Pvp need campaign faction lock?

Jamini

No

All we need are better rewards for joining the underdogs.

1. Fix lowpop bonus so it is applied more reliably.
2. Boost lowpop AP bonus significantly.
3. Add in an AP boost for playing for the faction that is losing in points.
4. Give temporary, substantial, combat buffs to factions that lose their trikeeps AND scrolls. ("Last stand"). Combat bonus is lost when the gates are closed or a scroll is captured.
5. Penalize AP gains from rapid keep flips. (-10% keep capture AP for every keep taken within half an hour. Stacks up to -90%. Penalty timer resets every capture)
6. "Mercenary Pay" - RoTW mails sent (not accepted) during Last Stand status are accompanied by a second mail that contains a green transmute crystal or some Tel Var.

geonsocal

No

I like the concept of some type of low pop - last stand bonus scenario...

visionality

Yes

Sad as it is, too many ppl are exploiting the possibility to relog to another alliance in the same campaign to screw up PVP. As seen in Vivec, PC-EU yesterday when massive numbers of AD players swapped to their EP chars to make a red emp. Its absolutely disgusting to see a pop bar go down from poplocked to 2 bars and all of a sudden one alliance pushes hardcore for emp, while the "relog alliance" does nothing to defend or take back their inner keeps for more than one hour.

Locking accounts to one alliance per campaign wont stop people with several accounts and some PVEers will cry because their easy ride to delves and skyshards in PVP-land is gone. But still, it will improve PVP overall and stop a lot of toxic behaviour.

CapuchinSeven

Yes

Marginis wrote: »

This is circular logic.

Okay, let me just sum this up and then I'm gone because you posting a circular argument while complaining about a circular logic is really not a constructive use of my time.

Argument - "PVP is a competitive part of the game and needs a lock on faction swapping, preferably campaign long but at the least 24 hours would help"

Reply - "no because I want to play with my friends"

Argument - "that's not really valid as you still can, but choices have consequences in competitive games, if they don't it's open to imbalance and at worse exploitation. PVP is not PVE"

Reply - "no because I want to play with my friends"

Argument - "right... okay again... no one is saying you can't but some level of time out is needed to stop flip flopping, you can still play with friends just wait for the lock to finish or pick a different campaign that you can all play on, bam you're playing with your friends"

Reply - "no because I want to play with my friends"

Argument - "okay that's not a valid argument"

Reply - "raaw you're posting circular logic"

Rianai

No

A faction lock isn't going to stop imbalance and exploitation or make the game more competitive, so your arguments aren't more valid than "want to play with my friends".

Beardimus

Yes

Marginis wrote: »

Beardimus wrote: »

CapuchinSeven wrote: »

Marginis wrote: »

CapuchinSeven wrote: »

Dutchessx wrote: »

To begin with this is a game so playing with friends is a legitimate argument.

No, sorry that isn't a legitimate arguement because it's utterly invalid.

No one is saying you can't play with your friends and you can you're are free to change when ever you like just AFTER the campign is finished.

The argument is invalid because it's invalid? Right.

There's a reason that ZOS changed the game to One Tamriel - because playing with friends is important. We should try to make the game more accessible, not less. I mean, the whole point of ESO is to be Elder Scrolls that you can play with friends. Now I agree, there is an annoyance with people gaming [exploiting] the PVP system. However, that does not justify, at least in my opinion, limiting players who are more casual, or more social, or who aren't PVP focused, in that way or to that extent. There are other, significantly better solutions, to what I can see, than locking factions [at all].

"I want to play with my friends" isn't a trump all argument AND because you can play with your friends is utterly invalid anyway. If you want to play with your friends then join with your friends, no one is stopping you, but then you are ALL locked to that faction for the length of that game.

PVP is a competitive game, if you join a battleground and decide to swap sides half way through it would totally imbalance the game, just because a campaign lasts longer doesn't change that. If you want to play with your friends then join with them, no one is saying you can't play with your friends in battlegrounds just because you can't swap sides half way through.

Spot on.
Honestly I'm surprised this is even a debate, switching sides mid campaign doesn't lead to anything good. I'm amazed the portions of the community that defend it. On discord it was even worse, people were promoting it lol.

I see no reason at all why a temporary lock cant be turned on. say 48hrs - a good middle ground. I'd still prefer a full lock - at least on the quiet campagins Sotha / Shor. Let the cheats have Vivec.

The reason you can't understand is because you're limiting yourself to a PVP focused mindset. Imagine, just for a moment, that PVP isn't your focus. That you want to go into Cyrodiil to get skyshards, or don't play PVP often, but you want to play with your DC friends, yet you were just on with some AD friends (I'd imagine this would happen even more if a special event was going on, like when I got my gold jewelry during Midyear Mayhem (I think that's what it was)). Now, you can argue that faction locking is necessary enough to warrant making PVP less accessible, but without evidence or substantiation you cannot make a reasonable argument that "playing with friends" is an invalid argument. I agree, it's not a trump-all argument, but if you want to dismiss it, at least give a line of logic, instead of just saying "I'm right because I said so".

hey I've listened to all the points for and against but no solutions to stop the undermining of PVP that beat fraction lock has been presented.

And honestly arguing that PvP in a PvP zone should stay hampered because some folks might to PvE there is a stretch. It's a PvP zone. Besides why would you need instant alliance switch anyway? Three Vet campaigns you can cover all alliances there no need to switch alliances there and then to help your PvE goal.....

I'm open to better suggestions but a temporarylock at least is the only option suggested that would work to stop the nefarious behaviour

geonsocal

No

CapuchinSeven wrote: »

Marginis wrote: »

This is circular logic.

Okay, let me just sum this up and then I'm gone because you posting a circular argument while complaining about a circular logic is really not a constructive use of my time.

Argument - "PVP is a competitive part of the game and needs a lock on faction swapping, preferably campaign long but at the least 24 hours would help"

Reply - "no because I want to play with my friends"

Argument - "that's not really valid as you still can, but choices have consequences in competitive games, if they don't it's open to imbalance and at worse exploitation. PVP is not PVE"

Reply - "no because I want to play with my friends"

Argument - "right... okay again... no one is saying you can't but some level of time out is needed to stop flip flopping, you can still play with friends just wait for the lock to finish or pick a different campaign that you can all play on, bam you're playing with your friends"

Reply - "no because I want to play with my friends"

Argument - "okay that's not a valid argument"

Reply - "raaw you're posting circular logic"

Marginis

No

Beardimus wrote: »

Marginis wrote: »

Beardimus wrote: »

CapuchinSeven wrote: »

Marginis wrote: »

CapuchinSeven wrote: »

Dutchessx wrote: »

To begin with this is a game so playing with friends is a legitimate argument.

No, sorry that isn't a legitimate arguement because it's utterly invalid.

No one is saying you can't play with your friends and you can you're are free to change when ever you like just AFTER the campign is finished.

The argument is invalid because it's invalid? Right.

There's a reason that ZOS changed the game to One Tamriel - because playing with friends is important. We should try to make the game more accessible, not less. I mean, the whole point of ESO is to be Elder Scrolls that you can play with friends. Now I agree, there is an annoyance with people gaming [exploiting] the PVP system. However, that does not justify, at least in my opinion, limiting players who are more casual, or more social, or who aren't PVP focused, in that way or to that extent. There are other, significantly better solutions, to what I can see, than locking factions [at all].

"I want to play with my friends" isn't a trump all argument AND because you can play with your friends is utterly invalid anyway. If you want to play with your friends then join with your friends, no one is stopping you, but then you are ALL locked to that faction for the length of that game.

PVP is a competitive game, if you join a battleground and decide to swap sides half way through it would totally imbalance the game, just because a campaign lasts longer doesn't change that. If you want to play with your friends then join with them, no one is saying you can't play with your friends in battlegrounds just because you can't swap sides half way through.

Spot on.
Honestly I'm surprised this is even a debate, switching sides mid campaign doesn't lead to anything good. I'm amazed the portions of the community that defend it. On discord it was even worse, people were promoting it lol.

I see no reason at all why a temporary lock cant be turned on. say 48hrs - a good middle ground. I'd still prefer a full lock - at least on the quiet campagins Sotha / Shor. Let the cheats have Vivec.

The reason you can't understand is because you're limiting yourself to a PVP focused mindset. Imagine, just for a moment, that PVP isn't your focus. That you want to go into Cyrodiil to get skyshards, or don't play PVP often, but you want to play with your DC friends, yet you were just on with some AD friends (I'd imagine this would happen even more if a special event was going on, like when I got my gold jewelry during Midyear Mayhem (I think that's what it was)). Now, you can argue that faction locking is necessary enough to warrant making PVP less accessible, but without evidence or substantiation you cannot make a reasonable argument that "playing with friends" is an invalid argument. I agree, it's not a trump-all argument, but if you want to dismiss it, at least give a line of logic, instead of just saying "I'm right because I said so".

hey I've listened to all the points for and against but no solutions to stop the undermining of PVP that beat fraction lock has been presented.

And honestly arguing that PvP in a PvP zone should stay hampered because some folks might to PvE there is a stretch. It's a PvP zone. Besides why would you need instant alliance switch anyway? Three Vet campaigns you can cover all alliances there no need to switch alliances there and then to help your PvE goal.....

I'm open to better suggestions but a temporarylock at least is the only option suggested that would work to stop the nefarious behaviour

Just one proposed solution in this thread is offering bonuses to joining the underdog faction. Not saying it's a perfect solution, but that's what we're here to discuss. My only point so far, besides defending my logic, is in response to the OP: that faction locks, in my opinion, are not a good solution, because I believe the status quo is better. You can disagree if you want, and that's okay. Again, that's what we're here to talk about.

CapuchinSeven wrote: »

Marginis wrote: »

This is circular logic.

Okay, let me just sum this up and then I'm gone because you posting a circular argument while complaining about a circular logic is really not a constructive use of my time.

Argument - "PVP is a competitive part of the game and needs a lock on faction swapping, preferably campaign long but at the least 24 hours would help"

Reply - "no because I want to play with my friends"

Argument - "that's not really valid as you still can, but choices have consequences in competitive games, if they don't it's open to imbalance and at worse exploitation. PVP is not PVE"

Reply - "no because I want to play with my friends"

Argument - "right... okay again... no one is saying you can't but some level of time out is needed to stop flip flopping, you can still play with friends just wait for the lock to finish or pick a different campaign that you can all play on, bam you're playing with your friends"

Reply - "no because I want to play with my friends"

Argument - "okay that's not a valid argument"

Reply - "raaw you're posting circular logic"

You can't just be right because you said so. To argue a point - at least effectively, or to an end - you must provide logical reasoning and ideally, present evidence, and address the points of contention, not just ignore them. I sincerely hope that you can see how my points do this and aren't just... "no because I want to play with friends". If you cannot, please get help. Take a writing class or something.

Your responses have followed along a path I can imagine many players would agree with, however, they are not discussion provoking or logically following responses, like I try to make when I type out a reply. But I now think I understand why. I believe you have an inherent misunderstanding of my point. Whether you will understand or not remains to be seen, but for your benefit let me reiterate my point.

I do not think faction locks - locking your entire account to one faction - would stop people from playing with friends. What I do think, is that faction locking accounts, for any amount of time, will be a cause of severe annoyance and frustration for non-PVPers in addition to the people who take advantage of being able to play multiple factions by switching characters. I do not think that the trade-off is worth it. As I see it, the problem faction locks would solve is, relative to the whole game, quite minor, and the problems they would cause, relative to the problem they would solve, are quite major.

p.s. Thanks for paraphrasing me in such a flattering manner. Next time try using actual citations. They even have a handy "quote" button and everything, right on the replies you want to quote! I know it looks difficult, but trust me, it's way easier than it looks!

Ranger209

Yes

Marginis wrote: »

Just one proposed solution in this thread is offering bonuses to joining the underdog faction. Not saying it's a perfect solution, but that's what we're here to discuss. My only point so far, besides defending my logic, is in response to the OP: that faction locks, in my opinion, are not a good solution, because I believe the status quo is better. You can disagree if you want, and that's okay. Again, that's what we're here to talk about.

That proposed solution is the antithesis of this thread. It promotes more faction swapping. This discussion, though, goes well beyond this thread to the other 25 to 50 threads that have been created over the last 3 to 6 months on the same topic.

There is a fairly significant number of people that want the 3 alliance war to mean something. These people feel that faction swapping is a slap in the face to the whole premise of what Cyrodiil is. It is the 3 banner war for the throne. There have been various suggestions offering different ways to do this which would hopefully diminish the negative aspects of a faction lock to those that oppose it. The most common rebuttal being "I want to play with my friends". Again these suggestions have generally all taken this into consideration to minimize the effect and still allow people to play with friends, albeit with some forethought and planning on these friends part.

So I will offer yet another suggestion which will never happen, but I will offer it anyway. Create a 4th faction known as "The Imperial Sellswords". This faction could consist of any of the other 3 factions so as all "friends" could join this faction, and fight for the Imperials. Factions could then be locked and you and all you friends can fight for the Imperials. Not you specifically, but as a general statement for those that wish this. They could have their base camp in the ruins of the Imperial City (a Cyrodill version of it). I could see this faction dominating Cyrodiil as a result of all 3 factions being able to choose this 4th faction so there would have to be deterrents as well. Maybe no transitus travel and no home keeps or scrolls would balance it out some. It would raise the question is there enough population for a 4th faction? I don't know. Would it draw more people into Cyrodiil? I don't know. It's one of my whackier ideas that sounds good on the surface, but probably creates too many problems to actually come to fruition. I would still suggest a campaign length lock so people can float in and out of that faction for a month at a time. That could alleviate any imbalance some.

The point is that there are a significant number of people who find the 3 banner war to be shallow and weak in its current state, with too many people serving their own interests, and not enough banding together for a common goal which is bigger than themselves. This coincidentally is also a common goal of most high fantasy mmorpgs, banding together to do something that you can not do on your own. Cyrodiil is the only PvP zone in the game, and should therefore cater to the PvPers in ESO over the PvEers in ESO. As a side note for shard hunters and questers, the ability to change your faction every 30 days means that those gates you can't get behind because they are of another faction can be your home faction for the next 30 days under a system that allows for a rotating faction lock every 30 days. You would now have much easier access to those parts of the map for a given 30 day period.

CapuchinSeven

Yes

Marginis wrote: »

p.s. Thanks for paraphrasing me in such a flattering manner. Next time try using actual citations. They even have a handy "quote" button and everything, right on the replies you want to quote! I know it looks difficult, but trust me, it's way easier than it looks!

Give me a single arguement with any ground that doesn't revolve around "no because I want to play with my friends".

Until you do the reply is the same one. You can play with your friends, a simple timeout on that is being requested because PVP is not the same as PVE.

Marginis

No

Ranger209 wrote: »

Marginis wrote: »

Just one proposed solution in this thread is offering bonuses to joining the underdog faction. Not saying it's a perfect solution, but that's what we're here to discuss. My only point so far, besides defending my logic, is in response to the OP: that faction locks, in my opinion, are not a good solution, because I believe the status quo is better. You can disagree if you want, and that's okay. Again, that's what we're here to talk about.

That proposed solution is the antithesis of this thread. It promotes more faction swapping. This discussion, though, goes well beyond this thread to the other 25 to 50 threads that have been created over the last 3 to 6 months on the same topic.

There is a fairly significant number of people that want the 3 alliance war to mean something. These people feel that faction swapping is a slap in the face to the whole premise of what Cyrodiil is. It is the 3 banner war for the throne. There have been various suggestions offering different ways to do this which would hopefully diminish the negative aspects of a faction lock to those that oppose it. The most common rebuttal being "I want to play with my friends". Again these suggestions have generally all taken this into consideration to minimize the effect and still allow people to play with friends, albeit with some forethought and planning on these friends part.

So I will offer yet another suggestion which will never happen, but I will offer it anyway. Create a 4th faction known as "The Imperial Sellswords". This faction could consist of any of the other 3 factions so as all "friends" could join this faction, and fight for the Imperials. Factions could then be locked and you and all you friends can fight for the Imperials. Not you specifically, but as a general statement for those that wish this. They could have their base camp in the ruins of the Imperial City (a Cyrodill version of it). I could see this faction dominating Cyrodiil as a result of all 3 factions being able to choose this 4th faction so there would have to be deterrents as well. Maybe no transitus travel and no home keeps or scrolls would balance it out some. It would raise the question is there enough population for a 4th faction? I don't know. Would it draw more people into Cyrodiil? I don't know. It's one of my whackier ideas that sounds good on the surface, but probably creates too many problems to actually come to fruition. I would still suggest a campaign length lock so people can float in and out of that faction for a month at a time. That could alleviate any imbalance some.

The point is that there are a significant number of people who find the 3 banner war to be shallow and weak in its current state, with too many people serving their own interests, and not enough banding together for a common goal which is bigger than themselves. This coincidentally is also a common goal of most high fantasy mmorpgs, banding together to do something that you can not do on your own. Cyrodiil is the only PvP zone in the game, and should therefore cater to the PvPers in ESO over the PvEers in ESO. As a side note for shard hunters and questers, the ability to change your faction every 30 days means that those gates you can't get behind because they are of another faction can be your home faction for the next 30 days under a system that allows for a rotating faction lock every 30 days. You would now have much easier access to those parts of the map for a given 30 day period.

I can totally get on board with this. It does seem like a more substantial change than just locking players out of an option, requiring more thought and work than flipping a switch, but it offers benefit to negate the most of the problems that come with basic faction locks. Honestly it seems to like significantly changing the PVP paradigm is what would have to happen to solve a lot of the issues that have cropped up since launch - it would definitely freshen it up a bit too. My question is just if ZOS would be ready or willing to do something that might have an effect on balance, like adding a new faction.

CapuchinSeven wrote: »

Marginis wrote: »

p.s. Thanks for paraphrasing me in such a flattering manner. Next time try using actual citations. They even have a handy "quote" button and everything, right on the replies you want to quote! I know it looks difficult, but trust me, it's way easier than it looks!

Give me a single arguement with any ground that doesn't revolve around "no because I want to play with my friends".

Until you do the reply is the same one. You can play with your friends, a simple timeout on that is being requested because PVP is not the same as PVE.

SMH

Mazbt

Yes

At the very least they should put a 24 hour cool down on swapping factions for a campaign. Would prevent people going back and forth to troll or to leach a d-tick then go back to their main faction.

chris211

Yes

Ranger209 wrote: »

Marginis wrote: »

Just one proposed solution in this thread is offering bonuses to joining the underdog faction. Not saying it's a perfect solution, but that's what we're here to discuss. My only point so far, besides defending my logic, is in response to the OP: that faction locks, in my opinion, are not a good solution, because I believe the status quo is better. You can disagree if you want, and that's okay. Again, that's what we're here to talk about.

That proposed solution is the antithesis of this thread. It promotes more faction swapping. This discussion, though, goes well beyond this thread to the other 25 to 50 threads that have been created over the last 3 to 6 months on the same topic.

There is a fairly significant number of people that want the 3 alliance war to mean something. These people feel that faction swapping is a slap in the face to the whole premise of what Cyrodiil is. It is the 3 banner war for the throne. There have been various suggestions offering different ways to do this which would hopefully diminish the negative aspects of a faction lock to those that oppose it. The most common rebuttal being "I want to play with my friends". Again these suggestions have generally all taken this into consideration to minimize the effect and still allow people to play with friends, albeit with some forethought and planning on these friends part.

So I will offer yet another suggestion which will never happen, but I will offer it anyway. Create a 4th faction known as "The Imperial Sellswords". This faction could consist of any of the other 3 factions so as all "friends" could join this faction, and fight for the Imperials. Factions could then be locked and you and all you friends can fight for the Imperials. Not you specifically, but as a general statement for those that wish this. They could have their base camp in the ruins of the Imperial City (a Cyrodill version of it). I could see this faction dominating Cyrodiil as a result of all 3 factions being able to choose this 4th faction so there would have to be deterrents as well. Maybe no transitus travel and no home keeps or scrolls would balance it out some. It would raise the question is there enough population for a 4th faction? I don't know. Would it draw more people into Cyrodiil? I don't know. It's one of my whackier ideas that sounds good on the surface, but probably creates too many problems to actually come to fruition. I would still suggest a campaign length lock so people can float in and out of that faction for a month at a time. That could alleviate any imbalance some.

The point is that there are a significant number of people who find the 3 banner war to be shallow and weak in its current state, with too many people serving their own interests, and not enough banding together for a common goal which is bigger than themselves. This coincidentally is also a common goal of most high fantasy mmorpgs, banding together to do something that you can not do on your own. Cyrodiil is the only PvP zone in the game, and should therefore cater to the PvPers in ESO over the PvEers in ESO. As a side note for shard hunters and questers, the ability to change your faction every 30 days means that those gates you can't get behind because they are of another faction can be your home faction for the next 30 days under a system that allows for a rotating faction lock every 30 days. You would now have much easier access to those parts of the map for a given 30 day period.

yes create a 4th faction so ad can always be in 4th place

Marginis

No

chris211 wrote: »

Ranger209 wrote: »

Marginis wrote: »

Just one proposed solution in this thread is offering bonuses to joining the underdog faction. Not saying it's a perfect solution, but that's what we're here to discuss. My only point so far, besides defending my logic, is in response to the OP: that faction locks, in my opinion, are not a good solution, because I believe the status quo is better. You can disagree if you want, and that's okay. Again, that's what we're here to talk about.

That proposed solution is the antithesis of this thread. It promotes more faction swapping. This discussion, though, goes well beyond this thread to the other 25 to 50 threads that have been created over the last 3 to 6 months on the same topic.

There is a fairly significant number of people that want the 3 alliance war to mean something. These people feel that faction swapping is a slap in the face to the whole premise of what Cyrodiil is. It is the 3 banner war for the throne. There have been various suggestions offering different ways to do this which would hopefully diminish the negative aspects of a faction lock to those that oppose it. The most common rebuttal being "I want to play with my friends". Again these suggestions have generally all taken this into consideration to minimize the effect and still allow people to play with friends, albeit with some forethought and planning on these friends part.

So I will offer yet another suggestion which will never happen, but I will offer it anyway. Create a 4th faction known as "The Imperial Sellswords". This faction could consist of any of the other 3 factions so as all "friends" could join this faction, and fight for the Imperials. Factions could then be locked and you and all you friends can fight for the Imperials. Not you specifically, but as a general statement for those that wish this. They could have their base camp in the ruins of the Imperial City (a Cyrodill version of it). I could see this faction dominating Cyrodiil as a result of all 3 factions being able to choose this 4th faction so there would have to be deterrents as well. Maybe no transitus travel and no home keeps or scrolls would balance it out some. It would raise the question is there enough population for a 4th faction? I don't know. Would it draw more people into Cyrodiil? I don't know. It's one of my whackier ideas that sounds good on the surface, but probably creates too many problems to actually come to fruition. I would still suggest a campaign length lock so people can float in and out of that faction for a month at a time. That could alleviate any imbalance some.

The point is that there are a significant number of people who find the 3 banner war to be shallow and weak in its current state, with too many people serving their own interests, and not enough banding together for a common goal which is bigger than themselves. This coincidentally is also a common goal of most high fantasy mmorpgs, banding together to do something that you can not do on your own. Cyrodiil is the only PvP zone in the game, and should therefore cater to the PvPers in ESO over the PvEers in ESO. As a side note for shard hunters and questers, the ability to change your faction every 30 days means that those gates you can't get behind because they are of another faction can be your home faction for the next 30 days under a system that allows for a rotating faction lock every 30 days. You would now have much easier access to those parts of the map for a given 30 day period.

yes create a 4th faction so ad can always be in 4th place

Burn. I'd feel insulted, having had my main on AD since beta, but it's the sad truth.

KrishakPanettier

Yes

geonsocal wrote: »

seeing how EP has won a whopping 2 campaigns over the last 2 years in vivec/scourge - i would think EP loyalists would be delighted to get some extra help from super AP farmers like gooch...haven't checked the leaderboards recently to see what other "notable" players are going with EP at the moment...

hopefully EP can keep it together for the whole 30 days and get on a nice little campaign run themselves...

Oh. Thanks for reminding me. Gotta jump on to my Red EP ALT character to get the 3 tier reward for winning. ;-)

geonsocal

No

KrishakPanettier wrote: »

itscompton wrote: »

seeing how EP has won a whopping 2 campaigns over the last 2 years in vivec/scourge - i would think EP loyalists would be delighted to get some extra help from super AP farmers like gooch...haven't checked the leaderboards recently to see what other "notable" players are going with EP at the moment...

hopefully EP can keep it together for the whole 30 days and get on a nice little campaign run themselves...

Oh. Thanks for reminding me. Gotta jump on to my Red EP ALT character to get the 3 tier reward for winning. ;-)

about 15 days or so left in the campaign and EP is up by about 1.1k points...AD and DC are virtually tied...

way too soon to call it a done deal...it'll be interesting to see if EP can keep it together the next couple of weeks...

blood for the pact...

Edit: it's not a ton of gold, but, considering how lazy a merchant I am it definitely helps - I make around 150k to 160k (depending who wins) at the end of each campaign from vivec...

Edit to the Edit: couldn't do that without being the faction swapping scum that i am...

although in all honesty - at this point I feel like I've rezzed, at one point or another, just about every player whom has ever played in vivec or scourge...

one of the small perks of playing all sides

Ackwalan

Looks like you finally got your lock. The only problem, everybody is locked out.

WeyounTM

Yes

Playing with friends EU style Saturday at 5:30 AM....! Calling it now: keeps won't be repaired soon and everyone just switches toons and caps them again. Fun times ahead.

This one voted yes but to be honest at this point in time all factions should just be abandoned and you will put in the team with the least players...

Ranger209

Yes

WeyounTM wrote: »

Playing with friends EU style Saturday at 5:30 AM....! Calling it now: keeps won't be repaired soon and everyone just switches toons and caps them again. Fun times ahead.

This one voted yes but to be honest at this point in time all factions should just be abandoned and you will put in the team with the least players...

Perfect, so they basically took the PvP zone and turned it into a PvE zone in order to collect a currency that allows them to purchase monster items and gold jewelry. I am certain that is the original vision the developers had of Cyrodiil. I guess as long as they get to do it with their friends and everyone is having a good time it's cool.

Bam_Bam

Yes

Beardimus wrote: »

I'm amazed the defense of not locking, but in my other thread some ok arguments where put up. I still want locking by campaign personally even with a timer.

It's ruining the game.

I pit this convo in ESO discord and was amazed that most arent fussed by it, saying they have given up on the state that PvP is or if you can't beat it join it lol.

It amazes me.

We all invest so must time and effort into this game, to not have the drive to fix nefarious behaviors astounds me.

@ZOS_GinaBruno locking may not be the answer but a stance or at least a view to improving honorable play in Cyro would be cool

Yeah agreed 101% - and it's starting to get nasty. As EP we had taken Alessia, and I went down to Faregyl because i could see there was something kicking off on the map.

I arrived at the resource and as I'm coming down that steep hill theres a huge DC zerg on the flag. I thought, I'll scoot into the tower and stay out of sight til they go. However, as I start heading down the hill an EPgroup come charging out of the tower into the blues. then they retreat back into the tower. I thought cool -this should be fun - outnumbered.

HOWEVER, I get into the tower unscathed and the EP are on the ground floot. Then I notice there are 3-4 AD at the top of the stone stairs facing the door. I instantly attack and tether them but I instantly realise that NONE of the EP are helping me. I get killed (mainly because I'm in shock and REALLY annoyed at the lack of help and heals). I get rezzed but then a couple of people whisper me "Don't kill them! They are our buddies! We're making 8-10k per PUSH!!!". But I don't care, I'm beyond pished. I attack again and get killed again. I knew I would but anything in yellow or blue in game, is a mortal enemy.

And using them to make 8-10k per push - something that takes about 1 minute plus 30 (for the DC to rez at the keep and then return to the resource - it makes me sick. And then not rezzing me because it interferes with their 5h1t way of making AP??? there is nothing anyone can say to me that makes this acceptible.

To ZoS - either enforce Alliance loyalty or get rid of the Alliances because thecurrent system, at the moment, is a JOKE and is being abused and exploited. #rantover

technohic

No

They just need to more heavily incentivize the lower pop factions by granting more AP and really lessen the AP and score gains if you are over popped like night capping.

Also need to get rid of buffing the already dominant faction and turn it more into getting points for better rewards at the end of the campaign. I'd couple that with the other guys idea that if you fight for more than one faction, your rewards get reduced.

Not perfect ideas I am sure; but I would rather we have incentive to balance ourselves out rather than restrict

Bam_Bam

Yes

Jamini wrote: »

All we need are better rewards for joining the underdogs.

1. Fix lowpop bonus so it is applied more reliably.
2. Boost lowpop AP bonus significantly.
3. Add in an AP boost for playing for the faction that is losing in points.
4. Give temporary, substantial, combat buffs to factions that lose their trikeeps AND scrolls. ("Last stand"). Combat bonus is lost when the gates are closed or a scroll is captured.
5. Penalize AP gains from rapid keep flips. (-10% keep capture AP for every keep taken within half an hour. Stacks up to -90%. Penalty timer resets every capture)
6. "Mercenary Pay" - RoTW mails sent (not accepted) during Last Stand status are accompanied by a second mail that contains a green transmute crystal or some Tel Var.

But the problem then is people would keep switching back and too from one Alliance to another to take advantage of the bonus. They already coordinate like that, to take advantage of the rubbish system.

Hiro_Kintsugi

Yes

We need this. At least soft locked, like penalties for leaving. Go get Skyshards or whatever in another server, but pick a faction and for your home campaign you should not be able to change it till it ends. That's just cheating as winning the campaign goes no matter how you excuse it.

idk

No

Still looking to see if someone provides actual justification for this suggestion outside that they see some people change to the other faction and they think or feel it affects who wins the campaign in a noticeable manner.

It was considered a bad idea when we had it before so someone actually needs to come up with an actual reason that it somehow is a good idea now for this to get any consideration. Being this thread keeps dying it is clear there is not widespread support.

Ranger209

Yes

idk wrote: »

Still looking to see if someone provides actual justification for this suggestion outside that they see some people change to the other faction and they think or feel it affects who wins the campaign in a noticeable manner.

It was considered a bad idea when we had it before so someone actually needs to come up with an actual reason that it somehow is a good idea now for this to get any consideration. Being this thread keeps dying it is clear there is not widespread support.

This topic is far from going away. As a matter of fact it has been reinventing itself about once or twice a week for the last 6 months or so. To those people that don't want it there is no justification good enough. It has been justified over and over in multiple ways in the minds of those that do want it to happen. Justification is subjective to the belief system of the individual. The real question is, is there enough of the player base that wants it to justify it. There are no hard numbers on either side, but in any poll that I have seen, the results of those who take the time and feel strongly enough one way or the other to vote, is generally 2 to 1 in favor of faction locking in some form or another.

itscompton

Yes

geonsocal wrote: »

itscompton wrote: »

starlizard70ub17_ESO wrote: »

There is no solution to the large number of players who faction hop and emperor trade for AP. Because many players are in Cryodiil for one reason only, to grind AP anyway they can. And they don't care about the integrity of the campaigns.
But if you lock campaigns to 1 per account, you'd lose a lot of players in Cryodiil. If you had a campaign that didn't allow faction swapping, you won't even see 1 bar of population per faction in that campaign.

It absolutely sickens me to see people I fight against all the time suddenly on my side now that EP is on top in PS4 Vivec this month.

maybe the reason EP is in front at the moment is because of the players whom switched to red...

seeing how EP has won a whopping 2 campaigns over the last 2 years in vivec/scourge - i would think EP loyalists would be delighted to get some extra help from super AP farmers like gooch...haven't checked the leaderboards recently to see what other "notable" players are going with EP at the moment...

hopefully EP can keep it together for the whole 30 days and get on a nice little campaign run themselves...

the change of pace would be nice for sure...

Gooch is only good at sucking up AP by being at the front of a bomb squad. If you do enough damage but don't get a kill you still get most of the AP when the second or third or fourth bomb does kill them. Unfortunately people like you seem to think he actually knows how to win a campaign so they do whatever he requests but so far I've seen him make several boneheaded calls for everyone to flock to one keep or another which has cost us the rest of the map. Otherwise we'd probably be even further ahead. AD has finished third the last two campaigns before this one despite the fact he was playing for them and had twice as much AP as the next closest player. I will say though at least he was on a red from day one this campaign, he didn't switch just because we were winning, which other "notable" players have done. He seems like a decent enough person in zone chat but is no master strategist.

geonsocal

No

itscompton wrote: »

geonsocal wrote: »

itscompton wrote: »

starlizard70ub17_ESO wrote: »

There is no solution to the large number of players who faction hop and emperor trade for AP. Because many players are in Cryodiil for one reason only, to grind AP anyway they can. And they don't care about the integrity of the campaigns.
But if you lock campaigns to 1 per account, you'd lose a lot of players in Cryodiil. If you had a campaign that didn't allow faction swapping, you won't even see 1 bar of population per faction in that campaign.

It absolutely sickens me to see people I fight against all the time suddenly on my side now that EP is on top in PS4 Vivec this month.

maybe the reason EP is in front at the moment is because of the players whom switched to red...

seeing how EP has won a whopping 2 campaigns over the last 2 years in vivec/scourge - i would think EP loyalists would be delighted to get some extra help from super AP farmers like gooch...haven't checked the leaderboards recently to see what other "notable" players are going with EP at the moment...

hopefully EP can keep it together for the whole 30 days and get on a nice little campaign run themselves...

the change of pace would be nice for sure...

Gooch is only good at sucking up AP by being at the front of a bomb squad. If you do enough damage but don't get a kill you still get most of the AP when the second or third or fourth bomb does kill them. Unfortunately people like you seem to think he actually knows how to win a campaign so they do whatever he requests but so far I've seen him make several boneheaded calls for everyone to flock to one keep or another which has cost us the rest of the map. Otherwise we'd probably be even further ahead. AD has finished third the last two campaigns before this one despite the fact he was playing for them and had twice as much AP as the next closest player. I will say though at least he was on a red from day one this campaign, he didn't switch just because we were winning, which other "notable" players have done. He seems like a decent enough person in zone chat but is no master strategist.

your right...yeah I definitely don't think of gooch as a faction "leader"...mostly just someone doing their own thing...pretty good at it - but, only marginally beneficial to their faction as a whole...

about 10 days left, and, DC is starting to show up in numbers...hopefully EP can keep it together a little longer...

personally just tired of seeing DC or AD always winning...

Bam_Bam

Yes

182 votes

69% = YES

30% = No


Nuff said. About as conclusive as it gets.

@ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_JessicaFolsom @ZOS_BrianWheeler - lets get this implemented ASAP

Slick_007

No

CapuchinSeven wrote: »

Okay, let me just sum this up and then I'm gone because you posting a circular argument while complaining about a circular logic is really not a constructive use of my time.

Argument - "PVP is a competitive part of the game and needs a lock on faction swapping, preferably campaign long but at the least 24 hours would help"

counterpoint: pvp is a competitive part of the game and DOES NOT need a lock on faction swapping. just because some people are cheaters, you want to ban everyone from playing who they want, when they want.

dont let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. You did say you were gone.

Bam_Bam

Yes

Introduce Last Stand mechanics - and increase the following for NPC's in low-population factions:

• HP = add 2million xp per npc
• Increase armour, mitigations etc
• Increase weap/spell damage to 5k per npc
• Increase weap/spell crit to 75% per npc
• Within the outer wall of a keep and inside the inner keep, auto-generate caltrops
• Add new NPC s - Archer, Siege Engineer and Loyalist Defenders
• Archer operates from the highest areas of the inner keep and also the tower of the outer walls. Increased range, damage and detection
• Siege Engineers operate ballistae, oil, burning oil, wasp nests and caltrops within the inner keep
• Loyalist Defenders are the devoted men at arms who protect the flags. 10 million hp each, immunity to CC.

Add faction locks and then introduce this.


Give people a real challenge - not the current cake walk for zergs - to capture the Emps throne...