Upcoming Campaign Changes

Fshober28b14_ESO

LOVE all those new changes for Cyrodiil, those are similar to some of the same suggestions we discuss internally in our guild about how we would like to see campaigns. Requiem of Hell (RoH) Guild 100% supports this new format ZoS!

Samadhi

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.

I remember when there was a poll showing that the majority of the players responding did not want an AoE cap.

TheGrandAlliance

Samadhi wrote: »

I remember when there was a poll showing that the majority of the players responding did not want an AoE cap.

Yes, but the difference is that AoE caps were already in place at the time. The poll was feedback on whether they shoudl stay.


Whereas this is a situation that the servers already exist.... and now they want to shut them down. This is a "change of strategy" for the developers whereas AoE caps was a consistant continuation of prexisting logic.

Samadhi

TheGrandAlliance wrote: »

Samadhi wrote: »

I remember when there was a poll showing that the majority of the players responding did not want an AoE cap.

Yes, but the difference is that AoE caps were already in place at the time. The poll was feedback on whether they shoudl stay.


Whereas this is a situation that the servers already exist.... and now they want to shut them down. This is a "change of strategy" for the developers whereas AoE caps was a consistant continuation of prexisting logic.

So all we really need is for a ZOS employee to post that they had secretly always been intending to shut down the servers and open new ones, then your complaints will be placated?

okunhardt

I do not like the new cost to switch home campaigns. If it is to be increased at all it should be between 25,000AP and 50,000AP.

Garm

All of these changes look great, ESPECIALLY the increased cost to change home campaigns. With many campaigns lasting only 5 or 7 days, people should have to pay through the nose to be able to server hop with their 300 guild mates just to zerg through a different map each night of the week. This would encourage more people to pick a campaign, care about it, and stay there to fight in it.

Overall, I love the idea. If it turns out that one campaign is MUCH more popular than the others, you can easily spin up another campaign of the same type on that megaserver. Basically, plant grass everywhere and pave wherever people actually walk.

StihlReign

I don't like any of these options for PvP except the high cost to change home campaigns.

Cyrodiil is dangerous and has a feel unlike any other part of the game (except perhaps the brief thrill experienced in boss fights). Cyrodiil is meant to be this way — This is WAR!

All player levels should exist on the servers. VR12 to level 10. I think the shortest campaign should should be 2 weeks.

Emp buffs and passives should be eliminated for those who abdicate the throne or lose Emperorship. The passives should come at no cost. This should stop the Emp farming.

I think 3 two week campaigns and 2 thirty day campaigns would be nice.

Fix postern doors, repair bug, camp bugs, and and mercenary god mages and the population will return.

We were told beta was a stress test for populations. I can't support any notion to limit the population size, in fact — Populations should be higher! We need more population in Cyrodiil.

Komma

If people leave over them trying to better the game as a whole then said people prolly weren't gonna hang around for the long haul anyway.

SBR_QuorTek

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Hi, everyone! Like Matt mentioned in his Road Ahead post, we’re looking closely at PvP in Cyrodiil right now. We’re actively working on reducing performance issues by optimizing Cyrodiil, and we’re also undergoing efforts to improve the feel of combat, but that’s not all we’re thinking about. As the Campaigns progress, we’ve been gathering lots of data and reading your comments here, on social media, and on other sites. We have some ideas for changes we’d like to make, but we want to get your direct feedback. Here’s a look at what we’re thinking about.

First and foremost, we want to assure you that any Campaigns we close before their natural shutdown time will properly reward players based on their tier reward, alliance placement, and leaderboard status.

We want to make significant changes to the types and durations of Campaigns. To do this, we’d shut down the currently-existing Campaigns and introduce five new ones per megaserver. Here are the Campaign types and durations we’re thinking about adding:

• 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.

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).

Let us know what you think of these changes!

Make it so you can only archieve emperor in the 30 day campaign if so, it should not be a pushover short term service which could end in the next crying about in PvP on this forum.

Or allowing having two main campaigns you can switch between a 5/7 day one and a 30 day one with no lockouts

Halrloprillalar

I like all the changes except:
Emperor bonuses need to be re-evaluated along with these changes.
People will easily farm out emperor in the short campaigns, making some organized guild raids in the longer campaigns (if the emperor skill line carriers over like it does now) absolutely steamroll everything even harder than they do already.

I'd also suggest the cost of switching to scale with the length of the campaign (100k for the 30 day seems fine). Costing that much to switch around early on and for short term campaigns seems a little harsh.

sevcik.miroslaveb17_ESO

Could you consider allowing us to disable XP gain?

If I understand it correctly non vet campaign will be the most balanced one because it won't matter what we wear we will have our stats scaled to same level no matter the gear. Which I would LOVE as disabled XP in this case would not lead to OP twinks. It would allow us to have one character for quick balanced PvP.

I would also suggest to open at least 3 non vet campaigns. I am absolutely sure that much more players will go and try PvP when this is introduced.

I somehow missed this new and I must say that made my day way better! Thank you :-)

- I saw less bots and gold spam which makes me happy
- PVP getting fixed

I have very good feeling about this game now.

Few more things to fix and it will be almost perfect:-)

Keep it up!

ESO should receive new review after summer. It may deffinetely end up way better.

Schallen

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Hi, everyone! Like Matt mentioned in his Road Ahead post, we’re looking closely at PvP in Cyrodiil right now. We’re actively working on reducing performance issues by optimizing Cyrodiil, and we’re also undergoing efforts to improve the feel of combat, but that’s not all we’re thinking about. As the Campaigns progress, we’ve been gathering lots of data and reading your comments here, on social media, and on other sites. We have some ideas for changes we’d like to make, but we want to get your direct feedback. Here’s a look at what we’re thinking about.

First and foremost, we want to assure you that any Campaigns we close before their natural shutdown time will properly reward players based on their tier reward, alliance placement, and leaderboard status.

We want to make significant changes to the types and durations of Campaigns. To do this, we’d shut down the currently-existing Campaigns and introduce five new ones per megaserver. Here are the Campaign types and durations we’re thinking about adding:

• 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.

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).

Let us know what you think of these changes!

I like this. I like for you to add a non vet PVP campaign. I can take my alt in there and not gt crushed now

Kira_Night

CHANGES THAT WE ANTICIPATING FOR

Hi dear ZOS staff!

My name is Mikhail from ZaDrots guild on EU MegaServer. I can see a lot of cons in these new suggestions in PVP game content. And I want to write my and mine guildmembers feedback.

1. If you gather most of all current players in one 30 days Campaign - this should cause an INCREDIBLE lags and freezes, and game crushes... I play with my guild ZaDrots PVP (RVR) based game on EU MegaServer and we always face the problem that you can't do anything in a big croud of gamers (100+) But this is why me and my guild play this game - mass PVP battles. If you will meet 200+ players all the time, game will be totally lagged... and we will hate it because we will die not because we loose, but because we can't just control our characters in game (because of lags and freezes). And I'm sure that most of people will be attending 30 days Campaign. For example: most of our members play 3-4 times per week on PVP battlefield. So that it is not proper for us to choose 5 days campaign, because it is too fast for us. We want all of our guild members to be on the top of scoreboard. 5 days is not serious, it's only about 2 full raid days, 8-10 hours. You need to think about how players could play all together in 1 server without lags???

2. We (players) NEED a personalized content!!!! We love to have fun, of course... But when you killed like 500+ foes, you start thinking: "What for?" How can we write down our names in the ESO history? You gave us a possibility to become an Emperor, but you gave us a DICTATORSHIP! There is only 1 Emperor during all Campaign in Downbreaker, for example. His name is "Click", all players know that. And he never changes. Why can't we elect the Emperor all together?? Or maybe at least we could have a possibility to change the Emperor somehow. But we haven't. It is 1 person and he never changes.

3. More about personalized content. You promissed us Guild Keeps and guild clothes. Where? ) What should we fight for? It would be much better to fight for your guild's keep and to collect some treasures there (inside your keep) or to get some benefits for having a keep (a home for our Guild - ZaDrots, for example). Now everyone (every player) is like nomads - running along the map without any purpose... You can't get anything from conquering a keep, so that its better sometimes just to run inside the keep, kill everyone there and just run away, even without capturing it.

4. Campaign change is bugged. If you don't fix this - it'll be a real pain for some players to struggle with this bug everytime for 100'000 alliance points. For example - I had a guest campaign Downbreaker, but then I made it my HOME campaign. But it still remained as my HOME and my GUEST campaign for the same time. I realized that when I wanted to make a new guest Campaign the Bloodthorn. I simply could not do that, because my "campaign change" timer ban was always activated. So that I had to change my home campaign to other Server, then (after 24 hours! for what?) change my guest campaign to which I wanted (Bloodthorn). And then change my HOME campaign back to DownBreaker. With new rules that will cost me like 300'000 besides of 100'000. Fix that please.

5. The last, I want to make the conclusion of all said before. When you have reached maximum level and you have done all the game content, did Trials with your guild withing 2-3 days, you loose the aim. I mean, what is the next goal? I love to play PVP, me and most of my guild members play TES online only because of mass PVP. We like to feel ourselves like ancient knights who fight for glory... But we can't get any glory for our brave fights! We can't crown our Emperor, we can't have our own keep, we can't even have our guild style costumes. Sometimes it seems to us that we are just a gray mass of people.

I'm writing all these because, in fact, I love TES online and I want it to be better and more enjoyable, more personalized... I don't want the game was lagged and bugged. I want just play as good as I can and let the strongest win! (but it's not possible with lags) I don't like when my guild members leave the guild and stop playing TES because of lags and because they don't feel satisfied with the game content (first of all personalized content). Some of them left TES and now play Wild Star, because in Wild Star you can have your own house, a customised clothes and etc... I want to play TES further with my guild ZaDrots and my friends want the same. We would like our guild to grow up with new members and new good players. We even ready to pay some additional real money to have such opportunities. But we should see that it will work first (because some TES promises were not realized in fact). We are ready to help you with improving the game together with ZOS staff. If you need feedback or if you need to test something in PVP or Group content, we will be happy to help you.

Hope my feedback will help and hope to see further positive changes in the game and new personalized content.
And let's make this game the best of MMO!!! ))

Mikhail
(brave nomad Conan-the-Barbarian from ZaDrots guild)

Kolache

• Blackwater Blade: Non-Veteran only Campaign (five-day campaign)

Please, please allow VR players to join this campaign with down-leveled/capped stats. If you do this and simply disable their experience gains, (and or other cyrodiil rewards if you want), it will make it much better for playing with lower level friends/new players without having to make a 6th alt.

dolanjamieb16_ESO

One more for the we dont need a vet only campaign the "Main" campaign should be a FFA with the option of joining the none vet campaign if you are having a hard time

Tanthul

Suggested campaign format:

a) Non-Vet campaign (Duration 14 days)
b) Vet-Only campaign (Duration 30 days)
c) 3x All around campaigns (Duration 60 days).
d)1x All round campaign (Duration 30 days).

Rationalization:
a) Some non-Vet players do not like fighting Vet players. This catters to their needs. Since there is no way to turn off XP, Twinking (the act of creating a purposeful min/max'd build that is supposed to stay in that level range and not level up), is not possible, so duration does not need to be higher. People will outlevel out of this campaign fast enough. Low duration is required so people have a chance of getting a reward out of it before outleveling it.

b) Vet-Only campaign. This campaign sole reason for existence is to cater the Elitist crowd. Lower level players are perfectly viable in a campaign: Using siege equipment needs no level or gear and neither does tactical assignments such as scouting etc. Also certain roles are still very viable at low levels, eg healing, and more roles would be with a better adjustment of the boost. Still there are players that do not like playing with lowbies no matter what and it is understandable that you would want to cater to them.
30 days duration. No campaign other than the Non-Vet one should be anything less than 30 days (more on this later on).

c) The normal campaigns for everyone. Guilds have lower level players or alts that like to play with their guilds. The majority of the players will play on these campaigns. 60 days duration. So there is actual sense of achievement and war effort, strategy, tactics and persistence actually mean something.

d) One 30day normal campaign for more casual players.

Now regarding durations:
a) The only pro-argument for low durations campaigns is only one. Emperor farming. Actually there's the matter of the rewards as well but I'll get to that later on. Emperor farming should not happen. Period. It is an achievement that takes dedication and persistence and it should stay as that. A, B and D campaign types still make it easy for those who want to pursue that in a more casual but not too easy as in everyone jumping onto those and trying to casually get it.

b) The cons about low duration campaigns are simple enough. They become more like a glorified extended warzone than a true huge RvR campaign that Cyrodiil is supposed to be. Campaign PVPers should be expected to fight, persist, plan, strategize and use tactics against their enemies. They should lose some battles and win others. They should not win or jump to another map (or the opposite of this, win and have noone to fight so guest somewhere else). More about this below.

Now lets get to the REAL issues about the current system:

A) Guesting!
The majority of problems stem from this and and the low cost of jumping Home campaigns. To further elaborate:

Issue 1: Campaign populations
Apart from the campaigns which are locked 24/7, the other campaigns suffer from the guesting/low cost home jumping problem. The currently active scenario is this:
One side wins a map. Other sides lose population because people either guest somewhere else or entirely change their home to another campaign. This causes fights to start disappearing and at the end the winning side starts getting bored so, in turn, they start guesting around too or switch Home campaign.
This endless cycle perpetuates itself ad infinitum.

Issue 2: Gaming RvR mechanics via guesting
This is the practice of guilds guesting to other campaigns in order to zerg it and flip keeps, emperors, scrolls, whatever. This is further enabled by the fact that people don't even need to setup a guest campaign. They just need a target in their friend list or guild roster to "Travel to Player".

What can be done about both these issues:
1) Eliminate guesting all together and apply huge timer to Home jumping and steep cost. Why this will solve the problems:

a) Issue 1, will entirely go away. People will play on their campaigns much like that would play on a pvp server in other games without option to jump around. This eliminates the issue altogether. Losing side can't guest around or jump ship that easily. They will have to actually fight back, recruit, strategize. The vicious cycle is broken. If a guild or player is really wants to go to a different campaign they would have to wait a big cooldown (something in the lines of a week) and pay a steep AP cost. It won't be something you can do every other day, thus messing up campaign populations every week.

b) This also eliminates issue 2.

2) Second option is to even further increase the Home jumping cooldown (to something like a month) and AP cost AND also increase the Guesting cooldown and cost a LOT (2 week cooldown, big AP cost --eg 100K AP). While also disabling the "Travel to Player" feature for Cyrodiil unless both you and your target are set in the same Home or Guest campaigns.
This won't entirely eliminate the two issues but it will make them so much better by eliminating the travel whenever and also make jumping something you have to wait and work for in order to do.

Personally I am in favor of solution 1. Eliminate guesting altogether.

B ) Rewards!

Apart for Emperor farming which is not to be endorsed the only other valid reason people have for wanting lower duration campaigns is one: They want rewards and they don't want to wait 90 days for them. Players always need their carrot, so to speak.

There are several ways to go about that. Any combination of these would work:
1) Increase frequency and/or quality of loot from the PvP reward bags.
2) Add random chances of the bags also including tempers.
3) Make the Cyrodiil sets customizable by crafters with components that drop in the bags (eg changing armor type, traits and style).
4) Add trickling rewards every week in the campaign based on leaderboard ranking and alliance winning/losing/score.

Ideally all 4 are the way to go. But any combination would be a move in the right direction.


PS. Give Scource players their rewards! Take responsibility for your mistakes and make things right.

Audigy

I am not 100 % about those changes, let me explain why.

• Bow of Shadows: Veteran Rank only Campaign (five-day campaign)
• Blackwater Blade: Non-Veteran only Campaign (five-day campaign)

What prevents players from just farming those easy campaigns with a guild? We saw this happening at WoW and GW2, short BG´s allowed exploiting for those with groups. Its all about how much time to you spend and not how good you are.

If you consider that the rewards of the five day campaigns are the same like of the 30 day, then those in the 5 day will get 6x more than those at the 30 day.

That's a huge balance issue and will lead to extinction at the 30 day campaign.

• Thornblade: 30-day standard Campaign that anyone can join.

30 days sounds about fine and a 5 or 10 day for non VR´s sounds decent as well. But VR players should never be able to get top results in a 5 day campaign in my opinion.

Either remove their access from the 5 and 7 day or make the top rewards only available at the 30 day one.

DCGoth_OTG

okunhardt wrote: »

I do not like the new cost to switch home campaigns. If it is to be increased at all it should be between 25,000AP and 50,000AP.

The 'new' costs have actually always been the intended cost. During beta the idea was always for 100,000AP to switch. ZOS decided to drop the cost for launch. In their announcement of this reduction in cost, just prior to release, they always held firm that it was temporary.

Wolfaen

@‌ZOS_BrianWheeler

After rethinking on this, I would propose this.

I. Non Vet Campaign - 14 days
II. 2 Normal Campaigns - 30 days
III. 2 Normal Campaigns - 60 days

I do not think there needs to be a Vet Only campaign. 90 days seems to be to long in my opinion. A 30 or 60 day sounds more appealing and would still give ample amount of time for a competitive war. PLEASE do not make them 5 or 7 days! GW2 uses the week long system and it seems short-lived and less meaningful. When you think of Cyrodiil as a war, it doesn't make sense that it would only last 5 to 7 days. 5 to 7 days is more like a skirmish than a full fledged war for dominance and the ruby throne!

5 Campaigns total is a good number to achieve a presence on all the campaigns. If you think there needs to be more then add 1 more normal campaign. I would not advise more than 6.

I could see a major rebound in Cyrodiil if the changes to campaigns are implemented correctly! Thanks for listening to your player base!

murmur

sevcik.miroslaveb17_ESO wrote: »

Could you consider allowing us to disable XP gain?

If I understand it correctly non vet campaign will be the most balanced one because it won't matter what we wear we will have our stats scaled to same level no matter the gear. Which I would LOVE as disabled XP in this case would not lead to OP twinks. It would allow us to have one character for quick balanced PvP..

There is still huge difference in skill levels between lvl 10 and lvl 49. If there would be option to disable XP gain non vet campaings would become AP farming zones for lvl 49's.

Actually, I think that there will be a lot of topic in forum after this change about how 49's are "one shoting" new players in non vet campaings...

ESOSecret

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).

I really don't care about the home campaign changes. Once I set it, I'm going to stay there, good or bad. However making the guest lockout 72 hours is not cool to me. Many times I log in and in my home campaign there is nothing going on so I go to the guest campaign and if that one is dead, I change the guest to another campaign to find something happening. Personally any lockout on the guest campaigns is pretty pointless in my opinion since you aren't going to get anything extra out of it anyway.

Sasky

You do get benefit - alliance points. Any AP you gain doesn't count towards your spot on the leaderboard or the reward tier, but you still gain it. It still counts towards your Assault and Support rank and you can still spend it. In fact, some people who set their home campaign to one that is heavily dominated by their faction then guest in the populated campaign (NA Wabbajack) will actually receive -higher- AP gain than people who set that as their home due to keep and scroll passives.

A guest lockout timer won't fix this, since they just need to set the guest campaign to the most populated server once and not change it.

frwinters_ESO

TheGrandAlliance wrote: »

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...

I think you drink to much caffeine. Your not William Wallace and this isn't Braveheart.

frwinters_ESO

okunhardt wrote: »

I do not like the new cost to switch home campaigns. If it is to be increased at all it should be between 25,000AP and 50,000AP.

I think it should be like 25k to start then it shoots up to 100k and slowly drops back down over like a week until its back down to 25k

frwinters_ESO

ESOSecret wrote: »

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).

I really don't care about the home campaign changes. Once I set it, I'm going to stay there, good or bad. However making the guest lockout 72 hours is not cool to me. Many times I log in and in my home campaign there is nothing going on so I go to the guest campaign and if that one is dead, I change the guest to another campaign to find something happening. Personally any lockout on the guest campaigns is pretty pointless in my opinion since you aren't going to get anything extra out of it anyway.

You have to think though that with the consolidation of campaigns, you may not need to guest anymore for in theory you should have more people in your home campaign. Only reason you may need to guest is if you have friends elsewhere.

russb7b14_ESO

5 days is way too short. Who wins will be the side that is the most sleep deprived at the end.

Tanthul

What a lot of you don't understand is that it is the guesting system in the first place that creates empty campaigns. Get rid of it entirely, increase the cost and cooldown of setting home and players will fight at their campaigns instead of anywhere else it may be convenient at the moment. This will guarantee campaigns that are always active (assuming you have total of 5-6 and not a lot more campaigns than you have players).
The guesting system allows people the "easy" way out when they are losing. Instead of fighting back, they jump ship. Hence there's nothing to do on your x-y-z campaign and the ones who stick around, are always outnumbered until they get fed up and start guesting too.
If people did not jump around, all campaigns would be active, there would be no legit reason for guesting anywhere. If you have friends on another campaign, you could set your home there after waiting the cooldown and pay the price. Stay there and play with them. Jumping home should be an option for such cases and not a "we're losing here, we're not going to try and fight back but we're going to jump somewhere else where we're winning--until the losing sides there decide to do the same and hence repeat the cycle again and again and again...". This is what is happening now.
It is also due to the guesting system that once you're fighting happily on your campaign, an ecosystem that you know and play for eg the past month, suddenly 100 players you've never seen before show up and flip everything on the map, zerging everything on their path, only to vanish immediately afterwards. That should not happen.
Get rid of it entirely and campaigns will be what they should be. Your home that you're fighting for and not a zone where you can farm AP until you get some resistance and jump to the next.

milamber

whilst I do not like quoting other mmo's I would like to see an in game voice mechanism added to this game, (along the lines of LOTRO). I believe this would be of great benefit to PvP. Not all players belong to guilds that are active in PvP and have either TS or mumble. this would open up the possibility of raid leaders opening raids to people from different guilds, better organisation and the use of tactice

mqlaurenceb14_ESO

5 days is too short, period, minimum should be at least a week.

"introduce 5 new ones" does that mean you're eliminating the old ones? Please do.

I'm for reducing the number of campaigns on the assumption that it will help concentrate player population but please DO NOT further segregate the player base by having Vet and non-Vet campaigns

Outside of OP suggestions:
1. Eliminate Ex-Emperor abilities
2. Scale all players and NPC's to V12. What's the point of scaling if you don't do it to current max level. #yourdoingitwrong

Brizz

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Hi, everyone! Like Matt mentioned in his Road Ahead post, we’re looking closely at PvP in Cyrodiil right now. We’re actively working on reducing performance issues by optimizing Cyrodiil, and we’re also undergoing efforts to improve the feel of combat, but that’s not all we’re thinking about. As the Campaigns progress, we’ve been gathering lots of data and reading your comments here, on social media, and on other sites. We have some ideas for changes we’d like to make, but we want to get your direct feedback. Here’s a look at what we’re thinking about.

First and foremost, we want to assure you that any Campaigns we close before their natural shutdown time will properly reward players based on their tier reward, alliance placement, and leaderboard status.

We want to make significant changes to the types and durations of Campaigns. To do this, we’d shut down the currently-existing Campaigns and introduce five new ones per megaserver. Here are the Campaign types and durations we’re thinking about adding:

• 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.

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).

Let us know what you think of these changes!

Sounds Great!

The only thing I would suggest is drastically more experience gain and more pvp quests. If this happens I will consider playing an alt and leveling through the non-vet campaign, as I have no intention of doing a shred more of pve content.