[NOT LONGER REQUESTED] Option to NOT collect Tel'var stones

boi_anachronism_

If i run with the intent to pvp i carry some telvar. If im there solely to grab a skyshard or do a quick pve objective i carry none. Gank at your own risk. You kill me you get nothing, i kill you...well you will be sad.

Jaraal

SeaGtGruff wrote: »

I think ZOS wants to encourage players to go to IC. The IC DLC was Rich's baby, wasn't it? It can be a fun zone, and from what I've read some players feel like the zone questline is one of the more satisfying ones in the game. I wouldn't know, as I've yet to reattempt it after numerous prior occasions of getting killed by enemy players while trying to complete the district quests-- not the dailies, which I've completed many times, but the district zone quests.

Yes, the Imperial City quest line is one of the best in the game. I've completed it on most of my characters. And I think it's most satisfying because there's actually some risk involved, unlike most other zone quests. Not only from players, but the fight with Uzuruz will test most solo players (you can bring friends, though.)

And their motivation is exactly that: to get people involved in a play style that they would not normally seek out. I know of many players who had zero interest in PvP, but were drawn in by actually giving it a shot and finding out that it can be quite fun. Personally, I went to Cyrodiil for the first time years ago because I wanted to get the Legate's Black dye. And by the time I earned it, playing in Cyro was my favorite thing to do.

Braffin

@SeaGtGruff

I'm not disagreeing at all but just want to say that I'm in IC quite regularly outside of events. Sometimes farming tel-var, sometimes because I always liked stealth-based combat (probably a leftover from all the assassins creed and ghost recon titles I played).

I don't participate in MYM tho, it's my no-pvp-time for exactly the reasons you stated: too much griefers, too much PvE overlanders. Doesn't make much fun to deal with either of them in actual combat.

spartaxoxo

I actually played a bit of IC outside of the event this year. And it's actually easier to PvE when there's a not pvp going on. I played for about two hours and lost a fight only once. I got hit by another player only three times, the same player I ended up losing to. He saw me playing and tried to kill me, died. Came back and died a second time. Finally killed me, and left me alone for the duration of the rest of my time. That's it. That was all the pvp in a pvp zone for two hours of play. Perhaps it just was because it was not peak, but whatever the case, it was very dead.

SimonThesis

Just putting this out there, there are meta pvp sets that are craft-able/purchasable. I don't think its unreasonable to ask someone to build for content for an event, especially with the armory station and addons like dressing room. If you don't want to die easily in pvp craft a set of Impen orders wrath or buy Vd or Pb etc, put most/all your attribute points into health, slot a source of major resolve/major evasion, a self heal/shield, put on a reveal like flare or camo hunter or magelight, buy some immov pots etc.

the1andonlyskwex

spartaxoxo wrote: »

kargen27 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

kargen27 wrote: »

. The OP suggestion wants to take away the reward even if they succeed.

No, because it wouldn't take away Telvar they earned. A player is not guaranteed Telvar just because they get a kill. It is already possible to kill someone and receive 0 telvar. A player can only earn what the target is worth. If someone banked their telvar and someone else kill them as they are exiting spawn and get nothing, then that kill was not worth Telvar.

Nobody earns telvar from all kills. Picking targets is already part of the zone. This suggestion is tailored to ensuring that pvp still happens and that for the person killing, there is no difference in gameplay. Zero value targets already exist, this suggestion simply increases the number of 0 value targets. The only person who this changes things for is the person who turns it on, since they no longer earn telvar.

That doesn't change anything I said. This is a person deciding to punish themselves to punish others.

Yes, it does. Because in order to lose something earned, there has to be something taken away. Since the existence of zero telvar targets already exists, and there is no such thing as guaranteed telvar, then it cannot be said that introducing more zero telvar targets takes away earned rewards. There was already not a reasonable expectation that all kills would net telvar.

This argument is total nonsense. Changing the proportion of targets that grant 0 tel var obviously impacts people who are killing those targets.

How would you feel if ZOS substantially reduced the drop rate for antiquity leads? Would you be arguing that because the drop rate is already less than 100% nobody should care whether it's 0.00001% or 99%?

spartaxoxo

the1andonlyskwex wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

kargen27 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

kargen27 wrote: »

. The OP suggestion wants to take away the reward even if they succeed.

No, because it wouldn't take away Telvar they earned. A player is not guaranteed Telvar just because they get a kill. It is already possible to kill someone and receive 0 telvar. A player can only earn what the target is worth. If someone banked their telvar and someone else kill them as they are exiting spawn and get nothing, then that kill was not worth Telvar.

Nobody earns telvar from all kills. Picking targets is already part of the zone. This suggestion is tailored to ensuring that pvp still happens and that for the person killing, there is no difference in gameplay. Zero value targets already exist, this suggestion simply increases the number of 0 value targets. The only person who this changes things for is the person who turns it on, since they no longer earn telvar.

That doesn't change anything I said. This is a person deciding to punish themselves to punish others.

Yes, it does. Because in order to lose something earned, there has to be something taken away. Since the existence of zero telvar targets already exists, and there is no such thing as guaranteed telvar, then it cannot be said that introducing more zero telvar targets takes away earned rewards. There was already not a reasonable expectation that all kills would net telvar.

This argument is total nonsense. Changing the proportion of targets that grant 0 tel var obviously impacts people who are killing those targets.

How would you feel if ZOS substantially reduced the drop rate for antiquity leads? Would you be arguing that because the drop rate is already less than 100% nobody should care whether it's 0.00001% or 99%?

I never argued it would have no impact. I said it does not take away rewards that were earned. That is the argument that I was disputing. This suggestion does not take away rewards from a kill.

kargen27 wrote: »

The OP suggestion wants to take away the reward even if they succeed.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

No, because it wouldn't take away Telvar they earned. A player is not guaranteed Telvar just because they get a kill.

To clarify,

No. It doesn't take away earned rewards that were earned.

Yes, it does decrease the number of good targets on the field.

This is one of many reasons I don't support the OP's suggestion.

emilyhyoyeon

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

emilyhyoyeon wrote: »

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

emilyhyoyeon wrote: »

I saw someone mention this earlier in the thread, but the amount of load screens/how the respawning works is also pretty frustrating, and I like pvp, so I can only imagine how annoying it is for someone who doesn't.

One of the things I don't get is that when you're killed, you have the option to pick a district you own to respawn in, or ''return'' or whatever the word is. The return option sounds like it brings you back to base, but it doesn't, if you own at least one of the districts. When I'm trying to do stuff in Elven Gardens, and my alliance owns some other district, I'm forced to go back to that one, then go back down the trapdoor into base, then go back up to Elven Gardens, instead of just being able to immediately respawn in the sewers and save myself the time.

OP's originally talking about tel var, but I can't help but think that making the respawn process less annoying wouldn't help frustrated players, PVEers or not.

"release" is back to the nearest allied faction controlled district (if your on the surface) or back to the sewer base (if your in the sewer, or your faction has no districts controlled on the surface)

thats part of where the extra load screens come in, if your faction has no control over the surface, thats 2 load screens to get back to the surface (one load back down to sewer base, one load back to surface) (and this is because zos though it was a good idea to tie respawning to owning the district)

That's what I'm saying.

Release should put you back to the sewers, since the other option lets you pick your respawn point anyway. You are forced into more load screens, if your alliance has a district you don't want to be in, when you die.

realistically it is still 2 load screens either way, if you wanted to get back to the surface

if you respawn on surface in wrong district you have to load into sewer and load back to surface

if you have no districts, your loading into the sewer anyway and then loading back to the surface

the best option they could do to prevent the extra load screens is to just do away with the respawning tied to flags then you could respawn where you want on the surface without the extra load screen

It's not.

Current, if your district owns a district you don't want to be in:
1: you die, and respawn in the wrong district (load screen)
2: enter the trapdoor to sewers (load screen)
3: go back up the ladder to the district you want (load screen)

without being forced to respawn at a district:
1: you die, and respawn at sewers (load screen)
2: go back up the ladder to the district you want (load screen)


And yes, that is what I'm saying. Change the way respawn works so the player has more control.

the1andonlyskwex

spartaxoxo wrote: »

the1andonlyskwex wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

kargen27 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

kargen27 wrote: »

. The OP suggestion wants to take away the reward even if they succeed.

No, because it wouldn't take away Telvar they earned. A player is not guaranteed Telvar just because they get a kill. It is already possible to kill someone and receive 0 telvar. A player can only earn what the target is worth. If someone banked their telvar and someone else kill them as they are exiting spawn and get nothing, then that kill was not worth Telvar.

Nobody earns telvar from all kills. Picking targets is already part of the zone. This suggestion is tailored to ensuring that pvp still happens and that for the person killing, there is no difference in gameplay. Zero value targets already exist, this suggestion simply increases the number of 0 value targets. The only person who this changes things for is the person who turns it on, since they no longer earn telvar.

That doesn't change anything I said. This is a person deciding to punish themselves to punish others.

Yes, it does. Because in order to lose something earned, there has to be something taken away. Since the existence of zero telvar targets already exists, and there is no such thing as guaranteed telvar, then it cannot be said that introducing more zero telvar targets takes away earned rewards. There was already not a reasonable expectation that all kills would net telvar.

This argument is total nonsense. Changing the proportion of targets that grant 0 tel var obviously impacts people who are killing those targets.

How would you feel if ZOS substantially reduced the drop rate for antiquity leads? Would you be arguing that because the drop rate is already less than 100% nobody should care whether it's 0.00001% or 99%?

I never argued it would have no impact. I said it does not take away rewards that were earned. That is the argument that I was disputing. This suggestion does not take away rewards from a kill.

It absolutely takes away rewards. Anybody who has opted out would suddenly drop 0 tel var instead of whatever they would have dropped otherwise. Sure, you're never guaranteed that a particular kill will drop tel var, but the likelihood of any random kill dropping tel var would go down and the average reward would also drop as a result.


If your argument is that PvP players aren't losing anything because they haven't yet earned the tel var from the kill until after the opt out happened, then that would be similar to arguing that it would be okay for dungeon bosses to stop dropping loot because nothing is being taken away from the people who already have the sets they would have dropped. It's still silly.

spartaxoxo

the1andonlyskwex wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

the1andonlyskwex wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

kargen27 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

kargen27 wrote: »

. The OP suggestion wants to take away the reward even if they succeed.

No, because it wouldn't take away Telvar they earned. A player is not guaranteed Telvar just because they get a kill. It is already possible to kill someone and receive 0 telvar. A player can only earn what the target is worth. If someone banked their telvar and someone else kill them as they are exiting spawn and get nothing, then that kill was not worth Telvar.

Nobody earns telvar from all kills. Picking targets is already part of the zone. This suggestion is tailored to ensuring that pvp still happens and that for the person killing, there is no difference in gameplay. Zero value targets already exist, this suggestion simply increases the number of 0 value targets. The only person who this changes things for is the person who turns it on, since they no longer earn telvar.

That doesn't change anything I said. This is a person deciding to punish themselves to punish others.

Yes, it does. Because in order to lose something earned, there has to be something taken away. Since the existence of zero telvar targets already exists, and there is no such thing as guaranteed telvar, then it cannot be said that introducing more zero telvar targets takes away earned rewards. There was already not a reasonable expectation that all kills would net telvar.

This argument is total nonsense. Changing the proportion of targets that grant 0 tel var obviously impacts people who are killing those targets.

How would you feel if ZOS substantially reduced the drop rate for antiquity leads? Would you be arguing that because the drop rate is already less than 100% nobody should care whether it's 0.00001% or 99%?

I never argued it would have no impact. I said it does not take away rewards that were earned. That is the argument that I was disputing. This suggestion does not take away rewards from a kill.

It absolutely takes away rewards. Anybody who has opted out would suddenly drop 0 tel var instead of whatever they would have dropped otherwise. Sure, you're never guaranteed that a particular kill will drop tel var, but the likelihood of any random kill dropping tel var would go down and the average reward would also drop as a result.

It doesn't take away earned rewards. Because an earned reward is something you get for doing a specific task, not your average income over time.

In order to earn telvar, you have to kill something that drops telvar. If you kill someone without telvar, you earn nothing.

It is already the way the game works. Zero telvar is zero telvar.

The actual problem with this suggestion is that people not their to engage with the core mechanic would take up space, reducing the opportunities to earn telvar. But nobody loses a reward they were entitled to upon killing someone using the suggested feature because there is no reasonable expectation that all kills will net telvar.

the1andonlyskwex

spartaxoxo wrote: »

the1andonlyskwex wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

the1andonlyskwex wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

kargen27 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

kargen27 wrote: »

. The OP suggestion wants to take away the reward even if they succeed.

No, because it wouldn't take away Telvar they earned. A player is not guaranteed Telvar just because they get a kill. It is already possible to kill someone and receive 0 telvar. A player can only earn what the target is worth. If someone banked their telvar and someone else kill them as they are exiting spawn and get nothing, then that kill was not worth Telvar.

Nobody earns telvar from all kills. Picking targets is already part of the zone. This suggestion is tailored to ensuring that pvp still happens and that for the person killing, there is no difference in gameplay. Zero value targets already exist, this suggestion simply increases the number of 0 value targets. The only person who this changes things for is the person who turns it on, since they no longer earn telvar.

That doesn't change anything I said. This is a person deciding to punish themselves to punish others.

Yes, it does. Because in order to lose something earned, there has to be something taken away. Since the existence of zero telvar targets already exists, and there is no such thing as guaranteed telvar, then it cannot be said that introducing more zero telvar targets takes away earned rewards. There was already not a reasonable expectation that all kills would net telvar.

This argument is total nonsense. Changing the proportion of targets that grant 0 tel var obviously impacts people who are killing those targets.

How would you feel if ZOS substantially reduced the drop rate for antiquity leads? Would you be arguing that because the drop rate is already less than 100% nobody should care whether it's 0.00001% or 99%?

I never argued it would have no impact. I said it does not take away rewards that were earned. That is the argument that I was disputing. This suggestion does not take away rewards from a kill.

It absolutely takes away rewards. Anybody who has opted out would suddenly drop 0 tel var instead of whatever they would have dropped otherwise. Sure, you're never guaranteed that a particular kill will drop tel var, but the likelihood of any random kill dropping tel var would go down and the average reward would also drop as a result.

It doesn't take away earned rewards. Because an earned reward is something you get for doing a specific task, not your average income over time.

In order to earn telvar, you have to kill something that drops telvar. If you kill someone without telvar, you earn nothing.

It is already the way the game works. Zero telvar is zero telvar.

The actual problem with this suggestion is that people not their to engage with the core mechanic would take up space, reducing the opportunities to earn telvar. But nobody loses a reward they were entitled to because there is no reasonable expectation that all kills will net telvar.

There's no reasonable expectation that all kills will net antiquity leads either, but I bet you'd still be annoyed if ZOS cut the drop rates in half.

Diminish

AnduinTryggva wrote: »

I get constantly ganked by 2 or more players and I lose a lot of Telvar stones to the benefit of other players who just outnumber me (yeah so far for a sort of "interesting" pvp). As I have absolutely no measure to counter that I don't want to forcibly "paying" them (being pulled off by them is more appropriate) I want to turn off automatic telvar collection.

This removes benefits for them but also for me as I don't get that currency either.

So each player can chose to collect Telvars or not.

Most people probably aren't killing you with the expectation of gaining telvar. It's a PvPvE area. People are going to target you. Groups of people are going to target you. A populated IC is some of the best PvP in the game. If you don't care to collect telvar, why does it matter if you lose it? I promise, telvar or not, you are going to get ganked just as often. Run stealth pots/skills, mobility sets/skills, and a more tanky build to avoid the encounters you find yourself in that you want no part of.

Diminish

emilyhyoyeon wrote: »

Current, if your district owns a district you don't want to be in:
1: you die, and respawn in the wrong district (load screen)
2: enter the trapdoor to sewers (load screen)
3: go back up the ladder to the district you want (load screen)

without being forced to respawn at a district:
1: you die, and respawn at sewers (load screen)
2: go back up the ladder to the district you want (load screen)


And yes, that is what I'm saying. Change the way respawn works so the player has more control.

If you die, and load into a different district, just run through the districts back to the one you want to be in. Why go into the sewer, run back to the base, and go up a ladder to the district you want to be in? What if you are on say an AD character, and respawn in Elven Gardens? That is a long run back through the sewers to your alliance base. It's at most 3 doors away from any other district, and 0 additional load screens if you stay topside.

The_one_i_seek

the author just need to git good, or do not enter to pvp zone at all
his request is unreasonable and will be denied by developers as well
its 100%
so this topic is pointless from the beginning

spartaxoxo

the1andonlyskwex wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

the1andonlyskwex wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

the1andonlyskwex wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

kargen27 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

kargen27 wrote: »

. The OP suggestion wants to take away the reward even if they succeed.

No, because it wouldn't take away Telvar they earned. A player is not guaranteed Telvar just because they get a kill. It is already possible to kill someone and receive 0 telvar. A player can only earn what the target is worth. If someone banked their telvar and someone else kill them as they are exiting spawn and get nothing, then that kill was not worth Telvar.

Nobody earns telvar from all kills. Picking targets is already part of the zone. This suggestion is tailored to ensuring that pvp still happens and that for the person killing, there is no difference in gameplay. Zero value targets already exist, this suggestion simply increases the number of 0 value targets. The only person who this changes things for is the person who turns it on, since they no longer earn telvar.

That doesn't change anything I said. This is a person deciding to punish themselves to punish others.

Yes, it does. Because in order to lose something earned, there has to be something taken away. Since the existence of zero telvar targets already exists, and there is no such thing as guaranteed telvar, then it cannot be said that introducing more zero telvar targets takes away earned rewards. There was already not a reasonable expectation that all kills would net telvar.

This argument is total nonsense. Changing the proportion of targets that grant 0 tel var obviously impacts people who are killing those targets.

How would you feel if ZOS substantially reduced the drop rate for antiquity leads? Would you be arguing that because the drop rate is already less than 100% nobody should care whether it's 0.00001% or 99%?

I never argued it would have no impact. I said it does not take away rewards that were earned. That is the argument that I was disputing. This suggestion does not take away rewards from a kill.

It absolutely takes away rewards. Anybody who has opted out would suddenly drop 0 tel var instead of whatever they would have dropped otherwise. Sure, you're never guaranteed that a particular kill will drop tel var, but the likelihood of any random kill dropping tel var would go down and the average reward would also drop as a result.

It doesn't take away earned rewards. Because an earned reward is something you get for doing a specific task, not your average income over time.

In order to earn telvar, you have to kill something that drops telvar. If you kill someone without telvar, you earn nothing.

It is already the way the game works. Zero telvar is zero telvar.

The actual problem with this suggestion is that people not their to engage with the core mechanic would take up space, reducing the opportunities to earn telvar. But nobody loses a reward they were entitled to because there is no reasonable expectation that all kills will net telvar.

There's no reasonable expectation that all kills will net antiquity leads either, but I bet you'd still be annoyed if ZOS cut the drop rates in half.

Yes. Which is why I said I don't support OP's suggestion.

SeaGtGruff

Braffin wrote: »

@SeaGtGruff

I'm not disagreeing at all but just want to say that I'm in IC quite regularly outside of events. Sometimes farming tel-var, sometimes because I always liked stealth-based combat (probably a leftover from all the assassins creed and ghost recon titles I played).

I don't participate in MYM tho, it's my no-pvp-time for exactly the reasons you stated: too much griefers, too much PvE overlanders. Doesn't make much fun to deal with either of them in actual combat.

I know there are other players who enjoy IC outside of the PvP events, because I see them when I go to IC year round.

It's all of the players who throng to IC during the PvP event to harvest weaker or less skilled PvE players who I'm referring to. And when some of those players stream their gameplay, they do enjoy fighting each other after they've wiped out all of the small fry. And I realize there's no visual indicator that shows whether a player is in IC just for event tickets or to PvP during the event, so everyone is an equal opportunity target for attack, which is as it should be in a PvP zone.

But what gets me is when those players talk about how awesome IC is during the PvP events-- yet as soon as the event ends they just sort of evaporate and the populations go back down to 1 or maybe 2 bars on each faction.

It's like most of them only want to be there if there are a lot of easy targets.

And while I'm sure there are players who do want opponents who'll fight back rather than run away, and who'll live long enough for the fight to be "meaty" rather than just keel over dead after a second or two, the opponents they're hoping for seem to be the ones who've evaporated away.

That is to say, when the opportunists get bored with IC because there's no event to draw the easy pickings to IC, and go back to staying away from IC for whatever reason, it more or less leaves no one challenging for the real IC lovers to go up against.

kargen27

LouisaB75 wrote: »

kargen27 wrote: »

My guess is that person is not a regular PvP'r and is taking advantage of the event to try and get PvP achievements for killing players. Or they are just not good people and like causing grief. Most the PvP crowd is out doing PvP things, not camping doors.

It wasn't during an event. It was just on a day when Tel Var was one of the daily endeavours.

Same applies. A person that can't get kills against other PvP types camps the door on the day Telvar is an endeavor. Go down there when there is no event or endeavor associated and sadly you will usually find yourself alone.

kargen27

spartaxoxo wrote: »

kargen27 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

kargen27 wrote: »

. The OP suggestion wants to take away the reward even if they succeed.

No, because it wouldn't take away Telvar they earned. A player is not guaranteed Telvar just because they get a kill. It is already possible to kill someone and receive 0 telvar. A player can only earn what the target is worth. If someone banked their telvar and someone else kill them as they are exiting spawn and get nothing, then that kill was not worth Telvar.

Nobody earns telvar from all kills. Picking targets is already part of the zone. This suggestion is tailored to ensuring that pvp still happens and that for the person killing, there is no difference in gameplay. Zero value targets already exist, this suggestion simply increases the number of 0 value targets. The only person who this changes things for is the person who turns it on, since they no longer earn telvar.

That doesn't change anything I said. This is a person deciding to punish themselves to punish others.

Yes, it does. Because in order to lose something earned, there has to be something taken away. Since the existence of zero telvar targets already exists, and there is no such thing as guaranteed telvar, then it cannot be said that introducing more zero telvar targets takes away earned rewards. There was already not a reasonable expectation that all kills would net telvar.

This is a quote from the opening post:
"This removes benefits for them but also for me as I don't get that currency either."

The motive is spite.

spartaxoxo

kargen27 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

kargen27 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

kargen27 wrote: »

. The OP suggestion wants to take away the reward even if they succeed.

No, because it wouldn't take away Telvar they earned. A player is not guaranteed Telvar just because they get a kill. It is already possible to kill someone and receive 0 telvar. A player can only earn what the target is worth. If someone banked their telvar and someone else kill them as they are exiting spawn and get nothing, then that kill was not worth Telvar.

Nobody earns telvar from all kills. Picking targets is already part of the zone. This suggestion is tailored to ensuring that pvp still happens and that for the person killing, there is no difference in gameplay. Zero value targets already exist, this suggestion simply increases the number of 0 value targets. The only person who this changes things for is the person who turns it on, since they no longer earn telvar.

That doesn't change anything I said. This is a person deciding to punish themselves to punish others.

Yes, it does. Because in order to lose something earned, there has to be something taken away. Since the existence of zero telvar targets already exists, and there is no such thing as guaranteed telvar, then it cannot be said that introducing more zero telvar targets takes away earned rewards. There was already not a reasonable expectation that all kills would net telvar.

This is a quote from the opening post:
"This removes benefits for them but also for me as I don't get that currency either."

The motive is spite.

No the motive is deter farming the same player without removing pvp. The emotion came to the idea out of frustration and spite, sure. But the actual design of the idea is to discourage farming the same person over and over without discouraging regular PVP. They want to remove themselves as a valuable target.

AnduinTryggva wrote: »

Take note: I am not against being killed and losing telvars in IC.When I have a 1v1 and lose because of bad skill or bad build I am completely fine.

If I run in a ball group and die. That is bad luck and expected and it's ok if I lose tv upon dieing.

If I run around and stumble into a pair doing their thing (quests, bosses, flags) and they trash me it is ok and I am fine.

What is disgusting is that some players simply specialized and I mean SPECIALIZED in "farming" solo players, specifically during events. [snip] And to top this toxicity I have to pay them for them being toxic.

Also in Cyro one has gankers like that but they are rare while in IC they are a pest.

SeaGtGruff

It would remove some of the benefits for the other players, but those same specific benefits which the requested change would remove can already be removed by having banked all of your TV before getting killed. And I don't even have a problem with anyone claiming that it was "spite" which led someone to bank all of their TV.

I also wouldn't disagree with anyone who might want to say that it is "spite" which motivates gankers and bombers to 1-shot all of the easy PvE "fish in a barrel" who are just trying to get their IC event ticket for the day.

But the OP's actual or presumed motivation is immaterial, since the request will never be granted and in any case would still not stop them from getting ganked or bombed.

What I'm having a problem with is the notion that everyone is apparently obligated to be carrying TV on their characters so the spiteful gankers and bombers won't be denied their deserved rewards. To me, that attitude is far more offensive than wanting to bank all of my TV as soon as I get the chance so some other player can't steal half of the benefits from all of my hard work.

Braffin

SeaGtGruff wrote: »

That is to say, when the opportunists get bored with IC because there's no event to draw the easy pickings to IC, and go back to staying away from IC for whatever reason, it more or less leaves no one challenging for the real IC lovers to go up against.

Well said!

But they don't leave out of boredom, it's more like a chicken dance out of the danger zone the very moment only real opponents around.

kargen27

spartaxoxo wrote: »

kargen27 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

kargen27 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

kargen27 wrote: »

. The OP suggestion wants to take away the reward even if they succeed.

No, because it wouldn't take away Telvar they earned. A player is not guaranteed Telvar just because they get a kill. It is already possible to kill someone and receive 0 telvar. A player can only earn what the target is worth. If someone banked their telvar and someone else kill them as they are exiting spawn and get nothing, then that kill was not worth Telvar.

Nobody earns telvar from all kills. Picking targets is already part of the zone. This suggestion is tailored to ensuring that pvp still happens and that for the person killing, there is no difference in gameplay. Zero value targets already exist, this suggestion simply increases the number of 0 value targets. The only person who this changes things for is the person who turns it on, since they no longer earn telvar.

That doesn't change anything I said. This is a person deciding to punish themselves to punish others.

Yes, it does. Because in order to lose something earned, there has to be something taken away. Since the existence of zero telvar targets already exists, and there is no such thing as guaranteed telvar, then it cannot be said that introducing more zero telvar targets takes away earned rewards. There was already not a reasonable expectation that all kills would net telvar.

This is a quote from the opening post:
"This removes benefits for them but also for me as I don't get that currency either."

The motive is spite.

No the motive is deter farming the same player without removing pvp. The emotion came to the idea out of frustration and spite, sure. But the actual design of the idea is to discourage farming the same person over and over without discouraging regular PVP. They want to remove themselves as a valuable target.

Well we know this isn't going to deter players. First and most important reason being they have no idea if you have Telvar or not. The idea is to deny them Telvar by not collecting any yourself. A motive of spite pure and simple.

If the players doing the ganking were looking for valuable targets they would not be jumping others at drop off points or around the out of the way PvE objectives. PvE'rs are being targeted because they are perceived as easy targets and they will be considered easy targets whether they have Telvar or not.
Was a player in zone chat last night that was posting his kill/death ratio. The players that are griefing players wanting to finish PvE objectives are not in it for the Telvar. They will follow you from objective to objective jumping you at every chance knowing you haven't had time to get more Telvar.

spartaxoxo

SeaGtGruff wrote: »

It would remove some of the benefits for the other players, but those same specific benefits which the requested change would remove can already be removed by having banked all of your TV before getting killed. And I don't even have a problem with anyone claiming that it was "spite" which led someone to bank all of their TV.

I also wouldn't disagree with anyone who might want to say that it is "spite" which motivates gankers and bombers to 1-shot all of the easy PvE "fish in a barrel" who are just trying to get their IC event ticket for the day.

But the OP's actual or presumed motivation is immaterial, since the request will never be granted and in any case would still not stop them from getting ganked or bombed.

What I'm having a problem with is the notion that everyone is apparently obligated to be carrying TV on their characters so the spiteful gankers and bombers won't be denied their deserved rewards. To me, that attitude is far more offensive than wanting to bank all of my TV as soon as I get the chance so some other player can't steal half of the benefits from all of my hard work.

I completely agree.

kargen27

"What I'm having a problem with is the notion that everyone is apparently obligated to be carrying TV on their characters so the spiteful gankers and bombers won't be denied their deserved rewards."

I read through most the posts again and nobody is saying that. One person keeps trying to equate banking Telvar with not getting any Telvar. Most people in this thread in fact suggests banking your Telvar is the solution. I didn't see one post where a player suggested others are obligated to carry Telvar.
There is a difference in not wanting to gain any Telvar so others can't collect them on your death and taking your Telvar back to the bank. One is participating in the game as intended and the other is asking for a change out of pure spite. The opening post admits it is out of spite.

Gankers only deserve your Telvar if they kill you while you are carrying those Telvar around. If you make it to the bank and deposit them you won that round. Enjoy your bounty and protect it by banking your Telvar.

Oblivion_Protocol

I can’t speak for everyone, but I will say that I have killed people in IC for middling amounts of Tel Var, then ran into them right after they respawned. I knew they didn’t any enough Tel Var to make the reward any higher than what I’d get from an NPC, but I killed them again anyway. Hell, there have been times where I’ve killed people and not even noticed how much Tel Var I got from it. I go to IC for the PvP with a bonus of Tel Var rewards.

So turning off Tel Var collection won’t discourage me from killing anyone. I suspect a lot of other people feel the same.

endgamesmug

I went in and farmed some bosses for style pages for a bit, only got ganked once (got sent the obligatory hate whisper which i reacted to in a chirpy and chatty way which he obviously resented because he blocked me mid chat 😆). What i experienced or observed is what people have already said in this thread i think, its opportunists around 500cp with a unique concept of fun. All the fulltime pvpers seem to be somewhere else.

Necrotech_Master

SeaGtGruff wrote: »

I think ZOS wants to encourage players to go to IC. The IC DLC was Rich's baby, wasn't it? It can be a fun zone, and from what I've read some players feel like the zone questline is one of the more satisfying ones in the game. I wouldn't know, as I've yet to reattempt it after numerous prior occasions of getting killed by enemy players while trying to complete the district quests-- not the dailies, which I've completed many times, but the district zone quests.

As I understand it, the whole format (if that's the right word) of IC used to be different, inasmuch as you couldn't even enter IC unless your alliance controlled all of the keeps around Lake Rumare. I wasn't playing the game back then, so I don't know how it all worked then.

I do remember when you had to enter IC via one of the three sewer entrances in Cyrodiil, and I think that had it's good points. For one thing, it meant you had to go to Cyrodiil first, so it exposed new players to Cyrodiil instead of the way they can now go to IC without ever setting foot in Cyrodiil. And you had to do more than simply go to Cyrodiil-- you had to explore it at least a little bit to reach one of the sewer entrances from the closest friendly keep. The new way is a lot more convenient, but the old way was fun and had more of an element of danger.

But the reason I mentioned the original format-- which I never experienced-- is because, the way I understand it, you didn't get as much interaction between the three alliances in IC since the only time you'd get players from more than one alliance there was when one alliance gained entry to IC by controlling all of the key keeps, but then another alliance managed to get control over all of the jey keeps and was able to enter IC while the previous alliance was still inside. The way it is now, where all three alliances can enter and leave IC at will, must surely create a different... scenario? atmosphere?... than how it used to be.

I have a lot of fun in IC and the sewers, but not as far as the PvP is concerned. I've had a few enjoyable PvP moments there, but that was because I got attacked by players who were roughly equal to me in terms of tankiness and power, hence those fights lasted more than a few seconds and I felt like I had a fighting chance. But the vast majority of encounters were/are nothing like that, and it is not fun to get ganked by surprise by an OP player when you're in the middle of a boss fight or are trying to work on a quest. So I can totally understand why so many players dislike IC so strongly and have no desire to ever set foot there. Personally, I've learned to accept the dangers and aggravations, and am able to have fun there despite all the players who want nothing more than to ruin my fun. But I get why a lot of players want nothing to do with IC.

I disagree with the idea that IC would be more populated if only ZOS made this or that change. In my opinion, players who enjoy IC for what it is are going to go there all year long, whether or not there is a PvP event going on. Players who only enjoy going to IC when there's a PvP event going on are (in my opinion) not there for IC, but rather are there for the easy kills. If they were there for a well-balanced fight, they'd fight each other and would not need a PvP event to draw them to IC. They want an unbalanced fight against weaker or less skilled players who've only gone to IC because they want to get an event ticket there. Again, that is my opinion. To anyone who disagrees, I ask you-- If you love the PvP in IC so much, then why aren't you there year round? Why does it take an event to draw you there?

In contrast, I go to IC pretty regularly, year round, outside of these PvP events-- usually once a week, sometimes two or more-- yet I'm not there for the PvP. It's interesting to me that I do enjoy engaging in PvP in Cyrodiil, and will happily jump into a zerg of enemy players knowing that I'm certain to die, just so I can try to set fire to their siege before I get wiped out. But knowing that I have nothing to lose is just about the only reason I dabble in PvP in Cyrodiil at all. Knowing that I do have something to lose in IC actually discourages me from wanting to PvP there, rather than giving me an incentive to PvP there.

you could get to IC without owning the keeps, it was just super painful because IC was in the same campaign as cyro, so you would have to run all the way from your base to the IC entrance

it was annoying enough i usually just left toons logged out in IC so i didnt have to bother with that lol

i personally never had issues doing the quests there, mostly because i know where to go and what to look for, ive done them on almost every toon for the free like 3000 tel var you get in total from doing all the quests

the part that killed IC was when they restricted respawning to owning districts, which basically stopped all the big brawling that went on, it was much better when you could just respawn and get back into the fight (if you were trying to pvp) or make another attempt at your quest (if your were doing the quests)

Necrotech_Master

emilyhyoyeon wrote: »

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

emilyhyoyeon wrote: »

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

emilyhyoyeon wrote: »

I saw someone mention this earlier in the thread, but the amount of load screens/how the respawning works is also pretty frustrating, and I like pvp, so I can only imagine how annoying it is for someone who doesn't.

One of the things I don't get is that when you're killed, you have the option to pick a district you own to respawn in, or ''return'' or whatever the word is. The return option sounds like it brings you back to base, but it doesn't, if you own at least one of the districts. When I'm trying to do stuff in Elven Gardens, and my alliance owns some other district, I'm forced to go back to that one, then go back down the trapdoor into base, then go back up to Elven Gardens, instead of just being able to immediately respawn in the sewers and save myself the time.

OP's originally talking about tel var, but I can't help but think that making the respawn process less annoying wouldn't help frustrated players, PVEers or not.

"release" is back to the nearest allied faction controlled district (if your on the surface) or back to the sewer base (if your in the sewer, or your faction has no districts controlled on the surface)

thats part of where the extra load screens come in, if your faction has no control over the surface, thats 2 load screens to get back to the surface (one load back down to sewer base, one load back to surface) (and this is because zos though it was a good idea to tie respawning to owning the district)

That's what I'm saying.

Release should put you back to the sewers, since the other option lets you pick your respawn point anyway. You are forced into more load screens, if your alliance has a district you don't want to be in, when you die.

realistically it is still 2 load screens either way, if you wanted to get back to the surface

if you respawn on surface in wrong district you have to load into sewer and load back to surface

if you have no districts, your loading into the sewer anyway and then loading back to the surface

the best option they could do to prevent the extra load screens is to just do away with the respawning tied to flags then you could respawn where you want on the surface without the extra load screen

It's not.

Current, if your district owns a district you don't want to be in:
1: you die, and respawn in the wrong district (load screen)
2: enter the trapdoor to sewers (load screen)
3: go back up the ladder to the district you want (load screen)

without being forced to respawn at a district:
1: you die, and respawn at sewers (load screen)
2: go back up the ladder to the district you want (load screen)


And yes, that is what I'm saying. Change the way respawn works so the player has more control.

i never really considered the load when you respawned in a different district, its normally instantaneous for me (as in significantly faster than loading to and from the sewers) because its not a zone change, its the equivalent of wayshrining to another shrine in the same zone

personally i would rather it go back to how it was originally:
1: you die and choose which district (any) to respawn in, regardless of who controls which flags

Vulkunne

AnduinTryggva wrote: »

Jaraal wrote: »

AnduinTryggva wrote: »

Care to share your knowledge?

Like: Oh there is knowledge but it is secret!!! It is hard won knowledge and I cannot share. But you know... The usual gate keeping attitude.

It's like "with the right build you do fine but you don't find these builds on internet and I won't tell you what build you need." Gate keeping.
And fighting that nothing changes because the current situation fits best.

I don't mind sharing information with those who are willing to learn. But many already know everything they want to know.

Prove it that you like to share knowledge

I know for a fact that some of us do come on the forums and in zone chat, as well, in order to 'try' and help shed some light on certain things in order to help educate those who have questions or are making really blatant and sometimes embarrassing mistakes.

Having crossed this particular bridge before, I feel there's a sort of difference here between helping someone understand how gameplay works in IC and in giving away really valuable insight that comes from experience. Personally, I don't feel we should have to do that. Alot of times you have some out there who really don't care they are just looking for a nerf angle or some way to 'get back at' those they loathe. I'm not saying that about anyone here per say I'm just saying.

So no, the tools of the trade and such aren't there for everyone to gawk at and chastise over, and as a quester, farmer and ganker, I feel obligated to no one really. Many of us are solo too, solo players, uh so you have to understand we became this way for reasons. Choice is everything you know, its all about choice. If you want to know more than you have a choice to walk alone or sit in a nice cumfy zerg while someone else does all the work.

Hah, I hate to be like that but that's how it is. Ganking comes with being solo and it takes a certain skill level to run IC without a group. Its not for the faint of heart and learning this fine art is not for the weak because you will not last long. As some on here have said, "gank me if you dare". Just because someone gets attacked doesn't mean they will lose right? That's the thing about IC and one of the wonderful things that makes IC so different, so engaging.

Everyone has to choose and whatever you choose to do, do your best at it and the pay check will follow. But its a conflict of interest to try and do two jobs, two different roles so no need for that. And I feel no need really to explain why or how I play the game this way, aside from the many many groups who throttled me out of the group because their friend wanted to join, or thought I wasn't good enough or any other selfish reason. Groups leaving people behind intentionally, you know, there's a whole 'nother side here and of the people I know who also solo IC, none of us wants to go back to that.

If you need someone to lean on then a group is fine but someone frequently going in with a group, possibly a guild or what not is not going to need to know the other side of things, nor do they care. And that's the point.

AnduinTryggva

The_one_i_seek wrote: »

the author just need to git good, or do not enter to pvp zone at all
his request is unreasonable and will be denied by developers as well
its 100%
so this topic is pointless from the beginning

This post reminds me of this proverb: Everything has been said but not yet by everybody.