Campaign closures for Homestead

ZOS_BrianWheeler

Hey gang!

In the coming Homestead update, we will be closing several campaigns across most platforms. As always we want to ensure a healthy population exists in Cyrodiil and the campaigns noted here for closure were vastly under populated. If you’re assigned to these campaigns, you will be granted a free re-assign and rewards based on the Campaign status at the time of closure will be granted when you log in.

PC EU – The Campaigns Spellbreaker and Ebony Blade will be closing on the EU PC Realm.

Xbox NA – The Campaigns Chillrend and Skeleton Key will be closing on the Xbox NA Realm.

PS NA –The Campaigns Chillrend and Thornblade will be closing on the PS4 NA Realm.

PS EU – The Scourge Campaign will be closing on the PS4 EU Realm.

ManDraKE

Hadreus PC NA, you are next

Publius_Scipio

ManDraKE wrote: »

Hadreus PC NA, you are next

No way. When TF is packed where do people go?

ManDraKE

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

ManDraKE wrote: »

Hadreus PC NA, you are next

No way. When TF is packed where do people go?

they go to play another game, or the go to azuras. Sadly, hadreus has been death for months

Rohamad_Ali

PvP is dying .

anitajoneb17_ESO

Bad idea imho. Let me explain.

Hardcore PvPers will look for the most populated campaigns (Trueflame on EU/PC). In fact, things have gone that far already that getting emperor anywhere else but on TF gets you laughed at.
On the other hand, many PvEers who enjoy PvPvE (that is, mainly PvE with the extra "thrill" of risking a bad encounter) use Ebony Blade and SpellBraker for that.
Last but not least... there are still severe performance issues on TrueFlame. Are you so sure you want to force everyone onto that campaign ???

SwaminoNowlino

@ZOS_BrianWheeler

Are you going to revise the scoring structures in the remaining campaigns or anything like that?

ZOS_BrianWheeler

Campaign Scoring changes are not on tap for the Homestead update.

Rohamad_Ali

It is a shame . Some would think with all the talk and success of One Tamriel and all the new players campaigns would be filling up not shrinking . I know a lot of people left when lag became unbearable again . Then there were people trying to get others to play on different campaigns but there was not enough people left to pull that off .

This is all indicative of growing issues with bad balance , ideas not being implemented correctly and really bad gear sets removing skill from the game . If these issues continually get ignored , those battlefields won't last long either . You need to revitalize the situation or it will just continue to cause PVP population to steadily shrink .

Armitas

I wonder if changing gold reward evaluation on the leader boards would cause people to redistribute away from TF queues to Haderus.

TequilaFire

Leaving the campaigns packed with AD I see.

Sanct16

@ZOS_BrianWheeler

Thanks! I hope it will result in Haderus getting more populated so we can have 3 active campaigns.

Psychodellix

Then can you create a new campaign. A hardcore Campaign that you cant use potions, poisons or proc sets?

Psychodellix

or only crafted and pvp sets can be worn

bubbygink

I'm ok with it. On XBox NA, Chillrend and Skelly were mostly just filled with emp trading guilds anyway. I feel like very little true PvP happens there. Just people buying emp and AP boosting.

arkansas_ESO

Why close the campaigns? I thought Matt just said that the game's population was increasing, not decreasing?

t3hdubzy

With homestead coming you may see more people in PVE, but some of these servers are a joke. Its not even possible to break 100k ap in a whole day of grinding because the lack of opponents.

Glad for closures.

danno8

ManDraKE wrote: »

Hadreus PC NA, you are next

via Imgflip Meme Generator

THEDKEXPERIENCE

@ZOS_BrianWheeler

Brian, XB NA Haderus player here. I respect your maneuver to get rid of some buff campaigns. That said, please-please-please work on the two following things if you are going to do this.

- Something truly needs to be done about the lag. I have been in groups where I simply refuse to send my troops into a fight because of the very high likelihood of a disconnect.

- Compounding that issue is the problem of being sent to the back of the queue line. Getting DC'd 6 months ago was annoying, but 5 minutes later you were back at it. Now, if you get DC'd at 9:30 PM eastern you're going to have to wait in a 30 minute queue minimum. I know that for the folks out there with 9 to 5 jobs this is a big turnoff.

I've found myself playing more PVE then ever lately simply due to reason number two. If I'm only going to get 2 hours in a night, I want them to be a productive 2 hours. If I'm sitting in the queue twice during that time, it's almost impossible.

Thanks!

VoiDGhOs7

1st step of PvP killing started...

And gotta love those 250+ queues in TF EU.

The_Protagonist

ZOS are going to put PvE only Cyrodiil next? What are your plans exactly when we can't log in during peak hours? Can we get an explanation for this please?

Crispen_Longbow

PC NA

BWB and Azuras (New to PvP and Low CP) should just be merged into one NO-CP campaign. Would make it a more active server for new and low Level CP players. Should be labeled as such.

TF (Large Scale Organzied PVP) - currently main server as that's the campaign that the most active guilds are homed. Should be labeled as such.

Had - (Medium Scale PVP) spill over campaign smaller scale. Map could be redesigned to remove the emp ring of keeps. All factions have only the 3 scroll home keeps. The inner ring of keeps is replaced my a 3 bridge system that replicates the bridge between Alesia and sejanus. At the center of the 3 bridges is a single capturable outpost. Cap max group size to 8

Small scale PVP will be battle grounds in June.

Lettigall

Every closed server is a nail in the PvP coffin... Damn, MMO of the year with constantly decreasing PvP population!

NightbladeMechanics

@Crispen_Longbow merging Azura's and BwB is a good idea actually.

I don't see why labeling Trueflame as the "main" campaign and Had as "overflow" or your other drastic changes to Had are warranted, though. The population reaches lock on weekends, and the map gets really active during prime time every night these days. It takes only a brief visit to see as much...

Also small scale will not be limited to battlegrounds in June. Open world will still be more unpredictable, demanding, and skillful.

I could get behind a group size reduction for all campaigns, though. 24 is monstrous in the current state of the game.

PenguinInACan

NightbladeMechanics wrote: »

@Crispen_Longbow merging Azura's and BwB is a good idea actually.

I don't see why labeling Trueflame as the "main" campaign and Had as "overflow" or your other drastic changes to Had are warranted, though. The population reaches lock on weekends, and the map gets really active during prime time every night these days. It takes only a brief visit to see as much...

Also small scale will not be limited to battlegrounds in June. Open world will still be more unpredictable, demanding, and skillful.

I could get behind a group size reduction for all campaigns, though. 24 is monstrous in the current state of the game.

The populations on AZ can reach lock on weekends (with the map being generally equally active even with the zergs), so I don't think the servers could handle the additional populations from BWB. I also don't know what BWB is typically at population wise but i fear merging them would just cause a lot of overflow onto TF or Had.

I know most of us play on AZ because we prefer no-CP, so increasing the population (and potential queue-times) just to consolidate for the sake of consolidation I do not think would work.

Not to mention the imbalances that would happen for the non CP-160 players that get pushed over from BWB due to gear/skill availability.

Crispen_Longbow

NightbladeMechanics wrote: »

@Crispen_Longbow merging Azura's and BwB is a good idea actually.

I don't see why labeling Trueflame as the "main" campaign and Had as "overflow" or your other drastic changes to Had are warranted, though. The population reaches lock on weekends, and the map gets really active during prime time every night these days. It takes only a brief visit to see as much...

Also small scale will not be limited to battlegrounds in June. Open world will still be more unpredictable, demanding, and skillful.

I could get behind a group size reduction for all campaigns, though. 24 is monstrous in the current state of the game.

I just look at Had pop levels every once in while and seems always at 2 bars. Haven't been in Had for about a month. Back then during primetime an organized group of 12 could flip the entire map. I'm glad that it's better now. What guilds are homed in Had for the 3 alliances that have balanced it out?

Small scale can be played anywhere with battlegrounds just means they have spent resources to address it recently.

Medium scale PVP the large open world maps are to spread out for good fights. It's not a surprise most battles happen around the bridge and gates as these are the closet points and quickest areas for battle, why not build a map that is more conducive to that?

Labeling the campaigns would help players know which type of PVP is the most dominate on each campaign.

LeifErickson

@Serjustin19

Thoughts on the closing of Scourge PS4 EU?

arkansas_ESO

Crispen_Longbow wrote: »

PC NA

BWB and Azuras (New to PvP and Low CP) should just be merged into one NO-CP campaign. Would make it a more active server for new and low Level CP players. Should be labeled as such.

TF (Large Scale Organzied PVP) - currently main server as that's the campaign that the most active guilds are homed. Should be labeled as such.

Had - (Medium Scale PVP) spill over campaign smaller scale. Map could be redesigned to remove the emp ring of keeps. All factions have only the 3 scroll home keeps. The inner ring of keeps is replaced my a 3 bridge system that replicates the bridge between Alesia and sejanus. At the center of the 3 bridges is a single capturable outpost. Cap max group size to 8

Small scale PVP will be battle grounds in June.

Merging BWB with Azura's would be a terrible idea, the gear difference between the typical BWB player and the typical AZ player is too large.

Crispen_Longbow

PenguinInACan wrote: »

NightbladeMechanics wrote: »

@Crispen_Longbow merging Azura's and BwB is a good idea actually.

I don't see why labeling Trueflame as the "main" campaign and Had as "overflow" or your other drastic changes to Had are warranted, though. The population reaches lock on weekends, and the map gets really active during prime time every night these days. It takes only a brief visit to see as much...

Also small scale will not be limited to battlegrounds in June. Open world will still be more unpredictable, demanding, and skillful.

I could get behind a group size reduction for all campaigns, though. 24 is monstrous in the current state of the game.

The populations on AZ can reach lock on weekends (with the map being generally equally active even with the zergs), so I don't think the servers could handle the additional populations from BWB. I also don't know what BWB is typically at population wise but i fear merging them would just cause a lot of overflow onto TF or Had.

I know most of us play on AZ because we prefer no-CP, so increasing the population (and potential queue-times) just to consolidate for the sake of consolidation I do not think would work.

Not to mention the imbalances that would happen for the non CP-160 players that get pushed over from BWB due to gear/skill availability.

Isn't there close to a 100 page thread about population imbalances, night capping, and zerging when population is dead?

I will just build some animated gifs this week on the populations to see how they are. If a campaign only locks for a few hours on the weekend and is dead the rest of the time it's better to merge them.

PenguinInACan

Crispen_Longbow wrote: »

PenguinInACan wrote: »

NightbladeMechanics wrote: »

@Crispen_Longbow merging Azura's and BwB is a good idea actually.

I don't see why labeling Trueflame as the "main" campaign and Had as "overflow" or your other drastic changes to Had are warranted, though. The population reaches lock on weekends, and the map gets really active during prime time every night these days. It takes only a brief visit to see as much...

Also small scale will not be limited to battlegrounds in June. Open world will still be more unpredictable, demanding, and skillful.

I could get behind a group size reduction for all campaigns, though. 24 is monstrous in the current state of the game.

The populations on AZ can reach lock on weekends (with the map being generally equally active even with the zergs), so I don't think the servers could handle the additional populations from BWB. I also don't know what BWB is typically at population wise but i fear merging them would just cause a lot of overflow onto TF or Had.

I know most of us play on AZ because we prefer no-CP, so increasing the population (and potential queue-times) just to consolidate for the sake of consolidation I do not think would work.

Not to mention the imbalances that would happen for the non CP-160 players that get pushed over from BWB due to gear/skill availability.

Isn't there close to a 100 page thread about population imbalances, night capping, and zerging when population is dead?

I will just build some animated gifs this week on the populations to see how they are. If a campaign only locks for a few hours on the weekend and is dead the rest of the time it's better to merge them.

The problem isn't in recent trends though. ZOS analyzes data over several cycles and AZ has had similar population to TF on peak hours/weekends several times over the past 4-6 months. (and thats when we need the best server performance) The recent/current population imbalances shouldn't be considered by themselves but added to the larger pool of data. Only ZOS really knows the true population trends (including IC) so guesstimating based on seemingly inaccurate population bars wouldn't tell you much more than who decided to take a break for a weekend.

Crispen_Longbow

PenguinInACan wrote: »

The problem isn't in recent trends though. ZOS analyzes data over several cycles and AZ has had similar population to TF on peak hours/weekends several times over the past 4-6 months. (and thats when we need the best server performance) The recent/current population imbalances shouldn't be considered by themselves but added to the larger pool of data. Only ZOS really knows the true population trends (including IC) so guesstimating based on seemingly inaccurate population bars wouldn't tell you much more than who decided to take a break for a weekend.

If a single guild takes off for the weekend and makes it a dead campaign that should be a good example of a server population issue.