Maintenance for the week of March 1:
• PC/Mac: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – March 1, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 7:00AM EST (12:00 UTC)

Would Reducing Time to Cap Keeps Reduce Zergs?

IAVITNI
IAVITNI
✭✭✭✭✭
TL:DR
Would reducing TTC really help disperse zergs in Cyrodil or would it be a bandaid solution that zergs would learn to circumvent?

So I'm not sure if most of you have noticed, but the zergs in Cyrodil are getting out of hand. People often suggest adding other objectives such as an elite caravan that rewards Asylum/Master/VMA weapons, which, while super cool as a concept, ultimately distracts from the purposes of Cyrodil imo.

And to be honest, there are plenty of objectives on the map already, the problem is that there is no real reason to split since zerging is the most effective way to both take and defend a keep. Reducing Time To Cap (TTC) would force large zergs to split up. Not necessarily to split a group of 24 but it would stop multiple zergs from one alliance running beside each other.

Now this doesn't automatically mean reduce the health of walls/doors or increase siege damage. While that is an option (and something I would suggest regardless, as a 6 man should really be able to take an empty in competitive timing) there are other more engaging methods such as increasing the value of resources.

Can't find the original post, but someone suggested each resource have some kind of effect on their keep (Mine=wall health/Farm=NPC strength/Lumber=door health). This would both incentivize spreading out zergs and decrease TTC.

A friendly level 5 farm would increase NPC strength by 5 stages whereas an enemy level 5 farm would decrease NPC strength by 5 stages.

I'd take it a step further and have the levelling of resources occur at a quicker rate (every 5-10 minutes). Additionally, when a keep is flagged, enemy resources send 3-5 NPCs to aid in the "siege" of the keep. Exactly how this would be implemented would require a lot of thought but it is an interesting concept.

OFC this is just a suggestion of now way to reduce TTC. Please share any more you may have.
  • idk
    idk
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Zergs have always been in Cyrodiil and really are not more prevalent today than before. Reducing the time to take a keep merely encourage larger zerg to defend it and that keeps will flip more often.

    As for the suggestion you mentioned for getting weapons, that is merely an attempt at a justification for getting the weapons via Cyrodiil activity. Nothing more.
  • DoctorESO
    DoctorESO
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    .
    Edited by DoctorESO on September 23, 2018 2:47AM
  • IZZEFlameLash
    IZZEFlameLash
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    It won't do a whole lot. It might actually even speed up the emping process which will be another problem.
    Imperials, the one and true masters of all mortal races of Tamriel
  • Nightfall12
    Nightfall12
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Or give the guards AoE attacks instead of just single target when more than 10 players attack a target. So that small groups or solo players have a chance at other resources without running with giant zergs.
    As is a decent solo player can capture resources solo, but it sure does suck when right after you win that fight a zerg drops by on you and your new friends don't do squat to help you defend!
    Ummm stuff… about stuff…or something.
  • Wolfchild07
    Wolfchild07
    ✭✭✭✭
    Defending a keep should be worth more than taking one. Actively, I mean. Standing afk in a keep should get you nothing, but counter-sieging, attacking, repairing should get you AP ticks. Successfully defending should get you a bonus if you were actually taking part in it.
    *Changes into a werewolf* Arrrrrrroooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! *Changes back* Ah, crap!
  • rustic_potato
    rustic_potato
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ESO was advertised for it large scale PVP battles. Basically zergs vs zergs. Lag on the other hand makes it stupid hard to actually do stuff when it happens.
    I play how I want to.


  • Vapirko
    Vapirko
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    The best change would be to more severely limit the amount of AP each person gets based on how many people are in a group to the point where any group above say 12 people would receive very little AP.

    Beyond that, defending keeps needs to be worth more AP than taking them, it needs to really mean something to defend a keep. This would also give new players a way to earn good amounts of AP since zerging for AP would be discouraged due to the above change. In exchange however there should be an AP bonus for defending keeps based on how many keeps your faction have captured so there’s still incentive to not just turtle one keep. Lastly, enemy tri/home keeps do not contribute to that bonus, only ring keeps. This is obviously to prevent map capping, but also because taking/defending home and tri keeps present their own tactical advantages.

    Rough idea but the dynamic needs to change a lot.
    Edited by Vapirko on February 8, 2018 6:50AM
  • olsborg
    olsborg
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Removing the ability to block-cast would reduce time ppl could facetank ridiculous amounts of inc dmg resulting in less lagg, less cancer and better overall pvp.
    Altmer Sorceror, magicka
    Bosmer Nightblade, stamina.
    Imperial Templar, stamina
    Redguard Warden, stamina

    Aldmeri Dominion!
    PC EU
    PvP only
  • leeux
    leeux
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    You can already break a door in less than 30 secs. Taking an undefended keep from start to finish is a process that takes no more than 2 mins... you really want to reduce it even more?

    That would not give any chance to defend it, when someone is inside and calls for help... as it is now, you can barely make it from the adjacent keep before they are already inside the inner... specially if they are organized.
    PC/NA - Proud old member of the Antique Ordinatus Populus

    My chars
    Liana Amnell (AD mSorc L50+, ex EP) =x= Lehnnan Klennett (AD mTemplar L50+ Healer/Support ) =x= Ethim Amnell (AD mDK L50+, ex DC)
    Leinwyn Valaene (AD mSorc L50+) =x= Levus Artorias (AD mDK-for-now L50+) =x= Madril Ulessen (AD mNB L50+) =x= Lyra Amnis (AD not-Stamplar-yet L50+)
    I only PvP on AD chars

    ~~ «And blossoms anew beneath tomorrow's sun >>»
    ~~ «I am forever swimming around, amidst this ocean world we call home... >>»
    ~~ "Let strength be granted so the world might be mended... so the world might be mended."
    ~~ "Slash the silver chain that binds thee to life"
    ~~ Our cries will shrill, the air will moan and crash into the dawn. >>
    ~~ The sands of time were eroded by the river of constant change >>
  • f047ys3v3n
    f047ys3v3n
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    I know this is hard for folks when they first get into PVP but it is really designed for coordinated group play. It is difficult to accomplish much solo. If you want to have a better time in Cyr find a PVP guild and run with them.

    As for your question. No, reducing time to cap would not change much if anything. A decent small group easily flags and takes a keep before a zerg can arrive to defend it currently.

    My experience on PCNA is the best way to break up the red or blue mega faction stacks (60+ groups) that commonly exist is to cap chain cap quickly behind enemy lines making sure to take keeps that obscure the current line between blue and red. This actually gets them fighting about 50% of the time and often confuses the pugs as to where the real action is. Hats off to the purples on their general ability to herd their pugs though. 9/10 times they keep them in one big mega zerg focused on yellow and somewhere at least remotely useful. I can never even find yellow's pugs. They seem to either be picking flowers or chasing around the two guys running cheat engine at a resource deep in yellow territory to farm them (there is always at least one 2 guys doing this deep in yellow's territory and often several).

    In the end I don't really think there is a solution to the whole zerg thing beyond people getting in guilds and running in organized groups. Perhaps if guilds had que priority in Cyr that would essentially keep pugs out and you would only have autonomous independently thinking groups instead of whatever hive mind a zerg generates. You could also turn off zone chat to prevent herding of the pugs but that also hinders them forming groups and makes their short miserable lives even more miserable. Though these things would lessen the giant zerg balls I don't think they are probably the best idea. Zergs are just going to be a thing. At least now they don't have AOE cap to make them difficult to destroy.
    Yes I am deeply embarrassed to still be playing this game. I know better.
  • Domander
    Domander
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Honestly, increasing it would do more than decreasing, because while a giant "zerg" is taking one keep you could potentially take another keep with a smaller group in the same amount of time.
  • Slick_007
    Slick_007
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    eso pvp without zergs = battlegrounds
    eso pvp with zergs = cyrodiil

    simples!
  • LadyNalcarya
    LadyNalcarya
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Imo its not possible to make fights 100% fair in open-world pvp, but I would love if they would nerf the impact of PvDooring and nightcapping.
    Dro-m'Athra Destroyer | Divayth Fyr's Coadjutor | Voice of Reason

    PC/EU
  • Drdeath20
    Drdeath20
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    f047ys3v3n wrote: »
    I know this is hard for folks when they first get into PVP but it is really designed for coordinated group play. It is difficult to accomplish much solo. If you want to have a better time in Cyr find a PVP guild and run with them.

    As for your question. No, reducing time to cap would not change much if anything. A decent small group easily flags and takes a keep before a zerg can arrive to defend it currently.

    My experience on PCNA is the best way to break up the red or blue mega faction stacks (60+ groups) that commonly exist is to cap chain cap quickly behind enemy lines making sure to take keeps that obscure the current line between blue and red. This actually gets them fighting about 50% of the time and often confuses the pugs as to where the real action is. Hats off to the purples on their general ability to herd their pugs though. 9/10 times they keep them in one big mega zerg focused on yellow and somewhere at least remotely useful. I can never even find yellow's pugs. They seem to either be picking flowers or chasing around the two guys running cheat engine at a resource deep in yellow territory to farm them (there is always at least one 2 guys doing this deep in yellow's territory and often several).

    In the end I don't really think there is a solution to the whole zerg thing beyond people getting in guilds and running in organized groups. Perhaps if guilds had que priority in Cyr that would essentially keep pugs out and you would only have autonomous independently thinking groups instead of whatever hive mind a zerg generates. You could also turn off zone chat to prevent herding of the pugs but that also hinders them forming groups and makes their short miserable lives even more miserable. Though these things would lessen the giant zerg balls I don't think they are probably the best idea. Zergs are just going to be a thing. At least now they don't have AOE cap to make them difficult to destroy.

    Please choose a campaign where only dedicated groups can go play and let the solo players and zerglings have the other. I promise you within 2 weeks the dedicated groups will be running to get into solo and zergling campaigns.
  • BohnT
    BohnT
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    It would promote zerging even more.


    The way to reduce zerging is:
    Nerf Earthgore, nerf Xv1 tools, change distance deto, increase the player cap of Cyrodiil , decentralise the map and nerf gankers
    Why does this help?
    Earthgore has a high cooldown but when used it gives everyone in its radius invincibility. With more people using it in a group the longer this invincibility period is thus people stack more as they can't die.

    Xv1 Tools promote zerging as bad players who have no chance against good players see how they can easily kill them with things like: poisons, shieldbreaker, procs, defile stacking, siphoner cp
    If you nerf it people have to learn to play to pvp so zergs are more vulnerable to smaller groups

    Distance deto was ment to be a tool to counter zergs but it only made zergs more powerful as it creates an AoE area around the group where all people entering it when they go off die on the flip side one trying to bomb the zerg will miserably fail.

    Change it to work similar to inevitable detonation but reduce the channel to 1 sec for both morphs.
    Then change distance deto to explode immediately if 10 enemies are in its range. Making it useless for zergs and good for solo or small groups who try to fight zergs

    The player cap of Cyrodiil is one reason we have as much lag and zerging as we have right now.
    The cap is around 150 people per alliance. These often stack on one or 2 keeps while the rest of the keeps are empty, however it's hard to take keeps as the zergs can always switch between the 1 or 2 keeps which are attacked at the same time as many people are too scared to attack a keep with 7-10 people
    By increasing the cap there are more people to attack keeps and to defend them, making it possible to attack multiple keeps at the time thus decentralising fights from 80v80 or 120v120v120 on one keep to 40v40v40 on several keeps which reduces lags.


    The map is completely centralised around the 6 emp keeps which are often crowded around 3 choke points at Alessia Bridge, Chalman gate and Ash gate.
    There aren't literally no incentives to defend or take keeps like Dragon, Brindle or Drake also there are huge parts of the map which are absolutely dead and no one ever goes there even the 3 towns are often ignored as they don't affect the map or the campaign results
    There need to be incentives to go to other parts of the map for players of different group sizes.
    This will help to prevent megazergs as they can't defend everything if they don't split up.


    The last point is to nerf gankers, before gankers got buffed by new sets, procs, poisons, sneak stun etc, more people went to play solo but with the numbers of gankers rising the more "bad players" started to zerg as they simply got one shotted everytime they went somewhere and with a big group gankers are no problem as they will simply be zerged
    Edited by BohnT on February 8, 2018 9:52AM
  • WakeYourGhost
    WakeYourGhost
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    If you want to reduce Zergs, make all AOE abilities increase damage by around 20%-25% per target in range while in PvP only - No max cap.

    ...If anyone at Zos takes that suggestion seriously and implements it, please do it without telling anyone. I would love to see the blind reactions to getting 20k per second from something like caltrops or shards.


  • Slick_007
    Slick_007
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Imo its not possible to make fights 100% fair in open-world pvp, but I would love if they would nerf the impact of PvDooring and nightcapping.

    your night is someone elses day. stop being a sore loser and whining that someone took your keep while you were offline
  • Rianai
    Rianai
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    The only thing i'd change regarding cap time is making the time it takes to flip flags independent from the amout of players arround. Bigger groups already have the advantage of more siege and easier/faster npc killing, and then they can turn flags in seconds, while it takes a minute or two of just standing there and waiting if it is just a few players, which is 1. boring and 2. increases risk of getting zerged before the keep/resource is flipped. Especially when solo flipping flags is just sooo tedious.

    It won't reduce zergs, but it could still encourage smaller groups.
    Edited by Rianai on February 8, 2018 3:34PM
  • Grimm13
    Grimm13
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    I am at a bit of a loss here. Cyrodill is designed for large scale battles for PVP, but you are complaining that people are doing just that, fighting as a army.

    I don't do PVP often and here are the observations that has keep me from wanting to do it more. The Zerge issue is player created in that you have sides that will readily form groups and others that will not. It is not unique to any one faction.

    I have seen groups filtered based on CP level and on leaderboard standings. Also seen groups complain that they had no support in an attack while limiting access to the group. There's a problem when you see the top ten on the leaderbaord in a group and not letting anyone else in, and their standings are hugely above the rest.

    If you can not get into a group, then battles suck. You have no idea where to go and skill functions are not at their fullest potential. Forced to be a lone wolf, you get slaughtered by any groups as you are trying to just figure out what to do.

    How to change. Since you are part of a large army, you load in with the ability to see the rest of your faction members on the map. Abilities and bonuses would assist all allies within range regardless if grouped or not.
    Allow grouping within this so that strike teams can be formed or by other choices. Only members of a group can see their members on the map as a different color pin from the rest of the faction.

    Gone is the manipulation of the leaderboard by shutting out any others that might challenge their standing. You still will have Zerges as players decide to respond or not, can not control when people play, but they now would have the tools to know where to respond to.

    Yes, some will cry out that you could have spies this way. That could happen no matter what system you use. We can not fully control Human decision. They are already there in groups or not.
    Edited by Grimm13 on February 8, 2018 10:54PM
    https://sparkforautism.org/

    Season of DraggingOn
    It's your choice on how you vote with your $

    PC-NA
  • IAVITNI
    IAVITNI
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    @Grim13

    I understand what you're saying, and from the perspective of someone who does not PvP often (and is therefore not part of any PvP inner circle) I can see the logic behind your suggestion.

    Personally I prefer small scale/solo but I did start out in coordinated/zerg group play. While I still join my old zerg buddies every now and then, I honestly tend to not even dismount and just join the group to socialize. I enjoy skilled gameplay that utilizes mechanics to overcome your opponent, but current mechanics are literally spam BoL, stand in Earthgore and wait for Negate and your bombers to be ready to push. If you're not playing a healbot, negate/root tank or bomber you can literally light attack and be just as effective as someone doing proper offensive rotations.

    Read the post by @BohnT
    BohnT wrote: »
    It would promote zerging even more.


    The way to reduce zerging is:
    Nerf Earthgore, nerf Xv1 tools, change distance deto, increase the player cap of Cyrodiil , decentralise the map and nerf gankers
    Why does this help?
    Earthgore has a high cooldown but when used it gives everyone in its radius invincibility. With more people using it in a group the longer this invincibility period is thus people stack more as they can't die.

    Xv1 Tools promote zerging as bad players who have no chance against good players see how they can easily kill them with things like: poisons, shieldbreaker, procs, defile stacking, siphoner cp
    If you nerf it people have to learn to play to pvp so zergs are more vulnerable to smaller groups

    Distance deto was ment to be a tool to counter zergs but it only made zergs more powerful as it creates an AoE area around the group where all people entering it when they go off die on the flip side one trying to bomb the zerg will miserably fail.

    Change it to work similar to inevitable detonation but reduce the channel to 1 sec for both morphs.
    Then change distance deto to explode immediately if 10 enemies are in its range. Making it useless for zergs and good for solo or small groups who try to fight zergs

    The player cap of Cyrodiil is one reason we have as much lag and zerging as we have right now.
    The cap is around 150 people per alliance. These often stack on one or 2 keeps while the rest of the keeps are empty, however it's hard to take keeps as the zergs can always switch between the 1 or 2 keeps which are attacked at the same time as many people are too scared to attack a keep with 7-10 people
    By increasing the cap there are more people to attack keeps and to defend them, making it possible to attack multiple keeps at the time thus decentralising fights from 80v80 or 120v120v120 on one keep to 40v40v40 on several keeps which reduces lags.


    The map is completely centralised around the 6 emp keeps which are often crowded around 3 choke points at Alessia Bridge, Chalman gate and Ash gate.
    There aren't literally no incentives to defend or take keeps like Dragon, Brindle or Drake also there are huge parts of the map which are absolutely dead and no one ever goes there even the 3 towns are often ignored as they don't affect the map or the campaign results
    There need to be incentives to go to other parts of the map for players of different group sizes.
    This will help to prevent megazergs as they can't defend everything if they don't split up.


    The last point is to nerf gankers, before gankers got buffed by new sets, procs, poisons, sneak stun etc, more people went to play solo but with the numbers of gankers rising the more "bad players" started to zerg as they simply got one shotted everytime they went somewhere and with a big group gankers are no problem as they will simply be zerged

    This post summarizes what I also find to be the biggest issues in cyrodil. The initial purpose of proposing a reduced TTC was not to split up a singular zerg, but to for the large groups to not run side by side. Vivec PS4 NA essentially has half the server in one location at any given moment. This is obviously not what Cyrodil was intended to become, otherwise they simply would have made 3 objectives, because that's pretty much the amount of large scale fights going on; 3, in all of Cyrodil.

    Although I don't 100% agree with pop. cap being a problem in and of itself, but I'll get to that later.
    idk wrote: »
    Zergs have always been in Cyrodiil and really are not more prevalent today than before. Reducing the time to take a keep merely encourage larger zerg to defend it and that keeps will flip more often.

    As for the suggestion you mentioned for getting weapons, that is merely an attempt at a justification for getting the weapons via Cyrodiil activity. Nothing more.

    Yes zergs have always been a part of Cyrodil, but when I started the game (1T) you'd usually have 1 24-man vs another 24-man. Dethrones were usually an epic fight as it was one of the few times where you would have more than 1 zerg representing their alliance at that fight.

    The current state of cyrodil is much different. It's tends to be +60 from one alliance making their way around emp keeps, which requires another alliance to run +60 to counter. Those previously epic fights have become the norm and have lost their appeal due to tank meta and how easy it is to obtain passive survivability that is exponentially increased by current group mechanics.

    And while I did mention the weapons, I also stated I personally think it detracts from the purpose of Cyrodil. However, the concept of randomized encounters that benefit your alliance is an interesting, albeit difficult to implement, proposal.
    leeux wrote: »
    You can already break a door in less than 30 secs. Taking an undefended keep from start to finish is a process that takes no more than 2 mins... you really want to reduce it even more?

    That would not give any chance to defend it, when someone is inside and calls for help... as it is now, you can barely make it from the adjacent keep before they are already inside the inner... specially if they are organized.

    Honestly, yeah.

    But first off, let's be honest. How often does a mindless zerg start seiging a keep with maybe 4 ballistas from a 24 man? I've been playing for over a year and even "dedicated" PvP groups (not necessarily a guild) aren't always organized. Now there are elite guilds that can consistently do sub 2 minute caps, but they are the minority not the majority. I was an officer in 3 of the most active/effective zerg guilds in my original alliance at one point, and I still run with some of them every now and then, and I can honestly say that those sub 2 minute caps occur only around 50% of the time. It's really only when the main officers are on that sub 2 minute caps are consistent because pugs and new members don't always listen.

    Now back to your question, yes I could argue that reducing TTC could reduce mega zergs and heres why:

    Currently, coordinated groups will have 1 scout at each keep/outpost that will call out if they're being sieged. Once the 911 is sent, the mega zerg either commits 100% or a large chunk of their group to go to the nearest transit and go defend. However, if TTC is reduced, these groups would need to commit more than just a scout and maybe a considerable defence force. Or, most likely, this mega zerg of +60 will have to split their group so that if the whole megazerg is seiging Roe and suddenly Glade is flagged, they have a group nearby that can respond in time.

    If you reduce TTC, then the mega zergs with +60 people are greatly hurting efficiency as instead of 1 prolonged siege that they may or may not win, they could split into 3-4 groups and win 2-3 sieges. And these mega zergs would HAVE to split up because a group of 6 can 20/20 a keep , and 10 of these groups could theoretically take 10 keeps (yes, I know. Just go along with my hyperbole) while that mega zerg takes only one.

    At least that was what I thought the reasoning for reducing TTC was.
  • Jhalin
    Jhalin
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭
    I don't get why breakin keeps is being brought up so much. Capping is literally just the time you have to spend standing on the flag. Right now zergs spend five seconds on it and the keep/resource is capped. Meanwhile solo or small scale players spend nearly half a minute waiting for it to tick over.

    Just turn capping into a single person job, no bonus from dozens of people standing on it, just a simple, short timer.

    Then maybe instead of getting zerged down while waiting...and waiting...and waiting for a cap to go through, small groups can cap and move on to the next.
Sign In or Register to comment.