Maintenance for the week of January 20:
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – January 20
• NA megaservers for maintenance – January 22, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
• EU megaservers for maintenance – January 22, 9:00 UTC (4:00AM EST) - 14:00 UTC (9:00AM EST)
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – January 20
• NA megaservers for maintenance – January 22, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
• EU megaservers for maintenance – January 22, 9:00 UTC (4:00AM EST) - 14:00 UTC (9:00AM EST)
FIXING THE CAMPAIGNS (and stating the obvious)
crimsonBZD
✭✭
The problem with the campaigns: PvP has no integrity, as shown by a Facebook I'm in where a thread was created in which someone was showing that their Alliance had every keep for the AD.
Then someone else posted the same picture from a different campaign except EP owned the map. Then the same with DC.
If someone's having a bad time in PvP they have an option to switch campaigns, yet the only campaign that seems to be actually full is AB.
So, I understand the different campaigns are necessary for some players, as I see people having enough issues with lag/fps in AB.
However, there are far too many, and 90 days is too long for a campaign to run without purpose.
So, for the FIXES to this.
1) LESS CAMPAIGNS. Changing campaigns shouldn't be the effect of Victory or Defeat. If the server itself and the game's clients could handle it, I'd say get rid of campaigns and open up Cyro like the rest of the map.
However there should be at most 2 campaigns, this will prevent AD from owning one while EP owns another and DC has the third.
2) Implement VICTORY. If an alliance takes the throne then runs BOTH other alliances into their last keep, that Alliance should be declared victorious and the campaign restarted after a short time (the alliances that have been defeated should be given a little time to take it back I think)
This will solve the issue of: You play PvP, you join the giant zerg and take over half the map in a night, then log off and do whatever, come back on later in the day/the next morning and your forts suddenly has been destroyed.
Less campaigns will mean there will always be people online fighting, none of these "PvE Lulls" as I call them, the "safe times" when people just run around completing their frickin' dailies in Cyro.
Victory would be a great goal and perhaps should come with some sort of PvPvE boss at the end. Like, if you push AD all the way to their last, large summoned creatures are spawned to protect the last keep, providing an additional challenge to high level players.
Thanks for reading!
Edited by crimsonBZD on 17 April 2014 15:14 Then someone else posted the same picture from a different campaign except EP owned the map. Then the same with DC.
If someone's having a bad time in PvP they have an option to switch campaigns, yet the only campaign that seems to be actually full is AB.
So, I understand the different campaigns are necessary for some players, as I see people having enough issues with lag/fps in AB.
However, there are far too many, and 90 days is too long for a campaign to run without purpose.
So, for the FIXES to this.
1) LESS CAMPAIGNS. Changing campaigns shouldn't be the effect of Victory or Defeat. If the server itself and the game's clients could handle it, I'd say get rid of campaigns and open up Cyro like the rest of the map.
However there should be at most 2 campaigns, this will prevent AD from owning one while EP owns another and DC has the third.
2) Implement VICTORY. If an alliance takes the throne then runs BOTH other alliances into their last keep, that Alliance should be declared victorious and the campaign restarted after a short time (the alliances that have been defeated should be given a little time to take it back I think)
This will solve the issue of: You play PvP, you join the giant zerg and take over half the map in a night, then log off and do whatever, come back on later in the day/the next morning and your forts suddenly has been destroyed.
Less campaigns will mean there will always be people online fighting, none of these "PvE Lulls" as I call them, the "safe times" when people just run around completing their frickin' dailies in Cyro.
Victory would be a great goal and perhaps should come with some sort of PvPvE boss at the end. Like, if you push AD all the way to their last, large summoned creatures are spawned to protect the last keep, providing an additional challenge to high level players.
Thanks for reading!
0
-
Foxhunt✭✭✭#1 should only be done after the campaigns first 90 days is over. There are still a lot of people not in PvP yet and waiting to do so when they level up more.0 -
crimsonBZD✭✭#1 should only be done after the campaigns first 90 days is over. There are still a lot of people not in PvP yet and waiting to do so when they level up more.
My big question on this one is, what is the server's limit when it comes to PvP. Case in point though, they really need to tighten it up, and letting the current campaigns finish out would be kinda necessary anyways
0 -
Lucardes✭✭✭#1 should only be done after the campaigns first 90 days is over. There are still a lot of people not in PvP yet and waiting to do so when they level up more.
If and usually it is proportional, then AD will still be leading the other factions and the same problems are there. Your assuming that for some reason all of the sudden when the masses turn 50 they will go to the underpopulated population which in fact psychologically they won't they will do what every average hand-holding player will do join the bigger faction.Lucefer
#1 Sorcerer in EP Dawnbreaker0 -
Lucardes✭✭✭Good luck man, if you haven't seen there's SO MANY posts about this and the most funny part is not one word from Zenimax on this issue.. I'm slowly starting to lose faith on them and so is many others..Lucefer
#1 Sorcerer in EP Dawnbreaker0 -
OtarTheMad✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭1. I do think that less campaigns would help, maybe combining some of the other lower populated campaigns. This would give more chance of balance, increase some battles but still maintain the ability to quest and explore in Cyrodiil for those who enjoy doing that.
2. Shorter campaigns I think would solve a lot and even help in balancing things out a bit. Look at it this way, in my home campaign Daggerfall Covenant dominates. They have about 106,000 points. Second place... Ebonheart has 28,000 and my alliance is last with 25,000... am I going to stick around and wait in this campaign for another 2 months? NO! It's not fun. I may guest in others or just not play PvP (even though I enjoy it a lot when it's balanced) until they adjust things. If they made the campaigns last about a month that would be enough time for any alliance to claim Emperorship, give other alliances chances to dethrone them and get their own Emperor and I do not think many would quit their campaigns seeing as the time is shorter.0 -
crimsonBZD✭✭#1 should only be done after the campaigns first 90 days is over. There are still a lot of people not in PvP yet and waiting to do so when they level up more.
If and usually it is proportional, then AD will still be leading the other factions and the same problems are there. Your assuming that for some reason all of the sudden when the masses turn 50 they will go to the underpopulated population which in fact psychologically they won't they will do what every average hand-holding player will do join the bigger faction.
I don't believe anyone will move factions... Also, I don't see how AD has an advantage, although I will say that AD in AB is probably the most organized, we usually take most of the map every night but usually when I log back in other alliances have taken back over.
0 -
Lucardes✭✭✭crimsonBZD wrote: »#1 should only be done after the campaigns first 90 days is over. There are still a lot of people not in PvP yet and waiting to do so when they level up more.
If and usually it is proportional, then AD will still be leading the other factions and the same problems are there. Your assuming that for some reason all of the sudden when the masses turn 50 they will go to the underpopulated population which in fact psychologically they won't they will do what every average hand-holding player will do join the bigger faction.
I don't believe anyone will move factions... Also, I don't see how AD has an advantage, although I will say that AD in AB is probably the most organized, we usually take most of the map every night but usually when I log back in other alliances have taken back over.
Apologies shouldn't have generalized that faction, was saying it from my campaign's viewpoint in Dawnbreaker but you can simply replace that faction with whoever is overpopulated which is "most"campaigns except 1 or 2 that is well balanced.Lucefer
#1 Sorcerer in EP Dawnbreaker0 -
Foxhunt✭✭✭#1 should only be done after the campaigns first 90 days is over. There are still a lot of people not in PvP yet and waiting to do so when they level up more.
Your assuming that for some reason all of the sudden when the masses turn 50 they will go to the underpopulated population which in fact psychologically they won't they will do what every average hand-holding player will do join the bigger faction.
No I am assuming that once they level up there will be a lot more players spread out through the other campaigns than there are now. I doubt everyone in the game is going to pick 2-3 campaigns and not touch the others. I do agree a couple campaigns should be dropped.
Edited by Foxhunt on 17 April 2014 23:030 -
Igolbug✭✭✭This isn't Zenimax's fault it is the fault of the players. People would rather own the map and have nobody to fight then have to fight people so they switch campaigns, there is nothign Zenimax can do to fix that.
If they put it in 2 campaigns then rather than switching home campaign people will jsut reroll to the side that is winning because gamers are lazy and want everything easy these days.Igolbug
V10 R20 Nightblade Ebonheart Pact
WABBAJACK since day1!0 -
Marstar✭This isn't Zenimax's fault it is the fault of the players. People would rather own the map and have nobody to fight then have to fight people so they switch campaigns, there is nothign Zenimax can do to fix that.
If they put it in 2 campaigns then rather than switching home campaign people will jsut reroll to the side that is winning because gamers are lazy and want everything easy these days.
The maps that are "owned" are controlled by a minority of players. It just the the other factions have even less. They aren't even 20% full.
Less campaigns means those same players consolidate and balance out not only the population by ration, but spreads the battles so that it's not one zerg bouncing between enemy gates.
Rerolling isn't easy and/or desirable in this game. Rather then reroll the losing side just doesn't turn up anymore and move to another campaign where they can feel like winners again, and coat-tail riders stack onto the winning side causing an overall skew in the ratios. Case in point what happened in the AB campaign in the Oce/SEA timezone.0 -
crimsonBZD✭✭This isn't Zenimax's fault it is the fault of the players. People would rather own the map and have nobody to fight then have to fight people so they switch campaigns, there is nothign Zenimax can do to fix that.
If they put it in 2 campaigns then rather than switching home campaign people will jsut reroll to the side that is winning because gamers are lazy and want everything easy these days.
Like I said, if it's viable, I'd love to see us all on one map.
This game is kinda candied out, and in expected ways. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but you can't steal from other players, can't take other players loot, PvP kills grant you nothing extra based on the individual character you killed and they're not lootable.
So, that, in addition to being to guranteed switch to a campaign that your alliance is conquering, perhaps even just to get the emperorship bonus, makes the whole thing very facetious.
But if there were only two campaigns, it would not always be an option to switch campaigns to one where you're not getting owned. If AD owns one and DC owns the other, EP has to fight.
0