nothing from all the feedback the community has been giving for the past months. It's pretty obvious that ZOS and the community have completely different views on where the problems are with PvP and Cyrodiil.

Buddy you're two cheeks to the wind if you think this thread has been similar to anything we've ever seen in these parts of the forums. We had Wheeler sum up what they are currently working on with some very specific and previously disclosed information.

And the cherry on the cake: Rich Lambert acknowledged performance issues in Cyrodiil, in such a way that makes him seem eager to fix it.

Take your Tonka Truck and kick rocks bud

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozDDYcyrCNE

Actually he is right. These are the bones we get thrown once in a blue moon. Nothing changes. Those that have been here no it was the lighting patch and AOE caps. They won't even acknowledge those questions. Look in this thread. He is in this thread.

Did he acknowledge these suggestions. NO

Don't be fooled any longer. I think this is what we can expect for the rest of this game. Best case.

Enodoc

Starshadw wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

Yeah, I know what you mean, but time to capture at a resource right now is so short that mounting a defence is neither manageable nor worth it, as people just wait for the previous group to go, then recapture it without much effort. Increasing the number of guards still wouldn't increase the time to capture sufficiently enough for a defence to be organised, as an exterior flag is only marked under attack when it is in the process of being flipped. Conversely, with the flag in the tower, the resource would be marked under attack when the tower reaches 50%. This would give defenders time enough to reach the resource and try to stop the attack. As I said though, if there is more effort involved in capturing the resource, then the resource itself needs to be worth the effort. Currently, the limited things that a resource does would not be worth the extra effort. Simple things that would make the resource worth it would be increasing the bonuses they provide, adding a few new things specific to resources, and perhaps debuffing the keep if the resource is not controlled.

Eh, smaller groups take longer to capture resources. While at the same time, there are people who can solo them (some quite easily, others with difficulty). The difficulty definitely needs to be upped, but I still don't think making it necessary to siege the resource tower is the answer. That doesn't make it more difficult - it just makes it more tedious.

In addition, it actually won't do much to slow the big zergs and blobs down - they can easily throw up enough siege to have the tower down in no time. Putting the flag inside the resource would, in fact, be another nail in the coffin for smaller groups, who are already finding it tough to be viable on the field.

Yeah you'll never slow down the blobs. But at least with the flag in the tower, you'd be alerted to the attack before the blob is actually standing on the flag, meaning it's not too late to come and try to defend. Even if you have no chance of winning, there's more PvP to be had if the attackers are kept busy for a bit longer, giving the defenders time to get there; otherwise, they're already gone when you arrive. While it does take longer for a smaller group to cap the resource, you still don't find out about the attack until it's too late, because it's only flagged under attack when they're standing on the flag, which again leaves no opportunity to defend.

What I dislike about resources the most at the moment though, aside from the non-existence of any defensive opportunities, is that there's this massive siegeable tower that's basically completely useless and mostly ignored. What's the point in the tower being siegeable if there's no reason to siege it? Putting the flag in the tower would actually give the tower a purpose other than being an NPC spawn point and a trolling mechanism. It shouldn't affect the difficulty for smaller groups, as the number of NPCs wouldn't change, just increase the time to capture. Adding a short siege element would actually give them more to do than just killing the NPCs and standing on the flag -- it would provide a taste of the feeling you get when siegeing a keep, and it would invite more PvP as defenders come and try to stop the attackers.

Of course the original point about putting the flag inside the tower was made by @Rylana, so hopefully Rylana has some more reasons why this would be a good idea.

MrGrimey

The only AOE cap should be a healing AOE cap, not a damage cap. In PVP, players should be built to have their own survivability , unless they are in a zerg with a handful of healers

mjspnrb18_ESO

rfennell_ESO wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

So... you do know that this thread is created by someone that runs around with a character in his zerg named "brianwheeler" (it's not out of respect) and blixxxxxy (you are aware of who that is, right?).

I mean lol, way to pick what to listen to.

Nor is he named that out of disrespect, and i fail to see how the people the OP plays with is relevant to the subject?

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

And yes...I'm well aware of those character names and "who" they are.

No problem i hope...?

_Chaos

Darnathian wrote: »

Actually he is right. These are the bones we get thrown once in a blue moon. Nothing changes. Those that have been here no it was the lighting patch and AOE caps. They won't even acknowledge those questions. Look in this thread. He is in this thread.

Did he acknowledge these suggestions. NO

Don't be fooled any longer. I think this is what we can expect for the rest of this game. Best case.

I wouldn't talk about AOE caps either if I wasn't the person responsible to get that change implemented. He acknowledged it by saying he wasn't in charge of them and that's all he can really do without causing internal issue at the office.

Rich Lambert was in this thread acknowledging the performance issues in Cyrodiil, you're completely undermining that fact. Yes it's small but it's not just the usual "We're working on it" from Wheeler. There were specific points presented and now an implementation date.

I'm right with you in slamming ZOS for lack of communication, but we can't chew them out for actually going in the right direction. I've been muted/banned multiple times now for chirping ZOS for their crappy job, but this thread isn't one of those instances.

RoamingRiverElk

It IS a huge issue that they are refusing to acknowledge the impact class/skill/mechanic changes have on what kind of zerging and lag happens in Cyrodiil. The combat team REALLY needs to step up and make changes that give some tools for smaller groups to take on bigger groups - without actually making the bigger groups stronger in the process.

Please start by capping the number of targets with healing, barrier, purge, maneuvers. Take away AOE caps. Restore dynamic ulti generation.

Darnathian

Manoekin wrote: »

Jhunn wrote: »

Manoekin wrote: »

So he communicates. Then what? You're going to wait the same amount of time for any changes anyway. Believe it or not, most of the changes to the game have been from forum feedback. I can only think of a handful of things that I didn't see one person complain about that for some reason got changed. Stuff like bashable heavy attacks, aoe caps, etc. Now, shame on ZOS for accepting *** feedback, but the community is mostly to blame.

Absolutely zero communication leaves a completely frustrated PVP player base. We have no clue what they're actually doing, what their plans are and if we're just waiting our time. Cannot be defended in any way.

Just gonna leave this here.

http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/88049/do-you-think-there-should-be-an-aoe-cap/p1
http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/224997/myth-aoe-cap/p1

N-o-t-h-i-n-g.

So you want daily screenshots of their progress? There will be a Road Ahead, an ESO Live featuring Wrobel, or whatever else when there will be one. If you can't wait, then take a step away from the game for a bit. That's what I always do. If you want an update on AOE Caps, Brian gave you one in this very thread. It's being discussed. That's far better than before, so why are you linking those threads again?

Omg dude. Don't fall for it. Day screenshots of thier progress? Yo u serious?

Not once has the person responsible RESPONDED. Not once. They throw us a bone once in awhile but nothing in that post was factual towards the two biggest questions. The lag and aOE cap removal.

Just deflection as usual. Trust me I like Brian. He tries.

But what I don't get is I imagine them having a beer together.

"Wrobel. You are getting a lot of questions on the forums man. I can't cover for you all the time."

"I know man. I will get to it. I will get to it. Problem is I don't know what to say. PvP is broke. We can't fix it. Sure I am losing people but if I speak I will have to answer those tough questions and we will lose them all. Just keep telling them help we are looking into it. You can keep telling them it's not your department"

Come on everyone. Where have you ever seen a company succeed that treats their customers like this.

ALL JOKING ASIDE. WHY WONT WROBEL TALK TO HIS CUSTOMERS?

Darnathian

Rylana wrote: »

Jhunn wrote: »

Manoekin wrote: »

So he communicates. Then what? You're going to wait the same amount of time for any changes anyway. Believe it or not, most of the changes to the game have been from forum feedback. I can only think of a handful of things that I didn't see one person complain about that for some reason got changed. Stuff like bashable heavy attacks, aoe caps, etc. Now, shame on ZOS for accepting *** feedback, but the community is mostly to blame.

Absolutely zero communication leaves a completely frustrated PVP player base. We have no clue what they're actually doing, what their plans are and if we're just waiting our time. Cannot be defended in any way.

Just gonna leave this here.

http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/88049/do-you-think-there-should-be-an-aoe-cap/p1
http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/224997/myth-aoe-cap/p1

N-o-t-h-i-n-g.

Dude dont be toxic. In this thread alone two different devs have replied six times. While their responses are thin on details, they have noticed and are talking to us. The demanding right now mentality where you expect results and massive plan boards with graphs and charts and some kinda presentation with powerpoint and the president of the united states giving a speech (yeah totally went hyperbole here) is just going to drive them back into silence.

Dont be that guy. When I wrote this thread a few days ago I felt a lot worse about the future of the game than I do now. Even though there hasnt been much meat to chew on, the voice was heard and acknowledged. Now we see what they do. There is a ton of constructive discussion going on here between a lot of the more prominent players. Frankly its become a bit of a goldmine on what the player pulse really is right now. Lets not rehash old stuff that clearly doesnt really get us anywhere.

Why not demand. We are customers. That is our right. This is terrible customer service. They can do a developer meeting with trade and PVE guilds but not pvp?

Here is an idea. How about someone competent in pvp from Zos make an appearance on the pvp podcast? PLEASE. There will be 50000 people watching if you do that.

frozywozy

Manoekin wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Mojomonkeyman wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Since most of this information is scattered about the forums here's a nice condensed "short answer" list:

• Reintroducing forward camps with smaller radius', restrictive respawning within radius only and global cooldown.
• Refactoring Siege damage (again)
• Removing alliance campaign restrictions on your account
• Allowing you to unassign yourself with cooldowns
• Redo'ing the guards at the Scroll gates and putting them on the ground
• More things to spend your AP on and updating current sets to higher levels

Most, if not all, of these changes should be in the next major update (barring issues with testing).

We are also staying vigilant about improving performance in Cyrodiil. There were a few ability changes made earlier this week and we're watching the performance after those changes, but we're still digging into getting the performance better.

Honest question, Brian:

That all is stuff that you tried before (sieges, forward camps, npcs). Sieges in particular never stopped ball groups, instead they used it. Purge is just too mighty.

Why not focus on the roots of the problems instead of bandaids that have proven to not work or relocate problems from one front to another? A lot of the things you brought up above do not affect a solo player or smaller group (the ones spreading out, according to you not influencing performance negatively) in any positive way or promote smaller groups.

I mean, isn`t there a saying that it isn`t necessarily the smartest thinking to try the same thing over and over and expect different outcomes?!

The list above is a list catering to ballgroups more than to smaller ones... again.

Buffing sieges promote smaller groups alot. Just imagine any siege defense situation where a balling group pvedoor a keep without proper defense already there. Smaller numbers need to be able to hold the large assaulting group with sieges. When the outter wall goes down, properly placed siege weapons such as oil catapults (if it was not purgable), meatbags (with the old healing debuff reduction), fire balistas while purges cooldown on players at 4seconds would actually give a chance to stop the 25men barrier and purge spam group going in. It would convince them to either spread out in smaller group while going in or open an additional wall, while giving time to reinforcements to ride to the keep and defend it with even numbers.

We've been through this before, buffing siege benefits the zerg far more than any bonus it provides to a small group. You want siege buffed to help you defend? All you're going to be doing is defending because the moment you step outside the keep walls you're being bombarded with siege in the open field while being swarmed by a zerg.

And through all the discussions we have had over the past 1year and a half regarding sieges, yet you have not understood that NO ONE CARE about openfield battles. Openfield battles don't win the war. Keep battles win the war. And I'm tired to see people rolling over keeps in a 2mins 32seconds timer just because they have a 4barriers rotation and 6 efficient purge spammers. I want large groups to be be forced to time their movements into breaches between each siege volley and to spread out into smaller groups OR to bring an additional wall down if defenders properly deployed their counter siege weapons firing at the breach.

I could care less about a large group of players who want to deploy sieges on the field between Alessia and Faregyl. I will just go around and flag the keep from behind while they waste their time firing at the grass.

Also, what you described as changes for siege is not just buffing, it's basically an I-Win button. The point of siege is to supplement the PvP, not be the main focus. How can people still not realize this? I can agree with a slight damage buff for siege, but everyone I've seen is going way overboard with the "why can't I 1shot that group of people with my meatbag?" type of arguments.

You say that what I ask is an "I-Win button" but strangely, I see your suggestion about buffing siege damage as the "I-Win button". Damage is perfectly fine as it is. What we need is to give more utility to the siege to counter people stacking on each other. We need to force them to spread out in strategic times when engaging in a keep area. I never said that a meatbag should one shot people, I asked for the healing reduction debuff be increased slightly (let say 10%). It could still be purged by the 25man ballgroup with 6players spamming purges.

Everyone talks about the fun days of 1.5 and before when things were balanced. Guess what we didn't have back then? Broken siege. There was a point where oil cata wasn't able to be purged and ZOS rightly saw that as ruining the PvP experience because you completely lost control of your character if you were hit just one time.

Unpurgable oil catapult is probably the most needed buff at the moment because of how retreating maneuver is broken. And this has been discussed and approved alot in these forums. I don't care if you put an AOE cap on oil catapults to hit 6players only, but make it unpurgable. Dodge roll a lil bit and learn how to relay on your self defense instead of others from time to time won't hurt.

Other than that the only thing you could say was OP were ground oils, but that's only if you're stupid enough to stand in all of them or not bash the person setting them down. The siege people didn't use back then are the same siege people don't use now. Simply buffing the siege damage to insane amounts is not fixing ***.

I have always been in favor of ground oils. My best moments into this game have been standing inside the cobby next to an outter breach pouring oils on my magicka DK with @Aegon or defending ressources with @xylena with 4oils on the flag.

Minno

frozywozy wrote: »

Manoekin wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Mojomonkeyman wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Since most of this information is scattered about the forums here's a nice condensed "short answer" list:

• Reintroducing forward camps with smaller radius', restrictive respawning within radius only and global cooldown.
• Refactoring Siege damage (again)
• Removing alliance campaign restrictions on your account
• Allowing you to unassign yourself with cooldowns
• Redo'ing the guards at the Scroll gates and putting them on the ground
• More things to spend your AP on and updating current sets to higher levels

Most, if not all, of these changes should be in the next major update (barring issues with testing).

We are also staying vigilant about improving performance in Cyrodiil. There were a few ability changes made earlier this week and we're watching the performance after those changes, but we're still digging into getting the performance better.

Honest question, Brian:

That all is stuff that you tried before (sieges, forward camps, npcs). Sieges in particular never stopped ball groups, instead they used it. Purge is just too mighty.

Why not focus on the roots of the problems instead of bandaids that have proven to not work or relocate problems from one front to another? A lot of the things you brought up above do not affect a solo player or smaller group (the ones spreading out, according to you not influencing performance negatively) in any positive way or promote smaller groups.

I mean, isn`t there a saying that it isn`t necessarily the smartest thinking to try the same thing over and over and expect different outcomes?!

The list above is a list catering to ballgroups more than to smaller ones... again.

Buffing sieges promote smaller groups alot. Just imagine any siege defense situation where a balling group pvedoor a keep without proper defense already there. Smaller numbers need to be able to hold the large assaulting group with sieges. When the outter wall goes down, properly placed siege weapons such as oil catapults (if it was not purgable), meatbags (with the old healing debuff reduction), fire balistas while purges cooldown on players at 4seconds would actually give a chance to stop the 25men barrier and purge spam group going in. It would convince them to either spread out in smaller group while going in or open an additional wall, while giving time to reinforcements to ride to the keep and defend it with even numbers.

We've been through this before, buffing siege benefits the zerg far more than any bonus it provides to a small group. You want siege buffed to help you defend? All you're going to be doing is defending because the moment you step outside the keep walls you're being bombarded with siege in the open field while being swarmed by a zerg.

And through all the discussions we have had over the past 1year and a half regarding sieges, yet you have not understood that NO ONE CARE about openfield battles. Openfield battles don't win the war. Keep battles win the war. And I'm tired to see people rolling over keeps in a 2mins 32seconds timer just because they have a 4barriers rotation and 6 efficient purge spammers. I want large groups to be be forced to time their movements into breaches between each siege volley and to spread out into smaller groups OR to bring an additional wall down if defenders properly deployed their counter siege weapons firing at the breach.

I could care less about a large group of players who want to deploy sieges on the field between Alessia and Faregyl. I will just go around and flag the keep from behind while they waste their time firing at the grass.

Also, what you described as changes for siege is not just buffing, it's basically an I-Win button. The point of siege is to supplement the PvP, not be the main focus. How can people still not realize this? I can agree with a slight damage buff for siege, but everyone I've seen is going way overboard with the "why can't I 1shot that group of people with my meatbag?" type of arguments.

You say that what I ask is an "I-Win button" but strangely, I see your suggestion about buffing siege damage as the "I-Win button". Damage is perfectly fine as it is. What we need is to give more utility to the siege to counter people stacking on each other. We need to force them to spread out in strategic times when engaging in a keep area. I never said that a meatbag should one shot people, I asked for the healing reduction debuff be increased slightly (let say 10%). It could still be purged by the 25man ballgroup with 6players spamming purges.

Everyone talks about the fun days of 1.5 and before when things were balanced. Guess what we didn't have back then? Broken siege. There was a point where oil cata wasn't able to be purged and ZOS rightly saw that as ruining the PvP experience because you completely lost control of your character if you were hit just one time.

Unpurgable oil catapult is probably the most needed buff at the moment because of how retreating maneuver is broken. And this has been discussed and approved alot in these forums. I don't care if you put an AOE cap on oil catapults to hit 6players only, but make it unpurgable. Dodge roll a lil bit and learn how to relay on your self defense instead of others from time to time won't hurt.

Other than that the only thing you could say was OP were ground oils, but that's only if you're stupid enough to stand in all of them or not bash the person setting them down. The siege people didn't use back then are the same siege people don't use now. Simply buffing the siege damage to insane amounts is not fixing ***.

I have always been in favor of ground oils. My best moments into this game have been standing inside the cobby next to an outter breach pouring oils on my magicka DK with @Aegon or defending ressources with @xylena with 4oils on the flag.

Oils back in this time period of warfare, really weren't used; too scarce of a resource. They sometimes used a mixture of boiling water and heated sand. Or they used Greek fire comprised of a combination of resin, pitch, sulphur and naptha; together was notorious for being impossible to extinguish since naptha made the mixture insoluble in water.

In short, oils should never be purged, should cause a fear, and probably cost more than stone seige to acquire.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

AOE caps are discussions reserved for the combat team and Wrobel to answer. They are well aware of the AE cap concerns (not just by posts but also with numerous conversations), but it is not within my realm to speak for them, nor make any changes to combat or mechanics.

In regards to a different Campaign with an older version of the game, AE caps removed, or some other variant of different data than the current data set, it's just not possible with how the game is built. We can limit/filter players into Campaigns like we do with Blackwater Blade for example, but we cannot alter the baseline rules and mechanics based on Campaign differences.

And yes...I'm well aware of those character names and "who" they are.

@ZOS_BrianWheeler‌

Thanks for addressing the question of older versions of the game. I wasn't really saying there should be different campaign rules. More that it would be nice to (PTS) test an older version of the game to see if the lag really was 'better'. This could then point your team in a direction to fix the issue.

Many of us feel like performance has got markedly worse every patch since the anti bot + lighting patch. (When farragut got its illuminations)

I'm sure we could get a load of players together to check out a special build of the game.

danno8

Enodoc wrote: »

Starshadw wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

Rylana wrote: »

- Put resource flags inside/on top of the towers,

Pleased to see I'm not the only one who would like to see this! Resource capping is too easy with the flag outside, and I also think the resources themselves have a limited benefit overall. Sure they strengthen the keep, but there needs to be more to them so they're not just steamrolled over by the alliance who just capped the keep.

Ummm - I think perhaps this hasn't been thought through. Because what we're talking about is having to siege the tower down on any/every resource to take it. Do we really want to add that much more time spent on siege weapons smacking walls? I really don't. Don't get me wrong, sieging a keep looks very cool and it can be fun - but I really would rather not have to do it four times per keep now (one for the keep itself, and then three more times for the resource).

I suspect that, were this implemented, you'd see people all but ignoring resources - they'd take just one to open transit, and that would be it.

I'd suggest keeping the flag outside, but adding in more guards if folks feel like they are too easily taken.

Yeah, I know what you mean, but time to capture at a resource right now is so short that mounting a defence is neither manageable nor worth it, as people just wait for the previous group to go, then recapture it without much effort. Increasing the number of guards still wouldn't increase the time to capture sufficiently enough for a defence to be organised, as an exterior flag is only marked under attack when it is in the process of being flipped. Conversely, with the flag in the tower, the resource would be marked under attack when the tower reaches 50%. This would give defenders time enough to reach the resource and try to stop the attack. As I said though, if there is more effort involved in capturing the resource, then the resource itself needs to be worth the effort. Currently, the limited things that a resource does would not be worth the extra effort. Simple things that would make the resource worth it would be increasing the bonuses they provide, adding a few new things specific to resources, and perhaps debuffing the keep if the resource is not controlled.

For some strange reason the flag flips faster the more people are on the flag. This has never made sense to me. +1 for zerg tactics again.

It should take 30 seconds (at least) to flip once the process begins, no matter one person or 30 people.

FENGRUSH

danno8 wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

Starshadw wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

Rylana wrote: »

- Put resource flags inside/on top of the towers,

Pleased to see I'm not the only one who would like to see this! Resource capping is too easy with the flag outside, and I also think the resources themselves have a limited benefit overall. Sure they strengthen the keep, but there needs to be more to them so they're not just steamrolled over by the alliance who just capped the keep.

Ummm - I think perhaps this hasn't been thought through. Because what we're talking about is having to siege the tower down on any/every resource to take it. Do we really want to add that much more time spent on siege weapons smacking walls? I really don't. Don't get me wrong, sieging a keep looks very cool and it can be fun - but I really would rather not have to do it four times per keep now (one for the keep itself, and then three more times for the resource).

I suspect that, were this implemented, you'd see people all but ignoring resources - they'd take just one to open transit, and that would be it.

I'd suggest keeping the flag outside, but adding in more guards if folks feel like they are too easily taken.

Yeah, I know what you mean, but time to capture at a resource right now is so short that mounting a defence is neither manageable nor worth it, as people just wait for the previous group to go, then recapture it without much effort. Increasing the number of guards still wouldn't increase the time to capture sufficiently enough for a defence to be organised, as an exterior flag is only marked under attack when it is in the process of being flipped. Conversely, with the flag in the tower, the resource would be marked under attack when the tower reaches 50%. This would give defenders time enough to reach the resource and try to stop the attack. As I said though, if there is more effort involved in capturing the resource, then the resource itself needs to be worth the effort. Currently, the limited things that a resource does would not be worth the extra effort. Simple things that would make the resource worth it would be increasing the bonuses they provide, adding a few new things specific to resources, and perhaps debuffing the keep if the resource is not controlled.

For some strange reason the flag flips faster the more people are on the flag. This has never made sense to me. +1 for zerg tactics again.

It should take 30 seconds (at least) to flip once the process begins, no matter one person or 30 people.

Every mechanic in cyro revolves around zerging in ball fashion. At this point, and given the lack of responses to help negate zergs - we can only expect zenimax really wanted to a model a ball group gameplay style in GW2 rather than develop and continue a more unique style it had when it first started with a larger population.

Starshadw

Darnathian wrote: »

Actually he is right. These are the bones we get thrown once in a blue moon. Nothing changes. Those that have been here no it was the lighting patch and AOE caps. They won't even acknowledge those questions. Look in this thread. He is in this thread.

Did he acknowledge these suggestions. NO

Don't be fooled any longer. I think this is what we can expect for the rest of this game. Best case.

You know, the AOE caps may have nothing to do with it. The lag could be purely a result of the lighting changes. If I were them, I'd test just removing that first, and see what happens.