Should ZOS remove 2 campaigns?

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO · December 2014

The current game population imo doesnt support so many campaigns. In addtion to this Azura, Haderus and Chill have just become PVE buff campaigns.

My vote is to remove Haderus and Chillrend as 30 day campaigns are more popular and give a greater sense of accomplishment for battling over a month to win something.

It would be better to remove 2 campaigns now before Imperial City is released and buff campaigns become even move of a thing.

When this is done all campaigns should be reset back to default settings - home keeps and 2 scrolls and start at 30 days again.

@ZOS_JessicaFolsom @ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_BrianWheeler

Turelus · December 2014

Remove Haderus and Chillrend

I would like to see the closure of some of these dead campaigns again.

While I understand that some play there for the smaller scale PVP and skirmishing most have once again become nothing but buff and emperor trade campaigns.

kevlarto_ESO · December 2014

Remove Haderus and Chillrend

I think they need to remove a couple and use those resources for the heavily populated campaign, Thorny could always use a couple more hamsters

Sublime · December 2014

Keep all 4

I personally rarely play on Haderus or Chillrend but I think there are People who like to Play on a less populated server (for whatever reason, emp farming/PvE buffing not included).

It would however be a good solution to the AvA buff problem in PvE.

Armitas · December 2014

Can't remove haderus because we have cut a small slice of pvp there despite the pve.

I think they should make pvp buffs based on total alliance success rather than individual server success. That would make each server immediately valid. No more 3 buff servers 1 lag server, just 4 servers necessary for success.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO · December 2014

Remove Haderus and Chillrend

Armitas wrote: »

Can't remove haderus because we have cut a small slice of pvp there despite the pve.

I think they should make pvp buffs based on total alliance success rather than individual server success. That would make each server immediately valid. No more 3 buff servers 1 lag server, just 4 servers necessary for success.

Why would this be any different if you moved to Azuras?

McLukos · December 2014

Keep all 4

Some people do not like the hardcore style that Thorn turns into. More options are good and PvE in Thorn would just be a pain...

Subtomik · December 2014

Remove Haderus and Chillrend

McLukos wrote: »

Some people do not like the hardcore style that Thorn turns into. More options are good and PvE in Thorn would just be a pain...

Hardcore? You mean like...having to actually pvp?

Juraigr · December 2014

Remove Haderus and Chillrend

Yes

Lava_Croft · December 2014

Remove Haderus and Chillrend

Now that all the tryhards have their Former Emperor buffs, the campaigns used to obtain said buffs can be closed.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO · December 2014

Remove Haderus and Chillrend

Lava_Croft wrote: »

Now that all the tryhards have their Former Emperor buffs, the campaigns used to obtain said buffs can be closed.

but I don't have mine yet! :< where can I change my vote...

Tavore1138 · December 2014

Keep all 4

Stupid thread, how does it stop you having fun if other players have a quieter campaign where they get a chance to practice skills & builds before joining the endless queue for the most active campaigns?

Equally just because you choose to look down on other campaigns as 'buff' campaigns doesn't mean that some players don't spend a lot of time defending them against visitors who wish to use them for quickly sneaking an emperor raid and take pride in keeping them free from invasion when they succeed.

Let other people have their fun and go and have yours.

Turelus · December 2014

Remove Haderus and Chillrend

Subtomik wrote: »

McLukos wrote: »

Some people do not like the hardcore style that Thorn turns into. More options are good and PvE in Thorn would just be a pain...

Hardcore? You mean like...having to actually pvp?

This deserved a LOL, thank you. :disagree:

Armitas · December 2014

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Armitas wrote: »

Can't remove haderus because we have cut a small slice of pvp there despite the pve.

I think they should make pvp buffs based on total alliance success rather than individual server success. That would make each server immediately valid. No more 3 buff servers 1 lag server, just 4 servers necessary for success.

Why would this be any different if you moved to Azuras?

I wasn't aware there was any sustained pvp there on NA. Is there regular action there?

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO · December 2014

Remove Haderus and Chillrend

Armitas wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Armitas wrote: »

Can't remove haderus because we have cut a small slice of pvp there despite the pve.

I think they should make pvp buffs based on total alliance success rather than individual server success. That would make each server immediately valid. No more 3 buff servers 1 lag server, just 4 servers necessary for success.

Why would this be any different if you moved to Azuras?

I wasn't aware there was any sustained pvp there on NA. Is there regular action there?

If you took the players from haderus and chill there would be I'm sure.

Sanct16 · December 2014

Remove Haderus and Chillrend

Agree to Izanagi.

Agrippa_Invisus · December 2014

They should remove all four. That way the quality of PVP they've been delivering up to now can be preserved.

MiyaTheUnbroken · December 2014

I don't think it's necessary to remove two. Removing one would be sufficient. PvP participants won't allow Thorn to become a buff server, that's just never going to happen. Also, if they don't reset the campaigns when they remove one it will encourage competition. Say they remove Azura's since it's 30 day and redundant. Not only will the displaced EP need a new home, but they will be quite upset that the other two factions are soaking in the buffs while they are buffless. So instead of just going to Thorn where everyone knows there will always be action, they will slam into the other buff servers, the residents of which will call to Thorn and PvE for help, and all of the sudden we have three lively servers.

Psilent · December 2014

Remove Azura's Star that's it. Problem solved.

AlnilamE · December 2014

Keep all 4

I have never set foot in Thornblade and have no interest in going into a server that is pop-locked all the time.

I've PvPed in Chillrend (my home campaign) and Azura's and it's been fun.

LonePirate · December 2014

Keep all 4

Armitas wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Armitas wrote: »

Can't remove haderus because we have cut a small slice of pvp there despite the pve.

I think they should make pvp buffs based on total alliance success rather than individual server success. That would make each server immediately valid. No more 3 buff servers 1 lag server, just 4 servers necessary for success.

Why would this be any different if you moved to Azuras?

I wasn't aware there was any sustained pvp there on NA. Is there regular action there?

All three factions have crowned an emperor on Azura's Star NA during the past day or so. AD and DC crowned theirs during overnight hours while EP crowned theirs during the daytime.

I would not consider the action to be sustained but there are pockets of PVP amidst the PVDooring.

Each of three non-vet campaigns outside of Thorn offer a slightly different dynamic due to the different dominant factions. While the campaigns receive much less action than Thorn, they are not dead by any means.

Morvul · December 2014

Remove Haderus and Chillrend

AlnilamE wrote: »

I have never set foot in Thornblade and have no interest in going into a server that is pop-locked all the time.

I've PvPed in Chillrend (my home campaign) and Azura's and it's been fun.

I don't like Thornblade either (way to much lag), but removing 2 of the other campaigns is a good idea regardless: it will turn the remaining "empty" campaign into a small-scale PvP campaign, instead of the buff-server it currently is on NA / starts to become on EU

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO · December 2014

Remove Haderus and Chillrend

The main thing is to prevent dilution of the community, yes small scale is fun but you can achieve this on 2 servers currently, 4 servers is too many at least with the population we have now after all this lag, low pop bonus etc.
If you fix it ZOS you may get 10% back but members are going every day now. Don't wait too long to consolidate the servers and fix the lag imo.

AlnilamE · December 2014

Keep all 4

Morvul wrote: »

AlnilamE wrote: »

I have never set foot in Thornblade and have no interest in going into a server that is pop-locked all the time.

I've PvPed in Chillrend (my home campaign) and Azura's and it's been fun.

I don't like Thornblade either (way to much lag), but removing 2 of the other campaigns is a good idea regardless: it will turn the remaining "empty" campaign into a small-scale PvP campaign, instead of the buff-server it currently is on NA / starts to become on EU

Are you sure we wouldn't end up with two pop-locked campaigns?

Darklord_Tiberius · December 2014

Remove Haderus and Chillrend

Keep 2, 30 days campaigns and drop the rest. ZOS really screwed up on this one, worst than they did in Guild Wars 2 with people server jumping. They need to remove guesting and make a home campaign change cost 500k to 1 mil AP.

The PvP in this game is dying faster than it was at launch. Its the same core group out and hardly anyone new can be seen. Recruitment and attendance is down across the board. I know loads of people that refuse to PvP because of how screwed up it is.

The lag issue has to do with people spamming certain healing abilities, many have reported it and all have been ignored. ZOS sucks large donkey balls at listening and communicating to its community.

Rylana · December 2014

Keep all 4

Keep all four and reduce the pop cap for thorn to force people to go to the other three.

Literally cut pop cap in half. We have four campaigns for a reason.

eventide03b14a_ESO · December 2014

They need to fix the system to prevent "buff campaigns". There should be two 30 day vet campaigns, one can obviously be used for overflow, and one non vet campaign. With only two campaigns and 3 factions it should help to keep people from just allowing those campaigns to remain owned by one faction for too long.

My only concern of course is whether they will ever fix the lag caused by heavy population in those campaigns.

Psilent · December 2014

Rylana wrote: »

Keep all four and reduce the pop cap for thorn to force people to go to the other three.

Literally cut pop cap in half. We have four campaigns for a reason.

I like this idea; any reason why Zeni hasn't done this yet? Sounds like an easy solution to the lag problem.

Asgari · December 2014

Remove Haderus and Azura's

Psilent wrote: »

Rylana wrote: »

Keep all four and reduce the pop cap for thorn to force people to go to the other three.

Literally cut pop cap in half. We have four campaigns for a reason.

I like this idea; any reason why Zeni hasn't done this yet? Sounds like an easy solution to the lag problem.

It would just mean longer queue for EP and AD and still none for DC. Players want to play where the action is. DC has gone to other buff servers to try and make something of it but it just turns to a farm and then they leave.

Night-claw · December 2014

wish remove thornblade was an option most laggy campaign out there

Andferne · December 2014

Remove Chill and Azura.

The Elder Scrolls Online

Should ZOS remove 2 campaigns?

Should ZOS remove 2 campaigns? 108 votes