Alliance Point accumulation needs to be re-evaluated.

Halrloprillalar · May 2014

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

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.

I can only hope this is true.

In fact, I would be fine if they limited one active merc / person at any given time and gave them shorter leashes.

Imperator_Clydus · May 2014

Halrloprillalar wrote: »

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

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.

I can only hope this is true.

In fact, I would be fine if they limited one active merc / person at any given time and gave them shorter leashes.

I like this idea a lot, actually. It may not entirely resolve the issue, but it would significantly diminish its persistence.

TagaParti · June 2014

The current PVP is fine, ZoS surely had think about this many times before releasing the game. PVP can be considered one ofthe things to do in endgame for PVErs. So if they can only get small AP for killing if they arent in a group then whats the enjoyment of killing? They dont need to be in a large group if they want to be an emperor, all they need to do is help in the AvA, and killing a lot of enemies is one of the right way. A solo player who killed more enemies than players in a group deserves to be the emperor. Look at this, u command groups of hundreds, your group killed 10k enemies for example. And here I am, solo or with a healer buddy and I killed 1k enemies, who do u think is more deserving to become the emperor, its me right? Again, in Zos they think about this already, many brains down there, and they came up with a nice PVP setup, fair for everyone aiming to be the emperor, the greatest title for all tamriel heroes. ^^

Tintinabula · June 2014

No one can fully predict the human element. For every skill they introduced they hoped testers would find bugs.(we found a lot) You cant expect ZOS to foresee each and every "trick" for those skills at the get go.

Personally I thought the kill quest should have remained repeatable. Its too bad they couldn't have altered the ap gained off killing someone repeatedly in a short amount of time and made the kill quest an ap gain quest rather than kills instead.( It would have solved a bunch of their farming woes)

Imperator_Clydus · June 2014

TagaParti wrote: »

The current PVP is fine, ZoS surely had think about this many times before releasing the game. PVP can be considered one ofthe things to do in endgame for PVErs. So if they can only get small AP for killing if they arent in a group then whats the enjoyment of killing? They dont need to be in a large group if they want to be an emperor, all they need to do is help in the AvA, and killing a lot of enemies is one of the right way. A solo player who killed more enemies than players in a group deserves to be the emperor. Look at this, u command groups of hundreds, your group killed 10k enemies for example. And here I am, solo or with a healer buddy and I killed 1k enemies, who do u think is more deserving to become the emperor, its me right? Again, in Zos they think about this already, many brains down there, and they came up with a nice PVP setup, fair for everyone aiming to be the emperor, the greatest title for all tamriel heroes. ^^

You do realize what an emperor is? Right? They are a leader. They represent their faction. They, in theory, contributed the most to their alliance claiming the six Imperial Keeps.

With that being understood, no, what you say doesn't really make sense. An emperor wouldn't be some random solo player that nobody knows. An emperor would be a player who is constantly organizing groups, collaborating with others in his/her alliance, and doing everything in his/her power to bring victory to his/her alliance.

The system should reflect that, as again, the objectives are what win the Alliance War. Killing does not bring your alliance victory. Killing is merely an aspect of AvA, and while important, should not be the sole focus of the entire system, which isn't about mindless killing.

ZOS could take some cues from DICE with their Commander Mode system. It's about providing support and organization to your forces. The emperor should be a component that provides group-wide buffs, rather than individual ones, and is purely there to further improve overall alliance efficiency. That is how an emperor should function.

The current setup has led to the vast amount of abuses and exploiting we have seen. A majority of the players crowned emperor are not legitimate, most of their alliance doesn't know them, and they do not contribute to help their alliance succeed in the Alliance War. All ZOS has done is turn an incredibly original idea and make it into something meaningless and counterproductive to the experience.

cjmarsh725b14_ESO · June 2014

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

ZOS could take some cues from DICE with their Commander Mode system. It's about providing support and organization to your forces. The emperor should be a component that provides group-wide buffs, rather than individual ones, and is purely there to further improve overall alliance efficiency. That is how an emperor should function.

The current setup has led to the vast amount of abuses and exploiting we have seen. A majority of the players crowned emperor are not legitimate, most of their alliance doesn't know them, and they do not contribute to help their alliance succeed in the Alliance War. All ZOS has done is turn an incredibly original idea and make it into something meaningless and counterproductive to the experience.

I agree that the emperor title shouldn't give individual bonuses but I don't think they should be limited only to the emperor's group either. There are already far too many exclusive pvp groups, and having group buffs would just have those groups become even more exclusive. Instead, an area buff to every ally in a large radius who is fighting near you. That way, people know when their emperor is fighting nearby and can join him or her. Also, I definitely think that it should be removed entirely for former emperors (since the title has been farmed to oblivion already unfortunately).

Imperator_Clydus · June 2014

cjmarsh725b14_ESO wrote: »

I agree that the emperor title shouldn't give individual bonuses but I don't think they should be limited only to the emperor's group either. There are already far too many exclusive pvp groups, and having group buffs would just have those groups become even more exclusive. Instead, an area buff to every ally in a large radius who is fighting near you. That way, people know when their emperor is fighting nearby and can join him or her. Also, I definitely think that it should be removed entirely for former emperors (since the title has been farmed to oblivion already unfortunately).

I feel I may be using the term "group" too loosely. I'm certainly not suggesting that a "l33t" group of players farm the emperorship so that they only receive buffs and benefits for it. The emperor would provide a boost to many faction members. One potential way of determining that is say the emperor arrives on the battlefield at Chalman. That would mean everybody within a certain proximity of Chalman would get a morale boost for being near the presence of the emperor.

I agree entirely that former emperor passives need to be removed. The emperorship has been farmed by so many exploiters and abusers that the passives are now becoming a problem. It's only causing more balancing issues for the game, so I'd rather it be taken out altogether. All the emperorship does at this point is encourage these guilds to farm and exploit it so they can all have an advantage over the majority of the community.

xaraan · June 2014

Didn't pour through all seven pages here, just commenting on OP: I don't think you need to reward zergs more. They already get rewarded by having the ability to win more often than lose, be more successful at taking keeps, resources, help each other out, etc. And you still earn plenty of AP.

Imperator_Clydus · June 2014

xaraan wrote: »

Didn't pour through all seven pages here, just commenting on OP: I don't think you need to reward zergs more. They already get rewarded by having the ability to win more often than lose, be more successful at taking keeps, resources, help each other out, etc. And you still earn plenty of AP.

This thread is really less about just rewarding zergs. It's more to do with encouraging objectives and not giving solo or small groups a ridiculous amount of AP in comparison. If AP was just built more around objectives and less around mindless killing, this wouldn't be as much of a concern.

xaraan · June 2014

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

xaraan wrote: »

Didn't pour through all seven pages here, just commenting on OP: I don't think you need to reward zergs more. They already get rewarded by having the ability to win more often than lose, be more successful at taking keeps, resources, help each other out, etc. And you still earn plenty of AP.

This thread is really less about just rewarding zergs. It's more to do with encouraging objectives and not giving solo or small groups a ridiculous amount of AP in comparison. If AP was just built more around objectives and less around mindless killing, this wouldn't be as much of a concern.

Ah, I would definitely agree that more objective based AP would be a better thing. Taking keeps and doing the like should be more important than just farming a random zerg with no purpose.

Imperator_Clydus · June 2014

xaraan wrote: »

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

xaraan wrote: »

Didn't pour through all seven pages here, just commenting on OP: I don't think you need to reward zergs more. They already get rewarded by having the ability to win more often than lose, be more successful at taking keeps, resources, help each other out, etc. And you still earn plenty of AP.

This thread is really less about just rewarding zergs. It's more to do with encouraging objectives and not giving solo or small groups a ridiculous amount of AP in comparison. If AP was just built more around objectives and less around mindless killing, this wouldn't be as much of a concern.

Ah, I would definitely agree that more objective based AP would be a better thing. Taking keeps and doing the like should be more important than just farming a random zerg with no purpose.

Exactly. Part of the reason PvP is so uninspiring right now is people aren't playing the game properly. Instead of building faction camaraderie and loyalty by coordinating to take keeps, people are concerned with farming AP to try and hoard the emperorship. PvP needs to be about the objectives and the only way to encourage that is to give more benefits to those who actually play as intended.

Limitless · June 2014

It's a little sad that things have not changed AP wise since the start of ESO.
It appears that this next campaign reset will be full of the same unsightly tactics again.
Ah well.

Imperator_Clydus · June 2014

Limitless wrote: »

It's a little sad that things have not changed AP wise since the start of ESO.
It appears that this next campaign reset will be full of the same unsightly tactics again.
Ah well.

I agree. It's frustrating because a lot of the issues with AvA are so blatant and obvious. Whether we look at vampire, fire mage dk/sorcs, AP farming, merc spamming, guilds trading the emperorship, lopsided campaigns, etc., it's rather apparent what needs fixing.

I know I have made a variety of threads addressing all of these issues since Early Access began, and it's just sad to see so little action on ZOS' part. AvA is a incredible system with a lot of potential. I absolutely loved it during beta and had some of my greatest moments there.

That experience can be achieved again, as long as ZOS starts making the necessary amendments to fix the system. When the objectives actually matter, the emperorship isn't abused, and AP isn't about farming zergs, the PvP experience will be so rewarding and fun.

Brizz · June 2014

@Imperator_Clydus‌
The average player does not use tactics like you do and will join the largest group they find for the largest return on points, which would lead this game into a deeper decline.

The rewards are fine the way they are, and if you want any chance at catching Sunrest, then I suggest you figure out how to be successful in a small scale group, which takes far more skill.

Ironic that your other posts are against arenas in this game when it would help your argument here. You can have your large-scale rewarding AvA if I can have my small scale pvp.

If you plan to reply to me please keep it to 2-3 sentences, your walls of text are exhausting and I won't read them.

SoulScream · June 2014

I casual PVP and really like it. I feel the AP gain is to slow.

Imperator_Clydus · June 2014

Brizz wrote: »

@Imperator_Clydus‌
The average player does not use tactics like you do and will join the largest group they find for the largest return on points, which would lead this game into a deeper decline.

The rewards are fine the way they are, and if you want any chance at catching Sunrest, then I suggest you figure out how to be successful in a small scale group, which takes far more skill.

Ironic that your other posts are against arenas in this game when it would help your argument here. You can have your large-scale rewarding AvA if I can have my small scale pvp.

If you plan to reply to me please keep it to 2-3 sentences, your walls of text are exhausting and I won't read them.

The average player does not AP farm. All they are concerned about is looking for battles and PvP.

I do not AP farm. I have very little interest in trying to catch those that do, and certainly he should never have been emperor anyways had he not back stabbed his own guild.

My point still stands that those who become emperor don't even know most of their own alliance. They don't care to and they do not contribute anything. This makes the emperorship itself, a worthless mechanic.

My interests have and always will be AvA. That is the main feature of this game and the only reason that I play it. If ZOS continues to disregard it and never fix the problems, they will only kill their own game.

Vis · June 2014

Risk and reward. Being solo increases your risks exponentially, so why not your rewards?

Imperator_Clydus · June 2014

Vis wrote: »

Risk and reward. Being solo increases your risks exponentially, so why not your rewards?

Cyrodiil isn't a solo experience. MMORPGs are not a solo experience. The entire point of AvA and having three factions is to work with others. Faction camaraderie, loyalty, and unity cannot be built off those who play alone.

kelly.medleyb14_ESO · July 2014

Vis wrote: »

Risk and reward. Being solo increases your risks exponentially, so why not your rewards?

^ this, risk vs reward is what MMORPG's are about, not teaming with other people. An MMORPG should let you play the way you want and be rewarded appropriately, a full raid will kill much more than 10x the enemy than a single player will, the rewards are appropriate as it.

Some tweeking should be done but the concept is appropriate, for example, small gank groups don't take keeps so they need more AP from kills to offset the loss.

apostate9 · July 2014

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

galiumb16_ESO wrote: »

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because a Large Group is a zerg.

I decided to bold the second part..

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

OMFG, this guy is a bit pompous, but he ain't wrong about this. A large group is not by default, a zerg. You are the one who is butchering the term and you should stop.

Xsorus · July 2014

apostate9 wrote: »

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

galiumb16_ESO wrote: »

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because a Large Group is a zerg.

I decided to bold the second part..

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

OMFG, this guy is a bit pompous, but he ain't wrong about this. A large group is not by default, a zerg. You are the one who is butchering the term and you should stop.

Yes... a 24 man group is a zerg...If you're running in a 24 man group, You are in fact zerging..You trying to pretend you aren't, still doesn't change that fact.

I swear..The WoW generation has made players collectively stupid.

timidobserver · July 2014

Zergs win battles. Zergs have an advantage in winning. To that end, there should be some benefit to smaller groups/solo players. Said benefit is the ability to keep up in alliance points even though zergs have the clear advantage as far as winning goes. That should remain the same

Imperator_Clydus · July 2014

kelly.medleyb14_ESO wrote: »

Vis wrote: »

Risk and reward. Being solo increases your risks exponentially, so why not your rewards?

^ this, risk vs reward is what MMORPG's are about, not teaming with other people. An MMORPG should let you play the way you want and be rewarded appropriately, a full raid will kill much more than 10x the enemy than a single player will, the rewards are appropriate as it.

Some tweeking should be done but the concept is appropriate, for example, small gank groups don't take keeps so they need more AP from kills to offset the loss.

You fail to realize that you do not accumulate a lot of AP from just taking a keep. AP is generated from killing players. Period. You can get an assault or defense bonus at a keep if there are a lot of players there to accommodate it.

MMORPGs are a community experience. They always have been. That is what makes them unique and why the genre even exists. Whether in open world PvP, dungeons, or raid content, you needed others to complete the challenges. These are not single player games. If that is your interest, that is why Skyrim exists.

Trying to turn an MMORPG into something is not merely leads it to an inevitable failure. Your logic essentially suggests if a solo player could complete a trial, regardless of how long it took, they deserve better rewards than a full 12-man group.

That is illogical as these features were never meant to be done alone. The only "solo-friendly" content in this game is the questing experience. To try and make AvA accommodate that merely adds more problems than solutions. This is an MMORPG. Meet others and group with them or lose benefits due to missing the point of the entire game.

Imperator_Clydus · July 2014

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

Yes... a 24 man group is a zerg...If you're running in a 24 man group, You are in fact zerging..You trying to pretend you aren't, still doesn't change that fact.

I swear..The WoW generation has made players collectively stupid.

If we are actually going to be historically accurate and use the term properly, "zerg" came from Starcraft referring to a race with a specific type of strategy using organized forces to overwhelm enemies quickly. A "zerg," for all intents and purposes, is really just another term for a blitzkrieg.

Now that I have educated you, no, a 24-man group is not a zerg. What 24-man groups usually are typically is PuGs joining together trying to capture objectives. PuGs generally aren't organized and they certainly aren't as efficient as a zerg actually would be.

There are very few "zergs" in this game. The closest "zerg" you would find would be the all-guild groups who run around impulse spamming with a group of 15+. I digress as you seem to miss the entire point of Cyrodiil. AvA (siege battles, crowning an emperor, taking elder scrolls) is massive, open world PvP that requires hundreds of players to participate on all sides.

The fact you do not prefer large scale PvP merely suggests you probably picked the wrong MMO and you should perhaps organize small-scale PvP, as many others do. To criticize the game for having large groups, of which the engine was built to handle 200 players on screen without performance drop, is quite hilarious.

Perhaps you should play WoW to engage in their small-scale arena? I am being serious, by the way, because you certainly will not be satisfied for AvA, since you apparently never understood the point of it to begin with.

Imperator_Clydus · July 2014

timidobserver wrote: »

Zergs win battles. Zergs have an advantage in winning. To that end, there should be some benefit to smaller groups/solo players. Said benefit is the ability to keep up in alliance points even though zergs have the clear advantage as far as winning goes. That should remain the same

This is a fallacy. A typical retort that many claim that actually isn't true. Perhaps I have just had the pleasure of playing with others who are competent and know what they are doing, but zergs are very easy to counter. Especially when you are defending a keep or an outpost, caltrops, volcanic rune, oil points, standard of might, etc. go a long way to destroying any zerg.

Ever since beta I have participated in battles where my side was vastly outnumbered (20v100+, 8v30, etc. to give you scale). We used the environment, class skills, and siege weapons to counteract their offensive. Disrupting zergs is a lot easier than many seem to give credit. Perhaps those of you who do not know how to counter zergs should learn from those that do.

One of the popular ways, of which I do not personally support, is to build an impulse AOE spam squad to counter zergs as well. A cheap, but very effective tactic that doesn't require a lot of skill. Either way, it brings home the point that zergs are in fact very easy to counter. This is why "smaller groups gaining more AP" doesn't work.

AP gains should be based on your actual contributions to the Alliance War by participating in what actually wins it, the objectives. Killing players should not be the main way of accumulating AP. Objectives should be the focus, and working with other groups in your alliance, making a stronger community, etc., should be incentive to provide better AvA.

AP farming and trading the emperorship as an institution should be indiscriminately destroyed with extreme prejudice by ZOS. Those are not the points of AvA and ZOS needs to be quick in rectifying that. A system that encourages faction camaraderie, unity, and loyalty not only to your alliance, but your campaign, is what ZOS needs to build.

AvA stands for Alliance versus Alliance for a reason. This is a comprehensive effort on the part of hundreds. One person soloing or a small group farming AP should not be rewarded more than those who are focused on the Alliance War and playing the way the game was intended.

heng14rwb17_ESO · July 2014

Actually one of the ways to win wars is to have all your enemies to stay dead.

bruceb14_ESO5 · July 2014

@Imperator_Clydus, Dude, too much writing. Agreed though that groups small or large should have equal rewards and work together for their Alliance, not just work for points. Flipping objectives for points, farming kills for points...sucks. The community stuff I also agree with.

Imperator_Clydus · July 2014

bruceb14_ESO5 wrote: »

@Imperator_Clydus, Dude, too much writing. Agreed though that groups small or large should have equal rewards and work together for their Alliance, not just work for points. Flipping objectives for points, farming kills for points...sucks. The community stuff I also agree with.

Exactly. Farming AP should not be the mentality in AvA. Working with others in your alliance and performing well together is what should reward you. ZOS needs to heavily consider revamping AP and how it functions to elicit a much more positive and proper behavior in Cyrodiil.

ferzalrwb17_ESO · July 2014

All I read is "Rainbow-train wants more AP".

Xsorus · July 2014

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

Yes... a 24 man group is a zerg...If you're running in a 24 man group, You are in fact zerging..You trying to pretend you aren't, still doesn't change that fact.

I swear..The WoW generation has made players collectively stupid.

If we are actually going to be historically accurate and use the term properly, "zerg" came from Starcraft referring to a race with a specific type of strategy using organized forces to overwhelm enemies quickly. A "zerg," for all intents and purposes, is really just another term for a blitzkrieg.

Now that I have educated you, no, a 24-man group is not a zerg. What 24-man groups usually are typically is PuGs joining together trying to capture objectives. PuGs generally aren't organized and they certainly aren't as efficient as a zerg actually would be.

There are very few "zergs" in this game. The closest "zerg" you would find would be the all-guild groups who run around impulse spamming with a group of 15+. I digress as you seem to miss the entire point of Cyrodiil. AvA (siege battles, crowning an emperor, taking elder scrolls) is massive, open world PvP that requires hundreds of players to participate on all sides.

The fact you do not prefer large scale PvP merely suggests you probably picked the wrong MMO and you should perhaps organize small-scale PvP, as many others do. To criticize the game for having large groups, of which the engine was built to handle 200 players on screen without performance drop, is quite hilarious.

Perhaps you should play WoW to engage in their small-scale arena? I am being serious, by the way, because you certainly will not be satisfied for AvA, since you apparently never understood the point of it to begin with.

A. If you're going to try an educate someone on something, you might wanna have a clue about the issue at hand before doing it. The only thing you managed to say that was correct in the bold part, Was that Zerg came from starcraft, Everything else was completely wrong. The Specific type of "strategy" you're referring to was not using organized forces to overwhelm the enemy quickly, Nor was it a Blitzkrieg either, You could do both of those with Space Marines and Protoss, Its called "Zerging" because the strategy employed by the Zerg was to overwhelm the enemy with sheer Numbers. Its why when you used overwhelming numbers in any game to accomplish a goal, Its called Zerging... Please do not post again if you're going to spread what is blatantly wrong information across your posts.

B. Are you seriously trying to claim pugs banding together to capture an objective isn't a zerg? That is exactly what a zerg is..Pugs using overwhelming numbers to take an objective, that is Zerging..The fact that you don't know this, or understand this makes me question your ability to comprehend gaming terms. a 24 Man group is a zerg, You can try and say its not..But guess what..It will always be a zerg.

C. 15 people Running around together is a zerg, But not for the reason you think it is, You think it has to be an entire Guild group to constitute zerging in this game, That is incorrect, like pretty much everything you've said in this post and multiple posts before this. I just can't believe someone can make such long posts, and 90% of their posts just being flat out wrong.

D. That includes Soloing and Small Man Action, Again..You're incorrect.

E. Again, This game includes Soloing and Small Action, That's part of the massive pvp experience, I also didn't criticize the game for having large groups, I criticized you for only wanting to reward large groups for taking unmanned objectives, and your lack of general game knowledge all around. (Like thinking a Large Group of Pugs is not in fact a zerg)

F. You're aware this game is copying DAOC right? an entire game based around Multiple forms of pvp in its Realm vs Realm system....Solo/Group vs Group/Zerg vs Zerg... Oh wait..you're not aware...Despite being told a 1000 time already... Because you're generally just clueless about how this game works.

Pathetic.