A vote for ZOS to block people from jumping from factions while in the same Campaign

cairo_x

It's a friendly insight to see how tolerable we are about people stacking up on a different faction in the same campaign to prevent the other faction to get second place, for example. They may do it so after a period of time or if they spend AP to jump from a faction A to a faction B, using the same account in the same PvP campaign.

starkerealm

No, I accidentally ganked a guildmember, while they were on voice comms with me the other day.

EDIT: They still don't know it was me, btw.

Recremen

No, people like to play with their friends from different factions and there's only really one competitive campaign. There's what, two people max who do faction switching to mess with score? Versus the dozens that just like to play with whoever is on at the time? I think this would be far more harmful than good.

TequilaFire

/sigh the ole play with their friends response.
Yeah whole groups of friends jumping alliances.

Xelrick

They just need to drop Alliances on Character Creation and shift it to the Campaigns upon selecting a Home or Guest.

Making Home Campaigns Alliance bound for Account while Guest Campaigns you can switch.

Serjustin19

No please, thanks

VaranisArano

Personally, I only PVP for the Ebonheart Pact on my active campaign, PC/NA Vivec. Part of that is the rules of my PVP guild, which naturally doesn't like the idea of training and gearing out members only to have them turn around and fight against their guild members. Part of that is that I think it makes sense. I only have so much time to play PVP, I'd rather devote my time to one faction playing it with the friends I have in that faction.

Besides, I'm EP. There's never any lack of fights to be had on my faction's side of the map.

Tavore1138

Yes, go back to only being able to play a single faction in a campaign and then block the loopholes that allowed people to dodge that rule. Sick of guilds switching mid campaign or even mid evening to whichever team offers the best AP farming, it spoils the campaign for those that still care about campaigns and I would think it is very offputting for people trying pvp to be taken advantage of... poor choicesfrom ZoS in this area have not helped PvP.

BrightOblivion

Let me put this as clearly as I can:

No. Absolutely not.

We have three campaigns for people above level 50, each with a different ruleset or length.

- A 30 day non-champion point
- A 30 day with champion points
- A 7 day with champion points

What does that mean? That means that if you prefer a campaign that has no champion points, your only option that gives you that, regardless of alliance, is Sotha Sil. If you find the 30 day campaigns too long and boring, your only option is Shor. Which is fine and dandy. Just play all your characters on that alliance.

Except you and everyone else proposing we bring the faction lock back wants to prevent anyone from doing that, forcing them out of the ruleset they prefer on all but one faction. Seriously? No thanks.

Here's the thing. I don't mind Shor. It's a pleasant 7 day campaign, and while it's CP enabled, the gap between the haves and the have nots is never downright enormous. However, because it's 7 days, it feels incredibly frenetic, and there's no way I'd ever want to play more than one or two toons in it. One day a week, I take in my magsorc who can solo resources if nothing else and either do that or ride the zerg until I hit my 25k AP, and then I move on.

So what about the thirty day campaigns? Well, I absolutely can't stand Vivec. It's constantly crowded. The gap between those with CP properly allotted and those without is nigh insurmountable, and it feels like 30 days of nothing new. Legitimately, I'd rather beat on my head with a hammer than home any of my toons there and play on any sort of regular basis. If you like it, that's awesome, but I don't.

So, except for my main, any >50 toons I have are in Sotha Sil. Right now, that's 3 of them (1 DC, 2 AD), and each of them are in there one or two times a month. It's awesome. The turnaround for campaign rewards isn't such that I'm feeling pressured to constantly be in PvP. No CP means I'm not constantly having to reallocate my points every time I enter and every time I leave. If I had to pick any of the campaigns as my favorite, it would be this one.

But y'all want to force me and everyone else who has characters in multiple alliances to take our toons and drop them in campaigns we absolutely can't stand? Why?

- Because entire guilds are faction swapping? While that sucks, and can be incredibly frustrating when you're suddenly facing your best members who got you the entire map, I'm unaware that's violating any rules. If it is, report it, and deal with them individually.

- Because people are keep-swapping? Again, deal with those people individually. ZOS has already said that trading keeps like that just to farm AP is against the rules, so report it.

- Because Joe Blow is taking the Elder Scroll out of the keep and running it to the feet of another alliance member? Then freaking report Joe Blow. But don't penalize Suzy Sunshine because Joe Blow's a git.

If they're violating explicit rules, spying on alliance chat, cheating, what-have-you, and you can prove it, then report them. Deal with the troublemakers individually. But don't penalize those who only like a certain ruleset or are actually playing with their friends (amazingly enough, it does freaking happen. Just because all of your friends are monochrome on all their accounts doesn't mean everyone is) in the process.

We had a faction lock once. It was removed for a reason. It's gone, and should stay gone.

BrightOblivion votes Nay.

idk

I think the poll did not go the way OP was hoping.

Regardless of how the poll would actually go, Zos is highly unlikely to change it back to this. There is a reason they abandoned the faction lock for campaigns due to the negative impact it had.

TequilaFire

So all of you that are opposed to faction locking, what is your solution to one alliance having the most population all the time?
It is absolutely no fun to play a campaign with 3 bars vs 1 vs 1 because everyone is playing with their "friends" on the alliance that just happens to be in the lead. Makes for a long 30 days.

zaria

TequilaFire wrote: »

/sigh the ole play with their friends response.
Yeah whole groups of friends jumping alliances.

This, sell alliance change for 3K gold and lock down campaign on faction.
So you can not join vivec on other factions than you started on.

As I see it its one good reason for alliance change, you start game for PvE, end preferring PvP but your main guild is of other faction and they do plenty of PvP.

rustic_potato

TequilaFire wrote: »

So all of you that are opposed to faction locking, what is your solution to one alliance having the most population all the time?
It is absolutely no fun to play a campaign with 3 bars vs 1 vs 1 because everyone is playing with their "friends" on the alliance that just happens to be in the lead. Makes for a long 30 days.

There is no solution needed. It is perfectly fine the way it is. If you want to have a challenge you log in with the lower populated alt. If you feel like you just want to steamroll and get you PVP achievements join the highly populated one. Faction locking is just dumb.

Eirella

No.
I want to have the option to play another faction when EP is outnumbering everyone and making PVP really boring.

tommalmm

Some people take game too seriously.

TequilaFire

rustic_potato wrote: »

TequilaFire wrote: »

So all of you that are opposed to faction locking, what is your solution to one alliance having the most population all the time?
It is absolutely no fun to play a campaign with 3 bars vs 1 vs 1 because everyone is playing with their "friends" on the alliance that just happens to be in the lead. Makes for a long 30 days.

There is no solution needed. It is perfectly fine the way it is. If you want to have a challenge you log in with the lower populated alt. If you feel like you just want to steamroll and get you PVP achievements join the highly populated one. Faction locking is just dumb.

So you think it is just fine to abandon my friends on my main alliance to go to the winning one for easy achievements and ap?
I think not, this easy mode gaming is what has screwed this game into the ground. At the same time it is no fun never being able to win and get pounded every day because you hello kitty pvp players can't fight your way out of a paper bag unless you have superior numbers.

IcyDeadPeople

It would be fine if there were more than one populated campaign. However, on PC NA, all we have is Vivec, and even that one is slow sometimes. Where would you propose people play on their other faction characters?

I understand getting frustrated if some big guild changes faction, but often those guilds tend to change faction to whichever is the underdog, hoping to improve the balance.

Rainraven

TequilaFire wrote: »

So all of you that are opposed to faction locking, what is your solution to one alliance having the most population all the time?
It is absolutely no fun to play a campaign with 3 bars vs 1 vs 1 because everyone is playing with their "friends" on the alliance that just happens to be in the lead. Makes for a long 30 days.

I agree with you completely, but the solution you're going for here is 1. the nuclear option and 2. likely to have an effect opposite the one you're hoping for. People really DO switch to toons on the UNDER-populated side because they would like to get some PVP on a map that's all already their faction's color. That's also sometimes the motivations for guilds who switch factions: they are trying to do what ZOS won't, deal with the population imbalance so we can play the game.

If you're only seeing jerks, that sucks for you, but that's not the whole picture. Jerks will be jerks. And you want to penalize people who are good for the health of campaigns because they have toons in multiple factions. No.

Also, everything BrightOblivion said. There aren't enough campaigns for this nonsense to happen again.

Disclosure, if it matters: I only PVP for the Pact. And this is still a terrible idea.

makreth

What does it matter...there are a bunch of people cooperating already between alliances (with no need to jump). If you want to stop abusing then do not allow communication when in cyrodiil between enemy characters but that won't fix it. It's a dead end.

BrightOblivion

And what about guilds that aren't faction locked/ don't solely PvP, but have PvP events that try to be as inclusive as popular? One per campaign? What about the faction that gets stuck in poplocked evening Vivec? What if my alliance allocations are different than the rest of my guild, or I'm in another guild that allocates them differently?

It's a bureaucratic bullcrap nightmare waiting to happen, and will make PvP grouping more of a nuisance than anything else.

As for what to do for population imbalances? Give the factions dealing with it a more substantial handicap than just a useless score boost. Something like increased wall damage or damage to players. Something that gives them a fighting chance. Or maybe lower popcap so it's less likely to be super-imbalanced. But forcing people to beat their heads against the same wall for 30 days because "Hey, that's the faction you chose" is also bullcrap.

To exactly zero of the problems mentioned is a faction lock the best soution. Not by a long shot.

Rohamad_Ali

The only place you will get locked teams is battlefields . ZoS probably will never go back to locked teams in Cyrodiil because players just bypassed it anyways . An while there are some that use it to always be on the winning side , there are a few really true PVP players that use it to help the faction that is most disadvantaged . Those are the heroes of Cyrodiil . Always fighting outnumbered to bring balance .

cairo_x

I still believe some sort of penalty could be implemented like the need to spend a reasonable amount of AP to be able to jump between factions, similar system we have regarding Campaign.

DocFrost72

I have 11 DC toons, one EP and one AD. Know what I used this "terrible" function you're discussing to do?

Get out of Sotha and into Shor because my alliance already owned all but the two scroll keeps (ward, rayles, BB, BM). Your solution would have had me farming AP on a campaign my alliance dominated to stop me farming in campaigns where my alliance dominated.

Do you see the problem?

Denyiir

I would be for at least first option if pvp campaigns had an meaning and good rewards, but since they don't, I think let's just keep it as it is - many people seems to enjoy it.

Enslaved

Yes. Stop the bs.

idk

TequilaFire wrote: »

So all of you that are opposed to faction locking, what is your solution to one alliance having the most population all the time?
It is absolutely no fun to play a campaign with 3 bars vs 1 vs 1 because everyone is playing with their "friends" on the alliance that just happens to be in the lead. Makes for a long 30 days.

I think the question is for you to answer. That is for you to prove that unlocked factions is why a campaign is lopsided as you suggest. It is up to you to demonstrate that and that locked factions would change it.

BTW, back when we had locked factions most of the campaigns were lopsided. Just FYI.

Runschei

No thank you.

I mainly play as EP, but I will switch to AD if EP takes too much of the map or if my guild wa ts to run as AD.

TequilaFire

idk wrote: »

TequilaFire wrote: »

So all of you that are opposed to faction locking, what is your solution to one alliance having the most population all the time?
It is absolutely no fun to play a campaign with 3 bars vs 1 vs 1 because everyone is playing with their "friends" on the alliance that just happens to be in the lead. Makes for a long 30 days.

I think the question is for you to answer. That is for you to prove that unlocked factions is why a campaign is lopsided as you suggest. It is up to you to demonstrate that and that locked factions would change it.

BTW, back when we had locked factions most of the campaigns were lopsided. Just FYI.

I know exactly how the campaigns were all the way back to day one as I was there on PC, I was even at the Chalamo.
In no way was it as bad as it is now as you couldn't just change sides at a whim.
Most of us are only asking for a lock for the duration of a campaign to prevent the manipulation that certain guilds are doing now.

Tommy_The_Gun

I guess people don't see the paradox re-loging is causing...

Loging-off from one character from one alliance and then logging in with different character with different alliance still within the same campaign.

Imagine this scenario (and assume for a second that it is actually happening on live server):

- A PvP guild logs to their faction characters. Paints the map to their faction colour.
- Logs off and logs in as 2nd faction and paints the map their colour.
- Then Banks AP.
- 3rd faction is perma-pushed to the gates facing constant 2 vs 1 scenario...

GG #Three_Banners_War Balance...

Qbiken

I think one alliance/campaign is a good suggestion. I´m against having one alliance/account for obvious reasons. At the moment, people selling emperorship and rigging campaigns are an huge issue on Shor (PC/EU). Let me tell you a story:

A few weeks ago I was on my AD character on Shor. The reason I play on Shor is:
#1 I like CP over non-CP
#2 I hate long que-times and excessive lag and therefore avoid Vivec.

(Note that this story is told by another player to me through whisper)
For those who doesn´t are aware of how Shor is at the moment, it´s an emp-selling campaign dominated by DC. But last week during Tuesday/Wednesday AD had a really good chance of crowning an emperor. The guy who was in the current emp-group had suddenly gained a small lead to the player who was #2 on the leaderboard. The group he was in suddenly kicked him, because they had a "secret agreement" to get the #2 player as emp. They kicked the guy who was #1, half of the group relogged to DC faction and kept hunting the #1 AD player down (so he couldn´t farm any AP) and retook the majority of the keeps (Now as DC-players) the same group had taken the hours before. The #1 AD player could because of this not becoming emp. An hour later the map was yellow again, and the guy who was #2 became emp, because the team had swapped back from DC to AD.

If you people think this *** isn´t a problem, you´re either a part of the emp-selling people, or haven´t seen the issue.....

SaintSubwayy

Since OT came out, there's actually no need anymore to have different alliances on one account, since all chars can quest everywhere.( IMO they could just change all chars on an accout to be in the same alliance.)

I understand that ppl want to pvp with their friends, and this should stay so.

However what happened yesterday (Sunday) evening on EU PC Sotha Sil Campain is just unfair towards all players who wanted to play on EP side that evening.
EP got Poplocked while having only about 2,5 - 3 Groups woth of players in the campain while AD and DC both had 4-5 Groups worth of players.

I think it'd be fair to put in a system to prevent such actions. Maybe a Lock for the duration of the Campain.

30 Campain starts, the first time you join in the Campain with a specific alliance (EP in this chase) the campain will be locked for this account on AD and DC side. You can only participate with EP chars for the duration.


Other thing is the "Lowpopulation Bonus", in all seriousness this has to be removed.
If noone wants to play in a certain Campain then their alliance should not gain any buffs at all.

Other solution is that as soon as an alliance with Lowpop Bonus gets a locked Population, they cannot get the bonus for the next 5 days.