Campaign scoring is broken

zyk

Minalan wrote: »

If you can’t keep your Scrolls, you don’t deserve to have them. Period. Now they’re actually worth something.

Who is you? Do any of us have a method of holding members of our faction accountable? Can we assign them to play during intervals when opponents outnumber 'us'?

The value of scrolls was reduced for a good reasons and it helped the game. AvA has almost no balance mechanisms to encourage parity. It has lots of players, however, willing to stack one faction and roll over the map during low population intervals, leaving an uphill battle for those who play when it's busy.

Basically, ZOS rolled back a solution without fixing the underlying problems.

Tommy_The_Gun

Vivec Pc / EU:

So... to clarify. The faction that wins the campaign is the one that will PvDoor the scrolls and defend at lest 3 - 4 castles/forts/keeps...
Isn't it 2014 scoring system all over again ?!

The only difference is that back in 2014 Campaigns were alliance locked... nuff said.

Biro123

Tommy_The_Gun wrote: »

Vivec Pc / EU:

So... to clarify. The faction that wins the campaign is the one that will PvDoor the scrolls and defend at lest 3 - 4 castles/forts/keeps...
Isn't it 2014 scoring system all over again ?!

The only difference is that back in 2014 Campaigns were alliance locked... nuff said.

Yep - was just gonna post that..

ZOS - YOU MADE IT WORSE!!!!

Ackwalan

I've never been a fan of low population bonus. Being rewarded for not showing up is just wrong.

Biro123

Ackwalan wrote: »

I've never been a fan of low population bonus. Being rewarded for not showing up is just wrong.

That ain't the problem though. Those screenshots above were at primetime with equal pops on all factions

The massive increase in score for scrolls is the problem - and that the usual AD morning PVDoor-ers can take all the scrolls with no resistance - then the other 2 factions spend all day fighting to get them back - and when it goes into primetime, nobody has the low-pop bonus, but AD are still benefiting massively from holding all the scrolls they took off-peak..

AD/EP can take almost all of AD's keeps - but unless they can get to the last ones to get those scrolls (and take them from each other as per Roe/Alessia), AD STILL SCORE MORE EVERY PRIMETIME TICK.

This is worse.. Way worse.

I honestly can't describe how annoyed I am at this.

Agrippa_Invisus

Biro123 wrote: »

Ackwalan wrote: »

I've never been a fan of low population bonus. Being rewarded for not showing up is just wrong.

That ain't the problem though. Those screenshots above were at primetime with equal pops on all factions

The massive increase in score for scrolls is the problem - and that the usual AD morning PVDoor-ers can take all the scrolls with no resistance - then the other 2 factions spend all day fighting to get them back - and when it goes into primetime, nobody has the low-pop bonus, but AD are still benefiting massively from holding all the scrolls they took off-peak..

AD/EP can take almost all of AD's keeps - but unless they can get to the last ones to get those scrolls (and take them from each other as per Roe/Alessia), AD STILL SCORE MORE EVERY PRIMETIME TICK.

This is worse.. Way worse.

I honestly can't describe how annoyed I am at this.

It illustrates the need even more for dynamic population locks. Force players to stop stacking one faction in off hours and make them spread out if they want to play.

barshemm

Ixtyr wrote: »

- and if you *do* want to condemn them, maybe instead of whining about it, offer constructive feedback and suggestions to fix, rather than starting snarky unconstructive "X is broken, guess we can just do Y and win lul" threads that contribute nothing to the conversation.

Scoring wasn't broken before the change. The past several campaigns things closed up at the end. The one AD won recently they spent most of in the bottom.

So yes, they broke it by making changes to a system that didn't need changes.

Berenhir

Scoring should not be based on time alone but on map activity. A scroll taken from an undefended keep with thrice the server population of the attacked faction and held in your own keep for 10 hours while none of your keeps flipped or even created a notable defftick has to be flagged by the game as what it is: completely useless activity by taking advantage of one's own special online time.

The points rewarded should mirror the effort put into it. PvDooring the map with a twelve man team of ridiculously bad players nearly wiping to three guards and a meatbag catapult is not what is meant by "making scrolls worth fighting for".
Taking a scroll at prime time from a central keep after a three way fight that generated a massive offensive tick and holding it together with all home keeps while the map is lit like a Christmas tree, that's where points for your alliance should be generated.

As long as the system is not capable of rating these differences correctly, noone with AvA experience will give a damn about strategical gameplay. Because any effort is rendered void by the way your scoring system discriminates players who try to actually seek fights against other factions.

Vilestride

It's a good change. How can you stand behind the defense of if aint broken why fix it when clearly the gameplay has been going downhill for years. It's 2014 all over again? *** great. playing eso in 2014 was exponentially better than playing in 2018.

dtsharples

"This will be a buff, if you play Vivec EU AD"

The rest of you can get ****

Enslaved

Until we get proper system morning caps > everything else

Sandman929

If this prioritizes scrolls for scoring, doesn't this bring a lot of fighting off the Emp circle and onto home keeps? Not to mention the field fights because scrolls have to be moved slowly and often over great distance...seems like a good thing to me.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

The solution was so simple but unfortunately the wrong option was chosen.

2 changes must occur simultaneously for it to be effective.

1) Scrolls should be a multiplier of score value. That way even if you own an enemy scroll(s) if you don't maintain map control overall they are less effective.

2) Score evaluation needs to be dynamic based on the contesting populations. This way during down times when night capping occurs score ticks are fewer vs when the map is fully locked and dynamically changing. This brings the influence of 10-20 players during down times into line with the same amount of players during primetime.

*shrugs*

xxthir13enxx

Hmm... i’ve Said before that Scrolls should be a AP buff not a Score buff...

Each scroll could be worth a 5% AP Buff to a Maximum of 20% for All Scrolls

Having your own Scrolls adds nothing...but count as a -5% for losing one or -10% for both.

Ixtyr

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

2) Score evaluation needs to be dynamic based on the contesting populations. This way during down times when night capping occurs score ticks are fewer vs when the map is fully locked and dynamically changing. This brings the influence of 10-20 players during down times into line with the same amount of players during primetime.

This, 100%. They did half of what we want/need them to do. Just need Part II now.

Agrippa_Invisus

Ixtyr wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

2) Score evaluation needs to be dynamic based on the contesting populations. This way during down times when night capping occurs score ticks are fewer vs when the map is fully locked and dynamically changing. This brings the influence of 10-20 players during down times into line with the same amount of players during primetime.

This, 100%. They did half of what we want/need them to do. Just need Part II now.

Personally, I think they went overboard with now much they adjusted the value.

I felt that a 1-2-3 value system would work perfectly. 1 for resources and outposts, 2 for keeps, 3 for scrolls, with the standard doubling of the value for home possessions for each factions. This meant a scroll would be a 9 point swing (6 from the home faction, 3 to the stealing faction), making it valuable without making it so you could camp your keystone keep, your home scrolls, and enemy scroll and be making as much as a faction that holds over half the map (which was the hated strategy of old).

Ixtyr

Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

Ixtyr wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

2) Score evaluation needs to be dynamic based on the contesting populations. This way during down times when night capping occurs score ticks are fewer vs when the map is fully locked and dynamically changing. This brings the influence of 10-20 players during down times into line with the same amount of players during primetime.

This, 100%. They did half of what we want/need them to do. Just need Part II now.

Personally, I think they went overboard with now much they adjusted the value.

I felt that a 1-2-3 value system would work perfectly. 1 for resources and outposts, 2 for keeps, 3 for scrolls, with the standard doubling of the value for home possessions for each factions. This meant a scroll would be a 9 point swing (6 from the home faction, 3 to the stealing faction), making it valuable without making it so you could camp your keystone keep, your home scrolls, and enemy scroll and be making as much as a faction that holds over half the map (which was the hated strategy of old).

That's fair. That's also much closer to what we actually pitched to them a few months ago in a meeting with the team - basically follow that ratio. Resources should be less than Keeps, and Scrolls be more than Keeps. They went a bit high with Scrolls though. My personal preference would be to see it like the following:

10 for Scroll
3 for Keep
2 for Outpost
1 for Resource
2x Bonus for Complete Superstructure Control (3 Resources plus Keep)
2x Bonus for Home Keeps and Scrolls (existing mechanic)

That'd make it so you get up to 12 points for controlling an entire Keep/Resource superstructure, or 24 for Home Keep Superstructures. Scrolls are objectively worth more than any one objective in this system, and end up being equivalent to *almost* an addition Keep, each. The bonus multiplier makes it easier for small groups and solo players to still be capable of impacting score by controlling resources and getting more skirmishes around fighting for those, while larger groups are incentivized better to focus on Keeps and Scrolls as they should be.

I'd also like to see the score evaluations to happen faster depending on overall faction populations (another thing we discussed with them): develop a matrix that causes each "Bar" of population to apply a positive or negative modifier to score gain relative to the total "Bar" count for the other factions. For example, if AD has 2 bars, EP has 3 bars, and DC has 4 bars, AD would gain score ticks every 30 Minutes, DC every 60 minutes, and EP every 45 minutes. There's a variety of other ways you could implement a system like that, either via time or via score value adjustment, but it's the same core concept.

Furthermore, I also would personally like to see them award score based not on Control-at-Time-of-Tick, but rather by Duration-of-Control-during-Eval-Period. That's more complicated and has some drawbacks, though, so I can understand if they wouldn't want to do that - it would reward Defense, though, which is an issue they need to address considering how much more rewarding it currently is to just be aggressive and attack, or allow something to fall and retake it later, rather than to actually defend it in the first place.

zyk

What AvA really needs is full time game designers which it obviously does not have. Making and maintaining a great game is a full time job.

I'm always hesitant to offer specific ideas because as players it's difficult for us to see the forest from the trees. Really, it's like someone who likes driving cars trying to design a car. Making a great game is both an art and a science.

The real problem here is it's another half-assed change that wasn't really vetted.

Vilestride

zyk wrote: »

What AvA really needs is full time game designers which it obviously does not have. Making and maintaining a great game is a full time job.

I'm always hesitant to offer specific ideas because as players it's difficult for us to see the forest from the trees. Really, it's like someone who likes driving cars trying to design a car. Making a great game is both an art and a science.

The real problem here is it's another half-assed change that wasn't really vetted.

Yeah that'd be nice but realistically try writing the business case for that and tell me the result is a profitable one. It's just not.

I think it's a stretch to expect more resources being put into pvp. I think they just have to focus on getting the few core changes they make right.

Easy stuff liking putting alchemy mats in RFTW. Like....every has wanted this for 4 years now and it's something they already do. It's just that they do it only a few weeks a year during event's.

zyk

Vilestride wrote: »

zyk wrote: »

What AvA really needs is full time game designers which it obviously does not have. Making and maintaining a great game is a full time job.

I'm always hesitant to offer specific ideas because as players it's difficult for us to see the forest from the trees. Really, it's like someone who likes driving cars trying to design a car. Making a great game is both an art and a science.

The real problem here is it's another half-assed change that wasn't really vetted.

Yeah that'd be nice but realistically try writing the business case for that and tell me the result is a profitable one. It's just not.

I disagree. It's a good concept. There's an audience for a game like this. The problem isn't even the implementation. It's fundamentally good. The main problem is that it was never finished and the rest of the game changed around it in a way that doesn't suit it.

Still, it's an almost finished game that ZOS is not seeing much of a return from. I think it could be completed for a fraction of the cost they've already sunk into it and properly monetized. I can imagine a variety of ways to do it.

I think ZOS is failing its stakeholders by letting it rot.

Vilestride

zyk wrote: »

Vilestride wrote: »

zyk wrote: »

What AvA really needs is full time game designers which it obviously does not have. Making and maintaining a great game is a full time job.

I'm always hesitant to offer specific ideas because as players it's difficult for us to see the forest from the trees. Really, it's like someone who likes driving cars trying to design a car. Making a great game is both an art and a science.

The real problem here is it's another half-assed change that wasn't really vetted.

Yeah that'd be nice but realistically try writing the business case for that and tell me the result is a profitable one. It's just not.

I disagree. It's a good concept. There's an audience for a game like this. The problem isn't even the implementation. It's fundamentally good. The main problem is that it was never finished and the rest of the game changed around it in a way that doesn't suit it.

Still, it's an almost finished game that ZOS is not seeing much of a return from. I think it could be completed for a fraction of the cost they've already sunk into it and properly monetized. I can imagine a variety of ways to do it.

I think ZOS is failing its stakeholders by letting it rot.

It's a great concept I agree. That is why I bought it and played for the last 4 years and still do. But I think from a business perspective it's too far gone now for that kind of resource attention to be warranted. Maybe a couple years back there could have been an opportunity for additional investment but now. ..you would have to realistically look at the returns PVP is giving you and weigh that up the likely hood that improvements to the game would increase those returns. Which it surely would BUT when you consider what the gaming market will look like by the time those improvements could be made...it becomes a bit less relevant.

gabriebe

I think what could be fun is making the scrolls easier to retrieve. They could be housed into mini temples (or even existing buildings that can now be destroyed) in the open who have minimal protection, like 200k on the walls or something. They would be spread around in the dead-ish zones, and also each one would have a specific scroll assigned to it so others can plan where they can interecept and such. Having them in trikeeps most of the time makes them too hard to recap by a small team, and the fact that you can drop them in any of your home keeps makes the run too short and too easy to reinforce.

Think of how much more fun it'd be if we had scrolls fights regularly around a collapsed Brindle church, the Moth Temple, Cloud Ruler temple, etc..

Vilestride

gabriebe wrote: »

I think what could be fun is making the scrolls easier to retrieve. They could be housed into mini temples (or even existing buildings that can now be destroyed) in the open who have minimal protection, like 200k on the walls or something. They would be spread around in the dead-ish zones, and also each one would have a specific scroll assigned to it so others can plan where they can interecept and such. Having them in trikeeps most of the time makes them too hard to recap by a small team, and the fact that you can drop them in any of your home keeps makes the run too short and too easy to reinforce.

Think of how much more fun it'd be if we had scrolls fights regularly around a collapsed Brindle church, the Moth Temple, Cloud Ruler temple, etc..

This could be really cool. Have new set objective locations for storing captured enemy scrolls. Anything that better spreads the fighting out and makes for unique fights.

zyk

Vilestride wrote: »

It's a great concept I agree. That is why I bought it and played for the last 4 years and still do. But I think from a business perspective it's too far gone now for that kind of resource attention to be warranted. Maybe a couple years back there could have been an opportunity for additional investment but now. ..you would have to realistically look at the returns PVP is giving you and weigh that up the likely hood that improvements to the game would increase those returns. Which it surely would BUT when you consider what the gaming market will look like by the time those improvements could be made...it becomes a bit less relevant.

But most of the work is done already. Think back to the heyday of gaming mods that gave birth to games like Counterstrike, TeamFortress and Gary's Mod. It doesn't take a huge, expensive team to create create games when the fundamentals like the game engine are already in place.

Also consider all of the MMOs that were rapidly developed when WoW was at its peak and then later when the F2P model had its breakthrough. Again, these weren't huge teams.

Around the time ESO launched, DayZ and within a year, there were all kinds of clones from small teams that expanded on the concept like Rust; which was developed on a small budget from the profits from Gary's Mod.

More recently, there were games like we've seen multiple Battle Royale games appear out of nowhere after the success of PUBG.

Finishing Cyrodiil or spinning AvA off as it's own game only sounds like a difficult task because we're used to ZOS. There's talent out there that could do great things in a short timeframe and a modest budget with the current foundation provided by ESO AvA. Zenimax has the resources to make it happen.

Vilestride

Yeah but all those other MMOs that popped up as you say died even faster than they came to be. I'd hardly go using them as examples of success lol. Were you thinking of any specifically.

Anyway. All I am saying is I can completely understand why their business pays as little regard as it does right now.

zyk

Vilestride wrote: »

Yeah but all those other MMOs that popped up as you say died even faster than they came to be. I'd hardly go using them as examples of success lol. Were you thinking of any specifically.

Anyway. All I am saying is I can completely understand why their business pays as little regard as it does right now.

My point was that development can happen quickly. Despite its issues, ESO AvA could be amazing with its current tech in the hands of talented and motivated game designers.

There is so much potential that is low hanging fruit. Its largest fault is that it doesn't fit in with what ESO has become. It's such a waste.

Sharee

We really need dynamic population caps.

If one side has 5 players online, the other two can bring no more than six each, and rest will be put into the queue.

People who play regularly at that time and are sick of being stuck in the queue all the time due to no enemies present will be offered the option to switch sides to the low-population alliance, once per campaign reset.

Otherwise the people who play at odd hours will always pile on the same side (taking the path of least resistance is human nature), grab all scrolls against zero opposition, and then sit on them all day gathering massive score with little effort, making the scoring system meaningless.

Lucky28

usmguy1234 wrote: »

barshemm wrote: »

Vivec PC/NA. DC is backed up to their tri-keeps and Bruma. EP has most the map.

DC is getting 88 points next eval
EP is getting 50

So you can take 2 scrolls and faction stack your tri-keeps and win a campaign now.

I like the changes. Ep zerging has hit critical levels on Xbox na on both cp campaigns. Guess you might have to split your defences and not zerg everything to wild abandonment.

no. while campaign imbalances do suck the change kinda negates the entire purpose of cyrodiil.

usmguy1234

Lucky28 wrote: »

usmguy1234 wrote: »

barshemm wrote: »

Vivec PC/NA. DC is backed up to their tri-keeps and Bruma. EP has most the map.

DC is getting 88 points next eval
EP is getting 50

So you can take 2 scrolls and faction stack your tri-keeps and win a campaign now.

I like the changes. Ep zerging has hit critical levels on Xbox na on both cp campaigns. Guess you might have to split your defences and not zerg everything to wild abandonment.

no. while campaign imbalances do suck the change kinda negates the entire purpose of cyrodiil.

Open ended statement is open ended. Mind clarifying your take on the purpose of cyrodiil?

Soul_Demon

Berenhir wrote: »

Scoring should not be based on time alone but on map activity. A scroll taken from an undefended keep with thrice the server population of the attacked faction and held in your own keep for 10 hours while none of your keeps flipped or even created a notable defftick has to be flagged by the game as what it is: completely useless activity by taking advantage of one's own special online time.

The points rewarded should mirror the effort put into it. PvDooring the map with a twelve man team of ridiculously bad players nearly wiping to three guards and a meatbag catapult is not what is meant by "making scrolls worth fighting for".
Taking a scroll at prime time from a central keep after a three way fight that generated a massive offensive tick and holding it together with all home keeps while the map is lit like a Christmas tree, that's where points for your alliance should be generated.

As long as the system is not capable of rating these differences correctly, noone with AvA experience will give a damn about strategical gameplay. Because any effort is rendered void by the way your scoring system discriminates players who try to actually seek fights against other factions.

Well stated....at this rate, the inevitable full faction stacks at a couple of keeps is going to push even more away from game since the 'crashes' are still happening and no way anyone wanted more people in one spot for any reason. There is literally no reason to take keeps now or resources, just hold scrolls and stack more players at them-