PVP Changes

madmidwestmark

To make pvp better, a look into skills, rewards and game mechanics needs to happen. Here are a few of my ideas that I really wish would be considered.

#1 Purge. This skill is too costly, overpowered and over used in some cases. It needs to be changed to a buff that reduces DOT damage. The cheaper morph could do just the major (10%) and the more expensive cost doing major and minor. Reduce cost of both morphs to be more in line with other buffs. Or the more expensive morph could do magicka steal or something. The buff should last 8-10s. This would keep people from becoming "purge spammers," which create lots of lag and makes groups immune to cc's.

#2 CC's. CC's should be a status affect that must be broken by the player. Snow treaders, immovable pots, etc that give you immunity make using CC's in many cases, worthless. The slippery cp thing is ok because it only happens once every 21s. The 2s immunity on skills from race against time, etc should be made into the minor DOT reduction that lasts 8-12s. Snow Treaders could be changed to be immune to snares only and reduced sprint speed by 50%. Earthgore should heal a bigger area as an AOE HOT, but NOT remove ground based DOT's, negate, etc. Earthgore is just too overpowered in groups where they can run multiple people using it and nobody ever dies because it's always clearing the area.

#3 Skills. There are a few skills that aren't used very often.
-Guard should be used to give a buff for 10% reduction as an AOE to ranged attacks. I mean it's a "support" skill, but is rarely used and doesn't really help most group playstyles.

-Revealing flare changed to something that is more usable. To reveal stealthed players, most people just use an AOE. Instead of revealing flare, maybe have a buff for minor evasion for grouped players and potentially a heal function when hit with aoe for the other morph?

-Steel tornado could be changed to scale higher damage per target to help kill players stacking. An additional 10% damage per enemy hit would help keep players from stacking as much against smaller stamina groups. Bow's volley and carve could also be changed to add this kind of damage. Wall of elements, "elemental blockade" would be another good morph to add this type of additional damage to. There's a lot of players on maps stacking to take keeps and there needs to be more of a deterrent to being too close!

-Wrecking blow could do splash damage to 2 other targets similar to reverse slice.

-Cauterize should either be a HOT around the caster OR remove DOTs a dot every so often like the netch on Warden.

-Ash cloud and other "AOE" skills need to be 6m or more to hit more targets. 5m is just too small for any AOE. Proc sets, same thing. Winterborn, etc are not big enough, but also, the damage should be scaled down some too. I mean, pillar of nirn is 2.5m. Should either be AOE with 6m and less damage OR single target and more damage. Some of the sets and aoe skills are so small that they don't really hit multiple targets and underperform as single target. Need to include the AOE sizes on all skills and sets. Seems like too many sets/skills look like they might be usable, but then you find out that it doesn't affect, but a tiny area. Even 5m is kinda small, IMO. Viscous death should be 6m, but scale down the damage 20%.

-Reflective scale should reflect 2 projectiles over 8s time. Reflective plate should add minor armor buff. Dragon fire scale should reflect and add a fire damage DOT to person hit with reflected projectile. There needs to be a counter to magicka sorc's and bow/destro ranged attackers.

-Conjured Ward change to last 10s but make the cap to 40% of your health. Hardened ward adds 1650 armor resistance for duration. Empowered ward grants minor intellect and empowerment for 4s. Having to spam shields is a major pain on the hands AND it's overpowered in pvp, this caps it some and then makes it more user friendly. Damage shields shouldn't be reduced in pvp after this change.

-Annulment to last 8s and be capped at 40% of your health. Dampen magicka morph should make it increase armor by 1320 for duration. Harness magicka should restore magicka.

-Ferocious leap should do a fire DOT instead of a shield.

-Barrier should be capped at 40% of your health.

-Lights champion ult should become an AOE that affects 6m around caster.

-Shadowy disguise removes 2 negative affects and increases crit chance by 10% for 6s. Any DOTS remaining after using the skill will bring them out of stealth, requiring them to reapply the skill again to go invisible. Currently, too many nb's can move around without any hinderance at all, making them almost untouchable without lots of ground based aoe's and having to slot a skill just for 1 class seems ridiculous (inner light).

-Reduce damage of Grim focus by 25%, but make it take 3 light attacks to trigger. This skill hits harder than many ults do. The change makes it less burst, but still keeps the sustain.

-Incapacitating strike increase damage by 15%, but make the cost 90 ultimate. This doesn't do enough damage for a single target ultimate, but it's so cheap it can almost be used in a rotation. lol.

-Riccochet skull should hit up to 3 targets on all castes.

-Blastbones shouldn't be able to be targeted. It makes them too easy to kill and very difficult to combo with.

There are more changes to skills and such, but I think this would be a good start.

#4 Rewards. Winning campaigns is what cyrodiil is supposed to be about, but it really doesn't pay out nearly enough to motivate people to play the map. End of campaign reward for 1st place should be 100k on a 30 day campaign and getting to tier 3 should be required to get it. Each tier should be 50k ap to rank up tiers for a total of 150k ap made to tier 3. Also, make a slider for rewards of the worthy. Some people might like the mail every 10k ap or whatever it is, but if you pvp regularly, the mail is a major hassle. Make it to where you can get even gold rewards from the rewards of the worthy AND cold fire or other siege, but at a much longer interval. Maybe every 200k ap at the high end and an option for purple gear and soul gems at every 75k ap? The mail for this feels like worthless junk with every player getting them as much as they do.

Guild ap/gold should be a thing. Right now, there is VERY little reason to run a guild in pvp. It's more of a hassle with very little reward. Keeps claimed by a pvp guilds should generate either AP or gold over time kept AND get defense ticks added. I'd prefer AP and then there should be options from the vendor to modify things in the keep. Increase number of guards, maybe have guards that can run oil/siege, a back flag keep champion/general, upgrade doors/walls even more, higher corner towers (4 story!), add guild flags to walls and such etc. Lots of options! As it is, guild and groups are dissolving and the map is turning into a massive blob of one side vs the other at the same keep, instead of spread out fights across many keeps, which means LAG!!!!

Top 5% of players should per side should get a random trial/arena weapons (normal) and top 2% should get them in perfected.

#5 Proc sets. I actually like the removal of them, BUT too many sets that I don't think I'd consider some of what was removed for testing as a "proc." I understand it was to test performance. What I would like to see, proc helms and weapons come back, but the 5 pc sets that do damage, such as caluurions, should be removed, EXCEPT viscous death because I think that is a vital set to both solo (bombers) and group play. I don't count things like clever alchemist or briarheart as a "proc" because the actual proc itself doesn't do damage, even if something is being "proc'd" so to speak. To me, that is the best of both worlds. AOE HOT sets like winters are fine by me, it's the tanky players running all proc damage that are difficult to kill, but still do lots of damage that isn't fun.

#5 PVP population swings. Each bar of population difference should change the guards on the map, the points earned by the faction and ap gained. So if one faction is locked, they get 10% less per bar over the lowest population, so if one side is 1 bar, they get 30% less AP, 30% less pts for the alliance war and their guards do 30% less damage. The 1 bar side gets 30% more guard damage, 30% more alliance points and 30% more ap. There needs to be a way to incentivize closer to equal populations. Low pop bonus is too much in a big swing for ap. It needs to be more gradual in nature and affect more than just ap.

Idinuse

All interesting or great suggestions!

SimonThesis

Very insightful and meaningful suggestions for positive change in the pvp community from the original poster, the GM of a Grayhost PVP Guild.

I especially love the points about how certain groups are immortal and what to do about them. Outside of the no-proc tests, these groups are typically all in snow treaders and they have multiple purge and rapids spammers so they do not get CC'd and they're faster than the average player outside of a highly organized group. In addition, they usually have no less than 6 people running the Earthgore monster helm and shoulder so they can not be easily killed as each one clears the area of all ultimates and ground-based aoes. Then they are set up in a way so that they are not only unkillable but they can kill large numbers with ease.

The original post deserves a thorough read by the game developers. @ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_RichLambert

neferpitou73

These are some interesting suggestions. Although I'm going to disagree with nerfing immovables. I've been getting slammed by the break-free bug more than ever and I'd hate to make CCs even harder to deal with.

I'm curious about your claim that guilds aren't very useful in PvP. At least in no-CP they form the backbone of most of the factions it seems, or were you just talking about the keep-claiming mechanics?

I've been thinking they should up the rewards for winning campaign as well. One of the ideas I was throwing around was giving out gold mats to the winning faction. Not only would it incentivize people to play but it would lower the prices after all of this inflation.

nesakinter

Honestly seems like changes a zerg player would want.

Gilvoth

i hope none of those changes happen nor take place, they are in my opinion "Horrible" ideas that would destroy alot of builds, freedoms, and pvp in general.
not trying to anger nor upset anyone, just my honest feedback.

orion_1981usub17_ESO

Someone plays magcro... trying to nerf the nightblade and sorc competition, eh?

Anyway the only real issue and has always been an issue is faction stacking and badwagoneers. Eventually in any competitive game that give rewards to the "winner" you gonna get too many playing for one team. Your reward system would only hasten that terrible dynamic. It's best that the rewards are garbage, it allows more people to choose underdog factions than would otherwise happen. Though every aspect of the game should be rewarding, pvp is a double edged sword by doing so as losing is less rewarding and therefore in contradiction to the every aspect.

If you wish to make the campaigns more rewarding then you must with hold rewards during the campaign and penalize stacking a faction or else you'll have just one faction against a few stubborn fools. This is probably too much work to be worth while.

LarsS

I disagree on the skill changes, but I do agree that the rewards should be better.

Magiss

I've been on ESO since 2013. Never been on the forums before. Been MMO gaming for 20+ years.

...and I Support This Post

No need for me to go through every one in detail, they are all good changes, some extremely necessary.

Do you know what happened when the No Proc test went live? Some of the most toxic players I have ever seen in my MMO days that remind me of steam FPS griefers left on "break". Do you know why? The build styles they used (Full tank with 3 damage proc sets that don't scale with stats mostly.) were gone; They were mortal again. You cannot imagine the unmitigated complaining I heard from everyone who chose to play a armor set rather than a class.

Do you know how the vast majority of players reacted about the change? Overjoyed, old players came back to the game when they heard. Cyro was designed around a purpose with objectives, and the evolution of the game began to allow those objectives to be bypassed completely, and builds to be created that prevent ANYONE from achieving objectives if a small group of players decide to grief the entire map.

ZOS Own posts state that virtual immortality and unlimited resources were not meant to be part of the necessary gameplay, nor a desired component. The current changes being implemented and those that already have all work towards those aims.

I don't plan to come back and check the replies from the various trolls and griefers who will flame posts all day long to protect their ability to mess with the enjoyment of hundreds of others from the safety of the dank basement. By the way, the people who don't have time to flame the forums are the ones with jobs and money to spend on useless things like ingame shiny junk. We act in groups off the forums.


Devs need to show some support to the player base, the ones that don't go through nonsense to get a special forum link just to complain about a game they spend their time playing @ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_RichLambert

madmidwestmark

nesakinter wrote: »

Honestly seems like changes a zerg player would want.

I do lead and play in groups. That's the major reason I even play. I like playing with people I've met in this game. That said, this actually discourages "zerging" because it's a massive nerf to stacking and requires people to actually break free and roll out of roots. How is that a zerg player mentality?

madmidwestmark

Gilvoth wrote: »

i hope none of those changes happen nor take place, they are in my opinion "Horrible" ideas that would destroy alot of builds, freedoms, and pvp in general.
not trying to anger nor upset anyone, just my honest feedback.

What builds? Purgers spammers? How do does this make pvp worse? Trying to get people to spread, use break free and roll out of roots and being forced to actually play against mechanics?

madmidwestmark

orion_1981usub17_ESO wrote: »

Someone plays magcro... trying to nerf the nightblade and sorc competition, eh?

Anyway the only real issue and has always been an issue is faction stacking and badwagoneers. Eventually in any competitive game that give rewards to the "winner" you gonna get too many playing for one team. Your reward system would only hasten that terrible dynamic. It's best that the rewards are garbage, it allows more people to choose underdog factions than would otherwise happen. Though every aspect of the game should be rewarding, pvp is a double edged sword by doing so as losing is less rewarding and therefore in contradiction to the every aspect.

If you wish to make the campaigns more rewarding then you must with hold rewards during the campaign and penalize stacking a faction or else you'll have just one faction against a few stubborn fools. This is probably too much work to be worth while.

I'm still advocating for bonus's to ap from being on the lower pop faction, which is MORE beneficial than just the end of campaign reward. I agree the bandwagon players area problem, which is why I was pushing for a gradual ap/guard/pts loss for having more population. This should help alleviate the over pop on each side on certain time slots.

madmidwestmark

LarsS wrote: »

I disagree on the skill changes, but I do agree that the rewards should be better.

The sorc shield needs a change. I could see the armor possibly go up some, but people need to remember that armor also boosts shields too. More armor = longer lasting shields. The "nerf" to nightblades isn't really even a nerf. It's lowering 1 skill damage, but making it easier to proc. Making the ult cost more, but adding to the damage. Magicka DK needs some some love to offset the influx of mag sorc since the patch made them stronger. Necro blast bones are just not that reliable since they can be targeted.

orion_1981usub17_ESO

The issue isn't merely population. In an tri faction game 2nd place is often as populated or even more than than first place. It's a matter of stereotypes. In planetside and eso: one faction is the try hard faction, one is the casual faction and one is the happy to be there faction. The proposals you suggest would further cement the fate of the three factions.

I would suggest an AP tax as more land it taken... you know to pay for more guards. As each keep and outpost is taken you generate more campaign points but less AP individually. This would force factions to seek an equilibrium instead of pure domination which favors stacked campaigns.

Soul_Demon

orion_1981usub17_ESO wrote: »

The issue isn't merely population. In an tri faction game 2nd place is often as populated or even more than than first place. It's a matter of stereotypes. In planetside and eso: one faction is the try hard faction, one is the casual faction and one is the happy to be there faction. The proposals you suggest would further cement the fate of the three factions.

I would suggest an AP tax as more land it taken... you know to pay for more guards. As each keep and outpost is taken you generate more campaign points but less AP individually. This would force factions to seek an equilibrium instead of pure domination which favors stacked campaigns.

The very best solution to this has already been suggested.....
Attacking first place faction = 200% normal AP gain
Attacking second place faction = Normal AP gain
Attacking third place faction = 50% normal AP gain

orion_1981usub17_ESO

That wont work, the bonus is too large. A scaling penalty is a less intrusive system and less likely to be noticeable to the point of contention. Only a faction that is truly stacked and owns the majority of the map would likely see an AP decrease that begins to harm individual members. The second and third places that do not own the entirety of their own territory do not deserve to be penalized in anyway.

Remember the true destroy of balance, fun, ect. is not population but skill density in a single faction as players move to the faction that wins most often taking their "skill level" with them. That is what a stacked faction means, the best, the most communicative, the trying the hardest all joining one team to ensure no one else has a chance to win.

Adernath

madmidwestmark wrote: »

#5 PVP population swings. Each bar of population difference should change the guards on the map, the points earned by the faction and ap gained. So if one faction is locked, they get 10% less per bar over the lowest population, so if one side is 1 bar, they get 30% less AP, 30% less pts for the alliance war and their guards do 30% less damage. The 1 bar side gets 30% more guard damage, 30% more alliance points and 30% more ap. There needs to be a way to incentivize closer to equal populations. Low pop bonus is too much in a big swing for ap. It needs to be more gradual in nature and affect more than just ap.

Something like this I would really see being implemented long time already, but a bit different:

A very simple soution would be to set guard damage and AP gain according to the percentage of players relative to the total players online. Eg. 20%-45%-35% of a fixed reference minimum, if this reflects the momentary population percentages.

Soul_Demon

orion_1981usub17_ESO wrote: »

That wont work, the bonus is too large. A scaling penalty is a less intrusive system and less likely to be noticeable to the point of contention. Only a faction that is truly stacked and owns the majority of the map would likely see an AP decrease that begins to harm individual members. The second and third places that do not own the entirety of their own territory do not deserve to be penalized in anyway.

Remember the true destroy of balance, fun, ect. is not population but skill density in a single faction as players move to the faction that wins most often taking their "skill level" with them. That is what a stacked faction means, the best, the most communicative, the trying the hardest all joining one team to ensure no one else has a chance to win.

It will work and incentivizing the behavior will work better than any other approach. As for the rest of the post, seems you suggest better players gravitate to overpopulated factions---we disagree as I believe the poorest players and flavor of the month types are the ones looking for easy wins and gravitate to the more populated faction. Talent and skill is determined often by the players own set of non descriptive and almost always un provable standards.

Incentivizing the choices players make will push balance in attacks and that itself will cause swappers to stop seeking the bounce over to 'world war z' factions. This allows the players themselves to make the decision what faction they attack, the lowest pop (often last place) with double team- if they do, they only get 50% AP gains. One of them is incentivized to turn and hit the other for 200% AP gain thus encouraging a real three way war.

Naturally achieved attack balance in three way war that makes sense.

MreeBiPolar

What about "don't fix that is not broken"?



... Makes me wonder how well-thought the rest is, too, obviously.

Joy_Division

Soul_Demon wrote: »

show previous quotes

orion_1981usub17_ESO wrote: »

That wont work, the bonus is too large. A scaling penalty is a less intrusive system and less likely to be noticeable to the point of contention. Only a faction that is truly stacked and owns the majority of the map would likely see an AP decrease that begins to harm individual members. The second and third places that do not own the entirety of their own territory do not deserve to be penalized in anyway.

Remember the true destroy of balance, fun, ect. is not population but skill density in a single faction as players move to the faction that wins most often taking their "skill level" with them. That is what a stacked faction means, the best, the most communicative, the trying the hardest all joining one team to ensure no one else has a chance to win.

It will work and incentivizing the behavior will work better than any other approach. As for the rest of the post, seems you suggest better players gravitate to overpopulated factions---we disagree as I believe the poorest players and flavor of the month types are the ones looking for easy wins and gravitate to the more populated faction. Talent and skill is determined often by the players own set of non descriptive and almost always un provable standards.

Incentivizing the choices players make will push balance in attacks and that itself will cause swappers to stop seeking the bounce over to 'world war z' factions. This allows the players themselves to make the decision what faction they attack, the lowest pop (often last place) with double team- if they do, they only get 50% AP gains. One of them is incentivized to turn and hit the other for 200% AP gain thus encouraging a real three way war.

Naturally achieved attack balance in three way war that makes sense.

These types of approaches have the potential to just make things a mess.

So the team in first place - let's say by a close margin - like 100 points or so gets double teamed constantly and pushed back to their gates because the other two alliances get paltry AP for fighting each other, even when it potentially is in their strategic to do so. How does this make things any more fun? People want the fights spread across the map, but you're implementing measures that will just have both alliances dogpile the team that commits the unforgivable sin of being in first place? We say it's not fun when an alliance gets double team and now you want a system that always encourages that to take place.

Population locks exist for a reason. The team in first place does not necessarily have an advantage or is any stronger and cannot exert map control because their numbers are the same as the other two factions. They don't have any more means to means to fight off the other two alliances any more than a pop locked last place team. And now you think it's a good idea to make their playtime miserable because more Aussies and daytime players play for that same faction?

People need to get over the paranoia that their faction is disproportionally the victim of a double team. It happens to each one from time to time and it almost always is based on immediate tactical considerations that are forgotten 5 minutes after the fact. It's not a big deal that requires completely changing the mechanics to ensure that it will always happen, as if putting a huge +100% target on a faction that plays by the same rules and thus nothing to defend against the onslaught they'll face, will somehow fix a problem that is largely in people's imaginations.

orion_1981usub17_ESO

@Soul_Demon

You misunderstand, I did not say "better" players flock to overpopulated faction. I said they flock to "try hard" faction. Lets say your an A tier player and your fighting against other good players and you say, "hey I like how well they fight, I should join them because they are good and I would likely have more fun fighting beside them than against them." This is a very common problem in massive online games. Slowly but surely a single faction becomes stacked as the "better" players start wanting to play with the other "better" players. Individually this sounds perfectly find but the consequences to the game are dire.

This has nothing to do with population nor even faction, as often in a game a portion of the try hard community might try to switch factions for a while to save the balance of the game, literally bored of unchallenging fights. Only for the rest of the followers to also migrate to the new faction, thus negating any attempts to balance the factions. Then they switch back and switch again but no matter where they go the try hard followers will be right there on their coat tail to play beside them.

This is not an ESO specific problem, people follow skill to earn greater rewards, thats the problem itself, it eventually unbalances the game. In ESO, if you punish population you would not balance the faction only increasingly imbalance them as the zerg faction which is most populated is not likely the try hard faction most of the time.

Mechanically the rewards in cyrodil currently encourages steamrolling the opposition. And though this sounds logical but its actually a terrible game design. A steamrolling faction is a terrible precedent for a concurrent online game that wants to survive and keep people paying money. The reason you have campaign abandonment, faction jumping is because the game does not demand any balance, thus negating any real reason to play the opposition other than stupidity and stubbornness.

The only mechanic that can correct steamrolling is to make campaign expansion personally costly, so the individual must choose which of the two rewards they want, thus creating balalnce of opposing metrics between personal desires and faction desires. As keep are taken beyond your home keeps (which would be the neutral point of all factions), then AP becomes taxed to "pay for guards and such". The factions that are being pushed back into a corner should have a corresponding buff and extra AP to help them push out of the corner. With out this mechanic, there is no logical reason to play against the try hard faction and that is why MMO pvp grind themselves into obscurity.

Soul_Demon

Joy_Division wrote: »

show previous quotes

Soul_Demon wrote: »

orion_1981usub17_ESO wrote: »

That wont work, the bonus is too large. A scaling penalty is a less intrusive system and less likely to be noticeable to the point of contention. Only a faction that is truly stacked and owns the majority of the map would likely see an AP decrease that begins to harm individual members. The second and third places that do not own the entirety of their own territory do not deserve to be penalized in anyway.

Remember the true destroy of balance, fun, ect. is not population but skill density in a single faction as players move to the faction that wins most often taking their "skill level" with them. That is what a stacked faction means, the best, the most communicative, the trying the hardest all joining one team to ensure no one else has a chance to win.

It will work and incentivizing the behavior will work better than any other approach. As for the rest of the post, seems you suggest better players gravitate to overpopulated factions---we disagree as I believe the poorest players and flavor of the month types are the ones looking for easy wins and gravitate to the more populated faction. Talent and skill is determined often by the players own set of non descriptive and almost always un provable standards.

Incentivizing the choices players make will push balance in attacks and that itself will cause swappers to stop seeking the bounce over to 'world war z' factions. This allows the players themselves to make the decision what faction they attack, the lowest pop (often last place) with double team- if they do, they only get 50% AP gains. One of them is incentivized to turn and hit the other for 200% AP gain thus encouraging a real three way war.

Naturally achieved attack balance in three way war that makes sense.

These types of approaches have the potential to just make things a mess.

So the team in first place - let's say by a close margin - like 100 points or so gets double teamed constantly and pushed back to their gates because the other two alliances get paltry AP for fighting each other, even when it potentially is in their strategic to do so. How does this make things any more fun? People want the fights spread across the map, but you're implementing measures that will just have both alliances dogpile the team that commits the unforgivable sin of being in first place? We say it's not fun when an alliance gets double team and now you want a system that always encourages that to take place.

Population locks exist for a reason. The team in first place does not necessarily have an advantage or is any stronger and cannot exert map control because their numbers are the same as the other two factions. They don't have any more means to means to fight off the other two alliances any more than a pop locked last place team. And now you think it's a good idea to make their playtime miserable because more Aussies and daytime players play for that same faction?

People need to get over the paranoia that their faction is disproportionally the victim of a double team. It happens to each one from time to time and it almost always is based on immediate tactical considerations that are forgotten 5 minutes after the fact. It's not a big deal that requires completely changing the mechanics to ensure that it will always happen, as if putting a huge +100% target on a faction that plays by the same rules and thus nothing to defend against the onslaught they'll face, will somehow fix a problem that is largely in people's imaginations.

I don't think they would make it a 'mess' at all....as a matter of fact I think the method I described has the highest possible chance to naturally keep the first and second place from rushing the lower pop (and often last) alliance as is the norm now. This creates an incentive to actually attack the alliance who is clearly leading through either players or tactics that are better than the other two. To say the first place faction doesn't have the 'means' to defend themselves sounds like they got the lead night capping and not playing the game......not sure how you come to that conclusion, but if you lead the camp you are doing something right and are likely not struggling.

First place SHOULD be able to handle double team, but to do that to second should be less rewarding and to do it to third place team should be even less so......there is no dignity in pushing the lower pop, lowest scoring faction, but right now it happens on a daily basis. Players themselves need to see a value in picking the strongest playing faction to attack and not seeking easy wins by selecting one that is either underpopulated and having trouble gaining points or so disorganized they cant get it together. The system in place to reward and 'catch up score' pushes all three alliances close regardless and with incentivized choices on who to hit, the competition would likely shift on a daily basis for who is leading rather than remaining largely the same for several days. A more dynamic map, more play and more interesting fights as the lead shifts. And most importantly a reason to change targets more often when map is quiet and there is less play to be found.

As for the rest..well, maybe that is how you feel about what you see----but its not what I see out there daily, not even remotely.

ZOS_ConnorG

Greetings all,

After review we have had to edit or remove several posts for Baiting. Discussing your opinions on the game are what the forums are for however remember to conduct this discussion in a civil and constructive manner that is within the rules. If you see a post that is baiting in nature do not engage it with further hostility and instead report it for the moderators to review.

You are welcome to review the Community Rules here.

madmidwestmark

Joy_Division wrote: »

show previous quotes

Soul_Demon wrote: »

orion_1981usub17_ESO wrote: »

That wont work, the bonus is too large. A scaling penalty is a less intrusive system and less likely to be noticeable to the point of contention. Only a faction that is truly stacked and owns the majority of the map would likely see an AP decrease that begins to harm individual members. The second and third places that do not own the entirety of their own territory do not deserve to be penalized in anyway.

Remember the true destroy of balance, fun, ect. is not population but skill density in a single faction as players move to the faction that wins most often taking their "skill level" with them. That is what a stacked faction means, the best, the most communicative, the trying the hardest all joining one team to ensure no one else has a chance to win.

It will work and incentivizing the behavior will work better than any other approach. As for the rest of the post, seems you suggest better players gravitate to overpopulated factions---we disagree as I believe the poorest players and flavor of the month types are the ones looking for easy wins and gravitate to the more populated faction. Talent and skill is determined often by the players own set of non descriptive and almost always un provable standards.

Incentivizing the choices players make will push balance in attacks and that itself will cause swappers to stop seeking the bounce over to 'world war z' factions. This allows the players themselves to make the decision what faction they attack, the lowest pop (often last place) with double team- if they do, they only get 50% AP gains. One of them is incentivized to turn and hit the other for 200% AP gain thus encouraging a real three way war.

Naturally achieved attack balance in three way war that makes sense.

These types of approaches have the potential to just make things a mess.

So the team in first place - let's say by a close margin - like 100 points or so gets double teamed constantly and pushed back to their gates because the other two alliances get paltry AP for fighting each other, even when it potentially is in their strategic to do so. How does this make things any more fun? People want the fights spread across the map, but you're implementing measures that will just have both alliances dogpile the team that commits the unforgivable sin of being in first place? We say it's not fun when an alliance gets double team and now you want a system that always encourages that to take place.

Population locks exist for a reason. The team in first place does not necessarily have an advantage or is any stronger and cannot exert map control because their numbers are the same as the other two factions. They don't have any more means to means to fight off the other two alliances any more than a pop locked last place team. And now you think it's a good idea to make their playtime miserable because more Aussies and daytime players play for that same faction?

People need to get over the paranoia that their faction is disproportionally the victim of a double team. It happens to each one from time to time and it almost always is based on immediate tactical considerations that are forgotten 5 minutes after the fact. It's not a big deal that requires completely changing the mechanics to ensure that it will always happen, as if putting a huge +100% target on a faction that plays by the same rules and thus nothing to defend against the onslaught they'll face, will somehow fix a problem that is largely in people's imaginations.

I agree with the majority of this post. I'm mostly trying to level out the populations/pts at certain times where one side is way lopsided, but in a way that's not too intrusive. To also try and see if there are better ways to make people spread. I don't like the stacking that is going on. It's not just guilds or just solo players, it's the majority of one side at the same keep too regularly. Making more skills that scale like proxy det, gives players more tools to roll bigger stacks. That and larger AOE effects. I think possibly giving DK, nb or maybe even a sorc a purge, along with a few more scaling attacks, while forcing break/roll mechanics on everyone will allow solo players to kill grouped or straggling players more effectively, to help eliminate larger stacks.

The tri-faction exists to actually stop one side from being way more powerful. If it were just 2 factions, there would be more lop sided fights.

Being gated by 2 factions will always happen at some point, but then the side which has scrolls and such are going to move on each other for those pts and gains, which gives the side being pushed back a chance to regain ground.

xDeusEJRx

A lot of these under the 3rd section are not "PVP changes", these are class changes. You're changing the entire functionality of a lot of class abilities, and from that point it's not really a PVP change as it effects PVP and PVE. And all for the sake of PVP.

Also, it's a little absurd to make the claim that "incapacitating strike does too little damage for a single target ultimate". It definitely does NOT need a 15% damage increase, I don't think you've been hit by one of these before.


You probably get hit by NB's who don't build right, but the skill hits insanely hard for anyone who stacks damage on a NB (as they should, considering that's the point of ganking)

Kartalin

madmidwestmark wrote: »

#2 CC's. CC's should be a status affect that must be broken by the player. Snow treaders, immovable pots, etc that give you immunity make using CC's in many cases, worthless. The slippery cp thing is ok because it only happens once every 21s. The 2s immunity on skills from race against time, etc should be made into the minor DOT reduction that lasts 8-12s. Snow Treaders could be changed to be immune to snares only and reduced sprint speed by 50%. Earthgore should heal a bigger area as an AOE HOT, but NOT remove ground based DOT's, negate, etc. Earthgore is just too overpowered in groups where they can run multiple people using it and nobody ever dies because it's always clearing the area.

I like most of your suggestions but this is the one I wanted to comment on.

Snares are a serious problem in Cyrodiil. We have stam sorc emps that spam bombard on you until they get close and combo you down. We have most organized groups running at least one but usually more bombard spammers in group to lock down their opponents. It's a ranged attack (22 meters) that roots and does damage. Stamina characters don't worry about it too much because running at least 5 medium is now meta so Shuffle gives 5-7 seconds of root/snare immunity. Compare that to magicka players running Race Against Time that gives us 2 seconds of root/snare immunity.

Snow Treaders, when we're able to use them, is currently essential for many magicka players in groups just to escape the bombard spam that is thrown at them. I mean, they still broke in lag and we got rooted, it still applies a micro-stun (like ambush used to) but at least they worked most of the time. It's much more resource intensive for magicka characters to maintain RAT compared to stamina players with Shuffle or Forward Momentum (4 seconds of root/snare immunity).

I would rather RAT be a magicka version of forward momentum (minor intellect + major sorcery + root/snare removal + 4 seconds of root/snare immunity) than what we have, regardless.

Vlad9425

xDeusEJRx wrote: »

A lot of these under the 3rd section are not "PVP changes", these are class changes. You're changing the entire functionality of a lot of class abilities, and from that point it's not really a PVP change as it effects PVP and PVE. And all for the sake of PVP.

Also, it's a little absurd to make the claim that "incapacitating strike does too little damage for a single target ultimate". It definitely does NOT need a 15% damage increase, I don't think you've been hit by one of these before.


You probably get hit by NB's who don't build right, but the skill hits insanely hard for anyone who stacks damage on a NB (as they should, considering that's the point of ganking)

99% of NBs will not be hitting anyone anyone with that that much damage so this is a non issue.

xDeusEJRx

Vlad9425 wrote: »

show previous quotes

xDeusEJRx wrote: »

A lot of these under the 3rd section are not "PVP changes", these are class changes. You're changing the entire functionality of a lot of class abilities, and from that point it's not really a PVP change as it effects PVP and PVE. And all for the sake of PVP.

Also, it's a little absurd to make the claim that "incapacitating strike does too little damage for a single target ultimate". It definitely does NOT need a 15% damage increase, I don't think you've been hit by one of these before.


You probably get hit by NB's who don't build right, but the skill hits insanely hard for anyone who stacks damage on a NB (as they should, considering that's the point of ganking)

99% of NBs will not be hitting anyone anyone with that that much damage so this is a non issue.

Perhaps, I think it depends on who's wielding the NB. But to write it off as the ability being a non-hard hitting move is ridiculous, just because a lot of NB's are stacking damage like they should be means the ability is underperforming. I've been hit by 16-19k incaps/soul harvests from NB's this patch. It's a matter of player not the ability being weak. I'd call a weak ability ferocious leap in comparison to its counterpart, the damage is pitiful versus take flight's morph. Whereas incap and soul harvest don't have a huge glaring damage difference, they just have different added buffs to both morphs

madmidwestmark

xDeusEJRx wrote: »

show previous quotes

Vlad9425 wrote: »

xDeusEJRx wrote: »

A lot of these under the 3rd section are not "PVP changes", these are class changes. You're changing the entire functionality of a lot of class abilities, and from that point it's not really a PVP change as it effects PVP and PVE. And all for the sake of PVP.

Also, it's a little absurd to make the claim that "incapacitating strike does too little damage for a single target ultimate". It definitely does NOT need a 15% damage increase, I don't think you've been hit by one of these before.


You probably get hit by NB's who don't build right, but the skill hits insanely hard for anyone who stacks damage on a NB (as they should, considering that's the point of ganking)

99% of NBs will not be hitting anyone anyone with that that much damage so this is a non issue.

Perhaps, I think it depends on who's wielding the NB. But to write it off as the ability being a non-hard hitting move is ridiculous, just because a lot of NB's are stacking damage like they should be means the ability is underperforming. I've been hit by 16-19k incaps/soul harvests from NB's this patch. It's a matter of player not the ability being weak. I'd call a weak ability ferocious leap in comparison to its counterpart, the damage is pitiful versus take flight's morph. Whereas incap and soul harvest don't have a huge glaring damage difference, they just have different added buffs to both morphs

Never been hit by more than 8k incaps, but I've been hit by assasins scourge for 11k. My change makes it harder, BUT cost more. Then making assassins scourge hit LESS, but take less attacks to make it proc sooner.

madmidwestmark

Kartalin wrote: »

show previous quotes

madmidwestmark wrote: »

#2 CC's. CC's should be a status affect that must be broken by the player. Snow treaders, immovable pots, etc that give you immunity make using CC's in many cases, worthless. The slippery cp thing is ok because it only happens once every 21s. The 2s immunity on skills from race against time, etc should be made into the minor DOT reduction that lasts 8-12s. Snow Treaders could be changed to be immune to snares only and reduced sprint speed by 50%. Earthgore should heal a bigger area as an AOE HOT, but NOT remove ground based DOT's, negate, etc. Earthgore is just too overpowered in groups where they can run multiple people using it and nobody ever dies because it's always clearing the area.

I like most of your suggestions but this is the one I wanted to comment on.

Snares are a serious problem in Cyrodiil. We have stam sorc emps that spam bombard on you until they get close and combo you down. We have most organized groups running at least one but usually more bombard spammers in group to lock down their opponents. It's a ranged attack (22 meters) that roots and does damage. Stamina characters don't worry about it too much because running at least 5 medium is now meta so Shuffle gives 5-7 seconds of root/snare immunity. Compare that to magicka players running Race Against Time that gives us 2 seconds of root/snare immunity.

Snow Treaders, when we're able to use them, is currently essential for many magicka players in groups just to escape the bombard spam that is thrown at them. I mean, they still broke in lag and we got rooted, it still applies a micro-stun (like ambush used to) but at least they worked most of the time. It's much more resource intensive for magicka characters to maintain RAT compared to stamina players with Shuffle or Forward Momentum (4 seconds of root/snare immunity).

I would rather RAT be a magicka version of forward momentum (minor intellect + major sorcery + root/snare removal + 4 seconds of root/snare immunity) than what we have, regardless.

RAT is very powerful because it gives SPEED + crit boost + immunity. The idea with shuffle is that stam toons are usually less ranged and don't have as many tools for snaring/roots as magicka. They want stam to be more movable, while magicka has more utility. It makes sense why they are this way. Ball groups with INDEFINITE immunity is a major problem. I'm for doing away with all immunities, changing purge and having to actually break so that players have to actually do the mechanics. The lag is an issue that also needs to be addressed. My changes *should* help reduce lag, especially changing purge.

xDeusEJRx

madmidwestmark wrote: »

show previous quotes

xDeusEJRx wrote: »

Vlad9425 wrote: »

xDeusEJRx wrote: »

A lot of these under the 3rd section are not "PVP changes", these are class changes. You're changing the entire functionality of a lot of class abilities, and from that point it's not really a PVP change as it effects PVP and PVE. And all for the sake of PVP.

Also, it's a little absurd to make the claim that "incapacitating strike does too little damage for a single target ultimate". It definitely does NOT need a 15% damage increase, I don't think you've been hit by one of these before.


You probably get hit by NB's who don't build right, but the skill hits insanely hard for anyone who stacks damage on a NB (as they should, considering that's the point of ganking)

99% of NBs will not be hitting anyone anyone with that that much damage so this is a non issue.

Perhaps, I think it depends on who's wielding the NB. But to write it off as the ability being a non-hard hitting move is ridiculous, just because a lot of NB's are stacking damage like they should be means the ability is underperforming. I've been hit by 16-19k incaps/soul harvests from NB's this patch. It's a matter of player not the ability being weak. I'd call a weak ability ferocious leap in comparison to its counterpart, the damage is pitiful versus take flight's morph. Whereas incap and soul harvest don't have a huge glaring damage difference, they just have different added buffs to both morphs

Never been hit by more than 8k incaps, but I've been hit by assasins scourge for 11k. My change makes it harder, BUT cost more. Then making assassins scourge hit LESS, but take less attacks to make it proc sooner.

If someone is running 7k+ weapon damage, it's guaranteed to hit 10k+ out of cloak. I have 7.7k weapon damage on my nightblade and it always hits 15k out of stealth. That's also on a NB not rocking high penetration either. Most 8k incaps are probably non stealth but they can typically hit 10k+ if you start off with ambush into the incap