really need to put a player cap on alliance wars to stop zergs

BXR_Lonestar · June 12

silentxthreat wrote: »

its frustrating to see the map dead because a night crew zergs with 3 bars or cap pop vs 1 bar everyone else. whole map is dead and morning people dont even want to try. solution is very simple. if say dc has only 5 players well then other sides can only have 5 players ect. if they want to stack 100 people vs 5 well let them wait all night in queue

They can't perfectly balance the populations so that its say 30 v 30 v 30 only, but what they COULD do is force you to pick a campaign, and prevent you from entering into the OTHER campaigns during that month. I think that this would be fair IMO. The campaign I currently play in, the Reds have pulled every red from every other campaign just to zerg down this one and the numbers are RIDICUOUSLY overwhelming. You go to take any resource on any given day and you're going to get hit with a ballgroup or a zerg of about 20+ players. For a resource.

I get that sometimes you are going to have to fight outnumbered, but pulling players from all campaigns and focusing them into just one is just ridiculously toxic, and a great deterrent for that would be for players to chose their chosen campaign, and be stuck with it for the month.

Just my 2 cents.

Four_Fingers · June 12

Our ball group says bring on those juicy AP filled zergs!

CameraBeardThePirate · June 12

BXR_Lonestar wrote: »

silentxthreat wrote: »

its frustrating to see the map dead because a night crew zergs with 3 bars or cap pop vs 1 bar everyone else. whole map is dead and morning people dont even want to try. solution is very simple. if say dc has only 5 players well then other sides can only have 5 players ect. if they want to stack 100 people vs 5 well let them wait all night in queue

They can't perfectly balance the populations so that its say 30 v 30 v 30 only, but what they COULD do is force you to pick a campaign, and prevent you from entering into the OTHER campaigns during that month. I think that this would be fair IMO. The campaign I currently play in, the Reds have pulled every red from every other campaign just to zerg down this one and the numbers are RIDICUOUSLY overwhelming. You go to take any resource on any given day and you're going to get hit with a ballgroup or a zerg of about 20+ players. For a resource.

I get that sometimes you are going to have to fight outnumbered, but pulling players from all campaigns and focusing them into just one is just ridiculously toxic, and a great deterrent for that would be for players to chose their chosen campaign, and be stuck with it for the month.

Just my 2 cents.

This would be 10x worse lol.

Faction Lock itself is already anti social, this would just make it even harder to play with friends.

Not to mention, if people were locked to 1 campaign the entire month, the losing side would just stop playing and there wouldn't be any way for players to fill that void.

ragnarok6644b14_ESO · June 12

I don't know how to solve this exactly.

I think the problem is just that PVP isn't fun. If you are doing it for the rewards, there's little incentive to fight 5 v 5, let alone 5 v 10.

I think war-weariness is literally a thing (in microcosm). The idea of affecting the map means little when it's wiped away overnight, and holding onto gains is irrelevant when it's wiped away in a month. There's no "weight" in it - even if you are super zealous for your faction, there's no reason to fight an actively painful situation; letting the enemy win a campaign doesn't actually "do" anything except save you some pain.

I am not sure how to reduce the pain though. Ball groups suck but I think it is more how they *behave* than the concept of their existence.

xylena_lazarow · June 12

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Plus, faction lock just sucks, full stop. I want to play with all my friends, and coordinating each individual guild or group to all be the same faction is just unrealistic.

Yeah I'm 100% with you on wanting a merc faction and/or killing useless faction locks. I don't think either of those are a silver bullet, they'd be a good start, but massive changes would be needed. A whole rework from the ground up. I do admit that I would love to see a merc faction on Vengeance too. With access to all 3 zone chats of course.

smallhammer · June 12

Ball grps ruin the fun in Cyro

ragnarok6644b14_ESO · June 12

smallhammer wrote: »

Ball grps ruin the fun in Cyro

I think their behavior/the way they are used ruins the fun.

The problem is, in principle, I think a group willing to fully organize and execute teamwork OUGHT to defeat random others. That's the sign of a good world-model; an organized military that does trainings and regulates equipment usually will beat a larger-but-not-overwhelming force of less-well-organized people. So I'm not against the idea in principle.

But the way they behave is less "pro-faction military" and more "yay farming noobs lul" which is against the world, and therefore turns this natural occurrence into perversity.

They are more like well-organized, well-equipped bandits than actual faction soldiers.

Twohothardware · June 12

Faction locks should be taken off and they should also remove the limit on Campaign rewards being tied to your home campaign. If you can manage to get in the top score on multiple servers then you should get the rewards. It doesn't help Alliance balancing to have the current restrictions.

SeaGtGruff · June 12

Gabriel_H wrote: »

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Sad to say but I think Cyro is cooked until Vengeance returns.

Vengeance won't solve the problem. Cyro is too big, and the player cap is too high.

The zone needs splitting into 3 along the bridges/gates. Access to other zones is granted once you control all keeps/forts in your alliances zone.

Would reduce the instance map size by 2/3rds and you could reduce the player cap by 50%. It would immediately solve the problem of strain on the servers (they just would have to buy more servers to account for the increase in instances).

I'm not sure I see how that could work.

Let's assume that the campaign begins with everything reset to its "natural" state, with each alliance controlling all of the scrolls, keeps, resources, outposts, and towns in its third of Cyrodiil. That means all three alliances can enter the other two thirds of Cyrodiil.

Let's say that Alliance A captures a keep in Alliance B's third of Cyrodiil. Presumably that means that Alliance B can no longer venture into Alliance A's or C's thirds of Cyrodiil. So what happens to any Alliance B players who were already in those thirds? Do they get insta-killed by the game and ported back to one of their two home bases?

What about missions? Suppose your alliance already controls all of the resources in its area, but one of its keeps has been captured by another alliance, such that you are locked into your alliance's third of Cyrodiil. What sort of resource missions would the mission board give out-- no mission at all? After all, you can't leave your third of Cyrodiil, so you can't try to capture any resources in the other two thirds of Cyrodiil. And what if you'd already accepted a mission to capture a resource in an enemy's third, before your alliance got restricted to its third by having one of its keeps taken. Now you can't do your mission.

It's an interesting idea, but there are a lot of unanswered questions about the specifics. But most importantly, I suspect that a change of that scope would result in massively disgruntled players.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO · June 12

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Plus, faction lock just sucks, full stop. I want to play with all my friends, and coordinating each individual guild or group to all be the same faction is just unrealistic.

Yeah I'm 100% with you on wanting a merc faction and/or killing useless faction locks. I don't think either of those are a silver bullet, they'd be a good start, but massive changes would be needed. A whole rework from the ground up. I do admit that I would love to see a merc faction on Vengeance too. With access to all 3 zone chats of course.

A merc faction wouldn't work in ESO with the current balance and in general I don't think it would be a good idea.

The problem is that there isn't really the playerbase any more for fully 'unlocked' factions to work. Groups who used to go after the zergs don't really exist in as much quantity and so you generally see most groups these days simply playing at their front line because 'the pugs are definitely just following them and not just going to the next keep in the line naturally'.

What might work would be to either
1) Allow people to queue as a 'fill in' at any time i.e. they would get placed on any faction which had less population during their gameplay (maybe this would rotate every 2 hours if the faction they are on became high pop)
2) Dynamically close campaigns as population is reduced to push players to the same campaign during lower population hours. Would have to think carefully about how to manage this but what you normally see currently is one faction controlling each campaign to a certain degree and players 'hiding' PvD'ing the map on the other dead campaigns.
3) 'Un-faction lock' a campaign once it's population reached a certain point but keep the dominant faction locked and give 2x AP to anyone playing on an outnumbered faction.

For any of these systems to realistically work the low pop system would need to be more related to the duration of being outnumbered. i.e. as soon as a faction is outnumbered it should start and it should last the duration of being outnumbered + 30% i.e. if a faction is outnumbered for 3 hours then becomes equal or dominant its low pop should continue for another 1h after that time i.e. they get 4 total hours of low pop.

xylena_lazarow · June 13

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

A merc faction wouldn't work in ESO with the current balance and in general I don't think it would be a good idea.

You're probably right. I was being too rhetorical, sorry, I was trying to say that no matter what point of view we take on this, they all lead to the same logical conclusion that the PvP needs many massive changes, so many that it's better to rebuild from the ground up, which looks like the same conclusion the devs came to with Vengeance.

minnowfaun · June 13

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Sad to say but I think Cyro is cooked until Vengeance returns.

Vengeance is not going to fix that problem. It will only make it worse. Aside from some small skirmish fun, vengeance is a leechfest. The only way to win in vengeance is to be on the alliance with the most people. That will exacerbate OP's problem. It will be one massive zerg vs Alliance Loyalists.

xylena_lazarow · June 13

minnowfaun wrote: »

The only way to win in vengeance is to be on the alliance with the most people.

It's not a finished product. Something like meatbag siege to break up open field zergs would make those 40v60 keep defenses winnable for the 40. The new skill lines already give it a simple but impactful build system.

xXCJsniperXx7 · June 13

At this point, cyrodiil should be left to Dagon.

silentxthreat · June 18

I would disagree. vengeance is going to make organized group play harder to pull off and beatable. There is nothing we can do really about balance but I do think faction lock should be removed and merge the dead servers into the one active server. another idea is to get rid of month long locks if we are going to keep faction locks since the rewards are trash anyway

MISTFORMBZZZ · June 19

BetweenMidgets wrote: »

Get rid of faction lock.

agree