Balance the Campaigns!!!

Sagetim

Only speaking from the Xbox said because I'm not PC or PS.
Back in the day locking the campaign needed to be locked because there was a lot of players in the game and some would Q for one alliance then switch alliances real quick to lock the Q up on other alliances. Now of days once you pick the alliance you are locked into that alliance the whole month. The problem is guilds/friends are rotating alliance every month setting an imbalance to and alliance in PVP almost every month as of late. Then you have to wait a whole month to see if will balance out for the next month. DLC makes this far more noticeable but the imbalance has been around for sometime now.

I'm still for the Locking of alliance but feel that the Campaigns needs to have a floating lock on how many people, can be on one alliance, at one time, during the game. With one alliance never exceeding more then 25-50 players (after 1 bar) more then the other side. This might make other campaigns more active but would help keep the main campaign viable and more competitive.

Going into the main Campaign and seeing one alliance has everything on the map and has a full 3 bar alliance to both 1 bar of the other alliance makes people not even want to be in Cyrodiil. There has to be a way to balance Campaigns better so month after month there's more far game-play. As of late the unbalanced alliance in the main campaign has been more noticeable.

Post in Alliance War too

techyeshic

While balance on locked campaigns can shift unevenly and be so for 30 days; evidence in the unlocked has shown in my eyes that the unlocked campaign swings more wildly and players do not balance campaigns and go for the easiest path.

On PCNA; we actually had a few months where the campaign on locked seemed competitive. Then some thought it wasn't competitive enough and went to the 2nd place faction for some reason, and not the 3rd place. So now it has been over a week in. I don't believe in their righteousness.

Sagetim

techyeshic wrote: »

While balance on locked campaigns can shift unevenly and be so for 30 days; evidence in the unlocked has shown in my eyes that the unlocked campaign swings more wildly and players do not balance campaigns and go for the easiest path.

On PCNA; we actually had a few months where the campaign on locked seemed competitive. Then some thought it wasn't competitive enough and went to the 2nd place faction for some reason, and not the 3rd place. So now it has been over a week in. I don't believe in their righteousness.

I'm more for: Campaigns needs to have a floating lock on how many people, can be on one alliance, at one time, during the game. With one alliance never exceeding more then 25-50 players (after 1 bar) more then the other side.

ResidentContrarian

Won't solve anything since balance between players is lacking, the systems that all rely on said players must also be unbalanced and stay that way no matter what changes are made.

techyeshic

Sagetim wrote: »

techyeshic wrote: »

While balance on locked campaigns can shift unevenly and be so for 30 days; evidence in the unlocked has shown in my eyes that the unlocked campaign swings more wildly and players do not balance campaigns and go for the easiest path.

On PCNA; we actually had a few months where the campaign on locked seemed competitive. Then some thought it wasn't competitive enough and went to the 2nd place faction for some reason, and not the 3rd place. So now it has been over a week in. I don't believe in their righteousness.

I'm more for: Campaigns needs to have a floating lock on how many people, can be on one alliance, at one time, during the game. With one alliance never exceeding more then 25-50 players (after 1 bar) more then the other side.

25-50 is quite a large zerg to allow over the other side. I would say 12 as that is the standard group size now; but then, I have also been on the other side of it where we go to take people who are largely PvEers in and that is severely limiting the ability to do that as its easier to go to a relatively empty campaign to be able to get them all there, and to get their feet wet rather than start feeding them to the more serious groups that tend to be on the "main" campaign. We have had quite a few players that were against PvP completely but saw the fun side when eased in.

I've always been a proponent of introducing more rewards to play on the lower numbered side though. That way the main campaigns would discourage players from all stacking in one side on the off-peak hours for easy rewards.

kargen27

I don't think I should be punished and not allowed into the campaign simply because my alliance has the advantage.

RageKing

people switching factions at the end of the month is healthy. As a PC DC player we have owned the last few campaigns in Gray Host, now this campaign people have switched sides to either AD or EP and now DC is in last place which im cool with because it would be boring and u healthy causing people to quit if they were stuck in one alliance forever in that campiagn. create some alts in diff alliances as join the musical chairs or not. its up to you

itscompton

I'd like to see the campaigns capped at two weeks long. A month long campaign is great if the score stays remotely close, but the reality is after the first week or two it's abundantly clear who's going to win and people start playing less on the other alliances when they feel it's out of hand.
It's been well over a year since there was a campaign on PS4 that was decided in the last week of the month and it's most often been over after the first. Playing for the losing side in a campaign that has been decided for two weeks sucks.

PikkonMG

I think we need faction locking for accounts. Im sick of all this cross faction stuff. If your EP then be EP if you AD then be AD ect. Stop switching faction it ruins the game in PVP.