"What are these PvP buffs you keep speaking of?"

-Every DC Player

@ZOS_BrianWheeler

Have you guys thought about a global limit on how many forward camps can be active at any given moment? Like 2 per alliance for example? (I'd prefer one per alliance) And a cooldown limiting how often they can be deployed?

As for emperor buffs... Would it be doable to let former emperors keep the skill tree they unlocked the tree, but as long as that player is a "former emperor" those passives will remain deactivated? This may help avoid seeing messages like "Emperor Tree Unlocked" whenever that former emperor regains active emperor status.

And how about giving keeps specific roles? Each Alliance has 6 keeps. If half were offensive and the other half defensive, the current holders of the keeps would get a defense (or offense) bonus as long as they are within range of the siege weapons that could be set up. Resources would matter as a supplement to this local buff, making capturing them more important to weakening the defensive as capturing them would weaken the offensive abilities of the keep's defenders.

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Forward camps are still needing some UI tweaks and heavy testing before being brought back and in case anyone needs a refresher, they'd come back with a smaller respawn radius (keep sized), can only respawn within the radius if you die in the radius, and would have a global cooldown on when you can respawn at ANY

Was going to comment on this (the respawn at non-transitus connected keep), but it looks like you already kinda have it under control.

My thinking was that if you died in the relative vicinity, you should be able to rez at any owned keep within that vicinity, so long as:

1. It's actually owned by your faction.
2. It's above 50% health.
3. You died in the immediate area or were already present in the immediate area.

I don't think it's unreasonable to rez at a keep that has not yet been overrun, transitus attached or not. The transitus cutoff, in itself, would prevent bloodporting (you could only get near, not to the keep in question) but it wouldn't completely penalize you if you were already legitimately in the area.

Lets transitus cutoff have value (as it should), lets being in the right place to defend not lose value. Provides no benefit for dying pointlessly.

The other aspect is the travel-to-player issue that some are concerned over. It's argued that people used this to find fights (which may be true to an extent.) With this no longer an option for anyone, the individuals that are also hopping, in efforts to equally try to find you, will no longer be hopping.

Short version: If you're locked into a campaign, you're not leaving it (without incurring major AP cost), so it seems more reasonable that there will be fights available in your own back yard. This should be further helped by the fact that people are going to join similarly goaled campaigns (regarding what provides points).

Granted, it's going to take a few rounds to level out (people trying different campaign styles), but the justification for the need to travel to a friend should cease to be an issue at all.

Realistically, it will be one less item in the trollbox...I mean, toolbox.

Dagoth_Rac wrote: »

"What are these PvP buffs you keep speaking of?"

-Every DC Player ON THE NORTH AMERICAN SERVER

fixed that for you

Emperor Buffs should be a passive everyone can unlock by participating in Cyrodiil.

Make the passives available via Alliance rank.

Make them active when your Alliance is Emperor.

Tie the buffs to a timer for PvE. Every hour of PvP adds 3 hours to your PvE timer.

There are no increments. 1 continuous hour = 3 hours on the timer.

You can no longer add to the timer if your alliance no longer holds Emperor.

Simple.

With that said...thank goodness for the changes. Can't wait to see a new semblance of order. Maybe PvP will become fun again....

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

however our play-tests of a certain zone that resides in the center of Cyrodiil has scratched a very specific itch...

Did someone say itch?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJOriEXf4qY

I would like Emperor buffs to be removed, and on becoming Emperor, you are temporarily bestowed an actual Wabbjack. Turn your enemies into the chickens or other random kitchen utensils that they are.

Merlin13KAGL wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Forward camps are still needing some UI tweaks and heavy testing before being brought back and in case anyone needs a refresher, they'd come back with a smaller respawn radius (keep sized), can only respawn within the radius if you die in the radius, and would have a global cooldown on when you can respawn at ANY

Was going to comment on this (the respawn at non-transitus connected keep), but it looks like you already kinda have it under control.

My thinking was that if you died in the relative vicinity, you should be able to rez at any owned keep within that vicinity, so long as:

1. It's actually owned by your faction.
2. It's above 50% health.
3. You died in the immediate area or were already present in the immediate area.

I don't think it's unreasonable to rez at a keep that has not yet been overrun, transitus attached or not. The transitus cutoff, in itself, would prevent bloodporting (you could only get near, not to the keep in question) but it wouldn't completely penalize you if you were already legitimately in the area.

Lets transitus cutoff have value (as it should), lets being in the right place to defend not lose value. Provides no benefit for dying pointlessly.

The other aspect is the travel-to-player issue that some are concerned over. It's argued that people used this to find fights (which may be true to an extent.) With this no longer an option for anyone, the individuals that are also hopping, in efforts to equally try to find you, will no longer be hopping.

Short version: If you're locked into a campaign, you're not leaving it (without incurring major AP cost), so it seems more reasonable that there will be fights available in your own back yard. This should be further helped by the fact that people are going to join similarly goaled campaigns (regarding what provides points).

Granted, it's going to take a few rounds to level out (people trying different campaign styles), but the justification for the need to travel to a friend should cease to be an issue at all.

Realistically, it will be one less item in the trollbox...I mean, toolbox.

The reason why they wanna make it so you cannot respawn on an enemy home gate keep such as Farragut, Kingscrest, Warden, Rayles, Bloodmayne and Black-boot is to discourage gate farming and give the outnumbered / disorganized faction a better chance to recover and catch up.

Otherwise, people get discouraged pretty quick by the poor act of sportmanship of gate camping and leave to another campaign. Then a new "buff" or "one sided campaign" is made. Such as what happened on Azura's Star 1month and a half ago.

I also understand that killing JohnyEP 10times in a row before reaching the temple is also an issue. This is why I would strongly recommend adding resurrection timers (not only from players but when you actually resurrect at a wayshrine).

For example, it could go like this :

Everytime you die and resurrect at a wayshrine or get resurrected by a player into a period of two minutes :

- First time : instant
- Second time : 15 seconds
- Third time and above : 30 seconds

Enodoc wrote: »

Applying the same importance to an Elder Scroll as to a Resource would basically make capturing Elder Scrolls pointless. In the campaign where Keeps and Scrolls are both worth 0, what's the point in capturing Keeps?

Very little point...... But that's the whole point because the different rule sets are all an experiment into player behavior.

With this one my guess into their thinking would be "If we make it more beneficial for the players to go and capture the 56 resources then they will be spread across the map, in smaller groups, less zerging...... and this should reduce the lag"

And to be honest, it may have a chance of working. Only time will tell.

Makkir wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Just to clarify, you will keep the Emperor Dye and "former emperor" titles.

I did not spend three days with just a couple hours sleep to get dye or titles, I did it for the passives and the satisfaction of achieving it. Working hard to see the inherit gain by dismissing something like this as a 'solution' to anything currently impacting the game play in cyro.

But, I will keep reading the 'supporters' comments to see if I have missed just what this does to help mechanics of the game that have not been addressed over time and led to abuse and exploiting. Much higher on my list of things to do, but maybe that is just me...

All the other changes seem to be directly connected to issues that impact games current state and I can clearly see where you are going with them, great job at listening to some of the concerns with PvP players in the game.

And that is why it's being changed. The whole concept was the Emperor played a critical role for his/her faction (this would ideally be someone who is online a lot and actually contributing to Cyrodiil being AvA type of action...not a min/max'er who is solo farming or repairing walls just to grab a few extra % in stats).

New system will help factions because hopefully Emperor will actually be around long enough to actually contribute to his/her faction. It really sucks when your faction's Emperor is finally crowned then runs off to do 1vX videos or logs out for the night.

Do you have the achievement? The statement "be someone who is online a lot and actually contributing to Cyrodiil being AvA type of action" Sounds to me very much like you don't fully understand how it is accomplished in reading that post, or maybe you just are speaking of those who did not sacrifice countless days of effort to gain it and are speaking from that perspective alone.

When I read this it occurs to me you miss some important points, one man does not take emp on any server. It requires coordinated effort over time to take the keeps and hold them for the alliance in order to be crowned. This is not done by small groups of three or four players but by coordinated attacks and defends of these keeps from much of the alliance pushing for the emp. This requires interaction of many players and can improve the social dynamic built into the game...it isn't the only social communication, but one of the ways interaction in a faction is encouraged and in some cases when the first interactions occur for players. It also means that it is usually not done in an hour or less of playtime- Be prepared to be online in Cyro for an extended period of time, so few casual will see this as an attractive endeavor. But, they will participate as the action picks up on servers meaning more players come online to PvP. In my opinion a good thing.

This in turn brings out coordinated game-play to block the crown of enemy emps (from both factions opposing it) as they add buffs to the faction that has it. This stimulates AvAvA warfare and tactics, not min maxer one man shows. It also creates a dynamic environment that is not exclusive to groups that are large...in fact it becomes gankers paradise as the map is constantly shifting and players are moving all over the map for their small group encounters in open field or at choke points. I dare say small groups benefit dramatically from the influx of players logging in to either block or take emps.

The idea that you read the post, quoted it and then suggest that former emps did nothing for the game environment seems shortsighted to me, or possibly your only experience with this was a emp 'trade' on a server. I assure this is not what many, many players did and for that to loose the buffs that are a nice reminder of that seems to be a dismissal of the effort, time and sacrifice many made to achieve it.

Lets come back full circle now, how does taking the buff away discourage emp trading and server hopping to farm it......I still do not see how that will impact it in a meaningful way, matter of fact- I think it will make the environment apathetic and less likely to do the things that are necessary to successfully do these pushes as someone has to WANT to have the accomplishment in the first place and try to get something going in a faction to get it. A personal goal to justify the effort. For me it was the passives as well as the satisfaction.....not a color or title. In this I might be the minority.

The increased AP cost- now that discourages server hopping, travel to player seems to also be something that would discourage some of the more negative behaviors to me, but sadly I still do not see the pendulum of balance being brought right with dismissing something in my personal experience that impacted the game in a positive way.

As I posted before, just one man and one opinion, but I still read little here that seems to actually show me the gain of dismissing an accomplishment and admittedly small buff in favor of.....just what exactly?