I have thought about this, and while I initially liked the idea of different rule-sets for different campaigns, I am having doubts.

ZOS have made it clear that TV stones are the new #1 currency in ESO. This is confirmed by the marginalization of AP and gold. Furthermore, v15 mats are exclusively available in IC.

Therefore, if there are different rule-sets, and one of these is to allow open access, and considering the removal of travel-to-player, it follows that either your home or guest server must be set to the campaign with open IC access. Simply put, this will be the only way to keep up in currency and raw materials.

Now, I'm not exactly sure if this is even a bad thing. But the idea that I will be basically forced to choose the all-access campaign as one of my two campaigns feels like the all-access design would restrict my game choices. And therefore, this campaign will undoubtedly be the most popular, and by design will severely reduce the overall importance of Cyrodiil itself across the entire game.

The fact the content is paid for is of no consequence. There are access "gates" to nearly all of the content in the game. Paying for an expansion, or a monthly fee, has never guaranteed access to all content in a MMO.

Docmandu wrote: »

Ah the good old: I paid for it so should always be able to access, QQ...

Maybe you also want a Cyrodiil campaign where you can port to all the keeps and that they are all owned by your faction, hey.. you paid for the game afterall, so you should have access to all the keeps all the time!!!!1!

ON LIVE: DC hasn't had the keeps required for proposed access to Imperial City in AT LEAST 4 DAYS (since I've been checking) across ALL the campaigns.

And that's fine, but not if you expect us to spend money on it. I have less and less individual control over things in this world as time goes on. But I still control my wallet.

And so your opinion about what I should be okay spending money on really doesn't matter.

There are many who feel as I do. If we don't have an expectation of access, we won't buy...PERIOD.

Call it a QQ....Call is something worse...I don't care.

The absurdity of thinking you have personally achieved something by outnumbering your opponent and they are somehow personally unworthy when all you did was follow the stream of people going to those alliances en masse.

As far as a specific question, how many days in a row would all DC players across ALL CAMPAIGNS have to have no access before it's a legitimate issue and not a QQ? We are at 4 and counting on Live.

Docmandu wrote: »

Ah the good old: I paid for it so should always be able to access, QQ...

There's no qq in that post. I am providing ZOS with constructive feedback and a viable solution to some issues some people have with cost versus value.

I am sure ZOS has already made analysis of how many players they expect to buy the DLC or sub for it, and how many will not. You can see things in the DLC and base game patches that address that. I am also concerned from what I have heard that there are players who say what they are doing on PTS is fun and they can't wait for it to go live. I am concerned they don't realize that what they are doing on PTS is not how it is going to be live. I want to make sure ZOS addresses that before there is backlash when players say they are not getting what they thought they were paying for.

I have been a subscribing player since early release and always will sub because I want to support the game I like to play, because when it no longer makes money, they will pull the plug. I would like to delay that end.

Docmandu wrote: »

Maybe you also want a Cyrodiil campaign where you can port to all the keeps and that they are all owned by your faction, hey.. you paid for the game afterall, so you should have access to all the keeps all the time!!!!1!

Not a realistic example. Now if they had only one server for PVP and it was inaccessible from the time I get home from work to the time I go to bed, then I would not be getting my money's worth and would invest it in another game. That is not good for this game's future.

Daraugh wrote: »

IC reminds me of buying hang tags for parking when I was in college. The tag gave me the right to park, not a right to a parking place exactly when and where I wanted it. It's like buying a hunting permit rather then buying venison. It's a fishing license, not the fish.

Buying IC gives players the opportunity to get into the city.

Not realistic examples. These are real world just have to do it expenses, this is a game, it is entertainment money and can be easily spent on another game or not at all. We want ZOS to make marketable content that draws in more paying players, it is the only way the game will survive. I am merely offering a suggestion on how ZOS can add more value to the DLC and address the concerns of at least two groups who say they may not pay for it.

Now, if you bought a parking space, you'd be pretty upset if someone else was always parking in it, which happens all the time in apartment complexes, you are not getting what you paid for. Or you bought a hunting permit but they close all the hunting locations. Or you buy fish and bring it home and it is spoiled, you would be back at the store demanding good fish or a refund wouldn't you?

If you spend $25 to be able to go into Imperial City and enjoy all of that content, yet you are never able to get in to partake in it because of a game mechanic, would you buy the next DLC if there was a good chance you would never get anything out of it, you would not would you?

Stikato wrote: »

... the idea that I will be basically forced to choose the all-access campaign as one of my two campaigns feels like the all-access design would restrict my game choices.

Yes, that would be a poor way to implement this. In PTS they already have code in place to allow it to work the way it does there. It should not take too much to modify that code so that you never have to Home or Guest to this campaign. Just right click and choose enter. Keep in mind this is more about the 3 alliance battle and the quick respawn mechanic, TV stones would be restricted. It is a worst case scenario override for campaigns that are lop sided an an alliance can never get access. And really, it is just to alleviate the concerns of those that will not pay for it because they will not get enough access to it and to give some value added content for those who don't think the items you buy with TV stones are worth it, but might like the unique kind of combat that it allows.

Stikato wrote: »

... this campaign will undoubtedly be the most popular, and by design will severely reduce the overall importance of Cyrodiil itself across the entire game.

Then that means its a good idea. Any time they add content it threatens to water down the population in other areas. IC and its impact on Cyrodiil has been a concern of mine ever since I heard about it. Now if you want to talk about reducing the importance of Cyrodiil, I think the idiotic rules of "just capture the resources and leave the keeps alone" is a bad idea. Players said they want ZOS to make the resources more important. That means capturing both the Keep and its resources. This just seems like a bad idea that everyone will just have to live with. But really, a game about capturing castles and taking their resources as a way of blocking travel to them by the defensive forces, but in that campaign you capture just resources, and this one you capture just keeps, dumb. And if the campaign with the rules you want is full all the time, you are stuck with rules you don't want.

Stikato wrote: »

The fact the content is paid for is of no consequence. There are access "gates" to nearly all of the content in the game. Paying for an expansion, or a monthly fee, has never guaranteed access to all content in a MMO.

The consequence is that this DLC, like any product, may not make back the money that was spent on creating it. ZOS has an already built into the game way of adding something that has already proven to be fun. Why not add it to the DLC, it will alleviate some of the concerns of some of the people who have said they will not pay for it.

I've been paying for this game all along and there is probably a third of it I will never see, but that means there is 2/3 of it that I have seen. You have to get what you feel is your money's worth out of it.

Daraugh wrote: »

IC reminds me of buying hang tags for parking when I was in college. The tag gave me the right to park, not a right to a parking place exactly when and where I wanted it. It's like buying a hunting permit rather then buying venison. It's a fishing license, not the fish.

Buying IC gives players the opportunity to get into the city.

Ridiculous examples, and here's why;

How long would you continue paying for the hunting permit if other permit holders stopped you from going hunting, or stole your roped stag before you got it home?

If the car park entrance was blocked by other permit holders and management didn't remove them, you wouldn't park their any more and would demand a refund on your pass.

No-one in their right mind will pay to be bent over whenever it suits someone else who is paying the same money for the same service, but getting to use it FAR more because of a foolish design decision. It is self serving short sightedness on the part of dedicated ganker/griefers who are salivating over this dlc to suggest that the game will prosper with such a set up.

"I wanna gank noobies to the point where they can't access the dlc and have fun, so let me!".

Talk about the most pathetic QQ ever to grace these forums...

This wouldn't be much of an issue if this was JUST a PvP update and could be taken or left as desired... but they have hidden the vast majority of the PvE progression behind this barrier, and the MAJORITY of players aren't the combination of FOTM class spamming, 24/7 online, PvP experts this expansion serves best.

Someone somewhere has to start understanding the demographics of the vast majority game playing population. Suffice to say they aren't the no-lifers...

... and don't get me started on the disgusting grindfest this game is fast becoming to feed the Crown Store with the players who have jobs and money, but not the time to dedicate more than half of their waking hours to playing 7 days a week.

It's crass, to say the least...

RoamingRiverElk wrote: »

There's practically no fighting going on outside of the Imperial City on the PTS now. When populations are 2 - 2 - 2 there are juuuuust about enough people you can find to fight in the Imperial City - but the sewers are nearly empty, as are some of the districts - like Arboretum. The Imperial City pretty much *needs* 3 - 3 - 3 population to make it more than just NPC fighting. It is *that* large an area.

Some sample error here - everyone is playtesting IC, not the well known Cyrodiil, so of course that's where they all are... and they are not representative of a normal server population either, either in playstyle demographic or numbers.

I can't get to Craglorn on my non-vet toons, I can't get to EP or DC with my low level ADs that aren't doing Cadwell's yet. What's your reasoning for those? Did I buy an opportunity to see those areas (eventually) or should I be able to wander wherever I want, whenever I want, during a war that's splitting the world into pieces. Being able to wander into the most heavily contested warzone whenever you feel like it is ridiculous. As far as other players having some impact on gameplay, it's an mmo, they're supposed to.

The so-called gates are there for a reason, so the stories make sense within the game setting. The "I bought it so gimme all I want right now" crowd is determined to make the game boring.

I did not post reasons, I posted analogies that help illustrate the methods ZOS uses to makes sense to storytelling and gameplay. L2read.

If all you want is to see is IC, go to youtube and watch it without any interaction that might damage any delicate sensibilities. Or slot radiant magelight, detection pots, shields, aoes and heals and kill the gankers.