Based on the new proposed campaign revisions, where will you go?

JTorus

With three platforms subdivided across two megaservers, it'd be difficult to collect enough data to accurately (and equally) represent any sort of specific information; so instead, lets go with some broad strokes here. Additionally, I've purposefully not mentioned any campaign by name. I wouldn't be all that surprised to see ZOS change the campaign names. The new scoring methods appear to cater more towards play styles now.

Some things to remember before voting.
- PvP buffs only apply in the respective campaign.
- No more Former Emperor buffs
- Low population bonuses will offer 20% more AP (currently the bonus is 10%)
- Population polling is faster (updates more often)
- Guest re-assignment will have a wait time of 4 days.
- Home campaign re-assignment will be 12 hours and 150,000ap
- Battle Levelling will scale both vets and non-vets to VR14 (yes, go re-read it)

k2blader

Didn't vote because nothing really matched my thoughts.

I just want to have fun in PvP. That means: lack of exploits, quickly fixed bugs, a lot of action easily accessible all times of day/night, easy-to-find groups, balanced maps/populations.

Hopefully Thorn becomes that. I don't want to spend AP changing it. If it doesn't, anticipating needing to wait the 4 days to change guest campaign if Chill doesn't work out.

Sanct16

I'll go to whatever turns out be an enemy buff server.

The poll is stupid btw...

Quantine

I won't go to the 30-day campaign just because I don't want to take the risk to be stuck on it for a month.

And I am not sure it's so much about play-styles... and if, I don't think it's that obvious who will go where depending on play-style and what the result to that will be. At least I wouldn't make that assumption without much needed data to confirm it. So, I don't think that poll will lead to something. It's essentially a poll about the group size you run with... and I don't agree with the second sentences in the answers. Going in small to medium groups doesn't mean you care about controlling or painting the map.

Leandor

I do hope that they will offer more than just one 30-day campaign. I will choose one of these, anyways. I just prefer to have time to fight it out.

AhPook_Is_Here

All I get from your survey is that you think desire for map control is inversely proportional to group size.

starlizard70ub17_ESO

Where ever I can go do the PvE quests with minimal interference from PvP'er

JTorus

AhPook_Is_Here wrote: »

All I get from your survey is that you think desire for map control is inversely proportional to group size.

It's an inference based on what Brian Wheeler's stated campaign scoring changes will be. Being that people still like a campaign with nice rewards at the end, it would seem that ZOS is attempting to cater to varying play styles. Points for Resources, Keeps, Scrolls, or all three each seem to target smaller, medium, or larger groups. I suspect they're hoping to see this realized when the 'dust settles.' Typically it's the raid groups pushing the map, larger groups taking keeps and the ring, and smaller to medium groups working on resources. Typically, always exceptions of course.

My suspicion is that this poll would end up fairly balanced, which would put everyone at ease about 'getting stuck' in an empty campaign.

ToRelax

JTorus wrote: »

AhPook_Is_Here wrote: »

All I get from your survey is that you think desire for map control is inversely proportional to group size.

It's an inference based on what Brian Wheeler's stated campaign scoring changes will be. Being that people still like a campaign with nice rewards at the end, it would seem that ZOS is attempting to cater to varying play styles. Points for Resources, Keeps, Scrolls, or all three each seem to target smaller, medium, or larger groups. I suspect they're hoping to see this realized when the 'dust settles.' Typically it's the raid groups pushing the map, larger groups taking keeps and the ring, and smaller to medium groups working on resources. Typically, always exceptions of course.

My suspicion is that this poll would end up fairly balanced, which would put everyone at ease about 'getting stuck' in an empty campaign.

Too bad then so few care about campaign score.

AhPook_Is_Here

JTorus wrote: »

AhPook_Is_Here wrote: »

All I get from your survey is that you think desire for map control is inversely proportional to group size.

It's an inference based on what Brian Wheeler's stated campaign scoring changes will be. Being that people still like a campaign with nice rewards at the end, it would seem that ZOS is attempting to cater to varying play styles. Points for Resources, Keeps, Scrolls, or all three each seem to target smaller, medium, or larger groups. I suspect they're hoping to see this realized when the 'dust settles.' Typically it's the raid groups pushing the map, larger groups taking keeps and the ring, and smaller to medium groups working on resources. Typically, always exceptions of course.

My suspicion is that this poll would end up fairly balanced, which would put everyone at ease about 'getting stuck' in an empty campaign.

personally I read it and thought I fall into the small group size (8-16 imo) and enjoy playing a balanced map. I will likely play on Azuras, which doesn't correlate with your pre-conclusions.

People who flip a map 1 color kill the pvp on that server till prime-time usually, this doesn't have to be a zerg, 5 people can do it if they other factions have logged. map "painting" isn't a function of guild size, it is a function of poor player liquidity.

If you want a poll that makes sense and doesn't seem designed to further some aimless diatribe of pre-drawn conclusions than make a poll based on server name and victory conditions as laid out in wheeler's post. this way people can draw their own conclusions instead of supporting some generalized fallacy inherent to your poll.

Naphariel

I'll go to the one where everything gives campaign score.

Didn't vote because poll choices really are stupid. People's choice of a campaign will have absolutely nothing to do with their preferred group size, nor is there going to be any relation between the group size and how much they care about coloring the map. They're three entirely different things.

fallensbane_ESO

150k AP is way to much for re-assignment. While I agree there needs to be some sort of restriction or cost so you don't do it constantly it should be more like a tiered system.

First Home Change = Free (No restriction on when you can change again)
Second Home Change = 5,000 AP (24 hr wait for changing again)
Third Home Change = 25,000 AP (1 week wait for changing again)
Fourth & Beyond = 60,000 AP (30 day restriction on changing again)

I can EASILY make the ap even at 150k to change and I rarely change. But sticking casual players with such a high buy in to change during a campaign is stupid.

Naphariel

fallensbane_ESO wrote: »

150k AP is way to much for re-assignment. While I agree there needs to be some sort of restriction or cost so you don't do it constantly it should be more like a tiered system.

First Home Change = Free (No restriction on when you can change again)
Second Home Change = 5,000 AP (24 hr wait for changing again)
Third Home Change = 25,000 AP (1 week wait for changing again)
Fourth & Beyond = 60,000 AP (30 day restriction on changing again)

I can EASILY make the ap even at 150k to change and I rarely change. But sticking casual players with such a high buy in to change during a campaign is stupid.

Maybe make the cost dependent on the last reassignment, similar to recalling to a wayshrine?
First home campaign assignment is free, reassignment immediately after that costs 150k, but the cost gets decreased by let's say 5000 every day. After 30 days, you can reassign for free again.

bowmanz607

I will home where all the keeps, scrolls, resources etc are counted (azuras i think). this will be for my large scale combat. I will quest where only resources are counted (haderus i think). this will be for my small scale combat.