There CANNOT be access gates to the Imperial City paid DLC

Docmandu

Ok with all this legalese BS quoting.. I now want to be able to do VR14 dungeons on a level 1 and be able to skip all the trash so that I insta spawn at the final boss, that I can single hit kill and get a gold key.

This CANNOT be access gated behind levelling to VR14 and developing the required skills on my part! I paid for it, so I NEED to be able to insta get this!

Hiero_Glyph

Docmandu wrote: »

Ok with all this legalese BS quoting.. I now want to be able to do VR14 dungeons on a level 1 and be able to skip all the trash so that I insta spawn at the final boss, that I can single hit kill and get a gold key.

This CANNOT be access gated behind levelling to VR14 and developing the required skills on my part! I paid for it, so I NEED to be able to insta get this!

While I understand the point you are trying to make, albeit horribly, there is a difference between getting access to a thing when you reach max level, finish a storyline, or finding a group of 12 players than there is for paying for a thing and having access be outside of your control. This is referred to as a reasonable expectation and having end-game content being gated only by reaching max level is entirely reasonable. Likewise having a story expansion require completing the storyline or get to a specific point is also reasonable. What is not reasonable is paying for content that may never be accessed all because you picked a specific alliance when you created your character. Thankfully, all of this is moot since ZoS is removing such restrictions until they have time to properly assess the situation (which is a professional and reasonable decision for them to make).

Docmandu

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

What is not reasonable is paying for content that may never be accessed all because you picked a specific alliance when you created your character.

Tip: you can change campaigns.

And you can even make a character in the other alliance and join a campaign that is dominated by that alliance.

So the "not being able to access" line is BS imho, but so is the legalese argument.

wraith808

byrom101b16_ESO wrote: »

wraith808 wrote: »

Leandor wrote: »

I love how it is assumed that the legal babble made them make this decision...

You have to admit, it was rather amusing watching armchair lawyers spew pages of legalese before a court of judges that didn't even care.

The point of PTS was to test the different options- which is the reason that I thought this particular thread a bit fast on the draw. From the testing of the options, they made a decision. Of course, any time that a change is made, people will claim a 'win'. Conversely, any time a change is not made, people will claim that 'they don't listen'. Rather than seeing, perhaps, that all of it is a part of the process, and the results would have been the same with or without rants- but rather reasoned replies and feedback might find its way into the calculations.

But that's a bit too logical.

Quite apart from your first line assumption and your last line dismissal, you have a semi-fair point.

This being a PTS forum in no way invalidates anything said about consumer rights of course, and you'll not find a single reference to a 'win' from either side of the debate actually.

strawman...

As for being "fast on the draw" - with the kind of lag in player complaint response time Zenimax and other MMO companies have been known to have, getting your complaint in fast enough simply isn't possible is it? lol

Just because you didn't say *win* doesn't invalidate the argument. I'm not the only one that took your crowing reference to Sharee in the same fashion. If you didn't want it to be viewed that way, then that should have probably been stated in a different fashion.

And fast on the draw in the terms of the way that it was stated, when they were just testing. But I'm not going to get drawn into a long conversation with you... I've seen the results of that enough to realize that it wouldn't be a conversation.

Hiero_Glyph

Docmandu wrote: »

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

What is not reasonable is paying for content that may never be accessed all because you picked a specific alliance when you created your character.

Tip: you can change campaigns.

And you can even make a character in the other alliance and join a campaign that is dominated by that alliance.

So the "not being able to access" line is BS imho, but so is the legalese argument.

As was demonstrated a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away (or at the start of this thread), DC on NA would only have access on one single campaign and even that was not permanent (meaning no access whatsoever). So what was this about picking another campaign?

The real issue is that ZoS has not addressed the population imbalances that currently exist. Once they do this, then switching campaigns may be feasible, but until that time AD and EP are both larger than DC and have a greater number of players throughout the 24 hours in a day. No amount of switching campaigns will ever change this fact.

EDIT: I think it would be fair to request you reread the start of this thread since you seem to have forgotten the basis for which it was made.

Fetaro

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Hey gang!

When Imperial City launches it will be open access to all Alliances in all Campaigns to all those who purchase the DLC or are ESO+ members. After the dust settles we'll be looking at Campaign population and feedback about the new rulesets also going out with the Imperial City update (that apply regardless of getting the DLC or not).

Based on those factors, we may or may not open\convert a Campaign to gated access to Imperial City, but again when Imperial City launches, it will not have Keep Gated access to start.

Remember what you said about the BG ? You didn't want to implement them because it would kill Cyrodil ? What do you think it will happen to Cyrodil if you don't put the restrictions ?

Docmandu

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

EDIT: I think it would be fair to request you reread the start of this thread since you seem to have forgotten the basis for which it was made.

Can I then suggest you make a character on the EU server, which you can do with your account, where DC owns the entire map most of the time in Azura Star... see.. you can still get access to the content on your existing account!

Hiero_Glyph

Fetaro wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Hey gang!

When Imperial City launches it will be open access to all Alliances in all Campaigns to all those who purchase the DLC or are ESO+ members. After the dust settles we'll be looking at Campaign population and feedback about the new rulesets also going out with the Imperial City update (that apply regardless of getting the DLC or not).

Based on those factors, we may or may not open\convert a Campaign to gated access to Imperial City, but again when Imperial City launches, it will not have Keep Gated access to start.

Remember what you said about the BG ? You didn't want to implement them because it would kill Cyrodil ? What do you think it will happen to Cyrodil if you don't put the restrictions ?

It means larger sales for the Imperial City and since the best gear is only available there, a greater advantage for those players who have purchased it. At least now the alliance you are part of will not hinder how much money they make from IC. I agree that Cryodiil will suffer for it but ZoS needs to make Cyrodiil worth playing, not take away what IC has to offer.

EDIT: Perhaps adding NPC Champions that appear when a specific condition is met such as trying to capture an enemy keep when they only own 6/3/1. This would provide incentive for assaulting the first enemy keep in a campaign and still provide benefits for pushing an enemy alliance back. The quality of these champions could improve based on the condition met and a cooldown period could be used to prevent farming. Give these champions exclusive items, a chance to drop high level Master's gear, etc. and now there is some incentive to assult keeps, not to mention more defense for the alliance being pushed back. I guess these are similar to Jedi from Battlefront.

Nebthet78

Preyfar wrote: »

mislucb16_ESO wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

but again when Imperial City launches, it will not have Keep Gated access to start.

This is a bad decision. The purpose of Cyrodiil is to fight to gain control over the IC. Fighting to keep the IC access would give a real reason to fight for our keeps !!!

Right now, if ZOS required there to be homekeeps campaigns like Thornblade would go from a AD Buff Server to an AD Imperial City server. It's near impossible for DC and EP to get a foothold there and keep it for more than a few hours. ZOS knows that if they release DLC that most of the players will never get a chance to enjoy that all those months of coding, grinding, fixing, tweak, hotfixing, patching will have been for waste. And NOBODY is going to buy it. Because why would you buy DLC you can't access?

Right now, the campaigns on PC are a freakin' mess. They're faction dominated, and pretty much it's Azura's or best. And that sucks. I've almost given up PVP because I don't like zergfests, but I also don't like 5:1 odds on a good day trying to make progress on Thorn.

While in some respects the announcement by Brian is nice. It has effectively killed Cyrodiil. There is no point going there now unless you are skyshard hunting or doing the dungeons. Had they kept the rules in place it would have at least made it so there was a reason for players to continue to try to take the keep.

In regards to Thornblade, I blame it on the lack of EP and DC players, not the fact it is an AD controlled Buff Campaign. Last week, EP got a group of 20 players together and they took 4 almost 5 keeps in short order. It was one AWESOME battle! and the only reason AD won is because we outlasted the time the players had to go offline. If more players got together to do that, it would be much more active, but everyone wants to win, they are not willing to lose just for the fun of it or just to beef up their skills.

Most of you PvPers always state risk vs reward for anything and that you look down your nose at PvErs because of this. What I have found most often however, it is the PvP community who does not want to take risk and actually have to work for something. They want it handed to them so they can just slaughter other players who have less experience or are not interested in that type of game play and yet are forced to go there because they need something and can't find it anything else.

A lot of PvErs will only be willing to go into IC if there is a buff campaign, so with this decision (despite 2 dungeons), there will be a huge drop in IC sales as these players will wait to see if the keep ruleset will be implemented and will not purchase until then. I am not willing to pay 2500 Crowns to have access to only 2 dungeons because I don't like the zergfest the rest of IC will be. Had the keeps rules been implemented, I would have actually purchased it as at least 1 of my toons would have had access to IC so I could do what I wanted with not having to worry about being ganked constantly.

Hiero_Glyph

Docmandu wrote: »

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

EDIT: I think it would be fair to request you reread the start of this thread since you seem to have forgotten the basis for which it was made.

Can I then suggest you make a character on the EU server, which you can do with your account, where DC owns the entire map most of the time in Azura Star... see.. you can still get access to the content on your existing account!

Are you going to spend the hundreds of hours leveling it for me? Do I need to reiterate what a reasonable expectation includes?

Elijah_Crow

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Hey gang!

When Imperial City launches it will be open access to all Alliances in all Campaigns to all those who purchase the DLC or are ESO+ members. After the dust settles we'll be looking at Campaign population and feedback about the new rulesets also going out with the Imperial City update (that apply regardless of getting the DLC or not).

Based on those factors, we may or may not open\convert a Campaign to gated access to Imperial City, but again when Imperial City launches, it will not have Keep Gated access to start.

Huge mistake. Game breaking.

Hiero_Glyph

Elijah_Crow wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Hey gang!

When Imperial City launches it will be open access to all Alliances in all Campaigns to all those who purchase the DLC or are ESO+ members. After the dust settles we'll be looking at Campaign population and feedback about the new rulesets also going out with the Imperial City update (that apply regardless of getting the DLC or not).

Based on those factors, we may or may not open\convert a Campaign to gated access to Imperial City, but again when Imperial City launches, it will not have Keep Gated access to start.

Huge mistake. Game breaking.

If ZoS isn't willing to properly test the access conditions on the PTS before release then I feel this is the responsible thing to do. Besides, I'm sure they will add gated access to some campaigns once they have everything else under control. At that point it may be nice to let players decide if they want to fight for IC or not, especially since they could be paying for no access.

Feel free to elaborate on how you feel this is game breaking though. ZoS could certainly use the feedback but I have a guess that what you mean to say is that Cyrodiil needs some incentive to keep players outside of IC, not that removing gated access is game breaking on its own.

Docmandu

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

Docmandu wrote: »

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

EDIT: I think it would be fair to request you reread the start of this thread since you seem to have forgotten the basis for which it was made.

Can I then suggest you make a character on the EU server, which you can do with your account, where DC owns the entire map most of the time in Azura Star... see.. you can still get access to the content on your existing account!

Are you going to spend the hundreds of hours leveling it for me? Do I need to reiterate what a reasonable expectation includes?

It's the same silly argument that you made making me level my level 1 to VR14 to do Veteran Dungeons.

Silly arguments get silly responses.

Either way, continuing with the legal BS, you CAN access the content.. so all that legal mumble jumble that somebody posted, is basically a cry baby that doesn't gets his way then starts acting smart to proof his way is the right way.

Anyway.. I made my point.. move along...

Hiero_Glyph

Docmandu wrote: »

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

Docmandu wrote: »

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

EDIT: I think it would be fair to request you reread the start of this thread since you seem to have forgotten the basis for which it was made.

Can I then suggest you make a character on the EU server, which you can do with your account, where DC owns the entire map most of the time in Azura Star... see.. you can still get access to the content on your existing account!

Are you going to spend the hundreds of hours leveling it for me? Do I need to reiterate what a reasonable expectation includes?

It's the same silly argument that you made making me level my level 1 to VR14 to do Veteran Dungeons.

Silly arguments get silly responses.

Either way, continuing with the legal BS, you CAN access the content.. so all that legal mumble jumble that somebody posted, is basically a cry baby that doesn't gets his way then starts acting smart to proof his way is the right way.

Anyway.. I made my point.. move along...

FYI, it's not the same as reaching vr14 since that access is guranteed once you complete the requirement. Its obvious that you do not understand why a gating mechanic that unlocks when a requirement is met is different from one that has variable conditions that may never be fulfilled. I agree that it is best if you move along.

LEGENDARYYY

I'm EP and I agree entirely. This smells really bad.

Your thread is one of the few threads on this forum that really needs attention from ZOS.

Implementing access gates like this would be a disaster and would ruin ESO.

This just cannot happen. I refuse to believe ZOS didn't think of issues of this magnitude. It was the first thing that got my attention as soon as I heard access gates unlocked via keep control.

I trust you'll work this out @ZOS_BrianWheeler , you cannot force me to take a part in Cyrodiil horse simulator for hours. You cannot force me to be dependant on other players for access to a DLC I payed for. I'd rather uninstall.

I'm very fond of hard content to progress and striving to achieve goals, but this is just simply unachievable for anyone as an individual.

Thalmor-Nordmaster

Nebthet78 wrote: »

Preyfar wrote: »

mislucb16_ESO wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

but again when Imperial City launches, it will not have Keep Gated access to start.

This is a bad decision. The purpose of Cyrodiil is to fight to gain control over the IC. Fighting to keep the IC access would give a real reason to fight for our keeps !!!

Right now, if ZOS required there to be homekeeps campaigns like Thornblade would go from a AD Buff Server to an AD Imperial City server. It's near impossible for DC and EP to get a foothold there and keep it for more than a few hours. ZOS knows that if they release DLC that most of the players will never get a chance to enjoy that all those months of coding, grinding, fixing, tweak, hotfixing, patching will have been for waste. And NOBODY is going to buy it. Because why would you buy DLC you can't access?

Right now, the campaigns on PC are a freakin' mess. They're faction dominated, and pretty much it's Azura's or best. And that sucks. I've almost given up PVP because I don't like zergfests, but I also don't like 5:1 odds on a good day trying to make progress on Thorn.

While in some respects the announcement by Brian is nice. It has effectively killed Cyrodiil. There is no point going there now unless you are skyshard hunting or doing the dungeons. Had they kept the rules in place it would have at least made it so there was a reason for players to continue to try to take the keep.

In regards to Thornblade, I blame it on the lack of EP and DC players, not the fact it is an AD controlled Buff Campaign. Last week, EP got a group of 20 players together and they took 4 almost 5 keeps in short order. It was one AWESOME battle! and the only reason AD won is because we outlasted the time the players had to go offline. If more players got together to do that, it would be much more active, but everyone wants to win, they are not willing to lose just for the fun of it or just to beef up their skills.

Most of you PvPers always state risk vs reward for anything and that you look down your nose at PvErs because of this. What I have found most often however, it is the PvP community who does not want to take risk and actually have to work for something. They want it handed to them so they can just slaughter other players who have less experience or are not interested in that type of game play and yet are forced to go there because they need something and can't find it anything else.

A lot of PvErs will only be willing to go into IC if there is a buff campaign, so with this decision (despite 2 dungeons), there will be a huge drop in IC sales as these players will wait to see if the keep ruleset will be implemented and will not purchase until then. I am not willing to pay 2500 Crowns to have access to only 2 dungeons because I don't like the zergfest the rest of IC will be. Had the keeps rules been implemented, I would have actually purchased it as at least 1 of my toons would have had access to IC so I could do what I wanted with not having to worry about being ganked constantly.

Hey if we can solo keeps I know what im going to do. It will make things more interesting in Cyrodiil. Keeps are going to be awesome to grief. yaaay

Pirhana7_ESO

LEGENDARYYY wrote: »

I'm EP and I agree entirely. This smells really bad.

Your thread is one of the few threads on this forum that really needs attention from ZOS.

Implementing access gates like this would be a disaster and would ruin ESO.

This just cannot happen. I refuse to believe ZOS didn't think of issues of this magnitude. It was the first thing that got my attention as soon as I heard access gates unlocked via keep control.

I trust you'll work this out @ZOS_BrianWheeler , you cannot force me to take a part in Cyrodiil horse simulator for hours. You cannot force me to be dependant on other players for access to a DLC I payed for. I'd rather uninstall.

I'm very fond of hard content to progress and striving to achieve goals, but this is just simply unachievable for anyone as an individual.

The IC access is a reward for your alliance NOT you. Having a real reward to fight over gives more meaning in Cyrodiil. when you can lose access to something it actually makes it special and exciting. being able to tactically cut off enemy alliances gives you a window of actual controlled PVE in IC when you can accomplish stuff, where it is not a pure zerg gankfest but you still ahve to watch your back for skirmishes. This system worked well in DAOC, no reason why it shouldnt in ESO.
.
Cyrodiil is not a horse simulator if you use your keep ports, upgrade your riding skill and play smart. It should never take you more than 3 minutes to gte back to the action or battle line. if you are trying to go to the other side of enemy lands then yes it should be a horse simulator.

byrom101b16_ESO

wraith808 wrote: »

byrom101b16_ESO wrote: »

wraith808 wrote: »

Leandor wrote: »

I love how it is assumed that the legal babble made them make this decision...

You have to admit, it was rather amusing watching armchair lawyers spew pages of legalese before a court of judges that didn't even care.

The point of PTS was to test the different options- which is the reason that I thought this particular thread a bit fast on the draw. From the testing of the options, they made a decision. Of course, any time that a change is made, people will claim a 'win'. Conversely, any time a change is not made, people will claim that 'they don't listen'. Rather than seeing, perhaps, that all of it is a part of the process, and the results would have been the same with or without rants- but rather reasoned replies and feedback might find its way into the calculations.

But that's a bit too logical.

Quite apart from your first line assumption and your last line dismissal, you have a semi-fair point.

This being a PTS forum in no way invalidates anything said about consumer rights of course, and you'll not find a single reference to a 'win' from either side of the debate actually.

strawman...

As for being "fast on the draw" - with the kind of lag in player complaint response time Zenimax and other MMO companies have been known to have, getting your complaint in fast enough simply isn't possible is it? lol

Just because you didn't say *win* doesn't invalidate the argument. I'm not the only one that took your crowing reference to Sharee in the same fashion. If you didn't want it to be viewed that way, then that should have probably been stated in a different fashion.

And fast on the draw in the terms of the way that it was stated, when they were just testing. But I'm not going to get drawn into a long conversation with you... I've seen the results of that enough to realize that it wouldn't be a conversation.

It entirely invalidates the argument as a matter of fact.

If you can't take what I say the way I say it, the fault lies with you n'est pas?

You're the one making sweeping assumptions here like they represent the 'truth' - like the fact you couldn't have a conversation with me.

There's and old saying by one of my favourite philosophers that fits here (if one hand-waves the singular gender reference)

"Men are disturbed not by things, but by the view which they take of them." Epictetus

People who use the internet should look at more of his stuff - it's like he was commentating on twitter...

"As you think, so you become.....Our busy minds are forever jumping to conclusions, manufacturing and interpreting signs that aren't there."

Wise chap.

byrom101b16_ESO

Pirhana7_ESO wrote: »

LEGENDARYYY wrote: »

I'm EP and I agree entirely. This smells really bad.

Your thread is one of the few threads on this forum that really needs attention from ZOS.

Implementing access gates like this would be a disaster and would ruin ESO.

This just cannot happen. I refuse to believe ZOS didn't think of issues of this magnitude. It was the first thing that got my attention as soon as I heard access gates unlocked via keep control.

I trust you'll work this out @ZOS_BrianWheeler , you cannot force me to take a part in Cyrodiil horse simulator for hours. You cannot force me to be dependant on other players for access to a DLC I payed for. I'd rather uninstall.

I'm very fond of hard content to progress and striving to achieve goals, but this is just simply unachievable for anyone as an individual.

The IC access is a reward for your alliance NOT you.

Herein lies the flaw in your argument. The contract you click yes on is between you the individual and Zenimax the company. it is not between you and thousand other people and Zenimax.

They all clicked on their own contracts, and don't pay for a minute of your time accessing the entertainment you paid for.

Besides, Brian said there will be 'opt-in' campaigns for those that like the gating model, so you'll have your desire catered to without upsetting other customers.

That's what successful companies do.

Leandor

byrom101b16_ESO wrote: »

Leandor wrote: »

wraith808 wrote: »

Leandor wrote: »

I love how it is assumed that the legal babble made them make this decision...

You have to admit, it was rather amusing watching armchair lawyers spew pages of legalese before a court of judges that didn't even care.

The point of PTS was to test the different options- which is the reason that I thought this particular thread a bit fast on the draw. From the testing of the options, they made a decision. Of course, any time that a change is made, people will claim a 'win'. Conversely, any time a change is not made, people will claim that 'they don't listen'. Rather than seeing, perhaps, that all of it is a part of the process, and the results would have been the same with or without rants- but rather reasoned replies and feedback might find its way into the calculations.

But that's a bit too logical.

Actually, it destroyed a quite good discussion with a lot of valuable points for the two sides. I still think that a compromise would have achieved a similar result (like my largely unregarded proposal) while maintaining a certain incentive to play Cyrodiil proper.

But alas, the free access option is better than the 6 home keeps option or an even higher requirement, so who am I to complain?

It didn't destroy anything Leander - that's hyperbole.

As for incentivising Cyrodiil main PvP - I am sure there will be something added now the forced participation element has been removed. I'd certainly like to see incentives, and your linked post is, in the main, quite a good one.

Oh it did well and truly, as apparent by the fact that we have pages and pages of two persons discussing something completely unimportant and little to no contributions by others that have had a big part in the discussion before.

But whatever floats your boat, mate.

byrom101b16_ESO

Leandor wrote: »

byrom101b16_ESO wrote: »

Leandor wrote: »

wraith808 wrote: »

Leandor wrote: »

I love how it is assumed that the legal babble made them make this decision...

You have to admit, it was rather amusing watching armchair lawyers spew pages of legalese before a court of judges that didn't even care.

The point of PTS was to test the different options- which is the reason that I thought this particular thread a bit fast on the draw. From the testing of the options, they made a decision. Of course, any time that a change is made, people will claim a 'win'. Conversely, any time a change is not made, people will claim that 'they don't listen'. Rather than seeing, perhaps, that all of it is a part of the process, and the results would have been the same with or without rants- but rather reasoned replies and feedback might find its way into the calculations.

But that's a bit too logical.

Actually, it destroyed a quite good discussion with a lot of valuable points for the two sides. I still think that a compromise would have achieved a similar result (like my largely unregarded proposal) while maintaining a certain incentive to play Cyrodiil proper.

But alas, the free access option is better than the 6 home keeps option or an even higher requirement, so who am I to complain?

It didn't destroy anything Leander - that's hyperbole.

As for incentivising Cyrodiil main PvP - I am sure there will be something added now the forced participation element has been removed. I'd certainly like to see incentives, and your linked post is, in the main, quite a good one.

Oh it did well and truly, as apparent by the fact that we have pages and pages of two persons discussing something completely unimportant and little to no contributions by others that have had a big part in the discussion before.

But whatever floats your boat, mate.

More hyperbole!?

Really, you don't need any more practice at it, you're already a grandmaster...

Frenkthevile

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Hey gang!

When Imperial City launches it will be open access to all Alliances in all Campaigns to all those who purchase the DLC or are ESO+ members. After the dust settles we'll be looking at Campaign population and feedback about the new rulesets also going out with the Imperial City update (that apply regardless of getting the DLC or not).

Based on those factors, we may or may not open\convert a Campaign to gated access to Imperial City, but again when Imperial City launches, it will not have Keep Gated access to start.

Great, great choice, finally something clear and reasonable.

Hiero_Glyph

Instead of bickering over an issue that ZoS has temporarily resolved by giving open access, why not think of better ways to make Cyrodiil important and provide a means to unlock IC access that is not affected by population imbalances (or find a way to encourage populations sizes to be equal).

Obviously the model ZoS intended to use is based on Darkness Falls but as was pointed out that content is inlcuded with a subscription whereas IC is paid DLC so the same approach will not be effective here. Sure, ZoS can just gate select campaigns but that still doesn't solve the real problem, not to mention it completely invalidates having an Emperor.

So let's be productive and suggest ways for ZoS to make IC have gated access that is fair to all players regardless of alliance or campaign.

Paulhewhewria

Let me start off by saying I don't care either way for the resections I only care about whether or not the game does well.
So let me get this right whats the point in not having resections I mean look if one faction owns a server basically you think your going to be able to do anything?Hell no they'll kill your ass at the gate before you get in any,so whats it matter if we have resections or not.My point is this resections or not does nothing the faction with the biggest group will still control/stop you before you can do a damn thing in the city I'm willing to bet.

Pirhana7_ESO

Giving all 3 alliances 24/7 access is ruining the purpose of the IC. having something to FIGHT FOR CONTROL of is what made it work so well in DAOC and actually made it a prize. It made it special and exciting.

Now your going to have a place that will take away from Cyrodiil instead of making thing sin Cyrodiil important.

24/7 access to IC means it will be zerg run all day. When only 1 side controls it there would be PVE for that side while having to watch your back from enemy stealth and skirimish groups which is the PVP we want!.

You have a great concept with the IC that alot of people praised in DAOC as teh best MMO experience they ever had and you are ruining it because of people who Cry that they need perma access to content they are paying for without understanding how the control mechanics actually work, have purpuse, and even bring balance .

If you actually put in the keep control mechanic i guurentee you 90% of the people against it will actually like it and approve of it once the get to experience it and see what it does.

Thalmor-Nordmaster

WarlordGrievous wrote: »

Let me start off by saying I don't care either way for the resections I only care about whether or not the game does well.
So let me get this right whats the point in not having resections I mean look if one faction owns a server basically you think your going to be able to do anything?Hell no they'll kill your ass at the gate before you get in any,so whats it matter if we have resections or not.My point is this resections or not does nothing the faction with the biggest group will still control/stop you before you can do a damn thing in the city I'm willing to bet.

B.H.Liddel Hart would call this the direct approach. Station all of your forces at the only point of access and wait for them to come to you.@olemanwinter this thread has served it's purpose you can now put it to rest. Brianna had the power to yea or Nea he exercised it. Its over.

Now it is time for the Blueberries and Bananas and Apples to get it on in the Imperial Fruit-bowl !!!!

nimander99

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Hey gang!

When Imperial City launches it will be open access to all Alliances in all Campaigns to all those who purchase the DLC or are ESO+ members. After the dust settles we'll be looking at Campaign population and feedback about the new rulesets also going out with the Imperial City update (that apply regardless of getting the DLC or not).

Based on those factors, we may or may not open\convert a Campaign to gated access to Imperial City, but again when Imperial City launches, it will not have Keep Gated access to start.

Welp, I'll be playing at 2:30am pst, who's with me?

AhPook_Is_Here

One good thing about full open access is there is no need for doors inside of Cyrodiil any longer, just put a wayshrine in each faction's base that you can travel to from anywhere.

It will be really nice for PVP if a group leader can just queue you right in to any server they home or guest so large groups can move quickly from IC campaign to IC campaign to optimize stone farming from players and avoid competitive groups.

Rescorla_ESO

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Hey gang!

When Imperial City launches it will be open access to all Alliances in all Campaigns to all those who purchase the DLC or are ESO+ members. After the dust settles we'll be looking at Campaign population and feedback about the new rulesets also going out with the Imperial City update (that apply regardless of getting the DLC or not).

Based on those factors, we may or may not open\convert a Campaign to gated access to Imperial City, but again when Imperial City launches, it will not have Keep Gated access to start.

I guess the best way to fix performance lag in Cyrodil is to eliminate the incentive for players to PVP there. What a horrible decision. You had a chance to make PVP in Cyrodil meaningful with repercussions.

Thalmor-Nordmaster

Off topic a bit. from what I was reading Hope was the methodology zos was going to use for improving lag. All of this discussion and IC in general is next to useless if Lag/latency is not solved., Someone posted a Cray that zos could rent space on awhile ago. But I dont think they at zos would know what to do with one.