Should they remove some 90 day campaigns?

david271749

What do you think of the new two week campaign? Please add your own ideas for campaigns below.

cjmarsh725b14_ESO

Yes. They need to remove some.

They should really remove 4-6. It's amazing how empty PvP has become lately.

rawne1980b16_ESO

Yes. They need to remove some.

Said it since the first few days of early access.

10 campaigns is far too many.

They were never going to fill them all .... and they haven't. As far as EU goes, up until a few weeks ago only 3 of them were ever full at prime time and ONLY at prime time. During the day they are all pretty empty.

Now those 3 barely fill up at prime time and the rest of them hardly ever get above one bar.

Not to mention the faction imbalance in some of them have made the scoring a complete joke. Some of them are around 200k points in the lead.

Imagine how much fun those must be to play on.

david271749

Yes. They need to remove some.

If you vote no, please explain why.

@piotreb17_ESO4

Zubba

david271749 wrote: »

What do you think of the new two week campaign?

Is there a new two week Campaign?

cjmarsh725b14_ESO

Yes. They need to remove some.

Zubba wrote: »

david271749 wrote: »

What do you think of the new two week campaign?

Is there a new two week Campaign?

Came out with Craglorn, it's called Celarus.

PBpsy

Yes. They need to remove some.

Way to many and all of them too long.

Forztr

They should reduce the number when the current ones finish. They should also introduce the more special ones.
I'd like to see:-
1x 90day open to all
1x 30day VR5 plus
1x 14 day 10-50
1x14 day open to all

Hiply

Yes. They need to remove some.

Yes, let me the hell out of my ludicrously unbalanced campaign! 14,800 pvp currency and I can't get the last 200 I have to spend to get out of it...the campaign's that broken.

cjmarsh725b14_ESO

Yes. They need to remove some.

Hiply wrote: »

Yes, let me the hell out of my ludicrously unbalanced campaign! 14,800 pvp currency and I can't get the last 200 I have to spend to get out of it...the campaign's that broken.

You know that's one scouting mission right?

Hiply

Yes. They need to remove some.

cjmarsh725b14_ESO wrote: »

Hiply wrote: »

Yes, let me the hell out of my ludicrously unbalanced campaign! 14,800 pvp currency and I can't get the last 200 I have to spend to get out of it...the campaign's that broken.

You know that's one scouting mission right?

I do...how do you think I got the other 14,800? Magic?

Zubba

Add one with pvp loot drops. Drop 1-2 random equipped gear/weapon per death, and everything in your inventory.

rawne1980b16_ESO

Yes. They need to remove some.

Forztr wrote: »

They should reduce the number when the current ones finish. They should also introduce the more special ones.
I'd like to see:-
1x 90day open to all
1x 30day VR5 plus
1x 14 day 10-50
1x14 day open to all

I see a lot of people put ideas on the forums I find hilariously bad.

Your idea, I really like.

babylon

No. They need to add more.

Voted this because they always patch in the opposite of what the game needs.

Electus

Yes. They need to remove some.

I know this sounds stupid but I would love it if they made a pve instance for Cyrodiil.
When I try to quest in there I cant take the time to read the quests and enjoy the stories in fear of someone ganking me while I'm reading. Seems sad to me that all that acting and money spent on those quests is probably not even heard by the majority of people doing them.

I guess a solution to this would be if you are talking to an npc you turn invisible or something. That would be really cool!

cjmarsh725b14_ESO

Yes. They need to remove some.

Hiply wrote: »

cjmarsh725b14_ESO wrote: »

Hiply wrote: »

Yes, let me the hell out of my ludicrously unbalanced campaign! 14,800 pvp currency and I can't get the last 200 I have to spend to get out of it...the campaign's that broken.

You know that's one scouting mission right?

I do...how do you think I got the other 14,800? Magic?

So you got 14.8k doing scouting missions and now the board won't give you the last one?

Anvos

Yes. They need to remove some.

By my estimates from when I was pvping we need to lose at least 3-4 campaigns to bring population numbers up to decent levels in more than 2-3 campaigns.

LunaRae

Yes. They need to remove some.

I agree that several campaigns just need to be removed. Length of campaign needs reducing (I'm liking the special campaign - my guildies are transferring to that campaign soon) and server lag needs mega fixing before smaller number of campaigns are introduced. I HATE running into lag. If I die, I want it to be either me sucking or getting outplayed by a good player. I do NOT want to die because of input lag, that's just annoying.

wrlifeboil

The most innovative thing they can do with Cyrodiil right now is to turn some of the shards into NON-PVP Cyrodiils.

Or have one Cyrodiil shard stocked with an abundance of herb, ore, and wood resources so that when the botters or legit farmers showed up to farm those materials, pvpers could go in and target them for ap.

Yeah, yeah, never happen, balance issues, pride of authorship thing, etcetera etcetera.

c0rp

Yes. They need to remove some.

Yeah..we might as well have 3 or 4 lagging like WABBALAG instead of 9 empty ones

brandon

Yes. They need to remove some.

yes only a few campaigns get filled up if they remove some campaigns then the remaining ones would be a lot more even then they are

kieso

Yes. They need to remove some.

yeah its horribly empty, can prob bring it down to like 4 or 5

Gwarok

Yes. They need to remove some.

Forztr wrote: »

They should reduce the number when the current ones finish. They should also introduce the more special ones.
I'd like to see:-
1x 90day open to all
1x 30day VR5 plus
1x 14 day 10-50
1x14 day open to all

^^^THIS^^^ has potential.

Lynnessa

No. The current amount is fine.

I think there are a lot of players who are holding off on PvP until they are VR 12, or until they are level 50. We should hold off for a while.

driosketch

Yes. They need to remove some.

david271749 wrote: »

If you vote no, please explain why.

-snip-

One, don't do that. Running a "Cake... or Death?" public poll and then putting the spotlight on those that choose the "death" option is a total **** move. The poll is enough of a joke as it is, and the only thing worse is if you started taking it seriously.

Anyways, to the subject of the number of 90 day campaigns. They should have started with way fewer campaigns to begin with and added as they needed. It was a tough call to make in hind sight. Many thought 10 was too few, the weekend beta had more than that, but based on the number of full campaigns they should have gone with 4-5 max. (Probably thought most would rush to PvP at level 10, but as it turns out most of the players are PvE focused, according to another poll on the forums at least.)

I think the hard part is in choosing which campaigns to eliminate when players get attached to their home. But, they've already gone and taken that step even if it was an accident. They may as well push forward and cut the number to 3.

wrlifeboil

driosketch wrote: »

david271749 wrote: »

If you vote no, please explain why.

-snip-

One, don't do that. Running a "Cake... or Death?" public poll and then putting the spotlight on those that choose the "death" option is a total **** move. The poll is enough of a joke as it is, and the only thing worse is if you started taking it seriously.

Anyways, to the subject of the number of 90 day campaigns. They should have started with way fewer campaigns to begin with and added as they needed. It was a tough call to make in hind sight. Many thought 10 was too few, the weekend beta had more than that, but based on the number of full campaigns they should have gone with 4-5 max. (Probably thought most would rush to PvP at level 10, but as it turns out most of the players are PvE focused, according to another poll on the forums at least.)

I think the hard part is in choosing which campaigns to eliminate when players get attached to their home. But, they've already gone and taken that step even if it was an accident. They may as well push forward and cut the number to 3.

When you think it through, having 10 Cyrodiil shards to begin with wasn't unreasonable. If each shard holds a maximum of 3k players, 10 shards means 30k players. I bet they even had backup plans to add more shards in the event the original 10 had maxed out.

Loco_Mofo

Yes. They need to remove some.

Def need to remove some. The game doesn't have the population to justify the amount of campaigns there are currently.

3 month duration is way too long as well.

Illumous

Yes. They need to remove some.

Wabbajack is the only campaign I ever see with a population greater than "Low" on any alliance.

david271749

Yes. They need to remove some.

driosketch wrote: »

david271749 wrote: »

If you vote no, please explain why.

-snip-

One, don't do that. Running a "Cake... or Death?" public poll and then putting the spotlight on those that choose the "death" option is a total **** move. The poll is enough of a joke as it is, and the only thing worse is if you started taking it seriously.

It's a public poll. You vote knowing that everyone can see it. I wasn't trying to send a lynch mob after him. I put his forum name in the comment, because I wanted him to see it and voice his opinion. Maybe you're taking things a little too seriously, or are you just overly sensitive?

WebBull

Yes. They need to remove some.

Illumous wrote: »

Wabbajack is the only campaign I ever see with a population greater than "Low" on any alliance.

Everyone is too busy exploiting, I mean running, the Magical Anomalies in Craglorn.

driosketch

Yes. They need to remove some.

david271749 wrote: »

driosketch wrote: »

david271749 wrote: »

If you vote no, please explain why.

-snip-

One, don't do that. Running a "Cake... or Death?" public poll and then putting the spotlight on those that choose the "death" option is a total **** move. The poll is enough of a joke as it is, and the only thing worse is if you started taking it seriously.

It's a public poll. You vote knowing that everyone can see it. I wasn't trying to send a lynch mob after him. I put his forum name in the comment, because I wanted him to see it and voice his opinion. Maybe you're taking things a little too seriously, or are you just overly sensitive?

Sensitive? perhaps. I am concerned you were doing the lynch mob thing. To be fair, you at least kept it in this thread and used a @ tag. I've seen someone start a separate thread to list the names without the tag, also claiming it was fair game because it was a public poll. That thread got deleted, not just closed, deleted. So public or no, it's something that could get a mod edit down the road. Just a heads up, nothing more.

P.S. for all you know they hit the wrong option on their phone.