A serious suggestion to save PvP

ArcanusMagus · May 2015

What about fixing the exploits and suspending/banning the players who use them? I lost a guildie just today over that crap (subhuman idiots glitching into an outpost to kill a solo defender - with video proof). ZOS does nothing, fixes nothing, takes no action against exploiters. Ensure the game is fair first, then proceed down your list (which is a good list, in my opinion).

The_Drexill · May 2015

I tend to agree with this proposal.

ToRelax · May 2015

I do like this idea, but without a few changes it could easily do more harm than good.

1.) As stated already, allow fasttravel and respawn at all home keeps and fasttravel to outposts.
This way a faction can defend it's territory, you can still capture enemy home keeps, but it will be harder to hold. The outposts don't lose their current importance and become even more important in case you invade another faction. For example, EP will have a shorter way to defend Castle Faregyl if they captured it while holding Blue Road Keep and Sejanus Outpost. This would also make choke points more important.

If you could rez / port only at the 3 inner home keeps, there would be a large part of the map where no one can travel, leading to opposing forces avoiding each other - or at least one would avoid the other if it's clear who has the stronger group(s).

2.) It was also said, this idea would encourage zerging. That is true. But at the same time, it would give a purpose to ganking and small group playstyles. The whole idea would be about adding a death penalty (time) to stronger factions who control enemy territory, but not to factions defending their home keeps.
Problem is, rezzing other players is extremely easy, especially for large groups. I am not sure what to do about this. I fear, if one was to simply remove the ability to rez other players, they'd get too easily frustrated.
So I would propose a limit of rezzes you can get from another player that will be filled up everytime you respawn at a keep or gate of your alliance. If you could be rezzed only one or two times, a few good players could still do a lot of harm to a zerg that is invading their territory, even if they wipe because the enemies were rezzed.
If forward camps were to be added back to the vendor, they should work like a player rez and not give you back your maximum of player / camp rezzes.

Zhoyzu · May 2015

I like this. i would however like to be able to port to my home keeps rather then just to arrius.

olemanwinter · May 2015

manny254 wrote: »

So you don't group, but you claim to have a understanding of large group strategies based off of one anecdotal example. I see what is going on now.

I very rarely run in large groups. However, I've been playing Vet PvP since launch....over a year. In that amount of time you get a fair amount of experiences in groups of all sizes even if you "rarely" run with them.

I've run in max sized groups that were coordinating with other max sized groups, max sized groups of pugs, medium sized groups of 12-16 (my favorite), and a lot of time with smaller groups in the 6-10 person range. I've also run totally solo or with a partner a lot.

You know, why don't you post your address and I'll just mail you my resume.

manny254 wrote: »

I see what is going on now.

......... ....... what's going on?

olemanwinter · May 2015

Manoekin wrote: »

It's only going to accentuate what happened when they removed FC's... Zerg rules. If you make the run back even longer it's going to increase the value of player resses even more than what it is now, and the easiest way to make sure player resses go off is to have more people than the enemy. Your proposal only encourages zerging.

Say what you want about FC's, but they spread out the faction until south-ga and AD ruined it. They just need to change FC's to not be exploitable like they were.

All that you say is only because people can insta-port to the fight.

If you are AD (and have emp) and you see chalman under attack, you cannot wait around to gather up your group of 50 people. You have a long way to go and need to start now. You can't just say "Everyone blood port to X" either.

If you wait to go in a giant zerg group, you won't make it in time!

Also, what if that's not the main force? What if 6 people are bursting Chalman and you take your giant big zerg up to chalman to find that when you arrive the main enemy force is bursting Ash? Whoops. :-)

There may be a lot of reasons not to like my plan, but more zergs isn't one of them.

olemanwinter · May 2015

Joy_Division wrote: »

OP has never ridden a horse from Arrius to Blackboot.

You are shockingly wrong. lmao

I've ridden from my home gate to...every...corner...of...the map.

I changed campaigns from Thornblade to Azura because I wanted some action, only to find Azura abandoned. So, the other day I rode from my home gate all the way to the EP home gate where the only fight (AD/EP) was taking place.

Don't tell me I haven't spent my fair share of time riding.

olemanwinter · May 2015

manny254 wrote: »

This is already possible, but you can respawn at your relevant Emp Keeps (Ash Aleswell, BRK Chal, or Alessia Roe). So under your system these get taken, and your faction has no spawn point except the gate. The very thing you want to avoid you create. .

With respect you aren't thinking critically.

The enemy force that just took those 3 keeps by "ninja attack" cannot revive there. Period.

Pushing your gate would be insanity because you can revive 15 feet away. Even if they kill you 3 times before you kill 1 of them....he has to go back to the opposite side of the map!

There would be no gate camping or gate pushing in this plan. It would be...insanity.

So, then comes time to take back those 3 keeps. Again, you can revive now 30 seconds away and they still have to go all the way across the map. In that environment it would be very easy to take them back.

My plan would do 2 things:

1) If you were fighting and encountering resistance it would slow down the gain of territory further from home keeps and make it more challenging.

2) If you lost territory to "Ninja capping" or "Night capping" it would make it dramatically easier to get back.

olemanwinter · May 2015

Garion wrote: »

I am hoping that these kind of threads do draw the attention of ZOS and make them realise that people are desperate for something to change, because currently PvP in this game is in a bad place..

Perhaps they aren't making changes because nobody will agree on any changes. Whoever is winning thinks anything that's a change is bad. And whoever is losing at the moment will take almost any change.

What do you propose as a change?

Garion wrote: »

Firstly I think that reducing mobility in Cyrodiil is going to drastically reduce the number of active fights.

Perhaps compared to the first 24 hours of a hotly contested campaign. However I think you very wrong if you compare it to the long term number of active fights in a campaign like Thornblade, or Azura's star, or Haderus when it was 100% yellow for months, etc.

Garion wrote: »

If you limit the distance people can travel and force them to spend a lot of time on horses, this will in turn lead to people getting frustrated and playing less. I for one wouldn't bother logging in if this change was implemented - it can be hard enough to find fights.

You are clearly speaking as someone who is enjoying a map their alliance controls and that's okay, but I would just ask you to remember this proposal when things change. The next time that you find the entire map a different color, please DON'T LEAVE. Don't jump campaigns. Stay there and try to find a fight.

You cannot possibly engineer more riding than is required for a DC player in Azura's Star atm. And you cannot possibly engineer less fighting between DC and AD.

It's the same as it was between DC and EP before I left Thornblade.

The enemy knows that the "big zerg guilds" aren't online, so they ignore you. You can burst something and they don't even care. You can start taking your home keeps and they don't even care. Then the very moment you extend to something they care about they "insta-port" to you and wipe you with 40 people. Then the campaign goes quiet with no population for any alliance until a few days later when some tries again.

Garion wrote: »

[*] I am the non-dominant faction, I have a short ride to the keeps near me but when I finish my ride I get a fantastic PvDoor, rather than PvP experience because the opposing faction is busy on the other side of the map or they understandably can't be

In this case, nothing changes because if you are non-dominant you don't own any keeps past those anyway, and still have to ride to those far away "PvP experiences".

Garion wrote: »

[*] I am the dominant faction, although had no involvement in the nightcapping or one sided push that painted the map one colour, suddenly I am penalised for the actions of others by having to ride for ten minutes before getting ganked and having to do that ride all over again. No thanks, I'm logging out.

If you aren't part of the nightcapping push, then by the time you log on the other side will have already pushed back and be pushing back.

Under my plan it will be almost impossible to hold enemy home keeps for very long and actually quite challenging to hold distant center keeps.

It will mean the end of "EMPEROR: Bob. Reigning 27 days"

Garion wrote: »

Furthermore I have to say that I agree with what Dennegor said earlier in this thread. The current meta game encourages zerging in a number of ways, but introducing this change only increases the innate desire for players to seek safety in numbers, particularly those of less experience. Set the cost of dying too high (i.e. you have to ride to the other side of the map if you die, or perhaps wait and get frustrated as everyone runs over you without giving you a res) and you encourage people to run together to significantly reduce the risk of dying. Increasing the desire to zerg is definitely not a good thing, and is reason enough alone not to introduce the change suggested.

This may decrease the "desire" to zerg, but it would DECREASE the "EFFECTIVENESS" of zerging.

You are AD and you have emperor and you have to ride from your home keep to Chalman when you see EP attack it. How long do you think you can wait to build up your super zerg before it's too late???

And while you are slowly moving that way, what else is EP up to on other parts of the map? What about DC?

Found to be ineffective, I think the "desire" to zerg would be reduced.

Big armies move slowly in REAL LIFE. Because they can't insta-port. There is a reason why combat has continued to move further and further away from giant Zerg VS Zerg combat in REAL LIFE. It has evolved from Ancient giant battles where nations would throw everything at their enemy who did the same, to colonial fighting where armies were spread out but still face off head to head, to modern combat which is highly specialized, mobile, and dynamic.

There are perhaps many reasons not to like this plan, but increased zerg activity and domination is NOT one of them.

olemanwinter · May 2015

ToRelax wrote: »

If you could rez / port only at the 3 inner home keeps, there would be a large part of the map where no one can travel, leading to opposing forces avoiding each other - or at least one would avoid the other if it's clear who has the stronger group(s).

Like...real life :-)

Wouldn't it be awesome to see a giant army trying to give chase to a smaller mobile force (just like real life) or to see a smaller force being faster and more cunning to strike behind the large army where they didn't expect and can't respond fast enough (just like real life)

And just like in real life, sooner or later someone gets the upper hand and they face off. Good stuff.

ToRelax · May 2015

olemanwinter wrote: »

ToRelax wrote: »

If you could rez / port only at the 3 inner home keeps, there would be a large part of the map where no one can travel, leading to opposing forces avoiding each other - or at least one would avoid the other if it's clear who has the stronger group(s).

Like...real life :-)

Wouldn't it be awesome to see a giant army trying to give chase to a smaller mobile force (just like real life) or to see a smaller force being faster and more cunning to strike behind the large army where they didn't expect and can't respond fast enough (just like real life)

And just like in real life, sooner or later someone gets the upper hand and they face off. Good stuff.

Did you just try to back up your concept about death in PvP, respawning and teleporting... with REAL LIFE?
Seriously?

And you want to outmaneuver a zergball, that is already aware of and chasing you, with a smaller force and hit them from behind? rofl

ThePonzzz · May 2015

As someone new to PvP, my opinion can be a reach... But for me, PvP combat is way too fast. Especially for learning the ropes. We all start this game for at least 10 levels with PvE. Combat in PvE is slow. Being able to break through to realize how to CC, DPS, dodge, evade, and block is a bit jarring. And if you're just getting mowed down by zergs, there isn't room to learn.

I'm just use to how I attack groups of 3 to 5 in PvE, it's absolutely nothing like even going 1-on-1 in PvP. And I played the game before VR (Cadwell's Silver and Gold) got turned into pure solo content. I loved the challenge back then to solo it. But I can't even compare PvP combat to that.

Manoekin · May 2015

olemanwinter wrote: »

Manoekin wrote: »

It's only going to accentuate what happened when they removed FC's... Zerg rules. If you make the run back even longer it's going to increase the value of player resses even more than what it is now, and the easiest way to make sure player resses go off is to have more people than the enemy. Your proposal only encourages zerging.

Say what you want about FC's, but they spread out the faction until south-ga and AD ruined it. They just need to change FC's to not be exploitable like they were.

All that you say is only because people can insta-port to the fight.

If you are AD (and have emp) and you see chalman under attack, you cannot wait around to gather up your group of 50 people. You have a long way to go and need to start now. You can't just say "Everyone blood port to X" either.

If you wait to go in a giant zerg group, you won't make it in time!

Also, what if that's not the main force? What if 6 people are bursting Chalman and you take your giant big zerg up to chalman to find that when you arrive the main enemy force is bursting Ash? Whoops. :-)

There may be a lot of reasons not to like my plan, but more zergs isn't one of them.

olemanwinter wrote: »

ToRelax wrote: »

If you could rez / port only at the 3 inner home keeps, there would be a large part of the map where no one can travel, leading to opposing forces avoiding each other - or at least one would avoid the other if it's clear who has the stronger group(s).

Like...real life :-)

Wouldn't it be awesome to see a giant army trying to give chase to a smaller mobile force (just like real life) or to see a smaller force being faster and more cunning to strike behind the large army where they didn't expect and can't respond fast enough (just like real life)

And just like in real life, sooner or later someone gets the upper hand and they face off. Good stuff.

Jesus Christ... even if you want to compare this to real life, the game is based in a Medieval setting, and so your argument makes no sense at all in this regard.

Your other argument that it would make zergs weaker is... stupid to say the least. Making it harder to travel to defend a keep does only help encourage the attacked to make sure they have more players and to not spread out. If the emp group is defending Chalman and someone hits Ash... well *** then that already happens and they lose Ash if the enemy is competent in the current version of the game. Basically what I want to say is the concept of "You cannot be at every keep" already exists. If I can run in a big ball of 60 players and take any keep I want regardless of defense, I don't care if you take Ash because I will take it back. Dying and running back and dying and running back isn't going to save your keeps lol. You don't just whittle a zerg down unless you have a zerg of your own.

olemanwinter · May 2015

ToRelax wrote: »

And you want to outmaneuver a zergball, that is already aware of and chasing you, with a smaller force and hit them from behind? rofl

Yes....I do.

I ran with NPK tonight in Azura. And I'm not hating on them when I say they move SO SLOWLY.

5 min at a keep deciding what to do, then 10 minutes paused on a rally point 1/2 way to their destination, then 5 more minutes paused within site of their destination....all on top of ride times, before they commence with attacks.

Such is life when you are commanding 20+ people I guess.

But surely you see how had someone been aware of their movements they could have gone behind them to counter attack, or even if they had not been aware it could have happened by chance.

AND IN FACT IT DID.

While NPK was slowly making advances towards Brindle and putting it under siege, AD attacked Ales. Now, in the current system blood porting back would be the only reasonable tactical response because of two things:

1) AD has superior numbers.
2) It's easier to defend a keep than take a keep.

But NPK didn't go back to defend (which I strongly disagree with...but that's beside the point).

AND HERE IS WHERE MY PLAN CHANGES THE GAME.

What happened tonight was that AD was able to take Ales Keep before DC could take Brindle Keep AND THEN PORT BACK to the nearest keep and ride to Brindle to defend before it fell.

The power of higher population when you can insta-port everywhere!

In my plan, AD would have taken Ales while looking to the south and seeing Brindle fall. DC the opposite. And then they would have a decision to make. Backtrack and stop the other force or continue with their offensive attack?

I've said it before and I'll say it again. It's absurd that 100 players can be defending Arrius 1 min and the same 100 players can be defending Brindle 90 seconds later.

Whoever has the greater number of players wins. Period. End of story.

You cannot have tactical combat without movement and space. You cannot have movement and space with the ability to port all over the map.

olemanwinter · May 2015

Manoekin wrote: »

Jesus Christ... even if you want to compare this to real life, the game is based in a Medieval setting, and so your argument makes no sense at all in this regard.

You seem kinda angry. So I read your first two sentences and I won't be reading or replying to anything else after this.

I talk about how armies have gotten smaller and more mobile over time. And you are right that this game is set in an ancient setting. But you are ignoring the other part of my point which is that BEFORE they were smaller and more mobile...they move SLOWLY.

The larger the army...the slower it moved.

The same 100 players should not be able to defend Arrius and then defend Brindle 90 seconds later. It's absurd.

Manoekin wrote: »

Your other argument that it would make zergs weaker is... stupid to say the least.

The least huh? No, go ahead and tell me how you really feel about it.

Honestly, I really appreciate your post. Someone of your attitude fighting against the plan may very well be seen as a glowing endorsement :-)

Joy_Division · May 2015

OK, you rode a horse from High Rock to Morrowind. And having suffered through that, and I use that word intentionally, do you honestly think that most of the people who play this are going to log back in after getting insta-killed by some Nightblade who feared them? That's 15 minutes of riding for a three second fight. How you can possibly fathom that that is somehow compelling gameplay is beyond me.

You are convinced that won't happen. In your mind, the game will be dynamic, strategic, and unpredictable. I am guessing that is the type of game that you enjoy and would like to see. That's fine, but you are underestimating how much horse-riding and overestimating how much fighting will actually happen under your proposal

You laid out an example where a Red force at Arrius was defending Emperor against a Blue invasion at Aleswell. You got excited about the multiple strategies that could play out under your system. You actually believe this is a serious possibility: "EP thinks DC is headed for Ash and gambles to head there and wipe them. But DC is making a direct Eastward march and get a lot of ground while EP went the long and wrong way. Whoops." And called it "epic fun"

No and no. Do you honestly think a Red defending force will ride their horses from Arrius to BRK past Sejanus across the Alessia Bridge to Alessia proper then cut across AD territory to Roe then to Nickel and finally to Ash to defend their Emperor? This tells me that even though you claim to have grouped before that you do not understand the psychology of most players. Most people, and that includes these guilds,are just looking for good fights. They don't want to play army general and devise grand strategy to outmaneuver the enemy, they just want some intense action vs organized opposition. Occasionally you'll see the sort of surprise attack with the specific purpose of dethroning as happened to Anon and when AD took out Hovaling. But we grinded all those levels, gear, champion points, etc. to PvP, not PvDoor. When you see on your screen enemy players constantly pick up and drop scrolls, they are not doing it to annoy you. It's an open invitation that says "We are here. We don't care about taking your keeps or scrolls, we just want to pick a fight."

A lot of us don't want to spend half of our time debating in zone chat with people on our ignore list listening to their lewd self-serving utterings, we just want to go where there are some crossed swords. In your posts you claim those crossed swords are hard to find. No they are not. The campaigns are so in flux now with so many AD and DC players migrating and jumping from campaign to campaign desperately trying to avoid Thornblade 2.0, that it's hard to avoid fights if you aren't a Red.

No matter how you slice it, you idea is a *lot* less PvPing and a *lot* more horse riding.

Also consider the sort of PvP your proposal would eliminate. A few nights ago I was on my yellow at BRK which was the last Emperor keep. There were about 10 us there while most of the other AD tried to take back Alessia. About 8 or 9 reds started poking their noses around the north gate. So we jumped down and fought them. It was fun. When it was over, a few minutes later they came back with a bit more numbers and we had at it again. It was completely random with no alliance politics going on. This would have not happened under your proposal. The closest spawn point for those who died jumping off the walls was Bloodmayne [!] which means an unacceptably long horse-ride back. So instead of having some fun and jumping off, people will set up fire trebuchets. It's a game. I don't want to carry the burden of an alliance Emperor or some intricate grand strategy that I can mess up by simply fighting an enemy. It's already not fun to die or lose, why must I ride my horse 10 minutes back when the enemy has done nothing. At least make them set up siege and earn the rez restriction. People say there should be a penalty for dying. Fine, but that penalty should not be boredom.

Garion · May 2015

Joy_Division wrote: »

OK, you rode a horse from High Rock to Morrowind. And having suffered through that, and I use that word intentionally, do you honestly think that most of the people who play this are going to log back in after getting insta-killed by some Nightblade who feared them? That's 15 minutes of riding for a three second fight. How you can possibly fathom that that is somehow compelling gameplay is beyond me.

You are convinced that won't happen. In your mind, the game will be dynamic, strategic, and unpredictable. I am guessing that is the type of game that you enjoy and would like to see. That's fine, but you are underestimating how much horse-riding and overestimating how much fighting will actually happen under your proposal

You laid out an example where a Red force at Arrius was defending Emperor against a Blue invasion at Aleswell. You got excited about the multiple strategies that could play out under your system. You actually believe this is a serious possibility: "EP thinks DC is headed for Ash and gambles to head there and wipe them. But DC is making a direct Eastward march and get a lot of ground while EP went the long and wrong way. Whoops." And called it "epic fun"

No and no. Do you honestly think a Red defending force will ride their horses from Arrius to BRK past Sejanus across the Alessia Bridge to Alessia proper then cut across AD territory to Roe then to Nickel and finally to Ash to defend their Emperor? This tells me that even though you claim to have grouped before that you do not understand the psychology of most players. Most people, and that includes these guilds,are just looking for good fights. They don't want to play army general and devise grand strategy to outmaneuver the enemy, they just want some intense action vs organized opposition. Occasionally you'll see the sort of surprise attack with the specific purpose of dethroning as happened to Anon and when AD took out Hovaling. But we grinded all those levels, gear, champion points, etc. to PvP, not PvDoor. When you see on your screen enemy players constantly pick up and drop scrolls, they are not doing it to annoy you. It's an open invitation that says "We are here. We don't care about taking your keeps or scrolls, we just want to pick a fight."

A lot of us don't want to spend half of our time debating in zone chat with people on our ignore list listening to their lewd self-serving utterings, we just want to go where there are some crossed swords. In your posts you claim those crossed swords are hard to find. No they are not. The campaigns are so in flux now with so many AD and DC players migrating and jumping from campaign to campaign desperately trying to avoid Thornblade 2.0, that it's hard to avoid fights if you aren't a Red.

No matter how you slice it, you idea is a *lot* less PvPing and a *lot* more horse riding.

Also consider the sort of PvP your proposal would eliminate. A few nights ago on was on my yellow at BRK which was the last Emperor keep. There were about 10 us there while most of the other AD tried to take back Alessia. About 8 or 9 reds started poking their noses around the north gate. So we jumped down and fought them. It was fun. When it was over, a few minutes later they came back with a bit more numbers and we had at it again. It was completely random with no alliance politics going on. This would have not happened under your proposal. The closest spawn point for those who died jumping off the walls was Bloodmayne [!] which means an unacceptably long horse-ride back. So instead of having some fun and jumping off, people will set up fire trebuchets. It's a game. I don't want to carry the burden of an alliance Emperor or some intricate grand strategy that I can mess up by simply fighting an enemy. It's already not fun to die or lose, why must I ride my horse 10 minutes back when the enemy has done nothing. At least make them set up siege and earn the rez restriction. People say there should be a penalty for dying. Fine, but that penalty should not be boredom.

Amen, brother.

Etaniel · May 2015

Joy_Division wrote: »

OK, you rode a horse from High Rock to Morrowind. And having suffered through that, and I use that word intentionally, do you honestly think that most of the people who play this are going to log back in after getting insta-killed by some Nightblade who feared them? That's 15 minutes of riding for a three second fight. How you can possibly fathom that that is somehow compelling gameplay is beyond me.

You are convinced that won't happen. In your mind, the game will be dynamic, strategic, and unpredictable. I am guessing that is the type of game that you enjoy and would like to see. That's fine, but you are underestimating how much horse-riding and overestimating how much fighting will actually happen under your proposal

You laid out an example where a Red force at Arrius was defending Emperor against a Blue invasion at Aleswell. You got excited about the multiple strategies that could play out under your system. You actually believe this is a serious possibility: "EP thinks DC is headed for Ash and gambles to head there and wipe them. But DC is making a direct Eastward march and get a lot of ground while EP went the long and wrong way. Whoops." And called it "epic fun"

No and no. Do you honestly think a Red defending force will ride their horses from Arrius to BRK past Sejanus across the Alessia Bridge to Alessia proper then cut across AD territory to Roe then to Nickel and finally to Ash to defend their Emperor? This tells me that even though you claim to have grouped before that you do not understand the psychology of most players. Most people, and that includes these guilds,are just looking for good fights. They don't want to play army general and devise grand strategy to outmaneuver the enemy, they just want some intense action vs organized opposition. Occasionally you'll see the sort of surprise attack with the specific purpose of dethroning as happened to Anon and when AD took out Hovaling. But we grinded all those levels, gear, champion points, etc. to PvP, not PvDoor. When you see on your screen enemy players constantly pick up and drop scrolls, they are not doing it to annoy you. It's an open invitation that says "We are here. We don't care about taking your keeps or scrolls, we just want to pick a fight."

A lot of us don't want to spend half of our time debating in zone chat with people on our ignore list listening to their lewd self-serving utterings, we just want to go where there are some crossed swords. In your posts you claim those crossed swords are hard to find. No they are not. The campaigns are so in flux now with so many AD and DC players migrating and jumping from campaign to campaign desperately trying to avoid Thornblade 2.0, that it's hard to avoid fights if you aren't a Red.

No matter how you slice it, you idea is a *lot* less PvPing and a *lot* more horse riding.

Also consider the sort of PvP your proposal would eliminate. A few nights ago on was on my yellow at BRK which was the last Emperor keep. There were about 10 us there while most of the other AD tried to take back Alessia. About 8 or 9 reds started poking their noses around the north gate. So we jumped down and fought them. It was fun. When it was over, a few minutes later they came back with a bit more numbers and we had at it again. It was completely random with no alliance politics going on. This would have not happened under your proposal. The closest spawn point for those who died jumping off the walls was Bloodmayne [!] which means an unacceptably long horse-ride back. So instead of having some fun and jumping off, people will set up fire trebuchets. It's a game. I don't want to carry the burden of an alliance Emperor or some intricate grand strategy that I can mess up by simply fighting an enemy. It's already not fun to die or lose, why must I ride my horse 10 minutes back when the enemy has done nothing. At least make them set up siege and earn the rez restriction. People say there should be a penalty for dying. Fine, but that penalty should not be boredom.

Look at his proposition again but this time allowing travel to all home keeps and outposts as well. That long arrius-ash walk becomes bleakers-ash which isn't that far a ride tbh. Because i'm assuming if reds are defending emp at ash it means they have outposts like bleakers under control. the only time when riding truly becomes longer is when attacking/defending outer keeps like dc/brindle/drakelowe or home gates. That sounds perfectly reasonable to me. This wouldn't slow down movement to defend home keeps and it wouldn't even slow emp keep defense that much.

Rune_Relic · May 2015

OP
I see and understand most of what you are saying.
Problems are as noted..
1. Spies in zone chat.
2. Horsegame

That said I do agree that instant teleporting across the map makes any ground taken/lost meaningless.
Especially when larger guilds can just port to map and wipe it in 30 minutes chain keep jumping.

As you bought up real life....supply lines have always been the limiting factor of any wars distance from origin.
I would therefore prefer the ability to take a keeps mine/farm/lumber resources half way along a chain of keeps, destroy the supply line, all keeps beyond that point then become neutral with old empire guards.
Obviously the deeper into enemy territory you try to break the chain of keeps the stiffer the resistance and higher numbers you face.
Adding neutral keeps would also have a major impact on scoring.

This way protecting your resources becomes a priority and more important than protecting keeps.
You MUST have scouts to watch resources.
Open warfare becomes more important protecting resources (but you cant be everywhere at once)
Small rapid teams can take out resources (and can be all over the map).
Large slow teams can take out keeps or consolidate ground taken.
Strategy becomes much more important if your numbers are too thin and supply line too long to protect.... you risk losing the lot.
This also means small man teams can have a massive impact on the map using well planned strategies deep into enemy lines.

Need a lot of thought is this would have a massive change on any campaign.

Etaniel · May 2015

Rune_Relic wrote: »

OP
I see and understand most of what you are saying.
Problems are as noted..
1. Spies in zone chat.
2. Horsegame

That said I do agree that instant teleporting across the map makes any ground taken/lost meaningless.
Especially when larger guilds can just port to map and wipe it in 30 minutes chain keep jumping.

As you bought up real life....supply lines have always been the limiting factor of any wars distance from origin.
I would therefore prefer the ability to take a keeps mine/farm/lumber resources half way along a chain of keeps, destroy the supply line, all keeps beyond that point then become neutral with old empire guards.
Obviously the deeper into enemy territory you try to break the chain of keeps the stiffer the resistance and higher numbers you face.
Adding neutral keeps would also have a major impact on scoring.

This way protecting your resources becomes a priority and more important than protecting keeps.
You MUST have scouts to watch resources.
Open warfare becomes more important protecting resources (but you cant be everywhere at once)
Small rapid teams can take out resources (and can be all over the map).
Large slow teams can take out keeps or consolidate ground taken.
Strategy becomes much more important if your numbers are too thin and supply line too long to protect.... you risk losing the lot.
This also means small man teams can have a massive impact on the map using well planned strategies deep into enemy lines.

Need a lot of thought is this would have a massive change on any campaign.

or instead of making keeps neutral if you cut the transit, just make it impossible to rez there, but still possible to travel? So defenders would just have to get the ressources back before going back to defend

ToRelax · May 2015

Etaniel wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

OK, you rode a horse from High Rock to Morrowind. And having suffered through that, and I use that word intentionally, do you honestly think that most of the people who play this are going to log back in after getting insta-killed by some Nightblade who feared them? That's 15 minutes of riding for a three second fight. How you can possibly fathom that that is somehow compelling gameplay is beyond me.

You are convinced that won't happen. In your mind, the game will be dynamic, strategic, and unpredictable. I am guessing that is the type of game that you enjoy and would like to see. That's fine, but you are underestimating how much horse-riding and overestimating how much fighting will actually happen under your proposal

You laid out an example where a Red force at Arrius was defending Emperor against a Blue invasion at Aleswell. You got excited about the multiple strategies that could play out under your system. You actually believe this is a serious possibility: "EP thinks DC is headed for Ash and gambles to head there and wipe them. But DC is making a direct Eastward march and get a lot of ground while EP went the long and wrong way. Whoops." And called it "epic fun"

No and no. Do you honestly think a Red defending force will ride their horses from Arrius to BRK past Sejanus across the Alessia Bridge to Alessia proper then cut across AD territory to Roe then to Nickel and finally to Ash to defend their Emperor? This tells me that even though you claim to have grouped before that you do not understand the psychology of most players. Most people, and that includes these guilds,are just looking for good fights. They don't want to play army general and devise grand strategy to outmaneuver the enemy, they just want some intense action vs organized opposition. Occasionally you'll see the sort of surprise attack with the specific purpose of dethroning as happened to Anon and when AD took out Hovaling. But we grinded all those levels, gear, champion points, etc. to PvP, not PvDoor. When you see on your screen enemy players constantly pick up and drop scrolls, they are not doing it to annoy you. It's an open invitation that says "We are here. We don't care about taking your keeps or scrolls, we just want to pick a fight."

A lot of us don't want to spend half of our time debating in zone chat with people on our ignore list listening to their lewd self-serving utterings, we just want to go where there are some crossed swords. In your posts you claim those crossed swords are hard to find. No they are not. The campaigns are so in flux now with so many AD and DC players migrating and jumping from campaign to campaign desperately trying to avoid Thornblade 2.0, that it's hard to avoid fights if you aren't a Red.

No matter how you slice it, you idea is a *lot* less PvPing and a *lot* more horse riding.

Also consider the sort of PvP your proposal would eliminate. A few nights ago on was on my yellow at BRK which was the last Emperor keep. There were about 10 us there while most of the other AD tried to take back Alessia. About 8 or 9 reds started poking their noses around the north gate. So we jumped down and fought them. It was fun. When it was over, a few minutes later they came back with a bit more numbers and we had at it again. It was completely random with no alliance politics going on. This would have not happened under your proposal. The closest spawn point for those who died jumping off the walls was Bloodmayne [!] which means an unacceptably long horse-ride back. So instead of having some fun and jumping off, people will set up fire trebuchets. It's a game. I don't want to carry the burden of an alliance Emperor or some intricate grand strategy that I can mess up by simply fighting an enemy. It's already not fun to die or lose, why must I ride my horse 10 minutes back when the enemy has done nothing. At least make them set up siege and earn the rez restriction. People say there should be a penalty for dying. Fine, but that penalty should not be boredom.

Look at his proposition again but this time allowing travel to all home keeps and outposts as well. That long arrius-ash walk becomes bleakers-ash which isn't that far a ride tbh. Because i'm assuming if reds are defending emp at ash it means they have outposts like bleakers under control. the only time when riding truly becomes longer is when attacking/defending outer keeps like dc/brindle/drakelowe or home gates. That sounds perfectly reasonable to me. This wouldn't slow down movement to defend home keeps and it wouldn't even slow emp keep defense that much.

This.

Dreyloch · May 2015

Here is the downside to your idea OP.

If this were to happen, #1- people would complain about not being able to really do much more than ride their horse most of their playtime (even if ya sped the horses up 200%). #2- (and trust me, this would happen) Each faction will at some point just gather at a certain time, then head down or across to the other factions' area EN MASSE. Meaning not only a zerg, but the ENTIRE POPULATION of each faction will head out towards the enemy keeps. The defending faction will respond and KAAAABBBBOOOOMMMMMM server goes down from the entirely epic and crippling lag that would occur because the whole of 2-3 factions is in one place.

This is all assuming your plan doesn't re-introduce forward camps too. (Sorry I didn't read the entire post)

Anyway, GL with that. I stopped playing ESO altogether till they fix PvP properly and yes, I'm trolling the boards cause I'm bored at work. /shrug.

Joy_Division · May 2015

Etaniel wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

OK, you rode a horse from High Rock to Morrowind. And having suffered through that, and I use that word intentionally, do you honestly think that most of the people who play this are going to log back in after getting insta-killed by some Nightblade who feared them? That's 15 minutes of riding for a three second fight. How you can possibly fathom that that is somehow compelling gameplay is beyond me.

You are convinced that won't happen. In your mind, the game will be dynamic, strategic, and unpredictable. I am guessing that is the type of game that you enjoy and would like to see. That's fine, but you are underestimating how much horse-riding and overestimating how much fighting will actually happen under your proposal

You laid out an example where a Red force at Arrius was defending Emperor against a Blue invasion at Aleswell. You got excited about the multiple strategies that could play out under your system. You actually believe this is a serious possibility: "EP thinks DC is headed for Ash and gambles to head there and wipe them. But DC is making a direct Eastward march and get a lot of ground while EP went the long and wrong way. Whoops." And called it "epic fun"

No and no. Do you honestly think a Red defending force will ride their horses from Arrius to BRK past Sejanus across the Alessia Bridge to Alessia proper then cut across AD territory to Roe then to Nickel and finally to Ash to defend their Emperor? This tells me that even though you claim to have grouped before that you do not understand the psychology of most players. Most people, and that includes these guilds,are just looking for good fights. They don't want to play army general and devise grand strategy to outmaneuver the enemy, they just want some intense action vs organized opposition. Occasionally you'll see the sort of surprise attack with the specific purpose of dethroning as happened to Anon and when AD took out Hovaling. But we grinded all those levels, gear, champion points, etc. to PvP, not PvDoor. When you see on your screen enemy players constantly pick up and drop scrolls, they are not doing it to annoy you. It's an open invitation that says "We are here. We don't care about taking your keeps or scrolls, we just want to pick a fight."

A lot of us don't want to spend half of our time debating in zone chat with people on our ignore list listening to their lewd self-serving utterings, we just want to go where there are some crossed swords. In your posts you claim those crossed swords are hard to find. No they are not. The campaigns are so in flux now with so many AD and DC players migrating and jumping from campaign to campaign desperately trying to avoid Thornblade 2.0, that it's hard to avoid fights if you aren't a Red.

No matter how you slice it, you idea is a *lot* less PvPing and a *lot* more horse riding.

Also consider the sort of PvP your proposal would eliminate. A few nights ago on was on my yellow at BRK which was the last Emperor keep. There were about 10 us there while most of the other AD tried to take back Alessia. About 8 or 9 reds started poking their noses around the north gate. So we jumped down and fought them. It was fun. When it was over, a few minutes later they came back with a bit more numbers and we had at it again. It was completely random with no alliance politics going on. This would have not happened under your proposal. The closest spawn point for those who died jumping off the walls was Bloodmayne [!] which means an unacceptably long horse-ride back. So instead of having some fun and jumping off, people will set up fire trebuchets. It's a game. I don't want to carry the burden of an alliance Emperor or some intricate grand strategy that I can mess up by simply fighting an enemy. It's already not fun to die or lose, why must I ride my horse 10 minutes back when the enemy has done nothing. At least make them set up siege and earn the rez restriction. People say there should be a penalty for dying. Fine, but that penalty should not be boredom.

Look at his proposition again but this time allowing travel to all home keeps and outposts as well. That long arrius-ash walk becomes bleakers-ash which isn't that far a ride tbh. Because i'm assuming if reds are defending emp at ash it means they have outposts like bleakers under control. the only time when riding truly becomes longer is when attacking/defending outer keeps like dc/brindle/drakelowe or home gates. That sounds perfectly reasonable to me. This wouldn't slow down movement to defend home keeps and it wouldn't even slow emp keep defense that much.

I understand what sort of strategic environment the OP is trying to accomplish. I have spent my entire life playing games of grand strategy and army movement. They are eminently enjoyable. But's that's not why I log in. You are right, going from Bleakers to Aleswell to Ash is reasonable and not a lot to ask. However:

Riding From Sejanus to Alessia to Roe to Nickel to Ash on horseback, the sort of strategic maneuver the OP had in mind, is not just not fun. In those grand strategy games, there is either a speed up play button or something else to do (e.g. fighting) so you don;t have to suffer the tedium of doing nothing.
When I was at BRK, nobody would have jumped off the walls to fight those Reds because the nearest spawn-point was Bloodmayne. Your addendum to the OP's proposal is still removing the sort of small scale spontaneous PvP we desperately want and need in this game.
Attackers still do not have to do a single thing to deny transit to the enemy except just show up. They don't have to flank, flag keeps, or take resources.
Somebody has to be first of the Reds to try and breach the yellow defenses at the gates of Altadoon and in the Temple. Call me selfish, call me a coward, call me whatever you want, there is ZERO chance I will *ever* be amongst those who are in the front lines and the first wave to try and breach the defenses because there is no way I am going to suffer the bordom of having to ride from Sejanus all the way back there which no matter how you slice is is an unacceptable price to die from a random OP ballista shot fired by some recruit. Contested scroll captures in this game are hard: I have 3 characters who are the rank of Major and I have still never even touched an Elder Scroll . I'll stand on my siege weapon providing long range support and I'll rez you if things go as planned.
Even if I am yellow and "win" by successfully wiping Red at the gates of Altadoon, what then? All those reds are all the way back at Sejanus, which means PvDoor rather than PvP. The OP sounds like they prefer to actually win a campaign rather than fight enemy players. I'd rather just have a good time for a few hours a night and fight players. My excitement for winning ebbed a long time ago when I realized the rewards were trash, nothing in the gameworld changed actually changed for the winners, and so many players had cross faction alts. This doesn't mean I don't like to compete or that I don't have a profound dislike for the Blues when I log on or that I don't enjoy helping my faction take keeps and stuff. It simply means I log in to PvP rather than play Elder Strategy Online.

If this was Beta and the map no so barren - Cyordiil is *very* empty even when populations are locked - then the sorts of drawbacks to the OP proposal would not matter as much. If I die @ BRK, it wouldn't matter where I rezed because with 2000 players on the map at one time (the number the was cited back when the game was launched), there would be something going on nearby me even if it wasn't the fight I was looking for. I'd be willing to jump off the walls and fight those nosey Reds. However those halcyon days are gone. The map is so big and so sparsely populated without the current rez/transit system the time between decent fight would be insufferably long.

I don't think the people who have raised objections to the OP's proposal are faulting it because it doesn't have the merit of adding more grand strategy or the sort of realsitic logistical supply lines that matter in actual war. This is not in dispute. We are saying that we'd rather just go out and have a good fight first and not have to worry about carrying the burden of a grand strategy or getting ganked and spending the next 10 minutes riding a horse.

Brizz · May 2015

Excellent Idea. It would make over-extending harder and defending easier. The only thing I would change is that players should be allowed to travel and res at home keeps as shown on this map.

ps Couldn't find a map of Cyrodiil with all alliances owning their home keeps so I improvised with paint. :P

m12d12_ESO · May 2015

olemanwinter wrote: »

PvP right now is a mess. It's not truly fun for even many of the people that play it often. I think I may have stumbled onto a very simply tweak that would have a great impact on several fronts.

I'd like to begin with what I think open world PvP should be; ...

Thank you for posting this and I agree with you.

Rune_Relic · May 2015

Etaniel wrote: »

Rune_Relic wrote: »

OP
I see and understand most of what you are saying.
Problems are as noted..
1. Spies in zone chat.
2. Horsegame

That said I do agree that instant teleporting across the map makes any ground taken/lost meaningless.
Especially when larger guilds can just port to map and wipe it in 30 minutes chain keep jumping.

As you bought up real life....supply lines have always been the limiting factor of any wars distance from origin.
I would therefore prefer the ability to take a keeps mine/farm/lumber resources half way along a chain of keeps, destroy the supply line, all keeps beyond that point then become neutral with old empire guards.
Obviously the deeper into enemy territory you try to break the chain of keeps the stiffer the resistance and higher numbers you face.
Adding neutral keeps would also have a major impact on scoring.

This way protecting your resources becomes a priority and more important than protecting keeps.
You MUST have scouts to watch resources.
Open warfare becomes more important protecting resources (but you cant be everywhere at once)
Small rapid teams can take out resources (and can be all over the map).
Large slow teams can take out keeps or consolidate ground taken.
Strategy becomes much more important if your numbers are too thin and supply line too long to protect.... you risk losing the lot.
This also means small man teams can have a massive impact on the map using well planned strategies deep into enemy lines.

Need a lot of thought is this would have a massive change on any campaign.

or instead of making keeps neutral if you cut the transit, just make it impossible to rez there, but still possible to travel? So defenders would just have to get the ressources back before going back to defend

If you can still port to those keeps you have accomplished nothing. Troop movement is instant with unlimited range. Even if you cant rez old bodies you can still send more new bodies instead.
So the impact of having small gank squads hitting resoruces deep in enemy territory loses out heavily on the pain vs gain scale. You are horseriding all that distance to effectively accomplish little to nothing. You would be little more than an annoying fly in the greater scheme of things.

If those small group can take a link keeps resources and destroy the chain...that is a major paradigm shift on gameplay in cyrodiil. It encourages small rapid attack forces (non zerg stealth squads with scouts) and makes resources much more meaningful in the process. In fact it makes resource supply train critical to the war effort. As it should be IMHO.

BUT..and this is the most important bit. The key to protecting those resources is being local.....hence you still want the keep as a base to mount a defense of those resources. So any rapid attack squads has to hit har fast and multiple sites at once. Meaning the defence has to come out and fight if they want to protect the supply chain. This means all the defenders have to split up if all resources are being attacked at the same time (which is the logical thing to do). Hopefully this will break up the zerg train by default.

So what I expect is...
1. Much slower colour changes on the map.
2. A lot of neutral keeps and resources that encourage new players to try there luck rather than face the wrath of a defending faction
3. Much tighter defence of faction areas with many small scale skirmishes all over the map.
4. Its much much harder to gain scrolls and emperor making the sense of accomplishment much more rewarding rather than MEH.
5. The massive zerg on zerg keep battles are reduced, as the focus is shifted from large scale keep battles to small scale resource battles.
6. No more buff servers....as a small team can wipe out all the keeps and resources in a few minutes if they hit the chain deep in enemy territory with no resistance.

olemanwinter · May 2015

Joy_Division wrote: »

No matter how you slice it, you idea is a *lot* less PvPing and a *lot* more horse riding.

Nonsense. Perhaps compared to PvP at it's best...but NOT compared to current PvP at it's most frequent.

Go log onto Azura Star today. Yellow owns everything. Every keep, every outpost, and every resource.

Its not a question of a where the battle is, or if the battle is better or worse. There IS NO BATTLE.

You cannot possibly engineer less PvP than is going on in some of these zones. You cannot go lower than zero.

olemanwinter · May 2015

Joy_Division wrote: »

We are saying that we'd rather just go out and have a good fight first

I agree completely. Please direct me to said fight. I'm a DC player on Azura's Star. From approximately 11:00am EST to 6:00pm EST today AD controlled every keep, every outpost, every resource, every scroll, and nobody was online. Nobody.

I guess I'm supposed to constantly hop around from campaign to campaign looking for a chance at ideal PvP that is perhaps better than my plan, when 90% of the PvP in ESO is far far worse than my plan and would benefit greatly from it imo.

IMHO, if any of the people commenting on my plan are comparing it to their PvP experience gained by moving across campaigns chasing competition, then that is an unfair scrutiny. Their opinions carry a bit less weight in my view when they are largely avoiding the situation I'm trying to remedy.

olemanwinter · May 2015

Brizz wrote: »

Excellent Idea. It would make over-extending harder and defending easier. The only thing I would change is that players should be allowed to travel and res at home keeps as shown on this map.

Okay, working off your premise, but a little more restrictive, I wouldn't mind seeing something like this:

REFERENCE:

Solid Line: Rez and Port
Dashed Line: Port only
No line: No revive and No transport

ToRelax · May 2015

olemanwinter wrote: »

Brizz wrote: »

Excellent Idea. It would make over-extending harder and defending easier. The only thing I would change is that players should be allowed to travel and res at home keeps as shown on this map.

Okay, working off your premise, but a little more restrictive, I wouldn't mind seeing something like this:

REFERENCE:

Solid Line: Rez and Port
Dashed Line: Port only
No line: No revive and No transport

Not allowing rez in the outer keeps will only make you look longer at the loading screen.
Taking the fasttravel from Outposts kinda defeats their purpose.
Letting people take away the rez at one faction's imperial keeps by taking the cross way keep makes cross way keeps more important than they already are. You would either end up PvDooring them and having a short fight against a faction that can not respawn at their imperial keeps, or a large lag fight with many players involved over the cross faction keep. Both don't sound very interesting.