Upcoming Campaign Changes

Antonie

I do not know what players are used to but the way it is now and the way PvP will be are both attractive to me. I will go along with any changes or non changes you folks over there are developing for us players.

Fuxo

There are so many different opinions about campaign duration, so I will add some too :-)

I agree that 90 days was far too much for several reasons. Having more flexible campaigns will have several benefits, like exploits will only affect current campaigns and people will find pvp more meaningful with shorter term goals.

However, the duration should be set long enough so time spent in cyrodiil will not be the main factor. I would suggest setting it to 14-30 days. This is also in line with the average reaction time from ZOS regarding exploits.

But instead of having several campaign with various duration, it would be more interesting to have campaigns with different rules and different goals. I have some ideas, but it's too late now and I am sure that @ZOS_BrianWheeler‌ can elaborate on this general idea.

Lara1701

I like that you've got a thirty day campaign, but can we keep one ninety day campaign like it is now? I love the new ideas, but I'm rather fond of these really large, long campaigns we have and I'd like to see them be an option at least.

Also, will we be able to enter different campaigns on different characters?

TheBucket

SidKain wrote: »

lol, the people getting ganked in Cyro arent just getting ganked by v12's. I love non pvpers haha! you are just not willing to learn how to pvp in this environment. Try these changes, go on, and watch the non vet campaigns become empty, because "waaawaaa some lvl 40-50's in fully farmed gear ganked me!". I gank players with my daughter, she is lvl 15 rarely dies and kicks ass at pvp helping my v12, no complaints. I never saw myself as useless whilst defending keep walls with ballistas from lvl 20, healing allies, marking and dotting enemies, scouting and ganking, and stalking higher lvl players with openers/better pvp/better finishers.

30 days is the shortest if not too short for a campaign. 7 days will result in twink groups burning the first day for domination then no opposing alliances bothering even trying pvp, vet only groups will become over populated and turn into tail chasing event.

Add a nicer entry grouping tool, for people that are not used to pvp or just dont want to pug their own group! thats all they need. lvl is nothing in Cyro! a lvl 40 can have a more buffed fighter then a V12 depending on food/emporership/scroll buffs/enchants/skill.

Wont make that big of a difference if people are twinked for pre vet pvp. If they don't lock the xp bars.. Wouldn't really see this as an issue

TheGrandAlliance

http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/108412/

BTW please vote on this poll on whether you think this is a good idea or not (shutdown of ALL servers).

TheBull

Please keep a 90 day option, please. If the 90 day is set side by side with the 30 day, the majority of pvprs will take the 90 day.

The longer the better, just work on ways of providing periodic rewards.

Mujuro

@ZOS_BrianWheeler Shouldn't the numerous Cyrodiil bugs and exploits be addressed first?

Xupacabra

In my opinion, the only thing that matters is make sure campaigns are full at least at prime time.

Ojustaboo

ourico_patoneb18_ESO wrote: »

In my opinion, the only thing that matters is make sure campaigns are full at least at prime time.

There's very active and theres completely full.

The last thing I want to do is fancy a bit of PvP and find myself in a queue for 30 odd mins.

bitaken

I like the idea of the campaigns. I think it might still be too many.

However, one thing I will suggest concerning the non vet campaigns; They should absolutely grant double XP from the vet only campaigns - from EVERYTHING. Mobs should grant double XP, Killing players should grant double XP. Make them a place for PVP players to go and level. If they had been there when I was grinding to 50 - I would not have bothered with the silly quests, and just went and gotten all the skyshards later.

Some of us don't want the "lore and history" of these games. I know I know plenty of people do and that's fine let them have it. However, give us PvP players a viable way to level in PvP or at least in a PvP zone and make it possible for a guy like me to make an alt, get to VR doing fun things, and stretch the life of the game please.

VileIntent

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

• Bow of Shadows: Veteran Rank only Campaign (five-day campaign)
• Blackwater Blade: Non-Veteran only Campaign (five-day campaign)
• Haderus: seven-day standard Campaign that anyone can join.
• Chillrend: seven-day standard Campaign that anyone can join.
• Thornblade: 30-day standard Campaign that anyone can join.

My primary concern is the amount of players. I did not play on Auriels Bow or Wabbajack due to the amount of people there. My system is a little on the old side but for some reason I lagged like a mad demon every time a zerg came around.

Other than this concern I love the changes.

SilentThunder

My thoughts
5 days is much to short even 7 days is to short. Make it 14 days for the short campaigns. A couple of 30days and a couple of 60s.
Non vet only great idea,but don't think you need vet only. As long as the non vet players have there own space its all good.
For longer campaigns there needs to be some way to overtake the current Emperor. As it is now the only way for some one new to get Emperor, is to hope the current Emperor ether quits or stops playing.
If you want to change campaigns make it so you cannot switch to a campaign that your alliance is winning.

frwinters_ESO

TheGrandAlliance wrote: »

http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/108412/sos-save-our-servers

Plez vote in this thread... the poll on whether all severs should be shut down or not.

Consensus is nuke them all!, Poof!

frwinters_ESO

I'm seeing lots of complaints about your servers communities. Honestly...big deal over nothing. If you have a strong community simply move to a server as a community. Its that simple. If you got alliances with others start talking together on your next step and move your guilds over.

We all know deep down this has to happen. Even if they keep say Wabbajack, they have to shut down a few servers. Then the people on those servers will complain they have to move and that's not really fair.

The only fair way to do this is to shut them all down, we all choose a campaign again and just go. It may not be completely fair to all, but it is the fairest way to consolidate servers.

SwampRaider

frwinters_ESO wrote: »

I'm seeing lots of complaints about your servers communities. Honestly...big deal over nothing. If you have a strong community simply move to a server as a community. Its that simple.

This

IcyDeadPeople

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

To go along with these new Campaigns, we’d like to adjust guest passes to have a 72-hour lockout, and to make changing your home Campaign cost 100,000 AP (also with a 72-hour lockout).

One reason people change campaigns is because they find the campaign they have been playing on does not have enough players.

It can be challenging to earn 100k AP on your home campaign if there are not enough enemy players online frequently to fight, but you can of course guest on a more populated campaign to earn the AP.

I'm very concerned players who have not participated in PVP previously might be discouraged. I hope more PVE players join; however, you might need to find a way to make it easy for those entering Cyrodiil the first time to understand how to go about earning 100k AP, in the event they happened to set their home to a low pop campaign.

Kalanar Highwatch

I see a lot of creative suggestions about population caps based on lowest represented alliance, not switching to campaigns your side is already winning, auto filling campaigns as people log in, etc. I understand the frustration that these ideas come from, but I think most of them would be a bad idea on the whole.

People want to play where they want to play and the want to be able to play with their friends. If you tell them they can't switch to the campaign where their best friend is logged in and playing because their side is winning or you eliminate the ability to guest completely, people are going to hate that as much, or more, than they hate the current situation. Whatever solution is arrived at for population imbalance between campaigns and factions needs to preserve the ability to choose your campaign, some ability to switch campaigns (needs to be infrequently) and play with your friends who aren't in your campaign (guest option).

My proposal to achieve these goals would be to give everyone the opportunity to select their campaign (business as usual), put a one week cooldown on switching your home campaign and have it cost 100,000AP or 10,000 - 20,000 gold. I think the gold option is important in case we ever again run into scenarios like we have now where balance in a campaign is so bad people can't even get out their gate, much less earn considerable AP.

For Guest campaign switching I would leave it at the current short cooldown, but while in your guest campaign you would earn something like 50% the normal AP, XP and Veteran Points. I'd also make players inelligible for reward mails from the general while guesting. This proposal would ensure people can still guest to play with friends and check out other campaigns before making it their new home. At the same time it hopefully provides a strong disincentive to making guesting your normal way of playing.

SkyHigh

100K AP for changing home campaign is not an improvement..
neither is lowering everybody's hp, mp and stamina to the same amount (for all campaigns, dont do it!)

Gisgo

Im happy you are looking into this, Zos, but one week campaings are a big "WTF?" for me.

Learn from your mistakes, Celarus is an AP farm, what makes you think a 5-7 days campaign could be any better?

c0rp

No matter what you do, I hope you have the capability to ADD a campaign as a hotfix if the 30 day standard has an hour long queue.

bruceb14_ESO5

Having enough Campaigns for lower population choices is important as well as shorter queues. Migrate PVE players gradually into PVP. Have open space for Dueling. Be able to have some success at PVE quests in Cyrodiil (danger and ganking, yes, but more limited on a quiet campaign).

PF1901

5/7 days are too short.

I also see a possible danger of excluding non veterans completely from pvp. That will be the case as soon as there won't be enough non veterans available to fill a campaign. And if that's not already the case now (don't see a list lot of them in cyrodiil) it will be sooner or later. You could counter that if there weren't any exclusive veteran campaigns (why would you have these in the first place).

As I understand it you intend to counter this with having the very short campaigns and a much longer lasting campaign hoping there will still be enough people rather doing long campaigns?

rich_nicholsonb16_ESO

A few ideas that has popped into my head while thinking if these changes are good or not....

1. Hide the score until the last 24 hours, stop all transfers to that server when that score is reveiled, all players who contributed in the winning side get an extra reward of somekind.

2. Player kills contribute to the score. If you kill a player and that player releases then you gain a point for your alliance ( if they get revived no score will be counted ). If a player dies and releases that alliance loses a point. This might be a good solution for solo/small groups to help their alliance in the war effort. Death will mean something and resurrecting fellow players will mean a great deal to the team. Forgot to add npc deaths don't count.

just some ideas, I know some ppl will like them and others hate them, I'm just trying to come up with nice ideas for solo and small groups to feel they are helping more to the war. Not everyone likes to Zerg!

Kilmister

So you asked us for our opinions, and there is a lot of feedback here from the community and it would be useful to see an update from Zos on how they feel about peoples opinions and if consideration is to be made to address peoples concerns.

How about a bit of communication since we bothered?

TheGrandAlliance

frwinters_ESO wrote: »

TheGrandAlliance wrote: »

http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/108412/sos-save-our-servers

Plez vote in this thread... the poll on whether all severs should be shut down or not.

Consensus is nuke them all!, Poof!

The point of the poll isn't to win. NA voters will nuke everything of course.


The goal of teh poll is to demonstrate that there are PEOPLE who CARE on EU side who may LEAVE game if the SERVERS are NUKED.

Stonesthrow

My complete lack of experience in Cyrodil outside of the Beta aside…

I like the sound of adding new or splitting up some of the campaigns into shorter VR and non VR while leaving your original dream of everyone killing everyone for 90 days in place on others.

Suggest having a VR12 only for truly hardcore PVPers to shoot for and then stay in, duration unknown.

Just from a noobs perspective… I wandered into Cyrodill at level 15ish, did my tutorial, ran to the closest skirmish (bridge) and had my ass handed to me roughly 5 times in 10 mins by VR snipers (when I could see who was killing me that is). Granted we are all leveled to 50, but I'm not even sure I had a skill on my bar that was even morphed yet… lol

So give people a care bear PvP campaign or two and let them try it out as opposed to getting frustrated and never going back. Smart. And just think PvP gods… that means more fodder for you AFTER they figure out which end of the sword to hold.

frwinters_ESO

TheGrandAlliance wrote: »

frwinters_ESO wrote: »

TheGrandAlliance wrote: »

http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/108412/sos-save-our-servers

Plez vote in this thread... the poll on whether all severs should be shut down or not.

Consensus is nuke them all!, Poof!

The point of the poll isn't to win. NA voters will nuke everything of course.


The goal of teh poll is to demonstrate that there are PEOPLE who CARE on EU side who may LEAVE game if the SERVERS are NUKED.

ZeniMax intends to shutdown ALL PVP SERVERS (including ones that work such as a few in Eurozone). Whether or not you would like to see new ruleset based servers: DO YOU WANT ALL SERVERS TO BE SHUT DOWN IRREGARDLESS?

Thats how your poll questions starts and well it reads more about all PvP servers regardless if its NA or EU, other then your small squib in the parentheses and yoru question specifically states should they be shut down, the question wasn't how many people will leave if they are shut down. If you wanted an EU poll, perhaps if you put it on a EU related forum and not the english forum that probably predominated with NA players you may have got the results you were looking for.

TheGrandAlliance

frwinters_ESO wrote: »

Thats how your poll questions starts and well it reads more about all PvP servers regardless if its NA or EU, other then your small squib in the parentheses and yoru question specifically states should they be shut down, the question wasn't how many people will leave if they are shut down. If you wanted an EU poll, perhaps if you put it on a EU related forum and not the english forum that probably predominated with NA players you may have got the results you were looking for.

No... I WANT BOTH USA/EU TO PARTICIPATE!


WHY? Cause there is at least 1 US servers people like. Do they want that shut down? I think not.

You could have just voted "SOS" you know even if you wanted all NA to be shutdown. SO evil Americans are INDEED....


MAKE SURE TO VOTE TO SAVE OUR SERVERS!!!

frwinters_ESO

TheGrandAlliance wrote: »

frwinters_ESO wrote: »

Thats how your poll questions starts and well it reads more about all PvP servers regardless if its NA or EU, other then your small squib in the parentheses and yoru question specifically states should they be shut down, the question wasn't how many people will leave if they are shut down. If you wanted an EU poll, perhaps if you put it on a EU related forum and not the english forum that probably predominated with NA players you may have got the results you were looking for.

No... I WANT BOTH USA/EU TO PARTICIPATE!


WHY? Cause there is at least 1 US servers people like. Do they want that shut down? I think not.

You could have just voted "SOS" you know even if you wanted all NA to be shutdown. SO evil Americans are INDEED....


MAKE SURE TO VOTE TO SAVE OUR SERVERS!!!

Um...like i said look at your results....most are in favor of nuking them. sorry bro they are GONE!!!!! POOF!!!! GOODBYE!!!!

TheGrandAlliance

frwinters_ESO wrote: »

Um...like i said look at your results....most are in favor of nuking them. sorry bro they are GONE!!!!! POOF!!!! GOODBYE!!!!

I know that. I know that NA are gonna favor heavy in nuking. I also know a lot of casuals are gonna do so too. Short-sidedness is so.


However for every vote in teh affirmiative... is another account that will likely /bail ESO if it happens. The EU (and Honorable Americans) need to stand up to this DOOMULATION of Zenimax. We don't have to "win a poll" in order to "win the war" that is to say...