Mayrael wrote: »

Where are all those white knights switching to the lower populated faction?
Where are all those players seeking some action against most populated faction?

They’re on Kaal because as much as many of us might prefer a more dynamic campaign, Kaal is the only one with population. If you think Kaal is populated because the majority of players have some considered view about the superiority of faction lock and are making a reasoned, informed choice, as opposed to merely choosing whatever is at the top of the list and labeled “Standard”, then I’ve got a bridge in Florida I’d like to sell you.

Mayrael wrote: »

Because most players entering nonlocked campaign are there just for the rewards, they want ez win and ez AP from PvD.

I don't disagree. Of course that's the reason people enter dead campaigns: to farm AP by doing PVE against keep doors. Like I said, all the people interested in PVP are in Kaal for the reasons I outlined above -- reasons that have nothing to do with faction lock.

Mayrael wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

Nyteshade wrote: »

I agree OP. The forums are full of complaints, followed by complaints that ZOS never listens to the players.

Well, here it is! They listened and gave those folks exactly what they wanted. So far, it appears they are vastly in the minority. If not, now is the time to switch.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. At least ZOS shut down one complaint, whether the players actually switch or not.

I don't know who are "those folks," but I can say for myself that ZOS most certainly did not give me what I was looking for and my complaint is not shut down in any way.

You won't be happy till "Standard" campaign won't be the one most populated whatever means it would take (deleting all the other campaigns included). That's just selfish approach.

Few things. Currently on PC EU on nonlocked campaign disparity between 1st and last alliance is over 30k points - biggest of all 3 campaigns. It's the only campaign where AD and EP are constantly gated in prime time so I'm asking:

Where are all those white knights switching to the lower populated faction?
Where are all those players seeking some action against most populated faction?

Another thing. Currently most populated campaign on PC EU is noCP campaign which is second on the list, that's why I dare to doubt in claims that players are unable to look for preferred campaign. If they were able to choose second campaign, they are able to choose third one to.

These are facts which can be supported with screenshots or even empirically, not some conspiracy theories.

I wonder, what faction lock haters will come up with, when their campaign will stay as dead as it is in next cycle?

Anytime you want to stop making strawman arguments, go right ahead.

You have zero idea what I want. I don't care about any campaign because I haven't played PvP in months. I won't be happy until the devs get a vision for the game that is something other than homogenization and nerfs. As far as Cyrodiil goes, it's obvious ZOS has no intention on devoting any resources to providing anyone with a meaningful experience. Population is low, the "rewards" are absolute crap and haven't changed in years, scoring and mechanics favor PvDoor and zergs, lag is so bad I feel as if I'm back in the 1990s with dial-up.

Those campaigns are dead because too many people aren't playing. I don't care about a "standard" or whatever campaign. I want a functional game that's fun to play.

Joy_Division wrote: »

Mayrael wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

Nyteshade wrote: »

I agree OP. The forums are full of complaints, followed by complaints that ZOS never listens to the players.

Well, here it is! They listened and gave those folks exactly what they wanted. So far, it appears they are vastly in the minority. If not, now is the time to switch.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. At least ZOS shut down one complaint, whether the players actually switch or not.

I don't know who are "those folks," but I can say for myself that ZOS most certainly did not give me what I was looking for and my complaint is not shut down in any way.

You won't be happy till "Standard" campaign won't be the one most populated whatever means it would take (deleting all the other campaigns included). That's just selfish approach.

Few things. Currently on PC EU on nonlocked campaign disparity between 1st and last alliance is over 30k points - biggest of all 3 campaigns. It's the only campaign where AD and EP are constantly gated in prime time so I'm asking:

Where are all those white knights switching to the lower populated faction?
Where are all those players seeking some action against most populated faction?

Another thing. Currently most populated campaign on PC EU is noCP campaign which is second on the list, that's why I dare to doubt in claims that players are unable to look for preferred campaign. If they were able to choose second campaign, they are able to choose third one to.

These are facts which can be supported with screenshots or even empirically, not some conspiracy theories.

I wonder, what faction lock haters will come up with, when their campaign will stay as dead as it is in next cycle?

Anytime you want to stop making strawman arguments, go right ahead.

You have zero idea what I want. I don't care about any campaign because I haven't played PvP in months. I won't be happy until the devs get a vision for the game that is something other than homogenization and nerfs. As far as Cyrodiil goes, it's obvious ZOS has no intention on devoting any resources to providing anyone with a meaningful experience. Population is low, the "rewards" are absolute crap and haven't changed in years, scoring and mechanics favor PvDoor and zergs, lag is so bad I feel as if I'm back in the 1990s with dial-up.

Those campaigns are dead because too many people aren't playing. I don't care about a "standard" or whatever campaign. I want a functional game that's fun to play.

I totally agree with you about Cyrodiil performance, but your previous post was not about performance, but about not being happy with new unlocked campaign, at least you replied in such manner. Maybe I have exaggerated, but ilI think that ZOS could place unlocked campaign on 1st place and if it wouldn't be most populated campaign, faction swappers would still complain on something that is "the reason" why it's not most populated. While maybe you all were wrong, maybe in fact most people enjoy better locked campaigns? Most of the time simplest answers are the correct ones.

I think that thanks to getting rid of cancerous and cheese stuff PvP starts to get better despite bad performance. Today we had both Kaal and Bahlo fully poplocked, while even Laat had 2 bars on all factions which is nice!

Mayrael wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

Mayrael wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

Nyteshade wrote: »

I agree OP. The forums are full of complaints, followed by complaints that ZOS never listens to the players.

Well, here it is! They listened and gave those folks exactly what they wanted. So far, it appears they are vastly in the minority. If not, now is the time to switch.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. At least ZOS shut down one complaint, whether the players actually switch or not.

I don't know who are "those folks," but I can say for myself that ZOS most certainly did not give me what I was looking for and my complaint is not shut down in any way.

You won't be happy till "Standard" campaign won't be the one most populated whatever means it would take (deleting all the other campaigns included). That's just selfish approach.

Few things. Currently on PC EU on nonlocked campaign disparity between 1st and last alliance is over 30k points - biggest of all 3 campaigns. It's the only campaign where AD and EP are constantly gated in prime time so I'm asking:

Where are all those white knights switching to the lower populated faction?
Where are all those players seeking some action against most populated faction?

Another thing. Currently most populated campaign on PC EU is noCP campaign which is second on the list, that's why I dare to doubt in claims that players are unable to look for preferred campaign. If they were able to choose second campaign, they are able to choose third one to.

These are facts which can be supported with screenshots or even empirically, not some conspiracy theories.

I wonder, what faction lock haters will come up with, when their campaign will stay as dead as it is in next cycle?

Anytime you want to stop making strawman arguments, go right ahead.

You have zero idea what I want. I don't care about any campaign because I haven't played PvP in months. I won't be happy until the devs get a vision for the game that is something other than homogenization and nerfs. As far as Cyrodiil goes, it's obvious ZOS has no intention on devoting any resources to providing anyone with a meaningful experience. Population is low, the "rewards" are absolute crap and haven't changed in years, scoring and mechanics favor PvDoor and zergs, lag is so bad I feel as if I'm back in the 1990s with dial-up.

Those campaigns are dead because too many people aren't playing. I don't care about a "standard" or whatever campaign. I want a functional game that's fun to play.

I totally agree with you about Cyrodiil performance, but your previous post was not about performance, but about not being happy with new unlocked campaign, at least you replied in such manner. Maybe I have exaggerated, but ilI think that ZOS could place unlocked campaign on 1st place and if it wouldn't be most populated campaign, faction swappers would still complain on something that is "the reason" why it's not most populated. While maybe you all were wrong, maybe in fact most people enjoy better locked campaigns? Most of the time simplest answers are the correct ones.

I'll quote myself:

Joy_Division wrote:

I don't know who are "those folks," but I can say for myself that ZOS most certainly did not give me what I was looking for and my complaint is not shut down in any way.

What's this about the new unlocked campaign? I don't like what ZOS has done to Cyrodiil as a whole or its "direction" and that's exactly what I meant because I'm looking for actual meaningful changes. The whole faction-lock thing was just a bone ZOS threw to the community because it hardly required any resources (and yet they still messed it up), which has done nothing but have the community argue as if it matters. I don't care about it or any campaign because the whole idea of dividing a tiny player base between CP and no CP, locked and unlocked, trying to balance all of them simultaneously when they can't do one, is crazy.

Do you honestly think placing a campaign first is going to make a difference? I understand this isn't your theory, but it's such an arrogant premise to assume everyone else is dumb and lazy. Let me try to understand the logic here: I suppose you (I don;t mean singular "you" personally) would never allow yourself or your thinking or how you live your life to ever be determined by such a triviality, yet the vast majority of people do? The conceit behind this theory is astounding. It's like the Wabbajack campaign (listed last) never existed.

I get this is a pretty hard concept to grasp because it relies on logic and is based on 5 and a half years of ESO history, but let me try to throw it out there anyway: most people choose the campaign to play on because they want people to fight. They don't care about how the campaign is scored, don't care about the 5 pieces of jewelry they're going to get, where it's listed on the menu; they want to log on and have the most amount of action and not have to sit around in Arrius Keep opening their map looking for a fight if they can't help it. They will sit through Qs of over a hundred (yes, we used to have an actual PvP player-base) and sit through that terrible lag every single night rather than play on a dead campaign where performance is actually decent.

That's why I as a filthy "faction-hopper" played on your locked campaign; it has absolutely nothing to do with my preference. I don;t care. I have characters and friends on every faction. It was irritating to only be able to play with some of them and the noncompetitive nature of campaigns was boring (and somehow the next campaign it was a different faction, so much for instilling faction-loyalty among the player base lol), but at the end of the day I played the game for the combat and fights so, again, I didn't care which campaign I happened to play in.

What I do care about is how ZOS has been allowed to sit back and do nothing to make Cyrodiil compelling to play because the player-base is too divided and busy arguing with each other. It's the classic tactic how the elite rule over the masses: get the resentful masses fighting among themselves. So, go ahead and tell me again how the past 8 months of Cyrodiil with faction locks have been this awesome change that has seen the PvP player base grow, people coming together to fight for the Queen or glory for the Pact, and how these forums have been filled with tales of glorious Keep captures and campaigns won. None of that happened, did it? It's almost like there are established patterns of ESO PvP that aren't going to change just because ZOS takes 5 minutes and does some window dressing on campaign eligibility.

Mayrael wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

Better question is how exactly did faction lock make the campaign better. Cause as far as I can tell it's still the same crap.

Hmm... Let me think. I haven't seen scroll trolling for months (except of farmers but this is normal), no trolls on zone chat, no fake leaders pulling pugs into useless fights. Yes I know I should use thin foil hat because all I have mentioned never happened before, and yet it still happens because faction lock obviously does nothing...

In other thread @max_only proposed great idea how this could be solved. I think we all should support it.

max_only wrote: »

All they have to do is this example:

I start Kaal on a Dc. It locks the campaign to DC for my account. Any character I bring into Kaal has to fight for DC.

No faction change token required or character re-scripting required.

Most of the things you mention I still see with faction lock. Here is a thread started within the last 24hrs about a consistent scroll troll.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/503192/pvp-grief

Mayrael wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

Nyteshade wrote: »

I agree OP. The forums are full of complaints, followed by complaints that ZOS never listens to the players.

Well, here it is! They listened and gave those folks exactly what they wanted. So far, it appears they are vastly in the minority. If not, now is the time to switch.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. At least ZOS shut down one complaint, whether the players actually switch or not.

I don't know who are "those folks," but I can say for myself that ZOS most certainly did not give me what I was looking for and my complaint is not shut down in any way.

You won't be happy till "Standard" campaign won't be the one most populated whatever means it would take (deleting all the other campaigns included). That's just selfish approach.

Few things. Currently on PC EU on nonlocked campaign disparity between 1st and last alliance is over 30k points - biggest of all 3 campaigns. It's the only campaign where AD and EP are constantly gated in prime time so I'm asking:

Where are all those white knights switching to the lower populated faction?
Where are all those players seeking some action against most populated faction?

Another thing. Currently most populated campaign on PC EU is noCP campaign which is second on the list, that's why I dare to doubt in claims that players are unable to look for preferred campaign. If they were able to choose second campaign, they are able to choose third one to.

These are facts which can be supported with screenshots or even empirically, not some conspiracy theories.

I wonder, what faction lock haters will come up with, when their campaign will stay as dead as it is in next cycle?

Good way to test is to switch between the non-lock campaign and the lock campaign when choosing campaigns to enter in the alliance war tab, If after that the non-lock campaign will be empty, ill take my has off and wont speak about it again.

I would love to see laatvulon turned into a more condensed map of cyrodiil, one more fitting to it's low population. My thoughts are, besides obviously lower lock caps, perhaps a ring of only 4 keeps, less dead space or distance in between each keep, perhaps even lower default health of walls and doors, as well as weaker guards.

It doesn't seem like what is left of this camp can ever turned into what kaal is, so why not adjust it a little bit for what it seems to be stuck as.

Every burst wall and door on this camp takes twice as long as it does on kaal, if not more. Operating 5+ siege as a single player can literally be nauseating, as the jerky camera transitions from one siege to another over and over is not pleasant, to say the least, but also also still sometimes necessary for the success of the siege.

I think I would just prefer more players lol but that doesn't seem to be happening so maybe this could work

Joy_Division wrote: »

What's this about the new unlocked campaign? I don't like what ZOS has done to Cyrodiil as a whole or its "direction" and that's exactly what I meant because I'm looking for actual meaningful changes. The whole faction-lock thing was just a bone ZOS threw to the community because it hardly required any resources (and yet they still messed it up), which has done nothing but have the community argue as if it matters. I don't care about it or any campaign because the whole idea of dividing a tiny player base between CP and no CP, locked and unlocked, trying to balance all of them simultaneously when they can't do one, is crazy.

Do you honestly think placing a campaign first is going to make a difference? I understand this isn't your theory, but it's such an arrogant premise to assume everyone else is dumb and lazy. Let me try to understand the logic here: I suppose you (I don;t mean singular "you" personally) would never allow yourself or your thinking or how you live your life to ever be determined by such a triviality, yet the vast majority of people do? The conceit behind this theory is astounding. It's like the Wabbajack campaign (listed last) never existed.

I get this is a pretty hard concept to grasp because it relies on logic and is based on 5 and a half years of ESO history, but let me try to throw it out there anyway: most people choose the campaign to play on because they want people to fight. They don't care about how the campaign is scored, don't care about the 5 pieces of jewelry they're going to get, where it's listed on the menu; they want to log on and have the most amount of action and not have to sit around in Arrius Keep opening their map looking for a fight if they can't help it. They will sit through Qs of over a hundred (yes, we used to have an actual PvP player-base) and sit through that terrible lag every single night rather than play on a dead campaign where performance is actually decent.

Very well said. That's exactly what I have been trying to say but fans of no-locks keep coming with a new excuse as to why nobody has switched to the new unlocked campaign yet. At the end of the day, what matters is to limit the amount of campaigns total and reduce all the filters like CP / No CP / Lock / No-Lock / 7days / 30days.

We have population for only one campaign right now. This is where we are and until they bring serious server performances improvements, I'm pretty sure the population will keep dropping. Before they introduced a memory leak with the "memory management plan", the priority should have been the server latency.

Anybody with a CPU / GPU 3years old or newer, who know how to properly manage addons and who know how to set video settings ingame correctly was able to get more than acceptable frames before they screwed it up with the memory leak.

As @Joy_Division explained, the most important issue that has been ignored since release (5years ago), is the server performances. Anything related to the following mechanics to list a few :

- Abilities responsiveness
- Siege Firing responsiveness
- Weapon swapping responsiveness
- CC Breaking responsiveness
- Knockback abilities desyncs / Position desyncs
- Rollbacks

This on top of the combat bug and the terrible rendering system (what causes your client to crash when you approach a very action packed location) which have been neglected for how many DLCS now? It does not take 10 years studying in a University to come up with a proper priority list. Very important matters are being neglected to fix issues with framerates and loading screens which you can avoid with very little knowledge of client optimizing.

Maybe you guys haven't been keeping precise track of Zenimax's plans on server performances but I have been and I'll repeat it again for people who want to know the real facts. Zenimax has entirely neglected to communicate in any sort (Reddit / Forums / Official Live Streams) from the moment Summerset got released all the way to the announcing of Elsweyr. That is more than one year and a half of new DLCs with no word on server optimization anywhere whatsoever.

You probably remember the first TESO official live stream introducing Elsweyr where a certain dev community manager finally discussed the plans they made for 2019 and 2020 to address client and server optimization.

You can find all the updates right here : https://www.elderscrollsonline.com/en-us/news/post/56681

At the beginning, it was really shocking to see that their first approach to server optimization was not until Q2 2020 in update 26 but they also described it as looking into "Pets" . Here is a quote from the link I provided above :

Pets – We are going to rewrite how pets are handled to be more performant (work better, more efficiently, and take up less overhead/resources on the server.) This work is ongoing and on track to release with Update 26.

Let's go over this again. First of all, they state that they won't approach server performances until mid year 2020, then the only details they provide is deal with the way Pets affect the server. That is the most idiotic, pathetic, ridiculous, disrespectful, saddening, shocking thing to say after being ignored for one year and a half without a single word on server performances.

As much as I would like to believe that pets will greatly increase performances, this is NOT going to do it. We need SERIOUS action and optimization on the ENTIRE game engine and the overall netcode.

Whoever wrote this article about "Pets" optimization in the second quarter of 2020 is just as disconnected as the investors who decide to not allow any resources whatsoever to fix their damn game. It's a shame.

This being said and back on point, we should have only one or two campaign opened right now and it should not matter if its CP or No CP, locked or unlocked, 7days or 30days. We need them to work with an acceptable ping response.

Shanehere wrote: »

if you haven't already, please fill out my poll: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/504167/pvpers-who-play-in-kaalgrontiid-30-day-campaign

I know as of right now the sample size is small (n=47), but it is interesting that already almost half of the participants would prefer to play in Laatvulon but don't because Kaal is more populated, which is pretty close to my original theory.

Basically a good chunk of people do prefer standard campaign, which goes against a lot of the arguments I see on here of people who claimed that people who were against faction locks were in the minority, but please contribute to the poll if you haven't so we can get a more accurate representation.

Your options are flawed. The main reason is : I don't care to play lock or no lock. I believe there are more important matters right now such as server performances. I go where it's most populated.

Shanehere wrote: »

Why are you in here if you aren't interested or care about it?

Mostly because at the moment I find arguing on the forums more interesting than playing ESO.

But that doesn't mean I'm indifferent or don't care about ESO. I had a lot of fun playing this game for years. I'd very much would like it to be so again. But that's not something that adjusting who can play what campaign is going to resolve. My main issue is judging by the patch notes for the past 3+ years is that the devs vision for the game amounts to introducing some wild change to shake up the meta and then spending the next three patches or so reacting the imbalances created by said wild changes.