A Proposal to Spread Players Out in Cyrodiil

Alliedrex · December 2016

This post would like to delve into some of the underlying assumptions of Cyrodiil that affect how players act and propose some solutions. In its current state, there are certain mechanics that have lead players to form large herds of players rather than spreading out throughout the map. Here are some proposals.

1.) Spread ticks out across extended sieges. This could be done by releasing a minor tick when a certain level of AP has been accumulated to the most aggressive team (whether by deaths,
damage and healing, or a mix of both).
- An example of this would be everytime 10,000 AP at a keep has been accumulated, it is distributed.
- note: a siege condition should be required to prevent abuse
Reason
- The current implementation of the tick mechanics incetivises players to remain in or near keeps after the siege line has been defeated or players expelled from the keep. This allows the attackers to regroup and attack before the defensive tick has been given. Over a prolonged period of time, the tick grows and more players are drawn to the keep from both sides to gain a massive defensive or offensive tick. Spreading this out will prevent massive ticks and incentive for massive groups to build up over time.
- Additionally the current implementation of ticks does not give fair representation of effort in a siege. Players can arrive at the keep right before a tick and recieve a large reward for no effort. Players may also wish to leave the keep to defend other keeps but not with to leave without reward.

2.) Players should be in combat at least once within the time span of a tick to recieve AP.
Reason
- minor change that would prevent people leeching AP.

3.) Change the AP reward for keeps to something very high, for example 15,000 AP, that would be divided among offensive players that took place in the taking of a keep. This amount would then reset to 0 AP that would slowly grow back to the full 15,000 AP.
Reason
- Currently the only real incentives in Cyrodiil come from killing other players. Because of this, players stick to regions of the map that are highly populated. No one wants to spend a couple of thousand AP to take a keep worth 500 AP.
- This would also incentivize smaller scale siege as players would want as much AP as possible and 48 man groups attacking undefended keeps will get little reward.

4.) This game needs a grouping tool.
- By this I do not mean a queue that automatically makes a team of players, but a tool that shows other groups that are running (and wish to be viewed) and allows you to request admittance to the group.
Reason
- Currently players only have zone chat to form groups, this is a messy system and does not stimulate the formation of small groups. Allow players to form a group inside the tool and set requirements (level, number of players, pvp rank).

Kharapuce · December 2016

I do actually love all of those ideas ! Nice thread

I just doubt anyone would use the 4th point, but still a good idea.

Maybe a max population cap per campaign could ge great aswell, since (dunno for NA but for EU it's like this) everyone is playing on Tf and noone try any other campaign. So basically there is 1 main campaign getting unplaybale after 9 pm and other campaign are just some buff campaign totally empty.
Maybe a system like this could help pops to be more balanced accros the different campaign.

And why not a player counter on the choose campaign tools. Showing up the amout of players actually playing on the selected campaign.

Narvuntien · December 2016

Spreading players out is basically what needs to happen.

I want to really badly to be able get regular groups to play Spec ops. I had a great general once that picked up 8 players and started taking keeps... fast. It actually only worked once but the attempt was pretty great fun. We were deep behind enemy lines whille everyone else was zerging the bridge. I would love to get more rewards for that kind of play. It makes the game feel more like chess and helps out players without all the best gear contribute.

A bunch of people from that group started a guild to try to do it more often.

Publius_Scipio · December 2016

I had an idea based on some type of campaign message system (thats the best way I can describe it right now) that across your screen will tell you "Commander Dortene (is that the DC commander?) has given orders to attack Drakelowe" as an example.

So my idea is basically every once in a while the megaserver "groups" (not an actual group with invite etc) players together randomly based on population and sends the message to go attack the enemy keep chosen by the server. And with that will come some extra AP bonus if the siege and take is successful.

Numbers of how many the megaserver "groups" ZOS can decide on. But let me give some examples.

DC
- Server grabs 10 players at random and sends the message to attack Farragut.
- (at the same time as first message) Server grabs another 10 players at random and sends the message to attack Faregyl
- Repeat based on population size at any given time during the day

EP
- Server grabs 10 players at random and sends the message to attack Rayles
- (at the same time as first message) Server grabs another 10 players at random and sends the message to attack Black Boot

Same thing for AD. I see this (with the enticement of extra AP reward for success) as a way that now players have a reason to be trying to take Drakelowe while players of another alliance are trying to take Brindle. I think this is a way to try and spread battles out all over Cyrodiil.

Of course the system for the megaserver to grab players at random and send the message, and then track getting the extra AP bonus would have to be built. But extra AP would be an incentive for me to try to take Drakelowe.

Rohamad_Ali · December 2016

I like these suggestions .

Sheuib · December 2016

I believe the grouping tool already has a cyrodiil option but no one uses it.

Drummerx04 · December 2016

Another option would be to change the scoring system and a mild overhaul of the cyro map.

I like what ZOS did with the towns. They made them somewhat relevant since you can't just ignore them when an enemy faction flips one, and you can get small scale or large scale pvp combat in or around the towns. The problem is that these towns take FOREVER to flip if you are running a pretty small group, and it leaves a lot of time for a faction with some downtime to send a small zerg to end your fun.

Proposals

Add more flags to the world. A lot more. At the extreme end, you can put one in every delve and every interesting landmark on the surface world, but a more moderate placing would skip the delves.
- Set the flags to work like the IC flags such that a zerg can't flip the flags any faster than a small group.
- Make the flags worth 1 point for the faction
- Give them a decent base AP payout, perhaps 500 AP on a several minute cooldown. Incentivize the travel a bit for the solo AP fiends.
- Flags do not act as transit destination or spawn locations... but could act as transitus out only via a portal that opens after about 5 minutes. (If we want small scale pvp, then we don't want small groups taking the flag then immediately porting to safety)
The idea is to provide small group/solo goals that ACTUALLY HELP THE FACTION WIN without requiring a full raid+ to prevent getting insta wrecked by the enemy's full raid+, and with any luck this will spread out the small groups/solos and giving them specific and varied locations to battle other small groups. Imagine having a good 2v3 at the top of some of the traversable mountains near Arrius.
Change the base scoring values of current faction assets (double value for home assets)
- Keeps: 6 points
- Resources: 1 point
- Towns: 3 points
- Scrolls: 12 points (It always struck me as weird that the assets that take the most effort and risk to obtain have so little value to the score)
The goal here is clearly to assign more value to assets that naturally have a higher play value and to actually make scrolls relevant. Taking a keep from an enemy faction becomes more "profitable" than simply taking all the resources 2 minutes before the score eval.

Perhaps these aren't the most original or interesting ideas, but they could spice up the pvp game a bit... while I imagine being relatively simple to implement from a developer standpoint.

Alliedrex · December 2016

A group finder already exists in Cyrodiil, however the tool needs some rework so that players can decide where and with whom they want to group with. The current options are to either; have friends, have a guild, or join a 24 man group of people putting lfg or a string in chat to get auto invited. For players who have been playing awhile but don't wish to join a large group and don't have friends it's difficult to find a group. My idea was something like this

The person hosting the group would then get a notice like this

This can help players without friends and can help guilds that are openly recruiting find new players.

NBrookus · December 2016

Alliedrex wrote: »

4.) This game needs a grouping tool.
- By this I do not mean a queue that automatically makes a team of players, but a tool that shows other groups that are running (and wish to be viewed) and allows you to request admittance to the group.
Reason
- Currently players only have zone chat to form groups, this is a messy system and does not stimulate the formation of small groups. Allow players to form a group inside the tool and set requirements (level, number of players, pvp rank).

I like @Alliedrex 's mockup. There would also need an option for groups to be closed and/or unlisted. Guild groups don't necessarily want to let non-guildies in.

It would be nice if such a tool also had some flexibility; for example max size is 12 but only 2 slots are open for picking up random people. And a description box which specifies any extra requirements like having Teamspeak, or says what the group is focused on.

Crispen_Longbow · December 2016

Alliedrex wrote: »

A group finder already exists in Cyrodiil, however the tool needs some rework so that players can decide where and with whom they want to group with. The current options are to either; have friends, have a guild, or join a 24 man group of people putting lfg or a string in chat to get auto invited. For players who have been playing awhile but don't wish to join a large group and don't have friends it's difficult to find a group.

This can help players without friends and can help guilds that are openly recruiting find new players.

This would be a great solution if the problem was..."We have too many people wanting to lead groups but can't find enough players to join them".

This only works if you have an abundant source of group "Leads" which you never have. Even PVP guilds struggle with this. In any PVP guild you will usually only have a max of 3 people that will even lead a group. If 1 of those 3 aren't logged in then there isn't a group.

Alliedrex wrote: »

3.) Change the AP reward for keeps to something very high, for example 15,000 AP, that would be divided among offensive players that took place in the taking of a keep. This amount would then reset to 0 AP that would slowly grow back to the full 15,000 AP.
Reason
- Currently the only real incentives in Cyrodiil come from killing other players. Because of this, players stick to regions of the map that are highly populated. No one wants to spend a couple of thousand AP to take a keep worth 500 AP.
- This would also incentivize smaller scale siege as players would want as much AP as possible and 48 man groups attacking undefended keeps will get little reward.

All this would do is promote PVDoor, that's not PVP. I would be in favor of this, IF the keep actually had a defense. So instead of 15K AP for any keep. It should scale with the amount of defenders. 15K AP for every 10 defenders or something like that.

So if you had 10 defenders and 10 attackers and lets say each player is worth 1,500 AP. The total pot would be 45K AP.

15k AP from killing all 10 defenders.
15K AP from capping it and getting the "O" tick.
15K Bonus for taking the keep while defended.

This 45K would be split by the 10 attackers for 4500 a piece.

Now if it the keep is empty...
0 AP from not killing any defenders.
0 AP for not killing anyone for the "O" tick
0 AP bonus for PVdooring a keep while it was undefended.

So if no defenders are defending the keep you don't get any AP for attacking it. This isn't PVE.

So the real question should be, "How do you get defenders to spread out to the various keeps so that it's not PVDoor?" This would then give the smaller scale siege fights you are looking for?

Keiryan · December 2016

People are going to fight where they want to fight, ie)
- The Bridge or any variation of potato streams between outposts and keeps like Bleakers and Chal
- Glademist Mine/Arrius Mine/Faregyl Farm
- Bruma

Or of course the Emp ring. Some people do care about the scoreboard.. but, why? Which there in lies the problem.

There is no point to winning the campaign except for virtual bragging rights that accumulates more to who has a stronger overall presence between NA and Oceanic time periods than it does anything else.

So if there is no actual point to winning, or holding a campaign, why would people bother to spread out from the one and only majorly populated server where you can find fights? If I take my 10 man to Haderus, I'm met with vitriol and comments about how I'm a home wrecking zerg lord. Therefore I'm confined to the restraints of Trueflame, even on the laggiest of nights.

What's needed is something similar to bringing back buff servers, an actual reason for people to want or need to win the campaign, because it provides a real, tangible benefit. This was beneficial when instated in not only having population spread because people wanted to control and maintain buff servers, but it also brought in fresh blood from the PvE community searching for those buffs for their trial speed runs, and as any frequent roamer of Cyrodiil would know, a wolf always loves fresh blood. It also gave the option of groups like mine to run pirate raids onto other servers looking to vehemently defend their buffs, the booty was always worth the sail to foreign lands which more often than not, presented foreign groups to fight that you wouldn't see on the regular.

It was a win-win situation, of which I'm not sure was not scaled back in the buffs it provided as opposed to the coddling of the PvE community and removed outright.

Why is it that the PvP community is forced like a Windows 10 update to go and grind in PvE for the last month and a half and potentially longer upon the release of new patches to get our gear to make us competitive? At least make them suffer the same pain as us if they want to hit their end game goals.

geonsocal · December 2016

Keiryan wrote: »

People are going to fight where they want to fight, ie)
- The Bridge or any variation of potato streams between outposts and keeps like Bleakers and Chal
- Glademist Mine/Arrius Mine/Faregyl Farm
- Bruma

Or of course the Emp ring. Some people do care about the scoreboard.. but, why? Which there in lies the problem.

There is no point to winning the campaign except for virtual bragging rights that accumulates more to who has a stronger overall presence between NA and Oceanic time periods than it does anything else.

So if there is no actual point to winning, or holding a campaign, why would people bother to spread out from the one and only majorly populated server where you can find fights? If I take my 10 man to Haderus, I'm met with vitriol and comments about how I'm a home wrecking zerg lord. Therefore I'm confined to the restraints of Trueflame, even on the laggiest of nights.

What's needed is something similar to bringing back buff servers, an actual reason for people to want or need to win the campaign, because it provides a real, tangible benefit. This was beneficial when instated in not only having population spread because people wanted to control and maintain buff servers, but it also brought in fresh blood from the PvE community searching for those buffs for their trial speed runs, and as any frequent roamer of Cyrodiil would know, a wolf always loves fresh blood. It also gave the option of groups like mine to run pirate raids onto other servers looking to vehemently defend their buffs, the booty was always worth the sail to foreign lands which more often than not, presented foreign groups to fight that you wouldn't see on the regular.

It was a win-win situation, of which I'm not sure was not scaled back in the buffs it provided as opposed to the coddling of the PvE community and removed outright.

Why is it that the PvP community is forced like a Windows 10 update to go and grind in PvE for the last month and a half and potentially longer upon the release of new patches to get our gear to make us competitive? At least make them suffer the same pain as us if they want to hit their end game goals.

that was kinda deep...how would the "buff" work?

Keiryan · December 2016

geonsocal wrote: »

that was kinda deep...how would the "buff" work?

It has to be something strong enough worth obtaining, yet obviously something that won't let you pass content with out it. That's usually where people will start to complain. A buff might provide 1% to 3% damage bonus based on how many of the scrolls were held or maybe armor or damage reduction bonuses. Something similar to what the keep/scroll bonuses already apply, but in a more balanced version and re-applied to PvE land. Just like people who push for vMA weapons when it isn't really necessary, this might cause Trial guilds to want to form alliances with PvP guilds or other PvE guilds to do more regular PvP nights, something I rarely see PvE guilds do anymore.

They already had it in this exact format before, they just need to reinstate it or figure out an alternative system on the same liking.

Joy_Division · December 2016

Keiryan wrote: »

People are going to fight where they want to fight, ie)
- The Bridge or any variation of potato streams between outposts and keeps like Bleakers and Chal
- Glademist Mine/Arrius Mine/Faregyl Farm
- Bruma

Or of course the Emp ring. Some people do care about the scoreboard.. but, why? Which there in lies the problem.

There is no point to winning the campaign except for virtual bragging rights that accumulates more to who has a stronger overall presence between NA and Oceanic time periods than it does anything else.

So if there is no actual point to winning, or holding a campaign, why would people bother to spread out from the one and only majorly populated server where you can find fights? If I take my 10 man to Haderus, I'm met with vitriol and comments about how I'm a home wrecking zerg lord. Therefore I'm confined to the restraints of Trueflame, even on the laggiest of nights.

What's needed is something similar to bringing back buff servers, an actual reason for people to want or need to win the campaign, because it provides a real, tangible benefit. This was beneficial when instated in not only having population spread because people wanted to control and maintain buff servers, but it also brought in fresh blood from the PvE community searching for those buffs for their trial speed runs, and as any frequent roamer of Cyrodiil would know, a wolf always loves fresh blood. It also gave the option of groups like mine to run pirate raids onto other servers looking to vehemently defend their buffs, the booty was always worth the sail to foreign lands which more often than not, presented foreign groups to fight that you wouldn't see on the regular.

It was a win-win situation, of which I'm not sure was not scaled back in the buffs it provided as opposed to the coddling of the PvE community and removed outright.

Why is it that the PvP community is forced like a Windows 10 update to go and grind in PvE for the last month and a half and potentially longer upon the release of new patches to get our gear to make us competitive? At least make them suffer the same pain as us if they want to hit their end game goals.

I'm glad someone mentioned this.

At some point, Brian Wheeler and the majority of the PvP community somehow convinced themselves that having something to tangibly fight for that people gave a crap about was a bad thing. So the cry went out "Down with Buff servers!" because in their minds, every campaign when then become evenly populated, contested, and night-capping would just magically go away.

And then, if that wasn't enough, they adjusted the scoring system such that controlling the Aleswell Lumbermill was somehow worth more to your alliance than controlling the elder Scroll of Ghartok ... in a game called The Elder Scrolls Online.

Keiryan · December 2016

Joy_Division wrote: »

And then, if that wasn't enough, they adjusted the scoring system such that controlling the Aleswell Lumbermill was somehow worth more to your alliance than controlling the elder Scroll of Ghartok ... in a game called The Elder Scrolls Online.

L
O
L

This right here sums up just how misconstrued the dev's way of thinking is and why we are all succumbing to Stockholm Syndrome as evidence by the fact that we keep logging in day in and day out.

Although some of us aren't so disillusioned. The majority I know of are waiting for CU. Or basically anything better to come out.

I have to wonder when anyone from ZoS will actually take note of this fact? I imagine like anyone that is in their infancy stages.. they'll probably procrastinate until they have to scramble for a solution before the entire skilled PvP player base leaves for greener pastures.

Or maybe that's what they want is for us to leave? They are all about catering to the PvE community after all.

covenant_merchant · December 2016

You forgot to mention - remove the low population bonus points, and make winning a campaign actually rewarding.

As it is, only rare players truly play to win the campaign and go on making relevant steps to do so. Most guild groups that have could have an impact are just farming AP at bridge, sej, bleakers or nikel.

Regarding the low pop bonus, the system is being abused to hell. I remember back in July, when we set up to win the campaign for DC at the last possible moment if only to *** a glorious and well-known Khajiit pug leader off, we simply spread out and took resources at bb and bm right before score evalutations and logged off. Dc got the low pop bonus as well as double points for enemy home resources.
Rinse and repeat for several hours, and DC won.

While I'm pretty blazé about this whole thing and cba going through that again when there are other features to be exploited and AP to be farmed, logging off just before score evaluations to get the bonus is way more common than you'd think.

Anazasi · December 2016

The solution for spreading out the population is already in game. ZOS just needs to make it happen.

1. Max AP is only given to the first 24 player at the keep when it flags.
2. 100 AP given to everyone over the first 24 in the keep zone.

Stack more than 24 get min AP

Simple solution. Problem solved.