Revert Faction Locks. We've Been Through This Already

JykJax

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.

Totally agree on everything.
The tests should be done on the 7d campaign and see how it will works, considering the fail of the last Alliance Lock Feature

Alucardo

JykJax wrote: »

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.

Totally agree on everything.
The tests should be done on the 7d campaign and see how it will works, considering the fail of the last Alliance Lock Feature

How can you test on an unpopulated campaign. The way tests work is you need numbers to do so.

JykJax

Alucardo wrote: »

JykJax wrote: »

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.

Totally agree on everything.
The tests should be done on the 7d campaign and see how it will works, considering the fail of the last Alliance Lock Feature

How can you test on an unpopulated campaign. The way tests work is you need numbers to do so.

Hey, there are so many players that want sooo bad this feature that should be ok for them to play there.
If they will be not enough, it would mean that they aren't enough reason to justify a change like that on the 30day campaign.

Glory

code65536 wrote: »

pzschrek wrote: »

code65536 wrote: »

Naive question from an outsider looking in: How important is the campaign duration? Or, to put it more directly, why doesn't everyone just migrate to the 7-day unlocked campaign and leave the 30-day campaigns behind as the "dead" campaigns? Is there a particular reason why the "main" campaign that most people plays one has to be a 30-day?

It's pretty simple: Everyone plays there because everyone plays there.

So you're saying that people are on the 30-day not because it's 30-day, but because of inertia? But since all existing campaigns are closing down and people will be forced to select a new campaign when Elsweyr launches, why would that inertia matter? Why not just have everyone pick unlocked? It seems like that would simultaneously fix the problem and send ZOS a message (in the form that ZOS seems to care about the most--player statistics). Again, sorry if this sounds like a dumb question--I'm genuinely curious.

There's also the fact that the 30 day campaigns are listed first, which actually affects them being chosen. You're a new player, you don't know the difference, so you pick the first.

Davadin wrote: »

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.

I highly recommend playing without @ names on if you're into RP. There's really no way you would know that people on the other faction are the same people. I RP lightly by character and am never concerned as Glory-Heals-All on EP is not the same enemy as Glory Dominion on AD, for example.

Glory

Alucardo wrote: »

JykJax wrote: »

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.

Totally agree on everything.
The tests should be done on the 7d campaign and see how it will works, considering the fail of the last Alliance Lock Feature

How can you test on an unpopulated campaign. The way tests work is you need numbers to do so.

If people really want faction locks this bad they would switch to the 7d? Are you suggesting that people don't really care about faction locks enough to do so and leave the populated campaign, which would suggest that this is a bad idea?

Glory

Throwback to March 2016 when ZOS decided that locking alliances was a bad idea.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/2753849#Comment_2753849

Ixtyr

Marcus684 wrote: »

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.

The fact of the matter is that the "majority" of players don't give a *** either way. They want to play and have fun - locks only matter to the people who want to roleplay as faction loyalists, or to the people who are adversely impacted by how they prevent them from playing with their established friend groups.

This is why it's beyond comical that anyone suggests that ZOS wants to "test" this. They don't want to test a damn thing. That's evidenced by the way they're pushing this update, treating the current situation not as the Control, but as the Experiment, and then further stacking the cards against said Experiment by forcing people to relocate and accept fewer and less meaningful rewards.

@code65536 was right earlier - the main reason people won't want to move is due to inertia. If the majority of players genuinely don't care either way, which they don't, they're going to just continue going to the existing 30-day campaign options that they've always defaulted to in the past.

If @ZOS_BrianWheeler actually wanted to run a test here, he'd hold all variables constant, use the current Vivec/Sotha as the Control situation, then make two alternate 30-day Locked campaigns to act as Experiments for both CP and noCP, and monitor if/how people actually choose to migrate back over to a locked server. Unless Zenimax runs a true, properly-conducted test here, they will not be able to draw any legitimate conclusions about their players' preferences or behavior - because they have too many variables at play.

frozywozy

@Ixtyr I understand your points but it is not realistic to ask for 4 different campaigns right now. The root of this problem is that we don't have enough population to support more than 2 campaigns opened.

I believe what they should have done before addressing faction locks is to address the CPs issue. Once everybody agrees about a system that does not make people being a juggernaut (CP) while also making sure that we can customize our class a certain way, then we can close the No CP campaign and introduce the new CP system in battlegrounds.

From there, I believe that we should have :

- One 30 days campaign with faction locks
- One 30 days campaign without faction locks
- Battlegrounds with new CP system enabled
- Imperial City with new CP system enabled

What is sure is that it is completely stupid to have more than 2 campaigns opened at the moment. Priority should be to make sure that we have a great competition going between 3 factions at primetime on all campaigns and also restricting our reasons and motives to open additional campaigns as much as possible.

We can discuss about giving more choices to players once we have the population to support it.

dazee

Davadin wrote: »

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.

RP players have nothing to do with it. most RP players play characters of multiple factions and RP them all.

Ixtyr

frozywozy wrote: »

@Ixtyr I understand your points but it is not realistic to ask for 4 different campaigns right now. The root of this problem is that we don't have enough population to support more than 2 campaigns opened.

I believe what they should have done before addressing faction locks is to address the CPs issue. Once everybody agrees about a system that does not make people being a juggernaut (CP) while also making sure that we can customize our class a certain way, then we can close the No CP campaign and introduce the new CP system in battlegrounds.

From there, I believe that we should have :

- One 30 days campaign with faction locks
- One 30 days campaign without faction locks
- Battlegrounds with new CP system enabled
- Imperial City with new CP system enabled

What is sure is that it is completely stupid to have more than 2 campaigns opened at the moment. Priority should be to make sure that we have a great competition going between 3 factions at primetime on all campaigns and also restricting our reasons and motives to open additional campaigns as much as possible.

We can discuss about giving more choices to players once we have the population to support it.

That's fair. My point is more about the variables not being constant. I still agree that a decision about how they handle CP should be figured out and that population is a problem everywhere right now.

That said, some people like CP and others don't, so until ZOS figures out the long-term direction of that system idk what, if anything, they're going to be able to do without royally pissing off a big chunk of their audience.

Glory

frozywozy wrote: »

@Ixtyr I understand your points but it is not realistic to ask for 4 different campaigns right now. The root of this problem is that we don't have enough population to support more than 2 campaigns opened.

I believe what they should have done before addressing faction locks is to address the CPs issue. Once everybody agrees about a system that does not make people being a juggernaut (CP) while also making sure that we can customize our class a certain way, then we can close the No CP campaign and introduce the new CP system in battlegrounds.

From there, I believe that we should have :

- One 30 days campaign with faction locks
- One 30 days campaign without faction locks
- Battlegrounds with new CP system enabled
- Imperial City with new CP system enabled

What is sure is that it is completely stupid to have more than 2 campaigns opened at the moment. Priority should be to make sure that we have a great competition going between 3 factions at primetime on all campaigns and also restricting our reasons and motives to open additional campaigns as much as possible.

We can discuss about giving more choices to players once we have the population to support it.

Agree with bolded. What would be better in my opinion is to have a CP, noCP main campaigns and an overflow that you're pushed into if you're faction is at lock.

An example of this mechanic can be found in Guild Wars 2 WvW (their version of Cyrodiil): there is a main map and "edges" maps which are basically smaller zones that you enter into while waiting for your queue.

Example for ESO:

• You are a CP PvPer, main campaign is like Vivec. When Vivec fills, instead of being 80+ queues you're automatically entered into this overflow-style zone. You'll be able to contribute to your alliance by doing smaller objectives (escorting carvans, taking outpost-esque buildings, etc.), and you'll be notified when there is space for you in your main campaign. If you really like the overflow zone, you can stay too.
• Same thing for noCP.

This would ensure that both CP and noCP have their own place, ensure that a main campaign for each is well-filled, and that a huge issue right now (80+ people not PvPing) would be resolved. Players would be able to get into the fight faster, if you are a faction loyalist you can contribute even while in "queue" for your campaign, and we'd have less issues with comparing prime vs. non-prime time.

This could be implemented with the IC map!

Ixtyr

Glory wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

@Ixtyr I understand your points but it is not realistic to ask for 4 different campaigns right now. The root of this problem is that we don't have enough population to support more than 2 campaigns opened.

I believe what they should have done before addressing faction locks is to address the CPs issue. Once everybody agrees about a system that does not make people being a juggernaut (CP) while also making sure that we can customize our class a certain way, then we can close the No CP campaign and introduce the new CP system in battlegrounds.

From there, I believe that we should have :

- One 30 days campaign with faction locks
- One 30 days campaign without faction locks
- Battlegrounds with new CP system enabled
- Imperial City with new CP system enabled

What is sure is that it is completely stupid to have more than 2 campaigns opened at the moment. Priority should be to make sure that we have a great competition going between 3 factions at primetime on all campaigns and also restricting our reasons and motives to open additional campaigns as much as possible.

We can discuss about giving more choices to players once we have the population to support it.

Agree with bolded. What would be better in my opinion is to have a CP, noCP main campaigns and an overflow that you're pushed into if you're faction is at lock.

An example of this mechanic can be found in Guild Wars 2 WvW (their version of Cyrodiil): there is a main map and "edges" maps which are basically smaller zones that you enter into while waiting for your queue.

Example for ESO:

• You are a CP PvPer, main campaign is like Vivec. When Vivec fills, instead of being 80+ queues you're automatically entered into this overflow-style zone. You'll be able to contribute to your alliance by doing smaller objectives (escorting carvans, taking outpost-esque buildings, etc.), and you'll be notified when there is space for you in your main campaign. If you really like the overflow zone, you can stay too.
• Same thing for noCP.

This would ensure that both CP and noCP have their own place, ensure that a main campaign for each is well-filled, and that a huge issue right now (80+ people not PvPing) would be resolved. Players would be able to get into the fight faster, if you are a faction loyalist you can contribute even while in "queue" for your campaign, and we'd have less issues with comparing prime vs. non-prime time.

This could be implemented with the IC map!

I do like how GW2 handles that. Would be curious to see how it'd work in ESO.

Feels highly unlikely that it ever happens though.

Grimlok_S

There is an unlocked server that allows you to continue to play as you have, cross faction.

I don't understand what everyone is crying about. Play the unlocked server if that appeals to you.

I know that's where I'll be.

Luckylancer

People react like all campaigns are locked.

MrSinister213

Logged in PC NA AD at 6pm PST (1 GMT). AD Vivec queue was 186. Typical for a Thursday and Tuesday because the dominant AD guild plays these days, so the pugs and other guilds follow suite. Normally I log into another alliance to not only skip the hour plus long pvdoor queue, but to fight these pvdoor zerglings who are easy ap.

People need to put the game ahead of their own personal feelings. On paper at release with a healthy population faction lock makes sense. This is a five year old game btw. The population on PC wont survive this, most wont wait in a 100+ queue if they cant go to another faction, they will play another game, a real PvP game.

In conclusion unban Iskra.

Miswar

Grimlok_S wrote: »

There is an unlocked server that allows you to continue to play as you have, cross faction.

I don't understand what everyone is crying about. Play the unlocked server if that appeals to you.

I know that's where I'll be.

This and the amount of people crying here is pathetic.

As said you still campaigns where you can cross dress, hop and hop every 1min or do whatever makes you tick.

Unfortunately you just can''t enter the faction locked campaign glory hunting, zone chat trolling or other rubbish ap boosting...

This change was needed and it was needed months ago... looking forward to this and the amount of rubbish this change actually fixes will be nice!

Miswar

Oh.. and if you are complaining about the ques... well has it ever blinked in your tiny brain cells that some of those ques are due to people swapping alliances like socks... propably not.

Have a nice eastern though despite all of the above

Miswar

Luckylancer wrote: »

People react like all campaigns are locked.

It is only the vocal glory hunters, ap boosters and similar quality players.

The people I have talked that actually play PvP are waiting for this change and concensus been that it will be the best for longtime.

Thus let them whine... and they also might notice they still have a campaign where they can continue their sock swapping. I think the whining about that is that they do know that most pvp players will play the locked ones... thus their glory hunting, boosting and trolling skills will suffer.

ellahellabella

Miswar wrote: »

Oh.. and if you are complaining about the ques... well has it ever blinked in your tiny brain cells that some of those ques are due to people swapping alliances like socks... propably not.

Have a nice eastern though despite all of the above

Annnnd you're speaking for only your timezone. Mine (OC) only lives on the 30 day because we don't have the population to spread out over 2 servers. Heck, we're often lucky to reach lock pop on any faction!

I find it ironic how people recognise that score changes during peak off hours cause the most impact but still support restrictions when those of us on NA pc(can't speak for all servers) are heavy on switching to keep the scoreboards fair and making less of an impact.

Miswar

ellahellabella wrote: »

Miswar wrote: »

Oh.. and if you are complaining about the ques... well has it ever blinked in your tiny brain cells that some of those ques are due to people swapping alliances like socks... propably not.

Have a nice eastern though despite all of the above

Annnnd you're speaking for only your timezone. Mine (OC) only lives on the 30 day because we don't have the population to spread out over 2 servers. Heck, we're often lucky to reach lock pop on any faction!

I find it ironic how people recognise that score changes during peak off hours cause the most impact but still support restrictions when those of us on NA pc(can't speak for all servers) are heavy on switching to keep the scoreboards fair and making less of an impact.

Well.. to be honest people do not function the way you described and that is the exact problem here... "..of us on NA PC are heavy on switching to keep scoreboards fair and makng less of an impact..."

...good if it does behave that way.. at consoles people are simply glory hunting and what I heard that is the main thing around. In general people are greedy and prone to glory hunting... simple as that. Also if there is a need to keep swithing sides like socks as you said that is fundamentally wrong.

To summarize nothing you said makes me think that it is bad decision actually vice versa.

The subject is talked to death and roll on the changes. I will bet the faction locked campaign will be most popular, have less toxic zonechat crap and ap boosting etc... now enough of this. Have a nice day.

ellahellabella

Miswar wrote: »

ellahellabella wrote: »

Miswar wrote: »

Oh.. and if you are complaining about the ques... well has it ever blinked in your tiny brain cells that some of those ques are due to people swapping alliances like socks... propably not.

Have a nice eastern though despite all of the above

Annnnd you're speaking for only your timezone. Mine (OC) only lives on the 30 day because we don't have the population to spread out over 2 servers. Heck, we're often lucky to reach lock pop on any faction!

I find it ironic how people recognise that score changes during peak off hours cause the most impact but still support restrictions when those of us on NA pc(can't speak for all servers) are heavy on switching to keep the scoreboards fair and making less of an impact.

Well.. to be honest people do not function the way you described and that is the exact problem here... "..of us on NA PC are heavy on switching to keep scoreboards fair and makng less of an impact..."

...good if it does behave that way.. at consoles people are simply glory hunting and what I heard that is the main thing around. In general people are greedy and prone to glory hunting... simple as that. Also if there is a need to keep swithing sides like socks as you said that is fundamentally wrong.

To summarize nothing you said makes me think that it is bad decision actually vice versa.

The subject is talked to death and roll on the changes. I will bet the faction locked campaign will be most popular, have less toxic zonechat crap and ap boosting etc... now enough of this. Have a nice day.

Well honestly, you have a problem then with the general community of your server and trust me, if you think faction lock is going to change 'glory hunting' be ready for some heavy disappointment.

And ofc the faction locked servers will be the most popular ones! they're the bloomin' 30 day cp and only veteran no cp servers! Everyone flocks to the 30 days first because they're the most exciting ones to persist on. 7 days just passes by too soon.

Ranger209

@ellahellabella

I get online, Vivec NA, to gather resources from my mules every morning at 7 am est. If my math is correct this is around 11 pm for eastern OC and 9 pm for western. What I see almost without fail at least on the weekdays is 2 yellow bars, 1 red, 1 blue, with AD being in the process of gathering all 6 scrolls.

1st question is how is playing under those circumstances any more exciting on a 30 day campaign vs a 7 day campaign?
2nd question are the majority of those people faction loyal?
3rd question do people actually think by playing on the underpopulated factions they are making a difference or are they just wanting people to fight and that is the only way since if they go AD there will be no one to fight?
4th question if you know, what am I missing that is happening the few hours prior to what I am witnessing, more toward eastern OC prime time?

frostz417

This only caters to toxic faction loyalists

Firstmep

I only play for the Covenant, but there are times when i wish i had characthers on other alliances as some of my friends i PvE with only play those.

The thing is i Faction Lock simply wont address the major issues Cyrodiil is facing namely:

-Lag/Performance

-Too much reward and incentive for taking empty keeps

-Keep defense when both defenders and attackers are evenly matched is too heavily in favor of the defender, which further pushes people to tackle empty keeps instead.

-Much the campaign scoring is decided by the few players that play in off hours, rather than the majority that plays during prime time. This discourages people to play the map, as the few hours of prime time pvp wont make a dent in the overall score.

All in all, we will have to wait and see what faction lock does, although i do fear that many people will simply stick with whatever alliance is most dominant on the locked campaigns.

Why bother locking yourself to a losing faction, when you know your alliances night/morning cap team will ensure that you are always winning the campaign.

ellahellabella

Ranger209 wrote: »

@ellahellabella

I get online, Vivec NA, to gather resources from my mules every morning at 7 am est. If my math is correct this is around 11 pm for eastern OC and 9 pm for western. What I see almost without fail at least on the weekdays is 2 yellow bars, 1 red, 1 blue, with AD being in the process of gathering all 6 scrolls.

1st question is how is playing under those circumstances any more exciting on a 30 day campaign vs a 7 day campaign?
2nd question are the majority of those people faction loyal?
3rd question do people actually think by playing on the underpopulated factions they are making a difference or are they just wanting people to fight and that is the only way since if they go AD there will be no one to fight?
4th question if you know, what am I missing that is happening the few hours prior to what I am witnessing, more toward eastern OC prime time?

1st question: it was probably a weekday. Ad takes everything without competition. I'm normally not even on because I am doing study. This 2 bars only lasts about 1 hour (maybe 2) then the fun begins.
How is it more fun? Well it might not be if ad take everything but I'd rather be fighting a horde of ad then solo flipping a keep in the 7 day because it's deserted. If I want to solo pve, I'd do malestrom.

2nd question: I know the guild that does this and they are ad only.

3rd question: yes because more than once we have defended a keep with a bit more life than your example to defend against over twice our numbers. Makes for one beautiful Dee tick and a night to remember for a while.

4th question: Idk, I say what I know and people just keep brushing me off. You tell me.
If you mean after the ad hoarde, depends on if wormhole log on. Things go heavy blue then because they join forces with another guild and double hit a faction. Suddenly dc is overwhelming everything.
If wormhole doesn't log on, dc and ep slowly gain pop and go south. Then an ep guild begins and ep will faction stack everything.
Somehow in this timeframe, I need to pick a faction to be 'loyal' to. I'm not looking forward to it at all.

Kikke

Faction locks got removed back in the day because not PvP, but the GAME was dying. So to get some life into Cyro they kinda had to remove the faction locks, as I remember the last character I leveled to v16 back in the days did all the veteran ranks as the only person in the questing zones. And PvP had become unbalanced faction wise.

Now, the game is healtier than it has ever been. Cyro is being exploited by the few, and now ZOS wants that to stop.
- Emp trading
- AP ball groups pushing factions to gate, then swap faction to push back on the faction they led.
- People not attacking other factions because said people are 'friends' so they let fellow team mates dies without help.
- They jump on an underdog faction. Goes far into enemy lands, caps a keep and stands there farming untill whiped, then they relogg again.
- Scroll traders
- Ambush helpers
- Spies
- Spotters
- does solo PvP in a group PvP map, and expects it to be balanced around solo play.
And much much more. And that is done by, faction locks.

And one question, Why should we that wants to play the map get the 7-day campaign? why cant the ones that dont care about the map, campaign, factions play on it?

You guys keep saying "Whiners got this change to happend" Yet you guys whine more then ever about the change.
So, if it gets changed again. It WOULD be because of whiners like you.

And no, being faction loyal got nothing to do with RP, being bad, or any of these false statements you guys are comming with, faction loyal is all about playing the map, aiming for good AvAvA, and aiming for some, just SOME faction pride again...

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

Kikke wrote: »

Faction locks got removed back in the day because not PvP, but the GAME was dying. So to get some life into Cyro they kinda had to remove the faction locks

This is completely false. The game was dying because the performance was terrible. Even compared to now the performance was 100x worse additionally rather than investing into fixes to the performance ZOS went with the approach of lowing population in pvp over and over again leading us to the point we are at now.

The removed the incentives and buffs keeping people coming back to pvp and now it is a shell of what it formerly was.

In response to the 2 campaign / spreading population posts, this will never work with the current reward structure and incentives. Rather than simply locking people and frustrating the playerbase if ZOS actually incentivised pvp again we have the population (see double AP events - even though the reward for them is rubbish in comparison people play in their masses)

Its not a problem that can be solved with 'bone' fixes every patch. It requires a concerted effort from ZOS to actually implement a group of fixes to scoring, performance, rewards and overall gameplay pushes but unfortunately this doesn't appear to be planned for this year and I don't hold out much hope for the next either.

Haashhtaag

Kikke wrote: »

Faction locks got removed back in the day because not PvP, but the GAME was dying. So to get some life into Cyro they kinda had to remove the faction locks, as I remember the last character I leveled to v16 back in the days did all the veteran ranks as the only person in the questing zones. And PvP had become unbalanced faction wise.

Now, the game is healtier than it has ever been. Cyro is being exploited by the few, and now ZOS wants that to stop.
- Emp trading
- AP ball groups pushing factions to gate, then swap faction to push back on the faction they led.
- People not attacking other factions because said people are 'friends' so they let fellow team mates dies without help.
- They jump on an underdog faction. Goes far into enemy lands, caps a keep and stands there farming untill whiped, then they relogg again.
- Scroll traders
- Ambush helpers
- Spies
- Spotters
- does solo PvP in a group PvP map, and expects it to be balanced around solo play.
And much much more. And that is done by, faction locks.

And one question, Why should we that wants to play the map get the 7-day campaign? why cant the ones that dont care about the map, campaign, factions play on it?

You guys keep saying "Whiners got this change to happend" Yet you guys whine more then ever about the change.
So, if it gets changed again. It WOULD be because of whiners like you.

And no, being faction loyal got nothing to do with RP, being bad, or any of these false statements you guys are comming with, faction loyal is all about playing the map, aiming for good AvAvA, and aiming for some, just SOME faction pride again...

Games pvp population is at all time low

Deep_01

It seems ZOS would like us to grind 3 accounts if we want to PvP anytime on any campaign

MrSinister213

Miswar wrote: »

Oh.. and if you are complaining about the ques... well has it ever blinked in your tiny brain cells that some of those ques are due to people swapping alliances like socks... propably not.

Have a nice eastern though despite all of the above

Why would someone go to play on their non preferred alliance when that alliance has a 2 hour queue, well outside the normal queue? How does faction lock improve our PvP experience? Most people will switch alliances in the scenario you present because they have limited time and sitting in a 100+ queue isn't an option. Why should I have to wait in a 2 hour queue so you can have your loyalist role play in our PvP zone?

Faction lock is for toxic loyalists who don't care about the community and only look to serve themselves. Faction lock will deter both casuals and the tryhards from coming to Cyrodil , as evident in all these threads. Billy Bowtard with a job and a family cant wait in a queue for over an hour. PC NA cant afford to lose more people and I imagine consoles are in worse shape.

If loyalist like you cared about the game and PvP you would be looking at solutions to bring in PVE players through rewards. You would be asking Zos to copy console accounts to PC for a monetary fee. You would be looking to include more people instead of exclude. If you want faction lock that is your choice, but don't insult the rest of us will your delusion of helping the game.