Cyrodil suggestion

ShadowMonarch

What if instead of the player with the most Alliance points becoming emperor it was based of who had gained the most points or killed the most players ect in that 1hour cycle. This way players that can't dedicate 6hours a day 7 days a week or more to sitting in cyro do have a chance to be crowned emperor if they log in and absolutely tear it up for a few hours.

What if we recalculated some of how alliance points were earned. For instance what if we made a Solo Kill worth FAR more then if your group of 10 guys kills 1 guy. Make alliance points from kills reflect the number of people on each side. So if in that fight there was 4AD and 20EP the 4 ad should receive a bonus multiplier to their AP gained, were as if it was a 40vs20 fight the 40 would receive a negative multiplier on their AP gained. This helps insure that more AP is given for more effort and skill. If 1 man kills a group of 5 or 10 guys he should be rewarded for it.

This would encourage players to not zerg, and to spread out. This would reward stronger players who take on multiple opponents at once and give them a reason to do so.

Im not saying dont give AP to groups, if you think about it if 1 man does a 1v5 yes he would get a multiplier but the AP would still probably be less then a group would gain if they went through and killed 40 people in a keep fight. So im not proposing that we make grouping not worth it, simply that players who are able to overcome greater numbers and forces are rewarded for doing so, while players that simply run over people are not rewarded as heavily.

Another cool addition would be if a group LEADER got a small bonus to his AP gained while in the group. The bonus would become bigger the bigger your group. This would help the emperor position get dedicated to group leaders, people who already take charge and lead the war.

With some changes like these it would become a much more active competition to get emperor. It wouldn't just be that one guy that had double AP buff and got 100k ap in front of everyone, got emp and then got so much AP from emp its impossible for anyone else to get emp.

This way we also have more active emperors, the only way you can get crowned is if you are fighting and doing very well in that hour. Lets face it, it sucks to crown a emp thats a mil ap in front of everyone to only hold the keeps all day then finally lose them and the emp never even comes online. I think some changes like these could help spice cyrodil up making it a much more active competition, make solo kills matter more while just running over people mindlessly with a zerg isn't so profitable. The reason I chose a 1 hour interval is because cyrodils faction points already revolves around 1 hour intervals.


If you have any changes or additions you would like to propose post below, if you however do not have anything helpful to add to the thread then you are not welcome to post and you should keep your mouth shut till you have something productive to add.

Turelus

Whilst I'll agree the current system could do with something changed, I don't like the ideas put forth here.

Especially as some of them push specific play styles or make "owning" a group more important than working as a team. If a group wants to boost a specific player within it there are already legal means of doing this like letting said player do all repairs, leaving defensive ticks for them to claim alone etc.

Sadly there doesn't seem to be a system which couldn't be manipulated (votes) or favours those who dedicate the time to the game. Even if we switch to a K/D/A system it simply promotes killing over objectives and penalises player who do supporting roles (healers, tanks, siege).

vamp_emily

I think the alliance who gets Emperor should vote on who should be crowned.

There are a lot of players, like myself, that work for the alliance and not just for AP gains.

If they did something like this then I would definitely need to work on my PvP reputation because as of right now I don't think many people would vote for me. I will never become Empress but I think I deserve it.

Turelus

vamp_emily wrote: »

I think the alliance who gets Emperor should vote on who should be crowned.

There are a lot of players, like myself, that work for the alliance and not just for AP gains.

If they did something like this then I would definitely need to work on my PvP reputation because as of right now I don't think many people would vote for me. I will never become Empress but I think I deserve it.

The issue with vote systems is it's just going to be "biggest guild has emp" as they can carry the votes and even cycle their members for achievements.
It wouldn't be about leadership and merit but who had the biggest voting block. I know RF Online had a faction leader system with voting but I don't fully remember how it worked. It might be possible with some kind of mechanics to stop abuse. Also the idea than an Emperor is elected seems a little odd to me as typically Emperor's haven't been chosen by democracy.

ShadowMonarch

Turelus wrote: »

Whilst I'll agree the current system could do with something changed, I don't like the ideas put forth here.

Especially as some of them push specific play styles or make "owning" a group more important than working as a team. If a group wants to boost a specific player within it there are already legal means of doing this like letting said player do all repairs, leaving defensive ticks for them to claim alone etc.

Sadly there doesn't seem to be a system which couldn't be manipulated (votes) or favours those who dedicate the time to the game. Even if we switch to a K/D/A system it simply promotes killing over objectives and penalises player who do supporting roles (healers, tanks, siege).

We really have to ask ourselves somthing though. What do you want in a Emperor.

Im not sure if support roles are best suited to emp though, Think about it, do you really want a healer for your emperor? or a tank?

For my emperor I want the craziest kid on the block that is tearing up people left in right. It is a war and I want the very best warrior for my emps!

As for siege, yes a emp that uses siege is very important to take keeps sometimes, but I would think group leaders that get emp would be doing this quite a lot.

The main purpose for this is to help whoever is the most active and strongest warrior to be more enabled to get emperor!

Turelus wrote: »

vamp_emily wrote: »

I think the alliance who gets Emperor should vote on who should be crowned.

There are a lot of players, like myself, that work for the alliance and not just for AP gains.

If they did something like this then I would definitely need to work on my PvP reputation because as of right now I don't think many people would vote for me. I will never become Empress but I think I deserve it.

The issue with vote systems is it's just going to be "biggest guild has emp" as they can carry the votes and even cycle their members for achievements.
It wouldn't be about leadership and merit but who had the biggest voting block. I know RF Online had a faction leader system with voting but I don't fully remember how it worked. It might be possible with some kind of mechanics to stop abuse. Also the idea than an Emperor is elected seems a little odd to me as typically Emperor's haven't been chosen by democracy.

I agree about the voting system could actually limit strong candidates from getting emp.

vamp_emily

Turelus wrote: »

Also the idea than an Emperor is elected seems a little odd to me as typically Emperor's haven't been chosen by democracy.

Well getting emperor by repairing walls several hours a day seems odd to me. Getting the achievement by logging into a dead campaign with 3 times the population seems odd to me. The current system is just bad.

To be honest, I just think there are soo many people that deserve the achievement. There are some players that do really well for the alliance but just don't play all the time.

Another Idea I had was the person with the highest AP when all emp keeps are taken has an option to be crowned emp, or crown someone emp.

SugaComa

I'm going to say no because that can be abused ... However if you where to only allow the best hour of play in a 24 hour period to be added to the emperors score table that would allow for a better chance for every one

VaranisArano

Healer emperors have been incredibly strong. Maybe they rely on their raid to do more of the killing than a typical DPS emperor, but just think about defending with emperor who can outheal most anything the enemy can throw.

Ectheliontnacil

Turelus wrote: »

Whilst I'll agree the current system could do with something changed, I don't like the ideas put forth here.

Especially as some of them push specific play styles or make "owning" a group more important than working as a team. If a group wants to boost a specific player within it there are already legal means of doing this like letting said player do all repairs, leaving defensive ticks for them to claim alone etc.

Sadly there doesn't seem to be a system which couldn't be manipulated (votes) or favours those who dedicate the time to the game. Even if we switch to a K/D/A system it simply promotes killing over objectives and penalises player who do supporting roles (healers, tanks, siege).

Working as a team is pretty much the only way to influence the map. Aside from that, playing in a group with dedicated roles or simply zerging is wayyyyyy easier than playing solo. Only a very small portion of the playerbase is capable of playing solo successfully and "owning" groups so it is obvious that they should be rewarded for that playstyle.

I mean you might want to put some arguments forth as to why you don't think bad players, who zerg should be penalised. Just think about what you are saying here. Your reasoning would also allow groups of 200 to compete in veteran trials and be rewarded for it...they have 200 hundred people so I assume there is even more teamwork involved than in a 12 man grp and teamwork needs to be rewarded. Of course not! What is harder should be more rewarding. That's why there's only a handful of solo players in Cyrodiil, imo they should be the only ones to ever get emperor.

Also PvP massively favours healers and tanks as it is. You can literally spam a couple rapids in a siege and you will get ap for that, arguably more ap than someone who is actively trying to kill enemies. So as long as a simple 1 button pressing role gets any ap at all, I think it is not penalised enough. Anyways a healer as an emperor would be beyond useless, same can be said for a tank.

VaranisArano

Ectheliontnacil wrote: »

Turelus wrote: »

Whilst I'll agree the current system could do with something changed, I don't like the ideas put forth here.

Especially as some of them push specific play styles or make "owning" a group more important than working as a team. If a group wants to boost a specific player within it there are already legal means of doing this like letting said player do all repairs, leaving defensive ticks for them to claim alone etc.

Sadly there doesn't seem to be a system which couldn't be manipulated (votes) or favours those who dedicate the time to the game. Even if we switch to a K/D/A system it simply promotes killing over objectives and penalises player who do supporting roles (healers, tanks, siege).

Working as a team is pretty much the only way to influence the map. Aside from that, playing in a group with dedicated roles or simply zerging is wayyyyyy easier than playing solo. Only a very small portion of the playerbase is capable of playing solo successfully and "owning" groups so it is obvious that they should be rewarded for that playstyle.

I mean you might want to put some arguments forth as to why you don't think bad players, who zerg should be penalised. Just think about what you are saying here. Your reasoning would also allow groups of 200 to compete in veteran trials and be rewarded for it...they have 200 hundred people so I assume there is even more teamwork involved than in a 12 man grp and teamwork needs to be rewarded. Of course not! What is harder should be more rewarding. That's why there's only a handful of solo players in Cyrodiil, imo they should be the only ones to ever get emperor.

Also PvP massively favours healers and tanks as it is. You can literally spam a couple rapids in a siege and you will get ap for that, arguably more ap than someone who is actively trying to kill enemies. So as long as a simple 1 button pressing role gets any ap at all, I think it is not penalised enough. Anyways a healer as an emperor would be beyond useless, same can be said for a tank.

People going for emperorship usually run alongside larger organized groups and pick up all the ticks from objectives that their faction takes (or are leading those organized groups). Prospective emperors are very objective focused, along with trying to make as much AP from kills or heals, and repairs that they can.

There's nothing that says a solo player couldn't make emperor, however, that solo player would have to adopt the same tactics and be very objective focused, which almost by necessity means cooperating with or at least being nearby the larger groups on the faction. Its really harder to be a "lone wolf" solely focused on kills, not objectives and make emperor.

Seeing as how Cyrodiil is indeed focused in large part upon winning objectives for your faction and increasing faction score, with emperorship as the epitome of factions capturing ring keep objectives and holding them, I'm having a hard time seeing where a "lone wolf" style solo player is going to fit with emperorship. If you want the faction to support you for emperor (because like it or not, it takes a faction), you have to support the faction.