Cyrodiil Updates for Update 18

MaxwellC

@ZOS_BrianWheeler
Regarding the credit per battle can you give us a bit more in-depth about how the credit system works. I get that it is over-written based on battle of the same structure aka If I push Aleswell then sprint and help finish Chalman, my progress will be over written and I will receive credit for Chalman only.

So I was wondering how long would I receive my tick for offensive/defensive? Based on the wording it dictates that I won't receive the tick for a the defensive/offensive participation for quite a while since I'm somehow able to get to another keep before awarded the AP.

VaranisArano

MaxwellC wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler
Regarding the credit per battle can you give us a bit more in-depth about how the credit system works. I get that it is over-written based on battle of the same structure aka If I push Aleswell then sprint and help finish Chalman, my progress will be over written and I will receive credit for Chalman only.

So I was wondering how long would I receive my tick for offensive/defensive? Based on the wording it dictates that I won't receive the tick for a the defensive/offensive participation for quite a while since I'm somehow able to get to another keep before awarded the AP.

Offensive ticks seem unchanged from current, which is awarded when the objective changes hands/flips colors on the map.

If they haven't changed the timers for Defensive ticks, those are currently awarded about a minute after fighting ceases on the grounds of the objective, so I'm most interested to find out how they've changed the D-tick timer.

The best part is that Outposts don't wipe out keep superstructure ticks, so the Aleswell - Bleakers -Chalman potato run is going to stay alive and well since I can go siege Bleakers and still get my D-tick from Chalman. Frabjous day!

Rainingblood

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Server Performance: Several requirements that were part of ability passives have been converted to server side encoded checks, which will cut down on requirements ran per ability use.

Client Performance: We have increased the amount of cpu cores used by the client which should improve framerate for players on mid to high end CPU's on PC platforms. On consoles and PC we have improved how characters are composited resulting in faster character loads and less framerate spikes.

Can these fixes be done now rather than having to wait for the new chapter? If the capability is available, why wait until June??

I can tell you that I would be more willing to pre-purchase if these performance improvements are implemented ASAP.

Thank you.

Universe

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

As it's almost midnight and this is the last post in the thread currently...yes Yoda. That would be a legit scenario to get an O and D tick in close proximity to each other.

Joy_Division wrote: »

Lord wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Campaign lockouts based on Alliance swapping on a temporary level have been discussed and are still on going.

It will be great if you would implement a campaign alliance lock(account based) so we will once again have more alliance loyalty and less treason/plays all sides kind of gameplay.
I would suggest the following:
Char example 1 joins campaign 1. Char example 1 Alliance: AD
Char example 2 can't join campaign 1 for the duration of the campaign. Char example 2 Alliance: EP
Char example 3 can't join campaign 1 for the duration of the campaign. Char example 3 Alliance: DC

*If char example 1 abandoned campaign 1(penalty of ap, 500K-1M/other AP), only then it is possible to join campaign 1 with other alliance chars(only if they are all same alliance) and only after 24-72 hours have passed since char 1 abandoned the campaign.
*Once the campaign has ended, all players will receive a campaign reset(free of charge) so they may choose with which alliance to play(Only one alliance, AD/EP/DC). This reset will encourage to play until the end of campaign and not use the above option.

There's no compromising with some of you people.

So let me see if I am understanding you correctly. You want to lock one of my characters into a campaign, pay 1 million AP penalty to take them out of it, and then wait 3 days before I can play on another toon?

Yes, a penalty of 500k-1m ap(something in between this range).
A time penalty between 1-3 days.
If there will be no high ap and time penalties, many players will just switch when they feel their alliance is losing or they want to play all sides for ap(guild groups switching) etc.

Let's encourage alliance loyalty!
Traitors and deserters will have to pay for their crimes

Vilestride

Lord wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

As it's almost midnight and this is the last post in the thread currently...yes Yoda. That would be a legit scenario to get an O and D tick in close proximity to each other.

Joy_Division wrote: »

Lord wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Campaign lockouts based on Alliance swapping on a temporary level have been discussed and are still on going.

It will be great if you would implement a campaign alliance lock(account based) so we will once again have more alliance loyalty and less treason/plays all sides kind of gameplay.
I would suggest the following:
Char example 1 joins campaign 1. Char example 1 Alliance: AD
Char example 2 can't join campaign 1 for the duration of the campaign. Char example 2 Alliance: EP
Char example 3 can't join campaign 1 for the duration of the campaign. Char example 3 Alliance: DC

*If char example 1 abandoned campaign 1(penalty of ap, 500K-1M/other AP), only then it is possible to join campaign 1 with other alliance chars(only if they are all same alliance) and only after 24-72 hours have passed since char 1 abandoned the campaign.
*Once the campaign has ended, all players will receive a campaign reset(free of charge) so they may choose with which alliance to play(Only one alliance, AD/EP/DC). This reset will encourage to play until the end of campaign and not use the above option.

There's no compromising with some of you people.

So let me see if I am understanding you correctly. You want to lock one of my characters into a campaign, pay 1 million AP penalty to take them out of it, and then wait 3 days before I can play on another toon?

Yes, a penalty of 500k-1m ap(something in between this range).
A time penalty between 1-3 days.
If there will be no high ap and time penalties, many players will just switch when they feel their alliance is losing or they want to play all sides for ap(guild groups switching) etc.

Let's encourage alliance loyalty!
Traitors and deserters will have to pay for their crimes

This is far too harsh of a restriction. You need to encourage faction loyalty, not penalize the contrary. This is a very critical distinction to make.

What do you think about the proposal of a player 'pledging ' their account to a faction at the beginning of each home campaign .then for the duration of that campaign the player only receives campaign rewards for play time on that faction. Eg. Rewards for the worthy, leader board rewards, emperorship ect. However during the time a player is pledged to an alliance they can still swap and play on a character of any faction and earn no reward with the exception of AP.

Also note that these changes would be coupled with improvements to the rewards system such as RFTW.

GeneralSezme

Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

All these appear to be positive changes.

Please replace the Rewards of the Worthy at the same time! They're a chore, not a reward!

Mail cloggers and drops in an ocean in terms on monetary value with the 240 gold you get. Pretty much sums them up.

ckbud

About the credit lists, what about the following scenario @ZOS_BrianWheeler ?:

Will it be now possible to receive AP for a keep defense if my game crashes and I'm offline at the moment that the d-tick would occur in the current system?

Let's say I help kill a lot of invaders, but all of a sudden my game crashes, and after I log back in a couple minutes later, the battle's over and the keep we were defending is unflagged? Will my character have received the d-tick AP while he/she was offline?

Thank you,

@ckbud

Morgul667

ckbud wrote: »

About the credit lists, what about the following scenario @ZOS_BrianWheeler ?:

Will it be now possible to receive AP for a keep defense if my game crashes and I'm offline at the moment that the d-tick would occur in the current system?

Let's say I help kill a lot of invaders, but all of a sudden my game crashes, and after I log back in a couple minutes later, the battle's over and the keep we were defending is unflagged? Will my character have received the d-tick AP while he/she was offline?

Thank you,

@ckbud

Oh yeah that'd be great

With disconnection and lags, it truely annoying when you get disconnected and bam you hear your friend tell you the defense tick just happened.

Morgul667

Vilestride wrote: »

Lord wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

As it's almost midnight and this is the last post in the thread currently...yes Yoda. That would be a legit scenario to get an O and D tick in close proximity to each other.

Joy_Division wrote: »

Lord wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Campaign lockouts based on Alliance swapping on a temporary level have been discussed and are still on going.

It will be great if you would implement a campaign alliance lock(account based) so we will once again have more alliance loyalty and less treason/plays all sides kind of gameplay.
I would suggest the following:
Char example 1 joins campaign 1. Char example 1 Alliance: AD
Char example 2 can't join campaign 1 for the duration of the campaign. Char example 2 Alliance: EP
Char example 3 can't join campaign 1 for the duration of the campaign. Char example 3 Alliance: DC

*If char example 1 abandoned campaign 1(penalty of ap, 500K-1M/other AP), only then it is possible to join campaign 1 with other alliance chars(only if they are all same alliance) and only after 24-72 hours have passed since char 1 abandoned the campaign.
*Once the campaign has ended, all players will receive a campaign reset(free of charge) so they may choose with which alliance to play(Only one alliance, AD/EP/DC). This reset will encourage to play until the end of campaign and not use the above option.

There's no compromising with some of you people.

So let me see if I am understanding you correctly. You want to lock one of my characters into a campaign, pay 1 million AP penalty to take them out of it, and then wait 3 days before I can play on another toon?

Yes, a penalty of 500k-1m ap(something in between this range).
A time penalty between 1-3 days.
If there will be no high ap and time penalties, many players will just switch when they feel their alliance is losing or they want to play all sides for ap(guild groups switching) etc.

Let's encourage alliance loyalty!
Traitors and deserters will have to pay for their crimes

This is far too harsh of a restriction. You need to encourage faction loyalty, not penalize the contrary. This is a very critical distinction to make.

What do you think about the proposal of a player 'pledging ' their account to a faction at the beginning of each home campaign .then for the duration of that campaign the player only receives campaign rewards for play time on that faction. Eg. Rewards for the worthy, leader board rewards, emperorship ect. However during the time a player is pledged to an alliance they can still swap and play on a character of any faction and earn no reward with the exception of AP.

Also note that these changes would be coupled with improvements to the rewards system such as RFTW.

I like the part it helps satisfy both worlds. But there is still an important issue that is not adressed. People can still make spies. That is why a minimum cooldown would be apprecaited in my book. Dont make it high, but make it so people dont switch toons to check on the ennemy

ArgoCye

Great impending changes. Be nice if the points system for keeps, resources, outposts etc was looked at too. Far too much resource capping going on.

Vilestride

ArgoCye wrote: »

Great impending changes. Be nice if the points system for keeps, resources, outposts etc was looked at too. Far too much resource capping going on.

What do you think about the idea of resources being counted towards the score of their superstructure? And so if a player takes a resource it adds or subtracts to the value of the connected keep rather than simply add to a factions score. The primary rationale of this is that it means the 2 most powerful factions cannot simply outscore each other by taking the weakest factions resources. You would need to target the faction you are attempting to outscores resources to get value.

Note that this idea is best coupled with changes to the objective values and multipliers based on upgrades also.

raviour

Praise the lord ! TY @ZOS_BrianWheeler

raviour

However we still need dynamic pop cap.

* The real evidentual EU problems will not go away until Dynamic Population Capacity is implemented, we have been calling for it for 4 years. These new changes liven Cyrodiil up a bit but all that is needed is the pop cap.

I as lead with 6 other DC can hold a Big Boss + Saras 30+ morning cap for 5 hours, it is fun but very hard work, again I could do this in Sotha but it's not rewarding. This needs to be changed so that A - AD learn to play in Vivec, B - other alliances prefer to play the map and not just troll.

When there are 6 DC on and 1 EP on there should be a cap of 10 AD on. (Well maybe 20 since they are pretty bad ;P)

LoL got bored of how easy Vivec was so went Sotha, 6 DC, 2 AD vs 50 EP 12pm UK time, reminded me of BwB 2014. Bring back Thornblade.

raviour

Most people that play ESO have jobs, kids, responsibilities etc. They work their butts off at prime time to wake up and see the map destroyed by late night / early morning AP farmers.

This is what needs to be dealt with.

Ranger209

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Under-population and Underdog evaluation periods have been drastically reduced. This will result in scoring adjustments being applied more frequently depending on population and scoring within shorter time periods.

Pulled from UESP wiki:online campaigns

At certain times, one of the alliances may qualify for an "underdog bonus" during a particular campaign. These are applied when an alliance has a consistently low population of players entering that campaign, or if an alliance has a significantly lower score than the others. Underdog bonuses are re-evaluated every 30 minutes, and grant a 20% increase to Alliance Point gain for the duration. The population and scoring bonus takes all the samples its collected over a period of time, and then on each evaluation period, measures the current score against the average of the prior samples, then applies bonuses as needed. An alliance that is currently benefiting from an underdog bonus will display one of the following icons on the scoreboard

Population Underdog — Scoring bonus ×4, AP bonus 20%
Score Underdog — Scoring bonus ×3, AP bonus 20%

I am concerned that these two bonuses, at least for NA Vivec don't really apply anymore. No alliance is consistently low population on Vivec. All 3 are pop locked at some point every day. It also doesn't account for having one alliance turning the map one color and then leaving with all alliances at 1 or 2 bars for significant amounts of time. This is what determines the winner of each campaign more than any other thing. There needs to be a total population variable that speeds up/slows down the score timer based on overall population, or a percentage based variable applied to the scoring ticks based on overall population.

The issue with the under dog bonus I am guessing lies in the fact that when 2 alliances are significantly lower in score than the 3rd but close enough to each other that it does not apply. If this is going to continue to be a bonus there should be 2 levels to it. If there is a big enough gap between first and second, then both second and third place teams get that bonus. If there is enough of a gap between second and third, then third place would receive yet another bonus. If the gap only exists between second and third while first and second are tight, then the third place team would get just the one bonus. I think the reason I rarely see this one is that second and third are close in score, but way behind first.

Minno

The current rumor-mill is that wheeler gave 4 pages of pvp patch notes for PTS.

Think about that for a second

maxjapank

Is it possible to freeze campaign scores during maintenance?

Torbschka

Minno wrote: »

The current rumor-mill is that wheeler gave 4 pages of pvp patch notes for PTS.

Think about that for a second

Sarcasm or for real

Universe

raviour wrote: »

Praise the lord ! TY @ZOS_BrianWheeler

Thank you

raviour wrote: »

However we still need dynamic pop cap.

* The real evidentual EU problems will not go away until Dynamic Population Capacity is implemented, we have been calling for it for 4 years. These new changes liven Cyrodiil up a bit but all that is needed is the pop cap.

I as lead with 6 other DC can hold a Big Boss + Saras 30+ morning cap for 5 hours, it is fun but very hard work, again I could do this in Sotha but it's not rewarding. This needs to be changed so that A - AD learn to play in Vivec, B - other alliances prefer to play the map and not just troll.

When there are 6 DC on and 1 EP on there should be a cap of 10 AD on. (Well maybe 20 since they are pretty bad ;P)

LoL got bored of how easy Vivec was so went Sotha, 6 DC, 2 AD vs 50 EP 12pm UK time, reminded me of BwB 2014. Bring back Thornblade.

This is indeed an issue.
Each campaign has it's own SUPER alliance with zergs ready to be deployed at any time of the day.
Though dynamic population cap will be the wrong feature to implement since it will really limit the ability to join different campaigns and thus fewer players will play.
I believe that @ZOS_BrianWheeler wants to address the under-population and Underdog issues with the following change:

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Under-population and Underdog evaluation periods have been drastically reduced. This will result in scoring adjustments being applied more frequently depending on population and scoring within shorter time periods.

Maybe it will be enough to make the overall campaign scoring more fair to all alliances.
I'm eager to see how it will affect the morning/night capping.

Vilestride wrote: »

Lord wrote: »

Yes, a penalty of 500k-1m ap(something in between this range).
A time penalty between 1-3 days.
If there will be no high ap and time penalties, many players will just switch when they feel their alliance is losing or they want to play all sides for ap(guild groups switching) etc.

Let's encourage alliance loyalty!
Traitors and deserters will have to pay for their crimes

This is far too harsh of a restriction. You need to encourage faction loyalty, not penalize the contrary. This is a very critical distinction to make.

What do you think about the proposal of a player 'pledging ' their account to a faction at the beginning of each home campaign .then for the duration of that campaign the player only receives campaign rewards for play time on that faction. Eg. Rewards for the worthy, leader board rewards, emperorship ect. However during the time a player is pledged to an alliance they can still swap and play on a character of any faction and earn no reward with the exception of AP.

Also note that these changes would be coupled with improvements to the rewards system such as RFTW.

I don't think that any lack of rewards will prevent alliance switching, it will only make it a bit more rare.
Only a real campaign lock(like the old campaign lock or similar) will actually prevent people from doing it.
I may have been a bit harsh with the AP and time penalties, here are more softer penalties(changed the values of AP and time restriction):
*If char example 1 abandoned campaign 1(penalty of AP, 250K AP), only then it is possible to join campaign 1 with other alliance chars(only if they are all same alliance) and only after 24 hours have passed since char 1 abandoned the campaign.

Ranger209

Vilestride wrote: »

Lord wrote: »

Yes, a penalty of 500k-1m ap(something in between this range).
A time penalty between 1-3 days.

This is far too harsh of a restriction. You need to encourage faction loyalty, not penalize the contrary. This is a very critical distinction to make.

And herein lies the problem. For some it is too harsh, and for others it is not enough. Without the multiple tiers of rewards that you guys were talking about, and the account wide scoring vs the per character scoring, I don't know that saying no rewards for switching really does much to discourage people from swapping. I mean currently once you hit 100k ap why not switch if you are not going for top 10% or top 2%.

pzschrek

Torbschka wrote: »

Sarcasm or for real

@Torbschka he's for real, I know where he got that and it's legit

GoodFella146

Let's start talking about changing Emperorship in a campaign. Once you lose it then it should go to the next guy. I have to believe the majority of ppl would prefer this system. Actually, I'm going to make a new thread on this and find out lol

JD2013

@ZOS_BrianWheeler

How about extending the PVP map to the rest of Nibenay and into Blackwood?

More objectives, more weapons, that kind of thing, too. New things to capture and hold etc.

Minno

Torbschka wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

The current rumor-mill is that wheeler gave 4 pages of pvp patch notes for PTS.

Think about that for a second

Sarcasm or for real

I'm not ZoS so you'll have to trust me at your own discretion

kholsh

Since my post was closed for no reason i'll continue the thread here.

Can we please get a PVP update? Enough with the trash pve garbage. Its been years since Imperial City came out and due to how you connected it to Cyrodil its completely irrelevant.

Make Imperial City relevant as a PVP area again or add something to the map or give us a new map altogether. I mean seriously, Imperial city came out years ago. Pvp'ers are the ones keeping the game alive yet we can't get a friggen update.
Keep pumping out these trash updates and the game will be dead in no time.

Some people commented on who the majority of the 'loyal' ESO players were. I don't doubt that PVE players out number the PVP players but what percentage of each who are actually ESO Plus members. My bet would be the PVP players have the majority of ESO Plus yet we can't get a new map, an update, or hell just put some snow on the ground to liven things up. These silly 'fixes' are not PVP updates. They are standard maintenance and SHOULD be done each month. I love how they post these bug fixes and expect the player base to be happy with it. This is *** that should of been fixed years ago.

Sandman929

kholsh wrote: »

Since my post was closed for no reason i'll continue the thread here.

Can we please get a PVP update? Enough with the trash pve garbage. Its been years since Imperial City came out and due to how you connected it to Cyrodil its completely irrelevant.

Make Imperial City relevant as a PVP area again or add something to the map or give us a new map altogether. I mean seriously, Imperial city came out years ago. Pvp'ers are the ones keeping the game alive yet we can't get a friggen update.
Keep pumping out these trash updates and the game will be dead in no time.

Some people commented on who the majority of the 'loyal' ESO players were. I don't doubt that PVE players out number the PVP players but what percentage of each who are actually ESO Plus members. My bet would be the PVP players have the majority of ESO Plus yet we can't get a new map, an update, or hell just put some snow on the ground to liven things up. These silly 'fixes' are not PVP updates. They are standard maintenance and SHOULD be done each month. I love how they post these bug fixes and expect the player base to be happy with it. This is *** that should of been fixed years ago.

Even something as simple as the sewer entrances also functioning as exits, rather than always exiting to your home base you could actually use IC as a way to move around Cyrodiil.
Just throw us a bone here ZOS, do something in Cyrodiil.

geonsocal

howdy @ZOS_BrianWheeler ...so, much like yourself i enjoy scouring these pvp pages to get different perspectives on desired changes to pvp...

gotta say - this has been maybe my favorite to date...simply brilliant, and, no doubt would be an absolute blast, and, help fix some spacing (too much of it) in cyrodiil...and, concentrate those of us intent on fighting each other...

here's what @mb10 had posted:

My unrealistic wish would be: The Planemeld is now over and the Molag Bal threat is gone.

Now to remove the outer keeps and towns by turning those areas to a PVE zone.


The 6 middle keeps, the bridges to the imperial city fixed together and the whole imperial city without doors/loading screens for each district to be the PVP zone. The sewers as well.
The daedra all gone and daylight shinning in the Imperial City again, however, the 3 banner war is still present.

make it happen 'ol great wise one...

Jade1986

Rickter wrote: »

how will the new multi-core support affect quad core pc's? A little scared this is going to make me wish i went with a 6-8 core i7 instead of the i5

Quad core is multicore, so youll be seeing a slight imrpovement silly goose.

frozywozy

Instead of adding additional rewards such as mounts and cosmetics for completing alliance ranks (which would have been nice at release 4years ago), I think it would be great to give rewards for players who finish a 30days cycle campaign on the top10 of their faction on the leaderboard. The same mount or costume could be the same every campaign. It would still make it unique and special. Another idea would be to give a title such as "Commander of <Insert_name_of_campaign>".

Maura_Neysa

frozywozy wrote: »

Instead of adding additional rewards such as mounts and cosmetics for completing alliance ranks (which would have been nice at release 4years ago), I think it would be great to give rewards for players who finish a 30days cycle campaign on the top10 of their faction on the leaderboard. The same mount or costume could be the same every campaign. It would still make it unique and special. Another idea would be to give a title such as "Commander of <Insert_name_of_campaign>".

While I think this is a good idea too. In reality what PvP needs, not counting the performance issues, is more active players. So incentivizing Top 10 does not help that. I'm not sure if rank based ones will help or not either. After all, everyone's rank is already displayed all the time. The only time I hear anything though, is when in PvE when running PvE Tank build, people are surprised that my Warden is a Major. Usually PvE only notices your PvP rank because you are running around in PvE with a PvP build. So maybe something akin to Skins will help. I do know that they are decent motivation in PvE. All without ruining things for those that do not want to play the way that is needed to earn them.