When one faction dominates a campaign, that is an indicator that there aren't enough people plying on that campaign at that time. Right now on NA/PC, when the going gets tough, people leave Had or Azura's for another campaign. Just look at AD being 2 bars on Had during Thursday prime time the other day... And last night, DC abandoned Azura's completely when EP started pressuring their last emp keep. Adding more campaigns would simply create more population imbalance because people like to play where they're winning -- they take the path of least resistance.

You cannot escape population imbalance by making more campaigns. "Faction X dominates campaign Y, so we'll just make a new campaign and it'll be balanced" is a fallacy.

Personally, I like treating Azura's as a full fledged campaign like TF and Had, and as it stands now these 3 campaigns have plenty of room to accommodate the busiest of NA prime times. I believe last night, TF was pop locked all afternoon and evening, Had was pop locked for a few hours, and Azura's hit 3 bars across the board. That looks like a good fit to me. Adding another campaign would make Had and especially Azura's less population balanced than they are currently.

Skyy wrote: »

One campaign is not enough!

We have 3.

The only way another campaign should be added is if there is a guarantee of it actually being somewhat competitive.

Haddy is barely competitive with Trueflame being the only campaign with close to perfect balance.

You could add another if it was a campaign with a lower population limit perhaps.

We currently have two CP Campaigns with the potential to be competitive, until I see Haderus poplocked during the usual prime time hours by all three factions I see no need for an extra one. We'll see what happens in the next week though, people have had more than enough time to finish their PvEing, but I doubt the PvP populations will go up by much.

If you're asking for another campaign in order to fix population imbalances, then you're going about it the wrong way. The more campaigns added the more they each become one sided. The only true fix to imbalances would be to implement Dynamic Population caps, but apparently based on another thread some people want imbalance so that they can farm in IC?

IF you're asking for another cmapaign due to the lag in Trueflame, then it would make sense as Nik said to add a campaign with a lower population cap.. I really don't see the point in this though as compared to launch the amount of people in one campaign is laughably low, eventually if we keep lowering pop caps we'd have to start shrinking Cyrodiil... might as well just add battlegrounds.

I think there's a place for a lower pop cap campaign that provides a different flavor. Not everyone wants giant zerg v zerg battles, or wants them all the time.

I miss the old, quiet Trueflame sometimes. Granted it was thoroughly dominated by AD, but without a dozen people in zone chat reporting every troop movement, you had to try and outguess your opponent based on what they've done in the past, while trying to avoid being predictable yourself.

I think we should have more campaigns, but not just any. The lags in TF PC NA are awful for most players, and with more campaigns, hopefully the population in there will be lesser.
True, that means less huge epic fight, but lately AD has been poplocked almost all hours of the day, and EP on many hours as well.
If we would have another campaign that is 30 day with regular scoring and CP, hopefully some of the TF population will go there, making both of the campaigns less populated and less laggy.