we need one campaign with 1 rule . grps cant be bigger than 4 players, that might encourage more players to stop zerg blobbing and just following the crown like a headless chicken.

I very strongly dislike this idea.

It is just promoting zerging. I agree that the map would be much more static and taking enemy home keeps would be harder. But no-one would ride from Roe to Aleswell to defend (would be too late anyway). So we would just see more mindless zerging between Alessia and BRK.

PvP is crap / dead and the devs aren't doing anything to address the issues so ESO will die I feel!

olemanwinter wrote: »

sadownik wrote: »

Forward camps are long gone - it supposed to solve all that problems you mentioned - ofc it didnt. It caters to high lvl expirienced players, but scares away new players or makes pvp for them quite frustratiing. Now you want to take another step on that road. Fine by me but consequences will be - even more reasons to group up in huge zergs, even less freindly for new players.

If you want pvp in eso to turn into elite gentlemans (and ladies) club go ahead.

How do you think a new player feels when they log on and find every keep, every outpost, every resource, and every scroll controlled by an alliance other then theirs?

How do you think they feel when they and maybe 6 of their friends ride to one of these things and siege it only to be attacked by 3 times their number 90 seconds after it bursts?

A bunch of campaigns are empty. I'm talking EMPTY. You can't buy a fight of any kind. And you are talking about catering to specific players.

I'm talking about doing something other than making PvP obsolete and nothing but permanent buff servers.

But thanks for your input.

It does not even have to be new players, I log in see my home completely owned by any faction including my own, I know unless things change there is no advancement for me, no battles, and the most important thing to me there will be no fun so I look around for other campaign's to guest in just to try to at least get the kill 20 done, but I am starting to find my self spending less time in pvp as time goes by, I hope once these consoles get released, ZOS starts some wheels rolling again.

olemanwinter wrote: »

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.

Yes. That's what we are all doing right now ever since people quit Thorn and are desperately trying to avoid Thorn 2.0. One week is is Chillrend. Next it is AZ. Soon it will be Haderus. That's is what has made the PvP campaign so unstable. Not because transit makes campaigns too easy to defend - that's just wrong, buff servers are easy to invade and the defenders only "win" because the invaders log off - it is because many yellows and blues don't want to deal with the Red Zergs that they believe is causing so much lag.

I'm not sure what action you are expecting from a server with all factions at one bar at lunchtime, but I can assure you the cutting transitus is a great way to get no actions. I used to be homed on those old buff servers and I can tell you the only way to get decent action on them is if every single one of the 30 people on the entire server congregate to one spot (The Farragut Keep lumbermill was the most popular on old Chillrend), so when a DC died they could rez at the keep and when a Red died, they could ride from the Gate.

During the time that you play, there is only one server that has an appreciable amount of people on it. Right now, I think it is Chillrend. The dozen AD on AZ during lunchtime do not want to fight you; they are grinding their toons, getting skyshards, or farming gear.

olemanwinter wrote: »

Sacadon wrote: »

Zone chat coordination or lack thereof is much about lack of trust and spies. So serious coordination may remain as tells between those trusted and zone chat left to counter-intelligence.

You have a good point here, and one I had already thought of. I tried to be careful in my language, but I didn't want to get into examples in the main post. But I will now.

I don't mean sharing strategy in zone chat. I don't mean posting things like "We are prepping Chalman now, bursting in 2 min". I understand why that won't happen in most cases and I agree.

What I mean is when a group/guild is sitting at Roebeck and watching siege get placed and watching it come under attack and saying nothing in zone. And when it finally bursts, someone might ask in zone "What's the status at Roebeck" and get no reply.

I haven't seen an advanced warning go out in chat about an impending attack PRIOR to burst in ages.

Keep gets attacked. Those there stay hushed to farm AP. Keep bursts. Someone else in zone not at keep alerts the zone. People rush towards keep as it flips.

The groups in Cyrodiil need a reason to call on support (different than sharing strategy and different than giving orders) that is bigger than their reason to avoid help to farm AP imo.

we agree then... yeah it's been a while since this level of interaction has happened consistently in zone chat.

Joy_Division wrote: »

buff servers are easy to invade and the defenders only "win" because the invaders log off

Only with a large group. That's why people saying this will lead to more zerging are wrong. Because a 3-letter zerg guild (insert any) "type ABC, XYZ, PPQ in chat" is the only thing that ever briefly changes these campaigns in question.

It's pretty funny because you can clearly see from these replies who:

In in control of their campaign and likes it just the way it...

Hops constantly from campaign to campaign to find decent PvP and is comparing my plan to the little tiny "glimmer of real PvP" they are chasing...

and...

those of us that picked campaign and stay with it to fight it out.

olemanwinter wrote: »

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?

I more or less agree with everything @Joy_Division has said in addition to what I have already said in this thread, but I felt compelled to reply to your post in any case simply to point out how very wrong you are.

First and foremost they aren't making changes because they are busy with the console release. They've more or less admitted that, so it has nothing to do with the community "agreeing" on things. They've demonstrated this past year that they care very little about what the community thinks and if they do respond to feedback by fixing / implementing something in game this response is often very lacklustre and is a gimped version of community suggestions in any case. This is an MMO - the community will never 100% agree on everything. Hell, there are even people that disagree entirely that there are problems with PvP at the moment!

In regard to your comment about what I propose as changes, you can go here:

http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/165195/a-critical-discussion-on-the-current-state-of-pvp-and-suggestions-for-improvement-lengthy-thread/p1

http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/168112/barrier-needs-a-nerf/p1

http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/168729/please-remove-pvp-buffs-in-pve-already/p1

You will see from my posts that I want changes implemented that spread people out and increase the number of fights on the map. As I have already indicated, I think your change would have the opposite effect.

olemanwinter wrote: »

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.

[/quote]

The existence of buff campaigns is an issue, but why not just remove buffs in PvE and start to implement changes that discourage zerging, meaning that one group can't just roflstamp the entire map?

olemanwinter wrote: »

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.

[/quote]

This comment is more or less the only reason I am spending the time replying to your post, because I have more or less already made my points. I can say categorically that I do not enjoy it when my alliance owns an entire map. You can see from the thread I linked above about PvE buffs that it actually annoys me very much, because it can destroy an otherwise competitive campaign.

On the flip side though I find campaigns that are either entirely blue or entirely red quite enjoyable. The challenge of dealing with the hordes of buff campaign defenders can be immensely enjoyable with the right group. I think you're wrong about not being able to find fights on these campaigns, you just need to be with the right group and target the right places.

olemanwinter wrote: »

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.

You can't engineer more riding for someone who chooses to play on a campaign that is entirely one colour, no. However if I am alone then my reaction to that would simply be to not play on that campaign. I know that's what you're trying to avoid, but I think this can be avoided in other ways (remove PvP buffs in PvE...) rather than penalising us that don't want to spend all of or time riding.

I'd also refer you to my above point. Find yourself a decent guild / group and take on those 40 people who insta-port... My guild do it often and it can be an awful lot of fun.

olemanwinter wrote: »

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".

My apologies, I think I was a little unclear. Let's say I am AD on a DC buff server, I don't have far to ride to BB / BM and Faregyl but the blues can't travel to me and so they won't bother coming. For you that's a good thing, because it means it makes it a lot harder for blues to come and defend those keeps and control the map. I do understand your point here, but for me it means that I have to PvDoor my way up the map until the blues start responding. This is not fun for me! At least now I can ride a short while and start sieging a keep close to my gates to start getting a response.

olemanwinter wrote: »

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"

I am not part of the nightcapping push but I do sometimes log on early. My problem remains a valid one.

olemanwinter wrote: »

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.

[/quote]

This "super-zerg" you talk of does not form up intentionally half the time, it forms because
a) people seek safety in numbers
b) the removal of forward camps reduced mobility on the map.

Under your proposal everyone would simply PvDoor the keeps they can travel to and then ride endlessly in one direction until zerg meets zerg somewhere in the middle. One side will wipe and get annoyed and eventually leave, the other side remain and wipe the map one colour because that is the only thing left to do.

olemanwinter wrote: »

The first link I clicked on took me to one of your posts than in the very sentence told me to go to another post.

LOL NO.

But, if you think things like Barrier being nerfed are going to fix pvp...I don't even know where to begin to get you on the same page as me.

Not sure what you're talking about but there you go. I don't think nerfing barrier is going to fix PvP but I do think it will go some way to stopping trains. In any event the reason I posted those links was to demonstrate that I have made suggestions that I think will improve PvP, which contradicts your obvious insinuation that I did not.

olemanwinter wrote: »

Garion wrote: »

Not sure what you're talking about but there you go. I don't think nerfing barrier is going to fix PvP but I do think it will go some way to stopping trains. In any event the reason I posted those links was to demonstrate that I have made suggestions that I think will improve PvP, which contradicts your obvious insinuation that I did not.

Obvious Insinuation huh?

Is that like a specific generalization? Or maybe like a regular anomaly? Or perhaps a vague detail?


I simply asked....what do you suggest?

And that looks like a really fun treasure hunt across the history of the forum to track down all your opinions. I'll get right on that. BRB

Someone seems sad that they lost an argument