Faction Lock - Why do people want this?

GreenHere

As a PvP casual who basically only shows up once a month per character in order to get tier 1 campaign rewards, I honestly don't understand. But I want to. Can someone explain it to me rationally, please?

GreenHere

.

Nestor

People bounce between factions to act as spies or spoilers for their preferred faction. Faction Lock as I understand it would mean you pick a faction and that applies for your account. Problem is, people can create more than one account. So, rhis would reduce but not eliminate faction hopping.

Contrast this with folks like me who pick a faction for reasons that have nothing to do with PvP. I have characters in all 3 factions and this would limit me on who I could PvP with. My PvP has nothing to do with dominating a map, just want to have fun and see the spectacular ways I get killed.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

People think that by locking factions it will instill some form of campaign spirit and loyalty. Unfortunately these people fail to realise that without any incentive all faction locking archives is a limited player base and frustration from those who want to play with friends.

A far better solution (assuming that campaign rewards and incentives were added to make playing for a faction worth while) would be to pledge your account to a faction. This would allow you to earn ap on other factions but not increase the "reward" your account receives. Thus encouraging people to play for a faction but not restricting them.

Rewards need to be 1) daily faction points rewards 2) better token based campaign rewards including possibility to buy high end weapons.(vma etc) 3) increased tier ranking system up to something like 10m ap earned where the rewards have diminishing returned but you can still get rewarded for playing more.

Defilted

Faction lock would make it harder for all the players that manipulate Emp hand overs and scroll hand overs to their buddies who are also doing the same thing.

Would cut down on Zone spying and cut down on people switching to the winning campaign.

There are players that do nothing but manipulate the system through faction swapping to get what they want done in a campaign.

There is no sense of team(Alliance) in this game becasue people will just switch to another faction..


Now the real debate is would Alliance lock make PVP better or worse? I think that if there were rewards tailored around being faction loyal and other type of cool rewards for your factions based on things that we could see an improvement. Overall there are a lot of things that need addressed before a re-write of how Cyro works.



Spelling

jaws343

It's because people log in and see that they are completely gated. And instantly assume it is because everyone in their faction left to join the faction that gated them. Instead of thinking, maybe that faction had some players from Australia online this morning while we had nobody.

And they fail to address why a player would join a faction that owns to entire map for PVP. Now, if we are talking about farming Imp City, having your faction own the map makes that easier. But if you want to PVP, switching to the faction that has you gated means you are doing very little PVP.

And joining the winning team is a flimsy excuse. So, let's assume that a player has 3 characters, one per alliance. And they decide to get all 3 to rank 3 in each alliance. They still only get winning campaign rewards on 1 character. And they only get leaderboard rewards if they focus on a character for most of the campaign. So flipping alliances throughout the campaign does nothing for you beyond getting to rank 3.

The game rewards faction loyalty pretty well already. Players who want to see it locked have no idea what they are talking about. And I have 15 EP characters, but I'll never support locking.

dtsharples

People stacking on a faction to cap an empty keep in the morning, thus generating thousands of points and ensuring that this faction (their main faction) wins the campaign.

Once the campaign starts to fill up again, these people ditch the 1st faction and join another, Often not entirely without malice or ill intent.
Sometimes just to get some 'good PVP' when they are tired of PVDoor.

People should not be able to PVDoor for one faction, then switch to another faction for actual PVP.
make your choice and stick with it.

Ormtunge

I feel that i have explained this so many times these last couple of months, but I will ofc do it again. For me this is very important:

When I began playing this game in the very beginning, you had to choose your alliance and stick with it. The pvp in Cyrodill was full of players fighting for their alliances, and there was a very positive pvp enviroment for new players. After years with people switching alliances all over, this is not the case anymore.

Today the population have dwindled and the pvp-enviroment in Cyrodil have become very toxic, and very unfriendly, especially for new players. There have been written several post about these players bad behaviour, both general trolling, sending toxic tells, sabotaging the game by stealing scrolls and delivering them to the opposition (the alliance your man char is on)...the list goes on and on.

Last weekend I had enough and wrote that I would quite the game for good. For me there is no fun if I can only play pve and do battlegrounds, I need a team to play for. I have thought about it alot these past days, and I want to come back, but only if ZOS bringes back some kind of faction/alliance lock. For me, as for many other players, it is not really fun when too many players only play to farm AP and troll each other. We want to play for our alliance, and play to win the campaign.

With a faction/alliance lock for the entire campaign, I belive we will get a very much more positive and larger pvp-population in Cyrodill. We will get rid of the worst trolls and alliance hoppers and get a more vibrant and including alliance population. I belive this will bring back alot of old players that quit/took a break (like me),and also recruit alot of new players as the enviroment will become alot more including.

I am not saying that an faction/alliance lock will solve all the problems in Cyrodill, but it would be a huge step in the right direction. Plase tell me your oppinion fellow players and I also want to hear from you ZOS. We want our Cyrodill back!!! This is not something we want to continue to pay for (most pvpers I know, including myself is ESO-pluss)!!

And yes, I know there already is a discussion for opening up one or two faction/alliance locked campaigns, but I belive this is a wider discussion. That is why I have posted it in "General" and not on "Alliance War". Until we get some kind of artificial intelligence, pvp will always be the end game, and most players will want to try it at some time. Therefore it also involves most players. In addition the war for the ruby throne is such a large part of the different alliances story lines. With some kind of alliance pride and a more positive and including pvp-enviroment, I think this game can grow in the future and make Cyrodill into a fun and challenging place for all players.

Hoping for your support, Sir Not So Brave (DC)

Other discussions on this (including where this was originally posted):

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/434101/we-want-our-cyrodill-back-pc-eu/p1

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/437584/pvp-is-dying-and-will-continue-until-we-get-campaign-account-locks

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/393831/pvp-need-campaign-faction-lock/p1

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/406458/can-we-please-get-1-just-one-faction-locked-campaign

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/361542/can-we-get-faction-locks-in-pvp-already

ofc there are many more, this is just a small % of all the posts that was made about wanting to make some sort of faction lock (very small) .....

Delimber

This month I've been working to remain in one faction.

But for me, when I want to pvp I'd rather not sit in a 50+ que to play. If I can get in to another faction with a shorter wait time then great. That would be one of my reasons for faction hopping, the other would be to get the end campaign rewards on several toons.

But sometimes a guild member would like to see what the Alliance War is like and I'll take them under my wing and give them the "grand tour". Can't do that if they are AD and I'm DC for example and we are locked to that faction.

I just remember how annoying it was (to me) when we use of have faction lock. But then, we also had more campaigns and no battle grounds. Thus, if you wanted say Vigor on one of your toons but couldn't get into the active campaign with that toon because of faction lock, you had a long road ahead of you in the other less active campaigns.

Now that we have battle grounds you don't need to go into Cyrodiil to lvl up your alliance war skill line.

Therefore maybe a lock for the month and after the campaign ends players can choose to keep fighting for their current faction or jump over to another.

Some food for thought...

Emma_Overload

Nobody wants this except for a handful of "zone chat generals" who take PvP way too seriously. There's a reason ZOS doesn't "fix" this issue: the fix would cause more problems than it solves. Too few players do PvP to begin with, the last thing ESO needs is to put some artificial restrictions in front of them.

Wise_Will

This is a bad idea, i have to get high ranks for each faction so i can buy my furnishings

Beardimus

GreenHere wrote: »

As a PvP casual who basically only shows up once a month per character in order to get tier 1 campaign rewards, I honestly don't understand. But I want to. Can someone explain it to me rationally, please?

In short : Its something that could be done To go some way to stop folks cheating. And Cheating sucks, and ruins an experience for new players and old players alike. That affects population.

Longer version
It won't totally solve things like boosting etc as folks will still find ways round and work with mates etc etc. It's not an ideal solution, and i know many are passionate about keeping the status quo

There also are differences between platforms/regions. For me, too much switching and boosting happens for Shor / Sotha to be fun.

However many of us want it gone and just want to play a legit game. I've seen too many nefarious goings on to accept it any more. And seen too many new people disenchantee with PvP as it often appears the only way to progress is to cheat.

Imagine a football match where suddenly half the other side switch shirts and play against their team. Etc etc.

As a minimum id like a 24-48hr lock out. Folks shouldn't be able to flip a keep (or emp keeps) log out, flip then back. But personally I've seen no decent counter to why we can't lock the campaign to that first toons alliance for its duration.

They are thank fully looking at solutions. If that's disabling AP gain on your non home alliance or increasing loyalty rewards I'm also happy. But status quo in no

zyk

Emma_Overload wrote: »

Nobody wants this except for a handful of "zone chat generals" who take PvP way too seriously.

That's a very dismissive view. There's nothing wrong with preferring a faction lock system.

Neither system is objectively better than the other. They both have pros and cons. It's a topic that is debated in every RvR game.

Though I would have preferred a locked system, there's no conceivable way it could be implemented in ESO PVP at this stage. It would be wrong to do so as so many players have developed characters on multiple factions based on current policy that has existed for years.

If ESO AvA was to become extremely popular, there might be room for a alternative rules campaigns such as one that has some kind of faction locked system, but until that happens, it's basically a dead horse.

What I would like to see is for ZOS to introduce incentives to improve competitive balance and engagement in the Alliance War. There's a premise to this game that too many players ignore.

Sacredx

Faction locking is not the answer. That's like putting a curfew on players telling them what they can't do. It is very destructive in nature and a very negative way of solving the problem. The solution should be proactive and encourage players to naturally balance the factions instead. There are a number of ways of doing this as some have already mentioned. The current low pop bonus is very crude and needs a total rework. Change it so that lower pop is calculated more often and instead of awarding points the low pop faction is awarded bonus AP % to encourage natural balancing. The bigger the imbalance the more the %. The key term here is natural balancing. Don't force it, let it work itself out.

DirkRavenclaw

Well, i for one got so annoyed with players beeing not loyal to the Faction they are fighting for that i play since 3 weeks no PVP at all. Will go proper back into it for sure, especially to make sure that Allesia Bridge is always destroyed after Murkmire launches AD for Life

Dominion_Nightblade

I'm all for faction locking, but I could also really care less. Ive played when factions were locked and I have had just as much fun as I do now. I'm loyal to AD and always will be..

With that said, why not open a new 30 day standard that is faction locked to make everyone happy? The loyals can migrate there and the hoppers can stay. I know we can barely fill up one campaign, but why not give this a try? Maybe more will join pvp, maybe it will stop the lag, or maybe it will be a complete bust or just another dead campaign. Who knows? Doesn't hurt to try though. It will definitely close these threads about faction hopping.

Edit: speaking from a PC NA standpoint on dead campaigns.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

zyk wrote: »

Emma_Overload wrote: »

Nobody wants this except for a handful of "zone chat generals" who take PvP way too seriously.

That's a very dismissive view. There's nothing wrong with preferring a faction lock system.

Neither system is objectively better than the other. They both have pros and cons. It's a topic that is debated in every RvR game.

Though I would have preferred a locked system, there's no conceivable way it could be implemented in ESO PVP at this stage. It would be wrong to do so as so many players have developed characters on multiple factions based on current policy that has existed for years.

If ESO AvA was to become extremely popular, there might be room for a alternative rules campaigns such as one that has some kind of faction locked system, but until that happens, it's basically a dead horse.

What I would like to see is for ZOS to introduce incentives to improve competitive balance and engagement in the Alliance War. There's a premise to this game that too many players ignore.

You don't think the approach I posted above would work?

Iskras

Reasonable idea: to change faction, 1 hour of penalty time (to relog in another character - another faction).

Miriel

No one is getting limited, by giving people options... all some of us want is the ability to be able to play as ESO was at the start... give us one or two servers, but to be able to play on that or those you will have you account and its character locked to a certain faction...

Then those that want to faction hop can do so and play as they like all they want on thier servers... and we that dont want to faction hop can lock our accounts and play as we like...

jaws343

Iskras wrote: »

Reasonable idea: to change faction, 1 hour of penalty time (to relog in another character - another faction).

If the campaign is pop-locked, a 1 hour queue isn't unheard of. So if a player wants to switch, they are waiting in the queue anyways.

If the alliance a player is switching to isn't pop-locked, what it sounds like is players being upset that other players are switching to disadvantaged alliances to make it more competitive. So now the original alliance can no longer dominate a lower population one. Sounds like balance to me.

Miriel

@jaws343
Its not what alot of us want, we want as it was when we couldent switch factions... I dont mind that we have both alternatives, but if you want to faction hop on your account, then you cant access the "locked" servers and vice versa... isnt that best for all ?

Then i think we should merge NA and EU servers, that might solve night capping, and give us a better coverage around the day...

NBrookus

While I would love to merge EU and NA servers from a population standpoint, it would be utterly unfair to EU to have to deal with the ping to NA or vice versa.

Miriel

@NBrookus
i play on NA from Eu, and i have generally better ping then alot of asian players... things will never be fair ping wise, they could alternate from where they hosted...

dotme

GreenHere wrote: »

As a PvP casual who basically only shows up once a month per character in order to get tier 1 campaign rewards, I honestly don't understand. But I want to. Can someone explain it to me rationally, please?

For the same reason players on the losing side of a Basketball/Football game don't swap to the winning side at halftime?

Imagine if they did. How enjoyable would that be for the spectators, and the players who remained "loyal" to their team...

ZOS did say they were "considering" how to better balance Cyrodiil. I agree that locking or forcing behavior isn't the best answer. But incentives are a possible idea I suppose.

Cooldowns and GOLD+AP cost to enter same campaign on a different faction would be a simple place to start, and cut down on those who do it just to play easy-mode, cheat by running scrolls to enemies, or troll zone chat.

BRogueNZ

Was concerned, not concerned.

AP doesn't excite me, I don't know the right people or have the skill to get much more than repair kits by wars end and the only remaining point of the battle, faction pride has been made a joke of so yeah, walking around with a bemused look on my face is pretty much all I do. However while It bothers me at times and I catch myself caring, its obvious I'm just playing the wrong game.

caeliusstarbreaker

Because when Smaller groups try to tackle bigger groups and the mass heal and steel tornado spam starts, Solo players are usually on the other side of the map with their skills failing to go off, and the only cure is to make people have to log into one faction.

zyk

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

You don't think the approach I posted above would work?

I think it could be the basis or part of a solution, definitely.

idk

GreenHere wrote: »

As a PvP casual who basically only shows up once a month per character in order to get tier 1 campaign rewards, I honestly don't understand. But I want to. Can someone explain it to me rationally, please?

Not many want it and my guess is they play in low pop campaigns where population swings a number of times during the day. It seems they assume it is due players swapping sides rather than the obvious that many just hop in for short periods like you do.

While Izanagi has made a thoughtful post above, a problem has to exist to warrant change and it does not seem there is a problem.

Sevn

While I certainly wouldn't play in it I'm all for them introducing a NEW locked campaign. Question is, would it be a 7 day, 30 day? No cp? Why should cp players be favored, or non cp players for that matter? Base it off popularity?

Folks already cry foul when the game focuses on casuals, with the argument that even the small population of non casuals deserves to be catered to as well, after all they paid for the game too right? Can't use that line when it favors what you want but balk when it works against you.

In the end I still think they should try it if for no other reason to see how it goes and how popular it is. This way when it is determined that it's not as popular as lead to believe this request will cease to arise again with data explaining why they shut it down.

BRogueNZ

idk wrote: »

Not many want it and my guess is they play in low pop campaigns where population swings a number of times during the day. It seems they assume it is due players swapping sides rather than the obvious that many just hop in for short periods like you do.

While Izanagi has made a thoughtful post above, a problem has to exist to warrant change and it does not seem there is a problem.

Perhaps so but it has happened and still does to a degree. @names and tabards say enough to know that.
There is obviously a lot that goes on that doesn't get communicated so people think the worst and all boils up in the passive aggressive A Pea soup that is pvp.

idk

BRogueNZ wrote: »

idk wrote: »

Not many want it and my guess is they play in low pop campaigns where population swings a number of times during the day. It seems they assume it is due players swapping sides rather than the obvious that many just hop in for short periods like you do.

While Izanagi has made a thoughtful post above, a problem has to exist to warrant change and it does not seem there is a problem.

Perhaps so but it has happened and still does to a degree. @names and tabards say enough to know that.
There is obviously a lot that goes on that doesn't get communicated so people think the worst and all boils up in the passive aggressive A Pea soup that is pvp.

I did not say it does not happen. Even when we had faction locks people helped the other side. I think this is more that some think the pop shifts with low pop campaigns are due to some things they are not. Heck, wer had pop shifts in low pop campaigns when we did have faction locks.

No one has demonstrated it has any measurable negative effect over how things were when we did have faction lock.

The reality is you cannot demonstrate it does. However, Zos can see numbers much better. They also know the issues and reasons they removed the faction lock and that adding it back now with much lower populations than we had a few years go.

So in the end I serious doubt changing back to the dark ages will happen.