There CANNOT be access gates to the Imperial City paid DLC

Sharee

Poxheart wrote: »

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

It's a nice theory, but what I predict will happen is something along the lines of this:

The strongest groups from the opposing alliance(s) will stay out of the IC and farm the weaker alliance* attempting to take back the keep(s) required to gain access. The farming will continue until weaker alliance's population starts to log off (whether due to frustration or just regular log time doesn't matter). Once the weaker alliance's population drops, then those strong groups will go into IC and do that content. Most likely they'll have a way to monitor events in Cyrodiil and will respond quickly if the weaker alliance makes a push.

*In the case of the OP this means DC.

That assumes

1) there are no good groups playing on the side trying to win IC access
2) the enemy good groups are not interested in farming inside IC instead, getting not only AP but TV as well.

I find either of those unlikely (not to mention both at once). What i predict is that as soon as a faction gains access to IC, the vast majority of it will swarm inside, cyrodiil be damned, especially considering that (as far as i know) you are not kicked out of IC if you die there, even after your side lost access.

A month into the DLC, everyone will be in IC except those who logged in when cyrodiil was full, and thus logged into PVE land, queued, entered cyro, and took a keep or 2 to gain IC access. PvP action outside of IC will be minimal.

Robbmrp

olemanwinter wrote: »

Robbmrp wrote: »

Also, I still want to play outside IC. This gives me and others incentive to still do so.

I don't understand this logic. You need an incentive to do something you already want to do???

And this incentive should come in the form of a barrier to me doing what I want to do?

I don't need the incentive to defend keeps, I really enjoy that part of Cyrodil. All of the pug groups there will now have incentive to as well if they can't get into IC because they let a keep slide.

Leandor

I fear that the whole theory of improving fights in Cyrodiil proper by limiting access to IC forget a simple facet of human behaviour, possibly the most basic principle of all. The law of least resistance.

Instead of giving an incentive to fight for access, there will be one competitive campaign (most probably Azura as the only 30-day) and three access campaigns. Many will home in the competitive one to fight for Cyrodiil proper and advance their alliance rank and guest in their respective access campaign.

You do not need enemy players to farm TVs - the opposite is true: it's faster if you don't have to expect loss of stones. And if you don't need to fear loss of stones, the 10k stones required for the x4 multiplier is much more attractive.

Cherryblossom

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Access rules will not gate access to the Imperial Prison or White-Gold Tower dungeons. You can still click on the icons on the map or use the group finder to get into these dungeons without special rule access.

Does this mean Group Finder will be working?

Hiero_Glyph

Let's be honest, if ZoS thought gated access was a good idea they would have launched the PTS with it in place. For all the good things players are saying about IC, it is not the product that ZoS intends to release on the 31st. Let ZoS apply gated access to the PTS and then we can see what players really think about having to spend 2,500 crowns on content they might not be able to play.

Darlgon

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

Let's be honest, if ZoS thought gated access was a good idea they would have launched the PTS with it in place. For all the good things players are saying about IC, it is not the product that ZoS intends to release on the 31st. Let ZoS apply gated access to the PTS and then we can see what players really think about having to spend 2,500 crowns on content they might not be able to play.

@ZOS_BrianWheeler Speaking of which, wasnt that supposed to happen today? Will you have to down the server to change the faction access rules?

Pirhana7_ESO

olemanwinter wrote: »

Targaryen wrote: »

You have a good point and a very detailed post to explain the rationing behind your thoughts. One thing we all know is AD always has the higher population in Cyrodiil overall, then EP and DC follows. But, the caliber of players that DC has is is very high. I am EP on most of my characters and will admit that DC has some really good players, not to take away from AD because they have great players also, but the one thing to keep in mind is the good players that help balance the campaigns are mostly here on the PTS. I even noticed AD had a low pop bonus yesterday on the PTS, which doesnt show much because people are making templates in different factions, but it does show the difference of how many EP and DC players chose to come to the PTS vs AD players. It will be interesting to watch it all play out on live, but lets not jump the gun too quickly and let the AD have their day on live for now. EP and DC will be back soon with a vengence. Great thread!

post script
PvE players will now join campaigns to gain access to IC and help the campaign population balancing issues.

You might be right, but at what point will we know? After DLC goes live and people BEGIN without access???

Are PvE players really going to join campaigns to gain access when the access is not available?

Are they even going to buy the DLC if they have to zerg keeps to use it?

PVE players will NEVER go to the IC when all 3 sides have access 24/7 and its always a gankfest. But they will go to IC when ONLY their alliance has control to it and its mush easier to PVE without enemy zergs. In this case limited access favors PVE players because they can actually accomplish stuff in IC when it belongs to thier alliance.

Anazasi

Im confused. Haderus campaign according to patch notes for PTS offers access to DLC meaning IC without the necessity of possession of home keeps. I think you may be barking up the wrong tree here. As I understand it Haderous campaign is slotted to become the PVE server for Cryodiil. Keep ownership is not part of the scoring mechanic, only resources. Scrolls count for nothing keeps count for nothing resources are 1 pt each. Essentially there is no incentive for taking keeps or scrolls for that matter aside from grieving the other factions.

Darlgon

Anazasi wrote: »

Im confused. Haderus campaign according to patch notes for PTS offers access to DLC meaning IC without the necessity of possession of home keeps. I think you may be barking up the wrong tree here. As I understand it Haderous campaign is slotted to become the PVE server for Cryodiil. Keep ownership is not part of the scoring mechanic, only resources. Scrolls count for nothing keeps count for nothing resources are 1 pt each. Essentially there is no incentive for taking keeps or scrolls for that matter aside from grieving the other factions.

Here.. read this.. its too long to repost

http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/2093517/#Comment_2093517

and this thread

http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/2078575/#Comment_2078575

wraith808

Darlgon wrote: »

Anazasi wrote: »

Im confused. Haderus campaign according to patch notes for PTS offers access to DLC meaning IC without the necessity of possession of home keeps. I think you may be barking up the wrong tree here. As I understand it Haderous campaign is slotted to become the PVE server for Cryodiil. Keep ownership is not part of the scoring mechanic, only resources. Scrolls count for nothing keeps count for nothing resources are 1 pt each. Essentially there is no incentive for taking keeps or scrolls for that matter aside from grieving the other factions.

Here.. read this.. its too long to repost

http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/2093517/#Comment_2093517

and this thread

http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/2078575/#Comment_2078575

That's PTS so they can test it. I think he was talking about when it goes LIVE. And there has been every indication that the servers will not have the same access rules. That's why I don't get what the uproar is currently over it. They are testing different access rules on PTS in the different cycle.

Artis

Targaryen wrote: »

post script
PvE players will now join campaigns to gain access to IC and help the campaign population balancing issues.

Let me tell you what PvE players will do. They will choose a guest campaign and then will see if their faction has access to IC. They will monitor this campaign for a while and if situation is not good enough, they will switch to another campaign. They will not fight to gain access, because they are PvE players. They will not fight, because they don't care about AP that you earn outside the IC.

Darlgon

@wraith808

Anazasi wrote: »

Im confused. Haderus campaign according to patch notes for PTS offers access to DLC meaning IC without the necessity of possession of home keeps. I think you may be barking up the wrong tree here. As I understand it Haderous campaign is slotted to become the PVE server for Cryodiil. Keep ownership is not part of the scoring mechanic, only resources. Scrolls count for nothing keeps count for nothing resources are 1 pt each. Essentially there is no incentive for taking keeps or scrolls for that matter aside from grieving the other factions.

Umm.. I posted that because I did indeed think he had live and PTS confused. If anyone were to follow the links, they would see both posts were about the PTS server having the keeps locked to allow access for a time DURING PTS.

OrdainedFaun

I wholeheartedly agree that not many will want to pay for a DLC when that money does not guarantee them access to said content. It is kid of like waving a lolipop in front of a 5 year old and telling them they can have it if they pay a quarter, and then not giving it to them.

Even worse, you will have many players who buy the DLC not realizing they are not guaranteed access to the Imperial City, and then experience anger and frustration as they become locked out of content they paid for. In that scenario, you will likely experience at least some of the following:
1. Angry players flaming all forums and telling their friends the game sucks and rage quitting the game.
2. Angry players who still stick with the game, but do not purchase the next DLC because they got burned with the first one.
3. Angry players who dispute the DLC charges on their credit cards by calling their credit card companies and having the charge refunded because they didn't get what they thought they paid for.

I really think the Imperial City looks amazing, and even though I am a DC underdog, I look forward to the challenge of getting access. But maybe Zenimax should consider giving players who don't want to be locked out of Imperial City 95% of the time another option. How about half of the servers do have a lockout, and because of that the rewards for playing those campaigns are upped for players (more stones drop), and then leave the other half for more casual players who are willing to take less reward for the ability to access the city at all times? Or maybe make it impossible for one alliance to hold access to the imperial city for more than 24 hours straight? I really don't want to see options 1, 2, or 3 happen with the release of the DLC.

Mawgusta

On an underplayed faction getting enough people is tough enough, but.. once you finally do how long before your enemy closes the gate and zergs you down inside IC anyways? How long before the fully populated realms gear up and PvP in Cyrodill more than IC because they have their new stuff. Since DC won't be geared and they will that should be fun. More players and more stats on their gear sounds like fun. You can always buy from their guild merchants.. Which is, youre outnumbered, your outgeared, the winners are now selling you the loot they get from ruining your fun.

I played DAoC and was way to excited about IC. I renewed to plus membership before I realized that I'm a DC that most likely will get minimal time in IC and the time I do get will most likely come to end by a zerg over my corpse. I'm not an empty keep farmer type of game player.

GlassHalfFull

As an AD player, I find this lame for those in DC. As a paying customer and player, regardless of alliance, I find an access gate to any DLC content to be a violation of the paid aspect of the content.

Actually, since there already is a first access gate simply because this is a paid DLC content access gate, I see no reason to invent a second access gate.

GlassHalfFull

Cherryblossom wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Access rules will not gate access to the Imperial Prison or White-Gold Tower dungeons. You can still click on the icons on the map or use the group finder to get into these dungeons without special rule access.

Does this mean Group Finder will be working?

I find this comment to be true, and very funny. They really need to fix age old problems before adding additional dependencies to those same problems.

Hiero_Glyph

So now we have CP restricted campaigns and non-gated IC campaigns. At this point the simplest solution is the best. Just make non-vet campaigns have no CP and leave IC access unrestricted except on 30-day vet campaigns (which require control of 1 of 2 home keeps that border the IC).

Korah_Eaglecry

If they really want to stick with using the Home Keep Rules. Then split the Campaigns. Half are Home Keep Rules and the other half are free access at any point.

PvEers are going to flood the zones regardless of the feelings about the Tel Var System. This is going to make it hard for PvPers to get into their own Campaigns to do anything even unrelated to IC.

By providing Free Access to half of the Campaigns, the Home Keep Rule Campaigns will draw the PvPers looking for the challenge and provide a relief to both PvPers jumping on their Home Campaigns and any PvEers looking to avoid as much of the PvP as possible.

Of course this wont smooth out every issue that may arise. But itll definitely provide Factions with smaller Pops an opportunity to access the content without having their lack of player numbers used against them to grief them out of their own purchased content.

Farorin

MissBizz wrote: »

I'm waiting until we get to test a different set of rules for access for a real stance, but already I am thinking having different campaigns with different access rules would be awesome. Some people LOVE the constant crowded PvP inside IC that comes from access all the time, where others would prefer to have to fight for it so once they clear out most of the enemy players it's a bit less PvP. If different campaigns had different rules, people would be able to join the campaign that suites them.

I think this is the only real logical way to do it, test it, see the preferences of players, and if it is still largely divided, then allow for different campaigns with different access rules.

Rebeccas04nub18_ESO

What about if every faction has access but make the tel var stones multiplier tied to the number of keeps owned. Like a buff but the reward would be 1.5% more stones or so per enemy keep controlled. If a faction doesn't control all their home keeps they still have access but stones accrued would be less then the standard amount like .5%.

Sharee

OrdainedFaun wrote: »

I wholeheartedly agree that not many will want to pay for a DLC when that money does not guarantee them access to said content.

Think about it this way.

When a raid expansion comes out, does every player automatically get all the gear that can be obtained through that raid, without having to do anything? Of course not. They have to work for it first. This means players are paying for an expansion without a guarantee to ever see the items that come from that raid.

IC access is the same - you have to work for it first. The only difference is that you have to work against enemy players, instead of enemy bosses (naturally, since it is a PvP expansion).

Hiero_Glyph

Sharee wrote: »

OrdainedFaun wrote: »

I wholeheartedly agree that not many will want to pay for a DLC when that money does not guarantee them access to said content.

Think about it this way.

When a raid expansion comes out, does every player automatically get all the gear that can be obtained through that raid, without having to do anything? Of course not. They have to work for it first. This means players are paying for an expansion without a guarantee to ever see the items that come from that raid.

IC access is the same - you have to work for it first. The only difference is that you have to work against enemy players, instead of enemy bosses (naturally, since it is a PvP expansion).

Except you cannot individually work for IC access. Worse yet, you are at the mercy of the player population so if your availability does not align with your alliance's you may never even have access despite paying for the content. This isn't even about TV stones or acquiring the new gear; it's simply about being able to play inside the IC when you have paid for that content.

Others have detailed how DC may never have access to the IC based on the proposed access system. How is that even remotely fair when there is a huge population imbalance? Could you imagine if the inverse were true and only 300 players from each alliance were allowed to play inside IC? Now DC players would be more likely to get access while the overpopulated alliances would be at a disadvantage.

It really is a problematic situation due to the IC being paid DLC. There is no good way for ZoS to gate access without making some players feel like they got shafted. The only real solution is to make IC acess available to everyone and provide specific campaigns that use the gating mechanic. At least this way players could use guest campaigns for IC access.

Elloa

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

It really is a problematic situation due to the IC being paid DLC. There is no good way for ZoS to gate access without making some players feel like they got shafted. The only real solution is to make IC acess available to everyone and provide specific campaigns that use the gating mechanic. At least this way players could use guest campaigns for IC access.

I agree with this.
30 days campaign could have their access gated, for PVP players to compete and enjoy a hardcore PVP environement.
Non CP campaign, non vet campaign and some others could allow no gating to access IC. This would be more fair for every sort of players.

Enodoc

GlassHalfFull wrote: »

Actually, since there already is a first access gate simply because this is a paid DLC content access gate, I see no reason to invent a second access gate.

The Keep Control was the first access gate, and had always been part of the plan; it wasn't invented after. Making it paid DLC was the second access gate to be implemented. (This was why I was pushing for Imperial City to be free content - so they didn't have to remove the Keep Control access requirement which sounds like an interesting system.)

byrom101b16_ESO

Sharee wrote: »

OrdainedFaun wrote: »

I wholeheartedly agree that not many will want to pay for a DLC when that money does not guarantee them access to said content.

Think about it this way.

When a raid expansion comes out, does every player automatically get all the gear that can be obtained through that raid, without having to do anything? Of course not. They have to work for it first. This means players are paying for an expansion without a guarantee to ever see the items that come from that raid.

IC access is the same - you have to work for it first. The only difference is that you have to work against enemy players, instead of enemy bosses (naturally, since it is a PvP expansion).

This is wrong-footed. It's CONTENT which is gated, so it's not the same as your example.

No-one would EVER pay for a PvE expansion where they couldn't access the Trials or Dungeons unless they win a time trail against other players. It would be regarded as outrageous and a scam and pandering to the tiny % of leetist no-lifers.

The same is true here. You pay, and then you cannot play because your faction is too low on numbers, or you are online at the wrong time of day etc.

It is TERRIBLE game design, and I would expect the backlash from either the PTS or the first few weeks of Live to see open access via some mechanism or other without the Cyrodiil Keeps requirement.

TBH the PvP buffs are good enough reward considering how they will impact PvE and PvP performance inside IC, but they could also add some loot bonus buff or other for having all your Home Keeps to provide further incentive. A complete lockout however is very ill thought out, and I say that as an active PvP player in EP, who will likely only rarely suffer this compared to the Bananas...

AssaultLemming

I've given this a lot of thought, mostly while I should have been working, In the end it makes the most sense I think for different campaigns to have different access rules...


Azura: Ownership of keeps, resources, Elder Scrolls, and outposts will generate one point each per scoring cycle, and lasts 30 days.

IC access for team in the lead.

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.

IC access for team in the lead

Chillrend: Keeps, outposts, and resources will generate zero points. Ownership of Elder Scrolls will generate one point per scoring cycle, and lasts 7 days.

IC access for any faction in control of their own scrolls

Haderus: Keeps, outposts, and Elder Scrolls will generate zero points. Ownership of resources will generate one point per scoring cycle, and lasts 7 days.

IC access for all factions all the time

Thornblade: Resources, outposts, and Elder Scrolls will generate zero points. Ownership of keeps will generate one point per scoring cycle, and lasts 7 days.

IC access if you own your home keeps


All campaigns other than Haderus should have a larger (double) TV stones multiplier to encourage people to want access.

This would likely result in the main campaigns being home to the large guild forces and being competitive, while haderus would be home to casuals and small groups and be the majority of people's guest campaign. Everyone would have an option for access all the time, but there would still be a reason to want the gated access...

Win win!!

Sharee

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

OrdainedFaun wrote: »

I wholeheartedly agree that not many will want to pay for a DLC when that money does not guarantee them access to said content.

Think about it this way.

When a raid expansion comes out, does every player automatically get all the gear that can be obtained through that raid, without having to do anything? Of course not. They have to work for it first. This means players are paying for an expansion without a guarantee to ever see the items that come from that raid.

IC access is the same - you have to work for it first. The only difference is that you have to work against enemy players, instead of enemy bosses (naturally, since it is a PvP expansion).

Except you cannot individually work for IC access.

But you can individually run a raid to get raid gear?

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

Worse yet, you are at the mercy of the player population so if your availability does not align with your alliance's you may never even have access despite paying for the content.

And if your availability does not align with the group that is running a raid? You will never see the gear, despite paying for the content.

byrom101b16_ESO wrote: »

This is wrong-footed. It's CONTENT which is gated, so it's not the same as your example.

Content is content, whether it is imperial city or gear. In both cases, you have to work for it before you can get what you desire. If you desire raid gear, you have to raid. If you desire IC access, you have to cap keeps. Same underlying principle.

Docmandu

Different campaigns with different rules for access won't work.. that brings us back to buff campaigns.. but this time it would be access campaigns.

Anyway +1 for Keep controlled access to IC.

Enodoc

Docmandu wrote: »

Different campaigns with different rules for access won't work.. that brings us back to buff campaigns.. but this time it would be access campaigns.

I'm not sure if it would; I think that would be more likely if every campaign had the same access rules. If there's one campaign with access for all, then there's no need for that one to become a buff campaign; if there's one campaign based on access by keeps, then the people who join that campaign would be the ones who want to work for their access, meaning they will be going up against players with a similar view, so it should stay balanced.

byrom101b16_ESO

Sharee wrote: »

byrom101b16_ESO wrote: »

This is wrong-footed. It's CONTENT which is gated, so it's not the same as your example.

Content is content, whether it is imperial city or gear. In both cases, you have to work for it before you can get what you desire. If you desire raid gear, you have to raid. If you desire IC access, you have to cap keeps. Same underlying principle.

NO.

Gear is something you get from playing CONTENT.

CONTENT is the activity you are doing to have fun... and you don't have to rely on your entire Faction winning a contest of some sort to go on the Raid now do you?

Clumsily bundling these two separate things together as the same issue does not change the facts...

Content should not be gated in a way which prevents you from accessing it for factors outside of your own control, and no matter how you slice it, there will be a sizeable number of players denied access with no recourse to fix the problem by their own effort.

This is fundamentally wrong.