Revert Faction Locks. We've Been Through This Already

InvictusApollo

dtsharples wrote: »

There is literally an unlocked campaign on its way - nothing left to argue about now, please just let this silly argument die.

Yes - an unlcoked campaign... with Champion Points. What about people who don't like them?

frozywozy

So now that we have a 30days with no faction locks, when exactly should we expect the majority of people to switch over as described by the same invididuals in the course of these 30 pages of forums thread?

idk

frozywozy wrote: »

So now that we have a 30days with no faction locks, when exactly should we expect the majority of people to switch over as described by the same invididuals in the course of these 30 pages of forums thread?

Since both campaigns are available it seems rather petty to care how many play in which campaign.

Minyassa

I'm switching over immediately. And looking forward to having a no-CP version unlocked as well to put my lowbies in.

Mayrael

frozywozy wrote: »

So now that we have a 30days with no faction locks, when exactly should we expect the majority of people to switch over as described by the same invididuals in the course of these 30 pages of forums thread?

Haha soonish "You will see one day, you will see!" xD But seriously, not locked 30d campaign is just as empty as 7d was. I guess pro faction lock people were right. Yeah I know "But but but its not on the first place!". Doesn't matter, people are not stupid, they can see the difference.

NBrookus

Mayrael wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

So now that we have a 30days with no faction locks, when exactly should we expect the majority of people to switch over as described by the same invididuals in the course of these 30 pages of forums thread?

Haha soonish "You will see one day, you will see!" xD But seriously, not locked 30d campaign is just as empty as 7d was. I guess pro faction lock people were right. Yeah I know "But but but its not on the first place!". Doesn't matter, people are not stupid, they can see the difference.

They killed it by not resetting the campaigns. So at a minimum, most people and guilds will finish out Kaal.

But more than that -- there aren't enough PVP'ers left to support multiple populated campaigns. Even all the no CP people for the most part have come to Kaal. The last few diehards in 7 day had already switched to Kaal. There's no queue to speak of even at prime time.

Where are the two campaigns worth of population going to come from? New players? Players new and old will go to the campaign where they can actually play. Everyone I know who went to the new camp to check it out (including me) found it to be a wasteland with zero action and then queued for Kaal, where performance is still trash. I don't see how new players can possibly get excited for PVP under those circumstances.

MipMip

NBrookus wrote: »

They killed it by not resetting the campaigns. So at a minimum, most people and guilds will finish out Kaal.

Agree... and by listing it at the bottom.

Nevertheless I have already started homing all my characters on the 30 days unlocked campaign, and I hope we can at least get some good small scale action going there.

Heatnix90

Mayrael wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

So now that we have a 30days with no faction locks, when exactly should we expect the majority of people to switch over as described by the same invididuals in the course of these 30 pages of forums thread?

Haha soonish "You will see one day, you will see!" xD But seriously, not locked 30d campaign is just as empty as 7d was. I guess pro faction lock people were right. Yeah I know "But but but its not on the first place!". Doesn't matter, people are not stupid, they can see the difference.

You act like ZOS didn't intend for the unlocked campaign to fail from the start. If they had really cared about it they would have reset all campaigns, unhomed everyone, and not listed the new campaign at the bottom of the barrel.

Enjoy your one-sided scores tho, I'm sure that's exactly what the pro-faction lock people wanted: overwhelming campaign wins at the cost of any actual PvP that isn't just mindless ball-group zerging.

BRogueNZ

I doubt anyone serious for unlocked would've stayed on Kal considering it had 25+ days to go

frozywozy

I agree that with the population we have, we don't currently need 3 campaigns. The only way to make 3 campaigns work would be to reduce the maximum population to what 3 bars is.

The only issue with this solution would be that spreading people across 3 different campaigns would promote oceanic guilds who play during offhours to avoid each other and pvdoor the map even more than what they actually do.

I insist on the fact that Zenimax needs to focus on the root cause of many issues in the game, the Champions Points System. In my opinion, all the efforts spent on balancing the game since the Scalebreaker update are worthless as long as they decide to ignore the CPs system.

On the actual topic, it does not matter if they remove the CPs or redesign them. The point is to stop isolating different formats of PvP in different campaigns since we don't have the population to support it.

This being said, I don't think that having 3 campaigns has anything to do with the fact that people decide to stay on the locked campaign. Most people like me don't really care and will go where most people decide to go.

One of the main point of the 30 pages of this thread was that if a 30days campaign with no faction locks would exist, most people would switch over. I haven't seen it happened yet. Also, the argument that having the campaign listed at the bottom is changing the mind of people who were interested in no locks in the past is quite hilarious.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

frozywozy wrote: »

One of the main point of the 30 pages of this thread was that if a 30days campaign with no faction locks would exist, most people would switch over. I haven't seen it happened yet. Also, the argument that having the campaign listed at the bottom is changing the mind of people who were interested in no locks in the past is quite hilarious.

I mean it was completely clear from their announcement and plans that this would be the situation to all those who understand pvp.

For those who don't understand why - its for the following reasons:

1) The campaigns were not reset meaning progress towards rewards would be lost and most dont want to do that.

2) The campaign list ordering is completely wrong to promote pug presence (which would be needed to promote a healthy campaign).
The list is now "Alliance locked CP, Alliance Locked Non-CP, Standard, Below 50.
If the list was Standard first it would be way more populated (as actually makes sense because you would normally list the standard ruleset campaigns before 'special' rulesets in 90% of games.)

3) A large chunk of players have left the game because of both the faction lock and terrible performance combined with solo& smallscale balancing putting a lot of people off.

4) ESO's pvp population is not big enough for even 1 server's capacity outside of prime time (mainly because of point 3) this leads to ghost servers outside of prime time where 1 faction dominates , regardless of locks players of those factions congregate on their main buff server because of this.

5) Due to the campaign reward structure system the game promotes playing on the highest population servers rather than giving incentive's for spreading out.

Also

frozywozy wrote: »

The only way to make 3 campaigns work would be to reduce the maximum population to what 3 bars is.

Not only does this not work, as is evidenced by 5+ years of campaigns in ESO, but the concept is just totally flawed.

biminirwb17_ESO

I just go where Tyr and Drac aren't.

AhPook_Is_Here

Most people have more than one character on more than one alliance, there is no reason the order of the servers has any effect on population, nor does the reset times. If you want to farm stones; it makes sense to home 2/3's of your alliances on the unlocked server. I'd imagine it will be a lot like the way things were a year and a half ago, people will fight for their campaign lead, then play alts once they are comfortable. I'm sure over the weeks to come you will see more people playing the unlocked, but it won't be as popular as the locked.

frozywozy

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

One of the main point of the 30 pages of this thread was that if a 30days campaign with no faction locks would exist, most people would switch over. I haven't seen it happened yet. Also, the argument that having the campaign listed at the bottom is changing the mind of people who were interested in no locks in the past is quite hilarious.

I mean it was completely clear from their announcement and plans that this would be the situation to all those who understand pvp.

For those who don't understand why - its for the following reasons:

1) The campaigns were not reset meaning progress towards rewards would be lost and most dont want to do that.

I'm up to wait until the campaign resets and see what happens there.

2) The campaign list ordering is completely wrong to promote pug presence (which would be needed to promote a healthy campaign).
The list is now "Alliance locked CP, Alliance Locked Non-CP, Standard, Below 50.
If the list was Standard first it would be way more populated (as actually makes sense because you would normally list the standard ruleset campaigns before 'special' rulesets in 90% of games.)

I also agree it would make sense to put "Standard" in the beginning. I will also state that I don't care what the "Standard" definition should be. This being said and as mentioned in the last point of the post you quoted, I find it hilarious that this argument was brought as if listing the "Standard" in the fourth place would change the idea of the supposed majority of people who want no lock as described in the 30 pages of this thread and promote them to play in the first one listed instead.

3) A large chunk of players have left the game because of both the faction lock and terrible performance combined with solo& smallscale balancing putting a lot of people off.

While I agree that the overall PVP population has been generally going down drastically since release, I don't believe that it has gone down any faster with the introduction of faction locks and I would not base this as one of the cause why there are so few people in the No-lock campaign.

4) ESO's pvp population is not big enough for even 1 server's capacity outside of prime time (mainly because of point 3) this leads to ghost servers outside of prime time where 1 faction dominates , regardless of locks players of those factions congregate on their main buff server because of this.

Agreed. During offhours on the NA server, one campaign would be enough. The issue is that we need two campaigns during primetime with the actual population cap.

Also

frozywozy wrote: »

The only way to make 3 campaigns work would be to reduce the maximum population to what 3 bars is.

Not only does this not work, as is evidenced by 5+ years of campaigns in ESO, but the concept is just totally flawed.

As the game evolved and as ZOS decided to constantly reduce the population cap to fit the new changes and spaghetti code on top of spaghetti code, the general PVP population and interests also went down drastically.

This being said, ZOS has never tried to reduce the cap enough to incentize players to spread out across 3 campaigns. This could be great for primetime, but would still be a big problem for offhours since we don't nearly have the people to support it.

At this point, I would rather see them go with dynamic populations, as I have been saying for years. I am pretty sure they have considered the option but this would be to complex and not "worth" the investment.

Marcus684

Listing the "standard" (aka unlocked) campaign last fits my theory that ZOS is trying to protect noob pvpers, who don't have the knowledge to decide which campaign is right for them, from the faction-hopping 1vXers and small-scalers that thrive on their noob-ness, since these inexperienced pvpers will likely choose the 1st one on the list. I think we all know what will happen, though. The lock haters will come back to the forums complaining about how "dead" the campaign is, because what they REALLY want is low-skill players to farm and make them feel good about themselves. Dying +/- 50% of the time to the other vet pvpers isn't nearly as much fun for them as plowing a path of carnage through noob pug zergs.

Mayrael

Heatnix90 wrote: »

Mayrael wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

So now that we have a 30days with no faction locks, when exactly should we expect the majority of people to switch over as described by the same invididuals in the course of these 30 pages of forums thread?

Haha soonish "You will see one day, you will see!" xD But seriously, not locked 30d campaign is just as empty as 7d was. I guess pro faction lock people were right. Yeah I know "But but but its not on the first place!". Doesn't matter, people are not stupid, they can see the difference.

You act like ZOS didn't intend for the unlocked campaign to fail from the start. If they had really cared about it they would have reset all campaigns, unhomed everyone, and not listed the new campaign at the bottom of the barrel.

Enjoy your one-sided scores tho, I'm sure that's exactly what the pro-faction lock people wanted: overwhelming campaign wins at the cost of any actual PvP that isn't just mindless ball-group zerging.

Ok then jokes aside.

Oh I do enjoy both CP locked where my alliance is on the SLIGHT lead and the no-CP where my alliance is last. Your logic is flawed, we don't care about faction loyalty, it's players like you try to stick this label to us.

Pro faction lock people are not the ones who are blindly devoted to one faction, these are the people who are sick and tired of abusing game mechanics (aka scrolls trolling, chat toxicity, AP farming to get the emp and many more). And don't say it's not working because it is, maybe it's not 100% sure but even 80% is awesome! Also it's because of players who abused their freedom we have now locked campaigns, blame them not us who just want healthy gameplay. I prefer to lose every month in locked campaign than win in unlocked.

And TBH when I look at the scores in the end of campaigns I see no difference from those when there was no lock. Why? Because when there was no lock all new comers joined the winning side making it even more imbalanced, when there was no lock my alliance sometimes even week before the end of campaign was sure of victory.

I'm saying about facts, things that happened and I've seen them on my own eyes. While all you have is a claim that unlocked campaign would be more popular "if".

Qbiken

Mayrael wrote: »

Heatnix90 wrote: »

Mayrael wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

So now that we have a 30days with no faction locks, when exactly should we expect the majority of people to switch over as described by the same invididuals in the course of these 30 pages of forums thread?

Haha soonish "You will see one day, you will see!" xD But seriously, not locked 30d campaign is just as empty as 7d was. I guess pro faction lock people were right. Yeah I know "But but but its not on the first place!". Doesn't matter, people are not stupid, they can see the difference.

You act like ZOS didn't intend for the unlocked campaign to fail from the start. If they had really cared about it they would have reset all campaigns, unhomed everyone, and not listed the new campaign at the bottom of the barrel.

Enjoy your one-sided scores tho, I'm sure that's exactly what the pro-faction lock people wanted: overwhelming campaign wins at the cost of any actual PvP that isn't just mindless ball-group zerging.

Pro faction lock people are not the ones who are blindly devoted to one faction, these are the people who are sick and tired of abusing game mechanics (aka scrolls trolling, chat toxicity, AP farming to get the emp and many more). And don't say it's not working because it is, maybe it's not 100% sure but even 80% is awesome! Also it's because of players who abused their freedom we have now locked campaigns, blame them not us who just want healthy gameplay. I prefer to lose every month in locked campaign than win in unlocked.
......

Nah, pro faction lock players are the ones who will chase a solo player down in IC with 10-12 others on a magblade ganker........

dtsharples

Qbiken wrote: »

Nah, pro faction lock players are the ones who will chase a solo player down in IC with 10-12 others on a magblade ganker........

Isn't Imperial City completely unlocked? Pretty sure they are just happy to see an enemy that isn't an NPC in the empty wasteland that is I.C. lol

Qbiken

dtsharples wrote: »

Qbiken wrote: »

Nah, pro faction lock players are the ones who will chase a solo player down in IC with 10-12 others on a magblade ganker........

Isn't Imperial City completely unlocked? Pretty sure they are just happy to see an enemy that isn't an NPC in the empty wasteland that is I.C. lol

Sure, that's why you bring an organized group of 12 in case you are faced with some resistance in IC.......

Mr_Walker

Mayrael wrote: »

Pro faction lock people are not the ones who are blindly devoted to one faction, these are the people who are sick and tired of abusing game mechanics (aka scrolls trolling, chat toxicity, AP farming to get the emp and many more). And don't say it's not working because it is, maybe it's not 100% sure but even 80% is awesome! Also it's because of players who abused their freedom we have now locked campaigns, blame them not us who just want healthy gameplay. I prefer to lose every month in locked campaign than win in unlocked.

Absolute twaddle. You people are delusional. You've got so much invested into this inane idea of faction lock you can't admit it doesn't work.

When you grow up a little you'll all realise that recognising when you're wrong is a more valuable skill than being right.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

frozywozy wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

One of the main point of the 30 pages of this thread was that if a 30days campaign with no faction locks would exist, most people would switch over. I haven't seen it happened yet. Also, the argument that having the campaign listed at the bottom is changing the mind of people who were interested in no locks in the past is quite hilarious.

I mean it was completely clear from their announcement and plans that this would be the situation to all those who understand pvp.

For those who don't understand why - its for the following reasons:

1) The campaigns were not reset meaning progress towards rewards would be lost and most dont want to do that.

I'm up to wait until the campaign resets and see what happens there.

As I explained the end dates are seperated by zos so 'reset' will make no difference with the current reset dates.

frozywozy wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

2) The campaign list ordering is completely wrong to promote pug presence (which would be needed to promote a healthy campaign).
The list is now "Alliance locked CP, Alliance Locked Non-CP, Standard, Below 50.
If the list was Standard first it would be way more populated (as actually makes sense because you would normally list the standard ruleset campaigns before 'special' rulesets in 90% of games.)

I also agree it would make sense to put "Standard" in the beginning. I will also state that I don't care what the "Standard" definition should be. This being said and as mentioned in the last point of the post you quoted, I find it hilarious that this argument was brought as if listing the "Standard" in the fourth place would change the idea of the supposed majority of people who want no lock as described in the 30 pages of this thread and promote them to play in the first one listed instead.

of course it changes the perspective of players, thats why Auriels Bow was the primary campaign when there were 9 campaigns. Also its not about whether you care if it is standard or not. That is now ZOS's definition.

frozywozy wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

3) A large chunk of players have left the game because of both the faction lock and terrible performance combined with solo& smallscale balancing putting a lot of people off.

While I agree that the overall PVP population has been generally going down drastically since release, I don't believe that it has gone down any faster with the introduction of faction locks and I would not base this as one of the cause why there are so few people in the No-lock campaign.

Prior to faction locks the campaign scores were very close for a long time. now they are dominated by 1 faction (in the same way EU has been for 4y) and the population has drastically decreased since the locks if you haven't noticed it I would say its more of a perception issue on your end.

frozywozy wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Also

frozywozy wrote: »

The only way to make 3 campaigns work would be to reduce the maximum population to what 3 bars is.

Not only does this not work, as is evidenced by 5+ years of campaigns in ESO, but the concept is just totally flawed.

As the game evolved and as ZOS decided to constantly reduce the population cap to fit the new changes and spaghetti code on top of spaghetti code, the general PVP population and interests also went down drastically.

This being said, ZOS has never tried to reduce the cap enough to incentize players to spread out across 3 campaigns. This could be great for primetime, but would still be a big problem for offhours since we don't nearly have the people to support it.

At this point, I would rather see them go with dynamic populations, as I have been saying for years. I am pretty sure they have considered the option but this would be to complex and not "worth" the investment.

The game has not evolved. It only degrades. Performance is now worse this patch - again - despite there being no queue during primetime anymore on the majority of nights. Dynamic pops also dont work because you are only preventing people from playing not making people want to play. Dynamic scoring would stand a chance but yes ZOS don't seem capable of delivering this unfortunately.

RedGirl41

Definitely need to revert this change. It’s done nothing for the scoring. Some of my guild mates are leaving for a month cuz their friend is on another alliance. This is a waste of time. Spies are irrelevant because of text and guild chat (plus it does nothing anyway) all you have to do is guard one keep and hold scrolls all campaign to win (like that ad does in ps4 NA)

ZOS_JesC

Greetings, we've removed a few comments that were nonconstructive and baiting towards other forum members. This is a friendly reminder to keep comments on topic and constructive when posting. Thank you.

frozywozy

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

One of the main point of the 30 pages of this thread was that if a 30days campaign with no faction locks would exist, most people would switch over. I haven't seen it happened yet. Also, the argument that having the campaign listed at the bottom is changing the mind of people who were interested in no locks in the past is quite hilarious.

I mean it was completely clear from their announcement and plans that this would be the situation to all those who understand pvp.

For those who don't understand why - its for the following reasons:

1) The campaigns were not reset meaning progress towards rewards would be lost and most dont want to do that.

I'm up to wait until the campaign resets and see what happens there.

As I explained the end dates are seperated by zos so 'reset' will make no difference with the current reset dates.

If people insisted in a 30pages thread to prove their point for months straight, that most likely means that they would not care to wait until the Kaal cycle is over and then re-home in an ongoing unlocked campaign.

frozywozy wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

2) The campaign list ordering is completely wrong to promote pug presence (which would be needed to promote a healthy campaign).
The list is now "Alliance locked CP, Alliance Locked Non-CP, Standard, Below 50.
If the list was Standard first it would be way more populated (as actually makes sense because you would normally list the standard ruleset campaigns before 'special' rulesets in 90% of games.)

I also agree it would make sense to put "Standard" in the beginning. I will also state that I don't care what the "Standard" definition should be. This being said and as mentioned in the last point of the post you quoted, I find it hilarious that this argument was brought as if listing the "Standard" in the fourth place would change the idea of the supposed majority of people who want no lock as described in the 30 pages of this thread and promote them to play in the first one listed instead.

of course it changes the perspective of players, thats why Auriels Bow was the primary campaign when there were 9 campaigns. Also its not about whether you care if it is standard or not. That is now ZOS's definition.

Your example is not in the same context. When the game first got released, players obviously clicked on the first listed campaign because they just wanted to jump in there as fast as possible (new players).

In this case, we are figuring players part of this thread who claimed that a large majority of existing players would play in no-lock if that would be made possible. Listing a campaign in the fourth position for existing and experienced players should not influence their decision into which campaign they want to pick. At this point, people are brilliant enough to see the difference.

In other words, listing a campaign in the fourth postion should be neglected only for new players.

frozywozy wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

3) A large chunk of players have left the game because of both the faction lock and terrible performance combined with solo& smallscale balancing putting a lot of people off.

While I agree that the overall PVP population has been generally going down drastically since release, I don't believe that it has gone down any faster with the introduction of faction locks and I would not base this as one of the cause why there are so few people in the No-lock campaign.

Prior to faction locks the campaign scores were very close for a long time. now they are dominated by 1 faction (in the same way EU has been for 4y) and the population has drastically decreased since the locks if you haven't noticed it I would say its more of a perception issue on your end.

I believe that the campaign has been dominated by one faction generally since a long time ago. It is due to organized guilds playing during off hours. For example and as you are aware, Ni rerolled DC last campaign and capped scrolls every night, which resulted in a major lead by DC. I don't think faction locks have anything to do with this. We will agree to disagree.

frozywozy wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Also

frozywozy wrote: »

The only way to make 3 campaigns work would be to reduce the maximum population to what 3 bars is.

Not only does this not work, as is evidenced by 5+ years of campaigns in ESO, but the concept is just totally flawed.

As the game evolved and as ZOS decided to constantly reduce the population cap to fit the new changes and spaghetti code on top of spaghetti code, the general PVP population and interests also went down drastically.

This being said, ZOS has never tried to reduce the cap enough to incentize players to spread out across 3 campaigns. This could be great for primetime, but would still be a big problem for offhours since we don't nearly have the people to support it.

At this point, I would rather see them go with dynamic populations, as I have been saying for years. I am pretty sure they have considered the option but this would be to complex and not "worth" the investment.

The game has not evolved. It only degrades. Performance is now worse this patch - again - despite there being no queue during primetime anymore on the majority of nights. Dynamic pops also dont work because you are only preventing people from playing not making people want to play. Dynamic scoring would stand a chance but yes ZOS don't seem capable of delivering this unfortunately.

By describing the game evolving, I meant to say as time passed. The word "evolves" does not change the context of the point I was making. I don't think you understand what a dynamic population system would mean in my book.

First of all, this could only work when they get ride of CP / No-CP concept and come with an unified solution. When that happens, we could have one 30 days locked and one 30days unlocked.

Afterward they could start having an automated system which monitor the population for each division and open an additional campaign when needed. It could be when every faction has more than X amount of people in queue for X amount of time everyday. Not when only one faction has a queue.

The way it is since release, there is always too many campaigns for the amount of people interested in pvp and as a result, it does not promote competition in at least 2 campaigns. Most people are condensed in one campaign while you have one faction with a considerable lead in the other campaigns and almost no competition.

Also, one of the main reason why the other campaigns are dying lately is because major guilds with hundreds of players decided to come play in the 30 days CP for different reasons. As a result, all their competition slowly followed the same behaviour. Again, nothing to do with faction locks.

MipMip

The new unlocked campaign sounded like a move in the right direction but as has been pointed out above it was set up to fail (intentionally or unintentionally) by
- not resetting the campaigns
- listing it towards the bottom of the selections
- even making players pay for re-homing to it!

Very disappointing. I hope a better solution will be offered. Meanwhile faction lock in the populated campaigns goes on reducing the attractiveness of the game by restricting choices, among other reducing the options of finding good, fun and exciting fights (before faction lock this could often be done by switching to an underdog faction), and damages the community by tearing apart guilds and making it difficult for people to group up with their friends.

ks888

IMO they should have reset Kaal at the same time as the new camp. I have gone there on my other toons and it is dead. Why? because everyone had already placed and been working for emp on Kaal before the new camp dropped. I don't understand ZOS logic.

Katahdin

ks888 wrote: »

IMO they should have reset Kaal at the same time as the new camp. I have gone there on my other toons and it is dead. Why? because everyone had already placed and been working for emp on Kaal before the new camp dropped. I don't understand ZOS logic.

There is maybe 2 or 3 people per faction even in contention for emperor at this point and that's only if the leader hasnt blown everyone away with a 1M point lead at this point.

The other 200 per faction probably already have their tier 3 rewards. They can go where ever they like. If they wanted to go to the unlocked they could have whenever they wanted.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

frozywozy wrote: »

By describing the game evolving, I meant to say as time passed. The word "evolves" does not change the context of the point I was making. I don't think you understand what a dynamic population system would mean in my book.

First of all, this could only work when they get ride of CP / No-CP concept and come with an unified solution. When that happens, we could have one 30 days locked and one 30days unlocked.

Afterward they could start having an automated system which monitor the population for each division and open an additional campaign when needed. It could be when every faction has more than X amount of people in queue for X amount of time everyday. Not when only one faction has a queue.

It doesn't work and requires multiple game updates including resolving the CP/noCp debate. Additionally players on the "opened up" campaign will have nothing to fight whilst still being stuck in a queue to join their friends.

Mr_Walker

Pretty sure there was < 6 players on each faction on Xbox NA last night oceanic time on the new campaign.

yRaven

There's a open campaign... oh wait there's no one in there, amazing