Alliance Point accumulation needs to be re-evaluated.

Xsorus

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

DemonNinja wrote: »

This is when I want a dislike option.... So basically what you are asking for is a Zerg fest system that supports a keep swapping cluster like GW

I stand behind ZOS and the design decisions they have made, it facilitates smaller group tactics. Anything that moves this game into the direction of a DAoC RvR model I support. That being said the game has only been out a moth and does still need work, but I completely disagree. The system you are proposing would only create a total zerg fest which is the exact reason why I left GW2.

No. No. No. You couldn't be further from the truth.

I do not want a zerg fest system. ESO is already doing that on its own just fine. I want to discourage it.

There wouldn't be keep swapping, because again, there is more incentive to actually defend a keep than take one. You gain more AP for defending, and this would be reflected with the new objective-oriented system as well. Games that have keep swapping rely heavily on offense and nothing else, leading to your suggested worry.

Explain to me how making the AvA actually matter and turning the game away from zergs and mindless killing make the game worse? I want to improve the AvA experience. It's a shame that most AP is accumulated from killing players. It's a shame that solo players or small groups get a majority of the AP when they aren't even participating in AvA. It's a shame that taking keeps, defending them, taking scrolls, and crowning and emperor takes a back seat to mindless killing.

AvA was supposed to be an experience where guilds in an alliance came together coordinated strategies, defended their own keeps, and fought together to win the Alliance War. AvA is not like that in the slightest. It is nothing more than small gank groups and farm groups going around trying to farm the emperorship at the expense of the Alliance War. Is that the experience you were looking for?

Because we have countless games that rewarded taking Objectives more then Killing Players resulting in Keep Swapping.

Also, those solo players and small groups are participating in ava, by killing players who are running to objectives..

They're doing far more to help their side then some guy taking undefended objectives with his 24 man zerg ..oh i'm sorry, "Group" lol

galiumb16_ESO

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

Where in that quote did I say cutting off reinforcements and occupying choke points is not a part of AvA? Please do not make assumptions. Clearly these tactics are very advantageous towards taking or defending keeps/resources and further pushing your alliance's goals.

Farming kills is ganking lowbies questing or camping elder scrolls gates waiting for prey to come by. My explanation is purely based on activities that do not actually benefit your alliance in the Alliance War. The system encourages and endorses these activities more so than actually participating in AvA.

Too large a group? ZOS has built ESO and their engine to sustain up to 200 players on the screen. They openly want and encourage huge battles. That is really the crux of the AvA system and while I'm not arguing that small groups or solo should be irrelevant, they shouldn't be significantly better AP-wise than large groups. Just because you happen to be in a small group doesn't necessarily mean the battle is harder or requires more skill. That is a fallacy.

Everybody should definitely gain more AP for playing objectively, large and small groups (especially for offense). AP for kills should be reduced significantly, especially for small groups or solo players. This isn't an arena or a death match. Killing players is not what will win the Alliance War. Taking keeps/resources, maintaining them, stealing elder scrolls, and crowning an emperor is what will win the war. These are all objectives. The entire AP system should be based around these principles.

There is no way to differentiate the kills unrelated to AvA and related to AvA was my point and honestly ganking lowbies does not net you lots of points in the first place. Punishing all of the highly valuable to AvA activities because there is a handful of folks fighting off in some corner earning points seems entirely counter productive for the long term diversity of AvA.

Because we can support 200 people on a screen does not mean every fight needs to be 200 people on a screen. If you are in a group of 24 fighting only groups of 10 then obviously you can make less AP or you can split up so you get more rewarding and challenging fights. That is obviously your decision, and I understand why zergs prefer to have the advantage, but asking the system to be changed so that you can earn lots of points while dominating, seems counter productive to AvA being anything but a blob fest.

Killing people needs to be the focus of AP system, because it will be exploited in any other fashion. Early days of WAR and GW2 shows clearly what happens when you tie your point gains to objectives.

What I want is quality play and that means folks need to be willing to spread out across the map. Flanks, ambushes, ninja grabs, hindering reinforcements, finding and destroying camps, all stuff that happens away from the blob of players. The moment you start hindering the AP gains of small groups you will end up with nothing but blobs of folks running around pretending they are doing something more than a big game of follow the leader.

In short, if you want to have low risk zerg play great, have it, you just wont be rewarded for it and you shouldnt be.

Imperator_Clydus

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

A. you only gain more from defending based on the amount of kills you get from defending, and that's based on the amount of realm points earned in the area..In otherwords, If players are worth less in PvP, and you kill them, the amount of Realm Points earned during Defending from the Tic is less. Taking objectives right now gives about 600-1000 if no one defends..The most i've seen on a single defense that was two hours long on the tic is 20k. If players weren't worth the amount they were, no one would bother defending, and we'd be keep swapping.

B. Solo Players should gain ridiculous amounts of AP if they're killing people, They're defending the Objective just the same as you defending that objective...Only they risk dying far more then you, who has 23 other people backing him up because you're afraid to die. Bigger the Risk, Bigger the Reward.

C. You came to play AvA and not zerg wars? You're zerging right now with 24 people, you're just not very good at it obviously otherwise you'd be able to make a healthy amount of Realm Points. Blaming others for your failures at the game is hilarious.

I'm sorry PvD seems to be your preferred method of play... and actual PvP seems to scare you.

By the way, for the comment on Alliance vs Alliance is dueling/ganking lowbies or whatever.

We had this discussion back in DAOC with players like yourself..Who insisted Realm vs Realm is nothing but Keeps/Towers and such.

Alliance vs Alliance is exactly that..Alliances fighting one another, It doesn't specify what the alliance is..or what the battles are.

it could be that single 1v1 out the middle of no where..It could be ganking lowbies, it can even by blowing up terrible zergs.

It can be all those things...

you want more Alliance Points, play better.

This is why AP should be based on objectives rather than killing players. Your entire dilemma can be solved if people actually play the game as intended.

Solo players aren't defending objectives. Solo players go out into the wilderness and hunt for stragglers. They aren't contributing to AvA. They are just hunting for the sake of hunting. They should not accumulate more AP.

What's funny is you seem to assume by being in a smaller group the experience of AvA is that much harder. This is nothing more than a fallacy. Large groups and small groups cannot be compared as they will never be in identical situations. Players will adapt based on the resources they have and take on challenges through sheer common sense.

A solo player VR10 vampire killing a fresh level 10 in the middle of the wilderness is not more risky and shouldn't yield greater rewards than a large party killing multiple large parties. Your logic is flawed.

You do not know what a zerg is. I can assure you I do not zerg because it is a terrible way to PvP. The problem with your entire argument is you keep making assumptions about what kind of player I am. You have no idea. You just continue to spout nonsense that isn't relevant to why AvA isn't actually focused on AvA.

You can continue to disregard what the objectives are and how to win the alliance war, but you are merely deluding yourself. Taking keeps, defending them, taking scrolls, and crowning and emperor is how your alliance wins. Pure and simple. That's how you get the top rewards when a campaign resets. Those are the major systems of AvA and to disregard this is perplexing to me.

This isn't a first person shooter. AvA requires tactics, coordination, and the efforts of the entire alliance to succeed. Solo players randomly ganking players in the middle of the forest does not contribute. It may be your preferred play style, but that is not AvA. That is merely something the persistent world of Cyrodiil allows you to engage in. Do not mistake what is and what isn't AvA.

Obviously though, my words are wasted on you. I assume you will continue to retort with nonsense and inappropriate remarks, so I will disregard your further comments as they are derailing the thread.

More objective-based AP gains. More benefits to those who actually participate and engage in AvA. Less AP for kills and certainly a lot less for solo and small groups. They can be perfectly viable through objectives just like large groups.

galiumb16_ESO

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

I want to improve the AvA experience. .... It's a shame that solo players or small groups get a majority of the AP when they aren't even participating in AvA.

You want to improve the AvA experience for your style of play, at the expense of other styles. The fact that you think there is a way to gain AP without participating in AvA shows a profound lack of insight. People are where AvA is, so if you are going to kill people, you need to be taking part in AvA in some fashion or another.

Is my group coordinating the push for forts, no, but we have a huge amount of impact on the success of those coordinating those pushes and suggesting we deserve less points because it does not fit your approved list of AvA activities is insulting.

Imperator_Clydus

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

DemonNinja wrote: »

This is when I want a dislike option.... So basically what you are asking for is a Zerg fest system that supports a keep swapping cluster like GW

I stand behind ZOS and the design decisions they have made, it facilitates smaller group tactics. Anything that moves this game into the direction of a DAoC RvR model I support. That being said the game has only been out a moth and does still need work, but I completely disagree. The system you are proposing would only create a total zerg fest which is the exact reason why I left GW2.

No. No. No. You couldn't be further from the truth.

I do not want a zerg fest system. ESO is already doing that on its own just fine. I want to discourage it.

There wouldn't be keep swapping, because again, there is more incentive to actually defend a keep than take one. You gain more AP for defending, and this would be reflected with the new objective-oriented system as well. Games that have keep swapping rely heavily on offense and nothing else, leading to your suggested worry.

Explain to me how making the AvA actually matter and turning the game away from zergs and mindless killing make the game worse? I want to improve the AvA experience. It's a shame that most AP is accumulated from killing players. It's a shame that solo players or small groups get a majority of the AP when they aren't even participating in AvA. It's a shame that taking keeps, defending them, taking scrolls, and crowning and emperor takes a back seat to mindless killing.

AvA was supposed to be an experience where guilds in an alliance came together coordinated strategies, defended their own keeps, and fought together to win the Alliance War. AvA is not like that in the slightest. It is nothing more than small gank groups and farm groups going around trying to farm the emperorship at the expense of the Alliance War. Is that the experience you were looking for?

Because we have countless games that rewarded taking Objectives more then Killing Players resulting in Keep Swapping.

Also, those solo players and small groups are participating in ava, by killing players who are running to objectives..

They're doing far more to help their side then some guy taking undefended objectives with his 24 man zerg ..oh i'm sorry, "Group" lol

Sounds me to like those games didn't adequately add in an objective-based system that would discourage that kind of mentality. That's not an issue with the system itself. That's an issue with execution.

Killing a random player who is doing PvE dailies is not running to objectives. You continue to assume that everybody in AvA is running to an objective, when many or not. That is the problem. That is what needs to be resolved.

A solo player killing some random person in the world is doing more than my group who is cutting transitus, intercepting respawn large groups trying to take a keep or elder scroll, and crippling an entire offensive behind enemy lines? Right. I'm definitely doing a lot less. You are not rewarded for playing strategically in this game. You are rewarded for zerging and farming kills. That is a flawed system.

Infraction

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

galiumb16_ESO wrote: »

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

You seem to be missing the point. AP gains are better solo and in small groups. I was the first DC player crowned emperor on Bloodthorn and I play mainly in 24 party groups. I was passed almost immediately on the leaderboard by players who have admitted to playing solo and farming kills. There is something inherently wrong with a system that encourages farming and not participating in the AvA system.

Why is cutting off reinforcements, occupying large groups of enemy at non-objective choke points, etc considered not participating in the AvA system? What about when our small group breaks sieges? Breaks stale mate battles? It is not like you can just run off to a corner of the map that doesn't effect AvA and farm players.... players are in and around AvA objectives, so that is where you fight.

I think the current system is great and needs to remain, specially as they march down the road of changing AoE caps. The current system rewards risk and that is how it should be.

Using a common occurrence as an example. When our small group is assisting with a defense we are not inside, behind siege waiting for the enemy to make a mistake to charge out. We are are out there on the flank, on the breached walls, really pushing the enemy, forcing those mistakes to happen. Yes we are making more per kill than the 24 man zerg inside the fort, but when we die we have to run back, no points for that portion of time. When we are kiting a 24 man zerg half way across the map because they decided killing us was more important than taking the fort, we are not making points, while all those folks on the defense get a big fat defense AP bonus.

The system right now means that if you are the biggest force on the map, than you are going to earn less AP and that is a good thing for the health of the game. If you are not making enough points then I would argue that you have too large of a group for what you are facing.

The only AP change I think needs a review is the amount you get for taking objectives. Given that you can defend with a smaller number of players I think the ratio of defender vs attacker should be reflected in the formula for how much you should be rewarded when taking a keep. I assume right now it is more of a flat comparison.

I do agree with your other statement about needing to shut down campaigns. We should start off by shutting down 5 campaigns and see how the population shakes out from there.

Where in that quote did I say cutting off reinforcements and occupying choke points is not a part of AvA? Please do not make assumptions. Clearly these tactics are very advantageous towards taking or defending keeps/resources and further pushing your alliance's goals.

Farming kills is ganking lowbies questing or camping elder scrolls gates waiting for prey to come by. My explanation is purely based on activities that do not actually benefit your alliance in the Alliance War. The system encourages and endorses these activities more so than actually participating in AvA.

Too large a group? ZOS has built ESO and their engine to sustain up to 200 players on the screen. They openly want and encourage huge battles. That is really the crux of the AvA system and while I'm not arguing that small groups or solo should be irrelevant, they shouldn't be significantly better AP-wise than large groups. Just because you happen to be in a small group doesn't necessarily mean the battle is harder or requires more skill. That is a fallacy.

Everybody should definitely gain more AP for playing objectively, large and small groups (especially for offense). AP for kills should be reduced significantly, especially for small groups or solo players. This isn't an arena or a death match. Killing players is not what will win the Alliance War. Taking keeps/resources, maintaining them, stealing elder scrolls, and crowning an emperor is what will win the war. These are all objectives. The entire AP system should be based around these principles.

If the leader in points of your alliance is passing everyone ganking lowbies doing quests your campaign isn't very active.........

Xsorus

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

A. you only gain more from defending based on the amount of kills you get from defending, and that's based on the amount of realm points earned in the area..In otherwords, If players are worth less in PvP, and you kill them, the amount of Realm Points earned during Defending from the Tic is less. Taking objectives right now gives about 600-1000 if no one defends..The most i've seen on a single defense that was two hours long on the tic is 20k. If players weren't worth the amount they were, no one would bother defending, and we'd be keep swapping.

B. Solo Players should gain ridiculous amounts of AP if they're killing people, They're defending the Objective just the same as you defending that objective...Only they risk dying far more then you, who has 23 other people backing him up because you're afraid to die. Bigger the Risk, Bigger the Reward.

C. You came to play AvA and not zerg wars? You're zerging right now with 24 people, you're just not very good at it obviously otherwise you'd be able to make a healthy amount of Realm Points. Blaming others for your failures at the game is hilarious.

I'm sorry PvD seems to be your preferred method of play... and actual PvP seems to scare you.

By the way, for the comment on Alliance vs Alliance is dueling/ganking lowbies or whatever.

We had this discussion back in DAOC with players like yourself..Who insisted Realm vs Realm is nothing but Keeps/Towers and such.

Alliance vs Alliance is exactly that..Alliances fighting one another, It doesn't specify what the alliance is..or what the battles are.

it could be that single 1v1 out the middle of no where..It could be ganking lowbies, it can even by blowing up terrible zergs.

It can be all those things...

you want more Alliance Points, play better.

This is why AP should be based on objectives rather than killing players. Your entire dilemma can be solved if people actually play the game as intended.

Solo players aren't defending objectives. Solo players go out into the wilderness and hunt for stragglers. They aren't contributing to AvA. They are just hunting for the sake of hunting. They should not accumulate more AP.

What's funny is you seem to assume by being in a smaller group the experience of AvA is that much harder. This is nothing more than a fallacy. Large groups and small groups cannot be compared as they will never be in identical situations. Players will adapt based on the resources they have and take on challenges through sheer common sense.

A solo player VR10 vampire killing a fresh level 10 in the middle of the wilderness is not more risky and shouldn't yield greater rewards than a large party killing multiple large parties. Your logic is flawed.

You do not know what a zerg is. I can assure you I do not zerg because it is a terrible way to PvP. The problem with your entire argument is you keep making assumptions about what kind of player I am. You have no idea. You just continue to spout nonsense that isn't relevant to why AvA isn't actually focused on AvA.

You can continue to disregard what the objectives are and how to win the alliance war, but you are merely deluding yourself. Taking keeps, defending them, taking scrolls, and crowning and emperor is how your alliance wins. Pure and simple. That's how you get the top rewards when a campaign resets. Those are the major systems of AvA and to disregard this is perplexing to me.

This isn't a first person shooter. AvA requires tactics, coordination, and the efforts of the entire alliance to succeed. Solo players randomly ganking players in the middle of the forest does not contribute. It may be your preferred play style, but that is not AvA. That is merely something the persistent world of Cyrodiil allows you to engage in. Do not mistake what is and what isn't AvA.

Obviously though, my words are wasted on you. I assume you will continue to retort with nonsense and inappropriate remarks, so I will disregard your further comments as they are derailing the thread.

More objective-based AP gains. More benefits to those who actually participate and engage in AvA. Less AP for kills and certainly a lot less for solo and small groups. They can be perfectly viable through objectives just like large groups.

Solo players kill other Solo Players going to defend (or attack) objective under attack

Thus Solo player has actually defended the objective from either people attacking it, or people coming to defend it, Thus they did exactly what you wanted them to do, Contributed to the "War effort" You're just mad they get more AP's because they did it alone instead of with 24 people.

Lets examine some more of your rant...


"A solo player VR10 vampire killing a fresh level 10 in the middle of the wilderness is not more risky and shouldn't yield greater rewards than a large party killing multiple large parties. Your logic is flawed."

You are correct, But a Solo player Vr10 vampire killing a fresh level 10 player will not get anymore reward then a large party killing multiple large parties, If you soloed, you'd know this...But since you've only ever zerged, you don't.

Now a solo VR10 vamp will get more reward then you with your 24 man Zerg killing that fresh level 10 out in the middle of no where, and that's how it should be..Though the risk was small to the vamp, You had zero risk of dying as a 24 man zerg.

As for not knowing what a zerg is, I know exactly what a zerg is..You're a bloody zerg with 24 people... There is no one in this game that will disagree with that besides you...

You're zerging, you may pretend your "group" isn't a zerg, but it is...

You want to make some AP points, stop taking undefended objectives with your zerg.. and actually i don't know... maybe pvp for once.

Xsorus

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

DemonNinja wrote: »

This is when I want a dislike option.... So basically what you are asking for is a Zerg fest system that supports a keep swapping cluster like GW

I stand behind ZOS and the design decisions they have made, it facilitates smaller group tactics. Anything that moves this game into the direction of a DAoC RvR model I support. That being said the game has only been out a moth and does still need work, but I completely disagree. The system you are proposing would only create a total zerg fest which is the exact reason why I left GW2.

No. No. No. You couldn't be further from the truth.

I do not want a zerg fest system. ESO is already doing that on its own just fine. I want to discourage it.

There wouldn't be keep swapping, because again, there is more incentive to actually defend a keep than take one. You gain more AP for defending, and this would be reflected with the new objective-oriented system as well. Games that have keep swapping rely heavily on offense and nothing else, leading to your suggested worry.

Explain to me how making the AvA actually matter and turning the game away from zergs and mindless killing make the game worse? I want to improve the AvA experience. It's a shame that most AP is accumulated from killing players. It's a shame that solo players or small groups get a majority of the AP when they aren't even participating in AvA. It's a shame that taking keeps, defending them, taking scrolls, and crowning and emperor takes a back seat to mindless killing.

AvA was supposed to be an experience where guilds in an alliance came together coordinated strategies, defended their own keeps, and fought together to win the Alliance War. AvA is not like that in the slightest. It is nothing more than small gank groups and farm groups going around trying to farm the emperorship at the expense of the Alliance War. Is that the experience you were looking for?

Because we have countless games that rewarded taking Objectives more then Killing Players resulting in Keep Swapping.

Also, those solo players and small groups are participating in ava, by killing players who are running to objectives..

They're doing far more to help their side then some guy taking undefended objectives with his 24 man zerg ..oh i'm sorry, "Group" lol

Sounds me to like those games didn't adequately add in an objective-based system that would discourage that kind of mentality. That's not an issue with the system itself. That's an issue with execution.

Killing a random player who is doing PvE dailies is not running to objectives. You continue to assume that everybody in AvA is running to an objective, when many or not. That is the problem. That is what needs to be resolved.

A solo player killing some random person in the world is doing more than my group who is cutting transitus, intercepting respawn large groups trying to take a keep or elder scroll, and crippling an entire offensive behind enemy lines? Right. I'm definitely doing a lot less. You are not rewarded for playing strategically in this game. You are rewarded for zerging and farming kills. That is a flawed system.

Those games did exactly what you want to do..If you played any of those games you'd know this...But since you didn't...You're clueless on what the past has taught us on those games.

I also don't assume everyone in AvA is running to an Objective, if I find you out in a quest area, you're probably not running to an objective..

However if I park myself between a keep you can port to, and Objective your side is currently attacking, and I kill you in between those two objectives...Chances are.. you were running to that Objective.

You should spend less time PvD undefended keeps, and more time actually pvping like I said.

You might actually contribute more to your side...Maybe you should whisper some of those solo players and ask them for advice...

Imperator_Clydus

galiumb16_ESO wrote: »

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

Where in that quote did I say cutting off reinforcements and occupying choke points is not a part of AvA? Please do not make assumptions. Clearly these tactics are very advantageous towards taking or defending keeps/resources and further pushing your alliance's goals.

Farming kills is ganking lowbies questing or camping elder scrolls gates waiting for prey to come by. My explanation is purely based on activities that do not actually benefit your alliance in the Alliance War. The system encourages and endorses these activities more so than actually participating in AvA.

Too large a group? ZOS has built ESO and their engine to sustain up to 200 players on the screen. They openly want and encourage huge battles. That is really the crux of the AvA system and while I'm not arguing that small groups or solo should be irrelevant, they shouldn't be significantly better AP-wise than large groups. Just because you happen to be in a small group doesn't necessarily mean the battle is harder or requires more skill. That is a fallacy.

Everybody should definitely gain more AP for playing objectively, large and small groups (especially for offense). AP for kills should be reduced significantly, especially for small groups or solo players. This isn't an arena or a death match. Killing players is not what will win the Alliance War. Taking keeps/resources, maintaining them, stealing elder scrolls, and crowning an emperor is what will win the war. These are all objectives. The entire AP system should be based around these principles.

There is no way to differentiate the kills unrelated to AvA and related to AvA was my point and honestly ganking lowbies does not net you lots of points in the first place. Punishing all of the highly valuable to AvA activities because there is a handful of folks fighting off in some corner earning points seems entirely counter productive for the long term diversity of AvA.

Because we can support 200 people on a screen does not mean every fight needs to be 200 people on a screen. If you are in a group of 24 fighting only groups of 10 then obviously you can make less AP or you can split up so you get more rewarding and challenging fights. That is obviously your decision, and I understand why zergs prefer to have the advantage, but asking the system to be changed so that you can earn lots of points while dominating, seems counter productive to AvA being anything but a blob fest.

Killing people needs to be the focus of AP system, because it will be exploited in any other fashion. Early days of WAR and GW2 shows clearly what happens when you tie your point gains to objectives.

What I want is quality play and that means folks need to be willing to spread out across the map. Flanks, ambushes, ninja grabs, hindering reinforcements, finding and destroying camps, all stuff that happens away from the blob of players. The moment you start hindering the AP gains of small groups you will end up with nothing but blobs of folks running around pretending they are doing something more than a big game of follow the leader.

In short, if you want to have low risk zerg play great, have it, you just wont be rewarded for it and you shouldnt be.

Not true at all. Would it be difficult? Yes. Is it impossible? No.

Diversity of would happen regardless of incentive. Cyrodiil is a large sandbox. If people want to hunt other and kill them while they are questing, they would do it regardless of AP gains. What you don't want to do is give more benefits to those not actually contributing in AvA than the players who do. That completely contradicts the entire system and is a large turn-off.

I will say this one final time. A large group is not a zerg. You do not understand what a zerg is. To say smaller groups require more skill is just as ignorant as saying large groups are easy. This is completely dependent on the context of the situation and what these groups are doing. It doesn't require a lot of skill for a solo VR10 vamp to kill a lowbie questing. That isn't challenging. One single large group successfully holding off many large groups attacking a keep requires a lot of skill and coordination.

You are using your previous experiences to limit and confine AvA. Just because Warhammer and Guild Wars 2 failed, largely because they were bad games, does not mean ESO would fail as well. AvA is about objectives. It is objectives that win the campaign for your alliance. The AP system completely contradicts AvA and rewards those who do not contribute over those who do. This applies to large and small groups who focus on objectives.

The big blobs of players already happens because of how AP works. If you are in a large group, the only way of obtaining decent AP is either defending against a large mass of players or farming large masses of players. My point is what you fear is already happening in the game. You just are too blind to see it.

You don't know what a zerg is. To assume that AvA will be harder for a smaller group is silly and a lack of understanding the system. I want to discourage the zerg. I want people to actually play AvA and not farm kills. The game currently contradicts its own philosophies.

Imperator_Clydus

galiumb16_ESO wrote: »

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

I want to improve the AvA experience. .... It's a shame that solo players or small groups get a majority of the AP when they aren't even participating in AvA.

You want to improve the AvA experience for your style of play, at the expense of other styles. The fact that you think there is a way to gain AP without participating in AvA shows a profound lack of insight. People are where AvA is, so if you are going to kill people, you need to be taking part in AvA in some fashion or another.

Is my group coordinating the push for forts, no, but we have a huge amount of impact on the success of those coordinating those pushes and suggesting we deserve less points because it does not fit your approved list of AvA activities is insulting.

No. I want to make the objectives in AvA, which are what determines who wins, the forefront of the experience and not mindless killing.

People are wherever they can kill others. Whether it is actually relevant to AvA is not their concern. I see it everyday. Players purposely will disregard objectives, capturing scrolls, helping their alliance just so they can grind AP by killing others. That does not help the alliance in AvA.

I have no idea what you do. If you are actually coordinating with the players making those pushes for keeps and such, then you are participating in AvA. If you are just killing for the sake of killing disregarding your alliance and not really caring what happens, you are a disservice to everyone in Cyrodiil.

Imperator_Clydus

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

Solo players kill other Solo Players going to defend (or attack) objective under attack

Thus Solo player has actually defended the objective from either people attacking it, or people coming to defend it, Thus they did exactly what you wanted them to do, Contributed to the "War effort" You're just mad they get more AP's because they did it alone instead of with 24 people.

Lets examine some more of your rant...


"A solo player VR10 vampire killing a fresh level 10 in the middle of the wilderness is not more risky and shouldn't yield greater rewards than a large party killing multiple large parties. Your logic is flawed."

You are correct, But a Solo player Vr10 vampire killing a fresh level 10 player will not get anymore reward then a large party killing multiple large parties, If you soloed, you'd know this...But since you've only ever zerged, you don't.

Now a solo VR10 vamp will get more reward then you with your 24 man Zerg killing that fresh level 10 out in the middle of no where, and that's how it should be..Though the risk was small to the vamp, You had zero risk of dying as a 24 man zerg.

As for not knowing what a zerg is, I know exactly what a zerg is..You're a bloody zerg with 24 people... There is no one in this game that will disagree with that besides you...

You're zerging, you may pretend your "group" isn't a zerg, but it is...

You want to make some AP points, stop taking undefended objectives with your zerg.. and actually i don't know... maybe pvp for once.

You keep on making this assumption that 1v1 in this game is difficult. You also keep on assuming that large parties lack skill. I think you've been jaded by so many bad players over the years you can't even discern from what is good and what is bad.

We can change the analogy to a VR10 vamp killing a VR1 player and they would get a significant amount of AP compared to a large group. Vampire was, and still is, a broken skill line that needs fixing and many have taken advantage of it. Many of your "small group skilled players" were exploiting a broken class to wipe your so called "zergs." Don't even pretend to suggest small groups require more skill.

On the contrary, large groups are harder to coordinate and have everybody on the same page. Small groups are easier to maintain like one would expect in a casual e-sport with smaller pvp such as an arena or battleground.

You are still using the term "zerg" improperly. AvA is much more than just PvP. I cannot overstate enough how this system is built off of the success of one's alliance. A small group will not turn the tide of the war for an alliance. It requires the effort of many players, your so called "zerg," to work together to win the war. Whether you like it or not, this is the reality of how AvA works. Now if only AP would work this way.

Imperator_Clydus

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

Those games did exactly what you want to do..If you played any of those games you'd know this...But since you didn't...You're clueless on what the past has taught us on those games.

I also don't assume everyone in AvA is running to an Objective, if I find you out in a quest area, you're probably not running to an objective..

However if I park myself between a keep you can port to, and Objective your side is currently attacking, and I kill you in between those two objectives...Chances are.. you were running to that Objective.

You should spend less time PvD undefended keeps, and more time actually pvping like I said.

You might actually contribute more to your side...Maybe you should whisper some of those solo players and ask them for advice...

Those games were bad MMOs with terrible execution. Warhammer was a dismal failure and Guild Wars 2 wasn't much better. To consider these crowning jewels of the PvP MMO genre is laughable at best. To say they are the standard for objectives in MMOs is even more ridiculous.

I PvP all of the time. PvPing is my favorite past time in MMORPGs. That being said, I'm not just going to mindlessly zerg and farm kills. I actually want to win the war, and taking undefended keeps is sometimes a part of that experience. You need keeps to gain score which will determine the winner at the end of the campaign set.

I have contributed more than you will ever know. You can ask any DC player on Bloodthorn and they can attest to the fact I am constantly organizing groups, communicating with other guilds and alliances, and putting the alliance first before my own personal benefits. Everything I do is for the best interest of the DC. Can you say the same thing for yourself?

Xsorus

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

Those games did exactly what you want to do..If you played any of those games you'd know this...But since you didn't...You're clueless on what the past has taught us on those games.

I also don't assume everyone in AvA is running to an Objective, if I find you out in a quest area, you're probably not running to an objective..

However if I park myself between a keep you can port to, and Objective your side is currently attacking, and I kill you in between those two objectives...Chances are.. you were running to that Objective.

You should spend less time PvD undefended keeps, and more time actually pvping like I said.

You might actually contribute more to your side...Maybe you should whisper some of those solo players and ask them for advice...

Those games were bad MMOs with terrible execution. Warhammer was a dismal failure and Guild Wars 2 wasn't much better. To consider these crowning jewels of the PvP MMO genre is laughable at best. To say they are the standard for objectives in MMOs is even more ridiculous.

I PvP all of the time. PvPing is my favorite past time in MMORPGs. That being said, I'm not just going to mindlessly zerg and farm kills. I actually want to win the war, and taking undefended keeps is sometimes a part of that experience. You need keeps to gain score which will determine the winner at the end of the campaign set.

I have contributed more than you will ever know. You can ask any DC player on Bloodthorn and they can attest to the fact I am constantly organizing groups, communicating with other guilds and alliances, and putting the alliance first before my own personal benefits. Everything I do is for the best interest of the DC. Can you say the same thing for yourself?

So your solution, is to copy those MMO's in the worst way possible.

*clap* *clap*

Good Job

Xsorus

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

Solo players kill other Solo Players going to defend (or attack) objective under attack

Thus Solo player has actually defended the objective from either people attacking it, or people coming to defend it, Thus they did exactly what you wanted them to do, Contributed to the "War effort" You're just mad they get more AP's because they did it alone instead of with 24 people.

Lets examine some more of your rant...


"A solo player VR10 vampire killing a fresh level 10 in the middle of the wilderness is not more risky and shouldn't yield greater rewards than a large party killing multiple large parties. Your logic is flawed."

You are correct, But a Solo player Vr10 vampire killing a fresh level 10 player will not get anymore reward then a large party killing multiple large parties, If you soloed, you'd know this...But since you've only ever zerged, you don't.

Now a solo VR10 vamp will get more reward then you with your 24 man Zerg killing that fresh level 10 out in the middle of no where, and that's how it should be..Though the risk was small to the vamp, You had zero risk of dying as a 24 man zerg.

As for not knowing what a zerg is, I know exactly what a zerg is..You're a bloody zerg with 24 people... There is no one in this game that will disagree with that besides you...

You're zerging, you may pretend your "group" isn't a zerg, but it is...

You want to make some AP points, stop taking undefended objectives with your zerg.. and actually i don't know... maybe pvp for once.

You keep on making this assumption that 1v1 in this game is difficult. You also keep on assuming that large parties lack skill. I think you've been jaded by so many bad players over the years you can't even discern from what is good and what is bad.

We can change the analogy to a VR10 vamp killing a VR1 player and they would get a significant amount of AP compared to a large group. Vampire was, and still is, a broken skill line that needs fixing and many have taken advantage of it. Many of your "small group skilled players" were exploiting a broken class to wipe your so called "zergs." Don't even pretend to suggest small groups require more skill.

On the contrary, large groups are harder to coordinate and have everybody on the same page. Small groups are easier to maintain like one would expect in a casual e-sport with smaller pvp such as an arena or battleground.

You are still using the term "zerg" improperly. AvA is much more than just PvP. I cannot overstate enough how this system is built off of the success of one's alliance. A small group will not turn the tide of the war for an alliance. It requires the effort of many players, your so called "zerg," to work together to win the war. Whether you like it or not, this is the reality of how AvA works. Now if only AP would work this way.

Yes..Zerging around with 24 people is much harder then zerging around with 6 people....

/facepalm

Xsorus

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

galiumb16_ESO wrote: »

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

Where in that quote did I say cutting off reinforcements and occupying choke points is not a part of AvA? Please do not make assumptions. Clearly these tactics are very advantageous towards taking or defending keeps/resources and further pushing your alliance's goals.

Farming kills is ganking lowbies questing or camping elder scrolls gates waiting for prey to come by. My explanation is purely based on activities that do not actually benefit your alliance in the Alliance War. The system encourages and endorses these activities more so than actually participating in AvA.

Too large a group? ZOS has built ESO and their engine to sustain up to 200 players on the screen. They openly want and encourage huge battles. That is really the crux of the AvA system and while I'm not arguing that small groups or solo should be irrelevant, they shouldn't be significantly better AP-wise than large groups. Just because you happen to be in a small group doesn't necessarily mean the battle is harder or requires more skill. That is a fallacy.

Everybody should definitely gain more AP for playing objectively, large and small groups (especially for offense). AP for kills should be reduced significantly, especially for small groups or solo players. This isn't an arena or a death match. Killing players is not what will win the Alliance War. Taking keeps/resources, maintaining them, stealing elder scrolls, and crowning an emperor is what will win the war. These are all objectives. The entire AP system should be based around these principles.

There is no way to differentiate the kills unrelated to AvA and related to AvA was my point and honestly ganking lowbies does not net you lots of points in the first place. Punishing all of the highly valuable to AvA activities because there is a handful of folks fighting off in some corner earning points seems entirely counter productive for the long term diversity of AvA.

Because we can support 200 people on a screen does not mean every fight needs to be 200 people on a screen. If you are in a group of 24 fighting only groups of 10 then obviously you can make less AP or you can split up so you get more rewarding and challenging fights. That is obviously your decision, and I understand why zergs prefer to have the advantage, but asking the system to be changed so that you can earn lots of points while dominating, seems counter productive to AvA being anything but a blob fest.

Killing people needs to be the focus of AP system, because it will be exploited in any other fashion. Early days of WAR and GW2 shows clearly what happens when you tie your point gains to objectives.

What I want is quality play and that means folks need to be willing to spread out across the map. Flanks, ambushes, ninja grabs, hindering reinforcements, finding and destroying camps, all stuff that happens away from the blob of players. The moment you start hindering the AP gains of small groups you will end up with nothing but blobs of folks running around pretending they are doing something more than a big game of follow the leader.

In short, if you want to have low risk zerg play great, have it, you just wont be rewarded for it and you shouldnt be.

Not true at all. Would it be difficult? Yes. Is it impossible? No.

Diversity of would happen regardless of incentive. Cyrodiil is a large sandbox. If people want to hunt other and kill them while they are questing, they would do it regardless of AP gains. What you don't want to do is give more benefits to those not actually contributing in AvA than the players who do. That completely contradicts the entire system and is a large turn-off.

I will say this one final time. A large group is not a zerg. You do not understand what a zerg is. To say smaller groups require more skill is just as ignorant as saying large groups are easy. This is completely dependent on the context of the situation and what these groups are doing. It doesn't require a lot of skill for a solo VR10 vamp to kill a lowbie questing. That isn't challenging. One single large group successfully holding off many large groups attacking a keep requires a lot of skill and coordination.

You are using your previous experiences to limit and confine AvA. Just because Warhammer and Guild Wars 2 failed, largely because they were bad games, does not mean ESO would fail as well. AvA is about objectives. It is objectives that win the campaign for your alliance. The AP system completely contradicts AvA and rewards those who do not contribute over those who do. This applies to large and small groups who focus on objectives.

The big blobs of players already happens because of how AP works. If you are in a large group, the only way of obtaining decent AP is either defending against a large mass of players or farming large masses of players. My point is what you fear is already happening in the game. You just are too blind to see it.

You don't know what a zerg is. To assume that AvA will be harder for a smaller group is silly and a lack of understanding the system. I want to discourage the zerg. I want people to actually play AvA and not farm kills. The game currently contradicts its own philosophies.

Ok...at this point..I have to wonder..do you even know what a Zerg is?

Because a Large Group is a zerg.

I decided to bold the second part..

One 6man Group doing the same thing requires a lot more skill and coordination then 24 people circle jerking one another...

Imperator_Clydus

@xsorusb14_ESO

A zerg is an overwhelming mass of people that complete tasks with greater numbers than the other opposing force. In order to be a zerg in ESO, this mass of players would have to go beyond the maximum group size for AvA (24). A zerg also isn't tactically sound or remotely useful in the slightest.

They generally are uncoordinated, terrible skill-wise, and need the numbers to compensate for what they lack. That is a zerg. So unless you see more than one maximum group size rolling around all attacking the same points, you have not witnessed a zerg.

In regards to Warhammer and Guild Wars 2, my solution is to improve upon what they faltered in delivering. This is a common and simple practice that every MMO has done to evolve beyond their predecessors. If not for Everquest laying the foundation for the Theme Park experience, World of Warcraft would have never been able to improve upon what EQ largely started.

Perhaps you have never participated in competitive large scale PvP, but communication and timing are of the utmost importance. This isn't a simple 8v8 ranked warzone in SWTOR. You cannot just invite 23 different players and expect to have overwhelming success. You would just have to join a large party yourself to understand the underlining intricacies that go into running a successful group. Zergs, as you like to misuse quite a lot, do not work well in Cyrodiil.

I won't run around with you in circles anymore. You have your own narrow-minded understanding of PvP and you are entitled to your opinion. All I want is an AP system that actually compliments the AvA system that ZOS has created. Right now, they are undermining it and taking away from the importance of faction pride and large coordination.

Xsorus

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

@xsorusb14_ESO

A zerg is an overwhelming mass of people that complete tasks with greater numbers than the other opposing force. In order to be a zerg in ESO, this mass of players would have to go beyond the maximum group size for AvA (24). A zerg also isn't tactically sound or remotely useful in the slightest.

They generally are uncoordinated, terrible skill-wise, and need the numbers to compensate for what they lack. That is a zerg. So unless you see more than one maximum group size rolling around all attacking the same points, you have not witnessed a zerg.

In regards to Warhammer and Guild Wars 2, my solution is to improve upon what they faltered in delivering. This is a common and simple practice that every MMO has done to evolve beyond their predecessors. If not for Everquest laying the foundation for the Theme Park experience, World of Warcraft would have never been able to improve upon what EQ largely started.

Perhaps you have never participated in competitive large scale PvP, but communication and timing are of the utmost importance. This isn't a simple 8v8 ranked warzone in SWTOR. You cannot just invite 23 different players and expect to have overwhelming success. You would just have to join a large party yourself to understand the underlining intricacies that go into running a successful group. Zergs, as you like to misuse quite a lot, do not work well in Cyrodiil.

I won't run around with you in circles anymore. You have your own narrow-minded understanding of PvP and you are entitled to your opinion. All I want is an AP system that actually compliments the AvA system that ZOS has created. Right now, they are undermining it and taking away from the importance of faction pride and large coordination.

The Max group size in this game is 4

When you beyond 4, You create what is basically considered a Raid Group.

you can do this in a lot of games, SWTOR, WoW, Warhammer Online, Rift...

24 is not the Max Group Size..That just happens to be the max their UI can fit in their Battle Group Box.

if you think 24 Is the intended group size, Ask yourself this.

Why are all the instanced dungeons 4 people, and the new "Raid" zone 12 people?

Maybe because 24 is a bloody zerg, and running around with 23 people isn't hard..There is no underline intricacies that go with Voice Chat and 23 other idiots in voice chat holding your hand.

Oh before I forget

"A zerg is an overwhelming mass of people that complete tasks with greater numbers than the other opposing force."

Since most people aren't running around in 24 man groups, You're a zerg.

Just because you run into a bigger zerg every now then again, Doesn't make you any less of a zerg.

If 2 Groups attacked 1 Group in DAOC, guess what...Even though it was only 8 more people, Those 2 groups were zerging that 1 Group.

Now i'll let you get back to not making any Alliance points because Doors don't seem to give AP when ya kill them.

/laugh

Nijjion

Rewards won't matter for groups if they can't compete against zergs. Having an AoE cap just gives more of an incentive to be in a zerg.

Imperator_Clydus

Nijjion wrote: »

Rewards won't matter for groups if they can't compete against zergs. Having an AoE cap just gives more of an incentive to be in a zerg.

Most of the abilities in the game already had AoE caps. There were only a select few that did not. I do not understand why people continue to see this as an issue as it's being blown way out of proportion.

Having broken, OP AoE specs does not counter the zerg mentality. All it does is lead to a very unbalanced system that lacks any skill and strategic depth. Zergs will only materialize as long as bad players try to control Cyrodiil through numbers.

When people realize that small groups as well as coordinated large groups can counter this zerg mentality and win through objectives rather than just mindless killing, this approach to PvP will fade into obscurity.

The problem, however, is the current AP system encourages zerging and mindless killing. As a result, the very mindset people criticize and want to avoid is being promoted and supported by the developers.

In order to break this vicious cycle and undermine the zerg, ZOS must make AP gains in AvA more objective-oriented for all and not penalize large groups who are actually playing well and are basing moves based on supporting the alliance and are not zergs.

Xsorus

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

Nijjion wrote: »

Rewards won't matter for groups if they can't compete against zergs. Having an AoE cap just gives more of an incentive to be in a zerg.

Most of the abilities in the game already had AoE caps. There were only a select few that did not. I do not understand why people continue to see this as an issue as it's being blown way out of proportion.

Having broken, OP AoE specs does not counter the zerg mentality. All it does is lead to a very unbalanced system that lacks any skill and strategic depth. Zergs will only materialize as long as bad players try to control Cyrodiil through numbers.

When people realize that small groups as well as coordinated large groups can counter this zerg mentality and win through objectives rather than just mindless killing, this approach to PvP will fade into obscurity.

The problem, however, is the current AP system encourages zerging and mindless killing. As a result, the very mindset people criticize and want to avoid is being promoted and supported by the developers.

In order to break this vicious cycle and undermine the zerg, ZOS must make AP gains in AvA more objective-oriented for all and not penalize large groups who are actually playing well and are basing moves based on supporting the alliance and are not zergs.

And despite us having multiple MMO's that prove the exact opposite when using your idea..you still go on believing it.

Hattorii_Hanzo

Imperator you need to stop posting threads about AvA and how you think that it needs to be fixed. You personally choose to lead a raid of pug's on bloodthorn, any character level or whatever. That is fantastic that you get people involved and have fun leading a group of random people. The fact that the style in which you choose to play the game is not the most optimal for gaining points isnt due to some design flaw by ZOS. It has to do with the fact that you have 23 pugs in your group who have no experience and are low levels who get steam rolled by the VR's.

Killing someone on your own should be worth more points, it takes longer, you have to do all of the work, and it should be made rewarding. In a group you can kill more people (provided your group is good) and you get less points per kill but this equals out.

I dont get what you are complaining about? The fact that your group of pugs is innefective and kills less people isnt a problem for the masses.

maholi

A person is worth X amount of points. Let's say 800. If you solo kill him, you get it all. If you and a buddy kill him.. you get 400 each. If your 20 man group killed him you get 40 each. It seems pretty logical to me.

Imperator_Clydus

maholi wrote: »

A person is worth X amount of points. Let's say 800. If you solo kill him, you get it all. If you and a buddy kill him.. you get 400 each. If your 20 man group killed him you get 40 each. It seems pretty logical to me.

It would make sense if the large group was constantly attacking enemies. In order to stay on pace with the solo player, a large group would have to kill a hundred players on a relatively frequent basis.

As I stated before, this encourages large groups to actually mindlessly zerg and just kill players, rather than focusing on the objectives of AvA. This is why the current AP system is silly and inadequate for what the system actually needs.

If the main goal of AvA were to actually eliminate the other alliance and kill everybody, then this would make sense. That is not the point of AvA, however.

Imperator_Clydus

Hattorii_Hanzo wrote: »

Imperator you need to stop posting threads about AvA and how you think that it needs to be fixed. You personally choose to lead a raid of pug's on bloodthorn, any character level or whatever. That is fantastic that you get people involved and have fun leading a group of random people. The fact that the style in which you choose to play the game is not the most optimal for gaining points isnt due to some design flaw by ZOS. It has to do with the fact that you have 23 pugs in your group who have no experience and are low levels who get steam rolled by the VR's.

Killing someone on your own should be worth more points, it takes longer, you have to do all of the work, and it should be made rewarding. In a group you can kill more people (provided your group is good) and you get less points per kill but this equals out.

I dont get what you are complaining about? The fact that your group of pugs is innefective and kills less people isnt a problem for the masses.

I choose to post threads about how AvA is actually supposed to work, rather than how it is working. You do not have to agree with my points, and clearly you don't.

I choose to work with others in the alliance, coordinate strategies, and attack objectives for the better interest of the alliance. Grinding AP is an incredibly selfish thing to do as it currently stands. Especially with the current system, you essentially have to ignore helping your alliance to achieve optimum efficiency.

The way the current system works is a design flaw on ZOS' part. From the very beginning they have boasted the importance of faction camaraderie, unity, and loyalty. Most of the current emperors on Bloodthorn alone haven't exhibited any of those traits. They merely grinded AP solo or with friends and then traded emperorship. That is not a system working as ZOS intended.

Killing is not the point of AvA. Taking keeps, stealing elder scrolls, and crowning an emperor is. Killing is merely an element that goes into play with the main goals of AvA. This isn't an arena where the objective is solely to kill the other team. This isn't a FPS where whoever gets to a certain amount of points based on kills wins. Killing will not win the alliance war at reset.

Again, the points would only equal out if the large group was constantly killing. This means one's entire strategy would have to be based on constantly attacking zergs. If you haven't noticed, that is a terrible strategy for actually performing well in Cyrodiil.

By making AP gains more based around objectives, which is the point of AvA, not only would it encourage players to play more strategically, but the zerg mentality would die out. This would also make AvA in general more interesting, as the system would be more dynamic and flexible.

Xnemesis

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

Xnemesis wrote: »

Uhhh go get a group of 5-10 vet players and go on a resource capping spree and reap your rewards. One you get good AP, two the enemy doesn't know what the hell you are doing, three you are messing with their transportation too and from keeps, four you are actually still helping your alliance, and five they are repeatable once they are recaptured. Small group big rewards have fun your welcome

You mean capping resources with the resource repeatable? It is not "good AP" in the slightest. I run a objective-oriented group that is always cutting transitus and claiming important keeps to derail the enemy offensive. We barely receive any AP for doing any of it. The repeatable itself is unreliable and barely gives any AP for the effort.

Yes this is what I mean with a group of 6 vet players you can get around 1000 or so ap a resource. This is around the same as the repeatable kill quest was giving so its not bad at all. It gets better when you come under attack and hop in the tower. Then you can drop runes, mines and oil before they come in and get lots of kills before they overwhelm you.

Imperator_Clydus

Xnemesis wrote: »

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

Xnemesis wrote: »

Uhhh go get a group of 5-10 vet players and go on a resource capping spree and reap your rewards. One you get good AP, two the enemy doesn't know what the hell you are doing, three you are messing with their transportation too and from keeps, four you are actually still helping your alliance, and five they are repeatable once they are recaptured. Small group big rewards have fun your welcome

You mean capping resources with the resource repeatable? It is not "good AP" in the slightest. I run a objective-oriented group that is always cutting transitus and claiming important keeps to derail the enemy offensive. We barely receive any AP for doing any of it. The repeatable itself is unreliable and barely gives any AP for the effort.

Yes this is what I mean with a group of 6 vet players you can get around 1000 or so ap a resource. This is around the same as the repeatable kill quest was giving so its not bad at all. It gets better when you come under attack and hop in the tower. Then you can drop runes, mines and oil before they come in and get lots of kills before they overwhelm you.

This is where I personally feel the line between defending an objective and just farming kills is drawn. Some of the most popular ways of players farming kills are either holding elder scrolls hostage and farming players that way, or sitting in a tower dropping volcanic rune, oil, caltrops, etc.

I do not believe camping in a tower at all is objective-oriented in the slightest. I've seen plenty of small groups deliberately take the mine at Glademist or the farm at Aleswell, place a ballista on top of the tower to hit one of the keep walls to contest it, and force enemy players to engage in order to re-establish transitus.

Sadly, many PUGs fall right into this trap, reclaim the resource without actually taking care of the enemy in the tower, and it becomes an easy AP farm for anyone inside. I find this kind of behavior to honestly detract from AvA. To discourage this behavior, players either shouldn't be allowed to use siege in towers or they should be kicked out if the resource is taken by another alliance.

As far as the quest itself, you only receive 500 AP. If you receive any at all from just capping the resource, I doubt it's that much. The only way to make the endeavor worth while would be the hope that the enemy comes to protect the resource.

Irregardless, the point still stands that farming kills and not participating in AvA is the most efficient way of accumulating AP. If ZOS truly wants the entire player base engaging in AvA as they actually intended, then they will need to re-engineer AP gains so they actually encourage AvA, rather than promoting the ignoring or abusing of the system.

galiumb16_ESO

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

I do not believe camping in a tower at all is objective-oriented in the slightest. I've seen plenty of small groups deliberately take the mine at Glademist or the farm at Aleswell, place a ballista on top of the tower to hit one of the keep walls to contest it, and force enemy players to engage in order to re-establish transitus.

Sadly, many PUGs fall right into this trap, reclaim the resource without actually taking care of the enemy in the tower, and it becomes an easy AP farm for anyone inside. I find this kind of behavior to honestly detract from AvA. To discourage this behavior, players either shouldn't be allowed to use siege in towers or they should be kicked out if the resource is taken by another alliance.

This makes me /facepalm. A small group of players breaking transitus and keeping a large group of enemy occupied instead of being elsewhere is a HUGE part of AvA. The entire point is to distract those players, to disrupt reinforcements and this is what you want to discourage? What incentive would there be for a small group to go deep into enemy territory to break off transitus if they will be quickly wiped from an otherwise undefendable location because you want them to be kicked out of the resource?

While you are at it, maybe you could champion only taking objectives in a clockwise pattern?

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

I will say this one final time. A large group is not a zerg. You do not understand what a zerg is.

I think the problem is the assumption that your view of a widely used term like 'zerg' is the correct and only definition. Given your comment above, I personally question your view of anything AvA related. And considering that you run a pug, at least whenever I see you, I stand by my personal definition that your 24 man is a zerg.

xxslam48xxb14_ESO

No way do you get 800ap for a solo kill! Im never in a group and I still only get like 20ap for kills. Could it be because other players are near by me while im killing people? Idk but if I was getting that much ap per kill I would have noticed.

Xsorus

They're only worth 800 ap for a solo kill if they've not been killed for some time

If you kill someone and they're worth like 20ap, chances are they just respawned.

Imperator_Clydus

galiumb16_ESO wrote: »

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

I do not believe camping in a tower at all is objective-oriented in the slightest. I've seen plenty of small groups deliberately take the mine at Glademist or the farm at Aleswell, place a ballista on top of the tower to hit one of the keep walls to contest it, and force enemy players to engage in order to re-establish transitus.

Sadly, many PUGs fall right into this trap, reclaim the resource without actually taking care of the enemy in the tower, and it becomes an easy AP farm for anyone inside. I find this kind of behavior to honestly detract from AvA. To discourage this behavior, players either shouldn't be allowed to use siege in towers or they should be kicked out if the resource is taken by another alliance.

This makes me /facepalm. A small group of players breaking transitus and keeping a large group of enemy occupied instead of being elsewhere is a HUGE part of AvA. The entire point is to distract those players, to disrupt reinforcements and this is what you want to discourage? What incentive would there be for a small group to go deep into enemy territory to break off transitus if they will be quickly wiped from an otherwise undefendable location because you want them to be kicked out of the resource?

While you are at it, maybe you could champion only taking objectives in a clockwise pattern?

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

I will say this one final time. A large group is not a zerg. You do not understand what a zerg is.

I think the problem is the assumption that your view of a widely used term like 'zerg' is the correct and only definition. Given your comment above, I personally question your view of anything AvA related. And considering that you run a pug, at least whenever I see you, I stand by my personal definition that your 24 man is a zerg.

That's your assumption though. Any rational group wouldn't fall for this trick. They would either destroy the tower and wipe the enemies, because they wouldn't be foolish to take the resource. If PUGs did take the resource by chance, the rational group would just abandon it and let you rot there until you left it.

This isn't a tactic. It is nothing more than a abusing of mechanics that works on players that do not understand how AvA works. It has only been incredibly popular because it is an easy way to farm kills, which translates to easy AP. This is the only real reason people continue to use this "tactic."

Small groups don't have to sit in a tower all day using one ballista to destroy a wall to be viable. Lets be real. Some of the best small groups I have seen on the field when behind enemy lines and cut transitus not only to hot spots, but throughout entire transitus lines. Cutting the transitus of multiple keeps and outposts is by far more beneficial than just camping one.

A term that is widely misused. A zerg suggests that you have significantly larger numbers and that you are purely working on those larger numbers to accomplish tasks. I am not using numbers as a crutch to success. Most of the time, my group is outnumbered by either the AD or EP.

What I am simply doing is rallying as many players that I can that is an intended group number, and using them in a tactical and coordinated fashion that is intended in the actual game design of AvA. We do not just "mindlessly zerg" in hopes of accomplishing something. We play objectively and undermine the enemy alliance in any way we can.

If you consider that a zerg because of some some assumed bias on your part, then that is a fault of yours. There are plenty of zergs in ESO that are entirely counterproductive to AvA, never play objectively, and just throw themselves at masses of enemies to either grind kills for AP or because they don't know any better.