Maintenance for the week of December 22:
• NA megaservers for maintenance – December 22, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 8:00AM EST (13:00 UTC)
• EU megaservers for maintenance – December 22, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 8:00AM EST (13:00 UTC)
• NA megaservers for maintenance – December 22, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 8:00AM EST (13:00 UTC)
• EU megaservers for maintenance – December 22, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 8:00AM EST (13:00 UTC)
So many many things could go wrong with your proposed plans ZOS! Please Read!
-
AhPook_Is_Here✭✭✭✭✭
✭I don't think the removal of travel to player is all that big of a deal if they get rid of at least one vet campaign. By the time this comes out in maybe late summer or fall I don't think there will be the player base to justify as many servers as their are now. With one less vet server, one character will have access to 2/3 of the remaining servers and that should be fine.
Hopefully there won't be many PVE players joining after the patch so over all the remaining campaigns will be more competitive with a higher level of PVP ability than what we have now and there will be less reason to hop around just to farm the low hanging fruit.
“Whatever.”
-Unknown American0 -
kevlarto_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭I just want things in the game that benefit most players, not one guild or one play style, one player, something that most players will benefit from and most players will have fun, never going to please everyone in an mmo, All of us have a common enemy it's lag for one, most people moved around when guild x,y,z showed up and it's particular practices brought lag with it, no fun for anyone.
It's funny I read and talk to some folks on EU megaserver, most of those folks stay in their campaigns and do very little faction hopping, and campaign hopping, big contrast to how the NA mega server plays out.Edited by kevlarto_ESO on June 24, 2015 12:27PM0 -
Etaniel✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Once again they are trying to fix one thing (emperor farming) by applying multiple fixes that individually would've solved the issue.
Emperor farming has to go yes. I wouldn't say that it's toxic like people have been saying in other threads. If a campaign is empty enough that you can reach top rank by repairing walls, it means you aren't ruining anything for anyone, it's a dead buff campaign.
By removing the possibilities to travel to other campaigns, people will feel more dedicated towards their campaign, and won't be able to switch campaigns to get a fast access to the throne.
If a campaign is competitive and active, there is no room for emperor farming. Emperor farming/trading was never a thing on Thornblade EU because people actually fight for the campaign. There are many people on it so you wouldn't be able to have all your guildmates on top of the leaderboard, dropping emp one by one to share it between them.
In my opinion these campaign changes should help to move every campaign in that direction, so in itself it should already be a fix for emp farming.
I don't see why removing the passives on top of that is necessary.
Look at when elemental wall was a thing. Everyone cried that stacking walls was op because purge would make all the dots proc instantly.
Instead of just fixing purge, they also nerfed elemental wall, making it useless to the point that I haven't seen that skill used since 1.6.
Is it so hard to implement fixes one by one and observing the game state afterwards to see if there is still a problem??1 -
Joy_Division✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
Yeah, you don't get it, I understand.
Geez... You can't force people to care about campaigns or objectives. You care about that, good for you, not everyone does.<snip>
And I fail to see the relevance of your story. So this AD guild farmed AP at Arrius while DC took the map...and if travel to player didn't exist... they would have farmed AP on a different campaign while DC took the map on yours...I don't really see how that would have been preferable.
I mean, you do realize that, right? Players and guilds that care primarily about AP will AP farm. Forcing them to stay for longer periods of time in one campaign will not transform them into faction pride having, map oriented, objective seekers, they'll just be slightly more sedentary AP farmers.
Stop trying to force everyone to play the way you want them to. What does it matter to you if a group suicides rather than share AP with pugs? Why do you care? More to the point, how would ending the travel to player mechanic stop that?
To type it out for you, things that would change: The yellow group described, would not have wanted to lose all their precious buffs that make AP farming way more easy on their home campaign which they now cannot leave easily. That would have made all but the most notorious egomaniacs stop the foolery at arrius to go defend their home stuff. Problem reduced.
Making people have to stick for a lost cause at least for a while will make some quit and some to swallow their pride and start cooperating. An improvement for my own faction. I like that.
The AP farm raid suiciding would have done the same were it their home campaign, possibly, but again: by not partaking in the objectives battle, they will lose an advantage to do well in their intended target (gain AP). They could have done it but maybe they would also have reacted on the attacks to the home keep that would lose them the 5% AP bonus?
My goal is not to force others "to play the way I want". You know what I want? I want AP. And golden rewards, since I still did not receive a single master's weapon in the 5 or 6 sets of 30-day rewards that I earned so far and since I have no interest whatsoever in running trials. No, I do not want to force you to play the map in order to win the game. What I want is to stop that griefing groups like those you are apparently part of dish out to others. That's all.
She's right.
Many players do not care at all about faction pride or winning campaigns and their minds will not magically change just because travel to player goes away. MAYBE if ZoS made winning them worth anything, then more people will be inclined to stick around and care about the things you want them to care about, but that is not and will not be the case.
AP farmers are not suddenly going to go around chasing a small 5% bonus because they time they spend traveling and PvDooring gets them no AP. 5% of nothing is nothing. They will still farm Arrius Mine, Farragut Keep, Alessia bridge. They will still "zerg" because it is by far the most effective strategy. The only difference is that now they will be stuck on the same server.
We will see how much AP you and others get under the proposed system. ESO's PvP community is not large enough to support four campaigns and if you are stuck in a dead one good luck finding that AP because it will cost you 150K to get to a live one. During off-peak hours there is only one server that has any action on it.
Make Rush of Agony "Monsters only." People should not be consecutively crowd controlled in a PvP setting. Period.2 -
Jolinius✭✭Bottom line the emperor buff is all about min maxing. Even though its not that much of a buff people still want it and if they cant get it then they want you not to have it. Its the same reason people pay 30k for v14 martial knowledge even though they could wear the v13 they already have and theres almost no diffrence. Its like if i said im not an imperial and they have great stats and i dont have those stats ......nerf please.....super lame. Frankly i dont think zos should be running off the players that are still here.Also zos keeping those passives would actually give people a reason to keep subbing so they get the ap bonus and could get emp$$$$$
As far as porting. I just want to go where i can have fun fights. If i cant do that i wont play. Its been hard enough to find good fights lately without being port locked.1 -
Winnamine✭✭✭✭✭You guys simply do not understand a key part that this is ruining. This won't change faction pride, or make it competitive, or any of that.
This change is simply going to lock people in one of two places, encourage zerging and lag, and make people quit because they will either own the map, be getting owned, or being trapped in lag ATLEAST 3 out of the 7 days in the week.
This also will be a huge issue when people want to play with more than one guild. Deci will say home x and guest y. Other guild will not be playing in x or y.
People complain about the "guesting zergs" or whatever. Thats complete garbage, but people are just looking to not fight a superior group of 16 and simply hide from us. GL.
Youre missing it WRX. People arent avoiding you (why do you keep using that?, no one is scared of you, ill fight you right now if you want, i dont care how good bad ugly or entitled you are, it doesnt matter, if im hiding from anything its the damn lagball of chillrend. that lag is as bad as thorn was sometimes). Ever occur to you perhaps that people are sick of fighting the same people day in day out Sick of the lag, sick of the same tired blob purge tornado strats? Why you think i play multifaction/roles large and small groups, solo and sometimes even follow a zerg around? New flavor every day.
The issue is when we have a good day of fights going on somewhere (doesnt even have to be about today, could just be anywhere), and suddenly here comes guild X Y Z A B C (cant name names) whoever it is at the time to unbalance whats going on, skew it in one factions favor, and force a situation like we had on permapoplocked thornblade (lag city) to keep it remotely competitive.
I'm confused.. you said you don't like fighting the same people day-in-day-out, you like variety, playing with different groups and styles and even factions, and you're sick of the lag and blob groups... yet you support locking people into a single campaign? Then you'll definitely fight the same people day-in-day-out, your choices for group and play style will be limited to which groups are also homed in your campaign, and what the map conditions/other factions are like there, and if you happen to get stuck in a campaign that turns out to be laggy and full of blob groups, too bad, you're stuck there.
I mean yeah, it'd be nice if you happen to have a great, competitive campaign going, to be able to lock other groups out so as to keep your campaign balanced...but chances are as good or better that you won't end up in a nicely balanced campaign. One (or more) of those XYZABC guilds can, and probably will, home there too, and you won't know it until you're locked in with them for however long.
Well for me id just go to the faction/campaign where the fight was the most balanced on that given cycle, since im going to have to do some pretty funny stunts with my campaign placement to even home/guest my toons everywhere.
The biggest problem with those guilds arent the 16-24 (30?) man core groups at the center, its the attraction of the dozens of pugs/other guilds around them that inevitably forms a 50+ zergball wherever they go via guesting to where pop is high and just pushing for them to follow.
The whole concept of locking people to campaigns forces the populations to either spread around or be bored to tears. The reliance on massive numbers (like on azuras) to crush any and all competition wont be able to affect less populated campaigns like haderus (in todays example) without travel to player as it is now.
I find it highly unlikely every single azuras yellow is going to also guest to haderus, because then they wouldnt have coverage on chill and thorn, then you start to see where the factions are not going to be able to ball it up like they used to (or suffer dead one sided campaigns as a result of their refusal to adapt)
You're giving everyone way too much credit for organization. The idea is that you can only switch your campaign at reset right? Otherwise this is a useless feature. It's entirely likely that people won't spread out, either because no one bothered to communicate where their guild planned to go (Every. Single. Reset. This happens), or they did, and people decided to go with the crowd so they can easily roll the map on that campaign. The thing is, we're not very organized, we don't communicate much, and no one cares about coverage on other campaigns.
And you won't be able to join a balanced campaign, bc you'll have to switch at reset too, and you won't know for sure which groups are planning on homing there. You could easily end up trapped in a campaign with an ungodly combination of Misfitz, TKO, NPK, Decibel, Nexus, Havoc, whatever Brandon's group is called these days.....
Edit: I should add that whatever campaigns are most fun/balanced now, will probably get swamped on reset by people/guilds looking for balanced pvp (and destroying it in the process).Edited by Winnamine on June 24, 2015 5:40PMWinni
~
VE
Decibel1 -
Beesting✭✭✭✭rdbrown1987 wrote: »People like abraxus that make emp by farming noobs all day in a bombgroup should have a AP kill bounty on their head, not former emp buffs. I mean they would actually lose 50 k ap every time you kill them and you get it....
So what you're saying is because exile run in a small group bombing larger zergs is we'd lose 50k ap for dying to larger numbers, I'd love to know your theory on what penalties the zergs would get? what about other people who run small scale bombsquads do they get affected or is this just a personal thing against Abraxus and his bombsquad? maybe you get rekt too many times?
haha I want what you've been smoking pal because you're obviously away with the fairies.
Dude, i was joking and with the 50k ap bonus for killing Abraxus that would give an nice incentive to even bigger zergs trying to kill him (not you sorry, he is the big man) and thus more AP for you and your bombgroup ^^Beesting, Bosmer Magica DK, AD EU, crafter
Slager, Dunmer Magica DK, DC EU, pvp
Farmer, Dunmer Magica DK, AD EU, trials build
Every major patch looks like the end of the world but somehow i just cannot stop playing.1 -
azoriangaming✭✭✭✭rdbrown1987 wrote: »People like abraxus that make emp by farming noobs all day in a bombgroup should have a AP kill bounty on their head, not former emp buffs. I mean they would actually lose 50 k ap every time you kill them and you get it....
So what you're saying is because exile run in a small group bombing larger zergs is we'd lose 50k ap for dying to larger numbers, I'd love to know your theory on what penalties the zergs would get? what about other people who run small scale bombsquads do they get affected or is this just a personal thing against Abraxus and his bombsquad? maybe you get rekt too many times?
haha I want what you've been smoking pal because you're obviously away with the fairies.
Dude, i was joking and with the 50k ap bonus for killing Abraxus that would give an nice incentive to even bigger zergs trying to kill him (not you sorry, he is the big man) and thus more AP for you and your bombgroup ^^
lol fair do's that's good with me he's the most wanted man in cyro anyway
Edited by azoriangaming on June 24, 2015 11:05PM0 -
Winnamine✭✭✭✭✭
Yeah, you don't get it, I understand.
Geez... You can't force people to care about campaigns or objectives. You care about that, good for you, not everyone does.<snip>
And I fail to see the relevance of your story. So this AD guild farmed AP at Arrius while DC took the map...and if travel to player didn't exist... they would have farmed AP on a different campaign while DC took the map on yours...I don't really see how that would have been preferable.
I mean, you do realize that, right? Players and guilds that care primarily about AP will AP farm. Forcing them to stay for longer periods of time in one campaign will not transform them into faction pride having, map oriented, objective seekers, they'll just be slightly more sedentary AP farmers.
Stop trying to force everyone to play the way you want them to. What does it matter to you if a group suicides rather than share AP with pugs? Why do you care? More to the point, how would ending the travel to player mechanic stop that?
To type it out for you, things that would change: The yellow group described, would not have wanted to lose all their precious buffs that make AP farming way more easy on their home campaign which they now cannot leave easily. That would have made all but the most notorious egomaniacs stop the foolery at arrius to go defend their home stuff. Problem reduced.
Making people have to stick for a lost cause at least for a while will make some quit and some to swallow their pride and start cooperating. An improvement for my own faction. I like that.
The AP farm raid suiciding would have done the same were it their home campaign, possibly, but again: by not partaking in the objectives battle, they will lose an advantage to do well in their intended target (gain AP). They could have done it but maybe they would also have reacted on the attacks to the home keep that would lose them the 5% AP bonus?
My goal is not to force others "to play the way I want". You know what I want? I want AP. And golden rewards, since I still did not receive a single master's weapon in the 5 or 6 sets of 30-day rewards that I earned so far and since I have no interest whatsoever in running trials. No, I do not want to force you to play the map in order to win the game. What I want is to stop that griefing groups like those you are apparently part of dish out to others. That's all.
No?I sit here and smile - the end of travel to player can not come soon enough. I sincerely hope they do not wait until next major update to disable it. Do it in a hotfix right now.
I don't care about former emperor passives. Keep them if it stops some people's arteries from bursting. But then another method of stopping emperor trading needs to be implemented:- After campaign reset, the situation is as now. The one on top of the leaderboards gets emperor, once your faction has all 6 keeps.
- This "first" emperor then stays there, meaning that after dethrone/recapture the same guy gets promoted to emperor again, irrespective of leaderboard positions.
- If the person who holds the current possible emperor title leaves the campaign, his faction cannot crown a new emperor even if they cap all 6 keeps until the campaign is reset.
Ok, just checking.Winni
~
VE
Decibel3 -
Germtrocity✭✭✭✭I just want freedom as a solo player to leave a campaign if I find that the lag is too unbearable to play in, or the guilds / pugs of the other factions are too zergy for me to be able to solo roam. Considering the fact that I have 3 veteran rank sorcerers across the 3 factions, and I favor some of them over the others (wow what a scrub sentimentalist, right?) at least one or more of my characters will get stuck on a campaign I don't enjoy or have fun on.
The main reason I made a second sorcerer and got it to v14 was so that I would be able to duel anyone on any factions, which was only possible due to travel to player. Now if a friend of mine is homed on one campaign and my same faction character is homed on that campaign as well, combined with my 2 other faction sorcerers homed on different campaigns, there will be no way for me to be able to easily meet up with that friend and have a friendly fight taking into account they may also have other faction characters homed on the different campaigns.
Hell, my AD sorcerer wasn't even homed on a campaign because of travel to player until just very recently.
As for former emperor passives, the sense of achievement should be enough. I feel proud of my achievement since it was almost entirely gotten from solo play and about a week and a half of staying in the campaign I was going for it in, fighting an AD group that literally outnumbered me 10-16 to 1. I had to play extremely cautiously and it really made me feel awesome when I finally reached #1 on the leaderboards and got emperor. Especially seeing the group of AD flee in terror from the solo emperor.
Are the emperor passives nice? Yes, they are. But I did fine without them for a long time before I had them, and I will continue to do fine if they take them away from me. If they are a crutch for you, then you probably didn't even deserve emperorship in the first place.2 -
Waylander✭✭✭✭I can see the desire to remove former emp buffs to remove the incentive for people to get the achievement for the buffs. In a game of min/maxing there is no such thing as an inconsequential buff. Every % counts.
I can empathise with former emperors feeling cheated out of something they worked for. Yes it takes time and dedication, that is acknowledged through a title and achieve,ent/dye, but I understand that you want what you have already had.
Perhaps a compromise could be that the former emperor buffs are only active in the campaign that you were emperor for. Sorry for any of those emperors who got it on a campaign that no longer exists, but this was a compromise that I thought might appease both sides.
I find it ironic that both sides of the coin use the same argument (the buffs are minor etc) yet can't agree a way forward.
Perhaps a change to the former emperor passives so you still have something but it's not something worth farming such as 20% out of combat speed boost, repair materials repair 20% more (stones and wood), seige does 20% more damage to walls, etc. Nice to haves, but not worth farming for and no advantage to min/maxers.
I like killing former emperors cause there are just so many of them!Edited by Waylander on June 25, 2015 1:46AMNocturnal - AD Oceanic PvP Guild
Waylander
Frankie
Krylla
Uniter
Macgyverr
Ivy0 -
Phoenix99✭✭✭It is to palance PvP vs PvE players... these buffs are persistent on the PvE challenges and the easiest way to be done with them, is to remove them completely.
It is a good idea in the long run.
Besides, you are whining... A grind-to-win scrub crying that one of his advantages over people who have less time to play is taken away...
This one aspect of MMOs is one of the reasons why the PvP will always be dominated by people who are bad at real PvP games, but have no-life or are crazy enough to put everything for one game, which is not even paying them back in any way unless you have some significant viewer count on Twtich/youtube0 -
Leandor✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭
Yeah, bad choice of words there, I admit.
I would like to remark nonetheless that those two issues are related to the two different topics. The Emperor and his buffs is something very valuable for a faction as a whole and since crowning an emperor is a faction effort (by and large), it has to be build around faction reward. Not only about stroking the ego of the individual in question. This is the background of the second quote (which I posted earlier in the thread) statement - if you are emperor, be decent enough to give back what you got from the help of others.
As to the first (which I posted later in a different context) quote, that is related to the travel to player discussion and in regards to each specific group's interest. If you want to AP-farm at a resource, do it. If you want to perma-cap keeps, do it. If you want to gank between keeps, do it.
I don't have any problem with these play styles at all. I would not force one of these on someone nor have an interest in others doing it to me. But I want to see these playstyles have consequences. With travelling to player, said farm group goes to another campaign, takes the space up from players who may or may not help in achieving a common goal, and then proceeds to take a dump on their efforts to retain some bonuses that may not be desired by said farm group but by the rest of the faction.
So now, if these farm groups are then locked into their own campaign, then they may still do it but it will have negative consequences for them and their faction. While it may not have an immediate effect, over time that campaign will be less attractive for players desiring different stuff. They may or may not leave, or flame or whatever. It has consequence.
So yeah, while it may seem to the casual reader that those two statements you have highlighted contradict each other, they actually do not. If you would take the time to read my posts properly, you may even have noticed that by yourself instead of making a pseudo-funny post that now probably bites your backside.Edited by Leandor on June 25, 2015 8:58AM0 -
filmoretub17_ESO✭✭✭You guys simply do not understand a key part that this is ruining. This won't change faction pride, or make it competitive, or any of that.
This change is simply going to lock people in one of two places, encourage zerging and lag, and make people quit because they will either own the map, be getting owned, or being trapped in lag ATLEAST 3 out of the 7 days in the week.
This also will be a huge issue when people want to play with more than one guild. Deci will say home x and guest y. Other guild will not be playing in x or y.
People complain about the "guesting zergs" or whatever. Thats complete garbage, but people are just looking to not fight a superior group of 16 and simply hide from us. GL.
Noone is hiding from you bro. Why did you leave chilrend and thornblade? Looks like you are the one hiding.2 -
xaraan✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Former emp buffs need to go.
Too many people traded for them, ruined it and as long as its around trading/passing will continue. Not enough emps actually "rule" their campaign when they win it, which is how it should be. If they bonuses are such a small matter, then it shouldn't matter that you lose them. (You still get dye and title to show you did it if that's what you are after). Either the buffs are a big deal or not - can't have it both ways.
The campaign hopping change needs to happen as well. The campaigns will have many different rule sets now so you'll see certain campaigns people will home in and this might make it much more balanced. You still get a guest campaign as well if things get boring or whatever the issue may be. But there is too much jumping in and zerging campaigns you have nothing to do with for whatever the reason might be (AP farm, favor for friends in that camp, etc).
The only concern is that if a campaign is popular, it needs to be lag free. Lag has pushed us out of more campaigns than anything - keep the lag gone and there won't be an issue. If they fail there then it will be a problem.-- @xaraan --
nightblade: Xaraan • templar: Xaraan-dar • dragon-knight: Xaraanosaurus • necromancer: Xaraan-qa • warden: Xaraanodon • sorcerer: Xaraan-ra
AD • NA • PC1 -
Joy_Division✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
Yeah, bad choice of words there, I admit.
I would like to remark nonetheless that those two issues are related to the two different topics. The Emperor and his buffs is something very valuable for a faction as a whole and since crowning an emperor is a faction effort (by and large), it has to be build around faction reward. Not only about stroking the ego of the individual in question. This is the background of the second quote (which I posted earlier in the thread) statement - if you are emperor, be decent enough to give back what you got from the help of others.
As to the first (which I posted later in a different context) quote, that is related to the travel to player discussion and in regards to each specific group's interest. If you want to AP-farm at a resource, do it. If you want to perma-cap keeps, do it. If you want to gank between keeps, do it.
I don't have any problem with these play styles at all. I would not force one of these on someone nor have an interest in others doing it to me. But I want to see these playstyles have consequences. With travelling to player, said farm group goes to another campaign, takes the space up from players who may or may not help in achieving a common goal, and then proceeds to take a dump on their efforts to retain some bonuses that may not be desired by said farm group but by the rest of the faction.
So now, if these farm groups are then locked into their own campaign, then they may still do it but it will have negative consequences for them and their faction. While it may not have an immediate effect, over time that campaign will be less attractive for players desiring different stuff. They may or may not leave, or flame or whatever. It has consequence.
So yeah, while it may seem to the casual reader that those two statements you have highlighted contradict each other, they actually do not. If you would take the time to read my posts properly, you may even have noticed that by yourself instead of making a pseudo-funny post that now probably bites your backside.
This "casual reader" would prefer you to either be more honest or be a better sophist.Edited by Joy_Division on June 25, 2015 7:05PMMake Rush of Agony "Monsters only." People should not be consecutively crowd controlled in a PvP setting. Period.1 -
AhPook_Is_Here✭✭✭✭✭
✭Joy_Division wrote: »
Yeah, bad choice of words there, I admit.
I would like to remark nonetheless that those two issues are related to the two different topics. The Emperor and his buffs is something very valuable for a faction as a whole and since crowning an emperor is a faction effort (by and large), it has to be build around faction reward. Not only about stroking the ego of the individual in question. This is the background of the second quote (which I posted earlier in the thread) statement - if you are emperor, be decent enough to give back what you got from the help of others.
As to the first (which I posted later in a different context) quote, that is related to the travel to player discussion and in regards to each specific group's interest. If you want to AP-farm at a resource, do it. If you want to perma-cap keeps, do it. If you want to gank between keeps, do it.
I don't have any problem with these play styles at all. I would not force one of these on someone nor have an interest in others doing it to me. But I want to see these playstyles have consequences. With travelling to player, said farm group goes to another campaign, takes the space up from players who may or may not help in achieving a common goal, and then proceeds to take a dump on their efforts to retain some bonuses that may not be desired by said farm group but by the rest of the faction.
So now, if these farm groups are then locked into their own campaign, then they may still do it but it will have negative consequences for them and their faction. While it may not have an immediate effect, over time that campaign will be less attractive for players desiring different stuff. They may or may not leave, or flame or whatever. It has consequence.
So yeah, while it may seem to the casual reader that those two statements you have highlighted contradict each other, they actually do not. If you would take the time to read my posts properly, you may even have noticed that by yourself instead of making a pseudo-funny post that now probably bites your backside.
I would suggest to either be more honest or be a better sophist.
I'm an epistemological solipsist, so I am pretty sure my imagination wrote most of this.“Whatever.”
-Unknown American0 -
bosmern_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭sswilhelm_27b14_ESO wrote: »Former emp buffs gotta go...nuff said in 100 other threads. Also, you do have a guest camp you can go to without t2p. Your camp choices (or alliance) is *** if both are gated. If thats the case then switch campaigns. Not to meantion, prob half those 70 ep are there solely using the t2p you are defending
Logically explain why? Because not everyone can get them?
"because it promotes Emperor trading"
Though that hasnt been a problem for the past couple of months. The reason why there isnt emperor trading is because when everyone left Chillrend and spread out there is no solid campaign where a few people can farm up AP and then take the map against no one. every campaign during prime time has fairly equal populations and if there is a guild farming AP in a campaign, chances are they are not homed there.
Emperor trading hasn't been a problem for a while yet people still seem to think it is, Rolling a map one color is not emperor trading/farming.~Thallen~0 -
MrGhosty✭✭✭✭✭I believe the answer is "this is why we cannot have nice things"
TBH I'm quite excited for all these changes, it will absolutely play heck on getting my guild arranged as many of our key members have multiple vets on different factions but as the populations balance themselves out I think it will eventually lead to more reliable combat.
The various rulesets are also quite interesting, the ability for my small, not terribly organized guild to actually get into a PvP campaign and feel like we are contributing is very exciting. I feel for the people who are loosing a part of something they earned whether it's considered "legit" or not. It sucks for you, but I've learned from the various PvP games that I've played over the years to never rely on something staying the way it is. Guns get rebalanced, swords and spells get sharper or duller, the way of life in PvP is transient and it is a sign of the best players that can adjust and keep moving forward successfully. (just to be clear, I'm not trying to classify myself as one of these best players. I'm as nooby as they come but I enjoy ESO pvp when it works and this seems to have the best potential to breath some life back into the old bird.)"It is a time of strife and unrest. Armies of revenants and dark spirits manifest in every corner of Tamriel. Winters grow colder and crops fail. Mystics are plagued by nightmares and portents of doom."0 -
WRX✭✭✭✭✭filmoretub17_ESO wrote: »You guys simply do not understand a key part that this is ruining. This won't change faction pride, or make it competitive, or any of that.
This change is simply going to lock people in one of two places, encourage zerging and lag, and make people quit because they will either own the map, be getting owned, or being trapped in lag ATLEAST 3 out of the 7 days in the week.
This also will be a huge issue when people want to play with more than one guild. Deci will say home x and guest y. Other guild will not be playing in x or y.
People complain about the "guesting zergs" or whatever. Thats complete garbage, but people are just looking to not fight a superior group of 16 and simply hide from us. GL.
Noone is hiding from you bro. Why did you leave chilrend and thornblade? Looks like you are the one hiding.
Haven't homed either of those campaigns in 4 or 5 cycles. I don't even have a home campaign actually.Decibel GM
GLUB GLUB0 -
filmoretub17_ESO✭✭✭filmoretub17_ESO wrote: »You guys simply do not understand a key part that this is ruining. This won't change faction pride, or make it competitive, or any of that.
This change is simply going to lock people in one of two places, encourage zerging and lag, and make people quit because they will either own the map, be getting owned, or being trapped in lag ATLEAST 3 out of the 7 days in the week.
This also will be a huge issue when people want to play with more than one guild. Deci will say home x and guest y. Other guild will not be playing in x or y.
People complain about the "guesting zergs" or whatever. Thats complete garbage, but people are just looking to not fight a superior group of 16 and simply hide from us. GL.
Noone is hiding from you bro. Why did you leave chilrend and thornblade? Looks like you are the one hiding.
Haven't homed either of those campaigns in 4 or 5 cycles. I don't even have a home campaign actually.
Yea you ran away from the competitive campaigns. They are no longer that way it has been about 4 or 5 cycles since.
0 -
WRX✭✭✭✭✭filmoretub17_ESO wrote: »filmoretub17_ESO wrote: »You guys simply do not understand a key part that this is ruining. This won't change faction pride, or make it competitive, or any of that.
This change is simply going to lock people in one of two places, encourage zerging and lag, and make people quit because they will either own the map, be getting owned, or being trapped in lag ATLEAST 3 out of the 7 days in the week.
This also will be a huge issue when people want to play with more than one guild. Deci will say home x and guest y. Other guild will not be playing in x or y.
People complain about the "guesting zergs" or whatever. Thats complete garbage, but people are just looking to not fight a superior group of 16 and simply hide from us. GL.
Noone is hiding from you bro. Why did you leave chilrend and thornblade? Looks like you are the one hiding.
Haven't homed either of those campaigns in 4 or 5 cycles. I don't even have a home campaign actually.
Yea you ran away from the competitive campaigns. They are no longer that way it has been about 4 or 5 cycles since.
We have fought there multiple nights a week, flipped emp many times on both campaigns, and defended it?
The blasphemy you spill all over these forums are ridiculous and I can hardly believe I'm talking with you, however thanks for in a round about way saying we are your only competition.
See you out there
Decibel GM
GLUB GLUB1 -
Leandor✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭
Please elaborate. In which sense was I not honest?Joy_Division wrote: »This "casual reader" would prefer you to either be more honest or be a better sophist.
Also, thanks for the compliment, I think. Even an average sophist is a sophist (here's to hoping that the meaning of that word is similar in English compared to German, which is my mother tongue).0 -
cozmon3c_ESO✭✭✭✭✭Funny how all these people who are like, force campaign pride down there throats, barely f'ing pvp's. people want good fights and want to go to what ever campaign they are on. its not the players fault that ZoS F'ed up and didnt balance it out when they actually had the pvp population. now to do this change on the PC could kill pvp for good.
It will probably be just fine on Console because they have enough people and all there pvp servers are full i hear. PC pvp will suffer.
Why take the Former Emp Buffs away, what do they hurt? If you put the time in you should get it, again its not the players fault that the way to gain AP is exploitable. Thats on Brian Wheeler, and instead of fixing the exploit, he is again take crap away from us PVP'ers, is that really what you guys want. Nothing new for a year except features being removed, f'ing awesome.
Guild UMBRA Chapter Lead
~Leper Si -V14 Sorcerer~
Youtube Channel - Leper
https://www.youtube.com/user/TheCozmon3c/videos1 -
Leandor✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭
Ahh, 'murica player, aren't you?cozmon3c_ESO wrote: »Funny how all these people who are like, force campaign pride down there throats, barely f'ing pvp's. people want good fights and want to go to what ever campaign they are on. its not the players fault that ZoS F'ed up and didnt balance it out when they actually had the pvp population. now to do this change on the PC could kill pvp for good.
It will probably be just fine on Console because they have enough people and all there pvp servers are full i hear. PC pvp will suffer.
Why take the Former Emp Buffs away, what do they hurt? If you put the time in you should get it, again its not the players fault that the way to gain AP is exploitable. Thats on Brian Wheeler, and instead of fixing the exploit, he is again take crap away from us PVP'ers, is that really what you guys want. Nothing new for a year except features being removed, f'ing awesome.
PC EU has three vet plus non vet campaign high or pop locked for all factions every day prime time. As a side note, I PvP since June/July 2014, that long enough for you to allow me to have an opinion?0 -
Atirez✭✭So firstly My Wheeler lets talk about locking people down on campaigns so they can't jump to one another when they wish. This will have DISASTROUS CONSEQUENCES. For Example. Just now I was in a 10 man group in AD and we were at Faregyl defending our last keep on the map. There was a full population EP trying to get the keep. 70 Minimum. They have now taken everything on the entire map 6-7 hours into the new campaign There was maybe 20 AD at Fare defending because other AD were on other campaigns. So if for the next two weeks the entire map was like this wouldn't my group get bored?
It's just as boring being on the other side.
0
