Merge Campaigns, the spread is ruining the balance!

VlVEC

By now it's obvious which Campaigns/Servers favor which faction. There are also like 7 basically empty servers that have no activity to spark any sort of interest which just causes people to join their factions overrun server. Something needs to be done to funnel players into active campaigns to balance out the serious population issues!

Niffo

They need to do this sooner rather than later, the people stuck on the low population campaigns shouldn't have to pay to get off of them. At least half of the campaigns need to go.

skeletorz_ESO

Three campaigns at the most.

Nijjion

@skeletorz_ESO‌ 3 Campaigns wouldn't change anything AD will all go on 1 server, EP on another and DC on the last.

I would blame the players for wanting easy win but it's mainly Zenimaxs bad design fault.

They need to take it down to 2 servers AB and Wabba will be fine delete the other 8.

Not sure why all aussies/euros went on same server for their alliance... on NA all AD are on AB and all EP seem to be on Wabbajack. Meaning NA downtime is nearly locked on both of these for their alliance but other alliances only have 1 bar/empty. Stupid mindset of easy winning... I don't know how you guys see that as fun.

Not sure if DC is spread out but it seems like we are across all servers as doing best averagely. There's a few on Bloodthorn who should come to AB imo.

Anyway making it to 2 campaigns instead of 10 should fix the problem. Though some AD on AB need to go to wabba as AD are underpop on that server.

bg22

@Nijjion‌ I joined Wabba bc it has/had 3bars-full of every campaign. But as the AD seemingly were stomped repeatedly due to "bad", they have slightly dwindled away.

Anyway, I think the "guesting" needs to go away, and make 2 servers with a higher cap than what is allowed at the moment.

Samadhi

Nijjion wrote: »

...
Not sure if DC is spread out but it seems like we are across all servers as doing best averagely. There's a few on Bloodthorn who should come to AB imo.
...

DC population used to be pretty solid on Auriel's Bow.
Then most people bailed because they got tired of Yellow having a capped population all day and taking the whole map during the off-hours. In the evening when populations balanced, Yellow would get pushed back to base -- during the day when they had 2-3 more population bars than the other two factions, they would retake the entire map.
I think people got tired of seeing all progress lost by the time they got home from work the next day; now Yellow has almost as many points as Red and Blue combined, and everyone else jumped ship.

Personally, I spend my daytime hours guesting in Bloodthorn or Wabbajack, because it is easier to find interesting 1v1 and small group PvP matches there. If I go to Auriel's Bow in the daytime hours, all I run into are roaming Yellow groups or the Yellow zerg devouring every keep that gets pushed back.
I like to spend evenings in Auriel's Bow when the populations balance more, since it is still my Home campaign; however, I tend to find far interesting PvP while guesting in Wabbajack or Bloodthorn. I'm seriously debating swapping Home campaigns.

Decreasing the campaigns down to two options to start with, then adding more campaigns only when all other listed campaigns have regularly capped populations (for all three alliances) would decrease the issue substantially, but it would probably also give rise to a number of people complaining about log in cues for the PvP map on Yellow team.

TheBull

Wabber has been so good the last few nights. It's now the most pop server.

Nijjion

Wabba seems like the most equal server at the moment... Saturday Prime time was locked for all 3 alliances when AB was AD locked all day and EB getting 3 and DC only having 1-2 bars.

sSolutionSs

Just quit its not worth paying 15$ a month for this game yet.

Valok

/rant
From the very start there should have been only 2 campaing's, maybe a 3rd one that would end up getting merged with another a few weeks after launch.

The moment I saw they decided go with 10(!) I (and anyone with half a brain) knew that there would be serious imbalances.

It's ok though, live and learn right? However you have to fix/merge those campaings (IMO leave 2 at max), now. No no, not next week, not when Craglorn drops, not somewhere along the line, now.

If you are going to ask $ 15 a month you better be prepared to deploy fixes for stuff like this, fast, and not wait for bigger patches to fix general stuff like you are already doing. (Seriously, I'm gonna have to wait until Craglorn for you to fix the vampires passives? Do you have any idea how annoying it is to relog after every single death?)

When it comes to my subscription I can say that you have 1 more month, if nothing changes I'm off.
/rantoff

SwampRaider

3 campaigns would be enough. but probably 5 would work. My current home campaign has an emperor that can take on the combined forces of DC and EP..that's how low it is. It isn't fun anymore, so the DC and Ep keep it as their home just for the end of campaign rewards but we guest other places. PVP isnt fun, when one AD DK Emperor rules the whole server because the population is so low pop.

The map is so unbalanced it is almost all yellow. and any gains DC make, is taken away when we sleep.

transfer our points to another campaign, get rid of low pop campaigns!

bitaken

While I agree two servers would be grand and force the real PvP players into one and the zerglings into the other (zerglings prefer to fight other zerglings not get farmed by an organized group of 10-12) the reality is that going from 10 -> 2 is a show of failure early in release. They will likely drop it to 5 - and we will have the same problem of all the zeglings taking over one server for their faction and enjoying the bonuses for PvE - which is what I think they really want.

As a DC wabbajack from the start I hated the way Wabba was at first. DC owned it and we had no one to fight. Now, we have awesome three way battles on weekends - and EP owns the map all week. I don't mind that the AvA is only good in the evenings as a DC on Wabba, and the weekend fights and keep battles are absolutely worth being underpopulated during the week.

They probably need to make it so that when the campaigns reset you have to join ONE campaign until that campaign reaches a certain population point - then they open the next one....and so on. So, we should get a balance factor out of the gate for the first week of people joining. Then, to maintain said balance, they likely need to take the campaign switching option up to 1 million alliance points. Yes, 1 million.

jscottallenub17_ESO

There is an elegantly simple solution to the server population imbalances we are seeing in game. If populations truly decline, then maybe they should consolidate servers, but it could just be frustration causing people to not enter Cyrodiil as much as they'd like. I digress. All that is needed is dynamic server population caps, such that no one alliance can outnumber either of the other two by more than say 10% up to maximum server capacity. I am banging my head on the wall when I see the lopsided servers with AD flocking to one, EP to another, and DC to a third. If there was no possibility to outnumber the opposition by an expansive amount, there wouldn't be maps which were painted one color, at least not on a constant twenty-four hour basis. Cannot get in to a campaign your side it clearly trying to dominate by overloading it? Then you get to sit in a queue until the other sides decided to queue, or guest in another campaign until the populations increase. I only took some rudimentary programming in basic and pascal, but I don't think the coding of something like this would require anything tremendously complex. Avoiding queues just for the sake of being able to say that you don't put players in long queues while causing the downfall of the PvP system as whole being the result does not make a good deal of sense. I'd rather wait in a queue a bit and know the PvP experience won't be totally lopsided, either for or against me. Neither situation is really enjoyable for long. I could go on about this, but I believe most of us are rational enough to grasp the concept.

frwinters_ESO

bg22 wrote: »

@Nijjion‌ I joined Wabba bc it has/had 3bars-full of every campaign. But as the AD seemingly were stomped repeatedly due to "bad", they have slightly dwindled away.

Anyway, I think the "guesting" needs to go away, and make 2 servers with a higher cap than what is allowed at the moment.

I have been on Wabbajack since the very begining and AD used to be the super power. Im Ebonheart and we were on the bottom for awhile. then suddenly DC swept us both, then Ebonheart came back and swept the other two. I dont know if its because of people hoping between servers, but Wabbajack does get some movement.

skarvika

Agreed. Goldbrand is virtually empty, with DC and AD (though AD has it worse off) barely being able to do anything...EP has the map completely dominated nearly every day. On the other hand, EP is pretty much squashed in Wabbajack from what I've heard while AD dominates in Auriel's Bow.
Virtually every server I hear talked about has some kind of balancing issue with one faction just obliterating any opposition. I'd really like a merge in order to get rid of these empty campaigns and bring an accurate representation of each group to the Alliance War.

frwinters_ESO wrote: »

bg22 wrote: »

@Nijjion‌ I joined Wabba bc it has/had 3bars-full of every campaign. But as the AD seemingly were stomped repeatedly due to "bad", they have slightly dwindled away.

Anyway, I think the "guesting" needs to go away, and make 2 servers with a higher cap than what is allowed at the moment.

I have been on Wabbajack since the very begining and AD used to be the super power. Im Ebonheart and we were on the bottom for awhile. then suddenly DC swept us both, then Ebonheart came back and swept the other two. I dont know if its because of people hoping between servers, but Wabbajack does get some movement.

I believe that is what's happening. I know a few of my DC guild mates jumped to Wabbajack.

Lucardes

You guys still here? ZOS doesn't care for the 100th reply now. I mean look at the new patch 1.0.8
http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/95370/patch-notes-v1-0-8#latest

They are STILL doing small little quest changes that affect a few people that's how its been since the game launched and NO DEV POST on anything pvp related. It's going to be this way I'm afraid. /unsubbed

Kewljag_66_ESO

They are waiting for the majority of the population to hit level 50 and join in PVP before they make any changes. Its a PVP endgame, a lot of people plan on joining after they finish their story and hit 50. They are waiting for this before they do any balance changed because then they might have to do it again and make more campaigns if they close some. This is how these PVP games work with consistant never ending worlds / maps, you have to wait.

Ser Lobo

I would say, as a very early prediction (we're only in the second month of the game), that three-to-five servers is the most they will need.

Also, better encouragements for those on the losing side (better AP gain, achievements, more veteran points, etc) to help balance the servers.

And a personal pet peeve to make PvP more available all around: better spawning options. Mark-and-Recall spells to warp to your leader (visible on map with a channel penalty to make it a dangerous thing). Cheaper camps, or camps private to your group.



By and large, the biggest things killing my mood to play: Numbers equal might, with little encouragement for smaller-scale events (could be solved by small-scale PvP arenas or mini-zones), meaning no reason NOT to group up with the zerg; and the size of the map has me running for 30 minutes, only to fight for two or three before running for another half hour.

Valok

Lucardes wrote: »

They are STILL doing small little quest changes

Everytime I look at a patch note and see level 1X/4X quest fixes and mostly that it honestly pisses me off like you would not believe.

No one here is asking for a magic fix for everything on a single patch (although that would be awesome), but for the love of nonexistent-Talos gives us something more.

Lucardes

Valok wrote: »

Lucardes wrote: »

They are STILL doing small little quest changes

Everytime I look at a patch note and see level 1X/4X quest fixes and mostly that it honestly pisses me off like you would not believe.

No one here is asking for a magic fix for everything on a single patch (although that would be awesome), but for the love of nonexistent-Talos gives us something more.

Amen my man Amen.

Really if I had to place my bets, the whole team is focused on console ports while they use existing content as features (basically cut-off content on release to pretend they did something) and have 1 or 2 working on the live game for PC. Now is that what your tax money errr I mean your sub money to go? To help finance their console release? Some companies do that (major big ones)

SuperJChat

Everyone wanting 2/3 campaigns should realize the amount of ridicu-Lag youd get in medium/large zergs +attacking/defending forts would be, idk, Way *** higher? maybe they should fix the lag issues before we decide we want less campaigns/more people per campaign.

Btw when i say lag i mean weapon swapping taking around a minute to function so when a pansy sorc/vamp runs from me i cant pull out my bow fast enough to nail him, and other server lag issues, not just "omg my FPS is 20" which it would probably be closer to 5 anyway

Also you Elitist Super-Computer owners can shut up, i'm talking about the majority here not the minority of rich/parent payed gamers

Samadhi

SuperJChat wrote: »

Everyone wanting 2/3 campaigns should realize the amount of ridicu-Lag youd get in medium/large zergs +attacking/defending forts would be, idk, Way *** higher? maybe they should fix the lag issues before we decide we want less campaigns/more people per campaign.

Btw when i say lag i mean weapon swapping taking around a minute to function so when a pansy sorc/vamp runs from me i cant pull out my bow fast enough to nail him, and other server lag issues, not just "omg my FPS is 20" which it would probably be closer to 5 anyway

Also you Elitist Super-Computer owners can shut up, i'm talking about the majority here not the minority of rich/parent payed gamers

Are you saying you chose an underpopulated campaign specifically so that it is easier on your computer than a campaign running at the intended population base?

No one is asking for campaigns to have higher population caps; we are simply asking that the amount of campaigns be reduced so that more of them can actually reach and stabilize at the existing population caps.

My computer is outdated by a few years and was not even high-end when I got it.
I can run the game fine in medium/large zerg settings when campaigns cap presently, so I don't see potential for the issue to suddenly take a nosedive when the population allowed in at a given time does not increase.