Should ZOS remove 2 campaigns?

Subtomik

Remove Haderus and Chillrend

Psilent wrote: »

Rylana wrote: »

Keep all four and reduce the pop cap for thorn to force people to go to the other three.

Literally cut pop cap in half. We have four campaigns for a reason.

I like this idea; any reason why Zeni hasn't done this yet? Sounds like an easy solution to the lag problem.

I think on the surface this is a good idea, then you think about the size of cyrodiil. Even pop locked 24/7 I think it will feel sluggish and fights are far and few between.

I mean at 2 bars each you usually have very few choices of where to go on the map to find action.

Pyatra

Um, Haderus sees more cross faction fighting than the other 2. We have natives from all 3 factions, or maybe you're too scared to fight on our Campaign.

Cody

the only two that deserve to stay(in my opinion) are Black water blade and thornblade. the rest can go join sithis in the void for all i care

Pyatra

Pyatra wrote: »

Um, Haderus sees more cross faction fighting than the other 2. We have natives from all 3 factions, or maybe you're too scared to fight on our Campaign.

Also I should mention this is a biased poll and completely useless and you should all come fight on Haderus. Today.... All of you. LET'S DO THIS!

Edit: NA server.. forgot to mention that.

McLukos

Keep all 4

Subtomik wrote: »

McLukos wrote: »

Some people do not like the hardcore style that Thorn turns into. More options are good and PvE in Thorn would just be a pain...

Hardcore? You mean like...having to actually pvp?

Hardcore as in the attitudes and egos.

Subtomik

Remove Haderus and Chillrend

McLukos wrote: »

Hardcore as in the attitudes and egos.

Is that why you think camping the gates is pvp? afraid to bruise your ego?

BEZDNA

Keep all 4

My PC doesn't support that laggland pvp on 30 days compain, only way for pvp for me is small scale on compains with law population. So in my opinion simple removing is not the option at all

tengri

Keep all 4

You can keep as many campaigns as needed/wanted - if ppl want to play in a quieter place they should have that... they pay for that option, too.
But the following of PvP buffs into any PvE zones outside of Cyrodiil needs to go. Now.

reagen_lionel

Keep all 4

If the lower population campaigns are gone. I'd simply not even go into cyrodil anymore.

I dont want large scale fights.

ToRelax

Remove Haderus and Chillrend

Turelus wrote: »

I would like to see the closure of some of these dead campaigns again.

While I understand that some play there for the smaller scale PVP and skirmishing most have once again become nothing but buff and emperor trade campaigns.

Remove Haderus and Chillrend as we are fighting their to stop emp trading anyway (a bit hopeless, I know).

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

Remove Haderus and Chillrend

Pyatra wrote: »

Pyatra wrote: »

Um, Haderus sees more cross faction fighting than the other 2. We have natives from all 3 factions, or maybe you're too scared to fight on our Campaign.

Also I should mention this is a biased poll and completely useless and you should all come fight on Haderus. Today.... All of you. LET'S DO THIS!

Edit: NA server.. forgot to mention that.

Haderus isn't a campaign it's a holiday 1 week is too short for any meaningful competition

Turelus

Remove Haderus and Chillrend

AlnilamE wrote: »

Morvul wrote: »

AlnilamE wrote: »

I have never set foot in Thornblade and have no interest in going into a server that is pop-locked all the time.

I've PvPed in Chillrend (my home campaign) and Azura's and it's been fun.

I don't like Thornblade either (way to much lag), but removing 2 of the other campaigns is a good idea regardless: it will turn the remaining "empty" campaign into a small-scale PvP campaign, instead of the buff-server it currently is on NA / starts to become on EU

Are you sure we wouldn't end up with two pop-locked campaigns?

Well since 1.5 the queues for Thornblade even at peak times are at most 10mins, no one does PVP any more.
Might as well consolidate those from dead campaigns and make maybe a 10min wait (coffee making time!) and make sure people have action.

Sanct16

Remove Haderus and Chillrend

Maybe just remove 1 campaogn for now and see how it developes.

Sublime

Keep all 4

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Pyatra wrote: »

Pyatra wrote: »

Um, Haderus sees more cross faction fighting than the other 2. We have natives from all 3 factions, or maybe you're too scared to fight on our Campaign.

Also I should mention this is a biased poll and completely useless and you should all come fight on Haderus. Today.... All of you. LET'S DO THIS!

Edit: NA server.. forgot to mention that.

Haderus isn't a campaign it's a holiday 1 week is too short for any meaningful competition

Why does the length of the campaign have an impact on the level of competition?

Sanct16

Remove Haderus and Chillrend

Isnt it obvious?
Imagine campaigns would last only 1 day. Noone would be interested in winning after a short while.

Rhavein

Remove Haderus and Chillrend

Well, I think only one Vet campaign and one non-vet campaign should be playable.

However, to have more healthy pvp like this some kind of changes are necessary.
1. Decrease groups (24 persons, really wtf? make it half or even less 8 or something)
2. Make some pvp dungeon (like darkness falls) --> more options for pvp
3. To prevent aoe-zegs, simply put casting time and remove target cap.
4. Remove duration for campaigns: since it's not so easy to make an emperor on thornblade, reset campaign (give rewards etc) when emperor crowned. so emperor = win. I believe people fight even more harder.

I think after these, we can have better pvp experience for every play style.

demonlkojipub19_ESO

Remove Haderus and Chillrend

ZOS will never have the amount of people that were there at launch and shortly after locking almost 3 servers down again, and they can thank themselves for that. They might as well remove 2 of them and the shorter duration ones should be it.

Rylana wrote: »

Keep all four and reduce the pop cap for thorn to force people to go to the other three.

Literally cut pop cap in half. We have four campaigns for a reason.

And I doubt they will do it. I would like them to do it too, but they won't do this or remove any more servers either im sure, because they're holding on to some kind of hope people will return and fill them up after they finally clean up the game...

Lilarna

Keep all 4

Removing just one campaign should have been an alternative in your poll, would have been nice. When one thinks that, it's hard to decide which to vote for.

reften

Keep all 4

Keep all 4 and cut the population limit in 1/2. Campaigns hold way too many people now.

Kas

Keep all 4

I left throneblade altogether. Azura's EU is pretty fine right now for someone with a job. Alwys action int he evening and on weekends and FAR less lag.

I'm all for getting rid of multiple campaigns that are mostly gonna be absued (nightcapped PvE buffs or emp farming) anyway. However, lag and huge queues are far worse, imho. As long as the two problems rmain, I don't think it's a good idea to remove more campaigns.

One might argue that closing two campaigns and a proper distribution over the remaining two is fine for that, but just recently both, azuras and throneblade were already population-locked. Add people form the other campaigns and it's long queues for everyone

nAismA

Keep all 4

i agree with Kas, Azura EU is more and more fun - except for the pve-buff-fraction, but i dont care about them.

low population AD is an issue but we (Aldmeri Council) are working on that part

my suggestion to solve our problems in ava, is to cut all payment of ZOS developer who DOESNT play ava to 50%! if they suffer with us they earn that money.

Sublime

Keep all 4

Sanct16 wrote: »

Isnt it obvious?
Imagine campaigns would last only 1 day. Noone would be interested in winning after a short while.

There's a huge difference between 14/7 and 1 day. My Problem with the 30d campaigns is that I feel if I'm not PvPing the whole time I hardly have any Impact. Reduced Durations gives you some space and you don't have to be active for 30 days in order to get a good reward.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

Remove Haderus and Chillrend

Poll options aren't the best agree'd opened more for the discussion about if we feel there are too many campaigns atm. also I agree that it may be better to have a 30 and 14 day campaign for some variation.

driosketch

It doesn't matter any more. There aren't enough DC to support two active AvAvA campaigns. At best the second one would just be AD vs EP with a small amount of DC gankers on the side.

McLukos

Keep all 4

Subtomik wrote: »

McLukos wrote: »

Hardcore as in the attitudes and egos.

Is that why you think camping the gates is pvp? afraid to bruise your ego?

LoL... I am not talking about myself... I could care less tbh, I was stating an opinion and the attitude and egos are comin right in.
I dont bother camping gates, that is not good PvP... imma stop checkin these pvp threads due to attitudes and egos tho.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

Remove Haderus and Chillrend

McLukos wrote: »

Subtomik wrote: »

McLukos wrote: »

Hardcore as in the attitudes and egos.

Is that why you think camping the gates is pvp? afraid to bruise your ego?

LoL... I am not talking about myself... I could care less tbh, I was stating an opinion and the attitude and egos are comin right in.
I dont bother camping gates, that is not good PvP... imma stop checkin these pvp threads due to attitudes and egos tho.

That's a bit egotistical of you

The only time EU thorn had a queue of more than 20 was on the last day (and it was 22) XD

ToRelax

Remove Haderus and Chillrend

driosketch wrote: »

It doesn't matter any more. There aren't enough DC to support two active AvAvA campaigns. At best the second one would just be AD vs EP with a small amount of DC gankers on the side.

Yesterday I remember that at some point population was like this (so before prime time):

Azura's Star: AD low | EP high | DC medium
Thornblade: AD low | EP high | DC locked

I don't see your point.

driosketch

ToRelax wrote: »

driosketch wrote: »

It doesn't matter any more. There aren't enough DC to support two active AvAvA campaigns. At best the second one would just be AD vs EP with a small amount of DC gankers on the side.

Yesterday I remember that at some point population was like this (so before prime time):

Azura's Star: AD low | EP high | DC medium
Thornblade: AD low | EP high | DC locked

I don't see your point.

@ToRelax‌ EU? Sorry, should have been more clear I was taking about NA.

ToRelax

Remove Haderus and Chillrend

driosketch wrote: »

ToRelax wrote: »

driosketch wrote: »

It doesn't matter any more. There aren't enough DC to support two active AvAvA campaigns. At best the second one would just be AD vs EP with a small amount of DC gankers on the side.

Yesterday I remember that at some point population was like this (so before prime time):

Azura's Star: AD low | EP high | DC medium
Thornblade: AD low | EP high | DC locked

I don't see your point.

@ToRelax‌ EU? Sorry, should have been more clear I was taking about NA.

I see, I think I somehow thought you talked about EU at that post. Cheers ^^ .

Suru

Keep all 4

I think the best route would be to remove one campaign. This way people who like small scale combat would get it because that is where the people who lost that campaign would go. The only downside to this route would be that a faction will be upset. Otherwise I'm fine with how things, want PVP? go thorn, want to PVE, get skyshards, lorebooks, and a tinge of danger of other players while doing so? go to a buff campaign.