Maintenance for the week of November 18:
[COMPLETE] PlayStation®: EU megaserver for maintenance – November 19, 23:00 UTC (6:00PM EST) - November 20, 17:00 UTC (12:00PM EST) https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/668861
[COMPLETE] PlayStation®: EU megaserver for maintenance – November 19, 23:00 UTC (6:00PM EST) - November 20, 17:00 UTC (12:00PM EST) https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/668861
Campaign Scoring + changes
Irylia
✭✭✭✭✭
✭
✭
With how popular vivec is, consistently throughout the day, why don’t we make shor a 30 day campaign.
Not only that but make scoring be tallied across the board from all campaigns so that it is a true faction effort to earn the win on a month to month basis.
With this hopefully players would leave their 80 q into vivec and opt to enter shor because they can still contribute to the overall scoring. A distribution of population and equalizing of campaign duration should not only encourage players to spread their guilds/forces but increase coordination between campaigns.
Emp. No more 7 day emp trading as there is one scoring.
How does emp work then?
When any campaign captures the emp ring their top scoring player rises to the status of emperor. To dethrone players need to go to that campaign and take back those keeps.
Additionally if sotha has an ad emp vivec could emp an ep player and dc could emp in shor.
Now all 3 factions have emperor and players are encouraged to enter the other camps to dethrone while simultaneously holding their own keeps.
Emps maintain emperorship across all campaigns until dethroned.
AP multipliers still appear in campaigns for the faction severely outmanned.
Not only that but make scoring be tallied across the board from all campaigns so that it is a true faction effort to earn the win on a month to month basis.
With this hopefully players would leave their 80 q into vivec and opt to enter shor because they can still contribute to the overall scoring. A distribution of population and equalizing of campaign duration should not only encourage players to spread their guilds/forces but increase coordination between campaigns.
Emp. No more 7 day emp trading as there is one scoring.
How does emp work then?
When any campaign captures the emp ring their top scoring player rises to the status of emperor. To dethrone players need to go to that campaign and take back those keeps.
Additionally if sotha has an ad emp vivec could emp an ep player and dc could emp in shor.
Now all 3 factions have emperor and players are encouraged to enter the other camps to dethrone while simultaneously holding their own keeps.
Emps maintain emperorship across all campaigns until dethroned.
AP multipliers still appear in campaigns for the faction severely outmanned.
4
-
VaranisArano✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭The best way to make Shor viable is for ZOS to fix the lag and persistent performance issues. Then we might actually have enough PVPers to fill more than one CP campaign.8 -
LeifErickson✭✭✭✭✭
✭This is actually a brilliant idea. I think they would need to lock Shor during off hours though.0 -
MerlinPendragon✭✭✭✭Leave Shor alone. We like it the way it is._____________________________________
Merlin Pendragon - Uther Pendragon - The Lady of the Lake - Sir Lancelot1 -
LeifErickson✭✭✭✭✭
✭MerlinPendragon wrote: »Leave Shor alone. We like it the way it is.
You like it dead? Cause that's what it is.3 -
maxjapank✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭LeifErickson wrote: »This is actually a brilliant idea. I think they would need to lock Shor during off hours though.
Would those be your off hours for me? Or does the world revolve around you?
0 -
LeifErickson✭✭✭✭✭
✭LeifErickson wrote: »This is actually a brilliant idea. I think they would need to lock Shor during off hours though.
Would those be your off hours for me? Or does the world revolve around you?
If you are having fun in Shor during off hours fighting NPCs then I don't know what to say. Vivec would still be open and not pop locked so why would you play in Shor other than to emp trade?3 -
Sacredx✭✭✭It's good in theory. Sadly we don't have enough guild groups on any timezone to properly service one campaign let alone split those groups between two campaigns. Sure there are moments when all factions are locked and there is some guild interaction, but for the most its guild vs pug reality. With the campaign split across two separate parts you will end up with organised groups vs pugs even more, which is imo not the intention of having organised groups in the first place.
The only viable solution is to merge the campaigns into one to get more cap and stability and hopefully get the hardware to merge as well, which I have no idea how or if that even works. Historically this has happened in other games.PC NA PvP Oceanic
The Kelly Gang [TKG]
Highest kill streak: https://i.imgur.com/V6jJhoy.png
KB sample: https://i.imgur.com/n7TFyZr.png
TKG raid sample: https://youtube.com/watch?v=RkrsHg3T7pc0 -
idk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭With how popular vivec is, consistently throughout the day, why don’t we make shor a 30 day campaign.
People tend to go where the most action is. From the start of the game that has been the case.Not only that but make scoring be tallied across the board from all campaigns so that it is a true faction effort to earn the win on a month to month basis.
This would be a bad idea since the first campaign cannot affect the second campaign the scoring should not be tied together. It cannot be a true faction effort if they cannot work together to effect change.
Case in point, the two campaigns would have two different emperors and often from different factions. How can it be a true faction effort if the results are so different? It cannot.
The rest of your post merely demonstrates how it will not work.Edited by idk on 3 October 2018 08:181 -
Irylia✭✭✭✭✭
✭With how popular vivec is, consistently throughout the day, why don’t we make shor a 30 day campaign.
People tend to go where the most action is. From the start of the game that has been the case.Not only that but make scoring be tallied across the board from all campaigns so that it is a true faction effort to earn the win on a month to month basis.
This would be a bad idea since the first campaign cannot affect the second campaign the scoring should not be tied together. It cannot be a true faction effort if they cannot work together to effect change.
Case in point, the two campaigns would have two different emperors and often from different factions. How can it be a true faction effort if the results are so different? It cannot.
The rest of your post merely demonstrates how it will not work.
Lol k
Says absolutely nothing... “can’t work”0 -
Minnesinger✭✭✭✭✭
✭With how popular vivec is, consistently throughout the day, why don’t we make shor a 30 day campaign.
People tend to go where the most action is. From the start of the game that has been the case.Not only that but make scoring be tallied across the board from all campaigns so that it is a true faction effort to earn the win on a month to month basis.
This would be a bad idea since the first campaign cannot affect the second campaign the scoring should not be tied together. It cannot be a true faction effort if they cannot work together to effect change.
Case in point, the two campaigns would have two different emperors and often from different factions. How can it be a true faction effort if the results are so different? It cannot.
The rest of your post merely demonstrates how it will not work.
I have some of the fondest memories outside from the main campaign. There used to guilds and individuals that devoted their playing to other campaigns too. The main campaign was/ has been the one where all the bigger guilds played but often the funniest moments where found in smaller skirmishes and all in good sports. Sadly, many of these players have merged into Vivec guilds or quit.
About another campaign like Shor, the idea is great. Maybe tune in some rewards for playing there. Also I would love to see a campaign where the group size is smaller and maybe the map is also different to Cyrodiil (no BG size though).The wind is cold where I live,
The blizzard is my home,
Snow and ice and loaded dice, the Wizard lives alone.0 -
idk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭With how popular vivec is, consistently throughout the day, why don’t we make shor a 30 day campaign.
People tend to go where the most action is. From the start of the game that has been the case.Not only that but make scoring be tallied across the board from all campaigns so that it is a true faction effort to earn the win on a month to month basis.
This would be a bad idea since the first campaign cannot affect the second campaign the scoring should not be tied together. It cannot be a true faction effort if they cannot work together to effect change.
Case in point, the two campaigns would have two different emperors and often from different factions. How can it be a true faction effort if the results are so different? It cannot.
The rest of your post merely demonstrates how it will not work.
Lol k
Says absolutely nothing... “can’t work”
Easy way to dismiss a comment one cannot argue with, it seems. Not to worry, since the forum base shows a lack of interest in this idea and I am pretty sure Zos will not see any benefit in it either.Minnesinger wrote: »With how popular vivec is, consistently throughout the day, why don’t we make shor a 30 day campaign.
People tend to go where the most action is. From the start of the game that has been the case.Not only that but make scoring be tallied across the board from all campaigns so that it is a true faction effort to earn the win on a month to month basis.
This would be a bad idea since the first campaign cannot affect the second campaign the scoring should not be tied together. It cannot be a true faction effort if they cannot work together to effect change.
Case in point, the two campaigns would have two different emperors and often from different factions. How can it be a true faction effort if the results are so different? It cannot.
The rest of your post merely demonstrates how it will not work.
I have some of the fondest memories outside from the main campaign. There used to guilds and individuals that devoted their playing to other campaigns too. The main campaign was/ has been the one where all the bigger guilds played but often the funniest moments where found in smaller skirmishes and all in good sports. Sadly, many of these players have merged into Vivec guilds or quit.
About another campaign like Shor, the idea is great. Maybe tune in some rewards for playing there. Also I would love to see a campaign where the group size is smaller and maybe the map is also different to Cyrodiil (no BG size though).
I have fond memories of less populated campaigns as well. Some in one guild I was in ran the game on Poratoes so we had to go to lower pop campaigns.
'
However, this does not support OP's idea. In fact it really shows a great reason why OP's idea is not a very good one.
Lower population campaigns are more likely to have a population imbalance for a greater period of time. So with OP's idea it will push the winning more often to the faction that has more participation more of the time and pop lock means nothing. Bad design at it's core.0 -
Irylia✭✭✭✭✭
✭With how popular vivec is, consistently throughout the day, why don’t we make shor a 30 day campaign.
People tend to go where the most action is. From the start of the game that has been the case.Not only that but make scoring be tallied across the board from all campaigns so that it is a true faction effort to earn the win on a month to month basis.
This would be a bad idea since the first campaign cannot affect the second campaign the scoring should not be tied together. It cannot be a true faction effort if they cannot work together to effect change.
Case in point, the two campaigns would have two different emperors and often from different factions. How can it be a true faction effort if the results are so different? It cannot.
The rest of your post merely demonstrates how it will not work.
Lol k
Says absolutely nothing... “can’t work”
Easy way to dismiss a comment one cannot argue with, it seems. Not to worry, since the forum base shows a lack of interest in this idea and I am pretty sure Zos will not see any benefit in it either.Minnesinger wrote: »With how popular vivec is, consistently throughout the day, why don’t we make shor a 30 day campaign.
People tend to go where the most action is. From the start of the game that has been the case.Not only that but make scoring be tallied across the board from all campaigns so that it is a true faction effort to earn the win on a month to month basis.
This would be a bad idea since the first campaign cannot affect the second campaign the scoring should not be tied together. It cannot be a true faction effort if they cannot work together to effect change.
Case in point, the two campaigns would have two different emperors and often from different factions. How can it be a true faction effort if the results are so different? It cannot.
The rest of your post merely demonstrates how it will not work.
I have some of the fondest memories outside from the main campaign. There used to guilds and individuals that devoted their playing to other campaigns too. The main campaign was/ has been the one where all the bigger guilds played but often the funniest moments where found in smaller skirmishes and all in good sports. Sadly, many of these players have merged into Vivec guilds or quit.
About another campaign like Shor, the idea is great. Maybe tune in some rewards for playing there. Also I would love to see a campaign where the group size is smaller and maybe the map is also different to Cyrodiil (no BG size though).
I have fond memories of less populated campaigns as well. Some in one guild I was in ran the game on Poratoes so we had to go to lower pop campaigns.
'
However, this does not support OP's idea. In fact it really shows a great reason why OP's idea is not a very good one.
Lower population campaigns are more likely to have a population imbalance for a greater period of time. So with OP's idea it will push the winning more often to the faction that has more participation more of the time and pop lock means nothing. Bad design at it's core.
Your reason was that because the current scores cannot Be tied it won’t work
Then faction effort won’t be faction based because of multiple Emp? There’s Nothing more faction based effort than spreading across all campaigns/communicating and working with other same colored players to hold control over multiple campaigns.
Your biggest kicker was “the rest of your post merely demonstrates how it will not work”
Talk about dismissing something you can’t discuss. Try again0 -
idk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭With how popular vivec is, consistently throughout the day, why don’t we make shor a 30 day campaign.
People tend to go where the most action is. From the start of the game that has been the case.Not only that but make scoring be tallied across the board from all campaigns so that it is a true faction effort to earn the win on a month to month basis.
This would be a bad idea since the first campaign cannot affect the second campaign the scoring should not be tied together. It cannot be a true faction effort if they cannot work together to effect change.
Case in point, the two campaigns would have two different emperors and often from different factions. How can it be a true faction effort if the results are so different? It cannot.
The rest of your post merely demonstrates how it will not work.
Lol k
Says absolutely nothing... “can’t work”
Easy way to dismiss a comment one cannot argue with, it seems. Not to worry, since the forum base shows a lack of interest in this idea and I am pretty sure Zos will not see any benefit in it either.Minnesinger wrote: »With how popular vivec is, consistently throughout the day, why don’t we make shor a 30 day campaign.
People tend to go where the most action is. From the start of the game that has been the case.Not only that but make scoring be tallied across the board from all campaigns so that it is a true faction effort to earn the win on a month to month basis.
This would be a bad idea since the first campaign cannot affect the second campaign the scoring should not be tied together. It cannot be a true faction effort if they cannot work together to effect change.
Case in point, the two campaigns would have two different emperors and often from different factions. How can it be a true faction effort if the results are so different? It cannot.
The rest of your post merely demonstrates how it will not work.
I have some of the fondest memories outside from the main campaign. There used to guilds and individuals that devoted their playing to other campaigns too. The main campaign was/ has been the one where all the bigger guilds played but often the funniest moments where found in smaller skirmishes and all in good sports. Sadly, many of these players have merged into Vivec guilds or quit.
About another campaign like Shor, the idea is great. Maybe tune in some rewards for playing there. Also I would love to see a campaign where the group size is smaller and maybe the map is also different to Cyrodiil (no BG size though).
I have fond memories of less populated campaigns as well. Some in one guild I was in ran the game on Poratoes so we had to go to lower pop campaigns.
'
However, this does not support OP's idea. In fact it really shows a great reason why OP's idea is not a very good one.
Lower population campaigns are more likely to have a population imbalance for a greater period of time. So with OP's idea it will push the winning more often to the faction that has more participation more of the time and pop lock means nothing. Bad design at it's core.
Your reason was that because the current scores cannot Be tied it won’t work
Then faction effort won’t be faction based because of multiple Emp? There’s Nothing more faction based effort than spreading across all campaigns/communicating and working with other same colored players to hold control over multiple campaigns.
Your biggest kicker was “the rest of your post merely demonstrates how it will not work”
Talk about dismissing something you can’t discuss. Try again
LOL. Not that I am concerned due to the obvious lack of interest in this idea and Zos has at least a little sense but you essentially lay out why the idea is so flawed but think it is ok.
You think it is ok that a campaign Vivec is not involved in should affect the results for those that play in Vivec. That a low pop campaign's greater uptime in population imbalance should affect Vivec as well. Clearly bad ideas.
'
Not to mention the even greater flaw you have completely overlooked. Since your idea would force Vivec players to take notice in a campaign they have chosen not to play in they would then be forced to take alts into the lesser campaign to affect change and run all over those in there, distracting them from their main goal
If you do not think that will not happen then you are greatly mistaken and clearly missed PvP early in this game when guilds would guest into another campaign just to force an emp change because they felt an emp has held the throne for to long.
When you can think of a solid idea why this would be good I will be happy to return to this thread. Until then, enjoy the game.0 -
VaranisArano✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭With how popular vivec is, consistently throughout the day, why don’t we make shor a 30 day campaign.
People tend to go where the most action is. From the start of the game that has been the case.Not only that but make scoring be tallied across the board from all campaigns so that it is a true faction effort to earn the win on a month to month basis.
This would be a bad idea since the first campaign cannot affect the second campaign the scoring should not be tied together. It cannot be a true faction effort if they cannot work together to effect change.
Case in point, the two campaigns would have two different emperors and often from different factions. How can it be a true faction effort if the results are so different? It cannot.
The rest of your post merely demonstrates how it will not work.
Lol k
Says absolutely nothing... “can’t work”
Easy way to dismiss a comment one cannot argue with, it seems. Not to worry, since the forum base shows a lack of interest in this idea and I am pretty sure Zos will not see any benefit in it either.Minnesinger wrote: »With how popular vivec is, consistently throughout the day, why don’t we make shor a 30 day campaign.
People tend to go where the most action is. From the start of the game that has been the case.Not only that but make scoring be tallied across the board from all campaigns so that it is a true faction effort to earn the win on a month to month basis.
This would be a bad idea since the first campaign cannot affect the second campaign the scoring should not be tied together. It cannot be a true faction effort if they cannot work together to effect change.
Case in point, the two campaigns would have two different emperors and often from different factions. How can it be a true faction effort if the results are so different? It cannot.
The rest of your post merely demonstrates how it will not work.
I have some of the fondest memories outside from the main campaign. There used to guilds and individuals that devoted their playing to other campaigns too. The main campaign was/ has been the one where all the bigger guilds played but often the funniest moments where found in smaller skirmishes and all in good sports. Sadly, many of these players have merged into Vivec guilds or quit.
About another campaign like Shor, the idea is great. Maybe tune in some rewards for playing there. Also I would love to see a campaign where the group size is smaller and maybe the map is also different to Cyrodiil (no BG size though).
I have fond memories of less populated campaigns as well. Some in one guild I was in ran the game on Poratoes so we had to go to lower pop campaigns.
'
However, this does not support OP's idea. In fact it really shows a great reason why OP's idea is not a very good one.
Lower population campaigns are more likely to have a population imbalance for a greater period of time. So with OP's idea it will push the winning more often to the faction that has more participation more of the time and pop lock means nothing. Bad design at it's core.
Your reason was that because the current scores cannot Be tied it won’t work
Then faction effort won’t be faction based because of multiple Emp? There’s Nothing more faction based effort than spreading across all campaigns/communicating and working with other same colored players to hold control over multiple campaigns.
Your biggest kicker was “the rest of your post merely demonstrates how it will not work”
Talk about dismissing something you can’t discuss. Try again
Your suggestion is basically enabling players on Shor yelling "Hey, guys in Vivec? We need more players for the dethrone. HELP US!"
I've been on the receiving end of that when I played regularly in Haderus. Its actually not that enjoyable to be defending an emperorship in Primetime when a Trueflame guild logs into Haderus to help out their buddies who are whining about not being able to do it on their own. This already happens now between Shor and Vivec on occasion, just not in the formal way you want it to.
Its not good for the campaign, its not good for the players screaming for backup from another campaign, and its a symptom of low PVP population that will only be fixed when ZOS fixes the lag and persistent performance issues.
Now, the bigger problem with your scoring suggestion is that Vivec is much, much more competitive than Shor. Higher population results in better competition results in closer scoring. Vivec already struggles with their scoring being dominated by relatively low pop Oceanic time zones - adding a low pop campaign would make this worse. And no, splitting the population between Vivec and Shor wouldn't help - it just makes two lower pop servers that will still struggle even more during low pop timezones - unless we get more PVP players which wont happen until, you guessed it, ZOS fixes the lag and performance issues.
(I'm ignoring Sotha Sil because its No CP PVP and its a different beast.)
In short, this solution has issues with implementation and doesnt fix the root cause of the problem, which is low PVP population due to ZOS' failure to address the lag and performance issues.2 -
Irylia✭✭✭✭✭
✭With how popular vivec is, consistently throughout the day, why don’t we make shor a 30 day campaign.
People tend to go where the most action is. From the start of the game that has been the case.Not only that but make scoring be tallied across the board from all campaigns so that it is a true faction effort to earn the win on a month to month basis.
This would be a bad idea since the first campaign cannot affect the second campaign the scoring should not be tied together. It cannot be a true faction effort if they cannot work together to effect change.
Case in point, the two campaigns would have two different emperors and often from different factions. How can it be a true faction effort if the results are so different? It cannot.
The rest of your post merely demonstrates how it will not work.
Lol k
Says absolutely nothing... “can’t work”
Easy way to dismiss a comment one cannot argue with, it seems. Not to worry, since the forum base shows a lack of interest in this idea and I am pretty sure Zos will not see any benefit in it either.Minnesinger wrote: »With how popular vivec is, consistently throughout the day, why don’t we make shor a 30 day campaign.
People tend to go where the most action is. From the start of the game that has been the case.Not only that but make scoring be tallied across the board from all campaigns so that it is a true faction effort to earn the win on a month to month basis.
This would be a bad idea since the first campaign cannot affect the second campaign the scoring should not be tied together. It cannot be a true faction effort if they cannot work together to effect change.
Case in point, the two campaigns would have two different emperors and often from different factions. How can it be a true faction effort if the results are so different? It cannot.
The rest of your post merely demonstrates how it will not work.
I have some of the fondest memories outside from the main campaign. There used to guilds and individuals that devoted their playing to other campaigns too. The main campaign was/ has been the one where all the bigger guilds played but often the funniest moments where found in smaller skirmishes and all in good sports. Sadly, many of these players have merged into Vivec guilds or quit.
About another campaign like Shor, the idea is great. Maybe tune in some rewards for playing there. Also I would love to see a campaign where the group size is smaller and maybe the map is also different to Cyrodiil (no BG size though).
I have fond memories of less populated campaigns as well. Some in one guild I was in ran the game on Poratoes so we had to go to lower pop campaigns.
'
However, this does not support OP's idea. In fact it really shows a great reason why OP's idea is not a very good one.
Lower population campaigns are more likely to have a population imbalance for a greater period of time. So with OP's idea it will push the winning more often to the faction that has more participation more of the time and pop lock means nothing. Bad design at it's core.
Your reason was that because the current scores cannot Be tied it won’t work
Then faction effort won’t be faction based because of multiple Emp? There’s Nothing more faction based effort than spreading across all campaigns/communicating and working with other same colored players to hold control over multiple campaigns.
Your biggest kicker was “the rest of your post merely demonstrates how it will not work”
Talk about dismissing something you can’t discuss. Try again
LOL. Not that I am concerned due to the obvious lack of interest in this idea and Zos has at least a little sense but you essentially lay out why the idea is so flawed but think it is ok.
You think it is ok that a campaign Vivec is not involved in should affect the results for those that play in Vivec. That a low pop campaign's greater uptime in population imbalance should affect Vivec as well. Clearly bad ideas.
'
Not to mention the even greater flaw you have completely overlooked. Since your idea would force Vivec players to take notice in a campaign they have chosen not to play in they would then be forced to take alts into the lesser campaign to affect change and run all over those in there, distracting them from their main goal
If you do not think that will not happen then you are greatly mistaken and clearly missed PvP early in this game when guilds would guest into another campaign just to force an emp change because they felt an emp has held the throne for to long.
When you can think of a solid idea why this would be good I will be happy to return to this thread. Until then, enjoy the game.
Generally blinders are used on mules. I think you should take them off and learn how to think outside the box.
Every Campaign matters with a change like this. If you can’t q into viv due to the wait you go to shor and fight alongside your friends to win the monthly scoring.
It’s now one large war that people can contribute towards without packing into one lag filled campaign.
Use your brain.0 -
idk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭VaranisArano wrote: »With how popular vivec is, consistently throughout the day, why don’t we make shor a 30 day campaign.
People tend to go where the most action is. From the start of the game that has been the case.Not only that but make scoring be tallied across the board from all campaigns so that it is a true faction effort to earn the win on a month to month basis.
This would be a bad idea since the first campaign cannot affect the second campaign the scoring should not be tied together. It cannot be a true faction effort if they cannot work together to effect change.
Case in point, the two campaigns would have two different emperors and often from different factions. How can it be a true faction effort if the results are so different? It cannot.
The rest of your post merely demonstrates how it will not work.
Lol k
Says absolutely nothing... “can’t work”
Easy way to dismiss a comment one cannot argue with, it seems. Not to worry, since the forum base shows a lack of interest in this idea and I am pretty sure Zos will not see any benefit in it either.Minnesinger wrote: »With how popular vivec is, consistently throughout the day, why don’t we make shor a 30 day campaign.
People tend to go where the most action is. From the start of the game that has been the case.Not only that but make scoring be tallied across the board from all campaigns so that it is a true faction effort to earn the win on a month to month basis.
This would be a bad idea since the first campaign cannot affect the second campaign the scoring should not be tied together. It cannot be a true faction effort if they cannot work together to effect change.
Case in point, the two campaigns would have two different emperors and often from different factions. How can it be a true faction effort if the results are so different? It cannot.
The rest of your post merely demonstrates how it will not work.
I have some of the fondest memories outside from the main campaign. There used to guilds and individuals that devoted their playing to other campaigns too. The main campaign was/ has been the one where all the bigger guilds played but often the funniest moments where found in smaller skirmishes and all in good sports. Sadly, many of these players have merged into Vivec guilds or quit.
About another campaign like Shor, the idea is great. Maybe tune in some rewards for playing there. Also I would love to see a campaign where the group size is smaller and maybe the map is also different to Cyrodiil (no BG size though).
I have fond memories of less populated campaigns as well. Some in one guild I was in ran the game on Poratoes so we had to go to lower pop campaigns.
'
However, this does not support OP's idea. In fact it really shows a great reason why OP's idea is not a very good one.
Lower population campaigns are more likely to have a population imbalance for a greater period of time. So with OP's idea it will push the winning more often to the faction that has more participation more of the time and pop lock means nothing. Bad design at it's core.
Your reason was that because the current scores cannot Be tied it won’t work
Then faction effort won’t be faction based because of multiple Emp? There’s Nothing more faction based effort than spreading across all campaigns/communicating and working with other same colored players to hold control over multiple campaigns.
Your biggest kicker was “the rest of your post merely demonstrates how it will not work”
Talk about dismissing something you can’t discuss. Try again
Your suggestion is basically enabling players on Shor yelling "Hey, guys in Vivec? We need more players for the dethrone. HELP US!"
I've been on the receiving end of that when I played regularly in Haderus. Its actually not that enjoyable to be defending an emperorship in Primetime when a Trueflame guild logs into Haderus to help out their buddies who are whining about not being able to do it on their own. This already happens now between Shor and Vivec on occasion, just not in the formal way you want it to.
Its not good for the campaign, its not good for the players screaming for backup from another campaign, and its a symptom of low PVP population that will only be fixed when ZOS fixes the lag and persistent performance issues.
And a good point was made so I returned.
This is pretty much how it was early in the game. I remember defending an emporership from guilds that came from another campaign. This was back when we had enough PvP population to have a second somewhat populated campaign during the first months of the game.0 -
weedgenius✭✭✭✭✭
✭Literally the entire point of Shor is that it is an alternative to a 30 day CP campaign lolPS4 NA
Better Homes & Gardens1 -
VaranisArano✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭VaranisArano wrote: »With how popular vivec is, consistently throughout the day, why don’t we make shor a 30 day campaign.
People tend to go where the most action is. From the start of the game that has been the case.Not only that but make scoring be tallied across the board from all campaigns so that it is a true faction effort to earn the win on a month to month basis.
This would be a bad idea since the first campaign cannot affect the second campaign the scoring should not be tied together. It cannot be a true faction effort if they cannot work together to effect change.
Case in point, the two campaigns would have two different emperors and often from different factions. How can it be a true faction effort if the results are so different? It cannot.
The rest of your post merely demonstrates how it will not work.
Lol k
Says absolutely nothing... “can’t work”
Easy way to dismiss a comment one cannot argue with, it seems. Not to worry, since the forum base shows a lack of interest in this idea and I am pretty sure Zos will not see any benefit in it either.Minnesinger wrote: »With how popular vivec is, consistently throughout the day, why don’t we make shor a 30 day campaign.
People tend to go where the most action is. From the start of the game that has been the case.Not only that but make scoring be tallied across the board from all campaigns so that it is a true faction effort to earn the win on a month to month basis.
This would be a bad idea since the first campaign cannot affect the second campaign the scoring should not be tied together. It cannot be a true faction effort if they cannot work together to effect change.
Case in point, the two campaigns would have two different emperors and often from different factions. How can it be a true faction effort if the results are so different? It cannot.
The rest of your post merely demonstrates how it will not work.
I have some of the fondest memories outside from the main campaign. There used to guilds and individuals that devoted their playing to other campaigns too. The main campaign was/ has been the one where all the bigger guilds played but often the funniest moments where found in smaller skirmishes and all in good sports. Sadly, many of these players have merged into Vivec guilds or quit.
About another campaign like Shor, the idea is great. Maybe tune in some rewards for playing there. Also I would love to see a campaign where the group size is smaller and maybe the map is also different to Cyrodiil (no BG size though).
I have fond memories of less populated campaigns as well. Some in one guild I was in ran the game on Poratoes so we had to go to lower pop campaigns.
'
However, this does not support OP's idea. In fact it really shows a great reason why OP's idea is not a very good one.
Lower population campaigns are more likely to have a population imbalance for a greater period of time. So with OP's idea it will push the winning more often to the faction that has more participation more of the time and pop lock means nothing. Bad design at it's core.
Your reason was that because the current scores cannot Be tied it won’t work
Then faction effort won’t be faction based because of multiple Emp? There’s Nothing more faction based effort than spreading across all campaigns/communicating and working with other same colored players to hold control over multiple campaigns.
Your biggest kicker was “the rest of your post merely demonstrates how it will not work”
Talk about dismissing something you can’t discuss. Try again
Your suggestion is basically enabling players on Shor yelling "Hey, guys in Vivec? We need more players for the dethrone. HELP US!"
I've been on the receiving end of that when I played regularly in Haderus. Its actually not that enjoyable to be defending an emperorship in Primetime when a Trueflame guild logs into Haderus to help out their buddies who are whining about not being able to do it on their own. This already happens now between Shor and Vivec on occasion, just not in the formal way you want it to.
Its not good for the campaign, its not good for the players screaming for backup from another campaign, and its a symptom of low PVP population that will only be fixed when ZOS fixes the lag and persistent performance issues.
And a good point was made so I returned.
This is pretty much how it was early in the game. I remember defending an emporership from guilds that came from another campaign. This was back when we had enough PvP population to have a second somewhat populated campaign during the first months of the game.
Key point: we had enough PVP population.
I liked Haderus. Each faction had several guilds and it was fairly competitive, if nowhere near the level of Trueflame.
Shor has really suffered from, well, a year of ZOS failing to fix PVP performance issues. So has Vivec, honestly, compared to the last months when I was on Trueflame. Cyrodiil was designed for lots of players PVPing, and its design and scoring really suffers when there just aren't a lot of players competing with each other.
Unfortunately, as much as I want there to be something players can do, the only way to increase participation in campaigns like Shor in a way that's healthy for Shor and Vivec is to get more players back in PVP, and I cant see that happening until ZOS fixes the lag and performance issues.2 -
Irylia✭✭✭✭✭
✭weedgenius wrote: »Literally the entire point of Shor is that it is an alternative to a 30 day CP campaign lol
So a dead campaign 6/7 days of the week used for emp flipping.
Spread the viv pop
Players currently only want to enter viv because of the population and having fights available as well as ties to a guild/month scoring
By doing one scoring system on a month to month basis those guilds can have a raid in both shor and viv. Still contribute to the score and population gets spread = less lagEdited by Irylia on 3 October 2018 18:140 -
ku5h✭✭✭✭✭
✭I guess this is US issue, since on EU we can barely fill up Vivec. Last time i had 30+ queue was during PvP event. This days on saturday/sunday prime time, even if you get a queue its max 10-15 ppl waiting. EU PvP is dying quicky.
0 -
idk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭I guess this is US issue, since on EU we can barely fill up Vivec. Last time i had 30+ queue was during PvP event. This days on saturday/sunday prime time, even if you get a queue its max 10-15 ppl waiting. EU PvP is dying quicky.
On both servers it pales compared to the early days of this game.weedgenius wrote: »Literally the entire point of Shor is that it is an alternative to a 30 day CP campaign lol
So a dead campaign 6/7 days of the week used for emp flipping.
Spread the viv pop
Players currently only want to enter viv because of the population and having fights available as well as ties to a guild/month scoring
By doing one scoring system on a month to month basis those guilds can have a raid in both shor and viv. Still contribute to the score and population gets spread = less lag
You are making nothing but a huge assumption based on thin air to back it up.
People are drawn to the action which is where the players actually are. Heck, we have smaller population caps on the campaigns than we did early in the game and still cannot fill up a second campaign.
You saying your idea would spread out the population does not make it so. History in this game shows you are wrong.3 -
Vilestride✭✭✭✭✭LeifErickson wrote: »This is actually a brilliant idea. I think they would need to lock Shor during off hours though.
I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment. While i would love to see a complete score lockout I think the actually viable solution is to instead slow down the scoring based on population levels. Or inversly speed it up. E.G if the eval was every X minutes during peak hours then lowered to Y during off peak where Y>X.
This should not be exclusive to shor though.0 -
Solariken✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭I think shared scoring across all campaigns and making them all 30 days is actually a brilliant idea, kudos man.
The only caveat I would bring forward is that no player can reach emperor more than once per campaign. This should even the playing field a bit and allow multiple players a chance to take the throne instead of one no-lifer getting crowned over and over.1 -
Prince_of_all_Pugs✭✭✭✭✭I like the idea , its gets more people involved in shor. Weve tried to colonize shor many times in the past, but the population never stays. we need something like this.0 -
Sacredx✭✭✭This and every other idea to change the campaign scoring is useless until the way scoring is calculated is fixed. Last time I checked a keep is worth the same value as a single resource. How did this even make it to the game? One person can run around a keep, take it's resources and if left unchecked can make 3x more score than a whole group who took the keep. How is that fair? Keeps are much more valuable and are much harder to take and should be worth many times more than resources. The AP gained from a keep take is 4 times that of a resource, so why not make the scoring the same? 4 for keeps, 2 for outposts and 1 for resources.
Re-balance the scoring system first, until this happens the scoring or "who won" is meaningless.PC NA PvP Oceanic
The Kelly Gang [TKG]
Highest kill streak: https://i.imgur.com/V6jJhoy.png
KB sample: https://i.imgur.com/n7TFyZr.png
TKG raid sample: https://youtube.com/watch?v=RkrsHg3T7pc0 -
Irylia✭✭✭✭✭
✭I guess this is US issue, since on EU we can barely fill up Vivec. Last time i had 30+ queue was during PvP event. This days on saturday/sunday prime time, even if you get a queue its max 10-15 ppl waiting. EU PvP is dying quicky.
On both servers it pales compared to the early days of this game.weedgenius wrote: »Literally the entire point of Shor is that it is an alternative to a 30 day CP campaign lol
So a dead campaign 6/7 days of the week used for emp flipping.
Spread the viv pop
Players currently only want to enter viv because of the population and having fights available as well as ties to a guild/month scoring
By doing one scoring system on a month to month basis those guilds can have a raid in both shor and viv. Still contribute to the score and population gets spread = less lag
You are making nothing but a huge assumption based on thin air to back it up.
People are drawn to the action which is where the players actually are. Heck, we have smaller population caps on the campaigns than we did early in the game and still cannot fill up a second campaign.
You saying your idea would spread out the population does not make it so. History in this game shows you are wrong.
“People are drawn to the action”
So force the action to be everywhere. If ad goes uncontested in shor then your efforts in 2 bar ad 3 dc pop red vivec is fruitless because shor ad will earn more overall scoring.
Drop that capped viv red to 2/3 and contest shor so that you earn points and reduce the ad earnings.
That forces players to spread out.
And taking the current populations and trying to say “history shows me wrong” is fruitless because my idea is a renovation to the system and is applied under different logistics.
If you don’t spread out you won’t win. Ep can’t afford to 100 q stack Viv while shor ad is 2 bar 1 everyone else.Edited by Irylia on 10 October 2018 13:500 -
Irylia✭✭✭✭✭
✭This and every other idea to change the campaign scoring is useless until the way scoring is calculated is fixed. Last time I checked a keep is worth the same value as a single resource. How did this even make it to the game? One person can run around a keep, take it's resources and if left unchecked can make 3x more score than a whole group who took the keep. How is that fair? Keeps are much more valuable and are much harder to take and should be worth many times more than resources. The AP gained from a keep take is 4 times that of a resource, so why not make the scoring the same? 4 for keeps, 2 for outposts and 1 for resources.
Re-balance the scoring system first, until this happens the scoring or "who won" is meaningless.
Well resources especially around the emp ring should be worth. Are minimum of 1 point while resources and keeps further away are worth more.
Dragon claw brindle drakelowe 3 points
Fare glade arrius 2 points
Then the keeps also increase based on location.
1/3/5
Emp ring/middle/furthest.
The benefit of fighting on emp ring is already apparent as it provides positioning and faster ports/travel among the chance to claim emp for your faction. So the resources and keeps should be worth less as it’s already going to see action. The keeps further away play a vital role in flanks, positioning, ports to other keeps but only receive attention when there’s is nothing left to take.
They should be more meaningful to the scoring so players cross the expansive terrain to reach those locations and potentially causing fights in numerous locations that don’t see combat0 -
Sacredx✭✭✭This and every other idea to change the campaign scoring is useless until the way scoring is calculated is fixed. Last time I checked a keep is worth the same value as a single resource. How did this even make it to the game? One person can run around a keep, take it's resources and if left unchecked can make 3x more score than a whole group who took the keep. How is that fair? Keeps are much more valuable and are much harder to take and should be worth many times more than resources. The AP gained from a keep take is 4 times that of a resource, so why not make the scoring the same? 4 for keeps, 2 for outposts and 1 for resources.
Re-balance the scoring system first, until this happens the scoring or "who won" is meaningless.
Well resources especially around the emp ring should be worth. Are minimum of 1 point while resources and keeps further away are worth more.
Dragon claw brindle drakelowe 3 points
Fare glade arrius 2 points
Then the keeps also increase based on location.
1/3/5
Emp ring/middle/furthest.
The benefit of fighting on emp ring is already apparent as it provides positioning and faster ports/travel among the chance to claim emp for your faction. So the resources and keeps should be worth less as it’s already going to see action. The keeps further away play a vital role in flanks, positioning, ports to other keeps but only receive attention when there’s is nothing left to take.
They should be more meaningful to the scoring so players cross the expansive terrain to reach those locations and potentially causing fights in numerous locations that don’t see combat
This doesn't change the fact that resources are worth far too much as it stands compared to keeps. You need 1 person to take 3 resources around a keep. You need either an organised group with siege or a lot of pug support with siege to take 1 keep. That one person who took 3 resources has achieved more in scoring than a whole group of players who took a keep. Compare the effort and scoring reward between the two and tell me how that is fair?
The current system encourages score manipulation by capping before ticks, especially the far resources that are worth 2 or 3 times. It devalues the keeps which are way harder to take which then undermines the whole scoring system by not assigning fair score values based on effort required.
Scoring value of objectives should be based on the effort put in to capture that objective, which is currently not the case.PC NA PvP Oceanic
The Kelly Gang [TKG]
Highest kill streak: https://i.imgur.com/V6jJhoy.png
KB sample: https://i.imgur.com/n7TFyZr.png
TKG raid sample: https://youtube.com/watch?v=RkrsHg3T7pc0
