Alliance Point accumulation needs to be re-evaluated.

Mojomonkeyman · July 2014

Regarding OPs initial post in here: No!

AP distribution is one of the best things they did so far in this game. It (in theory) encorages small group play, which is by nature far more demanding to individual skill than running with 23 buddies and spamming ae. You can pretend that running circles with a crew of incapables is "highly demanding pvp", but you won`t convince anyone, who is actually good at pvp.

To the "zerging" discussion. Old starcraft players cringe inside when they see the word abused like this. Matter of fact is, in original starcaft and scbw "the zerg" where prolly more reliant on well composed small number hit squads than any other race, since most of their high tier units were still very squishy (hydra, lurker, mutalisk, defiler) despite being costly. I`d say terran medic-marine play was far more reliant on heavy production and numbers than most zerg strategies. I`d recommend Savior replays for anyone interested.

But a few years of MMOs tought me, MMO players just adapted the definition of "winning through numbers", whether it is technically correct in starcraft terms is totally irrelevant by now imo.

Best regards

Xsorus · July 2014

apostate9 wrote: »

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

apostate9 wrote: »

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

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.

Well, funny thing is...no it isn't. And I don't play WOW. never spent an hour playing WOW, though you reveal a lot about your own fixation with it. Fact is, the term comes from Starcraft, a game that I DO play, and which is way too hard for you. Had you the chops for it, you would know WTF a "zerg rush" actually is. You are wrong, stop talking. Unless you like looking like a moron.

Yes...Its a zerg, and you clearly don't play Starcraft, otherwise you'd know what a Zerg is. You'd also know this if you developed the ability to read, Since I posted the meme for it up above for you to actually you know.. read...

I stand by my original statement, The WoW generation has made players collectively stupid, and you've proven that just now.

And I stand by mine. I don't need to read your copy/pasted memes, I know what a zerg rush is, I defend them all the time. You do know that both Terran and Protoss can maintain armies of more than 24 units...right? Are they "zerging"? Actually anyone who doesn't play SC should prolly just not use the word at all in the context of ESO, and that goes double for you.

Wait....hold on..I'm trying not to laugh here..

Are you claiming that 24 people in an MMO is not zerging, because Protoss and Terran can maintain armies in Starcraft of more than 24 units?

I'm going to edit out my mean comment and just ask a simple question

Do you understand the concept of Ratios?

Also, How can someone make such long posts about Starcraft, and have zero clue on why its called a Zergling Rush? Or why it was co-opted in every game afterward when describing being outnumbered.

You having 24 Units later in the game on Terran/Protoss does not change the original strategy of the zergling rush (which was to build a lot of zerglings at the start which were cheap, and you could mass produce them, then rushing over to the enemy base to kill what little troops he had by outnumbering them)

Hence why the term was co-opted to every other game afterwards..I don't know why i'm having to explain this to someone such as yourself who considers themselves to be amazing at Starcraft, but I guess I have to.

in the end, you're still wrong, and my original statement still stands....

Xsorus · July 2014

apostate9 wrote: »

Let me know your BNET ID and I'll show you a zerg. We'll advertise our experiment on this forum, so interested parties can observe the game and take notes. I look forward to getting your friend request, and I can set up a 1v1 anytime this week in the evenings in lieu of PVPing with my guild. I will play Zerg, and will plan to "zergling/baneling all-in". I will be well under my maximum number of units, and may even have less than you--which should rule out the theory that just having more guys=zerging. and I will of course be supply capped at 200 just like you, but I am sure you knew that. At around 5 minutes into the game, I will run-by your mineral line, and using micro and skill, I will murder your workers right before your eyes, using a small number of units and careful timing. You will try to fight me with your slow zealots or slow marines, and I will murder them too, and set your structures on fire. My small number will grow larger and larger, through macro-management, but your army will not. Finally, having had all the time in the world to figure out a counter and do something ingenious and strategic with your small group of Nightblades-- er, Marines...I will swarm you under, and crush you with baneling busts, using technology I had to research at the same time I was attacking you somewhere else on the map and managing my own economy. Easy right?

I will then say "gg, you've been zerged".

It will be nothing like how you currently PVP against inexperienced 24 man PUGS in Cyrodiil at all (except for the rage and gnashing of teeth). I am telling you all this stuff in advance, but you still won't stop me from doing it except by not playing, which of course, will say everything that needs to be said about your vast knowledge and experience on the subject.

At this point the object lesson made clear, you can then go to Blizzard's forums (after you ragequit) and troll them like you do ZOS. You can blame the slightest imbalance in the game mechanics for your untimely (and grisly) end.They will likely give you the same sort of reception there you are getting here. But you can still write a novel on the forum, explaining your clear mastery of all PVP tactics, and refuse to acknowledge you just don't know what you're talking about.

But, I'll have the replay recorded. :-)

And one way or another this thread can friggin' end, and we can stop calling every gaggle of more than 2 players in ESO a "zerg". Here, since it is so non-strategic and stupid, try to keep up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKmapFkWzrc

VS:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bShN6OorF6U

A picture is worth...well you get it.

Rofl..You actually posted videos..OMG

Newflash for anyone else who's going to post, If you don't understand the Term of Zerging..Don't make long posts about it with videos, Otherwise you'll end up like this guy.

/facepalm

Xsorus · July 2014

Mojomonkeyman wrote: »

Regarding OPs initial post in here: No!

AP distribution is one of the best things they did so far in this game. It (in theory) encorages small group play, which is by nature far more demanding to individual skill than running with 23 buddies and spamming ae. You can pretend that running circles with a crew of incapables is "highly demanding pvp", but you won`t convince anyone, who is actually good at pvp.

To the "zerging" discussion. Old starcraft players cringe inside when they see the word abused like this. Matter of fact is, in original starcaft and scbw "the zerg" where prolly more reliant on well composed small number hit squads than any other race, since most of their high tier units were still very squishy (hydra, lurker, mutalisk, defiler) despite being costly. I`d say terran medic-marine play was far more reliant on heavy production and numbers than most zerg strategies. I`d recommend Savior replays for anyone interested.

But a few years of MMOs tought me, MMO players just adapted the definition of "winning through numbers", whether it is technically correct in starcraft terms is totally irrelevant by now imo.

Best regards

The history of why it was co-opted into MMOs is interesting and why I can't help but laugh at the guy who thinks that cause Terran and Protoss can have 24 units that must mean 24 people isn't a Zerg.

Zerg were commonly the race in the original Starcraft that produced a mass numbers of units (basically the Zergling at the start) very quickly at the start of the game, and while you did have a total cap on the number of units it was sheer speed at which they were cranked out that resulted in them being considered the side that needed numbers to win. Organization had nothing to do with why the term was used either. Since that was more to do with the player then the actual race.

Anyway the term became common in use because of daoc. For whatever reason players decided to call large groups of players zergs, like the alb Zerg, hib Zerg and mid Zerg. Organization did not matter in this regard either. Any group that simply had more numbers or hell a lot of people were called this. For example 8 stealthers together was considered a Zerg in that game because you would be fighting most often solo and duos stealthers and players. In for example an 8v8 if brought more then 8 you were Zerging the other side.

Which is why bring up the ratio comment with the other guy. Ignoring the fact that Zerging is used slightly different in the two games simply saying 24 people is not a Zerg because you can have massive numbers of units in Starcraft is silly, because unlike Starcraft a player in MMOs usually only controls 1 toon at a time. Hence why getting a large 24 man group together no matter if it is a pug or a guild group is considered a Zerg in these games.

ferzalrwb17_ESO · July 2014

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

ferzalrwb17_ESO wrote: »

Blah. Too many words duuude!

But I think I got the gist. Bit of a flaw.. I never said solo players are necessarily more skilled than any individual in a choochoo. But it's not that relevant anyway. It's risk/reward and some other factors you like to omit.

Playing as a single or a duo I/we actually have to get our hooks into a target - quite often on our own. Your whole choochoo benefits from anything killed in its path whether they touched it or not.

Have you played smallgroup? It's not so easy to rack up that AP facing down zergs every day.

The flaw with your premise is the assumption that small groups or solo players have to fight PuG armies. I, in fact, have run small groups on a variety of occasions. It's obviously not tactically sound to just charge a large group of players, unless you have a plan and proper fortification. A small group is most powerful when killing stragglers, using the element of surprise, hunting down forward camps, etc.

There are so many scenarios that small groups can excel in without needing to attack large groups that they can accumulate plenty of AP just fine. Again, lets end this assumption that a small group or solo player has to work harder to gain AP. That is not a true statement and there are a variety of reasons why large group play can actually be harder to accumulate AP.

This thread has become less about large group versus small group, however, and more about having a better AP system in general. Having it solely based on kills is leading to a lot of abuses and balancing problems that the current system currently shows. What the AP system should be doing is encouraging quality play, caring about the objectives, and seeing one's alliance succeed.

It's not an assumption. It's the way it pans out. The choo-choo-train is the vehicle of choice. As a solo/duo it's very rare that I'm not outnumbered 5to1 minimum.

I'm not assuming solo/small groups have to work harder to gain AP because the game evens it up by design. We certainly have to work much harder to get the same number of kills. That's not an assumption. I play the game. It's a fact. If you're in a choo-choo and you're not getting 10x the number of kills as me (absolute minimum) you simply don't deserve the AP.

I'm pretty..umm... chilled when I play and pretty bad but I've been in both scenarios and I know that I can sit in a group and do almost nothing and rack up kills. If your group can't do that look for a new group because it sucks.

Making it so that I get the same AP as a solo/duo for fiddling with myself whilst my group knocks off targets: idiotic.

apostate9 · July 2014

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

apostate9 wrote: »

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

apostate9 wrote: »

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

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.

Well, funny thing is...no it isn't. And I don't play WOW. never spent an hour playing WOW, though you reveal a lot about your own fixation with it. Fact is, the term comes from Starcraft, a game that I DO play, and which is way too hard for you. Had you the chops for it, you would know WTF a "zerg rush" actually is. You are wrong, stop talking. Unless you like looking like a moron.

Yes...Its a zerg, and you clearly don't play Starcraft, otherwise you'd know what a Zerg is. You'd also know this if you developed the ability to read, Since I posted the meme for it up above for you to actually you know.. read...

I stand by my original statement, The WoW generation has made players collectively stupid, and you've proven that just now.

And I stand by mine. I don't need to read your copy/pasted memes, I know what a zerg rush is, I defend them all the time. You do know that both Terran and Protoss can maintain armies of more than 24 units...right? Are they "zerging"? Actually anyone who doesn't play SC should prolly just not use the word at all in the context of ESO, and that goes double for you.

Wait....hold on..I'm trying not to laugh here..

Are you claiming that 24 people in an MMO is not zerging, because Protoss and Terran can maintain armies in Starcraft of more than 24 units?

I'm going to edit out my mean comment and just ask a simple question

Do you understand the concept of Ratios?

Also, How can someone make such long posts about Starcraft, and have zero clue on why its called a Zergling Rush? Or why it was co-opted in every game afterward when describing being outnumbered.

You having 24 Units later in the game on Terran/Protoss does not change the original strategy of the zergling rush (which was to build a lot of zerglings at the start which were cheap, and you could mass produce them, then rushing over to the enemy base to kill what little troops he had by outnumbering them)

Hence why the term was co-opted to every other game afterwards..I don't know why i'm having to explain this to someone such as yourself who considers themselves to be amazing at Starcraft, but I guess I have to.

in the end, you're still wrong, and my original statement still stands....

Man, I didn't pick some arbitrary number and assign the word "zerg" to it, you did. Oh, and ratios? ROFL. That'll matter when ZOS makes some rule that the larger groups must always consist of lower-level players, and the small groups of higher level veterans, or ratios simply don't enter into it. That's moron math, both sides in an alliance PVP have the same theoretical "supply cap". It isn't zerglings v.s zealots.

So when are we gonna play?

Oh...nevermind. SIlly question.

/thread

leewells · July 2014

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

Here is the issue. Alliance Points are predominantly gained by killing other players. The less players who happen to be in your group, the more alliance points you will receive per kill. Now, theoretically speaking, this makes sense. Being in a large group would mean it should be easier to kill players, hence easier to accumulate alliance points.

The issue really is that this discourages high dps and survivable classes from joining a raid. The problem really is though, is the method in which AP is earned. For instance, if I solo (and rarely ever do) I can hit an enemy once while a zerg does 99.999% of the damage and I will get my 800 ap while they all get 8 ap. This is where the math becomes wrong. If I do 0.0001% of the damage to that player, I should get 0.0001% of the ap for killing him/her.

Also, defensive "ticks" should reward those in groups a lot more than those not in a group since a successful defense is generally a group necessity and effort -- those not in a group that I usually see are afking in a corner just to collect said ticks which is wrong.

The other problem here is AP farming. The diminished returns of killing a player is not correct nor is it working. I've actually bore witness to a player killing another faction over and over again while said other faction's raid was entirely naked and letting him kill them. In this case, fights should award ap based on the hits exchanged and not entirely on the kill.

Xsorus · July 2014

apostate9 wrote: »

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

apostate9 wrote: »

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

apostate9 wrote: »

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

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.

Well, funny thing is...no it isn't. And I don't play WOW. never spent an hour playing WOW, though you reveal a lot about your own fixation with it. Fact is, the term comes from Starcraft, a game that I DO play, and which is way too hard for you. Had you the chops for it, you would know WTF a "zerg rush" actually is. You are wrong, stop talking. Unless you like looking like a moron.

Yes...Its a zerg, and you clearly don't play Starcraft, otherwise you'd know what a Zerg is. You'd also know this if you developed the ability to read, Since I posted the meme for it up above for you to actually you know.. read...

I stand by my original statement, The WoW generation has made players collectively stupid, and you've proven that just now.

And I stand by mine. I don't need to read your copy/pasted memes, I know what a zerg rush is, I defend them all the time. You do know that both Terran and Protoss can maintain armies of more than 24 units...right? Are they "zerging"? Actually anyone who doesn't play SC should prolly just not use the word at all in the context of ESO, and that goes double for you.

Wait....hold on..I'm trying not to laugh here..

Are you claiming that 24 people in an MMO is not zerging, because Protoss and Terran can maintain armies in Starcraft of more than 24 units?

I'm going to edit out my mean comment and just ask a simple question

Do you understand the concept of Ratios?

Also, How can someone make such long posts about Starcraft, and have zero clue on why its called a Zergling Rush? Or why it was co-opted in every game afterward when describing being outnumbered.

You having 24 Units later in the game on Terran/Protoss does not change the original strategy of the zergling rush (which was to build a lot of zerglings at the start which were cheap, and you could mass produce them, then rushing over to the enemy base to kill what little troops he had by outnumbering them)

Hence why the term was co-opted to every other game afterwards..I don't know why i'm having to explain this to someone such as yourself who considers themselves to be amazing at Starcraft, but I guess I have to.

in the end, you're still wrong, and my original statement still stands....

Man, I didn't pick some arbitrary number and assign the word "zerg" to it, you did. Oh, and ratios? ROFL. That'll matter when ZOS makes some rule that the larger groups must always consist of lower-level players, and the small groups of higher level veterans, or ratios simply don't enter into it. That's moron math, both sides in an alliance PVP have the same theoretical "supply cap". It isn't zerglings v.s zealots.

So when are we gonna play?

Oh...nevermind. SIlly question.

/thread

The discussion was related to large groups also known as 24 people. You claimed that was not a Zerg , I pointed out the errors in not only your reasoning but also provided you with the history of Zerging and why it's called that. Also ratios do matter and have nothing to do with the lvl of players mate, you tried claiming that a 24 man Zerg is not a Zerg because Protoss and marines can get the same number of units (we'll completely ignore the whole part about by the time you get 24 units on either the Zerg will usually have double that.) anyway the problem with that reasoning is every player in Starcraft controls a vast army, while in MMOs that is not the case. Also saying both sides have a supply cap on each side is also a terrible argue meant as well because you never have each side all at one spot fighting and instead it's spread over the entire map. One side might have 10 people at one battle while the other has 50, they will be getting Zerged that fight. At the same time if those 10 came across 2 people and killed them, they will have Zerged those 2 down.

So you are wrong on a multitude on arguments that you have made, you lack a clear grasp of gaming history and you are clueless on MMO terminology.

You playing a Starcraft match with me would not change that fact.

/laugh

Lowbei · July 2014

THIS JUST IN!

Lowbei hath just decreed... from now on, a zerg is defined as any group larger than 8 people.

you are welcome.

apostate9 · July 2014

You having 24 Units later in the game on Terran/Protoss does not change the original strategy of the zergling rush (which was to build a lot of zerglings at the start which were cheap, and you could mass produce them, then rushing over to the enemy base to kill what little troops he had by outnumbering them)

1. You don't typically outnumber him if it's a rush. Zerg outnumber other races by macro-ing, which sort invalidates the comparison, since it isn't easy and isn't fast. A huge swarm of zerg is not compatible with "rushing".
2. A zergling *rush* succeeds through abusing timings and micro. It takes skill, and it can be killed with workers if you do it wrong. It is not about numbers. 9-pool does not give you better numbers, it gives you initiative, it actually makes your unit production capability WORSE-- in fact if it doesn't work, it is usually GG for the Zerg. Another way it's a bad comparison. A big gaggle of newbies spamming spells and moving around in a cluster of ***holes and elbows is more like a 200/200 protoss deathball actually. Maybe you should call the rainbow trains "a protoss"? LOL

"Hey a big Protoss of of DC is heading toward Dragonclaw!"

- That's what you sound like.

What you seem to be alluding to is not a "zerg rush", but late game play when the zerg player can have soooo many guys, he just doesn't need to care anymore and throws them against the enemy in wave after suicidal wave. Not some, not quite a few...TONS. THAT is sort of an apt analogy for Cyrodiil cheese, but it is NOT a zerg rush, and more to the point, it does NOT describe a lot of organized group PVP in ESO.

There are 24 man PUGS that qualify as "zergs" in this sense, but not all. Deriding every group of 24 players as a zerg, just because you can't get along with others and choose to solo PVP is unfair to both zerg (SC players) and organized ESO PVPers. It isn't accurate. And when it is accurate, you don't understand why. And even if you do figure out why, it STILL doesn't support your contention that somehow small groups in ESO are more valuable than large ones, because they are more tactical n' stuff.

So yeah... "gaming history" not your strong suite, bro.

So you are wrong on a multitude on arguments that you have made, you lack a clear grasp of gaming history and you are clueless on MMO terminology.

You playing a Starcraft match with me would not change that fact.

/laugh

It would teach you what zerging really is, since the pictures didn't help. I know you SC neophytes use the word like that in other games. I know you're not the only one. There are others, and you're all wrong. Repeating something wrong doesn't eventually make it right, but then you seem to be part of the WOW generation so maybe that's how you expect things to work... reality by consensus? Because Movie A (Starcraft) and movie B (Elder Scrolls Scrub-Fest) don't depict the same strategy AT ALL.

I guess you just aren't processing data, you've decided to win this argument even if you have to ignore reality and substitute your own. So I'm done with you.

apostate9 · July 2014

Lowbei wrote: »

THIS JUST IN!

Lowbei hath just decreed... from now on, a zerg is defined as any group larger than 8 people.

you are welcome.

LOL

apostate9 · July 2014

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

apostate9 wrote: »

Let me know your BNET ID and I'll show you a zerg. We'll advertise our experiment on this forum, so interested parties can observe the game and take notes. I look forward to getting your friend request, and I can set up a 1v1 anytime this week in the evenings in lieu of PVPing with my guild. I will play Zerg, and will plan to "zergling/baneling all-in". I will be well under my maximum number of units, and may even have less than you--which should rule out the theory that just having more guys=zerging. and I will of course be supply capped at 200 just like you, but I am sure you knew that. At around 5 minutes into the game, I will run-by your mineral line, and using micro and skill, I will murder your workers right before your eyes, using a small number of units and careful timing. You will try to fight me with your slow zealots or slow marines, and I will murder them too, and set your structures on fire. My small number will grow larger and larger, through macro-management, but your army will not. Finally, having had all the time in the world to figure out a counter and do something ingenious and strategic with your small group of Nightblades-- er, Marines...I will swarm you under, and crush you with baneling busts, using technology I had to research at the same time I was attacking you somewhere else on the map and managing my own economy. Easy right?

I will then say "gg, you've been zerged".

It will be nothing like how you currently PVP against inexperienced 24 man PUGS in Cyrodiil at all (except for the rage and gnashing of teeth). I am telling you all this stuff in advance, but you still won't stop me from doing it except by not playing, which of course, will say everything that needs to be said about your vast knowledge and experience on the subject.

At this point the object lesson made clear, you can then go to Blizzard's forums (after you ragequit) and troll them like you do ZOS. You can blame the slightest imbalance in the game mechanics for your untimely (and grisly) end.They will likely give you the same sort of reception there you are getting here. But you can still write a novel on the forum, explaining your clear mastery of all PVP tactics, and refuse to acknowledge you just don't know what you're talking about.

But, I'll have the replay recorded. :-)

And one way or another this thread can friggin' end, and we can stop calling every gaggle of more than 2 players in ESO a "zerg". Here, since it is so non-strategic and stupid, try to keep up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKmapFkWzrc

VS:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bShN6OorF6U

A picture is worth...well you get it.

Rofl..You actually posted videos..OMG

Newflash for anyone else who's going to post, If you don't understand the Term of Zerging..Don't make long posts about it with videos, Otherwise you'll end up like this guy.

/facepalm

Yep. And you STILL didn't get it, Genius. Maybe I should draw a diagram for you in crayon?

apostate9 · July 2014

Mojomonkeyman wrote: »

Regarding OPs initial post in here: No!

AP distribution is one of the best things they did so far in this game. It (in theory) encorages small group play, which is by nature far more demanding to individual skill than running with 23 buddies and spamming ae. You can pretend that running circles with a crew of incapables is "highly demanding pvp", but you won`t convince anyone, who is actually good at pvp.

To the "zerging" discussion. Old starcraft players cringe inside when they see the word abused like this. Matter of fact is, in original starcaft and scbw "the zerg" where prolly more reliant on well composed small number hit squads than any other race, since most of their high tier units were still very squishy (hydra, lurker, mutalisk, defiler) despite being costly. I`d say terran medic-marine play was far more reliant on heavy production and numbers than most zerg strategies. I`d recommend Savior replays for anyone interested.

*Applause*

Xsorus · July 2014

apostate9 wrote: »

You having 24 Units later in the game on Terran/Protoss does not change the original strategy of the zergling rush (which was to build a lot of zerglings at the start which were cheap, and you could mass produce them, then rushing over to the enemy base to kill what little troops he had by outnumbering them)

1. You don't typically outnumber him if it's a rush. Zerg outnumber other races by macro-ing, which sort invalidates the comparison, since it isn't easy and isn't fast. A huge swarm of zerg is not compatible with "rushing".

Umm, yes, you do typically outnumber the other races with a zergling rush, That's the whole point of that race, Of course it also comes down to APM as well as if you're just awful and aren't very quick you'll never spit them out fast enough...But anyway, that's the zergling rush, Everyone who's ever played Starcraft knows this

2. A zergling *rush* succeeds through abusing timings and micro. It takes skill, and it can be killed with workers if you do it wrong. It is not about numbers. 9-pool does not give you better numbers, it gives you initiative, it actually makes your unit production capability WORSE-- in fact if it doesn't work, it is usually GG for the Zerg. Another way it's a bad comparison. A big gaggle of newbies spamming spells and moving around in a cluster of ***holes and elbows is more like a 200/200 protoss deathball actually. Maybe you should call the rainbow trains "a protoss"? LOL

I never said it couldn't be countered, I said that's where the term came from, and why it was used in MMO's. The big gaggle would in fact be a zerg, But it wouldn't be called a Protoss Swarm because Protoss was never the "Mass Number Race" in starcraft. Your grasp on game terminology is downright sad

"Hey a big Protoss of of DC is heading toward Dragonclaw!"

- That's what you sound like.

Nope, In fact to point out how wrong you are, Next time you log in game, Start saying that exact phrase, and see how many people laugh at your stupidity.

What you seem to be alluding to is not a "zerg rush", but late game play when the zerg player can have soooo many guys, he just doesn't need to care anymore and throws them against the enemy in wave after suicidal wave. Not some, not quite a few...TONS. THAT is sort of an apt analogy for Cyrodiil cheese, but it is NOT a zerg rush, and more to the point, it does NOT describe a lot of organized group PVP in ESO.

Yes you can do that with Zerg, and that's probably a little of the reason it was co-opted by MMO players a long time ago, However you're wrong about Zergling Rush. Don't even get me started on the ineptitude of still believing that Organized Group PvP can't be zerging (Since I've played the history of that multitudes of times).

There are 24 man PUGS that qualify as "zergs" in this sense, but not all. Deriding every group of 24 players as a zerg, just because you can't get along with others and choose to solo PVP is unfair to both zerg (SC players) and organized ESO PVPers. It isn't accurate. And when it is accurate, you don't understand why. And even if you do figure out why, it STILL doesn't support your contention that somehow small groups in ESO are more valuable than large ones, because they are more tactical n' stuff.

No, Every single 24man Pug qualifies as a Zerg, you're not going to change that as a fact. Its 24 people, when a vast majority of people you're going to be fighting is far less then 24 people, and if you get zerged by a bigger zerg, that still doesn't mean you're not a zerg yourself. You're wrong on both Starcraft, and pretty much every massive PVP game in existence. I also never said small groups in ESO are more valuable, I said they require more skill to succeed with then 24 people ever will

So yeah... "gaming history" not your strong suite, bro.

You're not only wrong on pretty much everything you posted about MMO's, you managed to be wrong on the very game you claim to be amazing at.

So you are wrong on a multitude on arguments that you have made, you lack a clear grasp of gaming history and you are clueless on MMO terminology.

You playing a Starcraft match with me would not change that fact.

/laugh

It would teach you what zerging really is, since the pictures didn't help. I know you SC neophytes use the word like that in other games. I know you're not the only one. There are others, and you're all wrong. Repeating something wrong doesn't eventually make it right, but then you seem to be part of the WOW generation so maybe that's how you expect things to work... reality by consensus? Because Movie A (Starcraft) and movie B (Elder Scrolls Scrub-Fest) don't depict the same strategy AT ALL.

I guess you just aren't processing data, you've decided to win this argument even if you have to ignore reality and substitute your own. So I'm done with you.

Again, You're wrong yet again..I've pointed out multiple times why its called what it called, Where it originated from and you've only managed to say "Well you should just really call it a Protoss Group", Which no one has ever done ever..to describe being outnumbered...But you somehow still believe that is the term that should be used by all MMOers everywhere...Countless MMO's have been released, all agree with me on why its called what its called...But you think i'm ignoring reality by not agreeing with the sheer stupidity of 24 people not being a zerg by you managed to get 24 marines once in a RTS.

/facepalm

To Sum Up the concept of calling it Protossing

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Zerging+MMO

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Protossing+MMO

Imperator_Clydus · July 2014

Mojomonkeyman wrote: »

Regarding OPs initial post in here: No!

AP distribution is one of the best things they did so far in this game. It (in theory) encorages small group play, which is by nature far more demanding to individual skill than running with 23 buddies and spamming ae. You can pretend that running circles with a crew of incapables is "highly demanding pvp", but you won`t convince anyone, who is actually good at pvp.

To the "zerging" discussion. Old starcraft players cringe inside when they see the word abused like this. Matter of fact is, in original starcaft and scbw "the zerg" where prolly more reliant on well composed small number hit squads than any other race, since most of their high tier units were still very squishy (hydra, lurker, mutalisk, defiler) despite being costly. I`d say terran medic-marine play was far more reliant on heavy production and numbers than most zerg strategies. I`d recommend Savior replays for anyone interested.

But a few years of MMOs tought me, MMO players just adapted the definition of "winning through numbers", whether it is technically correct in starcraft terms is totally irrelevant by now imo.

Best regards

This is missing the point. In order to claim a keep, take an elder scroll, crown an emperor, etc., generally a large group of players is needed for this task. These are the objectives that are necessary to win the Alliance War. It's only rational then that most of the AP gains come from these activities, regardless of party size.

The original concern posed was that players not actually helping in the objectives just farming kills were gaining more AP than those actually trying to help their alliance in the civil war (emperor farming is a consequence of this). Why should someone who isn't actually being a real contributor deserve more than someone who is? That is the point of the thread.

The term zerg is grossly misused and people over exaggerate the effectiveness of such a strategy. There are plenty of counters to "zergs" as that's why there are choke points, siege weaponry, CCs, and slew of other tools to stem the tide of a rush of numbers.

Imperator_Clydus · July 2014

ferzalrwb17_ESO wrote: »

It's not an assumption. It's the way it pans out. The choo-choo-train is the vehicle of choice. As a solo/duo it's very rare that I'm not outnumbered 5to1 minimum.

I'm not assuming solo/small groups have to work harder to gain AP because the game evens it up by design. We certainly have to work much harder to get the same number of kills. That's not an assumption. I play the game. It's a fact. If you're in a choo-choo and you're not getting 10x the number of kills as me (absolute minimum) you simply don't deserve the AP.

I'm pretty..umm... chilled when I play and pretty bad but I've been in both scenarios and I know that I can sit in a group and do almost nothing and rack up kills. If your group can't do that look for a new group because it sucks.

Making it so that I get the same AP as a solo/duo for fiddling with myself whilst my group knocks off targets: idiotic.

We are going in circles here. I have no idea what class you play, but obviously certain roles are better suited for small scale combat. Especially if you are a nightblade, the advantage with stealth is you get to pick and choose your battles, which generally are in your favor if you are undetected.

You seem to be missing my point. Killing should not be the main resource for accumulating AP. It in no way actually contributes to the goals of the Alliance War, and many are just abusing it as a result to farm emperorship and abuse the mechanics of the game. This has little to do with small groups trying to obtain as many kills as a large group. Killing shouldn't be the main resource, period.

Now you are just making ridiculous claims. Lets get off the topic of kills being a condition at all. That is the problem with AvA and why the game is so easily abused. I could care less if you kill ten or a thousand players, if you aren't actually contributing to the Alliance War, you shouldn't be accumulating the most AP.

The goals of AvA are claiming resources, keeps, elder scrolls, and the emperorship. If you are not participating in the goals of the system in some way shape or form, you should not gain ridiculous amounts of AP disregarding these truths.

Imperator_Clydus · July 2014

leewells wrote: »

The issue really is that this discourages high dps and survivable classes from joining a raid. The problem really is though, is the method in which AP is earned. For instance, if I solo (and rarely ever do) I can hit an enemy once while a zerg does 99.999% of the damage and I will get my 800 ap while they all get 8 ap. This is where the math becomes wrong. If I do 0.0001% of the damage to that player, I should get 0.0001% of the ap for killing him/her.

Also, defensive "ticks" should reward those in groups a lot more than those not in a group since a successful defense is generally a group necessity and effort -- those not in a group that I usually see are afking in a corner just to collect said ticks which is wrong.

The other problem here is AP farming. The diminished returns of killing a player is not correct nor is it working. I've actually bore witness to a player killing another faction over and over again while said other faction's raid was entirely naked and letting him kill them. In this case, fights should award ap based on the hits exchanged and not entirely on the kill.

You make a lot of valid points in this post.

There are a lot of ways the AP system can be manipulated, and certainly there are plenty of abusers taking advantage of those known facts. As I've stated before, basing AP largely on kills alone is really the main root of the problem, and if we are to ever make the actual objectives of Cyrodiil matter, we need to change how AP works entirely.

Cody · July 2014

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

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.

so the whole point of the game , is to group? wrong, friend. in other MMORPGs, yes, but ZOS quoted "play the way you want". that is the point of the game. therefore, if I want to play solo, I should be able to do so. now are some playstyles complete crap? of course! one guy soloing a trial is nonsense, and should not be doable. emp farming is complete crap, exploiting and cheating is crap. but in the case of whether or not you want to play solo, they, again, did say "play how you want" and that is what they tried to do with the game.

Imperator_Clydus · July 2014

NookyZooky wrote: »

so the whole point of the game , is to group? wrong, friend. in other MMORPGs, yes, but ZOS quoted "play the way you want". that is the point of the game. therefore, if I want to play solo, I should be able to do so. now are some playstyles complete crap? of course! one guy soloing a trial is nonsense, and should not be doable. emp farming is complete crap, exploiting and cheating is crap. but in the case of whether or not you want to play solo, they, again, did say "play how you want" and that is what they tried to do with the game.

The whole point of "endgame" is to group. The only solo experience ZOS originally promised was the 1-50 PvE/questing experience, which was supposed to represent TES V: Skyrim. Public dungeons were meant to encourage grouping. Instanced dungeons were obviously meant for groups. Game + and Game ++ (Veteran zones) were meant for groups. Craglorn, Trials, and most of all AvA, was meant for groups.

The truth of the matter is the main point of the game was to inevitably group. Raiding, endgame PvE, and PvP was built for grouping and that is the experience ZOS catered to. They are now slightly tweaking that philosophy with veteran zones as many have complained they do not want to be "forced" to group. Ultimately, ZOS still wants players to group, because that is actually what MMORPGs are ultimately about. ESO is no different.

The great thing about Cyrodiil is it's not just AvA. It's a large, persistent sandbox where you can do dailies, wander the expansive world, or just go around in hunting parties. You can decide to solo and kill random players, but you aren't participating in AvA. The cores of AvA are built around taking keeps, resources, elder scrolls, and crowning an emperor, of which you most certainly need a group to do. The term is Alliance versus Alliance (AvA), not 1v1 arena.

Cody · July 2014

makes sense. alright, you make a lot of sense.

Imperator_Clydus · July 2014

NookyZooky wrote: »

makes sense. alright, you make a lot of sense.

I'm not here to try and discourage any particular play style. I'm just here trying to provide ideas of making AP gains more relevant to AvA. As it currently stands, the ones who gain the most AP generally are not the major contributors in AvA. To me, that is unfortunate and shows a system that is being abused and taken advantage of.

I just want AP gains to actually encourage what matters about AvA, amazing battles between factions fighting over keeps, scrolls, the emperorship, and hopefully eventually the Imperial City itself.

Cody · July 2014

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

NookyZooky wrote: »

makes sense. alright, you make a lot of sense.

I'm not here to try and discourage any particular play style. I'm just here trying to provide ideas of making AP gains more relevant to AvA. As it currently stands, the ones who gain the most AP generally are not the major contributors in AvA. To me, that is unfortunate and shows a system that is being abused and taken advantage of.

I just want AP gains to actually encourage what matters about AvA, amazing battles between factions fighting over keeps, scrolls, the emperorship, and hopefully eventually the Imperial City itself.

well some people may do better at ganking then they do in huge battles. now if you mean the people that just sit there and do nothing while earning AP, then yes. those people need to have to be forced to do something to get AP. since you mentioned it, I cant wait for the imperial city:) excited for what is to come.

The_Drexill · July 2014

Didn't read everything, I'm sure it's been mentioned... but the OP is wrong. Right now, the way camps and keeps work... most players arent worth any AP at all, or very little. All of the people with high AP gains are zergers... there's barely any "gank" guilds at all in ESO, compared to say DAoC where killing was the RP earner.

I saw in the notes they're buffing AP from kills... I think that's a good step in the right direction, but honestly... for PvP'ers like myself that like the smaller group style of play, this game has been a let down.

Imperator_Clydus · July 2014

NookyZooky wrote: »

well some people may do better at ganking then they do in huge battles. now if you mean the people that just sit there and do nothing while earning AP, then yes. those people need to have to be forced to do something to get AP. since you mentioned it, I cant wait for the imperial city:) excited for what is to come.

Well my point is AP is supposed to determine your actual contribution to AvA. AP farmers who are trying to farm/trade the emperorship, especially, generally are not contributing. What they are doing is creating hotspots to accumulate a lot of AP. Their entire priority after that is to merely pass the emperorship along without any regard for the rest of the Alliance War or the well-being of their alliance. Not to mention this poor behavior is generally leading to a lot of campaigns dying. I digress, tweaking how AP gains work should encourage better behavior in AvA.

Imperator_Clydus · July 2014

The_Drexill wrote: »

Didn't read everything, I'm sure it's been mentioned... but the OP is wrong. Right now, the way camps and keeps work... most players arent worth any AP at all, or very little. All of the people with high AP gains are zergers... there's barely any "gank" guilds at all in ESO, compared to say DAoC where killing was the RP earner.

I saw in the notes they're buffing AP from kills... I think that's a good step in the right direction, but honestly... for PvP'ers like myself that like the smaller group style of play, this game has been a let down.

Again the worth of the player is dependent on their K/D ratio. This is meant to try and discourage players from killing the same player over and over. Using the term "zerg" really doesn't describe the particular types of players who are gaining large amounts of AP.

They are more so farm groups that don't even necessarily have to be a full large party. They can range from anywhere of 10 to max size. The act of accumulating lots of AP is based on killing massive amounts of players. Size of the party doesn't matter as much, as the more you have, the less AP you'll actually earn per kill.

Defending objectives is also a great resource of getting AP through the defense bonuses. Again, this is all based on enemy player activity and killing players, which is the sole driving force of the system. If ZOS is truly buffing AP gains from killing, they will only further exacerbate a system in need of serious reform.

Lava_Croft · July 2014

Probably, the reason a small group or solo player get more AP for kills is because your large group will mow down other players at a much faster rate than the small group or solo player, effectively evening out the AP gain.

Imperator_Clydus · July 2014

Lava_Croft wrote: »

Probably, the reason a small group or solo player get more AP for kills is because your large group will mow down other players at a much faster rate than the small group or solo player, effectively evening out the AP gain.

This is the philosophy behind the system more or less. The problem though is the fact that AP is centered around killing to start. This has led to the bad behavior and lack of quality AvA that we have experienced. AP gains should encourage the AvA experience, not undermine it as it currently does. Playing objectives generally is not to one's advantage in this system.

Lava_Croft · July 2014

You want to increase the AP gain in groups and decrease the AP gain in smaller groups or solo play. If anything would be detrimental to the quality of AvA, it's this.

ferzalrwb17_ESO · July 2014

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

ferzalrwb17_ESO wrote: »

It's not an assumption. It's the way it pans out. The choo-choo-train is the vehicle of choice. As a solo/duo it's very rare that I'm not outnumbered 5to1 minimum.

I'm not assuming solo/small groups have to work harder to gain AP because the game evens it up by design. We certainly have to work much harder to get the same number of kills. That's not an assumption. I play the game. It's a fact. If you're in a choo-choo and you're not getting 10x the number of kills as me (absolute minimum) you simply don't deserve the AP.

I'm pretty..umm... chilled when I play and pretty bad but I've been in both scenarios and I know that I can sit in a group and do almost nothing and rack up kills. If your group can't do that look for a new group because it sucks.

Making it so that I get the same AP as a solo/duo for fiddling with myself whilst my group knocks off targets: idiotic.

We are going in circles here. I have no idea what class you play, but obviously certain roles are better suited for small scale combat. Especially if you are a nightblade, the advantage with stealth is you get to pick and choose your battles, which generally are in your favor if you are undetected.

You seem to be missing my point. Killing should not be the main resource for accumulating AP. It in no way actually contributes to the goals of the Alliance War, and many are just abusing it as a result to farm emperorship and abuse the mechanics of the game. This has little to do with small groups trying to obtain as many kills as a large group. Killing shouldn't be the main resource, period.

Now you are just making ridiculous claims. Lets get off the topic of kills being a condition at all. That is the problem with AvA and why the game is so easily abused. I could care less if you kill ten or a thousand players, if you aren't actually contributing to the Alliance War, you shouldn't be accumulating the most AP.

The goals of AvA are claiming resources, keeps, elder scrolls, and the emperorship. If you are not participating in the goals of the system in some way shape or form, you should not gain ridiculous amounts of AP disregarding these truths.

It would be nice to reward you more when you take a key, defended resource and your group was instrumental in that success. But for a mostly undefended keep (possibly made that way by other groups further afield)? They do contribute to the campaign score obviously but should you get a bunch of AP for PvD? And who's to say what a choo-choo did at a keep was worth more than a savvy solo using the right siege?

When defending, I've gone out into the field and single-handedly burned down FCs and siege equipment up on hills/walls/cliffs whilst zergs stayed inside the walls watching them smash. Similarly our small groups have held up reinforcement groups of 20-40 with harassment - making them lose focus - whilst not actually killing that many. Where's our AP reward for that?

A choo-choo can win the day but there are also occasions when a small group does far more (mostly unnoticed) for the cause. That's why I love ESO PvP. There's something for everyone.

I play for DC on Wabba and I notice a particular AD group that inserts itself into battles between DC and EP at keeps. Yes they're farming but they also drag those battles out for far longer than they would otherwise last. That benefits their faction when all those DC/EP are committed to that battle. They don't take or defend a keep there, yet they're possibly doing just as much for the cause as any group in the zone (whether they mean it or not I don't know). In their case they do get significant AP which is, IMO, justified.

It's a little more complicated than just rewarding choo-choos for bashing down walls. Yes it would be nice to have the AP system re-evaluated but not, as you've advocated, by increasing AP for groups and for smashing down walls alone whilst reducing it for small-group kills. If you can figure out how to reward AP on merit as I've outlined here then good luck to you. Until then the current system is the best that I can see. (Something does need to be done about Emp farming urgently though - I think most people agree on that).

Renuo · July 2014

leewells wrote: »

Imperator_Clydus wrote: »

Here is the issue. Alliance Points are predominantly gained by killing other players. The less players who happen to be in your group, the more alliance points you will receive per kill. Now, theoretically speaking, this makes sense. Being in a large group would mean it should be easier to kill players, hence easier to accumulate alliance points.

The issue really is that this discourages high dps and survivable classes from joining a raid. The problem really is though, is the method in which AP is earned. For instance, if I solo (and rarely ever do) I can hit an enemy once while a zerg does 99.999% of the damage and I will get my 800 ap while they all get 8 ap. This is where the math becomes wrong. If I do 0.0001% of the damage to that player, I should get 0.0001% of the ap for killing him/her.

No you're wrong, you'd get single digit AP for doing almost none of the damage to a player when solo, not the full amount. I solo or small group every day and that is exactly how it works.

You get AP proportional to you or your groups contribution and the AP value of the deceased enemy.