There CANNOT be access gates to the Imperial City paid DLC

Rex-Umbra

BUFF DC.

Enodoc

NobleNerd wrote: »

I like PvP and I like PvE, but for me there are many concerns with IC and how it currently is being handled. You have brought up good points and concerns. Another issue is the removal of PvE campaign buffs, especially since ZOS is trying to market IC as a PvP with PvE elements rolled in. The incentives to draw PvErs into the PvP realms will just become less attractive without the campaign buffs.

I don't think that concern is warranted. The buffs still exist within IC, as IC is within the campaign they are earned from.

AhPook_Is_Here

It might be a good idea if one campaign has an IC that is open to all, always, or anytime 2 factions have 1 bar or less it is open to all to provide some fun ganking times for PVPers wanting to kill players on buff servers. There are going to be a lot of faction owned IC servers as it is. In the US there is maybe 2 servers with enough liquidity to provide an entertaining experience at prime-time. In the US AM and during the day, there isn't enough liquidity to make one entertaining campaign. This morning AD had 2 buff servers, EP had one, and one had mixed ownership. The buff servers rotate but they never have enough liquidity to make them worth playing on. They are primarily used just to farm emp titles, and for the better guilds to find players that are easy to farm and present no challenge to the AP grind.

If you are going to lock IC based on keep ownership lets stop leaving a bunch of buff servers around and cut the vet+ servers to 2 in the US please.

Hiero_Glyph

cjthibs wrote: »

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

That's why salary caps and a draft system exist. Except Cyrodiil has no such restrictions other than limiting the maximum number of players per alliance. Professional sports encourage fair play even if a few franchises still have better revenue streams and management.

So should they force people to play a certain faction then?
Or have certain factions' members draft newbies?

Yes, those were sarcastic. The problem isn't the game, the problem is that many folks rather an easy win than putting forth effort. They join the most populated alliances and they cry/whine/scream to make things easier, (Doshia anyone? Molag Bal fight?) which results in a boring game. People will complain until everything gets made easy then they'll quit because they're bored...and run off to ruin another game.

Of course, as a result of the relentless whining, ZOS has lowered the difficulty on all PvE systems resulting in the PvP being the only part of the game that many of us feel -any- sense of accomplishment from anymore.

If you don't like it, or want to make it easier, just go play something easy. I see a lot of folks playing that FarmVille stuff.

In all seriousness, this game used to be challenging and fun, but the whining has resulted in systematic difficulty-lowering across the board, to the point that I auto-piloted my latest character from 1-VR2 only upgrading my gear 1 time at level 24 and then again just at VR1. I think I died once, and that was during a lag spike.

Furthermore, the intent of keep access is to keep activities in Cyrodiil dynamic. As in having to move into the Imperial City and then back out in order shore up defenses to move back in. This will actually help keep things from stagnating. I look forward to it. If we take that bit away, I predict we'll see a wholesale dwindling of activity in Cyrodiil proper and it'll degenerate into a bunch of folks doing the same grind in the sewers and/or PvP in the districts day-in day-out and getting bored.

What I don't understand is that is exactly what these folks seem to want.

My intent is to create a truly competitive environment in Cryodiil and until there is a method to encourage balanced population sizes or have players switch to the side with the lowest population instead of simply joining the winning side in a campaign. The simplest solution would make a lot of people upset though as it would involve a progressive population cap limit where no player can join a campaign unless all alliances are within 10% population size of each other. This would avoid the population being full for one faction, 70% for another and 30% for the third as the spread would be 60%/57%/50%. This method has significant downsides however such as longer queue times and the inability to play at all if part of a active alliance It's not my favorite idea but it's still worth noting.

Another method is a group queue for the leader's alliance that does not require all players in the group to be part of the same alliance. This method is being explored by ZoS currently with the Group Finder so it may not be complicated to implement. Again, this method could be used for trolling or nefarious activities but could also be used to duel friends that are part of the same alliance or just play with alternate characters regardless of alliance loyalty. Still, this may not be enough but it could help to avoid queue times for the more populated alliances.

There is always the possibility of adding a buff that increases experience, AP, or CP gain for those that join and fight for underpopulated alliances.While many players would certainly cry foul over this, it would definitely boost the population for the less popular alliances/campaigns. In all honesty this may be the best solution just because adding a boost that increases based on how out numbered you are would at least make dying countless times while trying to do something more productive. It is worth noting that this method could also be combined with either of the previous ideas as it involves nothing more than a temporary boost. The only other detail is that this boost should not apply to anything inside of IC; this is strictly for the original Cyrodiil campaigns.

Do you think any of these ideas would help keep campaign populations somewhat balanced? Let me know if you have any suggestionis or improvements because this was just a first attempt. Still, something needs to be done and the problems with gated access stem from population imbalance so fixing this will solve much of the IC's access isssues.

cjthibs

We'll have to wait and see if IC is enough incentive to cause the campaigns to be more dynamic.

If not, then yes, open it up, but I have a feeling a lot of folks will be drawn in.

As it is right now PvP is not terribly attractive because of a few factors:
1. Time to Kill is laughably low. (Which will be fixed with the update.)
2. There is no incentive for those of us who have been doing it since launch. (IC Access will change that.)
3. There is little value for PvE'ers to capture keeps. (This will change.)

I don't think the state of campaigns as of today will be anything like once the update is launched.

SeptimusDova

Sharee

Not too sure about the UK as far as suing. But the DLC is an option I stated earlier that they will make the terms and conditions clear before purchase. As we are a B2P model and an ESO plus model Zenimax has good standing.
First the DLC is not required to play the base game OR smash bananas, smurfs ,or lil devils to our hearts content in cyrodiil.
So I do not see a suit as viable. Involving authorities gets expensive. In Virginia as well as Maryland threatening legal action in order to bully or coerce an entity or individual and not taking it(action) can get you a nice bench warrant from a magistrate filing a frivolous or unjust charge is Malicious Prosecution. Now this is to much along the lines of work so puuhhleeeze everyone stop with the legal eagle talk.

We cannot know the numbers of who will be present at IC launch. Switching to guest campaign may not be allowed changing campaigns is going to be like 150,000 AP I think. Maybe not that much but more than the current 15,000.

and to the poster commenting on the AS Campaign Awesome. But never count your Argonians before they hatch! I know you have Argonians I saw them and one bit me. I'm still sick from it. Encourage them to brush their teeth . Infections are nasty!

Zenimax has much to fix both in the 1.7 and in the current build.

People are still exploiting into keeps. And to the Banana who did that last night I got your name buddy. I will out you and leave you no place to run.Screenshots are nice!! 2am haderus campaign castle roebuck I hope you read this you cheating exploiter. This if not fixed will cause issues. Every door, keep, and bypass mechanism in place right now will cause an imbalance in the game.

The flip side of the access gates is that your opposition will also benefit from no restrictions. I agree with Olemanwinter and my position will not change. I have nothing further to add to this thread so I bid thee all adieu and maybe we will meet in the Sewers.

Enjoy Cyrodiil !

Sharee

SeptimusDova wrote: »

Sharee

Not too sure about the UK as far as suing. But the DLC is an option I stated earlier that they will make the terms and conditions clear before purchase. As we are a B2P model and an ESO plus model Zenimax has good standing.
First the DLC is not required to play the base game OR smash bananas, smurfs ,or lil devils to our hearts content in cyrodiil.
So I do not see a suit as viable.

Hi, good post but wrong address, it is @byrom101b16_ESO who is making the claim ZOS can be sued if they implement gating, not me, i am actually of the opposite opinion

(i see i managed to confuse someone again, apologies )

Sharee

Artemis wrote: »

2. Composition is not the only thing that make threshold variable. In PvE it is in principle possible to reach threshold. In PvP in it in principle possible that threshold might be unreachable. Like it is right now for NA DC. That's a huge difference.

Actually there is no difference.

If in PvE it is in principle possible (i.e. not guaranteed) to reach the threshold, then it is also possible it will never be reached.
If in PvP it is in principle possible (i.e. not guaranteed) that the threshold might be unreachable, then it is also possible it will be reachable.

It is exactly the same in both cases, you just omitted the other half of the sentence, making it appear (and possibly confusing yourself into thinking that) there is some huge difference.

Artemis wrote: »

4. However, if IC is reward for taking a keep - that's bull. Because you could take keeps since release, there's nothing new in this.

That is irrelevant. The task associated with getting a new reward does not neccessarily have to be new as well.

olemanwinter

This whole thread has become *face/palm*

wraith808

olemanwinter wrote: »

This whole thread has become *face/palm*

I can agree with that. The argument has turned towards esoterics and theoreticals rather than the facts that are before us.

Artis

Sharee wrote: »

Artemis wrote: »

2. Composition is not the only thing that make threshold variable. In PvE it is in principle possible to reach threshold. In PvP in it in principle possible that threshold might be unreachable. Like it is right now for NA DC. That's a huge difference.

Actually there is no difference.

If in PvE it is in principle possible (i.e. not guaranteed) to reach the threshold, then it is also possible it will never be reached.
If in PvP it is in principle possible (i.e. not guaranteed) that the threshold might be unreachable, then it is also possible it will be reachable.

It is exactly the same in both cases, you just omitted the other half of the sentence, making it appear (and possibly confusing yourself into thinking that) there is some huge difference.

Artemis wrote: »

4. However, if IC is reward for taking a keep - that's bull. Because you could take keeps since release, there's nothing new in this.

That is irrelevant. The task associated with getting a new reward does not neccessarily have to be new as well.

2. Exactly the same is when it's exactly the same. Your two sentences are not exactly the same already. Again, in PvE it is in principle possible to reach the threshold. The 2nd half is irrelevant, if a player is bad it's up to him to become better and reach threshold, but no body is interfering.. In PvE it is in principle possible that no matter how good you are your alliance won't reach the threshold.
These are two very different things.

4. You don't buy a possibility to get a new reward. You buy new content that also has new rewards. That's how it always worked in every good MMO. Don't remember WoW selling an addon that just lets you loot new gear from grinding old mobs and doesn't bring anything new.

olemanwinter

byrom101b16_ESO

@Sharee

You can keep on stating that you believe that ZOS can do anything they like as long as they put it in their T&Cs, it is in my professional experience the most common misconception of the laypersons understanding of the relationship between rights under law and the limitations of contract clauses.

So it is hardly a surprise you subscribe to it.

You really do need to do your research however, concentrating particularly on the very many cases of sizeable multinationals and banks getting it wrong and getting hit by regulators over the fact.

The FACT is, I, or anyone else in the UK can complain to Trading Standards whether they buy the expansion or not, and whether they say yes to the T&Cs or not, and of course whether they realise what the T&Cs are as restrictive as they are or not.

NONE of that makes the slightest difference to this.

The game is an entertainments SERVICE, and a service you CANNOT access is a compensation issue.

In any case, I am weary of explaining this. one cannot educate those who do not wish to be.

There have been examples of gated expansion content nested within expansions to software offerings in the past, but they have always been the minority of content, and the significant majority has been available as soon as the download was installed.

This is not the case with the current state of IC. In this expansion, a massive percentage of the content will be arbitrarily denied thousands of players at the time. No timers, no quest lines, no way to get access until thousands of other players conspire to give it to you.

Yet somehow you manage to defend ZOSs aproach and passively accept it as inevitable.

You are the perfect consumer from a corporate point of view. Paying, compliant and tolerant of being treated like an irrelevance.

Enough said.

Sharee

byrom101b16_ESO wrote: »

"The game is an entertainments SERVICE, and a service you CANNOT access is a compensation issue."

As you say, the service provided is the game itself. As long as you are able to log into the game and play it, no court will rule that you cannot access the service.

AhPook_Is_Here

I really don't understand this thread. There is no blockage to the IC to a consumer. Even if it is PVP gated, you can just make an AD character and level it to 10 and you can access thornblade US 24-7 and Chillrend about half the time and it will be full PVE all the time, unless some AD players get on EP or DC alts to flip enough keeps to get access once and park a bunch of alts in there to harvest stones from players. I doubt there will be many people going through the trouble to do that when there will be some decent PVP in one of the ICs.

Unless they delete 2 full servers US there will be 2 or 3 consistent PVE focused ICs and you should, instead of fliping a farm server with your mains, just make alts and join the farming, then just pack your stones away for your mains.

Sharee

Artemis wrote: »

2. Exactly the same is when it's exactly the same. Your two sentences are not exactly the same already.

"If X is not guaranteed to succeed, then X may fail"
and
"If X is not guaranteed to fail, then X may succeed"

may not be exactly the same sentences, but they mean exactly the same thing.

Artemis wrote: »

Again, in PvE it is in principle possible to reach the threshold. The 2nd half is irrelevant, if a player is bad it's up to him to become better and reach threshold, but no body is interfering.. In PvE it is in principle possible that no matter how good you are your alliance won't reach the threshold.
These are two very different things.

The trial mobs are interfering. If the player never gets better, he will never get the reward.

In PvP, the enemy players are interfering instead of the mobs. But in this case, it is possible that the player will get the reward even without getting better, as the skill threshold required for success constantly fluctuates.

And in the case the PvP threshold proves constantly too high, the player is free to choose an environment with a very low threshold (he can choose to play on the winning side), so the reward is always easier to get than in a trial.

Artis

Sharee wrote: »

Artemis wrote: »

2. Exactly the same is when it's exactly the same. Your two sentences are not exactly the same already.

"If X is not guaranteed to succeed, then X may fail"
and
"If X is not guaranteed to fail, then X may succeed"

may not be exactly the same sentences, but they mean exactly the same thing.

Artemis wrote: »

Again, in PvE it is in principle possible to reach the threshold. The 2nd half is irrelevant, if a player is bad it's up to him to become better and reach threshold, but no body is interfering.. In PvE it is in principle possible that no matter how good you are your alliance won't reach the threshold.
These are two very different things.

The trial mobs are interfering. If the player never gets better, he will never get the reward.

In PvP, the enemy players are interfering instead of the mobs. But in this case, it is possible that the player will get the reward even without getting better, as the skill threshold required for success constantly fluctuates.

And in the case the PvP threshold proves constantly too high, the player is free to choose an environment with a very low threshold (he can choose to play on the winning side), so the reward is always easier to get than in a trial.

1. Not exactly the same thing at all. It's logic 101, come on.
2. In PvP it's not only that players are interfering, it's also that PvP doesn't imply that things are always balanced. In PvE you know for the fact that it is possible to complete the fight with 12 players. In PvP there's no fixed number of players fighting against you. If it was like a battleground/arena kind of thing - that would be a different story. Those things are balanced in numbers at least, you can be sure that it's a fair fight 10v10 or 5v5 etc. and in case your skill/items are good enough - you can win. In cyro you never know. As OP showed, DC on NA PC is at disadvantage as the least populated faction.

Draehl

If I might suggest access always be open, but the number of keeps held apply a non-combat enhancing bonus to IC. IE experience/gold/item drop bonus. This way it encourages some balance between the two zones.

Sharee

Artemis wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

Artemis wrote: »

2. Exactly the same is when it's exactly the same. Your two sentences are not exactly the same already.

"If X is not guaranteed to succeed, then X may fail"
and
"If X is not guaranteed to fail, then X may succeed"

may not be exactly the same sentences, but they mean exactly the same thing.

Artemis wrote: »

Again, in PvE it is in principle possible to reach the threshold. The 2nd half is irrelevant, if a player is bad it's up to him to become better and reach threshold, but no body is interfering.. In PvE it is in principle possible that no matter how good you are your alliance won't reach the threshold.
These are two very different things.

The trial mobs are interfering. If the player never gets better, he will never get the reward.

In PvP, the enemy players are interfering instead of the mobs. But in this case, it is possible that the player will get the reward even without getting better, as the skill threshold required for success constantly fluctuates.

And in the case the PvP threshold proves constantly too high, the player is free to choose an environment with a very low threshold (he can choose to play on the winning side), so the reward is always easier to get than in a trial.

1. Not exactly the same thing at all. It's logic 101, come on.

It is the same thing. In both PvE and PvP, it is theoretically possible you will never succeed. The only difference is that the threshold in PvE is static, while the threshold in PvP is dynamic.

Artemis wrote: »

2. In PvP it's not only that players are interfering, it's also that PvP doesn't imply that things are always balanced.In PvE you know for the fact that it is possible to complete the fight with 12 players. In PvP there's no fixed number of players fighting against you.

That is what i was saying above - the PvP threshold is dynamic. This could mean it will be harder, but also could mean it will be easier than the PvE one.

Artemis wrote: »

If it was like a battleground/arena kind of thing - that would be a different story. Those things are balanced in numbers at least, you can be sure that it's a fair fight 10v10 or 5v5 etc. and in case your skill/items are good enough - you can win. In cyro you never know. As OP showed, DC on NA PC is at disadvantage as the least populated faction.

1, Population caps are shared between IC and rest of cyrodiil. That means the faction who already has IC access (and the most players inside) will become the least populated in overland cyrodiil, making it easier for the other factions to unlock IC access.

2, if for some reason they stay the most populated in overland as well, despite being weakened by IC (for example because you are playing in their buff campaign and no DC play there anymore), you can just switch/guest to a campaign where this is not the case.

3, and, like mentioned above in the thread, if everything goes totally down the drain, and there is no DC playing anymore anywhere, you can just make a level 10 alt on the winning faction, join IC with it, and use it to farm TV stones for your main.

sagitter

bob.ellisonb16_ESO wrote: »

I am very against the carebear approach of open access, and carebears in general, they ruin the context in a game.

The whole reason darkness falls in DAOC was cool was because it was controlled by PVP. It wasn't handed to you, you had to work for it, sometimes 2 weeks went by without having access.

When your realm is the underdog it creates leaders and communities to overcome, organize, startegize, now it just creates a bunch of whiners.

Why do people even want to play a PvP MMO if everything is handed to them...

AGREE 100% , making 1 campagin with open acces, only will cause lagg and zerg. IC it's like Darkness Falls Daoc concept, and there was working awesome for pvp lovers.
Carebears, get out of here if you don't like pvp.

sagitter

sagitter wrote: »

bob.ellisonb16_ESO wrote: »

I am very against the carebear approach of open access, and carebears in general, they ruin the context in a game.

The whole reason darkness falls in DAOC was cool was because it was controlled by PVP. It wasn't handed to you, you had to work for it, sometimes 2 weeks went by without having access.

When your realm is the underdog it creates leaders and communities to overcome, organize, startegize, now it just creates a bunch of whiners.

Why do people even want to play a PvP MMO if everything is handed to them...

AGREE 100% , making 1 campagin with open acces, only will cause lagg and zerg. IC it's like Darkness Falss concept, and there was working awesome for pvp lovers.
Carebears, get out of here if you don't like pvp.

jcodbf2b14_ESO wrote: »

I would have to agree.. There needs to be another way. A paid DLC that may not even be open to some people when they logon isnt a good idea. If it were something that a faction could work toward without needing to worry that they are outnumbered and may never get the keep requirement ( Also true that this hurt Warhammer A LOT ).. Which would eventually cause DC to become even less populated because people will want to play the DLC they paid for as much as possible.

A pvp DLC that actually require you to pvp to achieve it , it's the way to enjoy it.

VincentBlanquin

sagitter wrote: »

bob.ellisonb16_ESO wrote: »

I am very against the carebear approach of open access, and carebears in general, they ruin the context in a game.

The whole reason darkness falls in DAOC was cool was because it was controlled by PVP. It wasn't handed to you, you had to work for it, sometimes 2 weeks went by without having access.

When your realm is the underdog it creates leaders and communities to overcome, organize, startegize, now it just creates a bunch of whiners.

Why do people even want to play a PvP MMO if everything is handed to them...

AGREE 100% , making 1 campagin with open acces, only will cause lagg and zerg. IC it's like Darkness Falls Daoc concept, and there was working awesome for pvp lovers.
Carebears, get out of here if you don't like pvp.

dont get these points. so what now? every aliance will get their buff campaign for IC entering....

sagitter

Davkin wrote: »

I dont know why people think if there are no requirements for the imperial city, no one will have an incentive to play cyrodil anymore. People will still play cyoridl, because its another form of pvp then the imperial city. Alot of people prefer large scale batte with sieges and defending of castles. What was the incentive until now to play cyordil? After the first few million AP its to have fun. For example guildwars 2 also has two different pvp options, large scale world war like cyrodil and small maps for just a few players. Both coexist because some people like the constant direct engagement, while other like to play towards a greater goal then just the Kill/death-rate or a plain onslaugt. There is no need to force people to play stuff.

Exactly, Cyrodill will be desert, and zergs and lagg inside Imperial City.
The need of conquering the keeps outside the city contribute to spread the the players, avoiding to stay all inside the City.
Why can't you undrestand this simple thing???

sagitter

VincentBlanquin wrote: »

sagitter wrote: »

bob.ellisonb16_ESO wrote: »

I am very against the carebear approach of open access, and carebears in general, they ruin the context in a game.

The whole reason darkness falls in DAOC was cool was because it was controlled by PVP. It wasn't handed to you, you had to work for it, sometimes 2 weeks went by without having access.

When your realm is the underdog it creates leaders and communities to overcome, organize, startegize, now it just creates a bunch of whiners.

Why do people even want to play a PvP MMO if everything is handed to them...

AGREE 100% , making 1 campagin with open acces, only will cause lagg and zerg. IC it's like Darkness Falls Daoc concept, and there was working awesome for pvp lovers.
Carebears, get out of here if you don't like pvp.

dont get these points. so what now? every aliance will get their buff campaign for IC entering....

But you are not certain of this, I could organize a group to conquer your keeps,and kick you out, while you are inside trying to defend and not getting kicked, another group of your realm could fight my group of conquering outside....... the scenario it's various,and brings variety to the pvp aspect, on the other hand IC opens for all will be monotonous , most of ppl will pvp inside the City, causing zerglagg, and Cyrodiil will be sad.

sagitter

I can make another example here: imagine that 1 alliance is nightcapping and zerging all inside the City,the others 2 alliance are suffering, they could organize a group to kick the nightcappers out conquering their keeps.This add new scenarios guys, more tactic,pvp mmo concept war need this ,believe me , I know this mechanic and played it for years, and is fun.

VincentBlanquin

sagitter wrote: »

VincentBlanquin wrote: »

sagitter wrote: »

bob.ellisonb16_ESO wrote: »

I am very against the carebear approach of open access, and carebears in general, they ruin the context in a game.

The whole reason darkness falls in DAOC was cool was because it was controlled by PVP. It wasn't handed to you, you had to work for it, sometimes 2 weeks went by without having access.

When your realm is the underdog it creates leaders and communities to overcome, organize, startegize, now it just creates a bunch of whiners.

Why do people even want to play a PvP MMO if everything is handed to them...

AGREE 100% , making 1 campagin with open acces, only will cause lagg and zerg. IC it's like Darkness Falls Daoc concept, and there was working awesome for pvp lovers.
Carebears, get out of here if you don't like pvp.

dont get these points. so what now? every aliance will get their buff campaign for IC entering....

But you are not certain of this, I could organize a group to conquer your keeps,and kick you out, while you are inside trying to defend and not getting kicked, another group of your realm could fight my group of conquering outside....... the scenario it's various,and brings variety to the pvp aspect, on the other hand IC opens for all will be monotonous , most of ppl will pvp inside the City, causing zerglagg, and Cyrodiil will be sad.

maybe you can organize group to conquer my keeps once, twice or little more, but after some time your group get bored of that and i will have my safe campaign

VincentBlanquin

sagitter wrote: »

I can make another example here: imagine that 1 alliance is nightcapping and zerging all inside the City,the others 2 alliance are suffering, they could organize a group to kick the nightcappers out conquering their keeps.This add new scenarios guys, more tactic,pvp mmo concept war need this ,believe me , I know this mechanic and played it for years, and is fun.

i never played daoc, so tell me. daoc is like one campaign for all right? it can work well, but if you have various campaigns, it wont work. it dont work even now at live

sagitter

VincentBlanquin wrote: »

sagitter wrote: »

VincentBlanquin wrote: »

sagitter wrote: »

bob.ellisonb16_ESO wrote: »

I am very against the carebear approach of open access, and carebears in general, they ruin the context in a game.

The whole reason darkness falls in DAOC was cool was because it was controlled by PVP. It wasn't handed to you, you had to work for it, sometimes 2 weeks went by without having access.

When your realm is the underdog it creates leaders and communities to overcome, organize, startegize, now it just creates a bunch of whiners.

Why do people even want to play a PvP MMO if everything is handed to them...

AGREE 100% , making 1 campagin with open acces, only will cause lagg and zerg. IC it's like Darkness Falls Daoc concept, and there was working awesome for pvp lovers.
Carebears, get out of here if you don't like pvp.

dont get these points. so what now? every aliance will get their buff campaign for IC entering....

But you are not certain of this, I could organize a group to conquer your keeps,and kick you out, while you are inside trying to defend and not getting kicked, another group of your realm could fight my group of conquering outside....... the scenario it's various,and brings variety to the pvp aspect, on the other hand IC opens for all will be monotonous , most of ppl will pvp inside the City, causing zerglagg, and Cyrodiil will be sad.

maybe you can organize group to conquer my keeps once, twice or little more, but after some time your group get bored of that and i will have my safe campaign

It depend on who defend better inside the City, and why we should get bored dude? it s pvp and if you like it you don't, and look you have brought a new scenario, more things to do, inside and outside the city.

Artis

Sharee wrote: »

It is the same thing. In both PvE and PvP, it is theoretically possible you will never succeed. The only difference is that the threshold in PvE is static, while the threshold in PvP is dynamic.

That is what i was saying above - the PvP threshold is dynamic. This could mean it will be harder, but also could mean it will be easier than the PvE one.

It's a huge difference though. In PvE you will not succeed only if you are bad. In PvP no matter how good you are - it is possible that you won't succeed. They are two completely different things. PvE can be completed, it's the way it's designed.

Sharee wrote: »

1, Population caps are shared between IC and rest of cyrodiil. That means the faction who already has IC access (and the most players inside) will become the least populated in overland cyrodiil, making it easier for the other factions to unlock IC access.

2, if for some reason they stay the most populated in overland as well, despite being weakened by IC (for example because you are playing in their buff campaign and no DC play there anymore), you can just switch/guest to a campaign where this is not the case.

3, and, like mentioned above in the thread, if everything goes totally down the drain, and there is no DC playing anymore anywhere, you can just make a level 10 alt on the winning faction, join IC with it, and use it to farm TV stones for your main.

1. It does not change much. It's not like people were just where figths were about to start before IC. If needed - they will come and def/attack. We are talking about a few organized guilds that make cyrodiil yellow or red.
2. It is possible, that there will be no such campaign, which was demonstrated by OP.
3. No, you can't. It's not a solution. Whatever involves switching factions etc - is NOT a solution. A player wants to play his character in end-game. A players wants to pvp/farm in IC with the character he loves. ... Do I really need to explain why it's not an acceptable solution? are you trolling or what? you can't be serious with that. It's a *** game design if I am forced to roll more than one character (not everyone likes alts and all that) and especially if I need to play for a faction that I don't like.

Darlon

Artemis wrote: »

3. No, you can't. It's not a solution. Whatever involves switching factions etc - is NOT a solution. A player wants to play his character in end-game. A players wants to pvp/farm in IC with the character he loves. ... Do I really need to explain why it's not an acceptable solution? are you trolling or what? you can't be serious with that. It's a *** game design if I am forced to roll more than one character (not everyone likes alts and all that) and especially if I need to play for a faction that I don't like.

This.

Whatever happens, telling someone to re-roll on another faction is just ignorant and no solution at all...