Opposing faction character already assigned to this campaign

thomaswinkworthb16_ESO · September 2014

There is no function to "unset" a guest or home campaign. This means if you have characters signed to every campaign you can never change your campaign.

This is clearly not intended since you have a 2 day cooldown on changing campaigns.

ghengis_dhan · September 2014

We need an option to "unassign" campaigns. It should have the same waiting period as with changing campaigns.

I'm in the same boat with family members in two factions, and my grandson will soon be playing a third.

driosketch · September 2014

Agree, that would be great to have. In the meantime, if you're stuck, here's what you need to do. You're going to have to double up characters of the same alliance. With four campaigns (plus the Non Vet) this is very doable.

First things first, decide who gets Thorn, and when. (Park your grandson in the Non Vet for now if he's going to be on a new character @ghengis_dhan‌ .) You'll be able to swap later if you want to share Thorn, so work out a schedule around the cool downs.

Secondly, give up the idea of homing a buff campaign and guesting into Thorn. You can probably still make it work, but it's going to be a bigger pain. Home buff are supposed to be going away pretty soon any ways, so best to start getting used to playing with the local campaign buffs.

Now the set up. First you'll need at least 30,000 AP on every character before making a move. It's 15,000 per change. If you have trouble earning that because you are in a dead campaign, start the rotation with whoever is currently assigned to Thorn, followed by each alliance in turn.

Next combine your home and guest campaigns. Remember this is a one way street. You can assign your guest to also be your home, but you can't assign your home to also be your guest. (If you haven't set a guest for a character yet, avoid doing so if you can afford it.) Set characters of the same alliance to guest the the most active campaign between them. Then when you can afford to, set that campaign as their home as well.

(Note: you may need to get your character out of Cyrodiil to wait out a cool down.)

Once you've consolidated your characters of the same alliance into a single campaign, you can start using the remaining empty campaign to shuffle them around like musical chairs. Remember guest first, then home.

A pain I know, but it's the only way for now. If anyone has trouble working out the logistics, I'll be happy to help.

SoulScream · September 2014

Yes an unguest option is needed.

æxæ · September 2014

No we don't need an "unguest" option.

What we need is for "guesting" to vanish completely from pvp.
We need to get rid off buff camapaigns, jump to player that's what we need.
Wanna know why? Check these out:

http://esostats.com/eu/
This is the European status for all campaigns, more or less accurate depending on players posting status but enough to get the picture.
We have at least 2 buff campaigns, 7 day for AD, 14 day for DC and heck even a third or fourth campaign if you have a closer look. The non-vet could be used for non-veterans as buff campaign and the 30 day Azura is pretty much another DC buff campaign. Only campaign remotely competitive is Thornblade.

Let's look at NA:
http://esostats.com/na/
What a surprise it's even more obvious. 7 day buff campaign for AD, 14 day for DC while 30 day Azura for AD and non-vet for DC and Thornblade also being the only competitive campaign. Who knew?

So please do not ask for an unguest option when it's pretty much obvious we should get rid off guesting. Make it 1 home campaign and let's be stuck with it, do not give anyone the option to switch. Why? Some players love exploiting. Limit the options. Less exploiting. You cannot organize with your friends or guildies?
I can, lots of others can, get used to it.

Another thing I wish one of the huge guilds on NA or EU could confirm:
I heard it might be possible to be invisible on campaigns, e.g. you have Thornblade as home and Azura as guest. You jump to your group members on Haderus, while building the group with everyone in Cyrodiil. Now, Haderus not being your home or guest campaign, it is still possible to jump there. Shouldn't be possible in the first place but let's ignore this for now. So, you are in a campaign that isn't your home or guest campaign. Are you really? I heard by jumping its possible the server does not even count you as physically in that campaign.
Anyone who can confirm this? Would explain a lot to me. Thanks!

Ackwalan · September 2014

About the only way I see an unguest or unhome option to work, would there to be a time limit to it. Kind of like the delete character works, but have it so you can unguest/unhome one character in a 24 hour period. This way if a persons main changes they can still play them in the campaign they want, yet people who would exploit this mechanic would have to burn a day in between.

tengri · September 2014

Introduce automatic "un-homing/guesting" when the campaign's cycle ends.

Maulkin · September 2014

@æxæ I completely disagree. There are quite a few reasons why you should be able to have a guest campaign.

Firstly, because queues happen and you want to play somewhere while waiting for an hour to enter the campaign.

Secondly, I'm a member of a duelling guild and we pick a very quiet/dead campaign to have some fun fighting each other. We usually ride to somewhere in the middle of nowhere and place down camps. If you try that on a full-pop server, within seconds 20 pugs will spawn to ruin the fun.

The problem with buff servers, is buffs, not guesting etc. These buffs don't even make sense. The winning faction gets buffs instead of material rewards and then the factions that are outnumbered have to face opponents with more HP, Stamina, Mgk, spell & weapon dmg etc.

Basically these buffs help perpetuate the state of single faction dominance.

Either remove buffs completely or give buffs to the losing factions and give more rewards to the winning faction instead. Don't change the way guesting works to ruin the fun for everyone else.

æxæ · September 2014

I am fine with your solution concerning the buffs but guesting has to go while I am aware that Mr. Wheeler has stated that they do not want to eliminate the guesting
option ....blah blah MMO blah blah (and in pve the grouping feature is horrible) I would strongly vote for 1 home campaign to choose, once chosen you are stuck with it.

Loyalty and such....and although this is a game, why should you be able to campaign hop at all? Just so you can find a "quiet" place to duel? In a war zone?
Come on. Wait for arena pvp maybe?

In RvR (AvA) there should not be a quiet place so you can duel. I want massive RvR and fear for my life (once forward camps are gone) while riding to the next keep. Not a quiet place.

I think we're on the same page that we want to avoid gaps that can be exploited, right? In order to do this, options should be limited.

And another thing: Dead campaigns...why would we want this? So a few people can do pve quests in peace or duel? Pfff. Sorry, pfff is not an argument and may seem a little childish but it suits that desire to have dead campaigns. I want a pvp zone to be strictly pvp, not a graveyard-dueling-buff-server-pve-questing-zone for a minority.

Strongly believe the majority wants mass rvr without lags in a competitive campaign.

darkdruidssb14_ESO · September 2014

æxæ wrote: »

Let's look at NA:
http://esostats.com/na/
What a surprise it's even more obvious. 7 day buff campaign for AD, 14 day for DC while 30 day Azura for AD and non-vet for DC and Thornblade also being the only competitive campaign. Who knew?

This is why I wouldn't just look at numbers and make up the story of what happened on each server. Blackwater Blade is not a DC buff server... the DC (faction I play on) just took the server Sunday night with a well coordinated multi-guild push. We did not intend to run all the EP and AD off... we are actually hoping they will come back because we definitely don't want a dead server.

Normally on BWB the 3 factions are pretty stalemate. It's actually been awhile since we even had an active emperor on the server on any faction.

However, I do agree that the guest option is killing the servers. It needs to be disabled and people need to pick a home campaign only. Then they can travel to their friends and guild mates if they happen to be on other servers. Then they need to disable buffs from carrying over to other campaigns. If you want your buff then you need to play on your home server. If your home server doesn't have good buffs then your faction needs to step it up.

This will discourage and limit the amount of server hopping that is currently going on and people would be more incentivized to pick a home campaign and play there the majority of the time.

Sadly this is one of those cases where giving players too many options is actually detrimental to the game.... ZOS... it's time to wake up on this.

æxæ · September 2014

darkdruidssb14_ESO wrote: »

This is why I wouldn't just look at numbers and make up the story of what happened on each server. Blackwater Blade is not a DC buff server... the DC (faction I play on) just took the server Sunday night with a well coordinated multi-guild push. We did not intend to run all the EP and AD off... we are actually hoping they will come back because we definitely don't want a dead server.

Normally on BWB the 3 factions are pretty stalemate. It's actually been awhile since we even had an active emperor on the server on any faction.

Don't mean to go all negative on a multi-guild-push of a map because I know this requires effort of co-ordination but still....you think this should be possible?
You were overwhelming the enemy by sheer numbers is what you're saying inbetween those lines. They ran off eh? Wouldn't happen in a campaign that is balanced, don't you think? And in the end you agree there shouldn't be guesting
or campaign hopping, I'm glad.

Maulkin · September 2014

æxæ wrote: »

And another thing: Dead campaigns...why would we want this? So a few people can do pve quests in peace or duel? Pfff. Sorry, pfff is not an argument and may seem a little childish but it suits that desire to have dead campaigns. I want a pvp zone to be strictly pvp, not a graveyard-dueling-buff-server-pve-questing-zone for a minority.

Yes your attitude is childish. You may not want duelling but I do. You many not want PvE questing in Cyro but others do. If it doesn't affect your campaign via buffs etc. and population imbalances, what's it to you? What about live and let live? Do we only have to play the game the way you want to play it?

Pfffttt is not an argument. You have not offered a single concrete argument why guest campaigns have to go. Only pffft. The only argument you have are about buffs going away which I fully agree with.

driosketch · September 2014

æxæ wrote: »

darkdruidssb14_ESO wrote: »

This is why I wouldn't just look at numbers and make up the story of what happened on each server. Blackwater Blade is not a DC buff server... the DC (faction I play on) just took the server Sunday night with a well coordinated multi-guild push. We did not intend to run all the EP and AD off... we are actually hoping they will come back because we definitely don't want a dead server.

Normally on BWB the 3 factions are pretty stalemate. It's actually been awhile since we even had an active emperor on the server on any faction.

Don't mean to go all negative on a multi-guild-push of a map because I know this requires effort of co-ordination but still....you think this should be possible?
You were overwhelming the enemy by sheer numbers is what you're saying inbetween those lines. They ran off eh? Wouldn't happen in a campaign that is balanced, don't you think? And in the end you agree there shouldn't be guesting
or campaign hopping, I'm glad.

If you knew the history of BB, you would know there was a time early on when EP took the entire map. And yet It didn't remain so. Before they took the map, DC was being beating back pretty hard by EP and AD. In a week the map will return to an average of six keeps and two scrolls per faction. That's just how it is on BB, and it's something campaigns like Had could never pull off. Balance isn't one alliance will never be able to take the map, it's them not being able to hold it permanently against the other alliances.

Rune_Relic · September 2014

mike.gaziotisb16_ESO wrote: »

æxæ wrote: »

And another thing: Dead campaigns...why would we want this? So a few people can do pve quests in peace or duel? Pfff. Sorry, pfff is not an argument and may seem a little childish but it suits that desire to have dead campaigns. I want a pvp zone to be strictly pvp, not a graveyard-dueling-buff-server-pve-questing-zone for a minority.

Yes your attitude is childish. You may not want duelling but I do. You many not want PvE questing in Cyro but others do. If it doesn't affect your campaign via buffs etc. and population imbalances, what's it to you? What about live and let live? Do we only have to play the game the way you want to play it?

Pfffttt is not an argument. You have not offered a single concrete argument why guest campaigns have to go. Only pffft. The only argument you have are about buffs going away which I fully agree with.

I will have to disagree with you in turn.
1. Yes it would be nice for dualists to have a home...(but one does not exist and was never envisioned to exist).
2. Yes it would be nice for PVE to have safe haven in Cyrodiil...(but it is not a safe haven...its RVR central. Areas outside of cyrodiil is your safe haven).
3. Cyrodiil was specific designed for large scale PVP. So to say he must sacrifice that to accommodate you and have large scale PVP compromised as a consequence isn't really an option is it.

Yes I agree pvp dualists need somewhere to go and need a home..but cyrodiil is not that place. Not unless ESO says...."New campaign ---abc is dualing server only." But they wont do that and have specifically said they don't want to do anything to detract from the war with arena style PVP combat.

Removing guest servers and buff servers means people have to fight or do nothing. Choice is yours. You enter cyrodiil to fight a war at the end of the day.

æxæ · September 2014

I suppose you only read what you want to read then and it's obvious you are disregarding my valid arguments why I do not want buff servers a.k.a dead campaigns caused by guesting and the ability to even jump to players.
Thought I wouldn't have to point this out because the pro's for 1 home campaign without the ability to guest would be rather obvious for everyone.

1. More loyal to campaign you've chosen as home campaign, more rewarding.
2. Cannot leave sinking ship and hop on empty campaign to achieve emperor or buffs
3. Puts more meaning to achieve emperor and/or buffs in a campaign that you are stuck with from the beginning
4. You cannot steamroll the map and if you can you will know you're better as an Alliance in a competitive campaign. Any Alliance can steamroll an empty campaign.
5. No more Emperor trading
6. More Commitment, more battles, less easy sieges

I could probably think of more but those shall do for now and yes I threw in that "pfff" to provoke such a statement as yours and you willingly just chimed in.
My bad, I will stick to arguments.

æxæ · September 2014

darkdruidssb14_ESO wrote: »

If you knew the history of BB, you would know there was a time early on when EP took the entire map. And yet It didn't remain so. Before they took the map, DC was being beating back pretty hard by EP and AD. In a week the map will return to an average of six keeps and two scrolls per faction. That's just how it is on BB, and it's something campaigns like Had could never pull off. Balance isn't one alliance will never be able to take the map, it's them not being able to hold it permanently against the other alliances.

Maybe I'd have to accept the fact that you cannot maintain a competitive campaign for its lifecycle, true. Then again if players would be commited to just one campaign, e.g. BB don't you think there would be less steamrolling?
And maybe a non-veteran campaign is not the best example here as players level out of that campaign quickly from what i've read in various threads.
Do you guys have a pop locked campaign on BB.NA prime time (considering all the time zones you guys have is there actually a prime time)?

driosketch · September 2014

æxæ wrote: »

Do you guys have a pop locked campaign on BB.NA prime time (considering all the time zones you guys have is there actually a prime time)?

No, that's the beauty of it. BB extremely rarely ever goes above 1 bar on any alliance, and yet there is competition during primetime.

BB is strange though, I'll give you that.

darkdruidssb14_ESO · September 2014

æxæ wrote: »

Don't mean to go all negative on a multi-guild-push of a map because I know this requires effort of co-ordination but still....you think this should be possible?
You were overwhelming the enemy by sheer numbers is what you're saying inbetween those lines. They ran off eh? Wouldn't happen in a campaign that is balanced, don't you think? And in the end you agree there shouldn't be guesting
or campaign hopping, I'm glad.

Actually that is the point. BWB is fairly balanced. The VR5 guards at every resource, outpost and keep help regulate night capping since you can't play on BWB if you are higher than level 49.. especially now that the server kicks you once you ding VR1. Outside of some highly skilled individuals it's near impossible to take a Keep with less than 8 people.... that's if NO ONE is protecting it. As soon as you have just 1 person healing those guards then you need considerably more people to have a chance at taking that Keep due to the guards.

We might have a a slight pop advantage on Sunday, but we had 4 guilds coordinating and pushing objectives depending on where we were needed. BWB never... well rarely ever... goes above 1 bar per faction on population and Sunday was no different.. DC had 1 bar. AD and EP were present, but were not able to hold DC back... it's rare that you see a faction take the entire map and in the month+ that I have played on BWB all 3 factions have had emperors.

But, all that aside... a non-vet server cannot realistically be a permanent home server. We all know people will level out and unless they want to roll an alt then we lost that player on our server for good.

Maulkin · September 2014

æxæ wrote: »

I suppose you only read what you want to read then and it's obvious you are disregarding my valid arguments why I do not want buff servers a.k.a dead campaigns caused by guesting and the ability to even jump to players.
Thought I wouldn't have to point this out because the pro's for 1 home campaign without the ability to guest would be rather obvious for everyone.

1. More loyal to campaign you've chosen as home campaign, more rewarding.
2. Cannot leave sinking ship and hop on empty campaign to achieve emperor or buffs
3. Puts more meaning to achieve emperor and/or buffs in a campaign that you are stuck with from the beginning
4. You cannot steamroll the map and if you can you will know you're better as an Alliance in a competitive campaign. Any Alliance can steamroll an empty campaign.
5. No more Emperor trading
6. More Commitment, more battles, less easy sieges

I could probably think of more but those shall do for now and yes I threw in that "pfff" to provoke such a statement as yours and you willingly just chimed in.
My bad, I will stick to arguments.

That's a better post, thank you.

Look, in you argument you say this " I do not want buff servers a.k.a dead campaigns". Basically you say a dead campaign is buff server, which currently is right but I want to break that link. If a campaign stops being used as a buff server then it will stop being dead.

Many campaigns have died BECAUSE they started being used as buff campaigns, not the other way round. Chillrend in EU was a fine campaign, with 2 bars of population every evening. Then some guilds turned up after hours to dominate the map and turn it into a buff server, driving everyone out in the process.Nobody wants to wake up in the morning to find a totally uni-colour map.

My argument is:
If you remove the concept of campaign buffs, these campaigns will stop being abused and will start to have a healthy, albeit smaller, population as they did before.

This would involve two major changes:
* Any buffs no longer apply outside of campaign and only apply to players who are not guests on the campaign
* Either remove former emperor buffs completely or have them apply only inside the campaign that emperorship was achieved (which can only be your main campaign)

If you change the above, these campaigns will be healthy again. The only reason why you would guest is to have some different kind of fun or because you are queuing for your server. You will not be able to achieve anything on your guest campaign that can help you in your main campaign or vice versa, so you will have absolutely 0 motivation to go there and dominate the campaign. You gain nothing from it. You will drive everyone else out and become the king of a dead campaign unable to carry any buffs anywhere else, so why do it?

Removing the guesting will not fix the issue you describe in my opinion. If you remove these campaigns altogether, then everyone will have to face the queues and lag and crashes at Thornblade and not be able to escape somewhere else for a few hours of PvP fun. It's the wrong approach in my opinion.

Maulkin · September 2014

Rune_Relic wrote: »

mike.gaziotisb16_ESO wrote: »

æxæ wrote: »

And another thing: Dead campaigns...why would we want this? So a few people can do pve quests in peace or duel? Pfff. Sorry, pfff is not an argument and may seem a little childish but it suits that desire to have dead campaigns. I want a pvp zone to be strictly pvp, not a graveyard-dueling-buff-server-pve-questing-zone for a minority.

Yes your attitude is childish. You may not want duelling but I do. You many not want PvE questing in Cyro but others do. If it doesn't affect your campaign via buffs etc. and population imbalances, what's it to you? What about live and let live? Do we only have to play the game the way you want to play it?

Pfffttt is not an argument. You have not offered a single concrete argument why guest campaigns have to go. Only pffft. The only argument you have are about buffs going away which I fully agree with.

I will have to disagree with you in turn.
1. Yes it would be nice for dualists to have a home...(but one does not exist and was never envisioned to exist).
2. Yes it would be nice for PVE to have safe haven in Cyrodiil...(but it is not a safe haven...its RVR central. Areas outside of cyrodiil is your safe haven).
3. Cyrodiil was specific designed for large scale PVP. So to say he must sacrifice that to accommodate you and have large scale PVP compromised as a consequence isn't really an option is it.

Yes I agree pvp dualists need somewhere to go and need a home..but cyrodiil is not that place. Not unless ESO says...."New campaign ---abc is dualing server only." But they wont do that and have specifically said they don't want to do anything to detract from the war with arena style PVP combat.

Removing guest servers and buff servers means people have to fight or do nothing. Choice is yours. You enter cyrodiil to fight a war at the end of the day.

You're completely off the mark. I don't want anything sacrificed as you make it sound on point 3. My proposal would lead to a far healthier PvP than is currently happening.

Removing buff servers can be achieved simply by removing buffs, instead of removing servers and server guesting.

maxilaub17_ESO · September 2014

thomaswinkworthb16_ESO wrote: »

There is no function to "unset" a guest or home campaign. This means if you have characters signed to every campaign you can never change your campaign.

This is clearly not intended since you have a 2 day cooldown on changing campaigns.

I have the same issue and customer service said there is nothing they can do to help.

I set my guest over a month ago to Thronblade, I knew when my current campaign ended I wanted to make Thornbalde my home, for the past WEEK every time I've tried to change my guest away from Thornbalde the game would not let me. My campaign ended and now Thron is my home and guest and it still wont let me change my guest. Just add this to the long, long list of *** programming by the ZOS team.

demonlkojipub19_ESO · September 2014

Should probably just play as one alliance.

AlnilamE · September 2014

Rune_Relic wrote: »

I will have to disagree with you in turn.
1. Yes it would be nice for dualists to have a home...(but one does not exist and was never envisioned to exist).
2. Yes it would be nice for PVE to have safe haven in Cyrodiil...(but it is not a safe haven...its RVR central. Areas outside of cyrodiil is your safe haven).
3. Cyrodiil was specific designed for large scale PVP. So to say he must sacrifice that to accommodate you and have large scale PVP compromised as a consequence isn't really an option is it.

Yes I agree pvp dualists need somewhere to go and need a home..but cyrodiil is not that place. Not unless ESO says...."New campaign ---abc is dualing server only." But they wont do that and have specifically said they don't want to do anything to detract from the war with arena style PVP combat.

Removing guest servers and buff servers means people have to fight or do nothing. Choice is yours. You enter cyrodiil to fight a war at the end of the day.

I have to disagree with you. Cyrodiil may have been designed for large scale PvP, but there is a huge amount of PvE in there too. I spent the greater part of the weekend with my two main characters in Cyrodiil doing mostly PvE and throwing myself into PvP if I was close to the action. I chose to do this in a campaign that was less populated rather than go to Thornblade because I figured that I shouldn't take up the spot of someone who does want to PvP in the busiest campaign.

So we went to Chillrend instead, which is dominated by DC (I'm in EP) and we did a quest that literally took us around the entire map and threw in some fishing too, while avoiding enemy players when we didn't want to fight them. We even got the ocean fish, and the ocean spots are right by the AD gates. It was a lot of fun! But if I had gone to Thornblade, I would have taken up a spot.

Now, I agree that campaign buffs should not affect players outside of their home campaign. You get those benefits only in the campaign you are fighting for.

I would love for all the campaigns to be reasonably populated, but not everybody goes to Cyrodiil just to PvP.

Rune_Relic · September 2014

AlnilamE wrote: »

Rune_Relic wrote: »

I will have to disagree with you in turn.
1. Yes it would be nice for dualists to have a home...(but one does not exist and was never envisioned to exist).
2. Yes it would be nice for PVE to have safe haven in Cyrodiil...(but it is not a safe haven...its RVR central. Areas outside of cyrodiil is your safe haven).
3. Cyrodiil was specific designed for large scale PVP. So to say he must sacrifice that to accommodate you and have large scale PVP compromised as a consequence isn't really an option is it.

Yes I agree pvp dualists need somewhere to go and need a home..but cyrodiil is not that place. Not unless ESO says...."New campaign ---abc is dualing server only." But they wont do that and have specifically said they don't want to do anything to detract from the war with arena style PVP combat.

Removing guest servers and buff servers means people have to fight or do nothing. Choice is yours. You enter cyrodiil to fight a war at the end of the day.

I have to disagree with you. Cyrodiil may have been designed for large scale PvP, but there is a huge amount of PvE in there too. I spent the greater part of the weekend with my two main characters in Cyrodiil doing mostly PvE and throwing myself into PvP if I was close to the action. I chose to do this in a campaign that was less populated rather than go to Thornblade because I figured that I shouldn't take up the spot of someone who does want to PvP in the busiest campaign.

So we went to Chillrend instead, which is dominated by DC (I'm in EP) and we did a quest that literally took us around the entire map and threw in some fishing too, while avoiding enemy players when we didn't want to fight them. We even got the ocean fish, and the ocean spots are right by the AD gates. It was a lot of fun! But if I had gone to Thornblade, I would have taken up a spot.

Now, I agree that campaign buffs should not affect players outside of their home campaign. You get those benefits only in the campaign you are fighting for.

I would love for all the campaigns to be reasonably populated, but not everybody goes to Cyrodiil just to PvP.

No they don't all go to cyrodiil to PVP.
None the less..that is the purpose of it.
Show me any ZOS literature that says cyrodiil is not intended to be the PVP faction vs faction centrepiece.
If you find some I'll retract my comment and apologise.

Hence any one elses claims on the pros and cons of cyrodiil comes secondary to whats best for the PVP war.

Monsoon · September 2014

Remove all restrictions and allow people to just have a massive fight in the middle of the city.

I love EP but I can not stand the map for the first 15 levels. AD has the best starter island and the best 15 levels/story/weather/look etc. All my other toons are on AD while I pride myself helping EP.

But sometimes I would like to fight on the other side and this game does not allow it UNLESS I buy another account.

Thornblade is MY server and I don t give a flying F*** about the other campaigns and server...you guys don t understand what server pride is...Server + Faction is the thing you should be developing more...not restrictions

I don t care about trolls and spies those are the minority and the exception. You should not limit what people can do. It pisses me off that on evening I can not play AD thornblade on my level 34 because my other toon is already on EP Thornblade

THIS is the kind of restrictions that drive people away. Let me play where I want when I want instead of managing for the exception and annoying 100% of the player base.

WHY have restrictions in the first place? Is having spies SUCH as massive issue? Seriously. Deal with spies in clever ways instead of these stupid gimmicks

Maulkin · October 2014

Monsoon wrote: »

I don t care about trolls and spies those are the minority and the exception. You should not limit what people can do. It pisses me off that on evening I can not play AD thornblade on my level 34 because my other toon is already on EP Thornblade

THIS is the kind of restrictions that drive people away. Let me play where I want when I want instead of managing for the exception and annoying 100% of the player base.

WHY have restrictions in the first place? Is having spies SUCH as massive issue? Seriously. Deal with spies in clever ways instead of these stupid gimmicks

You got this the wrong way round. These are the kind of restrictions that keep players in the game, not drive them away.

If anyone could log their lvl10 alt into the same campaign but for opposing faction and troll people with out of place FCs and sieges then PvP would be pretty much ruined. One troll is enough to ruin a defence.

I dunno what guild your part of what friends you have, but every PvP guild I'm part of are thankful for these restrictions, not angry about them.

SoulScream · October 2014

mike.gaziotisb16_ESO wrote: »

Monsoon wrote: »

I don t care about trolls and spies those are the minority and the exception. You should not limit what people can do. It pisses me off that on evening I can not play AD thornblade on my level 34 because my other toon is already on EP Thornblade

THIS is the kind of restrictions that drive people away. Let me play where I want when I want instead of managing for the exception and annoying 100% of the player base.

WHY have restrictions in the first place? Is having spies SUCH as massive issue? Seriously. Deal with spies in clever ways instead of these stupid gimmicks

You got this the wrong way round. These are the kind of restrictions that keep players in the game, not drive them away.

If anyone could log their lvl10 alt into the same campaign but for opposing faction and troll people with out of place FCs and sieges then PvP would be pretty much ruined. One troll is enough to ruin a defence.

I dunno what guild your part of what friends you have, but every PvP guild I'm part of are thankful for these restrictions, not angry about them.

Anyone can!

The restrictions aren't working to stop people that want to do that and they are preventing a normal player from enjoying their alts. Furthermore the restrictions are causing buff/empty campaigns because there has to be enough campaigns or different faction alts can't be played at all.

This is designed really bad and should have been changed already.

Maulkin · October 2014

SoulScream wrote: »

mike.gaziotisb16_ESO wrote: »

Monsoon wrote: »

I don t care about trolls and spies those are the minority and the exception. You should not limit what people can do. It pisses me off that on evening I can not play AD thornblade on my level 34 because my other toon is already on EP Thornblade

THIS is the kind of restrictions that drive people away. Let me play where I want when I want instead of managing for the exception and annoying 100% of the player base.

WHY have restrictions in the first place? Is having spies SUCH as massive issue? Seriously. Deal with spies in clever ways instead of these stupid gimmicks

You got this the wrong way round. These are the kind of restrictions that keep players in the game, not drive them away.

If anyone could log their lvl10 alt into the same campaign but for opposing faction and troll people with out of place FCs and sieges then PvP would be pretty much ruined. One troll is enough to ruin a defence.

I dunno what guild your part of what friends you have, but every PvP guild I'm part of are thankful for these restrictions, not angry about them.

Anyone can!

The restrictions aren't working to stop people that want to do that and they are preventing a normal player from enjoying their alts. Furthermore the restrictions are causing buff/empty campaigns because there has to be enough campaigns or different faction alts can't be played at all.

This is designed really bad and should have been changed already.

Anyone can what?

Not anyone can get their alts to any campaign or the person I was responding to would not be complaining. People can put troll camps by having a separate account and paying extra money. That's impossible to control, but at least the extra cost is a huge deterrent. If anyone could troll without having to pay any extra money, it would become so common-place PvP would suffer greatly.

And please don't make absurd assumptions. The reason why there are buff campaigns is in the name, buffs. If they didn't have buffs there wouldn't be buff campaigns. Many of the campaigns had healthy populations before large guilds (or guild alliances) started capping them so they could have buffs in PvE and the campaign they actually PvPed in.

The campaigns died because of the buffs and because of ZOS' ineptitude at dealing with the basic problems (like lag, fps drops and crashes) in a timely manner, which lead do a decrease in the PvP population. The travel restrictions most certainly had very little if anything to do with the demise of these campaigns. That's clutching at straws

BergisMacBride · October 2014

SoulScream wrote: »

This is designed really bad and should have been changed already.

Agreed that the system needs to be changed.

The problem is there are currently not enough active PvP campaigns to go around if one wants to PvP with an other faction alt. I do agree with @mike.gaziotisb16_ESO in that I'm sure the buff system has something to do with this, but addressing that may be too little too late with the exodus of PvP players this game has experienced. As he said, crashes, bugs and stability also contribute to this decline as well.

ZOS is already pushing the limit on being able to legitimately PvP (not troll or spy) in an active campaign with alts. With only 5 VR campaigns, there's already not enough to go around for Home/Guesting if one wants to PvP with all faction alts. In reality, it's even more limited since there's only one really active NA campaign. One could say "use travel to guest", but this doesn't work for me if pop is locked. If and when there is more server consolidation, this problem of finding an active campaign for an other faction alt to play will become even more acute.

I'm certainly aware or the problems spying and trolling can cause to PvP and the toxic environment it can create, and ZOS should do everything in their power to prevent it. That being said, I believe they should scrap the current restrictions on alt faction PvP, probably in favor of a lockout timer (say 6-12 hours or more?) to play in a campaign such that if you PvP in a certain campaign, your other faction alt cannot spawn into that campaign for a certain period of time. Adjust the time such that it prevents griefing but preserves the ability to play an active campaign with alts. Get rid of guesting and travel to player but keep Home server for a given faction for points purposes.

This system wouldn't be perfect, but already in the current setup there's nothing to prevent someone from immediately griefing anyway in a non pop-locked campaign using travel to player. This would prevent that from happening, unless they have a second account, which they can use already to circumvent the current restrictions. And it would allow players to PvP with an other faction alt within the lockout restrictions.

Joy_Division · October 2014

mike.gaziotisb16_ESO wrote: »

Anyone can what?

Not anyone can get their alts to any campaign or the person I was responding to would not be complaining. People can put troll camps by having a separate account and paying extra money. That's impossible to control, but at least the extra cost is a huge deterrent. If anyone could troll without having to pay any extra money, it would become so common-place PvP would suffer greatly.

And please don't make absurd assumptions. The reason why there are buff campaigns is in the name, buffs. If they didn't have buffs there wouldn't be buff campaigns. Many of the campaigns had healthy populations before large guilds (or guild alliances) started capping them so they could have buffs in PvE and the campaign they actually PvPed in.

The campaigns died because of the buffs and because of ZOS' ineptitude at dealing with the basic problems (like lag, fps drops and crashes) in a timely manner, which lead do a decrease in the PvP population. The travel restrictions most certainly had very little if anything to do with the demise of these campaigns. That's clutching at straws

You are wrong about the difficulty in getting into a non home/guest campaign. You do not need to make a separate account or pay more money to hop in a campaign that is not your home or guest. You don't even need to have friends in the opposing faction; across-faction guild (such as one devoted to trading) will do.

And just to emphasize, this is NOT a bad thing. It is an MMO, Zenimax has stated numerous times that they wanted to make it possible to play with your friends. See here, for example: http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/125176/alliance-war-future-plans-and-update/p1

Also buff campaigns only came about because many people got frustrated with the PvP in this game and left. You are overestimating the effect even large guilds had. Guilds seeking buffs only drove people away because there were not very many people to begin with. Back in April on the NA server, Auriel's Bow, Bloodthorn, and Wabbajack were all heavily contested. By mid-May, the latter two devolved into buff campaigns.

demonlkojipub19_ESO · October 2014

Monsoon wrote: »

Remove all restrictions and allow people to just have a massive fight in the middle of the city.

I love EP but I can not stand the map for the first 15 levels. AD has the best starter island and the best 15 levels/story/weather/look etc. All my other toons are on AD while I pride myself helping EP.

But sometimes I would like to fight on the other side and this game does not allow it UNLESS I buy another account.

Thornblade is MY server and I don t give a flying F*** about the other campaigns and server...you guys don t understand what server pride is...Server + Faction is the thing you should be developing more...not restrictions

I don t care about trolls and spies those are the minority and the exception. You should not limit what people can do. It pisses me off that on evening I can not play AD thornblade on my level 34 because my other toon is already on EP Thornblade

THIS is the kind of restrictions that drive people away. Let me play where I want when I want instead of managing for the exception and annoying 100% of the player base.

WHY have restrictions in the first place? Is having spies SUCH as massive issue? Seriously. Deal with spies in clever ways instead of these stupid gimmicks

Youre going to go through each alliance start to finish no mattear what alliance you pick by doing cadwells silver and gold. Unless you dont care about the skillpoints.