No thanks. This is supposed to be a team game. I don't like the idea of players being even more motivated to play for individual stats. The mere thought of the KB and ratio epeeners makes me roll my eyes. That's not what this game is supposed to be about.

I say this as someone who generally has had favorable KC stats.

I would prefer ZOS to adjust the rules of the game to encourage more team and objective play. Save the individual stats for instances and arenas.

Satiar wrote: »

I'm always disappointed ZoS never made the game more guild based, it would have been a great foundation for competitive play.

I wish Cyrodiil had gameplay that encouraged GvG within the context of AvA. The Haxuses and Kholes of the game shouldn't be buddies who look for randoms to farm. They should be heated rivals who compete against each other for top prizes.

The same goes for competitive groups of all sizes. From elite 24 player groups like VE to the small group XvX players.

Satiar wrote: »

zyk wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

I'm always disappointed ZoS never made the game more guild based, it would have been a great foundation for competitive play.

I wish Cyrodiil had gameplay that encouraged GvG within the context of AvA. The Haxuses and Kholes of the game shouldn't be buddies who look for randoms to farm. They should be heated rivals who compete against each other for top prizes.

What I mean is, the basis of competitive gameplay at this point is who wipes who. No one cares I pushed the frontier up by bypassing a keep and making a risky play for Arrius, what matters is the video of me wiping there. This is why the decline of campaigns that mattered was devastating to PvP: it killed off strategic play as a thing and reduced the competitive aspect to getting good bombs off.

I think that's been the basis since guild based groups became a thing early on, and before that it wasn't competitive (first campaign cycle). Pushing a keep behind the front lines may be a good tactic if you do it right, but all it can amount to is some extra points on the scoreboard. This has always been the case. The only scoreboard we've had has only ever shown who was better at having overwhelming numbers, and at what time those numbers play. If you cared about the scoreboard it was before you realized that fact, as it has always been the case.

NBrookus wrote: »

Conceptually, I like. It's more like an MVP board. A guild-based board would be better, I think, than an individual board. The downside here would be that it discourages guilds from switching servers to help balance population.

I would leave off AP from this board entirely. One, you are double-sipping: rezzing an ally, burning siege, etc. gives AP. Two, we have a leaderboard for that already. And three, there are too many ways to game the AP system as it is for it to be really that meaningful.

• Death -5 (doubles if the next death is within 5 minutes)
• Losing an objective (while present at objective) - 25

These two above are more likely to encourage people to bail out of a bad or outnumbered fight when the zerg shows up than to stay and try to defend; sometimes a handful of players can hold it long enough for help to arrive, and I don't think we want to discourage that. Instead, provide points for successfully defending, with some sort of check to be sure you actually engaged in the fight at weren't just AFK at the transitus or were stealthed up leeching AP.

The healing bonus points should possibly be higher, to compensate for the fact healers are less likely to get killing blows. I'm not sure how you'd compensate tanks.

Possibly add a positive item for siege items expended within x distance of a PvP objective.

My first thought reading this thread was to add a guild leaderboard also. I'm not sure I understand your suggestion, so I won't go into that really. The way I would do it would bring competitiveness between guilds back as well as pride and prestige to guilds. Currently I feel most people in the game, due to the 5 guild system, have a loyalty first to friends rather than their guild. With the introduction of nameplates and the ability to showcase a specific guild you are in (finally) the game is moving in a direction where something like this is possible.

I don't think my proposal for a guild leaderboard has any chance of being implemented for this sole reason: First, I would ban costumes from Cyrodiil and require either a guild tabard of the guild you wish to represent, or no tabard. Obviously ZOS would laugh if you told them to ban their biggest money maker from a part of their game. However, aside from a tabard being required to represent a guild, costumes hide your armor type. Telling the difference between light and medium is easy simply based off of what skills/weapons they use, but if we're to be bringing heavy armor up to a spot where it can contend with the others (as it should) then you could be beating on someone a lot tankier than the squishy right next to them simply because you can't tell the difference until it's too late. This is already proven before Heavy Armor was any good. I've gone between wearing a robe with no costume and a costume that looks like heavy armor, and you get focused significantly less while wearing the costume. It's not something I'm complaining about, but just thought it needed to be brought up.

If this somehow came to be things would work this way:

• You will only contribute points to the guild you represent via tabard.
• Points will be given for completing objectives (keeps, resources, towns, outposts, larger kill quests based on size of guild)
• Keeps, resources, towns, outposts grant points based on participation scaling up or down to max group size. Examples: 6 players take a keep so they receive 4 times the normal amount, 36 players take a keep so they only receive the base amount 24 players would. A guild like EG, CN, or PM would then have to spread among objectives rather than rushing one keep at a time with over 60 players in order to be even somewhat competitive on the board.
• In the case of multiple guilds being in the same spot the points would have to be distributed between them. A 24man group and a 12man group would result in the 24 getting 66% and the 12 33%. This is not just distributed between larger groups. If you have 30 pugs with you the pot will be distributed in the same fashion.
• Cyrodiil board quests and scroll quests will become guild based instead of player based. Players will gain a portion of the AP pot based on their participation ( participation = received AP from the enemy killed to not leave out healers). These can be done multiple times a day.
• A secondary part to the scoreboard would be a KDR against other guilds. Say you wipe a full raid of one guild, you will add 24 kills to the matchup with that guild. Simple. I would rather this be purely cosmetic and for bragging rights.

I don't have the time to keep going, but I'm sure there's some holes in there so feel free to poke.

vortexman11 wrote: »

I kind of like this idea, these are the types of things we need for a competitive AvA game. Though I'm 99% sure most people would hate it

zyk wrote: »

No thanks. This is supposed to be a team game. I don't like the idea of players being even more motivated to play for individual stats. The mere thought of the KB and ratio epeeners makes me roll my eyes. That's not what this game is supposed to be about.

Then make it Guild stats too, when a player puts on the tabbard of a guild of their choice they then begin to contribute to their guilds Rating/Score. It'll give more reason to wear tabbards and a new sense of guild pride.

SOMEONE SUMMON THE WHEELER!

Zheg wrote: »

Have a tank running fasalla's for you? Have a healer or a few keeping you alive? Have a scout running around keeping tabs on reinforcements? KBs don't really work for those roles.

A system like the one you proposed would be exploited, sad to say. People would just die on an alt and have friends rez, or put down oil after oil to be burned.

I'm sure it can be tweaked Zheg, but you have to admit the basis of the idea is good.

Perhaps I'm just being more negative Nancy today than usual, but I feel like any system will just have inherent flaws like the AP system. Good intentions here for sure, and the idea is interesting, but after seeing how TVs are rewarded, and all of the unresolved problems with AP, I feel like one more level added on top of these two before they're fixed properly is just following ZOS' coding technique.