Thieve's Guild Update - Why Azura's Star?

Turelus · February 2016

@ZOS_BrianWheeler I have to ask you, with the new changes for limiting champion points. Why Azura's Star?

Cyrodiil Updates
We have a number of exciting additions and changes in Cyrodiil!
Once Update 9 is published, the Azura's Star and Blackwater Blade campaigns will limit the Champion System.
While in these campaigns, you will not be able to spend Champion Points when they are earned until you leave Cyrodiil, and all Champion abilities will be inactive.

Note that Champion Experience can still earned while in these campaigns.

This is currently to my knowledge the most popular campaign on both EU and NA servers where most of the major PvP guilds play, they seem happy with the current ruleset there so why change it? There are plenty of dead campaigns which this change could be made to and not effect as many people.

We saw the same thing with the Imperial City update when you changed Thornblade (the big campaign back then) to 7 days and everyone who was playing there just upped and left to Azura's Star. Now we don't even have a Thornblade, because it was so dead (and was removed in place of Axe of Belhaza).

This isn't a thread to say don't implement a no CP campaign, only a request that you do it with Trueflame, Spellbreaker or one of the less populated campaigns so all the guilds happy with the current Azura's ruleset don't have to move yet again.

fastolfv_ESO · February 2016

sadly i think its so they can go see we fixed azuras lag! now this "new" lag issue on the next campaign everyone jumped to has us stumped, give us 12 more months and we'll find another solution

Turelus · February 2016

The campaigns are such a mess right now though. We have so many farming campaigns for IC where no PvP happens and only one good campaign where you can find PvP all day (I speak as an EU player).

I don't understand the need to kill that all day PvP campaign and force everyone there to move yet again, when we literally have two or three 30 day, 1 point for everything campaigns which no one is playing on seriously.

30 days, 1 point for everything - Azura's Star
30 days, 1 point for everything, no CP - Trueflame
7 Days, scrolls only
7 Days, resources only
7 Days, keeps only, IC lock - Axe of Belhaza
30 days, 1 point for everything, no VR, no CP - Blackwater Blade

The above is all we really need, and if we're honest we probably don't even need the scrolls/resources campaigns. They're only use for farming IC any way. If you want to make PvP campaigns where people actually fight each other force them together! We heard ZOS were looking at closing campaigns and since then have seen the removal of one IIRC?

Maybe I am way off the mark here and the data ZOS has shows something else? However as we're never allowed to know about that data all I can do is base opinions off my own experiences over the last year and half.

I hate to be a grump but I am just tired of these changes which don't seem to hold any logic, I am fine with being patient for lag fixes, I am fine with no CP campaigns, I am fine with waiting for IC updates. However at least try to make changes which are not slapping the currently dedicated PvP players in the face.

/endrant

Berserkur · February 2016

ZoS Lagg solutions

Jura23 · February 2016

I agree with sypher on this topic that this is good move. If they picked another campaign, it would be dead from the start just like Axe.

RinaldoGandolphi · February 2016

Im actually looking forward to this change.

As someone close to the CP cap now, this is a huge breath of relief. this campaign will be as close to 1.5 as we will get and the CS won't be a crutch players can rely on, and you won't be forced to "keep up with the joneses" to be competitive in PVP. We will be back to a sane PVP with gear, skill choice, and food/drink being what decides fights instead of how many cP you have.

this will end up being the populated and most popular campaign in the game by a longshot, just wait and see. Great change here!

Sharee · February 2016

The problem is that the CP system is so influential already that people started crafting their equipment around the fact it exists. Which means their equipment will be unusable on a campaign where CP does not exist. Whoever wants to play on no-CP campaign will have to redo their gear.

Now think about it: do you really believe the whole Azura population will be willing to redo their(often gold-level) gear just to be able to stay on the campaign? Bollocks. They will just move somewhere where their current gear is still good. Which means that Azura will be abandoned just like Thornblade was.

You cannot force players to play under the no-CP rules simply by dumping it on their heads.

Stoney_McGeee · February 2016

People were complaining about Lag, and 4k+ people homed in Azura in each alliance, and wonder why it was so bad?
I'm glad Zos did that, maybe people will spread out and realize you don't have to stack in one campaign for a Zergfest I mean competitive campaign..

1,000 crowns says everyone runs wild like chickens with their heads cut off wondering where to home. Hahah

RinaldoGandolphi · February 2016

Well they will give free campaign reassignment so no one will be stuck on Azura's and there are other 30 day campaigns...it made sense for them to choose either Azura or Trueflame, and with free campaing re-assignment which one they chose is a non-issue. All those who want CP will just move to Trueflame.

Praeficere · February 2016

In the end, making a campaign non-CP is the same as killing most of its playerbase. Hopefully this increases activity elsewhere to, and not above, a reasonable level.

Stoney_McGeee · February 2016

Praeficere wrote: »

In the end, making a campaign non-CP is the same as killing most of its playerbase. Hopefully this increases activity elsewhere to, and not above, a reasonable level.

Hopefully everyone just doesn't stack up in one campaign.. Problem fixed. Ha

Bashev · February 2016

Sharee wrote: »

The problem is that the CP system is so influential already that people started crafting their equipment around the fact it exists. Which means their equipment will be unusable on a campaign where CP does not exist. Whoever wants to play on no-CP campaign will have to redo their gear.

Now think about it: do you really believe the whole Azura population will be willing to redo their(often gold-level) gear just to be able to stay on the campaign? Bollocks. They will just move somewhere where their current gear is still good. Which means that Azura will be abandoned just like Thornblade was.

You cannot force players to play under the no-CP rules simply by dumping it on their heads.

The no CP campaign is like an extension of the non vet campaign. It will be for the new players who likely are in Azura. The rest of us. we will switch campaign if we play there and want campaign with CP.

Turelus · February 2016

The problem I see though is that more people want a CP campaign than a non-CP campaign.

Why kill yet another successful campaign by changing it, was nothing learnt from Thornblade's changes?

Why not use this update to cut two of the fluff campaigns not being used and start a new one with the new ruleset? I don't understand why they need to effectively kill off yet another good campaign where most people are happy. Moving takes communication with all the other factions to find which is the campaign to go to, this won't be as simple as when Thornblade went either as we have multiple 30 day campaigns now.

Stoney_McGeee · February 2016

Turelus wrote: »

The problem I see though is that more people want a CP campaign than a non-CP campaign.

Why kill yet another successful campaign by changing it, was nothing learnt from Thornblade's changes?

Why not use this update to cut two of the fluff campaigns not being used and start a new one with the new ruleset? I don't understand why they need to effectively kill off yet another good campaign where most people are happy. Moving takes communication with all the other factions to find which is the campaign to go to, this won't be as simple as when Thornblade went either as we have multiple 30 day campaigns now.

Azura star was a successful campaign? That's weird considering all the complaints I read on the daily about it. Zos broke up the party, now people will spread out hopefully and actually have a REAL successful campaign not just a giant Zerg ball vs Zerg ball lag fest unplayable campaign.

What needs to happen is people need to actually play competitive and put more efforts into winning other campaigns.
If my guild can go into a campaign and make a scoreboard even without having the same numbers as the other alliances then I don't see why everyone needs to stack in one for a chance to win those " awesome" rewards at the end of the campaign.

IN MY OPINION, Because who knows what's the right solution.

Sallington · February 2016

Stoney_McGeee wrote: »

Turelus wrote: »

The problem I see though is that more people want a CP campaign than a non-CP campaign.

Why kill yet another successful campaign by changing it, was nothing learnt from Thornblade's changes?

Why not use this update to cut two of the fluff campaigns not being used and start a new one with the new ruleset? I don't understand why they need to effectively kill off yet another good campaign where most people are happy. Moving takes communication with all the other factions to find which is the campaign to go to, this won't be as simple as when Thornblade went either as we have multiple 30 day campaigns now.

Azura star was a successful campaign? That's weird considering all the complaints I read on the daily about it. Zos broke up the party, now people will spread out hopefully and actually have a REAL successful campaign not just a giant Zerg ball vs Zerg ball lag fest unplayable campaign.

What needs to happen is people need to actually play competitive and put more efforts into winning other campaigns.
If my guild can go into a campaign and make a scoreboard even without having the same numbers as the other alliances then I don't see why everyone needs to stack in one for a chance to win those " awesome" rewards at the end of the campaign.

IN MY OPINION, Because who knows what's the right solution.

They are not going to fix anything by moving everyone to another campaign.

The zergball meta will stay unless their is a large overhaul to how skills work (cough AOE CAPs cough). That's just how you win right now. Moving people to Had or TF isn't going to magically make people stop balling up.

Adding more objects might help a bit, but there will always be a "most important" objective that people converge on.

Stoney_McGeee · February 2016

Sallington wrote: »

Stoney_McGeee wrote: »

Turelus wrote: »

The problem I see though is that more people want a CP campaign than a non-CP campaign.

Why kill yet another successful campaign by changing it, was nothing learnt from Thornblade's changes?

Why not use this update to cut two of the fluff campaigns not being used and start a new one with the new ruleset? I don't understand why they need to effectively kill off yet another good campaign where most people are happy. Moving takes communication with all the other factions to find which is the campaign to go to, this won't be as simple as when Thornblade went either as we have multiple 30 day campaigns now.

Azura star was a successful campaign? That's weird considering all the complaints I read on the daily about it. Zos broke up the party, now people will spread out hopefully and actually have a REAL successful campaign not just a giant Zerg ball vs Zerg ball lag fest unplayable campaign.

What needs to happen is people need to actually play competitive and put more efforts into winning other campaigns.
If my guild can go into a campaign and make a scoreboard even without having the same numbers as the other alliances then I don't see why everyone needs to stack in one for a chance to win those " awesome" rewards at the end of the campaign.

IN MY OPINION, Because who knows what's the right solution.

They are not going to fix anything by moving everyone to another campaign.

The zergball meta will stay unless their is a large overhaul to how skills work (cough AOE CAPs cough). That's just how you win right now. Moving people to Had or TF isn't going to magically make people stop balling up.

Its a joke , sarcastically saying why they did it. BUT I'm not against it, I'm crossing my fingers people split up.
When console had two campaigns that were popping off, it seemed things weren't that bad on the lag section , but when they did a switch up on a campaign setting like they did here, it **** things up, and everyone stock piled into Azura once again.
So hopefully this pushes people into a new campaign and people don't all jump in one campaign.

Can I dream or what? Hahaha

Minno · February 2016

I see no issue. This will be the campaign for fairer fights since your resources won't be artificially inflated. You'd stick around if your objective is for competitive pvp.

Like new trials and pve content, your gear for one will not work for another. I imagine the same for the different pvp campaigns now.

RinaldoGandolphi · February 2016

Minno wrote: »

I see no issue. This will be the campaign for fairer fights since your resources won't be artificially inflated. You'd stick around if your objective is for competitive pvp.

Like new trials and pve content, your gear for one will not work for another. I imagine the same for the different pvp campaigns now.

Yup a Non-CP Campaign will be a lot like 1.5....where resource management actually matters....since your losing 25% regen, etc if you don't play your toon in a skillful way you will find yourself out of resources and dead.

JUST LIKE 1.5!!!

I bet you will see a lot of the old school players in Azura for that reason, fights will be more about skill, since no one will have the huge CP crutches giving them tons of resources they wouldn't not have had with a non-CP envirnment.

Azura's Star will be the most populated campaign on NA for this reason, it will lag the least, it will be poplocked all the time, and the best most balanced fights in the game will be found there...its a no brainier for anyone who wants even matched pvp.

KenaPKK · February 2016

Turelus wrote: »

@ZOS_BrianWheeler I have to ask you, with the new changes for limiting champion points. Why Azura's Star?

Cyrodiil Updates
We have a number of exciting additions and changes in Cyrodiil!
Once Update 9 is published, the Azura's Star and Blackwater Blade campaigns will limit the Champion System.
While in these campaigns, you will not be able to spend Champion Points when they are earned until you leave Cyrodiil, and all Champion abilities will be inactive.

Note that Champion Experience can still earned while in these campaigns.

This is currently to my knowledge the most popular campaign on both EU and NA servers where most of the major PvP guilds play, they seem happy with the current ruleset there so why change it? There are plenty of dead campaigns which this change could be made to and not effect as many people.

We saw the same thing with the Imperial City update when you changed Thornblade (the big campaign back then) to 7 days and everyone who was playing there just upped and left to Azura's Star. Now we don't even have a Thornblade, because it was so dead (and was removed in place of Axe of Belhaza).

This isn't a thread to say don't implement a no CP campaign, only a request that you do it with Trueflame, Spellbreaker or one of the less populated campaigns so all the guilds happy with the current Azura's ruleset don't have to move yet again.

They made this change precisely because these campaigns are highly populated. The intent is to get people to move around to different campaigns so that this change, like gating Axe IC access, doesn't go ignored. It's honestly a genius move by ZoS. If you don't like it, go play on TF.

Lorkhan · February 2016

Rinaldo, i will certainly be in the next noCP campaign (see you there) altough i dont think it will be the most populated campaign man. im afraid it will be empty. but im hoping you're right

Minno · February 2016

Lorkhan wrote: »

Rinaldo, i will certainly be in the next noCP campaign (see you there) altough i dont think it will be the most populated campaign man. im afraid it will be empty. but im hoping you're right

It won't be empty, maybe at first since people will be salty. Best way to show how it will be is to go on PTS with a toon and battle another toon without CP. I'll fight someone there tonight if they agree to no CP to test

.

Minno · February 2016

KenaPKK wrote: »

Turelus wrote: »

@ZOS_BrianWheeler I have to ask you, with the new changes for limiting champion points. Why Azura's Star?

Cyrodiil Updates
We have a number of exciting additions and changes in Cyrodiil!
Once Update 9 is published, the Azura's Star and Blackwater Blade campaigns will limit the Champion System.
While in these campaigns, you will not be able to spend Champion Points when they are earned until you leave Cyrodiil, and all Champion abilities will be inactive.

Note that Champion Experience can still earned while in these campaigns.

This is currently to my knowledge the most popular campaign on both EU and NA servers where most of the major PvP guilds play, they seem happy with the current ruleset there so why change it? There are plenty of dead campaigns which this change could be made to and not effect as many people.

We saw the same thing with the Imperial City update when you changed Thornblade (the big campaign back then) to 7 days and everyone who was playing there just upped and left to Azura's Star. Now we don't even have a Thornblade, because it was so dead (and was removed in place of Axe of Belhaza).

This isn't a thread to say don't implement a no CP campaign, only a request that you do it with Trueflame, Spellbreaker or one of the less populated campaigns so all the guilds happy with the current Azura's ruleset don't have to move yet again.

They made this change precisely because these campaigns are highly populated. The intent is to get people to move around to different campaigns so that this change, like gating Axe IC access, doesn't go ignored. It's honestly a genius move by ZoS. If you don't like it, go play on TF.

Nice perspective!

Sallington · February 2016

Minno wrote: »

Lorkhan wrote: »

Rinaldo, i will certainly be in the next noCP campaign (see you there) altough i dont think it will be the most populated campaign man. im afraid it will be empty. but im hoping you're right

It won't be empty, maybe at first since people will be salty. Best way to show how it will be is to go on PTS with a toon and battle another toon without CP. I'll fight someone there tonight if they agree to no CP to test .

I think if they did this at the release of 1.6 an CPs, it would be much more successful, but people have their entire builds and playstyle built around having 300+ CPs. It's asking a lot of people to redo their gear to make themselves less powerful.

I don't see it being more than 2-bar most of the time, maybe 3 bar if there's a bunch of people in there.

frozywozy · February 2016

KenaPKK wrote: »

Turelus wrote: »

@ZOS_BrianWheeler I have to ask you, with the new changes for limiting champion points. Why Azura's Star?

Cyrodiil Updates
We have a number of exciting additions and changes in Cyrodiil!
Once Update 9 is published, the Azura's Star and Blackwater Blade campaigns will limit the Champion System.
While in these campaigns, you will not be able to spend Champion Points when they are earned until you leave Cyrodiil, and all Champion abilities will be inactive.

Note that Champion Experience can still earned while in these campaigns.

This is currently to my knowledge the most popular campaign on both EU and NA servers where most of the major PvP guilds play, they seem happy with the current ruleset there so why change it? There are plenty of dead campaigns which this change could be made to and not effect as many people.

We saw the same thing with the Imperial City update when you changed Thornblade (the big campaign back then) to 7 days and everyone who was playing there just upped and left to Azura's Star. Now we don't even have a Thornblade, because it was so dead (and was removed in place of Axe of Belhaza).

This isn't a thread to say don't implement a no CP campaign, only a request that you do it with Trueflame, Spellbreaker or one of the less populated campaigns so all the guilds happy with the current Azura's ruleset don't have to move yet again.

They made this change precisely because these campaigns are highly populated. The intent is to get people to move around to different campaigns so that this change, like gating Axe IC access, doesn't go ignored. It's honestly a genius move by ZoS. If you don't like it, go play on TF.

This guy gets it. They made this change to test the NO CPs campaign in an active campaign to see how it goes. They also did it to incentive people to spread out across more than one campaign. Of course after some time one campaign will probably stand up again and get more popular than the others, but it could not get worse than what we already see on Azura Star.

Minno · February 2016

Sallington wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

Lorkhan wrote: »

Rinaldo, i will certainly be in the next noCP campaign (see you there) altough i dont think it will be the most populated campaign man. im afraid it will be empty. but im hoping you're right

It won't be empty, maybe at first since people will be salty. Best way to show how it will be is to go on PTS with a toon and battle another toon without CP. I'll fight someone there tonight if they agree to no CP to test .

I think if they did this at the release of 1.6 an CPs, it would be much more successful, but people have their entire builds and playstyle built around having 300+ CPs. It's asking a lot of people to redo their gear to make themselves less powerful.

I don't see it being more than 2-bar most of the time, maybe 3 bar if there's a bunch of people in there.

Convenience above competitive pvp is one reason why we are in this imbalance mess. ZOS being the reason or not, we have to start somewhere.

People will reforge gear, especially if it means the ability to have fair fights. It will promote different builds and different tactics. And help BWB players transition into vr16 max CP lvl.

Talcyndl · February 2016

Jura23 wrote: »

I agree with sypher on this topic that this is good move. If they picked another campaign, it would be dead from the start just like Axe.

All this means is that Azuras will be dead within a few days (or whenever people are able to change their campaign without penalty).

People say they want CP removed from Cyrodiil, but I can all but guaranty that the CP-free campaigns will consist of the occasional dueling contest and some newer players looking to escape being AP food. The current overall PvP population can support 2 Veteran campaigns during peak times. Off times there can be only a single campaign with good populations across all factions. That campaign is not going to be one that is CP-free.

Just being realistic.

myrrrorb14_ESO · February 2016

I was thinking this exact same thing. Why Azura? The most populated and busy campaign. Large scale battles happen all day and into the night. Other servers have a few prime time hours.

I'm not against a no CP campaign, just curious on there choice. I personally don't belong to a large guild, so I will wait a couple weeks to see where everyone jumps too.

Empty campaigns are great for gather skyshards, completing dolmens, or this repeatable dailies. But not a whole lot of fun for actually PvPing.

Defilted · February 2016

This game was and still is advertised as AvA.

AvA= lots of people grouped together attacking keeps or each other. I am sure if you PVP all the time ytou are going to find the small group or 1v1,1v2 situations from time to time. Again however it is a alliance army vs and another alliance army.

This is why I do not understand the zerg argument, that PVP is ruined because large groups of players are grouped together. This is how the game was advertised to be played inside the PVP zones.

I am not a huge PVP'er I enjoy both sides of the game. I have 1 character for PVE and one for PVP. I have enjoyed the PVP in Azura's every-time I have gone in there to play. Most of the time it is a large force working against a large force pushing each other back and forth across the map until a side disbands and gives up. Rinse repeat the next day.

Based on my experience in Azura';s I have to say I do not understand this change to that campaign.

My 2 minus 2 cents to fix the issue with some of the player base wanting smaller group warfare and 1v1.

1. Add smaller limited number campaigns of varying levels and CP. They did this in DAOC and it was really fun.
Meaning you have maps that only have 1 keep and limited space and this provides really great PVP I know this from playing that type of map. There is lots of good times to be had.

2. Add dueling feature
This fixes the PVP purest problem where they want to test their skills against another's skills in really fun combat. Then take it one step more and allow a player to challenge up to X amount of players wherever in the game.

So what do we have now if my solutions are implemeted.
1. A great place to play in the AvA environment with or without CP
2. A great place to experience smaller scale combat with or without CP. You can add level grouping like 19 to 29 for example as well for even more specific type of PVP exerpeince
3. The duelist elites have got exactly what they want and are able top 1v1 or 1vX anywhere in the game and tailor the PVP experience to exactly what they are looking for.

The next thing to consider is:
Does the amount of work required to do this benefit the profit margin of the game? Of course not knowing anything of their financials I have some suggestions that would make this change less cumbersome.

1. Take sections of the overall PVP map and copy paste these sections into their on instance and this is the first smaller scale PVP without have too generate a new map that brings new mapping bug problems.

The biggest undertaking here is working out the duelist GUI on the PC and console. Of course the bugs associated with PVP happening in a PVE area once invited into it by another player.

Minno · February 2016

Defilted wrote: »

This game was and still is advertised as AvA.

AvA= lots of people grouped together attacking keeps or each other. I am sure if you PVP all the time ytou are going to find the small group or 1v1,1v2 situations from time to time. Again however it is a alliance army vs and another alliance army.

This is why I do not understand the zerg argument, that PVP is ruined because large groups of players are grouped together. This is how the game was advertised to be played inside the PVP zones.

I am not a huge PVP'er I enjoy both sides of the game. I have 1 character for PVE and one for PVP. I have enjoyed the PVP in Azura's every-time I have gone in there to play. Most of the time it is a large force working against a large force pushing each other back and forth across the map until a side disbands and gives up. Rinse repeat the next day.

Based on my experience in Azura';s I have to say I do not understand this change to that campaign.

My 2 minus 2 cents to fix the issue with some of the player base wanting smaller group warfare and 1v1.

1. Add smaller limited number campaigns of varying levels and CP. They did this in DAOC and it was really fun.
Meaning you have maps that only have 1 keep and limited space and this provides really great PVP I know this from playing that type of map. There is lots of good times to be had.

2. Add dueling feature
This fixes the PVP purest problem where they want to test their skills against another's skills in really fun combat. Then take it one step more and allow a player to challenge up to X amount of players wherever in the game.

So what do we have now if my solutions are implemeted.
1. A great place to play in the AvA environment with or without CP
2. A great place to experience smaller scale combat with or without CP. You can add level grouping like 19 to 29 for example as well for even more specific type of PVP exerpeince
3. The duelist elites have got exactly what they want and are able top 1v1 or 1vX anywhere in the game and tailor the PVP experience to exactly what they are looking for.

The next thing to consider is:
Does the amount of work required to do this benefit the profit margin of the game? Of course not knowing anything of their financials I have some suggestions that would make this change less cumbersome.

1. Take sections of the overall PVP map and copy paste these sections into their on instance and this is the first smaller scale PVP without have too generate a new map that brings new mapping bug problems.

The biggest undertaking here is working out the duelist GUI on the PC and console. Of course the bugs associated with PVP happening in a PVE area once invited into it by another player.

AOE caps is why your hearing this "zerg is bad" argument.

This update seems to provide a balance between small and large raid with viable counters (and trade offs/incentives).

Only missing link is that aspect of CP that's causing inflated resource management. For both duels and large raid, resource management will add a level of complexity to a game where players are always looking for ways to live/beat the design intent. CP killed dueling, and made large raid a battle of numbers (resource stack ).

Current extra dmg is suppose to offset the healing done so players can be fairly dealt with.

DaveMoeDee · February 2016

Wouldn't it me more interesting if everyone was at 501 CP? That would put everyone on an equal footing while allowing build variety.

The problem is having people allocate 501 CP for Cyrodiil that they don't normally have elsewhere.

code65536 · February 2016

Turelus wrote: »

The problem I see though is that more people want a CP campaign than a non-CP campaign.

A no-CP vet campaign is a solution in search of a problem.

I used to be very much in favor of a no-CP vet campaign, but all that changed with the CP cap and very generous catch-up mechanism. CP imbalance these days isn't nearly as much of a problem as it used to be.

We should still have a no-CP vet campaign. But I don't think it needs to be (or should be) front-and-center.