Should there be server merges to try and combat current population imbalances?

nukeyoo

CasualNub

Yes

Make people PvP instead of Steamrolling the map taking the easy wayout

LilMcGinley

Yes

Yes, or get rid of the ability to port to a different campaign without using a Guest.

nukeyoo

Yes

Explaining your reasons for any choice is encouraged. Especially valid reasons for being against a merge and/or ideas of what would be acceptable merges.

RedTalon

Yes

Without a doubt some servers need merging if not all.

TheGrandAlliance

No

No... Server's in the next 90 period should simply be shut down. Trying to mess with a campaign underway will only disrupt any "balance" that exists currently.

ralonasan

Yes

End the campaigns and give out rewards, then start 2 new campaigns ONLY.

Kingslayer

Yes

Well the Eu has 4 busy at peak time for the most part. but yes they should be merged.

nukeyoo

Yes

TheGrandAlliance wrote: »

No... Server's in the next 90 period should simply be shut down. Trying to mess with a campaign underway will only disrupt any "balance" that exists currently.

And if they were able to differentiate between servers with this "balance" you speak of and address others that do not? I believe a problem with waiting the full duration is how many people will leave before that 50 days is up? I would venture to guess that log in numbers are on a steady decline.

joshisanonymous

Honestly, I think they just need to add some pretty severe restrictions to guesting. On Skull Crusher, for instance, it seems as though AD only shows up long enough to crush any attempts at taking back territory then they go back to guesting on some other campaign. Meanwhile, everyone who got crushed decides that they've had enough and either go to PvE or guest on another campaign themselves. It's a bit absurd. Give people a reason to hunker down in one place long enough that sufficient numbers can build up. This would be possible if those on the losing side that wanted to continue PvPing weren't able to just run to another campaign so easily.

I'd rather get camped at my gate than try to take undefended resources with the (literally) 3 people left on my side who aren't just guesting somewhere else. I've had this situation occur more than once. We very slowly start taking the resources on our gate keep and it's so slow and miserable (because we have maybe 1 VR player in the 3) that someone on AD finally notices and they come swooping in with a horde to destroy us and run away again. If they at least had to stick around, I could expect to hit a keep a couple times then go camp the route inbetween for stragglers (because I really don't care much about controlling the map at this point). I just want some actual players to fight against. I thought that was supposed to be the advantage of being on the outnumbered side. Right now I feel outnumbered while simultaneously having no one to fight.

I fully expect populations to balance out eventually, though. You can already see those population bars spreading to Wabbajack and Bloodthorn and those on Auriel's falling below the locked sign more often. It seems as though as Auriel's filled up to the point where queues were always an issue, people decided to move to the next one on the list and spread out a bit more. I'd expect this to happen more and more as people hit the VRs, but for now it'd be nice to at least limit guesting.

(I guess I could just ignore my home campaign as well, but then what the hell is the point of home campaigns? It would just feel like a glorified battleground at that point.)

Cheapshot

Yes

@joshisanonymous I feel you i'm on EP and I'm the only one on the server at times. the zerg on AD has killed anyone incentive to play on this server. All the pugs have left and the not being able to push out is wearing people out.

joshisanonymous wrote: »

Honestly, I think they just need to add some pretty severe restrictions to guesting. On Skull Crusher, for instance, it seems as though AD only shows up long enough to crush any attempts at taking back territory then they go back to guesting on some other campaign. Meanwhile, everyone who got crushed decides that they've had enough and either go to PvE or guest on another campaign themselves. It's a bit absurd. Give people a reason to hunker down in one place long enough that sufficient numbers can build up. This would be possible if those on the losing side that wanted to continue PvPing weren't able to just run to another campaign so easily.

I'd rather get camped at my gate than try to take undefended resources with the (literally) 3 people left on my side who aren't just guesting somewhere else. I've had this situation occur more than once. We very slowly start taking the resources on our gate keep and it's so slow and miserable (because we have maybe 1 VR player in the 3) that someone on AD finally notices and they come swooping in with a horde to destroy us and run away again. If they at least had to stick around, I could expect to hit a keep a couple times then go camp the route inbetween for stragglers (because I really don't care much about controlling the map at this point). I just want some actual players to fight against. I thought that was supposed to be the advantage of being on the outnumbered side. Right now I feel outnumbered while simultaneously having no one to fight.

I fully expect populations to balance out eventually, though. You can already see those population bars spreading to Wabbajack and Bloodthorn and those on Auriel's falling below the locked sign more often. It seems as though as Auriel's filled up to the point where queues were always an issue, people decided to move to the next one on the list and spread out a bit more. I'd expect this to happen more and more as people hit the VRs, but for now it'd be nice to at least limit guesting.

(I guess I could just ignore my home campaign as well, but then what the hell is the point of home campaigns? It would just feel like a glorified battleground at that point.)

TheGrandAlliance

No

nukeyoo wrote: »

And if they were able to differentiate between servers with this "balance" you speak of and address others that do not? I believe a problem with waiting the full duration is how many people will leave before that 50 days is up? I would venture to guess that log in numbers are on a steady decline.

This is ZeniMax you are talking about. Slower then an Iceberg. Expecting radical changes now isn't going to happen.

Therefore the best option is a logical one. Players that leave can "always come back". It is too late to hope for anything else at this point.

nukeyoo

Yes

TheGrandAlliance wrote: »

nukeyoo wrote: »

And if they were able to differentiate between servers with this "balance" you speak of and address others that do not? I believe a problem with waiting the full duration is how many people will leave before that 50 days is up? I would venture to guess that log in numbers are on a steady decline.

This is ZeniMax you are talking about. Slower then an Iceberg. Expecting radical changes now isn't going to happen.

Therefore the best option is a logical one. Players that leave can "always come back". It is too late to hope for anything else at this point.

I guess I don't have the previous experience with ZeniMax to take this pessimistic attitude towards them and I wouldn't necessarily call server merges "radical" changes.

But if I'm not mistaken; I may venture to say some folks believe us humans responsible for a bit of "radical" change in even icebergs.

I'll continue with optimism for the time being.

Nox_Aeterna

No

Merge it , then notice there is still imbalance , there is no place to run.

Atleast right now they are not all that bad , and you can keep going to dif ones to try them out and play.

shirorxb14_ESO

Yes

Nox_Aeterna wrote: »

Merge it , then notice there is still imbalance , there is no place to run.

Atleast right now they are not all that bad , and you can keep going to dif ones to try them out and play.

I'd like it better if ppl couldn't run from a campaign. So that's already an improvement.

slander36

Maybe; depending on the leaderboard merging circumstances.

I'm never one to want rash decisions and changes without testing first. There are a lot of variables to look at. I think there do need to be some changes, but just doing a merge will cause a few highly-imbalanced servers and no low-pop instead of how it is now where even if your server turns to crap you can at least move to one with a smaller pop and more balanced situations. Plus, let's say you merged Wabba/Auriel/Bloodthorn - who gets Emperor? how do you determine leaderboard points? do you just reset the whole thing? What keeps those guilds from just jumping to different servers and doing it all again? There are too many things to consider and too many people who prefer playing on the lopsided servers because it makes them feel powerful. That won't change, they'll just find another way to do the same thing, just to the detriment of people who had already run from it once.

Nox_Aeterna

No

shirorxb14_ESO wrote: »

Nox_Aeterna wrote: »

Merge it , then notice there is still imbalance , there is no place to run.

Atleast right now they are not all that bad , and you can keep going to dif ones to try them out and play.

I'd like it better if ppl couldn't run from a campaign. So that's already an improvement.

Yes , because then people might not even play PvP at all.

That will solve the problem im sure :P.

CasualNub

Yes

Im starting to think they dont gaf about the game they got there money. not one response at all Very Very Very BAD PR.

JosephChip

Server merging? What? Do you mean campaign merging? In that case I agree.
Campaigns should be reduced from 10 to 4 or 5. I am not sure 4 would be enough for peak times.

Cydone

Yes

JosephChip wrote: »

Server merging? What? Do you mean campaign merging? In that case I agree.
Campaigns should be reduced from 10 to 4 or 5. I am not sure 4 would be enough for peak times.

Thing is though, in BETA there were MORE campaigns than there is now. And around 7 of them were either completely full or damn close to it. But that was when you could level your character in PvP via the repeatable kill 20 players quest. Same was true during the 5 day early access. Populations were swelling. Then they nerfed that quest because it gave too much AP. So, instead of lowering the amount of AP gained....they nerf it completely making it a daily. And ever since then the populations have been plummeting. I doubt that's a coincidence.

nukeyoo

Yes

Nox_Aeterna wrote: »

shirorxb14_ESO wrote: »

Nox_Aeterna wrote: »

Merge it , then notice there is still imbalance , there is no place to run.

Atleast right now they are not all that bad , and you can keep going to dif ones to try them out and play.

I'd like it better if ppl couldn't run from a campaign. So that's already an improvement.

Yes , because then people might not even play PvDoor at all.

That will solve the problem im sure :P.

Changed your comment a bit to properly fit the scenario I believe shiro is wanting to get rid of.

vital1989

Yes

would be nice if they merge,after campaigns is over,45 days left.but definatly not delete half of servers,i can wait 5 min for join campaign,but I wont stay in queue one hour or more.

sycaway

Yes

yes do something...

joshisanonymous

Nox_Aeterna wrote: »

Yes , because then people might not even play PvP at all.

That will solve the problem im sure :P.

People would choose between PvE and PvP instead of choosing between PvP on their home or as a guest somewhere.

Take a look at Skull Crusher, AD has owned the entire map for at least two weeks straight. I'm sure a large number of AD only keeps SC as their home because it means they have permanent buffs from controlling everything. Why actually play there? There are no enemies anyway because the losing sides can also guest instead of hunkering down long enough to build up numbers.

I'm optimistic that it'll get much better as the number of VR players grows, but right now guesting renders a number of campaigns obselete. They're essentially just passive buffs for the winning side while that side actually PvPs somewhere else.

TheGrandAlliance

No

Cydone wrote: »

But that was when you could level your character in PvP via the repeatable kill 20 players quest. Same was true during the 5 day early access. Populations were swelling. Then they nerfed that quest because it gave too much AP. So, instead of lowering the amount of AP gained....they nerf it completely making it a daily. And ever since then the populations have been plummeting. I doubt that's a coincidence.

True... I remember debating you about this before I think. They did that to stop AP explotation and suicidal tactics.... however without providing a way to get reliable EXP from PvP... many PvPers went PvE mode to lvl to VR10. The ones who stayed got ran over then they returned. Then most just /quit PvP.

Thalmar

I believe if they add one or two dedicated lvl 1-49 campaign, these will bring many players who gave up after being ***** by VR10s when they were their mid 20s. Don't misinterpret my post, i didn't mention VR10 shouldn't be supeior to mid level 20s but, you can not make a competitve environment with who have 30 skills against 200 skills even you boost their base stats to top. With the current state it is just feeding egos of VR10 players with level 14. Add a leveling campaign with increased experience, you will see more people involve PvP than ever.

Nijjion

Yes

I agree we only need 2 servers with the NA RvR population at the moment the problem is even with 2 servers the EU/Aussie population is still going to be on different servers.

If we keep AB/Wabba... AD will still all be on AB and EB will all be on Wabba. The players themselves need to see a hard truth they are being lame for all going onto 1 server and not splitting up.

Gisgo

Yes

Is that even a question?
Merge now, yesterday it was already too late.

KleanZlate

Yes

I used to like doing PvE quests on the empty servers but now I think more people = more chance encounters = more fun.

ericwende5b16_ESO

Yes

Do it now and make a campain last one week. Thats all you have to do to make PVP interesting again! (And start balancing all weapon/class spells and passives ofc)

Chryos

The jumping campaign steamroller tactic is a cowardly one, which only requires numbers and absolutely no skill. This is not PvP as intended.

It makes me feel like I'm battling WoW or something.