Tossing around ideas for Cyrodiil

marke1

Just throwing out some QoL things that could be changed to help especially solo players now with the new changes.
Something I have mentioned before was to disable CC/stuns while grouped to give non grouped players more of a chance to survive against coordinated teams.
Being stuck in CC from group spams and being unable to do anything for several seconds is the biggest killer imho.
While we are at it increase the AP gained while not grouped as compensation for being unable to cross heal or assist other players.
Not everyone can or wants to group up and these changes are really going to penalize other play styles.
Good to hear any other ideas ? with the hope that ZOS may consider going forward .

idk

While I am not a fan of the healing change Zos is bringing our way I think it is a bad idea to gimp players just because they are grouped in a PvP world that was designed for groups.

The biggest issue I see is some poor soul dies, respawns at the closest keep and while riding back to join his group they are at a disadvantage because they can be CCed and stunned but cannot reciprocate. Sure, the disable can be in effect only when they are within a prescribed distance from another group member but the idea is to reduce server load, not add to it.

Further, as someone who plays solo and small group I do not see a significant issue except for people who play "solo" but fight mostly where other groups are. A solo player should be able to take care of themselves.

Greasytengu

Id like to se Zos just reset the server one or twice a week to see if that has any bearing on performance. Performance always seems better after a reset. Could it be that the answer is as simple as turning it off and on again?

Taleof2Cities

idk wrote: »

While I am not a fan of the healing change Zos is bringing our way I think it is a bad idea to gimp players just because they are grouped in a PvP world that was designed for groups.

Totally agree, @idk.

I'm not a fan of the healing change either.

But the game shouldn't add positive incentives for players that are choosing not to group up.

marke1

Taleof2Cities wrote: »

idk wrote: »

While I am not a fan of the healing change Zos is bringing our way I think it is a bad idea to gimp players just because they are grouped in a PvP world that was designed for groups.

Totally agree, @idk.

I'm not a fan of the healing change either.

But the game shouldn't add positive incentives for players that are choosing not to group up.

True but as they have made changes that really advantage grps even more while taking away from non grouped players people who like for instance want to play support roles , then I think there should be some balance added for those players . At the moment it seems to be going to much one way .

idk

marke1 wrote: »

Taleof2Cities wrote: »

idk wrote: »

While I am not a fan of the healing change Zos is bringing our way I think it is a bad idea to gimp players just because they are grouped in a PvP world that was designed for groups.

Totally agree, @idk.

I'm not a fan of the healing change either.

But the game shouldn't add positive incentives for players that are choosing not to group up.

True but as they have made changes that really advantage grps even more while taking away from non grouped players people who like for instance want to play support roles , then I think there should be some balance added for those players . At the moment it seems to be going to much one way .

The change favors groups as much as it disfavors groups. They are not getting the outside heals either and are not always together. That brings up the point I already made. The group member who died and is riding solo to catch back up with their group. The idea suggested specifies they are to be at a disadvantage during that ride back if they happen to get attacked by a player not grouped.

In other words, the suggestion would create a ganker's paradise. That does not sound like a great idea.

Besides, a solo player needs to be able to take care of themselves. When I am solo I am rarely in range of a random healer. I am solo.

marke1

idk wrote: »

marke1 wrote: »

Taleof2Cities wrote: »

idk wrote: »

While I am not a fan of the healing change Zos is bringing our way I think it is a bad idea to gimp players just because they are grouped in a PvP world that was designed for groups.

Totally agree, @idk.

I'm not a fan of the healing change either.

But the game shouldn't add positive incentives for players that are choosing not to group up.

True but as they have made changes that really advantage grps even more while taking away from non grouped players people who like for instance want to play support roles , then I think there should be some balance added for those players . At the moment it seems to be going to much one way .

The change favors groups as much as it disfavors groups. They are not getting the outside heals either and are not always together. That brings up the point I already made. The group member who died and is riding solo to catch back up with their group. The idea suggested specifies they are to be at a disadvantage during that ride back if they happen to get attacked by a player not grouped.

In other words, the suggestion would create a ganker's paradise. That does not sound like a great idea.

Besides, a solo player needs to be able to take care of themselves. When I am solo I am rarely in range of a random healer. I am solo.

Solo players are being put at a disadvantage now , grps will still function as always and with no grouping mechanism available other than spamming lfg in zone. Why shouldn't solo players have some benefit to doing what they want instead of it always favouring groups. I just think some mechanism to help level the playing field which ever way you wish to play,

idk

marke1 wrote: »

idk wrote: »

marke1 wrote: »

Taleof2Cities wrote: »

idk wrote: »

While I am not a fan of the healing change Zos is bringing our way I think it is a bad idea to gimp players just because they are grouped in a PvP world that was designed for groups.

Totally agree, @idk.

I'm not a fan of the healing change either.

But the game shouldn't add positive incentives for players that are choosing not to group up.

True but as they have made changes that really advantage grps even more while taking away from non grouped players people who like for instance want to play support roles , then I think there should be some balance added for those players . At the moment it seems to be going to much one way .

The change favors groups as much as it disfavors groups. They are not getting the outside heals either and are not always together. That brings up the point I already made. The group member who died and is riding solo to catch back up with their group. The idea suggested specifies they are to be at a disadvantage during that ride back if they happen to get attacked by a player not grouped.

In other words, the suggestion would create a ganker's paradise. That does not sound like a great idea.

Besides, a solo player needs to be able to take care of themselves. When I am solo I am rarely in range of a random healer. I am solo.

. Why shouldn't solo players have some benefit to doing what they want instead of it always favouring groups.

I already answered this question. Cyrodiil was designed around group PvP, not solo.

Again, I play solo and small-group. I rarely get heals from other players. I can only see this change harming solo players that fight around groups. That is not really solo play as they are benefiting from the strength of the groups. Those players should consider joining one of those groups.

marke1

idk wrote: »

marke1 wrote: »

idk wrote: »

marke1 wrote: »

Taleof2Cities wrote: »

idk wrote: »

While I am not a fan of the healing change Zos is bringing our way I think it is a bad idea to gimp players just because they are grouped in a PvP world that was designed for groups.

Totally agree, @idk.

I'm not a fan of the healing change either.

But the game shouldn't add positive incentives for players that are choosing not to group up.

True but as they have made changes that really advantage grps even more while taking away from non grouped players people who like for instance want to play support roles , then I think there should be some balance added for those players . At the moment it seems to be going to much one way .

The change favors groups as much as it disfavors groups. They are not getting the outside heals either and are not always together. That brings up the point I already made. The group member who died and is riding solo to catch back up with their group. The idea suggested specifies they are to be at a disadvantage during that ride back if they happen to get attacked by a player not grouped.

In other words, the suggestion would create a ganker's paradise. That does not sound like a great idea.

Besides, a solo player needs to be able to take care of themselves. When I am solo I am rarely in range of a random healer. I am solo.

. Why shouldn't solo players have some benefit to doing what they want instead of it always favouring groups.

I already answered this question. Cyrodiil was designed around group PvP, not solo.

Again, I play solo and small-group. I rarely get heals from other players. I can only see this change harming solo players that fight around groups. That is not really solo play as they are benefiting from the strength of the groups. Those players should consider joining one of those groups.

If it was design around group pvp then where is the grouping help ? thats what BG are for . Its open world should be able to play how ever you like . I am just saying these changes were to reduce lag but also to the detriment of non grouped players and giving something back would be a good idea.

geonsocal

I got a wild idea - how about we make it so we can heal the fellow members of our alliance...

I know it sounds a little radical to be able to play within your alliance and heal allies you are not even grouped with to help win fights, but, maybe we could give that a try one day...

Heal Me...

badmojo

Cyrodiil was designed for faction warfare. But over the years groups have gone from simply markers to identify your members, to now giving magical abilities to those under the chevron.

What it was designed for doesnt matter anymore, they killed it.

idk

marke1 wrote: »

idk wrote: »

marke1 wrote: »

idk wrote: »

marke1 wrote: »

Taleof2Cities wrote: »

idk wrote: »

While I am not a fan of the healing change Zos is bringing our way I think it is a bad idea to gimp players just because they are grouped in a PvP world that was designed for groups.

Totally agree, @idk.

I'm not a fan of the healing change either.

But the game shouldn't add positive incentives for players that are choosing not to group up.

True but as they have made changes that really advantage grps even more while taking away from non grouped players people who like for instance want to play support roles , then I think there should be some balance added for those players . At the moment it seems to be going to much one way .

The change favors groups as much as it disfavors groups. They are not getting the outside heals either and are not always together. That brings up the point I already made. The group member who died and is riding solo to catch back up with their group. The idea suggested specifies they are to be at a disadvantage during that ride back if they happen to get attacked by a player not grouped.

In other words, the suggestion would create a ganker's paradise. That does not sound like a great idea.

Besides, a solo player needs to be able to take care of themselves. When I am solo I am rarely in range of a random healer. I am solo.

. Why shouldn't solo players have some benefit to doing what they want instead of it always favouring groups.

I already answered this question. Cyrodiil was designed around group PvP, not solo.

Again, I play solo and small-group. I rarely get heals from other players. I can only see this change harming solo players that fight around groups. That is not really solo play as they are benefiting from the strength of the groups. Those players should consider joining one of those groups.

If it was design around group pvp then where is the grouping help ? thats what BG are for . Its open world should be able to play how ever you like . I am just saying these changes were to reduce lag but also to the detriment of non grouped players and giving something back would be a good idea.

Technically it is play-as-you like since Cyrodiil does permit players to play solo. However, that does not mean they will make changes to give solo players an advantage. Especially one that will give a solo player an advantage over another player all alone just because they happen to be in a group but not near anyone in that group.

Honestly, that last tidbit alone is enough to derail the idea because it gives gankers a huge advantage when ganking players on their way back to the fight.

Oh, it would also lead to small groups running around together but not actually grouped and have an advantage over those that are actually grouped. That is a very problematic consequence of the suggestion. Another reason that would prevent such an idea to be considered.

To answer your question about the help with a grouping that Zos has provided. Rapids affect the group members but do not affect anyone outside of their group. There are chevrons that allow players to see where their group members are on the map. We can also see if a nearby group member is in combat or not. Guilds can claim keeps in their alliance which opens up a guild store, though that mostly harkens back to the day when that was the guild trader system. Oh, and after November 16 group members can heal other group members.

Oddly, you have not spoken to the ganker problem with this idea and now I have added another solid justification as to why this will not happen.

And again, the change Zos will be making mostly harms those who do not join groups but pretty much fight within actual groups. If they have a build for playing with groups then they should either join one of the groups they follow or adjust their build to a solo experience.

SgtNuttzmeg

I disagree and I don't think a lack of CCs would improve solo players odds of surviving or balance out group play. If you get a group of 12 players with range dot builds and ranged spamables. They can still kill you with relative easy. We also know from other testing environments that limiting these draw backs by group size does not impact players as players will just group in the maximum size that is unimpacted. Groups will run around ungrouped and than this change will have zero impact on performance.

What we needed to have happen is a continued incentive to group but limit the capability of the groups. That is what they did. These changes are about changing behavior more than changing gameplay.

Personally I don't see why a support or healer would ever run around Cyrodil ungrouped. I think it limits what value you can provide. It's like shooting yourself in the knee with an arrow and trying to run a marathon. I also think regular DD builds are fine too. If you create one of these you are usually self sufficient. Further a solo player should not be able to kill a group of equally skilled/geared players.

badmojo

Here's an idea, give AP ticks to players who die defending a keep or outpost that is lost, the more outnumbered you are the bigger the tick. It would encourage people to defend the far away keeps and outposts, and it would encourage them to defend even if the odds are against them.

Also, maybe lengthen the process of taking a keep. Disable spawns sooner(85%), but make it last longer overall. It's great calling out action in zone chat, but it does encourage faction stacking when every defender can just port in for quite a while after the first siege is fired and somebody reports it.

Beaverton

Didn't there used to be a grouping tool for cyrodiil like Dungeon finder?

I don't think anyone ever used it because a random group in cyrodiil is usually more dangerous than running solo.

relentless_turnip

Taleof2Cities wrote: »

idk wrote: »

While I am not a fan of the healing change Zos is bringing our way I think it is a bad idea to gimp players just because they are grouped in a PvP world that was designed for groups.

Totally agree, @idk.

I'm not a fan of the healing change either.

But the game shouldn't add positive incentives for players that are choosing not to group up.

I would also agree with the guys above ^^ I mainly solo or small-scale and disabling Cc's is a bad idea... I or anyone else should be at a massive disadvantage and grouped players shouldn't be punished for being in a group.

SgtNuttzmeg

What do you guys think of this idea: making it so in order to siege a keep your faction needs to control one of the surrounding resources? Meaning siege won't do damage to walls or doors unless said resource is under their control.

What this will do is give alliances a heads up when a group is about to pvdoor a back keep, it will spread people out when fighting keeps as people need to maintain ownership of a resource to attack and it gives out number defenders the opportunity to divide the attackers and to potentially drive them off the keep.

Dame_Scorpio

SgtNuttzmeg wrote: »

What do you guys think of this idea: making it so in order to siege a keep your faction needs to control one of the surrounding resources? Meaning siege won't do damage to walls or doors unless said resource is under their control.

What this will do is give alliances a heads up when a group is about to pvdoor a back keep, it will spread people out when fighting keeps as people need to maintain ownership of a resource to attack and it gives out number defenders the opportunity to divide the attackers and to potentially drive them off the keep.

The problem is that this would make raids too predictable, and ruin part of the fun of never knowing where the enemy will strike. Not taking resources can be a good strategy, and taking that away would make Cyrodiil boring IMO.

SgtNuttzmeg

Dame_Scorpio wrote: »

SgtNuttzmeg wrote: »

What do you guys think of this idea: making it so in order to siege a keep your faction needs to control one of the surrounding resources? Meaning siege won't do damage to walls or doors unless said resource is under their control.

What this will do is give alliances a heads up when a group is about to pvdoor a back keep, it will spread people out when fighting keeps as people need to maintain ownership of a resource to attack and it gives out number defenders the opportunity to divide the attackers and to potentially drive them off the keep.

The problem is that this would make raids too predictable, and ruin part of the fun of never knowing where the enemy will strike. Not taking resources can be a good strategy, and taking that away would make Cyrodiil boring IMO.

If you move fast enough that wouldn't be a problem. It isn't hard bringing a door to 50%. Get your group to divide into two groups. One takes a resource, the other waits near front door in stealth. The moment the resource flips, start throwing down siege.

It also gives more power to small groups as you could run off to another keep and create a false flag operation. Where you either fake take over a resource or just take over ones at keeps that you have no intention of securing. The point is to create a dynamic that encourages people to spread out.

Dame_Scorpio

SgtNuttzmeg wrote: »

If you move fast enough that wouldn't be a problem. It isn't hard bringing a door to 50%. Get your group to divide into two groups. One takes a resource, the other waits near front door in stealth. The moment the resource flips, start throwing down siege.

It also gives more power to small groups as you could run off to another keep and create a false flag operation. Where you either fake take over a resource or just take over ones at keeps that you have no intention of securing. The point is to create a dynamic that encourages people to spread out.

I understand what you're saying, I just don't agree with the idea of adding more forced actions in Cyrodiil. IMO all this does is add an extra step to sieging a keep. It's not going to prevent faction stacking, because people responding to the false flag(s) will respond to the real call outs the minute that siege is set up and well before the keep is flagged.

Also, people already run false flag operations all the time. Take RSS at one keep, while another group starts sieging another without taking RSS. Taking away the element of surprise by forcing enemies to take a RSS first, just isn't something I'd enjoy. Again, just my opinion.

armchair

I've recently returned after not playing for six plus months and I find the desync and skill delay in cyrodiil at a all time high despite efforts from the powers that be to fix it. Shortly before I stopped there was a weekend were grouping in cyrdoiil wasn't possible you couldn't que in group or invite anyone after entering. That weekend is the single best server performance I've personally experienced in a population locked cyrodiil campaign in the past three years.

My purposed changed would be to disable grouping in cyrodiil completely.

Add in a system that allows players in guilds who are actively wearing the tabard to toggle on the display of blue health bar so its visible to all guild members. Further adjust the chevron to display icons over the players instead so they can choose what to display from a list of role's such as support, heals, tank, leader etc.

Obviously this would require a rework on skills with group only components but that's long overdue. A considerable number of long term players myself included believe purge to be one of the primary skills contributing to poor performance. If you don't agree with that I highly suggest the next time one of the large organized groups is running that actively stream sit at your factions gate watch the stream and see what happens to the server latency as soon as they engage in combat and start purging heavily.

Dame_Scorpio

armchair wrote: »

My purposed changed would be to disable grouping in cyrodiil completely.

I like this idea, but as a campaign with this option, keeping the main ones for people who do like grouping. Best of both worlds, and a place for each type of gameplay.

geonsocal

badmojo wrote: »

Here's an idea, give AP ticks to players who die defending a keep or outpost that is lost, the more outnumbered you are the bigger the tick. It would encourage people to defend the far away keeps and outposts, and it would encourage them to defend even if the odds are against them.

Also, maybe lengthen the process of taking a keep. Disable spawns sooner(85%), but make it last longer overall. It's great calling out action in zone chat, but it does encourage faction stacking when every defender can just port in for quite a while after the first siege is fired and somebody reports it.

i play a lot of "off-hours" on both NA and EU servers...about a month or so ago found myself solo defending glade, then warden, then rayles...it was funny, at glade and warden, i kept pouring oil on the first flag after it flipped (i was taking things a little personal at the time)...it took a while for someone to finally come up stairs to fight

i made close to 80k in about 20 minutes or so of getting bounced from keep to keep...i was surprised, you don't always get rewarded so well for defending...

no thanks for a tougher pvdooring experience...again, during "off-hours", there may just be two of you trying to flip a keep (i've done it - once, with just two of us)...even if it's just a few randoms (Heal Me), it can take forever to flip a keep...now, if you happen to be on the third place, sparsely population alliance - you don't have a whole lot of time before whatever alliance is stomping the map comes along to stomp you...

renne

badmojo wrote: »

Here's an idea, give AP ticks to players who die defending a keep or outpost that is lost, the more outnumbered you are the bigger the tick. It would encourage people to defend the far away keeps and outposts, and it would encourage them to defend even if the odds are against them.

Honestly, it baffles me this isn't a thing, like you can spend a long amount of time doing serious and/or outnumbered defence and eventually lose the keep or outpost and... all the AP you get out of that is whatever you got from the other players? There's no reward for being there if you eventually lose.

Sure the tick you get if you somehow manage to win is great, but I've honestly had times where I've decided it just wasn't worth sticking around because I'm not going to get anything out of it.