Upcoming Campaign Changes

Soren

Yes please!! You have no idea how disheartening it is to get stomped 24/7 by ex emperors or vet 10 players. If this goes live I might actually play again.

My only concern with the non vet campaigns is that 1 of each may not be enough to fit everyone in and last thing we need is to be playing queue wars. It would also be nice to be able to level in Cyrodil with similar progression as the PvE folk.

Gilvoth

thats the kind of comment we will allways see from people that love to just quit pvp because they could not compete.
just because you loose a pvp fight means you guys all rage quit and dont even try to level up and fight? you dont see it as a reason to join a guild and stay close to your guild mates and group up and fight off the guy who killed you?
this is rediculas!

Sidereal

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!

Do it; do it now.

shirorxb14_ESO

Btw @zos_brianWheeler you should be giving state of pvp updates every couple weeks. Radio silence from developers is very scary for players, especially in as volatile an environment as persistent open pvp. Radio silence for vamp/devouring swarm spam for weeks harmed cyrodiil irreparably. It would've helped so much just to see the problem addressed, not even necessarily fixed, much sooner than it was. Hell Wabbajack was completely down for HOURS last week before there was any word from devs at all.

It feels a lot of the time like ZoS is generally quite secretive when it comes to letting players know what is going on, compared to other modern mmo developers.

Twitter presence from the pvp team would not hurt either.

p.s. Please fix siege that just doesn't work when you place it. How are bugged forward camps still even a thing? It's been two months.

NeeScrolls

driosketch wrote: »

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.

np , let's call it 'Chalamo 2' then.

(It's really only something the EP players who were there that night on Volendrung would remember anyway. My use of the word "famous" , while accurate, is of course relative to our server and was used for greater dramatic effect. )

Jade_Knightblazerb14_ESO

frwinters_ESO wrote: »

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.

No dice, not with the buffs the emperor receives which makes the ap gap even greater. Now if while as an emperor that p!ayer no longer is able to receive ap towards leader board, that would be fine. Aka ap on the leader board should be temp locked until dethroned.

Currently there is no incentives for new players to a campaign to try for emperor! ATM its either be at the start of a campaign or forget about the leader board. As a game this is not fun nor provides challange which an Ava with 1 master reward is designed for.

Giraffon

This game is my first dive into PvP, but I have tried to be a good student of the game and observe and work with more experienced players. I probably only have about 20 hours in PvP at this point but I think that's enough to venture a comment:

Numbers are everything in this game. An organized guild can only be kept in check with a similarly organized group of players in an opposing guild. What if there was a mercenary campaign where the missions were solo and no grouping was allowed? Could include scouting, assassinations, sabotage, espionage, and other things that single players could do to contribute to the cause. The missions might have a PvE feel, but the chance of running into other real players that you might fight with as you go behind enemy lines would make it quite thrilling I think. Guilds might still coordinate, but without an obvious "golden egg" to focus on, a single player should be able to avoid a fight if they want.

In the early days of ESO, PvP was almost empty and you could freely travel the land. I really enjoyed the "Wild West" feel of it. Since I'm not playing AD, on most days, I feel like a wild animal that has been cornered!!

Kewljag_66_ESO

shirorxb14_ESO wrote: »

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.

We dont need a vet only campaign if there is a pre vet campaign for those players because they have a place to go. Just like in DAOC, there was no level 50 requirement to go to the frontiers but low levels could still do it and were able to join for guild events and even go to the keep their guild owned. but if they wanted to compete they could go to teh BGs (pre vet campaign) if you had a vet only campaign it will cause problems for guilds with their member snot all being able to be in the same campaign and it would make recruitng a nightmare.

atrevely_ESO

Awesome! This will be such a welcomed change, I think. I hope that you guys release a little more information about what the rewards will look like for each campaign. It would be cool if the vet-only campaign came with extra rewards to entice people to jump into the greater challenge, making it a sort of "hardcore" campaign.

Xundiin

I think having some short campaigns are fine, but I'd rather see campaigns last a month rather than 3-5 days. Seems kinda pointless for them to run so short. Also, my other concern is that how popular are the VR campaign going to be vs the non-vr one. I for see that the most popular campaign will be the non VR one. A lot of people don't like facing VRs. VR1-4/5 is not to bad, but dealing with VR12's as a sub 50 is just painful and you are nothing but a gnat. Especially with the way you have the bolstering system working atm.

If you are going to bolster lower ranks it needs to take gear into consideration. Right now it just seems to boost your naked stats up to level and if you are wearing level 30 gear with enchants you struggle against a VR 5+. You just don't have the stats to make you to competitive. Yeah you can still kill bad ones, but if you face a good player you might as well lay down and roll over. If you are in the VR ranks the bolster isn't really noticeable, I get a little bit more health and magicka, but I have a ton of passives and VR gear and so not quite a gnat, but little more than a mole hill to a VR12 still.

Xundiin

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.

I believe the player cap it roughly 650 per faction. Not 200 total. it's 200 on screen that it's optimized for.
http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/Cyrodiil_(Online)

Aldjor

Awesome decision to reduce the number of campaigns. The population is so spread out right now there is really only one campaign (NA) that has decent balance and population.

Jeffreyj

Is it possible to change reset times of the servers?

What I like in Guildwars2 for example (not sure if thats still the case) is the fact that on fridaynight it all resets and everybody just goes hardcore into PvP as a nice clan event. Staying up till the early hours to get that edge over the other factions.

It adds to a better feeling of us vs them and really boosts the intensity of those battles in my eyes.


After all starting a new heated up battle that starts at prime time when everyone can join in is much more fun than a lame fight when everybody is at work.

Kewljag_66_ESO

Jeffreyj wrote: »

Is it possible to change reset times of the servers?

What I like in Guildwars2 for example (not sure if thats still the case) is the fact that on fridaynight it all resets and everybody just goes hardcore into PvP as a nice clan event. Staying up till the early hours to get that edge over the other factions.

It adds to a better feeling of us vs them and really boosts the intensity of those battles in my eyes.


After all starting a new heated up battle that starts at prime time when everyone can join in is much more fun than a lame fight when everybody is at work.

It doesn't all reset in ESO. Only the scoreboard, the map remains the same just so you know. Its a persistant world that only enemy actions change things, there is no waiting for resets

Kalanar Highwatch

Hi Brian, I like most of what I'm seeing in your proposal. Here are a few of my thoughts.

1) I think a non-vet campaign is a must. The most fun I've had in ESO alliance war was when everyone was below 50 and on an even playing field. People later to the game than me deserve that experience as well. Without a 10-49 campaign, I think a lot of people will simply be discouraged by the power gap and not come back.

2) I'm not sure a vet only campaign is necessary. I think with a non-vet option, the others will become largely vet only by default. I'd skip this one and add one additional campaign explained in my next bullet.

3) I think you need 3 standard campaigns of whatever the "normal" duration is going to be since you have 3 factions and can't have characters in different factions in the same campaign. I don't want to see more campaigns in total though, which is why I think you should do this instead of the vet-only option.

4) I don't see the sense in having 5 day campaigns and 7 day campaigns. These are so close in duration that I don't think they'll play out too differently. Just pick one or the other for your short-duration campaign length and save yourself from having to answer a lot of questions from confused players later.

5) I like the 100,000AP fee for switching home campaign as a deterrent to switching frequently, but I don't think it will get you where you need to be in terms of stability because it is still so easy to guest elsewhere. Right now the incentives are such that most people want their home campaign to be one where their faction reigns supreme for the bonuses and then they guest to where the fights are (Wabbajack on NA). I think you need some kind of greater deterrent to guesting being the main way to play.

I think guesting should be a way to check out what is going on in a campaign you are thinking of joining and maybe a way to play with friends occasionally. To that end, I suggest a couple of things a) you should get significantly less AP while playing in a guest campaign and b) you should only get the alliance bonuses active in the guest campaign, not the ones active in your home campaign. Bottom line, I think you need some combination of incentives/deterrents that ensure people spend the vast majority of their time on their home campaign or what does it mean to designate it as the home?

rich_nicholsonb16_ESO

Just make ppl choose one campaign, get rid of the guest option.

SC0TY999

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

When campaigns end, the scores and leaderboards reset, but the ownership status of keeps/resources/scrolls/emperorship does not reset. There is a small downtime where no scoring can occur.

So what's the point of resetting campaigns! That makes no sense at all! Resetting campaigns should mean what it says on the tin everything is reset fresh slate and give everyone a fighting chance for the next campaign. That's going be a big mistake! You may as well keep everything as it is now because it'll be like the campaign hasn't ended at all. At least reset Keeps and scrolls for crying out loud!

Avidus

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Sadly Scourge players will not be rewarded retroactively.

So basically, we were the test subjects of your experiment?
Because there are a lot of us who are extremely unhappy about this.

Our guild spent a long time turning Scourge into an even campaign where no side was dominating all the time, or where no alliance had no chance.
We invited other alliance guilds to oppose us.
And when that didn't happen we guested to other campaigns made ourselves known, and gave reason for guilds to hunt us down.
Then you delete our campaign.
No rewards.
Nothing but a 'sorry'
So we move to another campaign, and now we dominate it, and will not attempt to balance it because we would like to make use of our buffs before you delete this on us too.

rich_nicholsonb16_ESO

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

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

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

Kaytlin

Brian,
I think the changes that you have mentioned will be a fantastic addition to ESO. Far too many players have left the game because they were constantly being steamrolled by V12 "former emperors" and emperors.
I would hope that in addition to these changes you will incorporate other changes to make the game a more level playing field for all players. Specifically remove the buffs that "former emperors" maintain even when they are no longer the emperor. Certainly these players deserve credit for their efforts and the special armor and weapon skins they have available, as well as the title"former..." are well deserved. The ability of "pro gamers" to continually spawn new and former emperors have made the game difficult if not impossible for those players who enjoy PVP but cannot dedicate their lives to this conquest of the emperor title. But the buffs that allow almost continual "ultimate casting" among others makes the game virtually impossible now.
Additionally emperor's who obtain the title but no longer participate in their servers efforts should also loose their emperor title. There are several servers now that have such players.
PvP is an exciting aspect to Elder Scrolls and I hope that these moves along with continued efforts to balance the classes will bring more players to the PvP side of the game.
I think that most of the players who are complaining about the proposed changes fall in the "former emperor/emperor" class. It is unfortunate that such players would prefer to continue to "gank" lower players, but of course there are all types of players in the game. I don't believe that you developers ever intended for a group of 7 or 8 "former emperors and emperor" to wipe an entire raid of 40 or 50 people. That happens now with regularity and has resulted in high frustration among the masses. Those that have more experience with PvP understand that balancing will be coming but that doesn't help the player who is new to PvP enjoy their time in Cyrodiil.
Something has to be done because players will continue to make rapid exits from the game if it continues down the current course. I have many many years of mmo experience dating back before Everquest including many many hours of beta and alpha testing. I look to ESO as a game that will provide many additional hours of enjoyment for all, and hope that these changes will occur sooner than later.
Oh and for those who don't think I have spent my time I am a V12 Sorceress.

Best Wishes with ESO
Caytlynne of Skye

Inzababa

I think there are some good ideas but what is missing most from pvp atm (since you seem to have done a good job balancing things out finally (and appart from the lag and bugs)) is meaning.

It's the same problem I had with PS2, an endless war in which you take a keep lose a keep take a keep lose a keep etc.

It becomes arcady action type pvp that is fun but meaningless.

Also at the moment there is no point in owning a keep, some kind of guild advantage in owning a keep would be great imo, it would push guilds to defend their keep more.

InvictoNZ

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Sadly Scourge players will not be rewarded retroactively.

Not acceptable. Fire whoever deleted the backups of the live data.

Ytterin

Sounds pretty nice.

I'd like to see a few other things, including a limit on mercs added for any given area, much like the siege engine limit.

Former emperors need a down-tune, especially after the system gaming emperorship trading that occurred early on.

Bonuses from AvA should be disabled for trials, so as not to affect the leaderboards there. The idea of a special bonus for resource and keep ownership is a nice touch.

Additional options like mercenary assault squads, barricades, and traps would be awesome! An explanation of each:

-Merc assault squads would be hired at any keep, or within the faction home camps, and would target a given resource or keep. They would not have siege weaponry, so targeting a keep without player support would be fairly pointless. They would move at a sprint speed, unless engaged in combat, toward the target (normal player sprint speed.) They would be strong enough to overcome the normal guards at a resource node, although only by a little bit, meaning 1-2 players could stop the mercenaries (when mercs are alone) by supporting the guards. Only 1 per keep would be able to be sent at any time, and they would cost either a fair bit of gold, or say 10k alliance points.

-Barricades would be something to limit but not block approach options. They would be place-able much like siege equipment, and take up a siege weapon spot at any fort where used. They would not be usable within gates, or at bridges. Barricades would be decently sized, and need siege weaponry to destroy them. They could be used to fence off a siege camp, to force attackers to go out of their way at a resource camp or to avoid a given road, or even as a delaying tactic in areas where they could block a path that is not a choke point like a gate or bridge.

-Traps would be something to help in setting ambushes. Traps would have smaller graphical area, making them hard to see but not impossible to see without crouching. Crouching would make them highlighted, much like in the PvE elements of the game. Some examples would be caltrop field, which would limit speed and dismount anyone moving through them; mud pit, which would be a similar snare but not require dismount; tripwire, which would knock down anyone sprinting or riding on horse past it for a couple seconds; blinds, which would allow players to hide their presence behind a screen which they could still see through and which looks similar to backgrounds found in Cyrodil (several styles could be offered;) and spear planks, a trap which lifts spears out of the ground when players run over them, injuring anyone following too closely behind.

These are just some ideas, of course, but they would really help in setting up things like ambushes, and giving a little more depth to the siege setups in AvA.

NeeScrolls

Inzababa wrote: »

I think there are some good ideas but what is missing most from pvp atm is meaning.

.

The "meaning" was supposed to be there from Day 1 , in the form of *The Imperial City* (and RUBY THRONE) .

I'm still waiting to hear an official answer from ESO Devs as to why it wasn't implemented for Launch (as was promised & promoted) and when it might be implemented someday soon?

Until then, i guess we just continue fighting for good ole fashioned *pride*.

Ralph_Damiani

Please change the emperor mechanics. It's really stupid how many emperors we'll end up having and how meaningless that becomes when keeps are switching ownership all the time. That system is flawed because it doesn't take in account the fluctuation in the campaign's population.

Or maybe just rename the current emperors to "Generals", while Emperors should be the top player from the last compaign, for the length of the entire campaign. They should only get deposed if they're inactive for a given amount of time. This way, it's your performance in the entire campaign what truly matters in the race for the crown, and not just the leaderboards at the moment the inner keeps are conquered. The prize for the winner should be emperorship for the next campaign.

stuu

I Hope there is enough space for what will be the high demand servers. The 30 day unrestricted will be high demand and I don't want to be waiting an hour or so just to play pvp because you guys cut the number of servers people are spread over!

Izatar

Queuing with groups to servers that are not home or guest ought to be disabled.
-this causes tremendous unbalance when a large guild zergs all the maps.

Having toons on different factions on the same account ought to be disabled.
-The situation with alts blocking progress, colluding, and outright cheating would be greatly reduced.

Short campaigns are a good idea

InvictoNZ

Crown the emperor at the end of a 7 day campaign. Let the Emperor use passives for the next 7 day campaign (cannot switch campaign).

Ex-Emperor's can have passives for the next 7 day campaign only, which should reduce the Emperor trading.

Introduce a weekend only campaign (per timezone), Oceanic can have a Fri-Sun instead of the current Sat-Mon.

drktksnub18_ESO

New campaigns are great but what is the time frame for imperial city dungeon pvp? duels? arena type play? A link to a post about duels in eso.. http://www.reddit.com/r/elderscrollsonline/comments/25d4w3/duels_improve_the_pvp_social_and_fun_of_eso/

Skirmish840

I think these changes make it a lot more interesting, especially for folk who aren't veteran yet and are tired of being "oneshot" in Cyrodil...

I really like where this is going