No, seen the alliances in Cyrodiil stalemate plenty of times, more often than not for longer than your proposed campaign duration.

Would also screw over people in other times zones since the campaign would be over or part way through before they have even logged in.

You want shorter duration PVP play battlegrounds.

As someone who PvPs very rarely these days (like usually only during MYM, though during beta and early release I did a bunch of PvP), I've never understood the concept of "nightcapping". Like...people DO realize this game is played all around the world, and that players in other time zones play on NA, right? ESO is a 24/7 game, how can a concept like nightcapping exist when there are people whose daytime is our nighttime? On top of that, what about people who work third shift? People really need to quit acting like PvP should pause at night and no one's progress should be challenged. Nightcapping doesn't exist, it's just people in other time zones getting on and playing the game, you know, like you guys are.

Besides that, would you rather the map stay stagnant all the time, with nothing to capture and flip for AP and experience? If someone wants Emp that should be something they actually have to work towards, rather than being able to pound it out in just a few hours. The way it is now actually encourages and allows anyone who wants Emp to try and obtain it. If you limit what hours a campaign runs for, it locks out literally everyone who can't conform to your idea of what PvP should be. People who are in different time zones, or have jobs during those hours, or other irl responsibilities, will be prevented from doing any sort of Emp push. How is that fair?

Also, this is acting like ""nightcapping"" only exists because of Emp pushes, except...it's not. Like I said, it's just people in other time zones and those with their nights free that are getting on to play. There's nothing to it beyond that.

Nooo. The populations of each faction wax and wane during the a 24hr period, so such short campaigns would be biased.

I would prefer a 7 day campaign, I see no reasons for it to be as long as 30 days. 30 day campaigns are often decided many days before the end, thats not fun for anyone.

I support that one only can get emp once per campaign, it would at least reduce exploits/cheating like for ex having friend in another alliance you can kill for ap. One could even make it a once per char event, more could then be emp, it would possibly draw more people to cyro.

There is a simple way to balance campaigns, which should have been tested years ago and that is to wheight the campaign points with the actual population relative to max population. Thus there would be few campaign points when the servers are empty.

LarsS wrote: »

There is a simple way to balance campaigns, which should have been tested years ago and that is to wheight the campaign points with the actual population relative to max population. Thus there would be few campaign points when the servers are empty.

This sounds like a nice idea however in this version it has a few flaws:

• The actual winning of the campaign still brings little individual benefits (and let us face it - most people prioritize that)
• Because of above actual campaign points still just do not matter this much and therefore it won't matter if player stays in more or in less populated campaign - actual rewards at the end and during campaign itself would be fairly similar with one remark: less populated campaign by definition means less AP (slower ranking up, golden merchant and so on - some people still care about it)

It could work however if there were properly balanced incentives for doing less populated campaigns (and for joining any campaign at all actually) like lower population you have more AP you get. This would ofc have to take into account not current population but population on average in for instance last 7 days.