kirnmalidus wrote: »

Does anyone else think the feedback in this thread is "overwhelmingly positive"? Because Matt Firor seems to think so…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krM3ffio3ds&list=UU-GTQ8QGSKQwGxmAzF5jaLw

Maybe he didn't actually read the thread himself, but an underling pulled select comments for him to review, and chose to select only the positive comments? If not that he hasn't read it at all and is just talking out of his @$$ because general consensus here seems to be that the campaign durations proposed are idiotic and people would rather the devs focus on revamping the way the Emperor buffs work than mucking about with campaigns.

Oh, and the Europeans have made the valid point in this thread that Zenimax shouldn't just copy/paste the NA solution for EU.

What issue do you take with this video?

He says that the suggestions in this thread were for the intention of getting feedback.
He expresses a lot of approval for 90 day campaigns still.

To me it sounds like they intend to pick out which ideas the community approves of most, and possibly also still run 1 or 2 90 day campaigns so that players can be invested in the war.

Remember, overwhelming doesn't necessarily mean unanimous. I've read every post in this thread and I would agree that there is pretty overwhelming support for 1) reducing the overall number of campaigns; 2)Creating a non-vet specific campaign and 3) finding some way to reduce population volatility (but no consensus on the specifics like cooldown of changing home campaign or the cost to do so). While I don't personally mind shorter campaigns if the same people are there fighting week to week and there is some semblance of balanced teams, I'd say the majority of posters in this thready were against campaigns in the 5-7 day range.

frwinters_ESO wrote: »

Tanthul wrote: »

What a lot of you don't understand is that it is the guesting system in the first place that creates empty campaigns. Get rid of it entirely, increase the cost and cooldown of setting home and players will fight at their campaigns instead of anywhere else it may be convenient at the moment. This will guarantee campaigns that are always active (assuming you have total of 5-6 and not a lot more campaigns than you have players).
The guesting system allows people the "easy" way out when they are losing. Instead of fighting back, they jump ship. Hence there's nothing to do on your x-y-z campaign and the ones who stick around, are always outnumbered until they get fed up and start guesting too.
If people did not jump around, all campaigns would be active, there would be no legit reason for guesting anywhere. If you have friends on another campaign, you could set your home there after waiting the cooldown and pay the price. Stay there and play with them. Jumping home should be an option for such cases and not a "we're losing here, we're not going to try and fight back but we're going to jump somewhere else where we're winning--until the losing sides there decide to do the same and hence repeat the cycle again and again and again...". This is what is happening now.
It is also due to the guesting system that once you're fighting happily on your campaign, an ecosystem that you know and play for eg the past month, suddenly 100 players you've never seen before show up and flip everything on the map, zerging everything on their path, only to vanish immediately afterwards. That should not happen.
Get rid of it entirely and campaigns will be what they should be. Your home that you're fighting for and not a zone where you can farm AP until you get some resistance and jump to the next.

I partially agree with you but then the drawback could be those not having fun on there campaign with no way to get out unless you grind forever is to jut stop playing. Then you may lose them entirely.

That depends on your definition of fun. If fun is defined as winning all the time by swarming everything then no they won't have fun. But in that case their fun destroys the fun of everyone else.

Players should fight on their maps. If they lose they should fight harder and try to outsmart and counter their opponents. That is PvP. Jumping ship when you lose a fight in order to guest on another campaign is not the solution or the way to go. It may be "fun" for a bit, for some, to swarm everything but it's certainly boring after a while and it's NEVER fun for the players on the receiving end of the swarm who, in turn, if they follow the same mentality they start doing the same because it's allowed. The result is campaigns that flood by one side for a couple of days then get empty while everyone is waiting on queue on the locked campaign that they know their side is currently swarming. Is this the PvP game that we want to play? If the answer to that is yes, then by all means keep the guesting system as it is and I'll probably start looking for another game.
I was under the impression that we want cool RvR warfare on our campaigns and not mechanisms for another mindless grind of a game currency with no point whatsover.
I guess the question boils down to: Do you want to fight players because it's exciting to fight something more intelligent and static than mobs or do you want to just be able to jump all the time to wherever your side is winning so you can swarm while doing absolutely nothing? If the answer to that is the first then the guesting system needs to either go entirely or be made into something SIGNIFICANTLY hard to abuse. If you think there's a third option that would fix the problems that I have not considered, I'd like to hear it.:)

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

To do this, we’d shut down the currently-existing Campaigns and introduce five new ones per megaserver. Here are the Campaign types and durations we’re thinking about adding:

• Bow of Shadows: Veteran Rank only Campaign (five-day campaign)
• Blackwater Blade: Non-Veteran only Campaign (five-day campaign)
• Haderus: seven-day standard Campaign that anyone can join.
• Chillrend: seven-day standard Campaign that anyone can join.
• Thornblade: 30-day standard Campaign that anyone can join.

To go along with these new Campaigns, we’d like to adjust guest passes to have a 72-hour lockout, and to make changing your home Campaign cost 100,000 AP (also with a 72-hour lockout).

Let us know what you think of these changes!

Things I like: separate campaigns for non-vets and vets - except these can be quite problematical for a guild that wants to play together, which makes me think neither of them may get a strong population, as guilds who have characters on both sides of the "vet line" will end up choosing the standard campaign so they can continue to play together.

Things I'm not terribly thrilled about: most of the campaigns being of very short duration. 5-7 day campaigns make the concept of an "Emperor" seem, well, more than a bit silly. I'd prefer to see a few more campaigns in the 30-45 day duration. 90 days has definitely felt a little too long - but that could be at least somewhat due to the horrific problems and exploits we've had in PvP which have made the long campaigns seem interminable.

I'm concerned because what I'm not seeing much talk of is fixes for the current issues plaguing Cyrodiil. And without those, PvP is going to continue to be very frustrating. I'd like to hear from the devs on what ideas they have to fix the following:

1. Continued exploits
2. Continued balance issues with certain classes/skills/ult spamming
3. Continued Emperor farming - I do not believe a 72-hour lockout on guesting/switching campaigns is going to solve this, unfortunately. As I suggested previously, I suspect the only way you will stop Emperor farming is by making it so that the Emperor skill line and passives are only available to an Emperor character when they are playing in the campaign in which they were crowned Emperor. This would prevent people from switching campaigns to become Emperor somewhere else, then switching back to their real home campaign and taking the skill line/passives with them.
4. Continued bugs - with forward camps, with unusable postern doors, with unusable siege equipment, unusable repair kits, etc. And I still say forward camps and siege equipment should NOT degrade simply for being deployed.
5. Continued Cyrodiil over-population of vampires. While a first pass was made on balancing vampires, the fact remains that their passives and skills still make them a "go-to" in Cyrodiil, especially for scroll runs and anything involving stealth/sneaking. Balance and parity with non-vampires must somehow be achieved here.

There should be at least one campaign that lasts 2-3 months. Make guesting more costly for this one.

bruceb14_ESO5 wrote: »

Tanthul wrote: »

frwinters_ESO wrote: »

Tanthul wrote: »

What a lot of you don't understand is that it is the guesting system in the first place that creates empty campaigns.

Get rid of it entirely and campaigns will be what they should be. Your home that you're fighting for and not a zone where you can farm AP until you get some resistance and jump to the next.

I partially agree with you but then the drawback could be those not having fun on there campaign with no way to get out unless you grind forever is to jut stop playing. Then you may lose them entirely.

That depends on your definition of fun. If fun is defined as winning all the time by swarming everything then no they won't have fun. But in that case their fun destroys the fun of everyone else.

I guess the question boils down to: Do you want to fight players because it's exciting to fight something more intelligent and static than mobs or do you want to just be able to jump all the time to wherever your side is winning so you can swarm while doing absolutely nothing? If the answer to that is the first then the guesting system needs to either go entirely or be made into something SIGNIFICANTLY hard to abuse. If you think there's a third option that would fix the problems that I have not considered, I'd like to hear it.:)

There is another point of view for guesting. If your campaign is slow and you are on the winning side, why not be able to go to another campaign where your alliance is the underdog for the challenge. I'm not talking about huge upsetting zergs, although that can obviously happen, but small group of guildies wanting a challenge and fun. Perhaps it would shake things up temporarily on a lopsided server. For me, I'd be out of luck, not nearly 100k AP.

Agreed. It's common amoung some of my guildmates to guest in a campaign that is completely Blue or Red just to see how far we can get in a night. Most of the time, we get 2-3 keeps before we get completely overwhelmed but, it's still quite a bit of fun.

Desdemonte wrote: »

I'm not a big fan of pve-ers wasting the pop cap for PvP. A pve Cyrodiil would be nice.

More people will become PVP'rs. No where near a population cap, opposite is true, although lag sometimes tells us otherwise.

Do we have a timetable about when this changes will arrive. Looking forward to it.

I think this is a little too short on the campaigns. What I think there should be two 30 day servers one vet one none vet then two 2 week server one vet one non vet

Agreed that it sucks to start new with the unknowns of which campaign to choose. Good to have lopsided campaigns out, dead campaigns out and the possibility of an improved system, but what will that mean? The choices of balance and campaign feel are unknown. The choice of which guilds will go where.

@sontagmediaub17_ES

Hey!

First I wanna say how very nice it is to see someone post suggestions, clear and in a good manner. We been lacking that here lately.

I agree completely that shorter campagns is not the answer. I even go so far to say it will harm the good that those players who can play in Cyro already have started. Alliances and cooperations across guilds. In short, a PvP community!

I think when Zeni finds that gremlin in the software that makes many players lag because they group up, will solve a lot of problems.

Without most players with lag or reported 5 seconds delay on attacks (I dont get those for some reason), catapults will be much more used and there is no reason to change so you can Zerg down a port with weapons. I am sorry to shoot down a nice suggestion, but the siege machines and the cooperation needed to deply them and defend them is one of the key features that makes Cyro SO interesting!

The defender of the keep, needs to run out and burn the catapults correct?
This itself is needed some sort of teamwork to do and to defend.


More players in Cyro
I played MMOs for 16 years and never been interested in PvP, until Cyro. The vast use of pure military tactics is outstanding. I think it will work fine, when people simply can play, and by default there going to be more people in the big zone. Maybe even several armies attacking several keeps?

To add other targets/objectives connected to the war, like taking a farm, sounds good! I cant produce any good suggestion, but open to more targets simular to the resources, as long as they are connected to the war in some way.

World boss in Cyro
I LIKE the idea of a world boss in Cyro. However, for that to be interesting, the boss needs to drop some sort of good things. Even on random. Its VERY important that we do not flood the market with to good gear, to easily.
And who will get the loot? One alliance almost have him killed, then another alliance slay the beast. Who will get the loot? If all do, like Anchors, it would be fair, but totally remove the reason to fight over the boss.

A long respawn timer is needed. And random pop maybe? I am not sure how well this suits the lore. We are in Cyro to wage war against our enemies to claim our alliance the victor of Tamriel. If soldier abandon their current mission, to run and kill a big juicy boss.........hmm. Good idea, but I wonder.......

There are plenty of PvE events and encounters around Cyro. Even dungeons.
Maybe they are enough for now, but the world boss idea I do like. Maybe something to put on the future table for Cyro? I am still concerned about the lore.

Battlegrounds
What I think would be a major mistake is adding small battle grounds as you suggest. Your description makes sense, but even if 10 vs 10 to gain an advantage for their alliance sounds good on paper. It takes away the overall idea about waging WAR in Cyro. Smaller battles, or in my case, executions of me (I suck at pvp), already exist, since groups moves around Cyro for different reasons, and this actually adds to the fun of the zone. Even for me who gets murdered almost daily for this.

If you played WoW, you would know that only a certain type of FAST PvP player are good at these battlegrounds. The whole idea with Cyro is that your whole alliance can join in from level 10, and even be of use. (Talking tactics, not 1-1)

Battlegrounds that doesn't take part of the war....but is more directed to FAST PVP small teams, who probebly woun't be interested in the war itself and will in time, demand some type of personal reward/status/rank table. I see problems here. Sorry to put down a nice suggestion of yours, but I think it would harm Cyro as a whole.


Conclution
I think we should leave Cyro as it is. With fixing of lag, I do believe most people will have a much better experience AND, this I can garantee....more players will seek to join the fight if its playable.

World Boss idea could be interesting. Even Alliances working together, if they feel like, to down him. Make it fit lore. Random Daedric Princes come to visit and wreak their own kind of havoc. Sheogorath may drop the coveted Wabbajack. May not be most overpowered with damage but turn friends to bunny rabbits, goats and tigers...

Most of the people that dont want the current campaigns nuked is because they use them for PvE buffs. "Ill just join the one where my faction is winning with no resistance, there 250 HP, 8 percent crit, 5 percen... etc .etc .etc" and then they never once actually PvP.

Too bad. Come fight for your precious out of Cyrodiil buffs.

I think it's about time OP @ZOS_BrianWheeler‌ came back to this thread with his thoughts based on the feedback so far. Doesn't have to be final plans but he must have learned something from reading this thread.

Starshadw wrote: »

demonlkojipub19_ESO wrote: »

I think now those buffs shouldn't leave cyrodil..

I confess I'm starting to lean this exact same way. PvP buffs of any kind should be in PvP only. They shouldn't transfer out into the PvE world. I suspect this might help curtail Emperor farming in and of itself.

I disagree. Having the buffs in PvE can help draw people into Cyrodil to Make sure they have there buffs for dungeons and trials, etc etc.