Upcoming Campaign Changes

Xnemesis

Snit wrote: »

Censorious wrote: »

So apart from the unmentionables - there won't be anyone in the three standard campaigns.

I agree. There's no point to the mixed-level campaigns, unless they have some special attractor or reward.

This is for PvP guilds who have lower level players that want to play together.

Censorious

Here's a radical thought:-

Take this opportunity to reset everyone's Alliance points to zero.

That way, those people who were lucky enough to get into Cyrodiil when the bounty quest was repeatable and made a huge number of points will be pegged back to the same level as everyone else who was not so lucky.

At the moment, because of this glitch, we have a population of veterans who are unfairly high on the leaderboards. They have had their run, now let others have a chance.

(I would even go for regular resets to keep it fresh)

Gisgo

ByrenV wrote: »

I think there are too few campaigns in the proposed changes. My guild/friends joined the campaign we joined specifically because it was low population. With there being so few options, there will no longer be a low population option. Maybe a campaign with a lower population cap as an option? Another low pop cap campaign could be added if the first one reaches cap. Obviously, you'd have to indicate it is a low pop campaign so people that want large pop don't pick incorrectly.

I am afraid you will have to play the game now.

Gilvoth

Xnemesis wrote: »

They definitely need to offer more quests that are PvP related. Daily, weekly, and repeatable quests. Also fix the scaling of PvP drops, all I have found is lvl 50 gear as a VR6 player. No reason I should be killing VR monsters for lvl 50 gear.

i agree with this 100% im a vet 7 and getting level 50 rewards
and also im getting bored with wanting more daily quests like he said more quests please

mjspnrb18_ESO

Hlaren_shortsheath wrote: »

Asatsuo wrote: »

Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

Asatsuo wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Sadly Scourge players will not be rewarded retroactively.

I see, what are your plans for rewarding the players of scourge for those 2 months of time they invested in the campaign? Because right now the only campaign that was ended prematurely would be scourge.

Unfortunately I think it's pretty obvious that Scourge players aren't getting their reward bag.

And that sucks, guys. I wish you well in getting that changed.

It is but as there has been no news about it this is a good section to ask the staff directly. We still have some hope left

i think what happened is that they have no way of prooving who was in scourge because of it being deleted and no way to see. = no way to reward people.

They can contact me directly, I can fill out quite an extensive list, I led the EP on scourge and was in frequent contact with the AD there as well, I've got a couple hundred EP eagerly waiting for their rewards, the Emperor of scourge is also one of mine and quite upset about not being compensated

joshisanonymous

It kinda just sounds like 1 real campaign (Thornblade), 1 practice campaign, and 3 emperor farms.

Cutting the length of campaigns from 3 months to 1 month seems fine, but making all but one 5-7 days long is entirely too short. Winning Emperor will mean very little in that climate and there have been reports that people are willingly trading the title back and forth on Celarus. I understand that catching up to the leader in a very long campaign seems daunting, but it helps maintain the title as something special. For those who can't play enough to win the title over the course of a month, they still have a chance at winning it at the beginning of a new campaign just by being active for a day or two. 30 days seems like a nice compromise to me between keeping some amount of exclusivity to the title and making it more realistic for those with lives. (And no, I don't expect to ever become Emperor on a long campaign, so this isn't just an argument for my benefit.)

I'm very happy to see that you're adjusting guesting and campaign switching, though. It is far too easy to abandon campaigns right now, which just perpetuates problems when populations are lopsided. Hopefully the changes (and the lack of campaigns to switch to) will help alleviate that.

More specifically, what do you mean by a 72 hour lockout? As in you can't switch your guest campaign for 72 hours instead of the 24 hour lockout we have now? I guess that's better, but it doesn't seem like it would change things a great deal. For instance, just about everyone seems to have Wabbajack as their guest campaign if it's not their home. So, if they're losing by too much on their home campaign, they simply don't play there. If they've already captured the whole map on their home campaign, they simply don't play there. It's not so much that they're guesting to numerous campaigns (that's done through the traveling to players exploit), it's that they guesting at all at a moments notice, leaving their home campaigns empty. Maybe you're expecting the lower number of campaigns combined with the guesting change to be enough to stop this from happening, and I hope that is how it plays out.

Adramelach

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

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).

I don't really get this at all. I get the whole "people move around too much and abandon campaigns they're not winning and should have to stick it out" and all that... but therein lies the problem: they don't "have" to do anything, nor are they forced to play.

I have a character in a campaign I'd like to get out of, but lacks the AP. I don't enjoy it there, I don't care about it, and I'd like to switch. The "make switching high-cost" crowd would say "great, suck it up, earn AP, and then switch" and would love if I had to earn 100,000 AP to do it.

The reality? I simply don't PvP at all on that character, and will just wait and do nothing until the campaign ends.

By forcing high wait-times and AP cost on switching, you do NOT "force" players to "suck it up" and play in your campaign against their will. What you do is simply "retire" those players from that campaign, so you have dozens if not hundreds of inactive players just waiting for their "jail time" to end so they can switch.

The bottom line is that I'm a paying customer who would rather play in A campaign than B campaign, as I am not enjoying B. You can throw all the barriers to switching in front of me as you like and what you will get is: 1.) I'm a less happy customer, unable to play as I like, and 2.) Less active PvP play overall, as players give up on the campaign they are stuck in, and cease PvP altogether, instead of being allowed to try to continue PvP elsewhere, where they might enjoy themselves.

Frankly, I just don't see the upside to these high barriers to switching.

ahardy1476b14_ESO

I think these changes sound good, but I don't think we need a Vet only campaign. Just make those open to anyone and if a lowbie wants in let them in. The lowbie campaign is a wonderful idea for new players to adjust to the pvp in this game.

One thing that bothers me in pvp right now is the oil. In my honest opinion I believe that if you put a pot of oil on the ground and pour it on your feet you should get damaged also. I have no problem with pouring it over walls or anything of that nature but it seems stupid to be able to pour hot burning oil at your feet and not get hurt by it. I am also not against friendly siege causing damage, you should have to be careful at what you shoot at and where you stand.

Loot drops are useless in Cyrodiil, that needs to change. Level 50 gear for a vet player is completely useless. You can't even break it down for usable mats with the exception of oils, linings, and such. Have loot scale to the players level, and if you are concerned with people farming too much good gear tone down the drop rate a bit to compensate.

geoffrey.springerb14_ESO

I think having a non vet campain is good but we dont need a Vet only. if a non vet wanst to play with vets so they can play with guild let them do that. I know there is some with everyone but I dont see a Vet only being a need.

id rather the campaings have different rules set:

maybe having one where the scrolls are a huge deal way more than they are now. Buff the temples up a bit more and if someone captures a scroll its a huge bonus for them instead of how it is now.

Another one could be buff the guards up a lot more in a campaing to make taking castles harder. Also, could do the opposite and make less guards at resources to make them easier to take so they are flipping constantly.

A campagin with no siege weapons? a campaing where you can travel to any keep you own regardless if the supply lines were open or not? different things like this to make them really stand out different than others.

joshisanonymous

@Adramelach I think you're right, some players will simply not PvP at all in that situation, but my hunch is that they are easily in the minority. They're most likely players who only PvP once in a while anyway since they're just as happy with exclusively PvE'ing, apparently.

For those who like to PvP a lot, they're not likely to simply stop all together when they're unhappy with how their campaign is playing out. Right now, they just leave the campaign, perpetuating a spiral into a ghost town. Assuming they can't do that so easily, they'll keep playing there in the mean time, in which case it's not a ghost town and newcombers won't feel like it's completely pointless to play on said campaign.

Besides, I think you the AP you earn on your guest campaign can be used to transfer (although I'm not completely sure about this). In other words, your campaign is empty/terrible, you can play on the campaign you intend to transfer to, which earns you points to transfer there in the first place.

Edit: Plus there aren't that many alternative campaigns to begin with given the proposed changes, particularly if the player wants a specific ruleset.

GossiTheDog

@ZOS_BrianWheeler, on the face of it I think these changes are absolutely worth making (and fairly soon). Two thumbs up.

LilMcGinley

Guesting isn't the issue.. You can bypass ANY guesting restrictions by porting to members within the GUILD. This is what needs to be fixed.

THIS IS THE ISSUE WITH GUESTING. Not timers or cost.

Xsorus

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!

Hmmm I don't know how popular Bow of Shadows will actually be, Cause I imagine that Most of the non VR rank players will play on Blackwater, making non VR players rare in the other campaigns.

Ulliam

This sounds good to me. What we have now is clearly not working so any changes IMO will be a step in the right direction.. especially lowering the amount of servers.

Attorneyatlawl

Sounds GREAT, please make it so we cannot just simply right-click teleport to party/guild members though to bypass the guest pass restriction like w ecan now though!

frwinters_ESO

Now that i think about it, I agree that there shouldn't be a vet only or even a non-vet only campaign as it will take away from the standard campaigns.

SC0TY999

@ZOS_BrianWheeler‌

I'm liking the ldeas put forward you're definitely on the right lines. However I still see campaign guesting being a big problem I understand why it's there, basically so you always hopefully get some action if your campaign is quiet at the time. The fact of the matter is this is being abused to point it feels like an exploit I.e. A faction that isn't underpopulated in fact outnumber the other factions are unable to take all keeps needed for emp + scrolls. They basically rally 100 + guests from another campaign and steam roll the map. Maybe putting a cap on guesting to like Max 20 in a campaign at any one time may help. I'm in EU Server - Wabbajack campaign - Daggerfall Covenant and I've seen Ebonhart Pact do this time and time again!

Keldon

I think all the changes are a great step in the right direction. I would however suggest that a few additional changes be made.

The main change I would like to see is with Emperors. When an Emperor loses their thrown, they should either not be able to reclaim it again for the duration of the campaign. This will bring an added level of tension when other alliances are trying to capture the inner keeps and give that emperor a real reason to rally the troops.

I'm tired of being in a campaign and knowing that 1 person from my alliance will be the only emperor. Once they lose their throne, the next highest ranking person in the alliance should have the ability to become Emperor and so on. How many times in ESO lore has an Emperor lost their throne and then reclaimed it?

ByrenV

Gisgo wrote: »

ByrenV wrote: »

I think there are too few campaigns in the proposed changes. My guild/friends joined the campaign we joined specifically because it was low population. With there being so few options, there will no longer be a low population option. Maybe a campaign with a lower population cap as an option? Another low pop cap campaign could be added if the first one reaches cap. Obviously, you'd have to indicate it is a low pop campaign so people that want large pop don't pick incorrectly.

I am afraid you will have to play the game now.

you imply i dont play the game now? you are obviously mistaken...take your snide remarks elsewhere

frwinters_ESO

Keldon wrote: »

I think all the changes are a great step in the right direction. I would however suggest that a few additional changes be made.

The main change I would like to see is with Emperors. When an Emperor loses their thrown, they should either not be able to reclaim it again for the duration of the campaign. This will bring an added level of tension when other alliances are trying to capture the inner keeps and give that emperor a real reason to rally the troops.

I'm tired of being in a campaign and knowing that 1 person from my alliance will be the only emperor. Once they lose their throne, the next highest ranking person in the alliance should have the ability to become Emperor and so on. How many times in ESO lore has an Emperor lost their throne and then reclaimed it?

If you do this, then that guy who got emperor will not have much of an incentive to keep playing. Don't alienate someone who is good at PvP for achieving the highest goal.

Phaedryn

Wait, what? Still having multiple campaigns and the longest would only be 30 days? Way to go in completely the wrong direction...

There should be 1 Cyrodiil with no resets...but I guess you have to cater to all the ADD kids huh?

LilMcGinley

frwinters_ESO wrote: »

Keldon wrote: »

I think all the changes are a great step in the right direction. I would however suggest that a few additional changes be made.

The main change I would like to see is with Emperors. When an Emperor loses their thrown, they should either not be able to reclaim it again for the duration of the campaign. This will bring an added level of tension when other alliances are trying to capture the inner keeps and give that emperor a real reason to rally the troops.

I'm tired of being in a campaign and knowing that 1 person from my alliance will be the only emperor. Once they lose their throne, the next highest ranking person in the alliance should have the ability to become Emperor and so on. How many times in ESO lore has an Emperor lost their throne and then reclaimed it?

If you do this, then that guy who got emperor will not have much of an incentive to keep playing. Don't alienate someone who is good at PvP for achieving the highest goal.

Works both ways, if I'm 2M AP behind the leader why keep playing when I can't catch him?

driosketch

Phaedryn wrote: »

Wait, what? Still having multiple campaigns and the longest would only be 30 days? Way to go in completely the wrong direction...

There should be 1 Cyrodiil with no resets...but I guess you have to cater to all the ADD kids huh?

1 is definitely too few. You would pop lock that campaign in no time during peak hours. 5, (or 4 if you don't have a vet character or don't want to roll an alt), campaigns is a good base to start with. And if they need more of a particular type they can add later.

kirnmalidus

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Sadly Scourge players will not be rewarded retroactively.

Wow. The fact that this is the case is terribly sad.

What's worse is that, despite players asking for an official comment on this issue for weeks in the forums, all they get is basically a throwaway comment on a somewhat unrelated thread many of them won't even read and no explanation at all as to why they are getting the short end of the stick.

Really disappointing customer service guys.

Leaok

Consolidating the zergs into a small number of servers + AoE caps = bad for organized small mans

Garion

Haven't read all posts but really wanted to give my two cents here. This is quite a fundamental change to the game and I think it is great you are getting feedback before making such a decision.

I think there a few flaws that may or may not have been pointed out, I haven't read all of the posts in this thread. I will discuss what I think are issues below

• The introduction of non-VR and VR exclusive campaigns are a good idea in principle, and I can see why you might be inclined to introduce this, but I don't think it is a great idea. This kind of introduction encourages elitism that some feel is a good thing about MMOs, but to me is simply a way of discouraging an active and cohesive community. Secondly, I feel you would suck the life out of some of the other campaigns. The bulk of lower level players will travel to the non-VR level campaigns and vice versa, those that don't will be forced to utilise those campaigns because the campaigns they would prefer to play on will be unpopulated.
  
  The best option in this instance would be having a non-VR level campaign (as has been suggested) but not a VR exclusive campaign, thus allowing a diverse mix of players but also allowing those that grow frustrated with their constant death at the hands of higher ranked players to utilise a server designed specifically for them. I also think you should create decent scaling of XP when killing other players (meagre points for killing a level 10 at VR12, for example but big XP for a level 30 killing a VR5). This would provide an incentive for lower level players to join a 'free-for-all' campaign.
  
  
• The length of the campaigns is, in my opinion, too short. I do think that shorter campaigns are necessary and a good idea, but I also think you should have the option for a 60 day (perhaps as well as the 30 day) campaign. There are a couple of reasons I feel this way. The first is that when I PvP, I do so because I am involving and immersing myself in the story - the fact that I am fighting for the Dominion and Queen Ayrenn. I want to feel that I am making an impact, and I don't feel short campaigns (7 days, and even 30 days) will fulfil that wish. These short campaigns will only serve to provide a fast and hard PvP experience for those that live for PvP. It feels as if those of us that like to immerse ourselves in the story are being ignored with these changes.
  
  Secondly and in relation to this, the lack of a longer campaign means there will be difficulties for those of us that enjoy PvE and PvP in equal measures. I like to spend a lot of time in the PvE zones, but I also enjoy teaming up with my guild and PvPing - and in some instances seeing long term benefits for my faction. Short term campaigns will make me feel that I am just an observer who occasionally gets involved. If I want to be a true PvPer, I will have to sacrifice all of the aspects of the game that I love.
  
• The number of campaigns worries me slightly, and let me tell you why. I absolutely understand the need for a reduction in the number of campaigns, but I do feel that you need to be careful about population management. I can tell you that there is nothing I find more frustrating than waiting to get into a campaign but more often than not if there is a wait, it is short. Your use of 'megaserver' technology demonstrates your understanding of the importance of this and I am worried that it may become a competition about who can get online as opposed to a war between factions.
  
  Secondly (and this is perhaps one of the most important points!) I must raise my concerns with issues with lag and latency in Cyrodiil, and how this might be worsened with the reduction in the number of campaigns (less campaigns > higher populations > worse conditions for players). I have a relatively high-end computer and decent internet speeds and I play on a middle-sized population campaign, and yet I still have issues with weapon swapping and lagging when fighting larger groups. I know I don't experience this issue alone, as it becomes prominently discussed in zone chat and amongst my guild members. I think it is fundamentally important these issues are addressed before such a consolidation or it could have a significant impact on player population.

In any event, I must applaud you for allowing for our input before making the changes. Thank you.

justin.sniesakub17_ESO

This sounds fantastic!! Make it happen now please. Especially the cost and the non get campaigns. What I would propose instead is have the two seven day campaigns, have one be 14 days for VR 1-5, one be 14 days for VR 6-10, and have the Vet only campaign be VR 11+ other then that sounds GREAT. This will fix the only issue I have with this game currently.

kirnmalidus

Phazius wrote: »

SwampRaider wrote: »

Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

Neizir wrote: »

When exactly will these campaigns be shut down and replaced with the new ones?

I think we would all really like to know the answer to this question.

bumpin dis

When the current 3 month campaigns end, I would assume there would be a short downtime, then they are switched out for the new ones.

From the original post they made it sound like they are going to end the current campaigns early.

ArcanusMagus

If the campaigns are that short, just eliminate guesting altogether. I think that would be a wonderful change.

Vil

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.

I only agree with this in regard to the 30 day campaign. But the 5 and 7 day campaigns, you could just wait it out if you dislike it, which you probably wont, or at least until it's close to being over.


FEEDBACK:

At first I felt these were too short. But then I realized I could take part in a short one, then join the 30 day if I wanted something longer.

So yes, thumbs up to this.