Close Haderus

NBrookus

Making a ruleset change won't change the fact that regular Haderus players mostly don't care about the score. It will be just a different scoring mechanism not to care about. Those that care about the score should probably play in TF instead.

Haderus players typically find Trueflame unenjoyable for many reasons. The lag. The destro/negate ball zerg meta. The raid stacking. The lag. The queue. The lag. Even on the rare occasions when Haderus is pop-locked, it doesn't have the same lag because of the different group habits.

Turning Haderus into a mini-Trueflame would ruin the flavor of the campaign. TF guilds that want to escape everything TF players complain about are welcome but if they want to bring Pact Militia raids 11 and 12 and the blob lag to Ash... no thanks.

nml

@NBrookus your definition of a "Haderus player" as "somebody who doesn't care about the campaign goals" is not what it was intended to be and something that should be changed. Changing the scoring mechanic and campaign objectives will bring more population balance, improve competitiveness, and take the pressure off Trueflame as the only serious CP campaign.

concegual

I agree with NBrookus . What Haderus needs isn't what trueflame has... What it needs and what IMO PvP in this game needs is a more diverse map system which allows everyone to find the fight they are looking for...Make it important to defend...Give more points to the folks who can manage to hold keeps the longest...almost no points for keeps flipped regularly...same for resources. The current map system funnels the fight to 3 points on the map... change the way porting and respawn works so you must defend multiple points in order to keep respawn points... Add a bigger separation between alliance home keeps and make port to enemies territory harder to get and hold...Increase the timer on camps to 15 minutes...so they are a 1 shot deal not a way to keep the fight rolling endlessly...

NightbladeMechanics

nml wrote: »

NightbladeMechanics wrote: »

The regular players on Had don't care as much about winning the campaign as the large TF zerg guilds. You're out of touch with the Haderus playerbase.

Non-productive ad-hominem.

Maybe you don't care, but others do. People like you who don't care about playing the map can start to go elsewhere, like battlegrounds, IC, etc.

Logging into Haderus and seeing every single castle the same color means something is broken.

Let's have a ruleset change to entice Trueflame guilds to rehome in Haderus.

Your proposal to close Haderus was unproductive.

And you promptly abandoned it and adopted my message of transferring players from TF when I pointed that out.

Also notice that I didn't say no one on Had cares about campaign scores. I said we don't care as much, which is a result of our populations and map being too volatile to facilitate a competitive atmosphere. Why compete over objectives if some zerg is just going to flip them anyway?

My point, which you missed, was that changing campaign scoring rules will not incentivize behavior of Haderus players as much as TF players because our campaign isn't as competitive as yours. Hopefully now you can see this.

The encouraging thing is that the playerbase is large enough for Haderus to be competitive, though. Haderus had a robust population before One Tamriel, with pop locks most nights of the week and every weekend. Dueling drained players out, and they've since been returning to TF because reasons. The facts are TF is overpopulated and Haderus is underpopulated. They'll equilibrate in time. I do not believe ZOS needs to take permanent action. Maybe increased exp or ap gains in Haderus to incentivize a small migration.

nml

@NightbladeMechanics thanks for your input but everybody would appreciate if you neutralized the palpable undercurrent of angst in your posts.

I am open to constructive feedback from anybody with relation to ruleset modification that would give Haderus a reason to continue to exist.

nml

@concegual more than one of the things you mention in your most recent post I have suggested in this thread, please see post #21

NBrookus

@nml "Intended" by whom? If the TF guilds wanted to "take the pressure off" and play in a lower pop campaign, they'd have moved by now. It's not like they don't talk to each other and couldn't have organized a multi-faction switch. Last camp in TF was so close it was down to the wire for last minute points; why would they want to mess with that balance? If the TF players want massive zerg battles, let them have them. Leave the rest of us somewhere else to go.

nml

@NBrookus Intended by the game designers.. the ones who set the campaign ruleset, which multiple people in this thread have acknowledged is ignored. That is not working as intended and should be rectified.

NightbladeMechanics

nml wrote: »

@NightbladeMechanics thanks for your input but everybody would appreciate if you neutralized the palpable undercurrent of angst in your posts.

I am open to constructive feedback from anybody with relation to ruleset modification that would give Haderus a reason to continue to exist.

Hey you're the one snidely calling my argument ad hominem, and then promptly taking it up as your new cause.

Also it's good to see that you speak for everyone here.

Always a charming guy to interact with, NML.

Anyways, I don't care how or if they change Haderus, but I doubt scoring rules will impact it without acquiring a stable playerbase first. I stand by my original suggestion of a temporary and significant boost to exp or tel var gains or some other short term incentive to draw players who aren't involved in the large scale guilds to transfer over from TF. The large guild players wouldn't change home campaigns for bonuses like those, preferring to stick to TF where they can continue to all fight each other, but <600cp players and smaller group players would.

Honestly, though, Haderus has been steadily gaining players and becoming healthier over the course of this patch. It'll equilibrate itself in time, so I'm not worried. I wouldn't resist some gentle incentives to bring players there faster though.

Vurian97

The purpose of the score change wouldn't be to help those who are already in Haderus, it would be something to attract other people.

Since multiple people here have posted that they as a Haderus player don't care about the score, it wouldn't effect them anyway, it would just make it more attractive to come across knowing that the map control system is the same as any other campaign if someone did care about the score.

Glory

caeliusstarbreaker wrote: »

The biggest problem with had is that players are way too comfortable to sit in their keeps and siege instead of facing the enemy in hand to hand combat.
Sure it's a valid strategy, but there isn't an overwhelming amount of fun in always having to siege a keep to get a good fight. Especially when it's a 50-50 shot there is even any resistance.

I went with a few friends to Haderus this last weekend on our AD. This was when the population bars were 1 AD, 2/3 EP, 1 DC. The initial state of the map was entirely red, including all scrolls and keeps.

Normally I detest taking keeps and sieging, but we did our share of taking keeps that night. After our first few fights against the enemy factions (these were fun despite a surprising number of hate tells), we were met at each new location we went looking for fights with either crickets or people sitting on siege walls and refusing to do any fighting besides wasting their coldfire ballistae on us. So, we dethroned emperor and left (without flipping the rest of the campaign our color because seriously, who does that?).

I dunno, it was fairly fun when there were enemies to fight. It was a bit annoying that we had to be the instigators in all these fights, and the whole siege-warfare thing was kind of annoying. I can't imagine the campaign being even remotely enjoyable for the solo player or someone new to the game.

nml

Some valuable insights from @Vurian97 and @ebethke_ESO - as you rightfully said the campaign is in a sorry state with one faction dominating the map, a ruleset change would shake things up a bit and encourage more balanced play.

We would consider rehoming our guild in Haderus were some of the keep capture and/or scoring mechanics fundamentally different from Trueflame. @NightbladeMechanics not sure why you said "always a pleasure interacting with you, nml", apart from this first instance of interaction I've never taken notice of you before, but such is life.

Open to more feedback, @ZOS_GinaBruno may we know if Zenimax has considered any ruleset changes for Haderus? There have been a number of good suggestions here.

NBrookus

No, those new players were not having fun this weekend. One night they get zerged by DC from Trueflame, and the next night a large (for Had), organized AD group running in circles around keep walls building their o tick. The pugs learned fast to just not bother fighting you. The regular EP logged off, there was no point watching you farm weekend tyros and recruits and dying trying to rally them against a large organized group for the second night in a row.

If any groups come, come to STAY. Don't just come slumming.

Astanphaeus

Haderus is for IC, we need it to stay open.

Vurian97

Astanphaeus wrote: »

Haderus is for IC, we need it to stay open.

You could go to IC in any other campaign too, y'know?

Astanphaeus

Vurian97 wrote: »

Astanphaeus wrote: »

Haderus is for IC, we need it to stay open.

You could go to IC in any other campaign too, y'know?

Not really. We have 3 campaigns including Haderus and TF shouldn't be use for IC. And Azura's , well it's Azura's.

Vurian97

Astanphaeus wrote: »

Vurian97 wrote: »

Astanphaeus wrote: »

Haderus is for IC, we need it to stay open.

You could go to IC in any other campaign too, y'know?

Not really. We have 3 campaigns including Haderus and TF shouldn't be use for IC. And Azura's , well it's Azura's.

Invalid excuse. They have IC in them, you can go into IC there too. Azura's being Azura's isn't anywhere close to a valid excuse either.

NoFlash

I think LoM and LoDG need to home HAD for a month and see what happens

Vurian97

EvoAZN wrote: »

I think LoM and LoDG need to home HAD for a month and see what happens

Same thing as what happened on Azura's Star, blue map, people rage-quit because they found a challenging group and didn't want to compete. LoDG had been on Azura's Star for 5 months before LoM arrived and the population was already dying at that point. When Fengrush showed up, the population of EP & AD boosted when a bunch of people came in to try to kill him.

LoM & LoDG would be able to rebalance Haderus but at the cost of Azura's Star potentially becoming unbalanced. (May be a good thing? DC claims they can handle it themselves in zone chat all the time.)

KILLING4ALIVING

Ok, closing Haderus is a terrible suggestion. I admit I rarely play Haderus anymore, except for to farm Telvar in IC, because of the simple fact there is much more action and AP on TF. However I read a few things in this thread that I feel the need to address.

Vurian97 wrote: »

It's actually 1 guild emp trading. They do it on EP & AD toons. They'll flip map, swap, flip map, swap, flip map, swap. If they're met with resistance from a group they aren't accustomed to, they'll get on their EP mains and zerg the map down.

This just isn't true, AD and EP are both quite active on Haderus. There is atleast 1 large guild on each faction that keep going back and forth taking the map from each other. If you ever spend a significant amount of time on Haderus and get to know the players this is obvious.

Alot of people brought up Haderus being unbalanced, this isn't the first time it has been unbalanced. I remember back before Thieves Guild dropped, it was very very unbalanced. Most of the EP and DC guilds that played Haderus switched to AS. Then it was usually about 20-30 EP and DC and about 200 AD. The map was yellow for months and with like one player sitting on Emp. the whole time. Then a couple of guild come back from AS and the map started to balance out again.

nml wrote: »

NightbladeMechanics wrote: »

The regular players on Had don't care as much about winning the campaign as the large TF zerg guilds. You're out of touch with the Haderus playerbase.

Non-productive ad-hominem.

Maybe you don't care, but others do. People like you who don't care about playing the map can start to go elsewhere, like battlegrounds, IC, etc.

Logging into Haderus and seeing every single castle the same color means something is broken.

Let's have a ruleset change to entice Trueflame guilds to rehome in Haderus.

Ok, first off where do you get off telling people where and how to play? Anybody who buys a game has the right to play it, and in their own style. If you can't handle that you are the one who should go elsewhere.

Second, changes to the rules isn't going to bring more player over from TF. The only thing I think changing might make a difference with would be to make the campaign to another 30 day campaign. I don't think that would matter too much either. Most TF players have a heavy zerg mentality, the rest of us just see a whole lot of AP. The only thing that would be incentive to get most players to switch from TF to Haderus, is getting all the other players too or drawing in more players to PVP from PVE, which is something Battlegrounds may help with if it is done right. Ultimately I think that ZOS needs to address some of the real issues with PVP too make this really happen. By real problems I mean the bugs and glitches and the lag and loadscreens. Other than that you just have to wait for some of the guilds and/or solo players to decide they are ready for a change and switch to Haderus.

kewl

dpencil wrote: »

I'm in DIG. There's some good organization when team leaders are online, but most don't stay up all hours of the night. If people on EP are west-coasters or are just happy to stay up super late to night cap everything, there's not much we can do about that. DC actually was pretty dominant last night.

DIG member here as well. Great fights in Had prime time!

Vurian97

KILLING4ALIVING wrote: »

Second, changes to the rules isn't going to bring more player over from TF. The only thing I think changing might make a difference with would be to make the campaign to another 30 day campaign. I don't think that would matter too much either. Most TF players have a heavy zerg mentality, the rest of us just see a whole lot of AP. The only thing that would be incentive to get most players to switch from TF to Haderus, is getting all the other players too or drawing in more players to PVP from PVE, which is something Battlegrounds may help with if it is done right. Ultimately I think that ZOS needs to address some of the real issues with PVP too make this really happen. By real problems I mean the bugs and glitches and the lag and loadscreens. Other than that you just have to wait for some of the guilds and/or solo players to decide they are ready for a change and switch to Haderus.

I don't even think it should be a change to motivate Trueflame to switch. The last Trueflame campaign was won by 4 points. That is VERY balanced, if you ask me, a close campaign. Nobody needs to switch from there. However, Haderus does need to motivate Azura's Star DC population to switch and I for one, will not play on a Resource campaign that has EP & AD zerging it down constantly, because I do want to play to win, not to just kill things and own whatever it is I own for the day.

Glory

NBrookus wrote: »

No, those new players were not having fun this weekend. One night they get zerged by DC from Trueflame, and the next night a large (for Had), organized AD group running in circles around keep walls building their o tick. The pugs learned fast to just not bother fighting you. The regular EP logged off, there was no point watching you farm weekend tyros and recruits and dying trying to rally them against a large organized group for the second night in a row.

If any groups come, come to STAY. Don't just come slumming.

Today I learned that large for Haderus is 5-6 people (taking keeps, not just ganking or trolling resources). EP had easily 2-3 times the number of people, but whatever.

We were talking the entire time about how we would like to stay, but it's quite tedious to log on at night and have to siege multiple keeps as literally everything was red and we only encountered countersiege with no people once we got in.

Crispen_Longbow

Hi Guys,

So what is the state of balance for HAD/NA/PC? Trying to do some data mining for an upcoming post. I have broken it up by 3 Major timezones in a 24 period, which guilds are up and running in these zones? I'm not familiar with the Had group/guild composition this is some info to get started. Will others please comment on missing areas and add corrections please.

Thanks


DC - Guilds

5:00PM - 1:00AM EST

• Chaos Crew-> Group Size (8-12)?
• Khole? Does Khole still run in had? Group Size (8-12)?
  

1:00AM - 9:00AM EST

• What other DC Guilds are running in had??

9:00AM - 5:00PM EST .

• ??

AD - Guilds

5:00PM - 1:00AM EST

• DIG-> Group Size (18-24)?
• Dead Wait-> Group Size (4-10)
• Palatininos-> Group Size (8-12)?

1:00AM - 9:00AM EST

• What other AD Guilds are running in had??

9:00AM - 5:00PM EST

• ??

EP - Guilds

5:00PM - 1:00AM EST

• Immortali-> Group Size (4-10)
• Darkest Requiem-> Group Size (18-24)?
• RnR-> Group Size (8-12)?
• Paradox-> Group Size (8-12)?

1:00AM - 9:00AM EST

• Darkest Requiem-> Group Size (18-24)?

9:00AM - 5:00PM EST

• Immortali-> Group Size (4-10)

nml

@Astanphaeus IC population should be decoupled from Cyrodiil population across the board... most people agree on that.

@KILLING4ALIVING not even worth replying to.

The case for Haderus ruleset change has been made, those who "don't care about the campaign objectives/score" shouldn't object as they don't care anyway. The rules in Haderus now really just replicate Trueflame anyway, as Trueflame campaigns are won and lost by resource capture alone and not by castle capture.

Make Haderus castle captures worth more than resources and give guilds incentives for defending their claims long-term. That would breathe new life into the rotting campaign. @ZOS_RichLambert @ZOS_GinaBruno

NightbladeMechanics

Wrong. IC objectives should count toward the campaign, and flags should be added in the sewers and maybe more in the districts. This would give campaign score players a reason to purchase and participate in IC combat, increasing fight diversity, and give small groupers hiding in IC away from the zerg lag a way to contribute to the greater campaign.

The only argument against this is "but it's a DLC, gated access is p2w." This argument is false unless there is such a market difference between DLC purchases between factions that one or two get completely stomped out. I have a really hard time seeing this happening with how many players play this game, and with how many players on all factions have served through IC at the points when it was more crowded in its long history. Personally, I am also not worried about zergs in IC because the terrain all over the districts and especially the sewers makes large groups cumbersome and easy to bottle up for smaller groups to kill. There's a reason large zergs tend to accumulate in the open on the district flags. Add a bunch of flags elsewhere in the districts and especially the sewers, and we will be able to contest those and force the big groups to move around in confined spaces, making them extremely vulnerable.

If you want to buy the DLC, then congrats, you can enjoy some IC objectives and compete for score there with all the other DLC people. If you don't buy the DLC, then you will still have all of upper Cyrodiil to compete over for points.

People who want IC populations decoupled from the campaigns don't care about IC being a healthy PvP DLC or about the Alliance War lore immershunz.

@KILLING4ALIVING Very good points. NML is blowing you off because you're right. Don't sweat it.

technohic

I haven't been to TF since coming back to the game (or ever, I think because when I left around early stages of CP, I don't think it was there.

What seems to be the issue for the DC group I run with is they went Had because the TF queue was long. Then went to AS because DC was severely outnumbered. Then back to Had because AS was suddenly started being one sided in DCs favor..

Can't win. Or just a nice even fight for that matter.

Takuto

PC-NA-HAD-AD player, here. I have consciously made the decision to not play in the laggy/zergy mess that is trueflame, nor am I interested in the newbie campaign, or the non-cp campaign.

Crispen_Longbow wrote: »

Hi Guys,

So what is the state of balance for HAD/NA/PC? Trying to do some data mining for an upcoming post. I have broken it up by 3 Major timezones in a 24 period, which guilds are up and running in these zones? I'm not familiar with the Had group/guild composition this is some info to get started. Will others please comment on missing areas and add corrections please.

Thanks


DC - Guilds

5:00PM - 1:00AM EST

• Khole? Does Khole still run in had? Group Size (8-12)?

1:00AM - 9:00AM EST

• What other DC Guilds are running in had??

9:00AM - 5:00PM EST .

• ??

AD - Guilds

5:00PM - 1:00AM EST

• DIG-> Group Size (18-24)?
• Dead Wait-> Group Size (8-12)?
• Palatininos-> Group Size (8-12)?

1:00AM - 9:00AM EST

• What other AD Guilds are running in had??

9:00AM - 5:00PM EST

• ??

EP - Guilds

5:00PM - 1:00AM EST

• RnR-> Group Size (8-12)?
• Paradox-> Group Size (8-12)?

1:00AM - 9:00AM EST

• What other EP Guilds are running in had??

9:00AM - 5:00PM EST

• ??

I was thinking about making a similar post, a few alterations:

K-Hole isn't a HAD guild as far as I know, their presence in HAD is normally greeted with a great deal of profanity on TS.

There is a regularly running DC guild running 8-12 during that time slot, the name of which I can't recall unfortunately. I remember Clairvoyant(sp?) is in it -- I remember because Clair is the main healer and therefore #1 assist target.

I'm in Dead Wait, we are consistently on the lower side of your estimation of 8-12, but we run 7 nights a week.

scorpiodog

NBrookus wrote: »

Haderus control flip-flops between AD and EP. What one faction are you talking about?

Blue usually controls IC when I'm go there.

But That's fine with me and it would seem like a silly reason to close a server just because there are too many enemies.

NBrookus

DC - Guilds

5:00PM - 1:00AM EST

• Khole? Does Khole still run in had? Group Size (8-12)? Every now and then. 12ish.
• Chaos Crew, usually nightly (6-12). @Claire or @concegual for more info
• Macro & Cheese, ~2x a week (8-12)
• Heals For Beers & friends, occasionally, ~3-5
• Misfit Militia, ~4, played there on a couple of nights recently but not sure if this is a move from Azuras.
• Very few PUGS.

1:00AM - 9:00AM EST

• ??

9:00AM - 5:00PM EST .

• ??

AD - Guilds

5:00PM - 1:00AM EST

• DIG-> Group Size (18-24)?
• Dead Wait-> Group Size (8-12)? More like 6-8?
• Palatininos-> Group Size (8-12)? Usually ~8. They have been in Azuras recently and may have moved. Pretty sure I massacred the spelling earlier.
• Moderate amount of PUGS

1:00AM - 9:00AM EST

• ??

9:00AM - 5:00PM EST

• DIG also runs in the morning sometimes, with a smaller group

EP - Guilds

5:00PM - 1:00AM EST

• Raven and Rose -> Group Size (8-12)? Leans toward 6-8 most nights I think. @Earthewen tagged for more info
• Paradox Raiding -> Group Size (8-12)? They pick up in chat, so size can vary.
• Dreadlords -> Participation varies. Usually a small group but if someone is going for emp can bring over 24.
• Lots of PUGS.
• Diagnosed -> was running (3-8) 4-5x per week, but disbanded recently

1:00AM - 9:00AM EST

• ??

9:00AM - 5:00PM EST

• There are ~6-12 semi-organized EP on every morning and early afternoon, but idk if they are a formal guild. This is the group largely responsible for the morning dethrones.

A typical weeknight is 1 bar DC, 2 bars EP and AD. Save for DC being underpopulated (the past week is an exception) and maybe needing some pugs to help out, the balance isn't what's wrong, it's the bipolar disorder.

ebethke_ESO wrote: »

Today I learned that large for Haderus is 5-6 people (taking keeps, not just ganking or trolling resources). EP had easily 2-3 times the number of people, but whatever.

We were talking the entire time about how we would like to stay, but it's quite tedious to log on at night and have to siege multiple keeps as literally everything was red and we only encountered countersiege with no people once we got in.

You, Manoekin, Meraki, Mohican, a couple of TM tabards... if that was your whole group, your remora were doing an exceptional job of staying with you at Chalman. (Not sarcasm: AD pugs can be pretty good about not squirreling off. It's frustrating when you are trying to pick off the outliers.) Yes, you were outnumbered, but nobody trains and ult bombs like that in Haderus. A lot of players had never seen it before and were just getting slaughtered. I spent a lot of soul gems rezzing in your wake.

TBH, if you came and stayed the map would probably be back to being AD control most of the time before long. And people would learn how to deal with those tactics, which would be a good thing. At this point, it'd be a step up for the campaign and would put an end to much of the emp swapping.

There is a lot of frustration at the amount of Trueflame players and guilds that have been slumming and AP farming lately to get their emp achieve. I apologize for directing that frustration at you. I wasn't kidding when I said come and stay.