Knowledge wrote: »

swippy wrote: »

DoctorESO wrote: »

Knowledge wrote: »

swippy wrote: »

Knowledge wrote: »

At the present time, with the current system, Cyrodiil is less about PVP and more about zerg readiness and force readiness. The side with the larger amount of raids or coordinated zerg forces will usually prevail at the end of the campaign. The system provides for you to overwhelm your opponent at a given objective or outright avoid your opponent by either baiting them into attacking a "troll siege" and then using your main force to take the real objective or simply to exploit their undefended areas (back capping).

The design of this system will cater to large groups that run raids during specific times of the day or most of the day. These coordinated zergs can simply overwhelm an objective with a Forward Camp and usually take said objective while the opponent is crushed by sheer force size. This discourages real PVP and encourages a faction to avoid the enemy until their force size is larger than their adversary which results in a PVDoor game.

Do not get me wrong, there is decent PVP in Cyrodiil for those that don't care about winning the campaign or those that are less concerned with it. These players will usually seek out smaller engagements and good fights around smaller objectives deep in enemy territory. However, I do think the current system is broken in such a sense that it is fully designed to cater to the "bring more until you win" principle.

Since not all factions are equal, not all factions have coordinated zergs and/or their coordinated zerg may not be present at all times...

to me, this kind of sounds a lot like how wars work. having a larger force of soldiers and resources, or better coordination, or special ops units, yeah that's gonna be an advantage in a war. isn't that what we're doing here? we're talking about the Alliance War in Cyrodiil, right? that sounds like war.

if you want a fair fight, or to play paintball, check out Dueling and Battlegrounds.

Not all wars have been won in pitched battles. Not all outnumbered opponents have lost.

An example would be the Battle of Pharsalus where Julius Caesar was outnumbered by Pompey. 22,000 vs 40,000.

Pompey committed his cavalry to attempt an encirclement of Caesar's forces in an effort to sandwich them between the cavalry and infantry. Knowing this, Caesar sent a group of heavy infantry to hide behind his own lines and await the cavalry to which he had them engage Pompey's cavalry. Being surprised and suffering heavy casualties the cavalry had to retreat. Seeing this retreat caused the whole of Pompey's army to route.

Real life is not like a game.

What about the 300 Spartans who held off thousands?

they all died, and lost the battle.
(not the best example if you meant to bolster Knowledge's argument that the zerg doesn't always win in real life.)

The zerg doesn't always win in real life. The Spartan's did die at Thermopylae but the Persian Empire did lose the war and dramatically outnumbered the Greek forces. This was called the Second Persian Invasion of Greece and was a part of a larger conflict called the Greco-Persian war. During most of the Greco-Persian wars the Greek city-states were wholly outnumbered and the Persian's lost.

Cyrodiil is not simulating war as you say it's simulating a game outside the boundaries of real life that doesn't allow permanent death to occur.

Your argument would again lose footing if we take into account that zergs in real life often lose whereas in the game they win ninety percent of the time. This would actually be contrary to valid simulation. So, if anything, the game is more unrealistic than realistic in terms of attempting a war simulation.

And on top of the zerg not always winning in real life - even if they did, ESO is a game that can make adjustments so that zergs don't always win. Unless that is the developers' intent.

swippy wrote: »

you're reading me wrong. there are lots of historical examples of the outnumbered faction winning. i never said otherwise.
it's still much more likely in real life that the zerg will prevail.

it's the same in Cyrodiil. i gave an example of my victory over a zerg, which was as cherry-picked as your examples. usually we would have been overrun. it's much more likely for the zerg to win, just like in real life.

further bolstering my point, the examples you cite are also examples of cunning tactical leadership, which undermines your point that such leadership shouldn't yield an advantage in Cyrodiil.

unless you're saying that the Alliance War should resemble war less, and instead have unaccountable non-strategic equalizers, like in Chutes & Ladders?

It is not more likely for a zerg to win in real life especially in the modern day. Technology allows us to use force multipliers to defeat numerous amounts of enemies with much less manpower. The most obvious example of a force multiplier would be the atomic bomb.

Moreover, there are many obstacles you have to overcome when you have a larger force in reality even looking back before the gun powder age. You have to supply that army and it would then require more supplies. You also have to over come logistical nightmares and a lower amount of mobility. When an army is moved in ancient times it must be moved in a formation to provide that it may defend its self if ambushed or suddenly drawn into combat with an adversary. The necessity to march in rank and file further limits your mobility.

There are many other shortcomings and issues with having a larger force but there are also benefits and I am not disputing the benefits. Nonetheless, there are many teachings that outlines specifically how to overcome your enemy if he is of a greater number. The most well-known publication would be Sun Tzu's Art of War

The Art of War tells us that whenever we face an opponent of superior number we must evade him. Similarly, it tells us that when we are able to attack, we must seem unable. When moving we must seem inactive. When near we must make them believe we're far away. When far we must make them believe we are near. It is not fully possible to execute these types of teachings in a game world where things are limited or the design prohibits them. This again argues against your statement of this being a simulation.

If you want the game to be more of a simulation why not agree with anti zerg mechanisms that are apparent in the real world? For instance, this is just an example, why should a keep light up and tell us its under attack? Why not allow it to just be under attack without our knowledge or unless an enemy sees us attacking it visibly? Wouldn't that be more simulating? Why not take out Forward Camps and Transitus Shrines to allow maneuverability to actually be a part of an armies structure. You should be advocating these things if you advocate simulation.

Zergs exist in the real world and so do ways to divide them or deceive them to give your smaller force the upper hand. Give us those mechanisms and then your zerging won't rely on crutches within the game world and will emulate a real simulation more.

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

Castles and forts use to designed to split up and confuse enemies . Nords , while very tall had very small doors on houses to make invaders lean down and forward while entering as a way to remove their heads as they came in . Small design tactics like these and castle entrances that funneled invaders into trapped areas are what historically allowed smaller forces to oppose large invasions . If only there was more put into architecture in Cyrodiil ... Some castles in Skyrim and forts were really accurate to old historical forts ... I don't know but just having fun brainstorming what could be done possibly in a video game

I advocate anything that will increase siege time. We take castles in minutes when sieges could last for months on end. I am not saying that we should have week long sieges or anything even remotely that long as this is a game. However, just letting people take a keep in less than a couple minutes is a little ridiculous.

LadyLethalla wrote: »

I don't PvP all that much but I think what this comes down to is that players are always going to take the easiest option.
More players (ie the zerg) make it easier to win and therefore easier to earn AP - usually. I've been in keep defences where it seemed certain the opposing faction (of greater numbers) was going to succeed and didn't, so... yeah.

Yes, some players will take the easiest option and I understand that. I am not saying that they shouldn't be allowed to zerg I am advocating for the system to not cater to the zerg or protect the zerg as much allowing other play types to compete. ZeniMax has already made some adjustments such as AOE damage multiplying when more players are present but I am advocating further changes.

Syncronaut wrote: »

Main problem is that zerg is not punishable enogh. Sure you can bomb them, but you cant catch them if they keep moving.
(or you die before that)

1 easy fix would be a reduced speed to all players in zerg (team or no team).
Its a bit based on realizem, as when infantry is crouded to close, they have a harder time to move.

Or most of cyrodil games look like this:

I like this idea, big groups get a speed penalty. That would be awesome. Its ridiculous right now that big zergs just have a designated rapids user and then they can run around at high speeds zerging down solo or very small groups. A speed penalty would definitely even out those odds and makes sense.

swippy wrote: »

Knowledge wrote: »

swippy wrote: »

you're reading me wrong. there are lots of historical examples of the outnumbered faction winning. i never said otherwise.
it's still much more likely in real life that the zerg will prevail.

it's the same in Cyrodiil. i gave an example of my victory over a zerg, which was as cherry-picked as your examples. usually we would have been overrun. it's much more likely for the zerg to win, just like in real life.

further bolstering my point, the examples you cite are also examples of cunning tactical leadership, which undermines your point that such leadership shouldn't yield an advantage in Cyrodiil.

unless you're saying that the Alliance War should resemble war less, and instead have unaccountable non-strategic equalizers, like in Chutes & Ladders?

It is not more likely for a zerg to win in real life especially in the modern day. Technology allows us to use force multipliers to defeat numerous amounts of enemies with much less manpower. The most obvious example of a force multiplier would be the atomic bomb.

Moreover, there are many obstacles you have to overcome when you have a larger force in reality even looking back before the gun powder age. You have to supply that army and it would then require more supplies. You also have to over come logistical nightmares and a lower amount of mobility. When an army is moved in ancient times it must be moved in a formation to provide that it may defend its self if ambushed or suddenly drawn into combat with an adversary. The necessity to march in rank and file further limits your mobility.

There are many other shortcomings and issues with having a larger force but there are also benefits and I am not disputing the benefits. Nonetheless, there are many teachings that outlines specifically how to overcome your enemy if he is of a greater number. The most well-known publication would be Sun Tzu's Art of War

The Art of War tells us that whenever we face an opponent of superior number we must evade him. Similarly, it tells us that when we are able to attack, we must seem unable. When moving we must seem inactive. When near we must make them believe we're far away. When far we must make them believe we are near. It is not fully possible to execute these types of teachings in a game world where things are limited or the design prohibits them. This again argues against your statement of this being a simulation.

If you want the game to be more of a simulation why not agree with anti zerg mechanisms that are apparent in the real world? For instance, this is just an example, why should a keep light up and tell us its under attack? Why not allow it to just be under attack without our knowledge or unless an enemy sees us attacking it visibly? Wouldn't that be more simulating? Why not take out Forward Camps and Transitus Shrines to allow maneuverability to actually be a part of an armies structure. You should be advocating these things if you advocate simulation.

Zergs exist in the real world and so do ways to divide them or deceive them to give your smaller force the upper hand. Give us those mechanisms and then your zerging won't rely on crutches within the game world and will emulate a real simulation more.

i have a phone-sized copy of Art of War right next to my bed. that's awesome, so i'm surprised you propose organized, strategic leadership should become less of an advantage.

i think of the "under attack" flags like it'd be the work of the messengers and scouts you'd have around. it's certainly not a full simulation haha

and how is it my zerging? i usually run small-scale

If changes were implemented that didn't benefit the large groups, even large coordinated groups, such as no visible notice that an area is under attack until it flips, collision in the game, perhaps some sort of individual transitus cooldown or no transitus shrines then we would see the ability to use Sun Tzu's teachings.

We could attack our enemy at the weakest point without him instantly making it the strongest (notification of our attack so zerg instantly appears there).

We could make the zerg have to ride across the map and make their decisions on where to attack much more crucial (no shrines).

These are just a few examples.

How can I attack my enemy at his weakest point if he can instantly, and I mean instantly, make it his strongest?

How can I make it seem as though I am far away when I am near if the keeps give them visual warning of my attack?

It's fair to have a real person scouting that position or left there to garrison it. But a notification is unnecessary.

swippy wrote: »

Knowledge wrote: »

swippy wrote: »

Knowledge wrote: »

swippy wrote: »

you're reading me wrong. there are lots of historical examples of the outnumbered faction winning. i never said otherwise.
it's still much more likely in real life that the zerg will prevail.

it's the same in Cyrodiil. i gave an example of my victory over a zerg, which was as cherry-picked as your examples. usually we would have been overrun. it's much more likely for the zerg to win, just like in real life.

further bolstering my point, the examples you cite are also examples of cunning tactical leadership, which undermines your point that such leadership shouldn't yield an advantage in Cyrodiil.

unless you're saying that the Alliance War should resemble war less, and instead have unaccountable non-strategic equalizers, like in Chutes & Ladders?

It is not more likely for a zerg to win in real life especially in the modern day. Technology allows us to use force multipliers to defeat numerous amounts of enemies with much less manpower. The most obvious example of a force multiplier would be the atomic bomb.

Moreover, there are many obstacles you have to overcome when you have a larger force in reality even looking back before the gun powder age. You have to supply that army and it would then require more supplies. You also have to over come logistical nightmares and a lower amount of mobility. When an army is moved in ancient times it must be moved in a formation to provide that it may defend its self if ambushed or suddenly drawn into combat with an adversary. The necessity to march in rank and file further limits your mobility.

There are many other shortcomings and issues with having a larger force but there are also benefits and I am not disputing the benefits. Nonetheless, there are many teachings that outlines specifically how to overcome your enemy if he is of a greater number. The most well-known publication would be Sun Tzu's Art of War

The Art of War tells us that whenever we face an opponent of superior number we must evade him. Similarly, it tells us that when we are able to attack, we must seem unable. When moving we must seem inactive. When near we must make them believe we're far away. When far we must make them believe we are near. It is not fully possible to execute these types of teachings in a game world where things are limited or the design prohibits them. This again argues against your statement of this being a simulation.

If you want the game to be more of a simulation why not agree with anti zerg mechanisms that are apparent in the real world? For instance, this is just an example, why should a keep light up and tell us its under attack? Why not allow it to just be under attack without our knowledge or unless an enemy sees us attacking it visibly? Wouldn't that be more simulating? Why not take out Forward Camps and Transitus Shrines to allow maneuverability to actually be a part of an armies structure. You should be advocating these things if you advocate simulation.

Zergs exist in the real world and so do ways to divide them or deceive them to give your smaller force the upper hand. Give us those mechanisms and then your zerging won't rely on crutches within the game world and will emulate a real simulation more.

i have a phone-sized copy of Art of War right next to my bed. that's awesome, so i'm surprised you propose organized, strategic leadership should become less of an advantage.

i think of the "under attack" flags like it'd be the work of the messengers and scouts you'd have around. it's certainly not a full simulation haha

and how is it my zerging? i usually run small-scale

If changes were implemented that didn't benefit the large groups, even large coordinated groups, such as no visible notice that an area is under attack until it flips, collision in the game, perhaps some sort of individual transitus cooldown or no transitus shrines then we would see the ability to use Sun Tzu's teachings.

We could attack our enemy at the weakest point without him instantly making it the strongest (notification of our attack so zerg instantly appears there).

We could make the zerg have to ride across the map and make their decisions on where to attack much more crucial (no shrines).

These are just a few examples.

How can I attack my enemy at his weakest point if he can instantly, and I mean instantly, make it his strongest?

How can I make it seem as though I am far away when I am near if the keeps give them visual warning of my attack?

It's fair to have a real person scouting that position or left there to garrison it. But a notification is unnecessary.

yeah but those changes to this system would make it a much more tedious affair. i'm not saying i want to play a game where if i'm crown i have to try and mitigate the trenchfoot statistic

Collision alone would make the game better.

Knowledge wrote: »

generalmyrick wrote: »

Can't wait to read the possible solutions! :-)

I offered some in my OP.

Which will not help at all, they will make matters worse.
Keep cut off is one of the decent strategic / tactical manoeuvres you can take right now with a smaller force to cut off a Zerg.

Removing cut off means the defending alliance with large numbers will just be able to zerg defend.

Right now when you are outnumbered you can be sneaky, splitting your force to fight on a couple of fronts, distract the larger enemy force and cut it off. If you are fast you may be able to beat the enemy zerg.

Strike hard, strike fast and cut off enemy resupply is the best tactic to employ against a stronger alliance.

Also @Knowledge you are making massive assumptions. Cyrodiil is NOT about zerg warfare. Vivec is. In prime time. Shor and Sotha are not. Your solution would great huge problems on quotes campaigns (where the quality, small scale is right now) as a numerically smaller defence team (depending on your view small enough to not be a zerg) could easily hold off a Similar or smaller offence team.

The patch changes today will help Cyrodiil. Your solution will not, it would make all campaigns battle of the zerg with he who can cp and numbers serving enemy down easily.

Example : XBox EU we already have a small hand full of pro players monitoring the quiet campaign, when an attacking force arrives they call for renforcements from Vivec. However if you are sneaky and cut them off the rebel alliance stand a chance.

Can I ask how long you have played PvP? Have you been Emp yet? What alliance rank are you? As play breaking suggestions generally come from less experienced players in an area.

DoctorESO wrote: »

Knowledge wrote: »

swippy wrote: »

Knowledge wrote: »

At the present time, with the current system, Cyrodiil is less about PVP and more about zerg readiness and force readiness. The side with the larger amount of raids or coordinated zerg forces will usually prevail at the end of the campaign. The system provides for you to overwhelm your opponent at a given objective or outright avoid your opponent by either baiting them into attacking a "troll siege" and then using your main force to take the real objective or simply to exploit their undefended areas (back capping).

The design of this system will cater to large groups that run raids during specific times of the day or most of the day. These coordinated zergs can simply overwhelm an objective with a Forward Camp and usually take said objective while the opponent is crushed by sheer force size. This discourages real PVP and encourages a faction to avoid the enemy until their force size is larger than their adversary which results in a PVDoor game.

Do not get me wrong, there is decent PVP in Cyrodiil for those that don't care about winning the campaign or those that are less concerned with it. These players will usually seek out smaller engagements and good fights around smaller objectives deep in enemy territory. However, I do think the current system is broken in such a sense that it is fully designed to cater to the "bring more until you win" principle.

Since not all factions are equal, not all factions have coordinated zergs and/or their coordinated zerg may not be present at all times...

to me, this kind of sounds a lot like how wars work. having a larger force of soldiers and resources, or better coordination, or special ops units, yeah that's gonna be an advantage in a war. isn't that what we're doing here? we're talking about the Alliance War in Cyrodiil, right? that sounds like war.

if you want a fair fight, or to play paintball, check out Dueling and Battlegrounds.

Not all wars have been won in pitched battles. Not all outnumbered opponents have lost.

An example would be the Battle of Pharsalus where Julius Caesar was outnumbered by Pompey. 22,000 vs 40,000.

Pompey committed his cavalry to attempt an encirclement of Caesar's forces in an effort to sandwich them between the cavalry and infantry. Knowing this, Caesar sent a group of heavy infantry to hide behind his own lines and await the cavalry to which he had them engage Pompey's cavalry. Being surprised and suffering heavy casualties the cavalry had to retreat. Seeing this retreat caused the whole of Pompey's army to route.

Real life is not like a game.

What about the 300 Spartans who held off thousands?

It's a nice story but there were several thousand troops in their force. And they lost. Their plan to delay the advance worked, and they were in essence 'cut off' which lead to their defeat.

The 'story' version proves that a superior force (zerg) would be able to defeat an enemy that's cut off without unlimited reinforcements.

Should Tanks have an ability to form a shield wall phalanx to block milegates / keep breaches? That's a fun and separate debate that I would take part in.

Beardimus wrote: »

Knowledge wrote: »

generalmyrick wrote: »

Can't wait to read the possible solutions! :-)

I offered some in my OP.

Which will not help at all, they will make matters worse.
Keep cut off is one of the decent strategic / tactical manoeuvres you can take right now with a smaller force to cut off a Zerg.

Removing cut off means the defending alliance with large numbers will just be able to zerg defend.

Right now when you are outnumbered you can be sneaky, splitting your force to fight on a couple of fronts, distract the larger enemy force and cut it off. If you are fast you may be able to beat the enemy zerg.

Strike hard, strike fast and cut off enemy resupply is the best tactic to employ against a stronger alliance.

Also @Knowledge you are making massive assumptions. Cyrodiil is NOT about zerg warfare. Vivec is. In prime time. Shor and Sotha are not. Your solution would great huge problems on quotes campaigns (where the quality, small scale is right now) as a numerically smaller defence team (depending on your view small enough to not be a zerg) could easily hold off a Similar or smaller offence team.

The patch changes today will help Cyrodiil. Your solution will not, it would make all campaigns battle of the zerg with he who can cp and numbers serving enemy down easily.

Example : XBox EU we already have a small hand full of pro players monitoring the quiet campaign, when an attacking force arrives they call for renforcements from Vivec. However if you are sneaky and cut them off the rebel alliance stand a chance.

Can I ask how long you have played PvP? Have you been Emp yet? What alliance rank are you? As play breaking suggestions generally come from less experienced players in an area.

I tend to avoid arguments of authority (argumentum ad verecundiam in latin) as it is a form of defeasible reasoning that is not deductively valid. Basing an argument off of your authority or experience does not give your opinion more weight than my own or your reasoning more validity.

We both understand how the game works. We both have PVPed. Therefore, we both can form arguments about the same topic. The topic is PVP.

Based on what you've said I believe your judgment or belief that my changes would hurt the game is false. You have cited how you deal with zergs in the current system and while some of your tactics do work on occasion I would argue they do not always work and are merely bandaids to a bigger issue.

The zerg isn't going away and neither is the ability for a zerg force to quickly cut off a keep. The next alternative is to allow the disorganized players to assist more rapidly in the defense of that objective. Your strategy only delays the inevitable. The inevitable being that no matter how hard you try the following will remain true.

• The organized zerg will always defeat you in a pitched battle
• The organized zerg will always lend to create a better evaluation due to force size and readiness
• The current system benefits an organized zerg force and punishes the small scale player.

Lastly, I don't believe non-CP is a fun way to play and I should have specified that I am making suggestions with experience primarily in Vivec. I don't think the game is well-balanced around no-CP and to me no-CP is the same as PVPing on level 20 twinks in World of Warcraft.

@Enslaved

Some good point here.

Agreed on collison, and I wouldn't want it turned on all the time. Purely say the sword and board ultimate. To add something for a short period

Agreed on Zergs
Agreed on cut off

Agreed on some points of the rest, unsure on night capping solution exactly like.that but I disagree with leaderboard bonuses. This rewards individual play and id like to see more unity in an alliance working for overall goals than people farming AP.

Knowledge wrote: »

Enslaved wrote: »

So OP said if you have more zergs more time than enemies do you will probably win? Revelation

Yes, but this is not how it works in every game. It also doesn't have to work this way in ESO. Skill can be the determining factor and discouraging large groups of players should be a developer goal.

By discouraging zerging the developers can achieve several things.

• Less laggy battles
• More meaningful PVP

Discouraging the clumping of players will make battles much more fun and spread the war out across the map more. Many games have methods for achieving this concept.

However cutting off keeps would not solve that! Now defence and offence would zerg. You would clump players at the defence!!

Right now if I split my force in three places to cut the enemy off the defence force has to split to react. Or risk cut off.

With your solution they could arrive at point one, wipe em, arrive at point 2 in an instant, wipe them.

Your goal is correct, but the solutionyiu suggested would make it worse (in my opinion) and certainly make it worse on low pop campaigns of which you have no experience.

Knowledge wrote: »

generalmyrick wrote: »

Why are people trying to nerf a zerg?

Yes yes... You're better than everybody at everything excdpt overwhelming odds...sorry the math doesn't work out for you all of the time.

Bgs has a pop cap go there.

I'm not trying to nerf a zerg I am arguing for a balance in the game to give everyone a chance. This is a game after all and should be played for fun.

My argument is primarily focused on one main factor and that is that whoever has the larger and more organized force will always prevail. A side that has less organization (a lot of small scattered groups) is going to lose the campaign against a zerg force that has been organized and is using its sheer size to overcome any opposition in the form of skill or tactical finesse.

As a lower numbered group, even if organized, you can't even prevail tactically or strategically if your opponent exceeds a certain number of players. Your skill and ability count for nothing and you even lose the capability to quickly defend a keep by being instantly cut off giving further advantage to the massive group that is attacking.

You think you are presenting something that will help the smaller groups but you are actually proposing something that will hurt the smaller groups. You are proposing to allow a large group to be able to port to any location on the map so long as they own the keep. Makes it easy for a large group to stay in control of any resource they have. Right now it is a perfectly viable strategy to isolate a couple of keeps and have small groups hit each knowing the zerg can't get to both and might be late getting to either keep.

If you are in a small group there is a way to annoy the zerg beyond isolating a keep and taking it before they can get there. You can pick off those in the group that fall behind causing the group to either go back and rez or press on a bit smaller. You can ambush at choke points. Sure your entire group might get thumped but with a bit of planning you can take a lot more of them with you slowing the entire group down.

Isolating keeps and other resources is one of the best weapons/strategies small groups have. I've been on both sides of it and know how a small group can really throw a wrench in things with a bit of planning. Doesn't need to be elaborate or precisely coordinated. Your idea would wreck Cyrodiil for the small groups.