Maintenance for the week of May 18:
· [COMPLETE] NA megaservers for maintenance – May 18, 4:00AM EDT (8:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EDT (13:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] EU megaservers for maintenance – May 18, 8:00 UTC (4:00AM EDT) - 13:00 UTC (9:00AM EDT)
· [COMPLETE] NA megaservers for maintenance – May 18, 4:00AM EDT (8:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EDT (13:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] EU megaservers for maintenance – May 18, 8:00 UTC (4:00AM EDT) - 13:00 UTC (9:00AM EDT)
The issues on the North American megaservers have been resolved at this time. If you continue to experience difficulties at login, please restart your client. Thank you for your patience!
EMPERORSHIP
-
disintegr8✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Like so man
Why not just give everyone who does a minimum number of hours in PVP a turn at being emperor?GreenSoup2HoT wrote: »You should be granted 5 hours maximum. Top 10 should all have a chance to get emperor. This also stops the whole playing 24/7 to get emperor thing.
Great idea to make emperor more enjoyable and it gives everyone a turn.
Not everyone who attempts something achieves what they want and there is nothing wrong with that. We don't give Olympic gold medals to all competitors on a rotating basis so as long as they competed, they can all have their 'turn'.
Takes me back to growing up as a kid when we had to keep track of whose turn it was to sit in the front seat and we would fight about it. If we couldn't sort it out, nobody got the front seat. So, maybe no emperor is a good thing.Australian on PS4 NA server.
Everyone's entitled to an opinion.1 -
AzuraKin✭✭✭✭✭No. Keep it the lame way it is.dont know why people wanna get rid of emperor i mean who cares about being emperor, its more fun to get emperor slayer titles anyhoot.v160 spellsword (nightblade)
v160 restoration archmage (Templar)
v160 battlemage (sorcerer)
v160 restoration archmage (Templar)
v160 warrior (DragonKnight)
v160 assassin (nightblade)
v160 swordsman (sorcerer)
v160 spellsword (nightblade)0 -
Hand_Bacon✭✭✭✭✭prettynink wrote: »Hand_Bacon wrote: »There is a support group for those who have signatures longer than their posts...but I lost their number.
OMG Can you find it for me please kind sir??? um no thanks for the amount of time it took you to come up with that you could have contributed something viable to this thread. you have a seat as well.
You see that mine was longer than my post as well...nm, its wasted.
My opinion; leave it as it is. Certainly any attempt at a fix to the perceived problems would just introduce more issues than its worth.
The current system is, of course, riddled with problems as I think people expect that their cyro exploits should speak for themselves and if they feel they pwn "this much" they should be emp. I see it riddled more with opportunities. (although I know I won't be emp)
The social politicking, outside of game design, brings emp to a different level. It may make it somewhat exclusionary, but so be it. One of the greatest stories from any mmo I ever heard was the great espionage in EVE Online. It wasn't part of game design, but then again, game design didn't prevent it.
Edited by Hand_Bacon on November 30, 2016 2:11AM#AlmostGood@ESO0 -
GreenSoup2HoT✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭You can only hold emperorship for a certain amount of time.disintegr8 wrote: »Like so man
Why not just give everyone who does a minimum number of hours in PVP a turn at being emperor?GreenSoup2HoT wrote: »You should be granted 5 hours maximum. Top 10 should all have a chance to get emperor. This also stops the whole playing 24/7 to get emperor thing.
Great idea to make emperor more enjoyable and it gives everyone a turn.
Not everyone who attempts something achieves what they want and there is nothing wrong with that. We don't give Olympic gold medals to all competitors on a rotating basis so as long as they competed, they can all have their 'turn'.
Takes me back to growing up as a kid when we had to keep track of whose turn it was to sit in the front seat and we would fight about it. If we couldn't sort it out, nobody got the front seat. So, maybe no emperor is a good thing.
Getting top 10 is still no easy task in a 30day campaign. It just makes it more rewarding to try and get top 10 with this new mechanic. Why should the one guy who sh!t buckets the first 48 hours of a campaign get emperor for the month?
At least giving someone a good 5 or even 12 hour reign is good enough in my opinion. Emperor should be shared. Not given to people who no life the game.
Its more fun that way also, knowing many people will have a chance just makes it fun. Even passing the thrown around sounds fun. Players who drop campaign for friends are the real mvps.Edited by GreenSoup2HoT on November 30, 2016 2:13AMPS4 NA DC1 -
prettynink✭✭✭Other suggestion.Hand_Bacon wrote: »prettynink wrote: »Hand_Bacon wrote: »There is a support group for those who have signatures longer than their posts...but I lost their number.
OMG Can you find it for me please kind sir??? um no thanks for the amount of time it took you to come up with that you could have contributed something viable to this thread. you have a seat as well.
You see that mine was longer than my post as well...nm, its wasted.
My opinion; leave it as it is. Certainly any attempt at a fix to the perceived problems would just introduce more issues than its worth.
The current system is, of course, riddled with problems as I think people expect that their cyro exploits should speak for themselves and if they feel they pwn "this much" they should be emp.
The social politicking, outside of game design, brings emp to a different level. It may make it somewhat exclusionary, but so be it. One of the greatest stories from any mmo I ever heard was the great espionage in EVE Online. It wasn't part of game design, but then again, game design didn't prevent it.
No actually I did not notice your signature as I can not see anyone's signature. I don't know why I can't as I love reading everyone's signature. So yea there is that. no waste
I agree, why people feel entitled to something they don't want to fight for is BEYOND ME. It is pvp afterall, fight for what is wanted.
never heard of EVE online but cool story bro thanks for sharingEdited by prettynink on November 30, 2016 2:19AMXBOX ONE: NA
gt=PRETTYPHOENIX
561 stam sorc redguard ad (Ma'tet) (9 trait crafter) (Stormproof)
561 mag dk dunmer dc (Annaksunamin)(Empress)
561 mag sorc altmer dc (Ammeratasu)(Stormproof)
561 mag nb altmer dc (The Queen Akasha)(Stormproof)
561 mag plar altmer dc (Sekmet Menchit) (Shehai Shatterer)
561 heath dk imp dc (The Queen Khalessi) (Offtank)
561 stam nb bosmer dc (Missandei Unsullied)
561 stam sorc orc dc (Hannibal Lectress)
561 stam dk khajiit dc (Maleficent Domina)
561 stam plar redguard dc (Laggatha Lothbrok)
561 healer breton dc (Harleen Quindell) aka Boots
lvl 15 mag plar argonian ep (Sees All Draws)
Affiliations
Guild Lead of xTheDarkBrotherhoodx(PVE.Dungeons,Trials,PVP)In house Trade)
Officer in Daggerfall Big Ticks( PVP)
UNREST(Trader)
Motto
Loyalty,Honor,and Respect
PAWS (Positively Against Wrip-Off Stuff) Let Crown Crates Go Night Night, May They NEVER Wake0 -
AzuraKin✭✭✭✭✭No. Keep it the lame way it is.GreenSoup2HoT wrote: »disintegr8 wrote: »Like so man
Why not just give everyone who does a minimum number of hours in PVP a turn at being emperor?GreenSoup2HoT wrote: »You should be granted 5 hours maximum. Top 10 should all have a chance to get emperor. This also stops the whole playing 24/7 to get emperor thing.
Great idea to make emperor more enjoyable and it gives everyone a turn.
Not everyone who attempts something achieves what they want and there is nothing wrong with that. We don't give Olympic gold medals to all competitors on a rotating basis so as long as they competed, they can all have their 'turn'.
Takes me back to growing up as a kid when we had to keep track of whose turn it was to sit in the front seat and we would fight about it. If we couldn't sort it out, nobody got the front seat. So, maybe no emperor is a good thing.
Getting top 10 is still no easy task in a 30day campaign. It just makes it more rewarding to try and get top 10 with this new mechanic. Why should the one guy who sh!t buckets the first 48 hours of a campaign get emperor for the month?
At least giving someone a good 5 or even 12 hour reign is good enough in my opinion. Emperor should be shared. Not given to people who no life the game.
Its more fun that way also, knowing many people will have a chance just makes it fun. Even passing the thrown around sounds fun. Players who drop campaign for friends are the real mvps.
dude they worked for it, they earned it.v160 spellsword (nightblade)
v160 restoration archmage (Templar)
v160 battlemage (sorcerer)
v160 restoration archmage (Templar)
v160 warrior (DragonKnight)
v160 assassin (nightblade)
v160 swordsman (sorcerer)
v160 spellsword (nightblade)0 -
Thealteregoroman✭✭✭✭✭
✭Wait...............you can pay 1 million gil to a player to become emperor?****Master Healer...****0 -
andreasranasen✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭If you lose emperorship during campaign period you cannot get emperorship again during that 7 day / 30 day period. If you lost, you aren't worthy getting it again during campaign period.
Prrrrrrreach!GreenSoup2HoT wrote: »disintegr8 wrote: »Like so man
Why not just give everyone who does a minimum number of hours in PVP a turn at being emperor?GreenSoup2HoT wrote: »You should be granted 5 hours maximum. Top 10 should all have a chance to get emperor. This also stops the whole playing 24/7 to get emperor thing.
Great idea to make emperor more enjoyable and it gives everyone a turn.
Not everyone who attempts something achieves what they want and there is nothing wrong with that. We don't give Olympic gold medals to all competitors on a rotating basis so as long as they competed, they can all have their 'turn'.
Takes me back to growing up as a kid when we had to keep track of whose turn it was to sit in the front seat and we would fight about it. If we couldn't sort it out, nobody got the front seat. So, maybe no emperor is a good thing.
Getting top 10 is still no easy task in a 30day campaign. It just makes it more rewarding to try and get top 10 with this new mechanic. Why should the one guy who sh!t buckets the first 48 hours of a campaign get emperor for the month?
At least giving someone a good 5 or even 12 hour reign is good enough in my opinion. Emperor should be shared. Not given to people who no life the game.
Its more fun that way also, knowing many people will have a chance just makes it fun. Even passing the thrown around sounds fun. Players who drop campaign for friends are the real mvps.
#VMATOKENSYSTEM #WEAPONDYE #TRAITCHANGE #CROWNCRATELOVER- Alliance/Platform: Aldemerii - PS4/NA - CP 800+
- Mag Sorc: Arya Rosendahl - Altmer - Highelf
0 -
GreenSoup2HoT✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭You can only hold emperorship for a certain amount of time.GreenSoup2HoT wrote: »disintegr8 wrote: »Like so man
Why not just give everyone who does a minimum number of hours in PVP a turn at being emperor?GreenSoup2HoT wrote: »You should be granted 5 hours maximum. Top 10 should all have a chance to get emperor. This also stops the whole playing 24/7 to get emperor thing.
Great idea to make emperor more enjoyable and it gives everyone a turn.
Not everyone who attempts something achieves what they want and there is nothing wrong with that. We don't give Olympic gold medals to all competitors on a rotating basis so as long as they competed, they can all have their 'turn'.
Takes me back to growing up as a kid when we had to keep track of whose turn it was to sit in the front seat and we would fight about it. If we couldn't sort it out, nobody got the front seat. So, maybe no emperor is a good thing.
Getting top 10 is still no easy task in a 30day campaign. It just makes it more rewarding to try and get top 10 with this new mechanic. Why should the one guy who sh!t buckets the first 48 hours of a campaign get emperor for the month?
At least giving someone a good 5 or even 12 hour reign is good enough in my opinion. Emperor should be shared. Not given to people who no life the game.
Its more fun that way also, knowing many people will have a chance just makes it fun. Even passing the thrown around sounds fun. Players who drop campaign for friends are the real mvps.
dude they worked for it, they earned it.
so do the other 9 people risking there mental and physical health to obtain emperor. its not a good system. i will leave it at that.
you should not be encouraged to stay up for 48+ hours at the start of a campaign to get emperor.
having a system that rotates emperor to many of the top 10 members is much more fun but also makes campaigns more competetive.
nobody tries to get top 1 spot when the current emp is 5 mill ap ahead... but when that emps reign can end and other people have a chance the race is on again.
you just dont get it.
Edited by GreenSoup2HoT on November 30, 2016 2:31AMPS4 NA DC2 -
brandonv516✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭You can only have emperorship 1 time per in-game character.Unsent.Soul wrote: »ScooberSteve wrote: »Get rid of emp altogether only people who get it are people who have no life which doesnt take skill just no life.
Haha. What a statement. Getting emp takes no skill? Who are you again?
I would say that it CAN take little or no skill. And before you ask me what you asked the other guy, I'm nobody important who has seen other nobodies get emperor.Edited by brandonv516 on November 30, 2016 2:27AM0 -
Cathexis✭✭✭✭✭
✭Other suggestion.One possibility would be to reduce an emps AP score by a significant percentage for losing emp, in order to prevent players from monopolizing emp. Perhaps a "deposing penalty" for example say 50% of a players score is lost. This would mean players who want emp have to actively hold emp to retain the title, instead of simply retaking it.
Personally I think it is a meaningless title that is just there to entice players into pvp close enough to get sucked into AvA zerging. With PvP entirely being smoke and mirrors of gear, class choice, and highly edited clip compilations, its never been anything more than a grind, having very little to do with needing to be skilled.Edited by Cathexis on November 30, 2016 2:37AMTome of Alteration Magic I - Reality is an Ancient Dwemer Construct: Everything You Need to Know About FPS
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/520903/tomb-of-fps-alteration-magic-everything-you-need-to-know-about-fps
Tome of Alteration Magic II - The Manual of the Deceiver: A Beginner's Guide to Thieving
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/462509/tome-of-alteration-mastery-ii-the-decievers-manual-thieving-guide-for-new-characters
Ultrawide ESO Adventure Screenshots - 7680 x 1080 Resolution
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/505262/adventures-in-ultra-ultrawide-an-ongoing-series0 -
AzuraKin✭✭✭✭✭No. Keep it the lame way it is.GreenSoup2HoT wrote: »GreenSoup2HoT wrote: »disintegr8 wrote: »Like so man
Why not just give everyone who does a minimum number of hours in PVP a turn at being emperor?GreenSoup2HoT wrote: »You should be granted 5 hours maximum. Top 10 should all have a chance to get emperor. This also stops the whole playing 24/7 to get emperor thing.
Great idea to make emperor more enjoyable and it gives everyone a turn.
Not everyone who attempts something achieves what they want and there is nothing wrong with that. We don't give Olympic gold medals to all competitors on a rotating basis so as long as they competed, they can all have their 'turn'.
Takes me back to growing up as a kid when we had to keep track of whose turn it was to sit in the front seat and we would fight about it. If we couldn't sort it out, nobody got the front seat. So, maybe no emperor is a good thing.
Getting top 10 is still no easy task in a 30day campaign. It just makes it more rewarding to try and get top 10 with this new mechanic. Why should the one guy who sh!t buckets the first 48 hours of a campaign get emperor for the month?
At least giving someone a good 5 or even 12 hour reign is good enough in my opinion. Emperor should be shared. Not given to people who no life the game.
Its more fun that way also, knowing many people will have a chance just makes it fun. Even passing the thrown around sounds fun. Players who drop campaign for friends are the real mvps.
dude they worked for it, they earned it.
so do the other 9 people risking there health to obtain emperor. its not a good system. i will leave it at that.
yes it is, emperor system is not a system to reward everyone, its to reward the one who spends the time, effort to earn the greatest amount of ap in the shortest amount of time possible for the longest period of time (until emperor is earned or campaign ends)v160 spellsword (nightblade)
v160 restoration archmage (Templar)
v160 battlemage (sorcerer)
v160 restoration archmage (Templar)
v160 warrior (DragonKnight)
v160 assassin (nightblade)
v160 swordsman (sorcerer)
v160 spellsword (nightblade)1 -
GreenSoup2HoT✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭You can only hold emperorship for a certain amount of time.GreenSoup2HoT wrote: »GreenSoup2HoT wrote: »disintegr8 wrote: »Like so man
Why not just give everyone who does a minimum number of hours in PVP a turn at being emperor?GreenSoup2HoT wrote: »You should be granted 5 hours maximum. Top 10 should all have a chance to get emperor. This also stops the whole playing 24/7 to get emperor thing.
Great idea to make emperor more enjoyable and it gives everyone a turn.
Not everyone who attempts something achieves what they want and there is nothing wrong with that. We don't give Olympic gold medals to all competitors on a rotating basis so as long as they competed, they can all have their 'turn'.
Takes me back to growing up as a kid when we had to keep track of whose turn it was to sit in the front seat and we would fight about it. If we couldn't sort it out, nobody got the front seat. So, maybe no emperor is a good thing.
Getting top 10 is still no easy task in a 30day campaign. It just makes it more rewarding to try and get top 10 with this new mechanic. Why should the one guy who sh!t buckets the first 48 hours of a campaign get emperor for the month?
At least giving someone a good 5 or even 12 hour reign is good enough in my opinion. Emperor should be shared. Not given to people who no life the game.
Its more fun that way also, knowing many people will have a chance just makes it fun. Even passing the thrown around sounds fun. Players who drop campaign for friends are the real mvps.
dude they worked for it, they earned it.
so do the other 9 people risking there health to obtain emperor. its not a good system. i will leave it at that.
yes it is, emperor system is not a system to reward everyone, its to reward the one who spends the time, effort to earn the greatest amount of ap in the shortest amount of time possible for the longest period of time (until emperor is earned or campaign ends)
i edited my last quote and added some.
it is not a good system. once you obtain emperor next in line should be crowned if you fail to hold it. when you loose emperor you failed and should be executed.PS4 NA DC2 -
AzuraKin✭✭✭✭✭No. Keep it the lame way it is.GreenSoup2HoT wrote: »GreenSoup2HoT wrote: »GreenSoup2HoT wrote: »disintegr8 wrote: »Like so man
Why not just give everyone who does a minimum number of hours in PVP a turn at being emperor?GreenSoup2HoT wrote: »You should be granted 5 hours maximum. Top 10 should all have a chance to get emperor. This also stops the whole playing 24/7 to get emperor thing.
Great idea to make emperor more enjoyable and it gives everyone a turn.
Not everyone who attempts something achieves what they want and there is nothing wrong with that. We don't give Olympic gold medals to all competitors on a rotating basis so as long as they competed, they can all have their 'turn'.
Takes me back to growing up as a kid when we had to keep track of whose turn it was to sit in the front seat and we would fight about it. If we couldn't sort it out, nobody got the front seat. So, maybe no emperor is a good thing.
Getting top 10 is still no easy task in a 30day campaign. It just makes it more rewarding to try and get top 10 with this new mechanic. Why should the one guy who sh!t buckets the first 48 hours of a campaign get emperor for the month?
At least giving someone a good 5 or even 12 hour reign is good enough in my opinion. Emperor should be shared. Not given to people who no life the game.
Its more fun that way also, knowing many people will have a chance just makes it fun. Even passing the thrown around sounds fun. Players who drop campaign for friends are the real mvps.
dude they worked for it, they earned it.
so do the other 9 people risking there health to obtain emperor. its not a good system. i will leave it at that.
yes it is, emperor system is not a system to reward everyone, its to reward the one who spends the time, effort to earn the greatest amount of ap in the shortest amount of time possible for the longest period of time (until emperor is earned or campaign ends)
i edited my last quote and added some.
it is not a good system. once you obtain emperor next in line should be crowned if you fail to hold it. when you loose emperor you failed and should be executed.
you know its funny only people complaining about system are those who want emperor but are not strong enough to become emperor or not willing to pay to become emperor. ask anyone trying to be come emperor and they will tell you they flat out spend millions of ap to get the ap in a campaign to be number 1 on leaderboard. sry but if you not willing to put the time in, the ap in, and beat out your opponents for emperor, then you shouldnt be emperor. emperor isnt some title to give everyone who wants it, in fact if you go over the history of patches you will notice zos changed the system so that players couldnt get emp and then drop campaign to give it to the next player on the leaderboard list. emperor is where zos and anyone else who understands why emperor even exists in pvp in the first place want it.v160 spellsword (nightblade)
v160 restoration archmage (Templar)
v160 battlemage (sorcerer)
v160 restoration archmage (Templar)
v160 warrior (DragonKnight)
v160 assassin (nightblade)
v160 swordsman (sorcerer)
v160 spellsword (nightblade)2 -
Mic1007✭✭✭✭✭
✭If you lose emperorship during campaign period you cannot get emperorship again during that 7 day / 30 day period. If you lost, you aren't worthy getting it again during campaign period.This is the option that makes the most sense.
@Mic1007
Champion Rank 900+
DC/AD/EP
PC NA
PAWS (Positively Against Wrip-off Stuff) - Say No to Crown Crates!0 -
Korah_Eaglecry✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭If you lose emperorship during campaign period you cannot get emperorship again during that 7 day / 30 day period. If you lost, you aren't worthy getting it again during campaign period.After I got emperor, I stopped playing on the campaign for a little while to let the guy below me get it because I knew he wanted it. I even returned to help him take the keeps when he was above me. I too, only wanted the costume AND the colour. I don't understand why some people are so possessive of the position, just let somebody else have a go for heavens sakes
Because they know they are denying others the achievement. Some people enjoy that sort of thing.Penniless Sellsword CompanyCaptain Paramount - Jorrhaq VhentKorith Eaglecry * Enrerion Aedihle * Laerinel Rhaev * Caius Berilius * Seylina Ithvala * H'Vak the GrimjawlTenarei Rhaev * Dazsh Ro Khar * Yynril Rothvani * Bathes-In-Coin * Anaelle Faerniil * Azjani Ma'LesAban Shahid Bakr * Kheshna gra-Gharbuk * Gallisten Bondurant * Etain Maquier * Atsu Kalame * Faulpia SeverinusWhat is better, to be born good, or to overcome your evil nature through great effort? - Paarthurnax0 -
AzuraKin✭✭✭✭✭No. Keep it the lame way it is.because they view emperor the way its suppose to be, a title to be earned by the best (at making ap) not for everyone. i have never gotten emp, and i probably never will. guess what i dont *** care. if i wanted to be emp, i wouldnt do pve, i wouldnt work a job, i wouldnt watch tv, movies, and i would play 1 toon in pvp campaign.v160 spellsword (nightblade)
v160 restoration archmage (Templar)
v160 battlemage (sorcerer)
v160 restoration archmage (Templar)
v160 warrior (DragonKnight)
v160 assassin (nightblade)
v160 swordsman (sorcerer)
v160 spellsword (nightblade)0 -
Recremen✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭No. Keep it the lame way it is.I haven't had a problem with the current set up, but then again I was able to get a run at it already. I can certainly see the desire to look into something that is such a zero sum achievement. It's not like Flawless Conqueror or something where you need to meet a minimum skill level, you also have to have the time (or timing) and usually a solid guild backing willing to push, which means lots of social connections. For that reason it's probably up there in terms of difficulty with whatever achievements Hodor is getting in the PvE world.Men'Do PC NA AD Khajiit
Grand High Illustrious Mid-Tier PvP/PvE Bussmunster0 -
GreenSoup2HoT✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭You can only hold emperorship for a certain amount of time.GreenSoup2HoT wrote: »GreenSoup2HoT wrote: »GreenSoup2HoT wrote: »disintegr8 wrote: »Like so man
Why not just give everyone who does a minimum number of hours in PVP a turn at being emperor?GreenSoup2HoT wrote: »You should be granted 5 hours maximum. Top 10 should all have a chance to get emperor. This also stops the whole playing 24/7 to get emperor thing.
Great idea to make emperor more enjoyable and it gives everyone a turn.
Not everyone who attempts something achieves what they want and there is nothing wrong with that. We don't give Olympic gold medals to all competitors on a rotating basis so as long as they competed, they can all have their 'turn'.
Takes me back to growing up as a kid when we had to keep track of whose turn it was to sit in the front seat and we would fight about it. If we couldn't sort it out, nobody got the front seat. So, maybe no emperor is a good thing.
Getting top 10 is still no easy task in a 30day campaign. It just makes it more rewarding to try and get top 10 with this new mechanic. Why should the one guy who sh!t buckets the first 48 hours of a campaign get emperor for the month?
At least giving someone a good 5 or even 12 hour reign is good enough in my opinion. Emperor should be shared. Not given to people who no life the game.
Its more fun that way also, knowing many people will have a chance just makes it fun. Even passing the thrown around sounds fun. Players who drop campaign for friends are the real mvps.
dude they worked for it, they earned it.
so do the other 9 people risking there health to obtain emperor. its not a good system. i will leave it at that.
yes it is, emperor system is not a system to reward everyone, its to reward the one who spends the time, effort to earn the greatest amount of ap in the shortest amount of time possible for the longest period of time (until emperor is earned or campaign ends)
i edited my last quote and added some.
it is not a good system. once you obtain emperor next in line should be crowned if you fail to hold it. when you loose emperor you failed and should be executed.
you know its funny only people complaining about system are those who want emperor but are not strong enough to become emperor or not willing to pay to become emperor. ask anyone trying to be come emperor and they will tell you they flat out spend millions of ap to get the ap in a campaign to be number 1 on leaderboard. sry but if you not willing to put the time in, the ap in, and beat out your opponents for emperor, then you shouldnt be emperor. emperor isnt some title to give everyone who wants it, in fact if you go over the history of patches you will notice zos changed the system so that players couldnt get emp and then drop campaign to give it to the next player on the leaderboard list. emperor is where zos and anyone else who understands why emperor even exists in pvp in the first place want it.GreenSoup2HoT wrote: »GreenSoup2HoT wrote: »GreenSoup2HoT wrote: »disintegr8 wrote: »Like so man
Why not just give everyone who does a minimum number of hours in PVP a turn at being emperor?GreenSoup2HoT wrote: »You should be granted 5 hours maximum. Top 10 should all have a chance to get emperor. This also stops the whole playing 24/7 to get emperor thing.
Great idea to make emperor more enjoyable and it gives everyone a turn.
Not everyone who attempts something achieves what they want and there is nothing wrong with that. We don't give Olympic gold medals to all competitors on a rotating basis so as long as they competed, they can all have their 'turn'.
Takes me back to growing up as a kid when we had to keep track of whose turn it was to sit in the front seat and we would fight about it. If we couldn't sort it out, nobody got the front seat. So, maybe no emperor is a good thing.
Getting top 10 is still no easy task in a 30day campaign. It just makes it more rewarding to try and get top 10 with this new mechanic. Why should the one guy who sh!t buckets the first 48 hours of a campaign get emperor for the month?
At least giving someone a good 5 or even 12 hour reign is good enough in my opinion. Emperor should be shared. Not given to people who no life the game.
Its more fun that way also, knowing many people will have a chance just makes it fun. Even passing the thrown around sounds fun. Players who drop campaign for friends are the real mvps.
dude they worked for it, they earned it.
so do the other 9 people risking there health to obtain emperor. its not a good system. i will leave it at that.
yes it is, emperor system is not a system to reward everyone, its to reward the one who spends the time, effort to earn the greatest amount of ap in the shortest amount of time possible for the longest period of time (until emperor is earned or campaign ends)
i edited my last quote and added some.
it is not a good system. once you obtain emperor next in line should be crowned if you fail to hold it. when you loose emperor you failed and should be executed.
you know its funny only people complaining about system are those who want emperor but are not strong enough to become emperor or not willing to pay to become emperor. ask anyone trying to be come emperor and they will tell you they flat out spend millions of ap to get the ap in a campaign to be number 1 on leaderboard. sry but if you not willing to put the time in, the ap in, and beat out your opponents for emperor, then you shouldnt be emperor. emperor isnt some title to give everyone who wants it, in fact if you go over the history of patches you will notice zos changed the system so that players couldnt get emp and then drop campaign to give it to the next player on the leaderboard list. emperor is where zos and anyone else who understands why emperor even exists in pvp in the first place want it.
Here are the leader-board's for each faction 20 days into the pop locked campaign on ps4. Now look at the numbers.
You know what i see? I see 3 people that are so far ahead compared to the other players they can hardly even compete. However if Emperor rotated more through the top ten after you got deposed many of these players would be involved in a competitive race to see who would get next emperor. The DC emperor is my friend and has had emperor for so long that he is almost 10 million ap above everyone else (if anyones like wtf?.. its the destro ult thats broken op).
Now in my opinion all these people in top ten are more then eligible to get Emperor but because of the way Emperor works once you get it, you obtain a substantial amount of AP due to the buffs.
If anything all AP earned during Emperor-ship should not go towards the leader-boards but rather its own Emperor Leader-board. This way many people will end up becoming Emperor and the race continues throughout the campaign. @ZOS_BrianWheeler
Edited by GreenSoup2HoT on December 3, 2016 1:09AMPS4 NA DC1 -
Glurin✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭dont know why people wanna get rid of emperor i mean who cares about being emperor, its more fun to get emperor slayer titles anyhoot.
Well, it does come with some nice to have passives that stick with you when you're no longer emperor. They won't make or break any builds, but they're a decent enough place to throw extra points into if you have them.
As for my thoughts on the subject, I wouldn't mind seeing the one time per character thing implemented, though it's not like I'm going to start marching in the streets for it or anything. I do like the idea of having costumes for other ranks, though I'm not fond of the emperor rank only giving a costume option."He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster...when you gaze long into the abyss the abyss also gazes into you..."0 -
Adenoma✭✭✭✭✭
✭No. Keep it the lame way it is.I guess I don't see the problem with an emperorship going to the person who amassed the most AP - if they want to monopolize that title, then it's theirs for up to almost 7/30 days. I don't understand people that criticize "no-lifers," because this is how those people enjoy themselves.
I don't think that this is or should be some sort of participation award. Yes, there are people who will push their physical limits. Yes, there are often guild politics. Yes, some people apparently use weird means of *** AP. But this doesn't mean that you deserve the title if you're in second place. Just earn more AP then them or don't and accept the results.
On a side note, I would like the map to reset at campaign reset. It'd make campaigns seem much more competitive (at least for a bit).
Adenoma-Badenoma-Sadenoma1 -
andreasranasen✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭If you lose emperorship during campaign period you cannot get emperorship again during that 7 day / 30 day period. If you lost, you aren't worthy getting it again during campaign period.I guess I don't see the problem with an emperorship going to the person who amassed the most AP - if they want to monopolize that title, then it's theirs for up to almost 7/30 days. I don't understand people that criticize "no-lifers," because this is how those people enjoy themselves.
I don't think that this is or should be some sort of participation award. Yes, there are people who will push their physical limits. Yes, there are often guild politics. Yes, some people apparently use weird means of *** AP. But this doesn't mean that you deserve the title if you're in second place. Just earn more AP then them or don't and accept the results.
On a side note, I would like the map to reset at campaign reset. It'd make campaigns seem much more competitive (at least for a bit).
Pre One Tam you NEVER saw mag sorcs as emps. Why? Because it was easier to be a gank Blabe or run VD proc on zergs to AP boost.
I've ran several times for emp as a mag sorc. Two times I had a certain player who was emperor from previous campaign and continued being emp when I was pushing. Even though he had an advantage of getting more AP than me, I passed his score several times. He just didn't want to give up his emperorship even though I know for a fact he's has emp over 40 times. After a week of spending countless of hours hoping opposing alliances would get their *** together and flip the map, nothing happened and the same guy continued having his emperorship for another 3 weeks. You find this fair?
#VMATOKENSYSTEM #WEAPONDYE #TRAITCHANGE #CROWNCRATELOVER- Alliance/Platform: Aldemerii - PS4/NA - CP 800+
- Mag Sorc: Arya Rosendahl - Altmer - Highelf
0 -
obscure7✭✭✭✭Other suggestion.24 or 48 hour cooldown when it's lost. If you're emperor and lose it, you can't earn it back for 24 or 48 hours.
A full 7/30 day campaign cooldown is too harsh.PC NA0 -
pjwb16_ESO✭✭✭✭Other suggestion.Leave it as it is but bring former empress passives back #advantages~ here since Beta
My Youtube Channel: https://youtube.com/channel/UCw3x5B-l0S093TAo10WafLA
EU Server PC @Elendiel
Fyrusha - NB AD
Auri-ele - Sorc AD
Watch me Nae Nae - Magicka DK AD
Watch me Whip - Magicka DK DC
Schnuggii - Bubble Templar AD0 -
DovresMalven✭✭✭Other suggestion.andreasranasen wrote: »Emperorship in PvP needs some serious work. It's not a matter of 'Learn to Play' or not getting enough points to get emp. There are just quite a lot of former emperors just never willing to give up their emperorship or simply doing shady things like boosting to get their points up.
Myself, i have the Warlord title (Rank 41) and i have never had emp. Not because i didn't have enough points, but because the current emperor in the same alliance as me just didn't want to give up emperorship even though they've had emp 30-50 times already. Or it's always that one who gets emperorship 3 times in one week. And i refuse to pay a million gold to have that person step down.
I mean i could really care less about emperorship except i'd love to have the costume. But i feel it's also ruining the whole experience by having same people having emperorship all the time. And i also think a change about this has to be done to keep maps flipping and being alive. I would like Emperorship in PvP to be re-worked.
What do you think?
A long time ago I thought a good system would be to have a Raid in the IC, that 24 people could complete if they had a majority of keeps and at the end there would be a ring of platforms with one in the center, and in that way you could essentially vote for an emp! Maybe with some kind of entry requirements for the raidDovres Malven
- Aldmeri Dominion0 -
Metafae✭✭✭✭✭If you lose emperorship during campaign period you cannot get emperorship again during that 7 day / 30 day period. If you lost, you aren't worthy getting it again during campaign period.I feel like we're all ignoring the politics of becoming emperor.
I have a friend that spent the entire 30 day campaign at the top spot in Trueflame, but didn't become emperor at all. The main guilds didn't want to push for Emp as they didn't see them as being worthy, as they were primarily a ganker. Ignored the fact that he put a lot of effort into diverting enemy forces and help control the map for the faction.
It's not about if you put in the hard work, he clearly did, he managed to hold that spot and work hard to give the faction a chance at pushing emp while he diverted the enemy forces away from the emp keeps.
During these events, you would see the other two factions flipping emp between them regularly, but if we got close to getting emp, both factions would put a stop to it together, both attacking the same keep at the same time while not attacking each other.
This is just one of the reason I hardly bother with PvP in this game. The people in there can be toxic, the politics are terrible when you can easily set up 2 v 1 situations, and the emp gets achievements, costume, dye and OP stat boosts.
I'll dabble in pvp if these issues get sorted out, but we all know it will never be addressed.Edited by Metafae on December 6, 2016 11:40PM1 -
andreasranasen✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭If you lose emperorship during campaign period you cannot get emperorship again during that 7 day / 30 day period. If you lost, you aren't worthy getting it again during campaign period.I feel like we're all ignoring the politics of becoming emperor.
I have a friend that spent the entire 30 day campaign at the top spot in Trueflame, but didn't become emperor at all. The main guilds didn't want to push for Emp as they didn't see them as being worthy, as they were primarily a ganker. Ignored the fact that he put a lot of effort into diverting enemy forces and help control the map for the faction.
It's not about if you put in the hard work, he clearly did, he managed to hold that spot and work hard to give the faction a chance at pushing emp while he diverted the enemy forces away from the emp keeps.
During these events, you would see the other two factions flipping emp between them regularly, but if we got close to getting emp, both factions would put a stop to it together, both attacking the same keep at the same time while not attacking each other.
This is just one of the reason I hardly bother with PvP in this game. The people in there can be toxic, the politics are terrible when you can easily set up 2 v 1 situations, and the emp gets achievements, costume, dye and OP stat boosts.
I'll dabble in pvp if these issues get sorted out, but we all know it will never be addressed.
PvP is a very toxic environment for sure!#VMATOKENSYSTEM #WEAPONDYE #TRAITCHANGE #CROWNCRATELOVER- Alliance/Platform: Aldemerii - PS4/NA - CP 800+
- Mag Sorc: Arya Rosendahl - Altmer - Highelf
0 -
Jaronking✭✭✭✭✭
✭Other suggestion.
Actually I think this would be the best and easy idea for them to.implement this allow other players to still have a chance to get emp.When you have EmP you make so much more AP its almost ridiculous in comparison to everyone else.This let's others push for their own chance to capture the title while not taking anything away form the current emp.GreenSoup2HoT wrote: »GreenSoup2HoT wrote: »GreenSoup2HoT wrote: »GreenSoup2HoT wrote: »disintegr8 wrote: »Like so man
Why not just give everyone who does a minimum number of hours in PVP a turn at being emperor?GreenSoup2HoT wrote: »You should be granted 5 hours maximum. Top 10 should all have a chance to get emperor. This also stops the whole playing 24/7 to get emperor thing.
Great idea to make emperor more enjoyable and it gives everyone a turn.
Not everyone who attempts something achieves what they want and there is nothing wrong with that. We don't give Olympic gold medals to all competitors on a rotating basis so as long as they competed, they can all have their 'turn'.
Takes me back to growing up as a kid when we had to keep track of whose turn it was to sit in the front seat and we would fight about it. If we couldn't sort it out, nobody got the front seat. So, maybe no emperor is a good thing.
Getting top 10 is still no easy task in a 30day campaign. It just makes it more rewarding to try and get top 10 with this new mechanic. Why should the one guy who sh!t buckets the first 48 hours of a campaign get emperor for the month?
At least giving someone a good 5 or even 12 hour reign is good enough in my opinion. Emperor should be shared. Not given to people who no life the game.
Its more fun that way also, knowing many people will have a chance just makes it fun. Even passing the thrown around sounds fun. Players who drop campaign for friends are the real mvps.
dude they worked for it, they earned it.
so do the other 9 people risking there health to obtain emperor. its not a good system. i will leave it at that.
yes it is, emperor system is not a system to reward everyone, its to reward the one who spends the time, effort to earn the greatest amount of ap in the shortest amount of time possible for the longest period of time (until emperor is earned or campaign ends)
i edited my last quote and added some.
it is not a good system. once you obtain emperor next in line should be crowned if you fail to hold it. when you loose emperor you failed and should be executed.
you know its funny only people complaining about system are those who want emperor but are not strong enough to become emperor or not willing to pay to become emperor. ask anyone trying to be come emperor and they will tell you they flat out spend millions of ap to get the ap in a campaign to be number 1 on leaderboard. sry but if you not willing to put the time in, the ap in, and beat out your opponents for emperor, then you shouldnt be emperor. emperor isnt some title to give everyone who wants it, in fact if you go over the history of patches you will notice zos changed the system so that players couldnt get emp and then drop campaign to give it to the next player on the leaderboard list. emperor is where zos and anyone else who understands why emperor even exists in pvp in the first place want it.GreenSoup2HoT wrote: »GreenSoup2HoT wrote: »GreenSoup2HoT wrote: »disintegr8 wrote: »Like so man
Why not just give everyone who does a minimum number of hours in PVP a turn at being emperor?GreenSoup2HoT wrote: »You should be granted 5 hours maximum. Top 10 should all have a chance to get emperor. This also stops the whole playing 24/7 to get emperor thing.
Great idea to make emperor more enjoyable and it gives everyone a turn.
Not everyone who attempts something achieves what they want and there is nothing wrong with that. We don't give Olympic gold medals to all competitors on a rotating basis so as long as they competed, they can all have their 'turn'.
Takes me back to growing up as a kid when we had to keep track of whose turn it was to sit in the front seat and we would fight about it. If we couldn't sort it out, nobody got the front seat. So, maybe no emperor is a good thing.
Getting top 10 is still no easy task in a 30day campaign. It just makes it more rewarding to try and get top 10 with this new mechanic. Why should the one guy who sh!t buckets the first 48 hours of a campaign get emperor for the month?
At least giving someone a good 5 or even 12 hour reign is good enough in my opinion. Emperor should be shared. Not given to people who no life the game.
Its more fun that way also, knowing many people will have a chance just makes it fun. Even passing the thrown around sounds fun. Players who drop campaign for friends are the real mvps.
dude they worked for it, they earned it.
so do the other 9 people risking there health to obtain emperor. its not a good system. i will leave it at that.
yes it is, emperor system is not a system to reward everyone, its to reward the one who spends the time, effort to earn the greatest amount of ap in the shortest amount of time possible for the longest period of time (until emperor is earned or campaign ends)
i edited my last quote and added some.
it is not a good system. once you obtain emperor next in line should be crowned if you fail to hold it. when you loose emperor you failed and should be executed.
you know its funny only people complaining about system are those who want emperor but are not strong enough to become emperor or not willing to pay to become emperor. ask anyone trying to be come emperor and they will tell you they flat out spend millions of ap to get the ap in a campaign to be number 1 on leaderboard. sry but if you not willing to put the time in, the ap in, and beat out your opponents for emperor, then you shouldnt be emperor. emperor isnt some title to give everyone who wants it, in fact if you go over the history of patches you will notice zos changed the system so that players couldnt get emp and then drop campaign to give it to the next player on the leaderboard list. emperor is where zos and anyone else who understands why emperor even exists in pvp in the first place want it.
Here are the leader-board's for each faction 20 days into the pop locked campaign on ps4. Now look at the numbers.
You know what i see? I see 3 people that are so far ahead compared to the other players they can hardly even compete. However if Emperor rotated more through the top ten after you got deposed many of these players would be involved in a competitive race to see who would get next emperor. The DC emperor is my friend and has had emperor for so long that he is almost 10 million ap above everyone else (if anyones like wtf?.. its the destro ult thats broken op).
Now in my opinion all these people in top ten are more then eligible to get Emperor but because of the way Emperor works once you get it, you obtain a substantial amount of AP due to the buffs.
If anything all AP earned during Emperor-ship should not go towards the leader-boards but rather its own Emperor Leader-board. This way many people will end up becoming Emperor and the race continues throughout the campaign. @ZOS_BrianWheeler
0 -
NBrookus✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭No. Keep it the lame way it is.Earning AP is only an obvious tangible, measurable sign of emperorship. In reality, if you want emp you need to rally people to help you, whether it's encouraging and leading PUGs to get them to fight for you, or as a member of strong guilds and/or alliances that will help and push -- and hold -- the map for you. In this respect, it's pretty realistic.
If your idea of emperorship is to get the costume, title and dye then log out and throw away the map and the efforts of the people who helped you get there... you might have a hard time convincing people you are serious in the first place.0
