Revert Faction Locks. We've Been Through This Already

IronWooshu

Hashtag_ wrote: »

IronWooshu wrote: »

TBois wrote: »

bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

As you say, "there is support for both sides," so I would be a bad representative if I ignored them completely, wouldn't I?

In general, not really. On a binary issue, it behooves a representative to side with the majority, even if their personal preferences are on the minority side.

Zos has not made any information available to determine who is in the majority on this issue. Also what you are saying depends on the representative system. Like is joy representing a certain subset of the population or the whole? Zos hasn't made their representative system clear in that regard so it's a moot point.

Common sense would say that the pro faction lock people are in the majority or why faction lock? Since Joy_Division and others dont believe ZoS did their homework before this happened and have no data then we goto the masses influenced this idea for the change.

Or you know you could take what they actually said themselves at PAX

How about you reference PAX, you and Joy_Division say a whole lot of nothing constantly it's almost as bad as conspiracy theorists who claim an idea and when people ask they say, go look it up.

TBois

IronWooshu wrote: »

TBois wrote: »

bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

As you say, "there is support for both sides," so I would be a bad representative if I ignored them completely, wouldn't I?

In general, not really. On a binary issue, it behooves a representative to side with the majority, even if their personal preferences are on the minority side.

Zos has not made any information available to determine who is in the majority on this issue. Also what you are saying depends on the representative system. Like is joy representing a certain subset of the population or the whole? Zos hasn't made their representative system clear in that regard so it's a moot point.

Common sense would say that the pro faction lock people are in the majority or why faction lock? Since Joy_Division and others dont believe ZoS did their homework before this happened and have no data then we goto the masses influenced this idea for the change.

I disagree. Zos has made other changes that weren't based on just raw data, like how they experimented with going with CP or noCP battlegrounds.

Hashtag_

“It’s something people have requested for a long time so we figured we’d try it out and see how it goes”

Starts at 1:15

https://youtu.be/2qgaBBUW5b4

Cites no raw data except for “people have requested it”

IronWooshu

Hashtag_ wrote: »

“It’s something people have requested for a long time so we figured we’d try it out and see how it goes”

Starts at 1:15

https://youtu.be/2qgaBBUW5b4

Cites no raw data except for “people have requested it”

So therefore a rather large majority of people requested faction lock and as it plays now, the numbers are far from dead.

Hashtag_

IronWooshu wrote: »

Hashtag_ wrote: »

“It’s something people have requested for a long time so we figured we’d try it out and see how it goes”

Starts at 1:15

https://youtu.be/2qgaBBUW5b4

Cites no raw data except for “people have requested it”

So therefore a rather large majority of people requested faction lock and as it plays now, the numbers are far from dead.

The forums isn’t a large majority of players. Just full of a very vocal minority. Please stop moving goal post saying “ZOS data shows” as why they made the change when in fact no data was given.

bulbousb16_ESO

Hashtag_ wrote: »

The forums isn’t a large majority of players. Just full of a very vocal minority.

First off, thanks for posting the clip of the developers. Too bad that voiceover guy kept talking over them and interrupting.

Secondly, don't resort to the old "vocal minority" shtick. That's usually the last resort of someone who is in the minority but trying not to acknowledge it. You have a point about lack of any actual data, you should rest with that.

Hashtag_

bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »

Hashtag_ wrote: »

The forums isn’t a large majority of players. Just full of a very vocal minority.

First off, thanks for posting the clip of the developers. Too bad that voiceover guy kept talking over them and interrupting.

Secondly, don't resort to the old "vocal minority" shtick. That's usually the last resort of someone who is in the minority but trying not to acknowledge it. You have a point about lack of any actual data, you should rest with that.

we are both in the vocal minority but I can admit we are but you and other faction lock supporters are an emu with its head in the sand. You seriously think your side is the “majority “ in the scheme of this.

bulbousb16_ESO

Hashtag_ wrote: »

You seriously think your side is the “majority “ in the scheme of this.

I know that pro-faction lock people are the majority of players with an opinion, because all the empirical evidence backs up that conclusion. What I do not know are the number of people who are ambivalent on the matter, who are not bothering to register their opinions.

Hashtag_

bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »

Hashtag_ wrote: »

You seriously think your side is the “majority “ in the scheme of this.

I know that pro-faction lock people are the majority of players with an opinion, because all the empirical evidence backs up that conclusion. What I do not know are the number of people who are ambivalent on the matter, who are not bothering to register their opinions.

Provide your detailed numbers that prove your theory. If not it’s just gibberish thrown at a wall.

bulbousb16_ESO

Hashtag_ wrote: »

Provide your detailed numbers that prove your theory. If not it’s just gibberish thrown at a wall.

I am citing the following items as evidence that faction-lock proponents outnumber faction lock oppenents:

1) The number of forum posts voicing support from unique users (NOT the overall total number of forums posts in support or opposition - obviously, a subset of us are responsible for the totals)
2) The results of forum polls on the subject
3) The number of "Agrees" on forum posts in support for one side or the other

These data points clearly show a preponderance of opinion in favor of faction lock.

Granted, the forums do not represent anywhere near all Cyrodiil players. But these are the only datasets we have available, and they are quite clear on the matter.

IN ADDITION, the fact that the Developers chose to implement this because "people have requested it", clearly indicates that a significant number of people wanted it. They would not act to appease a few "voices in the wilderness".

SilverPaws

bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »

Hashtag_ wrote: »

Provide your detailed numbers that prove your theory. If not it’s just gibberish thrown at a wall.

I am citing the following items as evidence that faction-lock proponents outnumber faction lock oppenents:

1) The number of forum posts voicing support from unique users (NOT the overall total number of forums posts in support or opposition - obviously, a subset of us are responsible for the totals)
2) The results of forum polls on the subject
3) The number of "Agrees" on forum posts in support for one side or the other

These data points clearly show a preponderance of opinion in favor of faction lock.

Granted, the forums do not represent anywhere near all Cyrodiil players. But these are the only datasets we have available, and they are quite clear on the matter.

IN ADDITION, the fact that the Developers chose to implement this because "people have requested it", clearly indicates that a significant number of people wanted it. They would not act to appease a few "voices in the wilderness".

Devs implement a lot of things that are not desired by anyone, they are clueless about they're game, also your argument here is ridiculous and doesn't prove anything at all.

bulbousb16_ESO

SilverPaws wrote: »

Devs implement a lot of things that are not desired by anyone, they are clueless about many things, also your argument here is ridiculous and doesn't prove anything at all.

Ok, so, you are claiming that the "Devs implement a lot of things that are not desired by anyone" and that indicates that my argument is ridiculous?

Please regale us with examples of these things that have been implemented that no one wants. Not. A. Single. Person. Ever.

This ought to be good.

Joy_Division

Miriel wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

Miriel wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

IronWooshu wrote: »

Hashtag_ wrote: »

IronWooshu wrote: »

Hashtag_ wrote: »

IronWooshu wrote: »

ks888 wrote: »

@IronWooshu we tried to make them popular 3 years ago when we had entire guilds moving over there - it's lasted 6 mos - and this was when we had tons of very competitive guilds that had bones to pick with one another. If we couldn't manage a strong and consistent pop then, what makes you think anyone is now? It's all hand-holding pvdoor zergs in cyro now. We have 1-2 competitive guilds on each faction in each prime time.

WE. HAVE. DONE. THIS. ALREADY.

Well then I don't know what to tell you, get use to playing faction lock campaign (the way PVP should be) until you can get it to work.

EDIT: There is more incentive now to make it work than there ever has been if people are that against faction lock campaigns.

There really isn’t though. Pvp population is lower than it has ever been. You will notice this because pop caps are 150 currently and queues being anywhere from no queue at pop lock to around 100.

Years ago the pop locks were 250-300(cant recall specific) and you would have queues of 100+ on weekdays primtime and 200-300 queues on weekends.

The numbers are lower because people are leveling Necromancers and questing. Where was all these posts when Summerset came and the exact same thing happened and 3 weeks later... Its back to normal.

Tell me again in a month how faction lock is killing PVP.. ok?

EDIT: If its overall numbers that is causing it then it's been happening before the faction lock, it seems if overall numbers have been steadily declining it would have been due to the factions being unlocked and the cheating running rampant, a direct correlation?

Pop locks were probably lowered to reduce lag.

Hashtag_ wrote: »

IronWooshu wrote: »

ellahellabella wrote: »

IronWooshu wrote: »

ellahellabella wrote: »

IronWooshu wrote: »

ks888 wrote: »

@IronWooshu we tried to make them popular 3 years ago when we had entire guilds moving over there - it's lasted 6 mos - and this was when we had tons of very competitive guilds that had bones to pick with one another. If we couldn't manage a strong and consistent pop then, what makes you think anyone is now? It's all hand-holding pvdoor zergs in cyro now. We have 1-2 competitive guilds on each faction in each prime time.

WE. HAVE. DONE. THIS. ALREADY.

Well then I don't know what to tell you, get use to playing faction lock campaign (the way PVP should be) until you can get it to work.

EDIT: There is more incentive now to make it work than there ever has been if people are that against faction lock campaigns.

lol at "The way pvp should be"
Are you a developer for this game?

no but I should be because apparently the developers and myself agree on something.

Your arrogant ignorance knows no bounds. Kudos

no, what is ignorant is this petition to remove a feature that has been needed for years for your own selfish gain.

Players have wanted this, raw data collected from the devs showed that this mode needed this and to appease everyone made a non faction lock campaign and yet its not good enough for you.

THAT IS IGNORANCE.

Cite the raw data please, I would love to review these numbers.

Dont be obtuse, this data was collected by ZoS therefore it was put into action.

Class representative @Joy_Division cites otherwise. Please show me the raw data that ZOS has provided to show us the numbers supported it?

What does Joy_Division cite? Link?

You're pretty demanding for someone who blindly claims "this data was collected by ZoS therefore it was put into action." What exactly is "this data" and if it's so earth-shattering important and telling, why has ZOS not even referred to it? An undocumented source in which we have zero clue of it contents is worthless as far as evidence goes. You just putting blind faith in an authority because you happen to agree with the decision they made. It's just bias. You and all the other faction lock advocates would have never accepted an argument that ZOS got rid of faction locks because "the data" we've never seen made that a logical decision. You'll only accept "the data" when it's convenient.

As for what I cite, a face to face conversation with the ZOS developer who is in charge of Cyrodiil.

If you don't believe me, you are free to look at the Dev panels from PAX East when they announced the change and the reasoning for it. Wheeler told me the same thing in Maryland as he said at the Pax panels.

Regardless, there is support for both sides, and as i said for you to demand that we loose something that we been asking for years is rather selfish, and bad as a representative... Even more so when you we have options, that being said, im not against anouther 30 day camapign that isnt locked...

But regardless we are not going back, i rather play in a empty locked campaign then with flip floppers and so will alot of other pro faction lock, and there is your problem, its so important to us, that i even started subbing again , and playing more, while those pro flip flopping dosent even use the unlocked campaign, they rather play on the locked camapign...

So regardless what happens, you either have the player base split, or if the remove faction lock, ill just unsub, or leave... i am not playing on a unlocked campign again...

IF unlocked campaign is so important to you, i asume you play on the unlocked one ?

You can stop mischaracterizing me any time.

I *NEVER* "demanded this. I didn't even "ask" for this. I may not like this decision and may have pointed out the flaws in it, but when Brian Wheeler told me ZOS was doing this, I did *NOT* demand or ask ZOS to take away anything.

And just because I am a representative, I am allowed to hold my own opinions and assessments, and represent people who happen to hold a different view than yours. As you say, "there is support for both sides," so I would be a bad representative if I ignored them completely, wouldn't I?

You have no intention of having an actual discussion. You just come onto these threads, make up stuff about people who disagree with you, don;t even bother to even try and understand their points, and threaten to go home, unsub, and quit if you don't get your way. If you haven't figured out why I or the others don;t play on the unlocked campaign after 20 pages or multiple weeks of gameplay, that's just proof you aren't paying attention or even reading what people are actually typing.

yes you are, but when people use you as a representative, you have taken a side, regardless, then your personal view enfroces the fact you are a spokes person, so either you go and tell those that use you as a example, to stop... you cant really have it both ways...

you as a representative represent me as well, dont you ?... so be very very carefull, with your personal views, and as a representative, couse at this point its very blurry

and as for unerstading you and those wanting flip flopping, yes i understand it, playing with people is more important to you the faction locks, while faction lockes is more important to me an others... and thats what we are trying to tell you, you want the cake, but you dont want to make the sacrifice to get it, again you can play on a faction non-locked campaign, and if you are so many that you speak of then go there... change have to happen one way or anouther, even with a new 30 day non-locked, the change will take time, you guys cant have all of the play bae on a flip flopping cmapaign, that train has sailed, its gone... there locked campaign and unlocked cmapaigns...

And if i were a representative, id speak for the comunity and help that transitiion between to the two grouping, and help people get a unlocked campaign and a locked campaign...

You are making it blurry by accusing me of demanding to ZOS to do things when I have done nothing of the sort.

As a rep, ZOS has asked me to identify problems and pain points. Even if you think faction locks are wonderful and are threatening to never play again if you can't have your way, the fact of the matter is that there are pain points and people have articulated problems with the changes ZOS has made. It's my job to identify and collect that feedback. Just because I personally happen to agree with that feedback does not somehow compromise my position any more than agreeing with people who thought cast-time on shields was stupid or those people who have issues with Volundrung being a OP PvDoor mechanism that seems to too often wind up with the zerging faction that is winning.

As far as representing you, didn;t I just write, "When Brian Wheeler told me ZOS was doing this, I did *NOT* demand or ask ZOS to take away anything." Oh, look at that. I'm not abusing my position or personal access to push my agenda even though I and numerous other players disagree with the decision. It has been months since ZOS publicly announced this change and I have not once in that time communicated personally to the devs or used the class rep discord/other channels to push my own agenda and opinion.

And another thing, I am not the only rep. There are 8 of us. We all have different opinions, perspectives, and assessments. We need to have these divergent views to ensure all the pros and cons are accounted for and argued. There is nothing inherently wrong with taking a side. That's what debate and discussion is. At zero point ever since their announcement have I done anything to silence the pro lock side or misuse my position. All I have done is express my opinion on a public forum, which is something I and every Rep is allowed to do.

The fact of that matter is that ZOS has not yet asked for our feedback regarding faction-locks. Which is probably a good thing because it's not clear yet how things have played out (despite the insistence of many) and while I have issues in how ZOS has made these changes, it is not yet clear to me the ramification of those changes or how to best deal with the pain points that have come up because of them. ZOS has publicly said at their PAX panel that they want to see the pros and cons of this change before reassessing, and that means articulating those cons. The pros have been repeatedly and loudly voiced by you and others. Even I admitted numerous times that as far as these forums go, those who want the faction-locks have been more numerous and forceful in making their arguments. So you can stop accusing me of sabotaging your side anytime now.

You' still don't get why I and other people do not agree with ZOS's change. It's not just about "playing with people." I can still play with people. It's mostly about wanting to play on a campaign that's not dead and being forced to play under undesirable conditions, such as playing for a faction that dominates that map and not being able to play I character I have loved playing for 5 years among other reasons (in addition to being excluded from playing with certain people in meaningful and competitive campaigns.) If you understood that in the slightest, you'd stop burying your head in the sand and pretending things are just fine by telling us we could play on the non locked campaign, which is usually dead and there's no AvAvA "campaign" to speak of.

bulbousb16_ESO

Joy_Division wrote: »

Even I admitted numerous times that as far as these forums go, those who want the faction-locks have been more numerous

Thank you, from someone opposed to faction locks, that says a lot.

It's mostly about wanting to play on a campaign that's not dead and being forced to play under undesirable conditions, such as playing for a faction that dominates that map

So far, neither of these conditions has manifested post lock EXCEPT in the off hours. During prime time, the locked campaigns are well-populated and competitive, with no major map domination.

Speaking of PC-NA, the imbalances happen after most of the continent has gone to bed. I will agree that this isn't a perfect situation, but it is not one that it makes sense to address with faction-freedom.

Miriel

Joy_Division wrote: »

Miriel wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

Miriel wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

IronWooshu wrote: »

Hashtag_ wrote: »

IronWooshu wrote: »

Hashtag_ wrote: »

IronWooshu wrote: »

ks888 wrote: »

@IronWooshu we tried to make them popular 3 years ago when we had entire guilds moving over there - it's lasted 6 mos - and this was when we had tons of very competitive guilds that had bones to pick with one another. If we couldn't manage a strong and consistent pop then, what makes you think anyone is now? It's all hand-holding pvdoor zergs in cyro now. We have 1-2 competitive guilds on each faction in each prime time.

WE. HAVE. DONE. THIS. ALREADY.

Well then I don't know what to tell you, get use to playing faction lock campaign (the way PVP should be) until you can get it to work.

EDIT: There is more incentive now to make it work than there ever has been if people are that against faction lock campaigns.

There really isn’t though. Pvp population is lower than it has ever been. You will notice this because pop caps are 150 currently and queues being anywhere from no queue at pop lock to around 100.

Years ago the pop locks were 250-300(cant recall specific) and you would have queues of 100+ on weekdays primtime and 200-300 queues on weekends.

The numbers are lower because people are leveling Necromancers and questing. Where was all these posts when Summerset came and the exact same thing happened and 3 weeks later... Its back to normal.

Tell me again in a month how faction lock is killing PVP.. ok?

EDIT: If its overall numbers that is causing it then it's been happening before the faction lock, it seems if overall numbers have been steadily declining it would have been due to the factions being unlocked and the cheating running rampant, a direct correlation?

Pop locks were probably lowered to reduce lag.

Hashtag_ wrote: »

IronWooshu wrote: »

ellahellabella wrote: »

IronWooshu wrote: »

ellahellabella wrote: »

IronWooshu wrote: »

ks888 wrote: »

@IronWooshu we tried to make them popular 3 years ago when we had entire guilds moving over there - it's lasted 6 mos - and this was when we had tons of very competitive guilds that had bones to pick with one another. If we couldn't manage a strong and consistent pop then, what makes you think anyone is now? It's all hand-holding pvdoor zergs in cyro now. We have 1-2 competitive guilds on each faction in each prime time.

WE. HAVE. DONE. THIS. ALREADY.

Well then I don't know what to tell you, get use to playing faction lock campaign (the way PVP should be) until you can get it to work.

EDIT: There is more incentive now to make it work than there ever has been if people are that against faction lock campaigns.

lol at "The way pvp should be"
Are you a developer for this game?

no but I should be because apparently the developers and myself agree on something.

Your arrogant ignorance knows no bounds. Kudos

no, what is ignorant is this petition to remove a feature that has been needed for years for your own selfish gain.

Players have wanted this, raw data collected from the devs showed that this mode needed this and to appease everyone made a non faction lock campaign and yet its not good enough for you.

THAT IS IGNORANCE.

Cite the raw data please, I would love to review these numbers.

Dont be obtuse, this data was collected by ZoS therefore it was put into action.

Class representative @Joy_Division cites otherwise. Please show me the raw data that ZOS has provided to show us the numbers supported it?

What does Joy_Division cite? Link?

You're pretty demanding for someone who blindly claims "this data was collected by ZoS therefore it was put into action." What exactly is "this data" and if it's so earth-shattering important and telling, why has ZOS not even referred to it? An undocumented source in which we have zero clue of it contents is worthless as far as evidence goes. You just putting blind faith in an authority because you happen to agree with the decision they made. It's just bias. You and all the other faction lock advocates would have never accepted an argument that ZOS got rid of faction locks because "the data" we've never seen made that a logical decision. You'll only accept "the data" when it's convenient.

As for what I cite, a face to face conversation with the ZOS developer who is in charge of Cyrodiil.

If you don't believe me, you are free to look at the Dev panels from PAX East when they announced the change and the reasoning for it. Wheeler told me the same thing in Maryland as he said at the Pax panels.

Regardless, there is support for both sides, and as i said for you to demand that we loose something that we been asking for years is rather selfish, and bad as a representative... Even more so when you we have options, that being said, im not against anouther 30 day camapign that isnt locked...

But regardless we are not going back, i rather play in a empty locked campaign then with flip floppers and so will alot of other pro faction lock, and there is your problem, its so important to us, that i even started subbing again , and playing more, while those pro flip flopping dosent even use the unlocked campaign, they rather play on the locked camapign...

So regardless what happens, you either have the player base split, or if the remove faction lock, ill just unsub, or leave... i am not playing on a unlocked campign again...

IF unlocked campaign is so important to you, i asume you play on the unlocked one ?

You can stop mischaracterizing me any time.

I *NEVER* "demanded this. I didn't even "ask" for this. I may not like this decision and may have pointed out the flaws in it, but when Brian Wheeler told me ZOS was doing this, I did *NOT* demand or ask ZOS to take away anything.

And just because I am a representative, I am allowed to hold my own opinions and assessments, and represent people who happen to hold a different view than yours. As you say, "there is support for both sides," so I would be a bad representative if I ignored them completely, wouldn't I?

You have no intention of having an actual discussion. You just come onto these threads, make up stuff about people who disagree with you, don;t even bother to even try and understand their points, and threaten to go home, unsub, and quit if you don't get your way. If you haven't figured out why I or the others don;t play on the unlocked campaign after 20 pages or multiple weeks of gameplay, that's just proof you aren't paying attention or even reading what people are actually typing.

yes you are, but when people use you as a representative, you have taken a side, regardless, then your personal view enfroces the fact you are a spokes person, so either you go and tell those that use you as a example, to stop... you cant really have it both ways...

you as a representative represent me as well, dont you ?... so be very very carefull, with your personal views, and as a representative, couse at this point its very blurry

and as for unerstading you and those wanting flip flopping, yes i understand it, playing with people is more important to you the faction locks, while faction lockes is more important to me an others... and thats what we are trying to tell you, you want the cake, but you dont want to make the sacrifice to get it, again you can play on a faction non-locked campaign, and if you are so many that you speak of then go there... change have to happen one way or anouther, even with a new 30 day non-locked, the change will take time, you guys cant have all of the play bae on a flip flopping cmapaign, that train has sailed, its gone... there locked campaign and unlocked cmapaigns...

And if i were a representative, id speak for the comunity and help that transitiion between to the two grouping, and help people get a unlocked campaign and a locked campaign...

You are making it blurry by accusing me of demanding to ZOS to do things when I have done nothing of the sort.

As a rep, ZOS has asked me to identify problems and pain points. Even if you think faction locks are wonderful and are threatening to never play again if you can't have your way, the fact of the matter is that there are pain points and people have articulated problems with the changes ZOS has made. It's my job to identify and collect that feedback. Just because I personally happen to agree with that feedback does not somehow compromise my position any more than agreeing with people who thought cast-time on shields was stupid or those people who have issues with Volundrung being a OP PvDoor mechanism that seems to too often wind up with the zerging faction that is winning.

As far as representing you, didn;t I just write, "When Brian Wheeler told me ZOS was doing this, I did *NOT* demand or ask ZOS to take away anything." Oh, look at that. I'm not abusing my position or personal access to push my agenda even though I and numerous other players disagree with the decision. It has been months since ZOS publicly announced this change and I have not once in that time communicated personally to the devs or used the class rep discord/other channels to push my own agenda and opinion.

And another thing, I am not the only rep. There are 8 of us. We all have different opinions, perspectives, and assessments. We need to have these divergent views to ensure all the pros and cons are accounted for and argued. There is nothing inherently wrong with taking a side. That's what debate and discussion is. At zero point ever since their announcement have I done anything to silence the pro lock side or misuse my position. All I have done is express my opinion on a public forum, which is something I and every Rep is allowed to do.

The fact of that matter is that ZOS has not yet asked for our feedback regarding faction-locks. Which is probably a good thing because it's not clear yet how things have played out (despite the insistence of many) and while I have issues in how ZOS has made these changes, it is not yet clear to me the ramification of those changes or how to best deal with the pain points that have come up because of them. ZOS has publicly said at their PAX panel that they want to see the pros and cons of this change before reassessing, and that means articulating those cons. The pros have been repeatedly and loudly voiced by you and others. Even I admitted numerous times that as far as these forums go, those who want the faction-locks have been more numerous and forceful in making their arguments. So you can stop accusing me of sabotaging your side anytime now.

You' still don't get why I and other people do not agree with ZOS's change. It's not just about "playing with people." I can still play with people. It's mostly about wanting to play on a campaign that's not dead and being forced to play under undesirable conditions, such as playing for a faction that dominates that map and not being able to play I character I have loved playing for 5 years among other reasons (in addition to being excluded from playing with certain people in meaningful and competitive campaigns.) If you understood that in the slightest, you'd stop burying your head in the sand and pretending things are just fine by telling us we could play on the non locked campaign, which is usually dead and there's no AvAvA "campaign" to speak of.

As i said earlier, we have two sides, and their both fairly vocal, now... the problem at hand is that there is essentially no going back, there is a split ofthe player base, you know it, i know it... unless you are going to force people that want faction lock back into a server that dosent have it, that wont end well...

So either way, a transition have to happen, on how to split the player base, how that is going to happen, i dont know, i dont even know if ZOS is going to add anouther non-locked 30 server, but as said, it would be much better to actually work for the split to go as smoothly for both sides, then both sides pointing fingers, isnt that what reps should do ?, work for the player base ?...

Eitherway, you can make up excuses, but to me its fairly clear your taken a side, and are not really interested in working for helping bridge the switch... couse i am content with the locked 30 server we have, its like the olden days, and there been some really good pvp oceanic... If it were up to me, id work for helping those not wanting locks, get their server, and or even mitigate the pop in order to do so, servers cant really handle primetime anyway

ks888

@IronWooshu this was when faction locks still existed man - it didn't work then, not gonna work now because, again, there is less overall PvP pop. I feel like I am speaking some alien language over here. How can I explain this in a way you might understand?

Marcus684

ks888 wrote: »

@IronWooshu this was when faction locks still existed man - it didn't work then, not gonna work now because, again, there is less overall PvP pop. I feel like I am speaking some alien language over here. How can I explain this in a way you might understand?

I think we all understand you; we just don't all agree with you.

regime211

Alliance lock was a nonsense idea, and honestly shouldn't of been reverted back.

regime211

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

It's gone live and it sucks.

bulbousb16_ESO

regime211 wrote: »

It's gone live and it sucks.

It's been live for two weeks, and it's totally awesome.

technohic

Well; one way we can see roughly what the overall population of factions is log in with a fresh character and see where they are on the scoreboard.

Logging in to DC with a fresh toon, and do just enough AP to register and I am at 152 on the emporor leader board.

IronWooshu

ks888 wrote: »

@IronWooshu this was when faction locks still existed man - it didn't work then, not gonna work now because, again, there is less overall PvP pop. I feel like I am speaking some alien language over here. How can I explain this in a way you might understand?

Faction lock wasnt reverted because it didnt work for PVP, it was reverted because they didnt have enough content in the pipeline for PVE and so they did the 1T initiative which opened up other faction storylines to everyone and allowed dead guilds to facilitate players of all factions. This was also when the game was near death, horrible launch killed the game and now the population is actually rising and people are coming back.

PvP was a side casualty of 1T, not because it was bad but because the population was low and the content was scarce.

This isnt the case anymore.

IronWooshu

ks888 wrote: »

@IronWooshu this was when faction locks still existed man - it didn't work then, not gonna work now because, again, there is less overall PvP pop. I feel like I am speaking some alien language over here. How can I explain this in a way you might understand?

On another note: you know what the biggest joke about all this is, all these complaints of why faction lock is a mistake where NEVER an issue before 1T because you never experienced the freedom to know the difference before 1T as you did the last few years.

So in saying this, this whole "it didnt work before" schtick is a joke.

InvictusApollo

Saying that majority of people wanted faction locks because "majority of people on forum wanted that" is a fallacy.
Actually there are multiple fallacies.
First of all you have no access to forum statistics and thus are unable to make any claims using the word "majority".
Second of all forum members are hardly a representative sample of all players.
Third of all the notion that what majority wants is the best solution, is fundamentally flawed. One look at IQ distribution is all it takes to see that majority of any population hardly has enough cognitive capability to make a decision requiring processing multiple factors.
Do you want an example? I've recently asked a certain vocal player: "How many pvp characters do you have and in which alliances are they?"
And he responded: "I have characters in each alliance and I play them all."
Yes. You see it correctly. The question asked for two pieces of information, yet the answer contained only one. That is how low and average IQ people responded to me my whole life. Every single high IQ person I have ever questioned (and I work with a lot of them and know a lot of them), allways has given full answer, providing values for all variables.
Low and average IQ people simply do not have mental capacity to process more than one or maybe two ideas at a time.
Since decision making requires processing multiple entry points, ideas and corellations and connections between them, only high IQ people are capable of efficiently and effectively making sophisticated decisions. Thats the harsh truth about reality.

InvictusApollo

IronWooshu wrote: »

ks888 wrote: »

@IronWooshu this was when faction locks still existed man - it didn't work then, not gonna work now because, again, there is less overall PvP pop. I feel like I am speaking some alien language over here. How can I explain this in a way you might understand?

On another note: you know what the biggest joke about all this is, all these complaints of why faction lock is a mistake where NEVER an issue before 1T because you never experienced the freedom to know the difference before 1T as you did the last few years.

So in saying this, this whole "it didnt work before" schtick is a joke.

Then I guess if you had never tasted freedom, then was given it, and then got enslaved again, you wouldn't complain about it. Because that is your logic here. It is fundamentally flawed. You are basically saying that one cannot judge a past solution when shown a new and better solution. Another fallacy in your statement is the fact that before T1 people did see that pvp has issues with ballance between factions. Lifting faction lock has almost entirely eliminated that problem.

bulbousb16_ESO

InvictusApollo wrote: »

Do you want an example? I've recently asked a certain vocal player: "How many pvp characters do you have and in which alliances are they?"
And he responded: "I have characters in each alliance and I play them all."

This is a clear example of your failure to grasp even basic concepts. If I advise you that I have characters in EACH alliance, do you REALLY need me to spell out to you that means Aldmeri Dominion, Daggerfall Covenant, and Ebonheart Pact? Do you not actually know the names of the Alliances in this game? And then you have the audacity to try and discuss matters of alliance war import? Pure hilarity.

Sanguinor2

bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »

InvictusApollo wrote: »

Do you want an example? I've recently asked a certain vocal player: "How many pvp characters do you have and in which alliances are they?"
And he responded: "I have characters in each alliance and I play them all."

This is a clear example of your failure to grasp even basic concepts. If I advise you that I have characters in EACH alliance, do you REALLY need me to spell out to you that means Aldmeri Dominion, Daggerfall Covenant, and Ebonheart Pact? Do you not actually know the names of the Alliances in this game? And then you have the audacity to try and discuss matters of alliance war import? Pure hilarity.

You are proving him Right.
He asked the Questions:
"How many pvp characters do you have?" (bolded it for you in the Quote so you can see it)
AND
"in which alliance are they?"
The answer "I have characters in each alliance and I Play them all" only answers in which alliances they are, in all 3, but it does not answer how many characters said Person has that he or she PvPs on, a Minimum of 3 up to a maximum of I think 18 characters Slots now? (If its not 18 maximum character Slots Right now feel free to correct me on that)

bulbousb16_ESO

Sanguinor2 wrote: »

He asked the Questions:
"How many pvp characters do you have?"...it does not answer how many characters said Person has that he or she PvPs on

No, you are correct, it does not specifically indicate the number of characters I have in each alliance - because that is not relevant to the discussion. With the current implementation of faction lock, I can play ALL characters in my Alliance, whether I have 1 or 10.

Celas_Dranacea

Yay for faction lock!

Sanguinor2

bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »

Sanguinor2 wrote: »

He asked the Questions:
"How many pvp characters do you have?"...it does not answer how many characters said Person has that he or she PvPs on

No, you are correct, it does not specifically indicate the number of characters I have in each alliance - because that is not relevant to the discussion. With the current implementation of faction lock, I can play ALL characters in my Alliance, whether I have 1 or 10.

Yes taken out of context this has Nothing to do with the Question About faction locks.
Apollo was pointing out what he perceived as fallacies in some Arguments for faction locks that were made here among those the Argument that what the majority wants is the best Thing to do, he talked About IQ Distribution and that the majority, in his opinion, is not qualified to make decisions that Need one to think About multiple factors (those are not my words! Im paraphrasing here, Im trying to explain to you why he used that specifix example and how your first reply to him proved him right, quoting what he wrote on that matter below this) and he listed his example as proof that atleast some People when faced with such a Question that is essentially 2 Questions only answer one despite thinking that their answer actually is sufficient to answer both.

InvictusApollo wrote: »

Third of all the notion that what majority wants is the best solution, is fundamentally flawed. One look at IQ distribution is all it takes to see that majority of any population hardly has enough cognitive capability to make a decision requiring processing multiple factors.
Do you want an example? I've recently asked a certain vocal player: "How many pvp characters do you have and in which alliances are they?"
And he responded: "I have characters in each alliance and I play them all."
Yes. You see it correctly. The question asked for two pieces of information, yet the answer contained only one. That is how low and average IQ people responded to me my whole life. Every single high IQ person I have ever questioned (and I work with a lot of them and know a lot of them), allways has given full answer, providing values for all variables.
Low and average IQ people simply do not have mental capacity to process more than one or maybe two ideas at a time.
Since decision making requires processing multiple entry points, ideas and corellations and connections between them, only high IQ people are capable of efficiently and effectively making sophisticated decisions. Thats the harsh truth about reality.