PvP suggestions at Reset

darthbelanb14_ESO

I'm sure these have been suggested before, so I'll reiterate.

1. Remove 5 campaigns. Way too many now, and the pop is spread thin, except for Wabbajack, and Auriel's Bow (well, AB suffered a pop decline.)

2. 90 days is too long. 30 days would be better.

3. Create a VR server, vr1-12. Create a couple non-vr server, 1-50. Create a server for all levels and ranks. As the game continues on we can move away from separating the levels and ranks like this, but as it stands now lower levels need a fighting chance in PvP. We will, however, need to maintain at least one 1-50 PvP and one vr1-12 campaign.

With the last suggestion, when a player reaches vr1 then they are rewarded a free campaign transfer that must be done once they reach that rank with that character.

frwinters_ESO

I agree with the first two. Decrease the campaigns the next season. Time frame I agree. Maybe keep one a 90 day campaign with large rewards, 3 30 day campaigns then the one two week campaign.

the splitting of levels I do not agree with. This sill cause even more issues with filling campaigns. A level 10 in a group still is viable. Healing, using siege behind the main group, even providing some long range DPS still helps the fight. Single combat they may not stand much of as chance but PvP in Cyrodil is designed for group play. Warfare tactics and in war you need numbers.

darthbelanb14_ESO

Level 10's, despite being bolstered, are being one shotted by VR players. Not very useful in my eyes.

crowfl56

I totally agree with 10-50 and then VR1-VR12 pvp zones. 30 day campains seem realistic.

Kungfu

darthbelanb14_ESO wrote: »

Level 10's, despite being bolstered, are being one shotted by VR players. Not very useful in my eyes.

Might I recommend a tweak to increase the bolstering, instead?
Although I do realize that ZOS has a pretty long list of TODO's.

I hate to disagree with you, @darthbelanb14_ESO‌. But I lean more toward @frwinters_ESO‌ on the whole population issue.

If I could presume so much as to think I have something to add, it would be a change to the requirements for switching campaigns. I know I'm kicking the dead horse, but I want to add stuff in lists like these where it's easy for ZOS staff to see & quantify potential changes.

It's entirely too easy for people to up and quit now because their alliance is losing today. But I would suggest any of the following (just brainstorming here):

1. Remove the AP cost to switch. A COMPLETELY overrun campaign makes it painfully frustrating for a player to switch.
2. Add in a waiting period. Anything from 5 days to 2 weeks (90-day cycle) BEFORE the character is switched. The idea being that a player needs to REALLY WANT that change... once they click, they have to wait before the change takes place. This would cause players to heavily research their changes and think hard before doing so.
3. Limit overall campaign swaps per-period. Such that a player could switch only twice (maybe even just once if it's a 30-day period) during the campaign time period. Twice, because someone may find they made a mistake and just need to get back where they were.
4. Or maybe give one freebie switch (with some of the above listed restrictions) and make every other change after that cost an EXTREME amount of gold \ AP \ both... Perhaps an exponentially increasing amount. Such that the second switch costs 15k AP but the third will be 150k and the fourth 1.5MM.