I think making PvP better would require:

• Scrapping of the multiple servers, leaving one or two for veteran and one for non-veteran. The lack of population for most campaigns is a deterrent to PvP.
• Removing population cap completely. It is a complete waste of resources to have most campaigns virtually empty while another has a queue due to popularity.
• Removing campaign duration, have it continuous.
• Increase rewards for play-time in PvP, every 30 minutes or every hour you play, based upon what you do in Cyrodiil. Make capturing of resources more important than killing a player, at present most players don't bother at all with resource points unless they are in a zerg.
• Remove the buff system entirely for PvE - This is PvP. It is one of the reasons for campaigns being ruined with night-time zergs, etc.
• Increase incentive for PvE players to join in, quests are in need of a shake-up.
• Replace the current buff system with a lowest population buff, along the lines of what the buffs are, 5% bonus to damage, 5% bonus to health, etc.
• Remove the scroll capture, or make it dynamic and have it reset after a period of time when it is captured.
• Remove rank buffs, in its place implement a higher reward system for higher rank.
• Implement way shrines or little portal hubs along the keep network to allow for quicker transportation for reinforcements. They would need to be dynamic and guarded, lest camping ensue...
• Better AI standards for guards: Have the guards communicate with each other, bolster rank and line with reinforcements for small scale incursions, do not just add guard population when keep/resource is under attack though, have them be taken from inside/other side of the keep/resource.
• Dynamic AI choices for guards would really help with the attacking/defending a keep/resource: Have guards fall back to keep walls instead of patrolling outside the walls when keep is under attack. At present players just use the guards as meat shields and guards are little more than a hindrance due their AI scripting.
• Implement diminishing returns on skills that have repeated knock-back effects (Biting Jabs, for example - I am a Templar by the way)
• Make defending worthwhile/important instead of just a location where a number of enemy are to kill. Implement rewards for defending to increase incentive.

If a keep is under attack and you die, then most of the time you will just go to another keep in another area of the map as there is no real incentive to defend and it can be too far to ride to the keep under attack due to the lack of way shrines/portal hubs, etc.

Small scale Arena-style locations would also be nice to see within Cyrodiil itself, Fighters Guild/Undaunted influenced events taking place for practice within keeps, out in the open would set a new dynamic to PvP.

I like PvE and PvP, I like both equally, just do PvE more as PvP at this point in time is just zerging from keep to keep, there is no real strategy due to the lack of balance on many fronts with the present PvP system.

With PvE buffs removed, PvE would still come to PvP if the population and incentive was there, there is nothing like stepping into a large scale battle taking place, or knowing that you and a small party make a difference to the overall standings. Even if the battle is a loss, it is an experience that leaves you smiling and wanting more.

Please remember, this is my point of view, constructive feedback is welcome and blatant criticism/negativity is not.

BornDownUnder wrote: »

I think making PvP better would require:

• Scrapping of the multiple servers, leaving one or two for veteran and one for non-veteran. The lack of population for most campaigns is a deterrent to PvP.
• Removing population cap completely. It is a complete waste of resources to have most campaigns virtually empty while another has a queue due to popularity.
• Removing campaign duration, have it continuous.
• Increase rewards for play-time in PvP, every 30 minutes or every hour you play, based upon what you do in Cyrodiil. Make capturing of resources more important than killing a player, at present most players don't bother at all with resource points unless they are in a zerg.
• Remove the buff system entirely for PvE - This is PvP. It is one of the reasons for campaigns being ruined with night-time zergs, etc.
• Increase incentive for PvE players to join in, quests are in need of a shake-up.
• Replace the current buff system with a lowest population buff, along the lines of what the buffs are, 5% bonus to damage, 5% bonus to health, etc.
• Remove the scroll capture, or make it dynamic and have it reset after a period of time when it is captured.
• Remove rank buffs, in its place implement a higher reward system for higher rank.
• Implement way shrines or little portal hubs along the keep network to allow for quicker transportation for reinforcements. They would need to be dynamic and guarded, lest camping ensue...
• Better AI standards for guards: Have the guards communicate with each other, bolster rank and line with reinforcements for small scale incursions, do not just add guard population when keep/resource is under attack though, have them be taken from inside/other side of the keep/resource.
• Dynamic AI choices for guards would really help with the attacking/defending a keep/resource: Have guards fall back to keep walls instead of patrolling outside the walls when keep is under attack. At present players just use the guards as meat shields and guards are little more than a hindrance due their AI scripting.
• Implement diminishing returns on skills that have repeated knock-back effects (Biting Jabs, for example - I am a Templar by the way)
• Make defending worthwhile/important instead of just a location where a number of enemy are to kill. Implement rewards for defending to increase incentive.

If a keep is under attack and you die, then most of the time you will just go to another keep in another area of the map as there is no real incentive to defend and it can be too far to ride to the keep under attack due to the lack of way shrines/portal hubs, etc.

Small scale Arena-style locations would also be nice to see within Cyrodiil itself, Fighters Guild/Undaunted influenced events taking place for practice within keeps, out in the open would set a new dynamic to PvP.

I like PvE and PvP, I like both equally, just do PvE more as PvP at this point in time is just zerging from keep to keep, there is no real strategy due to the lack of balance on many fronts with the present PvP system.

With PvE buffs removed, PvE would still come to PvP if the population and incentive was there, there is nothing like stepping into a large scale battle taking place, or knowing that you and a small party make a difference to the overall standings. Even if the battle is a loss, it is an experience that leaves you smiling and wanting more.

Please remember, this is my point of view, constructive feedback is welcome and blatant criticism/negativity is not.

Also, more lag, yay.

BornDownUnder wrote: »

I think making PvP better would require:

• Scrapping of the multiple servers, leaving one or two for veteran and one for non-veteran. The lack of population for most campaigns is a deterrent to PvP.
• Removing population cap completely. It is a complete waste of resources to have most campaigns virtually empty while another has a queue due to popularity.
• 1Removing campaign duration, have it continuous.
• Increase rewards for play-time in PvP, every 30 minutes or every hour you play, based upon what you do in Cyrodiil. Make capturing of resources more important than killing a player, at present most players don't bother at all with resource points unless they are in a zerg.
• 2Remove the buff system entirely for PvE - This is PvP. It is one of the reasons for campaigns being ruined with night-time zergs, etc.
• 3Increase incentive for PvE players to join in, quests are in need of a shake-up.
• Replace the current buff system with a lowest population buff, along the lines of what the buffs are, 5% bonus to damage, 5% bonus to health, etc.
• Remove the scroll capture, or make it dynamic and have it reset after a period of time when it is captured.
• Remove rank buffs, in its place implement a higher reward system for higher rank.
• Implement way shrines or little portal hubs along the keep network to allow for quicker transportation for reinforcements. They would need to be dynamic and guarded, lest camping ensue...
• Better AI standards for guards: Have the guards communicate with each other, bolster rank and line with reinforcements for small scale incursions, do not just add guard population when keep/resource is under attack though, have them be taken from inside/other side of the keep/resource.
• Dynamic AI choices for guards would really help with the attacking/defending a keep/resource: Have guards fall back to keep walls instead of patrolling outside the walls when keep is under attack. At present players just use the guards as meat shields and guards are little more than a hindrance due their AI scripting.
• Implement diminishing returns on skills that have repeated knock-back effects (Biting Jabs, for example - I am a Templar by the way)
• Make defending worthwhile/important instead of just a location where a number of enemy are to kill. Implement rewards for defending to increase incentive.

If a keep is under attack and you die, then most of the time you will just go to another keep in another area of the map as there is no real incentive to defend and it can be too far to ride to the keep under attack due to the lack of way shrines/portal hubs, etc.

Small scale Arena-style locations would also be nice to see within Cyrodiil itself, Fighters Guild/Undaunted influenced events taking place for practice within keeps, out in the open would set a new dynamic to PvP.

I like PvE and PvP, I like both equally, just do PvE more as PvP at this point in time is just zerging from keep to keep, there is no real strategy due to the lack of balance on many fronts with the present PvP system.

With PvE buffs removed, PvE would still come to PvP if the population and incentive was there, there is nothing like stepping into a large scale battle taking place, or knowing that you and a small party make a difference to the overall standings. Even if the battle is a loss, it is an experience that leaves you smiling and wanting more.

Please remember, this is my point of view, constructive feedback is welcome and blatant criticism/negativity is not.

1-How do we get rewarded then? That's really the only reason there is a duration.
2-I think this is already going to happen.
3-Have to say no way on this. That's like trying to make PvP'ers go and have to do trials in PvE for gear, or w/e you call an incentive to PvE. We don't want to do it, and if the PvE'ers don't want to PvP they shouldn't have to. Just like doing undaunted dungeons for gear. Yeah some PvP'ers do it. But I for one have found it silly that the exsisting PvP gear gained with AP is so bad that we have to in the first place.

Gear sets for PvP are horrible and need a revamp. The traits are bad, the slots are bad and most everyone is using player crafted gear because of it. Trial gear works for any PvE. You just have to grind for it.

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

We have looked at population imbalances throughout the release of the game and have seen it change from campaign to campaign, month to month with Ebonheart, Aldmeri and Daggerfall all taking top population spots. As a snap shot, the past three days show the following:

• Haderus has swapped highest population between all three alliances.
• Azura has a steady stream of Aldmeri and Ebonheart, but not much Daggerfall.
• Blackwater has mainly Ebonheart with the highest with Aldmeri slightly behind and again, Daggerfall the lowest.
• Chillrend has Daggerfall with the highest population and Aldmeri/Ebonheart around the same
• Thornblade has Aldmeri and Ebonheart with roughly the same population with a slight edge towards Ebonheart, and Daggerfall trailing.

There are ongoing discussions about how to address population imbalances in the campaigns. Some of the possible solutions include the following:

• Limiting population per alliance to match the lowest or median population of the lowest population.
• Giving more XP/AP than we currently do
• Giving alternate siege weapons to the underdog\low-population alliance(s) that do more damage while they have the underdog\low pop bonus.
  
• Altering Cyrodiil's landscape
• Changing/removing scoring and showing that other campaigns have underdog/low-population bonuses on the Campaign Selection UI
• Doing away with Home and Guest campaign options, so Campaign Reward tiers roll with a character instead of being tied to a campaign so you can play in any campaign you want.

All of these have their pros and cons, some of which may not be immediately apparent but we still have to consider. The last one, for example, would result in all the campaigns having the same duration (so people can't earn tier 3 then hop to a short campaign and get a reward when it ends), and scoring and would be better suited as a meta-score across all campaigns. We would also need to remove the limitation on the accounts which don't let players have characters from opposing alliances in the same campaign (and yes I know that "jump to buddy" circumvents this rule already).

I agree there are many solutions we can explore, and that population imbalances are always a challenge for PVP games in which battles are not instanced to launch on demand. Thanks again for your continued patience in this and many other matters that the PVP community and myself care about deeply

If you go that route please add the cities like in Cyrodiil, can't find bravil.

Right now there just isn't much of a reward to stay in a particular Cyrodiil campaign if your goal is to become empereror. The end campaign rewards are also something to scoff at as there is no reason to stick to a particular campaign.

Eitherway populations become too sparse and separated by the varying types of Cyrodiil campaigns and its really hard to figure out a really decent one you want play for your side as there isn't much detail on how many people have picked that server.

I think they should eliminate 7 day and 30 day campaigns and condense those servers into 14 day campaigns only activating them when one server is full on a particular and putting players into that one.

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

The low population bonus doesn't apply on the fly and is set to evaluate every 60 minutes against a rolling population sample of the past 24-72 hours. We have talked about reducing that window to have it apply faster, but the counter would be the bonus fades away quicker.

The low scoring bonus is evaluated on a larger time frame than hourly, and we have discussed shortening that as well, but again, the bonus would last shorter if we shorten that window too.

There have also been talks like mentioned here of editing scoring, or flat out removing it and making the rewards be simply based on your own efforts during campaign durations, and adding another tier or two.

Shorter means it actually responds when a big guild comes from Thornlag to another smaller campaign to Emperor farm. it would also mean the bonus goes away when they arrive and comes back when they leave. (Wow, players might actually GET a bonus when they have less players vs the opposing forces.) How about it evaluates each tick, since that mechanism is already in place, vs the past 24 hours? This would allow for the numbers to more quickly adjust for weekend play too.

And, hopefully it evaluates vs the other TWO factions, not just the one with the biggest number? Sounds awesome to me, but I am biased.

(edit: Slight Revision here, after reading the previous post. Confusing dev tracker.)

Also, have you considered maybe using the pop bonus to buff/not buff player stats more instead of the faction's score? That way lower pop players might actually have more of a chance vs high-pop enemies. (and, yeah, I know, it would require a lot of tweaking of the system.)

I don't know if anyone else looked at the pop bars of the NA servers last night during prime time but what I saw was:

Thornblade locked for most of the night with DC going to 3 bars from time to time then back to locked.

Chillrend was locked for DC every time I checked with frequently 2 bars of AD and DC and sometimes 1

Hadarus was locked for AD most of the night with 1 or 2 bars of AD and DC.

Blackwater Blade was 2 bars each EP, AD, DC

I forgot what Azuras was?

Which one is the current defacto EP buff server, is it still Azura's? I'm not sure as I home Thornblade. I think part of the issue here is that Thornblade is considered the "competitive" server and EP doesn't really have any competitive trials guilds that care enough to keep a buff server. There is Potato Syndicate and Funk but that is it as far as I know. You have more EP that just like PVP, they don't play this game for any other reason.

Maybe we need to consider all servers competitive at this point. Certainly any of these changes would be implemented on all servers and not just Thornblade. Out of what has been suggested, removing the faction scores and keeping personal score sounds the most interesting to me along with removing the "home/guest" barrier so players can move freely between servers and factions to do their own "balancing".

Having said that I am not particularly unhappy with the way things are now. When EP was losing everything, I wasn't unhappy then either. I have never cared that much for the scoreboard and when my friends raged about it back in the day when EP was the "joke" faction, I'd tell them not to sweat it since you can't really take personal responsibility for something you play a minor role in a few hours a day. The real fun is in killing a group of players in front of you, that you can take personal responsibility for and enjoy no matter what faction you are on or what the score-board registers.

Ya I know that, we don't even know if they are proportional to factions, we don't know if 1 bar of DC=1 bar AD=1 bar EP. But assuming it does that is still what I saw yesterday and the one thing I can take away is there is really no need for 2 30 day campaigns and Azura's can go away.

"There have also been talks like mentioned here of editing scoring, or flat out removing it and making the rewards be simply based on your own efforts during campaign durations, and adding another tier or two."

This definitely would be a great option so that players in other factions are at least award appropriately based on their individual contribution. Contribute a lot = bigger payout, contribute a little =smalller payout.

TheBull wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

The low population bonus doesn't apply on the fly and is set to evaluate every 60 minutes against a rolling population sample of the past 24-72 hours. We have talked about reducing that window to have it apply faster, but the counter would be the bonus fades away quicker.

The low scoring bonus is evaluated on a larger time frame than hourly, and we have discussed shortening that as well, but again, the bonus would last shorter if we shorten that window too.

There have also been talks like mentioned here of editing scoring, or flat out removing it and making the rewards be simply based on your own efforts during campaign durations, and adding another tier or two.

I've thought about the same. I think it's worth a try on one campaign atleast.

This is definitely worth a try. Maybe consider changing one of the 30 day campaigns to follow these rules so they can get a look at how it affects scoring long term.

Alternative option that can help.

-remove home campaign
-make all campaigns tie into an overall score, the more keeps you have in multiple campaigns the higher the score.
- optional- make it so the top scoring alliance cannot go over 1000 points over the second place alliance. 3rd place will recieve a scoring bonus that is at the time of being put in 3rd place, not this delayed scoring bonus we have now.
-winning the season gives the winning alliances money and everyone on there alliance a chance at rarer items in the tier they made which I will discuss next.

-to incentivise people moving between campaigns, make it so you have to reach 5 tiers of participation per campaigne to get the max reward at the end of a season, say 30 days as its the most popular.
Everyone who reaches max tier in each campaigne has a chance at the yellow gear. The people In the top 100 per faction get a better chance at rarer yellows, but people who did all the tiers still have a chance at the rarer yellows.
Completing 5 tiers per campaigne (since ther is 4 campaigns right now)
- 1 - greens
- 2 - blues
- 3 - purples
- 4 - yellows

This reward system will make your time in pvp feel less worthless. Time per tier will be determined for how well you kill in Cyrodiil and what size group you are in.

Solo- 10 points per kill.
2-4- 8 points per kill.
5-10 - 6 points per kill.
11-16- 4 points per kill.
17-24- 1 point per kill.

This gives more reason to be in smaller groups and will equal the gain of large zergball groups as they kill more.

Scroll buff equals the same as what it does in a single campaigne right now but combined between all campaignes for this suggestion.
Scroll bonus max = having 4 scrolls of the same scroll in all 4 campaignes = the max scroll bonus we have in live today.
Having 2 scrolls of the same scroll in 2 different campaignes = half of max bonus.
Buffs still go into all campaignes and pve but are a combined bonus between how many of each scrolls you hold in all campaignes.

Leader boards will be measured between all campaignes combined.

Emperor will need to be reworked, maybe one per alliances accross all campaignes.

Trying to think of an exploit to this system.
-kill trading for tier levels. Fix, maybe diminishing returns from killing same player.

Hopefully this will keep players bouncing between campaignes enough to keep from one going max pop all the time. If you want max gear reward you will need to participate in all campaignes.

There may be an issue with gaining access to the Imperial city with this set up, or maybe not.

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

roechacca wrote: »

Also I like your ideas Mr Wheeler . I like the first idea best .

The first idea (Limiting population per alliance to match the lowest or median population of the lowest population) sounds good in practice, but there are some inherent problems with it. Let's say you're in a campaign where the lowest-population alliance has only 11 people on (this actually happens). That means the other two alliances would also be limited to 11 people, and no one is having fun at that point.

@ZOS_JessicaFolsom‌ This seems like a significant drawback, but also a solvable problem - maybe establish a floor value (e.g. 48 or two full large groups) for the population cap. From there, your cap increases as other realms populations increase, up to some max value. So lets say DC has 30 on, AD has 40, EP gets capped at DC + AD for a cap of 70. Maybe the cap is also inversely proportional to the percent of the map you control. Though I'm not advocating this particular formula, it seems like you could play with the ratios a bit and arrive at a viable solution.
It might not hurt to increase transparency here, and report the current number of players in each faction with greater granularity.

Dreyloch wrote: »

BornDownUnder wrote: »

I think making PvP better would require:

• 1Removing campaign duration, have it continuous.
• Increase rewards for play-time in PvP, every 30 minutes or every hour you play, based upon what you do in Cyrodiil. Make capturing of resources more important than killing a player, at present most players don't bother at all with resource points unless they are in a zerg.
• 2Remove the buff system entirely for PvE - This is PvP. It is one of the reasons for campaigns being ruined with night-time zergs, etc.
• 3Increase incentive for PvE players to join in, quests are in need of a shake-up.

1-How do we get rewarded then? That's really the only reason there is a duration.
2-I think this is already going to happen.
3-Have to say no way on this. That's like trying to make PvP'ers go and have to do trials in PvE for gear, or w/e you call an incentive to PvE. We don't want to do it, and if the PvE'ers don't want to PvP they shouldn't have to. Just like doing undaunted dungeons for gear. Yeah some PvP'ers do it. But I for one have found it silly that the exsisting PvP gear gained with AP is so bad that we have to in the first place.

Gear sets for PvP are horrible and need a revamp. The traits are bad, the slots are bad and most everyone is using player crafted gear because of it. Trial gear works for any PvE. You just have to grind for it.

The point below #1 is what I was referring to as the alteration for removing campaign duration.
#2, I really do hope this happens, as a lot of trials groups are now difficult to fill if there aren't any PvP buffs available in PvE. One trial group, almost 2 hrs to find 4 DpS outside of guild...
#3 Not trying to make players do what they do not want to do, trying to promote incentives to do something outside of their norm.

Perhaps the inclusion of the 3 guilds, Fighters, Mages and Undaunted in PvP would be good, offering a means for PvE players to step into PvP whilst alternatively offering a means for PvP players to step into PvE at max level.

PvP equip currently is really poor, elevating it to a level where it is seen as the only means of choice would have a detrimental effect on population as it would discourage players who have not gained enough AP to gain said equip.

The thing that would remedy this would be a dramatic increase in AP gain, then you would have seasoned PvP players complaining that AP is too easy to gain as they would already have the equip and nothing/not much else to spend AP points on.

In saying that, I fully agree, PvP equip is in desperate need of an overhaul, at this point in time it is actually better to use trials/crafted equip than AP buy-able PvP equip.

ShadoPanauin wrote: »

Also, more lag, yay.

Lag has and will always be a part of online gaming. I reside in Australia so my 'lag' is a 250 or higher latency at ALL times.

I'm just lucky that I worked my guts out for a decent computer than can handle anything that is thrown at it, so I do not suffer from frame-rate lag.

To help combat lag:
Reduce your graphic settings and reduce the number of addons you run whilst you PvP.
Reduce the number of background tasks, particularly ones that interact on the network (Updaters, etc) It WILL help!

Reduce the number of campaigns (as long as zeni is able to keep lag in check) or prevent ppl from traveling to other non-home campaigns just to help with a scroll/emp cap during off-hours.

Helps increase campaign pride and reduces emp swapping. Right now if ppl are loosing in one campaign they just say F this and jump to another one, forgetting about their original campaign.