Faction lock is good

Volsers

I see a lot of people saying faction lock is bad and I don't agree with that so in this thread I am gonna present my thoughts on why faction locking and the way Zenimax describe they will do it in is infact a positive thing rather then a negative thing for the game. I will also answer some of the arguments against faction locking that I have seen. The points are as follows:

• Not having faction locking makes it possible to switch to the losing side, balancing the campaign out if one alliance is totally dominating. This argument could be strong, except from the fact that the majority of people from my experience don't switch to the losing side, but instead switch to the winning side. I know this from my own experience because I have had friends who mostly play on the faction that currently has the biggest population ( faction X) and when faction X is starting to lose while Faction Y is starting to win and gain a bigger population they switch to faction Y. Why does this happen though? It is because people like to win and they like to earn AP. People do not like fighting zergs because in these days they can in most cases not win and if they can't win they can't earn any AP either. So people switch to the winning side instead because that way they can avoid fighting the zergs of the winning side and instead fight a much smaller amount of people that they can handle much more better therefore making them win more fights and also earning more AP.
• Faction lock creates faction loyalty and toxicity against other players and factions. Faction lock will create faction loyalty, but I think that is a good thing as it creates another drive force to fight for the campaign and that also creates another reason to win other than earning AP and simply that good feeling of winning. I also think that using the argument of faction lock creating toxicity against other players and factions is wrong because true or not the pvp environment that we have right now is NOT good. It is toxic, not healthy and a lot of that I think has to do with no faction lock existing and no faction loyalty existing. People as of today just play for the sake of earning as much kills as possible, earning as much AP as possible and to die as little as possible. The way to do that is not to fight for the campaign and your faction, not to compete with players on same skill level as you... its is simply by finding and killing as many masses of players who stand no real chance against you as possible. Because of this the majority of the vet players in Cyrodiil does not fight each other, They avoid competing against players on the same level as themselves most of the time and instead focus on killing players below their skill level, let that sink in for a moment... They do this because they like winning and earning AP, they don't care if their faction is winning or not in the end.
  
  since these players also don't attack each other they don't help if their other allies from their own faction is getting attacked and instead just stand there and watch the "ally" die... I can tell you this must have driven at least one newbie away from pvp never to come back. If people felt a bit more faction loyalty and the will to fight to win the campaign for their faction even the top players would be forced to fight each other and compete against each other therefore creating a much healthier pvp environment.
  
• I can't play with my friend who is on the other faction if I want to/it will suck if action in the faction I play for is bad when in my time zone and the only time I can play. The way Zenimax did this was they left the 7 day campaign as non faction locked campaign, so you can either decide with your friend what faction you wanna play for in the locked campaigns or you can choose to play in the 7 day campaign and switch faction as freely as you want. Since this will be the only non faction locked campaign and there clearly are a lot of people who prefer non faction locked campaigns I suspect that the population of the 7 day campaign will drastically increase making it very active over all and also making it be action at oceanic times as well for example. On top of that there are two new non faction locked campaigns specifically for imperial city so you got some options to choose from.
• There is not enough rewards for being loyal to a faction. I agree with this and think further rewards should be awarded for being loyal to a faction.. maybe an achievement for winning the campaign for your faction that awards a cool costume, title or mount?

Feel free to debate further and ask me any questions or write arguments against all of this!

Elong

You don't need to make a new thread, there's plenty around, your point isn't any more valid because you made a new thread.

Diundriel

"I can't play with my friend who is on the other faction if I want to/it will suck if action in the faction I play for is bad when in my time zone and the only time I can play. The way Zenimax did this was they left the 7 day campaign as non faction locked campaign, so you can either decide with your friend what faction you wanna play for in the locked campaigns or you can choose to play in the 7 day campaign and switch faction as freely as you want. Since this will be the only non faction locked campaign and there clearly are a lot of people who prefer non faction locked campaigns I suspect that the population of the 7 day campaign will drastically increase making it very active over all and also making it be action at oceanic times as well for example. On top of that there are two new non faction locked campaigns specifically for imperial city so you got some options to choose from."

so you want to pve door with your Friends on an empty Campaign?
and what is with the People that just Play cp/ non cp if there is just ONE 7 day Campaign? one of These Groups just got left behind

MipMip

Volsers wrote: »

Feel free to debate further and ask me any questions or write arguments against all of this!

So here are my comments:

- you say ' the majority of people from my experience don't switch to the losing side, but instead switch to the winning side': my experience is the contrary, the people I play with prefer playing for underdog factions because this way we can find more / better fights

- you say 'Faction lock will create faction loyalty'... no it won't, those of us who are not interested in the 'playing for a faction' aspect of the game will not suddenly become interested in it; rather people might leave and further deplete the PvP player base

FleetwoodSmack

Elong wrote: »

You don't need to make a new thread, there's plenty around, your point isn't any more valid because you made a new thread.

This. We don't need 1000000 threads on faction locks.

Edirt_seliv

You seem to have misspelt "bad" in your thread title.

Merlight

Edirt_seliv wrote: »

You seem to have misspelt "bad" in your thread tittle.

Spelling is ttricky.

Edirt_seliv

Merlight wrote: »

Edirt_seliv wrote: »

You seem to have misspelt "bad" in your thread tittle.

Spelling iss ttricky.

It iss

Volsers

Diundriel wrote: »

so you want to pve door with your Friends on an empty Campaign?
and what is with the People that just Play cp/ non cp if there is just ONE 7 day Campaign? one of These Groups just got left behind

Leaving the no CP population that is against faction lock behind is one of the few good arguments I have heard against faction lock... but then if we only have one CP campaign that is faction locked, what about the no CP population that wants to play a faction locked campaign? Maybe opening up a second non faction locked no CP campaign would be best except for the fact the population may not be bigh enough.
What makes a newbie to pvp want to stay though and continue playing in the pvp environment as of today though? I have had a guild dedicated to helping newbies a lot of problems they have is that people from their alliance does not help them if they are getting attacked and its not fun getting killed by these gods over and over again. This is one of the reasons there does not seem to be that huge of an increase in new regular pvp'ers and where im trying to get to is that it may have something to do with not having faction lock and no faction loyalty. A faction locked campaign would more than likely favor newbies and for vet players that wants to fight for their faction it gives them a place to do it in and a reason. Maybe real guild rivalry will come back in these faction locked campaigns and the top players will actually start fighting each other. That is my train of thought atleast.

MipMip wrote: »

Volsers wrote: »

Feel free to debate further and ask me any questions or write arguments against all of this!

So here are my comments:

- you say ' the majority of people from my experience don't switch to the losing side, but instead switch to the winning side': my experience is the contrary, the people I play with prefer playing for underdog factions because this way we can find more / better fights

- you say 'Faction lock will create faction loyalty'... no it won't, those of us who are not interested in the 'playing for a faction' aspect of the game will not suddenly become interested in it; rather people might leave and further deplete the PvP player base

That is good for you and your friends then, but I know that people is switching to the winning side because a lot of the people I know do it. If you are not interested in playing for a faction you still have the 7 day campaign and both IC campaigns and BGs for that matter too.

Volsers

@Edirt_seliv Okay explain to me why it is bad then?

Edirt_seliv

It's funny that faction loyalist players use 'swapping to the winning side' as an argument because here's what's going to happen, as did happen last time we had faction locks.

All the high impact pvp players are going to congregate on the no lock campaign because it will be the most competitive. (typically, faction loyalists are actually the players who have the least impact on the map, despite caring about it the most)

Then, each of the locked campaigns will rapidly turn into buff servers for each of the factions, allowing players to come in on those factions and grind their pve desires.

Then, this will be compounded due to all the faction loyalists eventually gravitating to the campaigns where their faction wins by 10000 points each cycle (on account of not being able to change the tide of their previous campaigns because, as mentioned, they are low impact players).

From there, faction loyalist will all be patting themselves on the back for the marvellous victories they are amassing in their respective campaigns and the result will be nothing more than an even further divided pvp community.

Pm me 3 months after it goes live if this isn't the case.

Elong

Edirt_seliv wrote: »

It's funny that faction loyalist players use 'swapping to the winning side' as an argument because here's whats going to happen, as did happen happen last time we had faction locks.

All the high impact pvp players are going to congregate on the no lock campain because it will be the most competitive.(typically, faction loyalists are actually the players who have the least impact on the map, despite caring about it the most)

Then, each of the locked campains will rapidly turn into buff servers for each of the factions, allowing players to come in on those factions and grind their pve desires.

Then, this will be compounded due to all the faction loyalists eventually gravitating to the campains where their faction wins by 10000 point each cycle (on account of not being able to change the tide of their prrevious campains because they are low impact).

From there, faction loyalist will all be patting themselves on the back for the marvelous victories they are amassing in their respective campains and the result will be nothing more than an even further divided pvp community.

Pm me in 3 months if this isn't the case.

Nailed it.

Zevrro

Volsers wrote: »

[*] Faction lock creates faction loyalty and toxicity against other players and factions. Faction lock will create faction loyalty, but I think that is a good thing as it creates another drive force to fight for the campaign and that also creates another reason to win other than earning AP and simply that good feeling of winning. I also think that using the argument of faction lock creating toxicity against other players and factions is wrong because true or not the pvp environment that we have right now is NOT good. It is toxic, not healthy and a lot of that I think has to do with no faction lock existing and no faction loyalty existing. People as of today just play for the sake of earning as much kills as possible, earning as much AP as possible and to die as little as possible. The way to do that is not to fight for the campaign and your faction, not to compete with players on same skill level as you... its is simply by finding and killing as many masses of players who stand no real chance against you as possible. Because of this the majority of the vet players in Cyrodiil does not fight each other, They avoid competing against players on the same level as themselves most of the time and instead focus on killing players below their skill level, let that sink in for a moment... They do this because they like winning and earning AP, they don't care if their faction is winning or not in the end.

since these players also don't attack each other they don't help if their other allies from their own faction is getting attacked and instead just stand there and watch the "ally" die... I can tell you this must have driven at least one newbie away from pvp never to come back. If people felt a bit more faction loyalty and the will to fight to win the campaign for their faction even the top players would be forced to fight each other and compete against each other therefore creating a much healthier pvp environment.

In my experience the players who are most loyal to their faction and dedicated to winning campaigns are the players who have the least interest in actual PvP. They would happily play an empty map as long as their faction owns all the keeps and will go around repairing all the walls so that when PvP actually starts they can hold the one colour map for as long as possible. If faction locking creates more drive for the campaign then I see that as a negative.

I don't believe that it will reduce any toxicity as faction loyalists are some of the most unnecessarily toxic players in this game. They will instantly despise you just for the alliance you're currently playing and even have a long list of prejudgments about you based all on alliance. End game PvPers can be just as toxic but at least their toxicity isn't just blind hate.

"Because of this the majority of the vet players in Cyrodiil does not fight each other, They avoid competing against players on the same level as themselves most of the time and instead focus on killing players below their skill level" Vet players are usually more than happy to attack each other as these are the most interesting fights but only when the fights are even. They aren't going to mindlessly attack each other just because they are on different alliances because that doesn't create rewarding combat.
"since these players also don't attack each other they don't help if their other allies from their own faction is getting attacked and instead just stand there and watch the "ally" die" That really depends on the fight, I''m not going to jump into even fights and make them uneven just because they're on my alliance. If playing for your alliance means ruining every fight then I don't see that as healthy PvP.

In my opinion faction loyalty creates really bad PvP where nobody is really interested in combat. That's why there are so many max rank players who lack basic understandings of PvP mechanics because they've only ever cared about playing for the campaign and not being a PvP player.

Alucardo

Edirt_seliv wrote: »

All the high impact pvp players are going to congregate on the no lock campaign because it will be the most competitive. (typically, faction loyalists are actually the players who have the least impact on the map, despite caring about it the most)

This is simply not true. Faction loyalists are the ones who gather large groups to get stuff done. They are the ones roleplaying in zone chat trying to get people to join in taking keeps or going for scrolls.
The players who don't care about this do literally nothing but camp resources and kill noobs.

WoppaBoem

I really support your agruments, well worded and feel the same. Gaming in a large community like ESO is about comprimises and I think the approach ZOS takes is the right one. I really like to see the change live.

I for 1 am alliance loyal never play on a different alliance. But overall it feels that doesn't mean anything because non loyals always switch to who ever is winning.

Don't forget this game design was aimed at alliance against allaince. Allaince loyalty is quite important for that mechanic to work. I speak for larger group EP Xbox EU of around 100 players we are really looking forward to this change.

Thank you ZOS.

Volsers

Alucardo wrote: »

Edirt_seliv wrote: »

All the high impact pvp players are going to congregate on the no lock campaign because it will be the most competitive. (typically, faction loyalists are actually the players who have the least impact on the map, despite caring about it the most)

This is simply not true. Faction loyalists are the ones who gather large groups to get stuff done. They are the ones roleplaying in zone chat trying to get people to join in taking keeps or going for scrolls.
The players who don't care about this do literally nothing but camp resources and kill noobs.

This ^^ @Edirt_seliv since the ones you call high and low impact players are in reality reversed it kind of destroys that argument. Also since there are 2 faction locked campaigns and 3 factions there is bound to be some real competition on at least one, if not both of them

DisgracefulMind

Zevrro wrote: »

Volsers wrote: »

[*] Faction lock creates faction loyalty and toxicity against other players and factions. Faction lock will create faction loyalty, but I think that is a good thing as it creates another drive force to fight for the campaign and that also creates another reason to win other than earning AP and simply that good feeling of winning. I also think that using the argument of faction lock creating toxicity against other players and factions is wrong because true or not the pvp environment that we have right now is NOT good. It is toxic, not healthy and a lot of that I think has to do with no faction lock existing and no faction loyalty existing. People as of today just play for the sake of earning as much kills as possible, earning as much AP as possible and to die as little as possible. The way to do that is not to fight for the campaign and your faction, not to compete with players on same skill level as you... its is simply by finding and killing as many masses of players who stand no real chance against you as possible. Because of this the majority of the vet players in Cyrodiil does not fight each other, They avoid competing against players on the same level as themselves most of the time and instead focus on killing players below their skill level, let that sink in for a moment... They do this because they like winning and earning AP, they don't care if their faction is winning or not in the end.

since these players also don't attack each other they don't help if their other allies from their own faction is getting attacked and instead just stand there and watch the "ally" die... I can tell you this must have driven at least one newbie away from pvp never to come back. If people felt a bit more faction loyalty and the will to fight to win the campaign for their faction even the top players would be forced to fight each other and compete against each other therefore creating a much healthier pvp environment.

In my experience the players who are most loyal to their faction and dedicated to winning campaigns are the players who have the least interest in actual PvP. They would happily play an empty map as long as their faction owns all the keeps and will go around repairing all the walls so that when PvP actually starts they can hold the one colour map for as long as possible. If faction locking creates more drive for the campaign then I see that as a negative.

I don't believe that it will reduce any toxicity as faction loyalists are some of the most unnecessarily toxic players in this game. They will instantly despise you just for the alliance you're currently playing and even have a long list of prejudgments about you based all on alliance. End game PvPers can be just as toxic but at least their toxicity isn't just blind hate.

"Because of this the majority of the vet players in Cyrodiil does not fight each other, They avoid competing against players on the same level as themselves most of the time and instead focus on killing players below their skill level" Vet players are usually more than happy to attack each other as these are the most interesting fights but only when the fights are even. They aren't going to mindlessly attack each other just because they are on different alliances because that doesn't create rewarding combat.
"since these players also don't attack each other they don't help if their other allies from their own faction is getting attacked and instead just stand there and watch the "ally" die" That really depends on the fight, I''m not going to jump into even fights and make them uneven just because they're on my alliance. If playing for your alliance means ruining every fight then I don't see that as healthy PvP.

In my opinion faction loyalty creates really bad PvP where nobody is really interested in combat. That's why there are so many max rank players who lack basic understandings of PvP mechanics because they've only ever cared about playing for the campaign and not being a PvP player.

I've actually gotten a lot of hate for your final point. I typically won't jump in on fights open field where it's even or my alliance is outnumbering a group or person. I think a lot of the faction loyalists don't understand the unspoken and mutual respect a lot of players have for one another when we see them fighting outnumbered. I know, for me, outnumbered fights are the ones I'm seeking constantly, so why would I ruin someone else's outnumbered fights when I know they have been seeking for them.

This isn't a fear of fighting players of equal or greater skill, this isn't anything but showing respect and not running someone over just because.

And you're correct, people who are diehard for their alliance really do have no issue gating another faction, pushing the whole map for that 6k ap per keep flip AP and onwards.

Volsers

@Zevrro
Vet players are usually more than happy to attack each other as these are the most interesting fights but only when the fights are even. They aren't going to mindlessly attack each other just because they are on different alliances because that doesn't create rewarding combat. I would be thrilled to see such a fight at least more than once a month. I also bet they would not mindlessly help their faction allies as well, it would not be fair to the members of the other alliances and your friends fighting and killing your allies.

That really depends on the fight, I''m not going to jump into even fights and make them uneven just because they're on my alliance. If playing for your alliance means ruining every fight then I don't see that as healthy PvP. If I jump in and help these 4 fresh new to the game noobs killing these 2 vet players fighting and undoubtedly gonna end up killing them it would make the fight more even and not fair, so better not do it. Maybe they would even exclude me from their circle of pro vet players.

In my experience the players who are most loyal to their faction and dedicated to winning campaigns are the players who have the least interest in actual PvP. They would happily play an empty map as long as their faction owns all the keeps and will go around repairing all the walls so that when PvP actually starts they can hold the one colour map for as long as possible. If faction locking creates more drive for the campaign then I see that as a negative. If they are soo bad at pvp then why can't all the "high impact players" form your own groups more often and fight to take back the map, maybe that would actually create some truly good fights if the vet players from all alliances thought like that. It is not rewarding enough though? Maybe.

In my opinion faction loyalty creates really bad PvP where nobody is really interested in combat. That's why there are so many max rank players who lack basic understandings of PvP mechanics because they've only ever cared about playing for the campaign and not being a PvP player. I think having faction loyalty instead creates good pvp for everyone and not just the circle of vet players because it brings more reason to compete and take part for everyone. Right now vet players rarely compete with each other and that is not a good pvp environment either because again, its anyone outside of the vet players circle that takes the bill.

Edirt_seliv

Volsers wrote: »

Alucardo wrote: »

Edirt_seliv wrote: »

All the high impact pvp players are going to congregate on the no lock campaign because it will be the most competitive. (typically, faction loyalists are actually the players who have the least impact on the map, despite caring about it the most)

This is simply not true. Faction loyalists are the ones who gather large groups to get stuff done. They are the ones roleplaying in zone chat trying to get people to join in taking keeps or going for scrolls.
The players who don't care about this do literally nothing but camp resources and kill noobs.

This ^^ @Edirt_seliv since the ones you call high and low impact players are in reality reversed it kind of destroys that argument. Also since there are 2 faction locked campaigns and 3 factions there is bound to be some real competition on at least one, if not both of them

Champ, map impact isn't taking undefended keeps only to have them taken back before the next evaluation score because you ran off to take the next one in a big game of musical chairs with the enemy factions loyalist groups where none of the chairs actually get taken away so everyone ends the day with a warm fuzzy success feeling.

All these kinds of players do is soak up pop lock space and serve as youtube fodder.

I am talking about players and groups who force emporer dethrones, who break through the breaches after everyone else has been looking at them for 10 minutes. Players who can recapture tightly held scrolls or take, and hold, a glade/farragut/arrius while their faction regains the frontline.

These are the players who actually alter the outcome of campains. Whether it be guilds at the objectives or solo small scale players who are winning the outskirt/resource/supply line fights of these engagements.

You can stand there and tell yourself that these players are just farming or they're just playing for kills not points but even when that is true, if you think routinely winning actual pvp engagememts in a pvp game isn't contributing to overall success, then you need to recalibrate.

I'll use AD as an example, guilds like Dom Dom (diehard faction loyalists) had no where near the map influence that guilds like omni, tkg or fantasia do, simply because all the positive intentions in the world dont mean a thing when you just aren't as good at the game. And that's my point. Typically, faction loyalists are more interested in their flavour and rp than their gameplay. Which is fine by all rights. But what it translates to, is less impact towards the result of a campain.

Like I said. Prove me wrong. Message me 3 months after this change goes live, and if what i have described isn't evident by that time, well i owe you a pepsi.

zyk

Players who prefer locked factions aren't necessarily "faction loyalists." They may switch factions occasionally. It has nothing to do with RP or allegiance to a faction. There are a variety of reasons why some players prefer faction locked campaigns.

What players who prefer faction locks probably have in common is a legitimate interest in AvA objective gameplay -- versus players who only care about combat.

The pvdoor groups are usually multi-faction players in pugs. Whenever one side is rolling the map, they attract players who main other factions for the free ride.

In contrast, the players who do their best for whichever team they play for are the ones hopelessly throwing themselves into opposition pvdoor zergs in desperate attempts to stop them or slow them down. Players like this are the least interested in free oticks or AP/H in general.

My opinion is more nuanced than locks or no locks. I think you can shape most player behavior with rewards and have locked campaigns that provide some flexibility without allowing for hopping whenever the tide changes.

With that said, I think the complete removal of locks has been detrimental to overall balance in AvA. What it comes down to is that most players will act in self-interest so therefore the disruption caused by players looking for an easy surfing or farming experience outweighs the benefits from players who legitimately prefer to help the weaker team.

Mr_Walker

Alucardo wrote: »

Edirt_seliv wrote: »

All the high impact pvp players are going to congregate on the no lock campaign because it will be the most competitive. (typically, faction loyalists are actually the players who have the least impact on the map, despite caring about it the most)

This is simply not true. Faction loyalists are the ones who gather large groups to get stuff done. They are the ones roleplaying in zone chat trying to get people to join in taking keeps or going for scrolls.
The players who don't care about this do literally nothing but camp resources and kill noobs.

LOL really? The only roleplaying I ever see in Cyro zonechat is people roleplaying "Hi I'm someone with an acquired brain injury". Which campaign are you on?

If you really want to be high imact and "get stuff done" go to Sotha where any group larger than 5 is considered a zerg, and gather a large group together, win it for your faction. Be a high-impact loyalist who is actually high impact.

darkblue5

Edirt_seliv wrote: »

It's funny that faction loyalist players use 'swapping to the winning side' as an argument because here's what's going to happen, as did happen last time we had faction locks.

All the high impact pvp players are going to congregate on the no lock campaign because it will be the most competitive. (typically, faction loyalists are actually the players who have the least impact on the map, despite caring about it the most)

Then, each of the locked campaigns will rapidly turn into buff servers for each of the factions, allowing players to come in on those factions and grind their pve desires.

Then, this will be compounded due to all the faction loyalists eventually gravitating to the campaigns where their faction wins by 10000 points each cycle (on account of not being able to change the tide of their previous campaigns because, as mentioned, they are low impact players).

From there, faction loyalist will all be patting themselves on the back for the marvellous victories they are amassing in their respective campaigns and the result will be nothing more than an even further divided pvp community.

Pm me 3 months after it goes live if this isn't the case.

Honestly this sounds preferable to the way it is now. No, there won't be any faction balance on most of the campaigns. It'll let people who prefer to crush their enemies, see them driven before them, and hear the lamentations about camping tri-keeps be quarantined. That alone seems valuable. When the 7 day is locked some groups will go to those campaigns with their faction locked characters and farm. That will pull the pure farming groups that don't want to fight out of the main campaign as well.

Sure this is the optimistic perspective. If 7 day just becomes the new laggy Vivec, or the off hours are even deader than they already are it could well need reversion. But I'm not sure your vision of the future is actually worse thana the present unless you actually intensely care about your faction winning.

I care about fighting for my faction but I just care less about that faction actually winning. Winning seems to more involve faction zergs (unskillful zerging) and cross guild coordination (skillful zerging) than exactly the specific fighting. Yes, many wars have been won and lost based on logistics. Yes, someone must find that fun. Personally, I'm not interested and nor do I care to insure I have even more random epic junk cluttering up my inventory. I can get 5 epic jewelry pieces much faster and with much less time spent by running PVE dungeons if I chose to.

josh.lackey_ESO

Diundriel wrote: »

"I can't play with my friend who is on the other faction if I want to/it will suck if action in the faction I play for is bad when in my time zone and the only time I can play. The way Zenimax did this was they left the 7 day campaign as non faction locked campaign, so you can either decide with your friend what faction you wanna play for in the locked campaigns or you can choose to play in the 7 day campaign and switch faction as freely as you want. Since this will be the only non faction locked campaign and there clearly are a lot of people who prefer non faction locked campaigns I suspect that the population of the 7 day campaign will drastically increase making it very active over all and also making it be action at oceanic times as well for example. On top of that there are two new non faction locked campaigns specifically for imperial city so you got some options to choose from."

so you want to pve door with your Friends on an empty Campaign?
and what is with the People that just Play cp/ non cp if there is just ONE 7 day Campaign? one of These Groups just got left behind

Ok so make the 7 day campaign faction lock and leave the 30 day campaign alone. That way faction lock forum warriors get an exclusive place to hang out and roleplay with other people who share a love of their faction.

DisgracefulMind

So the AD players who came over in oceanic tonight to help EP against this AD faction stack and gate camping are bad? So the AD players who play in this timezone who don't want to faction stack and zerg should just not play?

BTW this is all the population in oceanic on PC/NA. How are we going to go to the 7-day if the rest are here?

IxSTALKERxI

DisgracefulMind wrote: »

So the AD players who play in this timezone who don't want to faction stack and zerg should just not play?

Fight the 2 bars of DC?

DisgracefulMind

IxSTALKERxI wrote: »

DisgracefulMind wrote: »

So the AD players who play in this timezone who don't want to faction stack and zerg should just not play?

Fight the 2 bars of DC?

Well, this screenshot was taken after DC got their little guild group on and took back some of the map - they were being gated too. This is an every night event, there is usually only 1 bar EP and DC around the time this starts happening.



DC was 1 barred until that group got on about 45 minutes before the first screenshot, and AD was 3 bars at the time too. So, no, there wasn't anyone to fight until that DC group got on.

This isn't complaining against AD, I've seen all factions do this, the point is this is all of our population currently in this state of the game, so with this population, how is the argument to tell us to spread out to the 7-day valid in defense of faction locks?

Those AD that did hop over, they didn't have DC or EP to fight because both were gated. Opposite to faction loyalists, there are players who don't find any enjoyment in that gameplay.

idk

Volsers wrote: »

[/b] Faction lock will create faction loyalty, but I think that is a good thing as it creates another drive force to fight for the campaign and that also creates another reason to win other than earning AP and simply that good feeling of winning. !

I could say a lot about all the points OP mentions but this one and the first one are the weakest.

I singled this one out because it is clear OP has not been around Cyrodiil all that long or did not pay attention to the politics of Cyrodiil when there was faction lock.

The reason this point is so weak and without real meaning is back in the day alliances with guilds of other factions was even more common than it is today.

Yes, Members of one faction would help members of another faction turn the map, get emperor for them and more. What makes it even more interesting is this still happens today so it is odd OP would include this. Seems OP is thinking through their ideas for this post just as good as Zos thinks through changes to this game like CP and such.

But hey, if OP really thinks this even in light of the obvious then more power to them.

idk

DisgracefulMind wrote: »

IxSTALKERxI wrote: »

DisgracefulMind wrote: »

So the AD players who play in this timezone who don't want to faction stack and zerg should just not play?

Fight the 2 bars of DC?

Well, this screenshot was taken after DC got their little guild group on and took back some of the map - they were being gated too. This is an every night event, there is usually only 1 bar EP and DC around the time this starts happening.



DC was 1 barred until that group got on about 45 minutes before the first screenshot, and AD was 3 bars at the time too. So, no, there wasn't anyone to fight until that DC group got on.

This isn't complaining against AD, I've seen all factions do this, the point is this is all of our population currently in this state of the game, so with this population, how is the argument to tell us to spread out to the 7-day valid in defense of faction locks?

Those AD that did hop over, they didn't have DC or EP to fight because both were gated. Opposite to faction loyalists, there are players who don't find any enjoyment in that gameplay.

What campaign is this? I am expecting it is not Vivec during prime time. It would have made more sense that Zos create a second 30 day campaign (or change one of the less populated ones) to see if this change has any real affect.

Then again this change is brought to us by the same people who brought us CP with the original 3600 cap and expected the average player would reach that cap in less than 2 years. LOL

Kikke

If faction locks will be this unpopular, why do people still think that Shor will be empty?
Soooo. Stop crying. faction jumpers have wrecked Cyro PvP for everyone the last 2 years.

And to the guy above me. they set the HARD cap on CP 3600 as they NEVER TOUGHT someone would reach that. Get your facts straight -_-

idk

Kikke wrote: »

If faction locks will be this unpopular, why do people still think that Shor will be empty?
Soooo. Stop crying. faction jumpers have wrecked Cyro PvP for everyone the last 2 years.

And to the guy above me. they set the HARD cap on CP 3600 as they NEVER TOUGHT someone would reach that. Get your facts straight -_-

First, they chose to change the most popular campaign. That is what is so brainless about this trial. It does not test if people really want it. It tests if players are willing to leave the most active campaign for a dead one that has fewer rewards.

Second, not really. Zos stated they expected the average player to hit the 3600 cap in less than 2 years. I do not recall exactly how many months, but certainly less than 2 years.

If I happen to be wrong then it just shows even more how pathetic the management of this development team is. OMG, lol

Ranger209

DisgracefulMind wrote: »

IxSTALKERxI wrote: »

DisgracefulMind wrote: »

So the AD players who play in this timezone who don't want to faction stack and zerg should just not play?

Fight the 2 bars of DC?

Well, this screenshot was taken after DC got their little guild group on and took back some of the map - they were being gated too. This is an every night event, there is usually only 1 bar EP and DC around the time this starts happening.



DC was 1 barred until that group got on about 45 minutes before the first screenshot, and AD was 3 bars at the time too. So, no, there wasn't anyone to fight until that DC group got on.

This isn't complaining against AD, I've seen all factions do this, the point is this is all of our population currently in this state of the game, so with this population, how is the argument to tell us to spread out to the 7-day valid in defense of faction locks?

Those AD that did hop over, they didn't have DC or EP to fight because both were gated. Opposite to faction loyalists, there are players who don't find any enjoyment in that gameplay.

And a few hours later this is what the maps look like in spite of people having the ability to swap alliances and prevent it.
Neither faction swapping nor faction locking can account for this, but there are ways to compensate for it, multiple ways.