Do you believe Emperor farming/trading has a place in AvA?

Bramir · July 2014

No.

Totally ridiculous that there are buffs for former emperors who did nothing to earn them but join a guild with questionable gaming ethics.

Only the current emperor should get anything at all that affects gameplay. Former emperor buffs need to be removed, and a big asterisk put next to the former emperor title since it is tarnished by exploiting.

Pathfinder · July 2014

No.

Get rid of the former emp buffs, or as another person suggested only let currently deposed emp from the other alliance keep the buff. I.e., no former-former-former emperor buffs.

Imperator_Clydus · July 2014

No.

Anomaly 2 wrote: »

I'm sorry to hear my group ruined your pvp experience. I can understand how important winning the campaign and getting your welfare cheque of 42k gold must really make you feel good and accomplished. Really brings out that competitive spirit in everyone. I'll tell you what, this where it goes back to for a lot of us. The countless time we spent trying to win wabbajack and what did we get for it? Lol, its a joke. Once they fix pvp then i will go back to taking it seriously. For now I'm sticking with my emp group and having fun trolling some servers.

You do realize that being a part of the problem only further exacerbates the issue? If you truly want quality PvP and to take it seriously, then prove it. We all came to this game to experience what could arguably be the best PvP experience out of any MMORPG on the market. Due to abuses by players and ineptitude on ZOS' part however, that experience is being derailed.

I don't care about end of campaign rewards. I don't care about who is emperor or what guild is "leading the charge." What I care about is that AvA and Cyrodiil are working as intended, guilds and players in alliances are working together, and they all have a common goal or theme to achieve success and do well in PvP.

Gloran · July 2014

Yes.

Armitas wrote: »

Ah, you voted yes. Good to know where Alacrity stands on the issue. Contrary to the "zero tolerance" policy that you claim to maintain it appears that there are some exploits that you can tolerate.

Yea well, too bad that the issue you are talking about is not an exploit.

Armitas · July 2014

No.

Gloran wrote: »

Armitas wrote: »

Ah, you voted yes. Good to know where Alacrity stands on the issue. Contrary to the "zero tolerance" policy that you claim to maintain it appears that there are some exploits that you can tolerate.

Yea well, too bad that the issue you are talking about is not an exploit.

Now we know what you mean when you say "exploits", as in "we have a zero tolerance policy for exploits". It's now perfectly clear that your declared policy is without any worthwhile meaning.

Imperator_Clydus · July 2014

No.

Gloran wrote: »

Envy, Resentment and Lack of Knowledge.
It's the origin of this "issue" and the source that will fuel it.

It doesn't require a rocket scientist to know how to accumulate AP. Farming PuG armies for kills and defending objectives you own that are under heavy attack are great locations to farm. Stealing elder scrolls and holding them hostage can also be a way to create hot spots for a lot of potential AP.

It's common knowledge that this issue has obviously become widespread. I want to fix the issue entirely to discourage this behavior and focus on what people should actually care about, the Alliance War. Emperor farming/trading is just derailing the experience and largely ruining AvA.

Imperator_Clydus · July 2014

No.

Anomaly 2 wrote: »

I agree but the people who get emperor buffs were the ones who would take a resource in wabba and hold the tower and oil the countless scrubs who ran in there. Because they never shoot the damn tower down. Hardly the best of the best and for sure not contributing to their alliance. Also former emp buffs dont increase siege damage to players only to walls and to other siege. Also entire guilds left wabba because whats the point. The game isn't balanced. There are still so many issues with it. Oh and the rewards might as well be every zenni employ bending us over and having a turn. Wabba use to be maxed out all the time. As soon as that campaign ended most of the big guilds on every faction either unsubbed or went to mess around on an empty server because the reward will be the same. I sound like a broken record but I want to get my point across of what truly lays at the heart of the problem and why PvP is dieing in eso. Emperor farming is just the result of the decisions zenni has made,

I can respect that you are at least honest about what you did and certainly player behavior has largely ruined AvA. But again, you, yourself, stated those who "didn't deserve" the emperorship where in fact getting it anyways, encouraging others like yourself to then emperor farm/trade. It's a slippery slope and once the ball gets rolling it doesn't stop.

I want to make it stop now. I want to bring some accountability and honesty to this game. I want principles and a system that is balanced, fun, and most of all fair. Why fight for your emperor or your alliance if the player is illegitimate and has done nothing to contribute to your alliance? Why participate in AvA at all, like you said, when end of campaign rewards are meaningless and there is very little incentive to PvP.

There are a lot of issues with AvA and Cyrodiil. In order to start redirecting the system on a path that will lead to what we all want, we need to start taking the steps to do what's right. Providing feedback to ZOS, showing the bad behaviors others are employing and the repercussions as a result. If we are to ever have a Cyrodiil where the emperor actually means something, threads like this will go a long way to giving ZOS the information they need to give us exactly what we want and deserve.

Gloran · July 2014

Yes.

Armitas wrote: »

Now we know what you mean when you say "exploits", as in "we have a zero tolerance policy for exploits". It's now perfectly clear that your declared policy is without any worthwhile meaning.

Not exactly, the only meaningless thing here is the effort you put into pointing fingers.

Armitas · July 2014

No.

Gloran wrote: »

Armitas wrote: »

Now we know what you mean when you say "exploits", as in "we have a zero tolerance policy for exploits". It's now perfectly clear that your declared policy is without any worthwhile meaning.

Not exactly, the only meaningless thing here is the effort you put into pointing fingers.

I don't need to point any fingers. You have already raised your hand.

Gloran · July 2014

Yes.

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

It's common knowledge that this issue has obviously become widespread. I want to fix the issue entirely to discourage this behavior and focus on what people should actually care about, the Alliance War. Emperor farming/trading is just derailing the experience and largely ruining AvA.

Great to hear you care about the Alliance War, so why exactly do people care about low pop/half dead campaigns where people with the proper assets utilize them for achieving rewards? You shouldn't, you should care about thing that happen where the majority of the playerbase is involved.

You are going way overboard claiming it is ruining AvA, it is not, its just ruininig some campaigns no one cares about. The "issue" will be non existant when the campaigns get consolidated/revamped and there is only 1-2 high pop places you could go to.

It's good that people get so agitated about the issue to gain some attention, but ZOS already realized what the actual problem is weeks ago and is working on campaign changes/consolidation.

No problem with revamping the Emperor/Former Emperor system as long as it is rational and within reason, but removing a whole incentive of the game is something I personally can not approve of. Especially if it is out of resentment.

@Dleatherus
Something you might want to consider for making further points in this issue, d*cks will still be d*cks even if the systems gets changed.

Dleatherus · July 2014

No.

@Gloran‌

fully agreed - because those abusing get rewarded at the expense of the rest of the community

it's why any 'solution' needs to be carefully considered rather than rushed into - since usually there's a way to 'game' it one way or another

we have a voice comms meeting in literally an hour's time with the devs and have an interesting solution/proposal for them

D.

Gloran · July 2014

Yes.

Armitas wrote: »

I don't need to point any fingers. You have already raised your hand.

Did I? You may want to go over the discussion again, after my inital comment which certainly has stuck the nerve, you went straight on with pointing fingers.
Almost mind numbing how oblivious people get after just a couple minutes.

Imperator_Clydus · July 2014

No.

Gloran wrote: »

Great to hear you care about the Alliance War, so why exactly do people care about low pop/half dead campaigns where people with the proper assets utilize them for achieving rewards? You shouldn't, you should care about thing that happen where the majority of the playerbase is involved.

You are going way overboard claiming it is ruining AvA, it is not, its just ruininig some campaigns no one cares about. The "issue" will be non existant when the campaigns get consolidated/revamped and there is only 1-2 high pop places you could go to.

It's good that people get so agitated about the issue to gain some attention, but ZOS already realized what the actual problem is weeks ago and is working on campaign changes/consolidation.

No problem with revamping the Emperor/Former Emperor system as long as it is rational and within reason, but removing a whole incentive of the game is something I personally can not approve of. Especially if it is out of resentment.

Here's the deal. While you claim I should have little interest in what happens on campaigns that have low populations, it inevitably will affect me. Your guild is a perfect example of this. You were based on Hopesfire, which is a low population campaign. You obtained virtually all of your emperors on this noncompetitive campaign and then decide to guest on other campaigns. You are then bringing your former emperor impulse squads to farm and troll other campaigns, while you have former emperors and a current emperor in your party wrecking havoc.

I wouldn't mind nearly as much if you actually wanted to help the AD on the campaign you decided to guest, but you rarely do. As a result we have a situation where you are actually distracting and derailing the AvA experience, rather than being a contributor and enhancing what the campaign has to offer. Are you now starting to understand how farming/trading the emperorship can be an issue? Rarely do these players stick to one campaign, as generally they want to go somewhere where there isn't a lot of competition and they can gain the emperor skill line easily.

They then will migrate around "looking for action" and it further destabilizes AvA everywhere on each campaign. If guesting and transfers wasn't possible, then perhaps your scenario would be accurate and people would have little concern about what happens on smaller campaigns. The truth of the matter is, most of the campaigns are dead or lopsided, abused exactly for that purpose, and then people leave them to find greener pastures to then find action. It's a never-ending cycle that has caught fire and continues to develop every single day as more and more emperors are farmed and traded.

Very few players want the former emperor passives removed out of "resentment." I personally would want it removed due to the fact it's a balancing issue and most of the players who have it aren't legitimate anyways. The only thing the former emperor passives are doing is encouraging more poor behavior in the community and encouraging players to farm and trade the emperorship. You know it's going too far when alliances are making pacts and agreements to trade amongst each other. That is not an intended feature and it's something that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.

Gloran · July 2014

Yes.

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

Here's the deal. While you claim I should have little interest in what happens on campaigns that have low populations, it inevitably will affect me. Your guild is a perfect example of this. You were based on Hopesfire, which is a low population campaign. You obtained virtually all of your emperors on this noncompetitive campaign and then decide to guest on other campaigns. You are then bringing your former emperor impulse squads to farm and troll other campaigns, while you have former emperors and a current emperor in your party wrecking havoc.

Thats not an example supporting your argument, that's just being sour about sh*t that happened.

If emp trading/farming would happen on Wabbajack (currently most populated campaign) I'd be concerned. But it isnt... so:

Gloran wrote: »

Envy, Resentment and Lack of Knowledge.
It's the origin of this "issue" and the source that will fuel it.

Imperator_Clydus · July 2014

No.

Gloran wrote: »

Thats not an example supporting your argument, that's just being sour about sh*t that happened.

If emp trading/farming would happen on Wabbajack (currently most populated campaign) I'd be concerned. But it isnt... so:

Gloran wrote: »

Envy, Resentment and Lack of Knowledge.
It's the origin of this "issue" and the source that will fuel it.

This isn't difficult to understand. Emperor trading/farming is having adverse effects everywhere. Whether you want to recognize it or not and carry on with your self-righteous demeanor is irrelevant.

I gave one example that personally identifies with you. There are plenty of other examples of players emperor farming/trading, not caring about AvA, disrupting the progress of their own alliance, I can go on and on.

To state that emperor farming/trading isn't an issue either tells me you are too blind to see the negative consequences or you really just don't care about how such poor behavior affects the game and PvP.

Heethcliff · July 2014

[/quote]
It doesn't require a rocket scientist to know how to accumulate AP. Farming PuG armies for kills and defending objectives you own that are under heavy attack are great locations to farm. Stealing elder scrolls and holding them hostage can also be a way to create hot spots for a lot of potential AP.

It's common knowledge that this issue has obviously become widespread. I want to fix the issue entirely to discourage this behavior and focus on what people should actually care about, the Alliance War. Emperor farming/trading is just derailing the experience and largely ruining AvA.[/quote]

Imperator, I think you are missing a fundamental issue here. Many times I've seen you refer to "this behavior ruining AvA". The real problem isn't this behavior, but rather how ZOS choose to end the 90 day campaigns (or didn't). I was original a player on Wabba since month one, and it was always competitive, and almost always fun. But after a 90 day grind, on originally a losing server (to DC), and holding our lead by a thread at times, how was our victory rewarded? 42k gold. Thanks, but that wasn't exactly what I had it mind for a 90 DAY campaign reward. So most people I discussed with all wanted to know the same thing, "What's next?"

Given the new servers aren't here yet, and the current servers won't last the full 90 days, it wasn't hard to decide together that as a Faction, we wanted more former emps.

Lastly, there has been an expressed desire from most of the community I talk to who are FOR DUELING. This is a cross Faction issue, and is partly to blame for the "understanding" among enemy factions currently. If you deny a community the ability to challenge one another from the same Faction, people will simply look elsewhere for it, even if it means coordinating with an enemy Faction.

Imperator_Clydus · July 2014

No.

Heethcliff wrote: »

Imperator, I think you are missing a fundamental issue here. Many times I've seen you refer to "this behavior ruining AvA". The real problem isn't this behavior, but rather how ZOS choose to end the 90 day campaigns (or didn't). I was original a player on Wabba since month one, and it was always competitive, and almost always fun. But after a 90 day grind, on originally a losing server (to DC), and holding our lead by a thread at times, how was our victory rewarded? 42k gold. Thanks, but that wasn't exactly what I had it mind for a 90 DAY campaign reward. So most people I discussed with all wanted to know the same thing, "What's next?"

Given the new servers aren't here yet, and the current servers won't last the full 90 days, it wasn't hard to decide together that as a Faction, we wanted more former emps.

Lastly, there has been an expressed desire from most of the community I talk to who are FOR DUELING. This is a cross Faction issue, and is partly to blame for the "understanding" among enemy factions currently. If you deny a community the ability to challenge one another from the same Faction, people will simply look elsewhere for it, even if it means coordinating with an enemy Faction.

I agree that the incentive and reward for the end of a campaign is trivial, but that should not promote bad behavior. Are we children lashing out at ZOS instead of stepping up and saying "end of campaign rewards aren't proper incentive for us to invest 90 days here"?

I find this to be an incredibly lame excuse to abuse the game mechanics just because "the campaign won't last the full duration" and "the rewards are worthless." You seem to be missing the entire point of AvA to begin with. The whole system is built to inspire and achieve faction camaraderie and make an amazing PvP experience that can foster large battles with hundreds of players on the screen.

I have little issue with players organizing small scale PvP or duels with others in the faction or even enemy factions. My issue was with factions making agreements to trade off the emperorship, and in some cases this is an agreement between multiple factions.

You clearly agree that AvA is far from perfect. We are on the same side then. Instead of just taking advantage of a system "because things will change soon anyways," how about we discourage bad behavior and provide ZOS with ways of tweaking the system to make it better for everyone?

Daragon · July 2014

No.

I've posted elsewhere and will say again, I dont mind if someone has former emp buffs. It's not really about the buffs by themselves its about the attitude of players who are farming for them and ruining the experience for everyone else. Celarus again is a prime example as some have said, its pathetic what happens there on the EU server tbh and from the sounds of it on the NA server too. Its absolute and outright agreements between the factions on swapping keeps and farming each other to get the next person on the list up the rankings.

My guild and I have worked damn hard to stop it on the DC side, the problem is, firstly there are only 4-6 of us that pvp regularly and well DC is out of the loop now and most of the DC players have jumped ship for other campaigns. So we will never get emperor as AD and EP have the numbers and the farmers to keep it going for themselves and not much we can do to stop it on their sides besides continue to try and pvp as the game was intended to be.

Emperor should definitely mean something, so yes keep the emp buffs but former emp buffs promote bad practice so there should be only one, the guy (or girl) from the alliance that was just deposed. If you move campaign, you lose those buffs, if you guest in a different campaign you lose the buffs, after all you did not earn emperor in that campaign so you have no right to the buffs that being emp or former emp brings you when there.
Make them buffs not skill point allocated too. So once crowned you get the emperor buffs, when dethroned you get the the former emp buffs which last until you
1. Either reclaim the emperor position or
2. The current emp is dethroned and a new emperor takes his/her place.

Then they would get the former emp buffs, you would lose them and so on. Then you could even give the former emp slightly higher buffs, after all one would think he still has the power to persuade his troops to fight that much harder, be that much more of a commander etc. within his own alliance. Make them worthwhile keeping so people would actually like to fight for them for themselves and not give them up for friends etc.
You can keep the costume piece and the title, the current former emp would have to be identified in some other way - * or crest or something next to their nameplate or something like that.

Heethcliff · July 2014

Not sure I could chalk it all up to bad behavior or angry children. I for one have no direct issue with ZOS. But the game as is has glaring issues that we, the EP community, can't physically change at the moment, only discuss. The "entire point of AvA" is not lost on me. I've played on the most competitive server since month 1 (Wabba).

But "lame" or not, its a legitimate concern given the general feelings of most of our players. AvA IS far from perfect. New servers haven't been released yet. AND Wabbajack LAG that started with the Craglorn patch ruined any desire for large scale pvp due to disconnects and massive fps issues up until just recently.

Imperator_Clydus · July 2014

No.

Daragon wrote: »

I've posted elsewhere and will say again, I dont mind if someone has former emp buffs. It's not really about the buffs by themselves its about the attitude of players who are farming for them and ruining the experience for everyone else. Celarus again is a prime example as some have said, its pathetic what happens there on the EU server tbh and from the sounds of it on the NA server too. Its absolute and outright agreements between the factions on swapping keeps and farming each other to get the next person on the list up the rankings.

My guild and I have worked damn hard to stop it on the DC side, the problem is, firstly there are only 4-6 of us that pvp regularly and well DC is out of the loop now and most of the DC players have jumped ship for other campaigns. So we will never get emperor as AD and EP have the numbers and the farmers to keep it going for themselves and not much we can do to stop it on their sides besides continue to try and pvp as the game was intended to be.

Emperor should definitely mean something, so yes keep the emp buffs but former emp buffs promote bad practice so there should be only one, the guy (or girl) from the alliance that was just deposed. If you move campaign, you lose those buffs, if you guest in a different campaign you lose the buffs, after all you did not earn emperor in that campaign so you have no right to the buffs that being emp or former emp brings you when there.
Make them buffs not skill point allocated too. So once crowned you get the emperor buffs, when dethroned you get the the former emp buffs which last until you
1. Either reclaim the emperor position or
2. The current emp is dethroned and a new emperor takes his/her place.

Then they would get the former emp buffs, you would lose them and so on. Then you could even give the former emp slightly higher buffs, after all one would think he still has the power to persuade his troops to fight that much harder, be that much more of a commander etc. within his own alliance. Make them worthwhile keeping so people would actually like to fight for them for themselves and not give them up for friends etc.
You can keep the costume piece and the title, the current former emp would have to be identified in some other way - * or crest or something next to their nameplate or something like that.

A lot of great ideas in this post. Thanks for contributing.

Imperator_Clydus · July 2014

No.

Heethcliff wrote: »

Not sure I could chalk it all up to bad behavior or angry children. I for one have no direct issue with ZOS. But the game as is has glaring issues that we, the EP community, can't physically change at the moment, only discuss. The "entire point of AvA" is not lost on me. I've played on the most competitive server since month 1 (Wabba).

But "lame" or not, its a legitimate concern given the general feelings of most of our players. AvA IS far from perfect. New servers haven't been released yet. AND Wabbajack LAG that started with the Craglorn patch ruined any desire for large scale pvp due to disconnects and massive fps issues up until just recently.

I do not disagree with you. There are a lot of issues that need addressing and ZOS needs to ensure us that they recognize the various inconsistencies, issues and will resolve them. A lot of players just want a quality AvA experience and that is all but nonexistent on virtually all of the campaigns at this point.

Tintinabula · July 2014

No.

Its not an exploit..just a P___ poor way of obtaining emperor

Imperator_Clydus · July 2014

No.

Tintinabula wrote: »

Its not an exploit..just a P___ poor way of obtaining emperor

The act of farming AP, itself, is not an exploit. However, certain actions that come from it could be considered exploiting. The basic definition of an exploit is when a feature or system in a game is not working as the developer intended. This can be attributed to a system being bugged, or the behavior of the feature, itself, being used in unintended ways. Ultimately, the whole point of an exploit is to provide an unfair advantage to yourself over everybody else. Players are most definitely taking advantage of a system that was not thoroughly considered by the developer.

Tintinabula · July 2014

No.

I agree. Like farming ap off stupid folks who run into oil pots I don't think is an exploit. Its Lame(and funny)..but not an exploit.

Not rebuilding walls?..Agreeing to not turn certain keeps or repair them so that the keep can be taken in under 3 mins?? Not allowing your own faction to set up siege engines and fight cause you want to be Emperor?...Yea that's lame..not funny..and definitely an exploit.

Armitas · July 2014

No.

Gloran wrote: »

Armitas wrote: »

I don't need to point any fingers. You have already raised your hand.

Did I? You may want to go over the discussion again, after my inital comment which certainly has stuck the nerve, you went straight on with pointing fingers.
Almost mind numbing how oblivious people get after just a couple minutes.

I wasn't responding to your comment I was responding to your vote. You know, the big "YES" at the top of all your posts right now. You may want to go back and read my comment where I open up referring specifically to your vote.

leewells · July 2014

Yes.

Emperor trading has its place in AVA -- its called sportsmanship (which is lacking equally on BOTH sides of the isle). At the current the AP system is completely hosed making it so any emperor can emp-lock himself. ZOS said on Reddit a few times this wasn't entirely intended to have emperor create such a "disadvantage" to other players in the alliance to keep up on the leaderboards, so I as I see it, when you are organically deposed, dropping emperor to another alliance mate helps the alliance and gives someone else a shot in the spotlight.

For all of those "not as intended" folks. When ZOS does something that was not intended, what do they do? They fix it right? So when you have emps holding the title for nearly 2 months straight and ZOS then decides to shorten all campaigns to 2-1 week campaigns, 2-2 week campaigns, and 1 30-day campaign, tell me, does that sound to you like ZOS intended for someone to have emp longer than a month?

Factory farming anything in this game has no place in any aspect of it -- including factory farming emp, factory farming ap (the real culprit of AVA's woes), or factory farming VP.

Imperor Cliterus explained it fairly well himself; the whole end of tier reward is a joke -- you can earn TWICE as much by simply leveling an alt from level 1 to 30, and it would only take you 8 hours.

Of course we all join the AVA to get some PVP in, we don't join it to PVE, so what incentive, besides becoming an emperor, do we have to go up-against players in a PVP setting while they are guarded by PVE guards and in a fortified position? Does anyone else see this unfair advantage being the antithesis to fun and only something to work for in order to put points on a score board OR to crown an emperor?

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE PVP -- I love 1v1's, I love 8v8's, but I hate a pvper that incessantly jumps out at you, hits you and runs back to a flag full of guards, hides, rinses and repeats. I hate them so much, that the second time they try that *** I will tea bag and crow their corpse, and every other time I see them dead, I will tea bag and crow their corpse.

e.jeffriesb14_ESO · July 2014

Yes.

It has just as much a place in the game as farming xp to gain levels. It has just as much a place as farming dungeons or trials to gear up your friends and guildmates.

It's worth having to make your character more potent. Even if there were no buffs associated, there's still the perception of value (people like to collect achievements, rare costumes, so on), and therefore reason for people to attempt to accomplish it for as many of their friends and guildmates as they can. Even better, it happens in the PvP zone such that others can compete either by trying to get next in line for Emp or by taking advantage of the large numbers of people who conveniently gather in the same locations over and over flipping keeps.

Any arguments I've heard against farming emperorship have glaring holes in them.

"Spirit of PvP" - I could argue the same against ganks, duels, aoe groups, zergs, just about any kind of PvP that people engage in with more or less equal value (which is to say, none). The only spirit of pvp that exists is the individual's perception.

"Promotes cheating" - hacking, glitching, and so on should definitely be punished, and I'd like to see this happen more often and with greater severity. But sadly, so long as there's the barest hint of competition, people will attempt to cheat - emp farming isn't some sort of gateway drug. If the solution to cheating is to remove all sense of reward and progress for playing, there would be no game.

"Not the right way to gain Emp" - again, matter of perspective. Questing is the right way to gain VR12 - anyone who grinded mobs is WRONG. See how silly this argument is? For many people, it's a game with mechanical objectives and all else is window dressing. It's the same mindset that skips quest dialogues, turned up to the next notch. Kinda boring perspective in my opinion, but not wrong.

For those who are opposed to Emp farming, how do you justify xp farming in dungeons, gold and soul gem farming, or other such behavior that likewise has a strong influence in Cyrodiil?

Citidel · July 2014

No.

Gloran wrote: »

Envy, Resentment and Lack of Knowledge.
It's the origin of this "issue" and the source that will fuel it.

Envy: some maybe. Personally I could care less if you were an emperor before or not. Some got it one way, others got it another. The Title is worthless at the moment. Seeing 20 people out of 24 having said title kinda makes you go "oh its like X Faction Hero, must be easy to get."

Resentment: I resent the fact that people didn't work for it in my own view. The Title cannot be won by solo accomplishments, but requires people to help in the effort. The thing that hurts is that people get Emperor\Empress and then go poof or stay and cause more trouble.

Lack of Knowledge: I dont think this is the case honestly, hearing people scream about how "HORRIBLE" and "Awful" the passives are for former emp may be taking it too far but here they are:

****** EDITED TO REFLECT CORRECT INFORMATION ******
***Correct Passives Provided by @Anomaly 2***
Domination: As emperor Increases health, magicka and stamina regeneration while in combat by 100%
For former Emperors, increases health, magicka and stamina regeneration while in combat by 2%

Authority: Increases ultimate gains by 200%, and decreases ultimate costs by 5%
For former Emperors, decreases ultimate costs by 5%

Monarch: Increases the magnitude of healing effects on Emperors by 50%
For former Emperors by 1%

Tactician: Increases siege weapon damage by 100%
For former Emperors, increases siege weapon damage by 2%

Emperor:Increases health, magicka, and stamina by 100% while in your campaign(for emperor only)

Ult Gain by 45%, not huge but huge with the right Ults, +1% healing received, meh. Increased siege dmg is only an issue when there are more then say 1-2 former's in the group... thus leading to a net gain in siege DPS. (BTW 13 50 former emps = 1 more person sieging, **new maths**) and there is a regen passive that is 2% health, magica and stamina.
****** EDITED TO REFLECT CORRECT INFORMATION ******.

Now individually these are not fantastic, but show me an armor set that can do all that and have whatever the current meta is for PVP armor. I doubt any of the Former\Current Emperors are running around in non-set gear, if they are then... wow I really suck.

Its not for a lack of Knowledge, its people calling out that "we are just noobs crying over something that others have," some do I'll admit that others are not doing that and have sat down and tried to work out what could be changed so the people that do have said title and passives wont be completely dissed when a change goes through.

But as it stands in AvAvA Emp farming does not have a place, collusion, counter tactics, planning and coordinated cross faction attacks vs another are totally fine but trading emperor for the sake of some "passives that aren't really worth much" makes little to no sense.

Anomaly 2 · July 2014

Yes.

Citidel wrote: »

Gloran wrote: »

Envy, Resentment and Lack of Knowledge.
It's the origin of this "issue" and the source that will fuel it.

Domination
After capturing a lumber mill, farm, mine, or keep: Increase weapon damage by 10% and Magicka and Stamina regeneration by 20% for 10 minutes.

Authority
While Emperor: Increase Ultimate gains by 200%.
As a former Emperor: Increase Ultimate gains by 4%

Monarch
While Emperor: Increases the magnitude of healing effects on Emperors by 50%.
As a former Emperor: Increases the magnitude of healing effects on Emperors by 1%.

Tactician
While Emperor: Increase siege weapon damage by 400%.
As a former Emperor: Increase siege weapon damage by 8%.

Emperor
While Emperor:
Increase Health, Magicka and Stamina regeneration by 100% while in your campaign.

Domination: As emperor Increases health, magicka and stamina regeneration while in combat by 100%
For former Emperors, increases health, magicka and stamina regeneration while in combat by 2%

Authority: Increases ultimate gains by 200%, and decreases ultimate costs by 5%
For former Emperors, decreases ultimate costs by 5%

Monarch: Increases the magnitude of healing effects on Emperors by 50%
For former Emperors by 1%

Tactician: Increases siege weapon damage by 100%
For former Emperors, increases siege weapon damage by 2%

Emperor:Increases health, magicka, and stamina by 100% while in your campaign(for emperor only)

This is the correct buffs for emperor/ and former emperor.

Armitas · July 2014

No.

leewells wrote: »

Emperor trading has its place in AVA -- its called sportsmanship (which is lacking equally on BOTH sides of the isle). At the current the AP system is completely hosed making it so any emperor can emp-lock himself. ZOS said on Reddit a few times this wasn't entirely intended to have emperor create such a "disadvantage" to other players in the alliance to keep up on the leaderboards, so I as I see it, when you are organically deposed, dropping emperor to another alliance mate helps the alliance and gives someone else a shot in the spotlight.

If what you say is true they should redo the game trailer and have all 3 sides shake hands in the middle of their standoff and say good game with a few nice laughs.

All this time I thought the Ouroboros symbol was supposed to signify a perpetual conflict between 3 forces I never knew it was supposed to represent the perpetual transition order of former emperor buffs. DC then EP then AD then DC then EP then AD.

What a revelation! Who would have thought it meant all that, certainly not me.