Maintenance for the week of November 12:
• [COMPLETE] PC/Mac: North American and European megaservers for patch maintenance – November 13, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC)
• [COMPLETE] Xbox One: North American and European megaservers for maintenance– November 13, 6:00AM EST (11:00 UTC)
• [COMPLETE] PlayStation®4: North American and European megaservers for maintenance– November 13, 6:00AM EST (11:00 UTC)
• [COMPLETE] ESO Store and Account System for maintenance – November 13, 6:00AM EST (11:00 UTC)
• [COMPLETE] ESO Website for maintenance – November 13, 8:00AM EST (13:00 UTC)

Some Cyrodiil/PvP Suggestions (some of them rather old but anyway)

velipuolikuu
With Shor being all-blue all the time, except for a couple of hours at prime time, and Vivec being anything-but-blue at all times, I have a couple of ideas (some of which are in no way new but hey, I want to voice my support to those ideas) on how things might improve:

1. As sooo many players have said before me, SEPARATE IC FROM CYRODIIL. It is just stupid, from a player-perspective, that people in IC, who can not even see Cyrodiil zone chat, are counted towards Cyrodiil population. Just make it an entirely separate entity so that you enter IC the same way you enter Cyrodiil, and when you leave IC you go back to wherever it was you started from, say Reaper's March. Sure, you need to be allowed to enter Cyrodiil from IC as well but then you just go through the same process as if you entered Cyrodiil from any regular zone.

2. Introduce a maximum number of players per side, relative to the number of players on the lowest population side. Something like lowest population + 10 or whatever. Reach that cap and *boom* queue it is for you. Sure, this would frustrate people to no end but, at the same time, I believe it would encourage people to try playing PvP on other factions as well, balancing the situation for everyone.

3. Make keep/resource guards become easier/tougher depending on how many keeps your side controls. Something like home keeps plus/minus 1 = the guards are exactly as tough as they are now, but if your side has fewer keeps, they become increasingly tougher, up to a point where killing the guards in your final keep would require a more or less full, organized, well-equipped raid group (well, maybe not quite that tough, but you get the idea). Conversely, the more keeps your side controls, the easier the guards become to kill. I believe this would not only make it more fair for the losing sides but, at the same time, it would encourage more tactical thinking since you would be unable to just zerg the heck out of everything.

Comments are welcome.

.vpk
  • VaranisArano
    VaranisArano
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    1. Yes, I'd be a lot more likely to go to Imperial City on a whim if I could go directly there.

    2. So, I only play PVP for EP. I'm a faction loyalist. Under your suggestion, if AD decides not to log in one morning, I don't get to play. Under the current system, I can play for my faction at any time as long as we aren't poplocked. No thanks, I prefer the current system. My playing time should not be curtailed because another faction is lacking in players.

    3. If you've been pushed to the point that you are at your back keeps, that didn't happen by accident. Usually, there is a raid group doing it (in low pop times, its a raid group, in primetime its a faction stack or at least multiple raids) so I'm not sure how this in any way changes the status quo.
  • velipuolikuu
    2. So, I only play PVP for EP. I'm a faction loyalist. Under your suggestion, if AD decides not to log in one morning, I don't get to play. Under the current system, I can play for my faction at any time as long as we aren't poplocked. No thanks, I prefer the current system. My playing time should not be curtailed because another faction is lacking in players.

    Oh, you'd get to play alright, just not right away. I realize that there are non-trivial problems with this suggestion, that would require some thinking (such as people exploiting the system by making sure one side gets as many keeps with as little resistance as possible by parking unused alts or willing guildies to idle on the enemy side so their population count reaches the maximum, and then just capping everything while actual enemy players are stuck in queue). This particular suggestion is maybe the weakest of the three I mentioned but I do believe there could be some sensible way of implementing something like this.

    EDIT: I play DC 99.5% of the time. The forever-ongoing smurf zerging on Shor, however, has made me, my wife, and a couple of good friends and PvP acquaintances of mine to seriously consider switching over to EP, or AD, just to balance things out a little bit. It's no fun for me to enter Cyrodiil only to see that yay, Kingscrest Farm is actually red, so if I run as fast as I can, I might just be able to make it there in time before that one final non-blue resource flips and we all get a tick.

    Oh, it just occurred to me, while writing the above that one more option that the devs might want to consider is simply making the capture ticks smaller and smaller the more keeps and resources your side controls. I mean, I don't have any Right Answers™ but I do seriously think that there needs to be either some sort of a diminishing returns that makes capping all of the map less and less desirable the more your side controls or, alternatively, making it increasingly harder and harder to cap those last keeps and resources.
    3. If you've been pushed to the point that you are at your back keeps, that didn't happen by accident. Usually, there is a raid group doing it (in low pop times, its a raid group, in primetime its a faction stack or at least multiple raids) so I'm not sure how this in any way changes the status quo.

    In my experience it's quite often one strong leader, with maybe a couple of good to really good buddies, and 5-20 hangarounds (some of whom don't even speak English so they'd understand group chat - they're just following along wherever the group goes). Such groups would not be able to cap *everything* like they can, and do, now. Just make those final guards so challenging that if you only got 4 friends along with you it simply doesn't matter how good you, and your group, are - you are *not* going to be able to cap those last few keeps. There are not that many organized full groups around in PvP, so I do think the 3rd suggestion could have a positive impact.

    .vpk
    Edited by velipuolikuu on February 23, 2018 8:31PM
  • VaranisArano
    VaranisArano
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    In my experience it's quite often one strong leader, with maybe a couple of good to really good buddies, and 5-20 hangarounds (some of whom don't even speak English so they'd understand group chat - they're just following along wherever the group goes). Such groups would not be able to cap *everything* like they can, and do, now. Just make those final guards so challenging that if you only got 4 friends along with you it simply doesn't matter how good you, and your group, are - you are *not* going to be able to cap those last few keeps. There are not that many organized full groups around in PvP, so I do think the 3rd suggestion could have a positive impact.

    .vpk

    There's where we differ. I play on PC/NA Vivec, where there's semi-organized PVP going on nearly 24/7 and for the most part there's a fairly balanced population. But if I log on at the right (wrong) time, I hit right in the not-so -sweet spot where the AD oceanic guild is finishing up their run and my other EP players haven't logged in yet in any sort of organized fashion, and so even though our numbers are roughly the same, 24 disorganized players are going to get roflstomped by 24 organized players most of the time. So my experience in those times is with fighting groups for whom those extra NPCs would not be a problem.

    My opinion is that the problems on underpopulated campaigns would be better solved by getting more players into those campaigns rather than changing up the rules to account for them being underpopulated. However, I've yet to find a good solution to get players back to underpopulated campaigns. My guild has gone over to PC/NA Shor a couple of times, but never stayed because there was no real competition, and us grabbing the map for one faction with little opposition really only perpetuates the problem.
  • Tzayad
    Tzayad
    ✭✭✭
    3. Make keep/resource guards become easier/tougher depending on how many keeps your side controls. Something like home keeps plus/minus 1 = the guards are exactly as tough as they are now, but if your side has fewer keeps, they become increasingly tougher, up to a point where killing the guards in your final keep would require a more or less full, organized, well-equipped raid group (well, maybe not quite that tough, but you get the idea). Conversely, the more keeps your side controls, the easier the guards become to kill. I believe this would not only make it more fair for the losing sides but, at the same time, it would encourage more tactical thinking since you would be unable to just zerg the heck out of everything.

    I would be happy just giving this buff to all the tri-keeps
    AD Exclusive
    Beren Tinamion | StamBlade
    Gus Güs | StamPlar
    Giriah Redbeard | MagSorc
    Holdarinn | MagPlar
    And too many more to list.
  • velipuolikuu
    There's where we differ. I play on PC/NA Vivec, where there's semi-organized PVP going on nearly 24/7 and for the most part there's a fairly balanced population. But if I log on at the right (wrong) time, I hit right in the not-so -sweet spot where the AD oceanic guild is finishing up their run and my other EP players haven't logged in yet in any sort of organized fashion, and so even though our numbers are roughly the same, 24 disorganized players are going to get roflstomped by 24 organized players most of the time.

    I play on PC/EU, so might simply be the difference in region.

  • prototypefb
    prototypefb
    ✭✭✭
    • friendly npc should be able to ressurect people every now and then
    • repairing keeps don't give enough ap, there needs to be more incentive to repair keeps, maybe a slight regeneration buff? 1-2% regen for 10 min
    • while in stealth your armor dyes appear completely black sometimes
    • all siege weapons should be available to be purchased via gold, i see way too many people 'saving' ap and buying inappropriate siege, just because that was only siege available for gold...
  • DoctorESO
    DoctorESO
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    1. As sooo many players have said before me, SEPARATE IC FROM CYRODIIL. It is just stupid, from a player-perspective, that people in IC, who can not even see Cyrodiil zone chat, are counted towards Cyrodiil population. Just make it an entirely separate entity so that you enter IC the same way you enter Cyrodiil, and when you leave IC you go back to wherever it was you started from, say Reaper's March. Sure, you need to be allowed to enter Cyrodiil from IC as well but then you just go through the same process as if you entered Cyrodiil from any regular zone.

    I can't agree with this enough. As it stands right now, there is literally no connection of consequence between IC and the overland Cyrodiil.
Sign In or Register to comment.