Upcoming Campaign Changes

eventide03b14a_ESO

I love that they are separating veteran from non veteran. There is a significant handicap when fighting veterans with my lower level alts. I am glad that I can now experience pvp with them on a more even playing field.

JbSmooth

Adramelach wrote: »

For the short-to-medium term, I would suggest not raising the AP cost to switch, since we will be "experimenting" with these new changes just as you are, and if we lock ourselves into a new form of campaign type that we wind up quicklyi not liking, it would be very annoying to have to save up 100,000 ap just to correct that.

Certainly, I think it would make experimentation with these new forms far less frequent.

---

agreed also don't think it should cost 100,000 ap at all the current price is annoying already, just impose some kind of penalty for players who switch

---

any add something for players who don't like to run with the main zergs constantly bouncing for keep to keep gets annoying ....... since you don't want players to leave Cyrodiil make some sort of arena that coexist within the zone say like a small town[safezone] that players for any faction can meet & can setup 1v1's 3v3's or what ever maybe even bet gold items or what ever this will make things a lot more exciting then running around non stop zerging its cool but after 3 months its getting mindless......

Blazzin-Ace

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

When patch 3 is introduced (which will most likely not be at a clean end of the 90 days simply due to scheduling) everyone is granted a free Home assignment.

So will you then be shutting down all 90 day pvp servers with patch 3 mid campaign to start with new 5-7-30 day campaigns?

When is patch 3? pvp servers as is are dead and or 1 over crowded, no fix for 3 months or 1.5 months, when is patch3?

Please clarify.

Iam_Epiphany

Support what a lot of people are saying here, short is good but these are too short. We'll have emperor's coming out of the woodwork. In my opinion no game should see less than a 14 day timer.

recon011994

@ZOS_BrianWheeler

I think the non-vet campaign is an excellent idea. I would like to see more than one. This would compensate for the sheer number of personnel that would want to be participating. PVP is a big pull for many players. Many new players would obviously PVE but I think many would be happy exclusively in the PVP realm once it is unlocked. I would ensure the team is ready for this influx by making sure adequate space will be available.

Merlight

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

As for population being condensed and the worry of over-crowding, all the population data we've gathered so far shows that should be at least 1 campaign in both the EU and US that players can join without a queue.

Hope that means there will be more than those 5 campaigns mentioned in the first post. I'm not willing to play on a campaign where there is a single zergball, or where my alliance outnumbers the others.

First of all, you should stop mirroring campaigns. Your EU and NA playerbases are not identical. If you pick a number that suits one region, the other will be screwed. It would also be nice if all campaigns had unique names. So that when I say I play on Wabbajack, everyone understands I mean EU Wabbapanties, not NA Wabbajerkin (sorry, couldn't help it with that epic jerkins thread around ).

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Duration of Campaigns we're still discussing but rewards will be adjusted to be in relation to the duration of the campaign. We are aware of Celarus and what's going on in that Campaign.

Good. I think 7-day should not be called campaign, or better yet, not even exist. I'd like to play on a 30-day free-for-all campaign that's not crowded.

I like the idea of a non-veteran-only campaign. What I don't like is a veteran-only campaign. Why not let every player see the real thing? The beauty of a free-for-all campaign is that there are veterans not only in the enemy ranks, but also on your side. I have actually levelled 25 through V1 mainly by roaming Cyrodiil (duo or in a small group), going where the fights were and playing my part in the grand war. I know there are groups that wouldn't accept non-veterans. Good for them. But please, allow non-veterans to the battlefield. They can learn how to pour oil pretty well, you know ;-)

Blazzin-Ace

I agree 5-7 days waaay to short "That's not a war it's a battle" like my friend Brutus likes to say. 30 days is nice, 30-60-90 days, even 15-30-45 days in fact i think i prefer the latter. 5-7 days is simply an emperor farming server..

IcyDeadPeople

Cogo wrote: »

First of all, you should stop mirroring campaigns. Your EU and NA playerbases are not identical. If you pick a number that suits one region, the other will be screwed. It would also be nice if all campaigns had unique names. So that when I say I play on Wabbajack, everyone understands I mean EU Wabbapanties, not NA Wabbajerkin (sorry, couldn't help it with that epic jerkins thread around ).

There are already many EU and Asia players on the NA megaserver. I wonder if it would be possible to merge the EU and NA servers at this point, so we have better populations on each campaign.

Cogo wrote: »

I'm not willing to play on a campaign where there is a single zergball, or where my alliance outnumbers the others.

Low pop ghost town campaigns might be favored by those looking to do PVE or avoid lag, but they are boring as hell for anyone who enjoys PVP, and I believe the developers are working on a fix for the lag issues. On a high pop campaign you don't need to jump into keep zerg battles - there are opportunities for small scale battles all over the map, at all hours.

Inzababa

@ZOS_BrianWheeler

really hoping that when the campaigns reset tomorrow evening you will use the downtime for maintenance to take one or two out

Merlight

IcyDeadPeople wrote: »

Low pop ghost town campaigns might be favored by those looking to do PVE or avoid lag, but they are boring as hell for anyone who enjoys PVP, and I believe the developers are working on a fix for the lag issues. On a high pop campaign you don't need to jump into keep zerg battles - there are opportunities for small scale battles all over the map, at all hours.

I would argue that it's easier to find small battles on a low-pop campaign, where you can simply provoke them by attacking something. A high-pop campaign amused me when I saw little armies sneaking around keeps, searching for enemy sneaking armies. They were like multiplied copies of assault groups operating on a low-pop campaign. Not much difference in there.

You're talking about ghost town campaigns. I believe a low-pop campaign doesn't have to be(come) a ghost town. Of course nobody wants to play on an abandoned monochromatic campaign. But a campaign won't be boring as long as it has three colors on the map. The problem with low population is that it's more prone to imbalance, and that these campaigns are frequently raided by players who supposedly enjoy PvP, but just happen to regularly faceroll campaigns where most of the resistance they encounter is PvE.

To explain a bit more why I'm defending smaller campaigns so much... I doubt "anyone who enjoys PvP" would also enjoy it in 5 frames per second. Yes it's a performance issue and I have no idea whether I'm the only one or there are more players with similar frame rates; but it's yet another reason a high-pop campaign is not an option for me. You simply can't avoid the zerg when you can't see it approaching. To me a friendly zerg is just as evil as an enemy one, and I need to minimize the possibility of running into any of them.

IcyDeadPeople

Merlight wrote: »

IcyDeadPeople wrote: »

Low pop ghost town campaigns might be favored by those looking to do PVE or avoid lag, but they are boring as hell for anyone who enjoys PVP, and I believe the developers are working on a fix for the lag issues. On a high pop campaign you don't need to jump into keep zerg battles - there are opportunities for small scale battles all over the map, at all hours.

I would argue that it's easier to find small battles on a low-pop campaign, where you can simply provoke them by attacking something. A high-pop campaign amused me when I saw little armies sneaking around keeps, searching for enemy sneaking armies. They were like multiplied copies of assault groups operating on a low-pop campaign. Not much difference in there.

You're talking about ghost town campaigns. I believe a low-pop campaign doesn't have to be(come) a ghost town. Of course nobody wants to play on an abandoned monochromatic campaign. But a campaign won't be boring as long as it has three colors on the map. The problem with low population is that it's more prone to imbalance, and that these campaigns are frequently raided by players who supposedly enjoy PvP, but just happen to regularly faceroll campaigns where most of the resistance they encounter is PvE.

To explain a bit more why I'm defending smaller campaigns so much... I doubt "anyone who enjoys PvP" would also enjoy it in 5 frames per second. Yes it's a performance issue and I have no idea whether I'm the only one or there are more players with similar frame rates; but it's yet another reason a high-pop campaign is not an option for me. You simply can't avoid the zerg when you can't see it approaching. To me a friendly zerg is just as evil as an enemy one, and I need to minimize the possibility of running into any of them.

I've been experiencing very low frame rate on high pop campaigns for the past couple months, and it has gotten worse after the latest patch, so I can certainly sympathize. I believe the developers are already working on a fix for this.

As for setting up siege to flag a keep on low pop campaigns and try to draw people out to fight, I've been there and it is excruciatingly boring to do this over and over and be lucky to find two or three enemy players to fight. It gets so bad on the low pop campaigns that on a number of occasions we have been reduced to sitting on our horses outside the enemy spawn points, waiting forever for players to appear.

In my case I don't care if all three factions are equally represented, or if another faction dominates a campaign, as long as there are enough players around to fight at all times.

During the first couple weeks after launch there were lots of players to fight and fun battles on all the campaigns, but at this point, Wabbajack is the only campaign where I can find small scale battles all over the place at any time of day.

Raiborn

My abbreviated two cents:
I would have preferred to see two 7 day campaigns with one non-vet, one for all;
three 28 day campaigns with one non-vet, two for all;
five+ 56 day campaigns with one for vets only, three+ for all;
These ratios are based on the original 10 campaign quantity. If the plan is to consolidate, then bump the duplicates down.
A good place to expand would be increasing the all players 28 and 56 day campaigns - for the casual guild players and groups of friends, which I imagine to be a target demographic.
I like the higher home change cost and timeout. Allowing a free campaign change at the end of any campaign would be helpful for experimenting players. See my other more dramatic idea below for more detailed thoughts*.
Why 7, 28, and 56 days? They line up nicely! There will be distinct points where players can hop into a different length campaign without missing a kickoff.

Questions:
From the post, it is unclear as to whether these 'new' campaigns are going to be the only campaigns or if they are simply additions to the existing ones. Was this supposed to be obvious or answered somewhere? [Looking further, it seems this is answered - these new campaigns are additions to the existing ones. Correct?]

With week-long campaigns, won't a wider range of players be crowned emperor with leaders resetting each week? Should someone be able to be crowned emperor after only one or few night(s) of dedicated play on a weekly basis? Why would I play on a longer campaign when I could play on a short campaign where the crown will be up for grabs every weekend?

Will there be a logical time for players to swap campaign lengths and possibly without having to pay 100k AP? The 5 day campaigns will overlap with the 30 day campaign, and the 5 and 7 overlap at 35. Going from 7 to 30 doesn't work out very well though. Will these overlap points give players distinct opportunities to directly transfer to a new campaign? If I play the first 7 day campaign and want to transition to a longer one, am I stuck in the 7 day cycle until I save up 100k AP? Or will I be able to make that transition at the end of any given 7 day cycle? Will those in the 30 day campaign be able to swap into the second 7 day campaign at no cost/lower cost or should we have saved up 100k AP in that first week? My suggestion, mentioned above, was to consider 7, 28, and 56 day campaigns with distinct end points that might allow players to jump directly into an alternate length campaign at no cost at first log-in/zone after a campaign conclusion. Five days is terribly short, gives little time for on the fly adjustments/downtime/etc. on the developer's side, and it doesn't line up with the world's weekly schedule unless there's a two day break, which hurts players.

Core thoughts & conclusions: (corresponding to my abbreviated two cents)
90 days was a bit too long. Let's try 56 days.

Having non-vet campaigns is a great idea, but the goal is for players to reach veteran ranks. It would make sense to limit non-vet campaigns to the shorter lengths as the leveling community would benefit from the more frequent minor end rewards. Additionally, the long campaigns are then seen as something to be earned - where the serious campaigners are bound. Remember, there would still be all-level 28 and 56 day campaigns for the daring non-vets.

The 28 day campaigns provide a small middle ground. Also, if the 56 day campaigns are still too long/aren't as popular, then we won't have to wait another full round of campaign testing to know whether 28 days would be better. That's an easier adjustment that can be made along the way.

I like the idea of having one elite veteran only campaign that's a long campaign. This is where the serious campaigners go who are willing to sacrifice playing with lower level toons/friends and don't settle for the easier and lesser rewards of shorter campaigns. This is where the weathered veterans, dedicated players, and most coordinated groups will duke it out. One concern: too many vets would seek this campaign, and it fills up too quickly. However, that could be a good thing. At that point it could even be turned into a VR10+ or even VR12 only campaign for the elite of the elite. Take a look at the player level demographic stats - I imagine an appropriate cutoff could be determined to make for a full elite campaign.

Consider your audience. Cater to the learning non-vets (safe shorter campaigns) without robbing veterans of their prestige (exclusive longer campaigns).

Swapping campaigns mid-campaign should be expensive - 100k AP is appropriate. However, with shorter length campaigns in play, players should be given the opportunity to swap at a different rate at the conclusion of any campaign. Either free or a discounted rate (~15k AP) are two alternate options, although players who don't have enough to cover that entry fee would be stuck until the next round or until they raise 100k AP. Free might be best when changing at those junctions.

A completely different alternative would be to drop all players back to 0 AP at the reset of their current campaign and when swapping to a new one (and cost ~100K AP if in the middle of a campaign). Players would be able to spend all of their stocked up AP on supplies before the campaign conclusions that could be used in the new campaign.

*Even more dramatic, all AP and supplies could be reset giving players incentive to go all out throughout the shorter campaigns and even more so in the final hours of any campaign before their stock returns to 0. This would certainly even the playing field at kickoff times, make each campaign feel like a fresh start, and reward good and active players. It would also slow down the crowning of emperors in the shorter campaigns, which could otherwise be a big problem. This would help balance the incentive to join a shorter campaign versus a longer campaign - I can have a shot at emperor each week even though it's going to be a heated struggle, or I can hold onto my points and toys that I've earned for a longer time and enjoy a more gradual rise to the throne and perhaps even topple a few emperors while I'm at it.

Adding different length campaigns that players can choose and swap between re-opens the can of worms that is balancing. Give players the experience and challenge they're looking for and reward them appropriately and only when they haven't cut any corners. You've created a wonderfully diverse and challenging game. Keep it that way.

Thechemicals

What a terrible idea. Im going to call out Entropy Rising as the idea pusher here. 5 day campaigns? Do you know how silly that sounds. If you have to do something this bad at least go14 and 30 days. Even then it doesn't even sound like a campaign.

eol

I agree, 5 and 7 days is too short. I liked the idea of making the campaign lengths multiples of the shortest, so its 14-28-56 or something like that. The campaign lengths should be oriented around a week (7 days), not 5 or 10, since weekend populations can be so much larger.

I also agree the changes should happen sooner and not halfway thru a new 90 day campaign, that makes little sense. The dead campaigns need to be rolled up into others or as others point out there will be continued abuse of 'emperor' and quests, etc.

Zenzu

I hear they arn't even going with these changes even after the mess of campaigns is over. Please, please makes changes after this campaign is over!

Soloeus

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!

1. I will be in Bow of Shadows as my new home.

2. I might try Chillrend or even Thornblade.

3. I would not like a 100k AP cost. I don't want a lockout on guest campaigns and here is why.

I don't want to be surprised. I want to be able to get the stats for each campaign before settling on a home. Who is in each one, what kind of people? How is the score? The only way to really know this is to join it and I wouldn't want to be stuck in a bad campaign.

kirnmalidus

I'm pretty surprised these didn't launch when the previous campaigns ended tonight. I don't think you can afford to wait another cycle to fix the major issues with the current campaign configuration.

You need to at least communicate with the player base at this point about what is going to happen with the campaigns or a lot more players are going to be jumping ship soon.

Zhoyzu

an ETA would be appreciated

Atalle

I agree with @Zhoyzu I didn't change my current campaign because I thought ZOS was actually going to do something about how horrible PVP is. Campaign ended and no ETA on when I'll get to play in a PVP campaign that actually functions like PVP and not a one side fight that doesn't allow the underdog any chance of winning. I think ZOS should be awarding everyone with 15k AP so we can change our home campaigns for free. So tempted to end my sub.

Hypertionb14_ESO

Zhoyzu wrote: »

an ETA would be appreciated

TheGrandAlliance

AUG

frwinters_ESO

Hypertionb14_ESO wrote: »

Zhoyzu wrote: »

an ETA would be appreciated

If you read the rest of the thread the ETA is the next big content patch, which will be what 1.3? Since 1.2 just hit you got another 4-6 weeks.

driosketch

So now that everyone has seen what the end of what a campaign entails, what does everyone think of the shorter times now?

frwinters_ESO

I like shorter times, i hope they make the end of campaigns rewards a little more lucrative.

WebBull

Blazzin-Ace wrote: »

When is patch 3? pvp servers as is are dead and or 1 over crowded, no fix for 3 months or 1.5 months, when is patch3?

Please clarify.

Patch 2 is such an absolute disaster that I don't want patch 3! Please give us specific patch for PvP fixes and campaign changes prior to patch 3.

As far as campaigns, I think 5-7 days is too short. Min 15 days in my opinion.

JeffKnight

Regardless of what you do to change campaigns, I think we can all agree that either emperor/home bonuses only affect the home campaign or the guesting feature needs to go away. It's being abused to no end. It's time for people to get invested in a campaign and actually work there instead of being able to home in a campaign they completely dominate and then guest on someone else's campaign and screw balance up there too.

Arato

I love the concept of the new campaigns, when can we expect these to come out? I have 4 crafting alts that used cyrodiil for skyshards and now I wish I could make them not have a home campaign anymore since I don't expect to pvp on them.

DCGoth_OTG

Zhoyzu wrote: »

an ETA would be appreciated

He mentioned that this will happen in the third major release. The second major release was Tuesday and they have stated that they plan to push a major release every ~4 - 6 weeks. That would mean roughly ~5 weeks from now is most likely. Sooner if it passes testing without problems.

**This is assuming they maintain current release projections.

Jorj1388

how to become emperor ... (sarcasm)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYXwSkba1_U

wllstrt75b14_ESO

3 vet campaigns is a must. 5 days is way too short..I would argue 14 days be min campaign but can see 7 days especially for non vet.