Tandor wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

It seems to me that the low interest in IC stems mainly from the fact that PvPers don't like the intrusive PvE content while PvEers don't like the intrusive PvP content.

Ergo, the solution is to separate the PvE and PvP content from each other. Everyone will end up happy including ZOS who will sell more IC DLCs as a result of IC being opened up to PvEers. The only ones to lose out will be the gankers whose idea of fun is jumping non-PvPers and the game shouldn't be designed around them anyway.

Not true at all.
I and many players that I see fighting and farming all the time in IC would beg to differ. This is not a PvP vs PvE argument!

Interesting. There's no doubt that my comment is at least partly true because there clearly are pure PvEers who haven't bought IC because they have no interest in the PvP side of it. I know that for a fact, as I am one of them and others have said the same thing on the forum. It's also true that some PvPers have complained about the amount of PvE content in IC and the fact that it gets in the way of the PvP. Doubtless, however, you are also partly right in that there will be some, especially those who do both PvP and PvE, who like the mix and have no problems with it. Perhaps giving people the option of separating the content would at least enable more people to participate in IC which by all accounts needs some sort of stimulus to get it better used now that the initial novelty has worn off as it always does with any new content.

This, IMO, would ruin what IC is. The intense sense of not knowing what is around each corner. The intense journey toward the fight with Molag bal. The sounds, the atmosphere....
The thought of a bunch of "PvEers" skipping through the content and being bored of it having maxed out on mats in a week pains me so, and is such an insult to the sheer quality of what the content is meant to be.

Would you not be happy playing in a buff campaign? At least then there is the slightest chance of the unknown, bringing a tiny slice of that intended atmosphere, or is that still not good enough?!

To be honest, I've no idea what a buff campaign is, but I suspect I wouldn't use the term "good enough", rather it'd be a question of whether it was "tempting enough". However, I have zero interest in PvP in any form, and therefore a DLC that locks the PvE content behind PvP is unlikely to be of any interest to me especially given that there is enough readily accessible PvE content in both this game and the others I play to keep me entertained for more hours than I can possibly devote to it.

A buff campaign is almost exactly what you are hoping for. You might be in luck then.
A buff campaign is simply a campaign that has population bars for your faction only. Almost zero hostiles.

Enodoc wrote: »

CavalierPrime wrote: »

Why are Cyro and IC even linked? It would be understandable if zerg fights could start in Cyro and organically move into IC. At this point, by sharing a population, theyre just stealing players from each other. If you are Aldmeri looking to defend keeps, but all the yellows decided to go sewer gank that day, prepare to get rolled by waves of purple all night long.

IC is kinda in the middle of Cyro... they're linked because the entrance to IC is in the middle of Cyro

To be fair though, NeillMcAttack basically covered it. It would have made more sense if every campaign had gated access to IC, then the connection between Cyro and IC is obvious. Since only one campaign has gated access (and none on console), this important link is washed to the sidelines. If they de-coupled Cyro and IC completely, per the "yellow" option, then the original design purpose of IC and its faction warfare gated access would die completely. And that would be sad.

Why do you feel that campaign would die ?
Ppl just ride in so that's little difference. Fixing the problems seem to be a consistent suggestion amongst us all to unlink Cyrodil and IC

Just asking

How to make everyone happy:

• Add alliance objectives for PvP interest
• Drop Repora and Itade at reasonable rates somewhere in PvE-land
• Keep the ultra rare drop of tri-stat runes in Wrothgar; and add ultra rare Xivkyn motif drops
• Leave trophy vaults as-is for opportunities for PvPers to earn gold on BoE items, and as bait for people to try PvP
• Leave the PvE quests; no need to take them out at this point

dwemer_paleologist wrote: »

my vote:

make a real prison in eso for people who steal things, or murder people. when you find yourself in prison you try to escape and the only escape leads to the imperial city sewers.
from there you have to survive and escape the sewers and then finally reach cryodiil where you must escape cryodiil, so you can again reach the main land and PVE area where it all started.
at that point your an escaped convict and will need to pay a fine or learn to survive so it starts all over again.

this will ensure the sewers are used on a constant basis

So if I steal something in daggerfall, the cops there take me prisoner, drag me al the way to war-infested lands and imprison me in a city overrun by daedra and ruled by a necromancer?

I doubt any cop would do that and rather let me have executed on the spot or let me go free

NBrookus wrote: »

How to make everyone happy:

• Add alliance objectives for PvP interest
• Drop Repora and Itade at reasonable rates somewhere in PvE-land
• Keep the ultra rare drop of tri-stat runes in Wrothgar; and add ultra rare Xivkyn motif drops
• Leave trophy vaults as-is for opportunities for PvPers to earn gold on BoE items, and as bait for people to try PvP
• Leave the PvE quests; no need to take them out at this point

Sounds good to me!

Hiero_Glyph wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

CavalierPrime wrote: »

Why are Cyro and IC even linked? It would be understandable if zerg fights could start in Cyro and organically move into IC. At this point, by sharing a population, theyre just stealing players from each other. If you are Aldmeri looking to defend keeps, but all the yellows decided to go sewer gank that day, prepare to get rolled by waves of purple all night long.

IC is kinda in the middle of Cyro... they're linked because the entrance to IC is in the middle of Cyro

To be fair though, NeillMcAttack basically covered it. It would have made more sense if every campaign had gated access to IC, then the connection between Cyro and IC is obvious. Since only one campaign has gated access (and none on console), this important link is washed to the sidelines. If they de-coupled Cyro and IC completely, per the "yellow" option, then the original design purpose of IC and its faction warfare gated access would die completely. And that would be sad.

Why do you feel that campaign would die ?
Ppl just ride in so that's little difference. Fixing the problems seem to be a consistent suggestion amongst us all to unlink Cyrodil and IC

Just asking

If Cyro and IC were unlinked, such that there was only one instance of IC, gating access in one campaign would be pointless, as you would be able to get around the gating by entering IC through a different campaign. The faction who were "in control" of the IC gates in that one campaign wouldn't be able to see the benefits that controlling the gates is supposed to bring, because enemies would still be able to get into IC from the other, ungated campaigns. And there would therefore be no point in having any gated campaigns at all.

Be honest, is there really a point to the single gated campaign now? As you noted, if players want IC access they can just use a different campaign. At this point it's probably best to alter the districts in IC to a territorial control game. Separating IC from Cyrodiil would also help when joining an IC server as you would know every player is actually in IC instead of it being empty despite having mostly full population bars.

Well no, not really, but it is serving its purpose of keeping out the other alliances so that one alliance can do what they like inside the city without so many enemy players around. But that one campaign has ended up exactly as predicted; a buff campaign for one alliance to go to IC, with little interest by the other alliances in regaining their own access. District Control does seem to be the way to go, and if you've seen my concept thread, that could be combined with limited access to the districts, and could therefore result in some of the PvE-safety that Gated Access was supposed to provide.

I wonder if there's enough server resources to just have one IC, with a pop-cap of its own that was higher than an individual Cyrodiil's. IC is much smaller than Cyrodiil, so in theory some of that server space could be used to have a massive pop cap.

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

CavalierPrime wrote: »

Why are Cyro and IC even linked? It would be understandable if zerg fights could start in Cyro and organically move into IC. At this point, by sharing a population, theyre just stealing players from each other. If you are Aldmeri looking to defend keeps, but all the yellows decided to go sewer gank that day, prepare to get rolled by waves of purple all night long.

IC is kinda in the middle of Cyro... they're linked because the entrance to IC is in the middle of Cyro

To be fair though, NeillMcAttack basically covered it. It would have made more sense if every campaign had gated access to IC, then the connection between Cyro and IC is obvious. Since only one campaign has gated access (and none on console), this important link is washed to the sidelines. If they de-coupled Cyro and IC completely, per the "yellow" option, then the original design purpose of IC and its faction warfare gated access would die completely. And that would be sad.

Why do you feel that campaign would die ?
Ppl just ride in so that's little difference. Fixing the problems seem to be a consistent suggestion amongst us all to unlink Cyrodil and IC

Just asking

If Cyro and IC were unlinked, such that there was only one instance of IC, gating access in one campaign would be pointless, as you would be able to get around the gating by entering IC through a different campaign. The faction who were "in control" of the IC gates in that one campaign wouldn't be able to see the benefits that controlling the gates is supposed to bring, because enemies would still be able to get into IC from the other, ungated campaigns. And there would therefore be no point in having any gated campaigns at all.

That's the situation now. I don't see why this is a concern.

I log on any campaign that is faction heavy. Ride to IC and play IC.
In the change is log onto the campaign and be ported there.

Difference of a 2-3 min horse ride without lag and issues of population

The point of gating access is to control who gets into IC. If access in the gated campaign is controlled by AD, then you expect AD players in that IC, and nobody else (except the hangers-on that haven't yet left). If IC was decoupled, you wouldn't have that AD-only guarantee, because you could avoid the gating in one campaign by going in through a different campaign. Yes you can avoid the gating now, by entering a different campaign, but that's also a different IC, which does not have the AD-only guarantee.