There CANNOT be access gates to the Imperial City paid DLC

olemanwinter

@ZOS_RichLambert @ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_JessicaFolsom @ZOS_BrianWheeler

The most common suggestion I keep reading for an access gate to the Imperial City is 3 home keeps + 2 additional keeps. I'm going to temporarily work off that assumption.

At the time of writing this, the following campaign conditions would exist: (approx 1am est)
Haderus:
AD (8 keeps) Access
EP (6 keeps) Access
DC (4 keeps) NO Access

Chillrend:
AD (7 keeps) Access
EP (8 keeps) Access
DC (3 keeps) NO Access

Azura's Star:
AD (5 keeps) Access
EP (9 keeps) Access
DC (4 keeps) NO Access

Thornblade:
AD (16 keeps) Access
EP (2 keeps ) NO Access
DC (0 keeps) NO Access

Across all Vet campaigns, no DC player would have access to this Paid content at this time. Every AD player would have access to this Paid content regardless of campaign, and a EP player would have a 75% chance of having access at this time.

POPULATION IMBALANCE/NIGHTCAPPING:
Due to population imbalances, even though DC has a lead in one of the campaigns, it still almost always holds very few keeps at certain times of the day. Not all players play during "peak hours" and not all players exist at the same place as should be obvious. If you logged in at this same time every day you would rarely if ever have access to the Imperial City.

ZERGS:
Nothing contributes more to zerg play than a 2 sided battle. In 75% of these campaigns the same two sides will exclusively be fighting each other in IC until at least the conclusion of the campaign.

BUFF CAMPAIGNS:
Zos, you just removed campaign buffs from PvE because Buff Campaigns weren't good, but this is going to make them much more important and prevalent with Imperial City access instead of the stat buffs. Nobody who is paying for this content will risk playing in a campaign they don't control.

You will also effectively eliminate small scale PvP combat as even a remote possibility. The only way to gain access to the Imperial City will be in a buff server with no competition (See Thornblade current) or in a highly contested max-population main campaign. There will be no middle ground.

EITHER/OR:
I view this as an "either/or" situation. EITHER most players will stay in heavily dominated "buff servers" OR everyone will fight in a main campaign. There will be no incentive to divide the force of your alliance. Collective migration will be an even greater problem in either case. In one case and entire lack of competition effectively ruins PvP (buff servers) and in the other case even more stress will be placed on your servers (Everyone in a single server) which will lead to performance loss.

FAIRNESS:
I fully expect AT LEAST 2/3rds of the population to disagree with me because this is a non-issue for EP or AD players unless they take a very wide and long view of population imbalance and performance described above.

But please remember you are not yet offering an alliance change at this time, be it free or in the crown store. I am a Dedicated DC player. Many players I know also have only DC characters. I don't believe DC players should have dramatically less access to paid DLC. I don't believe they should be forced to create new character, level them, and play in an alliance they don't enjoy to access the paid DLC.

PROFIT:
I LOVE IMPERIAL CITY. LOVE LOVE LOVE IT. I'm not currently subscribed, but I'm absolutely going to resubscribe UNLESS THERE IS A GATE OF ACCESS.

As a DC player with ZERO access in game right now under proposed plans (some or all versions), I can't possibly justify buying a DLC I won't be able to play. I can't imagine many other players doing so either. If an access gate like this goes live, the only DC players that will buy it will be those who don't understand the requirements.

But it get's worse. I'm not going to grind and struggle in vanilla ESO (rare mat drops in pledges) or buy the Imperial City products (from traders) at a premium to compete with players who have access to Imperial City. That's a bridge too far.

CONCLUSION:
The fewer keeps that an alliance controls, the greater the distance through enemy territory one must travel to access the Imperial City sewers. To me, that is enough of a barrier! If any additional barrier to entry was established I would BEG you to make it a SINGLE KEEP ONLY!

Right now on Thornblade, DC has zero keeps. What could a single player be expected to do in such a circumstance? Perhaps gather enough people to capture a keep to gain access, but you cannot expect a losing side in a low-population campaign to rally support for a march across the map from ZERO keeps to 3 or 4 or 5.

It takes hours to take 3 keeps with a medium sized group, by the time you siege, kill NPCs, repair, and travel between them. If you encounter resistance it can take all day to accomplish gaining home keeps. I know because I've spent most of my time doing exactly that, struggling against greater numbers on a low-population campaign to get "a few" keeps. You will leave players in that circumstance no choice but to rehome to a different campaign, which will only exacerbate the population imbalance they are fleeing!

TLDR:
Please make Imperial City accessible to all alliances at all times. To do otherwise is unfair to players of the DC alliance (and perhaps one day other alliances) that could have literally NO ACCESS whatsoever at certain times of the day depending on the access gate requirements. 100% across all campaigns for AD players and ZERO% across all campaigns for DC players is something that can't be tolerated. Nobody can be expected to pay for DLC they will have severely reduced access to.

I believe it may increase population imbalance and/or lag problems. Mass alliance migration and buff servers will be worse than ever before even with the new restrictions because players will have NO OTHER CHOICE. Medium sized conflicts will cease to exist as low populations won't have access to the battlefield at all, which leaves only giant populations that ensure access to meet.

This will also continue to trickle down into imbalance in PvE leaderboards for trials as well, due to dramatically reduced access to new gear for DC players. There has already been a migration of top PvE players months ago to other alliances.

STILL TLDR:
Nobody is going to pay for DLC they can't access. DC would have no access across ALL campaigns at this time, and this is a frequent condition. I REALLY LOVE the Imperial City DLC, but there is ZERO chance I would buy it with access gates.

EDIT: A BLANKET REPLY TO THE MOST COMMON ARGUMENTS CAN BE FOUND HERE

EDIT: BLANKET REPLY #2 HERE

EDIT 2: 12 hours later 1pm EST
Haderus: AD (8) Access, EP (6) Access, DC (4) NO Access. Chillrend: AD (7) Access, EP (8) Access, DC (3) NO Access. Azura's Star: AD (5) Access, EP (8) Access, DC (3) NO Access. Thornblade: AD (16) Access. EP (2) NO Access, DC (0) NO Access. All AD players have access. 75% chance for EP players to have access. ZERO DC players with access across all campaigns.

EDIT: A COMPROMISE I COULD SUPPORT
This post by another user is the only "compromise" I've seen so far that would really satisfy me. I believe all paying customers of this DLC should have unfettered access, but if Zos insists on some type of access gate, I believe a plan like he outlines in this post as an alternative way to access the Imperial City would be acceptable. Not ideal, but acceptable imho.

FINAL EDIT: I'm ignoring this thread until something changes. Most people who posted seemed at least aware of circumstances that were making DC players (and anyone with a wide view) concerned, but most POSTS are now by the same few people trying to tell us we're all idiots. The same couple of people just filling page after page on the bottom half of this thread with the same arguments. I can't bare to respond to them directly any more. My blanket replies linked above cover everything I could say. I may post again closer to 2.1 going live.

DaveMoeDee

As a DC player, I also find this lame.

Farorin

As an AD player, I feel for the plight of the DC players, also as a lover of PVP, I don't want a regular situation where my alliance has access but the other alliances don't, because then I won't get to fight anywhere near as often.

I still like the idea of some kind of access restriction, so that there is still incentive to fight in the main war, but for the access restrictions to be as much as they are suggesting I think is too strict and not conducive to inclusive play.

Pirhana7_ESO

The thing you fail to mention is that while DC is locked out of IC their FULL force will be in Cyrodiil while the other alliances will have half their forces in IC. While this happens there is no reason DC shouldn't be bale to take back their home keeps + to gain access to IC.

Yes they are out number and will lose IC access again and over time they will have the least amount of access time. But the design will allow them to gain access. every day, multiple times.

Controlling or having access to IC is a reward. So why shouldn't the sides that are winning the most have the most access?

When a side can cut off access to another alliance they make the content inside much more controlled. A lot of people would rather have a little bit of controlled PVE acces inside rather than being able to go their 24/7 and having it always pure gankfest where nothing can be accomlished

olemanwinter

Pirhana7_ESO wrote: »

The thing you fail to mention is that while DC is locked out of IC their FULL force will be in Cyrodiil while the other alliances will have half their forces in IC.

There is no full force.
Our FULL force gets us control of 25% of the campaigns for 33% of the day.
Or in other words, our FULL force grants us control over approx 8% of PvP.

SeptimusDova

This is a serious issue.T.E Lawrence algebraic force calculations The more territory(keeps) the more personnel required in order to prevent Dilution of Force and Culmination points.T.E.Lawrence "Seven pillars of wisdom" 1922. DC does not have the numbers to facilitate the planned requisites to obtain and hold the required keeps.

Time (Employment,School,Time zones)
Population ( Amount of players who are DC and in PVP campaigns)
Density (Distribution of DC players in Campaigns)
Scope ( Amount of time and duration needed to obtain and hold keeps while still maintain access to IC)

Rev Rielle

I must admit on the surface it seems like it's a bad mechanic.
It would be okay if the game was more hardcore/sandbox-esque across the board, but I think having this mechanic within a game that is basically big on 'play where and how you want' is potentially a mistake.

Tonnopesce

Unfortunatly we have the same situation even on the PS4 EU server where DC is underpopulated (as usual).

I belive that is not much of an issue on consoles, due to the lack of zone chat defend a keep is much more difficult .
While on PC a good organized guild can alone prevent the acces of 1 or 2 alliances inside IC on consoles most of the times when a keep is under siege is too late.

Right now we have to wait untill ZOS decide to test the different types of acces in the IC, we still need to consider that when a faction has acces to the IC or even two, most of "outer" cyrodiil expecially in ex buff campaigns will be empty and easy to conquer

AssaultLemming

Controlling or having access to IC is a reward. So why shouldn't the sides that are winning the most have the most access?

Because those factions aren't winning because they are better, but because they have more players...

Turelus

Maybe instead of spreading across all the campaigns DC should start working on communication with each other and organising a campaign where they will have a strong standing force.

Additionally you may see a surge of activity on players coming into Cyrodiil to help take keeps or hold them in order to access Imperial City.

You could even strike a deal with the second strongest faction to hold the strongest one back so you both have access and the other doesn't.

There are a lot of ways to fix ownership of keeps in Cyrodiil.

However if ZOS doesn't have an access condition it won't bother me, I will just walk right in instead of forming some raids to get access.

Derra

I think they could make access restrictions depending on campaign.

I really feel for US DC players when it comes to access restrictions but imho they are needed to make IC enjoyable at all for non hardcore players - otherwise the tel var stone system would have to be changed.

Corpsage

This post needs so much attention from ZOS it hurts. There is absolutely no reason we should be excluded for playing DC.

WarrioroftheWind_ESO

*blink* I'm REALLY confused by your math regarding AS. It's been practically dominated by DC for the past 3-4 cycles, and even with PTS up, DC is committing much of their forces to conquering the campaign.

I don't think the gating requirement is unreasonable, and they already stated that we're not going to be able to jump ship and guest to campaigns on the fly. Factions will have to commit to playing on their chosen servers.

Keep in mind that a faction desiring access to IC will have to commit forces to safeguarding and taking necessary keeps. Factions are going to have to juggle responsibility, and it might actually encourage cooperation between guilds more than ever, instead of having these few guilds that dictate everything at the expense of their own faction members.

There's still a month or more of testing to go, and if 1.6 is any indication they'll keep making tweaks to the various builds. IC should be a reward, but there is always the possibility of exploitation to gain said reward as seen with previous 'incentives'

lolo_01b16_ESO

I like the fact that there finally will be a reason to capture keeps apart from when you want to become emperor. I hope that there will be a campaign that requires to have 6 or 7 keeps under your control to get access to the imperial city. Then we have to fight to get access and we will need some defenders to keep it open.

Igawotch

Don't worry your AD/DC comrades will split Cyrodiil between each other.

Paulhewhewria

Well not trying to bring this up,but I thought everyone was getting on the "risk vs reward" bandwagon?I mean if you want the imperial city you better find a way to get in it even if that means finding a way to get most of the keeps,but seriously I get what your saying and I agree that no one will pay for stuff they can't get to. The way I'm going to combat this is just to make faction alts.

Rinmaethodain

I think we are aproaching the point where even PVPers who were so happy about ganking in IC are starting to complain about same thing people (called back then by same PVPers carebears) complained even before IC PTS launched.

This just calls for "i told you so".

Paulhewhewria

MaximusDargus wrote: »

I think we are aproaching the point where even PVPers who were so happy about ganking in IC are starting to complain about same thing people (called back then by same PVPers carebears) complained even before IC PTS launched.

This just calls for "i told you so".

I've been trying to keep quiet because there is no middle ground most of the time with the PVPer who calls others Carebears.
I do agree 100% with what you said though.
All this crap goes back to both the PVE and PVP players being content starved.I'm a PVX player and I like to do a little of everything,but to me this dlc looks like a cluster mess if you ask me.Now don't get me wrong I like the looks of it from the outside,but gameplay wise I think this will be a nightmare.

Leandor

Why bring up that PvE/PvP conflict again? Click on the first link in my signature. I have made a similar post way earlier, the second I heard about the intent to have access restrictions on IC. Not for reasons like you (paid content not accessible) but because I like PvP and want that inside IC and not PvDoor.

Tors

You are obviously talking from the USA point of view, outside of your Worldview is the developed world, their servers have a similar situation, currently It is EP that are the bottom of the pack.

While I agree with much of what you say there are some other things to think about

• All servers are bring reset, so populations will be condensed
• In other games with similar situations, yes the big populations get in first, but they are unable to keep access due to their population now being inside the dungeon
• You talk about not paying for the DLC, I can infer from this that you are not currently paying the sub etc. This is fair enough, your call. But if I was a developer, I would favor comments from people who actually pay their wages rather than those with a lot to say but affectivly freeloading

Robotmafia

wasnt there talk of a campaign where alle factions can enter IC regardless of keeps held in Cyro

CaptainObvious

^
Reading the text and then the signature makes this funny.

Ryuho

Powa of smurfs and nasty tomatos nightcappers on EU, I sense that, do not let bananas enter!! Oh dear, seams like fail mechanism @ZOS..

Junglejim82

I agree with op it's nonsense for DC players I.c access isn't a reward when you need to pay just to be able to not access it . A dlc you buy but can't play ? Smashing idea. You're telling me my Muppet alliance means I don't get to play a dlc I bought? Nah *** that. Ain't gonna buy under those conditions. U wanna make access reliant on performance? Let me 1v1 my way in at least then it's semi fair

Pendrillion

Also something must be done to Gankers at the outside entrance of the Sewers. You can gank in the Sewers, but keeping people out of content they bought is also problematic in my opinion.

Yuke

Derra wrote: »

I think they could make access restrictions depending on campaign.

I really feel for US DC players when it comes to access restrictions but imho they are needed to make IC enjoyable at all for non hardcore players - otherwise the tel var stone system would have to be changed.

^ this

+

there HAS to be an access restriction, otherwise no1 will care about the "real" 3 faction pvp outside of IC.

IC rightnow on PTS is a medieval Call of Duty with demons. -_-

kevlarto_ESO

DC on AS pc/NA have some of the best leaders in the game they have taken the map on more than one occasion, they are currently in the lead and will most likely win the campaign again, so saying DC will never have access might be stretching it, of course I do realize a lot of DC are red transplants but after the update goes in players should not be able to have different faction toons in the same campaign, thank the maker.

I do know overall DC is the lowest pop faction and the scenarios you put out there could be possible OP. I think AD will have problems at least on AS if things stay like they are, I am in AD and we have taken control of third place and will be there until the end of the campaign unless we stop playing like school girls.

After the update there will be no need of a buff server, but what I do see happening is IC farming campaigns, one faction taking the map cutting access off the other two factions, and if the other two factions know how three way faction war works they would start taking back keeps in their perspective areas, and not fighting each other until later at least.

I think having your home keeps is not much of a stretch, and we would have to make some decisions, go out and defend some keeps so we don't lose access, but with home keeps everyone has a chance to be in the city at the same time and adds another element of play, just like trying to crown an emp, the only other way to access the city would be all factions all the time, I understand where your coming from OP, and this is one of those things ZOS has opened up another can of worms here, just like the issue with looting stones. I guess time will tell..:)

krees28b14_ESO

Igawotch wrote: »

Don't worry your AD/DC comrades will split Cyrodiil between each other.

Team Green at their best. All part of their strategy and if they were smart they would make that deal and lock down IC for themselves and when EP quits and goes to another server due to not having access to Imperial City then they can kill each other.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend"

tinythinker

Yuke wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

I think they could make access restrictions depending on campaign.

I really feel for US DC players when it comes to access restrictions but imho they are needed to make IC enjoyable at all for non hardcore players - otherwise the tel var stone system would have to be changed.

there HAS to be an access restriction, otherwise no1 will care about the "real" 3 faction pvp outside of IC.

They could tie it to the low pop bonus somehow. I'm sure we have clever players who could think up a way to do this that would be fair to underdogs and still encourage AvA outside of IC.

Tors wrote: »

You talk about not paying for the DLC, I can infer from this that you are not currently paying the sub etc. This is fair enough, your call. But if I was a developer, I would favor comments from people who actually pay their wages rather than those with a lot to say but affectivly freeloading

Freeloading? LOL. Yeah, ZOS isn't getting a dime from people who pay for the base game or who purchase the quarterly DLC and other items from the Crown Store. Must be why they went to a B2P rather than sub-only model. Maybe there could be special forum badges for people who are subbed so ZOS can see whose opinion is worth something.

Leandor

Make access tied to a transitus route to a faction emperor keep. If you can port to Aleswell/Ash, Blueroad/Chalman or Roebeck/Alessia respectively, you can enter. Again, clicky first link in my signature.

Gives importance to dragon/drake/brindle since these are the shortest routes and two keeps can be taken against a dominating faction with a bit of coordination.

Davkin

As is wrote in the feedback thread, i think it is a hughe mistake to chain the imerpial city and cyrodil together. There is absolutly no reason to do this beside a lore desicion made on release of 1.0. People who want to play the imperial city will hate when they cant get inside and cyrodil pvpler are screwed when they have to share the populaiton cap with imperial city.
This would be a hughe mistake. People dont pay for content they cant play. And i am not just feeling for DC oder any other Alliance on an enemy buff campain, playing with fewer player in the city will be boring. The big charm for pvp inside the city is that its crowded. You can pick a fight where every you want and this has been missing in eso up to now. Cyrodil and its strategic large scale battles are nice, but its also realy fun to fight against endles waves of enemys.

Its not that these are impossible changes. Just make the city accessable like you get access to cyrodil atm. There are even already wayshrines in the safe bases of the alliances. And for people, who realy like the lore aspekt you can still make an extra campain with the current szenario of a difficult acces bound to the keeps you are holding atm. There are different rules for different campains atm anyway.

Sticking with Access restrictions and sharing the population cap with cyrodil are major mistakes that could ruin the whole thing. I dont know how anyone in their right mind would think that this is the szenario in which people have more fun. Its just plain frustrating for all sides involved.

Tors wrote: »

• You talk about not paying for the DLC, I can infer from this that you are not currently paying the sub etc. This is fair enough, your call. But if I was a developer, I would favor comments from people who actually pay their wages rather than those with a lot to say but affectivly freeloading

Well i am able to cancel my substricption to give a feedback. So are people able to get a new substriction. And i think a lot of people who rage canceld theirs with the extrem lags in pvp will reconsider.
Also everyone has to pay 25bucks for the addon thats not freeloading. But yeah good for you to be a real subscriber.