Upcoming Campaign Changes

Zubba

What about a hardcore campaign with loot drops when you die. As an example you drop 1-2 equipped items and 10 items from inventory?

Baraz

100,000 AP to change Home campaign is too steep for many new players who can make a mistake.

I suggest the first change be cheaper for example. Or one change per month could be cheap and the next could cost 100,000 AP.

Lithion

Zenimax, I think the general consensus here is that 5/7 day campaigns are way too short. Please consider making the shortest one at least 2 weeks (non-Vet campaign).

And like others have said, maybe Guesting doesn't need to exist at all.

Frcyr

Is there any German (or French) announcement or is this one only for english speaking people?

Limitless

It'd be nice to have one two month campaign.
Some people like to run the 40 meters while some like to run the 100 meter.

I think that most people will flock to the 30 day, since 5-7 days is way too short and the rewards would probably be minuscule (Evidence taken from Celarus Rewards, as they were utter garbage.)

Either a second 30 day campaign, or one 2 month campaign would do PVP justice.

samthedagger

I only have one thing to add to this discussion.

Quite frankly, I am sick and tired of Emperor trading, whether it be between alliances or within alliances. I know ZOS has said that Emperor trading between alliances is considered exploiting and I have heard of entire guilds being banned for it. But it still happens quite frequently within alliances. Players of one faction take turns being the emperor. In short order you have 20-30 "former emperors" all with the emperor skill line and it really cheapens the achievement. I can envision a day a few years in the future where practically every long-term player has been an emperor. Is that really the kind of game you guys at ZOS want? 50,000 players running around with the "former emperor" title? Personally I have no problem with "greedy" emperors who dominate the leaderboards. I don't consider them greedy or unscrupulous individuals unless they earned the APs to become emperor in the first place through exploits. During the long-term campaigns we've had so far, I really don't believe there have been that many such individuals. Of the individuals who haven't "shared" the number 1 spot (as if the number 1 spot is some sort of right for everyone to hold), many of them are simply very competitive individuals who have earned the right to stay in that spot.

I have no problem with shortening the length of campaigns to 30 days. But the idea of these 3-day campaigns is laughable to me. As others have said, they are emperor farm campaigns and nothing more. You take 3 days off from work and play around the clock until you get emperor, and then you are basically done. You put the "emperor" feather in your cap and move on. Assuming there is no emperor swapping within alliances going on in a long-term campaign, let those who have the stamina and competitive nature keep their number 1 spots for as long as they like.

I've never aspired to be emperor. My goal in this game is to have fun and enjoy myself. It doesn't bother me that a few very dedicated individuals work hard to keep their scores high and get the benefit of that. And it makes it that much sweeter when I find myself defeating such an individual (I have earned the Emperor Killer achievement many times over). But because of the rampant emperor swapping that has been going on, I feel I soon may have no choice but to play the same game they are playing and simply "earn" emperor the cheap way. It feels wrong, but it puts me and my guild at a disadvantage not having access to the emperor skill line.

The whole matter of the emperor mechanic is flawed to me and should be seriously re-examined. Perhaps being emperor should be a matter of title and minor buffs only. Or perhaps the emperor skill line should only be accessible while actually holding the emperor position (or at least the number 1 position within your alliance). But it's broken as currently implemented and needs to be re-designed to be less prone to exploits.

Edit: And fine I'll add one other thing. 100k AP is not hard to earn. You go guest on an active campaign and spend some serious hours of play with a skilled group. Assuming you are a skilled player yourself, or someone capable of following orders and using VOIP, they will be happy to have you. I earned 300k AP over a weekend. You don't have to earn the AP in your home campaign for crying out loud. How is it that people haven't figured this out yet?

fallensbane_ESO

I think the cost to change is a bit much. Now don't get me wrong I want to stick with one campaign and I have plenty of AP to do so several times if I wanted. However charging that much for someone who isn't spending most of their time in there is a bit much. There should be some sort of tiered system.

For instance.

7 day lockout across the board each time you swap a campaign, 3 is too short for a home campaign I feel.

First Campaign Swap: Within a 90 day period is free
Second Campaign Swap within a 90 day period is 50k
3rd, 4th, 5th etc double the ap each time. Having it reset back to a free swap after 90 days.

This system charges those who try to campaign swap all the time.
But allows people who may want to swap due to friends leaving, guilds leaving, changing to a guild that is in a new campaign a better opportunity to do so. The issue is not with some people wanting to change campaign for a good reason, the issue is with people wanting to just 'hightail it' because they want an ezmode campaign.

fallensbane_ESO

Also based on some others feedback...

Former Emperor stat bonus needs to go. It's traded and will continue to be traded after the changes are implemented. People are willing to swap servers and completely disrupt and balance for the sake of getting that EMP bonus for PVE. That should not be allowed. Nuke the bonus. Keep the costume, keep the title, toss a nice chunk of gold/ap and perhaps create a simple extra daily quest that only former emperors can do. This way people that want to actually lead and not who just want a PVE bonus play in Cyro. This bonus should have never been around in the firstplace.

---

No Vet Only Campaign: I agree we do not need this. A non vet only campaign is a great idea and makes complete sense, but let's not segregate the population too much.

---

Campaign Types: going with your 5 campaigns I suggest.

30 day Campaign for Non Vets
30 day Campaign for Any level/tier (Better rewards than 7 day)
7 Day Campaign Non Vets
7 Day Campaign Any Level/tier
7 Day Campaign Any Level/tier

---

No Perma Emperor Rewards for those sub 50 campaigns. Adding these campaigns should be about giving those new player or low level alts a chance to learn or play in a campaign where gear is more balanced to their level. With a campaign like this the emperorship will swap more often and be less prestigious. I am still in favor of abolishing the perma buffs. But I think the other rewards such as title, costume should only be available for 50+ campaigns.

---

More XP for player kills

---

Player Bounties: Players who are on a longstanding killing streak have the chance to drop PVP set items that normally come only in Reward Bags.

---

Small Group Content
We need actual small group content. Supply caravans would be good. Something 2-4 players could attack. Some sort of system in place so that if a more than the specified number of players attacked it would yield no AP gain and NO XP to anyone involved. Have these as random spawns through the entirety of the map. Along trails, off of trails whatever. There should be no predefined route for these. If they are along a road great, story wise its explained as them being on track. But if you find them off in a corner, you assume they were driven off the main road by a bandit or enemy or whatever.

However when I say random they should be spawns in enemy controlled areas. So for instance if my faction owns the entire map, we do not see these supply caravans. We have everything which means we have the place on lockdown. However that means we have caravans spawning all over the place. Which means the other teams have more options to gain points now and try and get back in the game, even during off hours. This gets more small groups out there doing stuff in Cyro, gives another avenue of AP gain and because of the random nature of the spawning can get people spread out across the map more.

---

Emperors & Commanders
I don't want this to be GW2 but one thing that was a good idea with a bad implementation was commanders. An emperor player should have the option of choosing ONE commanders other than himself. These players would get an icon on their head and on the map. Then there would be 2 more commander spots open. Any player in the top 100 on YOUR faction would then be in the running for to be a commander, players in Cyrodil would actually look at the top 100 and right click, vote commander as an option. This would be a living thing where if the guy ended up sucking, the player could change their vote to someone they felt was better. The top two votes would get commander status. If a commander loses voted and someone else jumps ahead of him he would be 'stripped of commander rank', not on the fly. That would cause confusion. But 12-24 hours later the next player would inherit the title. Commander and Emperor would get their own chat to coordinate between their smaller groups.


The thing GW2 got wrong was making it a buy your way in thing that ANYONE could get. It should be a player voting thing. Sure you can bribe other players to vote your way, but they thats politics and there is still a hard limit to how many commanders there would be on the map.

---

Keep Upgrades. Some sort of a keep upgrade system needs to be added or improved upon. AP/Gold cost to add more patrolling guards, increase HP, add new abilities to the NPCs etc.

---

And finally.... REMOVE THE LEVEL 10 REQUIREMENT TO GO INTO PVP! Allow new players and low levels to Play PVP from the start/soon as they are done the tutorial. There is no need for this restriction, get rid of it.

Wideglide007

wow I actually agree with almost everything stated in this post. I think 6 weeks instead of 30 days for the longest campaigns would be better.

fallensbane_ESO wrote: »

Also based on some others feedback...

Former Emperor stat bonus needs to go. It's traded and will continue to be traded after the changes are implemented. People are willing to swap servers and completely disrupt and balance for the sake of getting that EMP bonus for PVE. That should not be allowed. Nuke the bonus. Keep the costume, keep the title, toss a nice chunk of gold/ap and perhaps create a simple extra daily quest that only former emperors can do. This way people that want to actually lead and not who just want a PVE bonus play in Cyro. This bonus should have never been around in the firstplace.

---

No Vet Only Campaign: I agree we do not need this. A non vet only campaign is a great idea and makes complete sense, but let's not segregate the population too much.

---

Campaign Types: going with your 5 campaigns I suggest.

30 day Campaign for Non Vets
30 day Campaign for Any level/tier (Better rewards than 7 day)
7 Day Campaign Non Vets
7 Day Campaign Any Level/tier
7 Day Campaign Any Level/tier

---

No Perma Emperor Rewards for those sub 50 campaigns. Adding these campaigns should be about giving those new player or low level alts a chance to learn or play in a campaign where gear is more balanced to their level. With a campaign like this the emperorship will swap more often and be less prestigious. I am still in favor of abolishing the perma buffs. But I think the other rewards such as title, costume should only be available for 50+ campaigns.

---

More XP for player kills

---

Player Bounties: Players who are on a longstanding killing streak have the chance to drop PVP set items that normally come only in Reward Bags.

---

Small Group Content
We need actual small group content. Supply caravans would be good. Something 2-4 players could attack. Some sort of system in place so that if a more than the specified number of players attacked it would yield no AP gain and NO XP to anyone involved. Have these as random spawns through the entirety of the map. Along trails, off of trails whatever. There should be no predefined route for these. If they are along a road great, story wise its explained as them being on track. But if you find them off in a corner, you assume they were driven off the main road by a bandit or enemy or whatever.

However when I say random they should be spawns in enemy controlled areas. So for instance if my faction owns the entire map, we do not see these supply caravans. We have everything which means we have the place on lockdown. However that means we have caravans spawning all over the place. Which means the other teams have more options to gain points now and try and get back in the game, even during off hours. This gets more small groups out there doing stuff in Cyro, gives another avenue of AP gain and because of the random nature of the spawning can get people spread out across the map more.

---

Emperors & Commanders
I don't want this to be GW2 but one thing that was a good idea with a bad implementation was commanders. An emperor player should have the option of choosing ONE commanders other than himself. These players would get an icon on their head and on the map. Then there would be 2 more commander spots open. Any player in the top 100 on YOUR faction would then be in the running for to be a commander, players in Cyrodil would actually look at the top 100 and right click, vote commander as an option. This would be a living thing where if the guy ended up sucking, the player could change their vote to someone they felt was better. The top two votes would get commander status. If a commander loses voted and someone else jumps ahead of him he would be 'stripped of commander rank', not on the fly. That would cause confusion. But 12-24 hours later the next player would inherit the title. Commander and Emperor would get their own chat to coordinate between their smaller groups.


The thing GW2 got wrong was making it a buy your way in thing that ANYONE could get. It should be a player voting thing. Sure you can bribe other players to vote your way, but they thats politics and there is still a hard limit to how many commanders there would be on the map.

---

Keep Upgrades. Some sort of a keep upgrade system needs to be added or improved upon. AP/Gold cost to add more patrolling guards, increase HP, add new abilities to the NPCs etc.

---

And finally.... REMOVE THE LEVEL 10 REQUIREMENT TO GO INTO PVP! Allow new players and low levels to Play PVP from the start/soon as they are done the tutorial. There is no need for this restriction, get rid of it.

Chryos

I like and agree with these changes.

Chryos

What about breaking down non VR campaign into two groups for more eveness? A lvl 10-30, and a lvl 31-50. I know stats handicap, but as far as skills, this would make it even more fair?

EDIT: I meant to add, as far as the players individual skill goes, sorted into two groups. (News guys/gals 10-30, experienced 31-50)

frwinters_ESO

Tanthul wrote: »

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.

I partially agree with you but then the drawback could be those not having fun on there campaign with no way to get out unless you grind forever is to jut stop playing. Then you may lose them entirely.

Luhai

I like the idea of consolidating campaigns and shorten their duration. Campaigns lasting for 90 days do not make much sense if you can max the reward level within a week.
I'm pretty indecisive about the VR/non-VR campaigns. It might be a good way to get into PvP, but then again it might also be just a barren wasteland, once you get most of the player base into the VR ranks.

I like the idea about the longer lockout and theincreased fine of 100kAP, although this might drive away new players from PvP, if they had the unfortunate luck to be in the wrong campaign.

What definitely needs to be fixed are:
- the population inequality in campaigns; outgunned factions need to be boosted a lot more
- sudden frame drops to 5 FPS, until you completely shut down the game
- the unknown errors since 1.1.2
- all abilities randomly becoming unusable
- character getting rooted in place
- unusable siege weapons
- unusable keep doors
- the lag
- run speed decreased after death

bruceb14_ESO5

Have Home campaign make normal AP and 1/2 AP when visiting with a cost to change Home. Have it like now where it is easy to go to any campaign...just lower reward for doing so.

Fuzzylumpkins

Is there going to be a way to turn experience gain off in the non-vet campaigns so players do not level out of it? If not it is already a fruitless effort.

Vampiresbane

rich_nicholsonb16_ESO wrote: »

Ok it seems the ppl who want this to happen are mainly from the US where it seems that the pvp servers are in a mess while the ppl who are mainly against this are from Europe where the servers are in an ok state ( the top 4 are normally locked in the evenings ).

Why don't you change the US servers to test this out?

If the EU are forced in this change it might be a huge mistake as like I said our servers are not in a bad shape ( apart from the lag ).

I wouldn't mind if the lower populated servers got axed and to give us a choice between long and short duration servers but just don't axe the ones that are ok.

Turelus wrote: »

One thing I am wondering, considering the EU server has Auriel's Bow, Bloodthorn and Dawnbreaker locked most weekends at peak times. What are you expecting for the single 30day campaign that most players will want to play in?

Wont that forever be locked because of the massive populations on that one campaign?

Amen and /signed.
Leave the EU campaigns alone.
Test this silly idea(s) on the US campaigns where the populations are in trouble.

DCGoth_OTG

One way to ensure the integrity of Home campaigns would be to remove any AP gain from guesting. Guesting could still be permitted in order to allow players to group with their friends; however, there should be no additional incentives to leave your Home campaign.

Just a thought.

Anar31415

Wow 14 pages and growing! There has been a number of good ideas and I'd like to consolidate a few of those together and add some as well.

I don't see a reason for a VR only campaign but others might.

At least one Non-VR campaign is a must. 7 days should be fine as some will level faster than others. It will help lower the level of frustration while also helping train better players for the real campaigns. No Emperors to be crowned here - instead have the Alliances fight for the PVE queen/kings and award a 'General' title to the lead of each Alliance at the end of that 7-day campaign. No powers, just a title and maybe an Alliance specific weapon skin or banner emote.

Campaigns:
One 90 day Campaign = all levels
Two 30 day Campaigns = all levels
One or more 7-14 day Campaign = open to all levels

I think we need each campaign to be Alliance specific for our alts, so for this 3 longer running campaigns should cover it. No alts on a single acct can participate in a single campaign except in the same Alliance. If my EP toon takes the 90 day campaign then my AD/DC toons are blocked from that campaign, as a home and as a guest. This kills trading off keeps and spying from an opposing Alliance on a single acct in that campaign.

Guesting should be to look around and get a feel for it. So it must be a campaign that you have no alts in. Bonuses should also be campaign specific, non-transferable, you get that guest campaign's bonuses while you are there, not your home campaign's bonuses. Rather than having changing your home campaign so costly, make it that you can only change your home campaign free at the end of any campaign or once every 7 days.

Emperor:
1) Emperor powers to be made free (no pts to refund that way), but develop slowly - each needing an additional 24hrs to develop after the Emperor has been declared. Thus making it that an Emperor has to hold the title 5 days to develop all powers and be confirmed in that title. Otherwise he is not a former Emperor title holder.

2) All Emperor powers expire with abdication or deposed. If an Emperor has held the title for the 5 days necessary AND actively contributed to the defense of the Empire, then they will become Warlord to the next Emperor of that Alliance with a couple special powers for defense/leadership of the realm. That Warlord becomes a retired Emperor when his Emperor is defeated or abdicates. All retired/former Emperors are in title only with maybe a special skin or emote - no powers.

3) Emperor/Warlord powers are confined to Cyrodiil ONLY and are CAMPAIGN LOCKED, thus usable only on that campaign. This means there should only be 1 Emperor w/power and 1 Warlord w/power per Campaign/server and those powers do not transfer to other Campaigns/Servers - thus solving the army of former Emps steam rolling everyone issue.

4) Emperor/Warlord powers are influenced by the number of followers of that Alliance that are in a specific radius to that Emperor/Warlord at that time. Thus the Alliance followers help determine the degree of power such can use.

Alliance balance:
In the long running campaigns we may need to tweek things. Say EP and AD are just crushing DC. Give DC a +5% to Heath/Magic/Stam/Dam for the next 6 hrs ... if that does not do it +10%. Once DC regained X number of locations the buff is reduced or just goes away. I think something like this might help with the off hours.

bruceb14_ESO5

@Anar3145 you have some good ideas and brainstorming with suggestions.

I agree to the guesting with limitations. Not to the 7 Day Campaigns or the micro managing of stats for handicapping the underdog. What is done now for the underdog receiving higher point gains is workable. Interesting idea to explore regarding how long Emperorship is held before perks are given.

Yusuf

Where is the poll so i can sign this and make it happen? : D

I think 100k alliance points might be a bit too much though considering the short duration of most these campaigns and a 72 hour cooldown on guesting? : S

Anyways, i LOVE the new campaign ideas!

Gaettusk

The queue system needs to cap out the total slots based on how many of the enemy faction are playing. If DC has 30 people playing, then EP or AD should not be able to have 2x the numbers of DC. It's either that or the underdog bonus needs to be reworked so that the faction with the highest population for that hour gets X amount less points and the lower populated factions get X amount more. Otherwise, this campaign system will just turn into whoever night caps will win. It's a NA server, and it's completely dead on off-hours.

But we have Oceanic AD who complain that they dont have competition while they're PvPing at 5am server time. It will only end up like the other MMOs that had Aussies stacked in PvP. They end up quitting from being bored and the NA players who are forced to play late night end up with a dead server. All this means is that the game will go F2P faster than you can believe if something doesnt get reworked. AP gear sucks;the gold reward for winning is crap;there is barely any incentive to PvP. Yes, it's fun, but it will eventually get old; well, for late-night NA players it's already quite old fighting against AD who can field 4x the population of both DC and EP combined during early morning.

Anazasi

Have seen the question float around a few times but not found the answer. Will there be a cap on populations introduced? And what is going to be done about the Emperor farming. Will there be changes made to the existing skill line or something to remove this from the gaming environment?

Anazasi

I should have added that the travel to player feature must be removed from Cryodil. If it is not removed now or before the next series of campaigns, everything you do to make guesting or changing home campaigns is worthless. The issue with a lot of the lag spikes and or massive zergs comes from one person who has guested on a campaign, forming a group with others outside the campaign who are neither guests to it or as home set for it just simply wait for the player to get into the campaign then they just travel to him or her. This is probably one of the biggest exploited mechanics that is so widely used and causing issues. If you want to guest on a campaign fine make the change, If you want to change the campaign fine spend the AP but don't allow players to help their friends zerg a campaign simply through the travel to player feature.

SilverBeard

The real problem is overpowered vampires with emperor passives in legendary gear that can single handedly wipe out entire raids. Group a bunch of these together and they can clear an entire campaign. Balanced? No. Fun? No. Demoralizing? Yes. People are leaving AvA in droves because of this.

bruceb14_ESO5

Is the travel to player really bad? I see pros and cons.
Pros - Travel to play with friend
- Travel to play with guild (5 guilds and not all same campaign)
- Find another server when yours is completely dead and you are bored
- Shakes things up for the side that has dominated map, adds life
- Help a friend become Emperor :P
- Choice, everyone can do it

Cons - Upsets balance on a campaign
- Farm by jumping from campaign to campaign as a guild
- Large guilds zerging non-home campaigns
- Some people like a quiet server for PVE

Side note: I have a problem with huge zergs taking out strategy and just mowing everything and everyone, yet it is extremely satisfying and challenging to defeat one.

Adding more pros and cons to this would help in brainstorming what is workable and not.

BTW @SilverBeard I haven't seen people leaving in droves from OP Vamps. I've seen some abused holes patched and I've seen more people using Silver Bolts. I have seen boredom, seen farming, seen huge zergs, seen zergs taken down by a small group, seen campaigns where everyone has pretty much given up, but so much I've not seen or heard.

Gaettusk

3rd place faction should not get any reward, and they should get a 5% debuff to all stats for the next campaign. It's a good fix so that all factions are trying to win for themselves. Otherwise, it's just going to encourage a vicious cycle of trolling, e.g., faction A doesnt try to win and focuses solely on faction B so that they lose. Next campaign, faction B solely focuses on faction A to get revenge. Rinse and repeat

SBR_QuorTek

Turning off XP is a bad thing, you become vr1 you do vr1+ stuff, there should be no carebear pvp'rs hiding in the lower zones... grinding out all ranks for then moving on.... and yes a carebear is someone who refuse to pvp... if you refuse to pvp in the vr stuff the solution could be hit level 50 delete character.. start over instead.

Kalanar Highwatch

Fuzzylumpkins wrote: »

Is there going to be a way to turn experience gain off in the non-vet campaigns so players do not level out of it? If not it is already a fruitless effort.

I think this would fly in the face of the purpose of having a non-vet campaign. I think of this as the training wheels campaign where you come to learn what Cyrodiil is all about without being farmed by far more experienced/powerful players. If you allow very experienced players to twink there indefinitely, I'm not sure the purpose is being served.

Gaettusk wrote: »

The queue system needs to cap out the total slots based on how many of the enemy faction are playing. If DC has 30 people playing, then EP or AD should not be able to have 2x the numbers of DC...

I understand why you'd want something like this, but it would never work. The 30 DC people playing are surely frustrated by the unbalanced population, but what if there are 200 people on EP and 200 on AD that want to play and you put a 60 player cap on each of those factions (2x the DC number). Now you have 280 people sitting in queues unhappy. I obviously just pulled the 200 number out of thin air, but the point remains that you're simply shifting frustration from the outgunned people (who will probably still be frustrated while outmanned 2:1) and shifted it to the people in the queue.

SilverBeard wrote: »

The real problem is overpowered vampires with emperor passives in legendary gear that can single handedly wipe out entire raids. Group a bunch of these together and they can clear an entire campaign. Balanced? No. Fun? No. Demoralizing? Yes. People are leaving AvA in droves because of this.

I haven't seen this since before the Vampire ultimate reduction nerf almost a month ago. You still see vampires but they aren't bat swarming whole raids to death like they once were.

Grageeky

Is it mandatory for every player to been in a campaign? Or can we have a menu option to cancel out of a campaign, having tried PvP, and then desiring only to do PvE? And by cancel, I mean removed from a campaign, with the appropriate penalties and lockout, so that the player's campaign sheet shows empty again. And turn off those annoying messages, please.

kirnmalidus

Does anyone else think the feedback in this thread is "overwhelmingly positive"? Because Matt Firor seems to think so…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krM3ffio3ds&list=UU-GTQ8QGSKQwGxmAzF5jaLw

Maybe he didn't actually read the thread himself, but an underling pulled select comments for him to review, and chose to select only the positive comments? If not that he hasn't read it at all and is just talking out of his @$$ because general consensus here seems to be that the campaign durations proposed are idiotic and people would rather the devs focus on revamping the way the Emperor buffs work than mucking about with campaigns.

Oh, and the Europeans have made the valid point in this thread that Zenimax shouldn't just copy/paste the NA solution for EU.