Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Being emperor was designed to be special and a great achievement. Having former emperor buffs was a terrible idea from the outset. Why would you have residual powers from emperorship? You aren't emperor anymore. Removing these ridiculous buffs restores the true meaning of the title of emperor. All the players that no longer have an incentive to become emperor because there aren't any buffs to chase, good, don't invest time in chasing emperor title if you don't feel like it..

Well Prophet wasn't emperor anymore, but he still had his "emperor powers".. So why players should not have this powers as former emperors?

One question to zos developer. If i got multiple faction toons , for example : Can my EP and AD toon be home/guest on same campaign or it will said (Opposite faction toon blah blah blah) ?

Instead of outright removing the former emp buff, they should change it instead. Make it "veteran player" buff, so if youre say at alliance rank 30 and above you get this passive. That way, those that loose it, may still keep it if they are high enough rank, and those that dont, may have a way to reclaim it. Would be harder to get it that way then emperor anyway.

Ffastyl wrote: »

Xiphyla wrote: »

One question to zos developer. If i got multiple faction toons , for example : Can my EP and AD toon be home/guest on same campaign or it will said (Opposite faction toon blah blah blah) ?

Characters of opposing factions cannot home on the same campaign. You can guest to a campaign an enemy character has homed as a workaround.

There are three "Veteran" campaigns right now so there is enough for each character to home a campaign. Any less and players who play all three factions will find one or more characters unable to home any campaign.

I want to be able to play on the same campaign that my both faction toon are on

vanzan wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

We have no plans for Battlegrounds or Arenas at this time with "flag matches" or death-match mechanics, however our play-tests of a certain zone that resides in the center of Cyrodiil has scratched a very specific itch...

"zone" so this is going to be an instance? An instance where all campaigns are brought together in a battle royal?

@vanzan He's talking about Imperial City.

Quantine wrote: »

I don't like this change, but I don't think it's sooo critical to my game experience as is the change of Travel-to-player jumps. Honestly, the lag will continue to be a problem, as well as big zergs of 50+ players running under the same leader. When those show up, lagging out everybody, the game just becomes ridiculous. Then, I would rather switch to a different campaign of my choice than stay there and be a passive observer of the lag fest. If you steal that option from us, ZOS, I will just log off

Travel to Player is how those 50+ zergs get around to lag out your campaigns.

frozywozy wrote: »

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

@frozywozy , this will provide minimal reduction of Gate Farming, though. Whether you rez and ride or get rez'd by your fellow man, it will only lessen it for the smaller ganking crews.

I do potentially like the idea of timed death penalties, but I feel they should also take into account the odds when you die. If you take a rez penalty (multiple times) because a certain faction zerg 20:1'd you, it supports this behavior, not discourages it.

If you own the keep, you own the keep. Does that put the faction on the inside of the gate at a disadvantage? Sure. It's incentive to not lose Gate keeps and more incentive to gain them back.

If you really want to make Gate Farming less viable or give the underdog an advantage, I've a couple suggetions:

1. Make the NPC's worth a damn. They should target based on local actions and they should heal their allies (this includes PC's, not just NPC's) How many times have you died beside an NPC healer or watched them stand there looking stupid with a 10v10 not 50' away?
2. Make defenses increase the longer a nearby battle takes place. Defenses being the key word here. It could include things like:
   • Increasing waves of not-so-tethered NPC's that actually go out to the fight.
   • NPC's manning counter-seige
   • NPC's setting other traps or even calling reinforcements from other parts of the map.
   These would all make prolonged fights more precarious for the offender and help even the odds for the side having difficulty.

Attorneyatlawl wrote: »

You know what would help encourage people who like both pve and pvp to come out more?

EXP gain comparable to pve grinding on average, worse if action is slow or you fail a lot, better if action is heavy or you are kicking butt in Cyrodiil.

Champion Ranks are a big deal, and earning one fifth or less at best of what typical, easy, and always available pve grind spots provide with no risk of earning less by being beaten, prove much more attractive to most people unless they hate pve or hate pvp. Yes, action in pvp is spikey by nature, but that's why you balance it by an average, not a hard goal target. So long as it's close one way or another, the majority of people who enjoy both gameplay types will show up much more often than now where you feel as if you're handicapping yourself by not just earning good CP.

Pve'rs don't come out for buffs, not consistently. And the only ones that cared about the buffs were the top end, a small number by nature of us in the first place. (I love both pve and pvp, personally... I've slacked off pvp'ing lately but am about to be back out in force. The horrifyingly slow champion gains out there are a real issue, though.) The majority of the game population otherwise either doesn't care, or in many cases even know, about those buffs in the first place.

That aside, I am glad to see these pain points finally being addressed properly. Now if we can just get our deathspam chat channel back, pretty please? That was in beta just like DAOC had and was awesome here, too!

@Attorneyatlawl like a streak bonus? (The "kill" kind...calm down NerfSorc types.) I'd like to see this sort of thing reward group play and defense (even small ones) a bit more than the gankfest bonus I would be worried it would become - further enhancing the Delve camping that already takes place.

You are correct, though. While you can technically get a cool million five (Enlightened) if you do all 50 PvE hub quests each day, the travel time on those make the rewards diminish quickly. I think there are a ton more small group/large group PvP quest objectives they could add here.

I'd like to see bigger/better rewards for reconnaissance and scouting, perhaps with its own set of skills and feedback on Alliance maps, slowly emanating out from the point of origin showing things like observed enemy player density, etc. Presently, intel is rewarded by almost always being in the wrong place to get the ticks. I'd also like to be able to see some time-lapsed population density of your own Alliance. This way you could see where the numbers were without providing RT feedback for Alliance spies.

I'd like to see the active players in a campaign affect the end goal more and those PvEing or delve camping, etc have less of an effect, promoting the Alliance goal vice the personal one. This one could be tricky though. How many times has a campaign shown pop-locked yet all hell was breaking lose with no one to be found? (I've nothing against PVEing in Cyro, it's an adventure in its own right, but it would not be hard to have a global adjustment of some sort for anyone that had not engaged in PvP related something in a certain amount of time. This should be measured by actual PvP conflict or longer term (seconds to minutes) attack/capture of resources, etc, to prevent someone from simply light-attacking a resource once every 30 minutes.)

I, too, have done a mix of both PvE and PvP. I know historically, it was frustrating to jump in, help your Alliance advance (and/or get the buffs), leave for X number of minutes/hours to find they'd already been chipped away.

I realize this is partly the nature of the beast, but had they made them timed buffs, say, an hour once you got it with the timer resetting as long as it was maintained, then you wouldn't have had as much worry about losing it 90 seconds after your loadscreen finally cleared. (For the record, I never went there to acquire buffs, I went there to experience that side of the game.)

I'd like to see supply lines actually be supply lines, and not just the three immediately surrounding a keep. Armed caravans would add a dynamic and a targetting opportunity.

Last thing: Spies: They're out there. They're gonna be out there.

Reward them.

Not the make an Alt in the other Alliance and lead everyone to their death variety, but rather properly implement espionage - give them a skill line (with detection counters, of course) and allow them to infiltrate, offer counterintelligence, and honorable sabotage from within. (Under penalty of death, of course, if discovered by the appropriate faction.)

It would be a stealth / RP delight that would open up even more playstyle possibilities and further breathe new life into Cyrodiil. They're headed the right direction, but there is still so much more that could be added.

There is still much potential. I'm interested to see where it goes.

Ffastyl wrote: »

Quantine wrote: »

I don't like this change, but I don't think it's sooo critical to my game experience as is the change of Travel-to-player jumps. Honestly, the lag will continue to be a problem, as well as big zergs of 50+ players running under the same leader. When those show up, lagging out everybody, the game just becomes ridiculous. Then, I would rather switch to a different campaign of my choice than stay there and be a passive observer of the lag fest. If you steal that option from us, ZOS, I will just log off

Travel to Player is how those 50+ zergs get around to lag out your campaigns.

Hm, I don't think so really. People who like to run with 50+ groups will continue to do so, no matter if they are locked on 2 possible campaigns or not! It's fairly easy to get 50+ people, it's one guild group+second one filled with zone people. Add to this the usual lfg-raid that follows them and you easily can have 60+ people on the same spot...without campaign hopping.

I feel like the problem is mainly created by very big guilds that are usually accepting next to everyone without quality-policy within their ranks (don't mean to offend anyone). So, many people run around with strange gear combinations, use "wrong" morphs of skills, don't notice when they are stunned and usually die on impact with another group. So, said guild needs more numbers to win. A second and a third group opens... lag-fest begins

These types of guilds/groups are maybe PvE minded guilds who don't really know better or care to know better or simply guilds who care more about winning the battles on every price than about optimising individual's and group's performance or about tactics. Those guilds don't randomly swap campaigns and even if they do, they will continue to try to get those numbers because that's the only way they can win -.-

Getting 50+players to lag out a server is not a problem for big guilds, you don't need to campaign-hop to achieve that. Hence, removing campaign-hopping won't change this behaviour, but will punish people who REFUSE to be a part of it and DON'T WANT to lag out the server, but play the game as it is supposed to be played - on a non-laggy campaign.

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Being emperor was designed to be special and a great achievement. Having former emperor buffs was a terrible idea from the outset. Why would you have residual powers from emperorship? You aren't emperor anymore. Removing these ridiculous buffs restores the true meaning of the title of emperor. All the players that no longer have an incentive to become emperor because there aren't any buffs to chase, good, don't invest time in chasing emperor title if you don't feel like it.

The new system has a good chance of cultivating true emperors that will fight hard to make it and will fight hard alongside their alliance in order to stay emperor (if they really care about having emperor powers).

I can understand certain players with the buffs feel annoyed, but by taking away the buffs are you worse off really? A lot of you argue the buffs are insignificant and that ZOS should keep them. So if they are insignificant and ZOS takes them away what's all the uproar about?

You can argue that the change maybe won't stop "emp farming" (no one has a crystal ball). What I think no one on either side of the aisle can argue is that being emperor was intended to be the single greatest warrior in cyrodiil. Unique and all powerful. So why all these half/mini emperors running around with former emp buffs?

I will repeat myself, former emp buffs were a mistake since the idea was hatched in development. Counterintuitive to what being emperor is all about (when you can walk away with residual powers). But I do know ZOS included the buffs with good intentions for the game and players. But we know how things ended up and change is needed.

To some of the points you listed- Most of the posts that are disavowing the former emp buffs are from players who also seem to think it is not worth pursuing. (did not pursue and will never pursue) In your own post you seem to elude to this, not to mention it is also followed by saying 'not significant' as to the buffs- This is not what I see posted in this thread. I see players who support the idea of not having the buffs saying they are not significant and it seems to me those who do have them (not all) seem to support keeping them and are asking ZOS_BrianWheeler to answer basic questions regarding taking them from players.

How will taking away the buff stop emp trading? What is the removal of buff intended to do for the game? His answer so far is it will stop CP grinding in PvE areas....laughable really and not so funny if the reason why isn't obvious to someone. Going with this logic apparently the fix for exploiters in the game will be to address animations. Nirnhorned will be fixed with taking 140,000 gold from all accounts, the issues with fear will be fixed by making your screen go black . See how that makes perfect sense? Don't fix the actual issue, take something loosely related and hope that enough support it and never stop to ask "how does that fix it?".

Why residual powers? Because it is extremely difficult to get and there should be a reward associated with it beyond a title or color. If you have a reward for something that requires a lot of effort to get- you don't just take it away after someone invests the time to get it.

Think of it this way, if they took away all rare loot drops from the PvE dungeons, do you think the players would still put the effort into the tougher more lengthy ones just for the 'content' of those beyond one run? Now extrapolate that to what it would do for the players who do that content- do you think they will gain players or loose players over that? Now take it one step further, suggest you simply take all rare drop items from everyone's account. Maybe some players think that is a good idea too.....personally I don't see how anyone could support taking something away to 'fix' a flawed game function-

If I could make a suggestion, take this thread and start by seeing what posters have the buffs and achievement you are thinking of taking away, then take the number of hours played by those people and compare that to those who still subscribe and financially support the game- That would take all of 20 minutes to do. Read those posts and consider how this decision may play out. If you think it is a good idea and will help the game, by all means hit that button and don't look back.....

Enodoc wrote: »

Lord_Draevan wrote: »

Been away for a few months and I've got to say, these look like really good changes. Have these changes been implemented yet, or are they still in the works?

They are due with the next major update, details of which will go out in July.

Darn, hoped they'd be out now. Thanks.

Crown wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

We know that Emperor Farming, or more accurately Former Emp Farming, is a behavior that was\is detrimental to the health of PVP. We are doing this change to get back to the original intent of Emperorship where that PVP player is a powerful ally for their Alliance while fighting in Cyrodiil, not because they have a Former Emperor 2% buff to help with grinding.

@ZOS_BrianWheeler I've still not heard justification how removing the Former Emperor buff will change peoples' attitudes and activities in PvP. A number of my peers have doctorates in psychology or sociology (my PH.D. is in a related field) and player attitude is something we often discuss. The only thing you'll be doing is placating the people who have not had and never will have the Former Emperor title such that they won't feel inferior. 2% to stats will not significantly affect a person's likelihood to win or lose in a fight. You've already stated how you're removing PvP buffs outside Cyrodill (which I agree with), so let the Former Emperors have a character effect/buff only within Cyrodiil.

If grinding with 2% extra resource regeneration is a big concern to you, then change delves such that they are outside of PvP - problem solved. Emperors who are bored tend to head into Cracked Wood cave to grind champion points already.

If you have a study on MMO player behaviour (two of my colleagues are working on their theses {plural of thesis - I had to look that up} in this particular field) that supports your intended activity, then we would love to read it. If not, we strongly believe that you will not accomplish anything other than to upset the top tier of players who worked very hard for their Former Emperor status.

If 2% is not a big deal you wont miss it.
But I guess if it wasn't a big deal none of you would be complaining.
So you have admitted it is a big deal from the ferocity of the feedback.
Thou doth protesteth too much!

If 2% is a big deal it needs to go as it creates an uneven playing field.
Only emperors were supposed to receive such buffs.

So either way it needs to go.

Ffastyl wrote: »

Quantine wrote: »

I don't like this change, but I don't think it's sooo critical to my game experience as is the change of Travel-to-player jumps. Honestly, the lag will continue to be a problem, as well as big zergs of 50+ players running under the same leader. When those show up, lagging out everybody, the game just becomes ridiculous. Then, I would rather switch to a different campaign of my choice than stay there and be a passive observer of the lag fest. If you steal that option from us, ZOS, I will just log off

Travel to Player is how those 50+ zergs get around to lag out your campaigns.

Quantine wrote: »

Ffastyl wrote: »

Quantine wrote: »

I don't like this change, but I don't think it's sooo critical to my game experience as is the change of Travel-to-player jumps. Honestly, the lag will continue to be a problem, as well as big zergs of 50+ players running under the same leader. When those show up, lagging out everybody, the game just becomes ridiculous. Then, I would rather switch to a different campaign of my choice than stay there and be a passive observer of the lag fest. If you steal that option from us, ZOS, I will just log off

Travel to Player is how those 50+ zergs get around to lag out your campaigns.

Hm, I don't think so really. People who like to run with 50+ groups will continue to do so, no matter if they are locked on 2 possible campaigns or not! It's fairly easy to get 50+ people, it's one guild group+second one filled with zone people. Add to this the usual lfg-raid that follows them and you easily can have 60+ people on the same spot...without campaign hopping.

I feel like the problem is mainly created by very big guilds that are usually accepting next to everyone without quality-policy within their ranks (don't mean to offend anyone). So, many people run around with strange gear combinations, use "wrong" morphs of skills, don't notice when they are stunned and usually die on impact with another group. So, said guild needs more numbers to win. A second and a third group opens... lag-fest begins

These types of guilds/groups are maybe PvE minded guilds who don't really know better or care to know better or simply guilds who care more about winning the battles on every price than about optimising individual's and group's performance or about tactics. Those guilds don't randomly swap campaigns and even if they do, they will continue to try to get those numbers because that's the only way they can win -.-

Getting 50+players to lag out a server is not a problem for big guilds, you don't need to campaign-hop to achieve that. Hence, removing campaign-hopping won't change this behaviour, but will punish people who REFUSE to be a part of it and DON'T WANT to lag out the server, but play the game as it is supposed to be played - on a non-laggy campaign.

.

Rune_Relic wrote: »

Crown wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

We know that Emperor Farming, or more accurately Former Emp Farming, is a behavior that was\is detrimental to the health of PVP. We are doing this change to get back to the original intent of Emperorship where that PVP player is a powerful ally for their Alliance while fighting in Cyrodiil, not because they have a Former Emperor 2% buff to help with grinding.

@ZOS_BrianWheeler I've still not heard justification how removing the Former Emperor buff will change peoples' attitudes and activities in PvP. A number of my peers have doctorates in psychology or sociology (my PH.D. is in a related field) and player attitude is something we often discuss. The only thing you'll be doing is placating the people who have not had and never will have the Former Emperor title such that they won't feel inferior. 2% to stats will not significantly affect a person's likelihood to win or lose in a fight. You've already stated how you're removing PvP buffs outside Cyrodill (which I agree with), so let the Former Emperors have a character effect/buff only within Cyrodiil.

If grinding with 2% extra resource regeneration is a big concern to you, then change delves such that they are outside of PvP - problem solved. Emperors who are bored tend to head into Cracked Wood cave to grind champion points already.

If you have a study on MMO player behaviour (two of my colleagues are working on their theses {plural of thesis - I had to look that up} in this particular field) that supports your intended activity, then we would love to read it. If not, we strongly believe that you will not accomplish anything other than to upset the top tier of players who worked very hard for their Former Emperor status.

If 2% is not a big deal you wont miss it.
But I guess if it wasn't a big deal none of you would be complaining.
So you have admitted it is a big deal from the ferocity of the feedback.
Thou doth protesteth too much!

If 2% is a big deal it needs to go as it creates an uneven playing field.
Only emperors were supposed to receive such buffs.

So either way it needs to go.

option 3: its a nice bonus although balanced, so it helps the one who has it a bit but is by far not enough to turn a fight. And thats what it is.