Please Open 1-2 Faction Locked Campaigns

Enkil

Most of us enjoy being able to play whatever we want, however we want, but there must be boundaries consistent with the design and premise of the game.

All campaigns are currently free-for-all (FFA) style which is great for those that like that (to each his own). However, many players would prefer the original faction locked style and would rather play the map than being forced to tolerate some cross-factions players turning siege around, starting fake groups, disparaging the regular players, constant trolling and general nonsense that goes on by a minority of players that behave that way. There are few, if any, proper tools in place to deal with these players other than ignoring them individually, which is not a solution to the bulk of the problems.

Please Open 1-2 faction locked campaigns.

There will be campaigns after the midyear event that could be easily converted to faction locked to add options and give a breath of fresh air to PvP side of ESO.

The game started with all campaigns locked so the mechanisms already exist. Players and guilds that want to play in a tri-faction manner can continue doing so on a free-for-all (FFA) style campaign. FFA vs. restraints and boundaries are typically how PvP game servers are delineated. It's very reasonable to expect a game with as large a player base as ESO would offer both to suit different play-styles common to PvP gamers.

It’s a win-win and we don’t have to debate ad nauseam.

Beardimus

Gets my vote, tho I want them all locked. Stop Dem boosters and flipper cheats.

Marabornwingrion

1 CP and 1 non-CP would be good.

Aliyavana

Astrid_V wrote: »

1 CP and 1 non-CP would be good.

This, the ap farmers that think factions are meaningless have their old campaigns but those that care about faction loyalty will have this campaign.

Anrose

The problem is this further divides an already low and dwindling PvP population. More campaigns isn’t the answer because we don’t have the pop to sustain 3 campaigns evenly, let alone 5. Either they need to lock the campaigns we already have or leave them the way they are.

Enkil

Anrose wrote: »

More campaigns isn’t the answer...

That may be, but as long as we get end up with one faction locked campaign, it’s a good thing imo. Every server should not be FFA and if a campaign dies due to players migrating to a fresh new faction locked campaign, so be it.

Opening campaigns that appeal to slightly different players may also attract some of the players that have come for midyear mayhem. It’s seem to be there’s been a surge in pop with long queues, not a dwindling...

Anrose

Enkil wrote: »

Anrose wrote: »

More campaigns isn’t the answer...

That may be, but as long as we get end up with one faction locked campaign, it’s a good thing imo. Every server should not be FFA and if a campaign dies due to players migrating to a fresh new faction locked campaign, so be it.

Opening campaigns that appeal to slightly different players may also attract some of the players that have come for midyear mayhem. It’s seem to be there’s been a surge in pop with long queues, not a dwindling...

This game used to have 14 campaigns. Now we can fill 1 outside of Midyear Mayhem. We hemorrhaged, and now we’re dwindling.

After the event, you’ll see queues return to what they were before, the same way they did last year.

But back to the topic: As I said in my previous post, for this to work, I believe you’ll need to modify the rules sets of the current campaigns (Midyear Mayhem additions excluded) instead of adding new ones.

biminirwb17_ESO

I can only play pvp for a few days before the "rubbish" of a few players gets to me and I revert to pve. A faction locked campaign would make me pvp more.

I assume I am not alone.

Iduyenn

Sorry, but faction locked means, that the whole account is bound to one alliance. No character can join pvp in an other faction right?

It would still not solve the problem. Many have multiple accounts. But perhaps its a necessary step?

I think the idea is great. But then you probabely should be allowed to change your alliance for a price (a very very very high price).

TheValar85

You have my vote on this matter. i know alot of people around in pc eu vivec in ad and in other fractions that they are already sick of this alliance swappers and i will be realy honest with you all guys, but i have meet alot of good pvp players who only left the game and the campains to kill them out because of this issue. Not because they got bored or burned out. and @ZOS knows this.

idk

I think it would be great if Zos opened one faction locked campaign.

I do not see a need for two since it doesn’t seem many are interested and as such it will probably be one of the low pop campaigns. But that’s ok.

idk

Iduyenn wrote: »

Sorry, but faction locked means, that the whole account is bound to one alliance. No character can join pvp in an other faction right?

It would still not solve the problem. Many have multiple accounts. But perhaps its a necessary step?

I think the idea is great. But then you probabely should be allowed to change your alliance for a price (a very very very high price).

It’s a small percentage of the player base that has multiple accounts but that’s not something that that can be prevented.

Besides, those of us that have been around for awhile know that with faction locked campaigns one faction will flood the campaign and turn the map. It’s what happened in the old days.

Regardless the cost to. Change would not and should not be higher than the cost to change campaigns. That much is obvious.

frozywozy

I agree with locked campaigns but as @Anrose already pointed out, we don't even have the population to support 24/7 active gameplay in two different campaigns. I believe that Zenimax should focus their energies on smaller instances of pvp (Arena / Battlegrounds / Duels) and grow their community back up from there.

Komma

I would rather see a server with no proc sets. Reducing the pop cap per campaign wouldn't be a bad thing either.

mateosalvaje

Alliance locked campaign? Yes please. Yes. I would definitely pvp more often. Maybe home campaigns should be alliance locked.

*edit* When you pick which campaign to set as your home, you would set which alliance as well.

caeliusstarbreaker

Having been here long enough to see faction locked campaigns and pve land, the only campaigns that are going to die will be the faction locked ones.

You can even use secondary campaigns that are around now as a window into what it will be like. One faction will run rampant, at most get beat back during prime time if the emp is bad or had something to do instead of play. And then night cap all over. People will eventually get tired of having to fight out from gates and leave to a campaign that doesn’t have restrictions, so they can actually fight. Nvm the general tone of secondary campaigns being out number them 2 to 1 stay in keep and siege them, outnumber them 3-1 stay in keep and siege them, they get in... go to inner and keep sieging then jump out and run. Outnumber 4-1 half go fight other half siege.

The whole “caring about winning the campaign” is basically going to lead to you just running around trying to light attack one dude every 15 min... in which case are you really even pvp’ing?

Hell, when we had faction locked campaigns where the buffs translated to PVE buffs (supposed to draw pve players to care about pvp happenings) and we still had dead campaigns.

I left AD in like 1.5-1.6 because DC was always and completely under manned, my guild decided to help balance that out, and to me, that meant I would be able to fight in a target rich environment, To include to play with friends that I have made through fighting the enemy. Winning a campaign is cool or whatever but when the rewards are lack luster and the actions necessary are to either PVE/Door, stand on a flag with 25 people spamming heals and lag flip the keep, not use skills because lag, or just sit there and left mouse buttons behind siege then I’m not PvP’ing, and I don’t go to Cyrodiil to not PvP. I have never gone back to playin steadily on any other alliance save for maybe 2-3 occassions, to either test a build on a class I already had AD before I leveled one blue side, or to join friends from pre 1.6 days.

D0RID0RI240

Aliyavana wrote: »

Astrid_V wrote: »

1 CP and 1 non-CP would be good.

This, the ap farmers that think factions are meaningless have their old campaigns but those that care about faction loyalty will have this campaign.

As you well know, you already get a faction locked campaign in Sotha, it's just from 10pm CST until some indeterminate time in the morning. I'd imagine that may change once Middle School is back in session for the majority of the US.

leeux

It doesn't need to be a 100% faction locked campaign... all that's need to happen is to have a cooldown on switching sides, so you don't see people that are fighting for alliance X now, and suddendly they're on the other side 10 mins from now.

That's the most disruptive behaviour for *real*... at least IMHO.

Enkil

I hope @ZOS_BrianWheeler saw this thread.

Iduyenn wrote: »

Sorry, but faction locked means, that the whole account is bound to one alliance. No character can join pvp in an other faction right?

Not at all. It would mean that for that one Faction locked campaign, once you log in to a character on one alliance, you would not be able to log into the locked campaign on characters from different alliances until that campaign has ended. (7-day duration would be ideal).

You could still have characters in other factions and play them on FFA servers as much as you want, for all 3 factions if you want.

frozywozy wrote: »

I agree with locked campaigns but as @Anrose already pointed out, we don't even have the population to support 24/7 active gameplay in two different campaigns. I believe that Zenimax should focus their energies on smaller instances of pvp (Arena / Battlegrounds / Duels) and grow their community back up from there.

I played since Beta, quit the game in 2015 and recently came back for Morrowind/Summerset and have talked to others in Cyro that have recently come back as well.

As someone who plays PvP mmos for large siege warfare, I personally hate battlegrounds/dueling/arena and have only done it once in ESO to complete the achievement for PvP event. Attracting more players that prefer those elements will get more people playing those things. This thread is about Cyrodiil campaigns.

caeliusstarbreaker wrote: »

Having been here long enough to see faction locked campaigns and pve land, the only campaigns that are going to die will be the faction locked ones.
…
The whole “caring about winning the campaign” is basically going to lead to you just running around trying to light attack one dude every 15 min... in which case are you really even pvp’ing?....

This is nonsense conjecture… Okay??

Please do not be dismissive and present valid point(s) or argument with solid basis to participate in respectful discussion. Thank You.

olsborg

I would love a camp that didnt show names on enemies until after u killed them/was killed by them. Or just not even then, im kinda tired of all the «high end» pvpers not attacking eachother

caeliusstarbreaker

Enkil wrote: »

I hope @ZOS_BrianWheeler saw this thread.

Iduyenn wrote: »

Sorry, but faction locked means, that the whole account is bound to one alliance. No character can join pvp in an other faction right?

Not at all. It would mean that for that one Faction locked campaign, once you log in to a character on one alliance, you would not be able to log into that campaign on characters from different alliances until that campaign has ended. (7-day duration would be ideal).

You could still have characters in other factions and play them on FFA servers as much as you want, for all 3 factions if you want.

frozywozy wrote: »

I agree with locked campaigns but as @Anrose already pointed out, we don't even have the population to support 24/7 active gameplay in two different campaigns. I believe that Zenimax should focus their energies on smaller instances of pvp (Arena / Battlegrounds / Duels) and grow their community back up from there.

As someone who plays PvP mmos for large siege warfare, I personally hate battlegrounds/dueling/arena and have only done it once in ESO to complete the achievement for PvP event. Attracting more players that prefer those elements will get more people playing those things..

caeliusstarbreaker wrote: »

Having been here long enough to see faction locked campaigns and pve land, the only campaigns that are going to die will be the faction locked ones.
…
The whole “caring about winning the campaign” is basically going to lead to you just running around trying to light attack one dude every 15 min... in which case are you really even pvp’ing?....

This is nonsense conjecture… Okay??

Please do not be dismissive and present valid point(s) or argument with solid basis to participate in respectful discussion. Thank You.

Not conjecture. It was reality.

Miriel

Anrose wrote: »

The problem is this further divides an already low and dwindling PvP population. More campaigns isn’t the answer because we don’t have the pop to sustain 3 campaigns evenly, let alone 5. Either they need to lock the campaigns we already have or leave them the way they are.

PvP is in a very bad shape, we are loosing players, and continuing as is, doesnt work... What we have now might suit a few, but its clear pvp doesnt work as is, and something have to change, giving more options might entice more to play, bring back old players... To be honest iwe been here since alfa, and i also considder quitting with pvp, i dont want to play with people that dont take pride in their own faction, i have nothing against they play as they want, but we that dont want to play as they want shouldent have to, whats wrong with options ?

Anazasi

frozywozy wrote: »

I agree with locked campaigns but as @Anrose already pointed out, we don't even have the population to support 24/7 active gameplay in two different campaigns. I believe that Zenimax should focus their energies on smaller instances of pvp (Arena / Battlegrounds / Duels) and grow their community back up from there.

If the current population numbers won't support the current population cap then the obvious solution is to lower the population cap. Positive side effect......LESS LAG

geonsocal

Anazasi wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

I agree with locked campaigns but as @Anrose already pointed out, we don't even have the population to support 24/7 active gameplay in two different campaigns. I believe that Zenimax should focus their energies on smaller instances of pvp (Arena / Battlegrounds / Duels) and grow their community back up from there.

If the current population numbers won't support the current population cap then the obvious solution is to lower the population cap. Positive side effect......LESS LAG

or, maybe reduce the number of keeps and make the map a little smaller...outside of midyear mayhem and some weekends - the pvp population would probably have more than enough room to battle it out on stros m'kai...

Kikke

Yes please! I used too PvP alot back when cyro faction locked. And it just were superior in all ways.

Todays "Dont care about the land as long as I get AP" attitude is breaking the game.

Since we have no faction locks, we have no 'enemies' and without a enemy too blame for ***, we get todays "nerf X class" whiners which would rather spend their time yelling and blaming green, orange or purple alliance xD as we had back in the good ol days xP

Joshlenoir

Aliyavana wrote: »

Astrid_V wrote: »

1 CP and 1 non-CP would be good.

This, the ap farmers that think factions are meaningless have their old campaigns but those that care about faction loyalty will have this campaign.

Lol I can still go in those campaigns and farm AP for my enjoyment on my main characters. This will have no effect on that.
Factions are meaningless though.
And faction pride is a outdated empty concept which dictates the "team" you play for is more important than your merits as a player individually.
Who cares if you have every keep on the map and gate camp low pop factions? Or constantly have people taking empty keeps and painting the map one color at night, or running 50+ man groups faction stacking and lagging out keeps during primetime which takes 0 skill and just ruins PvP for everyone. As long as you "win" the campaign. The reason people don't care about campaign is because there's no way to effectively gauge who's actually being more effective and who has the better more coordinated players. Because at the end of the day numbers and siege rule all, when it comes to the scoreboard that's why people don't care.
People hop to the other factions when there's nobody to fight (like myself) because I actually enjoy PvPing against players, not only keeps.
The thing that's funny (and a little sad) is you'll have these veteran elitist pvpers who demonize people for hopping factions because they don't want to constantly subject themselves to the miserable, fruitless one month grind to "win" a campaign wherein you learn almost nothing about PvP class wise, only marginally improve, make minimal AP, and spend more time PvPing against doors and walls than players.

Enkil

No one should be demonizing anyone. As I stated at the outset, it’s fine and normal for people to want to hop factions / AP farm / whatever. We get that the campaign and winning have been marginalized, but that style and AP rewards do not appeal to all. Please try to stay on topic and not derail the thread. Making one faction locked campaign does not infringe on anyone and only adds another option for those that would like it.

Beardimus

Fully agree @Enkil I only see faction hoping used for nefarious reasons that utterly break Cyrodill for new and experienced players alike. Scroll running, AP boosting, keep flipping, passing eMp about etc etc.

People have this odd 'i want to play with my mates' counter arguenent but I'm.sorry the risk outweighs it is my view, lock the lot.

BUT what @Enkil is suggesting it a choice. And there's no real harm in that. Then review, and if its better, apply to all.

OR some other solution to AP boosting. As that's the root cause of the issue. Fix it another way @ZOS_BrianWheeler and we'll still be happy.

Bottom line is alliance needs to mean more. Make the campaign loyalty mean something, make genuine honourable play mean something.

geonsocal

i don't have any "mates" that i play with...well, not necessarily true...I have one buddy that I group with occasionally...he's been my friend since junior high...

like myself, he has a character in each alliance, also on the same map...neither of us much care what other players are doing with their time in cyrodiil...

we log in to go out, fight with our characters, and have fun...

defend and capture objectives, eliminate enemies, support allies...it's really not that complicated...

I could give a rat's ass about all the politics and social interaction that so many players seem to enjoy and get caught up in...

to be honest - what other's do with their game time doesn't interest me much at all...

and you know what - there's a lot more folks out there like myself (us "randoms" ) than you probably realize...

Beardimus

It's got nothing to do with being social, or being random @geonsocal but its about stopping ANTI social behaviour.

And for those that are interested in a bigger picture, I.e. Campaign score, earning emperor tactics to beat the enemy. The folks that swap and manipulate stuff wreck all that.

With a fraction lock or delay this gets stopped. And you can still play with your mate regardless. So there's no issue.

People asking for locks aren't trying to deter casuals the opposite. We are trying to keep it all meaningful (as much meaning as a game ever has)

Regardless the OP is proposing a choice

Iduyenn

But how far would this go? Could a EP player not whisper an AD friend, while in PVP? What about guild communications?
I know some ppl with girlfriends/boyfriends/guildmates/friends in other factions.

Though you are right. Its not eliminating the risk, but minimizing it.