URGENT the whole PTS cyro map is blue, please reset it so we can all test/access IC

Docmandu · August 2015

Poor solo ganker NBs can't get into IC atm? Boohoe sniff sniff snort.. This IC patch is going to be glorious! (Well at least on the forums)

xylena · August 2015

if they wanted cyrodiil to remain relevant, they'd make AP gear scale to v16, give us lots of gold for kills and quests, and make lightning ballistas do chain lightning that insta nukes zergblobs

i'll still do cyro cuz it's fun sometimes, but most of my game time will be in IC

MaxwellC · August 2015

I'm going to hang out on Skull of corruption since we the DC own the entire map

!

xylena · August 2015

i was in IC but it was totally dead... but now there's action again thanks to that EP group, your efforts are appreciated!

Minno · August 2015

It's to test how to lock players out and test how to fight for IC on the campaign that allows that to happen.

redspecter23 · August 2015

The incentive to play in Cyrodiil shouldn't be IC. That's a horrible incentive. The incentive to play in Cyrodiil should be contained within that content. PvP boxes scaling to V16 would be a very logical start and I can't see why that wasn't planned for this DLC. Forcing players to play content they don't want to play in order to play content they do want to play makes no sense at all. I get that players are saying that Cyrodiil might end up being pointless if IC releases with no gating but the plan should be to make Cyrodiil more attractive rather than making players play it.

Imagine if I couldn't get into my daily pledge until I run 3 daily Craglorn quests... every day. That's basically what proponents of the gating want. Let me play Cyrodiil if I want to. Let me play IC if I want to. If population dips in any part of the game *cough* Craglron *cough* then the devs need to look at what they can do to make that content more attractive and that is NOT forcing players into in with the carrot being the new shiny thing.

olemanwinter · August 2015

Rescorla_ESO wrote: »

I think the point being made by DC is that all the rants, exageration and hyperbole by DC players that they would not be able to gain access to IC because they are the smallest faction was just a bunch of hogwash. Congrats to DC for proving that ZOS_BrianWheeler should have stuck to his original design plan of requiring control of your 6 home keeps to enter IC.

LMAO

As the person who started the primary thread that created the change, I'm going to call complete BS on this.

The point wasn't that it will leave DC players without access, the point WAS that it would always leave someone without access.

The issue is in essence: The static nature of ESO PvP realms.

The widespread existence of buff servers was a problem when the only benefit was incremental stat increases. The INCENTIVE to avoid conflict and maintain control over a specific campaign would be even greater with access to the Imperial City as the reward.

This is not about the differences between alliances. This is like politics where everyone is fine with whatever as happening as long as their own party is doing it. They work so hard to gain power for their party when winning they completely forget the other guys will get to use the same power later.

Everyone in this thread is complaining because they can't access the content and they also can't (or don't want to) take their keeps back. Instead they are in here complaining asking for a keep reset. On live they will have the option of moving to a different server so they can dominate it, just like now. So effectively this thread PROVES my hypothesis. lol

If live had the same rules as the PTS does at this time, every person in this thread would move to a different campaign to get access to Imperial City before they waste time trying to "earn" access to it.....even if retaking keeps is theoretically possible because you have the numbers.

We all know that EP and AD outnumber DC, so if AD and EP players are in here complaining about having their access to IC cut off even when they have superior numbers, you know the people simply don't want to be FORCED to play PvP in location A for a right to PvP in location B. It's perhaps possible if you have the numbers (from alliance population or from displacement of players gone to the Imperial City) but it's not pleasant. It's not how people want to play.

riverdragon72 · August 2015

Superior numbers? There was myself and another AD on this afternoon, with no gold or AP to buy any siege to attempt to even take back a keep. it's the f****g test server, we should be inside testing, not squabbling over keeps.

olemanwinter · August 2015

riverdragon72 wrote: »

Superior numbers? There was myself and another AD on this afternoon, with no gold or AP to buy any siege to attempt to even take back a keep. it's the f****g test server, we should be inside testing, not squabbling over keeps.

^ More proof ^

- We're going to test keep requirements, they said.
- It will be easy to take keeps from the side that has access, they said.
- I want there to be a reason to HAVE to take keeps, they said.

It was all nonsense. My thread logically explained it. And this thread goes a long way to prove it.