Sharee wrote: »

Thornblade EU, middle of a workday:



You can guess what the map looks like.

This is making people throw up their hands in disgust and give up on campaigns. Fix please.

The same can be said about Thorn NA.

Sharee wrote: »

Thornblade EU, middle of a workday:



You can guess what the map looks like.

This is making people throw up their hands in disgust and give up on campaigns. Fix please.

This has been a problem on buff campaigns for many months. You just deal with it; grab some friends, take a resource and farm AP. If you want competition, go to another campaign. Trust me, I did this for many months on Haderus NA, when it was pop lock AD vers 1 bar EP.

Dynamic population locks will cause more problems than they solve. We'll be swimming in queue complaint threads from all 3 factions.

Psilent wrote: »

Dynamic population locks will cause more problems than they solve.

They cannot possibly cause a bigger problem than this:

EIGHTS wrote: »

If this status continue, everyone will leave Cyrodiil.

---

Psilent wrote: »

If you want competition, go to another campaign.

You mean the one that is completely blue?

This is a global problem.

Sharee wrote: »

Psilent wrote: »

Dynamic population locks will cause more problems than they solve.

They cannot possibly cause a bigger problem than this:

EIGHTS wrote: »

If this status continue, everyone will leave Cyrodiil.

---

Psilent wrote: »

If you want competition, go to another campaign.

You mean the one that is completely blue?

This is a global problem.

They need to open up a experimental 14 day dynamic population campaign. Keep the others the way they are currently. See how it works.

Psilent wrote: »

They need to open up a experimental 14 day dynamic population campaign. Keep the others the way they are currently. See how it works.

Yes, that would be a good idea. I would move in a heartbeat.

Tankqull wrote: »

not the caps but the entire campaign system needs to be dynamic.

openeing and closing campaigns on demand.
campaigns will be opend once the privous campaign is caps locked, and closed if its pop can be emerged into the primary campaign. all achievements reached on secondary campaigns count towards the primary, emp and scroll bonis are defined by the primary server for everybody.
ad an alliance switch towards the least populated alliance(and only that alliance) to the crown shop on a reliable price.

No, I am not for this at all. The one thing about ESO PvP I love is building rivalries with enemy groups in my home campaign.

Also, while I hate buff campaigns, I kind of miss them now. So much fun to go into and destroy.

Psilent wrote: »

Tankqull wrote: »

not the caps but the entire campaign system needs to be dynamic.

openeing and closing campaigns on demand.
campaigns will be opend once the privous campaign is caps locked, and closed if its pop can be emerged into the primary campaign. all achievements reached on secondary campaigns count towards the primary, emp and scroll bonis are defined by the primary server for everybody.
ad an alliance switch towards the least populated alliance(and only that alliance) to the crown shop on a reliable price.

No, I am not for this at all. The one thing about ESO PvP I love is building rivalries with enemy groups in my home campaign.

Also, while I hate buff campaigns, I kind of miss them now. So much fun to go into and destroy.

well you simply cant give a hughe part of the player base an kick in the ass by by forcing them to stay within a queue (nothing else is done to the over pop alliance by introducing any type of dynamic system) without offering them a way to compensate. as thx to the horrible lvl speed forced by some dum<peep> rerolling is no longer an option.

Rune_Relic wrote: »

Sadly the pop lock doesn't actually reflect the PVE/PVP ratio.
I think the 1st thing should be a 'flag for PVE' on the campaign you choose.
Setting the flag enables quests and delve entry but stops you attacking enemies.
At least then we know who is fighting and who is lollygagging
Those flagged for PVE do not add toward the pop lock.

..and no I don't really like it at all. Just trying to think of a fix.

Hmmm... Let's try a scenario here. Let's say the pop caps are 100 for each faction with each bar representing 25. Now let's say 80 EP log in and set the PVE flag. They all ride down to Faregyl and hide in stealth. These 80 are no longer included in the pop count so another 80 EP log in and set the PVE flag before riding off to Faregyl as well. Now 80 more EP log in who do not set the PVE flag. They all attack Faregyl. The ones who die immediately set the PVE flag and some members of the 160 hidden EP immediately turn off the PVE flag to continue the assault on Faregyl as if nothing happened. How many of these waves can AD endure while defending Faregyl? If you thought camps were bad, this system is even worse.

If you want to weed out PVE players from population counts, you need to set up a PVE only truce campaign in Cyrodiil with no PVP enabled. The vast majority of PVE players will flock to that campaign thus freeing up space on the actual PVP campaigns for real PVP. Of course, that solution would enrage those gankers who prey on the PVE crowd. But who cares about them anyway?

LonePirate wrote: »

If you want to weed out PVE players from population counts, you need to set up a PVE only truce campaign in Cyrodiil with no PVP enabled. The vast majority of PVE players will flock to that campaign thus freeing up space on the actual PVP campaigns for real PVP. Of course, that solution would enrage those gankers who prey on the PVE crowd. But who cares about them anyway?

This is actually a really good idea. I know the gankers won't get their small scale fighting or ganking pve folks and such, but it would solve some of the pop problems maybe. Folks that want to PVP will still run those quests or hang around those areas just looking for small fights. This also gets the PVE folks off the servers where folks are needed to actually pvp and help with the pop disparities.

Rune_Relic wrote: »

LonePirate wrote: »

Rune_Relic wrote: »

Sadly the pop lock doesn't actually reflect the PVE/PVP ratio.
I think the 1st thing should be a 'flag for PVE' on the campaign you choose.
Setting the flag enables quests and delve entry but stops you attacking enemies.
At least then we know who is fighting and who is lollygagging
Those flagged for PVE do not add toward the pop lock.

..and no I don't really like it at all. Just trying to think of a fix.

Hmmm... Let's try a scenario here. Let's say the pop caps are 100 for each faction with each bar representing 25. Now let's say 80 EP log in and set the PVE flag. They all ride down to Faregyl and hide in stealth. These 80 are no longer included in the pop count so another 80 EP log in and set the PVE flag before riding off to Faregyl as well. Now 80 more EP log in who do not set the PVE flag. They all attack Faregyl. The ones who die immediately set the PVE flag and some members of the 160 hidden EP immediately turn off the PVE flag to continue the assault on Faregyl as if nothing happened. How many of these waves can AD endure while defending Faregyl? If you thought camps were bad, this system is even worse.

If you want to weed out PVE players from population counts, you need to set up a PVE only truce campaign in Cyrodiil with no PVP enabled. The vast majority of PVE players will flock to that campaign thus freeing up space on the actual PVP campaigns for real PVP. Of course, that solution would enrage those gankers who prey on the PVE crowd. But who cares about them anyway?

I highlighted the relevant part
I didnt say you couldnt attack "them"
It was a key to unlock PVE content..and obviously you wouldnt be able to change it while in the campaign

Who in their right mind would set a flag which prevents you from attacking other players but doesn't prevent other players from attacking you? Nobody would ever choose an option that removes any hope of self-defense. Even if ZOS found a way to prevent exploits like the one I mentioned, no one would ever choose your option if they could not fight back when another player attacked them.

You have good intentions; however your proposal is an impractical one.

Back before I left the game for a while, I floated this idea several times. I'm glad to see it's still making the rounds.

You want even campaigns?
The playerbase has proven after a year of 'trusting' them it won't happen naturally?

Force it.

Imagine a Thornblade that was all skirmishes and small man's due to no DC presence.
Imagine a 2 bar, Dawnbreakeresque Haderus as that's what the opposition to AD usually is.
Imagine an Azura's and Chillrend without the off hours capping because those teams couldn't get their full raids in to flip the map while people slept.

But, Agrippa, what about the Ozzies/Late shift guys, you cry?

Well, guess they need to roll alts or split up and stop stacking one faction in some instances or they need to all get the off hour guys from different factions into one campaign (I vote Thornblade).

Oh, they don't want to do that?

Well. Suffer.

Sphinx2318 wrote: »

Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

Back before I left the game for a while, I floated this idea several times. I'm glad to see it's still making the rounds.

You want even campaigns?
The playerbase has proven after a year of 'trusting' them it won't happen naturally?

Force it.

Imagine a Thornblade that was all skirmishes and small man's due to no DC presence.
Imagine a 2 bar, Dawnbreakeresque Haderus as that's what the opposition to AD usually is.
Imagine an Azura's and Chillrend without the off hours capping because those teams couldn't get their full raids in to flip the map while people slept.

But, Agrippa, what about the Ozzies/Late shift guys, you cry?

Well, guess they need to roll alts or split up and stop stacking one faction in some instances or they need to all get the off hour guys from different factions into one campaign (I vote Thornblade).

Oh, they don't want to do that?

Well. Suffer.

idk man..... i fear that if dynamic pop caps went into place, many EP players would be in 2 hr ques most of the day.

Then they can reroll, play an alt, or PVE end game content.

Sphinx2318 wrote: »

Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

Sphinx2318 wrote: »

Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

Back before I left the game for a while, I floated this idea several times. I'm glad to see it's still making the rounds.

You want even campaigns?
The playerbase has proven after a year of 'trusting' them it won't happen naturally?

Force it.

Imagine a Thornblade that was all skirmishes and small man's due to no DC presence.
Imagine a 2 bar, Dawnbreakeresque Haderus as that's what the opposition to AD usually is.
Imagine an Azura's and Chillrend without the off hours capping because those teams couldn't get their full raids in to flip the map while people slept.

But, Agrippa, what about the Ozzies/Late shift guys, you cry?

Well, guess they need to roll alts or split up and stop stacking one faction in some instances or they need to all get the off hour guys from different factions into one campaign (I vote Thornblade).

Oh, they don't want to do that?

Well. Suffer.

idk man..... i fear that if dynamic pop caps went into place, many EP players would be in 2 hr ques most of the day.

Then they can reroll, play an alt, or PVE end game content.

yea if thats the case than ABSOLUTELY NO!

....if somehow i dont get into the camp early enough i get the boot for the night? or need to reroll???

do you know what i would do if that was the case? i quite the game and go play another game that i could actually participate in my favorite part in........and i would take many friends with me.

1. im NOT going to sit in an hour que
2. im NOT going to re-roll another faction because i dont want to let alone feel the desire to grind several weeks to get another viable pvp toon.
3. im NOT going to PVE because i ONLY play ESO for the pvp.

so.....IF Zenimas "Forces" things the way you suggest i along with many other players would simply migrate to another game that we can enjoy.

simple enough really

People were already sitting in hour + long queues for Thornblade before the opposition population cratered.

If there's a few that bleed off here and there, then... *shrugs*. A few EP here and there won't be missed. They've paid for the game already. Until proven otherwise, I'll assume that number is statistically insignificant.

Now, let me be clear about this -- dynamic queues would NOT preclude other release valves and methods to offer more carrot and less stick (at this point, it's time to use the stick a little, but the carrot's not gone).

Paid faction changes in the crown store. XP/AP bonuses for outnumbered factions (and I mean huge ones). Anything to keep people playing in the factions that are less numerous.

Because, what's worse -- a few EP getting mad and ragequitting for a while or whole factions taking their ball and going home. Look at Thornblade -- it completely collapsed as a server.

Sphinx2318 wrote: »

1. im NOT going to sit in an hour que
2. im NOT going to re-roll another faction because i dont want to let alone feel the desire to grind several weeks to get another viable pvp toon.
3. im NOT going to PVE because i ONLY play ESO for the pvp.

so.....IF Zenimas "Forces" things the way you suggest i along with many other players would simply migrate to another game that we can enjoy.

Or you could migrate to another campaign, one where your faction does not have long queues. EP isn't overpopulated on all of them.