Campaigns need time zone lockouts

Skwor

Please hear this out. I am not trying to carebare anything. Campaigns are about factions fighting it out but that is being subverted. For example on wabba every evening there are those epic battles but then often when everyone is asleep, in the time zone the majority of players compete a non north American time zone group runs uncontested through the map and wipes out all of the other 2 factions gains. This is hardly a balanced scenario.

The continual uncontested destruction of other factions efforts because a group has chosen to use their 12 hour shifted timezone play hours as a specific advantage and run uncontested through the campaign really needs to be put to an end.

The two suggestions I have are either place a lockout on when the campaign sieges and scrolls can be fought over to align with the typical time zones a campaign would fought or the less desirable option, just lock those timezones out that are so skewed.

Lava_Croft

This defeats the purpose of an always-online game.

Skwor

Lava_Croft wrote: »

This defeats the purpose of an always-online game.

No one guild / group taking back keeps and forts uncontested because they are using their time zone to avoid any challenges defeats the purpose of a campaign.

You are assuming online means a person has to be on 24/7.

Seroczynski

Please no. I want to play at times that I am awake, which can be hours you are sleeping. Unless we alter the times so that the server are available to me at all times, and you can join if you happen to be online at that time.

You see where I am going with this?

bugulu

It is a bit ridiculous having american guilds logging on late at night when the competition is low to take back every single keep their side have lost during the day.

Sadly, there really is no easy solution for this. People who play at nights due to work shifts shouldn't be restricted going into Cyrodiil and people who want to play with their american/european player should also be able to do it.

Animus0724

This idea is completely stupid, not only is it selfish and ignorant to think such a solution would be fair, it completely disregards the opinions of those who play on oceanic time zones. Also those in oceania don't go uncontested, they fight others in their time zone.

No, just don't, this idea is stupid.

Pancake-Tragedy

No thanks. Placing limits and time frames on pvp elements is a great way to push away the pvp community.

Turelus

This system isn't going to go down well with players because not everyone can be online at those times.
You're better with a reinforcement timer system like EVE Online but even then it would drag keep fights out longer and interrupts the flow of PVP.

Right now the ping-pong style of keep capture is a little crazy and the fact that some groups (I'm part of one) are able to stay up until three or four AM every night recapturing anything which was lost at peak times it's a little meh.

Personally I don't see an easy fix for this though.

Skwor

Seroczynski wrote: »

Please no. I want to play at times that I am awake, which can be hours you are sleeping. Unless we alter the times so that the server are available to me at all times, and you can join if you happen to be online at that time.

You see where I am going with this?

No I don't, no one is saying make all the campaigns the same time zone. make the campaigns match timezones such that the majority of playtime is when 2 or three connected time zones are normally gaming.

You see where I am going with this?

Skwor

Pancake-Tragedy wrote: »

No thanks. Placing limits and time frames on pvp elements is a great way to push away the pvp community.

Again it isn't about taking play away it is about stopping those who ARE NOT PVPing but instead zerging "competition free," keeps and forts when everyone else in a different time zone is normally asleep.

You are actually arguing for people to take campaign objectives when no other pvp'rs are around to defend. So you are not arguing for PVP you are arguing for a chance to game the system and AVOID PVP when doing it.

Skwor

Animus0724 wrote: »

This idea is completely stupid, not only is it selfish and ignorant to think such a solution would be fair, it completely disregards the opinions of those who play on oceanic time zones. Also those in oceania don't go uncontested, they fight others in their time zone.

No, just don't, this idea is stupid.

Nice assuming there bud. I never said make all campaigns only available on a specific timezone. I am asking to make them match the timezones they would normally expect the majority of the population to play.

LOL so many people pretending to argue for PVP when in actuality they are asking to play when PVP is least likely on the campaign server. Methinks many have a hidden agenda here.

Turelus

skwornub18_ESO wrote: »

Seroczynski wrote: »

Please no. I want to play at times that I am awake, which can be hours you are sleeping. Unless we alter the times so that the server are available to me at all times, and you can join if you happen to be online at that time.

You see where I am going with this?

No I don't, no one is saying make all the campaigns the same time zone. make the campaigns match timezones such that the majority of playtime is when 2 or three connected time zones are normally gaming.

You see where I am going with this?

What about PVP players that work strange hours and their active play time is 00:00 - 08:00, because of the lock out they not can't achieve any goals within their play time.

What if the time locked out where nothing could change was during your active hours, wouldn't you be annoyed that now because no fault of your own you can't achieve objectives in PVP?

You need to look at the pros and cons for this, as I said in my last post night time recaptures and ping-pong keeps suck but that's better than selecting a time and only letting a number of the playerbase have access to keep warfare.

Gaettusk

So, you're asking for ZoS to make an Oceanic specific timezone so that the Oceanic players could PvP during their primetime instead of PvDoor?

Skwor

Gaettusk wrote: »

So, you're asking for ZoS to make an Oceanic specific timezone so that the Oceanic players could PvP during their primetime instead of PvDoor?

Yes, and for the other posters saying "what about players with different playtimes" they would be able to select a server that matches those playtimes.

Anyone could still play on any server, the servers would just have timezone locks so the campaign elements would only be available during those timezone prime-times. PVP would still be available 24/7 I am only proposing lockout on campaign elements relative to attendant time zones.

Pancake-Tragedy

skwornub18_ESO wrote: »

The two suggestions I have are either place a lockout on when the campaign sieges and scrolls can be fought over to align with the typical time zones a campaign would fought or the less desirable option, just lock those timezones out that are so skewed.

So what are these "typical" time zones for the campaigns? How would you suggest "locking out" the time periods for sieging and taking scrolls? Are you suggesting that the map turns into a stand still during these "off hours"?

Again, sounds like a very very bad idea. No thanks.

skwornub18_ESO wrote: »

Again it isn't about taking play away it is about stopping those who ARE NOT PVPing but instead zerging "competition free," keeps and forts when everyone else in a different time zone is normally asleep.

You are actually arguing for people to take campaign objectives when no other pvp'rs are around to defend. So you are not arguing for PVP you are arguing for a chance to game the system and AVOID PVP when doing it.

How does your idea promote pvp at all? You have mentioned wabbajack, which there are people from all three factions on at all hours of the day. I haven't seen anything that suggests that a dominant oceanic crew comes out to take over the map for any specific faction.

galiumb16_ESO

The problem is 10 campaigns. Everyone is spread out to much, creates these situations.

ZOS is too stupid to reduce the number of campaigns until whenever 1.3 comes out apparently, so do what a lot of folks are doing, unsub.

Skwor

Pancake-Tragedy wrote: »

...

How does your idea promote pvp in the slightest? You have mentioned wabbajack, which there are people from all three factions on at all hours of the day. I haven't seen anything that suggests that a dominant oceanic crew comes out to take over the map for any specific faction.

First I never said anything about a who is doing it. Second I have no idea what you see but I have seen it over and over again and so have many others. Several nights ago there was a massive *** fest in zone chat about it as well.

Third as I said before, to another, you are not arguing for PVP, in essence you are arguing for the ability to complete campaign objectives when most other players are off line. I never said timelock PVP, only campaign objectives.

Interesting that those against SAY PVP but really want to take campaign objectives when most other PVP'rs are not on. Really that is PVPing? LOL

Why are so many against playing when most other PVPr's are on?

Skwor

galiumb16_ESO wrote: »

The problem is 10 campaigns. Everyone is spread out to much, creates these situations.

ZOS is too stupid to reduce the number of campaigns until whenever 1.3 comes out apparently, so do what a lot of folks are doing, unsub.

There is some truth to this ^

Pancake-Tragedy

The campaign objectives promote pvp. If players weren't able to take keeps or scrolls during a certain time period, then the map would be empty during that time period.

I play the game at random hours of the day. I don't have a set time that I will be on, so when I am on, I want to be able to play the game to its fullest.

So who is taking the map from you when you aren't on, to make you come up with such a bad idea?

timidobserver

Make an outnumbered buff that significantly buffs the HP of walls and NPC strength when there is a significant population split.

Rylana

"If I am not on, no one can play the game, make it so ZOS"

lolno

jpp

Good idea - play the time you want on your "own's" campaign. The status I leave the game would be exactly the same I start the game next day.
If the additional balance is added so forces are always equal on both sides - then is what games are intended to be: a competition of similar forces and have more personal influence (at least feeling that result is correlated with effort) of how campaign status is.

On EU server there could be 7 campaigns at 18:00 - 20:00, 8 at 20:00 - 22:00 and only one at 00:00-02:00, also everybody could play only one or more time slots depending how much time he would like to spent playing PvP.

Skwor

Rylana wrote: »

"If I am not on, no one can play the game, make it so ZOS"

lolno

As opposed to you

"If I can't take the enemy's camps when everyone is asleep so i don't have to actually PVP then it isn't for me."

Skwor

timidobserver wrote: »

Make an outnumbered buff that significantly buffs the HP of walls and NPC strength when there is a significant population split.

Good idea

Skwor

Pancake-Tragedy wrote: »

The campaign objectives promote pvp. If players weren't able to take keeps or scrolls during a certain time period, then the map would be empty during that time period.

I play the game at random hours of the day. I don't have a set time that I will be on, so when I am on, I want to be able to play the game to its fullest.

So who is taking the map from you when you aren't on, to make you come up with such a bad idea?

Again for the umpteenth time you would still be able to play anytime and even campaign, you would have to campaign were there is an actual PVP population to compete with as opposed to just taking campaign objectives uncontested all night.

Stop saying how you want to PVP on your time, no one has ever proposed not allowing that. You are just fighting actually having to PVP when in a campaign

All I continue to see from those with your opinion is the continued desire to NOT PVP and a defense of why you should be able to take campaign objectives when NO OTHER PLAYERS are around. LOL you call this sport?

demonlkojipub19_ESO

I made the feedback about NPC's being much stronger too, but only when in proportion to the number of people at the keep being attacked. Also changing the number of NPC's actually present at the keep when more owners are there to defend, to make it more PvP instead of PvEvP when PC's are present to defend their stuff. Would be good for those phoney pvp'ers who like to be on empty campaigns for free caps. Give the NPC's like 50k HP and put some AI so they set and operate siege equipment when no one is around, give those them a harder time with getting stuff for free.

Rylana

skwornub18_ESO wrote: »

Rylana wrote: »

"If I am not on, no one can play the game, make it so ZOS"

lolno

As opposed to you

"If I can't take the enemy's camps when everyone is asleep so i don't have to actually PVP then it isn't for me."

ORLY? The other day I was quite involved in taking three heavily defended keeps while the other AD in the area stagnated on Fare for hours on end. 75k ap in a couple hours. Felt good man.

if it wasnt for the massive FPS drop bug people are experiencing, id be doing it right now, too.

Tut tut. Do you really think people can only nightcap to get a one up on you? Please. I honestly doubt you or anyone you run with is "that pro"

Westcoast14_ESO

skwornub18_ESO wrote: »

timidobserver wrote: »

Make an outnumbered buff that significantly buffs the HP of walls and NPC strength when there is a significant population split.

Good idea

That's still essentially PvE play. What the OP is asking for is for more PvP in his PvP objective game play.

The issue of avoiding PvP in objective based PvP by taking objectives where the defender are absent is not new. The older generation of Korean games had Keep owners sign up for times their Keeps could be attacked in. Creating sets of 2-3 campaigns that completely spanned the clock and letting players sign up for a set of those campaigns is another way of dealing with it. Other than the phasing at the boundaries of the campaign times, it would be a continual 24/7 PvP environment.

Rylana

thats an interesting point actually.

How many people crying about this issue only ever pvp from inside keep walls? Only from the safety of siege?

I have nothing but scorn for oil and ballista junkies that never PvP unless they have a keep to sit in the whole time.

And once your group takes a couple keeps from them, proving they are the superior force, like magic the defenders disappear never to return.

They then come back the next day and repeat the process once the group that was destroying them logs out for the night.

Two sides to every story, and this is the other one youre not mentioning.

Pancake-Tragedy

skwornub18_ESO wrote: »

Again for the umpteenth time you would still be able to play anytime and even campaign, you would have to campaign were there is an actual PVP population to compete with as opposed to just taking campaign objectives uncontested all night.

Stop saying how you want to PVP on your time, no one has ever proposed not allowing that. You are just fighting actually having to PVP when in a campaign

All I continue to see from those with your opinion is the continued desire to NOT PVP and a defense of why you should be able to take campaign objectives when NO OTHER PLAYERS are around. LOL you call this sport?

All I am seeing from your posts are "if you don't agree with my idea, then you must only PvDoor, without resistance". I am all for making pvp a better place for everyone, but this idea of time-gating certain elements won't achieve that. Look at Age of Conan, they had a system that was time-gated and it was a disaster to the point that no one sieged other guild's keeps.

And, why are you getting mad? Everyone comes up with bad ideas from time to time, but most don't make them public.

P.S: Who ever said this is "sport"? lolwut...Nothing about this game is e-sport worthy if that is what you were getting at...

Rylana

Summary of thread.

I didnt come to fight your silly walls and npcs, I came to fight you, now fight me.