Probably a good thing.

V14 transfers are just absolutely wrecking in vet campaigns right now. You just have to think of them as hero units in an RTS.

I wouldn't go anywhere near the vet campaigns if I was playing a new character.

Also, it's good to see you post again BDubz, it's been a while.

People could use your reassurances here.

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Greetings all!

We have been monitoring the Cyrodiil queues and have just introduced a new 5-day Non-Veteran campaign for all Xbox One and PlayStation 4 players! This campaign is titled Versidue-Shae, who was one of the Akaviri Potentates that ruled the Second Empire after the death of the Remans. Please note there’s currently an issue in-game stating that this campaign is 90-day and open to everyone; this is strictly a visual error, and will be fixed in our next patch.

We will continue to monitor the campaign populations over the next 48 hours, and will introduce another if necessary in the latter half of the weekend.

Have fun gang, and we’ll see you on the battlefields of Cyrodiil!

I preferred Morihaus, the talking bull Alessia had a kid with.

Komma wrote: »

Preyfar wrote: »

I watched a video of a guy wrecking about 25 plus people with relative ease. While amusing to watch, definitely unbalanced. =D A non-vet campaign is not only more fun than the vet campaigns, but just has a better flow.

That was prolly sypher. He does that against vets too

Some have been known to for a long time . Sypher's a guy I've talked a little with for a long time amongst this group. I had quite a lot of fun in beta with that... my favorite was wiping out an approximately 30 player entropy rising force one time with a large amount of effort and a very clever lure while they were sieging a keep with 2-3 defenders in the inner waiting to get smushed by the ER forces. I've been cooking up a fun little build or two recently again for pvp having iterated things a bit from a base I was testing the last couple of weeks and am about to have me some fun .

JDar wrote: »

Have you been monitoring the lag in pc pvp? Haha just kidding

I hate to say I'm beginning to see a trend...

-PC beta feedback? Relatively sparing posts and concern based on feedback. Console beta feedback? Dozens of dev posts a day.
-PC launch issues? 5-10 posts at most each of the first few days not just reposting the same thing about the same topics across a few threads. Console launch issues? Dozens upon dozens of posts within minutes even from the same person.
-PC user interface issues and lack of functionality, combat info, and general ease of use since launch and closed beta? Essentially ignored entirely. Console user interface issues and lack of functionality, combat info, and general ease of use? A good number of posts during the beta and within days of launch, complaints about no way to see ability information and combat information, buffs and debuffs clearly, etc. answered with a promise of those features being introduced and already in the design phase. Other ease of use features such as item category filters already baked in at launch but not brought to the PC.
-PC issues with server latency, in both PVE and PVP? Sparingly commented on, but little action shown to be taken. Console issues with server latency, overcrowding, and others in both PVE and PVP? A flurry of posts keeping console players apprised of the current status, upcoming changes, server capacity increases coming shortly, and new campaigns to help ease these problems.

It does seem the PC/Mac platform and its community has been receiving very little focus in favor of working on the Xbox One and Playstation 4 versions.

TequilaFire wrote: »

Ignoring all the feldercarb, more non vet campaigns are a good thing.

Coulda used help on the main servers ages ago. Aint 'feldercarb' when its true!

I experience little lag on the console version even with hundreds on the screen. I feel this is attributed to the lack of potential aoe/ability spam and stacking on each other tactics adopted by vet PC players.

Just putting that out there.

I've tried all campaigns... queue position of 800 - 1000. It's taking 4+ hours to get on and I don't have that kind of time. So basically I'm unable to try Cyrodill at all.

Non-vet at least for me (EU perspective) is one big siege simulator

I'm sorry but I don't understand the decisions here. Saturday I tried to log in for pvp and was in queue position 1200. That's well past evaluation and new server time. If there is a huge queue on every single server that's opened, it doesn't make sense opening one more is going to do anything.

For instance there is a queue of 1200 (at least) for my alliance. How many players are allowed in? If there's 500 players allowed in, 1200 in this queue, and another couple thousand in queue for all the other ones, how will opening 1 or 2 alleviate the problem?

For everyone in the queue there are probably another 2 or 3 who would play if they could, but given 8 hour (not kidding) wait times, they don't even try.

Why not just open up another 5-10 until some kind of equilibrium is reached and then scale them back? Why open one, then another, then another when it's obvious it won't be enough? They are only 5 day campaigns.

Good customer service would be opening enough to satisfy the player base.

Some specific questions to help my understanding:
1) How many are allowed in a 5 campaign at once, as in total players?
2) How many total players are in the queue for that campaign?
3) What are the total number of players trying to get in for pvp vs. the total number actually in?
4) In your business model, what is a satisfactory wait time to get in Cyrodiil? Ideally a player should have to wait how long?

No matter how you look at it, what you're doing isn't enough. Open a bunch of them and as the 5 day campaigns come to an end, just don't open them back up if the queue times have gone down.

From what I've read of your posts these problems are due to an overwhelming demand. Overwhelming demand means the servers are overwhelmed. If, before the game went live, according to your business model you thought XX servers would be good for a projected XX players, then surely you have to realize you have XX * 100 players and a proportional amount of server increase is needed. I understand that's going to cut into profits, but if the game has far outpaced expected participation, seems to me the money is there and you'll still be within an acceptable profit margin.

4hour Q's on pc when TU launched, Zos dont care
console newbies have Q "here guys new server, what not enough, here more more more MOAR"

feeling more and more like red headed paying stephchildren