Upcoming Campaign Changes

Talins

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?

Yes, insults are definitely the way to make your point! With your suggestion you would cut off people who happen to be guilded with friends, but representing different alliances. Not a way to grow the game!

kirnmalidus

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.

The 1.2 patch notes stated that they will be doing this:

New Daily Quests have been added for killing enemy classes. These can be found at the bounty boards.

http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/106452/pts-patch-notes-v1-2-0/p1

kirnmalidus

Censorious wrote: »

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)

I'm pretty sure that leaderboard AP will reset when the campaigns end, so this is a non-issue. You'll keep previously earned AP for the purposes of determining your Alliance War rank/title and level in the Support and Assault skill trees but when these new campaigns go live everyone will be at zero on the leaderboards.

TheBucket

I wish they would allow us to lock our XP bar.

So those who want to stay in level 50 PvP could! lol

kirnmalidus

geoffrey.springerb14_ESO wrote: »

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.

The problem with your scroll idea is the buffs impact PvE too, so everyone would want to have the super scroll buff campaign as their home campaign to get better buffs outside of PvP.

I think having some unique parameters within campaigns is an interesting idea, but the examples you provide aren't the types of things that would work well in practice.

For example the travel to keep regardless of supply lines thing would completely remove the tactical advantage of cutting off a keep's supply lines nullifying the need to capture resources and be thoughtful about your raid groups keep taking strategies. It would also make it essentially impossible to take a keep another alliance doesn't want to lose as they would be able to constantly transitus in. That one change would pretty much break PvP IMHO.

kirnmalidus

joshisanonymous wrote: »

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.

This is correct. AP you earn on guest campaigns can be spent like home campaign AP, it just doesn't count towards leaderboard rankings or end of campaign reward tiers.

Kingslayer

Hlaren_shortsheath wrote: »

right now you can see the obvious lagg and serious problems when campaigns have alot of people in them.
it would be best of there was a cap of 100 people per campaign or maybe 150 people, instead of the current 200 people.
it just laggs out too much with alot of people.

Are you talking the guest cap? Because faction cap I around 550 from what ive read. Also smart changes these to the campaigns nice to see.

silent88b14_ESO

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Veteran rank modifiers on NPCs will be looked into to see what we can do for the non veteran rank players but if we can't adjust the NPC levels, we will more than likely crank up the bolstered stats higher.

In my opinion, those VR5 Mobs, NPCs, and Guards effectively shut non-Vet characters out of Cyrodiil.

justin.sniesakub17_ESO

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

All current campaigns will be shut down, and players will be rewarded appropriately according to the campaign score, leaderboard status and reward tier at the time of shut down.

Veteran rank modifiers on NPCs will be looked into to see what we can do for the non veteran rank players but if we can't adjust the NPC levels, we will more than likely crank up the bolstered stats higher.

What timeframe do you expect this to roll out, tomorrow, next week, when?

frwinters_ESO

LilMcGinley wrote: »

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?

Because this is competition. Not "everyone should have a turn". If he is god enough to be on top and stay on top he shouldn't be penalized.

Rojnaar

I'm for the shorter campaign times, in hopes that it will make it more difficult or obvious who is allowing who to farm ap. I'm from a low pop server, and it's kinda sad to watch one person gaining 100k ap an hour when there's no fighting on the board or action listed in chat. Earning emperor shouldn't be about messaging the other faction and offering gold/motiff's if they let themselves be farmed in a private spot.

justin.sniesakub17_ESO

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.

No. After pretty much being unable to PvP on any campaign but waba for the past month, it needs to stay at 100K

justin.sniesakub17_ESO

Hlaren_shortsheath wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Let us know what you think of these changes!

hi @‌ZOS_BrianWheeler
i like you, seen you on videos and been following you for over 2 years and the work youve done in eso, and i like eso, and i like the pvp the way it is allready.

number 1) leave cryodiil the way it is and do not change and make the changes you are suggesting! im sory but the changes you just mentioned are game breaking for me. and honestly kind of realy destroy my game.

when i turned level 10 i went immediately to cryodiil and have been there learning and training ever since! i am now vet level 7 almost vet 8. i was number 5 listed to become emperor in the scourge campaign before it was deleted and i recieved zero rewards after scourge deleteion.

i prefer open world pvp server and i have allways played open world pvp server in ALL mmo's i have played since over 15 years now in mmo games. since you refuse to allow us an open world pvp server then the best option i could find was going to campaigns where ALL levels existed and we had to fight to survive "which is the way it's supose to be!" your ideas and suggestions on the changes to me sound very reverse to me and thats putting it kindly. please do NOT make the changes you are suggesting!

i live in cryodiil perminantly and do not want anything outside of cryodiil. i love seeing a level 10 and a level veteran 12 and all the inbetween levels all of us inside cryodiil. please leave it that way.

Are you kidding? If they leave the campaigns the way they are PvP will stay dead. I cannot believe you would even suggest this.

justin.sniesakub17_ESO

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.

Ummmm that's kind of the point. There should NEVER be a low pop campaign. The only reason I can see you wanting that is so your group can be in whatever campaign that is dominated by one faction so you can trade who gets emperor.

frwinters_ESO

Garion wrote: »

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

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

I agree with removing the VR only campaign and i would remove the non-vet. Reason being is why should those pre-50 get a better chance of becoming an emporer, unlock those passives early, then switch later? I feel it would be an unfair advantage.

In regards I say make it a standard 14 day campaign like Celerus. So you would have 2 7 day standards, 1 14 day standard, and a 30 day standard. If your set ona 5th campaign have 2 14 day, but keep it all standard.

Having anything more then 30 days though I do not agree with. Having to wait 90 days feels tiresome. You need that sense of reward. Im expecting something good for the near 90 days we have but I have a feeling it wont be as good as I am hoping.

Reuz

7 days seems way to short, unless you have no life whatsoever and/or spend all your time in pvp you'd never get anywhere.

and only one 30 day campaign? That is going to be lagged to death.

Shadrail

Well to be quite honest how do we know if we want shorter campaigns. If the rewards for these long campaigns are really good then maybe its worth putting in the time. The deciding factor for me is going to be what the actual rewards are.

1. Tell us rewards for 90 day campaigns vs rewards for the shorter ones. If you ask for feedback, PLEASE LET US MAKE INFORMED DECISIONS
2. When would you make the change? Campaigns are almost over as is
3. consolidating campaigns really sounds like a good idea but i don't have access to the numbers of people actually on the servers sooo....

Jade_Knightblazerb14_ESO

I would like to point out... after you become an Emperor and lose the throne, that players Leader Board AP should be resetted back to 0.

Kewljag_66_ESO

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!

I like the changes.

But we don't need a Vet only campaign as that would separate guilds. The large guilds that keep recruiting would not be able to play together on that campaign, you would have vet players with separate campaigns as their guilds which kinda takes away the whole point of defending your guild keep. There is also no need for a Vet only campaign if you have a pre vet campaign. I would say change Bow of Shadows to a 2nd 30 day standard The addition of a Non vet campaign would be great and serve as a training ground kinda similar to Battle Grounds from DAOC.

100k ap and 72 hour lock sounds good, just take away the loop holes of porting to guildmates.

And last, as long the Map NEVER resets it keep the game better and accomplishments ments stand until enemies take action to change it. Once you bring in map resets...... it turns in Warhammer and GW2 and people give up and don't care and just wait for resets

Kewljag_66_ESO

Hlaren_shortsheath wrote: »

right now you can see the obvious lagg and serious problems when campaigns have alot of people in them.
it would be best of there was a cap of 100 people per campaign or maybe 150 people, instead of the current 200 people.
it just laggs out too much with alot of people.

There is no 200cap. there are 1000s of people in campains

frwinters_ESO

Jade_Knightblazerb14_ESO wrote: »

I would like to point out... after you become an Emperor and lose the throne, that players Leader Board AP should be resetted back to 0.

That's silly. I said this before so a similar idea, that's not a reward. If your on top you should stay on top, everyone doesn't deserve a turn. Its like sports. Does every boxer get a chance to take on the champion? No. Only the top ranked do. Every boxer doesn't get a belt and pat on the head.

Foghladha

This is a much needed update. We really need a place for new players to learn without the full legendary wearing ex-emperors coming to farm them as they try to learn to play. I can't tell you how many people we've seen leave the game because of those ex-emps. Well actually I can. PM me for a list if you need it. It's in the hundreds of @names. This will be a great step in getting them back and preventing further bleeding.

Kewljag_66_ESO

SwampRaider wrote: »

@ZOS_BrianWheeler‌

can you shut down Chrysamere already? It has 15 DC active and 40 EP and 2-6 AD. I spend the majority of my days guesting elsewhere, and the only way for DC or AD to take the map now is by asking for guests to help.

Also Here is a campaign suggestion:

Adamantine Tower

Everyone, no matter what level, gets scaled down to

1500 hp
1000 mp
1000 sp

Another:

Mehrunes Dagon

3 day campaigns with Emperorship disabled

There is no reason to build a character and achieveanything or aim for anything if progression means nothing

NeeScrolls

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

All current campaigns will be shut down, and players will be rewarded appropriately according to the campaign score, leaderboard status and reward tier at the time of shut down.

Veteran rank modifiers on NPCs will be looked into to see what we can do for the non veteran rank players but if we can't adjust the NPC levels, we will more than likely crank up the bolstered stats higher.

Please don't change the PVE V5 mobs or NPC V5 Keep mobs anymore. imho, the way they are currently is darn near perfect (challenge wise, a solo player can take on just a couple at a time but it's do-able...slow but do-able. And groups can go faster thru them obviously but still have to pay attention. )

Do you guys use in-game 'metrics' at all? Or are you simply going by the typical whining & complaining of the 'vocal MINORITY' who always seem to over-influence Dev Teams on forums (which most subscribers don't even read) into unfortunately (and futily) trying to satisfy a section of the playerbase who will NEVER be satisfied.

(aka 'power gamers' , who are by nature like locusts and therefore will never ever be satisfied with ESO nor any other MMORPG. So why even bother catering to them? It's pointless. )

Now then, if you guys do end up making these sweeping "changes" , you mustn't undermine nor lose the one thing that attracted so many players to Cyrodiil in the first place: FREEDOM

Cyrodiil, at it's core, is meant to be a free-for-all OPEN WORLD PvP zone, is it not? That means that everyone, regardless of "level" or "skill" is mixed together (albeit "bolstered" ) in like a 'wild west' of ESO.

Please don't change that by now starting to *segragate* players even more. Segragation = bad imo.

Look at someone like me, for example: I started out in Cyrodiil at around level 15 (Volendrung HOME campaign, Week 1) and never left. Why? Because i enjoy long term goals (aka 90 days) and the challenge of going against other players; even "higher level" ones.

I worked my way up the Emp Leaderboard, challenging as it was since i was so "low level" (an almost empty 'number' btw, since it does not and cannot account for anyone's individual player SKILL; as a human gamer) and since our Volendrung server is so "low population" most of the time.

Through hard work, smart tactics, and seemingly insurmountable odds (since most of our sides' better Vet players kept abandoning the server for perceived greener-pastures on Wabbajack or wherever) I went from level 15 to level 38 , when, with help from other EP guilds who appreciated my dedication & leadership, i became possibly the lowest-level *Emperor* ever crowned.

Then, despite being "only" a level 38 Sorc *Emperor* , our side managed to hold Emp for 5 days with mostly just a small Vet team of 20 to 40 players max, plus low-level me, against upwards of 100 DC & AD enemies, culminating with a truly EPIC final battle defending our last Keep for literally 3 HOURS straight (now famously referred to as 'The Chalamo' ) .

THAT is what Cyrodiil is all about.

Freedom. Choice. Challenge.

The ultimate PVP 'sandbox' . Never forget that.

Address the population issues? Sure np. Fix all the exploits? Of course. Smooth out the lag & load-times? Please.

But never lose sight of what Cyrodiil (and 'Emperor' ) is INTENDED to mean.

Integrity matters; even in a video game.

So find a way to encourage (and reward) players who STAY within their 'home Campaign' for it's total duration. Instead of allowing entire guilds to swap servers so easily that they can just "farm emperors" (for the title) without any regard for actually winning the Campaign itself.

./end-soapbox, Nee

p.s. Any chance we can get an update on why the actual *Imperial City* (and 'Ruby Throne' ) content (aka the heart of Cyrodiil , aka the very thing we're supposed to be fighting for, aka one of the aspects of ESO you guys promoted/promised leading up to game launch) is still not implemented? And when it will be implemented please?

wpitterlb14a_ESO

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

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!

First of all, thank you for taking the time to show that you guys are taking a serious look at the problems with the campaigns and share your ideas. I think I speak for many people when I say that the pvp community has felt like its getting almost no attention at all from the development team.

I think 5 campaigns is about the right number. More can always be added if overpopulation becomes an issue. I'm not sure there is really a need for two seven-day standard campaigns though. I'd like to see one of those replaced with something like a special rules campaign. What those special rules are is up for debate, but theres lots of things you could do. And with it resetting every week, you could change up the rule set each time (or every 2-4 weeks, whatever). This keeps things fresh and gives people something new to look forward to. It might also serve as a sort of testing ground for you guys for new game play ideas that could then make their way out to the rest of the game depending on player reactions.

I'm also in favor of the higher costs and 72 hour lockout for changing campaigns.

driosketch

NeeScrolls wrote: »

Through hard work, smart tactics, and seemingly insurmountable odds (since most of our sides' better Vet players kept abandoning the server for perceived greener-pastures on Wabbajack or wherever) I went from level 15 to level 38 , when, with help from other EP guilds who appreciated my dedication & leadership, i became possibly the lowest-level *Emperor* ever crowned.

Then, despite being "only" a level 38 Sorc *Emperor* , our side managed to hold Emp for 5 days with mostly just a small Vet team of 20 to 40 players max, plus low-level me, against upwards of 100 DC & AD enemies, culminating with a truly EPIC final battle defending our last Keep for literally 3 HOURS straight (now famously referred to as 'The Chalamo' ) .

@NeeScrolls‌ Tangent, but who's refers to this battle as the Chalamo? "The" Chalamo, that is the famous one such that its battle is depicted in an actual book behind the upper keep flag in Chalman, is an event that occurred back in the Beta.

I don't doubt another epic battle took place in the same keep, but it'll cause confusion referring to it as the "famous" Chalamo.

Kewljag_66_ESO

frwinters_ESO wrote: »

Garion wrote: »

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

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

I agree with removing the VR only campaign and i would remove the non-vet. Reason being is why should those pre-50 get a better chance of becoming an emporer, unlock those passives early, then switch later? I feel it would be an unfair advantage.

In regards I say make it a standard 14 day campaign like Celerus. So you would have 2 7 day standards, 1 14 day standard, and a 30 day standard. If your set ona 5th campaign have 2 14 day, but keep it all standard.

Having anything more then 30 days though I do not agree with. Having to wait 90 days feels tiresome. You need that sense of reward. Im expecting something good for the near 90 days we have but I have a feeling it wont be as good as I am hoping.

I agree we don't need a VET only campaign but we do need a pre vet campaign, They need a training ground and some thing fun to experience to push them to want to keep leveling and playing. My only recomndation is take away all bonuses from this Pre Vet battle ground and have NO emperor

Kewljag_66_ESO

One suggestion for the Pre Vet Campaign. This is a great idea as players need a training place where Vet players aren't 2 shotting them. This would give them a more fun experience and also push them to level up.

My suggestion.... make this Pre Vet campaign a guest only campaing for those level 1-49 characters. This would make it so their is no bonuses or Emperor obatained in this "training" battle ground campaign. This way you could still have the same Home campaign as your guild and get your bonuses from that campaign and still help and play with your guild there in "The real war" This would basically be the exact same system from Darkage of Camelot with their lower level battle grounds but they didn't cancel out the real war for that character in the frontiers

shirorxb14_ESO

1. The difference between a five day and seven day campaign is basically nothingness. Stick to seven day only, scratch the five day.

2. I'd love a 30 day veteran only one

shirorxb14_ESO

2 30 day campaigns, standard ruleset
1 7 day non-veteran ruleset
1 7 day vr only ruleset
1 14 day campaign, standard ruleset

Ideally you'd replace the 14 day w/ a 30 day "Mordred" style pvp ruleset, where your only allegiance outside of gate area is group/guild, and individual guilds hold scrolls in captured keeps.