Pvp need campaign faction lock?

efster

Yes

For a campaign's duration, yes. Force every account to choose a home campaign for toons they have on each faction at the start of each cycle, and if they choose to home Vivec as EP, they shouldn't be able to bring any of their AD or DC toons into that campaign until the campaign ends (but they can play on Shor or Sotha).

If that's not possible, then players who log on their opposing faction alts to deliberately deceive zone chat or players they're grouped with, who mess with friendly siege and troll scrolls should get account strikes and bans.

I'm fine with people wanting to play with their friends on EP one day and DC the next -- I don't even really care if people cap a map for red and then get on their yellow alts and cap it back -- not really an issue on Vivec usually but I know the smaller campaigns change hands a bit. I'm just not fine with deliberate griefing, and that's the biggest issue IMO. Faction loyalty is a personal thing, you either have it or you don't, the company can't force people to be loyal to one faction if they aren't already.

idk

No

LeagueTroll wrote: »

idk wrote: »

Hurtfan wrote: »

Yes but as others have already suggested, make it a timed lock like 48 hours.

If you want to play with your friends, make toons in the same alliance with each other. Why don't people want to play the campaign as it was intended? The very few campaigns that were close in score, all the way to the end, have by far been the most enjoyable times playing PvP...by a long shot.

Because the way it was intended 4 years ago failed so not it is designed for a different intent. Basically, you are arguing for it to be different than the current design intends.

As I stated before, including right above your post, it would be great if Zos added a single campaign that was faction locked or change one of the shorter duration campaigns to be faction locked. Everyone will get what they want and we will actually see how many are interested in a faction locked campaign. My guess is it will be low pop.

The old system lock player based on account. My suggestion lock player based on campaign. Just because ppl don’t want the extremely strict old system, don’t imply ppl don’t want to encourage hopping.

The old system locked accounts per campaign. What you are suggesting locks accounts per campaign.

See that, they are the same. One can mix words up but the meaning is clear.

dtsharples

Yes

Remove guest campaigns entirely.
Make all campaigns 7 days.
Make each campaign Faction Locked to your account for their duration. (your choice ofc)
So say you chose to play EP in Vivec for 7 days, all of your EP chars can enter - but any of your chars in AD / DC will be locked out of Vivec until the reset.

Norn

Only if they are gonna let us faction change our characters prior to this change. There are lots of players out there who casually PVP or play it only during events while having characters from all factions. Not everyone creates characters from different factions or plays them with the idea of rigging the game. Just as there are players with 13 EP characters there are also people with 1AD, 1EP, 1DC. Gotta think about all perspectives.

Zer0oo

No

No there is only one main cp campaign with 30days which would means i can only play pvp with those chars that are in the "right" alliance.

A lot of players overestimate who many players are willing to switch to a other alliance to be on the winning side or would switch to "spy".
Those players who would switch to the winning side are normally more casual so they will not have so many chars so they easily can switch and all they need to do is just to switch campaigns. Most players accused of spying are all-fraction players who just like to pvp and do not really play the map but looking for fights.

Hurtfan

Yes

Zer0oo wrote: »

No there is only one main cp campaign with 30days which would means i can only play pvp with those chars that are in the "right" alliance.

A lot of players overestimate who many players are willing to switch to a other alliance to be on the winning side or would switch to "spy".
Those players who would switch to the winning side are normally more casual so they will not have so many chars so they easily can switch and all they need to do is just to switch campaigns. Most players accused of spying are all-fraction players who just like to pvp and do not really play the map but looking for fights.

You maybe right but I think a lot of people are front-runners. It's okay to lose.

For example (this is just speculation), EP is leading the current Vivec campaign and has from the beginning. This is coming off of a campaign victory. Every time I've logged into the current campaign, there's been a queue. There usually isn't one, so I'm thinking everyone hopped on the EP bandwagon.

Would be nice to have a clean campaign from beginning to end, but I do understand the other side of this that others have pointed out.

twitch_zero

Yes

Absolutely, the faction stacking on Vivec NA is getting out of hand.

ShenaniganSquad

Yes

How about making a new 7 day non cp campaign and faction lock that and the 7 day cp campaign as a test run.. if those two campaigns are full and people are playing them because they want the faction lock, zos will have its answer.

todokete

No

We don't need more lock outs than the ones we already have

JasonConstantine

todokete wrote: »

We don't need more lock outs than the ones we already have

You realize there is a simple fix for this. Go back tot he way it was at launch with 3 x 30 Day Campaigns. So you can be in a 30 Day with each faction but each server is locked from playing another faction in it. It avoids cheaters / faction swappers, and you can still be in a 30 day campaign on each faction.

Now as for the "playing with friends". You make another server and you are allowed 3 guest campaigns (1 per faction). So you can play with your friends. These are 7 day campaigns.

So in totally you get a 30 day and a 7 day for every faction, and you don't have to worry about faction swapping.

Pretty simple fix, doesn't take a genius to figure it out too.

Miriel

Yes

At moment we have a half alive campaign, that gets fairly dead off hours... We have lost so many players, and new players rarely stick mostly couse the skill thats needed to compete and certain people praying on new players... Mix all this together and what we have simply dosent work, we are slovely suffocating into nothingness...

So add a campaign or two that has faction lock, if you CHOOSE to play in these you entire account and all characters in that account get locked in faction you choose... then its up to people to choose how they want to play, old cmapigns with faction hopping, or with other people that want to play with faction locked account...

It cant hurt to try, it cant really get worse then where we are heading... we need new players and get old people back !

PS - it also help if AP farmers, dident chase of new players... its like shooting yourself in the foot with a bow and arrow... people are great if you want to pvp ^.^

Enkil

Yes

ShenaniganSquad wrote: »

How about making a new 7 day non cp campaign and faction lock that and the 7 day cp campaign as a test run.. if those two campaigns are full and people are playing them because they want the faction lock, zos will have its answer.

Yeah I think this would be good so that people can stay put or migrate to what suits them. Free-for-all servers may be fine for some but should not be the only option. We definitely need at least one faction locked campaign though a CP and non-CP (both 7-day) would be awesome.

People could have toons on both types of campaigns so there is really no drawback to adding a couple faction locked campaigns for those that want it. They wouldn’t need to be full, just a decent amount of players.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/428978/please-open-1-2-faction-locked-campaigns/p1

p00tx

Yes

I don't understand why this is even still being argued anymore. A huge number of people want a faction locked campaign. We should have one, just one, that allows us to play with the sort of people we want to fight against. If you don't want to play on a faction locked campaign, you simply wouldn't queue for this hypothetical one. If you're upset that you're being left out of this campaign because of choices that you willingly made, too bad. The rest of us don't want to play with opportunistic faction hoppers, and should have a place to play without them mucking up the game. The FHers can go play in their own campaign and ruin PvP for one another without bothering the rest of us. Simple.

geonsocal

No

p00tx wrote: »

A huge number of people want a faction locked campaign.

really, what's a huge number of people?

when i check my eso trophies - capturing a resource (pretty easy achievement) still shows less than 15% accomplishment from eso players...

to date - eso has sold roughly 4.5 million copies (http://www.vgchartz.com/gamedb/?name=Elder+scrolls+online)...looks like there's another 12,000 or so each month whom use it through steam (https://steamcharts.com/app/306130)...

so, maybe 10% of the player base regularly pvps (i think that number is probably over generous)...

a number of times i've started a character in a campaign in the last week or so - when they first gain AP their rank is anywhere from 3,000 to 5,000...considering how many people already cross faction, and, the fact that there are 4 separate maps - means that maybe we have a total of 10 to 12 thousand eso pvp alliance war participants in a month...

no doubt battlegrounds are taking some of those numbers away...

let's generously say there are 15,000 people whom participate in alliance war pvp on any particular platform/server each month...so, roughly 90,000 total...

let's say - half of them want faction locked campaigns (i don't think that's true, but, let's just say it), that's then 45,000 people out of a million eso participants each month...

I'm not sure though that there are one million different people/accounts logging in every month to eso...let's bump that number down to about 750,000 a month...who really knows though - maybe closer to 500 to 600k "unique accounts"...

all together - you're talking maybe six percent of the player base whom would want this change...

i'm sorry, but, that's just not a huge number...

if someone has better guesses/numbers than this - i'd would be great to read them...i like playing guessing games

p00tx

Yes

geonsocal wrote: »

p00tx wrote: »

A huge number of people want a faction locked campaign.

really, what's a huge number of people?

when i check my eso trophies - capturing a resource (pretty easy achievement) still shows less than 15% accomplishment from eso players...

to date - eso has sold roughly 4.5 million copies (http://www.vgchartz.com/gamedb/?name=Elder+scrolls+online)...looks like there's another 12,000 or so each month whom use it through steam (https://steamcharts.com/app/306130)...

so, maybe 10% of the player base regularly pvps (i think that number is probably over generous)...

a number of times i've started a character in a campaign in the last week or so - when they first gain AP their rank is anywhere from 3,000 to 5,000...considering how many people already cross faction, and, the fact that there are 4 separate maps - means that maybe we have a total of 10 to 12 thousand eso pvp alliance war participants in a month...

no doubt battlegrounds are taking some of those numbers away...

let's generously say there are 15,000 people whom participate in alliance war pvp on any particular platform/server each month...so, roughly 90,000 total...

let's say - half of them want faction locked campaigns (i don't think that's true, but, let's just say it), that's then 45,000 people out of a million eso participants each month...

I'm not sure though that there are one million different people/accounts logging in every month to eso...let's bump that number down to about 750,000 a month...who really knows though - maybe closer to 500 to 600k "unique accounts"...

all together - you're talking maybe six percent of the player base whom would want this change...

i'm sorry, but, that's just not a huge number...

if someone has better guesses/numbers than this - i'd would be great to read them...i like playing guessing games

If someone doesn't PvP, their input is not useful in this debate, as this is only something that affects PvPers. The only numbers I'm using are relevant ones, which come from the vocal PvP community. Maybe I should have used the term "huge percentage" (variable) rather than "number" (static)?

The poll from this post, word of mouth from the people I play with and those I've encountered, the sheer number of posts on this forum and in Discord requesting a faction locked campaign...all of these together indicate a very real, concentrated desire for a faction locked campaign. It is NOT an attempt to take away from those who don't want this, unless they consider it a personal loss to lose population in their open campaigns due to people not wanting to play with them. It is just a request to let us get away from these people and their easily exploitable playstyle, rather than being forced to play with these people in order to enjoy the PvP aspects of this game.

geonsocal

No

if I were king - we'd re-configure sotha sil into a 30 day cp faction locked campaign...

make shor a 7 day no cp map...

really though - I don't think zos values us cyrodiil enthusiasts all that much...I think a good part of that is due to the "low" participation percentage of pvpers compared to the overall player base...

sadly, there's just not a lot of money in us...

if they could sell vma/master/asylum weapons in the crown store, exclusive enhanced pvp gear - we'd get a whole lot more attention...

it would ruin the game, but, we'd make more dollars and cents to zos...

some very vague comments were made by brian wheeler back in April:

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Campaign lockouts based on Alliance swapping on a temporary level have been discussed and are still on going.

i'm not holding my breath...

personally - after giving it a bunch of thought - i would change my vote - i'd probably want to participate also...

cyrodiil should mean more than AP farming and just "find some fun fights"...

p00tx

Yes

geonsocal wrote: »

if I were king - we'd re-configure sotha sil into a 30 day cp faction locked campaign...

make shor a 7 day no cp map...

really though - I don't think zos values us cyrodiil enthusiasts all that much...I think a good part of that is due to the "low" participation percentage of pvpers compared to the overall player base...

sadly, there's just not a lot of money in us...

if they could sell vma/master/asylum weapons in the crown store, exclusive enhanced pvp gear - we'd get a whole lot more attention...

it would ruin the game, but, we'd make more dollars and cents to zos...

some very vague comments were made by brian wheeler back in April:

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Campaign lockouts based on Alliance swapping on a temporary level have been discussed and are still on going.

i'm not holding my breath...

personally - after giving it a bunch of thought - i would change my vote - i'd probably want to participate also...

cyrodiil should mean more than AP farming and just "find some fun fights"...

I 100% agree with a lot of what you're saying. Zos is missing out on a very real, very viable part of the player market. Just a few hours of work with some re-skins could net them a hefty profit, because PvPers have jobs and credit cards too (I've already forked over a small fortune to them), but they need to market to that crowd. Many of us don't want to leave Cyrodil/IC/Sewers for any reason, but are forced to if we want to stay competitive. Zos could create Cyrodil/IC/Sewers themed homes, guild houses, mounts (aside from the rather blah options they threw us. I know they can do better than that, and they have), armor, craftables, weapons, etc, and we would shell out cash hand over foot for them. They could create grouped dueling options, like 2v2, 4v4, or even 12v12 and even tie it to housing with larger houses offering higher grouping potential, or sell dueling rings with housing functions. There is a lot of potential, but I think that at some point, 1 or more PvPers must have crossed them wrong and they just washed their hands of it all.

They created something really amazing with this PvP format, and it needs a little TLC now and again to keep it amazing. Downsizing is always the wrong move to make with a business that feels stagnant, because it just reduces the potential clientele in both the short and long run. They just need to invest in it and shake things up with some refreshing changes. They're starting to move in the right direction with the AP shake-ups coming this next patch (hasn't hit console yet), and I'm excited to see how it pans out. The next thing to do would be the diversification of campaign types, like we've been discussing.

Miriel

Yes

geonsocal wrote: »

p00tx wrote: »

A huge number of people want a faction locked campaign.

really, what's a huge number of people?

when i check my eso trophies - capturing a resource (pretty easy achievement) still shows less than 15% accomplishment from eso players...

to date - eso has sold roughly 4.5 million copies (http://www.vgchartz.com/gamedb/?name=Elder+scrolls+online)...looks like there's another 12,000 or so each month whom use it through steam (https://steamcharts.com/app/306130)...

so, maybe 10% of the player base regularly pvps (i think that number is probably over generous)...

a number of times i've started a character in a campaign in the last week or so - when they first gain AP their rank is anywhere from 3,000 to 5,000...considering how many people already cross faction, and, the fact that there are 4 separate maps - means that maybe we have a total of 10 to 12 thousand eso pvp alliance war participants in a month...

no doubt battlegrounds are taking some of those numbers away...

let's generously say there are 15,000 people whom participate in alliance war pvp on any particular platform/server each month...so, roughly 90,000 total...

let's say - half of them want faction locked campaigns (i don't think that's true, but, let's just say it), that's then 45,000 people out of a million eso participants each month...

I'm not sure though that there are one million different people/accounts logging in every month to eso...let's bump that number down to about 750,000 a month...who really knows though - maybe closer to 500 to 600k "unique accounts"...

all together - you're talking maybe six percent of the player base whom would want this change...

i'm sorry, but, that's just not a huge number...

if someone has better guesses/numbers than this - i'd would be great to read them...i like playing guessing games

We cant speculate what that "huge" number is... what we do know is that pvp is loosing players and have been constantly... if nothing dosent change we wont have much of anything left at all, we dont even have a full server around the clock, we have a half full one... And we cant know how many people that actually might return to pvp... when pvp had faction lock, we had ALOT more population, that alone is a fairly strong argument that faction lock actually might been more liked then not...

Considering the numbers we have now, compared to the numbers we had with faction lock, thats not even speculation, thats the truth

Karivaa

No

Can we please at least have faction lock for the duration of the campaign?

jbjondeaueb17_ESO

Yes

But they will never put it back.

purpleshadez

No

I voted no, because I have several characters that were created before I had an interest in PVP and before I had access to Any race, any alliance. I have come to enjoy PVP and have good friends on all three alliances. Most of them play in Vivec so a faction lock would mean I could no longer choose to play EP or DC, I'd be stuck to my mains on AD.

Had I started playing for PVP and knew what I know now, I'd most likely have gone EP. It's a shame there's no faction change option, even as a one off per character...

dtsharples

Yes

Having friends in different factions is just the lamest excuse not to set faction locks.
You can still play with your friends, either in a different campaign, or by making plans which faction to play before the campaign begins. Or play in BGs. The options are there.

For too long this argument has been hindering any real movement by ZOS on bringing back faction locks (to even just 1 campaign). Especially with the amount of people who are actually asking for them.

Cyrodiil is an absolute cesspit atm, and for those of us who don't appreciate the ridiculous scroll stealing, spying tactics etc it would be nice to have a locked campaign.
If you don't want to join that campaign.....don't.

StamWhipCultist

Yes

There should be some kind of lock. Would it be the whole duration of the campaign or 2/6/12h timer when you leave Cyrodiil, either would be fine by me.

Kadoin

dtsharples wrote: »

Having friends in different factions is just the lamest excuse not to set faction locks.
You can still play with your friends, either in a different campaign, or by making plans which faction to play before the campaign begins. Or play in BGs. The options are there.

For too long this argument has been hindering any real movement by ZOS on bringing back faction locks (to even just 1 campaign). Especially with the amount of people who are actually asking for them.

Cyrodiil is an absolute cesspit atm, and for those of us who don't appreciate the ridiculous scroll stealing, spying tactics etc it would be nice to have a locked campaign.
If you don't want to join that campaign.....don't.

No, the lamest excuse is believing that a faction lock would make your faction win or somehow even out the odds. That's simply not true. In fact, if a faction lock occurred today, everyone would just move to the faction that usually wins and guess what? You'd have no one to fight with and be zerged down 24/7. Trust me, I was around in the times of faction lock and guess what happened? You guessed right! Losing sides always turned into ghost towns! I can remember many instances of the scroll being taken by 80+ DC with only 3 to 8 defending scroll on the "off-hours," at least now there is twenty and usually not a 1-bar alliance with single digit members versus a locked one

"Don't worry guise, what if its locked but will allow you to switch campaigns after X amount of time?" If they allow you to switch factions sometime within the campaign duration, what is the point of a lock? So when my side is losing, all I have to do if I am a faction-hopper seeking victory is wait X amount of time and not log in until I can switch my alliance? Wow, that sounds like a great idea! All I have to do is pick an alliance, look at the score one week after the campaign begins and then swap! I'll then permanently be a negative mark in the losing alliance's population and really secure the victory for the winning alliance, which is arguably WORSE than the current system.

Now, can someone explain to me exactly how locking me in an alliance would make me care more about whether or not it wins? The rewards for winning and losing don't even mean much in PvP. Once I get transmute crystal reward, I can care less about the rest of the campaign. You guys should honestly listen to how stupid some of the talking points here are every time someone posts this tripe:

"A campaign lock would mean I have a better chance to win even if my alliance population overall is low or non-existent at certain hours and other alliances are not and scoring is very population-based"

"A campaign lock will somehow make others listen to me or follow me because they better do so or...uhh...Just bring a lock its gonna happen, you'll all see!"

"A campaign lock will attract players that quit PvP to come back! It can't be they got tired of getting stuck in the terrain, bugs, getting zerged down by armies in the "off-hours," getting disconnected all the times, stupid set changes, CP creep, etc. Nah, its all because of the lack of a campaign lock!"

"If you want to play with your friends, go to BGs! Got more than 4 friends? Damn, that's your problem! I don't have that many friends. Now stop being lame and go to BGs and let me keep campaigning for an idiotic faction lock system that already failed once before because I need to make myself feel better about the fact that I'm losing the campaign and need a convenient excuse. When I'm still losing after the campaign lock, I will come to the forums and start crying about a dynamic population lock. When I still lose after that?

...It's all because of the sorcs! X faction had more sorcs! NERF SORC!"

Newsflash: if cross-factioning to "win" is as rampant as any of you claim, then all the cross faction players would just swap to whatever alliance currently wins. Even if you had to choose an alliance when the campaign starts, nothing stops you from simply waiting to log or participate in Cyrodil, and then picking the alliance that is currently winning and making it stay that way! It's exactly what you guys claim the system is causing now, yet changing the system back would only incentivize swapping factions or choosing the winning side more. Do people honestly think before they post?

p00tx

Yes

Kadoin wrote: »

dtsharples wrote: »

Having friends in different factions is just the lamest excuse not to set faction locks.
You can still play with your friends, either in a different campaign, or by making plans which faction to play before the campaign begins. Or play in BGs. The options are there.

For too long this argument has been hindering any real movement by ZOS on bringing back faction locks (to even just 1 campaign). Especially with the amount of people who are actually asking for them.

Cyrodiil is an absolute cesspit atm, and for those of us who don't appreciate the ridiculous scroll stealing, spying tactics etc it would be nice to have a locked campaign.
If you don't want to join that campaign.....don't.

No, the lamest excuse is believing that a faction lock would make your faction win or somehow even out the odds. That's simply not true. In fact, if a faction lock occurred today, everyone would just move to the faction that usually wins and guess what? You'd have no one to fight with and be zerged down 24/7. Trust me, I was around in the times of faction lock and guess what happened? You guessed right! Losing sides always turned into ghost towns! I can remember many instances of the scroll being taken by 80+ DC with only 3 to 8 defending scroll on the "off-hours," at least now there is twenty and usually not a 1-bar alliance with single digit members versus a locked one

"Don't worry guise, what if its locked but will allow you to switch campaigns after X amount of time?" If they allow you to switch factions sometime within the campaign duration, what is the point of a lock? So when my side is losing, all I have to do if I am a faction-hopper seeking victory is wait X amount of time and not log in until I can switch my alliance? Wow, that sounds like a great idea! All I have to do is pick an alliance, look at the score one week after the campaign begins and then swap! I'll then permanently be a negative mark in the losing alliance's population and really secure the victory for the winning alliance, which is arguably WORSE than the current system.

Now, can someone explain to me exactly how locking me in an alliance would make me care more about whether or not it wins? The rewards for winning and losing don't even mean much in PvP. Once I get transmute crystal reward, I can care less about the rest of the campaign. You guys should honestly listen to how stupid some of the talking points here are every time someone posts this tripe:

"A campaign lock would mean I have a better chance to win even if my alliance population overall is low or non-existent at certain hours and other alliances are not and scoring is very population-based"

"A campaign lock will somehow make others listen to me or follow me because they better do so or...uhh...Just bring a lock its gonna happen, you'll all see!"

"A campaign lock will attract players that quit PvP to come back! It can't be they got tired of getting stuck in the terrain, bugs, getting zerged down by armies in the "off-hours," getting disconnected all the times, stupid set changes, CP creep, etc. Nah, its all because of the lack of a campaign lock!"

"If you want to play with your friends, go to BGs! Got more than 4 friends? Damn, that's your problem! I don't have that many friends. Now stop being lame and go to BGs and let me keep campaigning for an idiotic faction lock system that already failed once before because I need to make myself feel better about the fact that I'm losing the campaign and need a convenient excuse. When I'm still losing after the campaign lock, I will come to the forums and start crying about a dynamic population lock. When I still lose after that?

...It's all because of the sorcs! X faction had more sorcs! NERF SORC!"

Newsflash: if cross-factioning to "win" is as rampant as any of you claim, then all the cross faction players would just swap to whatever alliance currently wins. Even if you had to choose an alliance when the campaign starts, nothing stops you from simply waiting to log or participate in Cyrodil, and then picking the alliance that is currently winning and making it stay that way! It's exactly what you guys claim the system is causing now, yet changing the system back would only incentivize swapping factions or choosing the winning side more. Do people honestly think before they post?

If you you don't care about the overall outcome, then why bother having an opinion on this?

DirkRavenclaw

Yes

geonsocal wrote: »

mateosalvaje wrote: »

An alliance locked campaign would be so great, I wouldn't even care if I had to sacrifice all my hard earned champion points.

what if you're favored alliance placed 3rd, week after week, month after month - for years on end...

perhaps some days you would own a town or two, an outpost, or even your own home keeps...other days: gated...

Just live with it. I play AD, we doing not that good, i dont care, at one point we will do better. Faction Lock now, in a real war you cant choose the winning side, in PVP you shouldnt think too much about winning, you, as a small Soldier should think at the next Enemy you kill, the next rss or the next Keep,

mateosalvaje

Yes

geonsocal wrote: »

mateosalvaje wrote: »

An alliance locked campaign would be so great, I wouldn't even care if I had to sacrifice all my hard earned champion points.

what if you're favored alliance placed 3rd, week after week, month after month - for years on end...

perhaps some days you would own a town or two, an outpost, or even your own home keeps...other days: gated...

I mean an alliance locked campaign would be great. If you like playing multiple alliances, you wouldn't join that campaign. Or maybe you could switch which alliance was locked into it when it reset every week or month?

Kadoin

p00tx wrote: »

Kadoin wrote: »

dtsharples wrote: »

Having friends in different factions is just the lamest excuse not to set faction locks.
You can still play with your friends, either in a different campaign, or by making plans which faction to play before the campaign begins. Or play in BGs. The options are there.

For too long this argument has been hindering any real movement by ZOS on bringing back faction locks (to even just 1 campaign). Especially with the amount of people who are actually asking for them.

Cyrodiil is an absolute cesspit atm, and for those of us who don't appreciate the ridiculous scroll stealing, spying tactics etc it would be nice to have a locked campaign.
If you don't want to join that campaign.....don't.

No, the lamest excuse is believing that a faction lock would make your faction win or somehow even out the odds. That's simply not true. In fact, if a faction lock occurred today, everyone would just move to the faction that usually wins and guess what? You'd have no one to fight with and be zerged down 24/7. Trust me, I was around in the times of faction lock and guess what happened? You guessed right! Losing sides always turned into ghost towns! I can remember many instances of the scroll being taken by 80+ DC with only 3 to 8 defending scroll on the "off-hours," at least now there is twenty and usually not a 1-bar alliance with single digit members versus a locked one

"Don't worry guise, what if its locked but will allow you to switch campaigns after X amount of time?" If they allow you to switch factions sometime within the campaign duration, what is the point of a lock? So when my side is losing, all I have to do if I am a faction-hopper seeking victory is wait X amount of time and not log in until I can switch my alliance? Wow, that sounds like a great idea! All I have to do is pick an alliance, look at the score one week after the campaign begins and then swap! I'll then permanently be a negative mark in the losing alliance's population and really secure the victory for the winning alliance, which is arguably WORSE than the current system.

Now, can someone explain to me exactly how locking me in an alliance would make me care more about whether or not it wins? The rewards for winning and losing don't even mean much in PvP. Once I get transmute crystal reward, I can care less about the rest of the campaign. You guys should honestly listen to how stupid some of the talking points here are every time someone posts this tripe:

"A campaign lock would mean I have a better chance to win even if my alliance population overall is low or non-existent at certain hours and other alliances are not and scoring is very population-based"

"A campaign lock will somehow make others listen to me or follow me because they better do so or...uhh...Just bring a lock its gonna happen, you'll all see!"

"A campaign lock will attract players that quit PvP to come back! It can't be they got tired of getting stuck in the terrain, bugs, getting zerged down by armies in the "off-hours," getting disconnected all the times, stupid set changes, CP creep, etc. Nah, its all because of the lack of a campaign lock!"

"If you want to play with your friends, go to BGs! Got more than 4 friends? Damn, that's your problem! I don't have that many friends. Now stop being lame and go to BGs and let me keep campaigning for an idiotic faction lock system that already failed once before because I need to make myself feel better about the fact that I'm losing the campaign and need a convenient excuse. When I'm still losing after the campaign lock, I will come to the forums and start crying about a dynamic population lock. When I still lose after that?

...It's all because of the sorcs! X faction had more sorcs! NERF SORC!"

Newsflash: if cross-factioning to "win" is as rampant as any of you claim, then all the cross faction players would just swap to whatever alliance currently wins. Even if you had to choose an alliance when the campaign starts, nothing stops you from simply waiting to log or participate in Cyrodil, and then picking the alliance that is currently winning and making it stay that way! It's exactly what you guys claim the system is causing now, yet changing the system back would only incentivize swapping factions or choosing the winning side more. Do people honestly think before they post?

If you you don't care about the overall outcome, then why bother having an opinion on this?

Because I feel its not just a bad idea, but an incredibly dumb one for the reasons I stated. I honestly don't see locked Cyrodil ending well for anyone that PvP in Cyrodil...

Well, that and I had to make sure I posted that just in case ZOS does it and exactly what I say happens. Sometimes I like to read over a comment I made, and when it happens, sigh and forcibly chuckle a little.

albesca

No

Kadoin wrote: »

Because I feel its not just a bad idea, but an incredibly dumb one for the reasons I stated. I honestly don't see locked Cyrodil ending well for anyone that PvP in Cyrodil...

Well, that and I had to make sure I posted that just in case ZOS does it and exactly what I say happens. Sometimes I like to read over a comment I made, and when it happens, sigh and forcibly chuckle a little.

All the point you raised are valid, but I think that the point about hopping on the winning side mid campaing only applies if all the available campaings are faction locked; if we had a single faction locked campaign (7 days all levels no cp, maybe) then most (all?) of the faction loyalists would go there while those who don't care would stay where they are.

It's as likely as not to be totally ineffective and may be a pain on the devs side, but a single faction locked campaing along the standard one would be an interesting thing to try, I suppose.

dtsharples

Yes

Kadoin wrote: »

Because I feel its not just a bad idea, but an incredibly dumb one for the reasons I stated. I honestly don't see locked Cyrodil ending well for anyone that PvP in Cyrodil...

Well, that and I had to make sure I posted that just in case ZOS does it and exactly what I say happens. Sometimes I like to read over a comment I made, and when it happens, sigh and forcibly chuckle a little.

Lots of us were there when campaigns were locked, and it was much better than it is now.
Every month we had different factions winning the campaign, keeping the scoring interesting and bringing in new people to PVP.
I don't know if you are just mis-remembering, or blatantly talking trash.
But as soon as faction swapping was allowed we ended up with all sorts of issues in Cyrodiil, the most damaging of which was a major drop in people actually entering Cyrodiil.
A lot of these people left because they had no desire to PVP with a group of people who couldn't care less about the scoring - the sheer amount of posts on this topic, and replies to those topics, show that this is something that people do actually want.

If you don't like the idea - like I said in my original post - don't enter the faction locked campaign. Simple as that.