Upcoming New and Imbalanced Cyrodiil Map Changes (Update 20/Murkmire)

Pijng

Give me good latency and I'll be fine. Much thx.

Sharee

Some thoughts:

Bridges are clearly impassable when destroyed. Is the same true for the milegates? I.e. passable when up, impassable when destroyed? If yes, its kinda counter-intuitive (to prevent enemies from passing into your territory, you need to destroy the wall that separates their territory from yours?).

If no, it creates an imbalance: AD can protect their EP border by destroying (bridges), which is free(well, for the price of a treb) while DC can only protect their border by rebuilding(which is presumably more expensive than a treb). This would put more pressure on DC, because both AD and EP will favor attacking DC(no need to repair bridges first).

Curious to see how it actually works.

Anrose

Sharee wrote: »

Some thoughts:

Bridges are clearly impassable when destroyed. Is the same true for the milegates? I.e. passable when up, impassable when destroyed? If yes, its kinda counter-intuitive (to prevent enemies from passing into your territory, you need to destroy the wall that separates their territory from yours?).

If no, it creates an imbalance: AD can protect their EP border by destroying (bridges), which is free(well, for the price of a treb) while DC can only protect their border by rebuilding(which is presumably more expensive than a treb). This would put more pressure on DC, because both AD and EP will favor attacking DC(no need to repair bridges first).

Curious to see how it actually works.

Speculation only, here:

But I’m guessing the milegates will collapse in on themselves when “destroyed” rather than making a hole when you siege a keep wall.

This way you cannot pass through from either side nor will you be able to scale them.

technohic

Kind of wonder if the design doesn’t keep in mind the typical scores and population of the factions.

EP almost always at top. Pop licks and large queue times the norm. Seems to be most organized faction stack. Numbers but generally relies on a couple different ball groups to show up.

AD usually behind EP. also has a large population that pop locks early. Will show up faction stacked but often lacks cohesion. See most small man groups that are good but pugs would rather spam snipe somewhere.

DC Last to pop lock long queue only about once or twice a week but 40 is long rather than 100+. When it does, super disfunctional and hard to focus. Generally rallies when a streamer visibly takes lead. PUGs often will not push a breech or siege for that matter unless someone else set one up “for them”

Hopefully I knocked everyone a little bit. Point is not to get a faction loyal defense of each. Just saying they might keep something like this in mind. The population parts has been this way since launch for the most part. All PC NA perspectives, but I think I do see console and EU players describe something similar

Karm1cOne

My biggest concern is all the places you can hop the river when bridges are down. DC has only to watch 2 paths when the gates are down, there are many places to hop the river.

ZOS_JesC

Greetings, we've removed a few comments that were baiting and derailing the thread. This is a reminder to keep comments civil and constructive. Thank you.

NBrookus

Can't we just be happy we have some new stuff to fight over/on/around/under/through?

frozywozy

Pijng wrote: »

Give me good latency and I'll be fine. Much thx.

This. At this point I don't care at all about new content in Cyrodiil. Scroll down and look at the list under my signature.
If those points aren't addressed after 7 years of development and 5 years of full release, I'm out (who cares, I do).

Nerf snares more
Fix server lag
Fix speed bug (abilities locked)
Fix crashes when approaching a keep under attack
Fix long loading screens
Fix the permanent block animation until you relog or go inside a delve
Fix invisible postern wall
Fix combat bug
Fix server lag
Fix speed bug (abilities locked)
Fix body sliding after cc breaking too quickly
Fix long loading screens
Fix invisible postern wall
Fix crashes when approaching a keep under attack
Fix the unbreakable ccs while mounted bug
Fix speed bug (abilities locked)
Fix server lag
Fix combat bug
Lower population cap by 20%
Fix invisible postern wall
Fix speed bug (abilities locked)
Fix server lag
Bring some sort of dynamic population
Fix crashes when approaching a keep under attack
Fix long loading screens
Fix speed bug (abilities locked)
Bring Res Sickness
Fix invisible postern wall
Gives players 10 minutes to get back into Cyrodiil after relogging / crashing
Fix combat bug
Fix gap closer bug
Fix crashes when approaching a keep under attack
Fix server lag
Fix long loading screens
Fix health desync
Fix invisible postern wall
Fix speed bug (abilities locked)
Fix server lag
Fix long loading screens
Fix combat bug
Fix crashes when approaching a keep under attack

If you don't know how to fix your game, reach out to active pvp players and they will provide you with the help you need.

Thank you.

P.s. Fix server lag

SodanTok

I like how basis of this thread is that EP is getting screwed over by losing its advantage

Darkmage1337

Dreyloch wrote: »

Darkmage1337 wrote: »

NBrookus wrote: »

I think the additions are good because it will definately bring more action to Drake/Dragon, which are already pretty good places to fight, and Bruma tends to not get enough action so maybe now it will.

DC has a strategic advantage on this map with Warden being so remote from enemy respawn, but AD/EP looks balanced. Sure, AD can snake Crops fast and head to Drake, but EP can now port from that outpost instead of the long long ride from Sej.

The new EP Outpost is attached to Drakelowe Keep, so if AD 'snakes Cropsford' and then immediately flags Drakelowe there-afterwards (which we know they will), then the new EP Outpost would be useless because EP players would not be able to port to the new Outpost to go defend Drakelowe since the Transit runs through Drakelowe itself. Again, a disadvantage. EP would still have to transit to Sejanus Outpost to get to Drakelowe (unless you blood-port to the new EP Outpost and go from there, but that would be more inconvenient and unrealistic to do every single time Drakelowe ever gets flagged, which would be more frequent, given how easy it is to take a Town [Cropsford] versus an Outpost [Sejanus]). Also, the new EP Outpost seems to be the same distance to Drakelowe as Sejanus already is.

Dyride wrote: »

The reason the outpost is going there is to prevent a huge dead spot in EPs southern territory. I get what you mean about Cheydinhal as being a better location but it had more buildings and the destroyed keep which I guess they didn't want to mess with.

What about the HUGE dead-spot on DC's side, between Fort Warden and Fort Dragonclaw? DC's new Outpost could have easily been inward-facing like EP's, and could have been placed between Fort Warden and Fort Dragonclaw on the left/west-side, instead -- because there is literally no objective and therefore no action in that huge gap there on DC's side.

--

Again, I am simply just thoroughly analyzing the map and making counter-points. No faction/campaign/server politics involved here. I am excited for all the new Cyrodiil re-vamp changes (bridges/mile-gates destructibility, 'goat-paths,' etc.)
BUT my ideal, perfect vision for Cyrodiil, with all of the new changes, would have simply been the addition to make Cheydinhal into EP's capturable-Town to match AD's Vlastrus and DC's Bruma (Cheydinhal, Vlastrus, and Bruma -- these 3 Towns point-to-point-to-point on the Cyrodiil map make a pretty equilateral-triangle -- just like any of the triangles mirrored and created between any given 3 Keeps/Forts/Castles.

Cropsford has plenty of flat-land around it for ZOS to have easily 'pasted' an Outpost placement over there somewhere nearby. Cropsford also should have never been a capturable-Town to begin with due to it being so close to the 3 Bridges. Cropsford is literally 3 buildings and vast, open farm-land. Cheydinhal has several more buildings, like Bruma, and a giant wall, also like Bruma, and it made for better small-scale fights due to the 'street-fighting-like nature of its layout, again, like Bruma. Cropsford did not and does not. It has zero strategic and defensible value.

Cropsford should be discarded and turned into a non-capturable Town (like DC's Chorrol and AD's Hackdirt non-captureable Towns -- both of which have more buildings and a better layout for PvP game-play than Cropsford does), not to mention that it simply makes more sense balance-wise, design-wise, and gameplay-wise, according to the overall layout of the map. I just don't see how the ZOS PvP Devs could have missed this.

Cropsford is not at all defendable as a Town and will easily and constantly be taken by AD that travel the new 'goat-path' by the Skyshard in the river there. If it were an Outpost, or had an Outpost nearby it, like the other two alliances both get, then it would be fair, formidable, and defendable; otherwise, Cropsford is just a free objective to be taken/given away. Unless those farmers, you know, decided to build a wall.

So bolded parts here. First one. IMO, you are so totally wrong here. If that new EP outpost is intact while AD has taken Drakelowe and Cropsford...this is what the new port stones are for. Sure you can deathport if ya like, but w/e. Also adding in that playing pretty much daily gives me the knowledge that AD has easy access to Farragut running up thru that HUGE dead space. This will hopefully prevent some of that. It also gives EP another avenue to defend BRK. If Arrius, Chalman, AND Drakelowe are taken, you can still deathport/stone over to the new spot and get there.

On to the next point.Your shooting yourself in the foot thinking that an inward facing outpost by Warden is any kind of advantage for EP. If anything, it's another obstacle and "pre-warning" of EP coming to Warden. You have to look at these things as offensive and defensive. AD's new outpost gives them a shorter hop to Rayles on DC's side. Everyone has one advantage and one disadvantage. Your looking at this as if the southern EP territory is a total disadvantage. In reality it helps EP protect against AD from coming up to Farragut all the time with the potential of stealing a scroll. DC can't say the same because I'm sure EP has enough players to keep the 3 gates destroyed 24-7 between Dragonclaw and Kingsford. (least on vivec NA). Which leads me to the last point (speaking only of Vivec NA). EP has the forces and focus to have won the last...3? Campaigns in a row? So imo ya got no room to say anything. Yer covered. Literally...24-7, 365, with your euro/off hour presence. The other 2 factions can't say that.

Oh, I have no room to say anything because EP has supposedly won the last 3 campaigns on Vivec PC NA?
Again, all of my comments and posts have completely excluded in-game faction politics/population/campaign/platform/megaserver.
None of the above is as important in comparison to the integrity of the actual, equal/physical placement of PvP objectives on the Cyrodiil map itself. Which is what this thread is all about. The integrity and balance of the Cyrodiil map PvP objectives has been compromised because AD and DC both get 2 offensive, outward-facing Outposts; whereas EP only has 1.

I do not care if "EP/DC/AD wins the majority of campaigns on X, Y, Z campaigns/platform/megaserver." That does not matter in this discussion thread at all. You continue to fail to see the point.
Even if faction/population/campaign/platform/megaserver did matter, ZOS game developer design changes should not change the physical layout and placement of PvP objectives on the Cyrodiil map to favor one side over other(s) simply because 1 faction is more active than other(s) during X/Y time of day. That is complete nonsense.

Darkmage1337

Enkil wrote: »

Sacredx wrote: »

Towns or outposts, as to which is better is all subjective.

Better? I think all the towns are better looking than any outposts. That is subjective.Opinion. Debatable.

More defensible? An outpost is by a long shot. That is objective. Fact. Indisputable.

Some people that post on these forums seem to not know the difference or what is apropos when replying to a given thread. (General observation)

Exactly. This is the major talking point.
AD and DC both get 2 offensive, outward-facing Outposts, which required Siege to capture them.
EP gets Sejanus Outpost and the Cropsford TOWN.
Towns can be flipped single-handedly by a solo player in literally a minute or two. The same cannot be said about Outposts.
This fact is the main discussion of the entire thread; yet some people continue to bring up faction politics and faction population/campaign/platform/server-specific scoreboards, etc. Those do not matter and have zero place in this thread's discussion.

Darkmage1337

Sharee wrote: »

Some thoughts:

Bridges are clearly impassable when destroyed. Is the same true for the milegates? I.e. passable when up, impassable when destroyed? If yes, its kinda counter-intuitive (to prevent enemies from passing into your territory, you need to destroy the wall that separates their territory from yours?).

If no, it creates an imbalance: AD can protect their EP border by destroying (bridges), which is free(well, for the price of a treb) while DC can only protect their border by rebuilding(which is presumably more expensive than a treb). This would put more pressure on DC, because both AD and EP will favor attacking DC(no need to repair bridges first).

Curious to see how it actually works.

Anrose wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

Some thoughts:

Bridges are clearly impassable when destroyed. Is the same true for the milegates? I.e. passable when up, impassable when destroyed? If yes, its kinda counter-intuitive (to prevent enemies from passing into your territory, you need to destroy the wall that separates their territory from yours?).

If no, it creates an imbalance: AD can protect their EP border by destroying (bridges), which is free(well, for the price of a treb) while DC can only protect their border by rebuilding(which is presumably more expensive than a treb). This would put more pressure on DC, because both AD and EP will favor attacking DC(no need to repair bridges first).

Curious to see how it actually works.

Speculation only, here:

But I’m guessing the milegates will collapse in on themselves when “destroyed” rather than making a hole when you siege a keep wall.

This way you cannot pass through from either side nor will you be able to scale them.

The new version of Lunar Fang Docks, southwest of Cropsford, on the Niben River (where that annoying Skyshard-in-a-boat is).

As mentioned earlier in the thread, there are Goat-Paths (small caves in the mountains for the Mile-Gate sides and the small make-shift bridge on the River side) to be able to cross when the Gates/Bridges are down, or not.
Again, here is the video: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/304316055## (skip to the 21-26 minute-marker for the Cyrodiil content changes mentioned)

Yes, Mile-gates will 'collapse on themselves' making it impassable for both sides of the gate; when this happens, 1 side either repairs the gate, with the special/new repair-kits; or, you take the goat-path (cave-structure in the mountains/makeshift bridge in the river). Both are seen in ZOS's Murkmire reveal gameplay video/stream in the link above.

Darkmage1337

Karm1cOne wrote: »

My biggest concern is all the places you can hop the river when bridges are down. DC has only to watch 2 paths when the gates are down, there are many places to hop the river.

Yeah, exactly.
I mentioned this earlier in the thread.
Players can easily swim across the AD-EP Niben River at numerous narrow points of the river -- whereas players cannot mountain-climb across any point over the AD-DC and DC-EP Mile-Gates or their surrounding mountain-ranges. You have to cross territories through the Mile-Gates, or through the new "Goat-Paths." Assuming 1 Goat-Path per side of the map, 3 in total, given the footage that ZOS showed.

ArchMikem

So now if we want to stem the tide of yellow zergs we can blow up the bridges?

No more bridge farms? 8D

LonePirate

While I am not opposed to the new outposts, a far more balanced approach would have been to fix the three destroyed bridges that lead to the Imperial City (where PVE mobs are now) and place a faction outpost on either end of the fixed bridge. Add an entrance to the sewer bases inside the new outpost. Also, allow these outposts to connect to the two keeps on either side.

Granted, Homestead Ruins and that skyshard might need to be moved west a little (skyshards have been moved before) and the current AD sewer entrance should be moved east of Alessia Lumbermill. The DC and EP bridge outposts would be not require many changes.

These outposts would be balanced on the map and they would generate battles in areas of the map which rarely see any action.

RebornV3x

Lol EP is getting the short end of the stick here why an outpost in the middle of nowhere where the other outposts are near border regions DC is looking good map wise and probably have the best position on the map

Who at ZOS even thought of something so dumb I just don't understand I just.... What were they thinking... With the EP outpost placement sadly ZOS rarly changes anything from PTS to Live so this might be permanent.

Derra

Wing wrote: »

cannot wait to finally destroy Alessia bridge.

^ 100% this. I´m gonna siege that piece of ... down every day.

Maryal

It would be cool if we could make temporary bridges ... you know, buy the stuff from the siege merchant to make it (a make-shift flotation bridge that sits on top of the water). The temporary bridge would act similar to a forward camp in that it deteriorates over time (deterioration is faster with each person who uses it), and it can be destroyed by the enemy.

WaltherCarraway

I like that pontoon bridge idea

biminirwb17_ESO

Cropsford has always been the wrong place for a town, it should have been Cheyindal from the start, But Chey has a wall around it and zos thought it would be an unfair advantage for defenders.

So now they have to have an ill placed outpost to compensate for an earlier error and EP get to see what the game is like with a spawn point so close to their back keeps. A situation AD has endured since towns were introduced.

GlorphNoldorin

It would be great if they half fixed their game before introducing more half thought out/broken stuff.

Sacredx

Darkmage1337 wrote: »

Exactly. This is the major talking point.
AD and DC both get 2 offensive, outward-facing Outposts, which required Siege to capture them.
EP gets Sejanus Outpost and the Cropsford TOWN.
Towns can be flipped single-handedly by a solo player in literally a minute or two. The same cannot be said about Outposts.
This fact is the main discussion of the entire thread; yet some people continue to bring up faction politics and faction population/campaign/platform/server-specific scoreboards, etc. Those do not matter and have zero place in this thread's discussion.

A town can be taken and just as easily re-taken. This only affects the cycle of ownership. On the grand scale it does not make it better or worse than an outpost.

A counter argument can also be said about how an outpost can be an advantage in the backline. If the attackers came in then naturally they would take the closest objective being the town first. They would then proceed to flag the keep and the outpost. Keeps and outposts take longer to flag than towns, we both agree here. Therefore, the time taken from when the first objective was captured until the rest are flagged is longer when the outpost is in the backline then if it was in the front line. This is because towns are faster to cap (as you mentioned one guys can cap in one or two minutes). This gives more time for defenders to port and save the local region as opposed to less time if the outpost was in front.

But like I said, it's all subjective, I'm sure you can turn around my argument just as much and we would end up back at square one. Which gets to my point. There is no "better" or "advantage". The balance is intact.

ku5h

TequilaFire wrote: »

So all AD has to do now is destroy the bridges to protect their area from EP now.
Same for EP, never ending bridge fights. lol
Argonians will have advantage.

Raammzzaa

RebornV3x wrote: »

Lol EP is getting the short end of the stick here why an outpost in the middle of nowhere where the other outposts are near border regions DC is looking good map wise and probably have the best position on the map

Who at ZOS even thought of something so dumb I just don't understand I just.... What were they thinking... With the EP outpost placement sadly ZOS rarly changes anything from PTS to Live so this might be permanent.

Exactly! I couldn’t agree more. One of these 3 things is not like the other... So now the map is even less balanced. It would have been perfect if they flipped the position of the town (Crops) and the new outpost, but I have little hope of that happening...

Darkmage1337

Sacredx wrote: »

Darkmage1337 wrote: »

Exactly. This is the major talking point.
AD and DC both get 2 offensive, outward-facing Outposts, which required Siege to capture them.
EP gets Sejanus Outpost and the Cropsford TOWN.
Towns can be flipped single-handedly by a solo player in literally a minute or two. The same cannot be said about Outposts.
This fact is the main discussion of the entire thread; yet some people continue to bring up faction politics and faction population/campaign/platform/server-specific scoreboards, etc. Those do not matter and have zero place in this thread's discussion.

A town can be taken and just as easily re-taken. This only affects the cycle of ownership. On the grand scale it does not make it better or worse than an outpost.

A counter argument can also be said about how an outpost can be an advantage in the backline. If the attackers came in then naturally they would take the closest objective being the town first. They would then proceed to flag the keep and the outpost. Keeps and outposts take longer to flag than towns, we both agree here. Therefore, the time taken from when the first objective was captured until the rest are flagged is longer when the outpost is in the backline then if it was in the front line. This is because towns are faster to cap (as you mentioned one guys can cap in one or two minutes). This gives more time for defenders to port and save the local region as opposed to less time if the outpost was in front.

But like I said, it's all subjective, I'm sure you can turn around my argument just as much and we would end up back at square one. Which gets to my point. There is no "better" or "advantage". The balance is intact.

The balance is not intact when you use this exact argument and also take into account the viewpoint perspectives of the other 2 factions. You can't just talk about one. The 3 factions all mirror and reflect each other. This was Cyrodiil's intended nature and design. The problem is you are not taking into account AD's and DC's experience, you are strictly looking at EP's, which takes the entire main point out of context. We can go back and forth about EP all day, but when you take into account AD's and DC's side of the map in comparison to EP's, then you will see that my argument is more sound and yours is not.

Either have all 3 factions get 2 Outposts by their Mile-Gates/Bridges, or all 3 factions get 1 Outpost and 1 Town.
@ZOS_BrianWheeler should pick 1 of these options, not mix and match them.
Otherwise, the integrity and balance of the map is further compromised.

Again, Cheydinhal should be EP's capturable-Town and the numerous acres of flat-area up/down/left/right of Cropsford should be a new Outpost.

Bruma has 3 massive walls around it, just like Cheydinhal does, so that is no reason for Cheydinhal to not become a capturable-Town in replacement of Cropsford. Plus, Cheydinhal has a mini civil-war/rebellion going on. Cropsford has nothing going for it, except Goblins, lol.

This change should take place BEFORE the PTS, otherwise, that is just more work for ZOS to undo. No pun intended.

Dreyloch

StamWhipCultist wrote: »

Ad is in best position.

Ad does not have any outpost near middle bridge, only cropsford that is a town with zero real defense.
Ad has outpost pressuring DC's fort Rayles.

DC is under pressure by new AD outpost, but also have new outpost that provide pressore on EP's Kingcrest.

EP has issues with new DC outpost. On the other side, EP got new outpost in the middle of nowhere that serves no purpose at all.

Suggestion. Make Cropsford an outpost. Make the new outpost a town just like Crops is now. This way EP is in serious disadvantage to both enemy alliances.

See my comment above yours, and realize what you might be missing =/

Darkmage1337 wrote: »

Dreyloch wrote: »

Darkmage1337 wrote: »

NBrookus wrote: »

I think the additions are good because it will definately bring more action to Drake/Dragon, which are already pretty good places to fight, and Bruma tends to not get enough action so maybe now it will.

DC has a strategic advantage on this map with Warden being so remote from enemy respawn, but AD/EP looks balanced. Sure, AD can snake Crops fast and head to Drake, but EP can now port from that outpost instead of the long long ride from Sej.

The new EP Outpost is attached to Drakelowe Keep, so if AD 'snakes Cropsford' and then immediately flags Drakelowe there-afterwards (which we know they will), then the new EP Outpost would be useless because EP players would not be able to port to the new Outpost to go defend Drakelowe since the Transit runs through Drakelowe itself. Again, a disadvantage. EP would still have to transit to Sejanus Outpost to get to Drakelowe (unless you blood-port to the new EP Outpost and go from there, but that would be more inconvenient and unrealistic to do every single time Drakelowe ever gets flagged, which would be more frequent, given how easy it is to take a Town [Cropsford] versus an Outpost [Sejanus]). Also, the new EP Outpost seems to be the same distance to Drakelowe as Sejanus already is.

Dyride wrote: »

The reason the outpost is going there is to prevent a huge dead spot in EPs southern territory. I get what you mean about Cheydinhal as being a better location but it had more buildings and the destroyed keep which I guess they didn't want to mess with.

What about the HUGE dead-spot on DC's side, between Fort Warden and Fort Dragonclaw? DC's new Outpost could have easily been inward-facing like EP's, and could have been placed between Fort Warden and Fort Dragonclaw on the left/west-side, instead -- because there is literally no objective and therefore no action in that huge gap there on DC's side.

--

Again, I am simply just thoroughly analyzing the map and making counter-points. No faction/campaign/server politics involved here. I am excited for all the new Cyrodiil re-vamp changes (bridges/mile-gates destructibility, 'goat-paths,' etc.)
BUT my ideal, perfect vision for Cyrodiil, with all of the new changes, would have simply been the addition to make Cheydinhal into EP's capturable-Town to match AD's Vlastrus and DC's Bruma (Cheydinhal, Vlastrus, and Bruma -- these 3 Towns point-to-point-to-point on the Cyrodiil map make a pretty equilateral-triangle -- just like any of the triangles mirrored and created between any given 3 Keeps/Forts/Castles.

Cropsford has plenty of flat-land around it for ZOS to have easily 'pasted' an Outpost placement over there somewhere nearby. Cropsford also should have never been a capturable-Town to begin with due to it being so close to the 3 Bridges. Cropsford is literally 3 buildings and vast, open farm-land. Cheydinhal has several more buildings, like Bruma, and a giant wall, also like Bruma, and it made for better small-scale fights due to the 'street-fighting-like nature of its layout, again, like Bruma. Cropsford did not and does not. It has zero strategic and defensible value.

Cropsford should be discarded and turned into a non-capturable Town (like DC's Chorrol and AD's Hackdirt non-captureable Towns -- both of which have more buildings and a better layout for PvP game-play than Cropsford does), not to mention that it simply makes more sense balance-wise, design-wise, and gameplay-wise, according to the overall layout of the map. I just don't see how the ZOS PvP Devs could have missed this.

Cropsford is not at all defendable as a Town and will easily and constantly be taken by AD that travel the new 'goat-path' by the Skyshard in the river there. If it were an Outpost, or had an Outpost nearby it, like the other two alliances both get, then it would be fair, formidable, and defendable; otherwise, Cropsford is just a free objective to be taken/given away. Unless those farmers, you know, decided to build a wall.

So bolded parts here. First one. IMO, you are so totally wrong here. If that new EP outpost is intact while AD has taken Drakelowe and Cropsford...this is what the new port stones are for. Sure you can deathport if ya like, but w/e. Also adding in that playing pretty much daily gives me the knowledge that AD has easy access to Farragut running up thru that HUGE dead space. This will hopefully prevent some of that. It also gives EP another avenue to defend BRK. If Arrius, Chalman, AND Drakelowe are taken, you can still deathport/stone over to the new spot and get there.

On to the next point.Your shooting yourself in the foot thinking that an inward facing outpost by Warden is any kind of advantage for EP. If anything, it's another obstacle and "pre-warning" of EP coming to Warden. You have to look at these things as offensive and defensive. AD's new outpost gives them a shorter hop to Rayles on DC's side. Everyone has one advantage and one disadvantage. Your looking at this as if the southern EP territory is a total disadvantage. In reality it helps EP protect against AD from coming up to Farragut all the time with the potential of stealing a scroll. DC can't say the same because I'm sure EP has enough players to keep the 3 gates destroyed 24-7 between Dragonclaw and Kingsford. (least on vivec NA). Which leads me to the last point (speaking only of Vivec NA). EP has the forces and focus to have won the last...3? Campaigns in a row? So imo ya got no room to say anything. Yer covered. Literally...24-7, 365, with your euro/off hour presence. The other 2 factions can't say that.

Oh, I have no room to say anything because EP has supposedly won the last 3 campaigns on Vivec PC NA?
Again, all of my comments and posts have completely excluded in-game faction politics/population/campaign/platform/megaserver.
None of the above is as important in comparison to the integrity of the actual, equal/physical placement of PvP objectives on the Cyrodiil map itself. Which is what this thread is all about. The integrity and balance of the Cyrodiil map PvP objectives has been compromised because AD and DC both get 2 offensive, outward-facing Outposts; whereas EP only has 1.

I do not care if "EP/DC/AD wins the majority of campaigns on X, Y, Z campaigns/platform/megaserver." That does not matter in this discussion thread at all. You continue to fail to see the point.
Even if faction/population/campaign/platform/megaserver did matter, ZOS game developer design changes should not change the physical layout and placement of PvP objectives on the Cyrodiil map to favor one side over other(s) simply because 1 faction is more active than other(s) during X/Y time of day. That is complete nonsense.

If your complaining just to complain about the actual map equality itself, then honestly. There's no point to this thread at all. When you talk about advantages and disadvantages then YES...your talking about warfare between the 3 factions.DC has dealt with Bruma being taken over and over with very little distance between FOUR of it's objectives. 2 being home keeps, and the other 2 an outpost and enemy keep for conquest of the map. The south of the map has ALWAYS had 2 towns relatively close to the AD Tri-keeps. If anything AD has had the best advantage when strictly speaking of town placement. Although EP's new outpost is not forward facing, it's still an advantage I don't think your understanding. Which I laid out in my original post.If they made the entire map totally equal in every placement of every keep/outpost/town it would be a seriously boring map to play. Which it already suffers from with the paths we take for the emp keeps as it is. ZoS is trying to mix it up a bit, split us off of zerging down everything and having to split off into smaller groups to provide better performance of the servers altogether. But we'll see. Players will find some way to make it a moot point, and still try to gather like lemmings for safety.

So unless your ready to discuss tactical warfare between the factions, then this conversation is over. I think it's a great thing we're even getting SOME map changes at all. I really would like the entire map to be redone altogether, but ZoS has no intention of doing that.

turlisley

Dreyloch wrote: »

StamWhipCultist wrote: »

Ad is in best position.

Ad does not have any outpost near middle bridge, only cropsford that is a town with zero real defense.
Ad has outpost pressuring DC's fort Rayles.

DC is under pressure by new AD outpost, but also have new outpost that provide pressore on EP's Kingcrest.

EP has issues with new DC outpost. On the other side, EP got new outpost in the middle of nowhere that serves no purpose at all.

Suggestion. Make Cropsford an outpost. Make the new outpost a town just like Crops is now. This way EP is in serious disadvantage to both enemy alliances.

See my comment above yours, and realize what you might be missing =/

Darkmage1337 wrote: »

Dreyloch wrote: »

Darkmage1337 wrote: »

NBrookus wrote: »

I think the additions are good because it will definately bring more action to Drake/Dragon, which are already pretty good places to fight, and Bruma tends to not get enough action so maybe now it will.

DC has a strategic advantage on this map with Warden being so remote from enemy respawn, but AD/EP looks balanced. Sure, AD can snake Crops fast and head to Drake, but EP can now port from that outpost instead of the long long ride from Sej.

The new EP Outpost is attached to Drakelowe Keep, so if AD 'snakes Cropsford' and then immediately flags Drakelowe there-afterwards (which we know they will), then the new EP Outpost would be useless because EP players would not be able to port to the new Outpost to go defend Drakelowe since the Transit runs through Drakelowe itself. Again, a disadvantage. EP would still have to transit to Sejanus Outpost to get to Drakelowe (unless you blood-port to the new EP Outpost and go from there, but that would be more inconvenient and unrealistic to do every single time Drakelowe ever gets flagged, which would be more frequent, given how easy it is to take a Town [Cropsford] versus an Outpost [Sejanus]). Also, the new EP Outpost seems to be the same distance to Drakelowe as Sejanus already is.

Dyride wrote: »

The reason the outpost is going there is to prevent a huge dead spot in EPs southern territory. I get what you mean about Cheydinhal as being a better location but it had more buildings and the destroyed keep which I guess they didn't want to mess with.

What about the HUGE dead-spot on DC's side, between Fort Warden and Fort Dragonclaw? DC's new Outpost could have easily been inward-facing like EP's, and could have been placed between Fort Warden and Fort Dragonclaw on the left/west-side, instead -- because there is literally no objective and therefore no action in that huge gap there on DC's side.

--

Again, I am simply just thoroughly analyzing the map and making counter-points. No faction/campaign/server politics involved here. I am excited for all the new Cyrodiil re-vamp changes (bridges/mile-gates destructibility, 'goat-paths,' etc.)
BUT my ideal, perfect vision for Cyrodiil, with all of the new changes, would have simply been the addition to make Cheydinhal into EP's capturable-Town to match AD's Vlastrus and DC's Bruma (Cheydinhal, Vlastrus, and Bruma -- these 3 Towns point-to-point-to-point on the Cyrodiil map make a pretty equilateral-triangle -- just like any of the triangles mirrored and created between any given 3 Keeps/Forts/Castles.

Cropsford has plenty of flat-land around it for ZOS to have easily 'pasted' an Outpost placement over there somewhere nearby. Cropsford also should have never been a capturable-Town to begin with due to it being so close to the 3 Bridges. Cropsford is literally 3 buildings and vast, open farm-land. Cheydinhal has several more buildings, like Bruma, and a giant wall, also like Bruma, and it made for better small-scale fights due to the 'street-fighting-like nature of its layout, again, like Bruma. Cropsford did not and does not. It has zero strategic and defensible value.

Cropsford should be discarded and turned into a non-capturable Town (like DC's Chorrol and AD's Hackdirt non-captureable Towns -- both of which have more buildings and a better layout for PvP game-play than Cropsford does), not to mention that it simply makes more sense balance-wise, design-wise, and gameplay-wise, according to the overall layout of the map. I just don't see how the ZOS PvP Devs could have missed this.

Cropsford is not at all defendable as a Town and will easily and constantly be taken by AD that travel the new 'goat-path' by the Skyshard in the river there. If it were an Outpost, or had an Outpost nearby it, like the other two alliances both get, then it would be fair, formidable, and defendable; otherwise, Cropsford is just a free objective to be taken/given away. Unless those farmers, you know, decided to build a wall.

So bolded parts here. First one. IMO, you are so totally wrong here. If that new EP outpost is intact while AD has taken Drakelowe and Cropsford...this is what the new port stones are for. Sure you can deathport if ya like, but w/e. Also adding in that playing pretty much daily gives me the knowledge that AD has easy access to Farragut running up thru that HUGE dead space. This will hopefully prevent some of that. It also gives EP another avenue to defend BRK. If Arrius, Chalman, AND Drakelowe are taken, you can still deathport/stone over to the new spot and get there.

On to the next point.Your shooting yourself in the foot thinking that an inward facing outpost by Warden is any kind of advantage for EP. If anything, it's another obstacle and "pre-warning" of EP coming to Warden. You have to look at these things as offensive and defensive. AD's new outpost gives them a shorter hop to Rayles on DC's side. Everyone has one advantage and one disadvantage. Your looking at this as if the southern EP territory is a total disadvantage. In reality it helps EP protect against AD from coming up to Farragut all the time with the potential of stealing a scroll. DC can't say the same because I'm sure EP has enough players to keep the 3 gates destroyed 24-7 between Dragonclaw and Kingsford. (least on vivec NA). Which leads me to the last point (speaking only of Vivec NA). EP has the forces and focus to have won the last...3? Campaigns in a row? So imo ya got no room to say anything. Yer covered. Literally...24-7, 365, with your euro/off hour presence. The other 2 factions can't say that.

Oh, I have no room to say anything because EP has supposedly won the last 3 campaigns on Vivec PC NA?
Again, all of my comments and posts have completely excluded in-game faction politics/population/campaign/platform/megaserver.
None of the above is as important in comparison to the integrity of the actual, equal/physical placement of PvP objectives on the Cyrodiil map itself. Which is what this thread is all about. The integrity and balance of the Cyrodiil map PvP objectives has been compromised because AD and DC both get 2 offensive, outward-facing Outposts; whereas EP only has 1.

I do not care if "EP/DC/AD wins the majority of campaigns on X, Y, Z campaigns/platform/megaserver." That does not matter in this discussion thread at all. You continue to fail to see the point.
Even if faction/population/campaign/platform/megaserver did matter, ZOS game developer design changes should not change the physical layout and placement of PvP objectives on the Cyrodiil map to favor one side over other(s) simply because 1 faction is more active than other(s) during X/Y time of day. That is complete nonsense.

If your complaining just to complain about the actual map equality itself, then honestly. There's no point to this thread at all. When you talk about advantages and disadvantages then YES...your talking about warfare between the 3 factions.DC has dealt with Bruma being taken over and over with very little distance between FOUR of it's objectives. 2 being home keeps, and the other 2 an outpost and enemy keep for conquest of the map. The south of the map has ALWAYS had 2 towns relatively close to the AD Tri-keeps. If anything AD has had the best advantage when strictly speaking of town placement. Although EP's new outpost is not forward facing, it's still an advantage I don't think your understanding. Which I laid out in my original post.If they made the entire map totally equal in every placement of every keep/outpost/town it would be a seriously boring map to play. Which it already suffers from with the paths we take for the emp keeps as it is. ZoS is trying to mix it up a bit, split us off of zerging down everything and having to split off into smaller groups to provide better performance of the servers altogether. But we'll see. Players will find some way to make it a moot point, and still try to gather like lemmings for safety.

So unless your ready to discuss tactical warfare between the factions, then this conversation is over. I think it's a great thing we're even getting SOME map changes at all. I really would like the entire map to be redone altogether, but ZoS has no intention of doing that.

He isn't complaining, he is making factual, evidence-based reasons as to WHY the Cyrodiil map objectives/placements should be further looked at and changed, for the better, for all 3 factions. Unlike you.
Also, this is not the thread to discuss "tactical warfare between the factions," so go ahead and leave this conversation, because that is not what this conversation's topic was about in the first place. Stop derailing the thread, unless you have some significant insight to offer the OP.

Calste85

For this update I'm just hoping that there will be things that make these new "goat paths" a challenge otherwise all that's been accomplished is to move alessia bridge, ash milegate, and chalman milegate to new locations and add a few new capturable locations. I'd be cool if there was variety between them, perhaps one a mountain pass that you could fall off the edge(no viewable map), another a tunnel system that you could get lost in(no viewable map) and Bosses that were extremely hard, across the Niben hazards that made the crossing an actual risk, If these goatpaths aren't challenging in some way then we'll just see Alessia bridge situations moved to new locations. there needs to be some reason why the big zergs still prefer to go through and keep the bridges and gates open such as the goatpaths being environments that are out to kill players. As for the EP outpost I'd agree that it's out in the middle of nowhere and except as a somewhat centralized spawnpoint seems to serve little purpose. At least it spreads PvP out a bit so it's progress.

Wizunas

I agree 100% ! And speaking equal opportunity for all alliances, just observe tactical placement and distances between keeps and we can see which alliance has most advantage. Seriously? Where is that equal balance in this strategical placement? eh




Also i saw (others) comments claiming Lore as an obstacle or excuse for placing keeps strategically equal for everyone. Really? LOL How many join warzone for "Lore"? ...

If devs plan to renew and make changes to Cyrodiil Map including new additions, it should be done symmetrically to each alliance

technohic

This has got to be as minor as the current terrain differences around keeps. Does someone want to go over those as well while we are at it and make them all flat?