Alliance switching to boost AP and take Emp - discuss!

Beardimus

@Aisle9 I guess its about mindset. I'm Pact thru and thru. I don't care if I'm outnumbered or any of the situations you describe. I just adapt, switch to ganking or bombing or whatever way round it if I have to. But it's a rich game. There are battlegrounds etc if it does truely suck

The mentality to just switch to the winning side / action that is the problem ill agree. Gamers are fickle.

However while your suggestion above MAY encourage the flip flop glory hunting players you mention, I still don't think it fixes the problem ive opened here.

Someone flipping a keep Red, logging out, logging back in flipping it Blue and repeat. It's fundamentally wrong. Be that boosting AP on that one keep or the same process on flipping Emp keeps.

Underdog bonus or not I don't think it's as clean as at least a 24-48hr lock on alliance switch per campaign.

However I'm still not convinced on any of your arguements for not locking it permanently. I'm listening tho and would love to hear an argument that stacks up.

Aisle9

Beardimus wrote: »

@Aisle9 I guess its about mindset. I'm Pact thru and thru. I don't care if I'm outnumbered or any of the situations you describe. I just adapt, switch to ganking or bombing or whatever way round it if I have to. But it's a rich game. There are battlegrounds etc if it does truely suck

The mentality to just switch to the winning side / action that is the problem ill agree. Gamers are fickle.

However while your suggestion above MAY encourage the flip flop glory hunting players you mention, I still don't think it fixes the problem ive opened here.

Someone flipping a keep Red, logging out, logging back in flipping it Blue and repeat. It's fundamentally wrong. Be that boosting AP on that one keep or the same process on flipping Emp keeps.

Underdog bonus or not I don't think it's as clean as at least a 24-48hr lock on alliance switch per campaign.

However I'm still not convinced on any of your arguements for not locking it permanently. I'm listening tho and would love to hear an argument that stacks up.

@Beardimus
Which one, reworking the underdog bonus or the campaign rewards tier ?

Of course you adapt, but I'd rather have a healthy campaign than one where I have to gank the noobs to get some action. Just saying.

I'm not interested in discussing a solution that may or may not temporarily patch a problem, while ignoring the underlying issues. I'm Italian, I'm loud an emotional, and passionate about stuff.

As you said, it's mindset. I'm a software developer, and a freelancer. Most of the time, when there's a fix to do, I have to fight tooth and nail with the guy that gave me the job for a client, to look at what causes the issue, instead of a workaround that fixes the immediate problem, because they want an immediate solution.

So, yeah, I agree, it's the mindset. I see a problem, I want to fix it in a way that will also stay solved in a long run.

Sometimes, a temporary patch is all you need to get a breath of air, but most of the time it's just a patch. Patches don't last long.

Bax

I was wondering why salt prices fell so suddenly. Thanks for explanation.

Beardimus

@Aisle9 hey I get it, I'm all about root cause professionally, requirement over solution, need vs want.

but that's my point, I think alliance switching IS the root cause, certainly to part of this beast that i'm currently experiencing. While I see what you are trying to do, I also think that locking out alliances would fix it immediately. The alternatives may or may not get to that problem.

And let me clarify, When I said about ganking I wasn't talking ganking noobs. I was talking when i'm outnumbered or gate camped etc by a superior force (once of your examples) I make it my mission to put up resistance no matter how futile, to sneak out somehow. Get their stragglers, cut them off from the keep - or something.

Rather than - oh i'm outnumberd, I know i'll join them or the 2nd place team.

Sorry I missed the 2nd solution and again I just don't think that addresses the issue here.

Some gamers, purely want to tick off Emp. And they don't care how they do it. Its a box tick, and right now alliance switching is the bane of that. SURE it will still be possible for guilds to manipulate, by not switching but splitting their numbers and not attacking etc. But the bit that grates me is one person switching sides.

Even on a HUGE population campaign someone can defend a keep till it looks overrun, swap alliances and get in to get the flip - that's kinda odd no?

As I said i'm open to be convinced on WHY we need alliance switching, maybe that's a better way to put it. I for one would prefer them to lock alliances for 3 months and see what breaks. Hell they did it with CP in Battlegrounds and it ruined them so they reverted.

Good debate though, I thank you for that!

Aisle9

Beardimus wrote: »

@Aisle9 hey I get it, I'm all about root cause professionally, requirement over solution, need vs want.

but that's my point, I think alliance switching IS the root cause, certainly to part of this beast that i'm currently experiencing. While I see what you are trying to do, I also think that locking out alliances would fix it immediately. The alternatives may or may not get to that problem.

And let me clarify, When I said about ganking I wasn't talking ganking noobs. I was talking when i'm outnumbered or gate camped etc by a superior force (once of your examples) I make it my mission to put up resistance no matter how futile, to sneak out somehow. Get their stragglers, cut them off from the keep - or something.

Rather than - oh i'm outnumberd, I know i'll join them or the 2nd place team.

@Beardimus
I'm gonna split this in two.

I understand what you mean and I can relate. But what I'm talking about is the average player with no vested interest in the faction winning.

While a small minority (like you and me) may do that, there's a majority that gets emotional.

Some may think "This faction is dead, I'll just join the other", some may think "I'll join the other, then we're going to attack the faction camping the gate and get revenge", some may just have friends logging in asking for help. It's not just exploiters that faction hop, of that I'm fairly sure we can agree on.

Players are fickle, we agree on that. Some just want to play the content for the sake of it.

Beardimus wrote: »

Sorry I missed the 2nd solution and again I just don't think that addresses the issue here.

Some gamers, purely want to tick off Emp. And they don't care how they do it. Its a box tick, and right now alliance switching is the bane of that. SURE it will still be possible for guilds to manipulate, by not switching but splitting their numbers and not attacking etc. But the bit that grates me is one person switching sides.

Even on a HUGE population campaign someone can defend a keep till it looks overrun, swap alliances and get in to get the flip - that's kinda odd no?

As I said i'm open to be convinced on WHY we need alliance switching, maybe that's a better way to put it. I for one would prefer them to lock alliances for 3 months and see what breaks. Hell they did it with CP in Battlegrounds and it ruined them so they reverted.

In my case, I'm an officer in a small PvP guild. A lot of our guildies didn't think about PvP when they made their char, but they are curious about it. What we do is to create raids to join a campaign so that they have a chance to see what Cyrodiil is all about.

Then, in time, they go about making another toon of the alliance they like, or where the officers play the most.

These are players with various degrees of skill, no experience in PvP (or very little), and only one main toon they play, curious about PvP, but lacking the motivation to get in for the first time.

It's important that I have the ability to go where they are, rather than ask them to make another toon to join me because Cyrodiil is really fun, I promise (TM).

That's why a faction lock, while patching the immediate problem, will be a nuisance for a large amount of other people that faction hop without the intent to exploit or push emp. That will lead to population problems, where people just won't be joining anymore, or stack on the faction with the most guilds playing that campaign in that faction.

I'm convinced that a healthy population, in the long run, while not addressing the issue head on, will create a situation where it's not possible, or at least not efficient to do.

One thing about exploiters is that they're all about instant gain. If the effort required to execute the exploit is too great, they just won't.

Imagine if the raid that was flipping keeps (in your original post) was met not by you and another guy, but by a raid of 20ppl.

Scratch that, imagine 60 ppl defending the keep.

Not only it would be improbable they'd manage to flip it, but also they would most likely give up.

And if they were joined by other 60ppl to attack the keep, you would have 60ppl defending and 60 attacking (I'm not sure Ps4 would allow for those numbers, we see that in PC during prime time).

If the population is huge because 2 guilds are locking the pops, sure, I may agree with you, but if the population is huge because a lot of people play it, the keep will get repaired. Do you have any idea of the insults someone would get if they'd try to say "Don't repair" after a defense ? I know, because I saw it.

Exploit would be gone, it would simply be people playing the map. The keep would be repaired, trust me, there's a large number of people that join Cyro just to repair walls, a stonemason guild or something, I dunno.

I'm 100% sure that, in the long run, if you remove the variables that allow for it, the problem would solve itself, I see it all the time in my work. I agree with you, though, it's not an immediate solution.

Beardimus wrote: »

Good debate though, I thank you for that!

You're welcome.

Iccotak

We need some form of rewarding player faction loyalty

RobbieRocket

Alliance switching in a Campaign is not at all right. Unless you say that Campaigns are not meant to be fought as a strategy game/war to win but as a messy free-for-all. Because in no other sport or game would you have a player be able to directly effect and influence both (or various) sides. These are elements of playing against yourself or not, like playing chess vs yourself and "throwing" one side so that the other can win...

At the very least AP should be weighted to encourage competitive and relatively fair play. I would lock alliance entrance for each Campaign but if you don't at least make a big AP cost to come in from a new Alliance when already in as another, 200k, 500k, 1million?

Also give AP to the whole Alliance for scroll returns - something that might encourage them, also, give a extra AP reward for the runner and their group (this should not be excessive). These features may reduce some infuriating situations where people ride the back of your group's strategy, timing, coordination, speed and effort to then run the scroll to yellow or red or for a laugh, somewhere...

Beardimus

Iccotak wrote: »

We need some form of rewarding player faction loyalty

Now that's a great point. Maybe a small buff if you haven't switched that campaign or something. Dunno

Beardimus

RobbieRocket wrote: »

Alliance switching in a Campaign is not at all right. Unless you say that Campaigns are not meant to be fought as a strategy game/war to win but as a messy free-for-all. Because in no other sport or game would you have a player be able to directly effect and influence both (or various) sides. These are elements of playing against yourself or not, like playing chess vs yourself and "throwing" one side so that the other can win...

At the very least AP should be weighted to encourage competitive and relatively fair play. I would lock alliance entrance for each Campaign but if you don't at least make a big AP cost to come in from a new Alliance when already in as another, 200k, 500k, 1million?

Also give AP to the whole Alliance for scroll returns - something that might encourage them, also, give a extra AP reward for the runner and their group (this should not be excessive). These features may reduce some infuriating situations where people ride the back of your group's strategy, timing, coordination, speed and effort to then run the scroll to yellow or red or for a laugh, somewhere...

Agreed and actually @RobbieRocket you articulate that well re other sports. And I guess that's how I see it

Beardimus

@Aisle9 I just read the patch notes in a rush and thought this was a mute debate as they added alliance lock, but sadly (for me) its just to mixed groups taking up pop slots (another exploit!)

I can appreciate what you are saying, I can. However I think the same types would still exploit, and also I do wonder if alliance was forced to be locked Population MAY rise in other campaigns again ones chicken, ones egg and both of us could be right!

Your example, for example. A Tri alliance guild could say Shor is our DC, Vivec is our AD, Sotha EP. Then rotate If a few guilds had to do that pop would be spread.

I'm unsure newbies learn too much bar zerging from Vivec, but as Shor / Sotha can teach small scale. Granted in your region they are quiet, but you can learn resource captures, shards, lorebook runs.

Do appreciate your examples and view of wider picture. If I had a button to flick lock on for 30 days / 3 months id still want to test it lol

RobbieRocket

...another way to look at it is thinking about Alliance Points. They are, by their very name, points awarded for actions that help an Alliance. In this game they are not exclusively balanced that way, which is a result of unfulfilled efforts rather than intention.

Having Alliance Points as the goal will only work if awarding Alliance Points is linked to that which helps an Alliance.
When the goal becomes AP by themselves and AP is not directly relating to winning the war then you create a game that is solo, free-for-all, like any online game (shooter, racing, etc.) where the competitors are all for themselves.

There are a few factors as to why this happens in ESO Campaigns but the single biggest one that undermines AP relating to helping an Alliance is allowing people to earn on multiple sides, aka Alliance swapping.

In reality, logically speaking, in every game or sport scoring for one side is the same as undoing score for the other so, why not do this: swap sides after earning 300l AP for Yellow to then earn 300k AP for blue, it comes off your yellow toon until zero. Then you cannot earn more (the Alliances remain uneffected, you can only earn AP for one side, like guest campaign (guest alliance)).

randomkeyhits

jaws343 wrote: »

randomkeyhits wrote: »

When I started before I realised it would be a thing I created a DC, an AD and an EP character to play the separate stories, then found out Cadwells existed when the first finished and I hadn't needed to create all three up front. Then I started looking at PvP and realised why any race any alliance actually existed.

Bought it too for the new characters I wanted to create so I could use them in PvP.

Even having bought it I'd be happy (others may be not) if it was subsumed back into the base game and instead simply lock an account to the alliance they start a campaign as.

We just had a "random blue" grab the scroll on a run yesterday and deliver to the reds.

That kind of frustration is what drags down a games rep.

I'll keep bringing this up in these threads because people use this as an example of why we need campaign locks. Delivering 1 enemies scroll to another enemy is strategic. It is how you get pressure off of your own forces. If you are holding the enemy scrolls in your own home keeps, your home keeps will constantly be under siege by that enemy. But if you deliver the yellow scroll to red, yellow will split their forces and attempt to take the scroll back, focusing their attention on red. Leaving your armies free to take the rest of the map unchecked.

What made you assume it was an enemy scroll?

I play as DC, several groups peeled open the keep and this random "blue" grabbed the blue scroll and then delivered it to the reds, no doubts or questions about it. Went outside of the intended game mechanics to deliver an advantage to his side.

RobbieRocket

Yeah, scroll AP needs a look. In lore they are powerful and obviously strategic in game. Even delivering an enemy scroll to the alternate enemy disadvantages you by missing the enemy scroll bonus.

AP should be given to whole Alliance for a Scroll returned (own or other), additional AP should be given to all those in the keep (award nothing for drop/pick-ups) at the time of the grab, award further AP for the group (at time of return), award yet further for the individual OR make it an achievement 1, 3, 10 runs.

Aisle9

Beardimus wrote: »

@Aisle9 I just read the patch notes in a rush and thought this was a mute debate as they added alliance lock, but sadly (for me) its just to mixed groups taking up pop slots (another exploit!)

I can appreciate what you are saying, I can. However I think the same types would still exploit, and also I do wonder if alliance was forced to be locked Population MAY rise in other campaigns again ones chicken, ones egg and both of us could be right!

Your example, for example. A Tri alliance guild could say Shor is our DC, Vivec is our AD, Sotha EP. Then rotate If a few guilds had to do that pop would be spread.

I'm unsure newbies learn too much bar zerging from Vivec, but as Shor / Sotha can teach small scale. Granted in your region they are quiet, but you can learn resource captures, shards, lorebook runs.

Do appreciate your examples and view of wider picture. If I had a button to flick lock on for 30 days / 3 months id still want to test it lol

@Beardimus
To go back to my personal situation, we use Vivec for IC runs and Sotha for small scale, and here's the thing:

While Sotha is pretty much dominated and regularly nightcapped, the map gets played when the population is even.

Sure, you still have Chalmania and Alessia bridge, where people just go nuts with AP farming, but the map gets played, legitimately. A few guilds rally the pugs and it's really fun stuff.

The only instances when blatant exploits are possible is when the map is not getting played.

IIRC each faction is capped at 150 players, therefore a Tri alliance guild would need 450 people at any given time to lock the campaign (statistically improbable). In my experience other than trading guilds that kick inactive players every week, there's hardly a single guild with an average of 450 people online at any given time. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The point would be moot the moment pugs get in or other guilds get in, because one would assume they'd be trying to play the objectives, and not be included in the exploit.

In my experience each guild only have, on average, from 10 to 20 people to commit. You may have the guild with the massive queue of 48 people, but that's rare. Guilds with organized ballgroups usually cap at 24.

For that reason I'm very doubtful that a single guild, or even 2 or 3, can commit that number of players on a regular basis.

That's my opinion.

*edit*

I realized I'm throwing numbers for PC, not sure what the max is on Ps4, I imagine is less that that, but the point still stands, I'm fairly sure there are no guilds with that number of players online at any given moment. Correct me if I'm wrong.

jaws343

Does no-one remember the Imperial City event? On Xbox, we had a blue campaign, a red campaign, and a yellow campaign. People split and only joined the campaigns their alliance was winning on because they had to deal with less resistance. How does faction locking not lead directly to this? If the argument is, "People are exploiting to boost AP and get Emp," how much easier will that be if people avoid playing on the toon that is maining a faction that has a low population in the campaign.

The whole point that it seems like everyone is trying to make is that people are looking for the easy route to grind AP. Faction locking will do just that.

And I am not quite sure I get the argument that people can just log out from defending a keep and magically log back in, get through a queue, teleport to the nearest keep, and ride all the way to the keep they were defending to get the O-tick. That must be some special version of the game that I guess is only available to those who boost AP.

randomkeyhits

Iccotak wrote: »

We need some form of rewarding player faction loyalty

Definitely agree with this.

I'd see two easy ways to encourage this, both by campaign.

1. Every day you log into a campaign you get a +1% boost to AP gain, accumulating until you reach a cap, 10% maybe? If you log into another alliance on that campaign you immediately zero the gain and it starts all over again the next day on whichever alliance you first log into. At the start of a campaign the boost is also wiped.
2. Though the AP gain is capped, keep the counter going, with a reward for every block of five days one reward. Possibly balanced differently for a 7 day campaign. I'd also suggest that for each block the game needs to see 2 1/2 hours of participation so averaging 30 mins a day. This reduces the leeching log in/out on multiple characters and allows people whose work situations may only allow them burst play.

For the second one the rewards don't have to be poor at the beginning and sweet at the end ( lockpicks -> geodes ) in fact its better if the reward is pretty consistent across all the days so players don't feel like they are losing out because they have to miss some days. Obviously the reward comes at the completion of the period, not the start....

Aisle9

jaws343 wrote: »

Does no-one remember the Imperial City event? On Xbox, we had a blue campaign, a red campaign, and a yellow campaign. People split and only joined the campaigns their alliance was winning on because they had to deal with less resistance. How does faction locking not lead directly to this? If the argument is, "People are exploiting to boost AP and get Emp," how much easier will that be if people avoid playing on the toon that is maining a faction that has a low population in the campaign.

The whole point that it seems like everyone is trying to make is that people are looking for the easy route to grind AP. Faction locking will do just that.

And I am not quite sure I get the argument that people can just log out from defending a keep and magically log back in, get through a queue, teleport to the nearest keep, and ride all the way to the keep they were defending to get the O-tick. That must be some special version of the game that I guess is only available to those who boost AP.

I remember being full of PvE players, and a lot of PvP vets didn't get to play during that week in because of the 500+ queues, so I probably wouldn't use it as an example...

As for hopping faction to flip the emp keeps, it's something that does happen, it's well documented, and it's also pretty easy to do if the campaign is not populated.

No people in the camp = insta pop -> Rapid maneuvers = get there quickly -> drop a ram, drop a couple fire ballistae = flip the keep in minutes.

Hope this clarifies.
Have a nice day.

MakeMeUhSamich

Why not make the campaigns radically shorter?Like 3-6 hours or something. Then it cycles several times per day. 30 days is, erm, ridiculously long imo.

/takescover

jaws343

Aisle9 wrote: »

jaws343 wrote: »

Does no-one remember the Imperial City event? On Xbox, we had a blue campaign, a red campaign, and a yellow campaign. People split and only joined the campaigns their alliance was winning on because they had to deal with less resistance. How does faction locking not lead directly to this? If the argument is, "People are exploiting to boost AP and get Emp," how much easier will that be if people avoid playing on the toon that is maining a faction that has a low population in the campaign.

The whole point that it seems like everyone is trying to make is that people are looking for the easy route to grind AP. Faction locking will do just that.

And I am not quite sure I get the argument that people can just log out from defending a keep and magically log back in, get through a queue, teleport to the nearest keep, and ride all the way to the keep they were defending to get the O-tick. That must be some special version of the game that I guess is only available to those who boost AP.

I remember being full of PvE players, and a lot of PvP vets didn't get to play during that week in because of the 500+ queues, so I probably wouldn't use it as an example...

As for hopping faction to flip the emp keeps, it's something that does happen, it's well documented, and it's also pretty easy to do if the campaign is not populated.

No people in the camp = insta pop -> Rapid maneuvers = get there quickly -> drop a ram, drop a couple fire ballistae = flip the keep in minutes.

Hope this clarifies.
Have a nice day.

So then, isn't campaign under-population the issue? Why not just join a more populated campaign? Why ruin the game for the less competitive people or those who prefer to play with friends wherever those friends are playing?

Beardimus

randomkeyhits wrote: »

jaws343 wrote: »

randomkeyhits wrote: »

When I started before I realised it would be a thing I created a DC, an AD and an EP character to play the separate stories, then found out Cadwells existed when the first finished and I hadn't needed to create all three up front. Then I started looking at PvP and realised why any race any alliance actually existed.

Bought it too for the new characters I wanted to create so I could use them in PvP.

Even having bought it I'd be happy (others may be not) if it was subsumed back into the base game and instead simply lock an account to the alliance they start a campaign as.

We just had a "random blue" grab the scroll on a run yesterday and deliver to the reds.

That kind of frustration is what drags down a games rep.

I'll keep bringing this up in these threads because people use this as an example of why we need campaign locks. Delivering 1 enemies scroll to another enemy is strategic. It is how you get pressure off of your own forces. If you are holding the enemy scrolls in your own home keeps, your home keeps will constantly be under siege by that enemy. But if you deliver the yellow scroll to red, yellow will split their forces and attempt to take the scroll back, focusing their attention on red. Leaving your armies free to take the rest of the map unchecked.

What made you assume it was an enemy scroll?

I play as DC, several groups peeled open the keep and this random "blue" grabbed the blue scroll and then delivered it to the reds, no doubts or questions about it. Went outside of the intended game mechanics to deliver an advantage to his side.

I knew that would be the case!

Aisle9

jaws343 wrote: »

Aisle9 wrote: »

jaws343 wrote: »

Does no-one remember the Imperial City event? On Xbox, we had a blue campaign, a red campaign, and a yellow campaign. People split and only joined the campaigns their alliance was winning on because they had to deal with less resistance. How does faction locking not lead directly to this? If the argument is, "People are exploiting to boost AP and get Emp," how much easier will that be if people avoid playing on the toon that is maining a faction that has a low population in the campaign.

The whole point that it seems like everyone is trying to make is that people are looking for the easy route to grind AP. Faction locking will do just that.

And I am not quite sure I get the argument that people can just log out from defending a keep and magically log back in, get through a queue, teleport to the nearest keep, and ride all the way to the keep they were defending to get the O-tick. That must be some special version of the game that I guess is only available to those who boost AP.

I remember being full of PvE players, and a lot of PvP vets didn't get to play during that week in because of the 500+ queues, so I probably wouldn't use it as an example...

As for hopping faction to flip the emp keeps, it's something that does happen, it's well documented, and it's also pretty easy to do if the campaign is not populated.

No people in the camp = insta pop -> Rapid maneuvers = get there quickly -> drop a ram, drop a couple fire ballistae = flip the keep in minutes.

Hope this clarifies.
Have a nice day.

So then, isn't campaign under-population the issue? Why not just join a more populated campaign? Why ruin the game for the less competitive people or those who prefer to play with friends wherever those friends are playing?

Mh...

Ok, look, my advice is to go back and have a read at previous posts, the argument is a bit more complicated than that, personally I'm against faction lock, so...

Campaign under-population is indeed an issue, and I'm convinced that a lot of problems can be solved by addressing the causes that lead to players abandoning a campaign, and make it open field for exploitation, but, really, go back and read previous posts, don't just jump in.

There are some good points from people advocating for faction lock.

MakeMeUhSamich wrote: »

Why not make the campaigns radically shorter?Like 3-6 hours or something. Then it cycles several times per day. 30 days is, erm, ridiculously long imo.

/takescover

To keep the ADHD kids interested ?

/throwsfruit

Beardimus

MakeMeUhSamich wrote: »

Why not make the campaigns radically shorter?Like 3-6 hours or something. Then it cycles several times per day. 30 days is, erm, ridiculously long imo.

/takescover

I think this is a separate debate, but one I think need discussing. I would be up for that. As many of us are 'casuals' its hare to get anywhere unless you are on for campaign reset.

Shorter campaigns would be cool.

I also think certainly when campaigns end the map should reset to default. Home keeps only, rest neutral. Would great a help of a rush.

But I digress. The main thing I want is to stop cheating scumbags devaluing achievements, in fact any viable solution that does it I'm.game for, sod it.

I'm just done with gamers I think. The RP in me wants an MMORPG to.be taken more seriously!!

Beardimus

@Aisle9 actually another thought. What's your view on stopping abdication. I.e. Leaving the score up.

I haven't thought it through but it would at least stem the rate at which guilds could flick it to guild mates.

Aisle9

Beardimus wrote: »

@Aisle9 actually another thought. What's your view on stopping abdication. I.e. Leaving the score up.

I haven't thought it through but it would at least stem the rate at which guilds could flick it to guild mates.

@Beardimus
Mh, could you elaborate on that, please, I'm not sure what you mean.

jaws343

Aisle9 wrote: »

jaws343 wrote: »

Aisle9 wrote: »

jaws343 wrote: »

Does no-one remember the Imperial City event? On Xbox, we had a blue campaign, a red campaign, and a yellow campaign. People split and only joined the campaigns their alliance was winning on because they had to deal with less resistance. How does faction locking not lead directly to this? If the argument is, "People are exploiting to boost AP and get Emp," how much easier will that be if people avoid playing on the toon that is maining a faction that has a low population in the campaign.

The whole point that it seems like everyone is trying to make is that people are looking for the easy route to grind AP. Faction locking will do just that.

And I am not quite sure I get the argument that people can just log out from defending a keep and magically log back in, get through a queue, teleport to the nearest keep, and ride all the way to the keep they were defending to get the O-tick. That must be some special version of the game that I guess is only available to those who boost AP.

I remember being full of PvE players, and a lot of PvP vets didn't get to play during that week in because of the 500+ queues, so I probably wouldn't use it as an example...

As for hopping faction to flip the emp keeps, it's something that does happen, it's well documented, and it's also pretty easy to do if the campaign is not populated.

No people in the camp = insta pop -> Rapid maneuvers = get there quickly -> drop a ram, drop a couple fire ballistae = flip the keep in minutes.

Hope this clarifies.
Have a nice day.

So then, isn't campaign under-population the issue? Why not just join a more populated campaign? Why ruin the game for the less competitive people or those who prefer to play with friends wherever those friends are playing?

Mh...

Ok, look, my advice is to go back and have a read at previous posts, the argument is a bit more complicated than that, personally I'm against faction lock, so...

Campaign under-population is indeed an issue, and I'm convinced that a lot of problems can be solved by addressing the causes that lead to players abandoning a campaign, and make it open field for exploitation, but, really, go back and read previous posts, don't just jump in.

There are some good points from people advocating for faction lock.

MakeMeUhSamich wrote: »

Why not make the campaigns radically shorter?Like 3-6 hours or something. Then it cycles several times per day. 30 days is, erm, ridiculously long imo.

/takescover

To keep the ADHD kids interested ?

/throwsfruit

I mean, I've read the whole thread and have made comments here and there. I personally do not think the argument is that complicated. The issue that is being described here is small, and only happens because campaigns are underpopulated. If campaigns were full, this would be impossible.

Joy_Division

Beardimus wrote: »

Interested to discuss this.

I'm aware many players like being able to switch alliance mid campaign. I do not agree with it, ive only seen it used for nefarious things and this time I'm furious.

I worked hard this campaign reset to get ahead and get myself Emp for the first time. Took time off work and a big effort to achieve it had to fight the outgoing emp who's a Pro and use all resources i had!

Im Ebonheart Pact and loyal. Friday night I played as Emp with a guy his score was low, unsure of Cyrodiil and i helped him out. Saturday I came on and he had been on all night and had a gd score up the board fair enough I thought, tho map was mainly red as I left after midnight.... But Saturday he had switched to his DC toon with mates to take the Emp keeps flip map and boost AP (ihave full video and image proof)

Luckily I came on in time for last keep battle - HUZZAH!- and had my first 1vX defending Chalman with one EP mate. Killed this player and We wiped them twice, it was close tho. Then I started to get abuse from him and his mates that I was out of order and not honorable (I.e. I was stopping a fellow Pact guy get Emp) surely the outgoing Emp defending last keep is honorable????? And switching sides to boost AP and flip map the opposite? They spammed zone chat (switching back) and Xbox message from abuse to offers of 300k to walk away

Just salty I guess......

Anyway they gave up (shame, as Great fight and they nearly got us twice) and i logged out for the weekend. But yesterday map was blue that group took emp and farmed AP with it. Overnight this Pact guys score has doubled and now has Emp. Making a mockery of the whole system.

It's not taken away my efforts, im not bitter and nor will I feel bad for my personal battle of the Chal-amo. But I want the community view on this.

I have complete evidence of him switching alliances to flip the 6 keeps. Overnight AP farming I wasn't witness to to be clear.

TLDR -
1. is switching alliances to boost AP and flip keeps for your own Emp push legit? I.e. Flip then as DC, change back to EP to flip back.
2. How can we stop this type of thing bar locking alliance per campaign?
3. Should players doing it be reported?

Can we please STOP blaming and stereotyping people who play on multiple factions?

This has nothing to do with Alliance hopping and everything to do with them being a salty **** and the stupid emperor politics that happen because of low populated servers.

Aisle9

jaws343 wrote: »

Aisle9 wrote: »

jaws343 wrote: »

Aisle9 wrote: »

jaws343 wrote: »

Does no-one remember the Imperial City event? On Xbox, we had a blue campaign, a red campaign, and a yellow campaign. People split and only joined the campaigns their alliance was winning on because they had to deal with less resistance. How does faction locking not lead directly to this? If the argument is, "People are exploiting to boost AP and get Emp," how much easier will that be if people avoid playing on the toon that is maining a faction that has a low population in the campaign.

The whole point that it seems like everyone is trying to make is that people are looking for the easy route to grind AP. Faction locking will do just that.

And I am not quite sure I get the argument that people can just log out from defending a keep and magically log back in, get through a queue, teleport to the nearest keep, and ride all the way to the keep they were defending to get the O-tick. That must be some special version of the game that I guess is only available to those who boost AP.

I remember being full of PvE players, and a lot of PvP vets didn't get to play during that week in because of the 500+ queues, so I probably wouldn't use it as an example...

As for hopping faction to flip the emp keeps, it's something that does happen, it's well documented, and it's also pretty easy to do if the campaign is not populated.

No people in the camp = insta pop -> Rapid maneuvers = get there quickly -> drop a ram, drop a couple fire ballistae = flip the keep in minutes.

Hope this clarifies.
Have a nice day.

So then, isn't campaign under-population the issue? Why not just join a more populated campaign? Why ruin the game for the less competitive people or those who prefer to play with friends wherever those friends are playing?

Mh...

Ok, look, my advice is to go back and have a read at previous posts, the argument is a bit more complicated than that, personally I'm against faction lock, so...

Campaign under-population is indeed an issue, and I'm convinced that a lot of problems can be solved by addressing the causes that lead to players abandoning a campaign, and make it open field for exploitation, but, really, go back and read previous posts, don't just jump in.

There are some good points from people advocating for faction lock.

MakeMeUhSamich wrote: »

Why not make the campaigns radically shorter?Like 3-6 hours or something. Then it cycles several times per day. 30 days is, erm, ridiculously long imo.

/takescover

To keep the ADHD kids interested ?

/throwsfruit

I mean, I've read the whole thread and have made comments here and there. I personally do not think the argument is that complicated. The issue that is being described here is small, and only happens because campaigns are underpopulated. If campaigns were full, this would be impossible.

I agree, but what if you're wrong ? What if I'm wrong ? There's value in listening to other points of view, just in case you are not 100% correct, IMO.

Worst case scenario, the thread doesn't get locked, best case scenario some good idea get thrown around and some good willed mod picks it up, and we get some sort of PvP QoL in the future.

VaranisArano

Switching faction to flip the emp ring then swapping back to flip the emp ring back happens. Its called emp swapping, and its not technically against the rules, because while you are logged on to each faction, you are playing exactly as the game intends.

When you are EP, you want to capture all the emp keeps. When you are DC, you want to capture all the emp keeps. When you are EP again, you want to capture all the emp keeps again. (All factions do this, please don't take this as slighting DC and EP exclusively.)

Without some sort of faction-locking, Emp swapping, outside of context, is indistinguishable from playing the game normally. You log on, you play hard for your current faction, you log off and swap factions, and play hard for your new current faction.

I don't think its healthy gameplay, but its not technically against the rules as long as there is no faction locking in place.


Contrast to the stuff that IS against the rules.
Coordinating with a group from a different faction to swap keeps/outposts/resources for AP. We've seen that at Bleakers and one of the back AD resources before on PC/NA. This usually doesn't last long because its pretty obvious when this is happening.
Coordinating with players on a different faction to "feed" someone AP by dying to create fake D-ticks and O-ticks.

mb10

You shouldnt be able to play the same campaign with characters from different alliances like the old days

PICK your alliance and thats who you're with this campaign.

Ive seen people on all 3 alliances in the space of a few hours, its a joke


@ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_JessicaFolsom @ZOS_Wrobel

Beardimus

Joy_Division wrote: »

Beardimus wrote: »

Interested to discuss this.

I'm aware many players like being able to switch alliance mid campaign. I do not agree with it, ive only seen it used for nefarious things and this time I'm furious.

I worked hard this campaign reset to get ahead and get myself Emp for the first time. Took time off work and a big effort to achieve it had to fight the outgoing emp who's a Pro and use all resources i had!

Im Ebonheart Pact and loyal. Friday night I played as Emp with a guy his score was low, unsure of Cyrodiil and i helped him out. Saturday I came on and he had been on all night and had a gd score up the board fair enough I thought, tho map was mainly red as I left after midnight.... But Saturday he had switched to his DC toon with mates to take the Emp keeps flip map and boost AP (ihave full video and image proof)

Luckily I came on in time for last keep battle - HUZZAH!- and had my first 1vX defending Chalman with one EP mate. Killed this player and We wiped them twice, it was close tho. Then I started to get abuse from him and his mates that I was out of order and not honorable (I.e. I was stopping a fellow Pact guy get Emp) surely the outgoing Emp defending last keep is honorable????? And switching sides to boost AP and flip map the opposite? They spammed zone chat (switching back) and Xbox message from abuse to offers of 300k to walk away

Just salty I guess......

Anyway they gave up (shame, as Great fight and they nearly got us twice) and i logged out for the weekend. But yesterday map was blue that group took emp and farmed AP with it. Overnight this Pact guys score has doubled and now has Emp. Making a mockery of the whole system.

It's not taken away my efforts, im not bitter and nor will I feel bad for my personal battle of the Chal-amo. But I want the community view on this.

I have complete evidence of him switching alliances to flip the 6 keeps. Overnight AP farming I wasn't witness to to be clear.

TLDR -
1. is switching alliances to boost AP and flip keeps for your own Emp push legit? I.e. Flip then as DC, change back to EP to flip back.
2. How can we stop this type of thing bar locking alliance per campaign?
3. Should players doing it be reported?

Can we please STOP blaming and stereotyping people who play on multiple factions?

This has nothing to do with Alliance hopping and everything to do with them being a salty **** and the stupid emperor politics that happen because of low populated servers.

Sorry @Joy_Division , I can only speak for what I see, and sadly I only see nefarious things. And when they happen they detrimentally impact PvP, peoples motivations, even peoples morals as they decide its the only way. It undermines the game.

I'm not stereotyping. I'm not saying all those pro switching are exploiters, please don't think that. BUT those that are obviously exploiting in this way are alliance switching.

The rosey side I'm not witness too despite being in since launch.