There CANNOT be access gates to the Imperial City paid DLC

Elsonso

Hmmm.

If they want to gate the Imperial City, then it is a derivative feature because it will always require being successful in other parts of the game before being able to access the DLC.

I suppose players could level up three characters, one in each Alliance and in different Campaigns and hope for the best.

However, ZOS can fix this by either never ever restricting access to the Imperial City for anyone able to get into Cyrodiil or by simply making the Imperial City part of the base game.

Just thinking out loud. Don't really care about which Alliance is the worst or teams up against the third.

Greatsword

krees28b14_ESO wrote: »

Team Green at their best.

Who is Team Green?
As a DC player I only know Team Orange.

asteldian

I think a restriction should be in place, though it should just be home keeps (or at the absolute least, your keeps by your gates) with people being in IC if you cannot control your home keeps then that is pitiful.
As mentioned, at least the gate keeps - makes no sense that your army would be battling in IC when you cannot even keep your gates closed.

ewhite106b16_ESO

There needs to be at least one campaign where all factions can enter IC with no gates whatsoever. And that's the campaign I'd play on constantly, without the regular presence of enemy players in the area, IC is just another PVE zone, I want small scale PVP not to be killing monsters with little to no risk aside from the ocassional ganker that didn't get killed when clearing the enemy out.

What needs to be restricted/controllable is access to individual DISTRICTS within IC. This could either be linked to a district control mechanic, or reflect how many enemy keeps are controlled in Cyrodil proper. The respawn points within each district would be removed, access from transit ladders in the respective faction sewer bases would depend on which districts were controlled. A faction that didn't control any districts and/or didn't hold any home keeps in Cyrodil would have to access everything through the sewers.

Here's a system linking to Cyrodil keeps that shouldn't be too difficult to code:

Number of transit ladders for a faction = number of emp keeps held in Cyrodil, for a total of six. If each faction held all their home keeps, they would have access via transit ladder from sewer base to 2 districts each - would need to use gates/sewers to access the other districts. If DC for example held all 6 emp keeps around the IC, they could respawn in their base and quickly access all the IC districts via transit ladders from their base. EP and AD wouldn't be cut off but they would have to take the long way in through the sewers and wouldn't have any quick access to districts after respawning.

But yeah, IMO completely locking other factions out of imperial city if they don't hold a certain number of keeps is just encouraging the hell out of buff campaigns, and severely limiting the amount of PVP that actually happens in the zone. Allowing alliances to control districts keeps enemy respawn times long enough to get things done without shutting down PVP altogether.

Leandor

Greatsword wrote: »

krees28b14_ESO wrote: »

Team Green at their best.

Who is Team Green?
As a DC player I only know Team Orange.

Who are those teams? As an EP, I only know Team Jacob and Team Edward.

takes a bar of soap to his mouth to get rid of the strange aftertaste of saying that...

Rescorla_ESO

Pirhana7_ESO wrote: »

The thing you fail to mention is that while DC is locked out of IC their FULL force will be in Cyrodiil while the other alliances will have half their forces in IC. While this happens there is no reason DC shouldn't be bale to take back their home keeps + to gain access to IC.

This person gets it

Verrask

In absolute agreement. It is very hard for Daggerfall Covenant to hold any advantage, even starting at total map control, in the East Coast's Evening hours.

Especially against Team Orange.

Rinmaethodain

Verrask wrote: »

In absolute agreement. It is very hard for Daggerfall Covenant to hold any advantage, even starting at total map control, in the East Coast's Evening hours.

Especially against Team Orange.

Its funny because i always keep hearing about team purple (blue+ red). But maybe its the fact that everyone point of view will always change depending on their perspective.

Verrask

Rescorla_ESO wrote: »

Pirhana7_ESO wrote: »

The thing you fail to mention is that while DC is locked out of IC their FULL force will be in Cyrodiil while the other alliances will have half their forces in IC. While this happens there is no reason DC shouldn't be bale to take back their home keeps + to gain access to IC.

This person gets it

Even if that was possible, which it is, all of DC was held at bay in its first keep (Fort Rayles) for hours by a 40AD person zerg team that was using lag exploits that ZOS refuses to apply a simple fix to.

So yes, eventually DC could get their keeps back while AD and EP were in the imperial city but only after several hours and thus eliminate those who may only have 3-4 hours to play tops.

Rook_Master

OP hit the nail on the head.

DC is severely underpopulated. If access is restricted as currently planned, no on from DC will ever get to play IC.

Maulkin

A simple solution to the problem US DC are having would be to have 1 campaign in which access to IC is unrestricted. Thus more casual players can home or guest there and always play inside when they feel like it.

But for all other campaigns, there needs to be a lock out mechanism. One of the functions of IC is to work as an incentive to fight for the Cyrodiil map. Another function is to balance out population in campaigns where one faction dominates. You can't remove that.

Also, I personally believe if all factions have access to IC all the time, it will be total chaos in there. Too many players in a relatively small (smaller than the Cyrodiil map) area, too much lag, too much zerging.

So yeah, I feel one unrestricted campaign and one where you have to hold your home keeps is a more balanced solution.

ZOS_RichLambert

/lurk

DDuke

mike.gaziotisb16_ESO wrote: »

A simple solution to the problem US DC are having would be to have 1 campaign in which access to IC is unrestricted. Thus more casual players can home or guest there and always play inside when they feel like it.

But for all other campaigns, there needs to be a lock out mechanism. One of the functions of IC is to work as an incentive to fight for the Cyrodiil map. Another function is to balance out population in campaigns where one faction dominates. You can't remove that.

Also, I personally believe if all factions have access to IC all the time, it will be total chaos in there. Too many players in a relatively small (smaller than the Cyrodiil map) area, too much lag, too much zerging.

So yeah, I feel one unrestricted campaign and one where you have to hold your home keeps is a more balanced solution.

This.

The other campaigns could also have varying access rules, so everyone can pick & choose what they prefer.

Menelaos

I find the notion that you have to pay for something and then cannot access it without first setting up the prerequisites yourself amusing.

DDuke

Menelaos wrote: »

I find the notion that you have to pay for something and then cannot access it without first setting up the prerequisites yourself amusing.

Kind of like when you pay for WoW expansions, but can't access content until X level?

Or when a raid you have purchased with the DLC/expansion is "locked" until you have certain ilvl?


I really don't get this argument.

Rescorla_ESO

Rook_Master wrote: »

OP hit the nail on the head.

DC is severely underpopulated. If access is restricted as currently planned, no on from DC will ever get to play IC.

If DC is locked out of IC, that means you will almost certainly have a population advantage in Cyrodil.

Once you gain access, here is what you do to maintain it: don't take any EP or AD keeps to lock them out. Once every faction has access and the same number of keeps, you now have a situation where there is maximum chaos and PVP action in IC which everyone who likes to PVP should want. By not taking any AD or EP keeps, you give those two factions no reason to leave IC, which is more fun than Cyrodil, take back their keeps and while they are out there take a couple of DC keeps as payback for kicking them out of IC.

redspecter23

DDuke wrote: »

Menelaos wrote: »

I find the notion that you have to pay for something and then cannot access it without first setting up the prerequisites yourself amusing.

Kind of like when you pay for WoW expansions, but can't access content until X level?

Or when a raid you have purchased with the DLC/expansion is "locked" until you have certain ilvl?


I really don't get this argument.

In your two examples, I personally have control over that gating and it's a one time thing. Once I hit level X, I can enter those expansions or raids whenever I want. All on my own (or even with my guild as a whole) I don't necessarily have any control over keep gating. If I log in at any given time, I may have multiple hours of "work" ahead of myself just to access content I've already paid for and this could happen every time I log in to attempt to enjoy my new paid content. It would get old very quickly. That's the big difference. A one time lock vs a lock every time I want to play.

Sincerely,
A DC player

Elsonso

I like the variable access idea that was suggested above.

Allow all Alliances to access the Imperial City sewers and get access to the Alliance base in them.

The other Alliances will take care of access to the Imperial City on the surface and there is no need to link it to Keeps. Taking keeps near convenient Alliance entrances will make other Alliances walk further and make it harder for them to secure the entrance from enemy patrols. (Edit: also draws people out of Imperial City to enforce this)

Then, based on the number of keeps held above, enable or remove access points to different parts of the sewers and Imperial City to make it easier or harder to move around.

Underground, without the keeps, the Alliance needs to move through more of the sewers to get access to the upper Imperial City, but would still retain access to the sewers and access to the PVE dungeon entrances. Close to the central hub, all Alliances have access to the upper city. Further from the central hub, access points open up due keep ownership and the stronger presence in Cyrodiil.

You can also restrict what districts can be accessed directly from the sewers using this method, and it is possible to also open and close convenience doors between sewer sections, making it easier or harder to move between sections, while still retaining full access to the sewer system for rats of any Alliance.

MAOofDC

krees28b14_ESO wrote: »

Igawotch wrote: »

Don't worry your AD/DC comrades will split Cyrodiil between each other.

"The enemy of my enemy is my ALLY "

I had to fix your proverb, because the enemy of your enemy while helpful and useful may or may not necessarily be your friend.

Anyway back to the OP I predict that the "Buff Campaigns" or since the buffs don't carry over outside Cyrodiil lets call them "Access Campaigns" will make a major comeback.

My reasoning is two fold:

One, With the scoring changes(see list of changes below) which seem strange and counterintuitive people will tend to gravitate to Azura Star since it is the only Vet campaign that will score the way that every campaign scores now. This will be the Home campaign to the most dedicated PvP players, people who play this game FOR the PvP and little else. Being a 30 day campaign it provides the biggest rewards. I also predict this will be the guest campaign for the less dedicated players who want to experience the full on warfare that can occur but PvP isn't their "thing".

Cyrodiil Campaign Changes
Campaigns are undergoing rule changes for encouraging different styles of gameplay within the campaigns, including non-veteran campaigns now lasting 7 days instead of 5 days.
Azura: Ownership of keeps, resources, Elder Scrolls, and outposts will generate one point each per scoring cycle, and lasts 30 days.
Blackwater Blade (non-Veteran only): Ownership of keeps, resources, Elder Scrolls, and outposts will generate one point each per scoring cycle, and lasts 7 days.
Chillrend: Keeps, outposts, and resources will generate zero points. Ownership of Elder Scrolls will generate one point per scoring cycle, and lasts 7 days.
Haderus: Keeps, outposts, and Elder Scrolls will generate zero points. Ownership of resources will generate one point per scoring cycle, and lasts 7 days.
Thornblade: Resources, outposts, and Elder Scrolls will generate zero points. Ownership of keeps will generate one point per scoring cycle, and lasts 7 days.


Two, many players will simply want access to Imperial City for the PvE opportunities provided within without the fear of constantly getting ganked and losing the TV stones they are trying to collect. These "Access Campaigns" will be highly desired for the dedicated PvE players and they will be these players home campaigns. 7 day campaigns provide less reward at the end of the scoring period and will be less popular with the dedicated PvP players anyway. They will also provide a place for dedicated PvP players to farm TV stone quickly so that they can get the best TV stone gear quickly. They can simply guest in their Alliance's "Access Campaign" for a few hours or days get what they need and move on. This will allow players who have no great desire to PvP, of which there are many, unfettered access to Imperial City.

The concept of end game PvE being gated behind PvP turns alot of players off. More than half my friends including my Mom (yes my 60+ year old Mom plays ESO) are contemplating not even buying the DLC simply because they don't want to have to PvP in way, shape, or fashion. I will agree that PvP players have needed a bone thrown there way for a while now but contrary to what you see on the forums MOST ESO player are not dedicated PvP players and the don't consider PvP to be end-game. The forums just happen to be chocked full of PvP players complaining about this ability or that one being unbalanced. Which they very will might be FOR PvP but not so much for PvE. Why the Devs can't separate ability effect for PvP and PvE with the Battle Spirit buff I don't know, but that is an argument for a different topic.

As always I welcome your thoughts, comments and/or recriminations to my posts.

MAOofDC

Greatsword wrote: »

krees28b14_ESO wrote: »

Team Green at their best.

Who is Team Green?
As a DC player I only know Team Orange.

The same jack holes who are on Team Purple at least that's what I'm assuming as a dedicated AD player.

Junglejim82

DDuke wrote: »

Menelaos wrote: »

I find the notion that you have to pay for something and then cannot access it without first setting up the prerequisites yourself amusing.

Kind of like when you pay for WoW expansions, but can't access content until X level?

Or when a raid you have purchased with the DLC/expansion is "locked" until you have certain ilvl?


I really don't get this argument.

Apples n oranges. You won't buy a raid dlc till appropriate level , then you get perma access to it. Buy I.c get in once a month or whatever the case will turn into . It's not the best idea I've heard . In principle it could be OK but in practice with population imbalance it won't work fairly

eliisra

For sure, outside of primetime, a weaker faction might not have access to IC. All you need is one good enemy group holding Brindle, Dragon or Drake. It's slightly worrying.

On EU PC we have a bit of a mirror situation. DC usually have the highest bars and the most organized raids overall. They can hold their 1-2 buff campaigns, than move around during the day and zerg other campaigns to.

This while both AD and EP, seems unable to full force more than one campaign with anything that even looks like organisation. EP mostly consist of public groups and Skyrim casuals, wiping in seconds. While AD lacks raw numbers, way to many mainstream cats in sneak doing nothing or raids only farming some tower.

But I think removing the "travel to player" will help. Reason one faction can dominate so hard is because they're actively playing on 4 different campaigns, just moving their organised power raids to wherever there's resistance. This is why it's so hard for a weaker faction to get control of anything. As soon as you try to poke keeps or scrolls, the raid of doom+ emp gets called back by pugs and zergs you back to the gates. Than they leave again.

Making it impossible for enemy factions to fast travel to other factions home keeps, would also help.

Saturn

Could not agree more. I mean even when DC are fighting for a buff server we cannot seem to keep hold of a campaign for very long.

Best solution is to have at least one campaign with constant access to the Imperial City for all three alliances, why it should even have requirements to enter aside from the DLC is beyond me. The Imperial City is meant to be a 3-way fight, that's what it was built for.

Hubsmash

Forgive me if I've misunderstood something, but the PTS patch notes state:

Access to Imperial City is granted to all alliances in the Haderus campaign, regardless of current Keep ownership.

I take this to mean you can guest campaign on Haderus to ensure you are able to access the content regardless of ownership?

Am I incorrect?

jtkiller6787ub17_ESO

As an AD, I also support the idea how not owning keeps and having to travel further is a fair punishment. I bought 3 months of ESO plus so I can enjoy this DLC, which seems to be awesome thusfar (besides constant crashing which hopefully will be fixed soon). Anyways the idea that I'm going to spend 2,500 crowns for the DLC, and possibly not have access to it any time somewhat irks me.
If I want to hop on for an hour or two before work and go into IC, I should be able to, not having to worry about getting a large group together to take back keeps just to enter the Imperial City. Maybe as other alliances take your home keeps, restrict spawning in a way, where if you die in the cities, you might have to respawn in the sewers, making the distance to travel back to a district, further. And then if an entire faction owns all the keeps required to access IC, then the PVP aspect of the DLC is gone, ruining half the fun. So, I don't believe if I'm paying for access DLC, I shouldn't be restricted on entering the area based on my skill level of my faction, or the population of it as it will encourage people to hop campaigns just to join one where their faction reigns supreme.
Cyrodil offers large scale siege battles, for huge groups, while the Imperial City encourages more close quarters, small group fighting, and sometimes I prefer one over the other, and I should be able to freely choose which one I participate in, especially in an Elder Scrolls game.

Forestd16b14_ESO

Agreed cause what be the point of buying it if you can not enter it.

Kulvar

A way to mix the two sides could be :

Any player can access to the Imperial City at any moment from a fort controlled by its faction and linked to a base camp through Transitus Shrines.
Any player can get access to the Imperial City after doing something (the access fading after a time if not used).

Example:
- Destroying a Dark Anchor in Cyrodiil (15min timer before fading)
- Paying an AP or gold fee to smugglers (instant)
- Special time (5min every hour)

Enodoc

Hubsmash wrote: »

Forgive me if I've misunderstood something, but the PTS patch notes state:

Access to Imperial City is granted to all alliances in the Haderus campaign, regardless of current Keep ownership.

I take this to mean you can guest campaign on Haderus to ensure you are able to access the content regardless of ownership?

Am I incorrect?

@Hubsmash That is for testing purposes only. At the next PTS patch, the access will be changed to something else, eg 6 Home Keeps, because they want to test a number of different access options before launch.

Personally, I would like to see the 6 Home Keeps setup, as I think (barring low-pop DC) it is the fairest situation. It allows some time for players to lock out the enemies and have a bit of a safety net, while at the same time will often result in at least two alliances being in there concurrently for some good PvP.

Maybe the one-time campaign resets that are coming will address the DC situation and allow DC to make a comeback in some campaigns.

I also like the idea of having different access rules in different campaigns. Access for Everyone in the campaign where you only score from Resources could be a good setup, 6 Home Keeps in the campaign where you score for everything, 6+1 in the campaign where you score for Keeps, and Majority Keeps in the campaign where you score for Scrolls. For example.

Hubsmash

@Enodoc ah ok, that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.

I personally like the addition of mechanics like this to pvp - it reminds me of Darkness Falls in DAoC. I do understand the various concerns about pop imbalance though.

There are almost always gates to these kinds of content updates, whether they are level based, gear based, etc. this is just more dynamic to me and interesting.

Like I said though I do understand the issues mentioned - I just think it adds depth to the PVP campaigns.

Dagoth_Rac

mike.gaziotisb16_ESO wrote: »

A simple solution to the problem US DC are having would be to have 1 campaign in which access to IC is unrestricted. Thus more casual players can home or guest there and always play inside when they feel like it.

I still think this is a problem for US DC because while they will have access to IC, they will be significantly outnumbered. DC will get into IC, just to be stomped by enemy players. Being underpopulated in Cyrodiil is not the end of the world, due to how spread out it is. You are not constantly being run over by huge numbers of enemy players. You can use some hit and run tactics, attack in places where it takes the enemy some time to react and reach you. But an underpopulated faction in the confined quarters of IC is going to be clearly and visibly overwhelmed at all times. There will be no escaping the superior numbers of the opposing factions.

But if you go for more stringent access rules, the underpopulated factions will have the most trouble meeting them. The more stringent, the more likely the underpopulated faction will never get into IC. The less stringent, the more likely they will get in, only to be demolished due to facing superior numbers in a small space.

I know there are always comments about how a good small group can defeat a bad big group. And that is true. But only in isolation. In aggregate, player ability is similar across faction. It is not like DC is underpopulated but everyone is a superstar PVP player. Or that EP is overpopulated but they are all idiots. The overpopulated factions have more of everything. More bad players, but also more good players. So superior numbers make a huge difference. And they will make an even bigger difference in IC, where the faction imbalances will be more keenly felt.