Cyrodiil: Why Faction lock is only a Band-Aid fix for a bigger problem

RealPhoenix

We see a lot of people complaining about faction lock these days. We also see quite some supporting it. I get the motivations of both sides to support either implementation, but the core problem lies somewhere else.
First of all - I think Faction Lock is a terrible idea. It prevents people who have levelled multiple characters on multiple factions to play with each other. Its the most radical change against the whole idea of One Tamriel, it makes no sense. But this thread is not about faction lock itself, its about why ZOS felt the need to implement it in the first place. Like I said, I get the idea. ZOS wants to make sure that the players respect the gameplay that Cyrodiil was intended for - playing for their faction, earning points towards winning the campaign, running scrolls and taking keeps. Defending together, attacking together, strategising to take heavily guarded keeps and such. I get it, and its a nice concept. Unfortunately, it only works in theory.
What ZOS does apparently not realise, is that the people who play games are the same people who live on this planet, in real life. And in real life, we (laughably) have the exact same issues as we do in the game: Not everyone cares for the greater good. In fact, (unfortunately) very little people do. I could open up a whole discussion about capitalism and climate change, but I think thats a bit off topic. What I am trying to say is: There will always be alot of people in Cyrodiil who do not play because they want to support their faction and win the campaign (The "Greater Good").
Now, why does this matter?

With faction locks, ZOS apparently tries to solve the problem that multiple people, especially more experienced players and groups, were "hopping" to different factions in order to either find better fights or play with their friends. ZOS however wants to give the people who care about the campaign the feeling that what they are doing is important, so they are taking away the "faction hopping" to prevent that. They want to force people to play Cyrodiil like it was intended: Playing for one faction and working together to win the campaign.

While this is theoretically a good idea, the approach is simply a band-aid fix: Half the PvP community is just mad at the Game Developers because they don't let them play with their friends and restrict them to play on one faction, that might possibly be way too crowded, forcing them to spend their evening in queues instead of playing for the weaker faction. PvP Guilds, who play this game for for competitive reasons, now cannot fight certain other guilds anymore that choose the same faction and instead always fight the same old groups. They are stuck on their faction and can't play for a weaker one to balance out the campaigns anymore.

All this stuff amounts to a much bigger problem ZOS apparently does not realise: If you want people to play the game a certain way, give them incentives to do so!

What do I mean by that?

With Elsweyr, Volendrung was introduced - a very strong weapon designed to disrupt the everyday-business of Cyrodiil a bit. While I dont want to argue about its performance in this post, I will say this: Generally, implementing stuff like these weapons is a great idea.

But if you add such a powerful artefact which obviously every organised group will try to obtain, why don't you use these exact tools to make players fight the way you want them to?

Just a few quick ideas to prove my point:

- Make sure you have to take back home keeps if your faction doesn't have them at the moment in order to keep it charged.
- Make sure to give the carrying player the objective to take an outpost to support their faction in order to keep the weapon charged

Instead, you can port anywhere with the weapon and ball groups will still go for the enemy home keeps to have their fun and kill everyone in it - obviously.

At the same time, implementing one kind of this weapon on the whole map will lead to the next big problem in Cyrodiil: Faction Stacking. You are concerned about Zergs stacking on top of each other because your servers can't handle the load. While that is totally understandable (as a game developer I have a rough feeling how tough it must be for your servers to handle a 40v40v40 battle), you dont use the opportunities to prevent such stacking.

You implement a really strong weapon in the game capable to turn fights around completely. This weapon would bring multiple opportunities to spread out the population in Cyrodiil.
As stated above, you could give the carrier an objective to take back a home keep or to hold an outpost for strategical reasons. Another idea is to make sure to spawn multiple (possibly a bit weaker) weapons (of the same or different kind) that require the people to go to multiple "hotspots" in order to:
1) split the population, instead of everyone going to one weapon and creating the famous faction stacking effect.
2) giving people something to fight for

Even without the weapons, you could do many different things in order to make players play like you want to (no matter if they WANT to play for the faction or not). Some ideas are stated here:

- Make sure that the Grand Warlords of each faction give players multiple "Hot-Spots" to fight at which is marked for everyone on the map and which is rewarded with a meaningful reward. Make sure that people who dont care about the faction go there because its worth it for other reasons (like for instance a lot of ap), instead of trying to force everyone to play for the faction, because thats never gonna happen. This will create multiple spots on the map where people can meet and fight, and achieve 3 things:
1) Spread out the population of Cyrodiil to multiple hot-spots.
2) Give people something to fight for
3) Give people who simply dont care about campaign scoring a reason to still fight for their faction

Faction Locks are not the way to make people play like you want to. Forcing people into certain play styles is the whole thing ESO tries to prevent, in both PvE and PvP. You should give people incentives to support a play style you want, rather than forcing them to play like you want.

VaranisArano

You speak to the postitive reinforcement of faction locking: it improves the experience of those players who play Cyrodiil as it was originally developed - for the faction, for the campaign win. Which it does, to the detriment of everyone who got used to playing post-One Tamriel on multiple factions.

There's also the negative reinforcement: its much harder for players to sell Emperorship, to swap en masse to the winning side, to farm AP with their buddies at some out of the way resource, to treat the 30 day campaigns like their personal transmute crystal farming ground, to troll by spying, or troll by trashing a scroll run. Not that its inpossible to do so - I'm sure some very dedicated trolls will still troll. But its much harder to do so, and ZOS expects it to be a deterrent to many negative behaviors that cropped up due to the ability to faction swap.


One of the enduring issues with Cyrodiil is its designed as an AvAvA faction based, objective based game mode...with a respectable portion of the playerbase wanting to ignore the objectives and play it like its a Deathmatch.

After One Tamriel, ZOS moved towards making the objectives more optional by effectively rewarding multifaction play. Players who don't care about objectives could Deathmatch it up in Cyrodiil (which is why so many players complain about the "unfairness" of zergs and ball groups in a zone originally designed for groups of 8 to 24 players).

Now, ZOS is swinging back to Cyrodiil as a "Play the Objective" game mode as it was originally designed, in order to encourage beneficial gameplay and discourage sone of the undeniable abuses that crept in with multifaction play.

It's a change. Like all changes, it pleases some and makes some unhappy.

I think its too early to see how well the faction locks work. If they have the effects ZOS wants, great! If they don't, it will probably be reverted. Maybe Cyrodiil will be better as the mostly objective-based zone it was designed as, or maybe the player base has moved on as a whole and prefers more Deathmatch-style play.

Its too soon to know. Not too soon for everyone to have an opinion, but far too soon to know how it will actually play out.

bulbousb16_ESO

Fr3ak1n0ut wrote: »

While this is theoretically a good idea, the approach is simply a band-aid fix: Half the PvP community is just mad at the Game Developers because they don't let them play with their friends and restrict them to play on one faction, that might possibly be way too crowded, forcing them to spend their evening in queues instead of playing for the weaker faction.

Yeah, I'm going to call BS on this claim. There seems to be overwhelming support for faction locks and a lot of whining from the disaffected.

Haashhtaag

bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »

Fr3ak1n0ut wrote: »

While this is theoretically a good idea, the approach is simply a band-aid fix: Half the PvP community is just mad at the Game Developers because they don't let them play with their friends and restrict them to play on one faction, that might possibly be way too crowded, forcing them to spend their evening in queues instead of playing for the weaker faction.

Yeah, I'm going to call BS on this claim. There seems to be overwhelming support for faction locks and a lot of whining from the disaffected.

Forums is a small portion of the game. Your friends in game is a smaller portion of the game than the forums.

VaranisArano

Haashhtaag wrote: »

bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »

Fr3ak1n0ut wrote: »

While this is theoretically a good idea, the approach is simply a band-aid fix: Half the PvP community is just mad at the Game Developers because they don't let them play with their friends and restrict them to play on one faction, that might possibly be way too crowded, forcing them to spend their evening in queues instead of playing for the weaker faction.

Yeah, I'm going to call BS on this claim. There seems to be overwhelming support for faction locks and a lot of whining from the disaffected.

Forums is a small portion of the game. Your friends in game is a smaller portion of the game than the forums.

The same can be said of both sides of this argument.

Which is why its way too soon to tell what the long term impact is going to be. None of us have the big picture view, and its impossible to tell anything about the impact when lots of people are off playing Elsweyr.

For context, last year PC/NA Vivec took close to three months after Summerset to regain a decent level of balance on the server. It felt like AD took a break about 2 weeks prior to the Chapter release and didnt pull together til several campaigns later.

I'm trying to take a long term view, remember that everyone except the hardcore Cyrodiil regulars are playing the new content, and relax.

Jimmy_The_Fixer

OP is completely right, cutting players off from the people they want to play with is a terrible way of accomplishing what the lock is trying to accomplish.

If there’s a concern about people swapping for rewards then simply make mono-faction the most rewarding style of gameplay. Everyone I know would be perfectly happy with losing out on the best campaign rewards if it meant that we still could play with each other (On a popular campaign)

And maybe turn the 7 day into permalocked roleplay campaign where people have to talk in-character when using zone chat, because I guess there’s a niche appeal for that kind of thing.

bulbousb16_ESO

Haashhtaag wrote: »

Forums is a small portion of the game. Your friends in game is a smaller portion of the game than the forums.

[removed baiting comment]

Keep in mind that Faction Locks are not the total solution. They are merely a first step in the right direction to making factions matter again. There is no place for people who "just want to play with their friends" and could not care about factions whatsoever, and we should not be trying to accommodate them.

RealPhoenix

VaranisArano wrote: »

You speak to the postitive reinforcement of faction locking: it improves the experience of those players who play Cyrodiil as it was originally developed - for the faction, for the campaign win. Which it does, to the detriment of everyone who got used to playing post-One Tamriel on multiple factions.

There's also the negative reinforcement: its much harder for players to sell Emperorship, to swap en masse to the winning side, to farm AP with their buddies at some out of the way resource, to treat the 30 day campaigns like their personal transmute crystal farming ground, to troll by spying, or troll by trashing a scroll run. Not that its inpossible to do so - I'm sure some very dedicated trolls will still troll. But its much harder to do so, and ZOS expects it to be a deterrent to many negative behaviors that cropped up due to the ability to faction swap.


One of the enduring issues with Cyrodiil is its designed as an AvAvA faction based, objective based game mode...with a respectable portion of the playerbase wanting to ignore the objectives and play it like its a Deathmatch.

After One Tamriel, ZOS moved towards making the objectives more optional by effectively rewarding multifaction play. Players who don't care about objectives could Deathmatch it up in Cyrodiil (which is why so many players complain about the "unfairness" of zergs and ball groups in a zone originally designed for groups of 8 to 24 players).

Now, ZOS is swinging back to Cyrodiil as a "Play the Objective" game mode as it was originally designed, in order to encourage beneficial gameplay and discourage sone of the undeniable abuses that crept in with multifaction play.

It's a change. Like all changes, it pleases some and makes some unhappy.

I think its too early to see how well the faction locks work. If they have the effects ZOS wants, great! If they don't, it will probably be reverted. Maybe Cyrodiil will be better as the mostly objective-based zone it was designed as, or maybe the player base has moved on as a whole and prefers more Deathmatch-style play.

Its too soon to know. Not too soon for everyone to have an opinion, but far too soon to know how it will actually play out.

As I stated above, I dont actually want to make this a post about faction lock whining. Still, I have to call out some of your arguments.

How does faction lock make emp selling harder?
How does Faction lock make farming AP on some resource harder?
How does faction lock make trolling harder, no matter if its trashing a scroll run or calling out keeps that aren't actually under attack?

None of these are valid arguments. There is still gonna be enough groups to do emp runs, especially in the half-dead 7 day camps.
AP Farming will still be done by everyone, the only difference is that people are forced to do it with a portion of their friends now instead of doing it with whoever is online on whatever faction they want to do it. And about trolling: People who didn't care for the campaign definitely won't start doing it after ZOS takes away their option to change factions. These guys, if anything, will troll even more.

Like I said, Faction Lock fixes none of these issues. It just tries to force the player into a play style he might not support. Like I said in my post, the better idea to approach this is by giving people incentive to play on one faction.
(And tbh, as I see it, faction hopping isn't even a huge problem for Cyrodiil - if anything it evens out the fights as people who dont want to wait 30 min in a queue can go for the weaker faction)

Tsuriel

Fr3ak1n0ut wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

You speak to the postitive reinforcement of faction locking: it improves the experience of those players who play Cyrodiil as it was originally developed - for the faction, for the campaign win. Which it does, to the detriment of everyone who got used to playing post-One Tamriel on multiple factions.

There's also the negative reinforcement: its much harder for players to sell Emperorship, to swap en masse to the winning side, to farm AP with their buddies at some out of the way resource, to treat the 30 day campaigns like their personal transmute crystal farming ground, to troll by spying, or troll by trashing a scroll run. Not that its inpossible to do so - I'm sure some very dedicated trolls will still troll. But its much harder to do so, and ZOS expects it to be a deterrent to many negative behaviors that cropped up due to the ability to faction swap.


One of the enduring issues with Cyrodiil is its designed as an AvAvA faction based, objective based game mode...with a respectable portion of the playerbase wanting to ignore the objectives and play it like its a Deathmatch.

After One Tamriel, ZOS moved towards making the objectives more optional by effectively rewarding multifaction play. Players who don't care about objectives could Deathmatch it up in Cyrodiil (which is why so many players complain about the "unfairness" of zergs and ball groups in a zone originally designed for groups of 8 to 24 players).

Now, ZOS is swinging back to Cyrodiil as a "Play the Objective" game mode as it was originally designed, in order to encourage beneficial gameplay and discourage sone of the undeniable abuses that crept in with multifaction play.

It's a change. Like all changes, it pleases some and makes some unhappy.

I think its too early to see how well the faction locks work. If they have the effects ZOS wants, great! If they don't, it will probably be reverted. Maybe Cyrodiil will be better as the mostly objective-based zone it was designed as, or maybe the player base has moved on as a whole and prefers more Deathmatch-style play.

Its too soon to know. Not too soon for everyone to have an opinion, but far too soon to know how it will actually play out.

As I stated above, I dont actually want to make this a post about faction lock whining. Still, I have to call out some of your arguments.

How does faction lock make emp selling harder?
How does Faction lock make farming AP on some resource harder?
How does faction lock make trolling harder, no matter if its trashing a scroll run or calling out keeps that aren't actually under attack?

None of these are valid arguments. There is still gonna be enough groups to do emp runs, especially in the half-dead 7 day camps.
AP Farming will still be done by everyone, the only difference is that people are forced to do it with a portion of their friends now instead of doing it with whoever is online on whatever faction they want to do it. And about trolling: People who didn't care for the campaign definitely won't start doing it after ZOS takes away their option to change factions. These guys, if anything, will troll even more.

Like I said, Faction Lock fixes none of these issues. It just tries to force the player into a play style he might not support. Like I said in my post, the better idea to approach this is by giving people incentive to play on one faction.
(And tbh, as I see it, faction hopping isn't even a huge problem for Cyrodiil - if anything it evens out the fights as people who dont want to wait 30 min in a queue can go for the weaker faction)

In addition. All you need is a 2nd account to keep track of the score and join the said dominating faction with your main.

I see no point in faction lock either, nor will it solve anything except to feed the very few dominating guilds and PvPers who are always bound to take more space than the casual player not giving two flying ***** about anything beyond a pleasant gameplay.

VaranisArano

Fr3ak1n0ut wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

You speak to the postitive reinforcement of faction locking: it improves the experience of those players who play Cyrodiil as it was originally developed - for the faction, for the campaign win. Which it does, to the detriment of everyone who got used to playing post-One Tamriel on multiple factions.

There's also the negative reinforcement: its much harder for players to sell Emperorship, to swap en masse to the winning side, to farm AP with their buddies at some out of the way resource, to treat the 30 day campaigns like their personal transmute crystal farming ground, to troll by spying, or troll by trashing a scroll run. Not that its inpossible to do so - I'm sure some very dedicated trolls will still troll. But its much harder to do so, and ZOS expects it to be a deterrent to many negative behaviors that cropped up due to the ability to faction swap.


One of the enduring issues with Cyrodiil is its designed as an AvAvA faction based, objective based game mode...with a respectable portion of the playerbase wanting to ignore the objectives and play it like its a Deathmatch.

After One Tamriel, ZOS moved towards making the objectives more optional by effectively rewarding multifaction play. Players who don't care about objectives could Deathmatch it up in Cyrodiil (which is why so many players complain about the "unfairness" of zergs and ball groups in a zone originally designed for groups of 8 to 24 players).

Now, ZOS is swinging back to Cyrodiil as a "Play the Objective" game mode as it was originally designed, in order to encourage beneficial gameplay and discourage sone of the undeniable abuses that crept in with multifaction play.

It's a change. Like all changes, it pleases some and makes some unhappy.

I think its too early to see how well the faction locks work. If they have the effects ZOS wants, great! If they don't, it will probably be reverted. Maybe Cyrodiil will be better as the mostly objective-based zone it was designed as, or maybe the player base has moved on as a whole and prefers more Deathmatch-style play.

Its too soon to know. Not too soon for everyone to have an opinion, but far too soon to know how it will actually play out.

As I stated above, I dont actually want to make this a post about faction lock whining. Still, I have to call out some of your arguments.

How does faction lock make emp selling harder?
How does Faction lock make farming AP on some resource harder?
How does faction lock make trolling harder, no matter if its trashing a scroll run or calling out keeps that aren't actually under attack?

None of these are valid arguments. There is still gonna be enough groups to do emp runs, especially in the half-dead 7 day camps.
AP Farming will still be done by everyone, the only difference is that people are forced to do it with a portion of their friends now instead of doing it with whoever is online on whatever faction they want to do it. And about trolling: People who didn't care for the campaign definitely won't start doing it after ZOS takes away their option to change factions. These guys, if anything, will troll even more.

Like I said, Faction Lock fixes none of these issues. It just tries to force the player into a play style he might not support. Like I said in my post, the better idea to approach this is by giving people incentive to play on one faction.
(And tbh, as I see it, faction hopping isn't even a huge problem for Cyrodiil - if anything it evens out the fights as people who dont want to wait 30 min in a queue can go for the weaker faction)

Even your counterpoints acknowledge that its harder. I was clear that it won't stop it entirely, but it makes it harder. It requires more effort and more commitment.

Emp selling...on the unlocked 7 day campaign. (Which if enough players actually care about playing with their friends, won't be dead. Somehow, I don't expect players to put their money where their mouth is...)
AP farming...with only a portion of their friends. Same for transmute crystal farming on only a portion of their characters.
Trolling...sure, the very dedicated can do it, but they have to commit to their troll faction for the whole 30 day campaign, unable to use their other characters on that campaign. That'll take care of most of the spies I've had to deal with, making it much more of a commitment to log onto an opposing faction and follow a raid around or collect PUGs and deliberately lead them astray.


I don't object to your idea of more rewards. As a faction loyal player who plays for the campaign win, I don't mind getting more rewards for what I was doing anyway.

But I do think faction hopping was a detriment to Cyrodiil as an objective based PVP mode, which is how it was designed. It was a detriment to the efforts of players who played Cyrodiil as designed and a detriment to the lower population campaigns. I realize lots of players like to tout the benefits of "playing the lower pop faction" for the sake of the campaign health, but on PC/NA Vivec, I recall the best fights being from the guilds that stuck with their alliance through thick and thin. Those dedicated players were the ones that kept their faction going and led them to victories, not the faction hoppers who were there one night and gone the next.

Nor do I honestly expect more rewards to attract Deathmatch-minded players to actually Play the Objective.

My bottom line: ZOS changed Cyrodiil back to favoring the original Alliance based Play The Objective style gameplay because players asked for it. Players asked for it because it benefits the AvAvA playstyle for which Cyrodiil was designed AND because of numerous abuses that became more prevalent with multifaction play. It will take time to see if faction locks alone, faction locks + rewards, or no faction locks are the correct response to those abuses and those design issues.

Rianai

If all players would actually play "for the win" they would all stack on one side, because that's the most reliable way to win. And it would be the best way to kill the game mode.

24/7 large scale PvP/AvA will never be truly competitive and therefore playing for the win is pointless for many. Better rewards/incentives won't change anything. Just like faction locks don't change anything.
The game mode simply lacks some basic requirements for competition. It is more like a big sandbox where players can and should play with and against each other however they enjoy and nothing is ever going to change this without competely destroying the game mode. So better just accept this and make the best (most fun) out of it instead of trying to force your preferred playstyle on everyone.

Tlania

cyro is for pvp, and should be the main focus of cyro. when one faction has everything on the map and is pop locked. (used to be daily occurrence on pc eu sotha ) to 1 bar of the other factions. There is no option to pvp, if you are the faction that owns everything you now have no choice but to gate farm the other 2 factions since now you cant even swop to the losing sides to help them. So you have 1 faction who cant pvp because the imbalance and cant even swop to help losing side, and the 2 losing sides don't bother because whats the point, as soon as you take something the whole faction stack comes down on u for the chance to pvp. no one can say this is healthy pvp and is one example of how the faction locks hurt the imbalance between factions. im sure there are other examples of when its becomes just not worth pvping. as I said this was sotha sil for a couple years on pc eu during the day time every day. without the faction locks where players just couldn't pvp because the imbalance they had at least the chance to swop over and maybe get zerged down by the emp faction stack.

poietin

bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »

Fr3ak1n0ut wrote: »

While this is theoretically a good idea, the approach is simply a band-aid fix: Half the PvP community is just mad at the Game Developers because they don't let them play with their friends and restrict them to play on one faction, that might possibly be way too crowded, forcing them to spend their evening in queues instead of playing for the weaker faction.

Yeah, I'm going to call BS on this claim. There seems to be overwhelming support for faction locks and a lot of whining from the disaffected.

Let's see some proof of this overwhelming support. If you want to cite forum posts as support, well there are just as many posts against faction locks.

bulbousb16_ESO

poietin wrote: »

Let's see some proof of this overwhelming support. If you want to cite forum posts as support, well there are just as many posts against faction locks.

I won't cite the NUMBER of posts as proof, because certain people - myself included - have made a lot of posts on the subject. I would cite as evidence the following:

1) Forums polls on the subject
2) Number of "Agrees" on posts supporting faction lock vs. those opposing
3) Number of single-posts from people supporting faction lock but not sticking around to argue

This is by no means proof, but it sure is great evidence. All we have on the other side is claims of a "silent majority" that is with them.

Elong

bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »

poietin wrote: »

Let's see some proof of this overwhelming support. If you want to cite forum posts as support, well there are just as many posts against faction locks.

I won't cite the NUMBER of posts as proof, because certain people - myself included - have made a lot of posts on the subject. I would cite as evidence the following:

1) Forums polls on the subject
2) Number of "Agrees" on posts supporting faction lock vs. those opposing
3) Number of single-posts from people supporting faction lock but not sticking around to argue

This is by no means proof, but it sure is great evidence. All we have on the other side is claims of a "silent majority" that is with them.

One person spamming the forum over and over as you have will certainly add to the weight of posts in favour of faction locks.

bulbousb16_ESO

Elong wrote: »

One person spamming the forum over and over as you have will certainly add to the weight of posts in favour of faction locks.

It certainly would, which is exactly why I specifically excluded that as a consideration. You're welcome.

DUTCH_REAPER

Hahahaha same people crying about Faction Locks hahahaha

Y’all need to let it go and move along. Thank you ZOS for the lock!!!

RealPhoenix

Rianai wrote: »

If all players would actually play "for the win" they would all stack on one side, because that's the most reliable way to win. And it would be the best way to kill the game mode.

24/7 large scale PvP/AvA will never be truly competitive and therefore playing for the win is pointless for many. Better rewards/incentives won't change anything. Just like faction locks don't change anything.
The game mode simply lacks some basic requirements for competition. It is more like a big sandbox where players can and should play with and against each other however they enjoy and nothing is ever going to change this without competely destroying the game mode. So better just accept this and make the best (most fun) out of it instead of trying to force your preferred playstyle on everyone.

Doesn't have to be competitive. Many experienced players and raid guilds dont play for the faction anyway. The benefits of incentives are not linked to that. The incentives would help solve a much bigger issue. It helps spreading out the population in Cyrodiil, which is prob one of the most important issues in Cyrodiil. And it gives people who dont care about the campaign a reason to help the campaign anyway, uniting the player base, even if the people dont care about the faction anyway. That is the whole point of this post. You will not change these people (including myself if im being honest), just as well as you won't change the people on the other side of the discussion. You just have to give them reason to play for the campaign that benefits them. This will make both the campaign players and the hardcore players happy and at the same time it can lead to splitting up the Zergs in Cyrodiil.

RealPhoenix

DUTCH_REAPER wrote: »

Hahahaha same people crying about Faction Locks hahahaha

Y’all need to let it go and move along. Thank you ZOS for the lock!!!

Thank you for this entirely useless post. Shines a bright light on people supporting faction lock.

DUTCH_REAPER

Listen here cupcake. This community has cried out for ZOS to do something about cryodil long enough. And they did. It has long been over due. There are many options left still to “play” with your little friends.

#victory
#thankyouzos

Elong

DUTCH_REAPER wrote: »

Listen here cupcake. This community has cried out for ZOS to do something about cryodil long enough. And they did. It has long been over due. There are many options left still to “play” with your little friends.

#victory
#thankyouzos

Another example of a toxic faction loyalist.

bulbousb16_ESO

Elong wrote: »

Another example of a toxic faction loyalist.

Toxic! Oh no, wash your hands, get the antidote!

Rianai

Zergs won't split up, because a lot of players need those zergs. It is the only way for them to "accomplish" something.

RealPhoenix

DUTCH_REAPER wrote: »

Listen here cupcake. This community has cried out for ZOS to do something about cryodil long enough. And they did. It has long been over due. There are many options left still to “play” with your little friends.

#victory
#thankyouzos

Oh lord have a nice day kiddo don't go to bed too late

RealPhoenix

Rianai wrote: »

Zergs won't split up, because a lot of players need those zergs. It is the only way for them to "accomplish" something.

I agree. But I am not trying to remove Zergs overall, thats never gonna happen and it also doesn't make sense considering how Cyrodiil was designed. What I would like is having 2-3 15-20 man groups running around on different spots rather than having one 50 man group zerging another 50 man group and creating the worst pvp experience ever. And I honestly do believe this could be achieved if players were given the right incentives.

Jimmy_The_Fixer

bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »

Elong wrote: »

Another example of a toxic faction loyalist.

Toxic! Oh no, wash your hands, get the antidote!

I never thought I would have to say this, but you should know that being toxic is a bad thing. Hating your fellow players (of a video game) and being petty towards them is not a virtue.

fastolfv_ESO

how do people use the excuse they cannot play with friends when only one campaign is locked? its just an ignorant response and poor excuse for refusing to just guest somewhere else, unless ofcourse they want to stack the winning sides to get tier 2 rewards for geodes easier then swap to the next alliance when its easier and can no longer do that

AyelineESO

fastolfv_ESO wrote: »

how do people use the excuse they cannot play with friends when only one campaign is locked? its just an ignorant response and poor excuse for refusing to just guest somewhere else, unless ofcourse they want to stack the winning sides to get tier 2 rewards for geodes easier then swap to the next alliance when its easier and can no longer do that

Imagine this: A player is part of 2 different PvP guilds that are playing on different factions but both of those guilds decided to play on the faction-locked campaign. What is said player supposed to do in this situation? Should he decide which guild he's going to play with or even leave one of them just because of faction lock?

Mr_Walker

bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »

Keep in mind that Faction Locks are not the total solution. They are merely a first step in the right direction to making factions matter again. There is no place for people who "just want to play with their friends" and could not care about factions whatsoever, and we should not be trying to accommodate them.

I disagree. Some of us have friends.

bulbousb16_ESO

Mr_Walker wrote: »

I'm going to start reporting this "suggestion" as trolling. It's been explained numerous times that during off peak all but 30cp are zero pop. bars, and even 30cp gets down to zero occasionally.

It has been "explained"... but no one has shown any proof of this, nor explained exactly what "off-peak" means. In addition ZOS staff have advised that threatening reports is a violation of the TOS.

Mr_Walker

bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »

Mr_Walker wrote: »

I'm going to start reporting this "suggestion" as trolling. It's been explained numerous times that during off peak all but 30cp are zero pop. bars, and even 30cp gets down to zero occasionally.

It has been "explained"... but no one has shown any proof of this, nor explained exactly what "off-peak" means. In addition ZOS staff have advised that threatening reports is a violation of the TOS.

For off peak accept 6pm to 2pm AEST.How many people do you need to tell you Shor and Sotha are dead in off peak before you accept it? 50? 100? 1000? I'll guess for you it would always be "1 more".

If you've got a problem with anything I've said, don't shy away from hitting the report button.