Revert Faction Locks. We've Been Through This Already

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

zyk wrote: »

I generally prefer the concept of a faction lock, but I think ZOS is making a terrible mistake by introducing inflexible locks.

Further, I think this will be such a contentious issue that disgruntled players will not allow the locked campaigns to be successful. Some will protest by doing all of the things that locks are supposed to prevent.

I think this is the first time I agree with you I envision many more scroll trolling and counter faction play as people who can't play with their friends on one faction will play with them on multiple.

Marcus684

Ahtu wrote: »

ADAPT OR DIE.

For once, I agree with you. It’s ZOS’ world. Don’t like faction locks? Vote with your campaign home and go to the 7 day. Like them? Go to the 30 day. Both sides get what they want. People complaining that this will result in a dead 7 day server are just confirming what the faction lock advocates say, that the majority of players actually want faction locks.

I’m looking forward to this argument finally being settled.

jaws343

Marcus684 wrote: »

Ahtu wrote: »

ADAPT OR DIE.

For once, I agree with you. It’s ZOS’ world. Don’t like faction locks? Vote with your campaign home and go to the 7 day. Like them? Go to the 30 day. Both sides get what they want. People complaining that this will result in a dead 7 day server are just confirming what the faction lock advocates say, that the majority of players actually want faction locks.

I’m looking forward to this argument finally being settled.

Both sides don't get what they want. Those of us who don't want faction lock want a 30 day campaign. The argument will never be settled.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

Marcus684 wrote: »

Ahtu wrote: »

ADAPT OR DIE.

For once, I agree with you. It’s ZOS’ world. Don’t like faction locks? Vote with your campaign home and go to the 7 day. Like them? Go to the 30 day. Both sides get what they want. People complaining that this will result in a dead 7 day server are just confirming what the faction lock advocates say, that the majority of players actually want faction locks.

I’m looking forward to this argument finally being settled.

This is like saying if you don't like the meal you should starve yourself. People still eat? They must like the meal.

It's a false conclusion

Kikke

WTB faction locks as we've already tried free for all campaigns. And its trash. People pushing one alliance to the gates, swap characters, and starts pushing back with the other faction, all just ti farm ap anf look for 'good' fights, aka zerglings without a zerg. As if they meet anyone better its just the results of a overpowered or cheese build.

jaws343

Kikke wrote: »

WTB faction locks as we've already tried free for all campaigns. And its trash. People pushing one alliance to the gates, swap characters, and starts pushing back with the other faction, all just ti farm ap anf look for 'good' fights, aka zerglings without a zerg. As if they meet anyone better its just the results of a overpowered or cheese build.

This only happens in dead campaigns. Stop playing in dead campaigns and this isn't a problem.

frozywozy

Elong wrote: »

+1

Hey @Elong , what happened to your comment "Yet another thread about the subject"?

jaws343 wrote: »

Marcus684 wrote: »

Ahtu wrote: »

ADAPT OR DIE.

For once, I agree with you. It’s ZOS’ world. Don’t like faction locks? Vote with your campaign home and go to the 7 day. Like them? Go to the 30 day. Both sides get what they want. People complaining that this will result in a dead 7 day server are just confirming what the faction lock advocates say, that the majority of players actually want faction locks.

I’m looking forward to this argument finally being settled.

Both sides don't get what they want. Those of us who don't want faction lock want a 30 day campaign. The argument will never be settled.

Sotha Sil is a 30 days campaign, has alot of action at primetime and is much closer to what real balance should be (no CP).
You should give it a try any day between 8:00pm and 1:00am EST. Real good fights lag free against experienced players.

For people who are really scared about no CPs because of the lack of health and sustain, here are a few tips :

1) Run tristats glyphs on your armor
2) Invest 20 attribute points in health
3) Run recovery glyphs on your jewelry (you can have one set for no CP and the rest of your gear for CP)
4) Have your healer run a master staff for the extra stam sustain on magicka classes

josh.lackey_ESO

ZOS should be experimenting with a faction lock on the 7-day campaign, not the 30-day campaign.

I see two comments here:

1) Give it a chance and see how it plays out
2) It doesn't matter which campaign you play on, just join the unlocked one

In both cases, the obvious answer here is to lock the 7-day campaign if you must lock one. I don't have a problem with adding a new locked campaign for the people who want to voluntarily make that commitment. But it should not be forced on everyone playing on the flagship campaign. The flagship campaign is the only campaign with enough population to sustain an active map 24-hours, including off-peak hours, and Oceanic primetime (because there is no Oceanic server).

Furthermore, if you want to have a locked campaign, being able to choose to (a) recommit to your faction or (b) change to a new faction every SEVEN days instead of THIRTY gives the player more control while still keeping whatever perceived benefits come from a faction lock. If you choose a different faction and it doesn't work out, you are not stuck with it for a whole month.

Gilvoth

we like the changes.
the faction lock is a Good thing.
not a bad thing.

Marcus684

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Marcus684 wrote: »

Ahtu wrote: »

ADAPT OR DIE.

For once, I agree with you. It’s ZOS’ world. Don’t like faction locks? Vote with your campaign home and go to the 7 day. Like them? Go to the 30 day. Both sides get what they want. People complaining that this will result in a dead 7 day server are just confirming what the faction lock advocates say, that the majority of players actually want faction locks.

I’m looking forward to this argument finally being settled.

This is like saying if you don't like the meal you should starve yourself. People still eat? They must like the meal.

It's a false conclusion

Nah. You’ve created a false equivalency. The meal is PvP. Faction lock vs. no lock is like steak vs. lobster. Either one is a meal, but some people prefer one over the other, and having both kinds should satisfy both appetites.

Marcus684

josh.lackey_ESO wrote: »

ZOS should be experimenting with a faction lock on the 7-day campaign, not the 30-day campaign.

I see two comments here:

1) Give it a chance and see how it plays out
2) It doesn't matter which campaign you play on, just join the unlocked one

In both cases, the obvious answer here is to lock the 7-day campaign if you must lock one. I don't have a problem with adding a new locked campaign for the people who want to voluntarily make that commitment. But it should not be forced on everyone playing on the flagship campaign. The flagship campaign is the only campaign with enough population to sustain an active map 24-hours, including off-peak hours, and Oceanic primetime (because there is no Oceanic server).

Furthermore, if you want to have a locked campaign, being able to choose to (a) recommit to your faction or (b) change to a new faction every SEVEN days instead of THIRTY gives the player more control while still keeping whatever perceived benefits come from a faction lock. If you choose a different faction and it doesn't work out, you are not stuck with it for a whole month.

This actually makes sense. Locking players into a faction on the 30 day campaign may end up driving them away from PvP if they decide they don’t like it. Calling it the “flagship” campaign may be irrelevant though, since we don’t actually know why the 30 day CP enabled campaign is always the most populated. My theory is that the 30 day CP campaign has always been the first one listed, so new players just default to that one on their first trip to Cyrodiil, and therefore is always the most populated. If ZOS institutes an “Are you sure” message when selecting one, new players may actually put some thought into it and the population may spread out.

SillyGT

Faction locking is going make people stop playing because what sane person plays only one faction. This isn’t real war it’s a video game. They have already removed it in the past because people couldn’t do what they wanted. 90% of the people asking for this were not day one players.

Marcus684

SillyGT wrote: »

Faction locking is going make people stop playing because what sane person plays only one faction. This isn’t real war it’s a video game. They have already removed it in the past because people couldn’t do what they wanted. 90% of the people asking for this were not day one players.

I’d love to see your data on this. Both sides of this are claiming it’s bad players or noobs wanting the other side, yet no one ever has any data to back that up.

kpittsniperb14_ESO

Marcus684 wrote: »

Ahtu wrote: »

ADAPT OR DIE.

For once, I agree with you. It’s ZOS’ world. Don’t like faction locks? Vote with your campaign home and go to the 7 day. Like them? Go to the 30 day. Both sides get what they want. People complaining that this will result in a dead 7 day server are just confirming what the faction lock advocates say, that the majority of players actually want faction locks.

I’m looking forward to this argument finally being settled.

Except that most that don't want the lock want to play a 30 day CP camp and those that prefer non CP are just SOL. Not a lot of thought has been put into this decision and this really has been a trend with ZoS since launch. They make arbitrary changes for reasons, fail to understand how those changes will drive gameplay, take forever to revert or tweak failed changes resulting in an ever shrinking community.

Very few, if any, would have a problem with them locking the 7 day CP campaign which would have been a much better way of handling this. Lock the 7 day and see how popular it is. Eliminating leaderboard placement and end of campaign rewards for swapping factions would have been an effective method of resolving most of the issues that faction lock advocates have put forward. ZoS did nothing, and I mean nothing from launch to promote or reward faction loyalty and then encouraged and promoted playing different factions with One Tamriel. Many of us have developed friendships along the way that cross faction lines and appreciate the ability to still find challenging fights by doing a bit of faction hopping. This issue was already settled before One Tamriel when we had 3 dead buff servers and one active campaign. Human behavior hasn't changes in the past 3 1/2 years to my knowledge so I don't for see a different result from doing the same thing a second time.

frozywozy

Everytime someone mention to try the faction locks on dead campaigns to see if people like it.

[edit]

[edited for baiting image]

kpittsniperb14_ESO

frozywozy wrote: »

Everytime someone mention to try the faction locks on dead campaigns to see if people like it.

[edit]

And my point is proven.

ks888

No friends allowed in ESO, unless they wear the same colors.

dazee

Phaedrathallassa wrote: »

Who was asking for this?

People who disliked the fact others could play in a way they didn't like or didn't do personally. So they whined and whined till ZOS caved and now we all will suffer.

Elong

frozywozy wrote: »

Elong wrote: »

+1

Hey @Elong , what happened to your comment "Yet another thread about the subject"?

jaws343 wrote: »

Marcus684 wrote: »

Ahtu wrote: »

ADAPT OR DIE.

For once, I agree with you. It’s ZOS’ world. Don’t like faction locks? Vote with your campaign home and go to the 7 day. Like them? Go to the 30 day. Both sides get what they want. People complaining that this will result in a dead 7 day server are just confirming what the faction lock advocates say, that the majority of players actually want faction locks.

I’m looking forward to this argument finally being settled.

Both sides don't get what they want. Those of us who don't want faction lock want a 30 day campaign. The argument will never be settled.

Sotha Sil is a 30 days campaign, has alot of action at primetime and is much closer to what real balance should be (no CP).
You should give it a try any day between 8:00pm and 1:00am EST. Real good fights lag free against experienced players.

For people who are really scared about no CPs because of the lack of health and sustain, here are a few tips :

1) Run tristats glyphs on your armor
2) Invest 20 attribute points in health
3) Run recovery glyphs on your jewelry (you can have one set for no CP and the rest of your gear for CP)
4) Have your healer run a master staff for the extra stam sustain on magicka classes

Deleted.

twitch_zero

pzschrek wrote: »

Phaedrathallassa wrote: »

Who was asking for this?

Short answer? Bad players hunting for excuses.

You probably don't like faction hoppers being characterised as exploiters so it might be a good idea not to make assumptions about those who want faction locks.

MipMip

SillyGT wrote: »

Faction locking is going make people stop playing because what sane person plays only one faction. This isn’t real war it’s a video game. They have already removed it in the past because people couldn’t do what they wanted. 90% of the people asking for this were not day one players.

Yes. Faction lock (if it goes live) will make the game less attractive for many. ESO has always been about having many choices.

(and nothing stops faction loyalists from playing for their faction as things are now, no lock needed)

ZOS_RogerJ

Just a friendly reminder to keep the thread on-topic, constructive and civil. Remember, it’s okay and very normal to disagree with others, and even to debate, but provoking conflict, baiting, inciting, mocking, etc. is never acceptable in the official The Elder Scrolls Online community. If you do not have something constructive or meaningful to add to a discussion, we strongly recommend you refrain from posting in that thread.

Haashhtaag

Crixus8000 wrote: »

White wabbit wrote: »

It hasn't even gone live and people are crying about it, let it play out for a few months to see how it will actually play out ! Then ask for a change as I cant see zos making a u turn on it straight away

I don't get why some people always say this. Not everything has to be tested to see how it works, it doesn't take a genius to see that being unable to play with certain friends will be very annoying for many players.

The worst part of why that gets said is this has all already happened before. Faction locks existed, they failed then, and they will fail now.

Haashhtaag

Them locking the 30 day camp is just going to give a false positive on this “test.” It’s really dumb. Should have made shor the faction locked camp to see how many loyal faction players go there.

Instead this is just going to be longer queues for Vivec thus making people think most players want faction lock when in reality people are going there because it’s the only action.

Soul_Demon

Haashhtaag wrote: »

Them locking the 30 day camp is just going to give a false positive on this “test.” It’s really dumb. Should have made shor the faction locked camp to see how many loyal faction players go there.

Instead this is just going to be longer queues for Vivec thus making people think most players want faction lock when in reality people are going there because it’s the only action.

Wouldn't matter what camp they chose, the players saying they are not the exploiters, cheats, toxic ones that are alliance hopping and do so to 'balance' the camps, make them more competitive and play with friends- that is the kind they are- don't want to be forced to play with others who are hoppers anywhere on any campaign.

Right now they have an option and keep claiming they really don't have one- the reality is they know what the majority of players here know. They are indeed part of the problem and there is NO WAY they want to be playing with only those who are exploiting, cheating, toxic and trolling. They know it, and so does everyone else here....regardless of what they say, its evident they have a choice after 2 plus years of other NOT having a choice but they don't want it. Why? Because they fully know what the others who are hopping do and are doing.....that is why.

Haashhtaag

20/20 oils on last keep needed for emp for your faction ez block.

Davadin

pzschrek wrote: »

Phaedrathallassa wrote: »

Who was asking for this?

Short answer? Bad players hunting for excuses.

no, RP players who are sick of seeing "traitors" and "defects" playing for the other side to abuse the system in order to maximize their AP intake and in general being an ***.

not all of us are bad players, y'know.

and oh, we have friends across factions too.

we play with them in PvE or level another toon to play on a different campaign.

Davadin

SillyGT wrote: »

Faction locking is going make people stop playing because what sane person plays only one faction.

Pfffffffffft.


Milk-drinkers.

Xsorus

*Looks at my Magicka/Stamina toon for every class..*

*Looks at my Magicka/Stamina toon for every class that are all DC*

Ha

Ha

Ha

*grin*.

Ixtyr

Haashhtaag wrote: »

Them locking the 30 day camp is just going to give a false positive on this “test.” It’s really dumb.

This.

@ZOS_BrianWheeler, if you truly want to "test" this, at least follow the basic rules of testing and hold all other variables constant.

Offer a 30-day CP and 30-day noCP version of both Locked and Unlocked. And get rid of the 7-day campaign entirely.

Why?

The first campaign you see in the campaign list in the UI is the 30-day campaign. Players need to consciously choose to check other campaigns before just joining the first one they see. Inevitably some will just jump in, especially if there's a decent population, even if the lock or lack thereof is irrelevant to them.

I recognize that people will sneer at this comment, but anyone who's ever run any form of formalized behavioral testing will tell you that the path of least resistance nearly always beats other options. That's why websites are designed to limit how many clicks you need to conduct before converting, and it's why ads link you directly to the most conversion-focused experience they can possibly serve you - not because it's the best user experience, but because it's the best way to make you convert.

30-day campaigns provide significantly better rewards than 7-day, with more Transmute Stones available in one month than the four-weeks of 7-day equivalent. Same goes for gold rewards, you get an extra piece in the 30-day. Even if it's not worth a lot, you still get the gold temper, and that alone covers the cost of a few days worth of potions.

Furthermore, it's a lot more tedious and requires more "grind" for players to max out their Transmute Stone gains on their alts in a 7-day campaign than a 30-day. Getting Tier 3 on 10 different characters is a lot easier to do in a 30-day campaign, because you can knock it out in 1-2 nights per too over the course of a month. On a 7-day, that'll require swapping toons multiple times a night just to net your Tier 3 on the same number of characters, and you still end up with less rewards.

There are absolutely players who will disagree with this change, but just because the benefits stack up more nicely to stay with a 30-day campaign, they won't elect to leave and go to the 7-day. Not because they want faction locks. Not because they think they're a good idea. They may well think they're *** stupid, as nearly every player in the dozen or more Discord servers I've spoken to about this over the past week have indicated - but they personally don't have the alts they care about on other alliances, or groups they're playing with that they will have to abandon here, and it doesn't make sense for them to diminish their quality of gameplay to go play in the second-class server just to tell ZOS they disagree.

---

Or, better yet, just don't bring back Alliance Locks at all. You've admitted in the past that they don't work, that they only further fragmented an already fragmented playerbase by preventing people from playing with their friends.

@ZOS_RichLambert whatever happened to "One Tamriel"? That message you pitched to your entire audience, about how you wanted to enable and encourage all of your players to play with their friends with fewer restrictions?

If your team wanted Alliance Locks, they should have been more restrictive at launch and never removed. You should have kept all overland Zones faction-specific, and blocked all cross-alliance player communications. Guilds should have been 100% faction-locked, and people shouldn't have ever been given the tools to form the bonds they've now formed with other players over the course of five years.

That ship has sailed. You encouraged us to forge those friendships, join those guilds and communities, and play together the way you sold us on being encouraged to play.

If I have two groups of friends that play on different nights, I should be able to play with both of them. You allow EP players to raid in Cloudrest with AD players with zero restrictions. You allow DC players to quest with EP players in Malabal Tor with nothing stopping them. You allow people to join guilds of other alliances and communicate freely and openly, no issues there. And you've been encouraging us to PvP together, with our friends, on whatever server we all want to play on, at whatever time of day they want to log in, on whichever alt character we want to play with, for years now.

If I've played an EP character for a year, and have a few friends that I play with on that alliance 2-3 times a week, but then joined a cool social guild that I really vibed with that PvPed on AD - up until now, I could choose to roll a new alt and still play with both. Regardless of the server. I could log in 2 more nights each week and spend more time enjoying your game, with friends new and old, and nothing got in my way, or made me and my friends have to choose to get less loot fighting less enjoyable encounters to be able to spend time together.

I said it in the OP, I'll say it again, I have two guilds, they play different nights, and they're composed of entirely different people, with whom I enjoy playing for completely different reasons. 15/20 of those AD players are still going to want to play AD on the 30-day campaign *because that's where the fights are, and that's where the rewards are worth earning*. 15/20 of those DC players will want to do the same. But now you're telling everyone in both of those guilds that they can't play together anymore - not all 20/20 of us - unless either a) five of them are willing to quit playing with our other guilds entirely, or b) the other fifteen are willing to settle for shittier rewards in a campaign that will almost certainly always be less active because you've stacked the cards against it ever being as active as any 30-day campaign.

You chose to prioritize being inclusive. You chose to remove Campaign Locks before. You chose to sell us a message for years about how the game's primary objective was to allow everyone to play whenever, wherever, and however they wanted to play.

You can't just backpedal on this now and think it's okay.

You are consciously choosing to break up communities you encouraged to form in the first place.

That is not cool, and it is not okay.

Remove this ***.