Maintenance for the week of March 25:
• [COMPLETE] ESO Store and Account System for maintenance – March 28, 9:00AM EDT (13:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EDT (16:00 UTC)

Last Emp Keep Lag: My solution

JDar
JDar
✭✭✭✭✭
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.
  • Anazasi
    Anazasi
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    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.

  • JDar
    JDar
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    I don't think the campaign swapping ban would be effective, because so many of the worst offenders have maxed alts on all toons, and ZoS has made it clear that AoE caps are not going anywhere.

    As far as AoE caps go, they have internal testing servers aside from the PTS, so I am certain they have either tried it or otherwise have a very good reason for not removing them. Can someone enlighten me about this, with concrete evidence that AoE cap removal will reduce lag?

    So I don't see that those approaches are not more realistic.

    I think that if you increase the number of campaigns you will have useless garbage like Axe of Belharza, and still avoid the problem of having about 30-40 circle jerk players working in lockstep to keep their Prom Queen. Same thing with reducing the pop cap. Zerg groups will still continue to undermine the game as it is designed.

    The solution is to change the way the game's mechanics are designed. No half-assed fixes. The game lags because the Alliance War makes it too important to hold two objectives that are about 20 yards away from each other. And that is stupid. That is what causes lag, and that needs to be addressed.

    The capture the flag objective needs to be re-evaluated as well. Expand the radius within with flags can be flipped. Make it less useful to put 24 players on one flag than it is to have 24 players all over the keep grounds.
    That should be ZoS' goal. Why are they not able to do this?

    I am certain this would require some significant but entirely feasible testing and redesign.

    edited for clarity
    Edited by JDar on June 10, 2016 2:58AM
  • JDar
    JDar
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    deleted in fear of being banned
    Edited by JDar on June 10, 2016 2:57AM
  • Satiar
    Satiar
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭
    Best way to change it: make it so that you have to hold TWO keeps to hold emp.

    Done and done.
    Vehemence -- Commander and Raid Lead -- Tri-faction PvP
    Knights Paravant -- Co-GM and Raid Lead -- AD Greyhost



  • JDar
    JDar
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Satiar wrote: »
    Best way to change it: make it so that you have to hold TWO keeps to hold emp.

    Done and done.

    I'm with that too. Also a good idea.

    Steve I'm sorry for being hard on you guys but damn it is hard to beat you and I hate that. Can't blame a man for getting his jimmies rustled
    Edited by JDar on June 10, 2016 3:05AM
  • Satiar
    Satiar
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭
    JDar wrote: »
    Satiar wrote: »
    Best way to change it: make it so that you have to hold TWO keeps to hold emp.

    Done and done.

    I'm with that too. Also a good idea.

    Steve I'm sorry for being hard on you guys but damn it is hard to beat you and I hate that. Can't blame a man for getting his jimmies rustled

    Thank you , but i also think you might be mistaken if you're referring to the latest AD emp. He's not a VE emp, we haven't pushed it or defended it in any serious way. I've been the guy yelling in zone to leave Alessia and defend back keeps.

    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
    Vehemence -- Commander and Raid Lead -- Tri-faction PvP
    Knights Paravant -- Co-GM and Raid Lead -- AD Greyhost



  • Publius_Scipio
    Publius_Scipio
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭
    The only way to defeat the lag is to defeat the lag..........

  • JDar
    JDar
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Satiar wrote: »

    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

    Wasn't referring to the latest AD emp at all, that was just in general
    I've been the guy yelling in zone to leave Alessia and defend back keeps.

    See that's the smart thing to do right? That's what you would do if you were a true team player. What usually happens is the nightmare scenario of turtling in keeps at the expense of all other objectives and the game's very playability. This is the crux of my point: that the Alliance War incorrectly favors doing the former instead of the later, or anything else. Which is a major cause of lag.

    Most of the lag complaints seem to be of the premise that there is some kind of magic code switch that ZoS can flip, or that by refactoring the code, the lag will disappear. I am not of that belief. I believe the game must change at a design level, and that the changes at the engineering level have probably been either exhausted or are unrealistic.

    I look at this problem like a business person: the amount of money ZoS could throw at the problem to refactor the code or improve physical infrastructure will probably yield marginal results that make it not worth it. I am in the dark as to whether or not this is true, but if I was the Zenimax board that's how I would look at it.

    This is why I cringe when people expect them to throw their profits away to make a dent in the lag problem. It doesn't make them greedy, it makes them smart. There has to be another way. Why don't they try this? This is one of the few things that hasn't been changed in the game. I see no reason why it has to be a sacred cow.

    edited because i messed up the quote brackets
    Edited by JDar on June 10, 2016 4:25AM
  • JDar
    JDar
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    I want to also point out that I was NOT calling out Mizaru, the AD player who was emperor on Trueflame this evening -- he or she did not even seem to be online during the high-water mark of lag that was the impetus for this post. This illustrates my point that it is not a problem with individual guilds or players, it is a bad design decision. The game is fun this way but if the game lags excessively because of it then it needs to change.

    To be sure though, there are some who have been more culpable of others of farming last emp d-ticks while zerging up on flags 30 at a time, at the expense of everyone else...but calling these people out was not the point here.
    Edited by JDar on June 10, 2016 4:35AM
  • Daveheart
    Daveheart
    ✭✭✭✭
    Thanks for bringing up the topic JDar. I've long been in favor of Steve's proposal and have stated it before here and in PMs that is seems like the best way to at least alleviate some of the emp lag. Defending two or perhaps even more specifically your own factions two emp keeps would certainly spread out the players attempting to both defend and dethrone. You could also make it dependent upon holding both of your scrolls as well as only one emp keep if they prefer that alternative.

    It's also, as you mentioned, an easy change as far as coding is concerned. Will it fix all the lag? Of course not, but if it results in more spread, it can only be a good thing - small steps are still steps.
    Daggerfall Covenant (PC-NA)

    The Order of Mundus | Nightfighters
  • Zheg
    Zheg
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭
    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.
  • Rohamad_Ali
    Rohamad_Ali
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    @ZOS_BrianWheeler @ZOS_MattFiror

    You've asked the PvP community to spread out fights in order to reduce server strain however , we always get bottle necked into this Emperor dethrone situation . It's a catch 22 . There's no way to avoid it .
  • Sallington
    Sallington
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭
    Zheg wrote: »
    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.

    I would say get rid of ticks all together. They ruin the flow of just about everything.

    I'm also a big fan of the needing 2 keeps to hold onto EMP idea.
    Edited by Sallington on June 10, 2016 2:45PM
    Daggerfall Covenant
    Sallington - Templar - Stormproof - Prefect II
    Cobham - Sorcerer - Stormproof - First Sergeant II
    Shallington - NightBlade - Lieutenant |
    Balmorah - Templar - Sergeant ||
  • kadar
    kadar
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Signed.

    Turtle your last emp keep like hell, and don't leave for any reason ever. Call all guild members to join turtle so "person" can keep emp for as long as possible. Cause as much lag as possible so no one can compete with the hordes you have amassed.

    ^This meta sucks. It decreases fun and the overall health of the campaign.
  • Sanct16
    Sanct16
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    Anazasi wrote: »
    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.
    How would forcing people to stay on a campaign they dont wanna play on be good?
    Edited by Sanct16 on June 10, 2016 5:11PM
    - EU - Raid Leader of Banana Zerg Squad
    AD | AR 50 | Sanct Fir'eheal | ex Mana DK @31.10.2015
    EP | AR 50 | Sanctosaurus | Mana NB
    AD | AR 44 | rekt ya | Mana NB
    AD | AR 41 | Sanct Thunderstorm | Mana Sorc
    EP | AR 36 | S'na'ct | Mana NB {NA}
    AD | AR 29 | Captain Full Fist| Stam DK
    AD | AR 29 | Sanct The Dark Phoenix| Stam Sorc
    EP | AR 16 | Horny Sanct | Stam Warden
    EP | AR 16 | Sánct Bánáná Sláyér | Mana DK
    DC | AR 13 | ad worst faction eu | Stam Sorc
    DC | AR 13 | Lagendary Sanct | Mana NB

    >320.000.000 AP
  • Rune_Relic
    Rune_Relic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Concurrent multi-flag has always been the only fool proof way to split players up...the further apart the flags the better.
    [As long as taking/defending the flag is actually the main objective ??? Which is questionable]

    +1 for needing two keeps to hold emperor.
    Even more so if they have to be opposite keeps.
    That way the chances of reinforcements and easy backup are limited.

    Do you have 2 keeps as close to home territory as possible but in enemy territory none the less ?
    Do you have 1 keep in home territory for easy protection and try to keep an opposite keep deep in enemy territory ?

    Regardless the 2x keep requirement has my backing.
    People never seem to have a problem with population with emp defense :/
    Edited by Rune_Relic on June 10, 2016 5:53PM
    Anything that can be exploited will be exploited
  • Ghost-Shot
    Ghost-Shot
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    @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.
  • manny254
    manny254
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    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.
    - Mojican
  • Ghost-Shot
    Ghost-Shot
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    manny254 wrote: »
    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.

    That is really simple and honestly way better than my idea, good thoughts Mojican! Would probably help the lag somewhat too since it already has to track ap earned for distributing ticks anyway.
    Edited by Ghost-Shot on June 10, 2016 6:07PM
  • Esgameplaya1
    Esgameplaya1
    ✭✭✭✭
    5737523_700b.jpg
  • kevlarto_ESO
    kevlarto_ESO
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    The best way to get rid of the lag at the last emp keep is to do away with the whole emperor thing in the first place, was a nice idea on paper but player have ruined the whole emp thing, with swapping and cheat engine, I think it is just bad for the game and never worked out like the dev's envisioned. Other than getting a small health buff the emp does nothing for the faction, keeping home keeps and taking keeps will benefit everyone in the faction more.
  • Mako1132
    Mako1132
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    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.
  • Zheg
    Zheg
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭
    Mako1132 wrote: »
    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.
  • Ghost-Shot
    Ghost-Shot
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    Zheg wrote: »
    Mako1132 wrote: »
    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.

    But @PosternHouse and I were so good at 2vX zone chat pvp, what else would we do? Fight enemy players or something?
  • rfennell_ESO
    rfennell_ESO
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    JDar wrote: »
    deleted in fear of being banned
    JDar wrote: »
    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.

    There are things they can do to alleviate the problems, if they would only listen.

    1-eliminate the bonus siege damage from emperor. Why an emp would do more damage with a machine isn't logical and it's a big problem with why these fights go on so long and why a faction can hold out.

    I have more ideas, but I think that one in particular would actually solve a lot of the issues.
  • The-Baconator
    The-Baconator
    ✭✭✭✭
    I personally like the idea of emperor being more difficult to hold and the two keep thing seems like a decent enough of an idea, but I would prefer a small grace period where the emperor's alliance could claim another emperor keep and continue to hold emperorship. It would at least force the emp group to make tough decisions and free up the other two alliances from pushing a keep where almost an entire faction is likely to be turtled. As mensioned above, I also feel like the o\dtick mechanic is just as much of an offender when it comes to producing the hour+ mega conflicts that essentially break the server. The dethrone is reason for the first and MAYBE the second push, but after that its just everyone fighting over a +20k o\dtick. I wouldn't go as far as to say double ap while near objectives though as the ap\hr that can be accomplished right now by a good medium\small group is already ridiculously high and that change would make potential gains a bit too ridiculous.
    First PS4 NA Grand Overlord, Stormproof, and Flawless Conqueror.
    Potato Lord of Atrocity
  • booksmcread
    booksmcread
    ✭✭✭✭
    manny254 wrote: »
    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.

    I like this.

    make-it-so-captain-102843.jpg
  • Anazasi
    Anazasi
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Sanct16 wrote: »
    Anazasi wrote: »
    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.
    How would forcing people to stay on a campaign they dont wanna play on be good?

    this is such a hard question and perhaps the best response is no response at all. The issue is not players or how they are playing the game; its world pvp 3 faction right? Theories on human behavior, or other arm chair philosophers can debate this and never solve anything. But the fact is attrition is the monster of world pvp. So if attrition is the only factor to consider than it is up to the designers to regulate the number of players. They can do this either by smaller campaigns, or by other mechanics that limit the number of players in a given area. I think everyone hates the lag but loves the group play style. So what's the balance? How do we adjust human behavior within the game? We as players do not, our part in this is to play, consume, enjoy, struggle, cry, and laugh. ZOS however, is responsible for the mechanics of the game. They are obligated to address and fix the issues and in doing so we, as consumers continue to play and pay. The fact that ZOS has been making small incremental fixes over the past 2 years to fix something that should have been addressed and resolved already is disappointing. But as players we simply do what we can to regulate what we can. ZOS can limit the numbers, can add more campaigns, could possible fix the lag issues if they would simply address the causes of it.

    Do i believe ZOS can resolve the issue of LAG? NO. We as players can not expect this issue to get better under the current mechanics that ZOS is developing and or allowing. I'm just saying if they can't remove the lag then they need to actually find solid solutions to limiting it in the game.

    I spent the better part of a day searching for ways to reduce lag on the client side. I found very little, but was able to make a few adjustments. I then, for the most part went into PVP and found large fights on TF that would allow me to monitor the LAG conditions on my client. While fighting in those ball fights, i monitored my PC's memory, network, and CPU usage (elder Scrolls in the task manager windows 10 playing on 1g fiber-optics with 1g Ethernet lan). My client remained at a solid 25% or less during all the fights. However, the FPS and Latency on the server randomly jumped depending on the intensity of the battles. Sometimes i would have 2fps with 700 ping, other times i would have 65fps and 96 ping. The lag as far as i can tell is definitely server side and is created by large groups of players in close proximity. If this is the case then i think a viable solution is limiting player attrition and it has to be done by ZOS through a mechanic that allows players to play without change to the consumer model ZOS has chosen.

    I really think the med's are not working but the Doctors assure me that they are. Go figure right.......
  • susmitds
    susmitds
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    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.
    Edited by susmitds on June 11, 2016 11:17AM
  • Zheg
    Zheg
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭
    susmitds wrote: »
    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.

    Of course it will change the turtle situation, and of course it will make holding emperor harder. That's the point. You can't just stack an alliance in one keep, abandon everything else, and wait for the D tick. Sounds like a win to me.
Sign In or Register to comment.