Number of PvP campaigns and "buff servers"

Morvul · January 2015

I believe that having 4 veteran campaigns is a fundamentaly flawed design:
4 campaigns allows for 1 competetive (thornblade) and 3 buff servers (one for each faction). Thus, PvP on the "minor" servers is always loopsided in one factions favour by all the players desiring to hold on to their buffs.

If ZoS were to remove one of the minor campaigns (preferentially the 7 or 14 day one I guess), then there would only be 2 potential "buff servers left".
(Because nothing will ever make thornblade anything else then 3-sided population locked, thus unsuited for a buff server).

This in turn will force the 3 factions who want to have buffs, to actually fight over just 2 potential buff-server campaigns. This move would entice actuall PvP to happen on campaigns in addition to thornblade.

I know ZoS is currently thinking about removing the PvP buffs from PvE. But IMHO, this would just cause the primary PvE players to no longer bother with Cyrodiil. While a change in the number of campaigns would entice those very same players to actually fight for buffs, instead of each side locking a different "buff-server" down

Lava_Croft · January 2015

The way to solve the problem of buff servers is to start playing on them instead of waiting 2 hours before being able to enter Thornblade's lag fest.

Lhorion · January 2015

EU: Chillrend and Haderus are not the buff-server they were a few weeks ago! Good job!

CaptainObvious · January 2015

So here is a question, where do you think the server resources that used to be the extra PvP servers went?

Yes, keeping returning server resources back to the PvE side.

Server resources are devoted based on where the majority of player pools are. Please request to tighten the noose around PvP's neck further and further.

Make the assumption that going down to 2 vet servers will just make the 1 bar each servers make a 2nd 3 bar each server.

Noone goes after the 46 skyshards or the PvE content in Cyrodiil because they want to complete the achievements.

Everyone loves getting lagged out and have battles decided by clients that don't crash win.

SoulScream · January 2015

There cannot be less camps because if you make alts in other factions you need to have enough camps to have a home camp since they cannot be shared with opposing faction.

ZOS_BrianWheeler · January 2015

Currently with the restriction of not allowing characters on a single account to be on the same campaign if they're in different alliances has us at our minimum of 3 Campaigns allowed for Veteran players.

We have discussed relaxing that restriction however but that's as far as we've gotten with those chats regarding the number of campaigns and alliances.

Lava_Croft · January 2015

This restriction is only in place for those who don't know how to 'Travel to Player'. Basically the entire player base makes use of this loophole.

lumithelock · January 2015

Well for the restrictions I know people where able to get around it by travaling to another player already in there I tested it awhile back and was still doable after podcast will try and test it again

Sypher · January 2015

I say you remove the restriction completely because it serves no real purpose. I'm able to join any campaign regardless of guest/home.

My opinion is you should remove the guest feature and just allow players to join any campaign. Keep the home feature for buffs/leaderboards. You could also give priority queue to players who are homed to that campaign.

danno8 · January 2015

Exactly. And if people want to "spy" they can just use:
1. Another account
2. A friend and any TS
3. Travel to friend
4. Stuff I haven't thought of

Ideally you could have 1 giant campaign for everyone, but as that seems unlikely to ever be possible, use one large scoreboard for all campaigns and let people jump around to whatever campaign looks like it needs help.

Curragraigue · January 2015

Lowering the number of campaigns before the lag and crashes are fixed is more likely to result in another Lagblade being created. You want people to spread out to an extent.

What I have noticed of late is people seem to be checking which 'buff' campaigns have higher populations and then piling in there at peak times. I think this player movement is the solution. I've had fun on Chill and Haderus the last few days just switching to whichever has the larger populations when I am on.

All campaigns are open to us so find the one that looks like it will be the most fun to join and jump in. Some people will always stay with their home campaign for the boards but for everyone else move around join guilds that move around and have fun.

NovaShadow · January 2015

These restrictions do not stop you traveling to a group/guild member/friend who is in the campaign you want to enter (same alliance only). I know because I use it.

Cody · January 2015

there may as well be no restrictions, as almost everyone just uses the "travel to player" function.

May as well outright remove these "Restrictions" if y'all don't plan to change it.

Lilarna · January 2015

Agree with @Lava_Croft both for recent contests of buff campaigns and bypassing of restrictions.

Very strongly dissagree with suggestion of diminishing the number of campaigns ! Why ? Because several campaigns = possibility to escape LAG (unplayable pvp, weapon swap bugs, unlayable/unusable siege, blocked skills, slideshow)

Fewer campaigns : too many players in same area of map = guaranteed LAG !
I even think a couple more campaigns would be better.

-

@Morvul , where some see "competitive", consider that others see "unplayable lagfest". What will turn "unhealthy" campaigns into "healthy" ones is migration of players/guilds to challenge "buffs" that are taken for granted.

-

Since the "lag fix" was only a change of number of players, lag still occurs consistently whenever a too large amount of people play against each other in a same area. Reducing the number of campaigns would force players to gather in the same campaigns, causing lag.

-

@ZOS_BrianWheeler, I have to say the sheer idea of you guys considering to lower the current number of campaigns is absolutely terrifying, in regard to above lag considerations.
/kowtow "please don't go that way" ^^

Kybotica · January 2015

Pretty much this. Keep home campaigns for leaderboards and give priority to home members in a given queue, but remove guesting and allow free travel.

Forestd16b14_ESO · January 2015

Haderus hasn't been a buff sever for awhile now and we stop the DC trial nuts from turning it into a buff sever. But yea what your saying would make PvP little more hetic but here's what I think they can do to stop the quest for buff severs..... get rid of pvp buffs in general.

Lilarna · January 2015

We could be having the typical EU/NA misunderstanding.

NovaShadow · January 2015

Haderus NA is what they're referring to. Was ambushed by DC trial nuts yesterday.

Rologue · January 2015

This is exactly what we need from you at ZOS. Being open, and discussing why u make decisions. The community can help you get a players perspective, and you can get new ideas, even if it isn't our idea.

Forestd16b14_ESO · January 2015

But the real players kicked them out... sadly i was sleeping at the time XD

Rylana · January 2015

Brian I play all of my chars on whatever campaign I want them to be on. All I have to do is travel to a player in my guilds, or ask for a taxi ride.

The only restriction is where I can home/guest formally.

Example, just two nights ago I played all three factions on Azuras Star.

Morvul · January 2015

@Lilarna I fully appreciate where you are coming from. And I do agree that "players should simply spread out over all campaigns" is preferable over my suggestion of "have there be one less campaign then there exists now".
It's just that I don't see the spreading out of players to ever happen. Not unless "the masses" are poked somehow.

For example: last night, EU, me and my guild were fighting as DC on Azura. About 20 of us, only one bar of blues against a Padlocked EP. All the while, over on EU chillrend, blues had the padlock, with only a single bar of Reds as opposition.

Now, obviously, having both servers just send half its players to the other one would be a great solution - I just don't believe it's ever going to happen, unless there is some sort of friction build into the system.

As it is, every faction is perfectly happy to sit it's behind square on one buff campaign - and never move away, never fight, simply keep it painted the right colour. (a few individuals trying to fight the steep uphill battle notwithstanding)

kevlarto_ESO · January 2015

Need to do away with travel to friend, I see players with toons in multiple factions in same campaign. I think travel to friends is a great idea outside of pvp.

badmojo · January 2015

Or they could.. you know... actually enforce the rules about joining the same campaign on different alliances.

I know, it's a crazy idea. We might as well just throw away the whole system and let people home on the same campaign in multiple alliances, that couldn't ever possibly be abused, just like it isn't abused currently.

TheBull · January 2015

Maybe pick your AvA toon? 2-3 day cooldown if you want to switch to one in a different alliance?