Soul_Demon wrote: »

Mr_Walker wrote: »

ServerusEcru wrote: »

Faction winning matters.

No, it doesn't really.

Remind me what my amazing prizes are when my faction wins a campaign?

The 'prize' you are playing for is the affirmation and honor of being the winner with 30 days of sustained effort showing your team played well. Basing gameplay one single engagement at a time is like playing chess and calling game after first piece is taken. I hear some people like to do that and consider that a 'win' .....but personally I like things like the Super bowl to show a team played well together for a sustained period of time just like I enjoy the way it feels when you win as a faction in this game. But I do hear there are some who just think that measure it too tough to use and would prefer one fight at a time- where they control every single outlier used and say that is fun for them.

Sanct16 wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

Mr_Walker wrote: »

ServerusEcru wrote: »

Faction winning matters.

No, it doesn't really.

Remind me what my amazing prizes are when my faction wins a campaign?

The 'prize' you are playing for is the affirmation and honor of being the winner with 30 days of sustained effort showing your team played well. Basing gameplay one single engagement at a time is like playing chess and calling game after first piece is taken. I hear some people like to do that and consider that a 'win' .....but personally I like things like the Super bowl to show a team played well together for a sustained period of time just like I enjoy the way it feels when you win as a faction in this game. But I do hear there are some who just think that measure it too tough to use and would prefer one fight at a time- where they control every single outlier used and say that is fun for them.

Would you also care about the Super Bowl if the team with the most fans would win the trophy automatically every time? I'd imagine it would get stale quickly so you'd care more about which team wins the matches rather than who wins the trophy.

Sanct16 wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

Sanct16 wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

Mr_Walker wrote: »

ServerusEcru wrote: »

Faction winning matters.

No, it doesn't really.

Remind me what my amazing prizes are when my faction wins a campaign?

The 'prize' you are playing for is the affirmation and honor of being the winner with 30 days of sustained effort showing your team played well. Basing gameplay one single engagement at a time is like playing chess and calling game after first piece is taken. I hear some people like to do that and consider that a 'win' .....but personally I like things like the Super bowl to show a team played well together for a sustained period of time just like I enjoy the way it feels when you win as a faction in this game. But I do hear there are some who just think that measure it too tough to use and would prefer one fight at a time- where they control every single outlier used and say that is fun for them.

Would you also care about the Super Bowl if the team with the most fans would win the trophy automatically every time? I'd imagine it would get stale quickly so you'd care more about which team wins the matches rather than who wins the trophy.

That isn't how the super bowl is 'scored' for winning. Think maybe I should have chose an analogy that was less sports centric for the less athletically inclined. See.....it wouldn't be the super bowl if the score worked differently. So- cant really follow the logic on that one.

I know that the Super Bowl isn't scored that way. See.... I wouldn't have used the phrase "Would you also care... " if I thought that was how it actually works.

The point of this hypothetical question is to illustrate the flaw in your analogy. Your argument seems to be based on the assumption that winning a campaign is the sign of "sustain effort and good team work". However this does not reflect the reality of Cyrodiil due to how the scoring system works.

Corpier wrote: »

Lmao. Winning doesn't matter. There is no fabulous prizes if you do. People say they play to win a campaign for honor. Its a game. Its not a real war. Even if it was, s*** at least makes plants grow, honor doesn't even do that.

FakeZavos wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

Sanct16 wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

Sanct16 wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

Mr_Walker wrote: »

ServerusEcru wrote: »

Faction winning matters.

No, it doesn't really.

Remind me what my amazing prizes are when my faction wins a campaign?

The 'prize' you are playing for is the affirmation and honor of being the winner with 30 days of sustained effort showing your team played well. Basing gameplay one single engagement at a time is like playing chess and calling game after first piece is taken. I hear some people like to do that and consider that a 'win' .....but personally I like things like the Super bowl to show a team played well together for a sustained period of time just like I enjoy the way it feels when you win as a faction in this game. But I do hear there are some who just think that measure it too tough to use and would prefer one fight at a time- where they control every single outlier used and say that is fun for them.

Would you also care about the Super Bowl if the team with the most fans would win the trophy automatically every time? I'd imagine it would get stale quickly so you'd care more about which team wins the matches rather than who wins the trophy.

That isn't how the super bowl is 'scored' for winning. Think maybe I should have chose an analogy that was less sports centric for the less athletically inclined. See.....it wouldn't be the super bowl if the score worked differently. So- cant really follow the logic on that one.

I know that the Super Bowl isn't scored that way. See.... I wouldn't have used the phrase "Would you also care... " if I thought that was how it actually works.

The point of this hypothetical question is to illustrate the flaw in your analogy. Your argument seems to be based on the assumption that winning a campaign is the sign of "sustain effort and good team work". However this does not reflect the reality of Cyrodiil due to how the scoring system works.

Did you really know that? I guess when you referred to the games as 'matches' it gave the impression you didn't know how it worked and the idea you were unaware how its 'scored' was rather an obvious thing...especially using an analogy so very far off from how the actual score in Cyro is calculated- you do know how that works, right? Because it isn't done with population its done with resources taken and scrolls. Those have points value assigned and in order to have points 'count' one would have to also be aware of the 'timer' that is there......but with your analogy suggesting somehow the number of players there are the sum total of how 'scores' work also suggested you don't know how all those things work either.

Corpier wrote: »

Lmao. Winning doesn't matter. There is no fabulous prizes if you do. People say they play to win a campaign for honor. Its a game. Its not a real war. Even if it was, s*** at least makes plants grow, honor doesn't even do that.

Honor is one of the very few things a person has that they are completely responsible for either earning or losing and no one else can give or take it away- in both instances they are determined by the choices they make.

So where is the honour in the fact that 1 faction owns the whole map from 1am till 7am every night every night by simply outnumbering every faction 10x and therefore winning the campains by massive leaps. Would kinda boring to watch the superbowl unfold if 1 team is always 24 man and the other teams 8 man.

Soul_Demon wrote: »

FakeZavos wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

Sanct16 wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

Sanct16 wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

Mr_Walker wrote: »

ServerusEcru wrote: »

Faction winning matters.

No, it doesn't really.

Remind me what my amazing prizes are when my faction wins a campaign?

The 'prize' you are playing for is the affirmation and honor of being the winner with 30 days of sustained effort showing your team played well. Basing gameplay one single engagement at a time is like playing chess and calling game after first piece is taken. I hear some people like to do that and consider that a 'win' .....but personally I like things like the Super bowl to show a team played well together for a sustained period of time just like I enjoy the way it feels when you win as a faction in this game. But I do hear there are some who just think that measure it too tough to use and would prefer one fight at a time- where they control every single outlier used and say that is fun for them.

Would you also care about the Super Bowl if the team with the most fans would win the trophy automatically every time? I'd imagine it would get stale quickly so you'd care more about which team wins the matches rather than who wins the trophy.

That isn't how the super bowl is 'scored' for winning. Think maybe I should have chose an analogy that was less sports centric for the less athletically inclined. See.....it wouldn't be the super bowl if the score worked differently. So- cant really follow the logic on that one.

I know that the Super Bowl isn't scored that way. See.... I wouldn't have used the phrase "Would you also care... " if I thought that was how it actually works.

The point of this hypothetical question is to illustrate the flaw in your analogy. Your argument seems to be based on the assumption that winning a campaign is the sign of "sustain effort and good team work". However this does not reflect the reality of Cyrodiil due to how the scoring system works.

Did you really know that? I guess when you referred to the games as 'matches' it gave the impression you didn't know how it worked and the idea you were unaware how its 'scored' was rather an obvious thing...especially using an analogy so very far off from how the actual score in Cyro is calculated- you do know how that works, right? Because it isn't done with population its done with resources taken and scrolls. Those have points value assigned and in order to have points 'count' one would have to also be aware of the 'timer' that is there......but with your analogy suggesting somehow the number of players there are the sum total of how 'scores' work also suggested you don't know how all those things work either.

Corpier wrote: »

Lmao. Winning doesn't matter. There is no fabulous prizes if you do. People say they play to win a campaign for honor. Its a game. Its not a real war. Even if it was, s*** at least makes plants grow, honor doesn't even do that.

Honor is one of the very few things a person has that they are completely responsible for either earning or losing and no one else can give or take it away- in both instances they are determined by the choices they make.

So where is the honour in the fact that 1 faction owns the whole map from 1am till 7am every night every night by simply outnumbering every faction 10x and therefore winning the campains by massive leaps. Would kinda boring to watch the superbowl unfold if 1 team is always 24 man and the other teams 8 man.

Because what you are saying simply isn't true. There are no numbers to fall back on and provide, there isn't any running tally of them either....what we have is nothing more than anecdotal 'cause I say so' from a number of people who insist the score itself magically goes up with the number of players that is also magically known to them and them alone. Its ridiculous on its premise and not backed by anything other than sad stories told by upset players who cant figure out why they cant pick up a scroll or know why they cant put one in a non home keep......they don't know how the score works much less how to get a good score and as a result complain and whine incessantly in forums about how its just terrible and mean spirited that someone can do well and learn the game thoroughly.....its much easier to just say "I don't lose because I am lazy and bad, I lose by choice man...by choice. I don't even care about winning"

Mr_Walker wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

Mr_Walker wrote: »

ServerusEcru wrote: »

Faction winning matters.

No, it doesn't really.

Remind me what my amazing prizes are when my faction wins a campaign?

The 'prize' you are playing for is the affirmation and honor of being the winner with 30 days of sustained effort showing your team played well. Basing gameplay one single engagement at a time is like playing chess and calling game after first piece is taken. I hear some people like to do that and consider that a 'win' .....but personally I like things like the Super bowl to show a team played well together for a sustained period of time just like I enjoy the way it feels when you win as a faction in this game. But I do hear there are some who just think that measure it too tough to use and would prefer one fight at a time- where they control every single outlier used and say that is fun for them.

Your reasoning is flawed, as is your risible chess analogy.

A better one is "it's like playing chess, making 2 moves, than going away and having Garry Kasparov play the rest of the game for you". Garry Kasparov, in this case, being the small team of offpeakers who, having outnumbered the other 2 factions combined, zerg the f out of the map making your primetime play completely, and utterly irrelevant.

So, given that my primetime efforts are largely pointless (albeit enormous fun), and my off peak efforts have now been hamstrung by EP's number advantage being baked in, and the general rubbish quality of the rewards for winning a campaign, why the blue hell should I care about which faction wins?

Corpier wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

Sanct16 wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

Sanct16 wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

Mr_Walker wrote: »

ServerusEcru wrote: »

Faction winning matters.

No, it doesn't really.

Remind me what my amazing prizes are when my faction wins a campaign?

The 'prize' you are playing for is the affirmation and honor of being the winner with 30 days of sustained effort showing your team played well. Basing gameplay one single engagement at a time is like playing chess and calling game after first piece is taken. I hear some people like to do that and consider that a 'win' .....but personally I like things like the Super bowl to show a team played well together for a sustained period of time just like I enjoy the way it feels when you win as a faction in this game. But I do hear there are some who just think that measure it too tough to use and would prefer one fight at a time- where they control every single outlier used and say that is fun for them.

Would you also care about the Super Bowl if the team with the most fans would win the trophy automatically every time? I'd imagine it would get stale quickly so you'd care more about which team wins the matches rather than who wins the trophy.

That isn't how the super bowl is 'scored' for winning. Think maybe I should have chose an analogy that was less sports centric for the less athletically inclined. See.....it wouldn't be the super bowl if the score worked differently. So- cant really follow the logic on that one.

I know that the Super Bowl isn't scored that way. See.... I wouldn't have used the phrase "Would you also care... " if I thought that was how it actually works.

The point of this hypothetical question is to illustrate the flaw in your analogy. Your argument seems to be based on the assumption that winning a campaign is the sign of "sustain effort and good team work". However this does not reflect the reality of Cyrodiil due to how the scoring system works.

Did you really know that? I guess when you referred to the games as 'matches' it gave the impression you didn't know how it worked and the idea you were unaware how its 'scored' was rather an obvious thing...especially using an analogy so very far off from how the actual score in Cyro is calculated- you do know how that works, right? Because it isn't done with population its done with resources taken and scrolls. Those have points value assigned and in order to have points 'count' one would have to also be aware of the 'timer' that is there......but with your analogy suggesting somehow the number of players there are the sum total of how 'scores' work also suggested you don't know how all those things work either.

Corpier wrote: »

Lmao. Winning doesn't matter. There is no fabulous prizes if you do. People say they play to win a campaign for honor. Its a game. Its not a real war. Even if it was, s*** at least makes plants grow, honor doesn't even do that.

Honor is one of the very few things a person has that they are completely responsible for either earning or losing and no one else can give or take it away- in both instances they are determined by the choices they make.

hon·or
/ˈänər/
noun
1.
high respect; great esteem.
"his portrait hangs in the place of honor"
synonyms: distinction, privilege, glory, tribute, kudos, cachet, prestige, fame, renown, merit, credit, importance, illustriousness, notability; More
2.
adherence to what is right or to a conventional standard of conduct.
"I must as a matter of honor avoid any taint of dishonesty"
synonyms: integrity, honorableness, honesty, uprightness, ethics, morals, morality, principle, (high) principles, righteousness, rectitude, nobility, high-mindedness, right-mindedness, noble-mindedness; More
verb
1.
regard with great respect.
"they honore their parents in all they did"
synonyms: hold in great respect, hold in high esteem, have a high regard for, esteem, respect, admire, defer to, look up to, think highly of; More
2.
fulfill (an obligation) or keep (an agreement).
"make sure the franchisees honor the terms of the contract"
synonyms: fulfill, observe, keep, discharge, implement, perform, execute, effect, obey, heed, follow, carry out, carry through, keep to, abide by, adhere to, comply with, conform to, act in accordance with, be true to, be faithful to, live up to; rareeffectuate
"make sure the franchisees honor the terms of the contract"


Honor is rooted in the perception of others. Usually attributed for the impression they make firsthand by their actions or what others claim about them in secondhand accounts.

People see things from the lens of their experience and often do not take into account the prior events or situation that the actions resulted from.
People gossip and lie about others or simply talk about what they do not know or understand as if their opinion is important.

Honor. Is. Worthless.

If you want to judge the character of a person, maybe look at a better standard, like righteousness.

Or in your case, self-righteousness.

Soul_Demon wrote: »

All these angry little children blathering on about how nothing matters...you would think that at some point it would occur to them that with all the whining about how hard things are to earn- they would realize if they didn't care they wouldn't even take the time to post about the 'unfairness' of it all. All this to avoid saying "I am bad and lazy, just give things to me"

But- whatever you do...keep posting about how you don't care at all about this. Its convincing and we all are believing you don't care at all about who wins, evidenced by the continued rabid posting on it.

Soul_Demon wrote: »

Mr_Walker wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

Mr_Walker wrote: »

ServerusEcru wrote: »

Faction winning matters.

No, it doesn't really.

Remind me what my amazing prizes are when my faction wins a campaign?

The 'prize' you are playing for is the affirmation and honor of being the winner with 30 days of sustained effort showing your team played well. Basing gameplay one single engagement at a time is like playing chess and calling game after first piece is taken. I hear some people like to do that and consider that a 'win' .....but personally I like things like the Super bowl to show a team played well together for a sustained period of time just like I enjoy the way it feels when you win as a faction in this game. But I do hear there are some who just think that measure it too tough to use and would prefer one fight at a time- where they control every single outlier used and say that is fun for them.

Your reasoning is flawed, as is your risible chess analogy.

A better one is "it's like playing chess, making 2 moves, than going away and having Garry Kasparov play the rest of the game for you". Garry Kasparov, in this case, being the small team of offpeakers who, having outnumbered the other 2 factions combined, zerg the f out of the map making your primetime play completely, and utterly irrelevant.

So, given that my primetime efforts are largely pointless (albeit enormous fun), and my off peak efforts have now been hamstrung by EP's number advantage being baked in, and the general rubbish quality of the rewards for winning a campaign, why the blue hell should I care about which faction wins?

No...that would not be a good analogy at all. You are painting a picture and telling a very long story....then you simply "tell" the reader what the conclusion is.

Corpier wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

Sanct16 wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

Sanct16 wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

Mr_Walker wrote: »

ServerusEcru wrote: »

Faction winning matters.

No, it doesn't really.

Remind me what my amazing prizes are when my faction wins a campaign?

The 'prize' you are playing for is the affirmation and honor of being the winner with 30 days of sustained effort showing your team played well. Basing gameplay one single engagement at a time is like playing chess and calling game after first piece is taken. I hear some people like to do that and consider that a 'win' .....but personally I like things like the Super bowl to show a team played well together for a sustained period of time just like I enjoy the way it feels when you win as a faction in this game. But I do hear there are some who just think that measure it too tough to use and would prefer one fight at a time- where they control every single outlier used and say that is fun for them.

Would you also care about the Super Bowl if the team with the most fans would win the trophy automatically every time? I'd imagine it would get stale quickly so you'd care more about which team wins the matches rather than who wins the trophy.

That isn't how the super bowl is 'scored' for winning. Think maybe I should have chose an analogy that was less sports centric for the less athletically inclined. See.....it wouldn't be the super bowl if the score worked differently. So- cant really follow the logic on that one.

I know that the Super Bowl isn't scored that way. See.... I wouldn't have used the phrase "Would you also care... " if I thought that was how it actually works.

The point of this hypothetical question is to illustrate the flaw in your analogy. Your argument seems to be based on the assumption that winning a campaign is the sign of "sustain effort and good team work". However this does not reflect the reality of Cyrodiil due to how the scoring system works.

Did you really know that? I guess when you referred to the games as 'matches' it gave the impression you didn't know how it worked and the idea you were unaware how its 'scored' was rather an obvious thing...especially using an analogy so very far off from how the actual score in Cyro is calculated- you do know how that works, right? Because it isn't done with population its done with resources taken and scrolls. Those have points value assigned and in order to have points 'count' one would have to also be aware of the 'timer' that is there......but with your analogy suggesting somehow the number of players there are the sum total of how 'scores' work also suggested you don't know how all those things work either.

Corpier wrote: »

Lmao. Winning doesn't matter. There is no fabulous prizes if you do. People say they play to win a campaign for honor. Its a game. Its not a real war. Even if it was, s*** at least makes plants grow, honor doesn't even do that.

Honor is one of the very few things a person has that they are completely responsible for either earning or losing and no one else can give or take it away- in both instances they are determined by the choices they make.

hon·or
/ˈänər/
noun
1.
high respect; great esteem.
"his portrait hangs in the place of honor"
synonyms: distinction, privilege, glory, tribute, kudos, cachet, prestige, fame, renown, merit, credit, importance, illustriousness, notability; More
2.
adherence to what is right or to a conventional standard of conduct.
"I must as a matter of honor avoid any taint of dishonesty"
synonyms: integrity, honorableness, honesty, uprightness, ethics, morals, morality, principle, (high) principles, righteousness, rectitude, nobility, high-mindedness, right-mindedness, noble-mindedness; More
verb
1.
regard with great respect.
"they honore their parents in all they did"
synonyms: hold in great respect, hold in high esteem, have a high regard for, esteem, respect, admire, defer to, look up to, think highly of; More
2.
fulfill (an obligation) or keep (an agreement).
"make sure the franchisees honor the terms of the contract"
synonyms: fulfill, observe, keep, discharge, implement, perform, execute, effect, obey, heed, follow, carry out, carry through, keep to, abide by, adhere to, comply with, conform to, act in accordance with, be true to, be faithful to, live up to; rareeffectuate
"make sure the franchisees honor the terms of the contract"


Honor is rooted in the perception of others. Usually attributed for the impression they make firsthand by their actions or what others claim about them in secondhand accounts.

People see things from the lens of their experience and often do not take into account the prior events or situation that the actions resulted from.
People gossip and lie about others or simply talk about what they do not know or understand as if their opinion is important.

Honor. Is. Worthless.

If you want to judge the character of a person, maybe look at a better standard, like righteousness.

Or in your case, self-righteousness.

You put the definition up then promptly claim its others perception that defines it when no such language is used in the definition. The sad part is apparently you knew this as tried to use every single part of the definition to (one has to guess) tie the false statement you made to some portion of it rather than the actual definition. Don't let me stop you though....keep going.

FakeZavos wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

All these angry little children blathering on about how nothing matters...you would think that at some point it would occur to them that with all the whining about how hard things are to earn- they would realize if they didn't care they wouldn't even take the time to post about the 'unfairness' of it all. All this to avoid saying "I am bad and lazy, just give things to me"

But- whatever you do...keep posting about how you don't care at all about this. Its convincing and we all are believing you don't care at all about who wins, evidenced by the continued rabid posting on it.

I dont care who wins. I do like a good discussion tough, wich is why I am on the forums. And salt, clearly. Im simply trying to show the flaws in what u think. Wich is that campains are won by coordination and teamwork rather then sheer outnumbering especially in the night.

I've switched factions numerous times to the lowest score faction/lowest populated faction since they seem to get the best PvP fights. So ur argument that I would care if I win or not, and I dont win because I rather cry about it on forums then do something about it, is entirely flawd.

ellahellabella wrote: »

I'll play and push/defend objectives when I'm on but I don't pull my hair out over overall score.
So long as the scoring system favours whoever has the greatest pop when the server is quiet for the longest period of time, I don't see the point taking it too seriously.

Corpier wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

Mr_Walker wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

Mr_Walker wrote: »

ServerusEcru wrote: »

Faction winning matters.

No, it doesn't really.

Remind me what my amazing prizes are when my faction wins a campaign?

The 'prize' you are playing for is the affirmation and honor of being the winner with 30 days of sustained effort showing your team played well. Basing gameplay one single engagement at a time is like playing chess and calling game after first piece is taken. I hear some people like to do that and consider that a 'win' .....but personally I like things like the Super bowl to show a team played well together for a sustained period of time just like I enjoy the way it feels when you win as a faction in this game. But I do hear there are some who just think that measure it too tough to use and would prefer one fight at a time- where they control every single outlier used and say that is fun for them.

Your reasoning is flawed, as is your risible chess analogy.

A better one is "it's like playing chess, making 2 moves, than going away and having Garry Kasparov play the rest of the game for you". Garry Kasparov, in this case, being the small team of offpeakers who, having outnumbered the other 2 factions combined, zerg the f out of the map making your primetime play completely, and utterly irrelevant.

So, given that my primetime efforts are largely pointless (albeit enormous fun), and my off peak efforts have now been hamstrung by EP's number advantage being baked in, and the general rubbish quality of the rewards for winning a campaign, why the blue hell should I care about which faction wins?

No...that would not be a good analogy at all. You are painting a picture and telling a very long story....then you simply "tell" the reader what the conclusion is.

Corpier wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

Sanct16 wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

Sanct16 wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

Mr_Walker wrote: »

ServerusEcru wrote: »

Faction winning matters.

No, it doesn't really.

Remind me what my amazing prizes are when my faction wins a campaign?

The 'prize' you are playing for is the affirmation and honor of being the winner with 30 days of sustained effort showing your team played well. Basing gameplay one single engagement at a time is like playing chess and calling game after first piece is taken. I hear some people like to do that and consider that a 'win' .....but personally I like things like the Super bowl to show a team played well together for a sustained period of time just like I enjoy the way it feels when you win as a faction in this game. But I do hear there are some who just think that measure it too tough to use and would prefer one fight at a time- where they control every single outlier used and say that is fun for them.

Would you also care about the Super Bowl if the team with the most fans would win the trophy automatically every time? I'd imagine it would get stale quickly so you'd care more about which team wins the matches rather than who wins the trophy.

That isn't how the super bowl is 'scored' for winning. Think maybe I should have chose an analogy that was less sports centric for the less athletically inclined. See.....it wouldn't be the super bowl if the score worked differently. So- cant really follow the logic on that one.

I know that the Super Bowl isn't scored that way. See.... I wouldn't have used the phrase "Would you also care... " if I thought that was how it actually works.

The point of this hypothetical question is to illustrate the flaw in your analogy. Your argument seems to be based on the assumption that winning a campaign is the sign of "sustain effort and good team work". However this does not reflect the reality of Cyrodiil due to how the scoring system works.

Did you really know that? I guess when you referred to the games as 'matches' it gave the impression you didn't know how it worked and the idea you were unaware how its 'scored' was rather an obvious thing...especially using an analogy so very far off from how the actual score in Cyro is calculated- you do know how that works, right? Because it isn't done with population its done with resources taken and scrolls. Those have points value assigned and in order to have points 'count' one would have to also be aware of the 'timer' that is there......but with your analogy suggesting somehow the number of players there are the sum total of how 'scores' work also suggested you don't know how all those things work either.

Corpier wrote: »

Lmao. Winning doesn't matter. There is no fabulous prizes if you do. People say they play to win a campaign for honor. Its a game. Its not a real war. Even if it was, s*** at least makes plants grow, honor doesn't even do that.

Honor is one of the very few things a person has that they are completely responsible for either earning or losing and no one else can give or take it away- in both instances they are determined by the choices they make.

hon·or
/ˈänər/
noun
1.
high respect; great esteem.
"his portrait hangs in the place of honor"
synonyms: distinction, privilege, glory, tribute, kudos, cachet, prestige, fame, renown, merit, credit, importance, illustriousness, notability; More
2.
adherence to what is right or to a conventional standard of conduct.
"I must as a matter of honor avoid any taint of dishonesty"
synonyms: integrity, honorableness, honesty, uprightness, ethics, morals, morality, principle, (high) principles, righteousness, rectitude, nobility, high-mindedness, right-mindedness, noble-mindedness; More
verb
1.
regard with great respect.
"they honore their parents in all they did"
synonyms: hold in great respect, hold in high esteem, have a high regard for, esteem, respect, admire, defer to, look up to, think highly of; More
2.
fulfill (an obligation) or keep (an agreement).
"make sure the franchisees honor the terms of the contract"
synonyms: fulfill, observe, keep, discharge, implement, perform, execute, effect, obey, heed, follow, carry out, carry through, keep to, abide by, adhere to, comply with, conform to, act in accordance with, be true to, be faithful to, live up to; rareeffectuate
"make sure the franchisees honor the terms of the contract"


Honor is rooted in the perception of others. Usually attributed for the impression they make firsthand by their actions or what others claim about them in secondhand accounts.

People see things from the lens of their experience and often do not take into account the prior events or situation that the actions resulted from.
People gossip and lie about others or simply talk about what they do not know or understand as if their opinion is important.

Honor. Is. Worthless.

If you want to judge the character of a person, maybe look at a better standard, like righteousness.

Or in your case, self-righteousness.

You put the definition up then promptly claim its others perception that defines it when no such language is used in the definition. The sad part is apparently you knew this as tried to use every single part of the definition to (one has to guess) tie the false statement you made to some portion of it rather than the actual definition. Don't let me stop you though....keep going.

Did you read the definition? Such as someone being viewed with "high respect," and/or having "fame, renown, importance", or "regard with great respect, hold in great respect, in high esteem, have a high regard for, admire, think highly of."

Last time I checked, most of the synonyms involve an interaction. One party performs an action, and how another party views it is what defines it as honorable. Consider in game that there are very good players, but a portion of players claim they cheat. Their reputations will be slandered. They may have done nothing morally wrong, yet they may have bad reputations among other people who know nothing about them personally. Honor is a social currency people gain through their actions, the actions of others on their behalf, or through one person conveying information (true or not) about a person to another. However, it is subject to the perception of others making it unreliable. Is not based on a person's actions alone but also in the perception of others. It is part of a person's reputation. If honor doesn't involve more than the individual to have, you can feel free to give yourself "kudos", feel self "important," be "famous" to yourself, or "admire" and "look up to" your own actions.

FakeZavos wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

FakeZavos wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

All these angry little children blathering on about how nothing matters...you would think that at some point it would occur to them that with all the whining about how hard things are to earn- they would realize if they didn't care they wouldn't even take the time to post about the 'unfairness' of it all. All this to avoid saying "I am bad and lazy, just give things to me"

But- whatever you do...keep posting about how you don't care at all about this. Its convincing and we all are believing you don't care at all about who wins, evidenced by the continued rabid posting on it.

I dont care who wins. I do like a good discussion tough, wich is why I am on the forums. And salt, clearly. Im simply trying to show the flaws in what u think. Wich is that campaigns are won by coordination and teamwork rather then sheer outnumbering especially in the night.

I've switched factions numerous times to the lowest score faction/lowest populated faction since they seem to get the best PvP fights. So ur argument that I would care if I win or not, and I dont win because I rather cry about it on forums then do something about it, is entirely flawd.

The bolded part is exactly what I think and have said as much...you on the other hand have suggested that its simply nighttime population and a 'I don't care' attitude that gets most campaign wins. I would also suggest that the jumping from one side to the other with the old tired exaggeration that you do so for 'good fights' is simply untrue. If this were the case the camps would ALWAYS be perfectly balanced all the time as we all know those claiming to switch only to help the underdogs and get better fights would always be balancing out the populations....that simply is patently false and always has been. Fact is those who hop love to claim this yet we never have balance while the hopping and lack of invested time in one faction cant seem to get good coordination and one really doesn't have to wonder why....they are just fly by night players with excuses all the time about losing or how they 'just don't care' who wins so.....go figure, they lose all the time. Who wants to work with such people to play and win at that point? Hmmmmm. No one.

Sanct16 wrote: »

I don't care about winning the campaign.

I do care about competition, and nightcapping is ruining any competition in terms of AvA.

However if ZOS would overhaul the scoring system and add worthwhile rewards it would maybe give me some incentive to start to care about the campaign

Here we find common ground....I also feel nightcapping is quite bad for the game, always has been. However the suggested reduction in points is in my opinion poorly thought out and shouldn't be even entertained. There was a thread quite some time ago where someone suggested there be a dynamic scoring associated with number of players online at the moment the score was tallied. Matter of fact if memory serves they made the suggestion with quite a few others but that seemed to me the answer for nightcapping.

Im more then willing to share you my youtube in wich you can see im switching campaing to the underdog twice. And the number of people looking for good fights and therefor switching campaing is abismal to the rest of the population numbers. Its only a very small portion with the time and energy to level a bunch of characters on different factions, ergo factionimbalance stays the same.

And even if I stay on 1 faction it wouldnt matter coordination wise since im 90% of the time fighting between 2 enemy factions with a tiny group instead of running like a chicken without head in the middle of the faction zergs.

But I am curious. On what campain/server do you play and on wich side?