Instead of a rant, how about a discussion on how we can make faction lock better?

baronzilch

I'm all for faction loyalty, but more so I was against faction hopping because in a lot of ways it contributes to the lowering of the integrity or 'fair play' of PvP. In the end I have realized that I am more concerned with the balanced competition of each campaign over permanent faction loyalty.

There are plenty of rants about this subject, most are locked. The open ones are 90% people explaining why it needs to be an all or nothing scenario from one perspective or the other. The possible ideas, solutions and compromises seem to be getting lost.

This post is in hopes we can come to some kind of accommodation regarding this issue. Returning to no locks at all isn't going to work for everyone either. For or against faction locks, I'm not sure the subject has to be so black and white.

Also, I do see the issues around faction lock from the hoppers' perspectives and would like to take a look at ways to make the system better for everyone. Here are some suggestions:

1. Characters are no longer bound to a faction permanently. This actually fits into the overall lore better - you already cross-faction in PvE lore to 'complete' the game, your character should have (in lore theory) good - or at least neutral - standing with all of them.
2. Characters can pick a faction when they first queue for a campaign (only valid for current campaign, choose a different one next time, if desired). It locks your account to that faction for that campaign. In other words: all your characters are locked to an alliance on a campaign by campaign basis NOT character by character basis which is the status quo. This change would allow for locks but also allow all a player's characters to participate in that campaign under the same banner. Allowing the account to choose a different faction for a different campaign should probably be ok as well. The idea is to protect the integrity of each campaign, one campaign at a time, nothing more.
3. Add some kind of bonus for remaining with the same faction in consecutive campaigns (or it could be a penalty for switching that disappears when you re-up for a second time with your new faction); strong enough to make faction hopping unattractive but not so OP factions become completely stagnant. While some may hop to the perpetual 'winner', many PvP players and guilds do it for the challenge (and bragging rights) and would be just as likely to hop to the perpetual 'loser' instead. Some (not too frequent) long-term movement would be good for overall balance and competition.
4. Assume that there will be population imbalances and create scenarios to rectify it. For example 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9:
5. If after the ~quarter pole (7 days on a 30 day campaign) if you haven't pledged to a faction yet , if you pledge to the current points loser, you gain a small currency and xp/ap bonus for the remainder of the campaign .
6. If after the ~halfway mark (15 days on a 30 day campaign) if you haven't pledged to a faction yet , if you pledge to the current points loser, you gain a medium currency and xp/ap bonus for the remainder of the campaign.
7. If after the ~three quarter pole (22 days on a 30 day campaign) if you haven't pledged to a faction yet , if you pledge to the current points loser, you gain a large currency and xp/ap bonus for the remainder of the campaign. Losing side populations dwindle as campaigns go on (except for the alt transmute rush of the last couple days, lol) and there tends to be swings that last many months where one faction just can't get anything going. New players coming in for the gains likely have a higher chance of staying with that faction for next campaign - people like familiarity, especially when they are new at something; over time the pledge bonuses should help even out long-term populations and provide better overall long-term competition.
8. Identify long term (multiple runs of the same campaign) population growth problems and occasionally offer incentives for switching from consistently high to consistently low pop factions.
9. Add a Mercenary function as a pledge instead of a specific Alliance for the duration of that campaign. Could have some small bonus to currency and xp/ap gain and would also gain Undaunted faction. Mercenaries would help alleviate off-peak population imbalances by always automatically logging into the current lowest population faction at their time of entry (could be different faction every time they enter the campaign) - this would also ensure fastest queue times for mercs. Good way for new players to test alliances before assigning one, and old players could finally get that Undaunted grind on their alts done - all while helping balance gameplay. Mercs would still only receive one set of tier prizes like any other character.

These are just suggestions with the goal being to have a system that offers incentives instead of hard code (as much as possible) to better distribute and balance population, and promote campaign integrity while offering some freedom. I'm sure these ideas aren't perfect, but, hopefully it's a start and I look forward to further input.

dtsharples

ZOS PLEASE give this person a job!!!
Impressed with how much thought you put into this.

I think the only thing I would add, is a scaling of points rewarded based on the disparity between faction populations.
In essence, PVDooring the map while its empty rewards less points - as it should

Sandman929

Before there's any real discussion, ZOS needs to clarify what was intended and why it was implemented in the way that it was. Once we all have a real understanding of their direction, then it becomes a discussion of the merits of that direction. Until then, we're just making stuff up about why they did it and claiming that our position is the correct one.

VaranisArano

I don't think ZOS can unbind Alliance from character. Nor were they going to develop an Alliance Change token.

My requests:

1. Make the process of swapping campaigns every month clear, obvious, and easy. Lots of people got confused this time, and that would be annoying.

2. No CP ought to have an 7 day unlocked option. (Even if like the CP players, few player actually use the 7 day option.)

Joy_Division

Sandman929 wrote: »

Before there's any real discussion, ZOS needs to clarify what was intended and why it was implemented in the way that it was. Once we all have a real understanding of their direction, then it becomes a discussion of the merits of that direction. Until then, we're just making stuff up about why they did it and claiming that our position is the correct one.

They've already said this multiple times. They want the AvAvA component of cyrodiil to have integrity (primarily having the alliance choice matter) and they want to eliminate the perceived abuses that came about because of people who switched factions.

Everything else people have said is just made up to try to justify why there should or should not be locks.

Sandman929

Joy_Division wrote: »

Sandman929 wrote: »

Before there's any real discussion, ZOS needs to clarify what was intended and why it was implemented in the way that it was. Once we all have a real understanding of their direction, then it becomes a discussion of the merits of that direction. Until then, we're just making stuff up about why they did it and claiming that our position is the correct one.

They've already said this multiple times. They want the AvAvA component of cyrodiil to have integrity (primarily having the alliance choice matter) and they want to eliminate the perceived abuses that came about because of people who switched factions.

Everything else people have said is just made up to try to justify why there should or should not be locks.

But that's pretty vague. What is "integrity" for them, and why have integrity-free options? Why have integrity only on the 30 day instance? Why is no-CP determined to need the highest integrity (since no integrity-free option exists)? Which abuses in particular are meant to be resolved by this partial integrity?

Sandman929

Basically they do a horrible job of explaining their vision, assuming there is one in the first place, and if a game maker isn't capable of clearly explaining the "rules" of the game then they've done a poor job of establishing the rules. When a change like this is implemented, I would hope it's a step in a clear direction toward the developers vision for the game, not just some haphazard whim.

Vencenzo

I've already been preaching #9.

I like that faction locks prevent hopping onto more populated sides during off hours. On the flips side I'd like a way to still switch to lower pop factions to balance out competition. A always lowest pop merc que could be the answer.

Hashtag_

Joy_Division wrote: »

Sandman929 wrote: »

Before there's any real discussion, ZOS needs to clarify what was intended and why it was implemented in the way that it was. Once we all have a real understanding of their direction, then it becomes a discussion of the merits of that direction. Until then, we're just making stuff up about why they did it and claiming that our position is the correct one.

They've already said this multiple times. They want the AvAvA component of cyrodiil to have integrity (primarily having the alliance choice matter) and they want to eliminate the perceived abuses that came about because of people who switched factions.

Everything else people have said is just made up to try to justify why there should or should not be locks.

Then they should do the same in pve and revert back to faction only instancing. Make trials faction lock as well.

White wabbit

9# and everyone picks that

Delsskia

EP's 14k point differential in the latest NA 30 day cp win was lovingly brought to you by faction locks. News flash, faction locks didn't work a few years ago and they still don't work.

Royaji

baronzilch wrote: »

In the end I have realized that I am more concerned with the balanced competition of each campaign over permanent faction loyalty.

^ that is probably the most important point in this whole post. And the reason why faction locks just don't work. Now let's repeat together.

Dynamic. Population. Locks.

It's really that simple.

rumple9

Put on an additional 30 day cp unlocked server

Heimpai

Make it account based, start of campaign you click which alliance and then you can play all your characters on that alliance even if it’s not from the alliance you chose

My only issue with it now is that it made some of my characters useless.. i wasted money on them and i can’t play them, only vivec isn’t dead during my primetime

baronzilch

VaranisArano wrote: »

I don't think ZOS can unbind Alliance from character. Nor were they going to develop an Alliance Change token.

Do you have a source for this? It's possible the complete removal of the faction would cascade to many cross issues with PvE/Questing lines already have been designed around a home faction. The original faction could remain for all legacy needs and the new faction pick would only affect the specific campaign.

My main concern is with people who have cross-faction alts and can no longer play them in their favorite campaign due to the main character being of a different faction. This doesn't affect me, all my chars are one faction, but, many people have alts in 2 or 3 factions. However you or I may feel about faction hoppers, (essentially) losing playability to one or more characters (they all take a fair amount of time and effort to level and gear) is a punishment that far exceeds the crime (so to speak).

If the alliances were locked on a campaign basis, rather than character basis, people could play all their characters in that campaign - and the campaign would still be locked against hopping thereby maintaining the campaign integrity.

Joy_Division wrote: »

They've already said this multiple times. They want the AvAvA component of cyrodiil to have integrity (primarily having the alliance choice matter) and they want to eliminate the perceived abuses that came about because of people who switched factions.

Definitely agree there needs to be some kind of lock. And I am big fan of faction loyalty. Currently though, with absolutely no movement allowed, over time we will see population imbalances. PvP isn't any fun when one side dominates - for the winner or the loser. There needs to be some kind of mechanism to correct imbalances over time.

I think getting hung up on Alliance or lore integrity is a wrong move. Each campaign needs integrity, needs to be locked from hopping, but, I disagree that overall lore integrity is important or even a part of ESO's design. We already PvE and quest next to our enemies, so that bird has flown.

And the PvP alliance choice would matter, for that campaign. That's all that is needed to preserve the integrity of the competition. What happens in any specific campaign has no actual effect on any other campaigns in any system. What happened in the last campaign of the same type also has no effect on the current campaign in any system. For fair play, all we need to do is protect the integrity of each campaign, one campaign at a time.

White wabbit wrote: »

9# and everyone picks that

Haha, yes this may be an issue with this function. Especially at introduction as there would be a mad rush for Undaunted faction. In the beginning there may have to be limits on merc slots or something else to lower the appeal (maybe no currency/ap bonuses, or maybe no tier rewards, just the Undaunted might be appealing enough to do this on start-up). After a few months it would even out and mercs would just be a small portion of the pop, with (most) people choosing it only when they needed it. People (most, of course not all) are still going to want to play with their friends and have some faction identity for their regular play.

idk

I am not sure a discussion can be held as those rabid for faction lock do not care about the impact in any way. One even said as much and did not care that a person was locked to the same faction and was not able to change either when the faction ended. They stated we should be locked to the same faction across all campaigns.

It is not possible to have a discussion with such close minded people. The dogma is to strong. As Zos does not have a clue about the direction of the game which is why they keep changing their mind.

Further, OP is suggesting characters no longer being tied to faction until they commit to one when they join a campaign. It would seem that is a challenge for Zos and not as simple as OP seems to think it is. Zos has indicated that the alliances ties intertwine more than we think which is a reason they are not offering alliance change.

Yes, I do realize it is a simple solution for Zos to implement in the minds of many but we do not know how well Zos build the db behind all this. It can be as complicated that the health bar tag denoting which alliance we belong to in Cyrodiil could be tied to numerous fields that are to intertwined to allow this to be a simple fix. I just might be as difficult to do this as it would be to offer real alliance change.

Regardless the solution is clear. Zos created this mess. It is their fault and they need to be a stand up group and own this. Instead of taking the lazy way they need to figure out how to offer real alliance change even if it is a one time deal per existing character never to be offered again. They need to be smart about this and do what is right.

jdamuso

This is a great thread, whether in agreement with the presented ideas or not, THIS is the direction that is healthy for the forum and for the dev team to gather insight on what the players want, need, and how to get there.

Kudos good job and presentation.

Katahdin

Hashtag_ wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

Sandman929 wrote: »

Before there's any real discussion, ZOS needs to clarify what was intended and why it was implemented in the way that it was. Once we all have a real understanding of their direction, then it becomes a discussion of the merits of that direction. Until then, we're just making stuff up about why they did it and claiming that our position is the correct one.

They've already said this multiple times. They want the AvAvA component of cyrodiil to have integrity (primarily having the alliance choice matter) and they want to eliminate the perceived abuses that came about because of people who switched factions.

Everything else people have said is just made up to try to justify why there should or should not be locks.

Then they should do the same in pve and revert back to faction only instancing. Make trials faction lock as well.

Hell no. It made getting a group to do dungeons and trials painful and in some cases impossible.

Faction lock makes sense in Cyro, it's not necessary in pve.

Ranger209

They already bypass a characters actual faction in BG's to put them on teams. That code, or very similar to it, could be used to create faux factions in Cyrodiil that bypassed actual factions on an account level rather than a character level. To us on the outside everything faction wise would look the same, but to the game in the code there would be slight naming differences in variables to allow this to happen. I honestly think they are not far off on doing this if they chose to pursue it. This would allow Cyrodiil to see your AD character as EP if your account joined the campaign as EP. When you left Cyrodiil the game would still recognize your AD character as actual AD. Much like when you go BG and the game, while in there, recognizes your AD character as a Pit Daemon, but as soon as you come out you are AD again.

dtsharples

Tbh ZOS did do exactly what is needed.
They made a 7 day camp that nobody cares about, faction, scoring, AP etc - perfect for faction hoppers - who claim they have no love for faction, score or AP.
But those people refuse to fill it - they just try to skew the busy campaign.
The underlying issue clearly isn't this, or the campaign would be full.
The issue is that people want to hop around from faction to faction scoring points, and doing this by farming the most incompetent players (pug zergs) and claiming a huge victory in the name of balance.
All these white knights swapping factions to make the populations look equal - whilst doing little about the score - only masked the huge disparity in faction participation.
At least now we can see what is really happening - yes one faction might be running ahead, but ppl will swap.
Anyone wanting actual pvp will swap away from the faction stack.

baronzilch

idk wrote: »

Further, OP is suggesting characters no longer being tied to faction until they commit to one when they join a campaign. It would seem that is a challenge for Zos and not as simple as OP seems to think it is. Zos has indicated that the alliances ties intertwine more than we think which is a reason they are not offering alliance change.

Ranger209 wrote: »

They already bypass a characters actual faction in BG's to put them on teams. That code, or very similar to it, could be used to create faux factions in Cyrodiil that bypassed actual factions on an account level rather than a character level.

The base code for what would be needed for campaign locks as opposed to character locks is already functional for BGs (thank you ranger209, I had forgot about that). There would be additional code needed: something to tie in all your characters to that faction for that campaign, but, that's far from impossible and should have minimal cross issues.

It would take some time and resources, yes, but, having that BG code functional already is extremely helpful in that process.

dtsharples wrote: »

They made a 7 day camp that nobody cares about, faction, scoring, AP etc - perfect for faction hoppers - who claim they have no love for faction, score or AP.
But those people refuse to fill it - they just try to skew the busy campaign.

That's always going to happen. People want to PvP where it's busy and the fights are plentiful. That will always take priority over 'beliefs'. If you put up a two identical campaigns simultaneously, one faction lock and one no lock, whichever one that that was leading (whether by randomness or brigading) after a few days would eventually win in a landslide. An experiment like this would yield no data except to confirm people will play where the action is.

VaranisArano

Ranger209 wrote: »

They already bypass a characters actual faction in BG's to put them on teams. That code, or very similar to it, could be used to create faux factions in Cyrodiil that bypassed actual factions on an account level rather than a character level. To us on the outside everything faction wise would look the same, but to the game in the code there would be slight naming differences in variables to allow this to happen. I honestly think they are not far off on doing this if they chose to pursue it. This would allow Cyrodiil to see your AD character as EP if your account joined the campaign as EP. When you left Cyrodiil the game would still recognize your AD character as actual AD. Much like when you go BG and the game, while in there, recognizes your AD character as a Pit Daemon, but as soon as you come out you are AD again.

I'm not sure how the BG coding works. We know it does use the Alliance War coding because we see that the Alliance War outfits change color according to their particular teams.

To answer an above question about sources.

Source for No on Alliance Change tokens or disentangling alliance from character creation: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/465498/eso-zos-q-a-information-london-elsweyr-press-event-info

Aside from unspecified technical issues mentioned in that response, I don't have sources to say that its hard for ZOS to change alliances. However, it is baked into the game in a big way, determining which of the base game zones you can join your MG, FG, and the TG/DB quests you get, along with the way there is no "Cadwell's Bronze", so that's why I expect that its more difficult than we think.

In any case, in the Q&A linked above, ZOS said they could do it...but its probably not a good use of their time vs things they want to work on.

baronzilch

VaranisArano wrote: »

Source for No on Alliance Change tokens or disentangling alliance from character creation: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/465498/eso-zos-q-a-information-london-elsweyr-press-event-info

Aside from unspecified technical issues mentioned in that response, I don't have sources to say that its hard for ZOS to change alliances. However, it is baked into the game in a big way, determining which of the base game zones you can join your MG, FG, and the TG/DB quests you get, along with the way there is no "Cadwell's Bronze", so that's why I expect that its more difficult than we think.

Thank you for the source.

The BG coding doesn't change your base alliance, any proposed campaign coding needn't either. You and others have made a good point against my initial suggestion of removing past faction affiliation.

However, if current BG coding doesn't affect any PvE affiliations, this shouldn't either. Players would just be assigned to a campaign 'team' for 30 (or 7) days rather than "<until exit this area>." Extending the code to make it seem like all your characters joined that team simultaneously shouldn't be that difficult.

(Keep the campaign team names alliances tho, I don't want to see Pit Daemons in Cyrodiil, lol)

dtsharples

Delsskia wrote: »

EP's 14k point differential in the latest NA 30 day cp win was lovingly brought to you by faction locks. News flash, faction locks didn't work a few years ago and they still don't work.

So long as you plan to stay AD / DC they haven't won anything. They got most points in this 1 score.
Have you given up after one month?
How about you [removed baiting comment] pick a team, play for it and take the blows winning or losing.
YOU CANT ALWAYS WIN!
Ride it out and play a team,. [removed baiting comment] It was never about serious PVPers, just the pigeons faction swapping for points.

Ranger209

baronzilch wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Source for No on Alliance Change tokens or disentangling alliance from character creation: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/465498/eso-zos-q-a-information-london-elsweyr-press-event-info

Aside from unspecified technical issues mentioned in that response, I don't have sources to say that its hard for ZOS to change alliances. However, it is baked into the game in a big way, determining which of the base game zones you can join your MG, FG, and the TG/DB quests you get, along with the way there is no "Cadwell's Bronze", so that's why I expect that its more difficult than we think.

Thank you for the source.

The BG coding doesn't change your base alliance, any proposed campaign coding needn't either. You and others have made a good point against my initial suggestion of removing past faction affiliation.

However, if current BG coding doesn't affect any PvE affiliations, this shouldn't either. Players would just be assigned to a campaign 'team' for 30 (or 7) days rather than "<until exit this area>." Extending the code to make it seem like all your characters joined that team simultaneously shouldn't be that difficult.

(Keep the campaign team names alliances tho, I don't want to see Pit Daemons in Cyrodiil, lol)

Exactly, its not about changing alliance in a permanent way, just the way the game views you when entering Cyrodiil. Faux alliance names like Daggerfallcovenant_Kaal could be used in game to differentiate between how that campaign views a characters faction vs how the rest of the game does with the alliance name Daggerfallcovenant for example. It would not mess with the main quest lines nor Cadwell's simply because most of the game still views you as being the faction you chose upon character creation. However, even if you made a character under the faction Ebonheartpact, when your account chose to home Kaal as DC it would view that character while in Kaal as under the alliance Daggerfallcovenant_Kaal. As soon as you leave Kaal to the rest of the game you resume being Ebonheartpact. At least this is how I am viewing what happens going in and out of BG's when you join a team in there and can ally yourself with people from other factions and kill people on another team that are from your real actual faction.

Edit: Taking it further you could also enter Bahl under Ebonheartpact_Bahl and play all of your characters for EP on that campaign. Doing it this way also allows the campaigns themselves to differentiate one from another.

Kadoin

We can make it better by separating PvE again. Why go only a little backwards when we can all go much, much further. Undo One Tamriel, it will be like the good old days!


Get rid of all that faction swapping, CP cost reduction, proc sets, nerf templar, nerf DK, let stealth and invis pots be ultra broken, let broken builds thrive, and...Oh wait, why does this sound so familiar?

UnseenCat

Mercenary option won't stop the focused PvP guilds and faction loyalists from loading up the main 30-day campaigns. Those are their bread-and-butter.

Having a Merc option would give more casual PvPers an option to get involved in Cyrodiil without committing to a faction lock, at the cost of not counting toward gaining Emperor status even if they somehow manage to gain an insane ranking on the leaderboard. (Which should make the faction players more at ease.)

It also ensures a supply of players to feed the battle. Yes, mercenaries are disposable bodies for all factions -- by design. And that's OK. Hopefully, it might cut down on PvDoor if keeps can be supplied with a better defensive force.

Bonus - Give Mercs, and only Mercs, the ability to be plunked down in the keep most needing defense if a battle is going on, when they first teleport into Cyrodiil instead of one of the starting keeps. Merc players get to dive into battle straight off, and factions get a bonus supply of warm bodies to man defenses where they need it.

echo2omega

Allow players to change faction.

/solved

Mr_Walker

dtsharples wrote: »

Tbh ZOS did do exactly what is needed.
They made a 7 day camp that nobody cares about, faction, scoring, AP etc - perfect for faction hoppers - who claim they have no love for faction, score or AP.
But those people refuse to fill it - they just try to skew the busy campaign.

This has been explained a number of times.

Prime time... it's merely an overflow for 30cp.
Off peak. 7cp's deader than King Tut.

This has been pointed out so many times that by now this "suggestion" is just trolling.

Mayrael

Delsskia wrote: »

EP's 14k point differential in the latest NA 30 day cp win was lovingly brought to you by faction locks. News flash, faction locks didn't work a few years ago and they still don't work.

For almost 2 years AD was winning on Vivec PC EU month after month WITHOUT faction lock. This is much more complicated than locked/unlocked. In general faction that wins a lot drags even more people because everyone want to be on the winning side.

Sandman929 wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

Sandman929 wrote: »

Before there's any real discussion, ZOS needs to clarify what was intended and why it was implemented in the way that it was. Once we all have a real understanding of their direction, then it becomes a discussion of the merits of that direction. Until then, we're just making stuff up about why they did it and claiming that our position is the correct one.

They've already said this multiple times. They want the AvAvA component of cyrodiil to have integrity (primarily having the alliance choice matter) and they want to eliminate the perceived abuses that came about because of people who switched factions.

Everything else people have said is just made up to try to justify why there should or should not be locks.

But that's pretty vague. What is "integrity" for them, and why have integrity-free options? Why have integrity only on the 30 day instance? Why is no-CP determined to need the highest integrity (since no integrity-free option exists)? Which abuses in particular are meant to be resolved by this partial integrity?

Those were mentioned in every thread about faction locks, but are always conveniently ignored buy lock haters.

- Emp trading
- AP farming
- Scrolls abusing
- Intentional toxicity and flaming in chat etc.

You may say that it is still possible, yes it is, but is a lot harder what can be seen in the game quality improvement.



About OP ideas. I'm not against, as long as it won't affect things I mentioned above.

Firstmep

Mayrael wrote: »

Delsskia wrote: »

EP's 14k point differential in the latest NA 30 day cp win was lovingly brought to you by faction locks. News flash, faction locks didn't work a few years ago and they still don't work.

For almost 2 years AD was winning on Vivec PC EU month after month WITHOUT faction lock. This is much more complicated than locked/unlocked. In general faction that wins a lot drags even more people because everyone want to be on the winning side.

Sandman929 wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

Sandman929 wrote: »

Before there's any real discussion, ZOS needs to clarify what was intended and why it was implemented in the way that it was. Once we all have a real understanding of their direction, then it becomes a discussion of the merits of that direction. Until then, we're just making stuff up about why they did it and claiming that our position is the correct one.

They've already said this multiple times. They want the AvAvA component of cyrodiil to have integrity (primarily having the alliance choice matter) and they want to eliminate the perceived abuses that came about because of people who switched factions.

Everything else people have said is just made up to try to justify why there should or should not be locks.

But that's pretty vague. What is "integrity" for them, and why have integrity-free options? Why have integrity only on the 30 day instance? Why is no-CP determined to need the highest integrity (since no integrity-free option exists)? Which abuses in particular are meant to be resolved by this partial integrity?

Those were mentioned in every thread about faction locks, but are always conveniently ignored buy lock haters.

- Emp trading
- AP farming
- Scrolls abusing
- Intentional toxicity and flaming in chat etc.

You may say that it is still possible, yes it is, but is a lot harder what can be seen in the game quality improvement.



About OP ideas. I'm not against, as long as it won't affect things I mentioned above.

Those have been and still are much more prevalent on the 7 day.
Ad won vivec for that long sorely beacuse of pvdoor, same thing ep did on sotha.
On tbe 7 day both ep and dc are doing it now, rendering the campaign scoring pointless.
Nice thing for me when i play on there is to farm the pvdoor heroes for good ap.
Until they implement things like dynamic scoring, to discourage ppl from ONLY playing vs NPCs and empty keeps, the scoring, faction loyalty and the whole war is utterly pointless.
Then once they alleviate thoss issues, re-evaluate rewards.
Im actually suprised they implemented faction locks before doing any of that.
What will happen now is that ppl who want their campaign rewards will lock themselves to the most likely winner and stick to it for 30days, making population imbalances even worse.
We may not see the effects right now, but once the most dominant faction on each campaign is clear, this is exactly what a lot of ppl will do.
Which is sad beacuse it has nothing to do with faction loyalty, which what everyone here was hoping to enforce with the lock, just playing for the winning side, which what many has done for years.
Bonus points fot locking ppl out of playing their alts(if on different faction) and stopping people to switch to the underdog faction to make tjings more equal.
Clearly what we needed for a healthier pvp experience.