Make Cyrodiil Smaller?

Indigogo · July 2021

No

Sylosi wrote: »

Indigogo wrote: »

No. The distance is crucial to strategy.

The map and the distances were designed for 3+(?) times the number of players that the map can hold now, so is completely busted in terms of "strategy" these days.

Which is also one of the reasons it is so dead as a PvP game, huge map, few people, means fights are harder to come by and there is less variety of fights. Still I am sure the PvDoor zombies and PvE questers who want to avoid fights are happy.

I guess it depends on the campaign and platform you play.
Ever been trying to take back a home keep with 6 people and 30 rock up to defend?
Smaller map would make unbalanced population problems even worse. Zerging factions tearing through a map even quicker, giving everyone else little chance to recover and take ground back.
Everything determined by who takes more when others aren't on.

That's just my experience, nothing to do with pandering to pvdoor enthusiasts.

JamieAubrey · July 2021

I've always wanted a zone that's kinda like BGs and its only 1-2 keeps per alliance ( maybe just the 6 EMP keeps ) that way there is always going to be fights

AlnilamE · July 2021

No

rbfrgsp wrote: »

The map is fine. The superabundance of different servers is what thins the player base.

There should only be three campaigns:
CP enabled,
No CP no-proc sets
<50 lvls.

All should be alliance locked.

While I like alliance-locked campaigns, you need 3 >50 campaigns if you are going to lock them all.

aaisoaho · July 2021

No

It would nerf the sacred AD quest of saving Burma (sic). Why should I care about Bruma if it was next to our door? Where's the fun in that?

SimonThesis · July 2021

Yes

The main problem with such a large map is the stuck-in combat bug. If your stuck in combat you cant mount and have to run to enemy keeps. The large map wouldn't be such a problem if they fixed the combat bug, but if they cant do that then they should reduce the distance between keeps.

itscompton · July 2021

Yes

While I understand people who bring up the tactical implications those people should realize that the map size was originally designed for having 2 or 3 times more players on it than the current caps allow.
You're not supposed to be able to back capture keeps without any resistance (or assistance) showing up. Back in the day there would be 3 or 4 large keep fights going on at the same time so you'd have the choice of a few places to go fight, but the way things work now there is hardly ever more than one big fight at a time and there are often long stretches of time with nothing on the map getting lit up at all.
While I voted yes to a smaller Cyro what I'd really like to see is a whole new PvP map designed from scratch for the player counts we have now. Because large or small the map just seems incredibly stale after 7 years of fighting over the same keeps again and again.
Maybe even just up BG's to have a 10v10v10 CP active mode with some bigger maps?

Folkb · July 2021

Yes

Yes from a lore perspective it doesn't make sense there are so many keeps just strewn about such a huge area thats mostly empty.

kargen27 · July 2021

No

Sylosi wrote: »

Indigogo wrote: »

No. The distance is crucial to strategy.

The map and the distances were designed for 3+(?) times the number of players that the map can hold now, so is completely busted in terms of "strategy" these days.

Which is also one of the reasons it is so dead as a PvP game, huge map, few people, means fights are harder to come by and there is less variety of fights. Still I am sure the PvDoor zombies and PvE questers who want to avoid fights are happy.

So why break it even farther by reducing the size? Less players doesn't take away how important distance is when trying to isolate keeps. In fact it becomes even more important as taking keeps would require more time with less players.

Kredo · July 2021

No

How exactly would having a smaller map improve the latency?

SeaGtGruff · July 2021

No

ImSoPro wrote: »

No they need to just make IC relevant in some way. I prefer IC to running around Cyrodiil 90% of the time and fighting 10%. But it’s always so dead other than mid year mayhem. I feel like if they made strong holds with different bonuses or something to capture within the city instead of just flags then maybe people would play there more. I play BGs more than Cyro cause I just wanna fight not run around. Sieging is fun too but it’s all the running around man.

I'm speaking only for myself, but adding more stuff to do in IC isn't going to encourage me to go there more.

I go there during the events to earn a ticket and reward box from a district daily, and I even do all six districts' dailies if I'm not crunched for time, rather than just the bare minimum of one that's needed to get the ticket. If I get killed trying to complete all of the requirements for a daily, I'm happy to resurrect, jump back into the same district, and keep trying, until I complete it.

But the thing that turns me off about UC is when I get one-shot in the back. Getting killed in PvP doesn't bother me. I've died far more in PvE than I ever have in PvP-- if not from an actual boss or zerg of mobs, then from something like fall damage or a school of slaughterfish-- simply because I play PvE so much more than PvP. But if I can't survive a single shot from someone's "broken build," it takes away any desire for me to even try to fight back. And IMHO "broken builds" is what PvP and vet PvE endgame content is all about. You can call it META, BIS, min/maxing, or whatever you want; I'm calling it "broken" since that's what I hear gamers say when they think a particular build or piece of gear is so awesomely cool because of how OP it is.

Anyway, when an event's going on, there are enough players in IC to keep everyone busy, which can help you slip in and out more easily. But outside of an event, when IC is basically deserted, trying to go into IC for anything just makes you an instant target because you're the only game in town. I've yet to complete a single one of the district zone questlines, because each time I try to kill the quest boss in the one quest I've attempted, someone always ganks me during the fight.

There are already things to do in IC-- set crafting stations, treasure chests, locked rooms or armories, destroyed shops where you can loot containers hoping for recipes or motifs, bosses and mobs you can kill for TV and leads, and of course the zone quests. The problem isn't a lack of things to do, but rather that the PvP players who are attracted to IC seem like they're there purely to kill other players, not to do any of the other things there are to do. And in past MYM and IC events there have been players who joked that it's like shooting fish in a barrel. The idea of adding more PvE things to do in IC seems like it would just be dumping more bait into the barrel in the hope that more fish will magically appear so they can be shot.

I don't know what the solution might be to "fix" IC-- if it's even broken; maybe it's "performing as intended"? It does seem like a shame that it's so under-visited outside of the MYM and IC events, but I really don't think that's the fault of the zone itself.