Maintenance for the week of June 17:
• PC/Mac: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – June 17, 4:00AM EDT (8:00 UTC) – 8:00AM EDT (12:00 UTC)
• ESO Store and Account System for maintenance – June 17, 10:00AM EDT (14:00 UTC) – 12:00PM EDT (16:00 UTC)
• Xbox One: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – June 19, 6:00AM EDT (10:00 UTC) – 10:00AM EDT (14:00 UTC)
• PlayStation®4: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – June 19, 6:00AM EDT (10:00 UTC) – 12:00PM EDT (16:00 UTC)

Cyrodiil and the Imperial City - Population and Gating

DeanTheCat
DeanTheCat
✭✭✭✭✭
Hello,

Dean the Cat here. I would like to discuss about the balance of population between the Imperial City and overland Cyrodiil, as well as various gating mechanisms and the reasoning behind why gating is needed.

There is no TL;DR version of this thread. This will be a long read. Please keep discussion within this thread civil, as I feel that the topic I'm discussing is of a "Touchy" nature and I don't want the thread derailed.
cQSG5Xy.jpg
The Imperial City shares its population total with the campaign, thereby creating an innate balance of power in Cyrodiil, by ensuring that the current dominating faction that currently has access to the Imperial City will lose fighters to the Imperial City, thereby allowing the other two factions to have a chance at overthrowing the dominating faction, due to the reduced number of fighters in overland Cyrodiil. This in theory should work out well, but in practice, the current implementation of the Imperial City has failed to achieve the goal, due to free ungated access as well as a lack of a mechanism to force out players back to overland Cyrodiil once access has flipped on gated campaigns.

Let's first take a look at why gating is needed:
ESO is centred around the Three-Banners war, and the Imperial City is the goal in which all alliances are vying for.
dc2332c01217cafdf09874baa10d1c51.jpg
Anyone still remember this bit of artwork? This is what ESO PvP was envisioned to look like.

The Imperial City is an area of high experience mobs and end-game quality loot, rendering a very desirable prize in which to fight for. By allowing Free-For-All access to the Imperial City, this innately devalues the overland Cyrodiil. Overland Cyrodiil has been rendered obsolete on the non-gated campaigns, as there is simply no justification for fighting over keeps and objectives. Why bother fighting for keeps when you can just simply ride towards the Imperial City and start grinding for your gear?

Adding in gated access will give a reason to the battles on the plains of Cyrodiil once again. In addition, winning over access to the Imperial City will ensure a safe haven for your alliance, allowing your alliance to farm the Imperial City unhindered from the interference of enemy alliance fighters. This allows the more... mechanically-challenged fighters to have a chance to obtain their gear in relative safety, so long as the Imperial City remains under their alliance's banner.

Having discussed why gating is needed, now let's take a look at various methods at gating the Imperial City, as well as their pros and cons:
Keep Access - 6 Home Keeps
The current version of access gating, this method of gating potentially allows all 3 alliances to be in the Imperial City at the same time
Pros:
  • Places emphasis on home territory defense
  • Relatively easy to fulfil requirements
Cons:
  • Two alliances can "Bully" a single faction into permanent Imperial City lockout, since they will have no reason to fight each other

Keep Access - 6 Home Keeps + 1 Enemy Keep from each opposing alliance
Similar to the current version of gating, this version of access control gives a reason for opposing alliances to fight against each other, as there can only be a single faction having access to the Imperial City at any one time.
Pros:
  • Encourages fighting on the battlefields of Cyrodiil, as capturing opposing faction keeps are a requirement to enter the Imperial City
Cons:
  • Moderately difficult to obtain access rights to the Imperial City, and even harder to hold access once gained.

Keep Access - Emperor
This version of access control places emphasis on throning/dethroning an Emperor. This allows for large scale last stands and pushes as the last emperor keep needed to throne/dethrone an Emperor, reminiscent of pre-Imperial City days.
Pros:
  • Most stable form of Access Control, crowning a good Emperor means that your alliance will have access to the Imperial City for a long time.
Cons:
  • Promotes the "Buff Server" mentality, due to how hard it is to deny opposing alliances access to the Imperial City once it has been gained.
  • Hard to obtain access rights to the Imperial City on a crowded campaign.

Scroll Access - 1 Enemy Scroll captured
This version of access control places emphasis on capturing and defending the Elder Scrolls, artefacts of power and prophecy.
Pros:
  • Requires the co-ordinated effort of an entire alliance to open access to the Imperial City, promoting faction pride and teamwork.
Cons:
  • Hard to hold access once obtained, as scroll ninjas are a thing.
  • Two alliances can "Bully" a single faction into permanent Imperial City lockout, since they will have no reason to fight each other

After discussing gating, this brings the question. What to do with opposing faction fighters once their access has been lost? My suggestion would be to disable respawns via release in the Imperial City once access is lost (They can still rez allies with Soul Gems). This will slowly but surely force enemy fighters out of the Imperial City one by one, thereby increasing the population of their alliance in overland Cyrodiil, thus allowing them to co-ordinate and regroup to retake access back in overland Cyrodiil. This will partially solve the population imbalances, as the full force of an alliance will be pitted against the partial force of the dominating alliance.

Another issue that we currently have is that we have too many campaigns. This is spreading the population way too thinly, and as a result, "Buff Servers" are forming again, to the detriment of the health of PvP. My suggestion would be to cut the number of campaigns back to the original 4 Vet + 1 Non-Vet. This will compress the population into actually fighting each other, instead of hiding in their respective buff campaigns with a 300+ queue for the buff campaign. People who are sick of the long queue times will naturally (albeit slowly) move to another campaign, thus balancing the population issues.

Suggested Distribution for Campaigns:
  • 2 Gated Access Campaign, Veteran (30 days)
  • 1 Gated Access Campaign, Veteran (14 days)
  • 1 Free-For-All Access Campaign, Veteran Resources Only (7 days)
  • 1 Gated Access Campaign, Non-Veteran (7 days)

What are your thoughts on this?
Dean the Cat
Somewhat Insane Puddicat
EU-PC Megaserver; Ebonheart Pact, Alliance Rank 34
This one hails from far Singapore, excuse this one for his high pings. He also apologizes for any formatting/spelling errors, as he tends to answer using a mobile device.

Insanity is the price of Knowledge. Herma-Mora and Sheogorath, this one bows before thee.

This one does not advocate for any class to be nerfed. There are far deeper underlying issues then a simple "Class Imbalance". The Champion System is the problem. Not classes.

Please read this before creating yet another nerf thread.

My guides:
  • driosketch
    driosketch
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    DeanTheCat wrote: »
    Suggested Distribution for Campaigns:
    • 2 Gated Access Campaign, Veteran (30 days)
    • 1 Gated Access Campaign, Veteran (14 days)
    • 1 Free-For-All Access Campaign, Veteran Resources Only (7 days)
    • 1 Gated Access Campaign, Non-Veteran (7 days)

    One NA this would be one competitive 30, possibly two ways with a smaller pop on the third faction, single faction locked for AD/EP. 14 day would be pop locked for the other EP/AD. The 7 day would be the second/most full for all three faction, probably with a lot of guesting.

    You can't really create new campaigns and gate them. You should gate campaigns that are already competitive as that would keep the balance. One guild group with an Emp could wipe a group of PvE players and any PUGs pushing for access in an IC "buff" campaign. It would take very little time out of IC to discourage such players and secure the campaign before they returned to the IC grind.
    Main: Drio Azul ~ DC, Redguard, Healer/Magicka Templar ~ NA-PC
    ●The Psijic Order●The Sidekick Order●Great House Hlaalu●Bal-Busters●
  • DeanTheCat
    DeanTheCat
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    driosketch wrote: »
    DeanTheCat wrote: »
    Suggested Distribution for Campaigns:
    • 2 Gated Access Campaign, Veteran (30 days)
    • 1 Gated Access Campaign, Veteran (14 days)
    • 1 Free-For-All Access Campaign, Veteran Resources Only (7 days)
    • 1 Gated Access Campaign, Non-Veteran (7 days)

    One NA this would be one competitive 30, possibly two ways with a smaller pop on the third faction, single faction locked for AD/EP. 14 day would be pop locked for the other EP/AD. The 7 day would be the second/most full for all three faction, probably with a lot of guesting.

    You can't really create new campaigns and gate them. You should gate campaigns that are already competitive as that would keep the balance. One guild group with an Emp could wipe a group of PvE players and any PUGs pushing for access in an IC "buff" campaign. It would take very little time out of IC to discourage such players and secure the campaign before they returned to the IC grind.

    You are right about the gating of already currently competitive campaigns part. I kind of was just throwing out some suggestions on the campaign distribution to start the ball going on the discussions of the campaign.

    Sad thing is that the only campaign you would call competitive in EU would be Azura's Star, the rest have players stacking on their respective buff servers. That's also one of the reasons why I didn't make suggestions on which ones to leave open/close down, as the situation is different on each Megaserver. Here in EU, DC is the strongest, followed closely by EP and AD following closely behind EP.

    Same zergs, different colours. It's sad really. And that's why we need to condense the campaigns so that we actually get fights going on.
    Dean the Cat
    Somewhat Insane Puddicat
    EU-PC Megaserver; Ebonheart Pact, Alliance Rank 34
    This one hails from far Singapore, excuse this one for his high pings. He also apologizes for any formatting/spelling errors, as he tends to answer using a mobile device.

    Insanity is the price of Knowledge. Herma-Mora and Sheogorath, this one bows before thee.

    This one does not advocate for any class to be nerfed. There are far deeper underlying issues then a simple "Class Imbalance". The Champion System is the problem. Not classes.

    Please read this before creating yet another nerf thread.

    My guides:
  • IxSTALKERxI
    IxSTALKERxI
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Nice post, I made a similar post about the population unbalances / buff campaigns here:
    forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/220251/idea-on-how-to-improve-pvp-on-na-pc#latest


    As for the rules for the gated access, I was thinking a little different to what you wrote. I was thinking that 5 home keeps would be a good number as it would give all 3 factions a little bit of room to move. EP could secure a keep from AD and a keep from DC without locking the other factions out. Any more than that and they would be locked out. This would mean IC would have more opportunities to be full of 3 way action, yet still close access to a faction if they lose too much ground, in time for them to recover and prevent an enemy emperor push or losing scrolls.

    I liked the sound of the 'unable to release when dead and locked out' however I heard from a guildy that the devs weren't that fond of kicking people out of IC when their faction loses access so I'm not sure if this idea will ever go ahead.
    NA | PC | Aldmeri Dominion
    Stalker V AR 30 Warden | I Stalker I AR 42 NB | Stalkersaurus AR 28 Templar | Stalker Ill AR 29 Sorc | Stalker Il AR 19 DK | Nigel the Great of Blackwater
    Former Emperor x10 campaign cycles
    Venatus Officer
    RIP RÁGE
    YouTube Channel
  • DeanTheCat
    DeanTheCat
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Nice post, I made a similar post about the population unbalances / buff campaigns here:
    forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/220251/idea-on-how-to-improve-pvp-on-na-pc#latest


    As for the rules for the gated access, I was thinking a little different to what you wrote. I was thinking that 5 home keeps would be a good number as it would give all 3 factions a little bit of room to move. EP could secure a keep from AD and a keep from DC without locking the other factions out. Any more than that and they would be locked out. This would mean IC would have more opportunities to be full of 3 way action, yet still close access to a faction if they lose too much ground, in time for them to recover and prevent an enemy emperor push or losing scrolls.

    I liked the sound of the 'unable to release when dead and locked out' however I heard from a guildy that the devs weren't that fond of kicking people out of IC when their faction loses access so I'm not sure if this idea will ever go ahead.

    5 keeps is an interesting idea that I didn't really think of at the time when I wrote this thread. The problem with the 5 keep rule is that by the time the alliance has lost the 2nd keep (Two keeps is enough to open a scroll gate or crown an emperor), the alliance most likely won't have time to muster a defense, as the act of leaving the Imperial City to defend the targeted objective takes time. In addition, consoles do not have the luxury of addons, which means that their response time will naturally be slower then that of the PC community. They will not notice the first keep going under attack.

    Gated access without booting members of an alliance out of the Imperial City when they lose access in some form (In my suggestion, it's death without a rez from an ally. This allows for last stands) undermines the reason why gated access is set into place. The Imperial City acts as a balancing mechanic to control the flow of population. What is the point of sealing access, when it doesn't draw population out to overland Cyrodiil to help reopen access?
    Dean the Cat
    Somewhat Insane Puddicat
    EU-PC Megaserver; Ebonheart Pact, Alliance Rank 34
    This one hails from far Singapore, excuse this one for his high pings. He also apologizes for any formatting/spelling errors, as he tends to answer using a mobile device.

    Insanity is the price of Knowledge. Herma-Mora and Sheogorath, this one bows before thee.

    This one does not advocate for any class to be nerfed. There are far deeper underlying issues then a simple "Class Imbalance". The Champion System is the problem. Not classes.

    Please read this before creating yet another nerf thread.

    My guides:
  • IxSTALKERxI
    IxSTALKERxI
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    DeanTheCat wrote: »

    Gated access without booting members of an alliance out of the Imperial City when they lose access in some form (In my suggestion, it's death without a rez from an ally. This allows for last stands) undermines the reason why gated access is set into place. The Imperial City acts as a balancing mechanic to control the flow of population. What is the point of sealing access, when it doesn't draw population out to overland Cyrodiil to help reopen access?

    Yep I agree with you. Gonna have to ask the devs that. :p I haven't talked to them personally but from what I've heard they want to avoid kicking people out of IC.
    NA | PC | Aldmeri Dominion
    Stalker V AR 30 Warden | I Stalker I AR 42 NB | Stalkersaurus AR 28 Templar | Stalker Ill AR 29 Sorc | Stalker Il AR 19 DK | Nigel the Great of Blackwater
    Former Emperor x10 campaign cycles
    Venatus Officer
    RIP RÁGE
    YouTube Channel
  • Zavus
    Zavus
    ✭✭✭✭
    Very nice post. We need gated acess on all camps. we need less camps. and we need ppl to not be able to respawn in IC when acess is lost.


    -M
    Zavus - Worst NB NA / First NB RANK 50
    "Most carried General NA" - Cent Satori

    Haxus

  • Ishammael
    Ishammael
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Agreed, good post. Appreciate the detailed discussion. Gating needs to happen in some form or another.

    Kicking people out of IC when dead would be OK if IC were more part of the Cyrodiil map. As it stands, IC is the biggest wasted potential for Alliance War I have ever seen. The zones are f'ing awesome, bosses are neat. Why can I not enter the dungeon on one side, fight though, then pop out deep in enemy territory on Cyrodiil map? How come I can't control districts and contribute to the Alliance War score? Why aren't there new "scrolls" to capture inside the IC, which I have to run out to my keeps? Why are there no transitus connections to zones that I capture in IC? Why do players get instant, brain-dead, respawn in the IC? Sweeper bosses are cool -- but why dont they hunt down the huge groups and ignore single players, adding to the danger of running through IC to get somewhere?
  • kevlarto_ESO
    kevlarto_ESO
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    There are some good ideas here, but with such a large imbalance and one faction having so many players and organized groups I wonder if any of it would work, lets face it we know EP can send large groups to fight on multiple fronts, with out the true spirit of three faction warfare, which requires AD and DC to respond, and rarely do they ever, DC when they show up and AD when they get out of cracked wood cave, now throw in the IC. I just think there is so many elements finding that right balance to equal a lopsided population is not an easy task for anyone, I really enjoy the pvp in ESO, and my one big fear is if one faction stays dominating for to long people will just give up, and stop doing anything in Cyrodiil.
  • Stikato
    Stikato
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Good ideas.

    But if you leave one campaign with open access, it is going to have the most ridiculously long queue time ever. The whine storm will blot out the sun. And then ZOS will open another ungated campaign to make people happy.
    Mordimus - Stam Sorc
  • Stikato
    Stikato
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Ishammael wrote: »
    Agreed, good post. Appreciate the detailed discussion. Gating needs to happen in some form or another.

    Kicking people out of IC when dead would be OK if IC were more part of the Cyrodiil map. As it stands, IC is the biggest wasted potential for Alliance War I have ever seen. The zones are f'ing awesome, bosses are neat. Why can I not enter the dungeon on one side, fight though, then pop out deep in enemy territory on Cyrodiil map? How come I can't control districts and contribute to the Alliance War score? Why aren't there new "scrolls" to capture inside the IC, which I have to run out to my keeps? Why are there no transitus connections to zones that I capture in IC? Why do players get instant, brain-dead, respawn in the IC? Sweeper bosses are cool -- but why dont they hunt down the huge groups and ignore single players, adding to the danger of running through IC to get somewhere?

    Hell, how come I can't fight my way to the center, and sit on the Ruby Throne?
    Mordimus - Stam Sorc
  • Sublime
    Sublime
    ✭✭✭✭
    Pretty much agree.

    My suggestion:

    Since 3 campains would still allow for one buff server each, I'd rather go for one gated and one non-gated, with population caps increased accordingly. This would force at least one faction to PvP. I'd rather have lag than no PvP at all.
    Edited by Sublime on September 28, 2015 3:30PM
  • DeanTheCat
    DeanTheCat
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Stikato wrote: »
    Good ideas.

    But if you leave one campaign with open access, it is going to have the most ridiculously long queue time ever. The whine storm will blot out the sun. And then ZOS will open another ungated campaign to make people happy.

    True on the whine storm part, but that ungated access campaign was more to cater to the "I want IC now because I paid for it" crowd. Sure, you can have your instant access, but you'll just have to wait in line. It subtly encourages actual fighting to earn your access rather then the pointless street brawls of the Imperial City.
    There are some good ideas here, but with such a large imbalance and one faction having so many players and organized groups I wonder if any of it would work, lets face it we know EP can send large groups to fight on multiple fronts, with out the true spirit of three faction warfare, which requires AD and DC to respond, and rarely do they ever, DC when they show up and AD when they get out of cracked wood cave, now throw in the IC. I just think there is so many elements finding that right balance to equal a lopsided population is not an easy task for anyone, I really enjoy the pvp in ESO, and my one big fear is if one faction stays dominating for to long people will just give up, and stop doing anything in Cyrodiil.

    If gated access with removal from the IC were in play, you could effectively deny access to the dominating alliance, forcing them to leave the IC to fight you. If you had a good team, you could delay the inevitable capture of the keep you took by sheer force of numbers long enough to allow your alliance a foothold back onto the Cyrodiilic map. Most people tend to have tunnel vision, and would rather send the raid to reclaim the access keep rather then the gate keeps that your alliance is currently retaking.

    Ishammael wrote: »
    Agreed, good post. Appreciate the detailed discussion. Gating needs to happen in some form or another.

    Kicking people out of IC when dead would be OK if IC were more part of the Cyrodiil map. As it stands, IC is the biggest wasted potential for Alliance War I have ever seen. The zones are f'ing awesome, bosses are neat. Why can I not enter the dungeon on one side, fight though, then pop out deep in enemy territory on Cyrodiil map? How come I can't control districts and contribute to the Alliance War score? Why aren't there new "scrolls" to capture inside the IC, which I have to run out to my keeps? Why are there no transitus connections to zones that I capture in IC? Why do players get instant, brain-dead, respawn in the IC? Sweeper bosses are cool -- but why dont they hunt down the huge groups and ignore single players, adding to the danger of running through IC to get somewhere?

    I think that's because the IC was designed to somewhat mirror DAoC's Darkness Falls dungeon, which had similar mechanics and gating controls. Still, I wish they kept the district control system they originally had planned to implement for the IC.
    Dean the Cat
    Somewhat Insane Puddicat
    EU-PC Megaserver; Ebonheart Pact, Alliance Rank 34
    This one hails from far Singapore, excuse this one for his high pings. He also apologizes for any formatting/spelling errors, as he tends to answer using a mobile device.

    Insanity is the price of Knowledge. Herma-Mora and Sheogorath, this one bows before thee.

    This one does not advocate for any class to be nerfed. There are far deeper underlying issues then a simple "Class Imbalance". The Champion System is the problem. Not classes.

    Please read this before creating yet another nerf thread.

    My guides:
  • DeanTheCat
    DeanTheCat
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Sublime wrote: »
    Pretty much agree.

    My suggestion:

    Since 3 campains would still allow for one buff server each, I'd rather go for one gated and one non-gated, with population caps increased accordingly. This would force at least one faction to PvP. I'd rather have lag than no PvP at all.

    They would need to remove the faction character lock if they were to do that. I'm pretty sure that they said in the past that 4+1 was the absolute minimum for campaigns, due to the locks. Else people are going to get locked out of Cyrodiil on some of their characters, which opens a huge can of worms that is better left unopened.
    Dean the Cat
    Somewhat Insane Puddicat
    EU-PC Megaserver; Ebonheart Pact, Alliance Rank 34
    This one hails from far Singapore, excuse this one for his high pings. He also apologizes for any formatting/spelling errors, as he tends to answer using a mobile device.

    Insanity is the price of Knowledge. Herma-Mora and Sheogorath, this one bows before thee.

    This one does not advocate for any class to be nerfed. There are far deeper underlying issues then a simple "Class Imbalance". The Champion System is the problem. Not classes.

    Please read this before creating yet another nerf thread.

    My guides:
  • Stikato
    Stikato
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    DeanTheCat wrote: »
    Stikato wrote: »
    Good ideas.

    But if you leave one campaign with open access, it is going to have the most ridiculously long queue time ever. The whine storm will blot out the sun. And then ZOS will open another ungated campaign to make people happy.

    True on the whine storm part, but that ungated access campaign was more to cater to the "I want IC now because I paid for it" crowd. Sure, you can have your instant access, but you'll just have to wait in line. It subtly encourages actual fighting to earn your access rather then the pointless street brawls of the Imperial City.
    There are some good ideas here, but with such a large imbalance and one faction having so many players and organized groups I wonder if any of it would work, lets face it we know EP can send large groups to fight on multiple fronts, with out the true spirit of three faction warfare, which requires AD and DC to respond, and rarely do they ever, DC when they show up and AD when they get out of cracked wood cave, now throw in the IC. I just think there is so many elements finding that right balance to equal a lopsided population is not an easy task for anyone, I really enjoy the pvp in ESO, and my one big fear is if one faction stays dominating for to long people will just give up, and stop doing anything in Cyrodiil.

    If gated access with removal from the IC were in play, you could effectively deny access to the dominating alliance, forcing them to leave the IC to fight you. If you had a good team, you could delay the inevitable capture of the keep you took by sheer force of numbers long enough to allow your alliance a foothold back onto the Cyrodiilic map. Most people tend to have tunnel vision, and would rather send the raid to reclaim the access keep rather then the gate keeps that your alliance is currently retaking.

    Ishammael wrote: »
    Agreed, good post. Appreciate the detailed discussion. Gating needs to happen in some form or another.

    Kicking people out of IC when dead would be OK if IC were more part of the Cyrodiil map. As it stands, IC is the biggest wasted potential for Alliance War I have ever seen. The zones are f'ing awesome, bosses are neat. Why can I not enter the dungeon on one side, fight though, then pop out deep in enemy territory on Cyrodiil map? How come I can't control districts and contribute to the Alliance War score? Why aren't there new "scrolls" to capture inside the IC, which I have to run out to my keeps? Why are there no transitus connections to zones that I capture in IC? Why do players get instant, brain-dead, respawn in the IC? Sweeper bosses are cool -- but why dont they hunt down the huge groups and ignore single players, adding to the danger of running through IC to get somewhere?

    I think that's because the IC was designed to somewhat mirror DAoC's Darkness Falls dungeon, which had similar mechanics and gating controls. Still, I wish they kept the district control system they originally had planned to implement for the IC.

    Don't get me wrong, I am totally on your side.

    It makes so much sense to gate the campaigns, and so little sense to leave them open, that it makes my head spin.

    I actually am still having a hard time embracing that this is how it happened. We waited so long...for this?
    Mordimus - Stam Sorc
  • DeanTheCat
    DeanTheCat
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    @Stikato: I didn't doubt you :smile:

    I kind of find the mental image of this forum burning in flames while all the "I want it now" crowd sitting on a 500+ queue while the other campaigns do not have queues to access rather sad and amusing at the same time. People always seem to want the easy solution.

    The reason why we have this mess of an ungated rules is due to this thread:

    http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/202328/there-cannot-be-access-gates-to-the-imperial-city-paid-dlc#latest

    During that time period, ZOS was testing access controls on the PTS when this appeared, and gutted all attempts at further access testing. ZOS was threatened with lawsuits and consumer protection laws if they ever gated the content, due to "denying access to content they paid for". ZOS was forced to cave in, and we have this mess today.
    Dean the Cat
    Somewhat Insane Puddicat
    EU-PC Megaserver; Ebonheart Pact, Alliance Rank 34
    This one hails from far Singapore, excuse this one for his high pings. He also apologizes for any formatting/spelling errors, as he tends to answer using a mobile device.

    Insanity is the price of Knowledge. Herma-Mora and Sheogorath, this one bows before thee.

    This one does not advocate for any class to be nerfed. There are far deeper underlying issues then a simple "Class Imbalance". The Champion System is the problem. Not classes.

    Please read this before creating yet another nerf thread.

    My guides:
  • Stikato
    Stikato
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Haha I know, I beat my head against the wall in that thread over and over again. I just wish people would have been willing to give gated access across all campaigns a chance. I think they would have been very surprised with how it would have met the needs of both pvp and pve players (as darkness falls did) better than the current implementation.

    And yes that queue situation you imagined made me lol :)

    Edited by Stikato on September 28, 2015 5:27PM
    Mordimus - Stam Sorc
  • Joy_Division
    Joy_Division
    Class Representative
    I hate to be pessimistic, but I don't know how they can fix this mess. And that is precisely what it is, a mess.

    Unlike the oft assumed but never substantiated hypothesis that "casual" gamers <3 easy content and dumb-downed games, ZoS has very real indicators that the "I want IC now because I paid for it" crowd is a sizable portion of its customer base. ZoS does not want to kick people out of the IC because they are going to get rage feedback from people who got zerged, disconnected, one-shoted, gate-camped, and then had to sit through a 5 minute loading screen and would have to be "forced" to PvP just to gain access to the best in slot gear locked behind a ridiculous RNG grind. ZoS tried a gated access campaign and it went over like a lead balloon.

    How much of this problem exists because the best way to make your character stronger is not to succeed and "win" in the traditional sense of crowning emperor or defeating the big bad evil boss, rather to mindlessly nuke non-threatening PvE mobs? The system of rewards in this game is totally ass-backwards and it promotes behavior that is completely detrimental to PvP (and PvE I'd argue). My PvP guild officers during prime time are typing "X for sewers grind" instead of PvPing. This is company policy and precedent, something Brian Wheeler can't change or reform on his own.

    Here is what I would have done to not shut off people who just wanted to get their gear and still incentivize PvP:
    • You do not just earn trophies / TV stones from nuking PvE mobs. With every AP you gain, you get a chance for an IC goody. The better an alliance is doing in the campaign, the higher the chance/multiplier for this happening (successful players and alliances would naturally have this stuff on them and stored in keeps/strategic areas). Now at least I can "win" at PvP (what the goal should be) and be rewarded and we now have an underdog campaign balancing mechanism in place at the same time.
    • Access to the sewers is always open, but a series of incentives will encourage people to PvP so that they will only want to go to the IC when their faction is doing well. Some ideas:
    • The PvP buffs should be much more pronounced in the IC sewers (represents ease of supply / reinforcement)
    • Severing the direct line of transit from that can be traced from Chalman or BRK to EP home base confers a penalty to EP players in the IC (likewise for AD and DC for their respective keeps/transit lines)
    • Guards should patrol the sewer entrance when a faction has control of the two emperor keeps closest to it.
    • Better drop rate for IC goodies
    • Note: Bonuses are only active in a contested campaign (i.e. EP Chillrend players don't get a free buff they didn't earn)
    • The IC is not just a place to farm gear. It has PvP objectives and a purpose to exist once the farmers go to Orsinium when that DLC is released.
    • Districts have some stationary, some mobile, some randomly appearing objectives that simulate the FPS games that are tried and true. These really should have been the small-scale objective type PvP that many folks have been asking for. Successful control yields TV stones, trophies, AP, and contributes to Campaign scoring.
    • Sewers also have objectives in the form of castle/resource flags to represent control. An alliance that had all of "its" sewers under control would receive a TV stone multiplier and player bonuses fighting anywhere in the IC (represents ease of supply / reinforcement). An alliance that controlled all of an enemy sewers receives a temporary battle buff and can transit outside the enemy faction's sewers from the IC.
    • The higher enemy faction population is, the higher the drop rate for IC goodies

    Basically, ZoS should have tied the IC rewards to an incentive based system where it was most efficient to actually try to win a contested campaign. Because right now the most efficient way to get these IC rewards is to avoid contested campaign entirely and get in a group of 16 and just faceroll PvE mobs. Under a system like the one I proposed, you can have your buff server, fight with no penalty or fear of "griefers," and farm to your hearts content...and there even will be guards to offer protection at the sewer entrance. But those of us who actually want to PvP under the original intention of having a real and meaningful dynamic interaction between the IC and Cyrodiil can do so without the fear of falling behind in the gear grind, having better rewards for those that invest the time to take castles, and bring some PvP meaning to the IC - it is what the war is supposed to be all about.
  • drathanne
    drathanne
    Soul Shriven
    I have to agree with these posts, IC should be gated and treated almost exactly like Darkness Falls, that was a great dungeon, with great mechanics.

    The realm with most keeps gets in, when they get the majority they get 15 mins to get inside IC whether or not the immediately loose access before they can zerg a keep and run to entrance. IE: I am DC so we take enough red keeps to get access at the same time yellow is attacking us and right after we get access yellow gains access, we would still have 15 mins to get in.

    As far as the I'll sue if I do not get what I paid for crowd, that is nonsense, they will still have access, they just need to take keeps in cyrodiil, nothing is stopping them from doing that. I know that in DAOC if your faction did not have DF and you wanted to get in pvers could form a zerg and take a couple keeps in a hurry, nothing in ESO keeps them from doing that now. It is extremely easy to take keeps as it is, half hour of keep taking and you would have access in most cases.

    This would keep the pop of IC fluid and give you a little bit of doing your pve with out being ganked constantly.

    Also when you die in IC, if not rezzed you respawn just like in Cyrodiil, either at a keep or PK.

    One of the biggest problems I see is having to do IC to even craft V16 gear, or spend tons of gold from guild merchants. They need to at least add the crafting materials to cyrodiil, and upgrade the merchant gear to v16. That alone would probably get more people back to cyrodiil, if not using the new stuff they could just upgrade the stuff they already have, if they want some of the new sets that drop in IC then they can do IC.

    Anyway, just my 2 cents, sorry if its a bit rambling.
Sign In or Register to comment.