We need a third vet campaign with CP enabled.
Maintenance for the week of March 17:
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – March 17
• Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – March 19, 6:00AM EDT (10:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EDT (13:00 UTC)
• PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – March 19, 6:00AM EDT (10:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EDT (13:00 UTC)
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – March 17
• Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – March 19, 6:00AM EDT (10:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EDT (13:00 UTC)
• PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – March 19, 6:00AM EDT (10:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EDT (13:00 UTC)
-
cazlonb16_ESO✭✭✭✭✭With this shiny new zerg aoe bombing meta the game can barely handle 15vs15. Not sure an additional campaign will help much.0 -
mchermie✭✭✭✭Please. Now. The current state of lag is just so bad
And there is nowhere to go except the no cp campaignEdited by mchermie on March 20, 2016 3:42AMRetired
NA DC
K-Hole
McHermie NB - AR 42
McHermes DK - AR 18
Lord Typh Templar - AR 111 -
Ampnode✭✭✭✭4 disconnects within 11 minutes last night. Seriously, this has got to be one of the top 5 worst decisions put out. Lag was already bad as it is. Now it's beyond an unplayable level.PC NA - CP640+
Characters:
Amp - Magicka Nightblade
Amp - Magicka Sorcerer
Amp - Magicka Templar
Amp - Stamina Dragonknight
Amp - Stamina Templar
Amp - Magicka Dragonknight
Amp - Stamina Sorcerer
Amp - Stamina Nightblade1 -
Force-Siphon✭✭✭✭Pvp is unplayable on weekends right now, add another camp asapThe one and only Force Siphon - PVP Sorc NA
1 man zerg
twitch.tv/forcesiphon3 -
bitaken✭✭✭✭✭Another campaign is absolutely required.PvP Lead Officer for Einherjar
Member of Einherjar and associated guilds since 2001
A multi Gaming community of players.1 -
i agree. probably should lower max population a little once again to to help the lag.0 -
Sureshawt✭✭✭✭Like others have stated, I'd be down for an additional campaign if they lowered the population caps on all the campaigns by a proportional amount.
It seems like we are stuck between to bad choices. All Pop-locked campaigns, or 1 pop-locked campaign with the other campaigns all being dominated by one of the three factions with 3:1:1 bar ratios.
^This
Lowering the pop caps proportionally is a must for this to work though.0 -
Yolokin_Swagonborn✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭I agree. The CP experiment proved that vet CP is what most vet players want. It was nice before. Azuras for massive battles, Trueflame for smaller battles.
Nope. It didn't prove that at all. All it proved is that people are lazy and hesitant to re-gear and re-theorycraft their builds even if non-CP gameplay is much better than the ridiculous burst meta of CP.
Also, some people enjoy their advantage over newer players and are hesitant to give it up after "all that hard work earning CP" by killing goblins in crackhead cave.
We will never know if gated Imperial City Campains would have been better for PvP because you cant introduce something that takes more effort then make it optional. Not having easybutton CP points and infinite resources is much harder so a lot fewer people will voluntarily do it.
Azuras NO-CP wasn't a unbiased test. Should have disabled CP in all campains for a few weeks. INB4 muh progrezzunz.2 -
KenaPKK✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Yolokin_Swagonborn wrote: »
Nope. It didn't prove that at all. All it proved is that people are lazy and hesitant to re-gear and re-theorycraft their builds even if non-CP gameplay is much better than the ridiculous burst meta of CP.
Also, some people enjoy their advantage over newer players and are hesitant to give it up after "all that hard work earning CP" by killing goblins in crackhead cave.
We will never know if gated Imperial City Campains would have been better for PvP because you cant introduce something that takes more effort then make it optional. Not having easybutton CP points and infinite resources is much harder so a lot fewer people will voluntarily do it.
Azuras NO-CP wasn't a unbiased test. Should have disabled CP in all campains for a few weeks. INB4 muh progrezzunz.
^Kena
Former Class Rep
Former Legend GM
Beta player0 -
Joy_Division✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Yolokin_Swagonborn wrote: »
Nope. It didn't prove that at all. All it proved is that people are lazy and hesitant to re-gear and re-theorycraft their builds even if non-CP gameplay is much better than the ridiculous burst meta of CP.
Also, some people enjoy their advantage over newer players and are hesitant to give it up after "all that hard work earning CP" by killing goblins in crackhead cave.
We will never know if gated Imperial City Campains would have been better for PvP because you cant introduce something that takes more effort then make it optional. Not having easybutton CP points and infinite resources is much harder so a lot fewer people will voluntarily do it.
Azuras NO-CP wasn't a unbiased test. Should have disabled CP in all campains for a few weeks. INB4 muh progrezzunz.
Normally you make a lot of sense with your posts, but this is just a biased call all to play the way you think is best for the game.
Really? Zos should have just forced us all to play the campaign you enjoy/think is best for the game and just completely ignore a core character advancement mechanic that is an integral part of the game? Just shut us out of options or what we want to do? It isn't often the developers compare favorably to the posters, but in this instance I'm glad they are calling the shots.
I'm not lazy or hesitant to re-gear or re-theorycraft. I just don't have any interest in playing a campaign under a ruleset you find appealing. Why is that so hard to believe? If anything I would do better in AZ because my builds have always emphasized sustain over raw damage.
Edited by Joy_Division on March 24, 2016 5:45AM2 -
KenaPKK✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Joy_Division wrote: »
Normally you make a lot of sense with your posts, but this is just a biased call all to play the way you think is best for the game.
Really? Zos should have just forced us all to play the campaign you enjoy/think is best for the game and just completely ignore a core character advancement mechanic that is an integral part of the game? Just shut us out of options or what we want to do? It isn't often the developers compare favorably to the posters, but in this instance I'm glad they are calling the shots.
I'm not lazy or hesitant to re-gear or re-theorycraft. I just don't have any interest in playing a campaign under a ruleset you find appealing. Why is that so hard to believe? If anything I would do better in AZ because my builds have always emphasized sustain over raw damage.
Have you tried playing on Azura's for a significant amount of time?Kena
Former Class Rep
Former Legend GM
Beta player0 -
Joy_Division✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
Have you tried playing on Azura's for a significant amount of time?
Yes mom. I tried the broccoli and didn't like it.
I don't know what 's so hard for people in this game to understand that not everybody shares their playstyle preference. People like AZ? Great. Wonderful. But people lose me when they try to force their preference upon me or imply that my behavior is somehow wrong.
If people want to play in a CP campaign, Zenimax should accommodate them so they don't have to be 48 in queue. It's that simple.Edited by Joy_Division on March 24, 2016 11:56AM2 -
Psilent✭✭✭✭✭Joy_Division wrote: »
Yes mom. I tried the broccoli and didn't like it.
This made me laugh. Love your posts Joy!
Up next: You're not a skilled or good player if you have to rely on the CP crutch.
0 -
Enodoc✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭It's a bit weird really; PC EU already has two more standard 30 day campaigns than NA. I guess they decided that the PvP population overall on NA was smaller? Anyway, the simplest thing for you guys on PC NA would be if ZOS opened Ebony Blade and/or Spell Breaker for you, since they are already set up with the appropriate conditions.
Consider yourselves luckier than PS4 EU though. They don't have any 30 day standard campaigns.UESP: The Unofficial Elder Scrolls Pages - A collaborative source for all knowledge on the Elder Scrolls series since 1995
Join us on Discord - discord.gg/uesp0 -
Sallington✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭I just think it's funny that they're trying to "fix" a problem by removing their only form of end game progression. A system that pretty everyone who knew how the game worked said was awful from the start.Daggerfall Covenant
Sallington - Templar - Stormproof - Prefect II
Cobham - Sorcerer - Stormproof - First Sergeant II
Shallington - NightBlade - Lieutenant |
Balmorah - Templar - Sergeant ||0 -
KenaPKK✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Joy_Division wrote: »
Yes mom. I tried the broccoli and didn't like it.
I don't know what 's so hard for people in this game to understand that not everybody shares their playstyle preference. People like AZ? Great. Wonderful. But people lose me when they try to force their preference upon me or imply that my behavior is somehow wrong.
If people want to play in a CP campaign, Zenimax should accommodate them so they don't have to be 48 in queue. It's that simple.
Except that no one is trying to force anything on you...and in fact most of us here in my thread are agreeing with you that we should have another CP campaign. I merely invited everyone to try Azura's out until another CP campaign is provided. I've kept the yellow zerg pushed back with my group, and the other DC there have agreed not to aggress on EP until they gain more players. The campaign isn't so bad. No reason to be so antagonistic...
Kena
Former Class Rep
Former Legend GM
Beta player0 -
Lucky28✭✭✭✭✭
✭
Except that no one is trying to force anything on you...and in fact most of us here in my thread are agreeing with you that we should have another CP campaign. I merely invited everyone to try Azura's out until another CP campaign is provided. I've kept the yellow zerg pushed back with my group, and the other DC there have agreed not to aggress on EP until they gain more players. The campaign isn't so bad. No reason to be so antagonistic...
haha. there are a few players who are very forceful in regards to the no cp camp "you don't play on the camp i like, so you are a baddie who can't do anything without CP" which gets rather irritating. Though i do agree it's a good option to have.Invictus0 -
bitaken✭✭✭✭✭I supported this over the past weekend when the lag was so bad it was un-bearable in either TF For Haderus. However, seeing as how people act during the week - a third campaign is absolutely not required.
A third campaign would only lead to an IC farming camp for another faction.
Right now, Azura's is dominated by AD, Haderus is completely red for the entire day and then goes tri color in the evening when the enemy factions actually log in and start taking scrolls from EP they crawl out of IC to come "farm AP" while defending BRK from AD and DC losing every other keep on the map. True is the only real competitive campaign as I see it.
The reality is that you would have to lower the population caps by nearly two bars to reduce the lag to reasonable levels. I say this from experience. When two groups of 14+ are in the same area you are generally OK have decent response and frame rates. When more than 20 are in the same vicinity - the game goes to essentially a "who has the lower ping will win" scenario. When we see 40+ from two factions in the same area - you are watching a slide show at 14-18 FPS and 600+ ping.
So, unless they are going to lower population caps by two bars - AND open a third campaign - there is no reason to add a third campaign just to give another faction a farming campaign for IC.
I know there are 2 bars of EP 2 bars of AD and 3 bars of DC on True basically the entire east coast day from 9:00 AM till 5:00 PM EST at which point True starts pop locking and lagging so badly at every keep fight that its really a sad joke. After 5:30 EST DC and AD start switching or loading into Haderus because they do not want the laggy zergfest of True and EP starts losing keeps / scrolls. They then "Farm AP" by stacking the entire faction into Arrius and BRK and hold on as long as they can for defense ticks.
Saying we need a third campaign only works IF the population caps get lowered to the point where each camp is essentially 2 bars of population - and this will still setup a "buff campaign" where people will farm IC and crackhead cave more than PvP until the evening crews on the east and central time zones start logging in to play the game.
Until there are two competitive campaigns Why would ZOS open a third?
PvP Lead Officer for Einherjar
Member of Einherjar and associated guilds since 2001
A multi Gaming community of players.1 -
Dreyloch✭✭✭✭✭Sallington wrote: »I just think it's funny that they're trying to "fix" a problem by removing their only form of end game progression. A system that pretty everyone who knew how the game worked said was awful from the start.
I don't think they were trying to relieve anything with doing what they did to Azura's. It was about those who don't have the time or right mechanics to catch up on CP and cried so hard that ZoS dev's gave them what they wanted. How they went about it was obviously the worst way possible. They should have left Azura's alone, opened a 7 day campaign for "no cp" and see how it went. TF would have remained somewhat competitive, Azura's may have lost a little lag and Haderus would have remained the place people go to escape lag from the other two 30 day camps.
All of this would be a non issue if they could fix the cause of the lag completely. Personally, (and I'm sure many reading this) I don't think this will ever happen. If they had a clue, it would have been fixed by now. There are some ways I've seen other games handle this issue, and it really didn't help. For instance, adjusting the timing on how other players show up on your screen. This doesn't work.You'll be charging forward with no lag, but all the sudden end up surrounded in the middle of a zerg/ball group/raid because they didn't appear on your screen till the last minute and..boom. Yer dead.Edited by Dreyloch on March 24, 2016 8:31PM"The fear of Death, is often worse than death itself"1 -
heystreethawk✭✭✭✭✭I supported this over the past weekend when the lag was so bad it was un-bearable in either TF For Haderus. However, seeing as how people act during the week - a third campaign is absolutely not required.
A third campaign would only lead to an IC farming camp for another faction.
Right now, Azura's is dominated by AD, Haderus is completely red for the entire day and then goes tri color in the evening when the enemy factions actually log in and start taking scrolls from EP they crawl out of IC to come "farm AP" while defending BRK from AD and DC losing every other keep on the map. True is the only real competitive campaign as I see it.
The reality is that you would have to lower the population caps by nearly two bars to reduce the lag to reasonable levels. I say this from experience. When two groups of 14+ are in the same area you are generally OK have decent response and frame rates. When more than 20 are in the same vicinity - the game goes to essentially a "who has the lower ping will win" scenario. When we see 40+ from two factions in the same area - you are watching a slide show at 14-18 FPS and 600+ ping.
So, unless they are going to lower population caps by two bars - AND open a third campaign - there is no reason to add a third campaign just to give another faction a farming campaign for IC.
I know there are 2 bars of EP 2 bars of AD and 3 bars of DC on True basically the entire east coast day from 9:00 AM till 5:00 PM EST at which point True starts pop locking and lagging so badly at every keep fight that its really a sad joke. After 5:30 EST DC and AD start switching or loading into Haderus because they do not want the laggy zergfest of True and EP starts losing keeps / scrolls. They then "Farm AP" by stacking the entire faction into Arrius and BRK and hold on as long as they can for defense ticks.
Saying we need a third campaign only works IF the population caps get lowered to the point where each camp is essentially 2 bars of population - and this will still setup a "buff campaign" where people will farm IC and crackhead cave more than PvP until the evening crews on the east and central time zones start logging in to play the game.
Until there are two competitive campaigns Why would ZOS open a third?
Completely in agreement with you here. With the population of Haderus so time-dependent and relatively fickle, a third campaign would solidify Had as a buff server and potentially condemn itself to the same fate.
Haderus needs an AD/DC daytime presence, and more DC groups at primetime. At night we have plenty of organized yellows, plenty of organized reds, and just enough blue 1vXers to gank people off their siege and bluster about getting zerged down. But we're not quite there yet, and another campaign at this juncture would be unhealthy for the game.
Prior to the Azura's change, we'd have to pull our guild off Had around midnight EST because there'd be no one left to fight; that hasn't happened since. Things are better now, campaign wise, and I believe it's our shared responsibility to nurture that trend.GM of Fantasia
I heard those symphonies come quick0 -
zyk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭EP dominated ESO 1.5. IMO, the majority of organized players switched to EP during this period. It sucked for everyone else.
During 1.6, I noticed AD and DC guilds stopped trying to directly compete against the dominant EP blobs and started to go wherever they weren't. Any campaign Havoc would settle on would quickly vacate. EP blobs then became somewhat nomadic, hopping campaign to campaign to find players to farm. That's what I recall, at least.
Since the summer of 2015, DC has been that faction. The top DC guilds have been more savvy by showing map restraint to avoid chasing opponents away. A result of this is campaign scoreboards appear closer than the fights on the ground actually are.
We need a new CP vet campaign so we can again begin the cat and mouse game of avoiding the DC blobs.Edited by zyk on March 24, 2016 11:04PM0 -
DisgracefulMind✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭I supported this over the past weekend when the lag was so bad it was un-bearable in either TF For Haderus. However, seeing as how people act during the week - a third campaign is absolutely not required.
A third campaign would only lead to an IC farming camp for another faction.
Right now, Azura's is dominated by AD, Haderus is completely red for the entire day and then goes tri color in the evening when the enemy factions actually log in and start taking scrolls from EP they crawl out of IC to come "farm AP" while defending BRK from AD and DC losing every other keep on the map. True is the only real competitive campaign as I see it.
The reality is that you would have to lower the population caps by nearly two bars to reduce the lag to reasonable levels. I say this from experience. When two groups of 14+ are in the same area you are generally OK have decent response and frame rates. When more than 20 are in the same vicinity - the game goes to essentially a "who has the lower ping will win" scenario. When we see 40+ from two factions in the same area - you are watching a slide show at 14-18 FPS and 600+ ping.
So, unless they are going to lower population caps by two bars - AND open a third campaign - there is no reason to add a third campaign just to give another faction a farming campaign for IC.
I know there are 2 bars of EP 2 bars of AD and 3 bars of DC on True basically the entire east coast day from 9:00 AM till 5:00 PM EST at which point True starts pop locking and lagging so badly at every keep fight that its really a sad joke. After 5:30 EST DC and AD start switching or loading into Haderus because they do not want the laggy zergfest of True and EP starts losing keeps / scrolls. They then "Farm AP" by stacking the entire faction into Arrius and BRK and hold on as long as they can for defense ticks.
Saying we need a third campaign only works IF the population caps get lowered to the point where each camp is essentially 2 bars of population - and this will still setup a "buff campaign" where people will farm IC and crackhead cave more than PvP until the evening crews on the east and central time zones start logging in to play the game.
Until there are two competitive campaigns Why would ZOS open a third?
Actually, DC has been holding down Azura's pretty good past few days. There's been TONS of action there and it's lagfree.Unfortunate magicka warden main.
PC/NA Server
Fairweather Friends
Retired to baby bgs forever. Leave me alone.0 -
zyk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭heystreethawk wrote: »
...unless there's a Haderus?
I think there needs to be a 3rd. It's too easy to home/guest on TF/Had. I know it's possible to play on campaigns one is not homed/guested on, but at least that would add another level of tedium to the process of chasing.
Yeah, this is a terrible reason to introduce another campaign. I don't think it's ideal. However, without any kind of competitive balance mechanisms, at least it gives us another option.
I don't think many, if any, AD guilds are left on TF. It's only a matter of time before the DC blobs get hungry and start hunting on Haderus more often.Edited by zyk on March 24, 2016 11:10PM0 -
PrinceFabious✭✭✭✭✭EP dominated ESO 1.5. IMO, the majority of organized players switched to EP during this period. It sucked for everyone else.
During 1.6, I noticed AD and DC guilds stopped trying to directly compete against the dominant EP blobs and started to go wherever they weren't. Any campaign Havoc would settle on would quickly vacate. EP blobs then became somewhat nomadic, hopping campaign to campaign to find players to farm. That's what I recall, at least.
Since the summer of 2015, DC has been that faction. The top DC guilds have been more savvy by showing map restraint to avoid chasing opponents away. A result of this is campaign scoreboards appear closer than the fights on the ground actually are.
We need a new CP vet campaign so we can again begin the cat and mouse game of avoiding the DC blobs.
Wrong. We were still pushed to our gates0 -
Bofrari✭✭✭If they make any more campaign serevrs none cp I'm out they should junk that crap server or make it a beginner zone for PvP.0
