Upcoming Campaign Changes

firstdecan

A lot of opinions here, but mostly constructive criticism. Seems like one of the better game threads.

It goes without saying that it will be impossible to lease everyone, but the best way to come closet to that is variety. To that end:

+ I like the idea of vet and non vet campaigns. Vet campaigns will be composed mainly by hard core players, but casual players will still have a place to go.
+ I like the idea of shorter duration (1week) campaigns. For the more casual player, it gives them something to pop in and put of without feeling like there's a need to keep up with all the PvP guild drama.

- I do not like the idea of increased cost to switch campaigns. It would be no big deal for short duration \ week long campaigns, since a player could simply wait and then switch, but for longer campaigns you would be forced to play a campaign you're not enjoying before you could switch. Maybe keep the cost lower for longer duration campaigns and then make it higher for shorter duration campaigns.

What I think is missing is campaigns with different environmental mechanics to encourage different play tactics. You could experiment with these on short duration 5-7 day campaigns to determine how much players enjoy them. Examples could include
+ No add-ons campaign that keeps the game experience out of the box, and as such keeps less Intel available to the seasoned PvPer.
+ Limited group options (limit group sizes to 8-12 players) to make zerging more difficult / chaotic.
+ a campaign with Zombie / Daedra hordes rampaging the countryside that would make travel between keeps more difficult.
+ a campaign where forward camps only work for your team members, making coop play more necessary.

I'm sure others can come up with many more ideas, and I'm not even saying these particular ideas are the best. But I think the PvP could become more attractive if there was some variety in the game rules of different campaigns instead of every campaign being a clone of each other.

Limitless

Please take out all the campaigns aside from like 3 of them.
We know you can do it, you "accidentally" deleted Scourge.
It would improve PVP greatly since people can't run to dead campaigns for buffs, and would be forced to play with competition.

"Accidentally" delete 5 more when the campaigns reset.

mikeymike2785b14_ESO

Leave the campaigns however you want zenimax.

I'll be happy with scroll bonuses NOT carrying over to guest campaigns. Fix that first please, then make all the decisions you want on PVP campaigns.

I think anyone can agree that stat stacking then visiting other servers is cheap tactics that doesn't need to still exist. You can debate otherwise, but Logic will prevail there over time.

No rush on the forward camp bug either. I've gotten so used to it now, that I don't know what this game will look like with fully functioning forward camps... Just use the camp ASAP or risk losing it, live by that philosophy and you won't have any real issues (until no one uses it, lol)


Them posterns though... Smh.

cjddrumnub19_ESO

I think this is an interesting idea and will like to see how it works, the non-veteran campaign is a good idea because it will get a lot more people interested in PvP that would have been scared to try it before, though it also leads to the question of whether it will be able to train those people before they hit veteran how to PvP... if it doesn't than they will have bad builds and probably get destroyed in the veteran campaign. Also I wonder how this really helps that much, Veterans are definitely a bit more powerful than non-vets but they are not invincible. I have PvPed since launch and and have killed many VR1-12 on characters that are below lvl 50, it just takes strategy, a good build and planing. I have even had pre-planed 1v1s where I have beaten geared VR 12s on a VR 1, I won these fights because I took time to plan out my build and strategy and figure out who I am strongest against. So if a non-vet is smarter in strategy and build he can beat a vet in battle. But if people never fight vets than by time they start thinking seriously about their build they are already level capped. I like the idea of making less campaigns as well. because it will make them all functional instead of just like 2-3 campaigns that are any good.

WarrioroftheWind_ESO

The idea behind the current PVP setup isn't inherently flawed, but I doubt Zeni anticipated this many people would find flagrant ways to abuse the system. It really is a case of a few bad apples spoiling the entire orchard. For me personally I envisioned the PVP servers as being home to living, breathing communities and populations, and it seemed that way early on. Speaking from experience I'd like to recommend that Volendrung mercifully get the axe from the current roster.

Any faction that isn't DC currently is fairly dead, and even when said factions do muster the numbers to do anything productive, DC crawls out of the woodwork to erase any meaningful progress made. It's doubly discouraging for remaining players. For a time we had a robust campaign but a combination of imbalanced class specs as well as being invaded by several emperor farming guilds killed the community. If half of the current top 100 for each faction logged in on a regular basis there'd be decent action, but as it is you can count on one hand how many regular players still log in from day to day, not counting the once-in-a-blue moon surges. The only camps I see with a fair amount of players are Auriel's Bow, Bloodthorn, and Wabba. Perhaps cull the other camps save one floater and leave it at that until the patch goes live. It's sad that the original design intentions were so grossly abused, but Zeni has to get things right in one go. This has to be done carefully or not at all.

ShiftControl

If you guys asking me its not a good idea, if you take down to many servers it will be a Zerg fest nothing more on the remaining servers.
The short campaigns are way to short 5 days and such, players will call in sick days and such. I simple would not allow guesting (travel to player in Cyr at all), and pull down 1-2 servers. And set up some sort incentive to make it more interesting what we have now is a joke. Also set up some sort of cap/campaign how many guilds can join one/ alliance. donno if its doable though just an idea.
We definitely need a few long campaigns as well like we have now with better rewards.

Schmit

people keep saying there has been no word on the Scourge Campaign reward, what about:
ZOS_BrianWheeler mod
June 5
Sadly Scourge players will not be rewarded retroactively.
Wheeler
----
That sounds like a answer to me

Rylana

I guess the only question left to ask is which campaign should I home on for buff bonuses while I guest on whatever has population (like everyone else will)

Aimelin

my question is how this will affect the lockout per faction? many players, including me, has characters on other factions, while i understand the lockout being put in caus people exploited with the fiery grip chain to chain people into keeps, its kind of stupid caus i want to pvp with all of them, and right now only wabba is rly populated / kind of balanced among all 3 factions, i dont rly fancy going to another campaign and spend hours trying to find fights or other ppl to play with.....

again a poor example of a fix they made while *** everyone else over caus some ppl decided to abuse something

mikeymike2785b14_ESO

Not a single person I talk to does that cheap stuff (scroll stacking home server then guest visit where the cool people hang out)how can u have any respect for an opponent that feel like they "have to" play like this to win in PVP. We fight for our home campaign. My home campaign IS wabbajack. Not bloodthorn for the stat stacking not gold brand for the stat stacking not AB for the stat stacking. Wabbajack. Any scroll buffs on my person were EARNED through fierce PVP and not a scroll run with so little conflict that some people want to do a Dolmen pit stop on the way to capping it (lol, always wanted to do that as a joke :P) why can't everyone just man up (or woman up) and just play the campaign you care about? If you picked a dead campaign and it's your home and you're bored... Fine... Drop your six scroll stacked campaign and look for that legitimate challenge on a different server. Don't guest it though, make it your home.




Your only excuse not to (besides u want the stats) would be you want emp on your home. Good luck securing it with no competition for points and other people probably are already going to farm each other on these said "dead servers" with hugs and handshakes at the end of the day. (I heard skull crusher is like that)

It's a little extreme to compare six scroll stat stacking to cheat codes in console games, but honestly they come off as the same vibe. If you think you absolutely need the stats to win, zenimax's rules are going to still allow it (Currently). IMO, if you have any sense of honor though, make wabbajack your home on round two of the campaigns, because I don't think the current wabba home campaign players are going anywhere.

Oh and before speculation kicks in:

I'm a stamina build DK 2h bow utility player
Never a vamp
Never ran a magika build (impulse)
Never threw caltrops for siege protection, just to reveal stealthers trying to flank us during an offensive

Hypertionb14_ESO

I have no problem with the Non Vet campain, however the others just fracture a already empty zone even more than it already is...

Zhoyzu

i have several characters i like to play at any given time.


Will i be able to have each of my characters on any and all campaigns? Or will i be locked out of doing something with my guild because 2 pvp guilds for various factions share the same campaign.

mikeymike2785b14_ESO

You're going to be locked out of doing something with ONE of your guilds. I'm not in your shoes honestly, but if I was... I'd pick one PVP guild and stick with it, especially if ur playing multiple factions..

Zhoyzu

rich_nicholsonb16_ESO wrote: »

Just been thinking about this a bit more. I really think this will cause even more zergs as it's the zergs that get all the points to become emperor and it would be the best way to win the campaign. The game is already becoming a huge Zerg feast which is such a pity.

If this happens you need to bring in somekind of new reward system which disencourages zerging otherwise it will be a number game. Reducing group sizes and keeping certain heals in group only could help.

I would of loved to see a never ending campaign, no rewards it's just for realm pride.

if the campaigns had a larger population allowance then zerging wouldnt be an issue as people will spread out because they want kills to so it would force multiple attack paths from all factions

mikeymike2785b14_ESO

Yeah except for the lag....

Morticielle

WTF is this

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

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

5-/7-day-campaigns? What a nonsense!

fallensbane_ESO

Asatsuo wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Bringing down campaigns now will result in players not being rewarded properly which is part of the reason it's in update 3. We want to make sure players are properly rewarded when Campaigns are ended and not have another situation where players are left out of their earned status in a Campaign.

Scourge is still screwed over though, we won't ever be seeing any form of rewards for those 2 months of playtime...-_-"

Stop ok. I was on Scourge, I played for those two months and guess what. I got back to the reward cap within a few days. The campaign cap for rewards is super low and does not take that time. If you are having issues right now getting it in your own campaign you have just under 4 days to get it again if you campaign swap. I pulled it off in one weekend and contrary to what you likely believe I was not logged in every free hour on that weekend.

dbcameron

While I like that you're tweaking the system to try and make it better, dropping all of the long-term campaigns feels vastly disappointing. I for one prefer longer timers as it promotes loyalty among players working towards a common goal. It also gives a sense of loyalty to your fellow player as you've been in the campaign for long enough that you get to know the PUGs almost as well as your guildmates (at least the active PUGs).

While the resets only reset points and leaderboards, it will in a five day setting destroy that feeling by promoting rapid swaps between campaigns. Thus replacing camaraderie for zerg fests as alliances will consolidate on the campaign they're dominating.

While I like that there's only one 30 day campaign, I would have preferred a 90 or even 60 day timeframe. As it is too many games give out too many rewards freely which makes any reward feel worthless. Make us work for it. Make us earn it.

Phaade

Turelus wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Is it possible to post giving reasons why removal of four or five campaigns after the closing date would be a problem?

Greetings,

I believe the way the reward system works now is that we will be paid out when the campaigns restart and are operating in the 'no scoring' window of time. That, I think, is what they are changing with update three.

So - I think - in order for everyone (other than Scourge) to be rewarded at the reset, the campaign for which you are being rewarded must exist during the post-reset no scoring period.

I posed an earlier response to this thread requesting ZoS to consider restructuring ASAP after the award payout, even though it would be disruptive (by disruptive I mean we would all need to start over 'prematurely' in the new campaign structure, but I also think most of us would be aok with that).

I could be wrong...but I think that's the answer to your question.

Good Hunting,

Phaade

jquestb16_ESO2

I think it's a great idea. 3 month campaigns are way to long especially if one faction dominates and the others give up like on AB.

I think the 5 day, 7 day thing is silly, just make them all 7 days.

I also think people should be locked in for the week. It's only a week and it will make people fight more knowing they can't split if they're losing. Too bad so sad tuff it out it's only a week.

Being locked in for a week will also support guilds actually working together to take one down then bailing in 72 hrs.

Also the longer the campaign the better the reward should be.

I also think each player should be allowed to be locked into 1 short term campaign and one long one for the duration.

Halrloprillalar

Is tier 3 the highest reward tier or what am I missing?

Morticielle

jquestb16_ESO2 wrote: »

I think it's a great idea. 3 month campaigns are way to long especially if one faction dominates and the others give up like on AB.

That is not an argument for shorter campaigns. Even if a campaign will only be 5 or 7 days, you might have everytime a dominating faction. Short timespans like 5 or 7 days make campaigns meaningless. It's a bit like this instanced small-scale PvP some players prefer, it is simply meaningless. You win, you lose, it's just the same because the next game is coming soon. If a campaign is longer (30, 60 or 90 days) you have to get more invested in it - if you're not one of those winning team joiners, who have to win every day every battle because otherwise their small world would collapse.

On Auriel's Bow in the EU we had quite some changes over the 90 days. First AD was in the lead with 5000 points, then the red flood of Bat Swarm exploiters nearly drove us out of Cyrodiil and was for a long time up to 35000 points in front of us. After the fix of Bat Swarm many exploiters coincidentally lost interest in the game and left TESO, so we had a chance again, fought back bravely and now AD is 57000 points in the lead and will be winning this campaign.

In a 5/7-day-campaign something like that won't happen, because people will think "we're behind, so what, maybe next time we will win" and won't fight for a turnaround. I think that a 30 day period would be a good compromise.

Aeowyn

When the current cycle ends, this will be a great time to close down a few servers to improve the Cyrodill experience until the sweeping campaign changes are made. Really hoping for this.

Vivecc

haven´t read all ( way too much, way too early nowxD), so i just add my 2 Cents

1. I like the idea of campaigns for non -vets only.
2. i would prefer a second campaign of 30 days, and maybe one of 60 days added
3. in my experience the "guesting" is a problem of sorts and should be strongly limited. One possible solution could be , allow everybody besides his/her home-campaign just one (1) guest-campaign (without scoring) and no change of that ´til the campaigns get resetted/wiped.
4. How´s about the rewards at campaigns end ? Are they the same for ppl on 5 or 7 day campaigns in comparison to those of the 30 days? Why would anyone play 30 days for rewards, if he/she could earn 6 times more by going into a 5 day setup...
5. The Emperor-Title and the resulting "Former- Emp" Title (and Passives). The Emperorship should be DISABLED for all the short campaigns, otherwise we have everyone running around with that sooner or later.
and thats it for the moment , have fun

mikeymike2785b14_ESO

You know what I want as a reward? A mini vanity pet version copy of some of wabbajack biggest PVPers on the server. Each faction has like half a dozen at the least that would make great vanity pets!!

Esteevius

If I have characters from different factions that want to PvP, they can't be in the same campaign on one account, which is fine. But, if there are less campaigns, then I'm scared that I won't be able to get in any campaigns on some of my characters. Also, I think the long campaign shouldn't be completely taken out, since some people can't log in much in a 5-7 day period. I guess the 30 day campaign is still fairly long.

As long as there's enough campaigns to join as Home and Guest with a character from each faction. So that's at least 6 of each, unless Guest is removed completely, which would then only require 3 of each campaign type. I wish I was better at explaining what I'm trying to say but I hope someone understands me.

Then there's also the option to remove faction restrictions, which would make it possible to queue in the same campaign with characters of opposing factions, but even though that would reduce the amount of Campaigns needed, it probably wouldn't be a good idea because of people who would use it to spy on their enemies.

Esteevius

Also, I'm only lagging in Cyrodiil if someone invites me to a group, someone invites someone else to my group, or someone who is offline in my group signs online. Sometimes I freeze up completely when I get invited to a group, and my roommate has the same problem, and we have completely different computer set-ups.

Frcyr

@ZOS_BrianWheeler‌ Why isn't there any german announcement of this important changes? We have an english thread for nearly 3 weeks but nothing in german.

Blazzin-Ace

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Bringing down campaigns now will result in players not being rewarded properly which is part of the reason it's in update 3. We want to make sure players are properly rewarded when Campaigns are ended and not have another situation where players are left out of their earned status in a Campaign.

Pvp is fun, best part of the game by far. However it's broken, way to many servers, imbalanced populations. 5 servers max is all that's needed, as it is only 3-4 get any action and most of its a zerg fest @ wabba. Find a way to reward players after the campaign ends then close servers, going another 3 months with the broken system will kill the game. At the very least if you must keep all servers for a reasons unbeknownst to me, remove former emperor buffs so it's not farmed like a cheap *** and actually means something.

eol

I like the changes. Personally, I would love some sort of RP campaign that would attract more mature players. AvA attracts some incredibly immature people, and it would be nice to have a campaign with likeminded people. Because right now 'mature' seems to mean being able to throw F-bombs and immature chat on a level with anything I saw with WoW Barrens chat (which is saying a lot because that chat was the worst I had ever seen or imagined).

Again, the goal is not to get people to roleplay, its just using RP as a term to attract people that behave more maturely (usually called RP servers). This is especially important in AvA because for your realm to succeed you need to work together to some extent, unlike PvE where you can basically /ignore those sorts of people and they don't really affect your gameplay much after that.