Should visiting campaigns be accepted?

bruceb14_ESO5

Familiar faces seem to pop up along with new ones. Is that really bad? Balance is the issue and what is unseen. Why not have a home land, conquer and defend it then seek other areas to explore and battle. Still come back to defend your home or perhaps spread yourself thin and give room for changes.

Last couple of days I've seen a DC guild on Auriels Bow, Dawnbreaker and Goldbrand. It was fun and challenging to have their presence although they do have a zerging short term mentality. On each of the campaigns there was boredom and some complacency in each faction, the incursions made things interesting. At the same time they integrated with those whose home campaigns were being visited. Not bad, more activity and varied challenge.

Is this a bad thing and if so, what would you suggest to keep those groups/individuals going back to their homes? If the dominating force is elsewhere, wouldn't that give opportunity to those not in power? If one side is dominating another campaign and an allied force comes to help, isn't that beneficial? Make changing Homes very expensive though.

Perhaps it comes down to Home rewards and benefits for defending.

Ardeni

From what I have noticed, people tend to give up quite easily. If one alliance dominates a campaing, the players in the two others keep leaving for other campaings where their alliance is doing better. After this, the alliance that is dominating will have its players move on to another campaing to get some action. Whether the players of the losing side(s) return again some other day depends on whether the dominating alliance is actively trying to defend everything.

I suppose this is all right, as nobody wants to be beaten bloody all the time. It has caused some campaings (EUs Goldbrand, for instance) to become quite deserted. I think that the upcoming merging of campaings will help with these issues (yes, they are issues as they cause some campaings to become pretty much dead).

One thing that causes this situation might be that there are organized pvp groups and unorganized ones. It only takes one player who knows what to do to wipe 30 players who don't really know what they're doing inside a keep (while the zerg is capturing the flag). With 5-10 organized players you can defend any keep pretty much against any amount of unorganized people. This is another factor which causes problems in motivation to defend your "home". I don't think any rewards could make people want to be killed 10 times in 10 minutes.

bruceb14_ESO5

Choice is good, less to choose from should keep campaigns from being dead or completely dominated. Agreed that a small organized group can do quite a bit. @Ardeni, not having hope and getting constantly wiped is demoralizing and can cause people to give up. Choice of staying and hopefully getting help or choice to go elsewhere (without cost) is important. If you are getting pounded then you also would not be high in AP to spend.

Gilvoth

bruceb14_ESO5 wrote:
"Should visiting campaigns be accepted?"

my opinion "No"
why not?
because people are setting up the emperor position for thier clanmates. once they get emperor they then trade off and allow thier friends to take that position and continue this untill thier entire alliance is all former emperors with those buffs and passives still intact.
in addition to that, thier also allowing thier entire map to be taken over by another alliance, while they sit and wait for all the scrolls and castles to be taken. once they own nothing and have all everything taken from them, they then go and retake everything back thus gaining huge farming of alliance points over and over and over.
not only unfair, but in my opinion thats also an exploit(s).

bruceb14_ESO5

@Hlaren_shortsheath, that is a good point if system is being misused/manipulated for farming points. There is another point of view of those who take over a campaign, defend it, go elsewhere out of boredom, but continue to defend home, not flip.

Gilvoth

agreed