ZoS: Humble Cyrodiil Suggestion

rogue_gamer32b14_ESO · February 2015

In Cyrodiil I currently see one serious issue. I hope it can even be corrected. However as a programmer, I understand the frustrations of working on coding. So if not I completely understand. As of right now in Cyrodiil pvp. The same player is able to keep Emperor for the whole campaign or keep getting it repeatedly. While this is all well and good. It's nearly impossible, to get Emperor without spending the remainder of your life within Cyrodiil to get it.

#1 My first suggestion is very simply. Please only allow players to be able to gain Emperor-ship only once during a campaign per character. This means if John got Emperor once, during the Thornblade 30 day campaign. He can not get Emperor again on that character till that campaign resets. Which allows other players a chance to get the title and have fun with it.

#2 My second suggestion is also very simple. If possible increase the amount of experience gained and alliance points gained within Cyrodiil. I think it would be great for players saving for pvp gear. It would also be great for players who like pvp more. They could level up some what within Cyrodiil without it being broken. I just know it's frustrating for myself personally. It seems like it takes forever to gain alliance points and the rewards seem so small.

#3 Please make Keeps and Resources harder to take and more of a objective to hold. Currently player for scrolls more than anything. I think in addition to scrolls. Each keep should give a buff within Cryodiil only. The more keeps held by your faction, the more small buffs you have. Give players more reason to take and hold keeps. ya know? Also a keep wall or door shuld have a lot more health than they currently do. It should be a raid boss so to speak.

This would help stop Emperor sharing between factions and guilds trying to hold one person in the slot forever. It means every player has a chance to experience being Emperor and doesn't have to catch up to people with millions of points living in their moms basement lol.

@ZOS_GinaBruno do you agree or think it's a good idea? Thanks for your time

onlinegamer1 · February 2015

Agree completely with 1 and 2.

For 3, you have to remember that Keep "toughness" was originally designed and tested with the existence of Forward Camps. With their removal, its really hard to get to a keep under attack in time to save it now. So, either make them tougher, or bring back the new Forward Camps (restricted to Group/Guild, limited range, or whatever tweaks ZoS is making to them).

Sacadon · February 2015

Agree completely with the meme. 300 is pure greatness.

Samadhi · February 2015

rogue_gamer32b14_ESO wrote: »

...
#2 My second suggestion is also very simple. If possible increase the amount of experience gained and alliance points gained within Cyrodiil. I think it would be great for players saving for pvp gear. It would also be great for players who like pvp more. They could level up some what within Cyrodiil without it being broken. I just know it's frustrating for myself personally. It seems like it takes forever to gain alliance points and the rewards seem so small.
...

Was playing around on a level 10 alt, spent some time in Cyrodiil.

Was there for about 2 or 3 hours, sieging castles, taking resources, and healing for a group that was killing people -- got less than 10% exp.
Had my character been questing in the PvE zones for that duration, would have gotten in the range of 3-6 level ups.

PvP experience generation definitely needs to be looked at.

(the above is in reference to Live; have not tracked exp gains in PvP on PTS yet)

Panda244 · February 2015

I'm okay with option two, but not option one. It punishes people who got to the top of the leaderboards legitimately, if they're still #1 in the campaign and they lose Emperor, then get it again, they should keep it. Emperor isn't god-tier, it never was, it's demi-god tier. If they make it god-tier then I'd agree with option one, but I can't because Emperor is hard to get but not hard to lose, they should be able to get it over and over given they're #1 in the campaign.

As for keeps and resources being harder to take, keeps definitely, resources... Resources are silly, there's no way to make them harder to take, if you have 20 people and zerg rush it, every guard will melt... You can put low walls around the resource, that aren't attackable and prevent flanking from the enemy, but that's about it. At least that's all I can think off, keeps definitely need a defense buff though, they're so weak. 50/50 one and take it with 10 people in 5-10 minutes. Actually that's not true...

Fastest dethroning of an Emperor was something like 15 minutes, so basically all six keeps were taken in that time or under it... So yeah, keeps need defense boosts. And higher walls.

rogue_gamer32b14_ESO · February 2015

Panda244 wrote: »

I'm okay with option two, but not option one. It punishes people who got to the top of the leaderboards legitimately, if they're still #1 in the campaign and they lose Emperor, then get it again, they should keep it. Emperor isn't god-tier, it never was, it's demi-god tier. If they make it god-tier then I'd agree with option one, but I can't because Emperor is hard to get but not hard to lose, they should be able to get it over and over given they're #1 in the campaign.

As for keeps and resources being harder to take, keeps definitely, resources... Resources are silly, there's no way to make them harder to take, if you have 20 people and zerg rush it, every guard will melt... You can put low walls around the resource, that aren't attackable and prevent flanking from the enemy, but that's about it. At least that's all I can think off, keeps definitely need a defense buff though, they're so weak. 50/50 one and take it with 10 people in 5-10 minutes. Actually that's not true...

Fastest dethroning of an Emperor was something like 15 minutes, so basically all six keeps were taken in that time or under it... So yeah, keeps need defense boosts. And higher walls.

I have to disagree with you on the Emperor issues. I'm all for leader boards. I'm not for one person or a small guild being Emperors all campaign. They got their rewards already. The people being punished are the players below them, not able to catch up, because Emperor provides the ability to gain a mass amount of points.

Once per campaign per character is completely fair. If they want to be Emperor more often, they can join shorter campaigns.

ToRelax · February 2015

rogue_gamer32b14_ESO wrote: »

Panda244 wrote: »

I'm okay with option two, but not option one. It punishes people who got to the top of the leaderboards legitimately, if they're still #1 in the campaign and they lose Emperor, then get it again, they should keep it. Emperor isn't god-tier, it never was, it's demi-god tier. If they make it god-tier then I'd agree with option one, but I can't because Emperor is hard to get but not hard to lose, they should be able to get it over and over given they're #1 in the campaign.

As for keeps and resources being harder to take, keeps definitely, resources... Resources are silly, there's no way to make them harder to take, if you have 20 people and zerg rush it, every guard will melt... You can put low walls around the resource, that aren't attackable and prevent flanking from the enemy, but that's about it. At least that's all I can think off, keeps definitely need a defense buff though, they're so weak. 50/50 one and take it with 10 people in 5-10 minutes. Actually that's not true...

Fastest dethroning of an Emperor was something like 15 minutes, so basically all six keeps were taken in that time or under it... So yeah, keeps need defense boosts. And higher walls.

I have to disagree with you on the Emperor issues. I'm all for leader boards. I'm not for one person or a small guild being Emperors all campaign. They got their rewards already. The people being punished are the players below them, not able to catch up, because Emperor provides the ability to gain a mass amount of points.

Once per campaign per character is completely fair. If they want to be Emperor more often, they can join shorter campaigns.

No, seriously, that's a terrible idea. It will make emp farming easier and punish players for being on the top.
You don't need a "fair shot" at emperor, it's frigging emperor, it's supposed to be something special and if they change anything about it that should lead to make it more special again (because currently, it isn't).

rogue_gamer32b14_ESO · February 2015

ToRelax wrote: »

rogue_gamer32b14_ESO wrote: »

Panda244 wrote: »

I'm okay with option two, but not option one. It punishes people who got to the top of the leaderboards legitimately, if they're still #1 in the campaign and they lose Emperor, then get it again, they should keep it. Emperor isn't god-tier, it never was, it's demi-god tier. If they make it god-tier then I'd agree with option one, but I can't because Emperor is hard to get but not hard to lose, they should be able to get it over and over given they're #1 in the campaign.

As for keeps and resources being harder to take, keeps definitely, resources... Resources are silly, there's no way to make them harder to take, if you have 20 people and zerg rush it, every guard will melt... You can put low walls around the resource, that aren't attackable and prevent flanking from the enemy, but that's about it. At least that's all I can think off, keeps definitely need a defense buff though, they're so weak. 50/50 one and take it with 10 people in 5-10 minutes. Actually that's not true...

Fastest dethroning of an Emperor was something like 15 minutes, so basically all six keeps were taken in that time or under it... So yeah, keeps need defense boosts. And higher walls.

I have to disagree with you on the Emperor issues. I'm all for leader boards. I'm not for one person or a small guild being Emperors all campaign. They got their rewards already. The people being punished are the players below them, not able to catch up, because Emperor provides the ability to gain a mass amount of points.

Once per campaign per character is completely fair. If they want to be Emperor more often, they can join shorter campaigns.

No, seriously, that's a terrible idea. It will make emp farming easier and punish players for being on the top.
You don't need a "fair shot" at emperor, it's frigging emperor, it's supposed to be something special and if they change anything about it that should lead to make it more special again (because currently, it isn't).

Once again I disagree. It's changing nothing about Emperor besides that fact that it is currently farmed. It prevents it from ever happening.

ToRelax · February 2015

rogue_gamer32b14_ESO wrote: »

ToRelax wrote: »

rogue_gamer32b14_ESO wrote: »

Panda244 wrote: »

I'm okay with option two, but not option one. It punishes people who got to the top of the leaderboards legitimately, if they're still #1 in the campaign and they lose Emperor, then get it again, they should keep it. Emperor isn't god-tier, it never was, it's demi-god tier. If they make it god-tier then I'd agree with option one, but I can't because Emperor is hard to get but not hard to lose, they should be able to get it over and over given they're #1 in the campaign.

As for keeps and resources being harder to take, keeps definitely, resources... Resources are silly, there's no way to make them harder to take, if you have 20 people and zerg rush it, every guard will melt... You can put low walls around the resource, that aren't attackable and prevent flanking from the enemy, but that's about it. At least that's all I can think off, keeps definitely need a defense buff though, they're so weak. 50/50 one and take it with 10 people in 5-10 minutes. Actually that's not true...

Fastest dethroning of an Emperor was something like 15 minutes, so basically all six keeps were taken in that time or under it... So yeah, keeps need defense boosts. And higher walls.

I have to disagree with you on the Emperor issues. I'm all for leader boards. I'm not for one person or a small guild being Emperors all campaign. They got their rewards already. The people being punished are the players below them, not able to catch up, because Emperor provides the ability to gain a mass amount of points.

Once per campaign per character is completely fair. If they want to be Emperor more often, they can join shorter campaigns.

No, seriously, that's a terrible idea. It will make emp farming easier and punish players for being on the top.
You don't need a "fair shot" at emperor, it's frigging emperor, it's supposed to be something special and if they change anything about it that should lead to make it more special again (because currently, it isn't).

Once again I disagree. It's changing nothing about Emperor besides that fact that it is currently farmed. It prevents it from ever happening.

How can you prevent emperor farming with giving more people emperor? That doesn't sound very logical to me...

Asgari · February 2015

So I spend the time destroying the enemy factions and I enter first place by a large majority and shouldn't be allowed emp after I get it? What a horrible care bear idea. If you want emp then earn it; your idea creates more emp farming than what already occurs and gives no incentive to push for first and hold it.

Ezareth · February 2015

The Emperorship is not something the majority of PvPers should experience without the dedication required to earn it.

There are many players who achieved the title who really didn't "earn" it but that doesn't mean that everyone should get the chance to experience it.

Being Emperor for weeks on end requires playing day and night. Out of the 5 times I lost my Emperorship Iost it because eventually I had to go to sleep.

I think the system as it exists is fair but the primary issue in Cyrodiil is the distribution of the D-Tick and O-Tick awards and
how others exploit that.

cozmon3c_ESO · February 2015

I like that your putting forth ideas, i agree with some and disagree with others. here's my ideas on the matter.

#1 Emperor should be given to the top ranked player online at the time.
-if tiny tim is top rank and is offline then the next top player online gets to the emperor, lets say little johny at rank 3.
-if little johny loses emp and there faction takes the 6 inner keeps while tiny tim is on, then tiny tim gets emp.
-if the rank 50 guy is on and no one else ranked higher then him on the leader boards is online then he gets emp. seems fair to me.

#2 I can definetly get behind you on number 2, xp is slow going in cyrodiil compared to pve content, and ap gain is much slower after the removal of foward camps. both need a 25% increase atleast.

#3 i dont agree keeps and resources should be harder to take, they seem pretty good where they are at right now. i do agree with them needing to be more meaningful. i have brought up ideas directly with Brian Wheeler in the past, but basically he said he does not have the resources to spare on this matter until he is finished making the imperial city. only then can he go back and start adding stuff to cyrodiil. (really wish there was more to work towards gear wise in cyrodiil wink wink @brianwheeler)

s7732425ub17_ESO · February 2015

These are all bad ideas.

baratron · February 2015

ezareth_ESO wrote: »

The Emperorship is not something the majority of PvPers should experience without the dedication required to earn it.
<snip>
Being Emperor for weeks on end requires playing day and night. Out of the 5 times I lost my Emperorship Iost it because eventually I had to go to sleep.

So to you, "dedication" = "number of hours physically in PvP"?

I suppose some healthy adults can choose to spend a week doing nothing but ESO, but people who have demanding jobs, small children, or disabilities which cause fatigue cannot.

In real life, you can't become leader of a country without either the support of fellow politicians (in a democracy) or your army (in a military dictatorship). What I'd like to see in Cyrodiil is a system whereby candidates for Emperor need to have the support of their army. I know I'm never going to be Emperor because I literally cannot put in enough time, which means that right now PvP is pointless unless I happen to need Alliance Points for an armour set.

So I'd like to be able to support a particular candidate and have my Alliance Points count towards their total.

Would this bias Emperor towards people in large PvP Guilds? Possibly, but that bias is already present.

It would certainly remove the need for Emperor candidates to go without sleep, because they'd know that their "team" continued to fight on their behalf.

This might be the stupidest idea ever, I don't know. I wonder how much difference it would make?

Ezareth · February 2015

baratron wrote: »

ezareth_ESO wrote: »

The Emperorship is not something the majority of PvPers should experience without the dedication required to earn it.
<snip>
Being Emperor for weeks on end requires playing day and night. Out of the 5 times I lost my Emperorship Iost it because eventually I had to go to sleep.

So to you, "dedication" = "number of hours physically in PvP"?

I suppose some healthy adults can choose to spend a week doing nothing but ESO, but people who have demanding jobs, small children, or disabilities which cause fatigue cannot.

In real life, you can't become leader of a country without either the support of fellow politicians (in a democracy) or your army (in a military dictatorship). What I'd like to see in Cyrodiil is a system whereby candidates for Emperor need to have the support of their army. I know I'm never going to be Emperor because I literally cannot put in enough time, which means that right now PvP is pointless unless I happen to need Alliance Points for an armour set.

So I'd like to be able to support a particular candidate and have my Alliance Points count towards their total.

Would this bias Emperor towards people in large PvP Guilds? Possibly, but that bias is already present.

It would certainly remove the need for Emperor candidates to go without sleep, because they'd know that their "team" continued to fight on their behalf.

This might be the stupidest idea ever, I don't know. I wonder how much difference it would make?

It is true of any ranking system game in the world right now. The people who rank at the top of anything spend inordinately more time playing than the people who play casually. Just a fact of life, to "win" at some things you "lose" at others(Opportunity Cost).

I know plenty of people who have small children, demanding jobs, and even disabilities who have achieved Emperorship with some planning ahead and small sacrifices.

Hell most of the people who achieved Emperor did so with relatively little work on their end, just a rush at the start of the campaign once AP is reset. Almost anyone can take a day off work etc to do this. Holding onto Emperor afterwards is another matter entirely.