PC NA - The Kaal campaign is ending in a week, its time for the migration to Laatvulon (non-locked).

Shanehere

Joy_Division wrote: »

Shanehere wrote: »

Why are you in here if you aren't interested or care about it?

Mostly because at the moment I find arguing on the forums more interesting than playing ESO.

But that doesn't mean I'm indifferent or don't care about ESO. I had a lot of fun playing this game for years. I'd very much would like it to be so again. But that's not something that adjusting who can play what campaign is going to resolve. My main issue is judging by the patch notes for the past 3+ years is that the devs vision for the game amounts to introducing some wild change to shake up the meta and then spending the next three patches or so reacting the imbalances created by said wild changes.

That's cool man, but that was a directed question towards someone else based on what they said.

frozywozy

Shanehere wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Your options are flawed. The main reason is : I don't care to play lock or no lock. I go where it's most populated.

That's literally the basis of both the thread and the poll.

frozywozy wrote: »

I believe there are more important matters right now such as server performances.

Compacted PvP population is something that can be discussed. I would agree I would prefer improved server performance over a more spread out population, but that doesn't mean we can't discuss and theorize about this topic. They are two problems, you don't have to pick one over the other.

Why are you in here if you aren't interested or care about it?

Let's look at your options again and compare them to the way I think and what I stated in the post you quoted.

I've always played in the primary 30-day campaign.

This has nothing to do with playing in the 30 days campaign.

I play in Kaal because I like faction locks.

I don't care about playing in a locked or unlocked campaign.

I prefer no-CP, but I play in Kaal because it's more populated.

I don't care about CP or No CP.

I would prefer to play in the standard campaign to be able to play across factions, but I remain in Kaal because it's more populated.

I don't care what is the definition of standard and I don't care to play across factions or in the same faction.

Again, the options of your poll are flawed and do not represent the idea of what most people think :

"I don't care to play lock or no lock. I go where it's most populated. I believe there are more important matters right now such as server performances."

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

Its almost as if there was no "Other" category for those who disagree'd with the poll options.
It's clear to see the poll results. Perhaps people just clicked a random option without reading eh

frozywozy

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Its almost as if there was no "Other" category for those who disagree'd with the poll options.
It's clear to see the poll results. Perhaps people just clicked a random option without reading eh

I don't believe that an option that most people believe on should be classified as "others". It's almost as bad as thinking that people won't pick a campaign because it's not listed first.

Shanehere

frozywozy wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Its almost as if there was no "Other" category for those who disagree'd with the poll options.
It's clear to see the poll results. Perhaps people just clicked a random option without reading eh

I don't believe that an option that most people believe on should be classified as "others". It's almost as bad as thinking that people won't pick a campaign because it's not listed first.

Clearly most people don't believe in what you believe because according to the data as it stands only 11% chose "other." The statistics are literally right there.

If the majority of the participants chose "other", then you would be right, my options weren't well thought out.

You're assuming that the way you think is majority, which is what a lot of people seem to think on these forums. That's the entire basis of this poll, to actually find out what the majority is. You can be upset about the results, but you can't deny them.

frozywozy

Shanehere wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Its almost as if there was no "Other" category for those who disagree'd with the poll options.
It's clear to see the poll results. Perhaps people just clicked a random option without reading eh

I don't believe that an option that most people believe on should be classified as "others". It's almost as bad as thinking that people won't pick a campaign because it's not listed first.

Clearly most people don't believe in what you believe because according to the data as it stands only 11% chose "other." The statistics are literally right there.

If the majority of the participants chose "other", then you would be right, my options weren't well thought out.

You're assuming that the way you think is majority, which is what a lot of people seem to think on these forums. That's the entire basis of this poll, to actually find out what the majority is. You can be upset about the results, but you can't deny them.

I believe that most people who think the way I am look at your options and can't find anyone that match and simply don't care and close the page. What amazes me is that you simply don't recognize that your options are flawed and you don't even consider changing the poll to what it should be.

I'm just going to let you dream of what you believe is reality and move on from this. At the end of the day, most people don't care about locks or no locks and thats why most people still play in Kaal. Also, as other people pointed out in this thread already, focus should be on condensing population on one or two different campaigns, not 3.

Shanehere

frozywozy wrote: »

Shanehere wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Your options are flawed. The main reason is : I don't care to play lock or no lock. I go where it's most populated.

That's literally the basis of both the thread and the poll.

frozywozy wrote: »

I believe there are more important matters right now such as server performances.

Compacted PvP population is something that can be discussed. I would agree I would prefer improved server performance over a more spread out population, but that doesn't mean we can't discuss and theorize about this topic. They are two problems, you don't have to pick one over the other.

Why are you in here if you aren't interested or care about it?

Let's look at your options again and compare them to the way I think and what I stated in the post you quoted.

I've always played in the primary 30-day campaign.

This has nothing to do with playing in the 30 days campaign.

I play in Kaal because I like faction locks.

I don't care about playing in a locked or unlocked campaign.

I prefer no-CP, but I play in Kaal because it's more populated.

I don't care about CP or No CP.

I would prefer to play in the standard campaign to be able to play across factions, but I remain in Kaal because it's more populated.

I don't care what is the definition of standard and I don't care to play across factions or in the same faction.

Again, the options of your poll are flawed and do not represent the idea of what most people think :

"I don't care to play lock or no lock. I go where it's most populated. I believe there are more important matters right now such as server performances."

"I've always played in the primary 30-day campaign" means "I have always played in the 30-day campaign at the top of the campaign list, whether the campaign is Kaalgrondiid, Vivec, Trueflame... this is where I call home." It's a pretty valid reason for playing there, given the statistics.

You not caring about the locked or unlocked campaign doesn't mean that other people don't care.

You not caring about playing in CP or no-CP doesn't mean that other people have a preference.

You not caring what defines a standard and cross-faction doesn't mean others don't.

You not caring about anything in the thread doesn't mean others aren't interested in the data, it doesn't make it flawed.

Shanehere

frozywozy wrote: »

Shanehere wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Its almost as if there was no "Other" category for those who disagree'd with the poll options.
It's clear to see the poll results. Perhaps people just clicked a random option without reading eh

I don't believe that an option that most people believe on should be classified as "others". It's almost as bad as thinking that people won't pick a campaign because it's not listed first.

Clearly most people don't believe in what you believe because according to the data as it stands only 11% chose "other." The statistics are literally right there.

If the majority of the participants chose "other", then you would be right, my options weren't well thought out.

You're assuming that the way you think is majority, which is what a lot of people seem to think on these forums. That's the entire basis of this poll, to actually find out what the majority is. You can be upset about the results, but you can't deny them.

I believe that most people who think the way I am look at your options and can't find anyone that match and simply don't care and close the page. What amazes me is that you simply don't recognize that your options are flawed and you don't even consider changing the poll to what it should be.

I'm just going to let you dream of what you believe is reality and move on from this. At the end of the day, most people don't care about locks or no locks and thats why most people still play in Kaal. Also, as other people pointed out in this thread already, focus should be on condensing population on one or two different campaigns, not 3.

I'm sorry a simple poll offended you so much, and I physically couldn't change the poll questions if I wanted to.

You continue to argue "most people like me" and "most people don't have these beliefs" when the poll literally claims the opposite. If you have data that shows that most people think like you drop the link. "I'm going to let you dream of what you believe is reality" sounds like your personal mantra.

If you can deny literal data if it opposes your personal beliefs then godspeed my friend.

VaranisArano

Shanehere wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Shanehere wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Your options are flawed. The main reason is : I don't care to play lock or no lock. I go where it's most populated.

That's literally the basis of both the thread and the poll.

frozywozy wrote: »

I believe there are more important matters right now such as server performances.

Compacted PvP population is something that can be discussed. I would agree I would prefer improved server performance over a more spread out population, but that doesn't mean we can't discuss and theorize about this topic. They are two problems, you don't have to pick one over the other.

Why are you in here if you aren't interested or care about it?

Let's look at your options again and compare them to the way I think and what I stated in the post you quoted.

I've always played in the primary 30-day campaign.

This has nothing to do with playing in the 30 days campaign.

I play in Kaal because I like faction locks.

I don't care about playing in a locked or unlocked campaign.

I prefer no-CP, but I play in Kaal because it's more populated.

I don't care about CP or No CP.

I would prefer to play in the standard campaign to be able to play across factions, but I remain in Kaal because it's more populated.

I don't care what is the definition of standard and I don't care to play across factions or in the same faction.

Again, the options of your poll are flawed and do not represent the idea of what most people think :

"I don't care to play lock or no lock. I go where it's most populated. I believe there are more important matters right now such as server performances."

"I've always played in the primary 30-day campaign" means "I have always played in the 30-day campaign at the top of the campaign list, whether the campaign is Kaalgrondiid, Vivec, Trueflame... this is where I call home." It's a pretty valid reason for playing there, given the statistics.

You not caring about the locked or unlocked campaign doesn't mean that .

That's actually the option I didn't understand, to be honest. I assumed that "primary" meant something like "most populated/competitive" or the one that started first, not the campaign that's listed first alphabetically. If that's what you meant, that's not how I understood it.

Like, really, who actually picks a campaign based on its listed first alphabetically?

Of all the reasons for me to pick a campaign:
Population
Competition
CP vs No CP
30 day vs 7 day
Faction lock vs no faction lock
My guild plays there

"Listed first alphabetically" is not remotely on my radar. In fact, I've never seen that given as a reason for picking a campaign until the no-faction lock crowd started complaining that people wouldn't go to Laatvulon because its alphabetically below Kaalgrontiid.

Maybe alphabetical listing was a thing way back when we had multiple competitive campaigns with the same ruleset/timeframe?
The only recent comparison I can think of was 7 day No CP Almalexia vs the newer 7 day CP Shor, and Shor won that battle hands down because lots more players wanted a second CP enabled campaign.

Shanehere

VaranisArano wrote: »

That's actually the option I didn't understand, to be honest. I assumed that "primary" meant something like "most populated/competitive" or the one that started first, not the campaign that's listed first alphabetically. If that's what you meant, that's not how I understood it.

Like, really, who actually picks a campaign based on its listed first alphabetically?

Of all the reasons for me to pick a campaign:
Population
Competition
CP vs No CP
30 day vs 7 day
Faction lock vs no faction lock
My guild plays there

"Listed first alphabetically" is not remotely on my radar. In fact, I've never seen that given as a reason for picking a campaign until the no-faction lock crowd started complaining that people wouldn't go to Laatvulon because its alphabetically below Kaalgrontiid.

Maybe alphabetical listing was a thing way back when we had multiple competitive campaigns with the same ruleset/timeframe?
The only recent comparison I can think of was 7 day No CP Almalexia vs the newer 7 day CP Shor, and Shor won that battle hands down because lots more players wanted a second CP enabled campaign.

I'm really not sure where you are getting the alphabetical listing quote from, but what you assumed is correct. The top of the list was always a 30-day CP campaign, and the one that was often most populated. This is why it is considered "primary." It's had a lot of changes in name with the release of new DLCs, so that's what I was referring to when I mentioned all of those names, it's the same campaign with different names. That's why I simply classified it as "Primary 30-day" and not a specified name, because the name has changed a lot. People have been homed in there for a long time, and often don't even know the current name of it.

The campaigns are never in alphabetical order, at least not intentionally. For the longest time it went 30-day CP at the top (primary), 30-day no-CP, Standard 7-day with CP, under 50. They implemented faction locks, got rid of the 7-day and replaced it with a 30-day with no faction locks. The Faction-locked, 30-day CP campaign is still at the top of the list, and the most populated, so it remains the Primary.

He said me having that option didn't make sense because "this has nothing to do with the 30-day campaign." I still don't really understand his logic but you can go back and read his responses to figure it out. I think he had his own agenda. He claims my options were flawed because he didn't care about faction locks, CP/no-CP, and that server performance is a more important matter, and that most people (who believe the same as him) don't care enough to voice their strong opinions on the thread (unlike him) because they couldn't find an answer that fit (despite there being an "other" option and freedom to voice their opinion).

My hypothesis was that people give up their preference to play in a populated campaign, so I worded my options to cater to that. I did not mention the purpose of the poll at the beginning of the thread to prevent bias, looking back it probably wouldn't have mattered. This is my first poll.

I know a lot of people that prefer to play in different campaigns, but play in Kaal because of population. A lot of people on the forums believe these people are in the minority, so I simply wanted to see if it was true. I didn't mention any purpose to this poll, so he made up his own to fit his narrative and to argue for the sake of it.

frozywozy

@Shanehere , it's pretty simple

I believe that most people like me would have picked an option called :

- I don't care about faction locks , I play where it's the most populated

There is no option in your pole that define such thing.

Asking people to vote for "others" is a valid options but make it less obvious and promote people to simply ignore your thread if they don't find a straight option to what they believe on.

This being said, there are currently 31 votes for people who prefer to play in an unlocked campaign VS 39 votes who disagree or simply do not care. I wouldn't reffer as "the poll literally claims the opposite."

mague

frozywozy wrote: »

Pets – We are going to rewrite how pets are handled to be more performant (work better, more efficiently, and take up less overhead/resources on the server.) This work is ongoing and on track to release with Update 26.

Let's go over this again. First of all, they state that they won't approach server performances until mid year 2020, then the only details they provide is deal with the way Pets affect the server. That is the most idiotic, pathetic, ridiculous, disrespectful, saddening, shocking thing to say after being ignored for one year and a half without a single word on server performances.

As much as I would like to believe that pets will greatly increase performances, this is NOT going to do it. We need SERIOUS action and optimization on the ENTIRE game engine and the overall netcode.

Whoever wrote this article about "Pets" optimization in the second quarter of 2020 is just as disconnected as the investors who decide to not allow any resources whatsoever to fix their damn game. It's a shame.

You did get that all quite wrong They work on pets and the lowered overhead is just one of the wins. It is not THE performance fix. And pets need some love to be as reliable as a skill. Bear is even a double slot ultimate.

A company always fixes an engine on a win-win level in relation to their engine in development. It would be insane and very uneconomic to write code for an engine with a replacement in active development.

The netcode is not a standalone. There is more and more "punkbuster" code on the server and the defense of the hosters cloud. "Top code" doesnt improve the performance if any DoS is able to shut the service down.

Shanehere

frozywozy wrote: »

@Shanehere , it's pretty simple

I believe that most people like me would have picked an option called :

- I don't care about faction locks , I play where it's the most populated

There is no option in your pole that define such thing.

Asking people to vote for "others" is a valid options but make it less obvious and promote people to simply ignore your thread if they don't find a straight option to what they believe on.

This being said, there are currently 31 votes for people who prefer to play in an unlocked campaign VS 39 votes who disagree or simply do not care. I wouldn't reffer as "the poll literally claims the opposite."

The primary 30-day CP campaign is the campaign at the top of the campaign list and is always the most populated, ergo "primary". My first option "I always played in the primary 30-day CP campaign" addresses players who always play in the most populated campaign.

I made an edit in the post as well because apparently the term isn't as recognized as I thought, which I guess is my bad.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

Shanehere wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

@Shanehere , it's pretty simple

I believe that most people like me would have picked an option called :

- I don't care about faction locks , I play where it's the most populated

There is no option in your pole that define such thing.

Asking people to vote for "others" is a valid options but make it less obvious and promote people to simply ignore your thread if they don't find a straight option to what they believe on.

This being said, there are currently 31 votes for people who prefer to play in an unlocked campaign VS 39 votes who disagree or simply do not care. I wouldn't reffer as "the poll literally claims the opposite."

The primary 30-day CP campaign is the campaign at the top of the campaign list and is always the most populated, ergo "primary". My first option "I always played in the primary 30-day CP campaign" addresses players who always play in the most populated campaign.

I made an edit in the post as well because apparently the term isn't as recognized as I thought, which I guess is my bad.

It's not you.

VaranisArano

Shanehere wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

@Shanehere , it's pretty simple

I believe that most people like me would have picked an option called :

- I don't care about faction locks , I play where it's the most populated

There is no option in your pole that define such thing.

Asking people to vote for "others" is a valid options but make it less obvious and promote people to simply ignore your thread if they don't find a straight option to what they believe on.

This being said, there are currently 31 votes for people who prefer to play in an unlocked campaign VS 39 votes who disagree or simply do not care. I wouldn't reffer as "the poll literally claims the opposite."

The primary 30-day CP campaign is the campaign at the top of the campaign list and is always the most populated, ergo "primary". My first option "I always played in the primary 30-day CP campaign" addresses players who always play in the most populated campaign.

I made an edit in the post as well because apparently the term isn't as recognized as I thought, which I guess is my bad.

I may well be the one missing the commonly used phrase, so I definitely appreciate the clarification!