Increasing active points of engagement to spread the population

Ranger209

I was originally going to post this in Dracs PvP 4.0 thread in response to some comments there, but that thread is being derailed enough so I decided to just make this a thread unto itself. It is in response to comments there, however, pertaining to reducing group size to help spread fighting out across the map. I don't feel that would really have an impact on fight sizes, as much as it would just be more groups of lesser amounts fighting. Below is where I see the current culprit for congested fights residing and a possible solution or at least pressure valve for this situation.

I think one of the main issues causing overly dense fighting in too few locations is the linear way the transitus system works coupled with basic human nature. Too many people are looking for the quickest fight that they can get to, which is generally going to be a fight close to a keep that their alliance currently occupies. Too many people also don't play the map or care about the state of it, because there is nothing in it for them. Their main concern is getting into a decent fight as quick as possible. Gamer psych 101. It's going to be somewhere that they don't have to ride too far off to fight. The game is currently too front line dependent. The majority of a factions given forces are at the farthest reaches of the keeps that they possess, either attacking the next keep in line or defending the ones that they have the farthest from their home keeps.

There have been many occasions where my faction is taking a beat down and all we have in our possession are 2 or 3 home keeps. The proper thing to do at that time is to ride off deep into enemy territory and back keep an opposing faction to take pressure off the front lines. In so doing you allow others from your faction to try to retake your home keeps by reducing the number of enemy troops that are fighting at your home keep. But it doesn't happen. People don't want to ride for 15 minutes deep into enemy territory to do it, at least not enough to make it effective.

Perhaps if there were a triggered event that opened up a temporary portal deep in enemy territory that could remove the travel time, it would encourage back keeping while at the same time making home scrolls more vulnerable for an alliance that overextends itself. This condition would be met when an alliance loses 3 of its home keeps. Whichever opposing faction is controlling either two or all three of those keeps would have its corresponding gate keep be the target for this temporary portal. This could help spread fighting out by creating more easily accessible fronts upon which to fight. For AD a portal would spawn at one of the southern gate keeps of EP or DC, whichever faction controlled the majority of their 3 home keeps. For DC it would be EP north and AD west, and for EP it would be DC north and AD east. I see this working roughly as follows:

1. When a 3rd home keep is lost the mages of your alliance create a portal at the appropriate location near an enemy gate keep just outside the perimeter of the resources for that keep.
2. 10 or so NPC's with one shot capability also spawn to protect it from being camped by the enemy. They see invis and sneak and maybe put up a shield that eats siege.
3. This portal remains open until a certain number of troops have passed through it.
A. If an enemy faction controls 2 of the 3 home keeps 30 players are allowed to port through it.
B. If an enemy faction controls all 3 of those home keeps 50 players are allowed to port through it.
4. Once the player limit has been met the portal will enter an unstable state.
5. After 60 seconds of instability it will explode killing all of the one shot NPC's that spawned with it.
6. It will be on a 20 minute timer and if after 20 minutes your faction still is down 3 home keeps it will spawn a new portal at the gate keep of the alliance with the majority of those 3 keeps.
7. If you lose a 4th keep and it is a 2-2 split a portal would spawn in both opposing factions back keeps.

I think something in this manner would play into human nature, creating more points of conflict across the map. It would penalize an alliance for overextending making it more difficult to keep advancing. Tactically it could be used in a situation where you see that one of your opponents has control of 2 of your other opponents home keeps, and by taking that third home keep you will open a portal deep within your other enemies territory causing pressure to increase between your opponents on multiple fronts, and being reduced upon yourself.

VaranisArano

I'd prefer for ZOS to alter town placement.

Bruma gets tons of fights because it threatens Dragonclaw, Bleakers, Kingscrest, Warden, Aleswell, and Chalman.

Cropsford needs to be moved up between Sejanus and Drakelowe. Vlastarus needs to be moved up between Nikel and Brindle.

That way all capturable towns threaten equal keeps and thus generate plenty of fights, offering a respawn and launching point,for attacks against enemy back keeps.

This way, absolutely no mechanics are added or changed in PVP, just the geography. It has the benefit of making twin placement equal between all factions and increasing the relevance of two towns as places to fight.

Joy_Division

You're making this overly complicated. And the whole idea of a portal just spawning for a faction getting pushed back raises even more questions. How and why does it spawn (my immurshion!)? Why do we need mechanics to reward failure? Do I have to count all the people who go through the portal to ensure half of my group of 8 doesn't get stuck on the other side of the map? Also, why am I going to go through that portal to PvDoor a keep when that's not something I want to do? The only reason I stick around a PvDoor situation in the first place is if I'm already close by and the 6K yummy AP.

At the end of the day, huge map + few players = can't have fights all over the map. Especially when a single group can have something like 15% or maybe even 20% of a faction's entire population. Which pretty much means we are screwed. Because ZoS won't raise the pop cap because the servers can't handle it and Zos isn't going to make another map more appropriate for that pop cap.

Solariken

IMO there just needs to be a secondary transitus system that is always active - ie Ayleid wells.

Maybe each node could only be activated for transit once per 30 seconds. This would prevent a zerg from porting around willy-nilly but would give small groups and avenue for playing the map without wasting time on horseback.

The ultra-dense fights, long horse rides, and ridiculous choke points are the primary reason I haven't been to Cyrodiil since BG's we're released. If those pains were alleviated I would be so happy to play the campaign again.

Sugaroverdose

Current AP gain system is f up, it actually gives more AP for bigger numbers, while it should actually reduce AP gain for big groups and killing by blob.
Also getting enemy keeps and holding your own does not actually have much motivation, except closer to scroll spawn point.

Do it right(reduce AP gain for 'achievements' made by big number of players, like killing single person by 8+ players or getting resources/keep in half-population zergs) and there's will be spread, at least until alliance won't be locked in single keep while trying to protect emperorship or scroll(which, i think legit reason to last stand zerg).

VaranisArano

Sugaroverdose wrote: »

Current AP gain system is f up, it actually gives more AP for bigger numbers, while it should actually reduce AP gain for big groups and killing by blob.
Also getting enemy keeps and holding your own does not actually have much motivation, except closer to scroll spawn point.

Do it right(reduce AP gain for 'achievements' made by big number of players, like killing single person by 8+ players or getting resources/keep in half-population zergs) and there's will be spread, at least until alliance won't be locked in single keep while trying to protect emperorship or scroll(which, i think legit reason to last stand zerg).

You get less AP the more people hit a player, so I'm not entirely sure where you get more AP in larger numbers, except that you are able to kill more people.

O-ticks are a flat AP reward with additional killing AP divided amongst players present. D-ticks are divided amongst players present. So again, you get greater benefits the less players are present.

ShadowMonarch

VaranisArano wrote: »

I'd prefer for ZOS to alter town placement.

Bruma gets tons of fights because it threatens Dragonclaw, Bleakers, Kingscrest, Warden, Aleswell, and Chalman.

Cropsford needs to be moved up between Sejanus and Drakelowe. Vlastarus needs to be moved up between Nikel and Brindle.

That way all capturable towns threaten equal keeps and thus generate plenty of fights, offering a respawn and launching point,for attacks against enemy back keeps.

This way, absolutely no mechanics are added or changed in PVP, just the geography. It has the benefit of making twin placement equal between all factions and increasing the relevance of two towns as places to fight.

Or they could finish the town system and add in cheydinhal and chorral to it so there would be 5 spaced out towns around the map rather then 2 pushed into AD territory and 1 perfectly in the middle of DC and EP.

ShadowMonarch

Ranger209 wrote: »

I was originally going to post this in Dracs PvP 4.0 thread in response to some comments there, but that thread is being derailed enough so I decided to just make this a thread unto itself. It is in response to comments there, however, pertaining to reducing group size to help spread fighting out across the map. I don't feel that would really have an impact on fight sizes, as much as it would just be more groups of lesser amounts fighting. Below is where I see the current culprit for congested fights residing and a possible solution or at least pressure valve for this situation.

I think one of the main issues causing overly dense fighting in too few locations is the linear way the transitus system works coupled with basic human nature. Too many people are looking for the quickest fight that they can get to, which is generally going to be a fight close to a keep that their alliance currently occupies. Too many people also don't play the map or care about the state of it, because there is nothing in it for them. Their main concern is getting into a decent fight as quick as possible. Gamer psych 101. It's going to be somewhere that they don't have to ride too far off to fight. The game is currently too front line dependent. The majority of a factions given forces are at the farthest reaches of the keeps that they possess, either attacking the next keep in line or defending the ones that they have the farthest from their home keeps.

There have been many occasions where my faction is taking a beat down and all we have in our possession are 2 or 3 home keeps. The proper thing to do at that time is to ride off deep into enemy territory and back keep an opposing faction to take pressure off the front lines. In so doing you allow others from your faction to try to retake your home keeps by reducing the number of enemy troops that are fighting at your home keep. But it doesn't happen. People don't want to ride for 15 minutes deep into enemy territory to do it, at least not enough to make it effective.

Perhaps if there were a triggered event that opened up a temporary portal deep in enemy territory that could remove the travel time, it would encourage back keeping while at the same time making home scrolls more vulnerable for an alliance that overextends itself. This condition would be met when an alliance loses 3 of its home keeps. Whichever opposing faction is controlling either two or all three of those keeps would have its corresponding gate keep be the target for this temporary portal. This could help spread fighting out by creating more easily accessible fronts upon which to fight. For AD a portal would spawn at one of the southern gate keeps of EP or DC, whichever faction controlled the majority of their 3 home keeps. For DC it would be EP north and AD west, and for EP it would be DC north and AD east. I see this working roughly as follows:

1. When a 3rd home keep is lost the mages of your alliance create a portal at the appropriate location near an enemy gate keep just outside the perimeter of the resources for that keep.
2. 10 or so NPC's with one shot capability also spawn to protect it from being camped by the enemy. They see invis and sneak and maybe put up a shield that eats siege.
3. This portal remains open until a certain number of troops have passed through it.
A. If an enemy faction controls 2 of the 3 home keeps 30 players are allowed to port through it.
B. If an enemy faction controls all 3 of those home keeps 50 players are allowed to port through it.
4. Once the player limit has been met the portal will enter an unstable state.
5. After 60 seconds of instability it will explode killing all of the one shot NPC's that spawned with it.
6. It will be on a 20 minute timer and if after 20 minutes your faction still is down 3 home keeps it will spawn a new portal at the gate keep of the alliance with the majority of those 3 keeps.
7. If you lose a 4th keep and it is a 2-2 split a portal would spawn in both opposing factions back keeps.

I think something in this manner would play into human nature, creating more points of conflict across the map. It would penalize an alliance for overextending making it more difficult to keep advancing. Tactically it could be used in a situation where you see that one of your opponents has control of 2 of your other opponents home keeps, and by taking that third home keep you will open a portal deep within your other enemies territory causing pressure to increase between your opponents on multiple fronts, and being reduced upon yourself.

If more then 10 people in a radius then they do % reduced damage and take % increased damage per extra person.

Fixxed it,No more zergs gg.

As for your teleport idea you could tie it into the dolmens, beat a dolmen and whoever closed the final little dilly on it can select another predetermined area and teleport to it with their group. Make it so the more points a faction is getting the less range the teleport works so to promote the behind faction to be able to catch up or make plays across the map.

Ranger209

Joy_Division wrote: »

You're making this overly complicated. And the whole idea of a portal just spawning for a faction getting pushed back raises even more questions. How and why does it spawn (my immurshion!)? Why do we need mechanics to reward failure? Do I have to count all the people who go through the portal to ensure half of my group of 8 doesn't get stuck on the other side of the map? Also, why am I going to go through that portal to PvDoor a keep when that's not something I want to do? The only reason I stick around a PvDoor situation in the first place is if I'm already close by and the 6K yummy AP.

I'm not suggesting this to reward failure, though that may seem like a byproduct of it. I am suggesting it as a way to spread fighting out and create more battlefronts under a temporary, conditional mechanic that will only be activated when it is most needed.

Do you have to count all of the people in your group when you port to defend a keep that suddenly gets cut off after the first have ported there, but the last have not yet done so? This same scenario already exists with the transitus system by virtue of time rather than numbers. The above suggestion could be set up to be active for a length of time rather than a head count, but either way there will be a moment in time when the next person who tries to go through can't.

You are going to go through that portal to PvDoor a keep because it is easier than riding for 15 minutes to PvDoor the same keep, which needs to be done because your faction is getting their arses handed to them, and in so doing attempt to pull your opponent off the front line to weaken their offensive.

In this game when an army overextends itself their opponents can try to bypass them, ride around them, and get to a keep behind enemy lines to attack. However, as long as there is a set of eyes and a voice at that keep that can alert the overextended faction of the imminent attack before that keep is lit, there is no consequence. The transitus system already rewards failing to man a keep with ease of travel to defend it. If that's how you want to look at it. You can literally almost be in two places at once, almost. Right now the transitus system rewards the dominant faction and penalizes the faction under duress way to much so that the fights become concentrated into 1 or 2 active areas on each alliance front. I am suggesting for a way to balance that transitus system on a temporary basis that allows multiple fronts to become active. It needs to be a way that plays into the human nature of strength in numbers, easiest, fastest way to a fight. If it doesn't play into that it will fail, and nothing will change. 60v60 chal, 60v60 ash.....fast, easy, numbers.

zyk

I don't like this idea because I despise PvDoor. There is already far too much PVE in AvA.

If anything, I would prefer a mechanic that helps a certain number of defenders fast travel to a flagged keep so that pvdoor rarely happens and good keep pvp happens more often.

Ranger209

zyk wrote: »

I don't like this idea because I despise PvDoor. There is already far too much PVE in AvA.

If anything, I would prefer a mechanic that helps a certain number of defenders fast travel to a flagged keep so that pvdoor rarely happens and good keep pvp happens more often.

I'm not a fan of PvDoor either, but in reality there has to be a certain amount of it. There are two types of PvDoor. There is the traveling from empty keep to empty keep to empty keep never fighting an actual human, and moving on just farming AP. There is also the kind that is done to elicit a response from your opponent. This is the kind that will help spread people out on the map, and is intended here. It can only be done when your faction is being dominated. Without a certain amount of PvDoor fights will always only be 60 v 60 because there are too few keeps that actually have people there, which is what we have now.

Joy_Division

Ranger209 wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

You're making this overly complicated. And the whole idea of a portal just spawning for a faction getting pushed back raises even more questions. How and why does it spawn (my immurshion!)? Why do we need mechanics to reward failure? Do I have to count all the people who go through the portal to ensure half of my group of 8 doesn't get stuck on the other side of the map? Also, why am I going to go through that portal to PvDoor a keep when that's not something I want to do? The only reason I stick around a PvDoor situation in the first place is if I'm already close by and the 6K yummy AP.

I'm not suggesting this to reward failure, though that may seem like a byproduct of it. I am suggesting it as a way to spread fighting out and create more battlefronts under a temporary, conditional mechanic that will only be activated when it is most needed.

Do you have to count all of the people in your group when you port to defend a keep that suddenly gets cut off after the first have ported there, but the last have not yet done so? This same scenario already exists with the transitus system by virtue of time rather than numbers. The above suggestion could be set up to be active for a length of time rather than a head count, but either way there will be a moment in time when the next person who tries to go through can't.

You are going to go through that portal to PvDoor a keep because it is easier than riding for 15 minutes to PvDoor the same keep, which needs to be done because your faction is getting their arses handed to them, and in so doing attempt to pull your opponent off the front line to weaken their offensive.

In this game when an army overextends itself their opponents can try to bypass them, ride around them, and get to a keep behind enemy lines to attack. However, as long as there is a set of eyes and a voice at that keep that can alert the overextended faction of the imminent attack before that keep is lit, there is no consequence. The transitus system already rewards failing to man a keep with ease of travel to defend it. If that's how you want to look at it. You can literally almost be in two places at once, almost. Right now the transitus system rewards the dominant faction and penalizes the faction under duress way to much so that the fights become concentrated into 1 or 2 active areas on each alliance front. I am suggesting for a way to balance that transitus system on a temporary basis that allows multiple fronts to become active. It needs to be a way that plays into the human nature of strength in numbers, easiest, fastest way to a fight. If it doesn't play into that it will fail, and nothing will change. 60v60 chal, 60v60 ash.....fast, easy, numbers.

Well, if you and others want to do Brain Wheeler's job, by all means knock yourselves out. It's just that so many of us have been doing this for 4 years and go load up a youtbue video of cyrodiil in 2014 - excepting the addition of some flags at a few towns and some stairs on the milegates, it's pretty much exactly the same place.

But to respond to the point you made, I am not going to ride 15 minutes to PvDoor anything not so much because of the 15 minutes, rather I don't find PvDooring anything compelling PvP. I get it that groups do this, but in doing so they are inviting a potential farm, so there is actual PvP motivation for doing so.

IMO, fights are concentrated into 1 or 2 active areas because you have a large map and few players. I don't care if I had instant teleportation powers, I am always going to go where people already are because I dislike PvDooring and logged into to fight actual players. The transitus system merely makes it convenient for me to shuttle back between Alessia Brisge, Bleakers, or wherever the best fight happens to be.

I actually don't mind 60v60 at Chal. I really don't. More people to pour oil on. More AP. More dynamic fight. Always in suspense. Higher tick. The game was advertised as this for a reason. So I'm not going to leave a 60v60 because I have competitive instincts. And I will make my way to Chalman even if there are portals to Drakelowe or what not.

At the end of the day, pleas, ideas, and incentives to "spread out" all boil down to the same basic thing: leave a guaranteed fight in the hopes that you might find one after traveling to somewhere else. That's not exactly compelling. I will grant you are sort of solving the traveling issue - but not in a satisfying way: hey we're losing, look we now have portals to the enemy's back keeps! At the end of the day, when EP is pushed back to the gates, I am going to go to the nearest keep, because that is where I know I am going to get a decent fight.

VaranisArano

zyk wrote: »

I don't like this idea because I despise PvDoor. There is already far too much PVE in AvA.

If anything, I would prefer a mechanic that helps a certain number of defenders fast travel to a flagged keep so that pvdoor rarely happens and good keep pvp happens more often.

The mechanic that helps a number of defenders fast travel to a keep under attack is early and good zone callouts before the keep is flagged.

This isnt directed at you, but I personally am tired of being told to "spread out the fights" AND getting slammed for PVDoor. If I go fight off the emp ring and hit a keep that has few to no defenders, I'm likely doing both.

Ranger209

Joy_Division wrote: »

I actually don't mind 60v60 at Chal. I really don't. More people to pour oil on. More AP. More dynamic fight. Always in suspense. Higher tick. The game was advertised as this for a reason. So I'm not going to leave a 60v60 because I have competitive instincts. And I will make my way to Chalman even if there are portals to Drakelowe or what not.

At the end of the day, pleas, ideas, and incentives to "spread out" all boil down to the same basic thing: leave a guaranteed fight in the hopes that you might find one after traveling to somewhere else. That's not exactly compelling. I will grant you are sort of solving the traveling issue - but not in a satisfying way: hey we're losing, look we now have portals to the enemy's back keeps! At the end of the day, when EP is pushed back to the gates, I am going to go to the nearest keep, because that is where I know I am going to get a decent fight.

I love the 60v60 fights, it's where I spend most of my time. Unfortunately the server does not share my affection for these high number fights. I have a system that can generally handle those fights, once in a while I will get booted or lose connection, but very infrequently. Too many people do not have such a computer, and it makes the game unplayable for them, and consequently the population dwindle. I've played too many really good games that are now dead because of this very thing. In my mind the number one place that WOW succeeded and why they have dominated the mmorpg scene for so long is that they made a very engaging game that can be played on a harmonica in a vacuum. I mean literally any 10 year old computer can play that game decently. Lag is the number one enemy, it creates a threshold of entry into Cyrodiil that is quite high from a system requirements point of view. If spreading people out helps the lag issues then that is a step in the right direction toward lowering that threshold of entry. I have a very radical idea that I have been reluctant to post to help with the lag as I am afraid someone might actually light me on fire for doing so,... maybe some day.

Ranger209

VaranisArano wrote: »

zyk wrote: »

I don't like this idea because I despise PvDoor. There is already far too much PVE in AvA.

If anything, I would prefer a mechanic that helps a certain number of defenders fast travel to a flagged keep so that pvdoor rarely happens and good keep pvp happens more often.

The mechanic that helps a number of defenders fast travel to a keep under attack is early and good zone callouts before the keep is flagged.

This isnt directed at you, but I personally am tired of being told to "spread out the fights" AND getting slammed for PVDoor. If I go fight off the emp ring and hit a keep that has few to no defenders, I'm likely doing both.

Exactly, there is a certain type of PvDoor that is a good thing. When it is a means to an end, and not the end itself it has a purpose that can be a positive.

Ranger209

As an alternative to a triggered event which would help pull people of the EMP circle they could remove the condition that you need your transitus shrine to be connected to another shrine. For instance if a group of DC flipped Faregyl or Arrius the entire faction would have the ability to port there even if they did not control all of the keeps between where they are porting from and the destination.

I don't like this idea as much as it is too open ended, but it would allow people to travel off of the EMP circle keeps much easier and as a result spread out the fighting. Things I don't like about it are that it relies on a group going and taking the keep which may or may not happen. Once it is open it stays open until another faction wins it back which can allow on overwhelming infiltration, more than desired anyway (subjective). It could open up other keeps on the EMP circle which I am trying to get away from to spread out fights. Not sure if this is really a negative or not if it can still spread out fights. It may make it too easy to defeat a good solid push by a given faction.

Things I do like about it are that it still breaks up the linear pathways that the transitus system imposes upon us now. It allows for any keep to become a travel bypass rather than just the above mentioned back keeps. It may actually spread fighting out even more than the above mentioned triggered event because of this. the more I think about it the more on the fence I become.

Sandman929

All the sewer entrances to IC should also be exit points, for anyone, and what happens in IC should be tied to scoring and Emperorship in Cyrodiil.
Go into IC by Fort Ash, push across, and come out of IC near Alessia.
There's a reason to go in (flags), a reason to defend (Enemies moving through tunnels) and no mysterious portals, it's just part of the geography of Cyrodiil.

montiferus

I still think Derra and Etaniel had it right about limiting group size.

That said I don't really think any of this will ever get fixed. Our best bet is to enjoy it for what it is and try to ignore the game's obvious limitations. I hope for at least one good fight a night and am willing for the rest to be whatever it is.