Upcoming Campaign Changes

DarkMuhi

Well done guys every month little changes and I will play Eso till I die

Soloeus

driosketch wrote: »

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

They make me want to remove my home and guest campaign period because I don't want to get stuck in a bad campaign and be blocked by a 100k paywall from exiting it.

joshisanonymous

Soloeus wrote: »

They make me want to remove my home and guest campaign period because I don't want to get stuck in a bad campaign and be blocked by a 100k paywall from exiting it.

I don't think you responded to the actual question that he asked, but FYI: AP that you earn on guest campaigns can be used to switch your home campaign.

tylarthb16_ESO

The rewards of any campaigns should reflect the loyalty and commitment to it.

So a player couldn't say do several mini campaigns in a row gaining rewards for teach, then swap to the longer one near the end and get enough ap for the full reward.

While this may not seem too relevant in the light of the rather mediocre cash rewards, it is relevant if the rewards get buffed, or farming rewards yields excessive results.

I prefer mechanics that encourage players sticking to a campaign.

WarrioroftheWind_ESO

Zeni please think about reworking Emperor mechanics entirely, if not then make "emperor farming" a bannable offense. I play on the Volendrung server and I was honestly hoping the reset of the camp would see somewhat a return to normalcy, yet I see the exact same thing going on where you have guilds or elite players swooping in farming absurd amounts of points then when one is crowned emp, they move off the server freeing up emp for 'the next one in line'. Even a member of an opposing faction who opposed emperor swapping herself has left the server rather than stay and fight. This is ludicrous. Emperor is supposed to not just mark someone who has alot of time on their hands but a skilled dedicated person, someone who puts their faction before themselves. If it ends up being like one of those 'everyperson' achievements, it devalues it and diminishes the community since those with emperor jump ship, taking their skills with them and leaving the remaining populace without. Camps should be communities that evolve and have a sense of stability. This revolving door has got to go.

Imperator_Clydus

WarrioroftheWind_ESO wrote: »

Zeni please think about reworking Emperor mechanics entirely, if not then make "emperor farming" a bannable offense. I play on the Volendrung server and I was honestly hoping the reset of the camp would see somewhat a return to normalcy, yet I see the exact same thing going on where you have guilds or elite players swooping in farming absurd amounts of points then when one is crowned emp, they move off the server freeing up emp for 'the next one in line'. Even a member of an opposing faction who opposed emperor swapping herself has left the server rather than stay and fight. This is ludicrous. Emperor is supposed to not just mark someone who has alot of time on their hands but a skilled dedicated person, someone who puts their faction before themselves. If it ends up being like one of those 'everyperson' achievements, it devalues it and diminishes the community since those with emperor jump ship, taking their skills with them and leaving the remaining populace without. Camps should be communities that evolve and have a sense of stability. This revolving door has got to go.

Agreed. Most of the players who have become emperor do not deserve it. If ZOS decides not to change how it functions, they should then remove the emperorship entirely from the game. It's largely undermining the purpose and spirit of AvA.

When it has become a social norm for players to focus solely on farming AP, and then leaving campaigns to pass the emperorship to all of their buddies, you know the system needs changing. Players are taking advantage of the emperorship in ways not intended, and it needs to stop.

Reticent_Prophet

I think it should be 14 days instead of seven days. Needs to be long enough to have some meaning. When will this be implemented? I hope soon, right now there is too many servers in my opinion and most of them are dead and no fun at all anymore.

Rev Rielle

I think the changing server ideas, and guesting modifications, are a step in the right direction.

I think however there are some fundamental problems with the mechanics with the campaigns. Broadly speaking; it's the fact that the stronger alliances get stronger, whilst the weaker get weaker. And I'm not talking about the ability to get alliance points, but the actual combat mechanics of player verse player. For instance, the more keeps/scrolls an alliance has the more buffs it has (to spell/weapon damage etc etc), the alliance that current has the emperor has bonuses to their hitpoints, etc etc. Below are just two short examples of how I think this could be modified for the betterment of all.

1. Addition of Bonuses to Help the PvP Stay Competitive in Unbalanced Situations.
   I'd like to see actual combat-related bonuses for alliances that are getting beaten/have little to no keeps/forts etc. This could come in many forms, from being able to hire (mobile) companion NPCs to help you take a keep, to purchasing temporary boons/buffs from certain NPC mages/fighers in your home Gates that are only available under certain circumstances (e.g. when you're outnumbered and/or have no keeps), etc etc. I'm not sure on the finer points, but there needs to be something to help the PvP stay competitive when the alliances are vastly outnumbered.
   
   
2. Balancing Keeps in Relation to the Alliance's Home.
   I'd also like to see improvements made to the Forts/Keeps in Cyrodiil. Currently all the keeps are basically the same difficulty to takeover/defend. This leads to a situation where if one alliance can take one keep, they more often than not will continue on from keep to keep and - time permitting - take over the whole map. A better dynamic would be if the keeps become easier to defend the closer an alliance is to their home Gates. And Similarly, the keeps in an Alliance's home area should be the easiest to recapture. Once again I don't know exactly how the mechanics could be put in place for this to be best achieved, but I think it would add to the enjoyment of all out there, both the winning and loosing alliances.

frwinters_ESO

Anf give us back the kill 20 player quest as a separate quest then have another npc or board give the player class quests. Some classes out in cyrodil are highly less populated then others. DK and Sorcs go by quick, Nightblades and Templars may take me days to complete if i play 2 hours a night. This again pulls back gaining any XP in Cyrodil when you guys said you wanted to make it more worth while.

Merlight

Rev Rielle wrote: »

And Similarly, the keeps in an Alliance's home area should be the easiest to recapture. Once again I don't know exactly how the mechanics could be put in place for this to be best achieved, but I think it would add to the enjoyment of all out there, both the winning and loosing alliances.

For example native npcs could respawn faster / in greater numbers, than invaders' npcs. But these things are hard to get right. It could make these keeps unconquerable for invaders in one campaign, while making no difference in another.

edit @frwinters_ESO:
You can abandon the quest and retake. I got to kill Templars, abandoned, and got the generic one. The class quest are weird anyway, took me 2 days to get one last sorc kill.

frwinters_ESO

Merlight wrote: »

Rev Rielle wrote: »

And Similarly, the keeps in an Alliance's home area should be the easiest to recapture. Once again I don't know exactly how the mechanics could be put in place for this to be best achieved, but I think it would add to the enjoyment of all out there, both the winning and loosing alliances.

For example native npcs could respawn faster / in greater numbers, than invaders' npcs. But these things are hard to get right. It could make these keeps unconquerable for invaders in one campaign, while making no difference in another.

edit @frwinters_ESO:
You can abandon the quest and retake. I got to kill Templars, abandoned, and got the generic one. The class quest are weird anyway, took me 2 days to get one last sorc kill.

Good to know, can save Nightblade and Templars last in a night.

Kaytlin

It really matters little what campaign changes they have in the works if they are unable to correct the lag/fps issues that now plague the battlefields of Cyrodiil. It has been over 2 weeks since this problem was reported and acknowledged by the developers. Additionally, they developers seem to be focused on adding new content/changing content rather than fixing the large number of bugs that currently exist in the game. In order for this game to survive much longer the developers need to focus on the basics: fix the problems that exist preventing your player base from playing the game!
As far as patches and new content go....You need to do a much better job of testing these patches before they are released. Confidence in your programming team is worse than that of Congress at this point in time.
Once this has been corrected then provide new content such as "enhanced lighting!"
Caytlynne of Skye
V12 EP Sorceress

bruceb14_ESO5

New Motto, Say no to "enhanced lightning"

Galathil923

I am not sure why you would want to go from 90 days in a campaign to just 5 days?

I personally like the longer campaigns,the change seems to be pretty extreme to me.

Right now I am a VR 6 and would like to see more options for the Veteran players than what you are proposing.

LunaRae

I like the options I see - 90 day campaigns turn into who can farm alliance points the most over an extremely long duration of time. I have a life and I'd never fall into this category, but 5 days I can at least take some time off, even just a few days from work and actually have a chance at the beginning of a new campaign.

I'm really hoping the campaign changes will also consider NPC/Player settings, such as the "battle mode". Vet-only zones should not have battle mode at all while non-vet zones should have battle mode (assuming NPC changes are not possible). I don't want to see you guys make new campaigns and not rework all of the systems that are closely dependent on campaigns and how they're configured, that's sloppy/lazy work.

Last comment - please let these changes come out asap.

Insaneous

I have a few suggestions for the PvP aspect of the game, not that it is bad in way in it's current state, but there are some specifications that I would particularly like to be changed.

First of all, I REALLY like the concept of large-scale PvP. I think the developers did an excellent job in the way they executed it, but I would really like to see some smaller scale PvP events. Less players in a game and a MUCH smaller map are my primary concerns. Similar to battlegrounds in WoW, I think there needs to be some variations of PvP maps and styles of play. A smaller scale event/instance would be great and I believe would be widely accepted amongst the community. This would also dampen the lag caused by the large scale PvP.

I would also like to see matchmaking-style PvP. Although the game scales you up to level 50 in Cyrodiil, VRs still generally DESTROY other players since they have superior gear, superior class skills, and simply the general concept of being a veteran player.

Lastly, I think dueling should be implemented. It is one of the most enjoyable parts of PvP and being able to display one's PvP prowess. This should be enabled essentially anywhere, and I think the concept is relatively simple to implement.

Anyway, that is my little rant for the day. I by no means am condemning the current system, but I think these additions would be pleasing to the entirety of the community. Thanks for the constructive feedback everyone!

Syrrisdevlin

so I love the idea of where your going with this my thoughts though is you should add a exp toggle so that you can turn off and on EXP gains just because im sure there is a lot of players who would like to lock a toon in to a lvl group of pvp because of limited gear selection and every thing els that comes with lvls. none vet campaigns should really be two different campaigns a 10-30 and a 31-vr1 or 10-29 and 30-49 I mean cause there really is no lvl 50 least I don't think there was Im pretty sure I went straight from lvl 49 to vr1 but again if your gonna make a none vet campaign then please add a exp gain on and off toggle

Bigtuna

All good ideas, I think having a 14 day campaign is a good idea also. It seems like people on Celarus have a good time and it is a decent enough window that the emp changes hands regularly.

Juraigr

Syrrisdevlin wrote: »

so I love the idea of where your going with this my thoughts though is you should add a exp toggle so that you can turn off and on EXP gains just because im sure there is a lot of players who would like to lock a toon in to a lvl group of pvp because of limited gear selection and every thing els that comes with lvls. none vet campaigns should really be two different campaigns a 10-30 and a 31-vr1 or 10-29 and 30-49 I mean cause there really is no lvl 50 least I don't think there was Im pretty sure I went straight from lvl 49 to vr1 but again if your gonna make a none vet campaign then please add a exp gain on and off toggle

No

p_tsakirisb16_ESO

I believe we need less campaigns not more.

And make a cap limit of how many players can join per side in relation of the opponents. Maybe no more than 2 to 1. (eg 4 EP for each DC & AD combined)

Hopsfire EU, is a good example of one sided campaing. And so are many campaigns on EU, and on the same side (EP) having already a big leap ahead, always outnumbering the other sides combined.

(I will only speak of last week as an indication, not "years past").

EP, fields a ridiculous number of players, a third of which were Vampires, and more than half of the players are DKs.

DC, are nowhere, around 5-6 players running around in two small groups, trying to hunt soloers, at prime times. They are only capable of "alarm clock" scroll raids to do the quests, and gone again.


AD, we try hard to get numbers but we are not enough. The majority are NBs and SCs, that fail to break the DKs. (where my Templar shines).

eg last night, we took some scrolls from DC (undefeded) and for two hours we defend Alesia, but EP outnumber us 4 to 1, with more coming in all the time. By the time we lost Alesia, was 10:40pm BST (11:30 CEST). Most of us logged, because we do have work, and map is completely back on EP hands.

Without DC there to push against the EP and force them to split their forces, the usual ~50 AD players will quit also, joining Auriel bow.

I know the same has happend to many other campaigns from the AD side across the whole of the EU server.

rich_nicholsonb16_ESO

At this rate they wont have any players to play in one campaign let alone 5.

olivier.vd.brandtb16_ESO

p_tsakirisb16_ESO wrote: »

I believe we need less campaigns not more.

And make a cap limit of how many players can join per side in relation of the opponents. Maybe no more than 2 to 1. (eg 4 EP for each DC & AD combined)

Hopsfire EU, is a good example of one sided campaing. And so are many campaigns on EU, and on the same side (EP) having already a big leap ahead, always outnumbering the other sides combined.

(I will only speak of last week as an indication, not "years past").

EP, fields a ridiculous number of players, a third of which were Vampires, and more than half of the players are DKs.

DC, are nowhere, around 5-6 players running around in two small groups, trying to hunt soloers, at prime times. They are only capable of "alarm clock" scroll raids to do the quests, and gone again.


AD, we try hard to get numbers but we are not enough. The majority are NBs and SCs, that fail to break the DKs. (where my Templar shines).

eg last night, we took some scrolls from DC (undefeded) and for two hours we defend Alesia, but EP outnumber us 4 to 1, with more coming in all the time. By the time we lost Alesia, was 10:40pm BST (11:30 CEST). Most of us logged, because we do have work, and map is completely back on EP hands.

Without DC there to push against the EP and force them to split their forces, the usual ~50 AD players will quit also, joining Auriel bow.

I know the same has happend to many other campaigns from the AD side across the whole of the EU server.

hehe your so funny dude. im actualy fighting in Hopesfire for the last months.
(-Beowulf) EP and most of the days we are 8 and sometimes 16 join more but thats almost never. and you say you are 50. And yes we wipe you and we find it redicilously funny now ofc you say we are with 200. cous we are NOT. it might look that way cous we kill you evrey time. and pls stay dont go to Auriels bow. we like you guys. and ps DC has 25 players also and they fight to.

olivier.vd.brandtb16_ESO

no offence meant p_tsakri. we like it verry mutch to fight with you. and we would love for you to stay so we can have a fair battle. in Auriels bow you wil probalby have way more zergs and stuff you say you dont like.

Forztr

This thread was a complete waste of time, they clearly don't read it. The suggested campaigns in the original post are the ones going to be implemented on PTS and therefore go live desipte 21+ pages of feedback all of it IGNORED.

Why ask for feedback in the first place if you had no intention of using any of it??

naturn

I really like this plan. I have a couple concerns. I hope people who participate will continue to gain experience and level because I wouldn't want to see people stop at a certain level to create a twink (a monster fighter with all the best gear etc.) Twinks make pvp almost unplayable unless you also have a twink. It is best for players to continue to level so they always evolve and compete against players who are similar in nature. Of course, at the top level V12 players (or whatever level players are as the game evolves) will all be in the same boat to develop their gear along with all of the other v12s. So there won't be a twink class.
I am not sure about the length of time for campaigns. It does seem a bit short, but I agree shorter is better than the long ones we have now.
Also the penalty for switching campaigns seems a bit stiff and may create a little resentment among players. You may want to soften that a bit although I think changing should not be too easy.
Overall I am glad you are looking at pvp and making theses changes.

Samadhi

So the PTS patch notes currently state:

All Campaigns that were running up until this patch have been closed, and 5 new Campaigns are opening up:

Bow of Shadows: 5 day Veteran Rank only Campaign
Blackwater Blade: 5 day Non-Veteran only Campaign
Haderus: 7 day standard Campaign that anyone can join
Chillrend: 7 day standard Campaign that anyone can join
Thornblade: 30 day standard Campaign that anyone can join

While I highly approve of the campaigns being cut down to a total of 5, I'm a bit less pleased to see that nothing was done in response to community requests to have a longer campaign along with relative disdain for the 5 day campaign ideas.

Give us a campaign with no AoE caps active in it pls.

joeparadis_ESO

@ZOS_BrianWheeler‌

I have some feedback with your suggestions regarding the Cyrodiil changes:

1) Campaign length: While I think the 7 day and 30 day campaigns make sense the 5 day campaigns are just too fast. The reason being is that many players are "weekend warriors" with limited time to play during the week so there will be entire campaigns that will become lop sided because of this. Stick to 7 days and 30 days MAYBE try out a 14 day/2-week campaign.

2) Campaign types: there should be a Vet and Non vet version of the 30 day campaigns as well. I would also add a few more of those.

3) lockouts: I'm not sure the reasoning for this but I don't like it. Sometimes you go to your home campaign only to find it completely taken over by 1 alliance. This causes campaigns to be abandoned. I'm on Bloodthorn and it's a ghost town because when you login the whole map is blue and everyone has given up on it. Players should have the ability to guest at other campaigns once it is clear they have been defeated... at least for the 30 day+ campaigns.

4) You need 1v1 pvp arenas/tournaments. It's what people want. You get plenty of small group skirmishes naturally in the wild but controlled 1v1 is very hard to setup unless the entire map has been monopolized by a faction and that's all there is left to do lol. Again that's what's happened in Bloodthorn.

5) PVP that effects even questing zones: This is another suggestion and a total pipe dream but I would like it if alliances could have their gates overrun and have enemies flood into their zones. It should be one of those experiences where when the enemy breaks into your homeland a big announcement goes up (like the scroll announcements) that says "YOUR ALLIANCE IS BEING INVADED AT THE X GATE!!!" at which point the entire zone would scramble and band together to repell the invaders. The Defending faction would also get a huge "Defend your homeland" buff that allows them to take on even the highest level players. Siege weapons are freely available near the gates and players would also be able to setup improptu Barricades. NPCs would also fight in defense of the homeland as well! *sigh* I know I know... most likely impossible but a guy can dream right?

JeffKnight

I'm rather disappointed that the campaigns going on pts soon are just c/p from the op in this thread. I do hope that this is just to test campaign closure and that our suggestions are taken into consideration before this hits live.

frwinters_ESO

Forztr wrote: »

This thread was a complete waste of time, they clearly don't read it. The suggested campaigns in the original post are the ones going to be implemented on PTS and therefore go live desipte 21+ pages of feedback all of it IGNORED.

Why ask for feedback in the first place if you had no intention of using any of it??

We still have 4-6 weeks before this is all set in stone. We all know the PTS server notes can be changed at anytime so we do not know if we have been ignored.

But I will say the lack of responses from @zos_brianwheeler on this topic has been lacking. If you asked us for feedback and we have been giving feedback with very little acknowledgement, you will discourage your PvP community and they will leave. Just acknowledge and let us know if any of our suggestions may be taken into account now or even later in a future patch and I think that would be enough. All most of us want is some acknowledgement that we are heard.

Nivzruo_ESO

Now all you need to do is add a couple 10v10 CTF/domination maps and 2v2, 3v3 arena and this game will be perfect.