Maintenance for the week of November 18:
[IN PROGRESS] PlayStation®: EU megaserver for maintenance – November 19, 23:00 UTC (6:00PM EST) - November 20, 17:00 UTC (12:00PM EST) https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/668861
[IN PROGRESS] PlayStation®: EU megaserver for maintenance – November 19, 23:00 UTC (6:00PM EST) - November 20, 17:00 UTC (12:00PM EST) https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/668861
Revert Faction Locks. We've Been Through This Already
-
Miriel✭✭✭✭Sandman929 wrote: »As I've said before, I've only got DC characters, so I'm immune to faction locks changes. However, I also hate playing in ridiculous lag and disconnects, so I don't currently play the 30 (even though I home it) on console, and I'm not sure if I'll be able to after the console update either.
So the faction lock stuff potentially won't even do me a favor, as a faction loyal player, because the problem for me is the dog-piling on one campaign during NA prime time that makes it a chore to get in and play and a headache to play once I'm in.
Is there even a way to make this right for everyone? Some faction loyal players want their preference to apply to the game as a whole. For me that makes sense because the game is a AvAvA when it comes to Cyrodiil, and I'm not a big fan of part time allies. ZOS removed enforced faction loyalty from Cyrodiil a long time ago, and it is incredibly unfair to backtrack on that with no recourse for those that embraced it.
No CP players have no options.
CP players who multifaction have no options that they like.
It seems like only single faction players are getting the clean end of the stick, but even that's debatable because I am a single faction player and I'll likely be in the same boat I'm in right now pre-Elsweyr; homing a campaign I can't play in during primetime.
They havent back tracked on it, locked cmapaigns is for people that want it, there is a unlocked campaign that aprantly there is no interest in, if people actualy played it, ZOS add other options ?1 -
Sandman929✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Sandman929 wrote: »As I've said before, I've only got DC characters, so I'm immune to faction locks changes. However, I also hate playing in ridiculous lag and disconnects, so I don't currently play the 30 (even though I home it) on console, and I'm not sure if I'll be able to after the console update either.
So the faction lock stuff potentially won't even do me a favor, as a faction loyal player, because the problem for me is the dog-piling on one campaign during NA prime time that makes it a chore to get in and play and a headache to play once I'm in.
Is there even a way to make this right for everyone? Some faction loyal players want their preference to apply to the game as a whole. For me that makes sense because the game is a AvAvA when it comes to Cyrodiil, and I'm not a big fan of part time allies. ZOS removed enforced faction loyalty from Cyrodiil a long time ago, and it is incredibly unfair to backtrack on that with no recourse for those that embraced it.
No CP players have no options.
CP players who multifaction have no options that they like.
It seems like only single faction players are getting the clean end of the stick, but even that's debatable because I am a single faction player and I'll likely be in the same boat I'm in right now pre-Elsweyr; homing a campaign I can't play in during primetime.
They havent back tracked on it, locked cmapaigns is for people that want it, there is a unlocked campaign that aprantly there is no interest in, if people actualy played it, ZOS add other options ?
But they've raised concerns about population in the off-peak times. Sorry, but I'm not going to hop on the "they're all just a lying and whining bunch of cheaters" bandwagon. I play the 7 day on Xbox, and since I play only during peak hours, it works out just fine for me and there's always a good fight, but when I get a chance to play off peak times, they're absolutely right that the campaign is dull as dirt. Usually it's one faction with an oppressively large group flipping the map against very few scattered defenders.
1 -
Miriel✭✭✭✭Sandman929 wrote: »Sandman929 wrote: »As I've said before, I've only got DC characters, so I'm immune to faction locks changes. However, I also hate playing in ridiculous lag and disconnects, so I don't currently play the 30 (even though I home it) on console, and I'm not sure if I'll be able to after the console update either.
So the faction lock stuff potentially won't even do me a favor, as a faction loyal player, because the problem for me is the dog-piling on one campaign during NA prime time that makes it a chore to get in and play and a headache to play once I'm in.
Is there even a way to make this right for everyone? Some faction loyal players want their preference to apply to the game as a whole. For me that makes sense because the game is a AvAvA when it comes to Cyrodiil, and I'm not a big fan of part time allies. ZOS removed enforced faction loyalty from Cyrodiil a long time ago, and it is incredibly unfair to backtrack on that with no recourse for those that embraced it.
No CP players have no options.
CP players who multifaction have no options that they like.
It seems like only single faction players are getting the clean end of the stick, but even that's debatable because I am a single faction player and I'll likely be in the same boat I'm in right now pre-Elsweyr; homing a campaign I can't play in during primetime.
They havent back tracked on it, locked cmapaigns is for people that want it, there is a unlocked campaign that aprantly there is no interest in, if people actualy played it, ZOS add other options ?
But they've raised concerns about population in the off-peak times. Sorry, but I'm not going to hop on the "they're all just a lying and whining bunch of cheaters" bandwagon. I play the 7 day on Xbox, and since I play only during peak hours, it works out just fine for me and there's always a good fight, but when I get a chance to play off peak times, they're absolutely right that the campaign is dull as dirt. Usually it's one faction with an oppressively large group flipping the map against very few scattered defenders.
you want a non-faction less, then wouldent it be good to show ZOS that people will actually play it... you say yourself its deserted... why is that ?1 -
Sandman929✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Sandman929 wrote: »Sandman929 wrote: »As I've said before, I've only got DC characters, so I'm immune to faction locks changes. However, I also hate playing in ridiculous lag and disconnects, so I don't currently play the 30 (even though I home it) on console, and I'm not sure if I'll be able to after the console update either.
So the faction lock stuff potentially won't even do me a favor, as a faction loyal player, because the problem for me is the dog-piling on one campaign during NA prime time that makes it a chore to get in and play and a headache to play once I'm in.
Is there even a way to make this right for everyone? Some faction loyal players want their preference to apply to the game as a whole. For me that makes sense because the game is a AvAvA when it comes to Cyrodiil, and I'm not a big fan of part time allies. ZOS removed enforced faction loyalty from Cyrodiil a long time ago, and it is incredibly unfair to backtrack on that with no recourse for those that embraced it.
No CP players have no options.
CP players who multifaction have no options that they like.
It seems like only single faction players are getting the clean end of the stick, but even that's debatable because I am a single faction player and I'll likely be in the same boat I'm in right now pre-Elsweyr; homing a campaign I can't play in during primetime.
They havent back tracked on it, locked cmapaigns is for people that want it, there is a unlocked campaign that aprantly there is no interest in, if people actualy played it, ZOS add other options ?
But they've raised concerns about population in the off-peak times. Sorry, but I'm not going to hop on the "they're all just a lying and whining bunch of cheaters" bandwagon. I play the 7 day on Xbox, and since I play only during peak hours, it works out just fine for me and there's always a good fight, but when I get a chance to play off peak times, they're absolutely right that the campaign is dull as dirt. Usually it's one faction with an oppressively large group flipping the map against very few scattered defenders.
you want a non-faction less, then wouldent it be good to show ZOS that people will actually play it... you say yourself its deserted... why is that ?
I don't know, I don't play often during off peak times. I can only go by what other people are saying the issues are.0 -
technohic✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Sandman929 wrote: »Sandman929 wrote: »As I've said before, I've only got DC characters, so I'm immune to faction locks changes. However, I also hate playing in ridiculous lag and disconnects, so I don't currently play the 30 (even though I home it) on console, and I'm not sure if I'll be able to after the console update either.
So the faction lock stuff potentially won't even do me a favor, as a faction loyal player, because the problem for me is the dog-piling on one campaign during NA prime time that makes it a chore to get in and play and a headache to play once I'm in.
Is there even a way to make this right for everyone? Some faction loyal players want their preference to apply to the game as a whole. For me that makes sense because the game is a AvAvA when it comes to Cyrodiil, and I'm not a big fan of part time allies. ZOS removed enforced faction loyalty from Cyrodiil a long time ago, and it is incredibly unfair to backtrack on that with no recourse for those that embraced it.
No CP players have no options.
CP players who multifaction have no options that they like.
It seems like only single faction players are getting the clean end of the stick, but even that's debatable because I am a single faction player and I'll likely be in the same boat I'm in right now pre-Elsweyr; homing a campaign I can't play in during primetime.
They havent back tracked on it, locked cmapaigns is for people that want it, there is a unlocked campaign that aprantly there is no interest in, if people actualy played it, ZOS add other options ?
But they've raised concerns about population in the off-peak times. Sorry, but I'm not going to hop on the "they're all just a lying and whining bunch of cheaters" bandwagon. I play the 7 day on Xbox, and since I play only during peak hours, it works out just fine for me and there's always a good fight, but when I get a chance to play off peak times, they're absolutely right that the campaign is dull as dirt. Usually it's one faction with an oppressively large group flipping the map against very few scattered defenders.
you want a non-faction less, then wouldent it be good to show ZOS that people will actually play it... you say yourself its deserted... why is that ?
Because its 7 day. Was deserted before1 -
Miriel✭✭✭✭Sandman929 wrote: »Sandman929 wrote: »As I've said before, I've only got DC characters, so I'm immune to faction locks changes. However, I also hate playing in ridiculous lag and disconnects, so I don't currently play the 30 (even though I home it) on console, and I'm not sure if I'll be able to after the console update either.
So the faction lock stuff potentially won't even do me a favor, as a faction loyal player, because the problem for me is the dog-piling on one campaign during NA prime time that makes it a chore to get in and play and a headache to play once I'm in.
Is there even a way to make this right for everyone? Some faction loyal players want their preference to apply to the game as a whole. For me that makes sense because the game is a AvAvA when it comes to Cyrodiil, and I'm not a big fan of part time allies. ZOS removed enforced faction loyalty from Cyrodiil a long time ago, and it is incredibly unfair to backtrack on that with no recourse for those that embraced it.
No CP players have no options.
CP players who multifaction have no options that they like.
It seems like only single faction players are getting the clean end of the stick, but even that's debatable because I am a single faction player and I'll likely be in the same boat I'm in right now pre-Elsweyr; homing a campaign I can't play in during primetime.
They havent back tracked on it, locked cmapaigns is for people that want it, there is a unlocked campaign that aprantly there is no interest in, if people actualy played it, ZOS add other options ?
But they've raised concerns about population in the off-peak times. Sorry, but I'm not going to hop on the "they're all just a lying and whining bunch of cheaters" bandwagon. I play the 7 day on Xbox, and since I play only during peak hours, it works out just fine for me and there's always a good fight, but when I get a chance to play off peak times, they're absolutely right that the campaign is dull as dirt. Usually it's one faction with an oppressively large group flipping the map against very few scattered defenders.
you want a non-faction less, then wouldent it be good to show ZOS that people will actually play it... you say yourself its deserted... why is that ?
Because its 7 day. Was deserted before
seen bars there before, but still, wouldent it show ZOS there is a interest for non-locked if people actually played there ?... if you want non-locked and still play on the locked, you ae essentially saying its not a problem... couse you have alternative
To me it reads you want to firstly play with people, faction locks is just a secondary issue... Id allways go to the locked camapign, couse i dont wantto play with flip floppers and so do alot of other players...Edited by Miriel on 3 June 2019 14:381 -
technohic✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭It's always been that way because people want to go where the action is and the 7 days are the campaign where faction flipping and EMP swapping has really been possible.
So it proves that faction swappers are not the people wanting to flip maps y'all claim them to be.1 -
Miriel✭✭✭✭It's always been that way because people want to go where the action is and the 7 days are the campaign where faction flipping and EMP swapping has really been possible.
So it proves that faction swappers are not the people wanting to flip maps y'all claim them to be.
It also prove that people could go to a non-locked campaign if it was important to them, but they dont so aparantly it isnt important... i am playing on the faction locked camppaign, cosue thats important to me...
we dident have a choise before, we do now !Edited by Miriel on 3 June 2019 14:582 -
jaws343✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭It's always been that way because people want to go where the action is and the 7 days are the campaign where faction flipping and EMP swapping has really been possible.
So it proves that faction swappers are not the people wanting to flip maps y'all claim them to be.
It also prove that people could go to a non-locked campaign if it was important to them, but they dont so aparantly it isnt important... i am playing on the faction locked camppaign, cosue thats important to me...
we dident have a choise before, we do now !
There are not enough players in this game who PVP to have a healthy population across two campaigns. Locks have nothing to do with one campaign being empty. What part of that do you not understand? The current lock system doesn't prove anything for faction locks. All it shows is that players who do not care either way will pick the path of least resistance, i.e. the first campaign on the list. And that players want to play in a campaign where there are actual players, which ends up being that first campaign, due to point 1. Once those two points are taken into account, the only campaign that gets a healthy population is the first campaign. Regardless of locks.
The only thing faction lock does is exacerbate the off peak map flipping and further drive players away when their faction has an insurmountable deficit in points or when they are constantly gate camped and unable to do anything but be farmed by a "winning" faction. Or they are a member of said "winning" faction and are tired of gate farming with the rest of the faction loyalists who think that is skill.2 -
bulbousb16_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭
Faction locks have absolutely nothing to do with the off-peak issues. In addition, this whole "gate camped and unable to do anything but be farmed by a 'winning' faction" is nothing more than a fable.The only thing faction lock does is exacerbate the off peak map flipping and further drive players away when their faction has an insurmountable deficit in points or when they are constantly gate camped and unable to do anything but be farmed by a "winning" faction. Or they are a member of said "winning" faction and are tired of gate farming with the rest of the faction loyalists who think that is skill.
Lethal zergling2 -
Miriel✭✭✭✭It's always been that way because people want to go where the action is and the 7 days are the campaign where faction flipping and EMP swapping has really been possible.
So it proves that faction swappers are not the people wanting to flip maps y'all claim them to be.
It also prove that people could go to a non-locked campaign if it was important to them, but they dont so aparantly it isnt important... i am playing on the faction locked camppaign, cosue thats important to me...
we dident have a choise before, we do now !
There are not enough players in this game who PVP to have a healthy population across two campaigns. Locks have nothing to do with one campaign being empty. What part of that do you not understand? The current lock system doesn't prove anything for faction locks. All it shows is that players who do not care either way will pick the path of least resistance, i.e. the first campaign on the list. And that players want to play in a campaign where there are actual players, which ends up being that first campaign, due to point 1. Once those two points are taken into account, the only campaign that gets a healthy population is the first campaign. Regardless of locks.
The only thing faction lock does is exacerbate the off peak map flipping and further drive players away when their faction has an insurmountable deficit in points or when they are constantly gate camped and unable to do anything but be farmed by a "winning" faction. Or they are a member of said "winning" faction and are tired of gate farming with the rest of the faction loyalists who think that is skill.
Prove it ?
would play on a faction locked campaign regardless, and so does alot of other people... and the mere notion that people are choosing the locked camapign is proof in itself, again yes i cna only speak for myself, but some of you that want to flip flop, dosent even play on the non-locked, that says alot... clearly it isnt important to you1 -
jaws343✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭It's always been that way because people want to go where the action is and the 7 days are the campaign where faction flipping and EMP swapping has really been possible.
So it proves that faction swappers are not the people wanting to flip maps y'all claim them to be.
It also prove that people could go to a non-locked campaign if it was important to them, but they dont so aparantly it isnt important... i am playing on the faction locked camppaign, cosue thats important to me...
we dident have a choise before, we do now !
There are not enough players in this game who PVP to have a healthy population across two campaigns. Locks have nothing to do with one campaign being empty. What part of that do you not understand? The current lock system doesn't prove anything for faction locks. All it shows is that players who do not care either way will pick the path of least resistance, i.e. the first campaign on the list. And that players want to play in a campaign where there are actual players, which ends up being that first campaign, due to point 1. Once those two points are taken into account, the only campaign that gets a healthy population is the first campaign. Regardless of locks.
The only thing faction lock does is exacerbate the off peak map flipping and further drive players away when their faction has an insurmountable deficit in points or when they are constantly gate camped and unable to do anything but be farmed by a "winning" faction. Or they are a member of said "winning" faction and are tired of gate farming with the rest of the faction loyalists who think that is skill.
Prove it ?
would play on a faction locked campaign regardless, and so does alot of other people... and the mere notion that people are choosing the locked camapign is proof in itself, again yes i cna only speak for myself, but some of you that want to flip flop, dosent even play on the non-locked, that says alot... clearly it isnt important to you
Again, as every single person has said, people want to play in campaigns that actually have a population to fight. Why? because real PVP players don't want to fight empty keeps. They actually want to fight players. So they are forced to play in the locked campaigns to find fights. Because, again, players gravitate to the first option. So, maybe you prove the opposite, because you keep touting nonsense with zero proof.
And, to be clear, I have 15 EP characters. I think faction lock is dumb and will only further ruin pvp in this game. Because players like you think that winning the campaign is more important than actually having healthy PVP. People like you would rather take every keep in a campaign and force the other factions to quit if it meant that your precious faction score is greater at the end of the campaign.1 -
Miriel✭✭✭✭It's always been that way because people want to go where the action is and the 7 days are the campaign where faction flipping and EMP swapping has really been possible.
So it proves that faction swappers are not the people wanting to flip maps y'all claim them to be.
It also prove that people could go to a non-locked campaign if it was important to them, but they dont so aparantly it isnt important... i am playing on the faction locked camppaign, cosue thats important to me...
we dident have a choise before, we do now !
There are not enough players in this game who PVP to have a healthy population across two campaigns. Locks have nothing to do with one campaign being empty. What part of that do you not understand? The current lock system doesn't prove anything for faction locks. All it shows is that players who do not care either way will pick the path of least resistance, i.e. the first campaign on the list. And that players want to play in a campaign where there are actual players, which ends up being that first campaign, due to point 1. Once those two points are taken into account, the only campaign that gets a healthy population is the first campaign. Regardless of locks.
The only thing faction lock does is exacerbate the off peak map flipping and further drive players away when their faction has an insurmountable deficit in points or when they are constantly gate camped and unable to do anything but be farmed by a "winning" faction. Or they are a member of said "winning" faction and are tired of gate farming with the rest of the faction loyalists who think that is skill.
Prove it ?
would play on a faction locked campaign regardless, and so does alot of other people... and the mere notion that people are choosing the locked camapign is proof in itself, again yes i cna only speak for myself, but some of you that want to flip flop, dosent even play on the non-locked, that says alot... clearly it isnt important to you
Again, as every single person has said, people want to play in campaigns that actually have a population to fight. Why? because real PVP players don't want to fight empty keeps. They actually want to fight players. So they are forced to play in the locked campaigns to find fights. Because, again, players gravitate to the first option. So, maybe you prove the opposite, because you keep touting nonsense with zero proof.
And, to be clear, I have 15 EP characters. I think faction lock is dumb and will only further ruin pvp in this game. Because players like you think that winning the campaign is more important than actually having healthy PVP. People like you would rather take every keep in a campaign and force the other factions to quit if it meant that your precious faction score is greater at the end of the campaign.
yes, in pvp, having a player/enemy/faction to fight is essential... its why i want pvp to matter, and campaigns to be locked, untill they finish, like bgs, a groups fight it out and at the end a side wins, and you can change stuff/people/builds... and we have at it again...
Faction locks is there for people that firstly want faction locks... if you truely wanted non locked campaigns, you take all those people and g to the nonlocked... but as i said, you dont want to, you want to flip flip and farm people when and where it suits you the most, sorry not in a faction locked camapign...
you have a choise2 -
Rianai✭✭✭✭✭
✭It's always been that way because people want to go where the action is and the 7 days are the campaign where faction flipping and EMP swapping has really been possible.
So it proves that faction swappers are not the people wanting to flip maps y'all claim them to be.
It also prove that people could go to a non-locked campaign if it was important to them, but they dont so aparantly it isnt important... i am playing on the faction locked camppaign, cosue thats important to me...
we dident have a choise before, we do now !
There are not enough players in this game who PVP to have a healthy population across two campaigns. Locks have nothing to do with one campaign being empty. What part of that do you not understand? The current lock system doesn't prove anything for faction locks. All it shows is that players who do not care either way will pick the path of least resistance, i.e. the first campaign on the list. And that players want to play in a campaign where there are actual players, which ends up being that first campaign, due to point 1. Once those two points are taken into account, the only campaign that gets a healthy population is the first campaign. Regardless of locks.
The only thing faction lock does is exacerbate the off peak map flipping and further drive players away when their faction has an insurmountable deficit in points or when they are constantly gate camped and unable to do anything but be farmed by a "winning" faction. Or they are a member of said "winning" faction and are tired of gate farming with the rest of the faction loyalists who think that is skill.
Prove it ?
would play on a faction locked campaign regardless, and so does alot of other people... and the mere notion that people are choosing the locked camapign is proof in itself, again yes i cna only speak for myself, but some of you that want to flip flop, dosent even play on the non-locked, that says alot... clearly it isnt important to you
So you don't actually care about good PvP and just want faction locks for the sake of it. Then why should anyone who cares about PvP take your opinion serious?
There is only one reasonable argument for faction locks and that's to prevent AP farming/emp trading on a dead campaign - which only happened on the 7-day campaign if it happened at all. So if anything, they should have locked this one and keep the 30-day campaigns unlocked. As it is implemented now, it doesn't make sense at all.8 -
jaws343✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭It's always been that way because people want to go where the action is and the 7 days are the campaign where faction flipping and EMP swapping has really been possible.
So it proves that faction swappers are not the people wanting to flip maps y'all claim them to be.
It also prove that people could go to a non-locked campaign if it was important to them, but they dont so aparantly it isnt important... i am playing on the faction locked camppaign, cosue thats important to me...
we dident have a choise before, we do now !
There are not enough players in this game who PVP to have a healthy population across two campaigns. Locks have nothing to do with one campaign being empty. What part of that do you not understand? The current lock system doesn't prove anything for faction locks. All it shows is that players who do not care either way will pick the path of least resistance, i.e. the first campaign on the list. And that players want to play in a campaign where there are actual players, which ends up being that first campaign, due to point 1. Once those two points are taken into account, the only campaign that gets a healthy population is the first campaign. Regardless of locks.
The only thing faction lock does is exacerbate the off peak map flipping and further drive players away when their faction has an insurmountable deficit in points or when they are constantly gate camped and unable to do anything but be farmed by a "winning" faction. Or they are a member of said "winning" faction and are tired of gate farming with the rest of the faction loyalists who think that is skill.
Prove it ?
would play on a faction locked campaign regardless, and so does alot of other people... and the mere notion that people are choosing the locked camapign is proof in itself, again yes i cna only speak for myself, but some of you that want to flip flop, dosent even play on the non-locked, that says alot... clearly it isnt important to you
Again, as every single person has said, people want to play in campaigns that actually have a population to fight. Why? because real PVP players don't want to fight empty keeps. They actually want to fight players. So they are forced to play in the locked campaigns to find fights. Because, again, players gravitate to the first option. So, maybe you prove the opposite, because you keep touting nonsense with zero proof.
And, to be clear, I have 15 EP characters. I think faction lock is dumb and will only further ruin pvp in this game. Because players like you think that winning the campaign is more important than actually having healthy PVP. People like you would rather take every keep in a campaign and force the other factions to quit if it meant that your precious faction score is greater at the end of the campaign.
yes, in pvp, having a player/enemy/faction to fight is essential... its why i want pvp to matter, and campaigns to be locked, untill they finish, like bgs, a groups fight it out and at the end a side wins, and you can change stuff/people/builds... and we have at it again...
Faction locks is there for people that firstly want faction locks... if you truely wanted non locked campaigns, you take all those people and g to the nonlocked... but as i said, you dont want to, you want to flip flip and farm people when and where it suits you the most, sorry not in a faction locked camapign...
you have a choise
There are more players who do not care either way than there are who want faction lock and who do not want faction lock combined. There will never be enough players to populate two campaigns in a healthy manner. If a 30 day non locked campaign was listed first in a list of campaigns, it would be the highest populated campaign and the second, locked campaign would be a ghost town. Path of least resistance.1 -
Miriel✭✭✭✭It's always been that way because people want to go where the action is and the 7 days are the campaign where faction flipping and EMP swapping has really been possible.
So it proves that faction swappers are not the people wanting to flip maps y'all claim them to be.
It also prove that people could go to a non-locked campaign if it was important to them, but they dont so aparantly it isnt important... i am playing on the faction locked camppaign, cosue thats important to me...
we dident have a choise before, we do now !
There are not enough players in this game who PVP to have a healthy population across two campaigns. Locks have nothing to do with one campaign being empty. What part of that do you not understand? The current lock system doesn't prove anything for faction locks. All it shows is that players who do not care either way will pick the path of least resistance, i.e. the first campaign on the list. And that players want to play in a campaign where there are actual players, which ends up being that first campaign, due to point 1. Once those two points are taken into account, the only campaign that gets a healthy population is the first campaign. Regardless of locks.
The only thing faction lock does is exacerbate the off peak map flipping and further drive players away when their faction has an insurmountable deficit in points or when they are constantly gate camped and unable to do anything but be farmed by a "winning" faction. Or they are a member of said "winning" faction and are tired of gate farming with the rest of the faction loyalists who think that is skill.
Prove it ?
would play on a faction locked campaign regardless, and so does alot of other people... and the mere notion that people are choosing the locked camapign is proof in itself, again yes i cna only speak for myself, but some of you that want to flip flop, dosent even play on the non-locked, that says alot... clearly it isnt important to you
So you don't actually care about good PvP and just want faction locks for the sake of it. Then why should anyone who cares about PvP take your opinion serious?
There is only one reasonable argument for faction locks and that's to prevent AP farming/emp trading on a dead campaign - which only happened on the 7-day campaign if it happened at all. So if anything, they should have locked this one and keep the 30-day campaigns unlocked. As it is implemented now, it doesn't make sense at all.
couse you dont switch sides in the middle of something, that be like saying you could change side when you loose in a bg and yoin the winning side... is brilliantly stupid...2 -
Miriel✭✭✭✭It's always been that way because people want to go where the action is and the 7 days are the campaign where faction flipping and EMP swapping has really been possible.
So it proves that faction swappers are not the people wanting to flip maps y'all claim them to be.
It also prove that people could go to a non-locked campaign if it was important to them, but they dont so aparantly it isnt important... i am playing on the faction locked camppaign, cosue thats important to me...
we dident have a choise before, we do now !
There are not enough players in this game who PVP to have a healthy population across two campaigns. Locks have nothing to do with one campaign being empty. What part of that do you not understand? The current lock system doesn't prove anything for faction locks. All it shows is that players who do not care either way will pick the path of least resistance, i.e. the first campaign on the list. And that players want to play in a campaign where there are actual players, which ends up being that first campaign, due to point 1. Once those two points are taken into account, the only campaign that gets a healthy population is the first campaign. Regardless of locks.
The only thing faction lock does is exacerbate the off peak map flipping and further drive players away when their faction has an insurmountable deficit in points or when they are constantly gate camped and unable to do anything but be farmed by a "winning" faction. Or they are a member of said "winning" faction and are tired of gate farming with the rest of the faction loyalists who think that is skill.
Prove it ?
would play on a faction locked campaign regardless, and so does alot of other people... and the mere notion that people are choosing the locked camapign is proof in itself, again yes i cna only speak for myself, but some of you that want to flip flop, dosent even play on the non-locked, that says alot... clearly it isnt important to you
Again, as every single person has said, people want to play in campaigns that actually have a population to fight. Why? because real PVP players don't want to fight empty keeps. They actually want to fight players. So they are forced to play in the locked campaigns to find fights. Because, again, players gravitate to the first option. So, maybe you prove the opposite, because you keep touting nonsense with zero proof.
And, to be clear, I have 15 EP characters. I think faction lock is dumb and will only further ruin pvp in this game. Because players like you think that winning the campaign is more important than actually having healthy PVP. People like you would rather take every keep in a campaign and force the other factions to quit if it meant that your precious faction score is greater at the end of the campaign.
yes, in pvp, having a player/enemy/faction to fight is essential... its why i want pvp to matter, and campaigns to be locked, untill they finish, like bgs, a groups fight it out and at the end a side wins, and you can change stuff/people/builds... and we have at it again...
Faction locks is there for people that firstly want faction locks... if you truely wanted non locked campaigns, you take all those people and g to the nonlocked... but as i said, you dont want to, you want to flip flip and farm people when and where it suits you the most, sorry not in a faction locked camapign...
you have a choise
There are more players who do not care either way than there are who want faction lock and who do not want faction lock combined. There will never be enough players to populate two campaigns in a healthy manner. If a 30 day non locked campaign was listed first in a list of campaigns, it would be the highest populated campaign and the second, locked campaign would be a ghost town. Path of least resistance.
Maybe, maybe not, your speculatng and you cant prov this... what we can see, is that people have choose the locked camapign, and no one goesto the non locked, even people that want flip flopping dont go there... that says alot... if they atleast played there, then it actually merit them a vote, butclearly it dosent matter to flip floppers when they dont even themsefl go to the non lockedcampign, thats the funny thing in this...2 -
jaws343✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »
I am sure you have stats for your argument too? Oh that's right, no one does.It's always been that way because people want to go where the action is and the 7 days are the campaign where faction flipping and EMP swapping has really been possible.
So it proves that faction swappers are not the people wanting to flip maps y'all claim them to be.
It also prove that people could go to a non-locked campaign if it was important to them, but they dont so aparantly it isnt important... i am playing on the faction locked camppaign, cosue thats important to me...
we dident have a choise before, we do now !
There are not enough players in this game who PVP to have a healthy population across two campaigns. Locks have nothing to do with one campaign being empty. What part of that do you not understand? The current lock system doesn't prove anything for faction locks. All it shows is that players who do not care either way will pick the path of least resistance, i.e. the first campaign on the list. And that players want to play in a campaign where there are actual players, which ends up being that first campaign, due to point 1. Once those two points are taken into account, the only campaign that gets a healthy population is the first campaign. Regardless of locks.
The only thing faction lock does is exacerbate the off peak map flipping and further drive players away when their faction has an insurmountable deficit in points or when they are constantly gate camped and unable to do anything but be farmed by a "winning" faction. Or they are a member of said "winning" faction and are tired of gate farming with the rest of the faction loyalists who think that is skill.
Prove it ?
would play on a faction locked campaign regardless, and so does alot of other people... and the mere notion that people are choosing the locked camapign is proof in itself, again yes i cna only speak for myself, but some of you that want to flip flop, dosent even play on the non-locked, that says alot... clearly it isnt important to you
Again, as every single person has said, people want to play in campaigns that actually have a population to fight. Why? because real PVP players don't want to fight empty keeps. They actually want to fight players. So they are forced to play in the locked campaigns to find fights. Because, again, players gravitate to the first option. So, maybe you prove the opposite, because you keep touting nonsense with zero proof.
And, to be clear, I have 15 EP characters. I think faction lock is dumb and will only further ruin pvp in this game. Because players like you think that winning the campaign is more important than actually having healthy PVP. People like you would rather take every keep in a campaign and force the other factions to quit if it meant that your precious faction score is greater at the end of the campaign.
yes, in pvp, having a player/enemy/faction to fight is essential... its why i want pvp to matter, and campaigns to be locked, untill they finish, like bgs, a groups fight it out and at the end a side wins, and you can change stuff/people/builds... and we have at it again...
Faction locks is there for people that firstly want faction locks... if you truely wanted non locked campaigns, you take all those people and g to the nonlocked... but as i said, you dont want to, you want to flip flip and farm people when and where it suits you the most, sorry not in a faction locked camapign...
you have a choise
There are more players who do not care either way than there are who want faction lock and who do not want faction lock combined. There will never be enough players to populate two campaigns in a healthy manner. If a 30 day non locked campaign was listed first in a list of campaigns, it would be the highest populated campaign and the second, locked campaign would be a ghost town. Path of least resistance.
Maybe, maybe not, your speculatng and you cant prov this... what we can see, is that people have choose the locked camapign, and no one goesto the non locked, even people that want flip flopping dont go there... that says alot... if they atleast played there, then it actually merit them a vote, butclearly it dosent matter to flip floppers when they dont even themsefl go to the non lockedcampign, thats the funny thing in this...
And all you are doing is speculating. But you and others are appealing to emotion and ridiculous faction pride arguments, whereas, those on the non-lock sides are actually arguing using logic. Faction pride is nonsense.
Again, and it is absurd that I have to continue repeating this, but comprehension..., players are not going to the non-locked campaign because there are not enough players who pvp in this game to have two healthy campaigns. So, players who don't want locked campaigns are forced to actually join the locked campaign to actually PVP. Why? because those players do not want to PVdoor the map like the faction lock players. If the game were healthier population wise, this wouldn't be a problem. But it isn't, so faction lock is just further destroying the PVP population and creating further imbalance.3 -
Pronto✭Why not just make it like the way of the home and guest campaigns. Choose a faction to gain AP and get on the leaderboards for, but have the option to go on different faction of that campaign and not receive any of those rewards. I don't know what the major reason for faction locking was, but if it was people "farming Emp" that would certainly solve the problem.
If Faction lock had remained implemented the whole time it wouldn't be such an uproar, but the fact that it was made available and so many players now have characters on multiple factions it becomes frustrating when you realize you can only PvP on a percentage of your characters during a specific campaign if you want to.Pronto Padfoot - Bosmer Stamina Nightblade (AD)
Pronto Greenfoot - Bosmer Stamina Warden (AD)
Pronto Firefoot - Bosmer Stamina Dragonknight (AD)
-Pronto - Bosmer Stamina Nightblade (AD)1 -
bulbousb16_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭
Yes, I provided a snapshot of the existing campaigns in another thread.I am sure you have stats for your argument too? Oh that's right, no one does.
Maybe you are forced to keep repeating it because you haven't provided a shred of proof. Just because YOU believe it doesn't make it true.Again, and it is absurd that I have to continue repeating this, but comprehension..., players are not going to the non-locked campaign because there are not enough players who pvp in this game to have two healthy campaigns.
Lethal zergling1 -
Miriel✭✭✭✭bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »
I am sure you have stats for your argument too? Oh that's right, no one does.It's always been that way because people want to go where the action is and the 7 days are the campaign where faction flipping and EMP swapping has really been possible.
So it proves that faction swappers are not the people wanting to flip maps y'all claim them to be.
It also prove that people could go to a non-locked campaign if it was important to them, but they dont so aparantly it isnt important... i am playing on the faction locked camppaign, cosue thats important to me...
we dident have a choise before, we do now !
There are not enough players in this game who PVP to have a healthy population across two campaigns. Locks have nothing to do with one campaign being empty. What part of that do you not understand? The current lock system doesn't prove anything for faction locks. All it shows is that players who do not care either way will pick the path of least resistance, i.e. the first campaign on the list. And that players want to play in a campaign where there are actual players, which ends up being that first campaign, due to point 1. Once those two points are taken into account, the only campaign that gets a healthy population is the first campaign. Regardless of locks.
The only thing faction lock does is exacerbate the off peak map flipping and further drive players away when their faction has an insurmountable deficit in points or when they are constantly gate camped and unable to do anything but be farmed by a "winning" faction. Or they are a member of said "winning" faction and are tired of gate farming with the rest of the faction loyalists who think that is skill.
Prove it ?
would play on a faction locked campaign regardless, and so does alot of other people... and the mere notion that people are choosing the locked camapign is proof in itself, again yes i cna only speak for myself, but some of you that want to flip flop, dosent even play on the non-locked, that says alot... clearly it isnt important to you
Again, as every single person has said, people want to play in campaigns that actually have a population to fight. Why? because real PVP players don't want to fight empty keeps. They actually want to fight players. So they are forced to play in the locked campaigns to find fights. Because, again, players gravitate to the first option. So, maybe you prove the opposite, because you keep touting nonsense with zero proof.
And, to be clear, I have 15 EP characters. I think faction lock is dumb and will only further ruin pvp in this game. Because players like you think that winning the campaign is more important than actually having healthy PVP. People like you would rather take every keep in a campaign and force the other factions to quit if it meant that your precious faction score is greater at the end of the campaign.
yes, in pvp, having a player/enemy/faction to fight is essential... its why i want pvp to matter, and campaigns to be locked, untill they finish, like bgs, a groups fight it out and at the end a side wins, and you can change stuff/people/builds... and we have at it again...
Faction locks is there for people that firstly want faction locks... if you truely wanted non locked campaigns, you take all those people and g to the nonlocked... but as i said, you dont want to, you want to flip flip and farm people when and where it suits you the most, sorry not in a faction locked camapign...
you have a choise
There are more players who do not care either way than there are who want faction lock and who do not want faction lock combined. There will never be enough players to populate two campaigns in a healthy manner. If a 30 day non locked campaign was listed first in a list of campaigns, it would be the highest populated campaign and the second, locked campaign would be a ghost town. Path of least resistance.
Maybe, maybe not, your speculatng and you cant prov this... what we can see, is that people have choose the locked camapign, and no one goesto the non locked, even people that want flip flopping dont go there... that says alot... if they atleast played there, then it actually merit them a vote, butclearly it dosent matter to flip floppers when they dont even themsefl go to the non lockedcampign, thats the funny thing in this...
And all you are doing is speculating. But you and others are appealing to emotion and ridiculous faction pride arguments, whereas, those on the non-lock sides are actually arguing using logic. Faction pride is nonsense.
Again, and it is absurd that I have to continue repeating this, but comprehension..., players are not going to the non-locked campaign because there are not enough players who pvp in this game to have two healthy campaigns. So, players who don't want locked campaigns are forced to actually join the locked campaign to actually PVP. Why? because those players do not want to PVdoor the map like the faction lock players. If the game were healthier population wise, this wouldn't be a problem. But it isn't, so faction lock is just further destroying the PVP population and creating further imbalance.
yes couse in the history of competition, sides dosent fight it out... i can see the next dota final, one side is terribad loosing, and half the winning side, yoins the loosing side in a dota final, to help out... yea lol... its brillianty stupid
you can change sides, just not during a campaing, and ifyou want to, you have that option, IN THE NON LOCKED CAMPAIGN, that you and others dont even play in... so clearly it dosent matter to you1 -
Sandman929✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭would play on a faction locked campaign regardless, and so does alot of other people... and the mere notion that people are choosing the locked camapign is proof in itself, again yes i cna only speak for myself, but some of you that want to flip flop, dosent even play on the non-locked, that says alot... clearly it isnt important to you
Like it or not, this is the only thing that's going to matter really. If those who don't want locks continue to play on a campaign with locks, the lock is easily viewed as a non-issue or a success.2 -
Hashtag_✭✭✭✭✭
That’s why anyone with any sense of knowledge said that prior to implementing faction locks it would create a false positive. Ofc ZOS halfway implemented this instead of taking time to do it correctly by adding similar servers to Vivec and sotha without faction locks.Sandman929 wrote: »would play on a faction locked campaign regardless, and so does alot of other people... and the mere notion that people are choosing the locked camapign is proof in itself, again yes i cna only speak for myself, but some of you that want to flip flop, dosent even play on the non-locked, that says alot... clearly it isnt important to you
Like it or not, this is the only thing that's going to matter really. If those who don't want locks continue to play on a campaign with locks, the lock is easily viewed as a non-issue or a success.
1 -
Mintaka5✭✭✭✭✭Phaedrathallassa wrote: »I PvP very casually. I like being able to tell my friends that I can play on any campaign, any faction. Buddy needs help getting skyshards? I'm there. Want to farm up some transmute crystals? Need help with an achievement? No problem.
Now I will only be able to play... uh... why did you have to make the campaign names so hard to type... Bahlokdaan on my primary faction, Kaalgrontiid on my secondary, and any AD friends will be stuck in Yolnahkriin if they want to play with me.
That sucks.
I can't even figure out what problem this is supposed to solve. Spying? People already use multiple accounts anyways. People switching just for the rewards? Maybe decrease the disparity in rewards between winning and losing - we all know it's about the gloire anyways.
Who was asking for this?
I was one who requested it. I guess my question for you all who want it reverted is, why? What is the big deal? Make friends on one faction and your problem is solved. It's only a month or 7 days. [snip] If your friends ditch you because you decided you can't have a relationship because you're locked in a faction 1) who needs friends like that and 2) you need to get a better perspective on your life.
[edited to remove baiting comments]Edited by ZOS_Ragnar on 4 June 2019 16:572 -
Sandman929✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
That’s why anyone with any sense of knowledge said that prior to implementing faction locks it would create a false positive. Ofc ZOS halfway implemented this instead of taking time to do it correctly by adding similar servers to Vivec and sotha without faction locks.Sandman929 wrote: »would play on a faction locked campaign regardless, and so does alot of other people... and the mere notion that people are choosing the locked camapign is proof in itself, again yes i cna only speak for myself, but some of you that want to flip flop, dosent even play on the non-locked, that says alot... clearly it isnt important to you
Like it or not, this is the only thing that's going to matter really. If those who don't want locks continue to play on a campaign with locks, the lock is easily viewed as a non-issue or a success.
So are people who don't like the locks looking to celebrate their prognostication ability or get something changed? A good portion of the discussion I've read is both sides acting like their experience is universal while demanding proof of a variety of things from the opposition.
Players are creating the "data" that ZOS pays attention to. The 30 day must be playable because everyone plays there in prime time, therefore everything is working great.
Player locks are a success because everyone is playing the campaign that's locked.
Doesn't sound like players are going to create different data with Elsweyr, so I guess we'd all better learn to live the new reality.1 -
Rianai✭✭✭✭✭
✭It's always been that way because people want to go where the action is and the 7 days are the campaign where faction flipping and EMP swapping has really been possible.
So it proves that faction swappers are not the people wanting to flip maps y'all claim them to be.
It also prove that people could go to a non-locked campaign if it was important to them, but they dont so aparantly it isnt important... i am playing on the faction locked camppaign, cosue thats important to me...
we dident have a choise before, we do now !
There are not enough players in this game who PVP to have a healthy population across two campaigns. Locks have nothing to do with one campaign being empty. What part of that do you not understand? The current lock system doesn't prove anything for faction locks. All it shows is that players who do not care either way will pick the path of least resistance, i.e. the first campaign on the list. And that players want to play in a campaign where there are actual players, which ends up being that first campaign, due to point 1. Once those two points are taken into account, the only campaign that gets a healthy population is the first campaign. Regardless of locks.
The only thing faction lock does is exacerbate the off peak map flipping and further drive players away when their faction has an insurmountable deficit in points or when they are constantly gate camped and unable to do anything but be farmed by a "winning" faction. Or they are a member of said "winning" faction and are tired of gate farming with the rest of the faction loyalists who think that is skill.
Prove it ?
would play on a faction locked campaign regardless, and so does alot of other people... and the mere notion that people are choosing the locked camapign is proof in itself, again yes i cna only speak for myself, but some of you that want to flip flop, dosent even play on the non-locked, that says alot... clearly it isnt important to you
So you don't actually care about good PvP and just want faction locks for the sake of it. Then why should anyone who cares about PvP take your opinion serious?
There is only one reasonable argument for faction locks and that's to prevent AP farming/emp trading on a dead campaign - which only happened on the 7-day campaign if it happened at all. So if anything, they should have locked this one and keep the 30-day campaigns unlocked. As it is implemented now, it doesn't make sense at all.
couse you dont switch sides in the middle of something, that be like saying you could change side when you loose in a bg and yoin the winning side... is brilliantly stupid...
Except cyrodiil is nothing like bgs. You don't have actual teams in Cyrodiil. You just have hundreds of different players, playing at different times, in different campaigns and with varying population over the course of the day and campaign cycle. Players can (and do) log off at any time, eg. if they are loosing to much. They can (and do) still swap to any campaign at any time and often do so to join the winning side.
But now players can't swap faction anymore to counterbalance those population fluctuations that are going to happen regardless.
I have experienced a lot more winning team joining by campaign swapping, than by faction swapping. Most who swapped faction did so to get better fights, and that's something you only get if you swap to the weaker side.0 -
Hashtag_✭✭✭✭✭Sandman929 wrote: »
That’s why anyone with any sense of knowledge said that prior to implementing faction locks it would create a false positive. Ofc ZOS halfway implemented this instead of taking time to do it correctly by adding similar servers to Vivec and sotha without faction locks.Sandman929 wrote: »would play on a faction locked campaign regardless, and so does alot of other people... and the mere notion that people are choosing the locked camapign is proof in itself, again yes i cna only speak for myself, but some of you that want to flip flop, dosent even play on the non-locked, that says alot... clearly it isnt important to you
Like it or not, this is the only thing that's going to matter really. If those who don't want locks continue to play on a campaign with locks, the lock is easily viewed as a non-issue or a success.
So are people who don't like the locks looking to celebrate their prognostication ability or get something changed? A good portion of the discussion I've read is both sides acting like their experience is universal while demanding proof of a variety of things from the opposition.
Players are creating the "data" that ZOS pays attention to. The 30 day must be playable because everyone plays there in prime time, therefore everything is working great.
Player locks are a success because everyone is playing the campaign that's locked.
Doesn't sound like players are going to create different data with Elsweyr, so I guess we'd all better learn to live the new reality.
The only thing universal is players gravitate to the 30 day cp campaign regardless of locks or not. It’s the way it’s always been and the way it always will be. Performance is bad but players still go there and play because it’s the “main” campaign. Would be interesting experiment if ZOS made Shor/Yol 30 days and no lock but listed it before Kaal on the campaign list.Edited by Hashtag_ on 3 June 2019 16:291 -
Miriel✭✭✭✭It's always been that way because people want to go where the action is and the 7 days are the campaign where faction flipping and EMP swapping has really been possible.
So it proves that faction swappers are not the people wanting to flip maps y'all claim them to be.
It also prove that people could go to a non-locked campaign if it was important to them, but they dont so aparantly it isnt important... i am playing on the faction locked camppaign, cosue thats important to me...
we dident have a choise before, we do now !
There are not enough players in this game who PVP to have a healthy population across two campaigns. Locks have nothing to do with one campaign being empty. What part of that do you not understand? The current lock system doesn't prove anything for faction locks. All it shows is that players who do not care either way will pick the path of least resistance, i.e. the first campaign on the list. And that players want to play in a campaign where there are actual players, which ends up being that first campaign, due to point 1. Once those two points are taken into account, the only campaign that gets a healthy population is the first campaign. Regardless of locks.
The only thing faction lock does is exacerbate the off peak map flipping and further drive players away when their faction has an insurmountable deficit in points or when they are constantly gate camped and unable to do anything but be farmed by a "winning" faction. Or they are a member of said "winning" faction and are tired of gate farming with the rest of the faction loyalists who think that is skill.
Prove it ?
would play on a faction locked campaign regardless, and so does alot of other people... and the mere notion that people are choosing the locked camapign is proof in itself, again yes i cna only speak for myself, but some of you that want to flip flop, dosent even play on the non-locked, that says alot... clearly it isnt important to you
So you don't actually care about good PvP and just want faction locks for the sake of it. Then why should anyone who cares about PvP take your opinion serious?
There is only one reasonable argument for faction locks and that's to prevent AP farming/emp trading on a dead campaign - which only happened on the 7-day campaign if it happened at all. So if anything, they should have locked this one and keep the 30-day campaigns unlocked. As it is implemented now, it doesn't make sense at all.
couse you dont switch sides in the middle of something, that be like saying you could change side when you loose in a bg and yoin the winning side... is brilliantly stupid...
Except cyrodiil is nothing like bgs. You don't have actual teams in Cyrodiil. You just have hundreds of different players, playing at different times, in different campaigns and with varying population over the course of the day and campaign cycle. Players can (and do) log off at any time, eg. if they are loosing to much. They can (and do) still swap to any campaign at any time and often do so to join the winning side.
But now players can't swap faction anymore to counterbalance those population fluctuations that are going to happen regardless.
I have experienced a lot more winning team joining by campaign swapping, than by faction swapping. Most who swapped faction did so to get better fights, and that's something you only get if you swap to the weaker side.
BGs, and here i thought the side with most points won... let me see cyrodil, the side with most points win... thats the basics of it, then you can try argue and insert alot of other things but like a BG, its essentially down to one side wins...
0