PVP Revives?

CoRRh

PvP seems like it's pretty ***, sorry, but it is.

Revives take a soul crystal, and take forever to do. When you cannot revive, you have to go all the way back to another fort and run all the way back to the battle with a horse, by time it's almost over. The solution the Devs gave are forward camps, but those cost money.

If healers could actually revive people, there were cheaper ways to keep your troops close to the battle when they respawn, and mana didn't run out so fast, PVP would probably be my favorite part of the game. Buuuuuuuut, nope.

My suggestion: Make the outer things around keeps, like farms and such, have respawn points. This would make PVP awesome.

Will spawn points closer to keeps (without costing money) ever exist?

Darka

A rework of the system could help but still have a penalty in place

1st death 1 min respawn
2nd Death 2 min respawn
3rd Death 5 Min
4th Death 10 min

All under a certain amount of time

CoRRh

Nobody is courageous enough to even participate in big battles because they're afraid to die and run for 5 minutes just to die again. This needs to be changed. When I think of huge action, which is part of what games are, I don't think about riding around on my horse, to accidentally run in to a mob of enemies, die, respawn, and repeat the process.

CoRRh

Yea, PVP is unplayable. You can't spawn at a fort that's under siege? Who's brilliant idea was that?

eterpage

I'm pretty sure this was to make it realistic. If you could respawn immediately everyone could be reckless, and sieges would take forever, since people could just die and come back immediately. This way, if you attack a fort, it is you versus the defenders of the fort. You have to think critically about whether you can afford to show your face or not.

The only suggestion to this would be perhaps giving more rewards, including equal rewards for someone who died. Like when you take a fort give a bit of XP, not a lot, maybe like 1/15th of your level(obviously different for different levels) and if you died you get the same if the fort you attacked is still taken.

Also, being able to teleport to a fort under attack would be silly. It would be impossible to surprise a fort, plus if you got to the inner chamber they can just flank you by all spawning right next to you.

Personally, I greatly enjoy having realistic battles like these.

CoRRh

I guess I made the mistake in assuming that a video game would be unrealistic.

Honestly, I can appreciate a realistic battle, but that doesn't work very well on this large of scale. It's just not fun to have to ride a horse to support a battle, and die the second you get near it, and have to repeat the process to get killed again.

The only way you can make a battle happen realistically like this would be separate matches, like War of Roses or Chivalry. But it just doesn't work when it's continuous. In history, large battles (like the ones they are wanting to happen) happened when one side attacked an occupied fortress. How can we recreate those huge battles if people aren't occupying those castles? You could say that there are people that are occupying it, it's just that everyone else is missing out, and that's exactly the problem. Games are not made with the intention to leave a lot of players out, and reward those lucky enough to be in the right place. They're made with the intention of everyone being entertained, and that intention is not being fulfilled.

illipthgore

ofcourse its annoying as hell having to run/ride back to the action and trying to avoid the gank groups trying to tie up the reinforcments but more importantly it gives tactics to many diff types of PVP players over just the endless zerg.

But the alternative of being able to respawn at any keep/outpost or farm would mean one side would totally dominate leaving the other sides with no chance and it would become a snorefest, The system is far from perfect and already a lot of diff views on what PVP means to diff players but at the end of the day its a far better system than the one you promote.

CoRRh

One that allows constant battle most of the time? I'd rather have some people mowing over each other and fun battles, than a system that makes 5/6ths of the PVP spent riding my horse around. It wouldn't mean that one side would always mow over everyone else, anyway. Allowing people to spawn in to a sieged Fort would allow for a faction to keep the fortress defended, and allowing people to spawn in the outposts would allow for the offense to keep up the attacking, which makes the battle draw out, and make it bigger, which makes for actual fun.

Sorry, but huge battles that allow you to stay in the battle after you die seems like a better alternative to riding your horse to a battle, dying in about a minute, and spending 5 minutes to ride back, just to get killed in a minute again.

Games are made for people to have fun and be entertained. This purpose is obviously not fulfilled by a system that makes you have to ride your horse more than actually playing the game. A system which would allow for longer battles, and battles that are easier to attend, would fulfill that purpose of entertainment.

So, given that games are made for entertainment, and not to make you watch yourself ride a horse, the current system sucks compared to a system that would actually entertain people.

illipthgore

No that's fine no need to even have any more then 1 keep as it will take so long to take one it will be time for work/sleep

CoRRh

Sorry, but that's not how it happens. One side always gets tired, and ends up slipping. That's how fights work. They also never just stick in one place unless there's low pop, but in that case, battles will be small and few even when everyone is in one place.

But still, I honestly don't see where you're coming from on this. Why would you rather watch yourself ride around on a horse 70% of the time, than have fun? Why pay a sub if you're more inclined to stare at a horse's back end than have big, exciting battles? If you'd rather play horse simulator, I have several recommendations that don't require $15 a month and even go more in depth.

Lazarus_Long

I agree with the OP in part. It takes a long time get back into battle without a forward camp and I think forward camps are about a bit over priced.

However, I am trying very hard not to judge things based my limited playing time. I don't have horse (same as a lot of people) and even when I get one it will take at least a month of feeding it to get fully upgraded.

As far as the ZvZ (Zerg vs. Zerg) style of play we are seeing now I think it will evolve away from mass chaos into something much more refined and ordered once the players wrap their heads around the fundamentals of it all. After that I'll start commenting on the mechanics of it and trying to improve it.

KoooZ

If you die in 1 minute and 5 minutes of riding back later the battle is still there, doesn't that mean someone else is living longer?

reggielee

Im glad its a long way to get back into action, it makes it more strategic and realistic, the winning team can take over a keep in the time for the respawns to counterattack, elsewise its just insta respawning and a stale mate.

Keep the respawn areas as they are but give healers a reduction in resurrection costs and time. It still would be prohibitive to revive everyone so it would encourage grouping and strategy to pick who to revive and when for the healer. on the otherhand dont make it so a healer is expected to spend their entire time reviving idiots who dont carry their own soul gems


as it stands now I dont (full healer here) revive anyone due to cost out of my own gold bank and serious lack of appreciation from those revived.

LadyChaos

wait till people are 50 and can afford the gems... guys asking for a lot of things that take the next couple weeks if not months to fully normalize. At lvl 10,20 etc bottom half of the awesome meter... it sucks to die.... no one is going to rez you... be cautious with your life and expert to run a lot until you are in range that YOU can carry masses of lvl 50 soul gems. Then everyone can rez and people will be crying there's no cost of death anymore...

Orchish

Completely disagree with your complaints. Not being able to spawn at a fort that is under siege is a GOOD thing, how on earth would we EVER capture a keep if the defending faction's entire army can simply teleport to it every time? Seems like you clearly haven't thought this through.

No idea what you're blabbing about in regards to nobody getting involved in large scale battles, i am experiencing the exact opposite. Two sometimes all three large armies coming together and the result being many dead players.

The grand soul gem to revive allies is also a good thing, you see if anybody could simply revive dead allies then the big large zerg armies you see running around will never die out after suffering losses as every time one player goes down, another from that zerg will revive him.

The only thing i agree with is forward camps, they do seem a tad expensive for their limited spawn. I would like to see more types of forward camps added, each one allowing for more players to spawn at them for a higher cost to balance it out.

LadyChaos

Forward camps are very expensive IMO.. I can only afford to buy them when its drunken PvP night lol.

Napkins

CoRRh wrote: »

One that allows constant battle most of the time? I'd rather have some people mowing over each other and fun battles, than a system that makes 5/6ths of the PVP spent riding my horse around. It wouldn't mean that one side would always mow over everyone else, anyway. Allowing people to spawn in to a sieged Fort would allow for a faction to keep the fortress defended, and allowing people to spawn in the outposts would allow for the offense to keep up the attacking, which makes the battle draw out, and make it bigger, which makes for actual fun.

Sorry, but huge battles that allow you to stay in the battle after you die seems like a better alternative to riding your horse to a battle, dying in about a minute, and spending 5 minutes to ride back, just to get killed in a minute again.

Games are made for people to have fun and be entertained. This purpose is obviously not fulfilled by a system that makes you have to ride your horse more than actually playing the game. A system which would allow for longer battles, and battles that are easier to attend, would fulfill that purpose of entertainment.

So, given that games are made for entertainment, and not to make you watch yourself ride a horse, the current system sucks compared to a system that would actually entertain people.

You have to look at both the positives and negatives to the respawn system.

If players could just teleport to a keep under siege, you could just keep throwing bodies at the enemies (dying alot) sending zerg wave after zerg wave to slow/stop the enemy. Not to mention it would be very easy to form up at a key choke point in mere seconds. No strat just zerging. It would make taking enemy points almost impossible when a large zerg could just port in at any moment. No fun to me.

Kinda similar but not really, in gw2 they buffed siege at one point to make taking keeps/objectives harder and it was just overkill. To the point where my guild and MANY other organised guilds stopped doing any offensive sieges and just focused on killing other organised groups for months to come.

just my 2 cents

NordJitsu

So basically you want to be able to die over and over again with absolutely no penalty.

No thanks, I prefer death to be a meaningful disincentive so people will try to avoid dying.

And keep sieges would be garbage if it was that easy to get reinforcements.

The current system is nearly perfect.

Psionyxz

I haven't looked too far into it but so far, just from browsing the skill lines, I would eventually have access to Battle Resurrection from the Support abilities and one other from Restoring Light as a Templar that gives a 50% chance to get a filled gem back as well as resurrection time reduction.

As it stands right now, it takes me too long to res someone and I don't have many gems to begin with. I can definitely see the benefit in keeping the push strong once you down the outer wall and begin breaching, but outside of that I can't say I would take the time to res someone when I could be spending my time keeping the rest alive and saving my gems for more crucial moments.

I think that once I hit max level the cost of gems will likely be trivial (they already almost are) and I'll have less of an issue keeping a horde of them around.

calico19672000ub17_ESO

Well, I understand not wanting "free respawns" so that battle do not last forever - on the other hand, I just logged in to PvP for an hour or so. Spent probably 40-50 minutes running to the battle, got into the fight twice. No one had forward camps, for whatever reason (I don't know if too expensive, or people didn't know about them or what).

But I agree with the people that say this needs some tuning. It's not fun to run across a map. I like the idea of healers being able to rez people. That would add some more tactics concerning, well, protecting healers more and trying to kill healers more. Also maybe make it so the normal level stone can rez a player. Like, I go to Cyrodil at level 11, so a normal level 11 stone can rez me. Instead of making it all level 50 (which I guess it is?). I have soul stones I'd use on people, but they are all too low level. And, finally, maybe once per day you get a free teleport to your "group" so you can get to the action right away when you log in to start playing?

Samadhi

I like the current system. It makes use of forward camps feel both important and strategic.
It also makes burning an enemy camp before anyone gets to spawn at it feel quite satisfying.
Beyond that, I like the larger scale tactics involved in cutting off enemy teleports in order to overwhelm other keeps.

I spend far more time in combat than traveling across Cyrodiil though. Perhaps I would view the situation differently if I were constantly dying and returning to combat.

sminkiottone

CoRRh wrote: »

Yea, PVP is unplayable. You can't spawn at a fort that's under siege? Who's brilliant idea was that?

I really hope you are sarcastic here... if not, think before saying something silly

Gaudrath

Respawn in the attacked keep? And where would the attackers respawn? In an expensive, easily burned tent?

Yeah, that would work. Defenders respawning right next to the heavily defended, indestructible objective, attackers respawning outside the walls in something that can easily be destroyed.

At that's not counting in the fact that most of us don't want to fight zombie armies which just. Won't. Stay. Down.

Respawn is fine as it is. Don't die so much.

Azarul

It is working just as it should.

itsmalarky

CoRRh wrote: »

Yea, PVP is unplayable. You can't spawn at a fort that's under siege? Who's brilliant idea was that?

are you serious? where's the fun in that?

I swear, people complain about the dumbest ***. If you could teleport to a keep that's under siege, it would make it incredibly too easy and remove an important aspect of the game. It would also severely reduce small scale combat, and then everyone would complain about even larger zergs.

Being able to cut off reinforcements is a really valuable part of aVa.

And complaining about running? Some of you need to go back to Arathi Basin or something....having to run for 5 minutes is a welcome change. There has to be some sort of consequence to death, or victory wouldn't be nearly as sweet. If people didn't have an incentive to stay alive, they wouldn't play conservatively and fights would be just one large ***. There's a weight and importance to every engagement, where you have to weight the pros and cons of the risk involved.

Making it "Easier" would take away from that.

tl;dr: give it a week and stop crying.

Asltok

Im pretty on the fence about this. Ressing in pvp creates huge stalemates (especially in a seige) and often rewards the zerg for generally having more resses and bodies to do it available.

While running back for 5 minutes IS tedious, it opens up strategy where you cut off the opposing reinforcements, and it allows fights to actually end.

Ticare

The only problem with the current respawn system is that it makes playing any kind of melee completely unappealing

Ackure

I think camps are a little more affordable in the greater sense then people make out. I can easily afford 3-4 a night + 10-15 siege weapons. I'm lvl 16 and just playing healing although I'm normally leading a raid group. But the encouragement for other people to actually buy camps or earn anything decent from it isn't there enough. I think the PVP tutorial should actually point someone to buy their cheap tent version from the vendor itself and point out that their also at other forts. There are many people asking for revives but they unfortunately haven't been informed that it requires a grand soul gem. Although I see high level gank squads use this often to ambush/with stealth/revive.
You can Teleport to a fort under siege but not when all the surrounding points are taken. So effective scouting and raid groups responding to advance parties make it very useful. However at least 25-35% of the people I pick up in zone chat get distracted by staying with the zerg then paying attention to group chat.
Also playing melee in a siege is still useful for counter ganks just sit back and defend the siege and keep an eye out for people coming out of the side gates.

Wolfaen

There are so many good things that come from the use of soul gems to revive that they highly outweigh the bad.

For instance, it discourages zerging. The death of players within a zerg forces a split while they run back which will weaken them significantly.

It also makes killing and dieing much more impactful. By this I mean players are encouraged to start to focus more on strategic play and survival rather than charging in without regrets of dying. This type of passive player improvement is an ingenious PvP design. I for one have focused and improved much more on positioning and awareness in PvP after battling in Cyrodiil.

It also adds strategic tactics where you can cut off reinforcements to your enemy which is tons of fun and forces everyone running back to a attack or defense to always be on their feet just in case they are jumped.

I really can't think of a major negative issue with the resurrection mechanic in its current state. Running back sucks sometimes, but there really should be consequences for dying and it makes sense to me.

I agree forward camps need to be reduced in price. That is all.

CoRRh

Hiya guys, after looking over things, I would have to say my original post was highly exaggerated and very silly. So, I'd like to change my position a little.

I still side with making rezing in the field a bit easier to do, and if I read correctly, it seems as if there's a skill later on that allows that. Not exactly sure, but rezing seems pretty silly to require using up an item to do so. I feel like that might need some touching up in PvP.

As for rezing inside and near under siege forts, I still stand by this, but not in the way I originally stated. I did not apply how the game works in to my idea. I think fortresses should allow you to spawn in them, but with a limited amount of respawns and spawn-ins total for the base dependent on the size of the enemy force. This way, battles wouldn't take forever, and death would still be a punishment. I also stand by my statement that attackers should be able to spawn in the outer farms and such of the forts, but also with a limited amount for each individual outer area, again, to make it to where death is still a penalty, but to eliminate the 5 minute walk back. Believe me when I say dying doesn't take long enough, and the penalty walk of shame back just to get murdered in half a second is more punishment than any game I've played. I'm halfway through my Dark Souls 1 playthrough, and it's easier to avoid death in Dark Souls.

As to the 5 minute walk, itsmalarky, Arathi Basin and Cyrodiil are very different places. In Cyrodiil, life bars are small, and can be emptied in seconds by a single enemy, who is scaled to your level. In Arathi Basin, 1v1 battles can easily stretch to being minutes long, and being healed is much simpler, and levels are not scaled to every player. As voxel games can hardly be compared to one another, you cannot just compare WoW and ESO and have it work. They are both MMORPGs, but the similarities don't go much farther, and pretty much have no likeness in PvP.

Forward camps should stay how they are, but with a price reduction, so people actually use them

In all honesty, I have no issue with how the battles are playing out, but it'd be great if I didn't have to spend more time thinking about how great of an actor Arnold Schwarzenegger is than actually playing. Granted, Arnold is a great guy, but ***, I'm supposed to be playing a video game.

tl;dr Sorry for being stupid, so I change my opinion, but not entirely.

Darka

Consequence still needs to be there for dying,
Its risk v reward
It makes people think, and relies less on " He Who Zergs the Fastest wins"
Could the timer be dropped a little? Of course.
Maybe
1st Death 1 Min
2nd Death 2 min
3rd Death 5 Min
4th Death 10 Min
Under a limited time
A penalty still needs to be there I feel, but maybe a better way to look at it would work better to get more "fighting"

danteafk

If they would make it rewarding to rezz players, like give them AP points for rezzing, more people would do it.