There CANNOT be access gates to the Imperial City paid DLC

AhPook_Is_Here

Thalmor-Nordmaster wrote: »

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.

Ya I doubt their server runs on COS.

nimander99

I think someone finally realized that this was just going to lead to faction dominated campaigns again, players have already been trying to hash out which campaigns were going to be for each faction. It would've completely eradicated any point of getting rid of buff campaigns.

Slylok

Keeps are just the easiest way to do gated access.. But population concerns are its downfall.

There are other ways for rules to be put in place though that would offer each alliance no matter how small to get access.

Track Alliance Scores! Create a number to reach that would take time but not to much time to reach. Lets just say it was 10,000 IC Points.

Player Kill - 1 Point
Keep Take / Defense - 10 Points
Elder Scrolls Taken / Returned - 100 Points
Dolmen Defeated - 50 Points
Quests Completed ( PvP and PvE ) - 5 Points
Etc.

The required point total could be tied to the campaign that a player is in and their alliance population then IC access stays until the end of the campaign period. So the 30 Day campaign would have a higher required total than the others ( also factoring population of an alliance ).

OR

Track it on a global scale that each alliance contributes to the total. Once the required total is met all factions get access in that campaign for a set period before having to do it again.

Either way this keeps Cyrodil in play with PvP.

olemanwinter

Sharee wrote: »

If you claim that all players who paid for content have the right to said content .....blaablaablaablaablaa

This conversation has NOTHING to do with the "RIGHT" to do something. It has everything to do with what is reasonable, and benefitial, and annoying, and smart, and etc. etc etc.

You INSIST...INSIST on dragging me into your nonsensical "legal" discussion of what Zos has the right to do.

It's annoying, it's pointless, and it's tiring.

Go back and reread the OP as many times as it takes. You will find NO MENTION WHATSOEVER of what "rights" we players have or what Zos has the "right" to do.

Something doesn't have to be illegal to be stupid.

Gating access to this DLC behind PVP competition in a game that is so OUT OF BALANCE...is stupid.

Nuff said.

LEGENDARYYY

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. 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.

I see your point, but its not valid.

Why? Cus you as an individual player have no say in the outcome of a random massive many hundred players large lagfest. It is COMPLETELY random. It is too big. One day you might have 50 great players in your alliance claiming keeps, the next, none of them are online and you cannot win vs 200 ppl on your own. One day 100 ppl are in cyro only to play quests or grind delves, one day they are not.

Not to mention other imbalances such as faction population.

Additionally, what will happen when AD, EP has a huge advantage and get more access to IC? It will result in imbalanced economy and flaws with the trading system among other things. Being a GM in a top DC trading guild will be harder than EP or AD. The GM has a much lower chance of getting high end gear in IC to sell or grind his personal economy. In time he will earn less money and lose bid for trader spots. Just cause the area where the money lie is locked gor him!! Some alliances will in time become much richer and that will result in people leaving the others to benefit from the imbalance. It will be total chaos and massive faction transfers in ESO will happen.

Random access to such an important place as IC WILL make the entire game imbalanced and ruin it.

Btw I've tried Cyro mate, for many many hours. Its the worst pvp experiece I've ever had. Period.

olemanwinter

Iselin wrote: »

I hate the everyone all the time option. people have to get away from this "I bought it so I'm entitled" mindset and think about which ruleset would be most interesting from a gameplay perspective.

You and all the other people writing in "past tense" as if purchasing this DLC is a foregon conclusion are ridiculous. I'm not an addict and I can proceed through life without this game.

I wont be buying this DLC if I can't access it. FUTURE TENSE.

This has nothing to do with "entitlement" and everything to do with expectations.

olemanwinter

Enodoc wrote: »

byrom101b16_ESO wrote: »

Excerpts from the UK Consumer Rights Act 2015[...]

While I don't disagree, isn't the legal status of this already countered by the fact that the "digital content" you are paying for is exactly and only the Crowns? The only way you could claim non-provision of service is if the Crowns don't get added to your account. Once they're there, there is no legal stance on what you obtain with the Crowns, as the real-money exchange has already taken place.

This is true. It also has ZERO to do with the Original Premise of this thread.

This thread has fully derailed. This thread is my frankenstein.

redspecter23

olemanwinter wrote: »

Iselin wrote: »

I hate the everyone all the time option. people have to get away from this "I bought it so I'm entitled" mindset and think about which ruleset would be most interesting from a gameplay perspective.

You and all the other people writing in "past tense" as if purchasing this DLC is a foregon conclusion are ridiculous. I'm not an addict and I can proceed through life without this game.

I wont be buying this DLC if I can't access it. FUTURE TENSE.

This has nothing to do with "entitlement" and everything to do with expectations.

I have to agree with this. I feel no sense of entitlement. However, if I log in and my home campaign is still pushed back to the DC gates, there is no way I'll be buying the DLC if it's gated. I'm only one person. I can't single handedly stand up to the EP and/or AD that want to push me to my gates. I have no control over that. I will not buy DLC that I have no control over accessing. I'll wish that I could play the content but if my campaign map doesn't allow it, there will be little point to buying the content. I log on to play, not to wait a few hours and rally the troops so we can take back our keeps and then and only then think about starting to play new content. DC has been fighting an uphill battle for months. Allowing other factions to lock players out of content by claiming keeps (basically playing the game as designed) is a horrible mechanic that makes it even worse when you are losing a campaign. ZOS claims a desire to remove buff campaigns but with this mechanic, they will create an even larger reason for factions to have buff campaigns.

olemanwinter

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.

AWESOME

Thank you very much. I'm so glad you guys chose the least restrictive option.

/endthread (for me)

Slylok

Instead of making it alliance based... Why not just create something an individual has to do to be granted access? Reset access and change the access requirement weekly. Something in Cyrodil - Certain amount of AP - Closing a Dolmen - Killing X mobs in delves / dungeons..etc.

Then a single person can have control of getting IC access.

Darlgon

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.

@ZoS_BrianWheeler Sorry if this has come up before, but, as I sit here reading more threads on IC, someone in a thread threw out an idea. After thinking on it a while, a additional thought occurred to me. Your initial plan was:

Control 6 keeps, get access to IC.

Now, IC has six upper level districts. How about this instead:

The keeps you control affects WHICH DISTRICTS you can go into. So, for EP/AD/DC:

Control Kingscrest/Bloodmayne/Aleswell = Access to the Arboretum District
Control Farragut/Roebuck/Warden = Access to the Memorial District
Control Arrius/Alessia/Dragonclaw = Access to the Arena District
Control Chalman/Brindle/Glademist = Access to The Elven Gardens District
Control Blue Road Keep/Blackboot/Rayles = Access to the Nobles District
Control Drakelowe/Faregyl/Ash= Access to the Temple District


Why those? Well,, look at the map of the Districts.



Now, overlay a map of Cyrodiil. That is the approximate location of each keep on that IC circle, in relation to their gates.

What would that accomplish?
1. People would still be able to get into IC. It may be a long ride from their main base, but they could still get in.
2. Even if they didnt own ANY keeps, they would have access to the sewers, where most of the PVE is really going on, right?
3. It would give AvA players a reason to take back the keeps, so they could unlock their favorite district, esp if they wanted to do the daily and it was locked.
4. It would give OPPOSING factions incentives to take those same keeps and lock the other faction OUT of those districts.
5. This in turn, would encourage fighting OUTSIDE IC when their faction was at a deficit.
6. When a faction's population was larger, that faction would need either more keeps unlocked to allow the opposing faction into IC districts to farm TVSs, or go outside and fight any who would want to get into IC for more AP and better campaign rewards.

Just a random thought. Everyone else can feel free to shoot it down.

Sharee

olemanwinter wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

If you claim that all players who paid for content have the right to said content .....blaablaablaablaablaa

This conversation has NOTHING to do with the "RIGHT" to do something. It has everything to do with what is reasonable, and benefitial, and annoying, and smart, and etc. etc etc.

You INSIST...INSIST on dragging me into your nonsensical "legal" discussion of what Zos has the right to do.

I would like to point out that it was Byrom, not me, who insisted on nonsensical legal discussion. All i did was opposing his claims, because, yes, they are nonsense.

That being said, i realize my quote you used above is actually from my reply to your post, not Byroms. Sometimes i make mistakes. Apologies.

Nebthet78

Darlgon 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.

@ZoS_BrianWheeler Sorry if this has come up before, but, as I sit here reading more threads on IC, someone in a thread threw out an idea. After thinking on it a while, a additional thought occurred to me. Your initial plan was:

Control 6 keeps, get access to IC.

Now, IC has six upper level districts. How about this instead:

The keeps you control affects WHICH DISTRICTS you can go into. So, for EP/AD/DC:

Control Kingscrest/Bloodmayne/Aleswell = Access to the Arboretum District
Control Farragut/Roebuck/Warden = Access to the Memorial District
Control Arrius/Alessia/Dragonclaw = Access to the Arena District
Control Chalman/Brindle/Glademist = Access to The Elven Gardens District
Control Blue Road Keep/Blackboot/Rayles = Access to the Nobles District
Control Drakelowe/Faregyl/Ash= Access to the Temple District


Why those? Well,, look at the map of the Districts.



Now, overlay a map of Cyrodiil. That is the approximate location of each keep on that IC circle, in relation to their gates.

What would that accomplish?
1. People would still be able to get into IC. It may be a long ride from their main base, but they could still get in.
2. Even if they didnt own ANY keeps, they would have access to the sewers, where most of the PVE is really going on, right?
3. It would give AvA players a reason to take back the keeps, so they could unlock their favorite district, esp if they wanted to do the daily and it was locked.
4. It would give OPPOSING factions incentives to take those same keeps and lock the other faction OUT of those districts.
5. This in turn, would encourage fighting OUTSIDE IC when their faction was at a deficit.
6. When a faction's population was larger, that faction would need either more keeps unlocked to allow the opposing faction into IC districts to farm TVSs, or go outside and fight any who would want to get into IC for more AP and better campaign rewards.

Just a random thought. Everyone else can feel free to shoot it down.

This would make a good compromise.

Brrrofski

Glad it will be open access ar first.

Xbox EU is the same. Once since release, across 3 campaigns i've been in, we've had emperor. For maybe 12 hours.

DC is hugely outnumbered. IC isn't going to be half the fun for DC depending on how we'll get access, we might not.

In azura's star, there is pc ports thar are former emperors on both AD and EP. None that I've seen for DC. No lie, 2 or three of them can keep 30 people busy for quite some time. We already have fewer numbers, let alone taking a decent amount with a few players.

I'd honestly never get to play it if it was 6 imperial keeps. If it goes beyond 3 home keeps we'd have a hard time.

At full population, usually 6-11 GMT, it's fine. We'll take keeps and maybe get our scrolls back. Map is pretty even. Next morning, 2 or 3 home keeps and no scrolls. Every single day.it's not the quality of players, it's pure numbers.

Nebthet78

Brrrofski wrote: »

Glad it will be open access ar first.

Xbox EU is the same. Once since release, across 3 campaigns i've been in, we've had emperor. For maybe 12 hours.

DC is hugely outnumbered. IC isn't going to be half the fun for DC depending on how we'll get access, we might not.

In azura's star, there is pc ports thar are former emperors on both AD and EP. None that I've seen for DC. No lie, 2 or three of them can keep 30 people busy for quite some time. We already have fewer numbers, let alone taking a decent amount with a few players.

I'd honestly never get to play it if it was 6 imperial keeps. If it goes beyond 3 home keeps we'd have a hard time.

At full population, usually 6-11 GMT, it's fine. We'll take keeps and maybe get our scrolls back. Map is pretty even. Next morning, 2 or 3 home keeps and no scrolls. Every single day.it's not the quality of players, it's pure numbers.

It's the same on Thornblade PC right now where EP has made announcements and organized a lot of guilds to take all Buff Campaigns in the game and any other they can. They have been zerging with 40+ players against a group that has a hard time getting half as many organized and literally took the map despite a hard fight. It is happening in the Non-Vet Campaign as well. I have been watching it go down a lot on twitch.

So many players are so sick of dealing with massive Zergs and uneven populations in the Campaigns. It is a reason why I don't want to bother going to IC.

I think once they remove PvP buffs from PVE and remove the Former Emperor buffs, and finally put a cap on the CP things will get better, but that may not be for a while yet.

Darlgon

Nebthet78 wrote: »

It's the same on Thornblade PC right now where EP has made announcements and organized a lot of guilds to take all Buff Campaigns in the game and any other they can. They have been zerging with 40+ players against a group that has a hard time getting half as many organized and literally took the map despite a hard fight.

My apologies beforehand, but, I have to correct this misinformation.

My (I am not GM, or even an officer, but just a plebe) EP guilld, and ONLY my EP guild moved, un-announced to other EP, to Thornblade (NA) two nights ago, because it had been the "yellow" buff server and we had broken every buff server except that one. The yellow emp had been emp for 16 days from what I hear..

It was the "red" EP buff server when we started, so hard to break as EP. Once we started breaking Haderus, AS, and Chill as buff servers, other factions began to actively fight there. Reds moved off Thornblade to get better fighting. Also, some, apparently, in other factions re-rolled to EP during the time we started actively doing this. Now, apparently they have re-rolled to DC.

We run as a 24-man raid, sometimes with a few outliers, but normally with under 20. Our guild leader actually said in TS that he prefers to handicap the group outside the main raid, having them work elsewhere. We are just organized, with usually good raid leaders and pretty much required TS. I was leveling my AD alt during the time when you describe. In zone chat, I see something like, "Attention AD citizens, your BUFF server is being over-run by a Red zerg. Please do what you can to protect it." It provided a good laugh, as we had 12 players on at the time, including me on my AD. (Middle of the NA day, so not so many NA players on and the Aussies asleep.)

byrom101b16_ESO

olemanwinter wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

byrom101b16_ESO wrote: »

Excerpts from the UK Consumer Rights Act 2015[...]

While I don't disagree, isn't the legal status of this already countered by the fact that the "digital content" you are paying for is exactly and only the Crowns? The only way you could claim non-provision of service is if the Crowns don't get added to your account. Once they're there, there is no legal stance on what you obtain with the Crowns, as the real-money exchange has already taken place.

This is true. It also has ZERO to do with the Original Premise of this thread.

This thread has fully derailed. This thread is my frankenstein.

It's not true in the UK, or any European country that has brought into statute the relevant EU Directive...

byrom101b16_ESO

Sharee wrote: »

olemanwinter wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

If you claim that all players who paid for content have the right to said content .....blaablaablaablaablaa

This conversation has NOTHING to do with the "RIGHT" to do something. It has everything to do with what is reasonable, and benefitial, and annoying, and smart, and etc. etc etc.

You INSIST...INSIST on dragging me into your nonsensical "legal" discussion of what Zos has the right to do.

I would like to point out that it was Byrom, not me, who insisted on nonsensical legal discussion. All i did was opposing his claims, because, yes, they are nonsense.

That being said, i realize my quote you used above is actually from my reply to your post, not Byroms. Sometimes i make mistakes. Apologies.

Sharee

The time for debate on that point has moved on and you revisiting it however tangentially just looks like a cheap shot.

Unless you have evidence to present that the legal argument is wrong, merely typing statements that amount to 'I think it's babble/blablablablabla and therefore it must be wrong' serves no useful purpose.

olemanwinter

Don't fall into the trap of calling a legal discussion about a thread called "There CANNOT be access gates to the Imperial City paid DLC" nonsensical.

It should have read "There SHOULD NOT be access gates...." if opinion on purely game issues was being invited.

If you are saying the content, not the presence of the argument is nonsensical, well then I refer you to the above comment to Sharee.

Olivierko

I'm sorry if I've misunderstood, as I understand the Imperial City will be available for everyone regardless of keep statuses within the campaign, at least to begin with but what I don't quite get is whether or not the sewers were included within the gated access that was initially discussed.

I'm hoping that the access to the sewers network is available regardless if they add the gated ruleset or not?

byrom101b16_ESO

Olivierko wrote: »

I'm sorry if I've misunderstood, as I understand the Imperial City will be available for everyone regardless of keep statuses within the campaign, at least to begin with but what I don't quite get is whether or not the sewers were included within the gated access that was initially discussed.

I'm hoping that the access to the sewers network is available regardless if they add the gated ruleset or not?

No - you couldn't get into the sewers under the old access rules, but you could go to the two dungeons just like current ones. Also (and this hasn't changed as far as I am aware), the population cap for Cyrodiil is shared with the people in all parts of IC - meaning there may be massive queues to get in even without a gating system.

let's hope Zenimax have some extra server capacity to roll...

Leandor

Olivierko wrote: »

I'm sorry if I've misunderstood, as I understand the Imperial City will be available for everyone regardless of keep statuses within the campaign, at least to begin with but what I don't quite get is whether or not the sewers were included within the gated access that was initially discussed.

I'm hoping that the access to the sewers network is available regardless if they add the gated ruleset or not?

No, sewer access is not excluded from restrictions. With "access to IC" they refer to the entrance gates in Cyrodiil proper (see here for location) being locked until your faction satisfies the access conditions - which means no sewer access, no district access, no access at all.

In any case, IC access will not be tied to any condition when the patch goes live. This has been confirmed earlier in this thread by @ZOS_BrianWheeler. There may be later changes if there is demand for it, but nothing is decided. The partial access you are referring to was a proposal by a player only.

Sharee

byrom101b16_ESO wrote: »

Sharee

The time for debate on that point has moved on and you revisiting it however tangentially just looks like a cheap shot.

Unless you have evidence to present that the legal argument is wrong...

You already presented the evidence that the legal argument is wrong. Your own quote proved you wrong. I already explained how in post #431. Feel free to read it again. I am not going to repeat myself, nor am i going to continue this conversation.

Olivierko

Thanks for the replies guys, quite a odd strategy they're putting together for this expansion, I haven't had the chance of trying PTS this cycle unfortunately nevertheless I'm eager for it hitting the live servers.

Sounds like a bad idea however to have any restriction whatsoever for the new content, sure I could fast travel to a dungeon or two but that's not really what I'm looking forward to.

Darlgon

Olivierko wrote: »

I'm sorry if I've misunderstood, as I understand the Imperial City will be available for everyone regardless of keep statuses within the campaign, at least to begin with but what I don't quite get is whether or not the sewers were included within the gated access that was initially discussed.

I'm hoping that the access to the sewers network is available regardless if they add the gated ruleset or not?

I am guessing you dont have PTS. Just to further clarify.. IC has three doors in Cyrodiil. One by the lake in the general direction of the factions main gates. They are "close" to one of the two "emperor" keeps of that faction, so if your faction owns that keep, and its supporting keeps, you just transit to it, ride less than a minute and click on the door. Clicking that door will take you to your factions staging area in IC.

Interestingly enough, I did an experiment on that and rode over to try the door for DC on my PTS EP. It still took me to the EP staging area of IC. From that staging area, you go to rooms with crafting, vendors, a banker and some quest givers. Another room also connects to rooms with ladders up to each of the six districts and doors to the sewers.. and another area I didnt check what it was.

So, under the original plan, if you did not own all six "home" keeps, you would be denied access to your central hub, including access to the sewers. For the current iteration, everyone can click on the doors, no matter how many keeps they own. It just may require, depending on which keeps you have, a LONG ride in enemy territory from your gates to the door to get into IC.

One thing to add, as its been a while since it was mentioned. IF you log out INSIDE IC, and IF your faction is not population locked for that campaign, which includes inside and outside IC, under the old rules and new, your faction could loose ALL their keeps and you would still be inside IC. NOW, if you log into Cyro after camping out in IC, and your faction is pop locked, but everyone is inside IC, but has lost all thier keeps, you get kicked to the PVE zone you entered Cyro and, when you get access, you have that same long ride from your gates in enemy territory but at least clicking on the door gets you in.

Or, maybe it would be better just to experience it in.. umm..eleven days.

kevlarto_ESO

The game really is to imbalanced to have any kind of entry restrictions, put all the other reasons aside and just look at the current campaigns we have one very dominate faction, one semi-dominate faction and one that shows up sometime faction.

I may not agree with a lot of things on both sides of the argument, but I am looking at what will be most fun for more people and allow more people to take part, what would promote the best health for the game in the long term.

If the game and the factions were in balance I would say sure lets at least have you home keeps to enter the IC, lets have the campaign where you have to own most of the keeps to enter for the self proclaimed hardcore players, but the reality of the matter is no matter what your stance is the game is no where near balanced in so many ways.

I personally think after the shine wears off the IC it is going to be a ghost town anyway, the average player will be sick all the ganking and zerging, I figure the same groups that run the zerg trains and all the broken game mechanics and exploits will just find the new ones after the IC goes in and do the same thing inside the IC

I really don't care one way other for myself I will deal with what every I am given to work with but in the end pvp needs to be fun on both sides of the keyboard and when people stop having fun for what ever reason they stop logging in after awhile.

Davkin

Nice to see, that zenimax came to its senses.
But i am still a bit afrait of the wording. We dont just need access on the launch, but also at least on one of the campains afterwards. If you look at the formulation, they could still switch back to gated access after the launch after people bought the dlc.

Rylana

Nebthet78 wrote: »

Brrrofski wrote: »

Glad it will be open access ar first.

Xbox EU is the same. Once since release, across 3 campaigns i've been in, we've had emperor. For maybe 12 hours.

DC is hugely outnumbered. IC isn't going to be half the fun for DC depending on how we'll get access, we might not.

In azura's star, there is pc ports thar are former emperors on both AD and EP. None that I've seen for DC. No lie, 2 or three of them can keep 30 people busy for quite some time. We already have fewer numbers, let alone taking a decent amount with a few players.

I'd honestly never get to play it if it was 6 imperial keeps. If it goes beyond 3 home keeps we'd have a hard time.

At full population, usually 6-11 GMT, it's fine. We'll take keeps and maybe get our scrolls back. Map is pretty even. Next morning, 2 or 3 home keeps and no scrolls. Every single day.it's not the quality of players, it's pure numbers.

It's the same on Thornblade PC right now where EP has made announcements and organized a lot of guilds to take all Buff Campaigns in the game and any other they can. They have been zerging with 40+ players against a group that has a hard time getting half as many organized and literally took the map despite a hard fight. It is happening in the Non-Vet Campaign as well. I have been watching it go down a lot on twitch.

So many players are so sick of dealing with massive Zergs and uneven populations in the Campaigns. It is a reason why I don't want to bother going to IC.

I think once they remove PvP buffs from PVE and remove the Former Emperor buffs, and finally put a cap on the CP things will get better, but that may not be for a while yet.

Rylana confirmed for being 29 people all by myself

We literally took over thornblade with 12 GoS members

Hardmode: I could name them if you like? =D

SeptimusDova

2.1 will fix a lot of the current issues in PVP we have to wait for the dust to settle to determine a future and proper COA

Nebthet78

Darlgon wrote: »

My apologies beforehand, but, I have to correct this misinformation.

My (I am not GM, or even an officer, but just a plebe) EP guilld, and ONLY my EP guild moved, un-announced to other EP, to Thornblade (NA) two nights ago, because it had been the "yellow" buff server and we had broken every buff server except that one. The yellow emp had been emp for 16 days from what I hear..

It was the "red" EP buff server when we started, so hard to break as EP. Once we started breaking Haderus, AS, and Chill as buff servers, other factions began to actively fight there. Reds moved off Thornblade to get better fighting. Also, some, apparently, in other factions re-rolled to EP during the time we started actively doing this. Now, apparently they have re-rolled to DC.

We run as a 24-man raid, sometimes with a few outliers, but normally with under 20. Our guild leader actually said in TS that he prefers to handicap the group outside the main raid, having them work elsewhere. We are just organized, with usually good raid leaders and pretty much required TS. I was leveling my AD alt during the time when you describe. In zone chat, I see something like, "Attention AD citizens, your BUFF server is being over-run by a Red zerg. Please do what you can to protect it." It provided a good laugh, as we had 12 players on at the time, including me on my AD. (Middle of the NA day, so not so many NA players on and the Aussies asleep.)

Rylana wrote: »

Rylana confirmed for being 29 people all by myself

We literally took over thornblade with 12 GoS members

Hardmode: I could name them if you like? =D

Guys, it might have been 12 people for each of your guilds, but it was much more than 12 Red players on the field at that time. I have screenshots to prove that from Tuesday night which shows a swarm of 15+ players just outside a keep door killing everyone.

At just one keep, while another was being hit at the same time, there were at least 13 Reds outside killing the few AD trying to take back, while a bunch more stayed inside the keep (we had a player hiding in there reporting).
There were at least 10 different guild names on those red keeps from last night. It also doesn't help when you have Guild of Shadows mates logged in on your enemies side bragging over zone chat that "this server will be liberated of the buffs you get" is just poor sportsmanship.

This was night time this was all happening. usually between 6pm-3am, but it has been happening since last Thursday. But yeah I asked a few of the other pvp guilds guilds and even asked another player who was broadcasting live on Twitch about what was going on, and he stated that he received notice that the guilds are organizing to take over all campaign maps for the reds before IC release.

You could definitely tell you all were using Teamspeak and were organized. I couldn't participate in those fights because as soon as I get around 10 other players my game stops responding so I am insta-dead because no matter what I press I go from full health to nothing in less than a second and just stand there like a buffoon, especially with any sorcerer using the lightning armor, for some reason that causes a lot of lag for my PC.


It is this type of PvP and poor sportsmanship from members going onto the other alliance and spying for them and being jerks that ends up turning a lot of players off of PVP and it actually has turned a lot of players off of it. I wish there was a mechanism that would only allow an even number of players from each faction onto a server so that one alliance can not be overwhelmed like this from another. Then the battles actually come down to skill and not numbers.

These type of zerg groups is not what people wanted to be dealing with in IC and is what players were hoping to avoid by having the keep rules stay in place. Players wanted more 1v1-4v4 PvP, not 2v15 which is what IC is going to become.

At this point, I feel i feel ZOS changed the rules to get as many people to buy the game before they change the rules back. Then you can't get refunds.

Sarousse

@ZOS_BrianWheeler :

Could you please remove on PTS from Cyrodiil map the 6 keep rule please ?

Looks like we have some geniuses taking keeps, preventing players to go in IC and test stuff.

Thanks.