dennissomb16_ESO wrote: »Think about how frustrated you would get if you could not log into your home campaign not because it was full but because one of the other alliances simply were not logged in. Population balance is always the great weakness to a Cyrodiil style of PvP but I will take unbalanced population over not being able to play any day of the week.
dennissomb16_ESO wrote: »Think about how frustrated you would get if you could not log into your home campaign not because it was full but because one of the other alliances simply were not logged in. Population balance is always the great weakness to a Cyrodiil style of PvP but I will take unbalanced population over not being able to play any day of the week.
dennissomb16_ESO wrote: »Think about how frustrated you would get if you could not log into your home campaign not because it was full but because one of the other alliances simply were not logged in. Population balance is always the great weakness to a Cyrodiil style of PvP but I will take unbalanced population over not being able to play any day of the week.
Initially it could be frustrating. Long term it could lead some people to switching to other alliances balancing out population over time. The choice would be to spread out among factions as campaigns reset, or pile on one and endure the queue.
- Update 23Ice Furnace: This item set now grants Spell Damage, rather than Weapon Damage for the 4 piece bonus
caeliusstarbreaker wrote: »Can’t prohibit people from pvp’ing just cause another alliance doesn’t have enough people.
It’s almost as if we had the ability to play on any faction on any campaign.... oh wait, forgot about “loyalty.”
Minnesinger wrote: »caeliusstarbreaker wrote: »Can’t prohibit people from pvp’ing just cause another alliance doesn’t have enough people.
It’s almost as if we had the ability to play on any faction on any campaign.... oh wait, forgot about “loyalty.”
The definition of pvp can be stretched quite far from its original meaning. Rather can´t prohibit people from taking the advantage of an empty pvp map.
caeliusstarbreaker wrote: »Minnesinger wrote: »caeliusstarbreaker wrote: »Can’t prohibit people from pvp’ing just cause another alliance doesn’t have enough people.
It’s almost as if we had the ability to play on any faction on any campaign.... oh wait, forgot about “loyalty.”
The definition of pvp can be stretched quite far from its original meaning. Rather can´t prohibit people from taking the advantage of an empty pvp map.
Let me put it another way, no you shouldn’t be kept out of cyrodiil because your faction currently has more people on it than the others. Why? Your tears for the map don’t override my ability to play.
To be clear, I play DC PC/NA.
Minnesinger wrote: »caeliusstarbreaker wrote: »Minnesinger wrote: »caeliusstarbreaker wrote: »Can’t prohibit people from pvp’ing just cause another alliance doesn’t have enough people.
It’s almost as if we had the ability to play on any faction on any campaign.... oh wait, forgot about “loyalty.”
The definition of pvp can be stretched quite far from its original meaning. Rather can´t prohibit people from taking the advantage of an empty pvp map.
Let me put it another way, no you shouldn’t be kept out of cyrodiil because your faction currently has more people on it than the others. Why? Your tears for the map don’t override my ability to play.
To be clear, I play DC PC/NA.
Ok if you misssed the point I repeat it. There are players who like to paint the map one color. Never said you should/ could be kept from doing that. Read the first post in this thread. Keep that in mind that these DC more than not were not having many opponents. Thus coming to the conclusion this is hardly pvp like it should be understood.