Is there anything that can be done to bring up Azuras population?

Iink · May 2016

Some players don't like CP in PVP as it results in certain players having really OP builds, but the majority of players like CP so they go to Trueflame. My problem with Trueflame is that because of CP (as well as animation canceling, and some players using macros) you have builds that are so strong they can kill players in 1-3 attacks, rendering gameplay for a lot of players impossible.

So while those who don't like CP, can stick to Azuras if they don't like CP, there is a serious problem. Azuras population is so low, and major issues occur from this. Mostly the issue is one faction ends up taking over the whole map, and the other factions give up or don't have a population strong enough to even siege a keep. It becomes unplayable.

I don't know what can be done to increase Azuras population. Here are some ideas I came up with:

-Maybe merge the EU and NA servers for Azuras? (this is the best of my three ideas)
-Maybe restrict nonvets to only entering Blackwater and Azuras (some non-vets don't have CP anyway, so going into TF or Haderus will only hinder them)
-Maybe removing Haderus from the campaign list will result in PVP's population being less divided? (I'm sure many who like Haderus will think this is unfair and a bad idea, I don't blame you, but it's the only other thing I can think of to save non-CP PVP. The only difference between Haderus and Trueflame is the duration, so the gameplay will be the same)

If those ideas don't work or sound stupid, fair enough. They were the only solutions I could think of, maybe there are other solutions out there. Either way, SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE to fix Azura's population, Blackwater is lagging behind a bit too. Non-CP campaigns need a serious population boost.

Turelus · May 2016

The first option isn't viable just because of latency and the issues it would cause.

The other two are not fair on the people who don't want to play Azura, closing or restricting people from going to other campaigns doesn't mean they're instantly going to join Azura. If they're not playing there now it's for a reason.

Sadly you're not going to find a way to get Azura's numbers up unless you find more people who want a campaign without CP. For myself I won't play there because I have spent forever levelling and playing to get the CP I have and I want to be able to use them.

redspecter23 · May 2016

Please don't remove Haderus. Taking away yet another CP campaign is not a solution to people that don't want to play on a non CP campaign. It will only infuriate them more. Saving non CP pvp isn't worth destroying regular pvp by throwing literally everyone into Trueflame.

If the numbers are low on Azura's, my best guess is that it is a result of not enough people wanting to play without CP. Forcing the issue isn't the right way to go. Either live the the numbers you have or wait for it to eventually be shut down. Forcing others into Azura's by removing or making other campaigns less attractive is a very poor way to incentivize it.

I totally get it. Some people really love the non CP campaign. Try luring more over with the positives rather than making them come because they don't have a choice.

Iink · May 2016

redspecter23 wrote: »

Please don't remove Haderus. Taking away yet another CP campaign is not a solution to people that don't want to play on a non CP campaign. It will only infuriate them more. Saving non CP pvp isn't worth destroying regular pvp by throwing literally everyone into Trueflame.

If the numbers are low on Azura's, my best guess is that it is a result of not enough people wanting to play without CP. Forcing the issue isn't the right way to go. Either live the the numbers you have or wait for it to eventually be shut down. Forcing others into Azura's by removing or making other campaigns less attractive is a very poor way to incentivize it.

I totally get it. Some people really love the non CP campaign. Try luring more over with the positives rather than making them come because they don't have a choice.

Turelus wrote: »

The first option isn't viable just because of latency and the issues it would cause.

The other two are not fair on the people who don't want to play Azura, closing or restricting people from going to other campaigns doesn't mean they're instantly going to join Azura. If they're not playing there now it's for a reason.

Sadly you're not going to find a way to get Azura's numbers up unless you find more people who want a campaign without CP. For myself I won't play there because I have spent forever levelling and playing to get the CP I have and I want to be able to use them.

That's fair,

What about opening blackwater up to Vets, but scale down their armor, stats, etc when they enter?

redspecter23 · May 2016

Iink wrote: »

redspecter23 wrote: »

Please don't remove Haderus. Taking away yet another CP campaign is not a solution to people that don't want to play on a non CP campaign. It will only infuriate them more. Saving non CP pvp isn't worth destroying regular pvp by throwing literally everyone into Trueflame.

If the numbers are low on Azura's, my best guess is that it is a result of not enough people wanting to play without CP. Forcing the issue isn't the right way to go. Either live the the numbers you have or wait for it to eventually be shut down. Forcing others into Azura's by removing or making other campaigns less attractive is a very poor way to incentivize it.

I totally get it. Some people really love the non CP campaign. Try luring more over with the positives rather than making them come because they don't have a choice.

Turelus wrote: »

The first option isn't viable just because of latency and the issues it would cause.

The other two are not fair on the people who don't want to play Azura, closing or restricting people from going to other campaigns doesn't mean they're instantly going to join Azura. If they're not playing there now it's for a reason.

Sadly you're not going to find a way to get Azura's numbers up unless you find more people who want a campaign without CP. For myself I won't play there because I have spent forever levelling and playing to get the CP I have and I want to be able to use them.

That's fair,

What about opening blackwater up to Non Vets, but scale down their armor, stats, etc when they enter?

Perhaps merge 2 campaigns. Likely ones would be BWB and Azura's. My best compromise is to merge them together, allow anyone to enter (vet or non-vet) but allow no gear over level 50 (no cp ranked gear at all) and disallow CP. That more or less gives you a non cp campaign with a max level of 50. Sure you still have a pile of skills earned which you wouldn't have in BWB but you get the merged population with 2 sets of restraints in place to keep things a bit simpler rather than 2 different non cp campaigns both with a low population. As a small added bonus, you open up a crafting market for level 50 gear that was non existent previously.

Brrrofski · May 2016

If you don'r let non vets into cp campaigns, what about them ones who have cp?

They just need to admit the no CP campaign was a fail and revert it, cut pop caps on the other ones. Make people spread out to help lag.

I mean, good luck in no campaign with increased cost poisons...

Turelus · May 2016

TBH I don't understand why Azura and Blackwater are not merged. There is no VR and no CP any more in either so you might as well consolidate the populations.

redspecter23 · May 2016

Brrrofski wrote: »

If you don'r let non vets into cp campaigns, what about them ones who have cp?

They just need to admit the no CP campaign was a fail and revert it, cut pop caps on the other ones. Make people spread out to help lag.

I mean, good luck in no campaign with increased cost poisons...

I'd just go ahead and disallow poison use in Azura's. That might be all the incentive it needs to get a few more players over there. I'm only half joking.

dwtdwtdwt · May 2016

I agree that Azura's Star is low in population, but there is nothing that the developers can do to force players to go there.

I have been playing this game off-and-on since launch, but I still have low CP, so I love the non-CP campaign. In fact, I came back to the game just to play in AZ because having low CP made it difficult to compete with those who have a ridiculous amount of points.
I feel that playing in AZ is more of a challenge for some players. Those with high points don't want to play there because they have come to rely on their points to help them survive in pvp. And those with low points still go to other campaigns for safety in numbers; zerg groups in the more populated campaigns give that element of security that you can't always find in AZ.
When playing in AZ, gear matters. Those with high CP may need to wear completely different sets than they normally wear, just so they don't run out of magicka or stamina. So, instead of re-gearing, they don't go there. And those with low CP (usually new players) probably haven't been able to craft or locate the gear they need, or don't have the skill to compete in a low-pop campaign. Because skill matters too.

What it boils down to is that in AZ, you really need to know how to manage your resources. Champion Points have made it so easy for players to not run out of resources, that the challenge of AZ is not worth the hassle for some. The feeling I get from playing in the non-CP campaign is how the game was before Champion Points. If other players can see it that way too, then you may see more deciding to play there.

Iink · May 2016

I get the feeling that ZOS supports the players with OP builds, but this is the wrong mindset for any competitive multiplayer game. It's crazy when I'm in TF and I see a zerg of maybe 20 players all trying to take down 1 OP player, things like that should not happen. ZOS's focus should be on making the gap between players stats smaller, not larger.

In a skill based competitive multiplayer game, the way players improve would be to practise and learn. In a stat based multiplayer game, the way players improve is grinding hours in PVE to bring stats up, and buying the best gear.

If all magicka DKs had the same stats, if all stam DKs had the same stats, if all magicka NBs had the same stats, if all stam NBs had the same stats, (and so on with stam, magicka, templars and sorcs) . PVP would be a far more balanced experience.

Rather than ZOS encourage huge gaps between the stats of players, their focus should be on narrowing the stat differences between players, to encourage the game to require skill opposed to stats.

I would be fine with stat differences if it wasn't so extreme. Stat differences allow for unique builds and gameplay wich is good. But ESO takes things too far. The fact that some players can 1 v 20 is outright broken. And with that I can confidently say that ESO has one of the most unbalanced multiplayers out there.

Never should players be able to 1 v 20.

phaneub17_ESO · May 2016

I don't PvP, and I like Azura for the farming. It's almost devoid of players that I can run around gathering all the Ruby mats I want without getting hassled or running into zergs of players roaming around. I am however missing Plentiful Harvest and Master Gatherer, but it's a trade off for the free range easy pickings without worry of getting steam rolled. The problem with Azura as a PvP Campaign is that it only fills it for a niche number of players, getting stuck in this Campaign for 30 days without CP is only going to appeal to those who don't like the CP system or don't have any CP at all like new players.

What Azura needs to attract more players is to have incentives, trade off bonuses for disabled CP. Something that feels like its worth sticking through 30 days of being gimped voluntarily. Here are a few ideas:

- It should cost less 25% less Alliance points changing to or from Azura, that way players don't feel locked.
- Your Alliance War skill lines grow 50% faster in Azura than in other Campaigns.
- You gain 50% more Alliance Points from all sources in Azura than in other Campaigns.
- Your Champion points gain double experience, like having permanent Enlightenment while actively in Azura.

NativeJoe · May 2016

Only way your getting me in there is by closing all the other campaigns.

Iink · May 2016

phaneub17_ESO wrote: »

- It should cost less 25% less Alliance points changing to or from Azura, that way players don't feel locked.
- Your Alliance War skill lines grow 50% faster in Azura than in other Campaigns.
- You gain 50% more Alliance Points from all sources in Azura than in other Campaigns.
- Your Champion points gain double experience, like having permanent Enlightenment while actively in Azura.

That is a fantastic idea. I hope something like that gets implemented.

Turelus · May 2016

TBH I don't understand why Azura and Blackwater are not merged. There is no VR and no CP any more in either so you might as well consolidate the populations.

Iink wrote: »

I get the feeling that ZOS supports the players with OP builds, but this is the wrong mindset for any competitive multiplayer game. It's crazy when I'm in TF and I see a zerg of maybe 20 players all trying to take down 1 OP player, things like that should not happen. ZOS's focus should be on making the gap between players stats smaller, not larger.

In a skill based competitive multiplayer game, the way players improve would be to practise and learn. In a stat based multiplayer game, the way players improve is grinding hours in PVE to bring stats up, and buying the best gear.

If all magicka DKs had the same stats, if all stam DKs had the same stats, if all magicka NBs had the same stats, if all stam NBs had the same stats, (and so on with stam, magicka, templars and sorcs) . PVP would be a far more balanced experience.

Rather than ZOS encourage huge gaps between the stats of players, their focus should be on narrowing the stat differences between players, to encourage the game to require skill opposed to stats.

I would be fine with stat differences if it wasn't so extreme. Stat differences allow for unique builds and gameplay wich is good. But ESO takes things too far. The fact that some players can 1 v 20 is outright broken. And with that I can confidently say that ESO has one of the most unbalanced multiplayers out there.

Never should players be able to 1 v 20.

ZOS don't support one side or the other. The fact they made a no CP campaign and often do balance passes on FOTM builds show this.

The thing is though you can't force or expect players to play something they're not interested in. Many players as well don't want a completely balance and homogenised PvP game, the little imbalances here and there and changes in the meta from time to time are what keep PvP fresh.

There can be an argument that CP never should have been a power mechanic (and I agree to this) and that the game should end at level 50 with progression based on looks and new sets rather than increases in gear or character levels (much like GW1 managed) but that's not what we have.

dwtdwtdwt · May 2016

phaneub17_ESO wrote: »

- Your Champion points gain double experience, like having permanent Enlightenment while actively in Azura.

This is an interesting idea. Although I would not suggest double the points, a small increase (like 10%) is realistic and possibly a step in the right direction.

Asmael · May 2016

Turelus wrote: »

TBH I don't understand why Azura and Blackwater are not merged. There is no VR and no CP any more in either so you might as well consolidate the populations.

Don't EVER EVER DO THIS.

Keep Lagzura off BwB.

BwB and Azura existed before CPs were a thing, for good reason. The gameplay is completely different between the two, and it should stay as is. It doesn't matter whether people are scaled up or down, this is not the point, the point is, you're putting maxed out characters to a campaign meant for new players, with access to all sets, every ability unlocked, and the guaranteed lag.

Iink · May 2016

Turelus wrote: »

TBH I don't understand why Azura and Blackwater are not merged. There is no VR and no CP any more in either so you might as well consolidate the populations.

Iink wrote: »

I get the feeling that ZOS supports the players with OP builds, but this is the wrong mindset for any competitive multiplayer game. It's crazy when I'm in TF and I see a zerg of maybe 20 players all trying to take down 1 OP player, things like that should not happen. ZOS's focus should be on making the gap between players stats smaller, not larger.

In a skill based competitive multiplayer game, the way players improve would be to practise and learn. In a stat based multiplayer game, the way players improve is grinding hours in PVE to bring stats up, and buying the best gear.

If all magicka DKs had the same stats, if all stam DKs had the same stats, if all magicka NBs had the same stats, if all stam NBs had the same stats, (and so on with stam, magicka, templars and sorcs) . PVP would be a far more balanced experience.

Rather than ZOS encourage huge gaps between the stats of players, their focus should be on narrowing the stat differences between players, to encourage the game to require skill opposed to stats.

I would be fine with stat differences if it wasn't so extreme. Stat differences allow for unique builds and gameplay wich is good. But ESO takes things too far. The fact that some players can 1 v 20 is outright broken. And with that I can confidently say that ESO has one of the most unbalanced multiplayers out there.

Never should players be able to 1 v 20.

ZOS don't support one side or the other. The fact they made a no CP campaign and often do balance passes on FOTM builds show this.

The thing is though you can't force or expect players to play something they're not interested in. Many players as well don't want a completely balance and homogenised PvP game, the little imbalances here and there and changes in the meta from time to time are what keep PvP fresh.

There can be an argument that CP never should have been a power mechanic (and I agree to this) and that the game should end at level 50 with progression based on looks and new sets rather than increases in gear or character levels (much like GW1 managed) but that's not what we have.

I agree that stats and smaller imbalances keep the game fresh, it allows for more unique builds and playstyles. But where ESO is right now is far from small imbalances. The game (Trueflame at least) is very unbalanced.

Under no circumstances should a player be able to 1 vs 10 due to their OP stats, (or 1 vs 20 for that matter) in a competitive multiplayer game. The fact that this happens occasionally on ESO speaks to how unbalanced things are right now.

Turelus · May 2016

Iink wrote: »

Turelus wrote: »

TBH I don't understand why Azura and Blackwater are not merged. There is no VR and no CP any more in either so you might as well consolidate the populations.

Iink wrote: »

I get the feeling that ZOS supports the players with OP builds, but this is the wrong mindset for any competitive multiplayer game. It's crazy when I'm in TF and I see a zerg of maybe 20 players all trying to take down 1 OP player, things like that should not happen. ZOS's focus should be on making the gap between players stats smaller, not larger.

In a skill based competitive multiplayer game, the way players improve would be to practise and learn. In a stat based multiplayer game, the way players improve is grinding hours in PVE to bring stats up, and buying the best gear.

If all magicka DKs had the same stats, if all stam DKs had the same stats, if all magicka NBs had the same stats, if all stam NBs had the same stats, (and so on with stam, magicka, templars and sorcs) . PVP would be a far more balanced experience.

Rather than ZOS encourage huge gaps between the stats of players, their focus should be on narrowing the stat differences between players, to encourage the game to require skill opposed to stats.

I would be fine with stat differences if it wasn't so extreme. Stat differences allow for unique builds and gameplay wich is good. But ESO takes things too far. The fact that some players can 1 v 20 is outright broken. And with that I can confidently say that ESO has one of the most unbalanced multiplayers out there.

Never should players be able to 1 v 20.

ZOS don't support one side or the other. The fact they made a no CP campaign and often do balance passes on FOTM builds show this.

The thing is though you can't force or expect players to play something they're not interested in. Many players as well don't want a completely balance and homogenised PvP game, the little imbalances here and there and changes in the meta from time to time are what keep PvP fresh.

There can be an argument that CP never should have been a power mechanic (and I agree to this) and that the game should end at level 50 with progression based on looks and new sets rather than increases in gear or character levels (much like GW1 managed) but that's not what we have.

I agree that stats and smaller imbalances keep the game fresh, it allows for more unique builds and playstyles. But where ESO is right now is far from small imbalances. The game (Trueflame at least) is very unbalanced.

Under no circumstances should a player be able to 1 vs 10 due to their OP stats, (or 1 vs 20 for that matter) in a competitive multiplayer game. The fact that this happens occasionally on ESO speaks to how unbalanced things are right now.

But if that one player fights another player at their level this doesn't happen.

As someone who spent the first two years mostly doing PvP most often when I saw enemies or allies fighting stacks of guys on their own it's because the people they were fighting were low level players who didn't understand how to win a fight. I want to avoid insulting players but generally we called them "randoms" or "bads" because they would be running around spamming random skills with no idea what they should be doing.

When you see the big guilds and names clash you'll see those 1v10 players drop fast because leaders will call for CC or the players know what has to be done, like having someone mark or mage light a nightblade so they can't run off.

I would much rather see systems which help players understand counter skills and mechanics and bring more players up in skill than ones which force good players down to their level. Even then the good players are still going to be better and know what skills/builds are FOTM and know how to line of sight, roll dodge and keep themselves alive.

Anyway this is going very off topic now.

Duiwel · May 2016

Lol @ your #2 suggestion I kill VR12-16's on my lvl 14 chars OP...

I pvp'd last night and my lvl 35 at the time ( now 38 ) char killed many many VR16's how is this even a questionable suggestion at all? So much for freedom of choice and having fun right?

I don't want to play Azura's Star because for a year I did play it and I didn't have CP I know how it is and goes and I had my fun both there and on BwB. Now I have grinded a lot of CP and I have it so why not have fun with what I have earned?

After all I played to get CP for a reason, it sure as hell wasn't to kill mobs faster ( the PvE is already so easy ).

I have played a character up till VR1 with broken lvl 25 white armour I never repaired, then I wore VR1 armour till VR9... ( also never repaired it). Why ? Because I was stingy, because the game was easy enough that I didn't need the durability. Now I always repair because it's just faster to kill things with proper gear but my point is that PvE is so easy it's practically do-able naked, it probably is if you have a templar or NB ( didn't try it on those 2 ).

So I only gained CP for PvP. The fact that YOU want the non VR chars and alts to play it is your own opinion good thing you are not in charge though. Some of us don't like it.

I would much rather play on a low lvl char with almost no passives and #rek a VR16 player. The rage they have is unreal... There are few things as satisfying as that... Especially given that at for example lvl 14 you don't even have proper morphs or passives.

Azura Star is old school pvp and you need completely different gear for it, in CP pvp you can actually use your gear for PvE also and don't REALLY need multiple sets so it's much more poor man friendly. AS pvp is also low on resource mangement so either the fights are longer or the burst is harder.

Iink · May 2016

Duiwel wrote: »

So I only gained CP for PvP. The fact that YOU want the non VR chars and alts to play it is your own opinion good thing you are not in charge though. Some of us don't like it.

Wow way to make this personal.

I'm not the only one who wants non-CP PVP to have a population. If Trueflame was facing a population crisis you would feel the same way that I do.

luen79rwb17_ESO · May 2016

It's not a popular campaign because of its unpopular feature (no CPs), some people like that but not the vast majority. It's pretty much like that old campaign that had gated access to IC and ended up closed.

With Azura as it is now, the actual bad news is you only have 1 full (all objetives) endgame campaign (TF) and right now only zerg numbers matters there.

danno8 · May 2016

phaneub17_ESO wrote: »

I don't PvP, and I like Azura for the farming. It's almost devoid of players that I can run around gathering all the Ruby mats I want without getting hassled or running into zergs of players roaming around. I am however missing Plentiful Harvest and Master Gatherer, but it's a trade off for the free range easy pickings without worry of getting steam rolled.

A bit off topic but why would you farm in Cyrodiil for Ruby mats when Wrothgar has about 10x the concentration of crafting nodes? Or do you just not have Orsinium?

CasNation · May 2016

I love Azuras. I play there almost exclusively.

However, forcing players to be there is not the way. We the players have to convince others that it is a fun and rewarding place to play. Talk to your raid leaders in your guilds. Talk to them about going over to Azuras when TF and Had are too laggy. Tell YOURSELF to go over there when lag is hitting the other campaigns hard.

"But I have resource management problems when I go to Azuras!"...yes! You do! To me, that adds better gameplay than the infinite resources we have in CP campaigns. I realize that this reliance on CP means that gear for CP enabled campaigns is suboptimal for Azuras. That will always be a problem, unfortunately, but it isnt a reason to avoid Azuras and just play cautiously.

Jaronking · May 2016

Iink wrote: »

Turelus wrote: »

TBH I don't understand why Azura and Blackwater are not merged. There is no VR and no CP any more in either so you might as well consolidate the populations.

Iink wrote: »

I get the feeling that ZOS supports the players with OP builds, but this is the wrong mindset for any competitive multiplayer game. It's crazy when I'm in TF and I see a zerg of maybe 20 players all trying to take down 1 OP player, things like that should not happen. ZOS's focus should be on making the gap between players stats smaller, not larger.

In a skill based competitive multiplayer game, the way players improve would be to practise and learn. In a stat based multiplayer game, the way players improve is grinding hours in PVE to bring stats up, and buying the best gear.

If all magicka DKs had the same stats, if all stam DKs had the same stats, if all magicka NBs had the same stats, if all stam NBs had the same stats, (and so on with stam, magicka, templars and sorcs) . PVP would be a far more balanced experience.

Rather than ZOS encourage huge gaps between the stats of players, their focus should be on narrowing the stat differences between players, to encourage the game to require skill opposed to stats.

I would be fine with stat differences if it wasn't so extreme. Stat differences allow for unique builds and gameplay wich is good. But ESO takes things too far. The fact that some players can 1 v 20 is outright broken. And with that I can confidently say that ESO has one of the most unbalanced multiplayers out there.

Never should players be able to 1 v 20.

ZOS don't support one side or the other. The fact they made a no CP campaign and often do balance passes on FOTM builds show this.

The thing is though you can't force or expect players to play something they're not interested in. Many players as well don't want a completely balance and homogenised PvP game, the little imbalances here and there and changes in the meta from time to time are what keep PvP fresh.

There can be an argument that CP never should have been a power mechanic (and I agree to this) and that the game should end at level 50 with progression based on looks and new sets rather than increases in gear or character levels (much like GW1 managed) but that's not what we have.

I agree that stats and smaller imbalances keep the game fresh, it allows for more unique builds and playstyles. But where ESO is right now is far from small imbalances. The game (Trueflame at least) is very unbalanced.

Under no circumstances should a player be able to 1 vs 10 due to their OP stats, (or 1 vs 20 for that matter) in a competitive multiplayer game. The fact that this happens occasionally on ESO speaks to how unbalanced things are right now.

What am sorry but if a player I'd better then those players he deserve to be able to 1v20 those players and I see no problem with that.Those players need to learn how to play the dam game if 20 people can't kill one person.Its not the game fault its the players.Their no reason numbers should every beat skill in my opinion of am better then you I should be able to defeat you as simple as that.Taking that away like Zos is trying to do is ridiculous and is ruining the game.Zos has added so Much to this game to her smaller groups its asinine.

To the OP only reason I don't play in Azura is because their no competition their so their no point in going.If their no one to fight why go their its a waste of my time.

Lenikus · May 2016

All your three ideas there are plain ridiculous and impratical, not to mention they create more problems than they allegedly fix, imho.

The RIGHT thing to do is for you to go into /Zone chat of populated areas, and guest the other 'populated' campaings you so claim, and just outright call them for the one your alliance is losing.
You'll be called a spy, a coward, and generically acused of not-helping your faction if you do it on another campaing, but you at least make sure to try and get people there. Also try to get in touch with the PvP guilds from said 'populated' campaings.

#Edit to break each idea into Why it will fail miserably.

Iink wrote: »

-Maybe merge the EU and NA servers for Azuras? (this is the best of my three ideas)

-Maybe restrict nonvets to only entering Blackwater and Azuras (some non-vets don't have CP anyway, so going into TF or Haderus will only hinder them)

-Maybe removing Haderus from the campaign list will result in PVP's population being less divided? (I'm sure many who like Haderus will think this is unfair and a bad idea, I don't blame you, but it's the only other thing I can think of to save non-CP PVP. The only difference between Haderus and Trueflame is the duration, so the gameplay will be the same)

1- You mention the lag on your post already. You REALLY want to bring people from other continent over?
2- What about freedom of play? what about people who have 500+ cp and have an alt, will you forbid them to play with full stats because they chose to not grind for 6 hours to get to Vr1 ?
3- You want to remove a campaing with it's own rules and player mind-sets simply because your favorite one needs more people? (( My Company needs more employees. I need yours to shut down so i can hire more qualified people to work for me ))
You have not many ideas to "save" non-cp pvp because , in all honesty, it is doomed to be removed from the game once CP becomes more standarized. in two years at MOST, the only 'non cp' campaing will be the lv 10~49 one. And if you want to try and not fight against people well over the cap, tough luck. Even item progression is going to be champion point based; as that is teh replacement of levels as of DB.

Rohamad_Ali · May 2016

They can fix the population every where by fixing the lag . So many people would come back they'd need to open more .

Tolmos · May 2016

Jaronking wrote: »

What am sorry but if a player I'd better then those players he deserve to be able to 1v20 those players and I see no problem with that.Those players need to learn how to play the dam game if 20 people can't kill one person.Its not the game fault its the players.Their no reason numbers should every beat skill in my opinion of am better then you I should be able to defeat you as simple as that.Taking that away like Zos is trying to do is ridiculous and is ruining the game.Zos has added so Much to this game to her smaller groups its asinine.

To the OP only reason I don't play in Azura is because their no competition their so their no point in going.If their no one to fight why go their its a waste of my time.

Stats are not skill, and thus this conversation has nothing to do with someone being "better" and taking on 20 players. It has everything to do with the player being GIVEN the ability to take on multiple players simply by virtue of seniority or how much free time he has. I get that some players feel entitled to being overpowered, but that is not helpful to the game itself nor is it fun for the other people who play with them.

Now, if a player with the exact same stats as those they are fighting can take out 5+ opponents at once? Good on them, and they probably deserve some sort of in-game recognition in the form a title or something.

But in no way should be considered acceptable for 1 player to beat multiple others due only to their gifted stats from the system

raasdal · May 2016

If you think Azura EU needs more pop, then please GTFO of my campaign. Azura is the only playable canpaign due to no cp and lower pop. If you want a biggger pop, then go enjoy the lagfest in a cp campaign

Kartalin · May 2016

It'd be nice if OP noted which platform, etc they are talking about. PC/NA if we had a few more EP groups active it'd be a more balanced campaign.

driosketch · May 2016

phaneub17_ESO wrote: »

- It should cost less 25% less Alliance points changing to or from Azura, that way players don't feel locked.

Actually, this is one of the better Idea I've seen. How about making AS a 7 day, and give it 0 AP to change home to there. This would encourage practically everyone to bench their alts there. Or to use it for transitions, and that could lead to more action during these periods.

CasNation · May 2016

Kartalin wrote: »

It'd be nice if OP noted which platform, etc they are talking about. PC/NA if we had a few more EP groups active it'd be a more balanced campaign.

Yeah, pretty much. It is pretty much just 1-2 yellow groups and 1-2 blue groups flipping the map and occasionally colliding, with about 5 reds hanging back and trying to gank.