This is why we need gated access.

xylena

gated IC makes it easier for one faction to maintain total dominance over a server until this is fixed



nobody wants to PvDoor for hours each day in order to access the content they actually want to play

Defilted

Gated Content will force the other 2 factions to go grab the keeps and take access away from the current Alliance. You get to take the keeps and then your whole group logs in and zergs the current Alliance that is still there and they do not get to re-spawn in IC.

You can either go defend your keeps or take your shot at IC content. It is great fun if you have never played PVP this way. Makes your Alliance defend keeps and engage with the other alliances.

driosketch

IxSTALKERxI wrote: »

To draw attention, Mojican picked up our scroll and was standing all by himself outside of chalman for 10 minutes. Still no EP to be seen. The whole map a ghost town. We started heading to BRK and finally, a group of 20 random EP showed themselves.

This is why we need gated access and some sort of incentive to PvP other than Grand Warlord Sorcalin's super helpful 5 repair kits.

I'm sorry, but how exactly does gated access fix what you are describing? EP had the map, and most of their population was in the city. DC took back all of our home keeps plus Brindle. AD took back their triangle, plus Alessia, BRK, and Chal. They eventually returned the Scroll of Menn home.

Under gated rules EP would have gained access, gone into IC, and AD and DC would have started taking back the map. In other words: THE EXACT SAME THING THAT HAPPENED LAST NIGHT. Sorry to shout, but "gate the campaigns" has become the mantra of many posters and no one is really thinking about if that is actually a solution.

Want to fix over land PVP, I say put VR 16 gear up for sale from the AP venders or something.

Lucky28 wrote: »

Yeah. i don't know about the rest of EP. But i intentionally ignored you all, trying to get the map un-red and a bit more PvP there. few hours later logged back in and the map was red again. all for naught.

Well that is disheartening.

Ishammael

driosketch wrote: »

Want to fix over land PVP, I say put VR 16 gear up for sale from the AP venders or something.

OMG pls do dis!

WTB v16 Cyro Light
WTB v16 Ravager

Minno

Ishammael wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

I don't think gated access will necessarily fix things.

• Even if you convince ZoS to gate all the campaigns, something they are not going to do because a lot of their customer base rioted over their original intention to do so, this is easily circumvented by guest / group que to jump to a map where access is available and the do not have to fight it.
• How many rage posts you think ZoS if you make it so you can't release in IC when access isn't available (one of the more popular gated suggestions) and put them into a 5 minute loading screen when they get zerged, one-shotted, their skills lock out, or one of the many other fun ways to die?
• Open access isn't necessarily a bad thing because it does allow people to pick fights in the IC. If I go to the Memorial District or the enemy sewers, I am assured of a constant stream of enemy player I can always fight at just about any time. A lot of the PvP that happens in the IC will not happen with gated access, because people wither won't be there (jumped to another server, never got in, were kicked out when died, etc) which defeats the intended purpose of a PvP zone.

What I would do:

• There have always been too many campaigns and too many players. Get rid of the two dead NA campaigns, increase population caps slightly (to preempt que complaints) because with people instanced in the IC it looks like the server can handle it.
• You do not just earn trophies / TV stones from nuking PvE mobs. With every AP you gain, you get a chance for an IC goody. The better an enemy alliance is doing in the campaign, the higher the chance/multiplier for this happening (i.e. it's an underdog balancing mechanism).
• Access to the sewers is always open, but a series of incentives will encourage people to PvP so that they will only want to go to the IC when their faction is doing well: PvP buffs should be much more pronounced in the IC sewers, severing the transit line from home base to sewers (e.g. AD would need a link to either Alessia or Roe) confers a penalty to players in the IC, better drop rate for IC goodies. Note: Bonuses are only active in a contested campaign.
• The IC is not just a place to farm gear. It has PvP objectives.
• Districts have some stationary, some mobile, some randomly appearing objectives that simulate the FPS games that are tried and true. Successful control yields TV stones, trophies, AP, and contributes to Campaign scoring.
• Sewers also have objectives in the form of castle/resource flags to represent control. An alliance that had all of "its" sewers under control would receive a TV stone multiplier and player bonuses fighting anywhere in the IC, An alliance that controlled all of an enemy sewers receives a temporary battle buff and can transit outside the enemy faction's sewers from the IC.

Now we don't have to PvE to gear up, what goes on in the IC actually affects the campaign, players will much rather fight in the IC under the "gated" people keep asking for, and there are reasons to go into the IC after Orsinium is released.

I'm gonna agree with Joy.

Bottom line: make IC part of the Alliance War and we're solid.

IC can be that loose structure of Arena type battles us small group players yearn for. The background and potential is there!
Not to mention the community is already responding to this type of pvp via Memorial PVP runs or Arena district runs.

You are so close to this being implemented @ZOS_BrianWheeler !!!

manny254

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Gated access on more campaigns is something we are discussing along with closing campaigns to compress population. We are also talking about removing Alliance restrictions in terms of only allowing players to have 1 alliance tied to campaigns along with the ability to "unassign" yourself. Several of these changes are tied to campaign population and performance issues however, which plan on addressing in incremental patches.

@ZOS_BrianWheeler

I would like to suggest that if gated access is used more wide spread that the requirements for it a toned down. In its current form if any home keep is taken a faction looses ic. This essentially means that if any pvp happens on the map someone is getting punished for it.

My personal suggestion is that ic access requires 3 keeps, but no just any 3 keeps.

First it requires 2 relic keeps. This means in order to access a faction must have their scroll gates closed , but it prevents a group from ninja capturing one just for the sake of closing access.

Second it requires 1 of the 2 home Emperor keeps. This means that in order to have access a faction must have some presence on the inner circle.

Factions would obviously go for more keep than just 3. This would keep the requirements meaningful, but prevent them from shifting to locked with one home keep capture.

Psilent

manny254 wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Gated access on more campaigns is something we are discussing along with closing campaigns to compress population. We are also talking about removing Alliance restrictions in terms of only allowing players to have 1 alliance tied to campaigns along with the ability to "unassign" yourself. Several of these changes are tied to campaign population and performance issues however, which plan on addressing in incremental patches.

@ZOS_BrianWheeler

I would like to suggest that if gated access is used more wide spread that the requirements for it a toned down. In its current form if any home keep is taken a faction looses ic. This essentially means that if any pvp happens on the map someone is getting punished for it.

My personal suggestion is that ic access requires 3 keeps, but no just any 3 keeps.

First it requires 2 relic keeps. This means in order to access a faction must have their scroll gates closed , but it prevents a group from ninja capturing one just for the sake of closing access.

Second it requires 1 of the 2 home Emperor keeps. This means that in order to have access a faction must have some presence on the inner circle.

Factions would obviously go for more keep than just 3. This would keep the requirements meaningful, but prevent them from shifting to locked with one home keep capture.

Nah, disagree with this carebear strategy completely. All home keeps plus 1 non-home keep and if you die in IC to anything and you don't have access, you're booted out to the gate.

Takllin

Psilent wrote: »

manny254 wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Gated access on more campaigns is something we are discussing along with closing campaigns to compress population. We are also talking about removing Alliance restrictions in terms of only allowing players to have 1 alliance tied to campaigns along with the ability to "unassign" yourself. Several of these changes are tied to campaign population and performance issues however, which plan on addressing in incremental patches.

@ZOS_BrianWheeler

I would like to suggest that if gated access is used more wide spread that the requirements for it a toned down. In its current form if any home keep is taken a faction looses ic. This essentially means that if any pvp happens on the map someone is getting punished for it.

My personal suggestion is that ic access requires 3 keeps, but no just any 3 keeps.

First it requires 2 relic keeps. This means in order to access a faction must have their scroll gates closed , but it prevents a group from ninja capturing one just for the sake of closing access.

Second it requires 1 of the 2 home Emperor keeps. This means that in order to have access a faction must have some presence on the inner circle.

Factions would obviously go for more keep than just 3. This would keep the requirements meaningful, but prevent them from shifting to locked with one home keep capture.

Nah, disagree with this carebear strategy completely. All home keeps plus 1 non-home keep and if you die in IC to anything and you don't have access, you're booted out to the gate.

So you don't want anyone to be in IC, got it. What's the opposite of carebear, a try hard?

Poxheart

It's easy for EP players to propose harsh restrictions on accessing the IC now that they've farmed multiple sets of end game gear...

Weberda

Psilent wrote: »

manny254 wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Gated access on more campaigns is something we are discussing along with closing campaigns to compress population. We are also talking about removing Alliance restrictions in terms of only allowing players to have 1 alliance tied to campaigns along with the ability to "unassign" yourself. Several of these changes are tied to campaign population and performance issues however, which plan on addressing in incremental patches.

@ZOS_BrianWheeler

I would like to suggest that if gated access is used more wide spread that the requirements for it a toned down. In its current form if any home keep is taken a faction looses ic. This essentially means that if any pvp happens on the map someone is getting punished for it.

My personal suggestion is that ic access requires 3 keeps, but no just any 3 keeps.

First it requires 2 relic keeps. This means in order to access a faction must have their scroll gates closed , but it prevents a group from ninja capturing one just for the sake of closing access.

Second it requires 1 of the 2 home Emperor keeps. This means that in order to have access a faction must have some presence on the inner circle.

Factions would obviously go for more keep than just 3. This would keep the requirements meaningful, but prevent them from shifting to locked with one home keep capture.

Nah, disagree with this carebear strategy completely. All home keeps plus 1 non-home keep and if you die in IC to anything and you don't have access, you're booted out to the gate.

Wow. Hardcore. Prepare for the angry masses.

Takllin

Poxheart wrote: »

It's easy for EP players to propose harsh restrictions on accessing the IC now that they've farmed multiple sets of end game gear...

They also have the numbers to maintain access on almost all the campaigns throughout the entire day. Must be nice.

manny254

Takllin wrote: »

Psilent wrote: »

manny254 wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Gated access on more campaigns is something we are discussing along with closing campaigns to compress population. We are also talking about removing Alliance restrictions in terms of only allowing players to have 1 alliance tied to campaigns along with the ability to "unassign" yourself. Several of these changes are tied to campaign population and performance issues however, which plan on addressing in incremental patches.

@ZOS_BrianWheeler

I would like to suggest that if gated access is used more wide spread that the requirements for it a toned down. In its current form if any home keep is taken a faction looses ic. This essentially means that if any pvp happens on the map someone is getting punished for it.

My personal suggestion is that ic access requires 3 keeps, but no just any 3 keeps.

First it requires 2 relic keeps. This means in order to access a faction must have their scroll gates closed , but it prevents a group from ninja capturing one just for the sake of closing access.

Second it requires 1 of the 2 home Emperor keeps. This means that in order to have access a faction must have some presence on the inner circle.

Factions would obviously go for more keep than just 3. This would keep the requirements meaningful, but prevent them from shifting to locked with one home keep capture.

Nah, disagree with this carebear strategy completely. All home keeps plus 1 non-home keep and if you die in IC to anything and you don't have access, you're booted out to the gate.

So you don't want anyone to be in IC, got it. What's the opposite of carebear, a try hard?

If I said 2+2=4 he would disagree. Many tears where created when I broke thornblade of being an EP buff server, and they could not fathom what a small group could do with emperor then.

MrGrimey

How about we just leave IC for the pve players? (it was never a pvp dlc anyway). And just add arenas, dueling and battlegrounds. This current pvp system is a joke, nobody wants to fight, everyone just moves to a campaign where they're the only faction on the server and just farms mobs.

How will gated access fix this other than to just promote more buff servers and make IC even more empty

ckbud

IC and Cyrodiil need to be delinked. Home and Guest IC campaigns for IC, and separate Home and Guest Cyrodiil campaigns for Cyrodiil. Different rewards/incentives for Cyrodiil and IC. This way, everyone is clear what the goals are/purpose is based on which campaign they're on. If I want to do some Cyrodiil, I just go to a Cyrodiil campaign and I know that everyone who's there is not in the sewers and vice versa.

Dreyloch

xylena wrote: »

This is what leads to more spies

This is what leads to more spies

This is what leads to more spies

OMG SPAI

seriously though you need some semblance of competition and reward for "spies" to even remotely matter, nobody is spying when all that's at stake is unstackable repair rocks and unusable sets with "sturdy" trait... also the population bars give you all the info you need

While I do agree those rocks and crappy gear make me happy in the pants lol (/sarcasm, /agree they suck) I don't know what time that PoP bar picture was taken. I highly doubt it was US primetime on TF. I'm there almost every night. While DC may not be able to lock, they usually get up to 3 bars. Problem is, not enough DC want to go out and take Cyrodiil except for Ash to have less run to IC.

While myself and my guild can be guilty of staying in IC to grind, we do make efforts to get out there and find some overland PvP. Problem is, the other 2 factions come with their entire populous to stop anything we're doing. Who wants to continue with that? So If Brian wants to make it so I can go play another side on the same campaign, then I don't want to start from scratch. If AD and EP wanna come over to DC, then they shouldn't have to either.

However, once that's all in place, and pops balance out, your going to have ppl giving away positions and fights will not have any fog of war. That's where I'm going with the spy thing. It won't happen straight off, but when everyone has settled out of IC and doing more Cyro, it'll have even more people out there to just grief w/e faction they feel like that night.

TheBull

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Gated access on more campaigns is something we are discussing along with closing campaigns to compress population. We are also talking about removing Alliance restrictions in terms of only allowing players to have 1 alliance tied to campaigns along with the ability to "unassign" yourself. Several of these changes are tied to campaign population and performance issues however, which plan on addressing in incremental patches.

what about campaign rewards!?

ZtruK

What we really need is a PvP only progression system like realm abilities. It's been missing since day 1. Champion tree would have been perfect if it was PvP only to gain points. The frustrating thing with this game is that PvE is always the best way to do anything and PvP is borderline impossible. Why can't I rank up from 50 to VR16 from pure PvP? That's all i want to do in this game yet there is an almost insurmountable PvE grind to get to VR16. My group is making due by just doing quest towns in cyrodiil and at least having the chance of random PvP with other questers but we should be fighting for keeps and leveling that way, not playing PvE in the PvP zone.

Rook_Master

As a DC why the hell would I ever want gated access?

I like playing in the IC occassionally.

Diamond_10

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Gated access on more campaigns is something we are discussing along with closing campaigns to compress population. We are also talking about removing Alliance restrictions in terms of only allowing players to have 1 alliance tied to campaigns along with the ability to "unassign" yourself. Several of these changes are tied to campaign population and performance issues however, which plan on addressing in incremental patches.

please do NOT close any campaigns. I like my low pop campaign as i do NOT want to play on the lagfest that is azuras etc
i will switch to another game for pvp if you force me to play in slideshows

Dreyloch

Lucky28 wrote: »

@Dreyloch

1. The Idea of Cyrodiil buffs in PvE is a good one. Yes, it is unfortunate that there are some players who do not participate in PvP and will just take advantage of the buffs without contributing. however, for those of us who do PvP and PvE those buffs are very interactive, and i loved the way it blended PvP and PvE making it feel like i was fighting for something real. it was nice.

3. in regards to the excitement factor. other players are not threatening. you think you got under-leveled gear?, i'm in V12-V14 purple gear and don't often die unless i'm outnumbered. 1v1 forget about it, just walk away bolt is not even necessary.

1. its more than unfortunate. The buffs should only be for those in an area where they are fighting for them. Cyrodiil. I don't mind the occasional PvE myself. But I don't expect to be given buffs from some part of the game I'm not involved in. (saying if I was only PvE)
Min/Max raiders can come out and get them if they want them. Sorry but I'm firm on that one. On the server I'm playing we don't get much support out in Cyro unless it's DC guesting over. That's a shame when we have 3 bars pop or more. I guess maybe we have more PvE'ers than the other factions all grinding in IC and the new dungeons?

Defilted wrote: »

@ZOS_BrianWheeler

Gated Campaign IMO will never work when there are other campaigns not gated. To force true and response type PVP with ever player that likes PVP involved in IC and in Cyrodil you need One Campaign period that is gated with no other campaigns available. This solves buff campaign issues. Solves Population issues. Solves the issues with players not interested in leaving IC because they do not have too.

DAOC is a great model for this. Gated content that Alliances had to work together to unlock and hold. Fantastic and fast pace fun.

While all that you say could indeed fix many problems. There's one major one we'd be left with. L...A....G.....so bad it would cripple any attempt to play on that server. Not to mention the ques. I like the idea, just saying the tech can't handle it. Least not yet =/

Psilent

Takllin wrote: »

Psilent wrote: »

manny254 wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Gated access on more campaigns is something we are discussing along with closing campaigns to compress population. We are also talking about removing Alliance restrictions in terms of only allowing players to have 1 alliance tied to campaigns along with the ability to "unassign" yourself. Several of these changes are tied to campaign population and performance issues however, which plan on addressing in incremental patches.

@ZOS_BrianWheeler

I would like to suggest that if gated access is used more wide spread that the requirements for it a toned down. In its current form if any home keep is taken a faction looses ic. This essentially means that if any pvp happens on the map someone is getting punished for it.

My personal suggestion is that ic access requires 3 keeps, but no just any 3 keeps.

First it requires 2 relic keeps. This means in order to access a faction must have their scroll gates closed , but it prevents a group from ninja capturing one just for the sake of closing access.

Second it requires 1 of the 2 home Emperor keeps. This means that in order to have access a faction must have some presence on the inner circle.

Factions would obviously go for more keep than just 3. This would keep the requirements meaningful, but prevent them from shifting to locked with one home keep capture.

Nah, disagree with this carebear strategy completely. All home keeps plus 1 non-home keep and if you die in IC to anything and you don't have access, you're booted out to the gate.

So you don't want anyone to be in IC, got it. What's the opposite of carebear, a try hard?

Nope, just want active pvp on the map. Having 6 home keeps plus 1 enemy keep means at least 1 faction cannot enter and they will be pvping in Cyrodiil. When the faction(s) that have access lose it, they can either stay inside and pvp the new owners, die to the new owners and have to pvp outside or leave of their own accord to re-secure access. You have a constant flow of pvp in and out of the Imperial City.

With manny's suggestion, players take three keeps and then run inside IC. At that point it doesn't matter if they lose those keeps, they can still resurrect inside IC, no reason to leave to fight in Cyrodiil. i.e. carebear pve

Poxheart wrote: »

It's easy for EP players to propose harsh restrictions on accessing the IC now that they've farmed multiple sets of end game gear...

I only have V16 weapons, rings, necklace; rest of my gear is V15.

Celas_Dranacea

We all whined about gated access when the good folks at ZOS knew it wouldn't work well. It's the community's fault. In fact I would say like at least 30% of the crappy stuff going on in this game is because of entitled whiners complaining on these forums. Not to say zos couldn't have improved Cyrodil rewards somewhat, but seriously we brought this one on ourselves when we demanded non-gated access.

Joy_Division

Dreyloch wrote: »

xylena wrote: »

This is what leads to more spies

This is what leads to more spies

This is what leads to more spies

OMG SPAI

seriously though you need some semblance of competition and reward for "spies" to even remotely matter, nobody is spying when all that's at stake is unstackable repair rocks and unusable sets with "sturdy" trait... also the population bars give you all the info you need

While I do agree those rocks and crappy gear make me happy in the pants lol (/sarcasm, /agree they suck) I don't know what time that PoP bar picture was taken. I highly doubt it was US primetime on TF. I'm there almost every night. While DC may not be able to lock, they usually get up to 3 bars. Problem is, not enough DC want to go out and take Cyrodiil except for Ash to have less run to IC.

While myself and my guild can be guilty of staying in IC to grind, we do make efforts to get out there and find some overland PvP. Problem is, the other 2 factions come with their entire populous to stop anything we're doing. Who wants to continue with that? So If Brian wants to make it so I can go play another side on the same campaign, then I don't want to start from scratch. If AD and EP wanna come over to DC, then they shouldn't have to either.

However, once that's all in place, and pops balance out, your going to have ppl giving away positions and fights will not have any fog of war. That's where I'm going with the spy thing. It won't happen straight off, but when everyone has settled out of IC and doing more Cyro, it'll have even more people out there to just grief w/e faction they feel like that night.

What are you even saying?

"Problem is, not enough DC want to go out and take Cyrodiil except for Ash to have less run to IC. " - OK, your faction is awesome and DC are PvE carebears.

"While myself and my guild can be guilty of staying in IC to grind, we do make efforts to get out there and find some overland PvP. Problem is, the other 2 factions come with their entire populous to stop anything we're doing." - Apparently DC are not PvE carebears who stop at Ash. Rather it sounds like they are kicking your ass.

"If Brian wants to make it so I can go play another side on the same campaign, then I don't want to start from scratch."

What makes you a special flower that doesn't have to start from scratch? Zos is considering removing the hone/guest restrictions because they do not work, are cumbersome and inconvenient to players who have characters in different factions, do not work, can serve a function in balancing a campaigns/alleviating lag (you know some of the red zergs could travel to Haderus and actually put a third presence when Azura's is a toilet bowl), do not work, trap people in dead/bad campaigns, and do not work.

OMG spies! Because I have nothing better to do with my life than to follow your guild around just so in a month I can get 10 rocks instead of 5. Because people who are pathetic enough to actually do that cannot already do so under the current home/guest system which does not work. Because even the strictest ironclad you-can-never-enter a campaign you are not home/guested will not stop spies.

Right now my blue is homed on Azura and my red is homed on Trueflame. I cannot change these because all the campaigns are homed or guested by those two and my yellow.

My blue guild has decided to home on Trueflame. Guess what? Now because people like you think it is such a good idea to lock us into campaigns and keep these restrictions, I cannot play legitimately with my blue and would have not choice but to play my red and be a OMG SPY.

Celas_Dranacea

Just to add to my above comment - definitely there is some legitimate constructive feedback on the forums, but the demand for no gated access is an example of mob mentality screwing up what would have otherwise been a better game design.

Lorkhan

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Gated access on more campaigns is something we are discussing along with closing campaigns to compress population. We are also talking about removing Alliance restrictions in terms of only allowing players to have 1 alliance tied to campaigns along with the ability to "unassign" yourself. Several of these changes are tied to campaign population and performance issues however, which plan on addressing in incremental patches.

cmon.

WRX

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Gated access on more campaigns is something we are discussing along with closing campaigns to compress population. We are also talking about removing Alliance restrictions in terms of only allowing players to have 1 alliance tied to campaigns along with the ability to "unassign" yourself. Several of these changes are tied to campaign population and performance issues however, which plan on addressing in incremental patches.

@ZOS_BrianWheeler

Brian, are you folks planning to wait on Orsinium before gating access on all the campaigns? I only ask because there are many casuals and even semi-hardcore players(like myself) that simply do not have any of my toons in VR16 gear yet nor am i even close to having enough matts simply because of work and life obligations don't allow us to have 6-10 hours a day to grind in the IPC.

Many casauls and semi-hardcore players would see it as unfair that 10-15% of your game population has been able to grind out all VR16 gear already and then have the access gated barring everyone else from having the same open access to get their gear. This is one of the core problems i saw with openeing access early on and then closing it.

I am hoping that if the Vet level will not go up with the release of Orsinium, that you guys and gals would wait until Orsinium comes before closing off access to the IPC so that way casuals and semi-hardcore players are given the same equal chance to grind their gear as those who have spent a huge amount of time in the IPC currently.

or at the very least have 1 campaign with open access?

If you have been playing this long, and consider yourself a "semi-hardcore" player, how are you not geared? I would say a lot more than 10-15% have gear, and I would even flip that to 85-90% do, if not more.

I played two days and was basically as geared as I was in 1.6.

If I was zos, I would follow mojicans post, close the two campaigns he mentioned (or whatever they see based on data we can not see), and make only one campaign open access. Why you ask I am sure. Well, my friend, let me tell you. We all get to PvP again! Want to be in cyro, great, it has a point again. Want to just go into the IC and farm, great, go to that campaign. Want to just PvP in the IC, go to that campaign.

This change should happen today, and I would be on tonight.

Diamond_10

WRX wrote: »

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Gated access on more campaigns is something we are discussing along with closing campaigns to compress population. We are also talking about removing Alliance restrictions in terms of only allowing players to have 1 alliance tied to campaigns along with the ability to "unassign" yourself. Several of these changes are tied to campaign population and performance issues however, which plan on addressing in incremental patches.

@ZOS_BrianWheeler

Brian, are you folks planning to wait on Orsinium before gating access on all the campaigns? I only ask because there are many casuals and even semi-hardcore players(like myself) that simply do not have any of my toons in VR16 gear yet nor am i even close to having enough matts simply because of work and life obligations don't allow us to have 6-10 hours a day to grind in the IPC.

Many casauls and semi-hardcore players would see it as unfair that 10-15% of your game population has been able to grind out all VR16 gear already and then have the access gated barring everyone else from having the same open access to get their gear. This is one of the core problems i saw with openeing access early on and then closing it.

I am hoping that if the Vet level will not go up with the release of Orsinium, that you guys and gals would wait until Orsinium comes before closing off access to the IPC so that way casuals and semi-hardcore players are given the same equal chance to grind their gear as those who have spent a huge amount of time in the IPC currently.

or at the very least have 1 campaign with open access?

If you have been playing this long, and consider yourself a "semi-hardcore" player, how are you not geared? I would say a lot more than 10-15% have gear, and I would even flip that to 85-90% do, if not more.

I played two days and was basically as geared as I was in 1.6.

If I was zos, I would follow mojicans post, close the two campaigns he mentioned (or whatever they see based on data we can not see), and make only one campaign open access. Why you ask I am sure. Well, my friend, let me tell you. We all get to PvP again! Want to be in cyro, great, it has a point again. Want to just go into the IC and farm, great, go to that campaign. Want to just PvP in the IC, go to that campaign.

This change should happen today, and I would be on tonight.

Says the dude whos been hiding in Chillrend sewers for weeks killing pve players with his guild instead of playing on the big campaigns.

xaraan

They definitely need gated access, if they want open access - just have a campaign titles Imperial City and you enter directly into it and bypass cyrodiil entirely (since that it what those are). (Could even remove the alliance rewards and bonuses and all from those campaigns and just let people IC pvp on a level playing field.)

They also need less campaigns. When there is only enough pop on an alliance to fill one or two, then you should only have one or two. If some alliance is out of wack pop wise, then let them sit in queue longer for jumping on the bandwagon (although I'd also offer alliance changes if I were to go this route myself, to allow the pops a chance to even out some).

The still need to take several steps to deal with zerging. Easy fixes if they are willing to make them, but that's another discussion.

AND, DO NOT allow people to travel to other campaigns. Pick a home and that's it, no alts, no group queue with group leader being homed, no travel to leader if they are homed, etc. Just make it strict and FAIR. You can appeal to the casual masses all you want, but in the end, a game that isn't fair isn't going to want to be played by many for very long.

WRX

Diamond_10 wrote: »

WRX wrote: »

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Gated access on more campaigns is something we are discussing along with closing campaigns to compress population. We are also talking about removing Alliance restrictions in terms of only allowing players to have 1 alliance tied to campaigns along with the ability to "unassign" yourself. Several of these changes are tied to campaign population and performance issues however, which plan on addressing in incremental patches.

@ZOS_BrianWheeler

Brian, are you folks planning to wait on Orsinium before gating access on all the campaigns? I only ask because there are many casuals and even semi-hardcore players(like myself) that simply do not have any of my toons in VR16 gear yet nor am i even close to having enough matts simply because of work and life obligations don't allow us to have 6-10 hours a day to grind in the IPC.

Many casauls and semi-hardcore players would see it as unfair that 10-15% of your game population has been able to grind out all VR16 gear already and then have the access gated barring everyone else from having the same open access to get their gear. This is one of the core problems i saw with openeing access early on and then closing it.

I am hoping that if the Vet level will not go up with the release of Orsinium, that you guys and gals would wait until Orsinium comes before closing off access to the IPC so that way casuals and semi-hardcore players are given the same equal chance to grind their gear as those who have spent a huge amount of time in the IPC currently.

or at the very least have 1 campaign with open access?

If you have been playing this long, and consider yourself a "semi-hardcore" player, how are you not geared? I would say a lot more than 10-15% have gear, and I would even flip that to 85-90% do, if not more.

I played two days and was basically as geared as I was in 1.6.

If I was zos, I would follow mojicans post, close the two campaigns he mentioned (or whatever they see based on data we can not see), and make only one campaign open access. Why you ask I am sure. Well, my friend, let me tell you. We all get to PvP again! Want to be in cyro, great, it has a point again. Want to just go into the IC and farm, great, go to that campaign. Want to just PvP in the IC, go to that campaign.

This change should happen today, and I would be on tonight.

Says the dude whos been hiding in Chillrend sewers for weeks killing pve players with his guild instead of playing on the big campaigns.

Says the dude who is totally out of touch with a player base?

If you have seen me in cyrodiil in the past month+, that would be really interesting because I have not logged on my account at all.

I saw you mention Decibel in another thread too, and ignored it. From my understanding we are inactive. But we also are mostly still connected and if you keep spouting this nonsense would be happy to show up and really *** your day.

Keep us out of your mouth and learn what you are talking about.

Poxheart

WRX wrote: »

Diamond_10 wrote: »

WRX wrote: »

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Gated access on more campaigns is something we are discussing along with closing campaigns to compress population. We are also talking about removing Alliance restrictions in terms of only allowing players to have 1 alliance tied to campaigns along with the ability to "unassign" yourself. Several of these changes are tied to campaign population and performance issues however, which plan on addressing in incremental patches.

@ZOS_BrianWheeler

Brian, are you folks planning to wait on Orsinium before gating access on all the campaigns? I only ask because there are many casuals and even semi-hardcore players(like myself) that simply do not have any of my toons in VR16 gear yet nor am i even close to having enough matts simply because of work and life obligations don't allow us to have 6-10 hours a day to grind in the IPC.

Many casauls and semi-hardcore players would see it as unfair that 10-15% of your game population has been able to grind out all VR16 gear already and then have the access gated barring everyone else from having the same open access to get their gear. This is one of the core problems i saw with openeing access early on and then closing it.

I am hoping that if the Vet level will not go up with the release of Orsinium, that you guys and gals would wait until Orsinium comes before closing off access to the IPC so that way casuals and semi-hardcore players are given the same equal chance to grind their gear as those who have spent a huge amount of time in the IPC currently.

or at the very least have 1 campaign with open access?

If you have been playing this long, and consider yourself a "semi-hardcore" player, how are you not geared? I would say a lot more than 10-15% have gear, and I would even flip that to 85-90% do, if not more.

I played two days and was basically as geared as I was in 1.6.

If I was zos, I would follow mojicans post, close the two campaigns he mentioned (or whatever they see based on data we can not see), and make only one campaign open access. Why you ask I am sure. Well, my friend, let me tell you. We all get to PvP again! Want to be in cyro, great, it has a point again. Want to just go into the IC and farm, great, go to that campaign. Want to just PvP in the IC, go to that campaign.

This change should happen today, and I would be on tonight.

Says the dude whos been hiding in Chillrend sewers for weeks killing pve players with his guild instead of playing on the big campaigns.

Says the dude who is totally out of touch with a player base?

If you have seen me in cyrodiil in the past month+, that would be really interesting because I have not logged on my account at all.

I saw you mention Decibel in another thread too, and ignored it. From my understanding we are inactive. But we also are mostly still connected and if you keep spouting this nonsense would be happy to show up and really *** your day.

Keep us out of your mouth and learn what you are talking about.

Hahaha. REKT