Maintenance for the week of March 9:
• NA megaservers for patch maintenance – March 9, 4:00AM EDT (8:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EDT (16:00 UTC)
• EU megaservers for patch maintenance – March 9, 8:00 UTC (4:00AM EDT) - 16:00 UTC (12:00PM EDT)
• ESO Store and Account System for maintenance – March 11, 9:00AM EDT (13:00 UTC) - 1:00PM EDT (17:00 UTC)

Cyro AP/Scoring idea changes for ZoS

Irylia
Irylia
✭✭✭✭✭
PvP~~
Rewards:
1.Geodes - the current geode system should be left as is because it promotes players to pvp even if they are pve or casual. What could use a change so that these masses don’t just ball zerg objectives for their rewards, is ap needs to be distributed differently. (Option to open a reward on EACH of your toons for a cracked transmutation stone once a day) I.e 12 characters give you the ability to open 12 rewards, 1 on each, to yield a guaranteed stone providing geodes.

Scoring + AP
1. Resources on home keeps should be worth double their current take value while emp resources are halved from their current amount.

2. Emp keeps should also be halved to 3k Ap base, as the emp ring already provides the benefit of potential emperor, port distance and conquest positioning.

3. Groups earn less ap for every additional player near them that exceeds the group limit.
Note: This won’t deter groups from clumping on important objective takes but will make it more appealing to players to venture out of the large group in order to earn more ap.

4. Towns are worth more scoring tick points and generate higher ap values for kills made there. (additional towns?)

5. Scrolls Increase scoring on the scrolls so that captures are more sought over and the travel between scroll temple and a keep will generate combat over terrain that is hardly used.
Note: Scrolls are generally ran far away from keeps due to enemy access on easy spawns if the scroll is nearby thus the string of fights to ensue over cyrodiils beautiful environment.

6. AP Buff Make the ap buff last twice as long but worth 15%. Add a minor ap buff that is obtainable through completion of quest boards. Complete 3/4 and you earn the minor buff for 2 hours 10% a total of 25% more value if sought after.
Note: Players traveling to delves will enjoy small clashes away from the beaten path and quests with additional value will not only help your faction but encourage players to take and defend odd resources/keeps away from the main fray.

7. Dolmens drop rate for cold fire is increased and they now appear on the map showing as a grey icon that turns blue, red, yellow when cleared by a faction. (Killing blow on boss) the dolmen rewards a faction with 5 scoring points and spawns every 30
Minutes.
Note: By generating more opportunities to score points for your faction and at a considerable amount they will be huge points of interest across the map every time they spawn, resulting in fights on uncommon terrain.

Result = The geodes are now a prize for earning ap by leaving the ball zerg as zerg surfing for ap won’t be as profitable.

6a. An alternative quest board option
Group based missions that have different specifications. 4,8,12 etc in size that have the group escort a wagon from point A to B. If the wagon detects additional players from your faction past the quest amount then it will be deducted from your reward.
Other quests could be but not limited to:
-Intel gathering
-Capture and defend a spawned flag for x duration (abandoned towers, cheydinhal, outlying towns)

The kicker is that enemy factions can see the accepted quest from other factions and a group of similar size can embark on the quest to prevent the escort from reaching its destination by eliminating all players and the wagon. With potentially 2 factions trying to destroy the escort they will also fight one another, potentially first, so as to eliminate the chance of having someone else take the reward.
*Once fully eliminated your group fails the mission and cannot reap rewards for that quest.

Quest Rewards: (idea)
If you accomplish the quest as the faction who took the initiating quest you gain one of
-guards are stronger/additional to one/two selected keeps for x minutes
-siege is 20% reduced cost for x minutes for your entire faction.
-a keeps walls are stronger and take reduced damage from siege for x minutes
Or
One faction of choice
-weaker/less guards in a keep for x min
-siege costs 20% more for x min
-walls weaker on a keep for x min

*Also gain a chunk of ap for completing the quest*

A group from the faction that chose to intercept or stop the initiator has the ability to
-guards are stronger/additional to one/two selected keeps for x minutes
-siege is 20% reduced cost for x minutes for your entire faction.
-a keeps walls are stronger and take reduced damage from siege for x minutes

Campaign:
Lower vivec pop cap by 15% and then make shor a 30 day campaign.
Note: Players have shown a consistent draw to the longer campaign because it allows them to feel as if their contribution has more weight in a large scale war. The population spread along with ap changes will distribute players across the map in a healthier way.

AOE CAPS + Sets/Skills~~

The change to aoe caps is amazing but the damage that destro ults have when paired with moving sleet storms and vd/proxy will be enormous. But not in a positive way.
In order to combat this I’m suggesting a modification to destro ult in either damage or function.
Change:
1. Make the eots do another 10% less base while buffing the stationary destro by 10%. This generates a risk and reward. Ults that are stationary provide the most value when executed properly but can be easily countered by negates or moving out of them. This will encourage strategic play when it comes to dropping timed ults. As opposed to casting eots and running around for maximum damage. Especially with eots lack of counters.
2. The other option for a change to destro ult is by making it more tool based for a variety of mag ults
Inferno: lobs a ball of fire at a single target. Can be blocked but not dodged. Inflicts a burn that enraged the caster and increases their damage by 8% (minor beserk)
Ice: slam your staff into the ground sending out ice shards in a 10m aoe radius. Each shard that hits the same target deals 75/50/25% less damage than the first. Each shard roots the target. (Ic ice atro) this can be used in small scale control as well as large group play on chokes to enable ults like shackle/nova/bats.
Lightning: a conal magicka db that shocks the enemies hit for damage and stuns them


3. As a way to make either change more meaningful earthgore needs to see a minor tweak. Earthgore should be a way to heal but not remove ground effects upon activation. Negate already has an important role and should remain that way for countering player ults with active gameplay.

4. Vd/proxy
Vd base damage nerfed by 10% and radius increased by 2m
Proxy starts to increase in damage value after 6 enemies. Dealing subsequently more at 7/8/9/10 etc.

Recap]: As aoe caps are now removed I do believe it is a great thing but that if these ults and tools are too strong it will still encourage players to stack for the benefit of sets/heals/barriers/earthgore. As all of these tools are just as frightening to smaller numbers with the exception that large groups can apply more pressure to whatever is trying to kill them with vd proxy destro ult.

[/b]Outfit and guild tabard[/b]
Provide an option for players to turn guild tabard on/off as visible so that they can wear it over the outfit and or gear without it showing visibly.


Cp needs to stop increasing as it just increases everyone’s ability to spec for things their build doesn’t have as well as adding numerous calculations the server must make while in cyrodiil.
Befoul should be removed as well as healing received cp. This lowers the calculations necessary and provides some counterplay to strong defile/healing without using defile as the main counter to heals when it gimps classes without strong heals in the first place.

Thank you,

Irylia

@ZOS_GinaBruno
Edited by Irylia on August 4, 2018 2:58PM
  • Minno
    Minno
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    I agree to all these. Done; can we get them added now?
    Minno - DC - Forum-plar Extraordinaire
    - Guild-lead for MV
    - Filthy Casual
  • Ragnarock41
    Ragnarock41
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭
    I mean.. everything is fine and all but, AP has nothing to do with PvP issues.
    Fix the lag and everything will start to get better. Thats the only fix pvp needs.
  • Kilandros
    Kilandros
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭
    I mean.. everything is fine and all but, AP has nothing to do with PvP issues.
    Fix the lag and everything will start to get better. Thats the only fix pvp needs.

    AP has a lot to do with PvP issues when you consider that AP gains could be used as a tool to effect playstyle changes (e.g., greater AP bonuses for going to areas further out on the map or lessened AP bonuses for larger groups as a means to promote smaller groups spreading out).
    Invictus
    Kilandros - Dragonknight / Grand Overlord
    Deimos - Templar / Grand Warlord
    Sias - Sorcerer / Prefect
    Short answer is DKs likely won't be seeing a ton of changes before we go live; this class is still quite powerful (as it should be being a tank), even after some of the adjustments we've made to other classes and abilities.

    DK IS NOT JUST A TANK CLASS. #PLAYTHEWAYYOUWANT
  • Minno
    Minno
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Kilandros wrote: »
    I mean.. everything is fine and all but, AP has nothing to do with PvP issues.
    Fix the lag and everything will start to get better. Thats the only fix pvp needs.

    AP has a lot to do with PvP issues when you consider that AP gains could be used as a tool to effect playstyle changes (e.g., greater AP bonuses for going to areas further out on the map or lessened AP bonuses for larger groups as a means to promote smaller groups spreading out).

    Especially when AP is used to earn monster helms and gold jewelry otherwise not obtainable through easier ways.
    Minno - DC - Forum-plar Extraordinaire
    - Guild-lead for MV
    - Filthy Casual
  • Irylia
    Irylia
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Minno wrote: »
    Kilandros wrote: »
    I mean.. everything is fine and all but, AP has nothing to do with PvP issues.
    Fix the lag and everything will start to get better. Thats the only fix pvp needs.

    AP has a lot to do with PvP issues when you consider that AP gains could be used as a tool to effect playstyle changes (e.g., greater AP bonuses for going to areas further out on the map or lessened AP bonuses for larger groups as a means to promote smaller groups spreading out).

    Especially when AP is used to earn monster helms and gold jewelry otherwise not obtainable through easier ways.

    Exactly.
    Ap plays a role in how players pvp
  • ak_pvp
    ak_pvp
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭
    Generally yes. Keep shor 7day though.
    MagDK main. PC/EU @AK-ESO
    Best houseknight EU.
  • Tasear
    Tasear
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Hmm sounds like biased changes to effect your pvp needs while hurting pve.
    Edited by Tasear on January 10, 2018 2:22PM
  • Irylia
    Irylia
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Tasear wrote: »
    Hmm sounds like biased changes to effect your pvp needs while hurting pve.

    In what way would these hurt pve.
    The majority of changes proposed are ap/scoring or cyro based.

    Cp increase just makes pve content easier and not rewarding.
    10% increase to stationary destro is a buff for you pve users.

    As for geodes pvp players have to involve themselves in every aspect of pve to farm gear in trials dungeons vdsa/vma for hours so saying if you want more transmute stones pvp, should be taken as play every aspect of the game to an extent. It’s also not difficult to obtain ap and geodes as a casual player. You can run around with a group and make that ap easily.
  • grannas211
    grannas211
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Tasear wrote: »
    Hmm sounds like biased changes to effect your pvp needs while hurting pve.

    What? how does any of this effect pve? Pure pve people are the biggest snowflakes
  • Minno
    Minno
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Tasear wrote: »
    Hmm sounds like biased changes to effect your pvp needs while hurting pve.

    What? He only mentioned breaking destro ultimate into three separate effects/spells which has been said for months since they first gave us a glimmer of that Ultimate.

    Rest are cyro changes to help promote PvP outside ring keeps.
    Minno - DC - Forum-plar Extraordinaire
    - Guild-lead for MV
    - Filthy Casual
  • Irylia
    Irylia
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    The ideas presented kept pvp changes away from affecting pve for the most part. Just ways to shake cyro up a bit.
  • Adenoma
    Adenoma
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Generally agree with these things. I disagree with some AP changes. I think that emp ring keeps should be worth more for both D ticks and O ticks to incentivize emp ring play.

    I would also really like to see resources keep their base value of 1.5k, but have that tick spread across players so if there were 3 players they would receive 500 AP. I really hate seeing in smaller, more dead campaigns zergs that just farm resources to push someone to emp. It incentivized PvE in a PvP zone and makes dead campaigns even more dead because everyone's just doing laps of keeps. Additionally, it's going to add value to fighting players for AP while larger resource farming (not farming pugs at resources, just the ticks) will be much poorer.
    Adenoma-Badenoma-Sadenoma
  • Tommy_The_Gun
    Tommy_The_Gun
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    AP gain imho should be dependant of the campaign's scoreboard. So if you fight against faction that is on the 1st place - you will gate more AP. So it could look like this:

    If you fight against 1st faction you get normal AP (example 1.5K for taking recourse)
    If you fight against 2nd faction you get 2/3 AP (example 1K for taking recourse)
    If you fight against 3nd faction you get 1/3 AP (example 0.5K for taking recourse)

    Of course it would require some balancing but this is just an idea. This would cause more diversity in the final end campaign's scoreboard and it will be much more challenging to actually win a campaign.
    Most often we have this situation when one side is perma-winning the same campaign over and over again and usually 2 factions go for the "easy way" and fight the weakest faction...
    But hey - it is just an idea...
  • Irylia
    Irylia
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    AP gain imho should be dependant of the campaign's scoreboard. So if you fight against faction that is on the 1st place - you will gate more AP. So it could look like this:

    If you fight against 1st faction you get normal AP (example 1.5K for taking recourse)
    If you fight against 2nd faction you get 2/3 AP (example 1K for taking recourse)
    If you fight against 3nd faction you get 1/3 AP (example 0.5K for taking recourse)

    Of course it would require some balancing but this is just an idea. This would cause more diversity in the final end campaign's scoreboard and it will be much more challenging to actually win a campaign.
    Most often we have this situation when one side is perma-winning the same campaign over and over again and usually 2 factions go for the "easy way" and fight the weakest faction...
    But hey - it is just an idea...

    Do you think that could cause players to swap to the other factions just to gain ap and then drain it until either that faction is top scorer and then swap once more?
    I don’t think people will enjoy being punished ap wise for winning and then people already complain about factions working together so idk.
    Something for sure to incentivize spreading out. Plenty of ideas just need to find the right one.
  • grannas211
    grannas211
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Irylia wrote: »
    AP gain imho should be dependant of the campaign's scoreboard. So if you fight against faction that is on the 1st place - you will gate more AP. So it could look like this:

    If you fight against 1st faction you get normal AP (example 1.5K for taking recourse)
    If you fight against 2nd faction you get 2/3 AP (example 1K for taking recourse)
    If you fight against 3nd faction you get 1/3 AP (example 0.5K for taking recourse)

    Of course it would require some balancing but this is just an idea. This would cause more diversity in the final end campaign's scoreboard and it will be much more challenging to actually win a campaign.
    Most often we have this situation when one side is perma-winning the same campaign over and over again and usually 2 factions go for the "easy way" and fight the weakest faction...
    But hey - it is just an idea...

    Do you think that could cause players to swap to the other factions just to gain ap and then drain it until either that faction is top scorer and then swap once more?
    I don’t think people will enjoy being punished ap wise for winning and then people already complain about factions working together so idk.
    Something for sure to incentivize spreading out. Plenty of ideas just need to find the right one.

    I agree with that. That would definitely promote faction hopping (just basically in the opposite way it is now). That system could work if they brought the faction lock system in. (Which is something I wish they would do anyways.)
  • NordSwordnBoard
    NordSwordnBoard
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭
    I like the idea of making towns more valuable AP wise

    I also like the idea of more of them or something else with strategic/tactical value.

    Maybe an Imperial camp/tower/supply depot/fortified position etc. could fill the gaps between towns. It would not create anything in conflict with map lore, not be a major landmark (removable if it fails), and something worthwhile to go get that's off the beaten path.

    We already have resources that adjust keep and npc values - what if each faction had their own main farm, mine, and lumber yard as a major supply resource that could affect their owned outpost values. These could be placed somewhere on a road less traveled as well.

    Changing the objectives that have been static for so long could help breathe some new life into PvP, even if its just the method by which you accomplish them.

    Edited by NordSwordnBoard on January 11, 2018 5:39PM
    Fear is the Mindkiller
  • Irylia
    Irylia
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    I like the idea of making towns more valuable AP wise

    I also like the idea of more of them or something else with strategic/tactical value.

    Maybe an Imperial camp/tower/supply depot/fortified position etc. could fill the gaps between towns. It would not create anything in conflict with map lore, not be a major landmark (removable if it fails), and something worthwhile to go get that's off the beaten path.

    We already have resources that adjust keep and npc values - what if each faction had their own main farm, mine, and lumber yard as a major supply resource that could affect their owned outpost values. These could be placed somewhere on a road less traveled as well.

    Changing the objectives that have been static for so long could help breathe some new life into PvP, even if its just the method by which you accomplish them.

    I agree. Even objectives that play a role in taking the surrounding keeps would be nice.
    Have a silly depot between chal Artois and brk that needs to be contested over for you to flip the flags
    Then the groups split up to hold the supply post while another group pushed the keep. More coordination involved and less mindless balling into a keep.
  • Apache_Kid
    Apache_Kid
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭
    I would like to see scoring stay exactly as it is unless we increase it across the board. Do not reduce AP gained for anything. That's a nerf and we don't need to ask for it.

    I would love for them to keep the transmutation geodes dropping from RoW exactly as it is right now on live. There is no other way to quickly get these crystals and it has really helped players to have this as a source. I've been able to spend so much less time farming for gear in specific traits since they started doing this and it's saved me countless hours.

    Now someone is going to say "well if you spend less time farming the gear because you can transmute it easily you're going to spend less time playing the game and ZoS doesn't want that."

    FALSE

    I still spend the same amount of time playing the game I just spend it actually doing things I enjoy or progressing further along in something. I'm not just running on a treadmill in the same dungeon over and over and over and over looking for a stupid specific impen or divines armor piece.

    Please save our RoW crystals!
  • Irylia
    Irylia
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Apache_Kid wrote: »
    I would like to see scoring stay exactly as it is unless we increase it across the board. Do not reduce AP gained for anything. That's a nerf and we don't need to ask for it.

    I would love for them to keep the transmutation geodes dropping from RoW exactly as it is right now on live. There is no other way to quickly get these crystals and it has really helped players to have this as a source. I've been able to spend so much less time farming for gear in specific traits since they started doing this and it's saved me countless hours.

    Now someone is going to say "well if you spend less time farming the gear because you can transmute it easily you're going to spend less time playing the game and ZoS doesn't want that."

    FALSE

    I still spend the same amount of time playing the game I just spend it actually doing things I enjoy or progressing further along in something. I'm not just running on a treadmill in the same dungeon over and over and over and over looking for a stupid specific impen or divines armor piece.

    Please save our RoW crystals!

    Except the ap changes only hinder zerging for ap and if you are spreading out already your so gained is similar if not higher with options like the towns.
  • Apache_Kid
    Apache_Kid
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭
    Irylia wrote: »
    Apache_Kid wrote: »
    I would like to see scoring stay exactly as it is unless we increase it across the board. Do not reduce AP gained for anything. That's a nerf and we don't need to ask for it.

    I would love for them to keep the transmutation geodes dropping from RoW exactly as it is right now on live. There is no other way to quickly get these crystals and it has really helped players to have this as a source. I've been able to spend so much less time farming for gear in specific traits since they started doing this and it's saved me countless hours.

    Now someone is going to say "well if you spend less time farming the gear because you can transmute it easily you're going to spend less time playing the game and ZoS doesn't want that."

    FALSE

    I still spend the same amount of time playing the game I just spend it actually doing things I enjoy or progressing further along in something. I'm not just running on a treadmill in the same dungeon over and over and over and over looking for a stupid specific impen or divines armor piece.

    Please save our RoW crystals!

    Except the ap changes only hinder zerging for ap and if you are spreading out already your so gained is similar if not higher with options like the towns.

    Sometimes there isn't much of an area to spread out to. Yesterday in Shor AD was dominating the map during the day and the only keeps left were red home keeps so everyone who was online was forced there to grab AP because there weren't enough opposing players on to take the stuff back after we took it from them. Sometimes the map just moves slow and it forces people to consolidate where the action is. I guess you're saying you're encouraging people to spread out but what if I am somewhere trying to spread out with a small group and a large zerg comes by where we are and causes all of us to get reduced AP just because they decided to be in the same area as me? That doesn't sound fun or fair. It's already taking me absolute ages to get to the PvP rank I want to achieve and I would hate to see even a single instance where the amount of AP i am gaining is reduced.
  • asneakybanana
    asneakybanana
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Put this in the last thread but I'll put it here as well for discussion:
    Some really good ideas here.

    Couple things I disagree w/ though.

    The Geodes I agree should stay but I also think that they should make the PVE sources of geodes stronger as even with these nerfs and hour of pvp will generate at least 2x as many geodes as anything in pve.

    I like the idea of reducing the value of emp keeps and resources but I think across the board the offensive tick values need to be reduced. Think it should be 500 for emp resources and 1k for tri keep resources, and 1500 for emp keep takes and 3000 for home keep takes. If you were to double the amount of AP for home keep resources groups could be making close to 100k ap/hr simply just killing resource guards in an 80 man zerg.

    Love 3, 4, and 5. I think that having a 2 hour ap buff but being worse less is really cool as well. However, the minor buff would swing things too strongly in favor of organized groups imo. As it is organized groups will permanently share their keep and resource quests of choice among their group based off which keeps and resources flip the most so all they would need to do is a kill player quest and they get the buff like this. Pugs, however, do not usually do this or even have it as an option.

    Dolmen idea is very cool as well as the mini group quests. Maybe tying them into the campaign somehow as well, like for completing a 4 person your alliance gets 10 points, an 8 person you get 15 points and a 12 person you get 20 points.

    Adding a 2nd 30 day wont change things, people pack into vivec because that is their home campaign and they home there because there is 24/7 action not just prime time action. Lowering pop caps will just help in frustrating people and make people afk at the gate more so they dont have to wait in queue.

    Reducting EotS damage wont stop people from using it. Whats losing another 500 damage per tick going to do when weve already lost like 3k. EotS is the most used group ult for 3 reasons, duration, PBAoE, and unblockable. It's a 7 second dot which means you can move through multiple waves of players with it running as well as outlast most heal ults. It being a PBAoE means that it is going to move with you as well as the fact that it cannot be negated. And the fact that it is still considered a ground dot which means that it is unblockable and undodgeable makes it extremely hard to counter regardless of how low the damage is. Currently solo EotS bombing is basically dead, youre maybe getting 5-6k a tick on a 4-5k spell damage build. However, in groups running 8 destros where they can pop 3 or 4 at a time thats 20-25k of unblockable damage every second. IDK what you could do to fix EotS but I think a good start would be to make it blockable while leaving the other morph unblockable. As far as buffing the stationary one, as long as earthgore is in the game how it is now, stationary ults will be useless, regardless of how much damage they do. Ground ults being countered by negate is one thing but having a set automatically get rid of them as soon as you start taking serious damage puts them on a whole new level of useless. Personally not a fan of changing EotS into a cheap skill as most classes already have a cheap meh ultimate that they would use.

    I like VD going up in range but if it does you will need to lower base damage more than by 10%. Prox change seems decent, maybe start scaling it up after 4 though since that is the "small group" size.

    I agree with the CP changes as well. In just 2 more patches we'll be at 250 per tree which will allow you to get 2 120 buffs somewhat easy.

    Overall I think you're on the right path and think there are some amazing ideas in here. @ZOS_GinaBruno definitely worth the read.
    Asneakybanana AD DK Former emperor of Chrysamere and Chillrend. World first hardmode Hel'ra and Quake con winner (Alliance rank 25)
    Asneakyhabenero EP DK Former emperor of Thornblade, Haderus. World first vMA Dk clear (Alliance rank 39)
    Asneakycucumber EP Sorc Former empress of Blackwater Bay and Trueflame (Alliance rank 32)
    Asneakypineapple EP Temp Former empress of Azuras Star and Haderus (Alliance rank 22)
    Asneakypickle EP NB Former empress of Trueflame (Alliance rank 47)
    Sweat Squad
    Crowned 27x on 12 different campaign cycles | 200M+ AP earned
    Fastest AA clear ever: 5:42 | Fastest HRC clear ever: 5:27 | NA first HM MoL
    609k Mag Sorc vMA
    NA first Tick Tock Tormentor
    NA first trinity (All No Death/HM/Speed run trials titles)
    2x Tick Tock Tormentor
  • asneakybanana
    asneakybanana
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    grannas211 wrote: »
    Irylia wrote: »
    AP gain imho should be dependant of the campaign's scoreboard. So if you fight against faction that is on the 1st place - you will gate more AP. So it could look like this:

    If you fight against 1st faction you get normal AP (example 1.5K for taking recourse)
    If you fight against 2nd faction you get 2/3 AP (example 1K for taking recourse)
    If you fight against 3nd faction you get 1/3 AP (example 0.5K for taking recourse)

    Of course it would require some balancing but this is just an idea. This would cause more diversity in the final end campaign's scoreboard and it will be much more challenging to actually win a campaign.
    Most often we have this situation when one side is perma-winning the same campaign over and over again and usually 2 factions go for the "easy way" and fight the weakest faction...
    But hey - it is just an idea...

    Do you think that could cause players to swap to the other factions just to gain ap and then drain it until either that faction is top scorer and then swap once more?
    I don’t think people will enjoy being punished ap wise for winning and then people already complain about factions working together so idk.
    Something for sure to incentivize spreading out. Plenty of ideas just need to find the right one.

    I agree with that. That would definitely promote faction hopping (just basically in the opposite way it is now). That system could work if they brought the faction lock system in. (Which is something I wish they would do anyways.)

    You should never incentivize losing. For doing well and pushing objectives to win the campaign you receive a penalty on how much ap you can make? Doesn't make much sense to me. Could it maybe work if for being in first place on the campaign you always make 100% of the AP while if youre in 2nd or 3rd you will make 2/3 or 1/3 the ap if you choose not to focus the winning faction. I understand you want to balance the population and get people away from stacking the winning side but punishing people for winning is not the proper way to do it.
    Asneakybanana AD DK Former emperor of Chrysamere and Chillrend. World first hardmode Hel'ra and Quake con winner (Alliance rank 25)
    Asneakyhabenero EP DK Former emperor of Thornblade, Haderus. World first vMA Dk clear (Alliance rank 39)
    Asneakycucumber EP Sorc Former empress of Blackwater Bay and Trueflame (Alliance rank 32)
    Asneakypineapple EP Temp Former empress of Azuras Star and Haderus (Alliance rank 22)
    Asneakypickle EP NB Former empress of Trueflame (Alliance rank 47)
    Sweat Squad
    Crowned 27x on 12 different campaign cycles | 200M+ AP earned
    Fastest AA clear ever: 5:42 | Fastest HRC clear ever: 5:27 | NA first HM MoL
    609k Mag Sorc vMA
    NA first Tick Tock Tormentor
    NA first trinity (All No Death/HM/Speed run trials titles)
    2x Tick Tock Tormentor
  • Inig0
    Inig0
    ✭✭✭✭
    I mean.. everything is fine and all but, AP has nothing to do with PvP issues.
    Fix the lag and everything will start to get better. Thats the only fix pvp needs.

    The lag isnt something that can easily be fixed. The largest factor imo on why the lag is so bad is the fact that people stay too condensed in small areas because theres not a good enough incentive for those faction stacking zergs to go elsewhere. Faction stacking casual nerd guilds + all the pugs all in one place is what really causes the lag.

    What really needs to happen is make it clear to new players coming that they dont need to faction stack they can go off by themselves to point X and do something to get ap or contribute to the camp. A really big deterrent to that idea of people not going to places around the map (who dont know the "farm spots") is how difficult it is to go to those places. If they could easily go to some random place off to the side then they would because other people would also be able to get there and then you would have pvp.

    Like Irylia said adding more ways that is obvious to help the camp, gain ap, or just "things to do" would greatly help everyone spread out. Put a cart system that can be pushed back and forth on the far reaching edges of the maps.

    I would go so far as to say that removing the scenario where a faction gets "gated" needs to take place. No one should load the map and immediately think 'maaan i cant pvp right now ill be stuck on one side of the map' (WHICH cause more faction stacking)
    Make the three home keeps unflippable or put points where you can ALWAYS port to. There needs to always be "a way out." Otherwise you run into the situation where everyone is in the same place and the other faction will also be there because thats where everyone is and will be.

    Sorry for going off on a tangent and quoting you, what you said was just thought provoking for me >.>
    GM: Mechanically Challenged
    In game - @Inig0
    Sorc - Inigo- Beautiful Chocolate Man
    NB - Raphiki - Beautiful Chocolate Man
    Temp - Ineegø - ınıgo
    DK - Inigø - Alfeus - Down for Maintenance
    Warden - Help I Made a Warden
    PC NA
    Youtube Stuffs
    Only the best memes die twice
  • Irylia
    Irylia
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Inig0 wrote: »
    I mean.. everything is fine and all but, AP has nothing to do with PvP issues.
    Fix the lag and everything will start to get better. Thats the only fix pvp needs.

    The lag isnt something that can easily be fixed. The largest factor imo on why the lag is so bad is the fact that people stay too condensed in small areas because theres not a good enough incentive for those faction stacking zergs to go elsewhere. Faction stacking casual nerd guilds + all the pugs all in one place is what really causes the lag.

    What really needs to happen is make it clear to new players coming that they dont need to faction stack they can go off by themselves to point X and do something to get ap or contribute to the camp. A really big deterrent to that idea of people not going to places around the map (who dont know the "farm spots") is how difficult it is to go to those places. If they could easily go to some random place off to the side then they would because other people would also be able to get there and then you would have pvp.

    Like Irylia said adding more ways that is obvious to help the camp, gain ap, or just "things to do" would greatly help everyone spread out. Put a cart system that can be pushed back and forth on the far reaching edges of the maps.

    I would go so far as to say that removing the scenario where a faction gets "gated" needs to take place. No one should load the map and immediately think 'maaan i cant pvp right now ill be stuck on one side of the map' (WHICH cause more faction stacking)
    Make the three home keeps unflippable or put points where you can ALWAYS port to. There needs to always be "a way out." Otherwise you run into the situation where everyone is in the same place and the other faction will also be there because thats where everyone is and will be.

    Sorry for going off on a tangent and quoting you, what you said was just thought provoking for me >.>

    That’s the thing. There are so many interesting ways that zos could implement objectives around all of cyrodiil to incentivize game play in other portions of the map which indirectly helps the server.
    People wouldn’t feel like the only way they could be of use to their faction was by rolling 40 deep to push a keep. They themselves along with a band of merry men could be fighting over small/important objectives across the map against others trying to do the same thing.

  • Tommy_The_Gun
    Tommy_The_Gun
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Irylia wrote: »
    AP gain imho should be dependant of the campaign's scoreboard. So if you fight against faction that is on the 1st place - you will gate more AP. So it could look like this:

    If you fight against 1st faction you get normal AP (example 1.5K for taking recourse)
    If you fight against 2nd faction you get 2/3 AP (example 1K for taking recourse)
    If you fight against 3nd faction you get 1/3 AP (example 0.5K for taking recourse)

    Of course it would require some balancing but this is just an idea. This would cause more diversity in the final end campaign's scoreboard and it will be much more challenging to actually win a campaign.
    Most often we have this situation when one side is perma-winning the same campaign over and over again and usually 2 factions go for the "easy way" and fight the weakest faction...
    But hey - it is just an idea...

    Do you think that could cause players to swap to the other factions just to gain ap and then drain it until either that faction is top scorer and then swap once more?
    I don’t think people will enjoy being punished ap wise for winning and then people already complain about factions working together so idk.
    Something for sure to incentivize spreading out. Plenty of ideas just need to find the right one.
    Well... just make campaigns alliance locked again - like they used to be. So if you log in on one character to one side you could not re-log to another until campaign end. Simple ;)
  • Deep_01
    Deep_01
    ✭✭✭✭
    How about adding in multiple (like 6) mini-resources (with flags or something) that are spread across, close by to the keep, which needs to all be captured for the Keep to turn? These mini-resources could me a nice place for small scalers, if they could be turned by one or two players quickly, a cross-over between how the town flags work (visually on compass) and IC flag work (2 or more players have no effect on speed).

    Also, one think I'd like to add is, to stop a keep from upgrading, it says, in-game, you can kill the worker NPCs at the resource. After testing it for a whole week, I can say this isn't working as intended. Anyone know anything of it? If this works, we can easily maintain multiple enemy keeps at level 0 or 1 with one or two players max, per keep. It would make the keeps easier to capture with a smaller population.
    @Deepan on PC-EU
  • Irylia
    Irylia
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Deep_01 wrote: »
    How about adding in multiple (like 6) mini-resources (with flags or something) that are spread across, close by to the keep, which needs to all be captured for the Keep to turn? These mini-resources could me a nice place for small scalers, if they could be turned by one or two players quickly, a cross-over between how the town flags work (visually on compass) and IC flag work (2 or more players have no effect on speed).

    Also, one think I'd like to add is, to stop a keep from upgrading, it says, in-game, you can kill the worker NPCs at the resource. After testing it for a whole week, I can say this isn't working as intended. Anyone know anything of it? If this works, we can easily maintain multiple enemy keeps at level 0 or 1 with one or two players max, per keep. It would make the keeps easier to capture with a smaller population.

    That’s a nice idea but what if a faction Is overwhelmed population wise and they are trying to take a keep back. Having to spread their 10 players to grab a keep may be hard for them when the Dc group shows up with 30 to curb their slow attempt.
    Something of that sort could work and be really cool though for spreading players out in a way that requires teamwork and coordination.
  • davey1107
    davey1107
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    I like some of these ideas. I’m never sure how much AP changes will incentivize play...I mean, zergs earn way less than I do now and they still Zerg. You can lead a horse to AP, but...

    You have some expanded avenues to AP. That would probably be good. The towns accomplished this too, and that was successful in adding objectives. It didn’t quite break up zergs...they hit towns on their way to keeps...but it created some complexities that didn’t exist before.

    Home keeps worth more: I’ve considered this one in the past too, but it always makes me wonder about map implications. We already have a lot of farm groups go take back keeps all the time. If these keeps are worth more, you might have situations where they’re always flipped and everyone is gated. This happens at times now.

    Any change to back keep values would in my mind require a change to towns. My server has a rampant problem already with small teams taking vlas and crops then the Zerg dead ports in. The town locations put the entire south under constant threat, while the terrain in the north minimizes Burma’s impact.
  • idk
    idk
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    OP provides zero justification for these changes so it seems this is just an "I want it this way". He demonstrates zero explanation for the effects these changes would have.

    Without this is doesn't warrant consideration. Most if his points seem to indicate he doesn't like lopsided campaigns and thinks this will balance the effect of such instances. Nope.

    Edit: granted I got half way through the wall of words then skimmed through the rest looking for the reason why and how OP expects all this to effect PvP. I guess I'll just sit in my home keeps and force OP to come to me.
    Edited by idk on January 15, 2018 7:44PM
  • Irylia
    Irylia
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    idk wrote: »
    OP provides zero justification for these changes so it seems this is just an "I want it this way". He demonstrates zero explanation for the effects these changes would have.

    Without this is doesn't warrant consideration. Most if his points seem to indicate he doesn't like lopsided campaigns and thinks this will balance the effect of such instances. Nope.

    Edit: granted I got half way through the wall of words then skimmed through the rest looking for the reason why and how OP expects all this to effect PvP. I guess I'll just sit in my home keeps and force OP to come to me.

    Seems no one else had an issue with inferring what my changes would result in. My post should have clarified the purpose and the reasoning been thoroughly fleshed out for the dense forum population, I apologize for not doing so.

    How about this:

    “OP (of tagged comment) provides zero justification for these critiques so it seems this is just an “im an angry person”. He demonstrates zero explanation for why he thinks these changes won’t have the desired impact.

    Without this it doesn’t warrant consideration. Most of his points seem to indicate he doesn’t like thinking out of the box and providing ideas for the community to expand on. He doesn’t think this will balance the effects of such instances yet provides no evidence to back his critique. Yep.

    Edit: granted I got half way through the jargon then skimmed through the rest looking for the reason why and how op knows it won’t work. Op expects all this to effect anything. I guess I’ll crack his home keep open and enjoy devouring him and his zergling friends. OP I’m coming.”

    Pc na
Sign In or Register to comment.