Possible suggestions for New Campaign types

Casdha

I don't think having different length timers and CP vs NonCP is enough incentive for fresh play. If ya want to have different campaigns, how about some real differences?

1) Friendly Fire Campaign , you can hurt members of your own alliance(for those who want even more threat in PvP)

2) Non Combat Campaign, pvp is turned off NPC combat is still active and maybe even increased for additional PvE group content. (For those that want to practice using the equipment and do the quests and be able to avoid PvP)

3) Unlimited Travel campaign (Take out travel limitations to speed up game) All transport points are active at all times and you have access provided you hold the resource or keep. (ie you can travel to or respawn in Keeps that are under attack and they don't need to be connected to the network) . All that is needed to make a new respawn point is to take over that asset. This would make taking guarded assets harder while at the same time having unguarded assets more costly.

What do ya think and what are some other ideas?

P.s. I have no problem having PvP as an option in PvE areas either (Call it Cadwell's Platinum if you wish) One idea I had on this, Once you have experienced all Cadwell has to offer and try to go back home you realize the war has spread throughout Tamriel) ( you would have to visit Cadwell in the Harborage to enter and leave the PvP version).

Canasta

I would like an iron man campaign where if you die you are out of it for 2 hours. It would be interesting to see how it works out.

It would need to be separate from the home/guest system. Or else you would have nothing to do in PvP for that time.

Haashhtaag

Remove Shor and make a 15 day campaign that nets 25 transmute geodes for T1 with same scoring system as Vivec.

VaranisArano

Maybe when PVP performance issues get fixed and we can fill the campaigns we do have, we can consider adding special themed campaigns like these.

JamilaRaj

I was going to suggest the opposite, no fast travel campaign, because it is practically imbalance amplifier.
Fast travel enables rapid concentration of force at no opportunity cost; 20 players fast travelling to wipe out 5 attackers is not only perfectly sound tactic, it gets just better the higher the ratio of defenders to attackers, because attackers will vaporize more quickly and defenders will be free to fast travel elsewhere to repeat. That has several effects:
1) It favours faction that has more players, obviously, because if it concentrates its players, it will have advantage over weaker faction, regardless of whether it concentrates its forces or not.
2) Lack of opportunity cost means that the dominant faction can pull it off against one weaker faction and shortly afterwards against the other, therefore instead of, say, 30 players, it will have apparent force of 60, with 30 on each front; its numbers will be effectively amplified by 100%. This is why three faction system fails to balance out campaigns; smaller factions always fight more or less entire force of the dominant faction even if they gang up, instead of fighting 1/2 or some fraction.
3) It favours faction with larger territory, because larger territory means fast travel system more resilient against disruptions; defending larger territory gets easier as it expands even though ratio of players to area declines.
The most prominent example of this is control of the inner ring, in which case (slow) travel time to any keep on the ring is always function of outpost - keep distance, which is the shortest, and to cancel this advantage, attackers would have to siege two adjectant keeps in addition to the one they wanted to siege for real, which is often impractical for numerous reasons, ranging from e.g. having barely enough players to siege one keep at reasonable pace to the fact that at least one of the three keeps would have to be an outpost itself, a popular lurking destination.
4) It favours defenders. Obviously, attackers can not fast travel to targets. Furthemore, while slow travelling to targets, attackers are kinda out of the game, while defenders are either in combat or available, therefore again their apparent force is amplified.
5) Now one might think favouring defenders is desirable. Smaller faction will stack up in its last keep and be favoured, right? Wrong. Who is compelled, by the way Cyrodiil is designed, to launch attacks? Is it the dominant faction, the one that has several or all of these; numbers, territory, score, scrolls, an emp, little to gain, much to lose? No, losing factions are, they have to reclaim keeps, scrolls and depose usurpers. Therefore, fast travel favours winning faction, it directly feeds vicious circle of imbalance by making it easier for the winning faction to keep winning.

oXI_Viper_IXo

I wish for a first-person view only campaign.

Forztr

Once a month I'd like to see a 12-hour event campaign where the winner is the faction with Emp at the end of the 12 hours.
If no Emp then most scrolls
If tied on scrolls most keeps
If tied on keeps most resources.

idk

No for good reasons.

First, friendly fire, it would be an empty campaign just as @Canasta idea about not letting players play for 2 hours after a death.

Both ideas to drive players away leading to very little activity in the campaign. Does not make sense at any level.

Second, free travel as suggested removes tactics. It seems this idea is to take resources out of play out make Cyrodiil extremely simple. Very boring.

Third, almost all the game is PvE. We do not need take one of the only two zones with PvP and turn it in a PvE zone as well.

It is clearly intended that certain things are locked into Cyrodili Those that have an issue with that, well tough. Deal.

The suggestion of having PvP in PvE areas is clearly moot as Zos has already said no (for wise reasons). It is also irrelevant to the three suggestions provided.