Cyrodiil Updates for Update 18

Cuthceol

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

As it's almost midnight and this is the last post in the thread currently...yes Yoda. That would be a legit scenario to get an O and D tick in close proximity to each other.

any chance of a reason players can remove themselves from credit lists? why can you not be on more than one credit list for the same action if you've earned it? are ticks going to come fast enough to practically make it impossible to lose ticks because you're playing too fast? I'm thinking changes are to improve movement so playing aren't forced to hang around waiting or lose AP, so I'm confused why defending a keep would remove credit for the previous keep you defended if the defensive tick for the previous keep hasn't yet landed.

NBrookus

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Campaign lockouts based on Alliance swapping on a temporary level have been discussed and are still on going.

Please remember that not every campaign is PC NA Vivec where the factions are relatively equal. In PC Shor, if you log in and then a big group decides to PvDoor the map/emp flip your choices are 1) join the pvdoor, get no pvp and be part of the problem, 2) switch factions so you have someone to fight, or 3) log out and play something else.

That's not even counting situations where you log in, run into some friends on a different faction and decide someone switches so you can play together. If there is a timeout, please make it brief. 15 minutes perhaps, to prevent abuse but not penalize non-exploitative uses.

I'd also recommend PC NA Shor either become a 30 day campaign, and/or the emperorship mechanic requires a minimum population. This campaign needs it for long term health.

frozywozy

NBrookus wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Campaign lockouts based on Alliance swapping on a temporary level have been discussed and are still on going.

Please remember that not every campaign is PC NA Vivec where the factions are relatively equal. In PC Shor, if you log in and then a big group decides to PvDoor the map/emp flip your choices are 1) join the pvdoor, get no pvp and be part of the problem, 2) switch factions so you have someone to fight, or 3) log out and play something else.

That's not even counting situations where you log in, run into some friends on a different faction and decide someone switches so you can play together. If there is a timeout, please make it brief. 15 minutes perhaps, to prevent abuse but not penalize non-exploitative uses.

I'd also recommend PC NA Shor either become a 30 day campaign, and/or the emperorship mechanic requires a minimum population. This campaign needs it for long term health.

Again, a simple fix to this problem until we get more players pvping would be to open campaigns dynamically as we need them. Start with one 30days campaign.

Every new cycle, players gets unassigned to all campaigns. This is to avoid players to still count for a campaign even though they don't play the game anymore. Accept a maximum of players for each campaign to register for the first campaign.

Once this is reached for any faction, open a new campaign. Keep accepting new players for factions not locked yet in the first campaign. Any player who registered for a campaign gets a "Premium Queue" allowing him/her to gets in Cyrodiil before others at primetime.

If you did not register for a specific campaign, you can still join as a guest but won't qualify for the leaderboard. Merge the scoreboard of all campaigns together. Keep the leaderboards separated.

Reduce the population cap by 20% to encourage people to create two competitive campaigns. Once we get more players, readjust caps accordingly. The goal is to keep two campaigns active and competitive.

Thoughts?

VaranisArano

WasteOfTime wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

As it's almost midnight and this is the last post in the thread currently...yes Yoda. That would be a legit scenario to get an O and D tick in close proximity to each other.

any chance of a reason players can remove themselves from credit lists? why can you not be on more than one credit list for the same action if you've earned it? are ticks going to come fast enough to practically make it impossible to lose ticks because you're playing too fast? I'm thinking changes are to improve movement so playing aren't forced to hang around waiting or lose AP, so I'm confused why defending a keep would remove credit for the previous keep you defended if the defensive tick for the previous keep hasn't yet landed.

You can lose a D-tick by going to a different keep superstructure and defending/attacking that different keep. It seems to me that ZOS set it to track only one keep superstructure amd one outpost at a time.

So it does lock you down to a keep superstructure (keep + resources) which is more forgiving than previous which was the keep or resource grounds.

Darkmage1337

Morgul667 wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Campaign lockouts based on Alliance swapping on a temporary level have been discussed and are still on going.

Awesome

Please do something to kill the alliance switchers and spies for ap farming or emp trading

Make it in a way people can switch once in a while but not switch every 2H, or they get a penalty like 0 AP for x hours

Food for thoughts

"Emperor-trading" really isn't as common as it used to be, thankfully.
ZOS reduced the significance and popularity of this problem by reducing the number of Cyrodiil campaigns, and by changing the duration length of each campaign.
At launch, there were about 15 or so separate named campaigns, and each campaign was virtually one solid color from point to point, except for say, Wabbajack and Auriel's Bow, originally. Now it's Vivec.
Anyway, between 3 campaigns (Vivec, Sotha Sil, and Shor), 2 of them are 30-days long, which means the leaderboards reset once per month, and Vivec is usually population-locked.
Then there's Kyne, the non-vet / below level 50 campaign, but most people level-out of it and cannot stay there for very long because you cannot currently lock your character's XP-gain like players could 'twink' in WoW or FFXI. Unless you keep deleting and remaking characters. I have 9/9 characters at lvl 50, / CP 751, so I couldn't ever go to Kyne even if I wanted to, unless I continue to buy more character slots; which I won't, unless ZOS decides to add more playable classes in the future.
So that leaves everyone with 1 campaign to "Emp-trade" on: Shor, which is 7 days long.

After actively playing on and off for over 4 years since ESO launched, I only ever got emperor once, and it was on Shor. I raced against others and grinded for days and nights. It was a lot of fun. You get a chance every 7 days to grind and play hard and fast, as the leader-boards reset weekly for you to grind and rush up to #1. With a small/decent-sized group of friends or guildies or a steady PUG of randoms that can help you directly or indirectly take the inner 6 keeps while you maintain the lead in AP. Probably the most fun I've had in the game. It's like racing the clock.
30-day duration and constant pop-locked campaigns are too long and no one wants to sit as position #345 in queue to even enter to get into Vivec during prime time. That's lame and a great disrespect to a player's time. That's also why Vivec is my guest campaign, not my home campaign, because you can't even enter it most of the time. 7-14 days are better, but they got rid of 14-day Axe of Belharza long ago. (I should know, because my guild still owns Castle Alessia on the Axe of Belharza, even though that campaign has been inaccessible for over a year! https://imgur.com/yaV9YzK) !

"Emp-trading" was way more common and problematic when being a "Former-Emperor" granted players passive ability bonuses like +1-2% Health, Magicka, and Stamina that extended to PvE play, for min/max'ing trials, etc. ZOS did away with this a long time ago. Does anyone remember the guild Alacrity? All of their members were Emp or Former-Emp, and they had the #1 record trial times for AA and Hel Ra trials when they first came out, etc. Lol.
Anyone who says "Emp-trading" is a common problem now in ESO today really is not paying attention to their surroundings, the ebb-and-flow of Cyrodiil PvP, or the history of this game in general. Emp-trading is literally a non-issue, compared to what it used to be (guilds agreeing to leaving Keeps walls & doors on empty campaigns unrepaired, all walls down, etc.)
Now, today, the entire player base population is funneled into roughly 3 campaigns, which leaves very little room for coercion, espionage, spying, and all this made-up petty drama stuff, lol... Just play the game!

Any would-be Emperor worth their salt that thinks otherwise can come and try to take Castle Alessia from me. Go on and try, I dare you!

NBrookus

frozywozy wrote: »

Again, a simple fix to this problem until we get more players pvping would be to open campaigns dynamically as we need them. Start with one 30days campaign.
...
The goal is to keep two campaigns active and competitive.

It seems complicated and doesn't solve a problem needing to be solved. Shor doesn't need to be Vivec part 2. It has it's own flavor and guilds and different playstyle. Consistency and emperor flipping is an ongoing issue with Shor, but typically those that regularly play in Shor don't want a ball group zerg randomly pvdooring KC in the name of being "competitive."

frozywozy

NBrookus wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Again, a simple fix to this problem until we get more players pvping would be to open campaigns dynamically as we need them. Start with one 30days campaign.
...
The goal is to keep two campaigns active and competitive.

It seems complicated and doesn't solve a problem needing to be solved. Shor doesn't need to be Vivec part 2. It has it's own flavor and guilds and different playstyle. Consistency and emperor flipping is an ongoing issue with Shor, but typically those that regularly play in Shor don't want a ball group zerg randomly pvdooring KC in the name of being "competitive."

So what you are trying to say here is that you would like Shor to remain a "small scale" environment but equal populations on each factions while not providing any incentive to unstack Vivec and create that second competitive campaign you are looking for. Cyrodiil will never be about small scale groups only. This is made for large group play. You don't take a well defended objective with 4 players who buy 2 sieges a week and never repair any walls.

QuebraRegra

Saphayla wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Defense ticks no longer require you to sit and wait in an objective for the tick. Instead, each type of objective will track whether you’ve earned credit towards a defense or offense tick. Earning the offense or defense "tick" is pretty easy, and you earn credit for pretty much everything except standing there doing nothing. Offense ticks still have a base value that will be granted regardless of being on the credit list, but any bonus AP earned by combat around and inside an objective will only be granted to players that are on the credit lists.

As some who doesn't play PvP, can someone explain what this means? I don't know what defense ticks are.

it translates to.. you usta sit around after doing something for a couple of minutes (taking a keep or resource, defending, etc.) waiting for the 'tic".. that is the game to actually credit you for what you accomplished. Even after you captured something, if you ran off immediately, you could miss the "tic" and get no credit.

QuebraRegra

not sure I like that idea that the NPCs have been tuned up for CP... this is about PVP, the biggest threats, or the factor to turn the tide should NOT be NPCs.

.. unless they want to make a big monster thing that we all flight (Tarasque!).

would like to see a way to "level lock" a player so they could remain in the non-vet no CP campaign (scale them down, etc.).

Nice mechanical changes, but Cyrodill needs some fresh gameplay innovation.

NBrookus

frozywozy wrote: »

NBrookus wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Again, a simple fix to this problem until we get more players pvping would be to open campaigns dynamically as we need them. Start with one 30days campaign.
...
The goal is to keep two campaigns active and competitive.

It seems complicated and doesn't solve a problem needing to be solved. Shor doesn't need to be Vivec part 2. It has it's own flavor and guilds and different playstyle. Consistency and emperor flipping is an ongoing issue with Shor, but typically those that regularly play in Shor don't want a ball group zerg randomly pvdooring KC in the name of being "competitive."

So what you are trying to say here is that you would like Shor to remain a "small scale" environment but equal populations on each factions while not providing any incentive to unstack Vivec and create that second competitive campaign you are looking for. Cyrodiil will never be about small scale groups only. This is made for large group play. You don't take a well defended objective with 4 players who buy 2 sieges a week and never repair any walls.

You complain about wanting to "unstack Vivec" in one sentence and then insist Cyrodiil should only be for large groups in the next. Which do you want? If you want massive large scale zerg style PvP, you've got that in Vivec.

The game doesn't have the population to support two Vivecs. If you drop the population caps on Vivec to artificially force a second campaign, then neither will be the large-scale combat Vivec players want.

----
P.S. If you are simply wanting people to spread out, I agree. Midyear Mayhem was a hoot with people doing all kinds of random stuff. But that issue isn't one of population caps or balance I don't think, but one of having useful and fun things to do all over the map.

frozywozy

NBrookus wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

NBrookus wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Again, a simple fix to this problem until we get more players pvping would be to open campaigns dynamically as we need them. Start with one 30days campaign.
...
The goal is to keep two campaigns active and competitive.

It seems complicated and doesn't solve a problem needing to be solved. Shor doesn't need to be Vivec part 2. It has it's own flavor and guilds and different playstyle. Consistency and emperor flipping is an ongoing issue with Shor, but typically those that regularly play in Shor don't want a ball group zerg randomly pvdooring KC in the name of being "competitive."

So what you are trying to say here is that you would like Shor to remain a "small scale" environment but equal populations on each factions while not providing any incentive to unstack Vivec and create that second competitive campaign you are looking for. Cyrodiil will never be about small scale groups only. This is made for large group play. You don't take a well defended objective with 4 players who buy 2 sieges a week and never repair any walls.

You complain about wanting to "unstack Vivec" in one sentence and then insist Cyrodiil should only be for large groups in the next. Which do you want? If you want massive large scale zerg style PvP, you've got that in Vivec.

The game doesn't have the population to support two Vivecs. If you drop the population caps on Vivec to artificially force a second campaign, then neither will be the large-scale combat Vivec players want.

There is a difference between unstacking a campaign to lower performance issues, create incentives for more players to join a secondary campaign and playing in 12-16men groups. It does not mean that you unstack Vivec that it won't be possible to achieve medium to large group plays anymore. I am usually having plenty of fun and don't have any problems finding fights when all populations are at 3bars (what reducing the population by 20% should mean).

Again, I don't see any suggestion in your post to address the problem of emp flipping. How do you intend to stop a faction zerging the map? Certainly not with 4men groups.

Joy_Division

Lord wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Campaign lockouts based on Alliance swapping on a temporary level have been discussed and are still on going.

It will be great if you would implement a campaign alliance lock(account based) so we will once again have more alliance loyalty and less treason/plays all sides kind of gameplay.
I would suggest the following:
Char example 1 joins campaign 1. Char example 1 Alliance: AD
Char example 2 can't join campaign 1 for the duration of the campaign. Char example 2 Alliance: EP
Char example 3 can't join campaign 1 for the duration of the campaign. Char example 3 Alliance: DC

*If char example 1 abandoned campaign 1(penalty of ap, 500K-1M/other AP), only then it is possible to join campaign 1 with other alliance chars(only if they are all same alliance) and only after 24-72 hours have passed since char 1 abandoned the campaign.
*Once the campaign has ended, all players will receive a campaign reset(free of charge) so they may choose with which alliance to play(Only one alliance, AD/EP/DC). This reset will encourage to play until the end of campaign and not use the above option.

There's no compromising with some of you people.

So let me see if I am understanding you correctly. You want to lock one of my characters into a campaign, pay 1 million AP penalty to take them out of it, and then wait 3 days before I can play on another toon?

Sandman929

I just want sufficient incentive for factions in PvP to have meaning.

technohic

I still want people to be able to chose an alliance when going in with any character and just have it highly incentivised to go to lower pop faction and penalized up to 0 AP if you join the current high pop. I want to be able to just find good fights and I think with the right motivation, people would do the right thing. Right now; you just get more benefits for having an emp on your side, the scrolls, and you get better AP because you are rolling over everyone.

NBrookus

frozywozy wrote: »

Again, I don't see any suggestion in your post to address the problem of emp flipping. How do you intend to stop a faction zerging the map? Certainly not with 4men groups.

That's why I suggested the emperorship mechanic have a population requirement. A lot of the PvDoor zerging in Shor is emp achieve hunting. If at least one other faction can match your numbers, then you have to actually fight for emp. (Barring collusion.)

I'd rather emperorship be removed from Shor entirely, but I doubt that would ever pass muster at ZOS.

tinythinker

Eirella wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Campaign lockouts based on Alliance swapping on a temporary level have been discussed and are still on going.

Please no

Agreed.

My earlier comment for this thread included:

tinythinker wrote: »

Faction loyalty bonus for AP: logging in with the same faction in a particular campaign builds up a calendar/time-based bonus to AP that is earned over the duration of the campaign, while logging in with a character from a different faction resets the counter. This way, if you just want to join your friends in another faction for fun, to help out the lower pop faction, to play something different, etc, you don't have a lockout to bar your way. Yes, you lose something, but you can still play and have fun. If you are just swapping to AP farm, well, you lose your AP bonus each time you switch. The bonuses could kick in each quarter of the campaign duration, so that by the last quarter of the campaign those who supported one faction the whole time get the max bonus, which resets with the new campaign.

This "loss of bonus" penalty would be offset somewhat by the low pop penalty and the player stuck with the new faction a while they could get some faction bonus back.

For those worried about people not caring about the loss of an AP bonus, the idea is that it would accrue to be quite nice. A "lockout" of earning AP or of having diminished AP for some period of time could also apply, like half AP for a couple of hours.

tinythinker

Sandman929 wrote: »

I just want sufficient incentive for factions in PvP to have meaning.

Me too (gratuitous link to my comment earlier in this thread on that topic).

TequilaFire

On PS4 Vivec NA whole guilds are alliance hopping it effects the outcome of the campaigns big time.
Many times these guilds/groups will take control of the map for alliance x and a short time later I will see them on alliance y
taking the map again, rinse and repeat. This happens with some very high profile players.

@ZOS_BrianWheeler
Sorry Brian, don't mean to derail this great thread which contains excellent news.

Ranger209

Really like the proposed changes, and am glad to see Cyrodiil getting some love. I can only recall noticing an underdog bonus once quite some time ago, and don't recall ever seeing anything regarding an underpopulation bonus. I will be interested in how this affects the scoring. Hope it has a good impact.

Lag is the true enemy of all, so very excited to see the server side and client side enhancements. I hope it allows more people to come into Cyrodiil and have a good experience while improving the experience for those already frequenting her bloody fields.

As far as the temporary faction lock out being debated goes there is a pretty significant divide that can lead to some fairly passionate arguments. Both sides have solid justifiable reasons for their arguments. Freedom is always a justifiable reason, and so is loyalty. The issue in my mind is that when a competitive environment is created where teamwork is a fundamental tenet of that environment, and then the freedom to switch teams any time you like without repercussion is granted, the whole notion of teamwork becomes hollow. This in turn makes the score and the idea of a 3 banner war hollow as well. If I can fight for all 3 factions who am I at war with, myself, everyone, no one?

The big question is, "What is Cyrodiil supposed to be?" What is the vision for it? Is it supposed to be the 3 banner war, where there are 3 unique factions composed of players that fight for a single faction to vanquish the other 2 factions and claim the throne? Is it supposed to be more theme park based where people just get on whatever faction they feel like to fight when, where, and with who they want? Either of these is an acceptable approach on their own, but when you combine them the 3 banner war really has no meaning whatsoever. So by default it becomes more theme park PvP. If that is the case then I would say the whole scoring system and the 3 banner war really should be done away with and another scoring system should be put in place that reflects that type of environment where everyone is just in it for themselves, and their own fun, and there is no fighting for something greater than yourself. I would personally hate to see that, but it is what it is. Combining them just creates hard feelings between the loyalists and the freedom fighters.

In the end I think if ZOS wants to embrace both types of play, there should be separate servers with rule sets that align with each play style. If there were a faction locked server maybe the 7 day variety would be best so you are only locked for 7 days. Also if that were the case it would be great if all of your characters, regardless of their individual factions could play for the faction that you aligned with for that particular campaign. This way people who have made characters for a different faction than that of a friend could play with those friends on the same faction with any of their characters rather than just the ones that are the same faction. This would allow a different form of freedom while still maintaining loyalty at least throughout a campaign.

If they choose to do an hourly lockout I agree with Joy that 24 hours would be too long, maybe 8 hours which is enough to get a good night's sleep. Might as well at least promote health and well being with it, and something that follows a normal human day cycle.

edit: one other note a timer could also start when you log into a faction rather than when you log out of the faction. In this way if it were 8 hours as above you are committed to playing for that faction for 8 hours from the time you get into game. If you only play 4 hours then you could switch factions in another 4 hours. You have an 8 hour commitment every time you switch a faction rather than a commitment of however long you play for, and then another 8 hours after you log out. If you are playing a 12 hour straight marathon, not that I've ever done that..., at the 8 hour mark you could switch factions and play for another.

zyk

This post was amazing to read. I hope it's just the start. ESO AvA could be one of the best games ever with more attention from ZOS.

@ZOS_BrianWheeler Please consider incentivizing a PTS AvA night or weekend so we can better test the upcoming changes.

Maura_Neysa

Ranger209 wrote: »

Really like the proposed changes, and am glad to see Cyrodiil getting some love. I can only recall noticing an underdog bonus once quite some time ago, and don't recall ever seeing anything regarding an underpopulation bonus. I will be interested in how this affects the scoring. Hope it has a good impact.

Lag is the true enemy of all, so very excited to see the server side and client side enhancements. I hope it allows more people to come into Cyrodiil and have a good experience while improving the experience for those already frequenting her bloody fields.

As far as the temporary faction lock out being debated goes there is a pretty significant divide that can lead to some fairly passionate arguments. Both sides have solid justifiable reasons for their arguments. Freedom is always a justifiable reason, and so is loyalty. The issue in my mind is that when a competitive environment is created where teamwork is a fundamental tenet of that environment, and then the freedom to switch teams any time you like without repercussion is granted, the whole notion of teamwork becomes hollow. This in turn makes the score and the idea of a 3 banner war hollow as well. If I can fight for all 3 factions who am I at war with, myself, everyone, no one?

The big question is, "What is Cyrodiil supposed to be?" What is the vision for it? Is it supposed to be the 3 banner war, where there are 3 unique factions composed of players that fight for a single faction to vanquish the other 2 factions and claim the throne? Is it supposed to be more theme park based where people just get on whatever faction they feel like to fight when, where, and with who they want? Either of these is an acceptable approach on their own, but when you combine them the 3 banner war really has no meaning whatsoever. So by default it becomes more theme park PvP. If that is the case then I would say the whole scoring system and the 3 banner war really should be done away with and another scoring system should be put in place that reflects that type of environment where everyone is just in it for themselves, and their own fun, and there is no fighting for something greater than yourself. I would personally hate to see that, but it is what it is. Combining them just creates hard feelings between the loyalists and the freedom fighters.

In the end I think if ZOS wants to embrace both types of play, there should be separate servers with rule sets that align with each play style. If there were a faction locked server maybe the 7 day variety would be best so you are only locked for 7 days. Also if that were the case it would be great if all of your characters, regardless of their individual factions could play for the faction that you aligned with for that particular campaign. This way people who have made characters for a different faction than that of a friend could play with those friends on the same faction with any of their characters rather than just the ones that are the same faction. This would allow a different form of freedom while still maintaining loyalty at least throughout a campaign.

If they choose to do an hourly lockout I agree with Joy that 24 hours would be too long, maybe 8 hours which is enough to get a good night's sleep. Might as well at least promote health and well being with it, and something that follows a normal human day cycle.

edit: one other note a timer could also start when you log into a faction rather than when you log out of the faction. In this way if it were 8 hours as above you are committed to playing for that faction for 8 hours from the time you get into game. If you only play 4 hours then you could switch factions in another 4 hours. You have an 8 hour commitment every time you switch a faction rather than a commitment of however long you play for, and then another 8 hours after you log out. If you are playing a 12 hour straight marathon, not that I've ever done that..., at the 8 hour mark you could switch factions and play for another.

Lock Out - OMG 24 hours is WAY to short of a lock out. It needs to be long enough to prevent Alliance flipping just to maximize Emp crowning.

If ZoS goes that route, I actually think it should be the other way around. 30 day Campaigns should be the Loyalist ones and the 7 day the Theme Park campaigns. After all when you are a loyalist you aren't going anywhere anyway. Why have the freedom to not change every 7 days.

Personally my vote is something different.

Control your setting through and NPC Recruiter (Similar to Banker/Merchants)
• Active Duty - PvP anywhere. Cryodiil and Tamerial. Whole new level of PvP game play for the PvP junkies
• On Leave - PvP only in PvP zones. This is the current system
• Civilian - No PvP at all. PvEers could quest in Cryodiil unmolested. They would just be random people running around.

When you are are Civilian you hold no Alliance or Military rank. If you become a Civilian you loose all your rank, and start over again when you rejoin an Alliance, any Alliance you choose. This would make it function like the real world. Sure there would still be spies and mercenaries. They wouldn't hold rank though, or they would be deep cover spies if they had any rank. All of this would have the added benefit of a strong penalty for no Loyalist, while still allowing Theme Park style at the same time.

For context, I am totally a Loyalist, so therefore bias toward that play style.

Vapirko

Noticing guards not being affected by rune cage. The effect goes off on them but they continue to attack.

Morgul667

Darkmage1337 wrote: »

Morgul667 wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Campaign lockouts based on Alliance swapping on a temporary level have been discussed and are still on going.

Awesome

Please do something to kill the alliance switchers and spies for ap farming or emp trading

Make it in a way people can switch once in a while but not switch every 2H, or they get a penalty like 0 AP for x hours

Food for thoughts

"Emperor-trading" really isn't as common as it used to be, thankfully.
ZOS reduced the significance and popularity of this problem by reducing the number of Cyrodiil campaigns, and by changing the duration length of each campaign.
At launch, there were about 15 or so separate named campaigns, and each campaign was virtually one solid color from point to point, except for say, Wabbajack and Auriel's Bow, originally. Now it's Vivec.
Anyway, between 3 campaigns (Vivec, Sotha Sil, and Shor), 2 of them are 30-days long, which means the leaderboards reset once per month, and Vivec is usually population-locked.
Then there's Kyne, the non-vet / below level 50 campaign, but most people level-out of it and cannot stay there for very long because you cannot currently lock your character's XP-gain like players could 'twink' in WoW or FFXI. Unless you keep deleting and remaking characters. I have 9/9 characters at lvl 50, / CP 751, so I couldn't ever go to Kyne even if I wanted to, unless I continue to buy more character slots; which I won't, unless ZOS decides to add more playable classes in the future.
So that leaves everyone with 1 campaign to "Emp-trade" on: Shor, which is 7 days long.

After actively playing on and off for over 4 years since ESO launched, I only ever got emperor once, and it was on Shor. I raced against others and grinded for days and nights. It was a lot of fun. You get a chance every 7 days to grind and play hard and fast, as the leader-boards reset weekly for you to grind and rush up to #1. With a small/decent-sized group of friends or guildies or a steady PUG of randoms that can help you directly or indirectly take the inner 6 keeps while you maintain the lead in AP. Probably the most fun I've had in the game. It's like racing the clock.
30-day duration and constant pop-locked campaigns are too long and no one wants to sit as position #345 in queue to even enter to get into Vivec during prime time. That's lame and a great disrespect to a player's time. That's also why Vivec is my guest campaign, not my home campaign, because you can't even enter it most of the time. 7-14 days are better, but they got rid of 14-day Axe of Belharza long ago. (I should know, because my guild still owns Castle Alessia on the Axe of Belharza, even though that campaign has been inaccessible for over a year! https://imgur.com/yaV9YzK) !

"Emp-trading" was way more common and problematic when being a "Former-Emperor" granted players passive ability bonuses like +1-2% Health, Magicka, and Stamina that extended to PvE play, for min/max'ing trials, etc. ZOS did away with this a long time ago. Does anyone remember the guild Alacrity? All of their members were Emp or Former-Emp, and they had the #1 record trial times for AA and Hel Ra trials when they first came out, etc. Lol.
Anyone who says "Emp-trading" is a common problem now in ESO today really is not paying attention to their surroundings, the ebb-and-flow of Cyrodiil PvP, or the history of this game in general. Emp-trading is literally a non-issue, compared to what it used to be (guilds agreeing to leaving Keeps walls & doors on empty campaigns unrepaired, all walls down, etc.)
Now, today, the entire player base population is funneled into roughly 3 campaigns, which leaves very little room for coercion, espionage, spying, and all this made-up petty drama stuff, lol... Just play the game!

Any would-be Emperor worth their salt that thinks otherwise can come and try to take Castle Alessia from me. Go on and try, I dare you!

Yet it happens on a weekly basis to see same players painting the map with one alliance.

Then they all switch sides (except one as they need a spie) and paint the map another color.

Boring and not fair play

Anyway i feel im getting off topic and should remind im happy to see some changes in cyrodill

Hope it is for the best and that it will keep going

patents

@ZOS_BrianWheeler

I have friends in all 3 factions and I wanna play for all of them

Why do you guys wanna lock us out????

Sad

Morgul667

patents wrote: »

@ZOS_BrianWheeler

I have friends in all 3 factions and I wanna play for all of them

Why do you guys wanna lock us out????

Sad

For all the reasons mentioned before

Emp trading

switching alliance for more AP

Spies

And so on

patents

@ZOS_BrianWheeler

For all the reasons mentioned before

Emp trading

switching alliance for more AP

- just allow AP gain for only 1 faction upon joining a campaign and lock it till start of next campaign, but don’t lock out those who wanna have fun with their friends in another faction at times only, freedom to play anywhere is the spirit of one tamriel yah? Am I not right to say so? One tamriel is the freedom to go anywhere, and play however you want!

Spies (part and parcel of any war game, that’s fine I feel)

Sad

Maura_Neysa

Morgul667 wrote: »

patents wrote: »

@ZOS_BrianWheeler

I have friends in all 3 factions and I wanna play for all of them

Why do you guys wanna lock us out????

Sad

For all the reasons mentioned before

Emp trading

switching alliance for more AP

Spies

And so on

I don't want to lock anyone out. I just want them to be a trade off. Causal PVP with friends or Alliance dedication with war incentives. I'm fine with keeping it per character too.

Morgul667

patents wrote: »

@ZOS_BrianWheeler

For all the reasons mentioned before

Emp trading

switching alliance for more AP

- just allow AP gain for only 1 faction upon joining a campaign and lock it till start of next campaign, but don’t lock out those who wanna fun with their friends in another faction at times only, freedom to play anywhere is the spirit of one tamriel yah? Am I not right to say so? One tamriel is the freedom to go anywhere, and play however you want!

Spies (part and parcel of any war game, that’s fine I feel)

Sad

True but my only concern is that you cannot kill the spies in teso. they can spy and laugh at your face then take key position with wrong sieges to makes you job harder (they take the key space for nothing, like spamming a main gate with oils on the ground when you attack)

Make it so we can kill spies or try to reduce their ways

Im fine with people playing together as long as they dont make AP for X hours when they switch side. That way freedom is still there and less alliance switching/spies for the wrong reasons

This must be bug free though or it will be a nightmare. Thankfully it seems easy enough to code properly.

Ranger209

Maura_Neysa wrote: »

If ZoS goes that route, I actually think it should be the other way around. 30 day Campaigns should be the Loyalist ones and the 7 day the Theme Park campaigns. After all when you are a loyalist you aren't going anywhere anyway. Why have the freedom to not change every 7 days.

While true, and I agree with you, and it is what I prefer, you are never going to get a server that is 100% loyalists. ZOS has stated that they are looking into a "temporary lock", so in reality as a concession, it makes more sense to have that "temporary lock" be 7 days rather than 30 days. I foresee people still wanting to periodically change factions on a server of this type. This is geared to make loyalty a thing for the duration of a campaign, not forever, and in the spirit of One Tamriel allow the ability to play all of your characters for a given alliance even if you have 3 that are red, 3 that are blue, and 3 that are yellow. You would be able to play all 9 as blue, or as yellow, or as red for the duration of that campaign. After the campaign you could switch alliances and play all 9 as that alliance.

antihero727

Iskras wrote: »

REQUEST:

Someone from ZOS in Cyrodiil some times, in all faction's. Play? Maybe, but to experience what we experience all days.

This is serious!

Then they will see your zone chat messages in all their glory, still want that?