This has been going on for over 5 years, can we finally rework Cyrodiil

dsalter

(5:32AM GMT posting this image)
Does this image look familiar to you? (ignore which faction it is, all 3 are guilty of this crap)
if you've played long enough you know full to well about the whole unbalanced issue of population abuse be it from time zones (something you cant control but many guilds will happily exploit for farming), cross faction "spies" aka making alts to hog up a player slot and monitor zone chat or even individual open group chats and the dreaded 2 man 20 siege engine keep flips/cuts.

maybe it is about time focus was put onto reworking Cyrodiil to not be such a slog of repeated cheese fests and actually focus more on the battle side of things rather than out cheesing your opponent (or in most cases lack of)
some things of the top of my head:
limiting sieges so they NEED to be manned to reload and fire so no more 1-2 man 20 siege stupidity.
make it that if you are not actively playing Cyrodiil PvP for 10minutes you are given a timer that if you dont start doing objectives be it fighting, attacking keeps/resources or healing players in combat you are ejected from the battlefield so to combat the AFKers and alt accounts hogging player slots.
remove the pointless PvE areas they serve as nothing but a non-PvP distraction and completely contributes nothing to the whole point of the region (this includes delves and towns with no spawn functions.)
increase the underdog detection rate so that it actually applies more accurately when applicable.
improve the underdog bonus so that it actually improves the damage delt+reduces damage taken of its players+NPC's and improves the durability+health of its keeps, add a second underdog bonus thats half the scaling for the middle range faction. (current underdog would apply to the weakest and the middle ground would apply to the second place IF the population and score is somewhat away from the leader.)

now theres probably a ton more tweaks that could work and probably better than what i'v listed but i'v farted this list up in like 20minutes so if you can do better with stats to back it up im all for it but i am just sick of this cheese fest its part of what made me leave Cyrodiil in the first place (not including the server lag which HAS improved thank god but the cheese fest still existing isnt enough to want me to commit as much as i'd like)

[edited for profanity bypass]

vsrs_au

Sounds like ZOS needs to add a constraint that any 1 player account can only participate in 1 PvP campaign at a time. I guess this wouldn't stop players with multiple accounts abusing the system, but it might cut down on this alt-spy exploit? This is just an idea, though, I know next to nothing about PvP.

dsalter

vsrs_au wrote: »

Sounds like ZOS needs to add a constraint that any 1 player account can only participate in 1 PvP campaign at a time. I guess this wouldn't stop players with multiple accounts abusing the system, but it might cut down on this alt-spy exploit? This is just an idea, though, I know next to nothing about PvP.

this is already in place, so its clearly intended a faction locked camp should not allow alts in so using a secondary account to bypass this should be more strictly punished

KiltMaster

play grey host

dsalter

KiltMaster wrote: »

play grey host

[snip]
the image has grey host in it, same [snip], all the camps are like this, ALL of them

[edited for baiting & profanity bypass]

xFocused

Hammer is one of the dumbest mechanics in Cyrodiil in my opinion. It adds nothing of value. All it does is create even more laggy fights where nothing works because you have 3 bars of alliances trying to zerg the thing and steal it and It encourages players to drop it to their buddies on another alliance for gold (Yes this is a thing). I'm surprised it's even still a thing in this game anymore

CameraBeardThePirate

xFocused wrote: »

Hammer is one of the dumbest mechanics in Cyrodiil in my opinion. It adds nothing of value. All it does is create even more laggy fights where nothing works because you have 3 bars of alliances trying to zerg the thing and steal it and It encourages players to drop it to their buddies on another alliance for gold (Yes this is a thing). I'm surprised it's even still a thing in this game anymore

This. It just causes more faction stack and more lag. It's also yet another example of something that was released by ZOS and quickly abandoned.

Remember when the idea was that other Daedric Artifacts would be added? Pepperidge Farm remembers

ProudMary

Ya, I'd vote to nix the hammer if ZOS let us vote on it. Send it back to oblivion permanently.

xDeusEJRx

xFocused wrote: »

Hammer is one of the dumbest mechanics in Cyrodiil in my opinion. It adds nothing of value. All it does is create even more laggy fights where nothing works because you have 3 bars of alliances trying to zerg the thing and steal it and It encourages players to drop it to their buddies on another alliance for gold (Yes this is a thing). I'm surprised it's even still a thing in this game anymore

Hammer is an awful mechanic, but it was zos's attempt to add flavor to the map so the map doesn't have "dead air" where nothing happens. But conversely it's exasperated the faction stacking problem in this game tenfold.

I honestly hope they just give that mechanic the axe. Volendrung should go.

Necrotech_Master

xDeusEJRx wrote: »

xFocused wrote: »

Hammer is one of the dumbest mechanics in Cyrodiil in my opinion. It adds nothing of value. All it does is create even more laggy fights where nothing works because you have 3 bars of alliances trying to zerg the thing and steal it and It encourages players to drop it to their buddies on another alliance for gold (Yes this is a thing). I'm surprised it's even still a thing in this game anymore

Hammer is an awful mechanic, but it was zos's attempt to add flavor to the map so the map doesn't have "dead air" where nothing happens. But conversely it's exasperated the faction stacking problem in this game tenfold.

I honestly hope they just give that mechanic the axe. Volendrung should go.

i actually like the hammer because it shakes up the map lol

theres been sometimes im in cyro for like an hour and it feels like theres nothing going on, no attacks, no defense, no pushes anywhere

xDeusEJRx

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

xDeusEJRx wrote: »

xFocused wrote: »

Hammer is one of the dumbest mechanics in Cyrodiil in my opinion. It adds nothing of value. All it does is create even more laggy fights where nothing works because you have 3 bars of alliances trying to zerg the thing and steal it and It encourages players to drop it to their buddies on another alliance for gold (Yes this is a thing). I'm surprised it's even still a thing in this game anymore

Hammer is an awful mechanic, but it was zos's attempt to add flavor to the map so the map doesn't have "dead air" where nothing happens. But conversely it's exasperated the faction stacking problem in this game tenfold.

I honestly hope they just give that mechanic the axe. Volendrung should go.

i actually like the hammer because it shakes up the map lol

theres been sometimes im in cyro for like an hour and it feels like theres nothing going on, no attacks, no defense, no pushes anywhere

It's not an awful idea, but I'd rather there be 3 or 4 different zergs roaming around attacking 3 or 4 different keeps at once than having 1 single zerg of 50+ people all attacking for 1 thing(aka faction stacking).
At that point, you either have tons of bombers or you just get ran over. You can't really counter that unless you have TONS of bombers or a zerg the same size or a super effective ball group

But I don't support having the entire server going to 1 point at the same time.

Amottica

It has been going on since the say this game was released and will continue with any AvA scenario until the lights are turned off.

AvA/WvW is not a competitive PvP design at its core. For fun PvP it is Cyrrodiil. It is a PvP that players of all skill levels can participate in since it is designed around larger groups. The balance between the factions was never intended outside of peak play times. It is working as intended.

For those that want competitive PvP in ESO it is BGs.

Necrotech_Master

xDeusEJRx wrote: »

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

xDeusEJRx wrote: »

xFocused wrote: »

Hammer is one of the dumbest mechanics in Cyrodiil in my opinion. It adds nothing of value. All it does is create even more laggy fights where nothing works because you have 3 bars of alliances trying to zerg the thing and steal it and It encourages players to drop it to their buddies on another alliance for gold (Yes this is a thing). I'm surprised it's even still a thing in this game anymore

Hammer is an awful mechanic, but it was zos's attempt to add flavor to the map so the map doesn't have "dead air" where nothing happens. But conversely it's exasperated the faction stacking problem in this game tenfold.

I honestly hope they just give that mechanic the axe. Volendrung should go.

i actually like the hammer because it shakes up the map lol

theres been sometimes im in cyro for like an hour and it feels like theres nothing going on, no attacks, no defense, no pushes anywhere

It's not an awful idea, but I'd rather there be 3 or 4 different zergs roaming around attacking 3 or 4 different keeps at once than having 1 single zerg of 50+ people all attacking for 1 thing(aka faction stacking).
At that point, you either have tons of bombers or you just get ran over. You can't really counter that unless you have TONS of bombers or a zerg the same size or a super effective ball group

But I don't support having the entire server going to 1 point at the same time.

to be honest though, the faction stacking does still happen even without the hammer in play

one faction could be making a scroll push so the defending faction is going to faction stack to protect it, same could be said for the last emp keep situation

elder scrolls could also be similar to the hammer except a vast amount of people frankly dont care about them, and because the person with the scroll is mostly running once they hit a certain point you just lost it (its also a non-combat related objective unlike the hammer)

maybe we need some elder scroll-like objective that cannot be taken behind the gates to make it more of a target for stealing

xDeusEJRx

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

xDeusEJRx wrote: »

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

xDeusEJRx wrote: »

xFocused wrote: »

Hammer is one of the dumbest mechanics in Cyrodiil in my opinion. It adds nothing of value. All it does is create even more laggy fights where nothing works because you have 3 bars of alliances trying to zerg the thing and steal it and It encourages players to drop it to their buddies on another alliance for gold (Yes this is a thing). I'm surprised it's even still a thing in this game anymore

Hammer is an awful mechanic, but it was zos's attempt to add flavor to the map so the map doesn't have "dead air" where nothing happens. But conversely it's exasperated the faction stacking problem in this game tenfold.

I honestly hope they just give that mechanic the axe. Volendrung should go.

i actually like the hammer because it shakes up the map lol

theres been sometimes im in cyro for like an hour and it feels like theres nothing going on, no attacks, no defense, no pushes anywhere

It's not an awful idea, but I'd rather there be 3 or 4 different zergs roaming around attacking 3 or 4 different keeps at once than having 1 single zerg of 50+ people all attacking for 1 thing(aka faction stacking).
At that point, you either have tons of bombers or you just get ran over. You can't really counter that unless you have TONS of bombers or a zerg the same size or a super effective ball group

But I don't support having the entire server going to 1 point at the same time.

to be honest though, the faction stacking does still happen even without the hammer in play

one faction could be making a scroll push so the defending faction is going to faction stack to protect it, same could be said for the last emp keep situation

elder scrolls could also be similar to the hammer except a vast amount of people frankly dont care about them, and because the person with the scroll is mostly running once they hit a certain point you just lost it (its also a non-combat related objective unlike the hammer)

maybe we need some elder scroll-like objective that cannot be taken behind the gates to make it more of a target for stealing

Yes but whenever the hammer drops it's always a guarantee to devolve into a server zerg situation, unless population is evenly balanced or you have a really effective ball group that can kill the top faction or you have a ton of bombers to keep the top faction on their toes, which is never a guarantee.

What is a guarantee however, is that it encourages everyone in the server to chase it down, and whoever ends up with it typically shows how glaringly a big of a difference the population of a server makes if you don't have the numbers online to combat a server zerg.

It's not as if any zerg is thinking "we have 1 zerg push enemies back keeps while hammer pushes the immediate keeps", no the zergs just all l push the same place at the same time and you have to hope you can fight the hammer zerg.

The hammer isn't just a way to spice up the map, it literally can and will dictate whether or not your faction will be severely losing at the time if that population imbalance exists between the factions.

Necrotech_Master

xDeusEJRx wrote: »

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

xDeusEJRx wrote: »

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

xDeusEJRx wrote: »

xFocused wrote: »

Hammer is one of the dumbest mechanics in Cyrodiil in my opinion. It adds nothing of value. All it does is create even more laggy fights where nothing works because you have 3 bars of alliances trying to zerg the thing and steal it and It encourages players to drop it to their buddies on another alliance for gold (Yes this is a thing). I'm surprised it's even still a thing in this game anymore

Hammer is an awful mechanic, but it was zos's attempt to add flavor to the map so the map doesn't have "dead air" where nothing happens. But conversely it's exasperated the faction stacking problem in this game tenfold.

I honestly hope they just give that mechanic the axe. Volendrung should go.

i actually like the hammer because it shakes up the map lol

theres been sometimes im in cyro for like an hour and it feels like theres nothing going on, no attacks, no defense, no pushes anywhere

It's not an awful idea, but I'd rather there be 3 or 4 different zergs roaming around attacking 3 or 4 different keeps at once than having 1 single zerg of 50+ people all attacking for 1 thing(aka faction stacking).
At that point, you either have tons of bombers or you just get ran over. You can't really counter that unless you have TONS of bombers or a zerg the same size or a super effective ball group

But I don't support having the entire server going to 1 point at the same time.

to be honest though, the faction stacking does still happen even without the hammer in play

one faction could be making a scroll push so the defending faction is going to faction stack to protect it, same could be said for the last emp keep situation

elder scrolls could also be similar to the hammer except a vast amount of people frankly dont care about them, and because the person with the scroll is mostly running once they hit a certain point you just lost it (its also a non-combat related objective unlike the hammer)

maybe we need some elder scroll-like objective that cannot be taken behind the gates to make it more of a target for stealing

Yes but whenever the hammer drops it's always a guarantee to devolve into a server zerg situation, unless population is evenly balanced or you have a really effective ball group that can kill the top faction or you have a ton of bombers to keep the top faction on their toes, which is never a guarantee.

What is a guarantee however, is that it encourages everyone in the server to chase it down, and whoever ends up with it typically shows how glaringly a big of a difference the population of a server makes if you don't have the numbers online to combat a server zerg.

It's not as if any zerg is thinking "we have 1 zerg push enemies back keeps while hammer pushes the immediate keeps", no the zergs just all l push the same place at the same time and you have to hope you can fight the hammer zerg.

The hammer isn't just a way to spice up the map, it literally can and will dictate whether or not your faction will be severely losing at the time if that population imbalance exists between the factions.

population differences are a massive problem in cyro right now anyway, regardless if the hammer is in play or not

some of the instances at some times of day will be 1 bar for a faction and locked for another, there is no way to combat that or do anything, you even try taking resource of a home keep when your gated in that situation and you will still be met with a zerg half of the time

people already server zerg even without the hammer, thats why theres usually only like a couple fights taking place on the map at once (and im talking larger fights, not a small scale group of tower campers sitting on a resource provoking fights)

playing in grey host sometimes, ive been at fights at nikel/ash/roe where it feels like the entirety of the DC faction is there, no hammer is present, and theres few or no other fights with blue swords on them across the rest of the map

it already feels like it sometimes takes a faction zerg to kick a ball group out of a keep

i personally dont really have any performance problems with the hammer, i see the same lag i see when its 2 regular zergs fighting or theres a ball group present

CameraBeardThePirate

Amottica wrote: »

For those that want competitive PvP in ESO it is BGs.

Lmao. BGs are anything but competitive. Competitive PvP simply doesn't exist in this game because ZOS doesn't really care about PvP. This game is geared towards casuals, that's the long and short of it.

Cyrodiil is stale and plagued with technical issues, BGs have poorly designed gamemodes, no mode selection, and no custom lobby system. IC is dead because it receives virtually no developer attention.

Amottica

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

For those that want competitive PvP in ESO it is BGs.

Lmao. BGs are anything but competitive. Competitive PvP simply doesn't exist in this game because ZOS doesn't really care about PvP. This game is geared towards casuals, that's the long and short of it.

Cyrodiil is stale and plagued with technical issues, BGs have poorly designed gamemodes, no mode selection, and no custom lobby system. IC is dead because it receives virtually no developer attention.

Laugh if you like. However, the sentence you quoted can see my comment was specifically pertaining to ESO.

From your comment, it seems your complaint is really about ESO performance and such in general, not about my post.

xFocused

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

For those that want competitive PvP in ESO it is BGs.

Lmao. BGs are anything but competitive. Competitive PvP simply doesn't exist in this game because ZOS doesn't really care about PvP. This game is geared towards casuals, that's the long and short of it.

Cyrodiil is stale and plagued with technical issues, BGs have poorly designed gamemodes, no mode selection, and no custom lobby system. IC is dead because it receives virtually no developer attention.

Right. Almost every BG I've been in is far from competitive because majority of the time, it turns into a 2v1 situation, lol

Weathur

At the very least, the map should be reworked as the population cap has been significantly been reduced since the inception of the ESO.

Twig_Garlicshine

Underdog bonus as it currently exists is badly designed.
Can never be updated fast enough, and easily abused.
Better would be:
1/ Leader = Points and AP earning - normal. Defending = 10% to points and AP.
2/ 2nd place = 25% bonus to points and AP earned by attacking 1st place alliance targets and players.. 10% bonus defense.
3/ 3rd place = 50% bonus to points and AP earned by attackking 1st place alliance targets and players. 10% bonus defense.

This would encourage underdogs ganging up on the leading alliance which is the basic design of Cyro and its original form in Dark Age of Camelot. It would also encourage small mans to engage more strategically for the bonuses.

P.S. Hammer should never go to most populated alliance. Personally I'd be happy to see it removed.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

I'm kind of surprised that ZOS didn't add a mechanic to only allow the hammer to spawn when the campaign is high across all factions. For a 'weapon of chaos' it seems that it shouldn't really be available when there aren't enough players for any chaos to be caused.

Also we suggested to ZOS around 6 or more years ago to adjust the scoring timer based on the active population. So when populations across all factions are high it ticks more frequently to reflect the changing map and when they are low it ticks only occasionally to reflect the more static one-sided map.

This would eliminate the need for the low pop bonus to affect scoring and simply just provide an incentive for players to play and so could be applied more readily.

Finally whilst it would never happen I'd really like to see the combination of all campaign scoring & leaderboards and then have campaigns shut down during lower population times (campaigns would be queueable similar to BG's).
This would force the players who enjoy to capture the map when other factions are lower pop to actually all play on the same campaign at those times rather than one faction gets campaign x, another campaign y and the third campaign z.

Twohothardware

They need to remove the Campaign lock which did nothing and come up with a new queue system for Cyrodiil that balances out numbers on all three Alliances. If there’s no Campaign lock you can get on an alt for a different Alliance if your queue is too long.

Either that or revamp Cyrodiil to work like Battlegrounds maybe where we just do away with Alliances and have three teams.

Delphinia

Twohothardware wrote: »

They need to remove the Campaign lock which did nothing and come up with a new queue system for Cyrodiil that balances out numbers on all three Alliances. If there’s no Campaign lock you can get on an alt for a different Alliance if your queue is too long.

Either that or revamp Cyrodiil to work like Battlegrounds maybe where we just do away with Alliances and have three teams.

Exactly. The faction lock may have helped to reduce some amount of trolling, but unfortunately, players can simply log into their alt account and log into another faction on that camp anyway. I will not name names, but a certain player who has hopped from ep to ad and is now on dc does this very thing. It is on PC/NA GH camp, (which is locked), so there really should not be any concerns with players being able to play multiple alliances on the same camp, but yet, they do.

I would be fine with that if they actually played for the faction they were on at that given time. But, instead, this player just trolls zone chat and gives false information. The faction lock does nothing to keep this player and those like him from infesting the opposing faction with toxic behavior.

The way the "three faction war" has been playing out over the last, well since the beginning, is not about balance. It may have been designed with that in mind. There may have been good intentions of designing it so that the weaker two factions work towards bringing down the faction in first, but it really is not like that at all. One side, especially the last six or so campaigns, has completely proven that it has nothing to do with trying to find real competition. It is about targeting the weakest and least populated faction. It is about personal grudges. This may ensure a lead and second place, especially for those who try and bargain and make "deals" with the other faction, like the player I mentioned (again, I will not name names). It is clear that they want to "win" whatever the cost. I guess a 5k lead is not suitable enough, it has now reached almost 10k.

The result is that more and more players leave the game entirely, or just shift to another faction (the "winning" faction). This creates further imbalance, less competition, and eventually a dead map.

My husband and I left for almost a year. I keep hoping players will see the absurdity and make changes by shifting to the faction most in need. I keep hoping that zos will make changes that promote healthy and fair competition. I keep hoping I will not have to be out of a fight for more than 20 minutes to be able to use my mount. (sorry, I had to put that in there because that would be a huge improvement which would make the mess that is Cyro a little more bearable).

At any rate, I have given up hope. Players are just people and human nature is to follow the easy path without thinking of the consequences. Therefore, you will continue to see people flock to the same faction over and over. If zos will not provide a method for its players to have this equal and balanced playing field in order to promote a healthy map, while still keeping with the spirit of good sportsmanship and real competition, I do not suppose it's right to expect that the players will either.

Tommy_The_Gun

AP do scale with the amount of players taking part in PvP activity. You get less AP for capturing empty keep - but if there will be some defenders and/or siege will take more time - then you get better reward for doing something that is harder and more challenging. More AP. The harder the content - the better the reward.

Potential Points however are fixed. You always get 1 (or double for your native objectives) regardless of how difficult it was to capture the objective. You can fight 2 hours vs entire faction and get 1 point, or you can grab empty stuff with no defenders with less than 3 minutes and you still get 1 point.

This is something that I am surprised was not addressed. Cryo PvP is kinda like "user made content". Players affect the experience and whenever the content is harder or easier.

So what should have been done long time ago is to make potential points to also scale with the amount of players curently participating in PvP. Since unlike AP, Potential Points are global points that are a combined effort of every player within the Allaiance and those potion are slowly being accumulated. It makes perfect sense for those to also scale in some way with the global population & population difference.

An example of how I think it could work:
1. Re-scale population bar to 10 instead of 3.
2. Depending on the difference in population (attackers vs defenders) you get 2x, 3x, 4x, 5x, 10x times less potential points for capturing objectives.
3. In the most extreme case, if you capture enemy objective when your faction is locked and enemy has 1 bar - you get 10x times less potential points for that objective, so in order to have 1 point you need to capture 10 enemy objectives that way.
4. The way to reset the penalty would be to lose & re-take objective when populations are more or less equall.
5. This would not affect your own native objectives (keeps, resources, outpost, scrolls).
6. This would only affect potential points, AP would not be affected.

If something like this would be implemented, then after "painting the map" on one colour during heavy population imbalance - it would be easier to recover and a bunch of players who are doing PvE would not be the deciding factor who wins a PvP Campaign. PvP campaign should be won by, well - doing an actual PvP.

Kartalin

I posted an idea a while back on a thread that didn’t have much traction.

Anyway the concept was that as the war has gone on, defensive lines have moved forward. The map would now consist of the six inner keeps and the original outposts, with a single gate and scroll for each faction about halfway between their home keeps and maybe set back a bit. 5 keeps to crown emp, with loss of control of at least 2 keeps means losing emp. This prevents lag created by stacking 3 factions at dethrone locations.

Adjust population to around 50 per faction. Still plenty of territory for multiple playstyles, less horse simulator overall, and hopefully be able to sustain at least one if not two main campaigns around the clock. Could probably populate 4 in prime time with the possibility of different rule sets for 1 or 2 (2 cp with hammer, 1 cp no hammer, 1 no cp, no hammer?)

Marcus684

Twohothardware wrote: »

They need to remove the Campaign lock which did nothing and come up with a new queue system for Cyrodiil that balances out numbers on all three Alliances. If there’s no Campaign lock you can get on an alt for a different Alliance if your queue is too long.

Either that or revamp Cyrodiil to work like Battlegrounds maybe where we just do away with Alliances and have three teams.

Nope. Alliance locks are clearly popular as the locked campaign has always been the most populated. I'd definitely PvP less if there wasn't a locked campaign, as I think of my fellow DC regulars in a similar light as my real-life vet buddies. We're compatriots in the never-ending battle versus the evil forces of the clown king Emeric and the weak queen Ayrenn.

As others have said, ZOS needs to fix the low pop bonus and give players a better incentive to play on the underdog alliances.

Twohothardware

Marcus684 wrote: »

Twohothardware wrote: »

They need to remove the Campaign lock which did nothing and come up with a new queue system for Cyrodiil that balances out numbers on all three Alliances. If there’s no Campaign lock you can get on an alt for a different Alliance if your queue is too long.

Either that or revamp Cyrodiil to work like Battlegrounds maybe where we just do away with Alliances and have three teams.

Nope. Alliance locks are clearly popular as the locked campaign has always been the most populated. I'd definitely PvP less if there wasn't a locked campaign, as I think of my fellow DC regulars in a similar light as my real-life vet buddies. We're compatriots in the never-ending battle versus the evil forces of the clown king Emeric and the weak queen Ayrenn.

As others have said, ZOS needs to fix the low pop bonus and give players a better incentive to play on the underdog alliances.

Alliance lock has nothing to do with why the main campaign is the most popular. It's the most popular because it's the MAIN campaign. Prior to the lock ever being added the main campaign was always by far the most populated and there was a lot more active players then than there are now.

Marcus684

Twohothardware wrote: »

Marcus684 wrote: »

Twohothardware wrote: »

They need to remove the Campaign lock which did nothing and come up with a new queue system for Cyrodiil that balances out numbers on all three Alliances. If there’s no Campaign lock you can get on an alt for a different Alliance if your queue is too long.

Either that or revamp Cyrodiil to work like Battlegrounds maybe where we just do away with Alliances and have three teams.

Nope. Alliance locks are clearly popular as the locked campaign has always been the most populated. I'd definitely PvP less if there wasn't a locked campaign, as I think of my fellow DC regulars in a similar light as my real-life vet buddies. We're compatriots in the never-ending battle versus the evil forces of the clown king Emeric and the weak queen Ayrenn.

As others have said, ZOS needs to fix the low pop bonus and give players a better incentive to play on the underdog alliances.

Alliance lock has nothing to do with why the main campaign is the most popular. It's the most popular because it's the MAIN campaign. Prior to the lock ever being added the main campaign was always by far the most populated and there was a lot more active players then than there are now.

Citation needed.

It's the "Main Campaign" BECAUSE it's the most popular, not the other way around. It's the campaign players go to when they want the best chance of action. This has been discussed to death ever since a faction-locked campaign was introduced, and to be fair no one has ever been able to provide any evidence as to why the faction-locked campaign is the most popular. The only thing we have to go on is history, and historically speaking, the faction-locked campaign has always been the most popular, by a huge margin. This leads to the conclusion that faction locks are more popular than the lack of them, even in the face of our current low population levels overall.

Delphinia

Marcus684 wrote: »

Twohothardware wrote: »

Marcus684 wrote: »

Twohothardware wrote: »

They need to remove the Campaign lock which did nothing and come up with a new queue system for Cyrodiil that balances out numbers on all three Alliances. If there’s no Campaign lock you can get on an alt for a different Alliance if your queue is too long.

Either that or revamp Cyrodiil to work like Battlegrounds maybe where we just do away with Alliances and have three teams.

Nope. Alliance locks are clearly popular as the locked campaign has always been the most populated. I'd definitely PvP less if there wasn't a locked campaign, as I think of my fellow DC regulars in a similar light as my real-life vet buddies. We're compatriots in the never-ending battle versus the evil forces of the clown king Emeric and the weak queen Ayrenn.

As others have said, ZOS needs to fix the low pop bonus and give players a better incentive to play on the underdog alliances.

Alliance lock has nothing to do with why the main campaign is the most popular. It's the most popular because it's the MAIN campaign. Prior to the lock ever being added the main campaign was always by far the most populated and there was a lot more active players then than there are now.

Citation needed.

It's the "Main Campaign" BECAUSE it's the most popular, not the other way around. It's the campaign players go to when they want the best chance of action. This has been discussed to death ever since a faction-locked campaign was introduced, and to be fair no one has ever been able to provide any evidence as to why the faction-locked campaign is the most popular. The only thing we have to go on is history, and historically speaking, the faction-locked campaign has always been the most popular, by a huge margin. This leads to the conclusion that faction locks are more popular than the lack of them, even in the face of our current low population levels overall.

I have been playing off and on since beta, with my most recent hiatus being this past year. I may be incorrect, and I'm sure someone will quickly let me know if I am, but with all due respect, I believe Grey Host has been considered the "main campaign" by many due to it being (for quite some time), the only CP campaign that also happened to be a 30 campaign, at least until very recently.

Amottica

Kartalin wrote: »

I posted an idea a while back on a thread that didn’t have much traction.

Anyway the concept was that as the war has gone on, defensive lines have moved forward. The map would now consist of the six inner keeps and the original outposts, with a single gate and scroll for each faction about halfway between their home keeps and maybe set back a bit. 5 keeps to crown emp, with loss of control of at least 2 keeps means losing emp. This prevents lag created by stacking 3 factions at dethrone locations.

Adjust population to around 50 per faction. Still plenty of territory for multiple playstyles, less horse simulator overall, and hopefully be able to sustain at least one if not two main campaigns around the clock. Could probably populate 4 in prime time with the possibility of different rule sets for 1 or 2 (2 cp with hammer, 1 cp no hammer, 1 no cp, no hammer?)

Going the way of GW2s design would be much better overall. Eliminate the unique and extra campaigns and have just one campaign with multiple maps. Each with its own unique design. They can be designed so they fit together as a jigsaw, filling up the space that is Cyrodiil. Each map would have its own queue but players can move between them as there is space. Want to go to XYZ but it is capped. queue for it but you can still play on another map that is not queued while waiting. Granted, during peak times all maps would be queued as they are now and during off times the balance would be off as it expected.

Marcus684

Delphinia wrote: »

Marcus684 wrote: »

Twohothardware wrote: »

Marcus684 wrote: »

Twohothardware wrote: »

They need to remove the Campaign lock which did nothing and come up with a new queue system for Cyrodiil that balances out numbers on all three Alliances. If there’s no Campaign lock you can get on an alt for a different Alliance if your queue is too long.

Either that or revamp Cyrodiil to work like Battlegrounds maybe where we just do away with Alliances and have three teams.

Nope. Alliance locks are clearly popular as the locked campaign has always been the most populated. I'd definitely PvP less if there wasn't a locked campaign, as I think of my fellow DC regulars in a similar light as my real-life vet buddies. We're compatriots in the never-ending battle versus the evil forces of the clown king Emeric and the weak queen Ayrenn.

As others have said, ZOS needs to fix the low pop bonus and give players a better incentive to play on the underdog alliances.

Alliance lock has nothing to do with why the main campaign is the most popular. It's the most popular because it's the MAIN campaign. Prior to the lock ever being added the main campaign was always by far the most populated and there was a lot more active players then than there are now.

Citation needed.

It's the "Main Campaign" BECAUSE it's the most popular, not the other way around. It's the campaign players go to when they want the best chance of action. This has been discussed to death ever since a faction-locked campaign was introduced, and to be fair no one has ever been able to provide any evidence as to why the faction-locked campaign is the most popular. The only thing we have to go on is history, and historically speaking, the faction-locked campaign has always been the most popular, by a huge margin. This leads to the conclusion that faction locks are more popular than the lack of them, even in the face of our current low population levels overall.

I have been playing off and on since beta, with my most recent hiatus being this past year. I may be incorrect, and I'm sure someone will quickly let me know if I am, but with all due respect, I believe Grey Host has been considered the "main campaign" by many due to it being (for quite some time), the only CP campaign that also happened to be a 30 campaign, at least until very recently.

I suppose this is possible, since we really don't have any hard evidence as to why the 30-day locked campaign has always been the most popular.

I guess ZOS could experiment and remove the lock from GH and we might find out for sure, but I really don't see that happening. All I know for sure is that I like the lock, and its removal would lead to me PvPing less.