Revert Faction Locks. We've Been Through This Already

ellahellabella

ellahellabella wrote: »

You want to win? That's fine. But what enjoyment is there in a hollow victory because you had no one to fight?

Gonna add to this before a certain someone tries to take a shot at this target (I can already see it coming.)
I haven't pvped much this week because I've been helping my friend get her endgame guild up and going this update but when I have, things were dying quick after enough red steamrolling so I would just leave.
Sure that's one less red you have to worry about but it was once one yellow or blue you would gain in turn.

ellahellabella

Miriel wrote: »

ellahellabella wrote: »

Miriel wrote: »

ellahellabella wrote: »

Miriel wrote: »

Thogard wrote: »

bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »

Mr_Walker wrote: »

Maybe because... some of his friends are playing for different factions? Just a guess.

So? They can still all play ESO together. They'll just be fighting against each other instead of alongside each other. It's just as fun - try it.

This is the kind of violation that is the only legitimate argument for faction locks - cross alliance abuse by collusion.

But glad to see that you support it.

Now IF what you guys have said that you want to help the loosing side, lets see next month how many leave EP to help DC or AD, couse if what you been saying is true, you will help the underdog, right... for better fights and stuff, i look forward seeing you play AD !

Sorry hon, it doesn't work that way anymore.

Red is my main alliance but I would play for other factions when ep had everything in an attempt to keep the fight alive and get momentum back for blue and yellow. I would call out objectives and aid calls in zone just like I did on red.

You and folks like you decided that I wasn't playing right because I wasn't playing it YOUR way. You've tried to inspire 'loyalty' onto me and side with a colour in a video game. "FOR THE (insert virtual game monarch here)!!!"

You wanted me to make a choice and i did. I chose to stay with my friends and guildmates because that's my side.

Fashinating choise of words, why would you need to get momentum ?... your main faction is winning, unless you feel you need to take things for other sides, so EP can then again take things later, isnt that exactly what they wanted to prevent, within a "match"

At the start of each match we all have a choise... then you stick with that till next match, thats sorta the very foundation of competition... take a battleground, its esentialy just a much much smaller cyrodil, should you allow faction hopping in there also ? during a match, to give you momentum, makes no sense

I said get momentum back for Blue and Yellow.
Look you might have fun taking everything and gating your foes but I don't. When most players get gated, they log off and that just makes it harder to gain territory back for those that stay. This in turn, ends the fights and kills the server for a while.

It's no fun for the dominating faction either because there's now no one to fight and nothing to attack/defend.

You want to win? That's fine. But what enjoyment is there in a hollow victory because you had no one to fight?

Exactly, you dont solve the issue by making the campaign not matter at all, IF people know they have nothing to fight for, you will kill the server for real... a match needs a winner, people needs something to fight for, this is exactly the problem early early cyrodil battled with, when AD was so dominant, that got solved by people changes sides within the faction lock system, IF you want fun, or a healthier competition, cyrodil is 30days for a reason, its a long term fight where sides are pitted agaisnt each other...

I know we dont agree, and thats perfectly alright, it comes down to prefered playstyles, as i said earlier, wich you avoided answearing, a battleground is essintially just a much much smaller cyrodil, and for the same reason you cant allow hopping sides, during a battleground, to help or make fights more eaven, in the end, someone have to win and someone have to loose...

Yeah, you're really lost in your ideals. None of that counters my argument. In fact, the ad dominance you speak of got fixed by an ad guild faction swapping but then half of them went back due to the same conundrum that I now have. Thankfully for that time, half was all red needed but a nasty conflict came from that between 2 sides that were once friends.

Miriel

ellahellabella wrote: »

ellahellabella wrote: »

You want to win? That's fine. But what enjoyment is there in a hollow victory because you had no one to fight?

Gonna add to this before a certain someone tries to take a shot at this target (I can already see it coming.)
I haven't pvped much this week because I've been helping my friend get her endgame guild up and going this update but when I have, things were dying quick after enough red steamrolling so I would just leave.
Sure that's one less red you have to worry about but it was once one yellow or blue you would gain in turn.

Yea, and as i said that the problem, IF one side knows their there to essentially be entertainment for one side, that indiractly allways dictates the term, if people comes and helps them, so that on winning side can win and have fun, while doing it...

Flip flopping back and fourth dosent solve anything it just alinate people even more, i rather loose as a side, even if it means im getting destroyed, that happens in competition, then you go home you fix the problem, and that is to make sure the population migrate to create sides that can compete for real

Again, in dota, if a side is badly loosing, you cant have the winning side have a player move over to the loosing side, during the match... or take a yearly football league, where one team is dominating the yearly league, so the management tels the team, you have to move certain players to the other teams, so the matches get more interesting... competition dosent work like that. someone have to win and someone have to loose... and if we want new players in a already old game, we need people to feel like they fight for something, and not make the feel their content to make one factions side more interesting, i rather get crushed trying then ave the winners come help me during the campaign im getting destroyed...

ellahellabella

Miriel wrote: »

Again, in dota, if a side is badly loosing, you cant have the winning side have a player move over to the loosing side, during the match... or take a yearly football league, where one team is dominating the yearly league, so the management tels the team, you have to move certain players to the other teams, so the matches get more interesting... competition dosent work like that. someone have to win and someone have to loose... and if we want new players in a already old game, we need people to feel like they fight for something, and not make the feel their content to make one factions side more interesting, i rather get crushed trying then ave the winners come help me during the campaign im getting destroyed...

I hate when people try to use this for a case.
A game of football is both sides of 18 players. Not 20 on one side running down 2 on another.

Miriel

ellahellabella wrote: »

Miriel wrote: »

Again, in dota, if a side is badly loosing, you cant have the winning side have a player move over to the loosing side, during the match... or take a yearly football league, where one team is dominating the yearly league, so the management tels the team, you have to move certain players to the other teams, so the matches get more interesting... competition dosent work like that. someone have to win and someone have to loose... and if we want new players in a already old game, we need people to feel like they fight for something, and not make the feel their content to make one factions side more interesting, i rather get crushed trying then ave the winners come help me during the campaign im getting destroyed...

I hate when people try to use this for a case.
A game of football is both sides of 18 players. Not 20 on one side running down 2 on another.

Yea, but their still sides, there is nothing wrong with loosing, someone have to do that in competition... people win as a side, and loose as a side... then you go home, and fix things to next seasons/match/league... but you dont flipflop within a match

technohic

So we all agree it's ok to flip flop every 30 days? That's the problem. 30 days is way too long to adjust populations. Too much time for people to just quit or put up with a bad game experience.

Then if people try to adjust, who's to say too many go to another side, or disenfranchised players leave the punching bag. By the time you see how it shakes out, everyone is all locked in again for 30 days.

Jimmy_The_Fixer

Miriel wrote: »

ellahellabella wrote: »

Miriel wrote: »

Again, in dota, if a side is badly loosing, you cant have the winning side have a player move over to the loosing side, during the match... or take a yearly football league, where one team is dominating the yearly league, so the management tels the team, you have to move certain players to the other teams, so the matches get more interesting... competition dosent work like that. someone have to win and someone have to loose... and if we want new players in a already old game, we need people to feel like they fight for something, and not make the feel their content to make one factions side more interesting, i rather get crushed trying then ave the winners come help me during the campaign im getting destroyed...

I hate when people try to use this for a case.
A game of football is both sides of 18 players. Not 20 on one side running down 2 on another.

Yea, but their still sides, there is nothing wrong with loosing, someone have to do that in competition... people win as a side, and loose as a side... then you go home, and fix things to next seasons/match/league... but you dont flipflop within a match

Many games will stop the match if too many people on one side quit, or bring in new players to balance out the discrepancy. Team Fortress actually automatically swapped players from red to blue mid match if the teams were too lopsided.

Cyrodiil used to have a system for preventing lopsided shutouts by allowing players to self-correct the population imbalance.

Haashhtaag

technohic wrote: »

So we all agree it's ok to flip flop every 30 days? That's the problem. 30 days is way too long to adjust populations. Too much time for people to just quit or put up with a bad game experience.

Then if people try to adjust, who's to say too many go to another side, or disenfranchised players leave the punching bag. By the time you see how it shakes out, everyone is all locked in again for 30 days.

What’s going to happen is casuals will see one faction dominating and join said faction after 30 days. Pops willl diminish for other factions.

ellahellabella

Haashhtaag wrote: »

technohic wrote: »

So we all agree it's ok to flip flop every 30 days? That's the problem. 30 days is way too long to adjust populations. Too much time for people to just quit or put up with a bad game experience.

Then if people try to adjust, who's to say too many go to another side, or disenfranchised players leave the punching bag. By the time you see how it shakes out, everyone is all locked in again for 30 days.

What’s going to happen is casuals will see one faction dominating and join said faction after 30 days. Pops willl diminish for other factions.

Preeeeeety much what happened last time so yeah.

bulbousb16_ESO

Haashhtaag wrote: »

What’s going to happen is casuals will see one faction dominating and join said faction after 30 days. Pops willl diminish for other factions.

So far, this whole "imbalance" thing isn't playing out. Things look pretty even. EP has a good lead, but not a crushing one.

technohic

Haashhtaag wrote: »

technohic wrote: »

So we all agree it's ok to flip flop every 30 days? That's the problem. 30 days is way too long to adjust populations. Too much time for people to just quit or put up with a bad game experience.

Then if people try to adjust, who's to say too many go to another side, or disenfranchised players leave the punching bag. By the time you see how it shakes out, everyone is all locked in again for 30 days.

What’s going to happen is casuals will see one faction dominating and join said faction after 30 days. Pops willl diminish for other factions.

That's what I suspect after logging in Sunday night to see AD and EP both with about half the map each and DC only having 2 home keeps, no scroll, yet a proud EP guild balled up farming the tri keep rather than fighting for the other half the map they didn't have.

Players dont realize that even if they are good at something, doesn't mean they're not still trash.

Sandman929

All of my toons are DC, and when I have time to play it's in a DC only guild. While I don't particularly care about the payoff for winning a campaign and realized a long time ago that the 18 hours outside of prime time NA are what decides a victor, we still like playing objectives primarily.
I do it because that's how I enjoy the game, not because I feel it's my duty to tell everyone else that they must do the same.
At first, I was happy with the idea of locked factions because, on paper, it looks like that should promote some faction pride, cooperation, hand-holding and singing together and all that good stuff, but it won't.
Because I have only DC characters, the lock doesn't effect me negatively. I can easily home the 30 day locked campaign and play whichever character I like. Yay for me, but what I giant slap in the face to many other people after years without locks, now telling them that they can only use a half or a quarter of their characters in the most populated campaign. And an even bigger kick in the crotch to non-CP players who only have the faction locked option.
Maybe the 7 days will get busier outside of prime time, and there will be a place for everyone, but that's a big stretch.

Chances are, the lock also doesn't even help me, the faction loyal player, if it does nothing to alleviate prime time lag in the 30 day. I still won't be able to play there, since I only play during prime time and I don't like spending half my night in a queue and the other half disconnecting.

This is a one dimensional, simple "fix" by ZOS...again. Locking the 7 day would have been a much better way to go. Putting some thought into not screwing over so many people, and applying some of the many ideas from the playerbase such as choosing an alliance for all of your characters at the start of a campaign, or offering a way to switch character alliance would have been even better, but that's just way too much work for them.

jaws343

bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »

Haashhtaag wrote: »

Sport doesn’t matter, I proved your theory wrong so move goal post all you want.

Your source, while not on point regarding the NFL, completely bears out my claim. If you feel it refutes me, please show me where in any of those examples a player played on both teams in a single game.

Again, a "game" in a campaign is more like a scoring eval. The campaign is a season. And the only reason sports metaphors are being tossed around is because faction lockers claim that changing teams isn't possible in them, like they've never followed sports.

bulbousb16_ESO

jaws343 wrote: »

Again, a "game" in a campaign is more like a scoring eval. The campaign is a season. And the only reason sports metaphors are being tossed around is because faction lockers claim that changing teams isn't possible in them, like they've never followed sports.

A game in an ESO campaign is not like a scoring tick. That is absurd. The scoring continues after a scoring tick. It does not reset to zero, as any single game would.

A "game" is more like a 30-day (or 7 day) cycle in which points are accumulated and a winner determined, then the points reset to zero.

I must admit to a mistake in my point about players "switching sides". What I meant by that phrase was players playing on both sides of a contest. Clearly, players can switch teams in the middle of a contest, but they CAN NOT PLAY for their new team, as they do in ESO. Which is the relevant point.

Haashhtaag

bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »

jaws343 wrote: »

Again, a "game" in a campaign is more like a scoring eval. The campaign is a season. And the only reason sports metaphors are being tossed around is because faction lockers claim that changing teams isn't possible in them, like they've never followed sports.

A game in an ESO campaign is not like a scoring tick. That is absurd. The scoring continues after a scoring tick. It does not reset to zero, as any single game would.

A "game" is more like a 30-day (or 7 day) cycle in which points are accumulated and a winner determined, then the points reset to zero.

I must admit to a mistake in my point about players "switching sides". What I meant by that phrase was players playing on both sides of a contest. Clearly, players can switch teams in the middle of a contest, but they CAN NOT PLAY for their new team, as they do in ESO. Which is the relevant point.

Lol no.

A “game” is your play daily or however often you play pvp.

The “season” would be 30 days or the duration of the campaign you play in.

bulbousb16_ESO

Haashhtaag wrote: »

Lol no.

A “game” is your play daily or however often you play pvp.

The “season” would be 30 days or the duration of the campaign you play in.

Oh, so the game stops and resets when I am done playing? And then starts anew when I log in again?

It does not. The score continues to increase, and the map stays the same. It continues until the end of the game, at which point the scores are totaled and a winner is decided. Then the board is reset and the game begins anew. This can't be that complicated for you?

Dutchessx

I want to say very well put OP. I have close friends who only play the 30 day No CP server. I can’t play with because they decided to play EP. This normally wouldn’t be a problem for me since I am EP. However, since my guild I was helping with is taking a break, I was guildless and started playing with some people on DC. Now my friends are back but now I can’t play with them. My friends on EP take a lot of breaks but I love playing with them. You tell me how do I decide who I play with without hurt feelings somewhere or ending up with no one to play with? It is a big catch 22, that wouldn’t have been an issue but....

Oh wait faction locks!

#FreeNoCP

bulbousb16_ESO

Dutchessx wrote: »

You tell me how do I decide who I play with without hurt feelings somewhere or ending up with no one to play with?

An honest, constructive suggestion - why not play with one group on Kaalgrontiid and the other on Bahlokdaan ?

Dutchessx

bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »

Dutchessx wrote: »

You tell me how do I decide who I play with without hurt feelings somewhere or ending up with no one to play with?

An honest, constructive suggestion - why not play with one group on Kaalgrontiid and the other on Bahlokdaan ?

No CP - everyone I play with prefers no cp. If a 7day no cp server had come to fruition that was the plan. Instead I had to choose to play with people I had come to enjoy playing with during their last break or I would spend at a minimum of 5 days a week solo’ing in Cyrodiil.

bulbousb16_ESO

Dutchessx wrote: »

No CP - everyone I play with prefers no cp. If a 7day no cp server had come to fruition that was the plan.

I get that you prefer no-CP and you would still play on one no-CP server. But why not play with one group on the CP server? I can understand you may want to if your people are mostly no over very-low CP. But if you are mid to high CP, it is definitely the more enjoyable campaign - mostly because of the population levels.

Dutchessx

bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »

Dutchessx wrote: »

No CP - everyone I play with prefers no cp. If a 7day no cp server had come to fruition that was the plan.

I get that you prefer no-CP and you would still play on one no-CP server. But why not play with one group on the CP server? I can understand you may want to if your people are mostly no over very-low CP. But if you are mid to high CP, it is definitely the more enjoyable campaign - mostly because of the population levels.

I have played since prelaunch, I have 2 maxed level GO’s several lower to high level AR ranked EP. My friends also have several high or maxed AR ranked toons. We play no cp for various reasons. My personally is my internet can’t handle the lag on the 30 day cp server, this restricts me to playing less laggy servers. I also enjoy the challenges that no cp presents.

bulbousb16_ESO

Dutchessx wrote: »

We play no cp for various reasons. My personally is my internet can’t handle the lag on the 30 day cp server, this restricts me to playing less laggy servers.

Hmmmm.... you've got me there. I was expecting you to cite competitive reasons. But performance reasons are fair and understandable. On that point, though, there is the less-populated 7-day CP campaign.

Elong

bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »

Dutchessx wrote: »

We play no cp for various reasons. My personally is my internet can’t handle the lag on the 30 day cp server, this restricts me to playing less laggy servers.

Hmmmm.... you've got me there. I was expecting you to cite competitive reasons. But performance reasons are fair and understandable. On that point, though, there is the less-populated 7-day CP campaign.

Or you could just let people play how they want?

Haashhtaag

Literally shor

Sandman929

Elong wrote: »

bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »

Dutchessx wrote: »

We play no cp for various reasons. My personally is my internet can’t handle the lag on the 30 day cp server, this restricts me to playing less laggy servers.

Hmmmm.... you've got me there. I was expecting you to cite competitive reasons. But performance reasons are fair and understandable. On that point, though, there is the less-populated 7-day CP campaign.

Or you could just let people play how they want?

After 18 pages here and countless others in similar posts, I think we can all agree that none of us decided on this change.

NBrookus

bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »

Dutchessx wrote: »

No CP - everyone I play with prefers no cp. If a 7day no cp server had come to fruition that was the plan.

I get that you prefer no-CP and you would still play on one no-CP server. But why not play with one group on the CP server? I can understand you may want to if your people are mostly no over very-low CP. But if you are mid to high CP, it is definitely the more enjoyable campaign - mostly because of the population levels.

Because that group isn't going to play on the CP server? This isn't a tough concept unless you are just sealioning.

Being put in a position where groups now have to negotiate who plays with whom on what where means a lot of people don't get what they want. If Guild Blue and Guild Red both decide no CP, players with toons in both get to play with half their friends.

It's like having two nieces with weddings on the same morning.

bulbousb16_ESO

Haashhtaag wrote: »

Literally shor

Yep. Shor is closed, so no one is there. Nice pic, though.

Miriel

Haashhtaag wrote: »

Literally shor

Personally if they had done the locks the oposite way, i and many others would been on shor now, and im fairly sure that would include a rather big chunk of the ep and ad... and considering a rather big dc streamer, probably a rather big chunk of dc also...

I dont care what server i get, but im not setting my foot in a server without locks, i rather unsub and go play classic wow, when it comes lol...

bulbousb16_ESO

Elong wrote: »

Why do you only list "Daggerfall Covenant" in your footnote? Are you ashamed of not being 100% loyal to your King?

That was from five years ago.

ZOS_Ragnar

We have removed some posts that were not constructive and disrupted the discussion. Please try to keep your posts civil and on topic.