Do you care about which faction is winning the campaign?

Corpier

Soul_Demon wrote: »

Corpier wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

Mr_Walker wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

Mr_Walker wrote: »

ServerusEcru wrote: »

Faction winning matters.

No, it doesn't really.

Remind me what my amazing prizes are when my faction wins a campaign?

The 'prize' you are playing for is the affirmation and honor of being the winner with 30 days of sustained effort showing your team played well. Basing gameplay one single engagement at a time is like playing chess and calling game after first piece is taken. I hear some people like to do that and consider that a 'win' .....but personally I like things like the Super bowl to show a team played well together for a sustained period of time just like I enjoy the way it feels when you win as a faction in this game. But I do hear there are some who just think that measure it too tough to use and would prefer one fight at a time- where they control every single outlier used and say that is fun for them.

Your reasoning is flawed, as is your risible chess analogy.

A better one is "it's like playing chess, making 2 moves, than going away and having Garry Kasparov play the rest of the game for you". Garry Kasparov, in this case, being the small team of offpeakers who, having outnumbered the other 2 factions combined, zerg the f out of the map making your primetime play completely, and utterly irrelevant.

So, given that my primetime efforts are largely pointless (albeit enormous fun), and my off peak efforts have now been hamstrung by EP's number advantage being baked in, and the general rubbish quality of the rewards for winning a campaign, why the blue hell should I care about which faction wins?

No...that would not be a good analogy at all. You are painting a picture and telling a very long story....then you simply "tell" the reader what the conclusion is.

Corpier wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

Sanct16 wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

Sanct16 wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

Mr_Walker wrote: »

ServerusEcru wrote: »

Faction winning matters.

No, it doesn't really.

Remind me what my amazing prizes are when my faction wins a campaign?

The 'prize' you are playing for is the affirmation and honor of being the winner with 30 days of sustained effort showing your team played well. Basing gameplay one single engagement at a time is like playing chess and calling game after first piece is taken. I hear some people like to do that and consider that a 'win' .....but personally I like things like the Super bowl to show a team played well together for a sustained period of time just like I enjoy the way it feels when you win as a faction in this game. But I do hear there are some who just think that measure it too tough to use and would prefer one fight at a time- where they control every single outlier used and say that is fun for them.

Would you also care about the Super Bowl if the team with the most fans would win the trophy automatically every time? I'd imagine it would get stale quickly so you'd care more about which team wins the matches rather than who wins the trophy.

That isn't how the super bowl is 'scored' for winning. Think maybe I should have chose an analogy that was less sports centric for the less athletically inclined. See.....it wouldn't be the super bowl if the score worked differently. So- cant really follow the logic on that one.

I know that the Super Bowl isn't scored that way. See.... I wouldn't have used the phrase "Would you also care... " if I thought that was how it actually works.

The point of this hypothetical question is to illustrate the flaw in your analogy. Your argument seems to be based on the assumption that winning a campaign is the sign of "sustain effort and good team work". However this does not reflect the reality of Cyrodiil due to how the scoring system works.

Did you really know that? I guess when you referred to the games as 'matches' it gave the impression you didn't know how it worked and the idea you were unaware how its 'scored' was rather an obvious thing...especially using an analogy so very far off from how the actual score in Cyro is calculated- you do know how that works, right? Because it isn't done with population its done with resources taken and scrolls. Those have points value assigned and in order to have points 'count' one would have to also be aware of the 'timer' that is there......but with your analogy suggesting somehow the number of players there are the sum total of how 'scores' work also suggested you don't know how all those things work either.

Corpier wrote: »

Lmao. Winning doesn't matter. There is no fabulous prizes if you do. People say they play to win a campaign for honor. Its a game. Its not a real war. Even if it was, s*** at least makes plants grow, honor doesn't even do that.

Honor is one of the very few things a person has that they are completely responsible for either earning or losing and no one else can give or take it away- in both instances they are determined by the choices they make.

hon·or
/ˈänər/
noun
1.
high respect; great esteem.
"his portrait hangs in the place of honor"
synonyms: distinction, privilege, glory, tribute, kudos, cachet, prestige, fame, renown, merit, credit, importance, illustriousness, notability; More
2.
adherence to what is right or to a conventional standard of conduct.
"I must as a matter of honor avoid any taint of dishonesty"
synonyms: integrity, honorableness, honesty, uprightness, ethics, morals, morality, principle, (high) principles, righteousness, rectitude, nobility, high-mindedness, right-mindedness, noble-mindedness; More
verb
1.
regard with great respect.
"they honore their parents in all they did"
synonyms: hold in great respect, hold in high esteem, have a high regard for, esteem, respect, admire, defer to, look up to, think highly of; More
2.
fulfill (an obligation) or keep (an agreement).
"make sure the franchisees honor the terms of the contract"
synonyms: fulfill, observe, keep, discharge, implement, perform, execute, effect, obey, heed, follow, carry out, carry through, keep to, abide by, adhere to, comply with, conform to, act in accordance with, be true to, be faithful to, live up to; rareeffectuate
"make sure the franchisees honor the terms of the contract"


Honor is rooted in the perception of others. Usually attributed for the impression they make firsthand by their actions or what others claim about them in secondhand accounts.

People see things from the lens of their experience and often do not take into account the prior events or situation that the actions resulted from.
People gossip and lie about others or simply talk about what they do not know or understand as if their opinion is important.

Honor. Is. Worthless.

If you want to judge the character of a person, maybe look at a better standard, like righteousness.

Or in your case, self-righteousness.

You put the definition up then promptly claim its others perception that defines it when no such language is used in the definition. The sad part is apparently you knew this as tried to use every single part of the definition to (one has to guess) tie the false statement you made to some portion of it rather than the actual definition. Don't let me stop you though....keep going.

Did you read the definition? Such as someone being viewed with "high respect," and/or having "fame, renown, importance", or "regard with great respect, hold in great respect, in high esteem, have a high regard for, admire, think highly of."

Last time I checked, most of the synonyms involve an interaction. One party performs an action, and how another party views it is what defines it as honorable. Consider in game that there are very good players, but a portion of players claim they cheat. Their reputations will be slandered. They may have done nothing morally wrong, yet they may have bad reputations among other people who know nothing about them personally. Honor is a social currency people gain through their actions, the actions of others on their behalf, or through one person conveying information (true or not) about a person to another. However, it is subject to the perception of others making it unreliable. Is not based on a person's actions alone but also in the perception of others. It is part of a person's reputation. If honor doesn't involve more than the individual to have, you can feel free to give yourself "kudos", feel self "important," be "famous" to yourself, or "admire" and "look up to" your own actions.

Strange you would leave out the most important portion of the actual definition....."2Adherence to what is right or to a conventional standard of conduct." I think you focus on what you view as unimportant in there and therefore you explain away the more important portions of the definition as to allow yourself to not acknowledge the shame of not having any at all. But then again maybe you are just one of those people who read only the google search portions of things and don't actually open the source and read it in its entirety. Or could be just .....dumb. Tough to tell the difference really.

FakeZavos wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

FakeZavos wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

All these angry little children blathering on about how nothing matters...you would think that at some point it would occur to them that with all the whining about how hard things are to earn- they would realize if they didn't care they wouldn't even take the time to post about the 'unfairness' of it all. All this to avoid saying "I am bad and lazy, just give things to me"

But- whatever you do...keep posting about how you don't care at all about this. Its convincing and we all are believing you don't care at all about who wins, evidenced by the continued rabid posting on it.

I dont care who wins. I do like a good discussion tough, wich is why I am on the forums. And salt, clearly. Im simply trying to show the flaws in what u think. Wich is that campaigns are won by coordination and teamwork rather then sheer outnumbering especially in the night.

I've switched factions numerous times to the lowest score faction/lowest populated faction since they seem to get the best PvP fights. So ur argument that I would care if I win or not, and I dont win because I rather cry about it on forums then do something about it, is entirely flawd.

The bolded part is exactly what I think and have said as much...you on the other hand have suggested that its simply nighttime population and a 'I don't care' attitude that gets most campaign wins. I would also suggest that the jumping from one side to the other with the old tired exaggeration that you do so for 'good fights' is simply untrue. If this were the case the camps would ALWAYS be perfectly balanced all the time as we all know those claiming to switch only to help the underdogs and get better fights would always be balancing out the populations....that simply is patently false and always has been. Fact is those who hop love to claim this yet we never have balance while the hopping and lack of invested time in one faction cant seem to get good coordination and one really doesn't have to wonder why....they are just fly by night players with excuses all the time about losing or how they 'just don't care' who wins so.....go figure, they lose all the time. Who wants to work with such people to play and win at that point? Hmmmmm. No one.

Sanct16 wrote: »

I don't care about winning the campaign.

I do care about competition, and nightcapping is ruining any competition in terms of AvA.

However if ZOS would overhaul the scoring system and add worthwhile rewards it would maybe give me some incentive to start to care about the campaign

Here we find common ground....I also feel nightcapping is quite bad for the game, always has been. However the suggested reduction in points is in my opinion poorly thought out and shouldn't be even entertained. There was a thread quite some time ago where someone suggested there be a dynamic scoring associated with number of players online at the moment the score was tallied. Matter of fact if memory serves they made the suggestion with quite a few others but that seemed to me the answer for nightcapping.

Im more then willing to share you my youtube in wich you can see im switching campaing to the underdog twice. And the number of people looking for good fights and therefor switching campaing is abismal to the rest of the population numbers. Its only a very small portion with the time and energy to level a bunch of characters on different factions, ergo factionimbalance stays the same.

And even if I stay on 1 faction it wouldnt matter coordination wise since im 90% of the time fighting between 2 enemy factions with a tiny group instead of running like a chicken without head in the middle of the faction zergs.

But I am curious. On what campain/server do you play and on wich side?

Kaalgrontiid NA EP. Sounds a bit like you are convincing yourself that no effort at all and pretending not to care is the best route rather than the far tougher one of trying and putting forth some work ....including not running away to the 'easy' side when the chance presents itself.

I did address that honor comes from acting moral, but emphasized that it is only gained in the perception of others. That the actions a person makes to change another's perception may not be moral or what a person says about another's character may not be true but might change someone's perception of that person's reputation. I have never said that acting morally is not important, only that others opinions of a person's actions are not important.

However, thank you for proving my point. Claiming that being critical of the concept of perceived honor equates to not acting moral? Attempting to portray someone as dumb because they do not agree with you? B***h please. You know nothing about me, but choose try to portray me as a straw man and slander my character. Attacking the person instead of the argument is one of the weakest fallacies.

I rest my case. Good day sir.

Sanct16

Soul_Demon wrote: »

Sanct16 wrote: »

I don't care about winning the campaign.

I do care about competition, and nightcapping is ruining any competition in terms of AvA.

However if ZOS would overhaul the scoring system and add worthwhile rewards it would maybe give me some incentive to start to care about the campaign

Here we find common ground....I also feel nightcapping is quite bad for the game, always has been. However the suggested reduction in points is in my opinion poorly thought out and shouldn't be even entertained. There was a thread quite some time ago where someone suggested there be a dynamic scoring associated with number of players online at the moment the score was tallied. Matter of fact if memory serves they made the suggestion with quite a few others but that seemed to me the answer for nightcapping.

I'm not sure who suggested a reduction in points. I agree that a dynamic scoring system is the best solution.

I have in fact advocated for such a system already 1.5 years ago and presented a possible version to ZOS - however they didn't think of nightcapping as a problem at the time (arguably it was less common on the PC-NA server back in the days, however it has been a huge issue on PC-EU since launch).

The system I suggested changes the duration of a scoring evaluation interval dynamically from 30 minutes (during off-hours) to up to 5 minutes during peak-hours while taking into account both overall population as well as population imbalance.

You can find this suggestion as well as multiple others in this video (we decided to publish our suggestions in the style of Patch Notes):
https://youtu.be/Y8Vd5mNL8EI?t=1058

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

Soul_Demon wrote: »

All these angry little children blathering on about how nothing matters...you would think that at some point it would occur to them that with all the whining about how hard things are to earn- they would realize if they didn't care they wouldn't even take the time to post about the 'unfairness' of it all. All this to avoid saying "I am bad and lazy, just give things to me"

But- whatever you do...keep posting about how you don't care at all about this. Its convincing and we all are believing you don't care at all about who wins, evidenced by the continued rabid posting on it.

I would suggest to you that whatever point you are trying to make would be best served if you made it rather than attempting passive aggressive insults which completely detract from anyone taking your argument seriously.

The point many are making here is that the scoring system and thus the campaign score is not important to them, due to it favouring those who play when there is less competition rather than rewarding those who fight at primetime with equal contribution.

It's actually likely to be people who have jobs or simply enjoy a regular sleep schedule who complain about this (as well as those who simply would prefer a better system). So unless you live in a country where child labour is encouraged then you might want to re-evaluate your posts.

The current format is that 20 players who play at a time when no one else plays can make 6x the impact to the score of someone playing at primetime when the server is locked.

Combine this with the new wonderful PvD weapon and players can now do this in record time.

TriangularChicken

Soul_Demon wrote: »

All these angry little children blathering on about how nothing matters...you would think that at some point it would occur to them that with all the whining about how hard things are to earn- they would realize if they didn't care they wouldn't even take the time to post about the 'unfairness' of it all. All this to avoid saying "I am bad and lazy, just give things to me"

But- whatever you do...keep posting about how you don't care at all about this. Its convincing and we all are believing you don't care at all about who wins, evidenced by the continued rabid posting on it.

Things are hard to earn? I have 50m gold and 53m AP...why would I care for some crappy items and a bit of gold for winning the campaign?
The current scoring system absolutely sucks...it only rewards the zerging PvDoor pug groups - the people that don't know how to play. In what way is that fair? In an ideal scenario the most skilled players should be on top and the faction with the best players should also win the campaign. This is not the case in ESO and that's why nobody cares about winning and why nothing matters.

Minyassa

Only when I need AP and I'm not on the side getting them.

Soul_Demon

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

All these angry little children blathering on about how nothing matters...you would think that at some point it would occur to them that with all the whining about how hard things are to earn- they would realize if they didn't care they wouldn't even take the time to post about the 'unfairness' of it all. All this to avoid saying "I am bad and lazy, just give things to me"

But- whatever you do...keep posting about how you don't care at all about this. Its convincing and we all are believing you don't care at all about who wins, evidenced by the continued rabid posting on it.

I would suggest to you that whatever point you are trying to make would be best served if you made it rather than attempting passive aggressive insults which completely detract from anyone taking your argument seriously.

The point many are making here is that the scoring system and thus the campaign score is not important to them, due to it favouring those who play when there is less competition rather than rewarding those who fight at primetime with equal contribution.

It's actually likely to be people who have jobs or simply enjoy a regular sleep schedule who complain about this (as well as those who simply would prefer a better system). So unless you live in a country where child labour is encouraged then you might want to re-evaluate your posts.

The current format is that 20 players who play at a time when no one else plays can make 6x the impact to the score of someone playing at primetime when the server is locked.

Combine this with the new wonderful PvD weapon and players can now do this in record time.

I am sure you are already aware my point was made now and the continuation of this is merely for my amusement. The fact that the rabid little fanboi's in the forums attack anyone for suggesting the poor play and lack of any honor or integrity they have might be the problem as a whole with the population that is left in game for PvP is rather easy to see within the posts.

You cant make those who think they need to be 'convinced' that doing well is in their best interest better people nor can you magically give them integrity to not exploit things in the game with simply reminding them that what you do when you think no one is watching is precisely what determines what your real character is. Even in just a game. This game has a score, could it be reworked to be better- maybe.....but one thing is certain, not playing by the standards they do have now and not understanding them or how they work will never be a good starting point for someone to profess to others that putting in effort shouldn't be done and that complaining continuously for faction hopping or just removal of all standards is the solution.

Its the hallmark of a loser to constantly claim that score is unimportant in even just a game- It always will be, just as its the hallmark of exploiters to claim that one should simply remove rules games have to allow them to better navigate that game.

As far as you are concerned- really, maybe step back and look at the scoring system and think to yourself what the early game had that it lacks today. If you are still unable to see it the game itself encouraged people interacting and organizing, and that includes the scoring system. Organization on a guild level AND on a faction level to deal with things like nightcapping ect. That means the grouping and organizing were part of the longevity of the game by design since it would attract players to PvP for the social aspects as much as the competitive ones. So environment matters. A great deal.

Right now, this 'I need to be shown why its important' attitude is pervasive and stops end functions like faction coordination from happening because honor, integrity and gamesmanship becomes 'fluid' when the most vocal continuously claim its unimportant. It all stems from why would I attempt to play the game the way its designed and excel at it when I can just whine about how unfair it is when others are doing well and denigrate those who do that and pretend winning isn't important to me. When things don't matter to you .....you don't talk about them and most certainly don't flood the forums with complaint threads....because they don't matter to you. The charade of pretending to not care while making suggestions to benefit each individuals play style while simultaneously pretending that is representative of the PvP community as a whole needs to stop. And the 'convince me' crowd needs to find another game entirely, probably one that has no score an is first person shooter type to make them feel better.

Sanct16 wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

Sanct16 wrote: »

I don't care about winning the campaign.

I do care about competition, and nightcapping is ruining any competition in terms of AvA.

However if ZOS would overhaul the scoring system and add worthwhile rewards it would maybe give me some incentive to start to care about the campaign

Here we find common ground....I also feel nightcapping is quite bad for the game, always has been. However the suggested reduction in points is in my opinion poorly thought out and shouldn't be even entertained. There was a thread quite some time ago where someone suggested there be a dynamic scoring associated with number of players online at the moment the score was tallied. Matter of fact if memory serves they made the suggestion with quite a few others but that seemed to me the answer for nightcapping.

I'm not sure who suggested a reduction in points. I agree that a dynamic scoring system is the best solution.

I have in fact advocated for such a system already 1.5 years ago and presented a possible version to ZOS - however they didn't think of nightcapping as a problem at the time (arguably it was less common on the PC-NA server back in the days, however it has been a huge issue on PC-EU since launch).

The system I suggested changes the duration of a scoring evaluation interval dynamically from 30 minutes (during off-hours) to up to 5 minutes during peak-hours while taking into account both overall population as well as population imbalance.

You can find this suggestion as well as multiple others in this video (we decided to publish our suggestions in the style of Patch Notes):
https://youtu.be/Y8Vd5mNL8EI?t=1058

Thanks for the link, pretty sure that is the vid where I saw the first proposed dynamic scoring suggestion. Very in tune with balance of the game and would render nightcapping a useless thing giving very little benefit and likely kill it off entirely for anyone who tried to do it specifically to win the camps. The only thing that wouldn't stop is the 'oceanic' guilds from purposely selecting an NA server to play as a guild in off hours to hide from the other guilds likely playing in prime time on that server and farm solo and duo groups all night long. But dynamic scoring is a start point for balance for sure and could use some serious consideration.

NBrookus

This is why people don't care about the score. It has nothing to do with "hallmarks of a loser" and everything to do with scoring factors being beyond your control. There is nothing a prime time player who faces actual competition can do to affect the score even a fraction as much as this. (And while this screenshot is AD, every faction has taken a turn at this at one point or another.)

Royaji

NBrookus wrote: »

This is why people don't care about the score. It has nothing to do with "hallmarks of a loser" and everything to do with scoring factors being beyond your control. There is nothing a prime time player who faces actual competition can do to affect the score even a fraction as much as this. (And while this screenshot is AD, every faction has taken a turn at this at one point or another.)

snip

How considerate of that group to not put the scrolls all the way into tri-keeps. Rarely do you see such generosity.

Soul_Demon

NBrookus wrote: »

This is why people don't care about the score. It has nothing to do with "hallmarks of a loser" and everything to do with scoring factors being beyond your control. There is nothing a prime time player who faces actual competition can do to affect the score even a fraction as much as this. (And while this screenshot is AD, every faction has taken a turn at this at one point or another.)

Probably need to read what I have already posted MUCH more carefully. And yes, running away crying isn't going to do anything if you view what you posted as somehow reinforcing "I don't care about the score" mentality.....never has and never will. But of course you can always do what you are now- cry about how hard it is and never really bother to read full conversations a jump into them unarmed with even basic understanding of what is being said. Its your right to do so- doesn't make you right or even partially informed, but it still your right. And thank you for again showing how that particular approach even makes conversation with that type of person ill advised.

frozywozy

The solution to night capping is the same as the one for faction locks.

First, deal with the flawed champion points system. Remove them, change them, it does not matter.

Once this is done, remove all current campaigns and introduce a new 30days campaign with locks and another one without locks. By doing this, you condense all players in two servers and in the meantime, force or at least incentive people who play during oceanic times to fight each other. Monitor and add new campaigns if needed be. Yes, with a human interaction.

Finally, adjust the end of campaign rewards and make it matters.

Siohwenoeht

frozywozy wrote: »

The solution to night capping is the same as the one for faction locks.

First, deal with the flawed champion points system. Remove them, change them, it does not matter.

Once this is done, remove all current campaigns and introduce a new 30days campaign with locks and another one without locks. By doing this, you condense all players in two servers and in the meantime, force or at least incentive people who play during oceanic times to fight each other. Monitor and add new campaigns if needed be. Yes, with a human interaction.

Finally, adjust the end of campaign rewards and make it matters.

What do champion points have to do with the campaign score? Or are you saying all PVP should be non-cp? I think I see your logic in that atm, there aren't enough folks to populate even both CP and non-cp locked campaigns, but forcing people to use just one would drive more people away which is the opposite of what PVP needs.

It's already highly unfair that people who prefer no-cp have no unlocked campaign to play, but solving that by forcing no-cp on the folks who prefer the other way isn't the answer.

Mr_Walker

frozywozy wrote: »

The solution to night capping is the same as the one for faction locks.

First, deal with the flawed champion points system. Remove them, change them, it does not matter.

lolwut? How is this even relevant?

frozywozy wrote: »

Once this is done, remove all current campaigns and introduce a new 30days campaign with locks and another one without locks. By doing this, you condense all players in two servers and in the meantime, force or at least incentive people who play during oceanic times to fight each other. Monitor and add new campaigns if needed be. Yes, with a human interaction.

On XNA at offpeak there is usually these days 1 bar of pop across all servers. Oceanic players would like to fight each other. All 3 of us....

frozywozy wrote: »

Finally, adjust the end of campaign rewards and make it matters.

Agreed, but all end of campaign rewards should be forfeited account wide upon faction swap.

frozywozy

@Siohwenoeht I never said to force people to pick between cp and no cp. Zenimax stopped increasing cps for a reason. Because it has been flawed for years and is not going to get better. People can deal too much damage, are too tanky and have too much sustain.

When Zemimax addresses the problem, there won't be "cp" or "no-cp" campaigns anymore. Everything is going to be the same. As a result, the amount of campaigns is going to be reduced and it is going to condense people together.

@Mr_Walker I think you needed to read the whole thing before coming to conclusions. Your first argument does not really make sense "on xbox na, all factions 1bar during oceanic". It's very different here on PC NA. Alot of AD guilds running from 1:00am to 4:00am EST. And I'm not blaming AD. It goes back and forth every few months between factions.

Having 2 campaigns total would fix the issues with faction locks while condensing people together, helping the issues with night capping and making it worth fighting for the campaign when they release better rewards.

Ackwalan

frozywozy wrote: »

@Siohwenoeht I never said to force people to pick between cp and no cp. Zenimax stopped increasing cps for a reason. Because it has been flawed for years and is not going to get better. People can deal too much damage, are too tanky and have too much sustain.

When Zemimax addresses the problem, there won't be "cp" or "no-cp" campaigns anymore. Everything is going to be the same. As a result, the amount of campaigns is going to be reduced and it is going to condense people together.

@Mr_Walker I think you needed to read the whole thing before coming to conclusions. Your first argument does not really make sense "on xbox na, all factions 1bar during oceanic". It's very different here on PC NA. Alot of AD guilds running from 1:00am to 4:00am EST. And I'm not blaming AD. It goes back and forth every few months between factions.

Having 2 campaigns total would fix the issues with faction locks while condensing people together, helping the issues with night capping and making it worth fighting for the campaign when they release better rewards.

Is ZOS going to do something with CP? It's been about nine months since CP was capped at 810, and they have not said anything about what they are doing with it. There needs to be some kind of character progression or are we just going to get more powerful gear until level makes no difference at all.

Siohwenoeht

@frozywozy I think it's fairly clear since CP has been frozen yet dps continues to increase, the conclusion is that CP is not the major driver behind power creep. The math and diminishing returns points to this as well.

Almost each new armor set released instantly becomes meta for a reason. Zos needs to create a reason to run the new content, therefore the latest and greatest armor comes out quarterly and the interaction between the new armor and all the other passives and traits and skill line abilities is exploited (by design, mind you) by the theory crafters to become the new BiS or meta.

But back to the discussion at hand, whatever happens with the current system of post lvl 50 progression, there will still be a baked in system of vertical character-power increase. No MMORPG can survive very long with just horizontal progression without becoming an equipment grindfest. As long as there is such a vertical system, there will be people that would rather PVP without it.

Eliminating that choice by just having two campaigns based on locked or unlocked factions completely disregards the complexity of the game systems we have in ESO.

frozywozy

Again, I don't think you guys understood what I said. I never claimed that ZOS needs to remove the CPs system in the game. They need to rebalance it to reduce the amount of tankyness, damage output and sustain. It should be more about utility than power and this has been said times and times again.

When will they do it? They should have done it months ago before even addressing racial passives. Now they are about to release a patch which imo should have taken minimum 6months to release in several incremental blocks. All the mechanic and balance changes coming up combined with the racial passives changes are in my opinion a huge waste of time until the real problem on top of everything is resolved, the champion points system.

Regarding the topic about the progression system in a video game, I believe that the CPs system is extremely hard to balance and keep in line as we increase it. ZOS should have gone with a simpler system such as gear with better stats every DLC.

Ahtu

Yes I care about which faction is winning the campaign. In regards to the screenshot posted of the map being yellow during off hours, I can't help but wonder how much Volendrung contributes to this imbalance. I plan to investigate early in the mornings on the weekends to see exactly what's happening during these times.

Sanct16

Ahtu wrote: »

Yes I care about which faction is winning the campaign. In regards to the screenshot posted of the map being yellow during off hours, I can't help but wonder how much Volendrung contributes to this imbalance. I plan to investigate early in the mornings on the weekends to see exactly what's happening during these times.

Volendrung just makes it easier/faster. But if there is enough people to take the map with Volendrung, there would also be enough to take the map without it.

Wabu

It's nice if factions wins. But I do not care for it.

Sacredx

This question is one that cannot be asked in the first place. One's "care" factor or meaning of this term is very subjective and can be completely different to someone else's meaning. If you take a resource and change the score does that mean you care? If you 1vx and hold off some pugs from doing objectives? If your group takes the map because you can or if you decide to log off because there is no one to fight instead? I can go on and on. There are too many variables.

One could argue that we all care to some degree. Players are making the effort to post suggestions on how to change the system, give feedback good or bad. All that counts as caring.

OR one could argue that none of us care because we are fed up with the broken score mechanics, the unbalanced factions, the fact that you looked at the map and chose not to help take a keep etc etc.

You cannot gain anything useful from asking a subjective question that is going to be governed by players opinions, personal feelings or state of mind.

Wabu

Sacredx wrote: »

This question is one that cannot be asked in the first place. One's "care" factor or meaning of this term is very subjective and can be completely different to someone else's meaning. If you take a resource and change the score does that mean you care? If you 1vx and hold off some pugs from doing objectives? If your group takes the map because you can or if you decide to log off because there is no one to fight instead? I can go on and on.

Kinda jumped off the rails there. It's a simple question.

Sacredx

Wabu wrote: »

Sacredx wrote: »

This question is one that cannot be asked in the first place. One's "care" factor or meaning of this term is very subjective and can be completely different to someone else's meaning. If you take a resource and change the score does that mean you care? If you 1vx and hold off some pugs from doing objectives? If your group takes the map because you can or if you decide to log off because there is no one to fight instead? I can go on and on.

Kinda jumped off the rails there. It's a simple question.

The rails were broken in the first place and the simplicity of the question doesn't mean that your opinion of it will be the same as someone else's. For example, nowhere does it clarify that it's about the end of month rewards (your image).

Mr_Walker

frozywozy wrote: »

@Siohwenoeht I never said to force people to pick between cp and no cp. Zenimax stopped increasing cps for a reason. Because it has been flawed for years and is not going to get better. People can deal too much damage, are too tanky and have too much sustain.

When Zemimax addresses the problem, there won't be "cp" or "no-cp" campaigns anymore. Everything is going to be the same. As a result, the amount of campaigns is going to be reduced and it is going to condense people together.

@Mr_Walker I think you needed to read the whole thing before coming to conclusions. Your first argument does not really make sense "on xbox na, all factions 1bar during oceanic". It's very different here on PC NA. Alot of AD guilds running from 1:00am to 4:00am EST. And I'm not blaming AD. It goes back and forth every few months between factions.

Having 2 campaigns total would fix the issues with faction locks while condensing people together, helping the issues with night capping and making it worth fighting for the campaign when they release better rewards.

You misunderstand the root of the problem.

Sanct16

Sacredx wrote: »

This question is one that cannot be asked in the first place. One's "care" factor or meaning of this term is very subjective and can be completely different to someone else's meaning. If you take a resource and change the score does that mean you care? If you 1vx and hold off some pugs from doing objectives? If your group takes the map because you can or if you decide to log off because there is no one to fight instead? I can go on and on. There are too many variables.

One could argue that we all care to some degree. Players are making the effort to post suggestions on how to change the system, give feedback good or bad. All that counts as caring.

OR one could argue that none of us care because we are fed up with the broken score mechanics, the unbalanced factions, the fact that you looked at the map and chose not to help take a keep etc etc.

You cannot gain anything useful from asking a subjective question that is going to be governed by players opinions, personal feelings or state of mind.

@Sacredx
"Caring" is not about what you do but rather why you do it and how you feel.

care
verb
1.
feel concern or interest; attach importance to something.


Feel free to disagree with me of course however I feel none of the examples you listed are hard to categorize.
The question is wether you care which faction is winning.
- Do you take the resource so your faction can get more scoring or do you take it to trigger enemies?
- Do you 1vX to hold off pugs from doing objectives or just to get a interesting fight?
- Do you take the map to win the campaign or to get AP (to level your skillline or buy a monster shoulder at the Golden)?
- I have made a lot of suggestions about how to improve Cyrodiil including the Scoring System however I don't care at all which faction wins currently. I don't see how it's a contradiction or how the first would have any implications on the second.
- Newer players might not be as fed up for example, so I don't see how one could argue something as generic.

Moreover, I disagree that asking subjective questions can't lead to useful information. In fact, aren't the only questions that are worth asking subjective ones? If there is an objective answer, what is the point in making a poll? In the end, a poll is about collecting data about the subjective feelings and opinions of a group.
Now wether the forums are representative of the entire pvp playerbase is a different question.

Stavaros

Sanct16 wrote: »

.

The question you have asked is too open-ended. It leaves so much for interpretation by the reader. There are too many opinions that this will be based upon. Too many variances in the players that actually participate as well as their reasons.

I am a player do care who wins. I know there are others that only care about what their combat metrics say in their kill to death ratios. There are others that are just learning. There are those of us that have played long enough to become jaded.

Those that are jaded have a tendency to become negative influences during peak population times. I am Aldmeri and I have been since the release of the game. There are others that have joined that may not know who I am and I tend to keep to myself and my group.

I try to be a positive influence on those that I play with and I don't include just my team in this concept. I consider the entire faction our team. We all have to work together for the common goal of winning. Certain times of day will facilitate that.

The game and the scoring system has its issues. The people have their own. We are working with broken mechanics and also broken people. Socially we are pooling in with people that are unstable mentally, some not all. Socially inept, some not all. There are others that use the game as just a game. There are those that abuse others, just because they can. Sad but true.

It's up to us as a community and not just our own perspective factions to group up together and not complain about everything, but give ZoS the options that they do not think of. We are their think tank. They bounce ideas off each other sure, but when the community comes together as one and says, 'fix this' or 'here is an option'. Then and only then will we be listened to.

Arguing, name-calling, and throwing our own personal perspectives into things are not helping us get anywhere. Teaming up against one faction isn't the answer either. Recruit for your faction, make people feel like they are a part of it, not outsiders looking in.

Try to be inclusive of newer players. Take them under your wing. There is so much information that you can read in on the forums and in videos about pvp. It's the applicability of those things along with the wisdom of the players, such as yourselves, that will empower your side of the faction to become stronger.

It is up to all of us, not necessarily to care about who wins, but to ensure the longevity that we all are passionate about that we would bring an issue like this to the forum to speak on. If you think you don't care about it, you are wrong if you are responding to and reading this post.

Enough said, play on, play well, play smart. See you all on the battlefield.

@Stavaros
Bachen Mwnci Wyrmkin
Tyranis Spellbinder
Alec of Mirror Moon
Eliot Waugh
Kazmarek
Bacon Monkey
K'yorl Yril'Lysaen

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

To the point of if you didn't care you wouldn't be here.
This is quite simply false.

Many people care about making something better because that leads both to a more engaging system and hopefully to the point where they would "care " about the campaign but in its current state the campaign means nothing.
There are too many flaws in the system and not enough reward to make it meaningful.

Asking if people care is an extremely simple question. I honestly don't understand why some posters have such a hard time with the point.

Sacredx

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

To the point of if you didn't care you wouldn't be here.
This is quite simply false.

Many people care about making something better because that leads both to a more engaging system and hopefully to the point where they would "care " about the campaign but in its current state the campaign means nothing.
There are too many flaws in the system and not enough reward to make it meaningful.

Asking if people care is an extremely simple question. I honestly don't understand why some posters have such a hard time with the point.

Just to be clear, don't get me wrong, I think this is a great topic to discuss. However if put together to form a poll, this is statistically not usable for reasons below.

One person's interpretation of whether or not they care is different to another. It is a subjective term, which means that it is a person's opinion and not an answer that is common and unbiased. It's like if you ask someone if they are in pain after a test and then use that data to create a cure, different people will have different thresholds and your cure will not be reliable. The same can be said about forming a poll about caring. Different people have different thresholds on whether they care enough to answer yes or no. There is no common ground.

In legal terms, subjective intent is generally not taken into account unless all parties have been made aware or what the intent is. In this case there is no established common ground or intent. People will form their own intentions, be that based on the scoring system, the end of campaign rewards, capturing objectives. It may not be all about the objectives, keeping pugs away from objectives can also help win the campaign. These are some of the examples that a person may consider when choosing how they respond to the poll. And each person will have their own threshold or opinion on what they consider as caring about winning the campaign or not.

BRogueNZ

Some what, the lack of locks for so long broke mah imershun over time.
I'm one of the weird ones that really wonders what the fuss for AP is all about and I need a point to a fight.
I also get disturbed when they are won in less than fair fashion by any faction.

Lucky28

frozywozy wrote: »

Again, I don't think you guys understood what I said. I never claimed that ZOS needs to remove the CPs system in the game. They need to rebalance it to reduce the amount of tankyness, damage output and sustain. It should be more about utility than power and this has been said times and times again.

When will they do it? They should have done it months ago before even addressing racial passives. Now they are about to release a patch which imo should have taken minimum 6months to release in several incremental blocks. All the mechanic and balance changes coming up combined with the racial passives changes are in my opinion a huge waste of time until the real problem on top of everything is resolved, the champion points system.

Regarding the topic about the progression system in a video game, I believe that the CPs system is extremely hard to balance and keep in line as we increase it. ZOS should have gone with a simpler system such as gear with better stats every DLC.

People understand what you're saying, they just don't agree. playing in No-CP the only CP i notice and really feel the loss of are Tumbling and Warlord, the rest are meh. CP is not the problem.

Bosov

I like it when people who care about a campaign lose.

The people who get up early to paint the whole map one color amd ruin pvp because of that. It is funny if they after 30 days of zerging and playing the map still lose.