Award double AP for attacking 1st place faction

xylena_lazarow

Tri faction PvP only works if the two weaker factions gang up against the strongest (and most populated) one, otherwise we end up with dead lopsided campaigns month after month. Unfortunately, it's usually the perceived weakest faction that gets ganged up on, as players inevitably take the path of least resistance to their kills and AP. Awarding double AP for kills and ticks against 1st place faction would encourage players to actually play the map, keep the campaign close, and not log out when outnumbered. No, the 1st place faction would not be able to gain double AP, nobody needs further encouragement to pile on the pop locked bandwagon and stomp two-bar opponents.

Sanctum74

Sounds great in theory, but it would probably have the opposite effect. The ap farmers would just farm one keep and let the map go. In my opinion they need to add more incentives for winning, not farming.

CSose

Interesting idea. Not sure how it would be implemented, but it's the right spirit of things for sure.

I really do think that ZOS just needs to fix performance issues, then see where things are at. Cyro was awesome until performance issues started sinking the ship about 2.5 years ago. Now it's just a total ****show even with being able to use only 4.2% of sets in game.

xylena_lazarow

Sanctum74 wrote: »

Sounds great in theory, but it would probably have the opposite effect. The ap farmers would just farm one keep and let the map go. In my opinion they need to add more incentives for winning, not farming.

That makes it sound like at worst, nothing changes, but I agree there should be better incentives for actually winning the campaign, and maybe significantly less AP rewarded for non-objective "farming" behaviors.

jhharvest

In the other MMO I play you get less experience if your faction out-pops the other faction in any given fight. Gives incentive to spread out which I think is good.

jhharvest

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

That makes it sound like at worst, nothing changes, but I agree there should be better incentives for actually winning the campaign, and maybe significantly less AP rewarded for non-objective "farming" behaviors.

Really? I think there should be severely reduced incentive for winning a campaign. The end of campaign rewards incentivise night capping and zerging. When the enemy is logged off you go PvDoor and get free score over night. Then you get casuals coming in and zerging the map two days a month to get their T1 rewards for "winning the campaign" when all they did was make it worse for the underdogs. I think if anything the end of campaign rewards for being on the winning side should be removed altogether to promote actual PvP.

xylena_lazarow

jhharvest wrote: »

Really? I think there should be severely reduced incentive for winning a campaign. The end of campaign rewards incentivise night capping and zerging.

You're not wrong, if dynamic pop caps are a technical impossibility, perhaps the high pop faction should have its AP gains nerfed, like the opposite of the low pop bonus that already exists in game?

Soul_Demon

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Tri faction PvP only works if the two weaker factions gang up against the strongest (and most populated) one, otherwise we end up with dead lopsided campaigns month after month. Unfortunately, it's usually the perceived weakest faction that gets ganged up on, as players inevitably take the path of least resistance to their kills and AP. Awarding double AP for kills and ticks against 1st place faction would encourage players to actually play the map, keep the campaign close, and not log out when outnumbered. No, the 1st place faction would not be able to gain double AP, nobody needs further encouragement to pile on the pop locked bandwagon and stomp two-bar opponents.

I wonder if you are on to something here.....what if you awarded double AP for attacking the first place faction, Normal AP for the faction in second place and the third place faction only gave 50% AP?

Seems like that might do away with the 'points for not playing' system we have now with low pop boosting up for not playing and would offer logic and reason to where the attacks are focused.

Minnesinger

Great idea but I would make there some conditions. Like GH NA has very much been overrun by factions. Each at the time who control most of the map. Like DC winning the campaign again. When the leading faction owns most of the map including the emp or 4 to 6 scrolls the double XP should be available to the 2 factions. I see there one problem that the second or third faction farms the leading faction at their gates when there is pop imbalance. Otherwise I see no problems but more like rewards for playing agains the odds.

CSose

Minnesinger wrote: »

Great idea but I would make there some conditions. Like GH NA has very much been overrun by factions. Each at the time who control most of the map. Like DC winning the campaign again. When the leading faction owns most of the map including the emp or 4 to 6 scrolls the double XP should be available to the 2 factions. I see there one problem that the second or third faction farms the leading faction at their gates when there is pop imbalance. Otherwise I see no problems but more like rewards for playing agains the odds.

how about just a flat last place faction gets double AP, second place faction gets unmodified AP, and first place faction gets 50% AP? No calculations that way to speak of.

Ackwalan

That's not a bad idea. Or if ZOS really doesn't want have double AP, how about, 100% AP for taking a Keep/RSS in first 75% for 2nd and 50% for 3rd.

BlakMarket

How about double AP for everyone as payment for not letting most of us use literally 99% of our inventory in Cyro.

Ahk1lleez

I support this fully.

I'd also like to see the hammer replaced with an invulnerable dragon that only attacks the first place factions keeps.

Imagine hearing the roar of a dragon and watching it descend from a distance, laying waste to keep walls and players. Then after it has taken down 3 or 4 walls it moves on to another keep. This would be on the same timer as the hammer, but instead of encouraging stacking up in one place on the map and creating more lag we force the leading faction to spread out to repair the damage.

xylena_lazarow

This was PC/NA around 3pm CST on a weekday. AD and EP think they can get more AP and kills cannibalizing each other, even if that results in DC pulling farther and farther ahead, so then the server population grows more and more lopsided along with the campaign score. What's it like playing for the two bar faction you ask?


So, anything that encourages the low pop factions to hang in there and gang up on the high pop zerg, is fine with me, as would be anything that dumpsters the AP gain of high pop zergs.

Minnesinger

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

This was PC/NA around 3pm CST on a weekday. AD and EP think they can get more AP and kills cannibalizing each other, even if that results in DC pulling farther and farther ahead, so then the server population grows more and more lopsided along with the campaign score. What's it like playing for the two bar faction you ask?


So, anything that encourages the low pop factions to hang in there and gang up on the high pop zerg, is fine with me, as would be anything that dumpsters the AP gain of high pop zergs.

NA GH is as bad as it was before with red map and yellow map. Sadly the state of pvp degrated a lot because attacking any blue rss or keep pulls a lot of their players to defend it. Only thing left to EP and AD is to skirmish around keeps and OPs. Some sort of motivation boost is certainly needed in these kind of campaigns where one faction has huge population surplus and 2 factions suffer from players. Instability leads to bad pvp and finally dead campaign.

jhharvest

The AP gain would need to be adjusted on local basis to discourage the high pop faction from clumping up.

The other thought I've had is a mercenary system: you could play as a mercenary for the low pop faction in a campaign that is not your home campaign and get double AP. This would balance out the pops. People complain about spying but that happens regardless so I don't think it'd change.

TineaCruris

BlakMarket wrote: »

How about double AP for everyone as payment for not letting most of us use literally 99% of our inventory in Cyro.

For sure. We should get double AP for the duration of the restrictions. The way it is now ZOS is doing nothing except penalizing their customers for giving them money.

rbfrgsp

I really like this idea and it could be an elegant solution.

Soul_Demon

Ahk1lleez wrote: »

I support this fully.

I'd also like to see the hammer replaced with an invulnerable dragon that only attacks the first place factions keeps.

Imagine hearing the roar of a dragon and watching it descend from a distance, laying waste to keep walls and players. Then after it has taken down 3 or 4 walls it moves on to another keep. This would be on the same timer as the hammer, but instead of encouraging stacking up in one place on the map and creating more lag we force the leading faction to spread out to repair the damage.

That....would be amazing. This should be what the 'relics' do.

JDredd

Or... Adding a 4th faction? Make the upper WGT area available and change the emp bonuses? Just a thought.

Vizirith

Agreed, unfortunately this is a 7 year old issue and zos hasn't addressed it yet. So doubt they will.

DrSlaughtr

We need a 4th alliance.

On XB, every campaign, even locked GH, ends up Blue/Yellow attacking red all night long. Doesn't matter who is in the lead. Doesn't matter what parts of the map are taken. It gets old. Anyone who has ever played Risk with three people knows this is how it goes.

Jaraal

Ahk1lleez wrote: »

I support this fully.

I'd also like to see the hammer replaced with an invulnerable dragon that only attacks the first place factions keeps.

Imagine hearing the roar of a dragon and watching it descend from a distance, laying waste to keep walls and players. Then after it has taken down 3 or 4 walls it moves on to another keep. This would be on the same timer as the hammer, but instead of encouraging stacking up in one place on the map and creating more lag we force the leading faction to spread out to repair the damage.

I think this would be awesome..... but let the dragon be killable. Give it like 100 million HP, but able to take damage from siege and skills. Let it destroy walls.... which would encourage enemy players to come attack the vulnerable keep. Make it land in front of a keep door for a few minutes, then fly up onto a corner tower for a while, then up on a roof, then another corner, and so forth. The mechanics are already in the game, in N and S Elsweyr. Just alter the battle points accordingly. And let it drop valuable stuff, like good armor sets, coldfire sieges, lancer leads, etc.

This would bring so many new players to Cyrodiil, and keep bored veterans engaged as well.

Guizan

TheEndBringer wrote: »

We need a 4th alliance.

On XB, every campaign, even locked GH, ends up Blue/Yellow attacking red all night long. Doesn't matter who is in the lead. Doesn't matter what parts of the map are taken. It gets old. Anyone who has ever played Risk with three people knows this is how it goes.

To be honest I think most players have the feeling that the other two factions are ganging up on the faction you play

AD talk about Purples, EP talk about Greens, and DC talk about Orange

HanStolo

But that would mean Team Purple would have to engage each other....

Jaraal

Guizan wrote: »

TheEndBringer wrote: »

We need a 4th alliance.

On XB, every campaign, even locked GH, ends up Blue/Yellow attacking red all night long. Doesn't matter who is in the lead. Doesn't matter what parts of the map are taken. It gets old. Anyone who has ever played Risk with three people knows this is how it goes.

To be honest I think most players have the feeling that the other two factions are ganging up on the faction you play

AD talk about Purples, EP talk about Greens, and DC talk about Orange

I have seen multiple instances where I was hidden nearby or laying on the ground dead and seen groups of players from both enemy factions standing next to each other, waiting for more of my faction to arrive...... but not attacking each other.

If you think guilds don't coordinate to cooperate, you must not play a lot of Cyrodiil PvP.

McGordon

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Tri faction PvP only works if the two weaker factions gang up against the strongest (and most populated) one, otherwise we end up with dead lopsided campaigns month after month. Unfortunately, it's usually the perceived weakest faction that gets ganged up on, as players inevitably take the path of least resistance to their kills and AP. Awarding double AP for kills and ticks against 1st place faction would encourage players to actually play the map, keep the campaign close, and not log out when outnumbered. No, the 1st place faction would not be able to gain double AP, nobody needs further encouragement to pile on the pop locked bandwagon and stomp two-bar opponents.

EP and AD always attack only DC so it will not increase faction gathering 😂

Guizan

One problem I see with the proposed extra AP when attacking the top faction is that the AP you gain is not directly related to the faction score so giving out extra AP won't lessen the gap very much. The faction score slowly ticks with a number of points decided by the current holdings on the map at the time of the tick regardless of how many personal AP you have.

I fear that having double AP when your side is behind on the score might make some AP farmers less likely to want their faction in the top slot because the reward at a campaign end is not that great anyway. Compare those rewards with what you can get for double AP, you can buy sellable items on the golden vendor you can buy backpacks with overland gear for AP, and other items you can transform to gold by selling them on a trader.

Guizan

Jaraal wrote: »

Guizan wrote: »

TheEndBringer wrote: »

We need a 4th alliance.

On XB, every campaign, even locked GH, ends up Blue/Yellow attacking red all night long. Doesn't matter who is in the lead. Doesn't matter what parts of the map are taken. It gets old. Anyone who has ever played Risk with three people knows this is how it goes.

To be honest I think most players have the feeling that the other two factions are ganging up on the faction you play

AD talk about Purples, EP talk about Greens, and DC talk about Orange

I have seen multiple instances where I was hidden nearby or laying on the ground dead and seen groups of players from both enemy factions standing next to each other, waiting for more of my faction to arrive...... but not attacking each other.

If you think guilds don't coordinate to cooperate, you must not play a lot of Cyrodiil PvP.

I never said people don't cooperate over the faction limits, I have seen AP boosting where a single player of one faction trade CPs with a group from another alliance letting themselves be killed to up the defense/offense tick of AP. I have also seen the other two factions standing there not attacking each other just to kill my faction. I have also held back not wanting to interfere when faction X is attacking the last emp keep of Y as I prefer no-one having emp than Y faction having it

jhharvest

McGordon wrote: »

EP and AD always attack only DC so it will not increase faction gathering 😂

All factions occasionally work together. Last night I logged out after watching AD and DC have a dance party outside Sej. EP was in last place in the campaign score and Chal, BRK and Arrius taken by blues and yellows. It's just how the game goes.

WaltherCarraway

100%