Maintenance for the week of December 22:
• NA megaservers for maintenance – December 22, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 8:00AM EST (13:00 UTC)
• EU megaservers for maintenance – December 22, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 8:00AM EST (13:00 UTC)
• NA megaservers for maintenance – December 22, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 8:00AM EST (13:00 UTC)
• EU megaservers for maintenance – December 22, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 8:00AM EST (13:00 UTC)
Suggestion: Increase Tel Var Stone loot
-
Narthalion✭✭✭Silver_Strider wrote: »The same could be said of ganking. "Omg Ganker took my Tel Var" is no more valid an argument than "OMG Imperial Physique". They're 2 extremes that directly fight against each other in IC but considering that gankers are also subject to losing the Tel Var they stole should they die under the current system vs OP's suggestion not really affecting IP users much, it feels like the current system is more fair than the suggested one since you can't balance the system with IP in its current state under that system since it just encourages zerging with IP with no counter balance associated; if I had to choose between Gankers or a Zerg of IP wears, I'll take gankers everyday.
So here's why I keep pushing to evaluate OP's idea without getting stuck on Imperial Physique:
(5 items) While you are in Imperial City, you tap into the power of the Tel Var Stones you are carrying, increasing your Health, Magicka, and Stamina by 1032. While you have a 4x Tel Var Stone multiplier this effect is increased by 600%, but when killed by another player you will lose 50% of your Tel Var regardless of how much the killing player was carrying."
There, fixed.
Can we please consider OP's idea now, instead of digressing into whether or not IP is overpowered or would be more overpowered?
A set can be changed. The real question is whether or not you agree with OP's goal: that players should be forced to carry stones to win stones from other players. Should they be required to take that risk, or no?
Clearly some people feel like it's just not needed, like @Qbiken and that's fine. I've got no counterargument to "I just don't think the game needs that." Cool, opinion respected.
The reason I keep jumping back into this thread though is that I feel OP's idea is not getting a fair hearing. Half the replies appear to be coming from people who seem not to have understood the idea at all. Like...Sure, as soon as you allow me to kill every second person I meet in a PvE zone!
Seriously WTH are you even talking about.
I think some of you guys are so used to PvP posts being about nothing more than whining because they died, that you're just assuming that's what this is without really reading it or trying to understand it.1 -
Taloros✭✭✭✭Thanks man. Nice to see that somebody got my idea. ;-)
I'm absolutely not against PvP. Heck, it's a game about violence. ESO is a pretty dark world, and a little senseless, even unfair killing suits that just fine. I've even killed player characters in PvE environments for messing with my farming or similar - guilty as charged. The suggestion is not about abolishing PvP or Tel Var stone looting - that's all fine. It's about spicing things up a little.
The flat-out rejection and reasons given by some suggest to me that exactly that is the problem: People want easy loot without risk, be it in PvE or PvP. Often in these matters, PvE players complain about being attacked / looted by PvP players. But here, some PvP focussed players see their risk-free loot oppoturnity endangered and start complaining.
Come on, people, show some courage. Doesn't hurt to loose something every once in a while. ;-)1 -
KRBMMO✭✭✭✭Honestly it's so easy to farm Telvar I don't even know what the issue is, except people want to walk around with 10K+ Tel Var in an enemy zone and not risk losing it.
For example, you can start a run with 1k and do 5 runs and get +2k each run (so you don't carry more than 3k) and the last run you get hit by a group or get ganked and you lose half your Telvar. Well you still have 8.5k to bank and only lost 1.5k. So you go to a different part of the map for a few runs because you have some idea where the opponent that hit you will be. This time you maybe make three runs before you get hit. Well that time you made +7k beffore and you lost 1.5k.
And so on through the night.
If you don't want to lose a lot of telvar, just don't run with 4x multiplier and bank your Tel Var frequently. Do many short circular routes in your own zone rather than long routes "behind enemy lines". Use stealth and stealth detection. In other words - use common sense. If people (gankers, lets say) only get 1.5k telvar from you they realize you are a waste of time and it's easier and faster for them to kill NPC's and loot chests themselves rather spending 20 min to sneak all the way across the map in stealth then wait 20 minutes to gank someone just for 1.5k telvar.0 -
cpuScientist✭✭✭✭✭
✭cpuScientist wrote: »I dislike the idea but I want to know that first before I argue with it.
Good conversation starter. "I won't like whatever you'll say, but please talk to me anyhow!"
Usually when a discussion is started people discuss but little passive aggressive answers are great too
I dislike the idea, that's obvious. If it we're 100% stone take then the idea to me would have more legs as everyone's risking the same. I like more of the risk being on the side of the farmer than anything else. Even though I'm the farmer.
I do hate when I kill someone who's been annoying friends or whatever and when they die they had 100 whereas if they killed me they'd get 50k that's however imho also part of the charm too, very highwayman. I'm not totally against the idea especially if it's 100% but I just do not see the need for the change. As it works fine now, but for me it would be a net gain as I am always walking around with a ton and have to kill the bad Nightblades around.
I just like the greater risk to exist on my side the farmers side so that PvP is much more organic and attractive to all if those Nightblades and others who may come on solo or with meh friends hoping to strike it rich have to take such risk then they will come far less frequently less PvP will occur as the risk for PvPing is high on both sides and personally I like more PvP even if I'm disadvantaged, as it leads to more people different setups and the like in there, which breaks up the monotony of farming the same bosses. This would kill alot of the population in an already usually dead zone.0 -
Chrlynsch✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Change your mindset, and you will have 100% better time in IC without changing a thing.
You get 50% of the Telvar you farm. Go in with that mindset, and you will never be frustrated and sometimes you get to double your earnings!Caius
Pack Leader of Scourge Alliance- First Fang of Hircine, The Beast of Bruma
PC NA1 -
Taleof2Cities✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Emma_Overload wrote: »I don't think ZOS will go for this. It was like pulling teeth to get them to adjust the payout to 50/50.Telvar going to be harder to farm than ever and you want to hand out passes to pvers? Sorry, everyone can get it.
Two forum-goers who get it ...1 -
Taloros✭✭✭✭I've changed the title from "limit" to "increase". Let's see how many will fall for that - foolish me who thought all people wouldn't read only the title, but the actual suggestion.1
-
Emma_Overload✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭OP, what you may not realize is that your scheme (and many others) was suggested shortly after the Imperial City launched. The 50/50 split was a compromise between the developers and the players that was reached only after months of bitter dispute on the forums. I could be wrong, but I think it's very unlikely that ZOS will revisit this issue.#CAREBEARMASTERRACE1 -
kyle.wilson✭✭✭✭✭
✭With what can be bought with telvar, you would drastically affect the global market for some items. Alchemy regents and hakeijo being the most obvious.
0 -
Taloros✭✭✭✭@ Emma_Overload
That may be. But why would that be relevant? Is it required to only post suggestions that are likely to be implemented? Does make the idea bad? Is it impossible to review a decision made years ago, under different cirumstances?
With all due respect, but that point is not a good one. A suggestion for change necessarily includes... change, i. e. means questioning a decision made before.
Nice signature btw. Emphazises the objectiveness of your perspective.
@ kyle.wilson
How would that change the market? The total number of Tel Var stones or items bought by Tel Var stones on the market would stay the same.
What may change the market is the change announced in the patch notes, i. e. limiting the number of instances to two, only one of which with CP enabled. The suggestion made here is supposed to lessen the impact of that change.Edited by Taloros on April 25, 2019 6:52AM0 -
Emma_Overload✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭@ Emma_Overload
That may be. But why would that be relevant? Is it required to only post suggestions that are likely to be implemented? Does make the idea bad? Is it impossible to review a decision made years ago, under different cirumstances?
With all due respect, but that point is not a good one. A suggestion for change necessarily includes... change, i. e. means questioning a decision made before.
Nice signature btw. Emphazises the objectiveness of your perspective.
@ kyle.wilson
How would that change the market? The total number of Tel Var stones or items bought by Tel Var stones on the market would stay the same.
I don't think your idea is bad at all... No need to get huffy about it 🙄.
Personally, I would benefit greatly from your scheme. However, I've learned not to get my hopes up when it comes to proposals that require the devs to re-code mechanics on old content. If you want to improve the Imperial City, your best bet is to ask the devs to do something easy like adding more stuff to the Tel Var store.
#CAREBEARMASTERRACE1 -
Narthalion✭✭✭Emma_Overload wrote: »I don't think your idea is bad at all... No need to get huffy about it 🙄.
Personally, I would benefit greatly from your scheme. However, I've learned not to get my hopes up when it comes to proposals that require the devs to re-code mechanics on old content. If you want to improve the Imperial City, your best bet is to ask the devs to do something easy like adding more stuff to the Tel Var store.
What ZOS is doing right now...is making a change to old content. What better time to ask for a re-evaluation or to consider new ideas, than in a moment when they're already changing something else about that content?
Also, I think it's hilarious that so many people in this thread just assume this is a gift for PvE farmers so they can keep their telvar...as if that was the whole goal, to carebear the zone. /facepalm
Basically you're admitting - assuming, even - that gankers won't be willing to take that risk. That unless PKs hold most/all the cards, they won't even show up. What poor fragile souls these PKs must be, huh?
But maybe that just is -- that's the psychology of it. It's tough to get people to fight and take risks -- that's why zergs happen in every PvP game ever. People don't like losing; they won't voluntarily increase the risk that they'll lose (edit: without incentive, that is). Thinking about it that way, farmers are basically inviting PKs to take that risk by luring them with telvar. The chance for a payoff is enough to get people to show up, but if you penalize them for losing they won't come.
So I guess the argument against the OP's idea is this: if it were a fair fight, not enough people would actually fight. Without an advantage (real or perceived) people won't risk it. That may be a fair point, however disappointing.Edited by Narthalion on April 25, 2019 6:35PM0 -
Lord_Eomer✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Hi!
With the Elsweyr Patch, Imperial City will become its own campaign:Imperial City is now its own Campaign. The doors in Cyrodiil have been shut down; to get into Imperial City, you simply use the Campaign selection menu. You’ll end up in the Sewers just as if you had entered from Cyrodiil.
This is likely to increase the population in Imperial City for two reasons:
- Instead of four or more instances, there will be only two.
- Currenty, travelling to the Imperial City is quite a hassle (apply for Cyrodil, then teleport to the nearest keep, then run/ride to the sewer entrance, i. e. three loading screens).
A lot of players will want to access the Imperial City for the PvE/quest content, which is quite enjoyable btw. Others will go there to fight each other or prey on PvE players. This will, as we all now, lead to grief and complaints.
So, I have a suggestion to solve this and want to put this up for discussion:
Limit the Tel Var gain from killing other player characters to the amount you currently carry.
Why? This will introduce a fairer risk/reward ratio. Currently, you can enter the Imperial City with 0 Tel Var stones and just prey on others. This carries no risk to loose anything, but all the potential to get a huge payout from others.
The influx of players is, in my opinion, a good opportunity to introduce this change, and will at least limit the potential for conflict without removing the PvP aspect. Want to prey on others? Then show the courage to risk some of your own Tel Var riches.
What do you think?
i wish ZOS listen to you, limiting telvar loss maximum to 20k maximum is very good and will encourage more players to farm or limting to 25%0 -
Silver_Strider✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Narthalion wrote: »Silver_Strider wrote: »The same could be said of ganking. "Omg Ganker took my Tel Var" is no more valid an argument than "OMG Imperial Physique". They're 2 extremes that directly fight against each other in IC but considering that gankers are also subject to losing the Tel Var they stole should they die under the current system vs OP's suggestion not really affecting IP users much, it feels like the current system is more fair than the suggested one since you can't balance the system with IP in its current state under that system since it just encourages zerging with IP with no counter balance associated; if I had to choose between Gankers or a Zerg of IP wears, I'll take gankers everyday.
So here's why I keep pushing to evaluate OP's idea without getting stuck on Imperial Physique:
(5 items) While you are in Imperial City, you tap into the power of the Tel Var Stones you are carrying, increasing your Health, Magicka, and Stamina by 1032. While you have a 4x Tel Var Stone multiplier this effect is increased by 600%, but when killed by another player you will lose 50% of your Tel Var regardless of how much the killing player was carrying."
There, fixed.
Can we please consider OP's idea now, instead of digressing into whether or not IP is overpowered or would be more overpowered?
A set can be changed. The real question is whether or not you agree with OP's goal: that players should be forced to carry stones to win stones from other players. Should they be required to take that risk, or no?
Clearly some people feel like it's just not needed, like @Qbiken and that's fine. I've got no counterargument to "I just don't think the game needs that." Cool, opinion respected.
The reason I keep jumping back into this thread though is that I feel OP's idea is not getting a fair hearing. Half the replies appear to be coming from people who seem not to have understood the idea at all. Like...Sure, as soon as you allow me to kill every second person I meet in a PvE zone!
Seriously WTH are you even talking about.
I think some of you guys are so used to PvP posts being about nothing more than whining because they died, that you're just assuming that's what this is without really reading it or trying to understand it.
Ok, now how would you adjust it for being killed by a mob? If a Mob takes 50% indiscriminately vs a PvPer that actually has to risk their telvar for their kills, that's a f'd up system since its essentially an inverse of the old 80/20 rule but in the mobs favor vs the PvPer. It lopsides the system in which is might actually be better to be killed by a PvPer than a mob, removing almost all the risk involved with the current system.
The idea is still pretty half baked considering its only targetting the PvP side and not the PvE side and considering IC is the only PvP related DLC ESO has ever gotten, I'm against anything that hinders the PvP aspect in favor of the PvE side.Argonian forever0 -
Narthalion✭✭✭Silver_Strider wrote: »Ok, now how would you adjust it for being killed by a mob? If a Mob takes 50% indiscriminately vs a PvPer that actually has to risk their telvar for their kills, that's a f'd up system since its essentially an inverse of the old 80/20 rule but in the mobs favor vs the PvPer. It lopsides the system in which is might actually be better to be killed by a PvPer than a mob, removing almost all the risk involved with the current system.
The idea is still pretty half baked considering its only targetting the PvP side and not the PvE side and considering IC is the only PvP related DLC ESO has ever gotten, I'm against anything that hinders the PvP aspect in favor of the PvE side.
Well for one, it's most certainly not intended to favor PvE. OP's idea is very focused on PvP interactions because that's what the OP pretty clearly is interested in. It's not about making it easier to keep your stones. The point is to make aggressors risk stones as well.
And the only way it hinders PvP is if PKs really would decide not to bring stones, or not go to IC at all because they aren't willing to risk stones. See my last post for what I think about that. Short version: maybe PKs really do need that much incentive to pick a fight, and would be driven away by what is otherwise a fair fight.
You do raise a solid point about PvE death vs PvP death, and that it might actually be cheaper to get ganked than die to a mob. I only cared about the PvP fight and hadn't thought about that, but you're right -- that would be backwards. IC doesn't need farmers running around looking for a "blood port", that's an undesirable outcome.
The most obvious answer is to lift the 50% cap for PvP deaths only. However, even removing the cap completely could still lead to cases where a really loaded farmer will lose less to a player than a mob. So...better, but maybe not really solved.
So...either OP's idea just needs to accept that as a consequence (which is maybe rare enough to not horrible? the difference in stones would have to be rather extreme), or the idea needs to be reworked. Maybe, "You must be carrying X tel var stones to receive the full 50% when you kill another player" where X equals a reasonable but not completely insignificant number. Maybe 10k? That accomplishes the OP's goal (PKs must wager some stones if they want to gain any from the kill) but doesn't require them to load up more than most farmers probably have just on the off chance that they'll miss out on what would have been a jackpot kill.Edited by Narthalion on April 25, 2019 9:10PM0 -
Silver_Strider✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Narthalion wrote: »Silver_Strider wrote: »Ok, now how would you adjust it for being killed by a mob? If a Mob takes 50% indiscriminately vs a PvPer that actually has to risk their telvar for their kills, that's a f'd up system since its essentially an inverse of the old 80/20 rule but in the mobs favor vs the PvPer. It lopsides the system in which is might actually be better to be killed by a PvPer than a mob, removing almost all the risk involved with the current system.
The idea is still pretty half baked considering its only targetting the PvP side and not the PvE side and considering IC is the only PvP related DLC ESO has ever gotten, I'm against anything that hinders the PvP aspect in favor of the PvE side.
Well for one, it's most certainly not intended to favor PvE. OP's idea is very focused on PvP interactions because that's what the OP pretty clearly is interested in. It's not about making it easier to keep your stones. The point is to make aggressors risk stones as well.
And the only way it hinders PvP is if PKs really would decide not to bring stones, or not go to IC at all because they aren't willing to risk stones. See my last post for what I think about that. Short version: maybe PKs really do need that much incentive to pick a fight, and would be driven away by what is otherwise a fair fight.
You do raise a solid point about PvE death vs PvP death, and that it might actually be cheaper to get ganked than die to a mob. I only cared about the PvP fight and hadn't thought about that, but you're right -- that would be backwards. IC doesn't need farmers running around looking for a "blood port", that's an undesirable outcome.
The most obvious answer is to lift the 50% cap for PvP deaths only. However, even removing the cap completely could still lead to cases where a really loaded farmer will lose less to a player than a mob. So...better, but maybe not really solved.
So...either OP's idea just needs to accept that as a consequence (which is maybe rare enough to not horrible? the difference in stones would have to be rather extreme), or the idea needs to be reworked. Maybe, "You must be carrying X tel var stones to receive the full 50% when you kill another player" where X equals a reasonable but not completely insignificant number. Maybe 10k? That accomplishes the OP's goal (PKs must wager some stones if they want to gain any from the kill) but doesn't require them to load up more than most farmers probably have just on the off chance that they'll miss out on what would have been a jackpot kill.
So something like tying the Tel Var Multiplier to the amount of stones lost/earned.
1x = 5%
2x = 20%
3x = 35%
4x = 50%
If a person with a 3x multiplier fights a person with a 4x multiplier, the 3x will either gain 35% of the Tel Var 4x player had or lose 35% of their total Tel Var on hand. The same rule applies to PvE death in which a mob will take 35% should a 3x multiplier die instead of 50% indiscriminately. In theory, that should be acceptable since it makes it so both PvE and PvP deaths are balanced in such a way that neither is a better option for Blood porting, it keeps the risk factor more or less the same (albeit a bit easier to manipulate) and gankers gain a lot less for killing people while they have a low multiplier. The only time this system gets obscure would be in a bomb gank scenario in which the system would be irrelevant since they'll get a fairly large multiplier just by killing a person that has a minimal of 20k Tel Var on them at any point in time (which is totally plausible if you gank an IP wearer); 1 kill would instantly put them in the 35% range and a 2nd into the 50% range, meaning only the first 2 people to die get off lightly while the rest of the group gets shafted, somewhat discouraging larger scale group play in IC. Where or not that would be a good thing or not is debatable.
Still, seems like a lot of work just for attempting to limit ganking in IC and even then, it won't stop it really so I don't see the point.Argonian forever0 -
Narthalion✭✭✭Silver_Strider wrote: »Still, seems like a lot of work just for attempting to limit ganking in IC and even then, it won't stop it really so I don't see the point.
Here's where I get confused: I don't understand where you're getting the idea that OP's goal is to limit ganking.
I mean, maybe I should let @Taloros respond here, but I take the goal to be this, and this only: if you get ganked and lose a lot of stones, you'll know that the PK who got you also wagered stones on the fight. Or if you beat the PK, you'll be rewarded with some meaningful number of stones, as he would have been.
In the current system, a PK can just keep trying endlessly. He only needs to beat you once, and then stealth away back to base and deposit the tel var he got off of you. And each time you defend yourself from the PK and kill him, you'll get no tel var for having won...because odds are, he wasn't carrying any (or very little). Only the ganker stands to gain stones from these fights.
In OP's system, a PK will go broke trying endlessly to kill a tough target. The PK's deaths carry consequences more in line with what the farmer deals with. And the farmer who beats the PK can count on a larger tel var reward for having won (than in the current system).
The only way that limits ganking, is if PKs are actually more risk-averse than the farmers they're hunting. If risking stones would cause PKs to stop ganking, or gank just for ganking's sake and still not carry stones...then OP's idea has failed to create the sort of environment he intends it to bring about.
Connecting the tel var cap to your multiplier is a great suggestion, btw. Ties neatly into an existing system, not so "all or nothing" as my original "threshold" idea.0 -
CleymenZero✭✭✭✭✭
✭redspecter23 wrote: »I've been saying something similar for a while. You want the reward? You have to risk a little bit. Gankers running around with zero telvar just looking to score big bother me, not because they are gankers, but because they aren't bringing anything to the fight for the opponents to win if they fail. They give up nothing and have everything to gain.
I don't know what to suggest to correct this but I do think the perspective you shared is very interesting.
There is a clear unbalance in risk/reward mechanism for farmers and gankers.
A solution would be to make you take less damage when carrying a lot of Tel Var?
It would be a way to balance things because gankers with no stones wouldn't be able to gank you but if they carried a lot of stones they would making it very balanced because if they fail and die, they lose a fair amount of Tel Var.
It would make it so that if you go in with a group with no TV, you wouldn't just be able to run over another group that's been farming for a while.
That would make it fairer and would be "lore-friendly" vs let's say reducing the TV loss upon death. In reality, you get mugged they take everything, taking half is already a bit counterintuitive, reducing the gains more would be off-putting.
Introducing the concept that carrying Tel Var EMPOWERS you and in a "flat-bonus, proportional" way would work both conceptually and practically.0
