Best way to change it: make it so that you have to hold TWO keeps to hold emp.
Done and done.
If you're referring to general, just disregard the above lol. I get mad plenty in Cyro too, it's just the natural state of caring at all about PvP
I've been the guy yelling in zone to leave Alessia and defend back keeps.
It's not just the emperor keep that causes people to pile up, it's the D tick. There's no way in hell I can convince 30 pugs from leaving a 15k+ D tick to go siege a home keep, or save a scroll. Even if the fight at the keep is over, people wait and wait and wait because all it takes is 1 player to die and keep the tick in limbo. D tick mechanics need to change as well.
How would forcing people to stay on a campaign they dont wanna play on be good?it would be better to stop the campaign / faction swapping. And probably a more realistic approach. Although simply adding more campaigns and lowering the cap would be the best solution since everyone knows lag will not go away till AOE caps are removed.
Ghost-Shot wrote: »@JDar good suggestions but like Steve said I think the easiest solution to implement is to just require holding 2 keeps on the ring to hold your emp. I also agree with Zheg that something about tick mechanics need to change, maybe a system to track that a player contributed to the fight and give them the tick regardless of whether they stayed at the keep or not. It would make it easier to pull pugs off of a keep and get groups mobilized again rather than everyone suddenly needing to go "afk". Though I'm not sure what kind of server performance implications a tracking system like that would add.
Ghost-Shot wrote: »@JDar good suggestions but like Steve said I think the easiest solution to implement is to just require holding 2 keeps on the ring to hold your emp. I also agree with Zheg that something about tick mechanics need to change, maybe a system to track that a player contributed to the fight and give them the tick regardless of whether they stayed at the keep or not. It would make it easier to pull pugs off of a keep and get groups mobilized again rather than everyone suddenly needing to go "afk". Though I'm not sure what kind of server performance implications a tracking system like that would add.
I have the solutions for ticks. You earn double ap in range of objectives, and there are no ticks.
Might as well get rid of Emp entirely if you're just going to make it impossible to defend. Any "solution" that requires more than one keep to hold Emperor does just that. No one wants to stack in a final emp keep because we all know it is aids, but what can you do when you have two entire factions push you back that far? I'd be far more adventurous when defending Emp if I knew there wasn't double the amount of attackers than defenders. Let's say AD has only one scroll left, and an entire EP/DC zerg is heading for it. We should simply step out of the way to avoid lag? It's as much a player mentality problem as it is a design problem. Players see swords/lit keeps and they head over there. I can't tell you how many times DC has faction stacked simply to just take Nikel. The players simply need to take it upon themselves to say, "hey you know what, 20-40 people might be enough already at this objective, I'm going to try another one".
Requiring two keeps just makes it easier to zerg down the emp until dethroned, encouraging the practice. Requiring the Emp to retake two more keeps is only slightly less impossible and encourages the same. TBH though, the in-game community is so *** that any design change (other than removing emp) will always be answered with "I will just bring more people". And after that there's really no purpose to the map at all.
Might as well get rid of Emp entirely if you're just going to make it impossible to defend. Any "solution" that requires more than one keep to hold Emperor does just that. No one wants to stack in a final emp keep because we all know it is aids, but what can you do when you have two entire factions push you back that far? I'd be far more adventurous when defending Emp if I knew there wasn't double the amount of attackers than defenders. Let's say AD has only one scroll left, and an entire EP/DC zerg is heading for it. We should simply step out of the way to avoid lag? It's as much a player mentality problem as it is a design problem. Players see swords/lit keeps and they head over there. I can't tell you how many times DC has faction stacked simply to just take Nikel. The players simply need to take it upon themselves to say, "hey you know what, 20-40 people might be enough already at this objective, I'm going to try another one".
Requiring two keeps just makes it easier to zerg down the emp until dethroned, encouraging the practice. Requiring the Emp to retake two more keeps is only slightly less impossible and encourages the same. TBH though, the in-game community is so *** that any design change (other than removing emp) will always be answered with "I will just bring more people". And after that there's really no purpose to the map at all.
Or... you know... maybe having to hold 2 keeps at once would force a faction to actually work together instead of trolling each other, potato'ing into AP farms, and chasing strategically weak map objectives. If a faction can't do that then no, they don't deserve to have emp.
Two coordinated groups of 18-20 can hold two keeps against both factions if there is significant support from their alliance with counter siege, camps, rezzes, and scouting. The emperor can reinforce the weaker keep. Emperor is SUPPOSED to be earned during prime time with the coordination of your alliance, it should be defended as such. If your faction is more interested in insulting each other in zone chat, only farming AP, and lambasting the only groups realistically capable of crowning and defending an emp because our playerbase chooses a race-to-the-bottom approach to feed fragile egos, then no one deserves emp.
I'd also be happy to see emp removed from the game, but suggesting that holding 2 keeps is impossible is flat out wrong. People just need to stop being a$$hats and work together and play smart for once.
deleted in fear of being banned
It happens every time. Every faction does it. It usually ruins the campaign unless everyone hates the emperor and hangs him or her out to dry.
The worst is when some ultra-popular big zerg guild player gets it who runs in a huge guild and then has like 200 of his or her friends come in from other campaigns and stay up late to do nothing but troll and turtle in, let's say Chalman keep. Now i'm not trying to single any guild or player out in particular. Sure there are a lot of people who shamelessly milk it even while it ruins the game for everyone else, but it's in the entire faction's best interest too to keep emperor because the health bonus is extremely strong.
So here's the solution: Put a timer on when the emperor is down to his or her last keep. If at that point, the emperor's faction does not capture two more emperor keeps within an hour, then the emperor is dethroned regardless.
This will force these lame dethrone stalemate situations to end, and punish people for taking advantage of how difficult it is to dethrone in a laggy situation. It will encourage a fun, attacking play style and a dynamic map.
@ZOS_BrianWheeler Please consider this line of thinking -- this particular solution was shot from the hip a bit and is just an example. But I encourage ZoS to consider alternate routes to dethrone as well as alternate emperor conditions. Everyone else, please let me know what you think of this and let me hear your views as well.
Ghost-Shot wrote: »@JDar good suggestions but like Steve said I think the easiest solution to implement is to just require holding 2 keeps on the ring to hold your emp. I also agree with Zheg that something about tick mechanics need to change, maybe a system to track that a player contributed to the fight and give them the tick regardless of whether they stayed at the keep or not. It would make it easier to pull pugs off of a keep and get groups mobilized again rather than everyone suddenly needing to go "afk". Though I'm not sure what kind of server performance implications a tracking system like that would add.
I have the solutions for ticks. You earn double ap in range of objectives, and there are no ticks.
How would forcing people to stay on a campaign they dont wanna play on be good?it would be better to stop the campaign / faction swapping. And probably a more realistic approach. Although simply adding more campaigns and lowering the cap would be the best solution since everyone knows lag will not go away till AOE caps are removed.
Well, as somebody who got Emperor a few times, I think that your proposal will not change the Turtle situation much but on the other hand would make holding emperor keeps much harder.
The last time I was emperor (which also happened to be in a weekend and all sides were pop-locked), we lost the first four castles in six hours flat but held out the last castle for over one and half days. In fact almost the entire population of all alliances was there, which meant the defending side was outnumbered 2:1.
If in this scenario, another castle is added to the mix, emperor defense would become very hard. I am listing why.
- To successfully defend two keeps, the transport lines have to be kept open which is rarely the case as the inner keeps are the first to flag and resources flip very fast in a such scenario
- In a Tri-side Pop-lock, the defending side is outnumbered and spreading out will make it harder for them while the players of the other alliances will still stick together for the siege.
- The Roadways would inevitably have enemy zergs waiting making it nearly impossible for the Defending side to quickly move from one castle to the other during emergencies.
Now lets compare the current situation to your suggested one.
- Now, when the emperor side is down to two keeps, they try to defend both castles already but if both of the other alliances attempt a simultaneous dethrone, it is nearly impossible to defend both successfully and the defending side have to choose to attempt to save one or risk losing both.
- If your idea is implemented, then the defending side would lose emperor very fast but the other alliances would still try to push for the last castle and keep the momentum up regardless. And even then everybody of the defending alliance would hole up in the last keep for the AP ticks anyway.
So at the end it wont change anything.
If anything should be done, it should be to change the way how AP is earned. Currently it is possible to earn AP doing absolutely nothing that benefits the alliance or PvP in general. AP earning should be tied more closely to the main objectives of PvP.