Maintenance for the week of September 15:
• [COMPLETE] Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – September 16, 6:00AM EDT (10:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EDT (16:00 UTC)
• [COMPLETE] PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – September 16, 6:00AM EDT (10:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EDT (16:00 UTC)
• [COMPLETE] Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – September 16, 6:00AM EDT (10:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EDT (16:00 UTC)
• [COMPLETE] PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – September 16, 6:00AM EDT (10:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EDT (16:00 UTC)
We want our Cyrodill back!!! (PC EU)
-
Lieblingsjunge✭✭✭✭✭
✭TequilaFire 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.
.
Aaand you're mistaken .When AD is down to 2 keeps, they dont log to different factions. They are too busy standing around in base licking their wounds and/or going out of Cyrodiil. And then you have some players leaving EP/DC when one of the factions dominate, to play for the underdog to increase the chance of decent fights. They even each other out, trust me.
TequilaFire 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:).
Another campaign, especially on PC/EU, will just be empty. Nobody will play in an empty campaign, even though it's faction-locked. Because puglings have their homes in Vivec, they don't change campaigns for fights and/or faction. They just want their home, man.Edited by Lieblingsjunge on September 8, 2018 7:59PMIgnorance is the greatest weapon of tyranny.
PC - EU.
Lieblingsjunge(AD) - Racechanged Argonian :< | AR 50 - No double AP or Bleakers involved |
Sits-On-Cacti(DC) - Problem?
Fail-With-Tail(AD) - Healing Springs-spammer :<
Tiny Liebs(EP) - Very Tiny. Also heals.
Lieblingsmädchen(DC) - Magplar is love.
The Dominàtrix(AD) - Chains, whip, whip, whip.
Fluffy Furball Kitten(DC) - Kittycat, meow.
Your Face(EP) - People make bad jokes about my name =(
Liebs-With-Trees(AD) - Male argo with a big tail :>
Officer/Sandwitch of Zerg Squad
My title: The Maneater, Destroyer of Maneuvers, Bane of Potatoes, she who devours them, The Black Hole, the humorless, first of her name.0 -
themaddaedra✭✭✭✭✭
✭Lieblingsjunge wrote: »TequilaFire 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.
.
Aaand you're mistaken .When AD is down to 2 keeps, they dont log to different factions. They are too busy standing around in base licking their wounds and/or going out of Cyrodiil. And then you have some players leaving EP/DC when one of the factions dominate, to play for the underdog to increase the chance of decent fights. They even each other out, trust me.TequilaFire 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:).
Another campaign, especially on PC/EU, will just be empty. Nobody will play in an empty campaign, even though it's faction-locked. Because puglings have their homes in Vivec, they don't change campaigns for fights and/or faction. They just want their home, man.
As if we don't have empty campaigns rn lol.
Sotha Sil is pretty much an EP campaign rn without faction lock. Which makes your point about alliance locks causing one sided campaigns invalid. This faction swap BS helps nothing but ap farming. Neither your group nor anyone else swap alliances to help the losing side, they only swap to where they can farm the most AP. No need to play hero here.
Faction locking might hurt zergballs yes, tho i couldn't care less. Cyro needs more people. People who actually fight for keeps, resources, their alliances and all. It definitely doesn't need to feed farmers further.PC|EU3 -
ATomiX96✭✭✭✭✭
✭Faction locked campaigns wont do anything to save the health of ESO's PvP right now. What it needs is more frequent balancing (even if they dont get it right it will at least feel fresh for a few weeks again).
IDK how much more they can optimize to make cyrodill less "laggy" but I mean they could try to fix bugs which are still in the game since launch, that would be great.
And they need to nerf "lfg" in zone chat lmao. #BuffViciousDeathRangeThxZosEdited by ATomiX96 on September 8, 2018 9:11PM0 -
themaddaedra✭✭✭✭✭
✭Faction locked campaigns wont do anything to save the health of ESO's PvP right now. What it needs is more frequent balancing (even if they dont get it right it will at least feel fresh for a few weeks again).
IDK how much more they can optimize to make cyrodill less "laggy" but I mean they could try to fix bugs which are still in the game since launch, that would be great.
And they need to nerf "lfg" in zone chat lmao. #BuffViciousDeathRangeThxZos
It sure won't fix the problems you mention. But it will help quite a bit with overall health. I mean what does Cyro mean to anyone now? Darn nothing but AP. Thus people keep switching sides around Alessia bridge, go farm on whichever side they can most. Others -like zergballs- go capture an outpost or take a scroll to some resource and keep farming in there.
There's no spirit in there. It's even less fun than PvPing in Call of Duty or sth lol. There's no Elder Scrolls, no RP, no loyalty no nothing but AP farm.PC|EU1 -
Lieblingsjunge✭✭✭✭✭
✭themaddaedra wrote: »Lieblingsjunge wrote: »TequilaFire 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.
.
Aaand you're mistaken .When AD is down to 2 keeps, they dont log to different factions. They are too busy standing around in base licking their wounds and/or going out of Cyrodiil. And then you have some players leaving EP/DC when one of the factions dominate, to play for the underdog to increase the chance of decent fights. They even each other out, trust me.TequilaFire 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:).
Another campaign, especially on PC/EU, will just be empty. Nobody will play in an empty campaign, even though it's faction-locked. Because puglings have their homes in Vivec, they don't change campaigns for fights and/or faction. They just want their home, man.
As if we don't have empty campaigns rn lol.
Sotha Sil is pretty much an EP campaign rn without faction lock. Which makes your point about alliance locks causing one sided campaigns invalid. This faction swap BS helps nothing but ap farming. Neither your group nor anyone else swap alliances to help the losing side, they only swap to where they can farm the most AP. No need to play hero here.
Faction locking might hurt zergballs yes, tho i couldn't care less. Cyro needs more people. People who actually fight for keeps, resources, their alliances and all. It definitely doesn't need to feed farmers further.
We do, that's why I said adding another campaign, even faction locked, will just be empty. Maybe 10 from each alliance will swap there for roleplaying reasons.. But that's about it.
No, it's not. Every evening EP gets roflstomped to the gates.. Or at least scroll-keeps. Sure, during the day they are dominating 'cus it's easier for them to dominate Sotha, than to fight the AD dominating Vivec, at the same time. (That's not a faction lock, issue, that's a player issue). AD Vivec is on High during the day, EP Sotha is on High during the day. Imagine those two sides fighting in one campaign. Yes, pl0x. Although, primetime-lag would start already at noon then. :thinking:
And the most AP is usually farmed on the losing side. Because there will always be defenders willingly stacking up, defending a keep. You can say whatever you want, but reality is, the 50 enemies a good ball-group can occupy, is 50 less enemies the faction has to fight, thus playing for the alliance. (In a certain sense.) Is there rly a difference between how valueable someone is to the campaign, between those that captures the keeps, or those that kills enemies? I would claim both are needed to assure victory.
And in ZS' case, faction-locking won't hurt us, as a raid, at all. We already play one side only. Except a couple of times every 2nd month or so. This change will *only* hurt the people that stays loyal to their faction because of character-race, or those that swap factions to play in smaller groups with their friends. (Which are both.. not campaign-focused, but rather enjoyment focuseD).Ignorance is the greatest weapon of tyranny.
PC - EU.
Lieblingsjunge(AD) - Racechanged Argonian :< | AR 50 - No double AP or Bleakers involved |
Sits-On-Cacti(DC) - Problem?
Fail-With-Tail(AD) - Healing Springs-spammer :<
Tiny Liebs(EP) - Very Tiny. Also heals.
Lieblingsmädchen(DC) - Magplar is love.
The Dominàtrix(AD) - Chains, whip, whip, whip.
Fluffy Furball Kitten(DC) - Kittycat, meow.
Your Face(EP) - People make bad jokes about my name =(
Liebs-With-Trees(AD) - Male argo with a big tail :>
Officer/Sandwitch of Zerg Squad
My title: The Maneater, Destroyer of Maneuvers, Bane of Potatoes, she who devours them, The Black Hole, the humorless, first of her name.0 -
themaddaedra✭✭✭✭✭
✭Lieblingsjunge wrote: »themaddaedra wrote: »Lieblingsjunge wrote: »TequilaFire 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.
.
Aaand you're mistaken .When AD is down to 2 keeps, they dont log to different factions. They are too busy standing around in base licking their wounds and/or going out of Cyrodiil. And then you have some players leaving EP/DC when one of the factions dominate, to play for the underdog to increase the chance of decent fights. They even each other out, trust me.TequilaFire 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:).
Another campaign, especially on PC/EU, will just be empty. Nobody will play in an empty campaign, even though it's faction-locked. Because puglings have their homes in Vivec, they don't change campaigns for fights and/or faction. They just want their home, man.
As if we don't have empty campaigns rn lol.
Sotha Sil is pretty much an EP campaign rn without faction lock. Which makes your point about alliance locks causing one sided campaigns invalid. This faction swap BS helps nothing but ap farming. Neither your group nor anyone else swap alliances to help the losing side, they only swap to where they can farm the most AP. No need to play hero here.
Faction locking might hurt zergballs yes, tho i couldn't care less. Cyro needs more people. People who actually fight for keeps, resources, their alliances and all. It definitely doesn't need to feed farmers further.
We do, that's why I said adding another campaign, even faction locked, will just be empty. Maybe 10 from each alliance will swap there for roleplaying reasons.. But that's about it.
No, it's not. Every evening EP gets roflstomped to the gates.. Or at least scroll-keeps. Sure, during the day they are dominating 'cus it's easier for them to dominate Sotha, than to fight the AD dominating Vivec, at the same time. (That's not a faction lock, issue, that's a player issue). AD Vivec is on High during the day, EP Sotha is on High during the day. Imagine those two sides fighting in one campaign. Yes, pl0x. Although, primetime-lag would start already at noon then. :thinking:
And the most AP is usually farmed on the losing side. Because there will always be defenders willingly stacking up, defending a keep. You can say whatever you want, but reality is, the 50 enemies a good ball-group can occupy, is 50 less enemies the faction has to fight, thus playing for the alliance. (In a certain sense.) Is there rly a difference between how valueable someone is to the campaign, between those that captures the keeps, or those that kills enemies? I would claim both are needed to assure victory.
And in ZS' case, faction-locking won't hurt us, as a raid, at all. We already play one side only. Except a couple of times every 2nd month or so. This change will *only* hurt the people that stays loyal to their faction because of character-race, or those that swap factions to play in smaller groups with their friends. (Which are both.. not campaign-focused, but rather enjoyment focuseD).
So you are basically saying that zergballs helping losing sides by farming their enemies in an outpost or a resource. Not mentioning how many -ratherly newer- people lose their will to PvP after getting farmed for an hour until rage-quitting? Everybody who is familiar with PvP just ignores these groups. What they farm is nothing but newbies basically. I can't help but wonder how that makes difference to call it a help.
And no, you'll never see 50 people getting rekt by grinders lol. It's more like 10-15 newbies at maximum who'll get triggered and therefore keep coming back.
I mean i don't really care if ZS farms more or less AP. I'm more about overall Cyrodiil. And what i see %90 of the time, is that there's nothing worth going for in there. That has been killing it, slowly over years.PC|EU1 -
Ormtunge✭✭✭themaddaedra wrote: »Lieblingsjunge wrote: »themaddaedra wrote: »Lieblingsjunge wrote: »TequilaFire 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.
.
Aaand you're mistaken .When AD is down to 2 keeps, they dont log to different factions. They are too busy standing around in base licking their wounds and/or going out of Cyrodiil. And then you have some players leaving EP/DC when one of the factions dominate, to play for the underdog to increase the chance of decent fights. They even each other out, trust me.TequilaFire 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:).
Another campaign, especially on PC/EU, will just be empty. Nobody will play in an empty campaign, even though it's faction-locked. Because puglings have their homes in Vivec, they don't change campaigns for fights and/or faction. They just want their home, man.
As if we don't have empty campaigns rn lol.
Sotha Sil is pretty much an EP campaign rn without faction lock. Which makes your point about alliance locks causing one sided campaigns invalid. This faction swap BS helps nothing but ap farming. Neither your group nor anyone else swap alliances to help the losing side, they only swap to where they can farm the most AP. No need to play hero here.
Faction locking might hurt zergballs yes, tho i couldn't care less. Cyro needs more people. People who actually fight for keeps, resources, their alliances and all. It definitely doesn't need to feed farmers further.
We do, that's why I said adding another campaign, even faction locked, will just be empty. Maybe 10 from each alliance will swap there for roleplaying reasons.. But that's about it.
No, it's not. Every evening EP gets roflstomped to the gates.. Or at least scroll-keeps. Sure, during the day they are dominating 'cus it's easier for them to dominate Sotha, than to fight the AD dominating Vivec, at the same time. (That's not a faction lock, issue, that's a player issue). AD Vivec is on High during the day, EP Sotha is on High during the day. Imagine those two sides fighting in one campaign. Yes, pl0x. Although, primetime-lag would start already at noon then. :thinking:
And the most AP is usually farmed on the losing side. Because there will always be defenders willingly stacking up, defending a keep. You can say whatever you want, but reality is, the 50 enemies a good ball-group can occupy, is 50 less enemies the faction has to fight, thus playing for the alliance. (In a certain sense.) Is there rly a difference between how valueable someone is to the campaign, between those that captures the keeps, or those that kills enemies? I would claim both are needed to assure victory.
And in ZS' case, faction-locking won't hurt us, as a raid, at all. We already play one side only. Except a couple of times every 2nd month or so. This change will *only* hurt the people that stays loyal to their faction because of character-race, or those that swap factions to play in smaller groups with their friends. (Which are both.. not campaign-focused, but rather enjoyment focuseD).
So you are basically saying that zergballs helping losing sides by farming their enemies in an outpost or a resource. Not mentioning how many -ratherly newer- people lose their will to PvP after getting farmed for an hour until rage-quitting? Everybody who is familiar with PvP just ignores these groups. What they farm is nothing but newbies basically. I can't help but wonder how that makes difference to call it a help.
And no, you'll never see 50 people getting rekt by grinders lol. It's more like 10-15 newbies at maximum who'll get triggered and therefore keep coming back.
I mean i don't really care if ZS farms more or less AP. I'm more about overall Cyrodiil. And what i see %90 of the time, is that there's nothing worth going for in there. That has been killing it, slowly over years.
I have to agree with themaddaedra here. Cyrodill need more players who care about their alliance and not more farmers. What we need is more players that want to play FOR their faction and helping new pvpers. Both zergballs farming AP and one faction totally dominating will scare off new pvpers.
And personally I dont think that a faction locked campaign would be emtpy, but would actually be the most popular one. I think people are tired of the toxic pvp enviroment atm, as several other treads at this moment suggest. A fraction locked campaign would imo give us all who want to play group-pvp (as fighting for your own alliance) a new beginning. And I for one would be happy to lead any number of pugs to fun fights for my own faction. And I know alot of others who would do the same for the other two factions.1 -
Lieblingsjunge✭✭✭✭✭
✭themaddaedra wrote: »Lieblingsjunge wrote: »themaddaedra wrote: »Lieblingsjunge wrote: »TequilaFire 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.
.
Aaand you're mistaken .When AD is down to 2 keeps, they dont log to different factions. They are too busy standing around in base licking their wounds and/or going out of Cyrodiil. And then you have some players leaving EP/DC when one of the factions dominate, to play for the underdog to increase the chance of decent fights. They even each other out, trust me.TequilaFire 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:).
Another campaign, especially on PC/EU, will just be empty. Nobody will play in an empty campaign, even though it's faction-locked. Because puglings have their homes in Vivec, they don't change campaigns for fights and/or faction. They just want their home, man.
As if we don't have empty campaigns rn lol.
Sotha Sil is pretty much an EP campaign rn without faction lock. Which makes your point about alliance locks causing one sided campaigns invalid. This faction swap BS helps nothing but ap farming. Neither your group nor anyone else swap alliances to help the losing side, they only swap to where they can farm the most AP. No need to play hero here.
Faction locking might hurt zergballs yes, tho i couldn't care less. Cyro needs more people. People who actually fight for keeps, resources, their alliances and all. It definitely doesn't need to feed farmers further.
We do, that's why I said adding another campaign, even faction locked, will just be empty. Maybe 10 from each alliance will swap there for roleplaying reasons.. But that's about it.
No, it's not. Every evening EP gets roflstomped to the gates.. Or at least scroll-keeps. Sure, during the day they are dominating 'cus it's easier for them to dominate Sotha, than to fight the AD dominating Vivec, at the same time. (That's not a faction lock, issue, that's a player issue). AD Vivec is on High during the day, EP Sotha is on High during the day. Imagine those two sides fighting in one campaign. Yes, pl0x. Although, primetime-lag would start already at noon then. :thinking:
And the most AP is usually farmed on the losing side. Because there will always be defenders willingly stacking up, defending a keep. You can say whatever you want, but reality is, the 50 enemies a good ball-group can occupy, is 50 less enemies the faction has to fight, thus playing for the alliance. (In a certain sense.) Is there rly a difference between how valueable someone is to the campaign, between those that captures the keeps, or those that kills enemies? I would claim both are needed to assure victory.
And in ZS' case, faction-locking won't hurt us, as a raid, at all. We already play one side only. Except a couple of times every 2nd month or so. This change will *only* hurt the people that stays loyal to their faction because of character-race, or those that swap factions to play in smaller groups with their friends. (Which are both.. not campaign-focused, but rather enjoyment focuseD).
So you are basically saying that zergballs helping losing sides by farming their enemies in an outpost or a resource. Not mentioning how many -ratherly newer- people lose their will to PvP after getting farmed for an hour until rage-quitting? Everybody who is familiar with PvP just ignores these groups. What they farm is nothing but newbies basically. I can't help but wonder how that makes difference to call it a help.
And no, you'll never see 50 people getting rekt by grinders lol. It's more like 10-15 newbies at maximum who'll get triggered and therefore keep coming back.
I mean i don't really care if ZS farms more or less AP. I'm more about overall Cyrodiil. And what i see %90 of the time, is that there's nothing worth going for in there. That has been killing it, slowly over years.
If people lose their will because they die - that's not my problem. That's not anyone's problem. Imo, if you're playing a game and you find yourself dying... It's in a lot of situations your fault. Learn from it, and improve. But as long as people are happy stacking up and being farmed, I'm having my fun. I'm not having fun killing people(I heal, duh), but I'm having fun raiding with people I actually enjoy spending time with. And I enjoy being competitive, in a sense. If PvP would cater to those "Disheartened newbies", they might as well make pre-definied specs/skills/gear for everyone to use and that's that. Oh wait, they'll still die. How about a fist-fight? Wait, if they don't know what RMB is, do they even stand a chance? :popcorn:
Because 50 "noobs"(as you call them, rude btw) that keeps dying to scroll-farming, that's 50 less potential players to place siege etc. And don't give me the bs. that it's only newbies that gets farmed. You would be surprised how many times I've noticed "known" names around. There's even the same people every night coming back, and they're by far not "noobs". And there's been quite a few EP-guilds on Sotha that frequently tries to bomb us while we scroll-farm or smth. I guess every guild group(even tho decent groups) are noobs in your eyes? I noticed you're the "Blood and Fear" - NB. I recall seeing you in the Kill Counter-list, but I can't recall if it was with a guild, or if you were solo-bombing. 
It's a long time ago, though.
There's quite a lot of nice things in Cyrodiil, tbh. You should watch Etaniel's Tamriel Baguette News Report-video. It showcases all the great spots in Cyrodiil, nobody goes to. Some are even fit for ERP... :>
Or you can enjoy sieging keeps with friends, flipping resources.. Idk. But there's nice things in there.themaddaedra wrote: »Lieblingsjunge wrote: »themaddaedra wrote: »Lieblingsjunge wrote: »TequilaFire 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.
.
Aaand you're mistaken .When AD is down to 2 keeps, they dont log to different factions. They are too busy standing around in base licking their wounds and/or going out of Cyrodiil. And then you have some players leaving EP/DC when one of the factions dominate, to play for the underdog to increase the chance of decent fights. They even each other out, trust me.TequilaFire 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:).
Another campaign, especially on PC/EU, will just be empty. Nobody will play in an empty campaign, even though it's faction-locked. Because puglings have their homes in Vivec, they don't change campaigns for fights and/or faction. They just want their home, man.
As if we don't have empty campaigns rn lol.
Sotha Sil is pretty much an EP campaign rn without faction lock. Which makes your point about alliance locks causing one sided campaigns invalid. This faction swap BS helps nothing but ap farming. Neither your group nor anyone else swap alliances to help the losing side, they only swap to where they can farm the most AP. No need to play hero here.
Faction locking might hurt zergballs yes, tho i couldn't care less. Cyro needs more people. People who actually fight for keeps, resources, their alliances and all. It definitely doesn't need to feed farmers further.
We do, that's why I said adding another campaign, even faction locked, will just be empty. Maybe 10 from each alliance will swap there for roleplaying reasons.. But that's about it.
No, it's not. Every evening EP gets roflstomped to the gates.. Or at least scroll-keeps. Sure, during the day they are dominating 'cus it's easier for them to dominate Sotha, than to fight the AD dominating Vivec, at the same time. (That's not a faction lock, issue, that's a player issue). AD Vivec is on High during the day, EP Sotha is on High during the day. Imagine those two sides fighting in one campaign. Yes, pl0x. Although, primetime-lag would start already at noon then. :thinking:
And the most AP is usually farmed on the losing side. Because there will always be defenders willingly stacking up, defending a keep. You can say whatever you want, but reality is, the 50 enemies a good ball-group can occupy, is 50 less enemies the faction has to fight, thus playing for the alliance. (In a certain sense.) Is there rly a difference between how valueable someone is to the campaign, between those that captures the keeps, or those that kills enemies? I would claim both are needed to assure victory.
And in ZS' case, faction-locking won't hurt us, as a raid, at all. We already play one side only. Except a couple of times every 2nd month or so. This change will *only* hurt the people that stays loyal to their faction because of character-race, or those that swap factions to play in smaller groups with their friends. (Which are both.. not campaign-focused, but rather enjoyment focuseD).
So you are basically saying that zergballs helping losing sides by farming their enemies in an outpost or a resource. Not mentioning how many -ratherly newer- people lose their will to PvP after getting farmed for an hour until rage-quitting? Everybody who is familiar with PvP just ignores these groups. What they farm is nothing but newbies basically. I can't help but wonder how that makes difference to call it a help.
And no, you'll never see 50 people getting rekt by grinders lol. It's more like 10-15 newbies at maximum who'll get triggered and therefore keep coming back.
I mean i don't really care if ZS farms more or less AP. I'm more about overall Cyrodiil. And what i see %90 of the time, is that there's nothing worth going for in there. That has been killing it, slowly over years.
I have to agree with themaddaedra here. Cyrodill need more players who care about their alliance and not more farmers. What we need is more players that want to play FOR their faction and helping new pvpers. Both zergballs farming AP and one faction totally dominating will scare off new pvpers.
And personally I dont think that a faction locked campaign would be emtpy, but would actually be the most popular one. I think people are tired of the toxic pvp enviroment atm, as several other treads at this moment suggest. A fraction locked campaign would imo give us all who want to play group-pvp (as fighting for your own alliance) a new beginning. And I for one would be happy to lead any number of pugs to fun fights for my own faction. And I know alot of others who would do the same for the other two factions.
It would be completely empty. Except for your group vs. 1 group vs. 1 group. Then maybe you'll even get some smallscalers that plays on 1 side in that campaign only. Or enemy bomb groups will follow you there. It's not gonna make it any better whatsoever.
If(If that I don't believe in) by any chance becomes a populated campaign, you'll see that the same people you consider traitors to their alliance, will join that campaign too. Even faction-locking a campaign, isn't gonna enable any different type of gameplay. There will be 1 faction dominating, there will be a bomb-group or two, there will be small-scalers. Then there will be pugs. It'll look like Shor probably. Dead. Except during events.Ignorance is the greatest weapon of tyranny.
PC - EU.
Lieblingsjunge(AD) - Racechanged Argonian :< | AR 50 - No double AP or Bleakers involved |
Sits-On-Cacti(DC) - Problem?
Fail-With-Tail(AD) - Healing Springs-spammer :<
Tiny Liebs(EP) - Very Tiny. Also heals.
Lieblingsmädchen(DC) - Magplar is love.
The Dominàtrix(AD) - Chains, whip, whip, whip.
Fluffy Furball Kitten(DC) - Kittycat, meow.
Your Face(EP) - People make bad jokes about my name =(
Liebs-With-Trees(AD) - Male argo with a big tail :>
Officer/Sandwitch of Zerg Squad
My title: The Maneater, Destroyer of Maneuvers, Bane of Potatoes, she who devours them, The Black Hole, the humorless, first of her name.0 -
Lokirules✭✭✭My Question is what is the harm in trying out the idea to see what the reception would be for a faction locked Campaign. Is it hurting anyone? I think they should try it just so we can actually see what the vast majority of the pvp population want. If it fails so what Vivec and the other campaigns are still there to fall back on.I’m a Farmer so what0 -
themaddaedra✭✭✭✭✭
✭Lieblingsjunge wrote: »themaddaedra wrote: »Lieblingsjunge wrote: »themaddaedra wrote: »Lieblingsjunge wrote: »TequilaFire 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.
.
Aaand you're mistaken .When AD is down to 2 keeps, they dont log to different factions. They are too busy standing around in base licking their wounds and/or going out of Cyrodiil. And then you have some players leaving EP/DC when one of the factions dominate, to play for the underdog to increase the chance of decent fights. They even each other out, trust me.TequilaFire 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:).
Another campaign, especially on PC/EU, will just be empty. Nobody will play in an empty campaign, even though it's faction-locked. Because puglings have their homes in Vivec, they don't change campaigns for fights and/or faction. They just want their home, man.
As if we don't have empty campaigns rn lol.
Sotha Sil is pretty much an EP campaign rn without faction lock. Which makes your point about alliance locks causing one sided campaigns invalid. This faction swap BS helps nothing but ap farming. Neither your group nor anyone else swap alliances to help the losing side, they only swap to where they can farm the most AP. No need to play hero here.
Faction locking might hurt zergballs yes, tho i couldn't care less. Cyro needs more people. People who actually fight for keeps, resources, their alliances and all. It definitely doesn't need to feed farmers further.
We do, that's why I said adding another campaign, even faction locked, will just be empty. Maybe 10 from each alliance will swap there for roleplaying reasons.. But that's about it.
No, it's not. Every evening EP gets roflstomped to the gates.. Or at least scroll-keeps. Sure, during the day they are dominating 'cus it's easier for them to dominate Sotha, than to fight the AD dominating Vivec, at the same time. (That's not a faction lock, issue, that's a player issue). AD Vivec is on High during the day, EP Sotha is on High during the day. Imagine those two sides fighting in one campaign. Yes, pl0x. Although, primetime-lag would start already at noon then. :thinking:
And the most AP is usually farmed on the losing side. Because there will always be defenders willingly stacking up, defending a keep. You can say whatever you want, but reality is, the 50 enemies a good ball-group can occupy, is 50 less enemies the faction has to fight, thus playing for the alliance. (In a certain sense.) Is there rly a difference between how valueable someone is to the campaign, between those that captures the keeps, or those that kills enemies? I would claim both are needed to assure victory.
And in ZS' case, faction-locking won't hurt us, as a raid, at all. We already play one side only. Except a couple of times every 2nd month or so. This change will *only* hurt the people that stays loyal to their faction because of character-race, or those that swap factions to play in smaller groups with their friends. (Which are both.. not campaign-focused, but rather enjoyment focuseD).
So you are basically saying that zergballs helping losing sides by farming their enemies in an outpost or a resource. Not mentioning how many -ratherly newer- people lose their will to PvP after getting farmed for an hour until rage-quitting? Everybody who is familiar with PvP just ignores these groups. What they farm is nothing but newbies basically. I can't help but wonder how that makes difference to call it a help.
And no, you'll never see 50 people getting rekt by grinders lol. It's more like 10-15 newbies at maximum who'll get triggered and therefore keep coming back.
I mean i don't really care if ZS farms more or less AP. I'm more about overall Cyrodiil. And what i see %90 of the time, is that there's nothing worth going for in there. That has been killing it, slowly over years.
If people lose their will because they die - that's not my problem. That's not anyone's problem. Imo, if you're playing a game and you find yourself dying... It's in a lot of situations your fault. Learn from it, and improve. But as long as people are happy stacking up and being farmed, I'm having my fun. I'm not having fun killing people(I heal, duh), but I'm having fun raiding with people I actually enjoy spending time with. And I enjoy being competitive, in a sense. If PvP would cater to those "Disheartened newbies", they might as well make pre-definied specs/skills/gear for everyone to use and that's that. Oh wait, they'll still die. How about a fist-fight? Wait, if they don't know what RMB is, do they even stand a chance? :popcorn:
Because 50 "noobs"(as you call them, rude btw) that keeps dying to scroll-farming, that's 50 less potential players to place siege etc. And don't give me the bs. that it's only newbies that gets farmed. You would be surprised how many times I've noticed "known" names around. There's even the same people every night coming back, and they're by far not "noobs". And there's been quite a few EP-guilds on Sotha that frequently tries to bomb us while we scroll-farm or smth. I guess every guild group(even tho decent groups) are noobs in your eyes? I noticed you're the "Blood and Fear" - NB. I recall seeing you in the Kill Counter-list, but I can't recall if it was with a guild, or if you were solo-bombing. It's a long time ago, though.
There's quite a lot of nice things in Cyrodiil, tbh. You should watch Etaniel's Tamriel Baguette News Report-video. It showcases all the great spots in Cyrodiil, nobody goes to. Some are even fit for ERP... :>
Or you can enjoy sieging keeps with friends, flipping resources.. Idk. But there's nice things in there.
I never actually called anyone nubs, i said newbies which has different meaning. Nub would be someone who plays badly, newbie is just someone new to Cyro lol.
Yes i'm that NB. I have never been into a PvP guild, been playing solo, sometimes with one or two people from my pve guild. Tho you won't really see me around until Balorg gets fixed lol.
Another thing, i didn't say that people leave Cyrodiil when they die. Sometimes i die like 10 times until i manage a perfect bomb but it doesn't make me leave. But i sure leave if i can't see anything else than an ap farm group around. So for the other people, they leave and get disheartened when they get farmed hard, not when they die :kappa:PC|EU0 -
Varana✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭The idea that faction-locking a campaign will somehow create more interest in Cyrodiil is a big illusion.
People who don't really care about the factions, won't just magically start caring. I honestly cannot understand how that is seen as a solution to Cyrodiil's issues.
All while you're basically excluding those who swap the faction they care about with the character they're playing, and in my experience, that's not uncommon.
Yes, Cyrodiil needs more people who are distributed more evenly - but let's be honest, that will need better incentives and a better experience overall. "You can only play as this faction" is not an incentive. It keeps players from going to Cyrodiil. One Tamriel was introduced for a reason. To the large majority of players, even those who actually are interested in PvP at all, the factions just don't generate enough interest to attract players.
All this talk about people not being loyal to made-up factions in a videogame, or people preferring to play with their friends regardless of faction, or curbing "lfg" because you personally may like small-group or 1vX for x<10 better, reminds me very much of "bad wrong fun". I.e. people have fun but not the way I want to have it so they're wrong and it's bad.Edited by Varana on September 9, 2018 11:02AM2 -
Ormtunge✭✭✭The idea that faction-locking a campaign will somehow create more interest in Cyrodiil is a big illusion.
People who don't really care about the factions, won't just magically start caring. I honestly cannot understand how that is seen as a solution to Cyrodiil's issues.
Well I and many others happen to disagree:). Many players want to fight for their alliance and for winning the campaign, but they get dishartened by all the AP-farming (players changing alliance several times a day to most efficent farm), toxic behaviour and trolling (wich have increased more and more lately ) and the flat out sabotage as when somone takes the scroll wiith their alt, and then delivers it to the alliance of their main char.Yes, Cyrodiil needs more people who are distributed more evenly - but let's be honest, that will need better incentives and a better experience overall. "You can only play as this faction" is not an incentive. It keeps players from going to Cyrodiil. One Tamriel was introduced for a reason.
I think the intentions with "One Tamriel" was good, but more and more players are realising that it slowly is destroying Cyrodil. For many of us being able to play in a faction locked campaign is a LARGE incentive to play. I and many others think it would make it alot more enjoyable to play in Cyrodill (especially for new players and casuals), and make it posible and motivating to play to win the campaign TOGETHER with others who want the same thing. Personallly I belive that a faction lock would make a big step in the direction of making Cyrodil alot more including and less toxic place. And that is something that I think most players care about.1 -
gepe87✭✭✭✭✭
✭I wonder how fun is to play in a locked pop alliance and the other have 1 or 2 bars. Feeling powerful?Gepe, Dunmer MagSorc Pact Grand Overlord | Gaepe, Bosmer MagSorc Dominion General
If you see edits on my replies: typos. English isn't my main language0 -
TequilaFire✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭My Question is what is the harm in trying out the idea to see what the reception would be for a faction locked Campaign. Is it hurting anyone? I think they should try it just so we can actually see what the vast majority of the pvp population want. If it fails so what Vivec and the other campaigns are still there to fall back on.
The problem is the people who flip alliances now would continue to play on the unlocked campaign Vivec because they like jumping to side where they will get the highest ap gain per hour. This would leave a smaller population of players for the locked campaign because even the ones who are pro one alliance would want to go where the most action is. The only way it would work if alliance switching was controlled in some fashion for everyone correcting player population imbalance.2 -
Ormtunge✭✭✭TequilaFire wrote: »My Question is what is the harm in trying out the idea to see what the reception would be for a faction locked Campaign. Is it hurting anyone? I think they should try it just so we can actually see what the vast majority of the pvp population want. If it fails so what Vivec and the other campaigns are still there to fall back on.
The problem is the people who flip alliances now would continue to play on the unlocked campaign Vivec because they like jumping to side where they will get the highest ap gain per hour. This would leave a smaller population of players for the locked campaign because even the ones who are pro one alliance would want to go where the most action is. The only way it would work if alliance switching was controlled in some fashion for everyone correcting player population imbalance.
If ZOS for instance make Sotha Sil a locked campaign and Vivec and the unlocked one, I agree that the pure ap-farmers would stay in Vivec. And in my personal oppinion that would be just fine. I do not think the locked campaign would be empty thou, I think it would be very alive and even more vibrent. Most players in my experience want to make ap AND pvp for a meaningful experience, like fighting for the victory of their alliance. I dont think most players that pvp only want to farm, but have fun in a less toxic pvp enviroment than is the case today. Nobody likes to be trolled and fighting for hours for a scroll only to get it stolen by one in our own faction and delivered to the enemy.0 -
Leeched✭✭✭✭✭Sure, add faction lock but only if we get a chance to swap faction on all characters before (without spending hundreds of real $$$)(DC) Grimsley - MagSorc || Denderan - StamPlar || Phaedon - StamBlade || Oberon - MagPlar || Leontes - StamSorc || Saroush - MagDk || Culan - StamDen || Dullahan - StamDk
Ruvik - MagBlade || Tivil - MagDen || Juval - MagNecro || Gargrave - StamNecro
(EP) Vicio - MagBlade || Clavigo - MagPlar || Peritas - MagDen || Fedrak - MagSorc
(AD) Maledicto - MagBlade || Voriak - StamBlade
PC EU || Currently CP 1500+
Azura's Star Sotha Sil
I serve bombs ღ - retired0 -
BalticBlues✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭I also suggest removing scrolls entirely from Cyrodiil to make the game more attravtive.
Currently, scrolls are so outbalancing to the game that it is not even worth to start playing if one faction has all scrolls. I know many people coming home, taking a look at the scrolls - and then decide if it is worth to PvP or not. Is this really what devs had in mind?
The "Emperor bonus" is great, because flipping castles is possible anytime, and this bonus alone does not outbalance the game. On the other hand, the "Scrolls bonus" IMHO is bad, because flipping all scrolls is incredibly difficult during usual playing hours, and the bonusss are massively outbalancing the game if one faction capures all scrolls - usually done during hours where working people are sleeeping...
Edited by BalticBlues on September 15, 2018 2:01PM0 -
TequilaFire✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭BalticBlues wrote: »I also suggest removing scrolls entirely from Cyrodiil to make the game more attravtive.
Currently, scrolls are so outbalancing to the game that it is not even worth to start playing if one faction has all scrolls. I know many people coming home, taking a look at the scrolls - and then decide if it is worth to PvP or not. Is this really what devs had in mind?
The "Emperor bonus" is great, because flipping castles is possible anytime, and this bonus alone does not outbalance the game. On the other hand, the "Scrolls bonus" IMHO is bad, because flipping all scrolls is incredibly difficult during usual playing hours, and the bonusss are massively outbalancing the game if one faction capures all scrolls - usually done during hours where working people are sleeeping...
Well you are supposed to go and take the scrolls back instead of logging out because the going isn't easy.
That is what is wrong too many people only want to have it easy with no challenge and jump to the winning alliance or log off till their side is in a better position rather than fighting and helping their own alliance back into a better position.0 -
Royaji✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭TequilaFire wrote: »BalticBlues wrote: »I also suggest removing scrolls entirely from Cyrodiil to make the game more attravtive.
Currently, scrolls are so outbalancing to the game that it is not even worth to start playing if one faction has all scrolls. I know many people coming home, taking a look at the scrolls - and then decide if it is worth to PvP or not. Is this really what devs had in mind?
The "Emperor bonus" is great, because flipping castles is possible anytime, and this bonus alone does not outbalance the game. On the other hand, the "Scrolls bonus" IMHO is bad, because flipping all scrolls is incredibly difficult during usual playing hours, and the bonusss are massively outbalancing the game if one faction capures all scrolls - usually done during hours where working people are sleeeping...
Well you are supposed to go and take the scrolls back instead of logging out because the going isn't easy.
That is what is wrong too many people only want to have it easy with no challenge and jump to the winning alliance or log off till their side is in a better position rather than fighting and helping their own alliance back into a better position.
Yeah, sure. Try to help your alliance out. Which in other words means "repeatedly get run over by a 20-man zerg once you try touching a keep or even a resource".0 -
TequilaFire✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭TequilaFire wrote: »BalticBlues wrote: »I also suggest removing scrolls entirely from Cyrodiil to make the game more attravtive.
Currently, scrolls are so outbalancing to the game that it is not even worth to start playing if one faction has all scrolls. I know many people coming home, taking a look at the scrolls - and then decide if it is worth to PvP or not. Is this really what devs had in mind?
The "Emperor bonus" is great, because flipping castles is possible anytime, and this bonus alone does not outbalance the game. On the other hand, the "Scrolls bonus" IMHO is bad, because flipping all scrolls is incredibly difficult during usual playing hours, and the bonusss are massively outbalancing the game if one faction capures all scrolls - usually done during hours where working people are sleeeping...
Well you are supposed to go and take the scrolls back instead of logging out because the going isn't easy.
That is what is wrong too many people only want to have it easy with no challenge and jump to the winning alliance or log off till their side is in a better position rather than fighting and helping their own alliance back into a better position.
Yeah, sure. Try to help your alliance out. Which in other words means "repeatedly get run over by a 20-man zerg once you try touching a keep or even a resource".
Get with a PvP guild and group up it is what it is all about.
Don't try to emulate those 1vX guys who cherry pick what they post on their videos.Edited by TequilaFire on September 15, 2018 2:33PM0 -
Royaji✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭TequilaFire wrote: »TequilaFire wrote: »BalticBlues wrote: »I also suggest removing scrolls entirely from Cyrodiil to make the game more attravtive.
Currently, scrolls are so outbalancing to the game that it is not even worth to start playing if one faction has all scrolls. I know many people coming home, taking a look at the scrolls - and then decide if it is worth to PvP or not. Is this really what devs had in mind?
The "Emperor bonus" is great, because flipping castles is possible anytime, and this bonus alone does not outbalance the game. On the other hand, the "Scrolls bonus" IMHO is bad, because flipping all scrolls is incredibly difficult during usual playing hours, and the bonusss are massively outbalancing the game if one faction capures all scrolls - usually done during hours where working people are sleeeping...
Well you are supposed to go and take the scrolls back instead of logging out because the going isn't easy.
That is what is wrong too many people only want to have it easy with no challenge and jump to the winning alliance or log off till their side is in a better position rather than fighting and helping their own alliance back into a better position.
Yeah, sure. Try to help your alliance out. Which in other words means "repeatedly get run over by a 20-man zerg once you try touching a keep or even a resource".
Get with a PvP guild and group up it is what it is all about.
Don't try to emulate those 1vX guys who cherry pick what they post on their videos.
Well that's exactly the point. You wait until the evening when some PvP guilds log on and the population balances out a bit. That's exactly what people do.0 -
TequilaFire✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Could that be because most people have to work or go to school?
Not everyone can play video games all day.
0 -
Royaji✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭TequilaFire wrote: »Could that be because most people have to work or go to school?
Not everyone can play video games all day.
Tell that to the red morning/day group in PC EU Sotha or the yellow morning zerg in Vivec.0 -
TequilaFire✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭TequilaFire wrote: »Could that be because most people have to work or go to school?
Not everyone can play video games all day.
Tell that to the red morning/day group in PC EU Sotha or the yellow morning zerg in Vivec.
That is caused by the fact that there is no Oceanic server and the servers are not region locked preventing night/day capping by players in different time zones. Has nothing to do with scrolls themselves.0 -
richo262✭✭✭✭✭
✭Given new characters don't even start in the alliance zone anymore, I really wouldn't care if the concept of alliance was scrapped when starting a new toon. Having the player choose their faction account wide every season is something only PVP'ers would use, PVE'ers wouldn't care.
I guess the only value a faction has on the PVE player is which faction campaign they start first on the main land. Which could be solved by the first boat master you speak to asking which faction you wish to be sent to.
Account wide factions that expire after each season would certainly prevent treason. The PVE player wouldn't even notice.0 -
LioraValkyrie✭✭✭✭- make leading faction weaker by adding fatigue mechanism while holding keeps and scrolls. Keeping scrolls and keeps and emperorsip already gives points to the alliance to win the campaign, why making players stronger when they already are over performing?
I really like this idea. It is similar to the way Chaosball works: you gain points by holding the ball, but take increasing damage over time, making it increasingly difficult to continue scoring. In open-world Pvp, the opposite applies: holding more keeps, scrolls and Emperor grants your team a bonus to individual power as well, contributing to clean sweeps of the map and the subsequent death of the campaign. Under the current system, logging on as a yellow to see a red map is demoralizing and said yellow is likely to quit Cyrodiil for the day or relog on his red. However, if you knew that being the campaign underdog would make you a stronger individual player, you might be more likely to fight it out, hence contributing to population balance as well.Mistress of Apocrypha - Master PetSorc
Founder of The Lollygaggers
Creator of the 1-bar vMA build
World first solo vFH
Unchained Altmer Sorc Tank
Visit me on YouTube! Mistress of Apocrypha ESO2 -
Hateanthem✭✭✭✭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
"failed experiment", "dark ages"
Who's the melodramatic one?
0 -
mb10✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Cyrodiil is a joke and has been for like 2 years now especially on console
People jumping between 3 alliances in the space of an hour, lagging out at any fight with over 20 people present, map WAY too big0 -
Hateanthem✭✭✭✭I'm all for faction locking a campaign, but other's seem to hate the idea.
If AP farming is the worry, why not just faction lock AP?
EP AP, DC AP, AD AP.
Boom! Now you can't just switch sides to farm AP most efficiently. Being able to bank AP has it's advantages and disadvantages.0