Alliance Point accumulation needs to be re-evaluated.

popatiberiuoneb18_ESO

lao wrote: »

popatiberiuoneb18_ESO wrote: »

lao wrote: »

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

lao wrote: »

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

Feel free to read more of the thread. I'm not just asking for a re-evaluation of AP gains through kills, but for it to become secondary and the main source of AP being gained through objectives.

Kills are obviously still important. There wouldn't be an incentive to leave your keeps and territory unguarded, especially if you are winning. However, ZOS needs to make the actual objectives matter instead of them being secondary towards players figuring out ways of farming other players.

That is not the objective of AvA.

if ZOS listened to you every single real PvPer would leave the game instantly and u would be alone with the other lemmings. but i guess that is what u want.

kills have to be the primary source of AP else its not PvP. the way it is atm is already way too much PvWall/NPC. the whole concept they use is flawed and ppl are already getting bored of it, which i btw already warned about in beta.

what they should do instead is remove all the keeps/npc´s entirely and crown emperors on a king of the hill basis. the player that has accumulated the most AP in a given time period should be crowned emperor. kinda like it is already but without the crutch of taking/defending keeps that gives bad palyers more AP then they deserve. also the fact that u have to own specific keeps in order to become emperor is extremely dumb. if those were removed we would see alot more small scale pvp as there would be no point in running in a zerg and only actually good players/groups would have an actual chance to become emperor. like its supposed to be.

no offense but the view this modern generation of mmo players has on how pvp is supposed to be or what they actually think is pvp makes me sick to the stomach. u couldnt be further off of reality.

Altrough i mostly agree with what you say i stil think that defending/atacking keeps has the potential of being a fun part of pvp the AP should stil be rewarded entirely for player contribution not ticks on keep or stuff like that...

yea i can agree on that. if there was a reward for actual contribution then its alright but giving ppl ticks for just beeing in the general area is stupid. i remember when i rode past a keep that previously had been under attack and all of a sudden i got 11k AP. i was like wtf is this? i didnt take part in the fight at all and got randomly awarded with a crapton of AP. thats just silly

Yes, its also stupid to have people afk in keeps in order to leech AP. There should be no daily/repeatable quests, no Objective AP gains just plain contribution gains so everyone has to work for their AP ...dont like the AP giving your advantages though, you can always buy an account on ebay or abuse mechanics just to farm it...it should have more of a brag value (and currency for siege engines is more then enough)...for people to doit only for pride of getting there instead of cheating/abusing in order to gain the advantages...my 2 cents

Imperator_Clydus

Bergs wrote: »

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

Harakh wrote: »

Zerg should not be rewarded cause Zerging and large scale Fights (24 and more) is not so skilled like a 8vs8 or so.

If you will reward zerging no one will solo cause the scouts need also to get points.

That's not necessarily true. Having less players does not necessarily make one more skilled or a better player. Regardless, zerging is encouraged in a bad way with how the current system is based on AP. We could largely counteract this if AP gains were more objective-based.

Sorry bud, this was tried in Warhammer Online and it created avoidance in PvP with the trading of objectives.

The current system seems fine to me. Plus there already exists bonuses for objectives for attacking/defending them from players. Seems like a decent compromise to me.

People continue to use Warhammer Online as the perfect example. Warhammer Online didn't even have three factions, which leads to all sorts of issues to begin with.

Keep swapping happens when there is not an incentive to defend what you have. If objectives actually mattered, defending your territory would be crucial. As it currently stands, there isn't an incentive to defend half the keeps, so enemies flip them all the time.

The problem many of you seem to have deluded yourselves into believing was fixed, is running rampant in this game all the time. Your solution is not working and this is not a "decent compromise" in the slightest. Basing AP gains solely on kills makes the AvA itself worthless.

Imperator_Clydus

lao wrote: »

if ZOS listened to you every single real PvPer would leave the game instantly and u would be alone with the other lemmings. but i guess that is what u want.

kills have to be the primary source of AP else its not PvP. the way it is atm is already way too much PvWall/NPC. the whole concept they use is flawed and ppl are already getting bored of it, which i btw already warned about in beta.

what they should do instead is remove all the keeps/npc´s entirely and crown emperors on a king of the hill basis. the player that has accumulated the most AP in a given time period should be crowned emperor. kinda like it is already but without the crutch of taking/defending keeps that gives bad palyers more AP then they deserve. also the fact that u have to own specific keeps in order to become emperor is extremely dumb. if those were removed we would see alot more small scale pvp as there would be no point in running in a zerg and only actually good players/groups would have an actual chance to become emperor. like its supposed to be.

no offense but the view this modern generation of mmo players has on how pvp is supposed to be or what they actually think is pvp makes me sick to the stomach. u couldnt be further off of reality.

This is not Halo. This is not Call of Duty. I'm not even sure I can actually call you a PvPer lol.

Clearly, your definition of "fun" and "competition" is a linear e-sport that is nothing more than a mindless death match. Then, whoever is the "best player" at the said mindless death match becomes emperor for mindless death matching. This is by far the worst idea I have ever heard for an MMORPG. Are you new to MMOs? You sound like it.

Believe it or not, but AvA is based off of RvR, which is not new to MMOs. RvR comes from DAoC, which was released in 2001. In MMORPGs, especially for PvP, team work and completing the objectives given to you were how you won the experience. This isn't an Arena or a Battleground in WoW. You are playing the wrong game if that's the kind of experience you were looking for.

As has been iterated plenty of times, what wins the Alliance War is your score, which is solely based on how many keeps you've had, how many elder scrolls, and how many emperors you have maintained. Kills have absolutely nothing to do with the system.

So with this being understood, why is it that killing is the most important aspect for accumulating AP? How does an experience which is determined by objectives have its entire currency built specifically on death matching? It's a contradiction in every sense of the word. That is why AvA has largely been bad and uninteresting up to this point.

I merely am suggesting to ZOS to make AP gains coincide with how the actual game already works. This might be hard for you to believe, but the actual PvP as well, would be a lot better, if objectives were the actual focus. We wouldn't have mindless zergs death matching mindless zergs. We wouldn't have players taking scrolls just to farm players.

We would actually have players in alliances working together to secure objectives, and emergent and fun PvP would spawn out of it. That is how the game was intended to be played. That is how the game should be played. Your idea of "PvP" certainly is a part of the experience, but it is in no way the entirety of it.

I assure you, if all you want to do is mindlessly kill, there are many other games already out there much better than ESO. MMOs, in general, probably are not your cup of tea if that is all you want.

Imperator_Clydus

Spawn wrote: »

So playing objectives today with a group of around 20 for most of the day gained me 715k ap today, so big groups don't have a issue with gaining ap.

Oh and well look what happened to Bloodthorn, we turned the whole map yellow well DC had 3 Bars and EP had 2 Bars of Pop well Ad was only at 1 you see a effective large group can do a lot mate, guess it would have been better for you if we just kept trying to farm kills.



You see the system as it stands works perfectly well, a group like mine can make massive alliance points, attacking and defending objectives with any size group, small or big we just make sure we are as effective as our big group is, the current system is prefect it makes you attack players not go around back capping undefended keeps.

You can be salty about it as much as you want but after today you clearly can see how effective a large group can be and just how much alliance points we can get in a day on top of how much map control.

Too bad you continue to lie to yourself. I am on Bloodthorn, thank you very much, and I know exactly how your "dominance" came to be. Lets not spin the truth.

Again, we have already established you run with an AOE bomb group of players whose sole purpose is to farm kills. You take objectives that don't actually benefit your alliance in any way just to kill zergs. Yes, gaining alliance points when you exploit the system to your own advantage is so difficult. Moving on...

At the peak of your dominance, the population was actually leveled out for each alliance at two bars. In fact, it was apparent AD had quite a few players guest in order to help your rapid ascendance. There were quite a few new faces in the AD, and many who have not shown themselves in quite a few weeks. Your group of 20 did not turn Cyrodiil yellow alone.

Now that we have established you were still farming kills and you obviously didn't take all the keeps by yourself, lets move on with the rest of your post. No, you are incorrect. The system is not working well in the slightest. It works "perfectly well" for you, because you abuse it. The system doesn't encourage playing objectives, as there are generally only one or two spots on the map that are actually seeing battle.

Again, you prove my point that the most efficient way in a large group to accumulate AP is farming zergs. This, I have already touched on a variety of times. You didn't take half the keeps, as you had help from outsiders and AD groups that are never present on Bloodthorn. Don't even act like you were playing objectively, as you were trying to farm EP and DC zergs simultaneously while you were letting the rest of your alliance actually play objectively.

Try to make a better effort to support your case next time. Anyone who actually plays on Bloodthorn knows exactly what you are doing as we see it every single day.

Agrippa_Invisus

Clydus,

Don't forget the caltrops.

All credit here goes to the caltrops.

lao

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

Bergs wrote: »

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

Harakh wrote: »

Zerg should not be rewarded cause Zerging and large scale Fights (24 and more) is not so skilled like a 8vs8 or so.

If you will reward zerging no one will solo cause the scouts need also to get points.

That's not necessarily true. Having less players does not necessarily make one more skilled or a better player. Regardless, zerging is encouraged in a bad way with how the current system is based on AP. We could largely counteract this if AP gains were more objective-based.

Sorry bud, this was tried in Warhammer Online and it created avoidance in PvP with the trading of objectives.

The current system seems fine to me. Plus there already exists bonuses for objectives for attacking/defending them from players. Seems like a decent compromise to me.

People continue to use Warhammer Online as the perfect example. Warhammer Online didn't even have three factions, which leads to all sorts of issues to begin with.

Keep swapping happens when there is not an incentive to defend what you have. If objectives actually mattered, defending your territory would be crucial. As it currently stands, there isn't an incentive to defend half the keeps, so enemies flip them all the time.

The problem many of you seem to have deluded yourselves into believing was fixed, is running rampant in this game all the time. Your solution is not working and this is not a "decent compromise" in the slightest. Basing AP gains solely on kills makes the AvA itself worthless.

Moderator Edit: Removed for Flaming

lao

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

lao wrote: »

if ZOS listened to you every single real PvPer would leave the game instantly and u would be alone with the other lemmings. but i guess that is what u want.

kills have to be the primary source of AP else its not PvP. the way it is atm is already way too much PvWall/NPC. the whole concept they use is flawed and ppl are already getting bored of it, which i btw already warned about in beta.

what they should do instead is remove all the keeps/npc´s entirely and crown emperors on a king of the hill basis. the player that has accumulated the most AP in a given time period should be crowned emperor. kinda like it is already but without the crutch of taking/defending keeps that gives bad palyers more AP then they deserve. also the fact that u have to own specific keeps in order to become emperor is extremely dumb. if those were removed we would see alot more small scale pvp as there would be no point in running in a zerg and only actually good players/groups would have an actual chance to become emperor. like its supposed to be.

no offense but the view this modern generation of mmo players has on how pvp is supposed to be or what they actually think is pvp makes me sick to the stomach. u couldnt be further off of reality.

This is not Halo. This is not Call of Duty. I'm not even sure I can actually call you a PvPer lol.

Clearly, your definition of "fun" and "competition" is a linear e-sport that is nothing more than a mindless death match. Then, whoever is the "best player" at the said mindless death match becomes emperor for mindless death matching. This is by far the worst idea I have ever heard for an MMORPG. Are you new to MMOs? You sound like it.

Believe it or not, but AvA is based off of RvR, which is not new to MMOs. RvR comes from DAoC, which was released in 2001. In MMORPGs, especially for PvP, team work and completing the objectives given to you were how you won the experience. This isn't an Arena or a Battleground in WoW. You are playing the wrong game if that's the kind of experience you were looking for.

As has been iterated plenty of times, what wins the Alliance War is your score, which is solely based on how many keeps you've had, how many elder scrolls, and how many emperors you have maintained. Kills have absolutely nothing to do with the system.

So with this being understood, why is it that killing is the most important aspect for accumulating AP? How does an experience which is determined by objectives have its entire currency built specifically on death matching? It's a contradiction in every sense of the word. That is why AvA has largely been bad and uninteresting up to this point.

I merely am suggesting to ZOS to make AP gains coincide with how the actual game already works. This might be hard for you to believe, but the actual PvP as well, would be a lot better, if objectives were the actual focus. We wouldn't have mindless zergs death matching mindless zergs. We wouldn't have players taking scrolls just to farm players.

We would actually have players in alliances working together to secure objectives, and emergent and fun PvP would spawn out of it. That is how the game was intended to be played. That is how the game should be played. Your idea of "PvP" certainly is a part of the experience, but it is in no way the entirety of it.

I assure you, if all you want to do is mindlessly kill, there are many other games already out there much better than ESO. MMOs, in general, probably are not your cup of tea if that is all you want.

ROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOFL

Moderator Edit: Removed for Flaming

knightstorm3b14_ESO

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

Spawn wrote: »

So playing objectives today with a group of around 20 for most of the day gained me 715k ap today, so big groups don't have a issue with gaining ap.

Oh and well look what happened to Bloodthorn, we turned the whole map yellow well DC had 3 Bars and EP had 2 Bars of Pop well Ad was only at 1 you see a effective large group can do a lot mate, guess it would have been better for you if we just kept trying to farm kills.



You see the system as it stands works perfectly well, a group like mine can make massive alliance points, attacking and defending objectives with any size group, small or big we just make sure we are as effective as our big group is, the current system is prefect it makes you attack players not go around back capping undefended keeps.

You can be salty about it as much as you want but after today you clearly can see how effective a large group can be and just how much alliance points we can get in a day on top of how much map control.

Too bad you continue to lie to yourself. I am on Bloodthorn, thank you very much, and I know exactly how your "dominance" came to be. Lets not spin the truth.

Again, we have already established you run with an AOE bomb group of players whose sole purpose is to farm kills. You take objectives that don't actually benefit your alliance in any way just to kill zergs. Yes, gaining alliance points when you exploit the system to your own advantage is so difficult. Moving on...

At the peak of your dominance, the population was actually leveled out for each alliance at two bars. In fact, it was apparent AD had quite a few players guest in order to help your rapid ascendance. There were quite a few new faces in the AD, and many who have not shown themselves in quite a few weeks. Your group of 20 did not turn Cyrodiil yellow alone.

Now that we have established you were still farming kills and you obviously didn't take all the keeps by yourself, lets move on with the rest of your post. No, you are incorrect. The system is not working well in the slightest. It works "perfectly well" for you, because you abuse it. The system doesn't encourage playing objectives, as there are generally only one or two spots on the map that are actually seeing battle.

Again, you prove my point that the most efficient way in a large group to accumulate AP is farming zergs. This, I have already touched on a variety of times. You didn't take half the keeps, as you had help from outsiders and AD groups that are never present on Bloodthorn. Don't even act like you were playing objectively, as you were trying to farm EP and DC zergs simultaneously while you were letting the rest of your alliance actually play objectively.

Try to make a better effort to support your case next time. Anyone who actually plays on Bloodthorn knows exactly what you are doing as we see it every single day.

Imperator_Clydus

lao wrote: »

ok im tired of this thread now. lets drop this sharade and just call things by their name so to say.

You´re awful at the game and cant compete in PvP so ur mad and thats why u want AP for fighting NPC´s and walls. thats all this thread is about.

can we laugh at this guy and move on now please? yes? thanks!

/thread

Yes. Let us get to the heart of the matter. You don't care about AvA in the slightest and you want to turn Cyrodiil into one large, mindless death match. You do not like objectives. You don't even want competition. You just want to farm PUGs for kills. This is your entire argument. You don't need to respond anymore at this point.

lao

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

lao wrote: »

ok im tired of this thread now. lets drop this sharade and just call things by their name so to say.

You´re awful at the game and cant compete in PvP so ur mad and thats why u want AP for fighting NPC´s and walls. thats all this thread is about.

can we laugh at this guy and move on now please? yes? thanks!

/thread

Yes. Let us get to the heart of the matter. You don't care about AvA in the slightest and you want to turn Cyrodiil into one large, mindless death match. You do not like objectives. You don't even want competition. You just want to farm PUGs for kills. This is your entire argument. You don't need to respond anymore at this point.

i dont care about objectives. thats about the only thing u got right. i do like competition tho thats why i stay away from objectives cos if i go to objectives i will only find ppl like u which wont provide any challenge whatsoever. therefor no competition. i prefer fighting good players/groups instead of mindless PvWall.

you however are so blinded by ur lack of skill that u dont even comprehend what competition even means. u suck at everything remotely competitive and therefor hug meaningless objectives that take zero skill or coordination to take. however ur ego cant handle ur overwhelming badness and therefor you decided that PvWall now is considered competition. well sry bro, only in ur little bubble. you dont need to respond anymore at this point. tho id welcome it cos ur replies always provide good laughs.

Xsorus

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

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

Read more closely. ZOS has delivered on the RvR experience, unlike GW2 and others before it. Read the latter part of that sentence now, "where faction camaraderie and working as a team mattered in the PvP experience."

This is something that ZOS, themselves, have promised and discussed on a variety of occasions during pre-launch. Regardless of the faults DAoC may have had, ZOS' rhetoric is not matching their actions for ESO.

I'm merely pointing to the game that ZOS has stated they were making, and I'd like to see that philosophy reinforced in their game design. I am offering them potential solutions for reaching their goal and making AvA matter.

Oh i see, You want them to not copy the specific parts of DAOC that you didn't like when copying DAOC.... because reasons

Xsorus

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

cisadanepajsuxrwb17_ESO wrote: »

Encouraging massive zergs are actually pretty scary. It makes zergs becomes all more prominent and whoever has the biggest zergs have a higher chance of winning. While I agree that 2 zergs meeting head-on would be an amazing thing to be part of, we have to realize that there are actually a lot of players who really dislikes that.

The game actually already encourages this. If you are part of a large party, and you want to generate decent AP, your best option is to find the largest battle and farm enemies for kills.

We already have this scenario of zerg wars being encouraged. What I want to do is make the experience less about blatant farming, and make objectives matter more.

There is no reason 80% of all the action should happen at only two keeps in Cyrodiil. It's far too large and there is too much territory to defend. People should be encouraged to attack different keeps as well as defend them.

Right now, players avoid objectives in favor of looking for kills, and while PvP is important, it should be organic and work with the system rather than being forced and being a detriment to the system.

So wait..in one post you're complaining about Solo players making large amounts of Alliance Points, yet in this post you're saying large parties are a good way of getting decent AP is to find other players to fight?

And your solution to this is to get Large amount of people in Large Parties, and finding empty structures to fight?

Xsorus

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

lao wrote: »

if ZOS listened to you every single real PvPer would leave the game instantly and u would be alone with the other lemmings. but i guess that is what u want.

kills have to be the primary source of AP else its not PvP. the way it is atm is already way too much PvWall/NPC. the whole concept they use is flawed and ppl are already getting bored of it, which i btw already warned about in beta.

what they should do instead is remove all the keeps/npc´s entirely and crown emperors on a king of the hill basis. the player that has accumulated the most AP in a given time period should be crowned emperor. kinda like it is already but without the crutch of taking/defending keeps that gives bad palyers more AP then they deserve. also the fact that u have to own specific keeps in order to become emperor is extremely dumb. if those were removed we would see alot more small scale pvp as there would be no point in running in a zerg and only actually good players/groups would have an actual chance to become emperor. like its supposed to be.

no offense but the view this modern generation of mmo players has on how pvp is supposed to be or what they actually think is pvp makes me sick to the stomach. u couldnt be further off of reality.

This is not Halo. This is not Call of Duty. I'm not even sure I can actually call you a PvPer lol.

Clearly, your definition of "fun" and "competition" is a linear e-sport that is nothing more than a mindless death match. Then, whoever is the "best player" at the said mindless death match becomes emperor for mindless death matching. This is by far the worst idea I have ever heard for an MMORPG. Are you new to MMOs? You sound like it.

Believe it or not, but AvA is based off of RvR, which is not new to MMOs. RvR comes from DAoC, which was released in 2001. In MMORPGs, especially for PvP, team work and completing the objectives given to you were how you won the experience. This isn't an Arena or a Battleground in WoW. You are playing the wrong game if that's the kind of experience you were looking for.

As has been iterated plenty of times, what wins the Alliance War is your score, which is solely based on how many keeps you've had, how many elder scrolls, and how many emperors you have maintained. Kills have absolutely nothing to do with the system.

So with this being understood, why is it that killing is the most important aspect for accumulating AP? How does an experience which is determined by objectives have its entire currency built specifically on death matching? It's a contradiction in every sense of the word. That is why AvA has largely been bad and uninteresting up to this point.

I merely am suggesting to ZOS to make AP gains coincide with how the actual game already works. This might be hard for you to believe, but the actual PvP as well, would be a lot better, if objectives were the actual focus. We wouldn't have mindless zergs death matching mindless zergs. We wouldn't have players taking scrolls just to farm players.

We would actually have players in alliances working together to secure objectives, and emergent and fun PvP would spawn out of it. That is how the game was intended to be played. That is how the game should be played. Your idea of "PvP" certainly is a part of the experience, but it is in no way the entirety of it.

I assure you, if all you want to do is mindlessly kill, there are many other games already out there much better than ESO. MMOs, in general, probably are not your cup of tea if that is all you want.

You keep talking about how you want DAOC, Yet you keep making suggestions that are similar to Warhammer Online and GW2.

At no point in DAOC's history, was taking a Keep worth more then killing a group of players...Esp an undefended one... You also keep talking about how DAOC wasn't about killing other players, yet one of the biggest things about that game was the 8v8 going on in it.

Oh by the way, You made plenty of Realm Points in Warhammer Online defending...You also got rewarded for defending as well.

Why did people swap keeps? Because I can sit at a keep and make 10k Realm Points defending and get some bags on defense, and it might take an 20-30 minutes to run the enemy off...Or i can spend 5 minutes taking an undefended keep, get 1-2k realm points, and get some bags.

so while you got plenty of realm points defending, It was far easier and far most cost effective to simply swap.

lao

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

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

Read more closely. ZOS has delivered on the RvR experience, unlike GW2 and others before it. Read the latter part of that sentence now, "where faction camaraderie and working as a team mattered in the PvP experience."

This is something that ZOS, themselves, have promised and discussed on a variety of occasions during pre-launch. Regardless of the faults DAoC may have had, ZOS' rhetoric is not matching their actions for ESO.

I'm merely pointing to the game that ZOS has stated they were making, and I'd like to see that philosophy reinforced in their game design. I am offering them potential solutions for reaching their goal and making AvA matter.

Oh i see, You want them to not copy the specific parts of DAOC that you didn't like when copying DAOC.... because reasons

really? THAT is what u find comical about him? id say the fact that he thinks objectives (keeps) have at any point been a factor in DAoC RvR is the true comedy here.

Agrippa_Invisus

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

You keep talking about how you want DAOC, Yet you keep making suggestions that are similar to Warhammer Online and GW2.

At no point in DAOC's history, was taking a Keep worth more then killing a group of players...Esp an undefended one... You also keep talking about how DAOC wasn't about killing other players, yet one of the biggest things about that game was the 8v8 going on in it.

Oh by the way, You made plenty of Realm Points in Warhammer Online defending...You also got rewarded for defending as well.

Why did people swap keeps? Because I can sit at a keep and make 10k Realm Points defending and get some bags on defense, and it might take an 20-30 minutes to run the enemy off...Or i can spend 5 minutes taking an undefended keep, get 1-2k realm points, and get some bags.

so while you got plenty of realm points defending, It was far easier and far most cost effective to simply swap.

In DAoC it depends on your definition of worth. Darkness Falls was extreme incentive -- both the ganking opportunities within and the cash farming for seals -- to take keeps, even undefended ones. We would take a Hib or Mid keep JUST to race to Darkness Falls to be the first group to clean it out.

Old Frontiers even directly tied the number of Relic guards to the number of keeps held and getting those relics (and commensurate buffs) was even more powerful than ESO scrolls (20% flat magic damage increase? Yes please.).

Warhammer Online did get it very, very wrong. WHO was just a bad game, though, which is a shame.

lao

just give up guys. the OP is just madcosbad and wants ZOS to change things so he can be a rockstar while fighting walls. how anyone can be this bad to fail at eso pvp is beyond me tho.

jeffreyb14_ESO3

I read the first couple of page and then decided to skip past the rest of it as it seemed to focus on how little people like zergs.

The point that I liked and want to second is that rewards should be more or at least equally objective oriented rather than primarily kill oriented. I don't understand why there are all these keeps, and objectives out there if all anyone is trying to do is get kills. If that was the intended system then why not have arenas which get right into the action instead of running around this sandbox world looking for it?

I am interested in the pvp for this game because I want to participate in large scale tactics while only needing to accomplish my smaller contribution. It is exciting for me to see many individuals cooperating and coordinating their actions to ensure success for their overall faction. Instead what I am seeing a lot of is smaller groups doing things like luring a zerg into some tower with a scroll to give themselves large rewards while disregarding the greater good so to speak.

One thing that I will admit that currently has not factored into my opinion is the overall alliance score for your campaign. My understanding is that the alliance score is influenced more by keeps and objectives rather than kills, and that we will get some sort of reward based on it when all is said and done after 90 days. It could be that the reward will make objective based goals more worth it at the end of the day, but we shall have to see if that is the case.

Also if anyone has some insight of what to expect from that 90 day reward I would certainly appreciate it.

TheGrandAlliance

jeffreyb14_ESO3 wrote: »

One thing that I will admit that currently has not factored into my opinion is the overall alliance score for your campaign. My understanding is that the alliance score is influenced more by keeps and objectives rather than kills, and that we will get some sort of reward based on it when all is said and done after 90 days. It could be that the reward will make objective based goals more worth it at the end of the day, but we shall have to see if that is the case.

NO... it is kills-based. The more kills that occur around an object the bigger the bonus... but it is kills based alas. Furthermore a small group coop a raid will get teh AP that the raid gets but more due to their smaller size (such as "kill stealing/sharing").

Imperator_Clydus

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

So wait..in one post you're complaining about Solo players making large amounts of Alliance Points, yet in this post you're saying large parties are a good way of getting decent AP is to find other players to fight?

And your solution to this is to get Large amount of people in Large Parties, and finding empty structures to fight?

Solo players still can accumulate a lot more AP than large groups. Large groups can accumulate decent AP by mindlessly attacking zergs. These are generally the large PUG armies you see bashing their heads against Bleakers and Chalman all day long, not actually contributing to anything. It's PvP alright, a never-ending farm of kills that undermine the objectives of AvA.

My solution is to discourage zerg wars, discourage farming kills, and put an emphasis on objectives. If there is an incentive to attack keeps and defend keeps (not just one or two places), it will spread out the PvP, it will be much more unpredictable, and it will lead to more interesting experiences.

We'll actually see dynamic PvP happening all over the map, rather than just two farming hotspots half the day. All I want is for the PvP to make sense and enhance what the game is meant to do. Right now, it is undermining it and the PvP itself isn't interesting in the slightest most of the time.

Imperator_Clydus

jeffreyb14_ESO3 wrote: »

I read the first couple of page and then decided to skip past the rest of it as it seemed to focus on how little people like zergs.

The point that I liked and want to second is that rewards should be more or at least equally objective oriented rather than primarily kill oriented. I don't understand why there are all these keeps, and objectives out there if all anyone is trying to do is get kills. If that was the intended system then why not have arenas which get right into the action instead of running around this sandbox world looking for it?

I am interested in the pvp for this game because I want to participate in large scale tactics while only needing to accomplish my smaller contribution. It is exciting for me to see many individuals cooperating and coordinating their actions to ensure success for their overall faction. Instead what I am seeing a lot of is smaller groups doing things like luring a zerg into some tower with a scroll to give themselves large rewards while disregarding the greater good so to speak.

One thing that I will admit that currently has not factored into my opinion is the overall alliance score for your campaign. My understanding is that the alliance score is influenced more by keeps and objectives rather than kills, and that we will get some sort of reward based on it when all is said and done after 90 days. It could be that the reward will make objective based goals more worth it at the end of the day, but we shall have to see if that is the case.

Also if anyone has some insight of what to expect from that 90 day reward I would certainly appreciate it.

I'm glad to see there are others who actually want the PvP system ZOS has made.

I'm all for a mindless death match, if ZOS decides to incorporate an arena system where such a play style is appropriate. AvA is not the place. Lets not turn AvA into something that it is clearly not.

The Alliance score is entirely dependent on how many keeps you've had, how many elder scrolls you have maintained, and how many emperors you have crowned. Killing has absolutely nothing to do with the scoring.

I can tell you from my experiences with beta that the end reward was just gold based on how well your alliance did and how much you participated. I have no idea how much gold you will receive as beta had 48 hour resets, rather than 90 days.

Xsorus

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

So wait..in one post you're complaining about Solo players making large amounts of Alliance Points, yet in this post you're saying large parties are a good way of getting decent AP is to find other players to fight?

And your solution to this is to get Large amount of people in Large Parties, and finding empty structures to fight?

Solo players still can accumulate a lot more AP than large groups. Large groups can accumulate decent AP by mindlessly attacking zergs. These are generally the large PUG armies you see bashing their heads against Bleakers and Chalman all day long, not actually contributing to anything. It's PvP alright, a never-ending farm of kills that undermine the objectives of AvA.

My solution is to discourage zerg wars, discourage farming kills, and put an emphasis on objectives. If there is an incentive to attack keeps and defend keeps (not just one or two places), it will spread out the PvP, it will be much more unpredictable, and it will lead to more interesting experiences.

We'll actually see dynamic PvP happening all over the map, rather than just two farming hotspots half the day. All I want is for the PvP to make sense and enhance what the game is meant to do. Right now, it is undermining it and the PvP itself isn't interesting in the slightest most of the time.

Explain to everyone here how much Alliance Points you believe Solo Players should get, and how much you believe Taking a Keep (Both defended and undefended) should give.

Tintinabula

Only thing I find a little "iffy" so far is the massive amount of AP that an emperor gets. Ive been watching our Emps scoreboard and they're averaging 1 mil per 3-4 days.(at most)
I don't know why but something seems "off" about an emperor receiving that much ap. I started out on my campaign a couple weeks back and two emps specifically were at 6 mil ap...they've both risen to almost 10 mil ap while Ive barely scratched the 1 mil mark.
It just seems like its an uphill losing battle to even get to top ten when they're receiving that much ap that quickly.

Imperator_Clydus

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

Explain to everyone here how much Alliance Points you believe Solo Players should get, and how much you believe Taking a Keep (Both defended and undefended) should give.

Well again, it depends on what these players are actually doing. If the actual system was based around objectives and kills were secondary, AP per kill should have a ratio proportional for large groups and a solo player. I don't mind a solo player getting more as they earned the kill on their own (depending on how tough the opponent was), it just shouldn't be a hundred times more. There should be reasonable limits set to also make AP gains from kills consistent.

Small or large, I believe both groups should receive a substantial amount of AP for playing objectively. Whether they are attacking keeps, taking resources, contesting keeps to transitus to prevent respawns, this is where AP should be generated. AP from kills should be smaller in comparison and not encourage farming and undermining the objectives of the game.

Ultimately, if ZOS were to change AP gains, this system would only work efficiently if ZOS were to elude us in regards to how to accumulate AP. We would obviously know objectives would be the goal, but we wouldn't know the intricacies and every aspect of the system. They would need to remove the ability to see AP gains in the API as well. The less we know, the less likely the system can be farmed and exploited.

Imperator_Clydus

Tintinabula wrote: »

Only thing I find a little "iffy" so far is the massive amount of AP that an emperor gets. Ive been watching our Emps scoreboard and they're averaging 1 mil per 3-4 days.(at most)
I don't know why but something seems "off" about an emperor receiving that much ap. I started out on my campaign a couple weeks back and two emps specifically were at 6 mil ap...they've both risen to almost 10 mil ap while Ive barely scratched the 1 mil mark.
It just seems like its an uphill losing battle to even get to top ten when they're receiving that much ap that quickly.

The issue is emperors become so much more powerful with the passive skill line. On top of the fact these players may have previously been vampires when they were broken, playing either a sorc or dk, and are likely playing FOTM specs, the emperorship augments their power significantly.

As a result we had a situation where emperors became the ultimate AP farming machines, virtually making it impossible to catch them. Especially on campaigns where the emperor is rarely deposed, that player can just sit back and farm AP and never be caught. It's definitely a big issue and ZOS should heavily consider how much AP emperors can generate, if any at all.

Bergs

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

Tintinabula wrote: »

Only thing I find a little "iffy" so far is the massive amount of AP that an emperor gets. Ive been watching our Emps scoreboard and they're averaging 1 mil per 3-4 days.(at most)
I don't know why but something seems "off" about an emperor receiving that much ap. I started out on my campaign a couple weeks back and two emps specifically were at 6 mil ap...they've both risen to almost 10 mil ap while Ive barely scratched the 1 mil mark.
It just seems like its an uphill losing battle to even get to top ten when they're receiving that much ap that quickly.

The issue is emperors become so much more powerful with the passive skill line. On top of the fact these players may have previously been vampires when they were broken, playing either a sorc or dk, and are likely playing FOTM specs, the emperorship augments their power significantly.

As a result we had a situation where emperors became the ultimate AP farming machines, virtually making it impossible to catch them. Especially on campaigns where the emperor is rarely deposed, that player can just sit back and farm AP and never be caught. It's definitely a big issue and ZOS should heavily consider how much AP emperors can generate, if any at all.

I'd argue that limiting eligibility for Emperor would be better than nerfing AP gains.
Allow the ability to be Emperor an event that can only happen once or twice a Campaign, then it would move on to the next highest eligible candidate.

Imperator_Clydus

Bergs wrote: »

I'd argue that limiting eligibility for Emperor would be better than nerfing AP gains. Allow the ability to be Emperor an event that can only happen once or twice a Campaign, then it would move on to the next highest eligible candidate.

That wouldn't fly either. That would mean only two players could be emperor in the course of 90 days. The emperorship just needs to be reworked so that it actually encourages players to play objectively. Not only should AP be generated mainly from objectives, but the passives of the emperor should probably be revamped as well.

Instead of the individual player being boosted with the emperor skill line, the emperor should provide buffs and benefits to those in the area or his group. It should be set up where the emperor would only be effective playing in objectives and work with the alliance, rather than being a single, over-powered individual killing for fun.

The emperorship should be built as a leadership role, not an over-powered player.

Halrloprillalar

Two opposite point-gain balance approaches from the games I've played:

In GW2 (WvWvW), objectives give the highest gain, so karma trains for node swapping were rampant: IME, not fun. There was also a bit of zerg on zerg kill farming, which was only slightly more fun.

In Rift, ("Conquest" had no fixed alliances, you get to pick your side each match, but over the course of weeks, server-specific 'favorites' would form): kills were higher (initially) so winning or losing became secondary to point farming with giant zergs, which resulted in horrific lag and wasn't fun. Eventually it got balanced out a bit more where winning gave huge rewards and people started playing more strategically.

So it would make the most sense for kills to reward higher AP near objectives, while having comparable (but not higher) AP gain from actively capturing objectives. It would also make sense for AP gain to scale inversely with group size.

I would also argue that campaign durations need to be cut down to weeks, not months, because currently highly imbalanced campaigns are ghost towns and likely will stay that way until reset.

This is in addition to all the obviously necessary technical fixes and balancing that needs to take place (caltrops, mercs, etc).

Imperator_Clydus

Halrloprillalar wrote: »

Two opposite point-gain balance approaches from the games I've played:

In GW2 (WvWvW), objectives give the highest gain, so karma trains for node swapping were rampant: IME, not fun. There was also a bit of zerg on zerg kill farming, which was only slightly more fun.

In Rift, ("Conquest" had no fixed alliances, you get to pick your side each match, but over the course of weeks, server-specific 'favorites' would form): kills were higher (initially) so winning or losing became secondary to point farming with giant zergs, which resulted in horrific lag and wasn't fun. Eventually it got balanced out a bit more where winning gave huge rewards and people started playing more strategically.

So it would make the most sense for kills to reward higher AP near objectives, while having comparable (but not higher) AP gain from actively capturing objectives. It would also make sense for AP gain to scale inversely with group size.

I would also argue that campaign durations need to be cut down to weeks, not months, because currently highly imbalanced campaigns are ghost towns and likely will stay that way until reset.

This is in addition to all the obviously necessary technical fixes and balancing that needs to take place (caltrops, mercs, etc).

You make some interesting and valid points here. I think increasing AP gains near objectives would certainly be a step in the right direction. I still think farming kills needs to be discouraged,

If we could find a more appropriate common ground of encouraging PvP on objectives, but in a way that would not encourage farming, that would be ideal.

ishilb14_ESO

Dude, they need to give more alliance points to players, the only way to defend keeps and outposts is by spawning as many Mage Mercenaries as you can, so we need more AP points otherwise we won't be able to defend keeps anymore.

Imperator_Clydus

ishilpatelb14_ESO wrote: »

Dude, they need to give more alliance points to players, the only way to defend keeps and outposts is by spawning as many Mage Mercenaries as you can, so we need more AP points otherwise we won't be able to defend keeps anymore.

This appears to be a sarcastic remark, but I'll entertain it anyways.

Mercenaries are broken and it's only a matter of time before ZOS hopefully address the issue. A lot of players are abusing this feature extensively, much like many did with vampire, and I have a feeling it will likely be nerfed or revamped so that Cyrodiil doesn't become the next PvE experience.