TBH, would any of this change without a new way to pvp? We would still have one busy campaign because players want to quickly get in and out and the battles are more easily found.
Adding time limits to certain campaigns could be great but at that point, why waste development resources when the battlegrounds idea doesn't care if you are playing in Asia, Europe or NA from a logon perspective.
In the end the game will fare better if we partition off pvp from Cyro entirely and make it one pve zone. They can control the performance better this way if 3 groups of 12 fight than 3 factions of 100 at one scroll. The balance between skills/classes can be controlled better too since they will have a strict environment to baseline from. And ultimately, they can create unique environments to give a fresh start to pvp.
Rohamad_Ali wrote: »We have one active campaign and 3 dead campaigns . Why would we need more ? It would just end up a 5th buff server .
Get rid of the "resources-only" style campaigns, it doesn't really make much of a difference in how people play the map.
Reduce population caps (around 3 bars) -> it's better to have good performance then lag cancer against 60+ players
Remove IC from all campaigns and make its own campaign.
CP :
30-day campaign (full-time)
30/90-day campaign (8 hours NA/EU primetime)
7-day campaign (full-time, normal scoring)
IC-only campaign (Accessible through sewer doors in other campaigns or by the Alliance page)
Battlegrounds. (Nuff said tyvm.)
No CP :
30-day campaign
Also suggested: Another campaign where all players have max CP (7/30 days)
Also suggested: Remove BWB to increase participation in no-CP campaigns. They serve the same purpose.
These might answer the needs of many different players.
God_flakes wrote: »Rohamad_Ali wrote: »We have one active campaign and 3 dead campaigns . Why would we need more ? It would just end up a 5th buff server .
Maybe I wasn't CLEAR enough for you. What I meant was get rid of the current campaigns and implement some new ones with new names and different lengths.
Rohamad_Ali wrote: »God_flakes wrote: »Rohamad_Ali wrote: »We have one active campaign and 3 dead campaigns . Why would we need more ? It would just end up a 5th buff server .
Maybe I wasn't CLEAR enough for you. What I meant was get rid of the current campaigns and implement some new ones with new names and different lengths.
What names and what length are you suggesting ?
God_flakes wrote: »Rohamad_Ali wrote: »God_flakes wrote: »Rohamad_Ali wrote: »We have one active campaign and 3 dead campaigns . Why would we need more ? It would just end up a 5th buff server .
Maybe I wasn't CLEAR enough for you. What I meant was get rid of the current campaigns and implement some new ones with new names and different lengths.
What names and what length are you suggesting ?
Since I'm not a creative developer at Zos, my name suggestions aren't relevant. But Zos has done this before so there IS precedent-Thornblade is a thing of the past because they canned the campaign and renamed it. It did change the dynamic and a lot of the guilds swapped campaigns and spread their wings in other places. As far as lengths, I like the ideas suggested of 90 day and 8 hour and instanced campaigns/pvp.
Rohamad_Ali wrote: »God_flakes wrote: »Rohamad_Ali wrote: »God_flakes wrote: »Rohamad_Ali wrote: »We have one active campaign and 3 dead campaigns . Why would we need more ? It would just end up a 5th buff server .
Maybe I wasn't CLEAR enough for you. What I meant was get rid of the current campaigns and implement some new ones with new names and different lengths.
What names and what length are you suggesting ?
Since I'm not a creative developer at Zos, my name suggestions aren't relevant. But Zos has done this before so there IS precedent-Thornblade is a thing of the past because they canned the campaign and renamed it. It did change the dynamic and a lot of the guilds swapped campaigns and spread their wings in other places. As far as lengths, I like the ideas suggested of 90 day and 8 hour and instanced campaigns/pvp.
3 months is a long time . I would hope the reward would be something amazing to keep people engaged . The 8 hour campaign sounds like an extended battlefield more then a campaign , not sure if I am Interested in that or not , maybe . Good luck getting your suggestions .
A weekend campaign being Friday afternoon till Monday morning 12am GMT , the hours the golden vendor are up would be something I would be engaged in . The reward being a golden vendor item in the mail . That sounds more exciting to me personally .
The problem is almost everyone wants to play in the "main" campaign. Whether they crave the constant action or are afraid of being exposed outside of their zerg, that's what is happening.
For guilds like ours that has run 4-12 person groups lately it's not really ideal to play on TF, and we much prefer the no-cp campaign where people have to actually be concerned such strange concepts like sustain.
The problem is always an issue of getting players to spread out, and simply having more campaigns doesn't address that issue. If a major guild from each faction rehomed to a different server, eventually the potatoes would figure it out and follow suit. We've talked about having lower population caps in the past but it sounds like people already regularly accept 80+ queues. As others have said we basically just need battlegrounds soon(tm).
Ahh, I see what you're saying now. But the bads will still figure out where the main guilds are playing eventually and ride their coat tails once again.God_flakes wrote: »The problem is almost everyone wants to play in the "main" campaign. Whether they crave the constant action or are afraid of being exposed outside of their zerg, that's what is happening.
For guilds like ours that has run 4-12 person groups lately it's not really ideal to play on TF, and we much prefer the no-cp campaign where people have to actually be concerned such strange concepts like sustain.
The problem is always an issue of getting players to spread out, and simply having more campaigns doesn't address that issue. If a major guild from each faction rehomed to a different server, eventually the potatoes would figure it out and follow suit. We've talked about having lower population caps in the past but it sounds like people already regularly accept 80+ queues. As others have said we basically just need battlegrounds soon(tm).
Again, I didn't ask for more campaigns. I asked for NEW.
Ahh, I see what you're saying now. But the bads will still figure out where the main guilds are playing eventually and ride their coat tails once again.God_flakes wrote: »The problem is almost everyone wants to play in the "main" campaign. Whether they crave the constant action or are afraid of being exposed outside of their zerg, that's what is happening.
For guilds like ours that has run 4-12 person groups lately it's not really ideal to play on TF, and we much prefer the no-cp campaign where people have to actually be concerned such strange concepts like sustain.
The problem is always an issue of getting players to spread out, and simply having more campaigns doesn't address that issue. If a major guild from each faction rehomed to a different server, eventually the potatoes would figure it out and follow suit. We've talked about having lower population caps in the past but it sounds like people already regularly accept 80+ queues. As others have said we basically just need battlegrounds soon(tm).
Again, I didn't ask for more campaigns. I asked for NEW.
vamp_emily wrote: »I agree we need guild vs guild vs guild because I get tired of the 3 bars vs 1 bar campaigns. Also, I get tired of players not working together. Some leaders will grab the entire pop in low pop campaigns and take them to one of the outer keeps when another alliance is getting ready to cap the last keep for Emp.
I personally think they need to get rid of BwB that way you will see AS and Haderus be more evenly populated or even poplocked.
But I would love to see GvGvG instances of campaigns.
edit: Also I would like them to get rid of the flip flopping to different alliances. Pick an alliance and stick with it.
God_flakes wrote: »rofl you already have a test on focus on a 30 day campaign. you can make 1m ap in 1 week without even pushing for it. that means 4m ap in a 30 day campaign. that position 4 on average on leaderboards. and that without requiring to be a good player, just an active one.
Who cares about ap?!? I'm a filthy mediocre casual and I'm sitting my pretty butt on millions! Nothing to spend it on.
We need to care about the campaign again. Nobody cares about TF anymore, it's obvious. We need a campaign shake up.
asneakybanana wrote: »God_flakes wrote: »rofl you already have a test on focus on a 30 day campaign. you can make 1m ap in 1 week without even pushing for it. that means 4m ap in a 30 day campaign. that position 4 on average on leaderboards. and that without requiring to be a good player, just an active one.
Who cares about ap?!? I'm a filthy mediocre casual and I'm sitting my pretty butt on millions! Nothing to spend it on.
We need to care about the campaign again. Nobody cares about TF anymore, it's obvious. We need a campaign shake up.
Honestly no one on NA has really cared about campaigns since thornblade died. After that everyone said well we don't really want to go to hard on the campaign because the other faction will swap campaigns. Has been proven again and again.
Also ap is really the only measure of how your group is performing. Not so much how much you make in a campaign but your average ap/hr. I personally feel that's one of the best way to judge the quality of a group due to how ap works, the more people in group the less ap you make so even if you almost never die but you're running around with 60 people and making 25k ap/hr I would say you're not performing nearly as good as an 8-12 man that's making 75k ap/hr. Sure that 12 man might get wiped from time to time you are far out performing what that 60 man group would be doing if they only had 12. This could also count towards a solo player. If that solo player is killing a lot of people before he dies and getting 1-2k ap per kill then he's going to be doing similar ap/hr to what an organized group is doing. So all in all I feel like ap/hr is a pretty good gauge for how a group is performing imo.