Stop "Travel to Player" to enter Cyrodiil

Davadin

@ZOS_BrianWheeler‌ @ZOS_GinaBruno‌

Can ZOS comment on this so we can finally end the thread?

Cinnamon_Spider

Keron wrote: »

@ratgoddess495
Actually, the burden is on ZOS to disprove the claim, since we all agree on the fact that "a player" can't deliver proof. I have given the reason why I feel this has to be looked at. I tried to explain why the reason I have given is in my opinion substantial enough to call for at least a statement from the greens.

I've actually seen a number of players deliver proof via video recordings. If you really are running into groups that large, record them and post it here.

Keron

With the new discussions about low pop bonus digestion residue, maybe some of the developers could be bothered to at least look into this thing and give an official statement?

Does "travel to players" mess up population statistics in Cyrodiil campaigns?

@ZOS_BrianWheeler, @ZOS_GinaBruno, @ZOS_KaiSchober, @ZOS_TristanK

Ysne58

One thing to consider along with the travel to player issue -- have a version of Cyrodiil that is just for pve-those players would then not also be messing up the cues.

Keron

Ysne58 wrote: »

One thing to consider along with the travel to player issue -- have a version of Cyrodiil that is just for pve-those players would then not also be messing up the cues.

I call derailment!

Nah, PvE in Cyrodiil is okay to keep in my opinion. The only thing that needs changing is the whining of carebears that complain about being ganked while questing in a PvP zone. Don't give in to it!

Lava_Croft

At this point, the Travel to Player option seems the most likely culprit when it comes to the broken working as intended Low Population Bonus.

jrkhan

I may be missing something, but there seems to be no link between the percieved problem (vague population gauge does not match the number of people you believe to be online), and the hypothesized cause (travel to player).

Assuming there is in fact a problem, what makes you think "travel to player" is to blame, and not say, anything else?

My equally likely (ridiculous sounding) theory is that only human players count towards the population cap, while vampires and werewolves do not.

Or this one, players who log back in to Cyrodil (because they didn't queue or travel to player) don't count towards the cap.

Don't mean to come across as rude, but it seems like not only is there merely (admittedly) anecdotal evidence towards the problem, there is total lack of evidence as to the cause of it.

Keron

Repeating myself:

Keron wrote: »

As @demonlkojipub19_ESO has put it before, the only people who can provide solid evidence for or against this claim are those green ones who are (once again) completely silent on this issue.

Not gonna get back into the discussion as before, tbh I'm fed up with it.

The request with this thread's revival today was explicitly for developers to look into it. End of story. (LOL as much as you want, whoever did it)

jrkhan

@Keron‌ Apologies, the phrasing may have been unclear. I meant, my theory of werewolves and vampires not counting sounded ridiculous. Not your hypothosis and certainly not an ad hominem attack on you. I was commenting that they were equally likely, given what we know.

Put another way, I am not trying to disprove your impression (that players are not counted towards population caps if they travel to player) but soliciting further information about why you have come to the conclusion that feature specifically is to blame.

Keron

Then I misunderstood completely, please also accept my apologies. I changed the upper post accordingly.

I just hope to get some kind of clarification, positive or negative, by the Greens.