Upcoming Campaign Changes

bruceb14_ESO5

@kirnmalidus, I noticed the same thing with that "overwhelmingly positive" comment regarding short campaign durations. Although, I did also hear Matt say that he personally likes the longer campaigns for his play style. I'm wondering where that "overwhelmingly positive" feedback comes from.

It is positive that changes are coming to hopefully improve on the current system.

Samadhi

kirnmalidus wrote: »

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.

What issue do you take with this video?

He says that the suggestions in this thread were for the intention of getting feedback.
He expresses a lot of approval for 90 day campaigns still.

To me it sounds like they intend to pick out which ideas the community approves of most, and possibly also still run 1 or 2 90 day campaigns so that players can be invested in the war.

bruceb14_ESO5

ahhh, "overwhelmingly positive on a lot of those ideas", not necessarily the negative response to the small number of campaigns or the very short duration campaigns I guess. I don't think high cost campaign changes was overwhelmingly positive or the 72 hr lockout. What is the overwhelmingly positive thought, perceived improvement in regards to activity, perhaps by changing things up? I'd agree with the last.

Kalanar Highwatch

Remember, overwhelming doesn't necessarily mean unanimous. I've read every post in this thread and I would agree that there is pretty overwhelming support for 1) reducing the overall number of campaigns; 2)Creating a non-vet specific campaign and 3) finding some way to reduce population volatility (but no consensus on the specifics like cooldown of changing home campaign or the cost to do so). While I don't personally mind shorter campaigns if the same people are there fighting week to week and there is some semblance of balanced teams, I'd say the majority of posters in this thready were against campaigns in the 5-7 day range.

indytims_ESO

As a DAOC vet, I am -totally- excited about NON-VR campaigns. Some of us aren't VR ranks, and don't plan to be for some time.

One of the best things I liked about the DAOC RvR was the different tiers. Lower level players could play against lower level players, and not get face-rolled by some max-level guy ganking low levels.

AWESOME choice, Zeni. Hopefully it will work well, so then maybe you could offer a campaign for, say, 30th level and under at some point.

Tanthul

frwinters_ESO wrote: »

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.

That depends on your definition of fun. If fun is defined as winning all the time by swarming everything then no they won't have fun. But in that case their fun destroys the fun of everyone else.

Players should fight on their maps. If they lose they should fight harder and try to outsmart and counter their opponents. That is PvP. Jumping ship when you lose a fight in order to guest on another campaign is not the solution or the way to go. It may be "fun" for a bit, for some, to swarm everything but it's certainly boring after a while and it's NEVER fun for the players on the receiving end of the swarm who, in turn, if they follow the same mentality they start doing the same because it's allowed. The result is campaigns that flood by one side for a couple of days then get empty while everyone is waiting on queue on the locked campaign that they know their side is currently swarming. Is this the PvP game that we want to play? If the answer to that is yes, then by all means keep the guesting system as it is and I'll probably start looking for another game.
I was under the impression that we want cool RvR warfare on our campaigns and not mechanisms for another mindless grind of a game currency with no point whatsover.
I guess the question boils down to: Do you want to fight players because it's exciting to fight something more intelligent and static than mobs or do you want to just be able to jump all the time to wherever your side is winning so you can swarm while doing absolutely nothing? If the answer to that is the first then the guesting system needs to either go entirely or be made into something SIGNIFICANTLY hard to abuse. If you think there's a third option that would fix the problems that I have not considered, I'd like to hear it.:)

Wolfaen

kirnmalidus wrote: »

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.

While I understand what point you are trying to make and agree that the consensus for campaign durations is for longer durations, there is still quite a bit of positivity in this thread. Most posts in here support the campaign changes and just propose tweaks that they would like to see from the original post.

I have read this whole thread and would say there are some negative posts, but overall the response to this thread is positive.

Starshadw

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

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!

Things I like: separate campaigns for non-vets and vets - except these can be quite problematical for a guild that wants to play together, which makes me think neither of them may get a strong population, as guilds who have characters on both sides of the "vet line" will end up choosing the standard campaign so they can continue to play together.

Things I'm not terribly thrilled about: most of the campaigns being of very short duration. 5-7 day campaigns make the concept of an "Emperor" seem, well, more than a bit silly. I'd prefer to see a few more campaigns in the 30-45 day duration. 90 days has definitely felt a little too long - but that could be at least somewhat due to the horrific problems and exploits we've had in PvP which have made the long campaigns seem interminable.

I'm concerned because what I'm not seeing much talk of is fixes for the current issues plaguing Cyrodiil. And without those, PvP is going to continue to be very frustrating. I'd like to hear from the devs on what ideas they have to fix the following:

1. Continued exploits
2. Continued balance issues with certain classes/skills/ult spamming
3. Continued Emperor farming - I do not believe a 72-hour lockout on guesting/switching campaigns is going to solve this, unfortunately. As I suggested previously, I suspect the only way you will stop Emperor farming is by making it so that the Emperor skill line and passives are only available to an Emperor character when they are playing in the campaign in which they were crowned Emperor. This would prevent people from switching campaigns to become Emperor somewhere else, then switching back to their real home campaign and taking the skill line/passives with them.
4. Continued bugs - with forward camps, with unusable postern doors, with unusable siege equipment, unusable repair kits, etc. And I still say forward camps and siege equipment should NOT degrade simply for being deployed.
5. Continued Cyrodiil over-population of vampires. While a first pass was made on balancing vampires, the fact remains that their passives and skills still make them a "go-to" in Cyrodiil, especially for scroll runs and anything involving stealth/sneaking. Balance and parity with non-vampires must somehow be achieved here.

bruceb14_ESO5

Tanthul wrote: »

frwinters_ESO wrote: »

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 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.

That depends on your definition of fun. If fun is defined as winning all the time by swarming everything then no they won't have fun. But in that case their fun destroys the fun of everyone else.

I guess the question boils down to: Do you want to fight players because it's exciting to fight something more intelligent and static than mobs or do you want to just be able to jump all the time to wherever your side is winning so you can swarm while doing absolutely nothing? If the answer to that is the first then the guesting system needs to either go entirely or be made into something SIGNIFICANTLY hard to abuse. If you think there's a third option that would fix the problems that I have not considered, I'd like to hear it.:)

There is another point of view for guesting. If your campaign is slow and you are on the winning side, why not be able to go to another campaign where your alliance is the underdog for the challenge. I'm not talking about huge upsetting zergs, although that can obviously happen, but small group of guildies wanting a challenge and fun. Perhaps it would shake things up temporarily on a lopsided server. For me, I'd be out of luck, not nearly 100k AP.

Desdemonte

There should be at least one campaign that lasts 2-3 months. Make guesting more costly for this one.

Alephen

i wonder about the possibility of pve cyrodiils. yeah, i know i will get flamed, but half the posts in this forum seem related to people that dont care for pvp.

take the pvers out of these campaigns and into one of 3 faction based cyrodiils and they can trade emperor all they want. i know some will argue that a pve emperor would be illegitmate, but really any less than those that exploited, less than those that got it from abdication, those that will get it by having a 200 SP lvl 45-49 farming the non vet campaign?

point gain will be decreased by not killing other players, can decrease it more or remove it altogether.

sure no more easy pvers to farm points off, but think of pvp campaigns with people that want to pvp and are not just there for pve bonuses. always thought it was a horrible idea to have pve gains in pvp, since pvers care nothing about the pvp gameplay.

this is just an idea to effectively remove them. much like making pvp leveling on par with pve leveling is a way to effectively remove pvpers who hate pve from doing something they dont enjoy, grinding mobs/quests, and let them reasonably play the game they wish, pvp.

edit: even if the pve emperors buffs didnt work at all, or the only worked in pve campaigns, many of the pvers would still move for the title/appearance gear.

Jaxom

bruceb14_ESO5 wrote: »

Tanthul wrote: »

frwinters_ESO wrote: »

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 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.

That depends on your definition of fun. If fun is defined as winning all the time by swarming everything then no they won't have fun. But in that case their fun destroys the fun of everyone else.

I guess the question boils down to: Do you want to fight players because it's exciting to fight something more intelligent and static than mobs or do you want to just be able to jump all the time to wherever your side is winning so you can swarm while doing absolutely nothing? If the answer to that is the first then the guesting system needs to either go entirely or be made into something SIGNIFICANTLY hard to abuse. If you think there's a third option that would fix the problems that I have not considered, I'd like to hear it.:)

There is another point of view for guesting. If your campaign is slow and you are on the winning side, why not be able to go to another campaign where your alliance is the underdog for the challenge. I'm not talking about huge upsetting zergs, although that can obviously happen, but small group of guildies wanting a challenge and fun. Perhaps it would shake things up temporarily on a lopsided server. For me, I'd be out of luck, not nearly 100k AP.

Agreed. It's common amoung some of my guildmates to guest in a campaign that is completely Blue or Red just to see how far we can get in a night. Most of the time, we get 2-3 keeps before we get completely overwhelmed but, it's still quite a bit of fun.

Desdemonte

I'm not a big fan of pve-ers wasting the pop cap for PvP. A pve Cyrodiil would be nice.

bruceb14_ESO5

Desdemonte wrote: »

I'm not a big fan of pve-ers wasting the pop cap for PvP. A pve Cyrodiil would be nice.

More people will become PVP'rs. No where near a population cap, opposite is true, although lag sometimes tells us otherwise.

RamzaBehoulve

We don’t need a bunch of campaigns with different timers though. Two weeks for any campaign is largely enough. One week is probably too short and one month is already too long a commitment for most people.

What we need aside from non-vet and Vet are meaningful, fun rules and the first that comes to mind is a campaign of WW vs Vampires vs Hunters regardless of faction. Complete FFA with keeps disabled, etc.

Go wild, experiment with a new campaign type every month and keep the popular ones.

trooper_cameron_ESO

Do we have a timetable about when this changes will arrive. Looking forward to it.

Catches_the_Sun

I sincerely hope that Zenimax doesn't make a habit of changing campaigns very often. Since there is one megaserver, the real PvP communities are formed within our Home campaigns in Cyrodiil. Guilds form alliances, enemy rivals are forged, and leaders learn how to work with each other. In DAOC, these things remained stable for as many years as you wanted to play. Here we are in ESO, barely 2 months in, and we're already changing it up, eliminating a great campaign in Wabbajack in the process. Allied guilds will not always agree on which campaigns to join when it's over & you will no longer have those enemy rivals. I just want some stability. I don't want to feel like I'm starting over in a new community every couple of months.

gamebum05b14_ESO

I think this is a little too short on the campaigns. What I think there should be two 30 day servers one vet one none vet then two 2 week server one vet one non vet

Cogo

I have played most MMOs for 16 years. Never liked Pvp until ESO.

I am not good at Pvp but learning very well. I join pvp teams and battlegroups who used military tactics to take a keep. This is outstanding!!!!!

The suggestions of new ideas is ok, BUT dont make them so short!

Short campagns like 1-2 weeks will be meaningless. There is a war on and ongoing batttle. There are armies forming. This will not happen in SHORT campangns.....only boring 1-1 pvp.

Keep at least 1 campagn 90 days just like it is now. Cyrodiil is my first ever very enjoyable PvP event. Even when I am there with a group to explore, the danger of the enemy attacking us ADDS to the fun, even if I am not good in pvp and always dies.

Tactics and teamwork is more important in Cyrodiil then Gear, level and char skills. I LOVE THIS!

I got into Cyro at level 15 or so, when a guildfriend forced me to try it. Now I love it and because of the big danger, I learned what PvP can be and become a better player. I am still learning. I do NOT want small team pvp! That is boring.

I think short campagns are a mistake. Longer means bigger and more people. Thats fun!

Cyrodiil have made me, who dont like PvP for 16 years, into liking PvP. But DONT make the campagns so short!

To mix Cyrodiil with PVP and PvE for this huge zone is BRILLIANT! Please do not ruin that by making short campagns.

bruceb14_ESO5

Agreed that it sucks to start new with the unknowns of which campaign to choose. Good to have lopsided campaigns out, dead campaigns out and the possibility of an improved system, but what will that mean? The choices of balance and campaign feel are unknown. The choice of which guilds will go where.

sontagmediaub17_ESO

Shorter campaigns will be nice, but still don't solve the inherit problems with Cyrodil.

Cyrodill is so huge, it mimics a sense of world PVP in other games. The problem is, the focus is on keeps. While yes, a small force can go take nodes, thats not exciting enough because you are fighting NPCs. And most the time a zerg will eventually come mow you down once you start laying into the keep. I have played many many MMO's over the last 12 years and have seen the good and bad of them all.

SUGGESTIONS that will make Cyrodil better.

-Add in world bosses around Cyrodil for guilds to fight over to help spread them away from keeps. This is a lot more exciting than pounding down a wall with a catapault (aka not even using your own abilities / class and not fighting actual players). The most fun I ever had in MMO's was open world PVP where guilds were fighting each other for boss rights.

-Add in "battle ground" type objectives around Cyrodill to help sway the tides of war. For instance, lets say there are 10 locations around Cyrodil that allow teams to que up. In each location, your alliance has to win the best out of 10 battles. Once your alliance wins the best out of 10, that location is secured and/or your team gets some kind of benefit in Cyrodil. This way players who want to compete in even match ups have that opportunity, but also provide meaning to the overall fight. I don't know what type of design that battle ground should look like, but this would help Cyrodil immensely. It would also help teams who are under populated have a way to fight on even ground but sway their territory in their favor.

-Consolodate the servers. I know this is mentioned in this thread but if you consolodate the servers, add more objectives / things to do that are actually of VALUE in Cyrodil, you can stop this keep zerg madness that is boring as all hell. I didn't level up to VR12 to spend my time trying to find other players, pressing one button to fire a catapault into a wall, or getting mowed down by a zerg or having my zerg mow down others with no real fight.

-Lastly...if you want to make keep fights more interesting, LET US BREAK DOWN WALLS WITH OUR WEAPONS...seriously. Yes the seige should always do more damage, but take a note from Warhammer, that was the one thing they did right. I don't want to sit in a catapult...I really don't. I should be able to bang down the wall if I so choose, why restrict me? Just make my weapons less effective but at least give me that option so I can still try to pull people off the keep while banging down the doors.

Cogo

@sontagmediaub17_ES

Hey!

First I wanna say how very nice it is to see someone post suggestions, clear and in a good manner. We been lacking that here lately.

I agree completely that shorter campagns is not the answer. I even go so far to say it will harm the good that those players who can play in Cyro already have started. Alliances and cooperations across guilds. In short, a PvP community!

I think when Zeni finds that gremlin in the software that makes many players lag because they group up, will solve a lot of problems.

Without most players with lag or reported 5 seconds delay on attacks (I dont get those for some reason), catapults will be much more used and there is no reason to change so you can Zerg down a port with weapons. I am sorry to shoot down a nice suggestion, but the siege machines and the cooperation needed to deply them and defend them is one of the key features that makes Cyro SO interesting!

The defender of the keep, needs to run out and burn the catapults correct?
This itself is needed some sort of teamwork to do and to defend.


More players in Cyro
I played MMOs for 16 years and never been interested in PvP, until Cyro. The vast use of pure military tactics is outstanding. I think it will work fine, when people simply can play, and by default there going to be more people in the big zone. Maybe even several armies attacking several keeps?

To add other targets/objectives connected to the war, like taking a farm, sounds good! I cant produce any good suggestion, but open to more targets simular to the resources, as long as they are connected to the war in some way.

World boss in Cyro
I LIKE the idea of a world boss in Cyro. However, for that to be interesting, the boss needs to drop some sort of good things. Even on random. Its VERY important that we do not flood the market with to good gear, to easily.
And who will get the loot? One alliance almost have him killed, then another alliance slay the beast. Who will get the loot? If all do, like Anchors, it would be fair, but totally remove the reason to fight over the boss.

A long respawn timer is needed. And random pop maybe? I am not sure how well this suits the lore. We are in Cyro to wage war against our enemies to claim our alliance the victor of Tamriel. If soldier abandon their current mission, to run and kill a big juicy boss.........hmm. Good idea, but I wonder.......

There are plenty of PvE events and encounters around Cyro. Even dungeons.
Maybe they are enough for now, but the world boss idea I do like. Maybe something to put on the future table for Cyro? I am still concerned about the lore.

Battlegrounds
What I think would be a major mistake is adding small battle grounds as you suggest. Your description makes sense, but even if 10 vs 10 to gain an advantage for their alliance sounds good on paper. It takes away the overall idea about waging WAR in Cyro. Smaller battles, or in my case, executions of me (I suck at pvp), already exist, since groups moves around Cyro for different reasons, and this actually adds to the fun of the zone. Even for me who gets murdered almost daily for this.

If you played WoW, you would know that only a certain type of FAST PvP player are good at these battlegrounds. The whole idea with Cyro is that your whole alliance can join in from level 10, and even be of use. (Talking tactics, not 1-1)

Battlegrounds that doesn't take part of the war....but is more directed to FAST PVP small teams, who probebly woun't be interested in the war itself and will in time, demand some type of personal reward/status/rank table. I see problems here. Sorry to put down a nice suggestion of yours, but I think it would harm Cyro as a whole.


Conclution
I think we should leave Cyro as it is. With fixing of lag, I do believe most people will have a much better experience AND, this I can garantee....more players will seek to join the fight if its playable.

WarrioroftheWind_ESO

Any idea of them implementing a sort of "highlander" rule for Emps to keep them from guesting to other servers in one bunch or dropping ship unless they're deposed? I can imagine even if they change Emperor buffs or acquisition those elitist guilds will find a way to exploit/farm regardless, so maybe make it that if they do get emp they can't up and jump ship until they get deposed legit. That might make the title/role more integral seeing as how an emp should command their army. Even if it might be fitting with lore to have flighty emps who only crave power and have no intention of doing anything useful with it, it needs to have more weight behind it than biggest numbers on the server. This might stop situations where you have 4-5 concurrent emps pouncing onto one server just to tilt the odds.

bruceb14_ESO5

World Boss idea could be interesting. Even Alliances working together, if they feel like, to down him. Make it fit lore. Random Daedric Princes come to visit and wreak their own kind of havoc. Sheogorath may drop the coveted Wabbajack. May not be most overpowered with damage but turn friends to bunny rabbits, goats and tigers...

demonlkojipub19_ESO

Do we have some kind of timeframe on when campaigns are supposed to close down?

Rylana

Most of the people that dont want the current campaigns nuked is because they use them for PvE buffs. "Ill just join the one where my faction is winning with no resistance, there 250 HP, 8 percent crit, 5 percen... etc .etc .etc" and then they never once actually PvP.

Too bad. Come fight for your precious out of Cyrodiil buffs.

demonlkojipub19_ESO

I think now those buffs shouldn't leave cyrodil..

Forztr

I think it's about time OP @ZOS_BrianWheeler‌ came back to this thread with his thoughts based on the feedback so far. Doesn't have to be final plans but he must have learned something from reading this thread.

Starshadw

demonlkojipub19_ESO wrote: »

I think now those buffs shouldn't leave cyrodil..

I confess I'm starting to lean this exact same way. PvP buffs of any kind should be in PvP only. They shouldn't transfer out into the PvE world. I suspect this might help curtail Emperor farming in and of itself.

frwinters_ESO

Starshadw wrote: »

demonlkojipub19_ESO wrote: »

I think now those buffs shouldn't leave cyrodil..

I confess I'm starting to lean this exact same way. PvP buffs of any kind should be in PvP only. They shouldn't transfer out into the PvE world. I suspect this might help curtail Emperor farming in and of itself.

I disagree. Having the buffs in PvE can help draw people into Cyrodil to Make sure they have there buffs for dungeons and trials, etc etc.