YADHD - "Travel to Player" and Guest Campaigns

Leandor · June 2015

It has been beaten to death (hence "Yet Another Dead Horse Discussion"), but I think this is one dead horse we need to keep alive.

@ZOS_BrianWheeler , can we get another serious rethinking about the functionality of guest campaigns and the "travel to player" issues? If one would have to stick to his one single PvP campaign for its course or pay a prohibitive amount of AP to change it mid-course, have no possibility to join another campaign and have no possibility to "guest" on those either, it would finally get some "Campaign Pride" going.

In my very, very humble opinion, this is the only way to get players to actually care about the fun to be had in a campaign. In other words, if you want to "educate" players to change their playstyles in order to alleviate some of the systemic issues that prove to be an insurmountable obstacle (-> lag), this may be a much more efficient means than providing interesting loot at Dolmens or buffs from Delves.

The "campaign loyalty reward" that has been introduced, offering something like 3k gold for the 30-day, simply does not cut the mustard. Especially with the current max level playstyles, chugging potions like crazy and earning tens of thousands (gold!) each day from reward mails alone, these 3k are less than a fly's speck.

Make changing campaigns cost 100k AP for players that have achieved alliance rank 5 (Tyro) or more. Those just starting out with PvP should have much lower cost to allow them to find their home (15k would be a good starting point in my opinion). But please reconsider your stance on the "travel to player" thing.

Thanks for reading.

Joy_Division · June 2015

I disagree that being forced to player in a particular campaign will somehow make that player develop a sense of pride or make it fun for a player who, for various reasons, would rather play elsewhere.

I understand there are population imbalances, few care about campaign pride, some people are frustrated about spies / trolls. But I see these problems as symptomatic of larger in-game issues that a draconian stance on where people play will do little to alleviate.

Much of the campaign instability and hoping around is because people are desperately looking for a good fight and good game performance. People are sick of "zergs" for the lag they induce and because ZoS's mechanics too heavily favor "pain trains" so many have tried to migrate away from them. Of course, these "stack on crown" groups are also looking for a fight so they try to follow. If ZoS can't fix their servers or at least provide me with legitimate counterplay to "zerging," then I for one would be highly resentful being insta-killed by these "pain trains" in a nightly lagfest.

I do agree that ZoS could do something to make players actually care about winning a campaign. I did feel all warm and fuzzy after the first campaign cycle when EP won Wabbajack. But it's been over a year so the novelty of non tangible rewards that actually help me PvP better has long gone away.

Agrippa_Invisus · June 2015

Well, it's official, Brian Wheeler just said this is getting axed completely.

Leandor · June 2015

I see your point that my text may be implying for some forced selection, but this is not meant. Everyone can choose his campaign and can change them at any time - at a cost. If you want to play somewhere else - you have to change. The "lag trains" have to deal with their lag because they won't get their members uniformly to change at this high cost.

No more jumping on other campaigns to "just help make an Emperor today". If you want an Emperor of your side, you work on your own campaign.

Doing this will make people think a second time before they abandon their faction. "Yes we do have a bad situation right now, but since I'm bound to remain here until this ends, I may as well do my utmost to change this bad situation".

Preventing easy spying may allow the zone chat to be used for coordination more extensively. It may help a faction to get better as a whole by higher levels of communication. Of course there will still be those with a secondary account that will still be able to spy, but that is going to be a minority.

Once this "realm pride" thing is flying, we may go back to a less restricted environment. Right now, I still think that such an environment would make things better.

Bottom line: I do not really see it as "forcing players into campaigns". You have a grace period (the boundary I have given with reaching "Tyro" may very well be too low and this needs to be tested & adjusted) to find your home. Once you have found it, stay there. If it gets rough, well, sit it out and make it better.

Currently: "Ah, we're losing this one badly, let me check Campaign XY, there we have the largest population consistently." Voila, two buff campaigns are born.

Leandor · June 2015

Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

Well, it's official, Brian Wheeler just said this is getting axed completely.

I took too long to type out the answer, thanks for the heads-up. My hopes are soaring, exactly what I have wanted for a looooong time.

Hypertionb14_ESO · June 2015

you should be able to change if you dont have enough AP. with a few days hold on AP earning or some other penalty in addition to losing what ever AP you DO have.

hammayolettuce · June 2015

I feel like this is going to cause more problems for DC than it's going to fix. We need to be able to hop around campaigns to have a presence that isn't laughable (too late, really). While I'm at it, can we PLEASE have another lowbie campaign so my AD doesn't get locked out of PvP when these changes are implemented?

Leandor · June 2015

hammayolettuce wrote: »

While I'm at it, can we PLEASE have another lowbie campaign so my AD doesn't get locked out of PvP when these changes are implemented?

Yeah, I feel you... I'll subsequently play my lowbies campaign by campaign, I guess. A second one would be nice.