Faction Lock spits on the One Tamriel update and the social nature of MMOs

CameraBeardThePirate

The entire point of the One Tamriel update was to have the ability to play with any of your friends, at any point, and do any content whenever you choose.

So why in the name of Mara am I barred from playing with 50% of my friends every month? It feels like I'm a child of divorce having to split my time. Being completely unable to play with half my friends in the only campaign with any meaningful action is asinine. The vast majority of players in Cyrodiil are only really looking for fun large scale fights anyways - the scoring system hardly matters and only really serves to direct fights.

I should not be punished in an MMO (a social game by nature) just because I have a few different groups of friends that I play with. I get it ZOS, you want to discourage people from hopping faction as soon as the map shifts. But that could be accomplished just as well by having a short 72 hour to 7 day lock, irrespective of the campaign duration.

I just want to play with my friends ZOS, but I can't because you decided I can only play with 1 group of friends for 30 days at a time.

Crown

Adding on to this, Greyhost PC/NA has one faction pop locked against the two other factions 1-2 bar at different times of day. Which factions have the pop lock vs no opponents changes month to month. For players on the pop locked faction, many would love to play on another faction during those times and have something to fight rather than just roll the map.

The suggestion we've been making since faction locks came out was if one faction is higher in population, allow members of that faction to queue into other factions. Once you've queued into a different faction, you're off the leader board so won't get rewards at the end of the campaign, and can't get emperor that campaign.

To prevent people from swapping factions for toxic/abusive reasons, give it an hour cool down so you have to be outside Cyrodiil for 60 minutes (or logged off for that time) before you can swap.

Chilly-McFreeze

So if you were able to be on a different alliance in that one (!) campaign, wouldnt you still only have half your friends available?

CameraBeardThePirate

Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »

So if you were able to be on a different alliance in that one (!) campaign, wouldnt you still only have half your friends available?

What? What are you even trying to say?

Right now, if I play with friend group A, I can no longer play with friend group B in the only campaign with meaningful fights/population for 30 days. I shouldn't have to wait 30 days to play with a different group of friends just because yesterday my schedule lined up with friend group A.

Joy_Division

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »

So if you were able to be on a different alliance in that one (!) campaign, wouldnt you still only have half your friends available?

What? What are you even trying to say?

Right now, if I play with friend group A, I can no longer play with friend group B in the only campaign with meaningful fights/population for 30 days. I shouldn't have to wait 30 days to play with a different group of friends just because yesterday my schedule lined up with friend group A.

They are going to say that you can play with your friend on a dead server to maintain the integrity of the Alliance War, so they can collect their 5 decon trash rings and win a campaign that nobody will remember in two months.

chessalavakia_ESO

ESO has both locked and unlocked campaigns.

People are choosing the locked one and the present.

If you want people to swap to the unlocked campaign, make a push for players to swap next month or the month after.

My impression is another Mayhem event is coming shortly so that would make it easier for the campaign to leap to a higher population.

Reverb

Joy_Division wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »

So if you were able to be on a different alliance in that one (!) campaign, wouldnt you still only have half your friends available?

What? What are you even trying to say?

Right now, if I play with friend group A, I can no longer play with friend group B in the only campaign with meaningful fights/population for 30 days. I shouldn't have to wait 30 days to play with a different group of friends just because yesterday my schedule lined up with friend group A.

They are going to say that you can play with your friend on a dead server to maintain the integrity of the Alliance War, so they can collect their 5 decon trash rings and win a campaign that nobody will remember in two months.

If more people were interested in unlocked campaigns, they wouldn’t be dead. The reason that the locked campaign is the default may be because the majority don’t agree with the forum’s requests to let people play multiple alliances per campaign.


It’s been a few years since new campaigns were made (seriously @ZOS_BrianWheeler its long past time for new campaigns) but back when the campaigns changed yearly and we had to pick new ones, the locked campaign was always the most commonly chosen. That remains true.

CameraBeardThePirate

Reverb wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »

So if you were able to be on a different alliance in that one (!) campaign, wouldnt you still only have half your friends available?

What? What are you even trying to say?

Right now, if I play with friend group A, I can no longer play with friend group B in the only campaign with meaningful fights/population for 30 days. I shouldn't have to wait 30 days to play with a different group of friends just because yesterday my schedule lined up with friend group A.

They are going to say that you can play with your friend on a dead server to maintain the integrity of the Alliance War, so they can collect their 5 decon trash rings and win a campaign that nobody will remember in two months.

If more people were interested in unlocked campaigns, they wouldn’t be dead. The reason that the locked campaign is the default may be because the majority don’t agree with the forum’s requests to let people play multiple alliances per campaign.


It’s been a few years since new campaigns were made (seriously @ZOS_BrianWheeler its long past time for new campaigns) but back when the campaigns changed yearly and we had to pick new ones, the locked campaign was always the most commonly chosen. That remains true.

The most popular campaign has always been the first listed, that's it. The first listed was NOT always the locked campaign. The popularity only has to do with the fact that it's the first campaign shown by default.

CrazyKitty

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

The entire point of the One Tamriel update was to have the ability to play with any of your friends, at any point, and do any content whenever you choose.

So why in the name of Mara am I barred from playing with 50% of my friends every month? It feels like I'm a child of divorce having to split my time. Being completely unable to play with half my friends in the only campaign with any meaningful action is asinine. The vast majority of players in Cyrodiil are only really looking for fun large scale fights anyways - the scoring system hardly matters and only really serves to direct fights.

I should not be punished in an MMO (a social game by nature) just because I have a few different groups of friends that I play with. I get it ZOS, you want to discourage people from hopping faction as soon as the map shifts. But that could be accomplished just as well by having a short 72 hour to 7 day lock, irrespective of the campaign duration.

I just want to play with my friends ZOS, but I can't because you decided I can only play with 1 group of friends for 30 days at a time.

You can swap factions for free at the end of the campaign. You can buy a faction change token. And you can establish seperate accounts for each faction. So there are at least three options to get around what you're calling a problem.

The focus in ESO is on casual questers with a high turnover rate, not on supporting loyal long time players, so you'll more than likely have more luck using one of the three options I listed rather than waiting on ZOS to make accommodations for those that want to faction swap in the middle of the campaign.

CrazyKitty

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Reverb wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »

So if you were able to be on a different alliance in that one (!) campaign, wouldnt you still only have half your friends available?

What? What are you even trying to say?

Right now, if I play with friend group A, I can no longer play with friend group B in the only campaign with meaningful fights/population for 30 days. I shouldn't have to wait 30 days to play with a different group of friends just because yesterday my schedule lined up with friend group A.

They are going to say that you can play with your friend on a dead server to maintain the integrity of the Alliance War, so they can collect their 5 decon trash rings and win a campaign that nobody will remember in two months.

If more people were interested in unlocked campaigns, they wouldn’t be dead. The reason that the locked campaign is the default may be because the majority don’t agree with the forum’s requests to let people play multiple alliances per campaign.


It’s been a few years since new campaigns were made (seriously @ZOS_BrianWheeler its long past time for new campaigns) but back when the campaigns changed yearly and we had to pick new ones, the locked campaign was always the most commonly chosen. That remains true.

The most popular campaign has always been the first listed, that's it. The first listed was NOT always the locked campaign. The popularity only has to do with the fact that it's the first campaign shown by default.

The most popular campaign is the one that allows CP and proc sets. It has nothing to do with which order the camps are listed in the menu.

CameraBeardThePirate

CrazyKitty wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

The entire point of the One Tamriel update was to have the ability to play with any of your friends, at any point, and do any content whenever you choose.

So why in the name of Mara am I barred from playing with 50% of my friends every month? It feels like I'm a child of divorce having to split my time. Being completely unable to play with half my friends in the only campaign with any meaningful action is asinine. The vast majority of players in Cyrodiil are only really looking for fun large scale fights anyways - the scoring system hardly matters and only really serves to direct fights.

I should not be punished in an MMO (a social game by nature) just because I have a few different groups of friends that I play with. I get it ZOS, you want to discourage people from hopping faction as soon as the map shifts. But that could be accomplished just as well by having a short 72 hour to 7 day lock, irrespective of the campaign duration.

I just want to play with my friends ZOS, but I can't because you decided I can only play with 1 group of friends for 30 days at a time.

You can swap factions for free at the end of the campaign. You can buy a faction change token. And you can establish seperate accounts for each faction. So there are at least three options to get around what you're calling a problem.

The focus in ESO is on casual questers with a high turnover rate, not on supporting loyal long time players, so you'll more than likely have more luck using one of the three options I listed rather than waiting on ZOS to make accommodations for those that want to faction swap in the middle of the campaign.

So my options are:

Not play with some of my friends for 30 days.

Spend real money for a faction change token every other day to play with a different group of friends (that is predatory and unrealistic)

Spend real money buying a second account, all the dlc required for builds, and the countless hours farming and leveling up toons (even more predatory and unrealistic lol)

Those aren't options, that's an ultimatum of "You can't play with some of your friends unless you give us money"

CrazyKitty

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

CrazyKitty wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

The entire point of the One Tamriel update was to have the ability to play with any of your friends, at any point, and do any content whenever you choose.

So why in the name of Mara am I barred from playing with 50% of my friends every month? It feels like I'm a child of divorce having to split my time. Being completely unable to play with half my friends in the only campaign with any meaningful action is asinine. The vast majority of players in Cyrodiil are only really looking for fun large scale fights anyways - the scoring system hardly matters and only really serves to direct fights.

I should not be punished in an MMO (a social game by nature) just because I have a few different groups of friends that I play with. I get it ZOS, you want to discourage people from hopping faction as soon as the map shifts. But that could be accomplished just as well by having a short 72 hour to 7 day lock, irrespective of the campaign duration.

I just want to play with my friends ZOS, but I can't because you decided I can only play with 1 group of friends for 30 days at a time.

You can swap factions for free at the end of the campaign. You can buy a faction change token. And you can establish seperate accounts for each faction. So there are at least three options to get around what you're calling a problem.

The focus in ESO is on casual questers with a high turnover rate, not on supporting loyal long time players, so you'll more than likely have more luck using one of the three options I listed rather than waiting on ZOS to make accommodations for those that want to faction swap in the middle of the campaign.

So my options are:

Not play with some of my friends for 30 days.

Spend real money for a faction change token (that is predatory)

Spend real money buying a second account, all the dlc required for builds, and the countless hours farming and leveling up toons (even more predatory lol)

Those aren't options, that's an ultimatum of "You can't play with some of your friends unless you give us money"

I see no issues with your argument here. None at all. But ZOS will be ZOS. It's too bad they don't put anything in the crown store that appeals to those of us who been playing since inception and log on primarily to PvP.

MipMip

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

So why in the name of Mara am I barred from playing with 50% of my friends every month? It feels like I'm a child of divorce having to split my time. Being completely unable to play with half my friends in the only campaign with any meaningful action is asinine.

Agree very much - thank you for saying this clearly. Introducing faction lock was such a bad decision.

People who want to play for one alliance still could without faction lock. Others should not be forced to. It would be logical to have both 'loyal soldiers' and 'mercenaries' in Cyrodiil.

CameraBeardThePirate

MipMip wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

So why in the name of Mara am I barred from playing with 50% of my friends every month? It feels like I'm a child of divorce having to split my time. Being completely unable to play with half my friends in the only campaign with any meaningful action is asinine.

Agree very much - thank you for saying this clearly. Introducing faction lock was such a bad decision.

People who want to play for one alliance still could without faction lock. Others should not be forced to. It would be logical to have both 'loyal soldiers' and 'mercenaries' in Cyrodiil.

I mean jeez I would even go as far as foregoing any campaign rewards indefinitely just to be a part of a "Mercenary" alliance that can play for any faction as they please. I know for a fact the vast majority of my friends would have no issues with that either.

Necrotech_Master

i agree i dont really find the faction lock to be meaningful

its why i usually main most of my campaign time in blackreach

ill only go to grey host if the action is dying down in blackreach

my background is run solo 95% of the time, so the faction lock is not usually a problem, but it has been an issue at times when i do want to play with friends and blackreach is either dead or AD is getting steamrolled by EP lol

React

Just wanted to chime in since some people are suggesting you can use a faction change token to get around alliance lock.

It doesn't work like that. Even if you have changed every character off of DC for example, if you were previously locked to DC you will remain so until the campaign ends. There is no way whatsoever, barring the odd support ticket response, to play more than one faction per gray host campaign.

Faction locks are terrible for the game, for the reasons OP listed. They prevent people from playing with their friends, which in turn kills their interest in playing at all. They force us to buy unreasonable amounts of faction change tokens, because we'd have to have all our playable characters on one faction in order to actually play them in the only place where there is any action for 75% of the hours in the day.

If I could sacrifice my leader board position + my tier progress, buy a faction change, and then continue playing on another faction in the same campaign - I guess that would be acceptable. But this isn't the case. Once you've homes the campaign, it doesn't matter if you faction change, you'll still be locked to the original faction.

Reverb

CrazyKitty wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Reverb wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »

So if you were able to be on a different alliance in that one (!) campaign, wouldnt you still only have half your friends available?

What? What are you even trying to say?

Right now, if I play with friend group A, I can no longer play with friend group B in the only campaign with meaningful fights/population for 30 days. I shouldn't have to wait 30 days to play with a different group of friends just because yesterday my schedule lined up with friend group A.

They are going to say that you can play with your friend on a dead server to maintain the integrity of the Alliance War, so they can collect their 5 decon trash rings and win a campaign that nobody will remember in two months.

If more people were interested in unlocked campaigns, they wouldn’t be dead. The reason that the locked campaign is the default may be because the majority don’t agree with the forum’s requests to let people play multiple alliances per campaign.


It’s been a few years since new campaigns were made (seriously @ZOS_BrianWheeler its long past time for new campaigns) but back when the campaigns changed yearly and we had to pick new ones, the locked campaign was always the most commonly chosen. That remains true.

The most popular campaign has always been the first listed, that's it. The first listed was NOT always the locked campaign. The popularity only has to do with the fact that it's the first campaign shown by default.

The most popular campaign is the one that allows CP and proc sets. It has nothing to do with which order the camps are listed in the menu.

There’s an unlocked, CP, proc enabled campaign.

Jaimeh

I'm glad the lock is in place and there's no swapping shenanigans during the duration of the campaign. Like another comment said above, there are ways to change, so it's not a completely prohibitive thing. Plus, if you PvP with a usual group of friends that likes to play together, why not coordinate which faction you will all be playing for at the start?

Necrotech_Master

Jaimeh wrote: »

I'm glad the lock is in place and there's no swapping shenanigans during the duration of the campaign. Like another comment said above, there are ways to change, so it's not a completely prohibitive thing. Plus, if you PvP with a usual group of friends that likes to play together, why not coordinate which faction you will all be playing for at the start?

as it was noted, changing factions does not unlock the faction to allow you to play as another faction until the campaign ends, so its not a real option

and for your 2nd point, what if you want to play with more than 1 group of people? now you have to coordinate more than 1 group to make sure everyone is the same faction you want to play

CameraBeardThePirate

Reverb wrote: »

CrazyKitty wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Reverb wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »

So if you were able to be on a different alliance in that one (!) campaign, wouldnt you still only have half your friends available?

What? What are you even trying to say?

Right now, if I play with friend group A, I can no longer play with friend group B in the only campaign with meaningful fights/population for 30 days. I shouldn't have to wait 30 days to play with a different group of friends just because yesterday my schedule lined up with friend group A.

They are going to say that you can play with your friend on a dead server to maintain the integrity of the Alliance War, so they can collect their 5 decon trash rings and win a campaign that nobody will remember in two months.

If more people were interested in unlocked campaigns, they wouldn’t be dead. The reason that the locked campaign is the default may be because the majority don’t agree with the forum’s requests to let people play multiple alliances per campaign.


It’s been a few years since new campaigns were made (seriously @ZOS_BrianWheeler its long past time for new campaigns) but back when the campaigns changed yearly and we had to pick new ones, the locked campaign was always the most commonly chosen. That remains true.

The most popular campaign has always been the first listed, that's it. The first listed was NOT always the locked campaign. The popularity only has to do with the fact that it's the first campaign shown by default.

The most popular campaign is the one that allows CP and proc sets. It has nothing to do with which order the camps are listed in the menu.

There’s an unlocked, CP, proc enabled campaign.

Yah, with hardly any action.

CameraBeardThePirate

Jaimeh wrote: »

I'm glad the lock is in place and there's no swapping shenanigans during the duration of the campaign. Like another comment said above, there are ways to change, so it's not a completely prohibitive thing. Plus, if you PvP with a usual group of friends that likes to play together, why not coordinate which faction you will all be playing for at the start?

There are not ways to change, as explained by React. Even buying an alliance change token keeps the campaign locked to your old alliance.

And again, the problem is that people have more than 1 friend group in this game. I play with a group of friends that are primarily a BG crowd, but still enjoys Cyrodiil, as well as another group of friends in a different alliance that primarily plays Cyrodiil. It's beyond dumb that an MMO prevents me from playing with one of those groups of friends for 30 days.

Inucham

na that idea is null, you can just go IC or another campain, if they unlock the faction lock it ll be a free mistrust and treason perma action in the main campain.

the lore on the game is based on that, swithing factions and influence what happen in a daily basis in the campain is just messed up, find another way to play with those friends that didnt chosse the same colour , like y said, this is an mmo, you can do many activities in it.

CameraBeardThePirate

Inucham wrote: »

na that idea is null, you can just go IC or another campain, if they unlock the faction lock it ll be a free mistrust and treason perma action in the main campain.

the lore on the game is based on that, swithing factions and influence what happen in a daily basis in the campain is just messed up, find another way to play with those friends that didnt chosse the same colour , like y said, this is an mmo, you can do many activities in it.

IC and other campaigns are dead. That's a non-solution.

Amottica

The funny thing is that Cyrodiil is not designed to be competitive PvP. The score does not mean one alliance was actually better than the others but that one team happened to be more active at the right times. Nothing balances teams which is not feasible to do with this type of PvP.

Even beyond that, many players have multiple accounts, and per Zenimax, it is acceptable to be logged into multiple accounts simultaneously. This is via multi-boxing even on the same machine as long as the player controls movement and combat.

Then we have that no all campaigns are locked which demonstrates Zenimax has not seen a systemic problem with campaigns that are not faction-locked.

Hence, faction locks serve no useful purpose.

Joy_Division

Reverb wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »

So if you were able to be on a different alliance in that one (!) campaign, wouldnt you still only have half your friends available?

What? What are you even trying to say?

Right now, if I play with friend group A, I can no longer play with friend group B in the only campaign with meaningful fights/population for 30 days. I shouldn't have to wait 30 days to play with a different group of friends just because yesterday my schedule lined up with friend group A.

They are going to say that you can play with your friend on a dead server to maintain the integrity of the Alliance War, so they can collect their 5 decon trash rings and win a campaign that nobody will remember in two months.

If more people were interested in unlocked campaigns, they wouldn’t be dead. The reason that the locked campaign is the default may be because the majority don’t agree with the forum’s requests to let people play multiple alliances per campaign.


It’s been a few years since new campaigns were made (seriously @ZOS_BrianWheeler its long past time for new campaigns) but back when the campaigns changed yearly and we had to pick new ones, the locked campaign was always the most commonly chosen. That remains true.

For the entire history of ESO, there has always been a "main" campaign with long wait ques and noticeably poorer performance, where the large majority of PvPers go and willingly subject themselves to. Cyrodiil is dreadfully boring with a small pop cap and even more dreadfully boring when one factions has 3 bars and another has got one. Nope, don;t care if there's no lag, nope don't care if I get killed by someone wearing 4 proc sets in the main campaign, nope don;t care if I have to wait in que for over an hour, I want to actually PvP and the fights to come to me. That's why ESO's PvP population does this.

This has been going on since Wabbajack, since Trueflame, since the dragon name I could never pronounce nor remember. This has nothing to do with being listed first. It has everything to do with the reason we willingly subject ourselves to poor performance: where are the most fights, the most ap, the most action, for the 2 hours I can play tonight. I am in the main campaign not because I like the format, but because of the reasons I have always been there: that's where the most fights are, that's where the guilds we want to fight are, that's where the vast majority of people I know play.

The locked campaign is the main campaign because there is a vocal part of the PvP community who swears by them and so they are going to play there come hell or high water. Because these people are so heavily emotionally invested in the sanctity of the AvAvA format and concepts like faction loyalty, they also on average will have a much higher actual playtime in cyrodiil (thus ensuring more fights) and will tend to be really keen on defending and retaking objectives (thus ensuring better AP for people looking to farm them). So of course people who are indifferent or opposed to faction lock will follow them there. Not that I agree very much with the vocal faction lock crowd, but I will admit Cyrodiil plays much better with people who are willing to fight for objectives. I can respect passion. Taking Arrius and having nobody show up to take it back sucks and that's a common experience in those other campaigns. So bring on the ques, bring on the lag, bring on the complainers in zone chat, it's the closest thing I'll get to the glory that was good ole' Wabbajack.

reazea

Amottica wrote: »

The funny thing is that Cyrodiil is not designed to be competitive PvP. The score does not mean one alliance was actually better than the others but that one team happened to be more active at the right times. Nothing balances teams which is not feasible to do with this type of PvP.

Even beyond that, many players have multiple accounts, and per Zenimax, it is acceptable to be logged into multiple accounts simultaneously. This is via multi-boxing even on the same machine as long as the player controls movement and combat.

Then we have that no all campaigns are locked which demonstrates Zenimax has not seen a systemic problem with campaigns that are not faction-locked.

Hence, faction locks serve no useful purpose.

It's a violation of the TOS to be logged on to multiple accounts at the same time in ESO if the player is doing so with the purpose of undermining or tracking what the other factions are saying in chat or similar behavior. (ask one of the faction swapping zerg lords if you don't believe that to be true. Not allowed to say his name, but anyone who's a Cyrodiil regular knows exactly who I'm talking about)

Prior to faction lock of the main campaign there was a group of sweaty try hards that would swap factions often, sometimes multiple times/hour, just to troll and be toxic. Faction lock stopped that. So clearly faction lock DOES serve a useful purpose.

Necrotech_Master

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Inucham wrote: »

na that idea is null, you can just go IC or another campain, if they unlock the faction lock it ll be a free mistrust and treason perma action in the main campain.

the lore on the game is based on that, swithing factions and influence what happen in a daily basis in the campain is just messed up, find another way to play with those friends that didnt chosse the same colour , like y said, this is an mmo, you can do many activities in it.

IC and other campaigns are dead. That's a non-solution.

blackreach is not dead, but it doesnt have as much concurrent activity as grey host (usually only a few hours each night when its fairly active, about 8-11pm eastern when all 3 factions are 3 bar or poplocked)

though im sure at least some of the people in there are likely using that campaign as an effective waiting room for grey host because the grey host queue is pretty long during those hours

Telel

There are multiple options available to people who want to flee to a different faction whenever they want more, 'friends' to play with.

There is only one option for those of us who don't want things to be easy on faction floppers, trolls, and other such...people.

That certain individuals refuse to partake in the multiple options they have continues to say much about what 'the people' really want.

It also says that there really aren't that many who're interested in easy faction flipping so they can go help the team on the back foot. Otherwise they'd be in the open campaigns trouncing the gate campers who cower there when gray host isn't to their liking.

YetAnotherLinuxUser

no. no it doesnt spit on any such thing. all this drama over what? we all know what happens. people play with their friends on one alliance then they switch to a toon with the different alliance, all the same friends. round and round it goes. we are all just so tired of that. you are never getting rid of faction lock because we have all had our fill of what it was before faction lock. plan better with your friends to play together all on the same one faction and live with your choice [snip]

[edited for baiting]

Amottica

reazea wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

The funny thing is that Cyrodiil is not designed to be competitive PvP. The score does not mean one alliance was actually better than the others but that one team happened to be more active at the right times. Nothing balances teams which is not feasible to do with this type of PvP.

Even beyond that, many players have multiple accounts, and per Zenimax, it is acceptable to be logged into multiple accounts simultaneously. This is via multi-boxing even on the same machine as long as the player controls movement and combat.

Then we have that no all campaigns are locked which demonstrates Zenimax has not seen a systemic problem with campaigns that are not faction-locked.

Hence, faction locks serve no useful purpose.

[snip]

@reazea

Wow. That is interesting as I do participate in ESO Cyrodiil. Please link the three posts.

reazea wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

The funny thing is that Cyrodiil is not designed to be competitive PvP. The score does not mean one alliance was actually better than the others but that one team happened to be more active at the right times. Nothing balances teams which is not feasible to do with this type of PvP.

Even beyond that, many players have multiple accounts, and per Zenimax, it is acceptable to be logged into multiple accounts simultaneously. This is via multi-boxing even on the same machine as long as the player controls movement and combat.

Then we have that no all campaigns are locked which demonstrates Zenimax has not seen a systemic problem with campaigns that are not faction-locked.

Hence, faction locks serve no useful purpose.

[snip]

My comment was extremely accurate. Since the population is not controlled, and there is no balance between the three alliances, it is not considered competitive PvP. Yes, it is designed to appear competitive but since one team winning has more to do with how active they were across the entire 24/7 vs how good they are it is not truly competitive.

reazea wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

The funny thing is that Cyrodiil is not designed to be competitive PvP. The score does not mean one alliance was actually better than the others but that one team happened to be more active at the right times. Nothing balances teams which is not feasible to do with this type of PvP.

Even beyond that, many players have multiple accounts, and per Zenimax, it is acceptable to be logged into multiple accounts simultaneously. This is via multi-boxing even on the same machine as long as the player controls movement and combat.

Then we have that no all campaigns are locked which demonstrates Zenimax has not seen a systemic problem with campaigns that are not faction-locked.

Hence, faction locks serve no useful purpose.

[snip]

Yeah, I do PvP in other games and I prefer their overall PvP design. It is the group of people I run with in ESO Cyrodiil/sometimes BGs and the combat design that I enjoy about ESO.

There are other players that play ESO and play other games and our comments are just as valid as anyone that plays ESO exclusively.

reazea wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

The funny thing is that Cyrodiil is not designed to be competitive PvP. The score does not mean one alliance was actually better than the others but that one team happened to be more active at the right times. Nothing balances teams which is not feasible to do with this type of PvP.

Even beyond that, many players have multiple accounts, and per Zenimax, it is acceptable to be logged into multiple accounts simultaneously. This is via multi-boxing even on the same machine as long as the player controls movement and combat.

Then we have that no all campaigns are locked which demonstrates Zenimax has not seen a systemic problem with campaigns that are not faction-locked.

Hence, faction locks serve no useful purpose.

It's a violation of the TOS to be logged on to multiple accounts at the same time in ESO if the player is doing so with the purpose of undermining or tracking what the other factions are saying in chat or similar behavior. (ask one of the faction swapping zerg lords if you don't believe that to be true. Not allowed to say his name, but anyone who's a Cyrodiil regular knows exactly who I'm talking about)

Players do it all the time. Sure, some players go to an extreme and are disruptive and that creates a completely different issue. The person who shall not be named was along those lines.

Thank you for your reply.

[edited to remove quote]

CameraBeardThePirate

YetAnotherLinuxUser wrote: »

no. no it doesnt spit on any such thing. all this drama over what? we all know what happens. people play with their friends on one alliance then they switch to a toon with the different alliance, all the same friends. round and round it goes. we are all just so tired of that. you are never getting rid of faction lock because we have all had our fill of what it was before faction lock. plan better with your friends to play together all on the same one faction and live with your choice [snip]

[edited for baiting]

"Plan better"? What does that even mean?

I have different groups of friends. Sorry that you don't seem to understand that.

I'm not going to beg an entire group of friends to alliance change all of their characters. ZOS shouldn't have such an antisocial game design to begin with - Cyrodiil is far from competitive anyways.