We want our Cyrodill back!!! (PC EU)

rumple9

AD wins the campaign every month anyway. Mid-year mayhem was the first time I saw AD did not win

Ormtunge

rumple9 wrote: »

AD wins the campaign every month anyway. Mid-year mayhem was the first time I saw AD did not win

I belive that with faction/alliance lock this would not be such a large problem, as players can not migrate from other alliances to the dominating side, for exemple AD at Vivec at the very early mornings. But we probably should have som sort of population lock also, or a better version of the current low population bonus.

Moonsorrow

Fully agree with OP.

And to those saying locks dont solve problems since some would use alt accounts.. not so many would do that, trust me on that. Now its too easy. And the easier to troll and be toxic, the more do it. Buying a 2nd account, possibly leveling fully and gearing up character(s) just to troll and play dirty is only for the true master trolls, and not many of those around with that much commitment to it.

themaddaedra

Agreed 10/10. About one year ago -a little bit more- i was going for emp on my own. Stayed on top of leaderboard for more than 10 days in a 30 days campaign. But never got the title just because AP farmers in my alliance -can't put names here ofc- wanted me to pay 2m golds to them so they'd make me emperor.

I ofc said no as i never expected help from anyone, did it all solo. Then for some reason it made them very angry. Whenever i wanted to push for emp keeps i found that 24m zerg on the other side, organizing everyone to defend keeps.

My emp dream failed, even tho i made it to top all by myself. Ever since i barely care about pvp, just go there every once and then. That's it.

Toxicity is the most certain element in Cyrodiil these days. My ignore list is full of people that were going crazy on Cyrodill zone chat.

In several posts i have been saying this for years, Cyrodiil has been dying because of AP farmer meat grinders who keep swapping here and there. Nobody cares lol.

Tommy_The_Gun

playsforfun wrote: »

maybe something like a penalty for faction jumping over to other factions over the length of a campaign, e.g -50% ap is you go on a second faction toon then -75% ap if you go onto the 3rd faction toon during a campaign.

Yep, I was thinking of something similar. I asked myself a question: What is the reason most of players play PvP. The answer is AP. So why not use that as a way to reward people for staying loyal to their faction ?

Imagine this: If you will not re-log (switch team) for the duration of the campaign - you will get AP gain % bonus for the duration of the next campaign (an active "Buff" called faction loyalty or something like that). This buff would only disappear if you log in with another faction character within the same campaign.

Universe

Thalmor-Nordmaster wrote: »

Universe wrote: »

I agree that account based* Campaign alliance lock is necessary in order to stop the traitors and to increase the overall loyalty to a certain alliance.
Here are the last ZOS responses in regard to this issue(5 months ago):

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

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

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

We are still discussing Alliance association and Campaigns.

@Universe

They seem to be having one hella long discussion.

Indeed, they have taken the time
Hopefully, Update 20 will include some sort of a campaign alliance lock.

DJ_TYR

Here's an idea from a non-PVP player.

Why not implement some type of prisoner of war mechanic. If a spy is caught, regardless if he switched or not, could simply be captured & locked from PVP for a day or more for interrogation (keeping w/ realism). I think more like a week, so they can really think if they want to do it again. If they don't like it, then it's simple, don't be a spy or be a better one.

I know this doesn't solve all the problems I read about in PVP, but some type of crime & punishment system seems to be needed.

Lieblingsjunge

I can speak for myself, as someone who's a member of the groups that snatches scrolls and runs around farming AP with them.

Faction-locking the campaign isn't gonna change that. People are still gonna do it. But by being forced to play on one campaign only, there is no way of relogging and helping out the "losing" side in a campaign.

Take EU/Sotha for instance. Every day EP dominates the map until afternoon or early evening. Then EP fades and get green alliance'd. Relogging to EP, as AD/DC to help EP defend seems reasonable to me. + easier to get fights that way. Playing as AD, when AD owns 90% the map, strictly limits your possibilities to find fights. And I hate running around in Cyrodiil doing nothing.

I'm in PvP to fight - not to gate-camp some poor innocents, that play for the losing faction.

Gnozo

All these fraction try hards tho.

I mainly play DC but i switch to EP/AD from time to time. Not to spy or joining the winning team. Playing with my friends from different Alliances. Or when DC is dominating the map and every good smascale vs EP/AD Zergs ends with a 50 ppl DC Train zerging everyone down, killing our fun.

Then we switch EP/AD so fight the DC Zerg and have some really nice actions.

Merlin13KAGL

Royaji wrote: »

How do you propose to solve the issue of people who want to play specific campaign type (CP or non-CP) and have multiple characters in different alliances? Where is only 2 CP and 1 no-CP campaigns. So if someone strictly plays no-CP and goes to Cyro on a blue character he will be unable to play any of his other characters in PvP for a month. This is not cool.

Faction lock worked when there was enough competitive campaigns. Now we are down to two (because no one considers Shor competitive) and in case of some platforms just one actual campaign. Something has to be done about faction imbalances but faction lock is not an option in the current state.

This. This just leads to a completely different issue that was present back when Alliance War buffs carried over into PvE.

You ended up with Campaign A being Red, Campaign B being Yellow, and Campain C being Blue.

You joined the corresponding 'winning' campaign, and as a general rule, you rarely had anyone to fight with. This also defeated the purpose behind PvP.

Ormtunge wrote: »

Merlin13KAGL wrote: »

You realize with how cheap alt accounts are, this would change very little?

I dont really know how many people have multiple accounts, but that they are so many to make any inpact on the game I really doupt. Personally I have never met or even heard of any player having many accounts (thou I am sure there are some who do). Most players only have one account, and they are those I am making this post for.

If someone's going to the trouble to 'cheat' and spy on/for other Alliances/Guilds, I'm pretty sure $10 for a base game on sale would be a small price to pay to continue to do so.

That's my point. I doubt people are going to that much trouble now (possibly because they don't have to), but that would be the next logical step.

What they should do is embrace subterfuge, implement it properly in game, including the consequences of getting found out. The issue right now, aside from a possible blacklisting, is that there is no real consequence.

OP, I'm not saying it's a bad idea, at its heart. I'm just saying, unfortunately, it won't stop the issue, merely change the method of workaround used by the unscrupulous people engaging in it.

playsforfun

Tommy_The_Gun wrote: »

playsforfun wrote: »

maybe something like a penalty for faction jumping over to other factions over the length of a campaign, e.g -50% ap is you go on a second faction toon then -75% ap if you go onto the 3rd faction toon during a campaign.

Yep, I was thinking of something similar. I asked myself a question: What is the reason most of players play PvP. The answer is AP. So why not use that as a way to reward people for staying loyal to their faction ?

Imagine this: If you will not re-log (switch team) for the duration of the campaign - you will get AP gain % bonus for the duration of the next campaign (an active "Buff" called faction loyalty or something like that). This buff would only disappear if you log in with another faction character within the same campaign.

yes that is a great idea for loyal players.

Moonsorrow

Lieblingsjunge wrote: »

I can speak for myself, as someone who's a member of the groups that snatches scrolls and runs around farming AP with them.

Faction-locking the campaign isn't gonna change that. People are still gonna do it. But by being forced to play on one campaign only, there is no way of relogging and helping out the "losing" side in a campaign.

Take EU/Sotha for instance. Every day EP dominates the map until afternoon or early evening. Then EP fades and get green alliance'd. Relogging to EP, as AD/DC to help EP defend seems reasonable to me. + easier to get fights that way. Playing as AD, when AD owns 90% the map, strictly limits your possibilities to find fights. And I hate running around in Cyrodiil doing nothing.

I'm in PvP to fight - not to gate-camp some poor innocents, that play for the losing faction.

Snatching a scroll and going to a tower, upstairs of a keep or other random spots to farm AP from zerglings is not the same thing as some switching to another alliance to snatch a scroll and moving it to your main alliance territory for them to easily pick it up, or running scrolls to a water area and so on.

I understand your thing what you do, its to farm AP and run around in a ball for luls but please dont say it has nothing to do to actually help your alliance, since you dont really have an alliance to help,when you just switch to farm AP to what side seems farmable at the moment. You could still do that in another campaign. Or with a timer that would stop most dirty moves, you could decide on what campaign to focus the next days.

And i am not saying your thing what you do is wrong, also your crew is very good at it and i`m kind of a fan really and giggle a bit always while spamming your group with Negates and Time Stops. But that freedom to switch to any alliance in a minute to troll and make dirty moves is not used by all like its used by your guild. You can for sure admit there are people abusing it and making the alliance war feel nothing but a sad joke, compared to what it could be.

I'm in PvP to fight - not to AP farm some poor innocent zerglings, that play for their alliance while i switch alliances any minute yet still usually ending up running a circle at Kingscrest upstairs.

Lieblingsjunge

Moonsorrow wrote: »

Lieblingsjunge wrote: »

I can speak for myself, as someone who's a member of the groups that snatches scrolls and runs around farming AP with them.

Faction-locking the campaign isn't gonna change that. People are still gonna do it. But by being forced to play on one campaign only, there is no way of relogging and helping out the "losing" side in a campaign.

Take EU/Sotha for instance. Every day EP dominates the map until afternoon or early evening. Then EP fades and get green alliance'd. Relogging to EP, as AD/DC to help EP defend seems reasonable to me. + easier to get fights that way. Playing as AD, when AD owns 90% the map, strictly limits your possibilities to find fights. And I hate running around in Cyrodiil doing nothing.

I'm in PvP to fight - not to gate-camp some poor innocents, that play for the losing faction.

Snatching a scroll and going to a tower, upstairs of a keep or other random spots to farm AP from zerglings is not the same thing as some switching to another alliance to snatch a scroll and moving it to your main alliance territory for them to easily pick it up, or running scrolls to a water area and so on.

I understand your thing what you do, its to farm AP and run around in a ball for luls but please dont say it has nothing to do to actually help your alliance, since you dont really have an alliance to help,when you just switch to farm AP to what side seems farmable at the moment. You could still do that in another campaign. Or with a timer that would stop most dirty moves, you could decide on what campaign to focus the next days.

And i am not saying your thing what you do is wrong, also your crew is very good at it and i`m kind of a fan really and giggle a bit always while spamming your group with Negates and Time Stops. But that freedom to switch to any alliance in a minute to troll and make dirty moves is not used by all like its used by your guild. You can for sure admit there are people abusing it and making the alliance war feel nothing but a sad joke, compared to what it could be.

I'm in PvP to fight - not to AP farm some poor innocent zerglings, that play for their alliance while i switch alliances any minute yet still usually ending up running a circle at Kingscrest upstairs.

Pssht, running in a circle at Kingscrest is good for training your balance! And it's nice exercise.. you know! Honestly, Kingscrest is such a great keep. It's got so much snow around it

I can agree that some people are abusing it, but I don't think it's that many. The ones that do it, are just vocal and/or obvious about it. Locking it for 24 hours or 48 hours or so, fine. But locking it for the entire 30 day duration would be really sad.

And tbf, while ZS keep 50 EP-players busy running in a circle on top of Kingscrest, that's 50 less EP-players blocking other AD from capturing the keeps. So one could argue we're helping the campaign by distracting the enemies. But directly affiilated with an alliance, nop

Septimus_Magna

Alliance should be account bound, the problem is that people will often have multiple chars in different alliances. This used to be very common for pvp players that enjoyed dueling. Or even for pve players that wanted a different experience leveling a new char.

It would be cool if you had to pick an alliance once every year. Sometimes it can be good to shuffle the cards and get a fresh start.

Moonsorrow

Lieblingsjunge wrote: »

Moonsorrow wrote: »

Lieblingsjunge wrote: »

I can speak for myself, as someone who's a member of the groups that snatches scrolls and runs around farming AP with them.

Faction-locking the campaign isn't gonna change that. People are still gonna do it. But by being forced to play on one campaign only, there is no way of relogging and helping out the "losing" side in a campaign.

Take EU/Sotha for instance. Every day EP dominates the map until afternoon or early evening. Then EP fades and get green alliance'd. Relogging to EP, as AD/DC to help EP defend seems reasonable to me. + easier to get fights that way. Playing as AD, when AD owns 90% the map, strictly limits your possibilities to find fights. And I hate running around in Cyrodiil doing nothing.

I'm in PvP to fight - not to gate-camp some poor innocents, that play for the losing faction.

Snatching a scroll and going to a tower, upstairs of a keep or other random spots to farm AP from zerglings is not the same thing as some switching to another alliance to snatch a scroll and moving it to your main alliance territory for them to easily pick it up, or running scrolls to a water area and so on.

I understand your thing what you do, its to farm AP and run around in a ball for luls but please dont say it has nothing to do to actually help your alliance, since you dont really have an alliance to help,when you just switch to farm AP to what side seems farmable at the moment. You could still do that in another campaign. Or with a timer that would stop most dirty moves, you could decide on what campaign to focus the next days.

And i am not saying your thing what you do is wrong, also your crew is very good at it and i`m kind of a fan really and giggle a bit always while spamming your group with Negates and Time Stops. But that freedom to switch to any alliance in a minute to troll and make dirty moves is not used by all like its used by your guild. You can for sure admit there are people abusing it and making the alliance war feel nothing but a sad joke, compared to what it could be.

I'm in PvP to fight - not to AP farm some poor innocent zerglings, that play for their alliance while i switch alliances any minute yet still usually ending up running a circle at Kingscrest upstairs.

Pssht, running in a circle at Kingscrest is good for training your balance! And it's nice exercise.. you know! Honestly, Kingscrest is such a great keep. It's got so much snow around it

I can agree that some people are abusing it, but I don't think it's that many. The ones that do it, are just vocal and/or obvious about it. Locking it for 24 hours or 48 hours or so, fine. But locking it for the entire 30 day duration would be really sad.

And tbf, while ZS keep 50 EP-players busy running in a circle on top of Kingscrest, that's 50 less EP-players blocking other AD from capturing the keeps. So one could argue we're helping the campaign by distracting the enemies. But directly affiilated with an alliance, nop

Lieblingsjunge wrote: »

Moonsorrow wrote: »

Lieblingsjunge wrote: »

I can speak for myself, as someone who's a member of the groups that snatches scrolls and runs around farming AP with them.

Faction-locking the campaign isn't gonna change that. People are still gonna do it. But by being forced to play on one campaign only, there is no way of relogging and helping out the "losing" side in a campaign.

Take EU/Sotha for instance. Every day EP dominates the map until afternoon or early evening. Then EP fades and get green alliance'd. Relogging to EP, as AD/DC to help EP defend seems reasonable to me. + easier to get fights that way. Playing as AD, when AD owns 90% the map, strictly limits your possibilities to find fights. And I hate running around in Cyrodiil doing nothing.

I'm in PvP to fight - not to gate-camp some poor innocents, that play for the losing faction.

Snatching a scroll and going to a tower, upstairs of a keep or other random spots to farm AP from zerglings is not the same thing as some switching to another alliance to snatch a scroll and moving it to your main alliance territory for them to easily pick it up, or running scrolls to a water area and so on.

I understand your thing what you do, its to farm AP and run around in a ball for luls but please dont say it has nothing to do to actually help your alliance, since you dont really have an alliance to help,when you just switch to farm AP to what side seems farmable at the moment. You could still do that in another campaign. Or with a timer that would stop most dirty moves, you could decide on what campaign to focus the next days.

And i am not saying your thing what you do is wrong, also your crew is very good at it and i`m kind of a fan really and giggle a bit always while spamming your group with Negates and Time Stops. But that freedom to switch to any alliance in a minute to troll and make dirty moves is not used by all like its used by your guild. You can for sure admit there are people abusing it and making the alliance war feel nothing but a sad joke, compared to what it could be.

I'm in PvP to fight - not to AP farm some poor innocent zerglings, that play for their alliance while i switch alliances any minute yet still usually ending up running a circle at Kingscrest upstairs.

Pssht, running in a circle at Kingscrest is good for training your balance! And it's nice exercise.. you know! Honestly, Kingscrest is such a great keep. It's got so much snow around it

I can agree that some people are abusing it, but I don't think it's that many. The ones that do it, are just vocal and/or obvious about it. Locking it for 24 hours or 48 hours or so, fine. But locking it for the entire 30 day duration would be really sad.

And tbf, while ZS keep 50 EP-players busy running in a circle on top of Kingscrest, that's 50 less EP-players blocking other AD from capturing the keeps. So one could argue we're helping the campaign by distracting the enemies. But directly affiilated with an alliance, nop

Lieblingsjunge wrote: »

Moonsorrow wrote: »

Lieblingsjunge wrote: »

I can speak for myself, as someone who's a member of the groups that snatches scrolls and runs around farming AP with them.

Faction-locking the campaign isn't gonna change that. People are still gonna do it. But by being forced to play on one campaign only, there is no way of relogging and helping out the "losing" side in a campaign.

Take EU/Sotha for instance. Every day EP dominates the map until afternoon or early evening. Then EP fades and get green alliance'd. Relogging to EP, as AD/DC to help EP defend seems reasonable to me. + easier to get fights that way. Playing as AD, when AD owns 90% the map, strictly limits your possibilities to find fights. And I hate running around in Cyrodiil doing nothing.

I'm in PvP to fight - not to gate-camp some poor innocents, that play for the losing faction.

Snatching a scroll and going to a tower, upstairs of a keep or other random spots to farm AP from zerglings is not the same thing as some switching to another alliance to snatch a scroll and moving it to your main alliance territory for them to easily pick it up, or running scrolls to a water area and so on.

I understand your thing what you do, its to farm AP and run around in a ball for luls but please dont say it has nothing to do to actually help your alliance, since you dont really have an alliance to help,when you just switch to farm AP to what side seems farmable at the moment. You could still do that in another campaign. Or with a timer that would stop most dirty moves, you could decide on what campaign to focus the next days.

And i am not saying your thing what you do is wrong, also your crew is very good at it and i`m kind of a fan really and giggle a bit always while spamming your group with Negates and Time Stops. But that freedom to switch to any alliance in a minute to troll and make dirty moves is not used by all like its used by your guild. You can for sure admit there are people abusing it and making the alliance war feel nothing but a sad joke, compared to what it could be.

I'm in PvP to fight - not to AP farm some poor innocent zerglings, that play for their alliance while i switch alliances any minute yet still usually ending up running a circle at Kingscrest upstairs.

Pssht, running in a circle at Kingscrest is good for training your balance! And it's nice exercise.. you know! Honestly, Kingscrest is such a great keep. It's got so much snow around it

I can agree that some people are abusing it, but I don't think it's that many. The ones that do it, are just vocal and/or obvious about it. Locking it for 24 hours or 48 hours or so, fine. But locking it for the entire 30 day duration would be really sad.

And tbf, while ZS keep 50 EP-players busy running in a circle on top of Kingscrest, that's 50 less EP-players blocking other AD from capturing the keeps. So one could argue we're helping the campaign by distracting the enemies. But directly affiilated with an alliance, nop

I would be happy for that 48 hours timer as a compromise yeah, it would stop a lot of the most annoying (to all sides who wanna see fair play, be them winning or loosing at that time) dirty tricks and the useless logging in to just troll the chat while salty after loosing a keep or something.

And your tactic at Kings is a valid tactic and it works as seen so often and stuff like that is healthy for the campaign imo, EP needs to be challenged hard, pushed hard, yeah even to the gates. And instead of you switching to EP side to push back the people you just helped to get scrolls back, let EP do it and make it hard for EP, as should, since looking at the score, why switch to help EP that is already dominating most times of the day?

To say it simple, stay banana on Sotha. Your crew being the enemy feels good, if you are suddenly on same side, it feels a bit naughty, kinky or awkward. Could not pick a word for it so used all 3 options that first thought haha.

idk

Universe wrote: »

idk wrote: »

TL;dr

The failed experiment of locking players out to is something we should never return to. The effects of that barrier don’t seem worth returning to the dark ages no matter how melodramatic someone might get with talks of quitting.

Considering some of the most avid players had multiple accounts that was CP capped it would be pointless to do so anyhow.

Ofc, if Zos wanted to have one campaign faction locked for those who think this is a big deal that would be great and I’d expect we would still see the larger populations in each ge same campaigns we have them in now since most seem to not have an issue with this n

You present no proof for your assumption that most don't have an issue with this.
Every time I'm in Cyrodiil players complain in zone and in group chats about traitors/alliance swappers/ap farmers etc.
Many players don't like the idea that it is possible to switch sides in a matter of minutes.
The previous barrier failed experiment ?
Maybe the lock wasn't perfect but at least back then there was more loyalty to a certain alliance and there was less treason.
As for the multiple accounts theory, not many players have a second developed account.
The alliance lock may not prevent that, but at least it will prevent much of the alliance swapping, probably over 90%+.

Considering not many have complained that days much.

More importantly, you offfer. I proof of your assumption that many fake issue with this which is even more lame after trying to call me out. Saying some people call out others isn’t proof. Heck, it’s not even proof they’re even correct about whoever they’re calling out.

More importantly, you have failed to even try to prove that some players players my both sides has any real effect. Without that every single point you make is an assumption without merit. It’s irrelevant that some players take issue with it.

Varana

Account-locking campaigns is nonsense.

I choose a character's alliance based on their race, or similar considerations. It is, at its core, a role-playing game. My Altmer is AD, the Redguard DC, the Dunmers and Argonians EP. Not only do I have to join PvP for some time for Caltrops/Warhorn/Vigour, I may just want to play that character in Cyrodiil for a while. Not being able to level a character or play them when I want to just because some people (I'm referring to those "spies"/saboteurs) take that AvA thing way too seriously, is ruining my game because of idiots, and I tend to think that's a bad idea.

Much of PvP has been shifting to Battlegrounds recently: it's faster (before I even get to see some enemy players in Cyrodiil, I could've played a whole BG round...), more balanced (two people getting zerged down by twenty won't happen), and - let's be honest - it has vastly better rewards, even more so since they nerfed keep ticks into the ground with Wolfhunter. I really like the strategic layer and siege warfare of Cyrodiil but I can completely understand why people leave it.

Mostly the people who don't give a damn about alliance strategy. And for those, alliance-"traitors" are a tiny wee minor problem in a whole bunch of issues with Cyrodiil.

Raammzzaa

I completely agree with all of your points. However, if you think ZOS will make these changes, and that is the only way you are going to play again... See ya!

Kelces

Ormtunge wrote: »

When I began playing this game in the very beginning, you had to choose your alliance and stick with it. The pvp in Cyrodill was full of players fighting for their alliances, and there was a very positive pvp enviroment for new players. After years with people switching alliances all over, this is not the case anymore.

Today the population have dwindled and the pvp-enviroment in Cyrodil have become very toxic, and very unfriendly, especially for new players. There have been written several post about these players bad behaviour, both general trolling, sending toxic tells, sabotaging the game by stealing scrolls and delivering them to the opposition (the alliance your man char is on)...the list goes on and on.

Last weekend I had enough and wrote that I would quite the game for good. For me there is no fun if I can only play pve and do battlegrounds, I need a team to play for. I have thought about it alot these past days, and I want to come back, but only if ZOS bringes back some kind of faction/alliance lock. For me, as for many other players, it is not really fun when too many players only play to farm AP and troll each other. We want to play for our alliance, and play to win the campaign.

With a faction/alliance lock for the entire campaign, I belive we will get a very much more positive and larger pvp-population in Cyrodill. We will get rid of the worst trolls and alliance hoppers and get a more vibrant and including alliance population. I belive this will bring back alot of old players that quit/took a break (like me),and also recruit alot of new players as the enviroment will become alot more including.

I am not saying that an faction/alliance lock will solve all the problems in Cyrodill, but it would be a huge step in the right direction. Plase tell me your oppinion fellow players and I also want to hear from you ZOS. We want our Cyrodill back!!! This is not something we want to continue to pay for (most pvpers I know, including myself is ESO-pluss)!!

And yes, I know there already is a discussion for opening up one or two faction/alliance locked campaigns, but I belive this is a wider discussion. That is why I have posted it in "General" and not on "Alliance War". Until we get some kind of artificial intelligence, pvp will always be the end game, and most players will want to try it at some time. Therefore it also involves most players. In addition the war for the ruby throne is such a large part of the different alliances story lines. With some kind of alliance pride and a more positive and including pvp-enviroment, I think this game can grow in the future and make Cyrodill into a fun and challenging place for all players.

Hoping for your support, Sir Not So Brave (DC)

I can totally relate to that. As with many other aspects on a game like this, people leave behind the RP part in this. No wonder we get the results we have now.

Yet still Zenimax gets the blame, when the players participate in this stupidity and refuse to take responsibility. Grow up, for the divines' sake!

NoTimeToWait

Let player make a pledge for certain alliance. Player can't visit Cyrodiil for another alliance until the pledge runs out. The pledge will give bonuses (AP gain and XP gain maybe) and the longer the pledge, the more bonuses players will get at the start. 6 month pledge would be better than 1 month pledge, which is better than week length pledge (the minimal one) and so on. Player has ability to opt out from the signed pledge with certain debuffs or ban from participating in Cyrodiil campaigns. Lifetime pledge would be the best, but breaking this pledge would render player unable to participate in PVP on the side of this alliance forever (or not if we are being somewhat casual)

Ormtunge

Varana wrote: »

Account-locking campaigns is nonsense.

I choose a character's alliance based on their race, or similar considerations. It is, at its core, a role-playing game. My Altmer is AD, the Redguard DC, the Dunmers and Argonians EP. Not only do I have to join PvP for some time for Caltrops/Warhorn/Vigour, I may just want to play that character in Cyrodiil for a while. Not being able to level a character or play them when I want to just because some people (I'm referring to those "spies"/saboteurs) take that AvA thing way too seriously, is ruining my game because of idiots, and I tend to think that's a bad idea.

I think maybe you didnt read the whole of my post. There are several reasons why I think some sort of alliance/faction lock would be good for the game, but the main one is that I think it would make Cyrodill a more including and friendly place for us players. When we are one alliance (at least for the campaign), I belive that players would be less toxic to each other, and play more as a team with a common goal, and not just farm AP and troll others.

You can still level your pvp-skills for your pve-characters, even if it would make it slightly more inconvinient for you:)

Myux

yall weird. ill never understand pvp roleplayers. for those of us who dont enjoy zerging and just wanna kill people, its pretty needless to say that faction locking would just be alienating us entirely and preventing us from actually playing with our friends, in addition to being forced to pvp when your entire *** map belongs to your faction, meaning there isnt even anyone to fight. tho its not like zos is too worried about not caring for solo players.

if they implement faction locks, they need a technical 4th faction that you set yourself to at the start of a campaign that doesnt belong to a faction aside from people youre in a party with (only people on this rogue faction obv). lemme kill who i wanna kill and i'll be very content. the day i can kill EP on my main will be a day of celebration.

Universe

Your response will be greatly appreciated @ZOS_BrianWheeler @ZOS_RobGarrett
As developers, it is your choice what to do, but I trust that you will choose wisely

TequilaFire

Myux wrote: »

yall weird. ill never understand pvp roleplayers. for those of us who dont enjoy zerging and just wanna kill people, its pretty needless to say that faction locking would just be alienating us entirely and preventing us from actually playing with our friends, in addition to being forced to pvp when your entire *** map belongs to your faction, meaning there isnt even anyone to fight. tho its not like zos is too worried about not caring for solo players.

if they implement faction locks, they need a technical 4th faction that you set yourself to at the start of a campaign that doesnt belong to a faction aside from people youre in a party with (only people on this rogue faction obv). lemme kill who i wanna kill and i'll be very content. the day i can kill EP on my main will be a day of celebration.

What is weird is not playing the game as it was intended and then belittling the players that do.
What causes a one color map is everybody jumping on the same alliance to "play with their friends", whom they don't even know! lmao

Varana

Ormtunge wrote: »

There are several reasons why I think some sort of alliance/faction lock would be good for the game, but the main one is that I think it would make Cyrodill a more including and friendly place for us players. When we are one alliance (at least for the campaign), I belive that players would be less toxic to each other, and play more as a team with a common goal, and not just farm AP and troll others.

I commend you on your optimism about people on the internet.

Unfortunately, I fundamentally disagree that faction-hopping is a major reason for why Cyrodiil is as it is today, and players' behaviour. I especially doubt that faction-locking will bring players back to Cyrodiil. This is an issue with a few players, and an issue for a few players. Sure, it sucks when your scroll gets dumped into slaughterfish but most people aren't that invested in it. For them, it sucks because they can't turn in the quest.

Cyrodiil is, in the end, a giant treadmill. You conquer a keep, you lose one elsewhere, and over night at the latest. You need to invest a lot of time into it to feel any meaningful impact of what you do, and that won't change with restricting factions because a few people abusing the factions thing is not why most players don't go to Cyrodiil any more.

As for toxicity, it's the internet. *shrug* It's an MMO, PvP is direct competition with other people, and the most obnoxious ones always stand out.

Now, faction-locking individual campaigns might be not a bad idea - until an event like the IC one right now comes along, or Midyear Mayhem, and I may want to bring several chars into Cyrodiil.

Universe

TequilaFire wrote: »

Myux wrote: »

yall weird. ill never understand pvp roleplayers. for those of us who dont enjoy zerging and just wanna kill people, its pretty needless to say that faction locking would just be alienating us entirely and preventing us from actually playing with our friends, in addition to being forced to pvp when your entire *** map belongs to your faction, meaning there isnt even anyone to fight. tho its not like zos is too worried about not caring for solo players.

if they implement faction locks, they need a technical 4th faction that you set yourself to at the start of a campaign that doesnt belong to a faction aside from people youre in a party with (only people on this rogue faction obv). lemme kill who i wanna kill and i'll be very content. the day i can kill EP on my main will be a day of celebration.

What is weird is not playing the game as it was intended and then belittling the players that do.
What causes a one color map is everybody jumping on the same alliance to "play with their friends", whom they don't even know! lmao

True.
For example, once AD lose Faregyl and is down to 2 keeps, Black Boot and Bloodmayne, the population of AD suddenly drops from full to high or even medium.
The ADs leave to help either DC or EP who have more keeps at the moment.
This is happening in all alliances, many players don't want to face a true challenge and they switch sides when they feel they can't win.
A campaign alliance lock will prevent this frequent alliance swapping and will encourage players to stick with their alliance even when the battle seems lost.

There are many benefits to such a lock, it was already stated by many.
I don't see a real reason to not implement it.
If you have multiple characters with different alliances and want to play in Cyrodiil, you can do so either by waiting the lock is lifted or by joining other campaigns(Yes, ZOS can add 1 more 30 days CP campaign and 1 more 7 days CP campaign and they won't be empty).

Ormtunge

Universe wrote: »

TequilaFire wrote: »

Myux wrote: »

yall weird. ill never understand pvp roleplayers. for those of us who dont enjoy zerging and just wanna kill people, its pretty needless to say that faction locking would just be alienating us entirely and preventing us from actually playing with our friends, in addition to being forced to pvp when your entire *** map belongs to your faction, meaning there isnt even anyone to fight. tho its not like zos is too worried about not caring for solo players.

if they implement faction locks, they need a technical 4th faction that you set yourself to at the start of a campaign that doesnt belong to a faction aside from people youre in a party with (only people on this rogue faction obv). lemme kill who i wanna kill and i'll be very content. the day i can kill EP on my main will be a day of celebration.

What is weird is not playing the game as it was intended and then belittling the players that do.
What causes a one color map is everybody jumping on the same alliance to "play with their friends", whom they don't even know! lmao

True.
For example, once AD lose Faregyl and is down to 2 keeps, Black Boot and Bloodmayne, the population of AD suddenly drops from full to high or even medium.
The ADs leave to help either DC or EP who have more keeps at the moment.
This is happening in all alliances, many players don't want to face a true challenge and they switch sides when they feel they can't win.
A campaign alliance lock will prevent this frequent alliance swapping and will encourage players to stick with their alliance even when the battle seems lost.

There are many benefits to such a lock, it was already stated by many.
I don't see a real reason to not implement it.
If you have multiple characters with different alliances and want to play in Cyrodiil, you can do so either by waiting the lock is lifted or by joining other campaigns(Yes, ZOS can add 1 more 30 days CP campaign and 1 more 7 days CP campaign and they won't be empty).

I have to agree. Please implement a campaign alliance lock ZOS! As stated earlier I also think this will bring back more players to Cyrodil and make the pvp enviroment less toxic. I think it will be a win win:).

Ormtunge

playsforfun wrote: »

Tommy_The_Gun wrote: »

playsforfun wrote: »

maybe something like a penalty for faction jumping over to other factions over the length of a campaign, e.g -50% ap is you go on a second faction toon then -75% ap if you go onto the 3rd faction toon during a campaign.

Yep, I was thinking of something similar. I asked myself a question: What is the reason most of players play PvP. The answer is AP. So why not use that as a way to reward people for staying loyal to their faction ?

Imagine this: If you will not re-log (switch team) for the duration of the campaign - you will get AP gain % bonus for the duration of the next campaign (an active "Buff" called faction loyalty or something like that). This buff would only disappear if you log in with another faction character within the same campaign.

yes that is a great idea for loyal players.

Hm, I have to admit that this sounds intresting. What do you other players think?

Enkil

Agree 100%

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

Universe

I'm not sure if the Developers will comment in this discussion.
We can only hope that they understand how beneficial this lock can be.

It seems that it may be best to wait for the Murkmire PTS patch notes which will be released on the 17th(this month).
If there will be no mention of campaign alliance lock in the patch notes it may indicate that no such lock will be implemented in Update 20(Usually major additions/changes are released in the first PTS patch notes discussion, incremental PTS updates have less additions/changes).