Alliance Point accumulation needs to be re-evaluated.

Imperator_Clydus

xxslam48xxb14_ESO wrote: »

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.

Yes. If you are solo and someone else has aided you in killing a player, or the player was killed recently, your AP gains will be reduced. To get the full amount of AP, you must be solo and you must kill the player entirely by yourself.

Imperator_Clydus

This issue isn't going to go away magically. I know this may be a hot topic for ZOS, but it's something they will need to address sooner rather than later.

Groups will take elder scrolls and never capture them, purely to farm enemies for kills. Entire groups or guilds refuse to coordinate or aid the alliance so they can grind AP. Faction loyalty and camaraderie is nothing more than a myth because the game discourages it.

The constant campaign hopping and guesting abuses further exacerbates the issue by inflating populations, deflating others, and making consistent, balanced, AvA an impossibility. ZOS doesn't need to have all the answers to fix these issues. They just need to be willing to talk about them.

I already know a few AvA guilds have been turned off by the abuses and exploits and refuse to AvA until they are fixed. If the community team or anyone could at least speak to the issue, that would be greatly appreciated. We all just want AvA to be a resounding success. As it currently stands, there are a lot of issues that need to be resolved and very little indication anything is being addressed.

Igolbug

Taking and Defending objectives give a lot of AP if you are actually taking the objective from players.

If you are Player vs Dooring it up then you will not get a large amount of AP, which should be the case. Especially with groups(20-30 people) that go and take a keep on the other side of the map that has no strategic value whatsoever, they do not deserve to get AP when they do that and if they ever change it so that they do then it will hurt the AvA more than help.

Imperator_Clydus

Igolbug wrote: »

Taking and Defending objectives give a lot of AP if you are actually taking the objective from players.

If you are Player vs Dooring it up then you will not get a large amount of AP, which should be the case. Especially with groups(20-30 people) that go and take a keep on the other side of the map that has no strategic value whatsoever, they do not deserve to get AP when they do that and if they ever change it so that they do then it will hurt the AvA more than help.

In theory, your line of thinking makes sense. In practice, It does not in the slightest. I'll explain why:

I'll use tonight as a perfect example. When I logged off, my alliance had every single keep in Cyrodiil. Three hours later, I check in and we are losing our home keeps and all of the elder scrolls.

We have an EP zerg pushing us at the Gate of Ni-Mohk while an AD AOE gank squad is running around with the AD scroll farming kills. Needless to say, DC is getting absolutely wrecked and we are getting hit simultaneously by the EP and AD in our home territory.

Now, if one wants to gain any sort of decent AP, they will go head-on into this zerg fest and try to defend against two alliances at the same time. This, however, isn't strategically sound and is the tactics of a losing man. What anyone with a brain would do at this point is start cutting transitus, taking poorly-defended keeps, and building a counter attack while the AD and EP are preoccupied zerging.

This is exactly what my group did. With twenty people, we were able to cut transitus, take a few keeps, and alleviate pressure from our home keeps, reclaiming the AD elder scroll as well as securing what the EP and AD took in our sphere of Cyrodiil.

This would have not been possible had we not cut transitus and forced the EP and AD to confront us. Now through these efforts to help our alliance, we received barely any AP. We found some opposition, but as many love to flock to the mindless zerg of massive battles, they didn't bother to protect what is theirs.

Why should those of us who actually were the main reason our alliance was able to turn things around be penalized for doing what everybody else refuses to do? I wouldn't PvD, as many of you like to call it, if I had a choice. However, tactics and strategy dictate cutting transitus, going behind enemy lines, and refocusing their pressure points.

You don't win the alliance war by killing. You win by maintaining keeps, maintaining scrolls, and crowning an emperor. Constantly going to hot spots on the map, especially if you are losing, will not grant you victory. AP should not encourage abuses of the system and people more interested in farming kills than helping in AvA.

Not once has my group ever taken a keep of "not strategic value." However, I see mindless zergs do it all the time pushing to Arrius and Farragut when we have all the scrolls, and they purely get more AP because they are zerging against zergs. How does this system make any practical sense in the slightest? It encourages stupidity and exploiting to farm kills.

If players are actually rewarded for playing tactically and going for objectives rather than just mindless zerging and farming kills, AvA would be so much more dynamic. PvP would be happening all over Cyrodiil instead of just a few concentrated hotspots. There would be incentive to fight strategically as well as defend against those who try to cut transitus and take poorly-defended keeps.

I can only see my suggestions actually resolving and enhancing not only the AvA experience, but PvP as well. With the way it is now, PvP is absolutely thoughtless and terrible and nobody really cares about AvA and playing objectively. This needs to be resolved.

Xnemesis

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

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.

I agree that a full raid of 24 players doing this is pretty bad and happens often. What I stated is a group of 6 guys that just cap resources. This is major AvA participation. We are cutting transitus between keeps and culling reinforcements. We also serve as a distraction to the bigger groups taking keeps. When a group of six players comes under attack at a resource by 24 players what options do the have except flee to the tower and put up defenses? We get a bunch of kills but we also get over run within a few minutes. I also believe that resource capping with more than say 8 guys is not worth the AP. Maybe if they gave small group incentives it would encourage other activities besides kill farming but im no dev and could be completely wrong. Hope this clears up what I was expressing as a good AP gainer versus the zerg tower holding griefers we all have encountered.

jvargas150_ESO

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

Bramir wrote: »

If they want anything other than zerg vs zerg, which isn't even really pvp for anyone but the leaders, they need to reward smaller groups. Otherwise, most players will take the easy road to alliance points, and do nothing but stay with the zerg, because that way they don't have think, react or even really pay attention. The leaders of the zerg do all the work for them...

The last MMO I played, Rift, had a pvp instance called Conquest, which bears some similarities to the pvp in ESO. Because there was basically no reward for small groups and solo players (they would be lucky to get a few hundred favor in a match as opposed to many thousands for the zergers), noone did anything but zerg. The same will happen here if you reward the zergers anywhere close what those in a smaller group gain.

This is a false perception. Anyone with a decent understanding of AvA can recognize that mindless zergs are bad. Dedicating so many troops to attack one point leaves many openings for attack at other points. I do not zerg and I have never supported such a terrible tactic. Making use of a zerg merely places one at a disadvantage and makes them easily exploitable for the enemy.

It should also be clarified that a large group party is not actually a zerg. A zerg would be two and really even more large group parties all hitting the same place without any regard for tactics or planning. Very few quality PvPers would endorse such a strategy as it would be to their detriment.

Part of the reason zergs do not work well in this game, versus GW2, WoW, or Rift, is because of how expansive Cyrodiil actually is. There is just too much territory to cover and bullying your way around with numbers generally doesn't work very well.

While I understand ZOS wants to try and be fair to those who may prefer to solo versus those who actually want to form large groups and participate in siege battles, one can't have their cake and eat it too. AvA at its core is built for large groups with up to 200 players on the screen.

It does not seem fair or right, in my opinion, to penalize players who participate in a massively multiplayer fashion to accommodate solo players or smaller groups. This is an MMORPG. This is not a single player game. Especially in AvA, if one even wants to gain elder scrolls or crown an emperor, it requires the effort of the entire alliance. One player cannot do this.

I'm not even asking for solo players or smaller groups to be completely irrelevant. Far from that, actually. One of the strengths of Cyrodiil is how sandbox in nature the zone is, and how many forms of PvP can spawn out of it. That being said, AvA is the main point of the zone, and it should be the large groups who benefit the most.

The way AP works currently, there is little motivation to form large groups and actually siege as the rewards are outweighed by just playing in a small group or by yourself. This inherently contradicts what I believe ZOS intended for AvA as they want to have the largest, most epic PvP experience available in the genre.

Lol.. wanted to stop reading at the point you said zergs don't work...

You must be on the zerg side...

or else good luck defending vs 100+ with your 5..

galiumb16_ESO

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

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.

The game is not played by a lot of rational groups, but yes over time the trick will become less useful because they will learn, but for this moment in time it is extremely effective and that is why it is used. Cutting off transitus is the goal, I could care less if you approve of how we do it, as long as it gets cut off. The rational group is welcome to leave us in there, but we will wreck havoc on their transitus and rear keeps with our comfy base of operations.

No one said you have to be in a tower to be effective, there is a lot of ways to be effective. There are also a lot of factors on what is the best way at that point in time. How hard are you being pressed, how fast they can take the transitus back vs how fast you are disrupting it, where you are cutting off the transitus at, so you have somewhere to retreat too, etc. Using a tower is an effective tool in the toolbox.

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.

Our definition's of zerg are based on the scales we play. I play at a small group of skilled players, you play at a pug raid scale. I am not sure why you view zergs as always being poorly led, as my personal view is that a zerg can have a good leader doing smart, tactical and strategic actions, but when you PUG your members and your group size is 20 plus, you are not winning fights through skilled individual play it is either because your leader put the zerg in a good position so you had the advantage or you out numbered them, or maybe you just got lucky.

Later in this thread you talk about taking 20 people and going to cut off transitus and undefended keeps. If you split your 20 man force into 4-5 groups with each coordinating to take down a different keep, each person manning two pieces of siege at the same time, then I would say yea that's not zerging, but my guess is you took all 20 to the same keep, and then to the next keep, which to me is zerging. I am not saying that as a slight, you work with what you have in your group, and the reality is in a pug raid you will not have enough skilled folks that you can effectively split off like that, I doubt you even would have enough folks carrying siege.

At any rate talking about the definition of zerg is about the same as talking about religion, a discussion without end and just derails the rest of the discussion. You are welcome to your view, I have mine, time to move on with what the OP was about.

Imperator_Clydus

jvargas150_ESO wrote: »

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

Bramir wrote: »

If they want anything other than zerg vs zerg, which isn't even really pvp for anyone but the leaders, they need to reward smaller groups. Otherwise, most players will take the easy road to alliance points, and do nothing but stay with the zerg, because that way they don't have think, react or even really pay attention. The leaders of the zerg do all the work for them...

The last MMO I played, Rift, had a pvp instance called Conquest, which bears some similarities to the pvp in ESO. Because there was basically no reward for small groups and solo players (they would be lucky to get a few hundred favor in a match as opposed to many thousands for the zergers), noone did anything but zerg. The same will happen here if you reward the zergers anywhere close what those in a smaller group gain.

This is a false perception. Anyone with a decent understanding of AvA can recognize that mindless zergs are bad. Dedicating so many troops to attack one point leaves many openings for attack at other points. I do not zerg and I have never supported such a terrible tactic. Making use of a zerg merely places one at a disadvantage and makes them easily exploitable for the enemy.

It should also be clarified that a large group party is not actually a zerg. A zerg would be two and really even more large group parties all hitting the same place without any regard for tactics or planning. Very few quality PvPers would endorse such a strategy as it would be to their detriment.

Part of the reason zergs do not work well in this game, versus GW2, WoW, or Rift, is because of how expansive Cyrodiil actually is. There is just too much territory to cover and bullying your way around with numbers generally doesn't work very well.

While I understand ZOS wants to try and be fair to those who may prefer to solo versus those who actually want to form large groups and participate in siege battles, one can't have their cake and eat it too. AvA at its core is built for large groups with up to 200 players on the screen.

It does not seem fair or right, in my opinion, to penalize players who participate in a massively multiplayer fashion to accommodate solo players or smaller groups. This is an MMORPG. This is not a single player game. Especially in AvA, if one even wants to gain elder scrolls or crown an emperor, it requires the effort of the entire alliance. One player cannot do this.

I'm not even asking for solo players or smaller groups to be completely irrelevant. Far from that, actually. One of the strengths of Cyrodiil is how sandbox in nature the zone is, and how many forms of PvP can spawn out of it. That being said, AvA is the main point of the zone, and it should be the large groups who benefit the most.

The way AP works currently, there is little motivation to form large groups and actually siege as the rewards are outweighed by just playing in a small group or by yourself. This inherently contradicts what I believe ZOS intended for AvA as they want to have the largest, most epic PvP experience available in the genre.

Lol.. wanted to stop reading at the point you said zergs don't work...

You must be on the zerg side...

or else good luck defending vs 100+ with your 5..

Either you haven't been playing ESO for very long, or you just don't understand how AvA works. Either way, sure a 100+ can kill 5 (assuming they aren't a vamp/sorc/dk AOE death squad), but that's not why zergs aren't successful.

I'll say this one final time. Cyrodiil is too BIG for the zerg to work well. There are far too many keeps and too much territory to cover. If you zerg, you compromise every other keep you aren't defending to attack or defend the one you are. It isn't practical and it is a losing strategy.

All the EP does on Bloodthorn is zerg and they can never maintain their keeps since all they do is zerg one or two. It certainly doesn't help the matter when the game itself is actually encouraging and endorsing the use of the mindless zerg. It leads to very bad and uninteresting PvP.

Imperator_Clydus

galiumb16_ESO wrote: »

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

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.

The game is not played by a lot of rational groups, but yes over time the trick will become less useful because they will learn, but for this moment in time it is extremely effective and that is why it is used. Cutting off transitus is the goal, I could care less if you approve of how we do it, as long as it gets cut off. The rational group is welcome to leave us in there, but we will wreck havoc on their transitus and rear keeps with our comfy base of operations.

No one said you have to be in a tower to be effective, there is a lot of ways to be effective. There are also a lot of factors on what is the best way at that point in time. How hard are you being pressed, how fast they can take the transitus back vs how fast you are disrupting it, where you are cutting off the transitus at, so you have somewhere to retreat too, etc. Using a tower is an effective tool in the toolbox.

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.

Our definition's of zerg are based on the scales we play. I play at a small group of skilled players, you play at a pug raid scale. I am not sure why you view zergs as always being poorly led, as my personal view is that a zerg can have a good leader doing smart, tactical and strategic actions, but when you PUG your members and your group size is 20 plus, you are not winning fights through skilled individual play it is either because your leader put the zerg in a good position so you had the advantage or you out numbered them, or maybe you just got lucky.

Later in this thread you talk about taking 20 people and going to cut off transitus and undefended keeps. If you split your 20 man force into 4-5 groups with each coordinating to take down a different keep, each person manning two pieces of siege at the same time, then I would say yea that's not zerging, but my guess is you took all 20 to the same keep, and then to the next keep, which to me is zerging. I am not saying that as a slight, you work with what you have in your group, and the reality is in a pug raid you will not have enough skilled folks that you can effectively split off like that, I doubt you even would have enough folks carrying siege.

At any rate talking about the definition of zerg is about the same as talking about religion, a discussion without end and just derails the rest of the discussion. You are welcome to your view, I have mine, time to move on with what the OP was about.

Irregardless of what you may or may not believe, many people use the tower to farm kills. They aren't interested in objectives. As I stated before, rational groups can easily dismantle this situation by either destroying the tower or ignoring it.

The tower, itself, really is not a good tool for objectives and disrupting enemy lines. Being mobile, taking outposts, contesting keeps, and causing various hotspots goes a long way towards causing disarray in enemy lines.

You don't seem to understand how large parties work. Again, one large party is far from a zerg. Just join Bloodthorn and I will show you a zerg. Plenty of players who spam "1 for chal" in caps in chat that then horde 50+ players in one singular direction. That is a zerg. It is incredibly ineffective and the only thing that gives them a slight chance of success is their ridiculous numbers.

A group of 20 is not enough to defeat a zerg (disregarding bat pulsers and the like). A group of 20 is useful for taking larger objectives, such as keeps, elder scrolls, (especially when 1.1 hits), and dealing with larger tasks. I purely use my "zerg PUG," as you call it, to play tactically, cut transitus, and take keeps that smaller groups otherwise wouldn't be able to do as efficiently.

Your suggestion of splitting the large group into various groups to attack different keeps will soon be null and void with all NPCs getting a boost and ZOS intentionally discouraging small groups from taking keeps and slowing the pace of the map changing.

Either way, as you indicated, PUGs have their limitations in regards to what they can do. I tolerate PUGs because they are still the majority of the alliance and they need someone to coordinate them. Otherwise mindless, clustered zergs lead to terrible defeats and we find ourselves losing the entire Alliance War.

Indeed. The point of this thread is to talk about why AP gains is illogical in this game. Small groups and solo players get the most for death matching. Playing objectively barely gives you any, even with the repeatables. Defense is your best option, and that's largely based around on many players are actually present. The only decent way of gaining AP in a large group is to attack zergs and ignore objectives.

Above all else, the crux of this problem is people are exploiting the fact kills determine most AP gains. Players abuse the elder scrolls. They disregard tactics for mindless killing with little benefit. The point of AvA is largely ignored and lost with the current setup. To rectify this, making AP gains more objective-oriented and not penalizing larger groups would go a long way.

Xsorus

Groups that take over an objective, just to sit in a tower and poor oil on the few people that trickle in crack me up

It is far easier to take the objective, wait a little off to side stealthed, and then when all those idiots come in and take it back while standing on that flag, to just run in and bomb them..

You'll kill far more then you'll ever kill camping that tower.

With that said... Clydus no one is ever going to take you seriously, Because you're a zerger.. not only are you a zerger, You do it on Bloodthorn....a server that you outnumber the two other sides you're fighting pretty much all day long.

If you had any sort of balls, you'd be playing on a server where you don't outnumber your opponent all the time..But instead you chose to play on that craptastic server, then come on the forums demanding the game change based on your crappy playstyle.

Imperator_Clydus

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

Groups that take over an objective, just to sit in a tower and poor oil on the few people that trickle in crack me up

It is far easier to take the objective, wait a little off to side stealthed, and then when all those idiots come in and take it back while standing on that flag, to just run in and bomb them..

You'll kill far more then you'll ever kill camping that tower.

With that said... Clydus no one is ever going to take you seriously, Because you're a zerger.. not only are you a zerger, You do it on Bloodthorn....a server that you outnumber the two other sides you're fighting pretty much all day long.

If you had any sort of balls, you'd be playing on a server where you don't outnumber your opponent all the time..But instead you chose to play on that craptastic server, then come on the forums demanding the game change based on your crappy playstyle.

I wasn't aware you were a spokesman for the community. Well excuse me...

Sarcasm aside, you are off topic, and your comments are in no way relevant to the discussion at hand. I have been on Bloodthorn since the first day of early access, when the campaign was dominated by EP 24/7, all the way to now.

Unlike many who like to campaign hop either to run away from PvP or to try and find whichever campaign offers the best AP farming, I actually want to build a community and stable PvP on one campaign. That may be difficult for you to understand, but that's actually the entire point of AvA. Faction camaraderie. Faciton unity. Faction loyalty. Guesters and campaign hoppers have none of these things, and merely detract the experience for the rest of us.

Either way, your opinion has been heard and there is really nothing else you can add to this discussion. Feel free to move on with your life. This is a discussion for those of us who actually want to improve AvA and make sure this game doesn't die or go F2P in less than a year.

Xsorus

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

Groups that take over an objective, just to sit in a tower and poor oil on the few people that trickle in crack me up

It is far easier to take the objective, wait a little off to side stealthed, and then when all those idiots come in and take it back while standing on that flag, to just run in and bomb them..

You'll kill far more then you'll ever kill camping that tower.

With that said... Clydus no one is ever going to take you seriously, Because you're a zerger.. not only are you a zerger, You do it on Bloodthorn....a server that you outnumber the two other sides you're fighting pretty much all day long.

If you had any sort of balls, you'd be playing on a server where you don't outnumber your opponent all the time..But instead you chose to play on that craptastic server, then come on the forums demanding the game change based on your crappy playstyle.

I wasn't aware you were a spokesman for the community. Well excuse me...

Sarcasm aside, you are off topic, and your comments are in no way relevant to the discussion at hand. I have been on Bloodthorn since the first day of early access, when the campaign was dominated by EP 24/7, all the way to now.

Unlike many who like to campaign hop either to run away from PvP or to try and find whichever campaign offers the best AP farming, I actually want to build a community and stable PvP on one campaign. That may be difficult for you to understand, but that's actually the entire point of AvA. Faction camaraderie. Faciton unity. Faction loyalty. Guesters and campaign hoppers have none of these things, and merely detract the experience for the rest of us.

Either way, your opinion has been heard and there is really nothing else you can add to this discussion. Feel free to move on with your life. This is a discussion for those of us who actually want to improve AvA and make sure this game doesn't die or go F2P in less than a year.

You're not improving AvA at all... you're one of the reasons AvA is so bad...Telling me you want to improve the community on that server by stacking it with a bunch of your own side, then zerging across the map is hilarious

No wonder you want more Realm Points for Objectives..Cause that's all you're actually fighting on that server.

galiumb16_ESO

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

Indeed. The point of this thread is to talk about why AP gains is illogical in this game. Small groups and solo players get the most for death matching. Playing objectively barely gives you any, even with the repeatables. Defense is your best option, and that's largely based around on many players are actually present. The only decent way of gaining AP in a large group is to attack zergs and ignore objectives.

Above all else, the crux of this problem is people are exploiting the fact kills determine most AP gains. Players abuse the elder scrolls. They disregard tactics for mindless killing with little benefit. The point of AvA is largely ignored and lost with the current setup. To rectify this, making AP gains more objective-oriented and not penalizing larger groups would go a long way.

This is how I see your issue. You, playing strategically, decide to take your merry bad of soldiers and hit the back keeps to cut off transitus. As you are playing in the back line and there are no players there, you do not get very many points for your efforts, but your actions have a huge benefit to your alliance. So you feel robbed.

While I appreciate that, my view is that you shouldn't be taking 20+ people down there to take an empty keep. That is the job for a small group who will get a lot more AP than your big group doing the same task, not to mention likely get it done faster.

Either you should be coordinating with a small group, or carve out a group of your own raid that is full of experienced players you can trust, you send them to do those tasks while you focus the rest of your raid group where larger groups are needed, and thus get more AP for your efforts. Same impact, more AP.

In my opinion the current system does a lot to encourage a wise use of resources and strategic play and discourage large groups running around doing what a small group should be doing.

Is this conversation actually about the AP gains, or the emperor system? I think it is the latter and we would likely find more common ground discussing it's issues and how it's use of AP earnings is flawed than changes to the system to discourage small group play.

Spawn

Could actually take this thread seriously if you understood how the game mechanics actually work, but unfortunately it seems your whole post is based on not even understanding the way ap gains work.

For some ludicrous reason you think that being in a large group is giving you less value from killing a player when in fact that player is worth the exact same amount, the difference is you have more people to split that ap worth.

Now let me educate you a little bit, i probably shouldn't bothered since i doubt you will listen, but i'm going to try anyways because i'm starting to get sick and tired of people complaining about game mechanics and changes they want when they don't even understand the mechanics in the first place.

So a player is worth ~900-1k Ap Max, Every time that player dies they become worth less and less and less AP, Now overtime without dying there value increases back to the Max, as well when they kill players there Value will grow back to max fast, this is why those solo gankers or small groups are generally worth good points since they have a good K:D Ratio, compared to zergers just dying over and over again.

The next thing to note is that when your in a group the AP gains get split among the group, all you have to do is be in range and in the group, it doesn't matter how much you did in that grp, groups all get the exact same ap as all other members it gets split, obviously people outside the group can share in this ap if they helped kill the target with your grp, which in big zergs can mean *** all ap since it becomes a double split.

Note that from what I've seen as well the split is actually quite favorable to larger groups, as it doesn't seem to be a complete even split meaning if a player was worth 900 ap and you have 10 people you all might get like 180 or 220 instead of 90, i won't claim to know the exact maths atm.

On top of that healing pvp damage also gives AP, so all those 8-16 gains you see constantly are probably more from healing ap gains, i'd almost beat on it.

Now about objectives, taking and defending objectives also gives massive bonuses, if you kill to get them that is, basically anyone you kill in a O or D gets added to the bonus pool that is split even once the object is completed D or O, so if you killed 100k ap worth of players and you got 10 guys you all get 10k ap when you cap, if you did the same with 20 players you get 5k ap, of course in a bigger group you have the potential to get a lot more if you kill a lot more.

Anyways these are some of the things you just simply don't understand maybe if you did you wouldn't complain so much.

Realistically what it seems like is your team is taking empty keeps or fighting along side other big groups and just splitting ap way more then you thing, basically being a big zerg.... i mean you on bloodthorn its 3bar dc so you outnumber everything most of the time, if your group was more effective killing players a 1:1 Ratio or better instead of just outnumbering everything to win ap gains wouldn't seem so bad, you just need to be effective for your group size.

If a Organised group of 12 can take out a zerg of 50 for great points then a grop of 24 can kill a zerg of 100 for better points or take a keep from 200 defending for amazing points.

Anyways maybe you should spend more time actually understanding the maths behind the system before you start posting all this crap about changing it.

Imperator_Clydus

galiumb16_ESO wrote: »

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

Indeed. The point of this thread is to talk about why AP gains is illogical in this game. Small groups and solo players get the most for death matching. Playing objectively barely gives you any, even with the repeatables. Defense is your best option, and that's largely based around on many players are actually present. The only decent way of gaining AP in a large group is to attack zergs and ignore objectives.

Above all else, the crux of this problem is people are exploiting the fact kills determine most AP gains. Players abuse the elder scrolls. They disregard tactics for mindless killing with little benefit. The point of AvA is largely ignored and lost with the current setup. To rectify this, making AP gains more objective-oriented and not penalizing larger groups would go a long way.

This is how I see your issue. You, playing strategically, decide to take your merry bad of soldiers and hit the back keeps to cut off transitus. As you are playing in the back line and there are no players there, you do not get very many points for your efforts, but your actions have a huge benefit to your alliance. So you feel robbed.

While I appreciate that, my view is that you shouldn't be taking 20+ people down there to take an empty keep. That is the job for a small group who will get a lot more AP than your big group doing the same task, not to mention likely get it done faster.

Either you should be coordinating with a small group, or carve out a group of your own raid that is full of experienced players you can trust, you send them to do those tasks while you focus the rest of your raid group where larger groups are needed, and thus get more AP for your efforts. Same impact, more AP.

In my opinion the current system does a lot to encourage a wise use of resources and strategic play and discourage large groups running around doing what a small group should be doing.

Is this conversation actually about the AP gains, or the emperor system? I think it is the latter and we would likely find more common ground discussing it's issues and how it's use of AP earnings is flawed than changes to the system to discourage small group play.

This is about a system that actually rewards those who play strategically. Regardless of whether one is trying to claim a keep heavily defended or cutting off transitus so the enemy can not reinforce it, there should be an incentive to do so. As it currently stands, there is no incentive so no one does it. This is my problem with the system. I do what I must so my alliance can win. Regardless of whether the system is on my side or not, my interest is in the success of the alliance.

Small groups are not meant to take keeps, guarded or empty. Update 1.1 will be making sure of that by increasing the difficulty of all NPCs and discouraging a group of four VR10s from taking it with little effort. What small groups are built for is taking resources and killing stragglers who are fleeing or trying to return to a hotspot.

I don't know what PvP is like on your campaign, but most of the players running around in the DC on Bloodthorn are clueless PUGs. With these individuals being a clear majority, they need to be organized and have a clear strategy. I could care less whether they are "good" or "bad," as this game is about faction camaraderie.

One small "skill group" from a l33t guild will not win the alliance war. It requires a comprehensive effort on many groups, guilds, and largely PUGs. To try to disregard these players and not work with them not only does them a disservice, but your entire alliance.

Would it be easier to get things done if it was a guild-only group? Perhaps for that one keep or objective. Is it a great strategy to disregard many in your alliance because they are "bad"? Not at all. Anybody and everybody can contribute, regardless of their skill set. This isn't a battleground and this is not an arena. Everybody matters in AvA.

This thread is strictly about AP. The emperor is one person. AP, however, means everything in AvA. AP is an integral of the system that determines whether you will win or lose a battle. Those who accumulate it faster have an obvious advantage, buying siege and the like. This is my issue.

The emperorship is a gimmick and most of the emperors/empresses exploited the system by trading it on dead campaigns, playing broken specs such as vampire, and farming kills at the expense of actually participating in AvA. None of these players should ever be emperor. Unfortunately, the system encourages just that. To say it's working in the slightest is laughable.

I'm not trying to discourage small group play in the slightest. I think it's fantastic and it should be encouraged. Part of my guild loves small group play and that's the only aspect of Cyrodiil they are largely interested in. I just want to make AvA actually about AvA and not mindless killing, farming, and exploiting the system. It just so happens small groups and solo players can generate AP easier than a large group.

Imperator_Clydus

Spawn wrote: »

Could actually take this thread seriously if you understood how the game mechanics actually work, but unfortunately it seems your whole post is based on not even understanding the way ap gains work.

For some ludicrous reason you think that being in a large group is giving you less value from killing a player when in fact that player is worth the exact same amount, the difference is you have more people to split that ap worth.

Now let me educate you a little bit, i probably shouldn't bothered since i doubt you will listen, but i'm going to try anyways because i'm starting to get sick and tired of people complaining about game mechanics and changes they want when they don't even understand the mechanics in the first place.

So a player is worth ~900-1k Ap Max, Every time that player dies they become worth less and less and less AP, Now overtime without dying there value increases back to the Max, as well when they kill players there Value will grow back to max fast, this is why those solo gankers or small groups are generally worth good points since they have a good K:D Ratio, compared to zergers just dying over and over again.

The next thing to note is that when your in a group the AP gains get split among the group, all you have to do is be in range and in the group, it doesn't matter how much you did in that grp, groups all get the exact same ap as all other members it gets split, obviously people outside the group can share in this ap if they helped kill the target with your grp, which in big zergs can mean *** all ap since it becomes a double split.

Note that from what I've seen as well the split is actually quite favorable to larger groups, as it doesn't seem to be a complete even split meaning if a player was worth 900 ap and you have 10 people you all might get like 180 or 220 instead of 90, i won't claim to know the exact maths atm.

On top of that healing pvp damage also gives AP, so all those 8-16 gains you see constantly are probably more from healing ap gains, i'd almost beat on it.

Now about objectives, taking and defending objectives also gives massive bonuses, if you kill to get them that is, basically anyone you kill in a O or D gets added to the bonus pool that is split even once the object is completed D or O, so if you killed 100k ap worth of players and you got 10 guys you all get 10k ap when you cap, if you did the same with 20 players you get 5k ap, of course in a bigger group you have the potential to get a lot more if you kill a lot more.

Anyways these are some of the things you just simply don't understand maybe if you did you wouldn't complain so much.

Realistically what it seems like is your team is taking empty keeps or fighting along side other big groups and just splitting ap way more then you thing, basically being a big zerg.... i mean you on bloodthorn its 3bar dc so you outnumber everything most of the time, if your group was more effective killing players a 1:1 Ratio or better instead of just outnumbering everything to win ap gains wouldn't seem so bad, you just need to be effective for your group size.

If a Organised group of 12 can take out a zerg of 50 for great points then a grop of 24 can kill a zerg of 100 for better points or take a keep from 200 defending for amazing points.

Anyways maybe you should spend more time actually understanding the maths behind the system before you start posting all this crap about changing it.

I'm quite aware that AP is split based on how many people contribute to the kill. As I've stated before, this means large groups would have to kill hundred players in constant battle just to equal the one kill that solo player received in AvA. The flaw in this system is the large group has to constantly be in battle and mindlessly killing. Playing objectives is discouraged.

Yes, we've already addressed there is diminishing returns. You still disregard that a solo player or a small group will receive a significant amount of AP over a large group. What you seem to fail to realize is I understand entirely how the system works. As I've stated before, it's based on farming kills.

The point of this thread is objectives are discouraged. AP is built exclusively around killing players. Sometimes, in order to undermine the enemy faction, you have to cut their transitus, or take keeps, etc.

There is no guarantee that enemies will actually protect their territory, as they love to zerg and mindlessly kill. Hence, there lies the problem that you can contribute more to the war effort than anyone else, completely crippling the enemy offensive, saving your allies from defeat, and not receive anything for it.

Actually, EP generally has a comparable population size to DC most of the time. The issue, which is entirely off topic, is the ability to guest on other campaigns and faction hopping is destroying population balance. You, yourself, are familiar with this, of course, as you are from Hopesfire and you are currently on Bloodthorn with your other former emperor buddies.

You still fail to realize what is right in front of you. AP works exclusively on killing. But you already know this, stealing elder scrolls and farming kills in Chorrol, or any building you find without actually returning your elder scroll to the temple. None of your buddies play objectively. All you do is farm kills. Do not come in here trying to explain how the system works when you, yourself, exploit it.

All I'm stating is AvA would be a lot more dynamic, emergent, and interesting if it was objective-based. As it currently stands, the best way to "contribute" is to follow zergs and farm as many kills as you can. Or, as you like to do, take an elder scroll without actually capturing it and farming PUGs and bad players. This contradicts how AvA should work where outwitting the enemy and taking key points should be rewarded, not mindless kills.

Spawn

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

I'm quite aware that AP is split based on how many people contribute to the kill. As I've stated before, this means large groups would have to kill hundred players in constant battle just to equal the one kill that solo player received in AvA. The flaw in this system is the large group has to constantly be in battle and mindlessly killing. Playing objectives is discouraged.

Yes, we've already addressed there is diminishing returns. You still disregard that a solo player or a small group will receive a significant amount of AP over a large group. What you seem to fail to realize is I understand entirely how the system works. As I've stated before, it's based on farming kills.

The point of this thread is objectives are discouraged. AP is built exclusively around killing players. Sometimes, in order to undermine the enemy faction, you have to cut their transitus, or take keeps, etc.

There is no guarantee that enemies will actually protect their territory, as they love to zerg and mindlessly kill. Hence, there lies the problem that you can contribute more to the war effort than anyone else, completely crippling the enemy offensive, saving your allies from defeat, and not receive anything for it.

Actually, EP generally has a comparable population size to DC most of the time. The issue, which is entirely off topic, is the ability to guest on other campaigns and faction hopping is destroying population balance. You, yourself, are familiar with this, of course, as you are from Hopesfire and you are currently on Bloodthorn with your other former emperor buddies.

You still fail to realize what is right in front of you. AP works exclusively on killing. But you already know this, stealing elder scrolls and farming kills in Chorrol, or any building you find without actually returning your elder scroll to the temple. None of your buddies play objectively. All you do is farm kills. Do not come in here trying to explain how the system works when you, yourself, exploit it.

All I'm stating is AvA would be a lot more dynamic, emergent, and interesting if it was objective-based. As it currently stands, the best way to "contribute" is to follow zergs and farm as many kills as you can. Or, as you like to do, take an elder scroll without actually capturing it and farming PUGs and bad players. This contradicts how AvA should work where outwitting the enemy and taking key points should be rewarded, not mindless kills.

No your not aware of anything, you have no clue, i'm sure you just learned more from my post then you have in the last how ever long you been playing, you do understand that big groups get a bigger split of ap.. compared to a smaller group, I've tested the maths, you obviously haven't.

And yeah also your damn right ap works of killing what you don't understand is around objectives YOU GET A EXTRA BONUS DID YOU NOT READ THAT???????

And if you think taking a scroll or a node, distracting your players has no tactical gain then you must not watch the map, because drawing players to a distraction isn't just decent ap it forces players to move out of place, and lets you get more map control.

What you want is to encourage keep swapping and PVE farming lol, you want bigger groups to get more ap for doing less, basically seems like your some noob zerg runner, lets be honest mate, this thread is a troll, you don't have much clue as to what is going on.

I could go way more into the mathematics but you are just going to read what you like and bypass the data as you did with my post, you obviously just don't get it.

Imperator_Clydus

Spawn wrote: »

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

I'm quite aware that AP is split based on how many people contribute to the kill. As I've stated before, this means large groups would have to kill hundred players in constant battle just to equal the one kill that solo player received in AvA. The flaw in this system is the large group has to constantly be in battle and mindlessly killing. Playing objectives is discouraged.

Yes, we've already addressed there is diminishing returns. You still disregard that a solo player or a small group will receive a significant amount of AP over a large group. What you seem to fail to realize is I understand entirely how the system works. As I've stated before, it's based on farming kills.

The point of this thread is objectives are discouraged. AP is built exclusively around killing players. Sometimes, in order to undermine the enemy faction, you have to cut their transitus, or take keeps, etc.

There is no guarantee that enemies will actually protect their territory, as they love to zerg and mindlessly kill. Hence, there lies the problem that you can contribute more to the war effort than anyone else, completely crippling the enemy offensive, saving your allies from defeat, and not receive anything for it.

Actually, EP generally has a comparable population size to DC most of the time. The issue, which is entirely off topic, is the ability to guest on other campaigns and faction hopping is destroying population balance. You, yourself, are familiar with this, of course, as you are from Hopesfire and you are currently on Bloodthorn with your other former emperor buddies.

You still fail to realize what is right in front of you. AP works exclusively on killing. But you already know this, stealing elder scrolls and farming kills in Chorrol, or any building you find without actually returning your elder scroll to the temple. None of your buddies play objectively. All you do is farm kills. Do not come in here trying to explain how the system works when you, yourself, exploit it.

All I'm stating is AvA would be a lot more dynamic, emergent, and interesting if it was objective-based. As it currently stands, the best way to "contribute" is to follow zergs and farm as many kills as you can. Or, as you like to do, take an elder scroll without actually capturing it and farming PUGs and bad players. This contradicts how AvA should work where outwitting the enemy and taking key points should be rewarded, not mindless kills.

No your not aware of anything, you have no clue, i'm sure you just learned more from my post then you have in the last how ever long you been playing, you do understand that big groups get a bigger split of ap.. compared to a smaller group, I've tested the maths, you obviously haven't.

And yeah also your damn right ap works of killing what you don't understand is around objectives YOU GET A EXTRA BONUS DID YOU NOT READ THAT???????

And if you think taking a scroll or a node, distracting your players has no tactical gain then you must not watch the map, because drawing players to a distraction isn't just decent ap it forces players to move out of place, and lets you get more map control.

What you want is to encourage keep swapping and PVE farming lol, you want bigger groups to get more ap for doing less, basically seems like your some noob zerg runner, lets be honest mate, this thread is a troll, you don't have much clue as to what is going on.

I could go way more into the mathematics but you are just going to read what you like and bypass the data as you did with my post, you obviously just don't get it.

You continue to respond in an ignorant and condescending manner completely missing the point of the discussion. Let me put it more simply. The entire AP system is completely dictated by kills. Regardless of where you are and what you may doing, mindless killing is the key to gaining AP. AvA is not the focus in the slightest.

Are you a child? Typing in caps what is already known doesn't magically fix the problem. The problem is that kills dictate AvA, and kills do not win the alliance war. Playing objectively does. Yes, you will get a fraction more AP if you happened to be at a keep defending/attacking while mindlessly killing. This does not further encourage players to take objectives. Killing is still the core of the system.

You are not fooling anyone. Only PUGs and bad players will follow you around the map while you farm them for AP. The rest of the DC completely ignores you because we recognize you are just gaming the system. You aren't even trying to win the alliance war for the AD. You not only do your own allies a disservice, but the entire campaign. You are the worst kind of ally because you could care less about AvA and whether AD actually makes a comeback or not.

The more you respond with nonsense, the more I realize how utterly sad I am for the AD. Keep swapping wouldn't happen in the slightest if the system was more objective-oriented. Players would actually have more incentive and reason to defend their territory, unlike now. The only troll in this thread is yourself, because you exploit the system, and you do not want it to change for the betterment of AvA. You want to continue your kill farming.

I can only hope that ZOS will recognize the underlining issues with their system and what kinds of behavior they are actually encouraging. If AP was actually generated through objectives instead of kills, we would see an entirely different experience playing out. Perhaps what ZOS actually wanted would happen in AvA, rather than players trying to abuse the system and mindless zergs being encouraged to slam into each other 24/7.

Spawn

Basically you want a pvp system based around pve, yeah your terrible, you can call us exploiters and as much crap as you want, in the end you ignore everything about my post, and just take what you want, everyone in this post is laughing at you.

Hell we are laughing at you every time we play on your server to scared to face us, bit of a joke you are, i pity you sir, in the end pvp in this game is not for you, go enjoy the trials when they come out because the fact you want a pvp system that isn't based around pvp and is based around pve is just sad.

Imperator_Clydus

Spawn wrote: »

Basically you want a pvp system based around pve, yeah your terrible, you can call us exploiters and as much crap as you want, in the end you ignore everything about my post, and just take what you want, everyone in this post is laughing at you.

Hell we are laughing at you every time we play on your server to scared to face us, bit of a joke you are, i pity you sir, in the end pvp in this game is not for you, go enjoy the trials when they come out because the fact you want a pvp system that isn't based around pvp and is based around pve is just sad.

Not at all actually. I want AvA to actually work as it is intended. As it currently stands, AvA is irrelevant and the entire zone of Cyrodiil is nothing more than a death match. I love PvP. I've been PvPing in MMORPGs for ten years. That being said, PvP does not work well in AvA because of how AP gains are generated. We could have much better PvP if players actually cared about objectives.

Continue your poor attempts at discrediting me. Unlike you apparently, I came to ESO because AvA has the potential to be the best PvP system in an MMO in ages. Most MMORPGs focus purely on PvE and raid content. This MMO finally offers something for PvPers, and is actually supported and funded by a AAA developer. This game has the potential to be what Darkfall Online couldn't be. A true PvP sandbox.

My only interest is to further what work ZOS has already started and make the PvP experience that much better. If you consider mindless death matching to be the peak of quality PvP, then you are already satisfied. My suggestions would only make your uninteresting PvP even better. In reality, you should be supporting my suggestions if you are so easy to please.

Zubba

In short. Guerilla tactics is fun, discouraging for the enemy, and effective. Even solo fights around quest spots is indirectly slowing down the enemies progress. It all should be rewarded with AP and VP.

Imperator_Clydus

Zubba wrote: »

In short. Guerilla tactics is fun, discouraging for the enemy, and effective. Even solo fights around quest spots is indirectly slowing down the enemies progress. It all should be rewarded with AP and VP.

I think kills should provide AP and contribution towards the Alliance War. I just believe objectives should provide larger benefits. As it currently stands, this is not the case. Objectives are secondary in importance, when they solely determine who wins and who loses. This doesn't seem practical, in my opinion.

Spawn

Alright so lets sum things up, from your original post we have proven that large groups receive more Alliance Points Value per kill then then Smaller groups, thus the only thing that your trying to prove now is that you need to be rewarded better for taking objectives.

However the problem lies in you keep ignoring the fact that you get massive bonuses for both attacking and defending, yes that's right MASSIVE, most days i get several 10k+ bonuses for attacking or defending.

Basically any smart group that's looking for big Ap gains plays around objectives, the only issue you have is your not getting bonuses for taking undefended objectives, but yet you are, you get home keep bonuses, Enemy Keep Bonuses, Scroll Bonuses, these can change outcomes of battle, you just won't get a massive straight out AP bonus, but then its PLAYER VS PLAYER.. why should you get a bonus for points for taking stuff against NPCS, i mean you can solo take a keep with no defenders..

I think that you personally need to spend more time working out the game mechanics and how everything works, i mean i was laughing my ass of when you tried to cap a blue scroll at brindle the other day, if you don't even understand something as simple as which keeps are your home keeps, its obvious your not going to understand the detailing on alliance point gains.

Basically any addition to bonuses for taking undefended keeps will result in zergs avoiding fighting and going around in a circle taking keeps well the other alliances back cap them.

In the end you may think my posts are ignorant but unfortunately for you that is a hypocritical statement as you are just ignorant of how the system actually works and i don't need to but much of a effort in to discredit you are its something you do by your self, you basically have no support from anyone in this thread, and half the things you actually want are already in play you just didn't know that they were, so yeah spend some time learning the game please.

Imperator_Clydus

Spawn wrote: »

Alright so lets sum things up, from your original post we have proven that large groups receive more Alliance Points Value per kill then then Smaller groups, thus the only thing that your trying to prove now is that you need to be rewarded better for taking objectives.

However the problem lies in you keep ignoring the fact that you get massive bonuses for both attacking and defending, yes that's right MASSIVE, most days i get several 10k+ bonuses for attacking or defending.

Basically any smart group that's looking for big Ap gains plays around objectives, the only issue you have is your not getting bonuses for taking undefended objectives, but yet you are, you get home keep bonuses, Enemy Keep Bonuses, Scroll Bonuses, these can change outcomes of battle, you just won't get a massive straight out AP bonus, but then its PLAYER VS PLAYER.. why should you get a bonus for points for taking stuff against NPCS, i mean you can solo take a keep with no defenders..

I think that you personally need to spend more time working out the game mechanics and how everything works, i mean i was laughing my ass of when you tried to cap a blue scroll at brindle the other day, if you don't even understand something as simple as which keeps are your home keeps, its obvious your not going to understand the detailing on alliance point gains.

Basically any addition to bonuses for taking undefended keeps will result in zergs avoiding fighting and going around in a circle taking keeps well the other alliances back cap them.

In the end you may think my posts are ignorant but unfortunately for you that is a hypocritical statement as you are just ignorant of how the system actually works and i don't need to but much of a effort in to discredit you are its something you do by your self, you basically have no support from anyone in this thread, and half the things you actually want are already in play you just didn't know that they were, so yeah spend some time learning the game please.

You haven't proven anything. Unless you are constantly zerging and attacking other large groups accumulating kills, small groups and solo still give better AP gains per kill.

You still don't seem to get it, which is odd. The current system encourages farming kills and disregarding AvA. Yes, you get a "bonus" when you are attacking or defending. The problem is this is still tied intrinsically to the amount of players you are killing.

Lets use you and your friends as an example. You have your large group of AD formers emperors at Bleakers farming players. You are not playing objectively. You only have three keeps (Bloodmayne, Black Boot, and Faregyl) and you are instead trying to get EP and DC zergs to attack you so you can farm them.

A large portion of that AP is entirely from you farming and not contributing to AvA. The "bonus" you receive is for defending an outpost that you are using as a means to farm. You aren't playing objectively in the slightest. You just happen to be farming in an objective. Again, you are exploiting the system for your own personal benefit.

AvA is about guilds and players coming together in an alliance to complete objectives. Whoever has the highest score at the end of a season through having the most keeps, elder scrolls, or having emperorship, will win the Alliance War. Killing compliments this system, but only works well if the objectives themselves are relevant.

Objectives are not relevant. "Skill groups" use elder scrolls as a means to farm for AP rather than capturing them. You and your friends never actually try to help the AD on Bloodthorn and only farm kills for your own personal benefit. This is all possible because AP gains are tied towards killing rather than objectives. Those who play the actual objectives and try to win the war should be rewarded rather than the farmers and exploiters. Feel free to disagree because you will.

What was really amusing was your failed attempts at trying to take the scroll in order to use it to farm players. I don't even understand why you even play this game since you never participate in AvA. Why do you commit such a major disservice against your alliance? Do you even care that you are ruining their chances of making a comeback? That is rhetorical, by the way, because you clearly don't care about AvA, faction unity, or anything that actually matters.

If the entire AP system is rebuilt around objectives rather than kills with a "bonus" near objectives, your example wouldn't be an issue. You argue there is a reason to defend or attack, but that is only if there are zergs present. Cyrodiil is much larger than just one or two keeps. The current system limits mobility and flexibility of the map.

If one wants to generate decent AP, tactics must be discarded in favor or chasing zergs and farming kills. This severely cripples PvP and what can actually happen in AvA. By making the game more objective-oriented and rewarding players for objectives, the entire experience would be much more dynamic and unpredictable. As it stands, the game is very predictable because we all know you are just going to do the same thing and try to farm kills. That isn't what AvA is about.

The current system does not work well in the slightest. Anyone who has spent extensive time in AvA will know the various abuses and how players are trying to game the system and ignore what actually is important. My suggestion of making the system more objective-focused merely makes the tasks of the game more pivotal and discourages your play style of farming and disregarding your alliance.

I've already spoken with many in the DC about the current AP system and no one is happy with the results. People want AvA, not Farming Simulator 2014, which is what you and your friends apparently seem to love. We fight for our alliance, not to farm AP for ourselves.

Agrippa_Invisus

I find it really hard to find any call for balance credible from someone who plays Bloodthorn DC. If you wanted a better, more rewarding fight -- you would be on another server as a DC. One that needs you, like AB for instance, and not on a server that routinely locks population every night and only sees opposition the weekends when guild events happen.

Clydus, I do consider you a cut above the DC on BT (who are band wagoneers of the lowest order most days), but seriously, try your hand at a better campaign before your complaints.

As it is, everything Alacrity does to your alliance you have coming, in spades.

Imperator_Clydus

Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

I find it really hard to find any call for balance credible from someone who plays Bloodthorn DC. If you wanted a better, more rewarding fight -- you would be on another server as a DC. One that needs you, like AB for instance, and not on a server that routinely locks population every night and only sees opposition the weekends when guild events happen.

Clydus, I do consider you a cut above the DC on BT (who are band wagoneers of the lowest order most days), but seriously, try your hand at a better campaign before your complaints.

As it is, everything Alacrity does to your alliance you have coming, in spades.

Here's the deal. I have been on Bloodthorn since the very first day. I don't know if you were there or not, but it only took a day until a EP super guild/alliance came to the campaign and took over. For the first week of early access and starting into the game, the entire campaign was all red.

It wasn't fun. I didn't enjoy it and in fact, many DC players left. However, I chose to make Bloodthorn my home campaign. Through the good times and bad, I wanted to build a community and make the campaign work. Before I knew it, more DC guilds decided to transfer to Bloodthorn.

Within a few days, the playing field had been leveled, and EP wasn't dominating unchecked anymore. This EP super guild, not having fun anymore, decided to leave Bloodthorn and dominate another dead campaign without competition. This left a void in the EP and the DC started to dominate too often.

AD, never got their act together and even with the transfer of Entropy Rising and the Tamriel Foundry community, didn't seem to have a noticeable impact on AvA. Here we are a few weeks later, EP is largely an unorganized mass of zergs, AD is largely nonexistent, and many more players have transferred here to join the DC because it's an easy win.

The current state of the campaign is less than ideal. I do not support nor like the players who constantly change campaigns or guest in order to avoid competition for easy wins or to seek it. This has led to the unstable and unwieldy AvA that most of the campaigns currently have.

This cannot be resolved by the player base. This is purely an issue ZOS needs to fix. Had they decided to keep transfers at 100,000 AP rather than reducing it to 15,000 AP and limiting the ability to guest, we probably wouldn't even be having these issues.

My point, is I'm not interested in being a part of the problem. I chose Bloodthorn and that is where I intend to stay. I came here to build a community and to unify and organize the DC. I have little interest in campaign hopping wherever the battle is, as the same problems will only propagate themselves there.

I do not know you, but the population imbalances and state of AvA can only be fixed by ZOS. I have various other threads addressing these issues and why ZOS needs to get their act together unless they want PvP to be this lopsided on most of the campaigns.

Irregardless, besides the population issues, AvA has issues. I am merely addressing them because those who choose to abuse and exploit the system are ruining the fun for everybody. I am sure I am not the only one here who actually cares about AvA and wants it to work as intended.

I came here because ZOS promised DAoC RvR where faction camaraderie and working as a team mattered in the PvP experience. As it currently stands, AvA is nothing more than a farm fest where many ignore the objectives of AvA in order to try to find better ways of gaming the system and undermining the PvP for everyone.

This also exacerbates the population issues, with the entire system encouraging abuses and player behavior being manipulated by these faults. Please do not misunderstand my intent, as I'm not happy with the AvA experience anymore than you are. With that being understood, lets work to resolve the problems, rather than using exploiters and farmers like Alacrity as a means of karma and revenge.

lao

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

What the current AP system currently does is promotes and encourages
smaller groups and solo players vastly over large groups.

working as intended.

I enjoy leading large group parties on my campaign. Yesterday alone, my group claimed most of the keeps in Cyrodiil throughout the day. Unfortunately, one does not receive a lot of AP for claiming keeps.

so you think u deserve ap for PvWall. comical at best.

Unless the keep, itself, is actually defended, playing tactically and having foresight actually works against one with how AvA currently works. Besides myself, every single emperor for the DC has either been a solo player or played in small groups, farming kills to generate a colossal amount of AP.

again, working as intended.

This mentality, in my personal opinion, is bad for AvA. The experience should be focused on defending keeps, securing elder scrolls, and claiming territory. Pure death matching should be a secondary component that doesn't lead to better rewards and benefits.

so u wanna reward awful players who cant stand their ground in any real pvp for roleplaying around keeps fighting guards and walls. ur post gets funnier with every line i read.

Especially with how large and massive AvA is, with hundreds of players participating in sieges, it should be these players who accumulate the most AP. As it currently stands, the large groups AvA was built for do not even compare to small groups and solo players. For an MMORPG, that is an incredibly confusing and frustrating predicament.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wVagQ_LVd4#t=151

Am I the only individual who believes the AP system needs to be reassessed and that large groups should be encouraged rather than discouraged?

no theres probably alot of zerglings like you who think alike. no1 that is a factor will agree with you tho.

Xsorus

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

I find it really hard to find any call for balance credible from someone who plays Bloodthorn DC. If you wanted a better, more rewarding fight -- you would be on another server as a DC. One that needs you, like AB for instance, and not on a server that routinely locks population every night and only sees opposition the weekends when guild events happen.

Clydus, I do consider you a cut above the DC on BT (who are band wagoneers of the lowest order most days), but seriously, try your hand at a better campaign before your complaints.

As it is, everything Alacrity does to your alliance you have coming, in spades.

Here's the deal. I have been on Bloodthorn since the very first day. I don't know if you were there or not, but it only took a day until a EP super guild/alliance came to the campaign and took over. For the first week of early access and starting into the game, the entire campaign was all red.

It wasn't fun. I didn't enjoy it and in fact, many DC players left. However, I chose to make Bloodthorn my home campaign. Through the good times and bad, I wanted to build a community and make the campaign work. Before I knew it, more DC guilds decided to transfer to Bloodthorn.

Within a few days, the playing field had been leveled, and EP wasn't dominating unchecked anymore. This EP super guild, not having fun anymore, decided to leave Bloodthorn and dominate another dead campaign without competition. This left a void in the EP and the DC started to dominate too often.

AD, never got their act together and even with the transfer of Entropy Rising and the Tamriel Foundry community, didn't seem to have a noticeable impact on AvA. Here we are a few weeks later, EP is largely an unorganized mass of zergs, AD is largely nonexistent, and many more players have transferred here to join the DC because it's an easy win.

The current state of the campaign is less than ideal. I do not support nor like the players who constantly change campaigns or guest in order to avoid competition for easy wins or to seek it. This has led to the unstable and unwieldy AvA that most of the campaigns currently have.

This cannot be resolved by the player base. This is purely an issue ZOS needs to fix. Had they decided to keep transfers at 100,000 AP rather than reducing it to 15,000 AP and limiting the ability to guest, we probably wouldn't even be having these issues.

My point, is I'm not interested in being a part of the problem. I chose Bloodthorn and that is where I intend to stay. I came here to build a community and to unify and organize the DC. I have little interest in campaign hopping wherever the battle is, as the same problems will only propagate themselves there.

I do not know you, but the population imbalances and state of AvA can only be fixed by ZOS. I have various other threads addressing these issues and why ZOS needs to get their act together unless they want PvP to be this lopsided on most of the campaigns.

Irregardless, besides the population issues, AvA has issues. I am merely addressing them because those who choose to abuse and exploit the system are ruining the fun for everybody. I am sure I am not the only one here who actually cares about AvA and wants it to work as intended.

I came here because ZOS promised DAoC RvR where faction camaraderie and working as a team mattered in the PvP experience. As it currently stands, AvA is nothing more than a farm fest where many ignore the objectives of AvA in order to try to find better ways of gaming the system and undermining the PvP for everyone.

This also exacerbates the population issues, with the entire system encouraging abuses and player behavior being manipulated by these faults. Please do not misunderstand my intent, as I'm not happy with the AvA experience anymore than you are. With that being understood, lets work to resolve the problems, rather than using exploiters and farmers like Alacrity as a means of karma and revenge.

You're aware Realm Points worked the same way Alliance Points worked in this game right?

TheGrandAlliance

I already have a thread I started long ago that addresses this situation.

I have written a gread detail on the situation. What is worse: The current system rewards elite guilds AP farming... and not winning the map. I address this issue on another thread.


Indeed... the AP and Emperor needs change.

lao

seriously the existence of this thread shows EXACTLY whats wrong with todays mmo players and why their opinions and ideas should be discarded without 2nd thought.