We need faction lock to happen

Jaimeh

For anyone saying we don't need faction locking for campaigns... look at this map for Vivec on PC/NA just now:





I'm so tired of seeing EP being pop-locked and the other two factions at 1/2 bars... This has been going on for months. It's not fun having a handful of people trying to defend keeps against 50+ groups, people are just logging off, or swapping too, à la 'if you can't beat them, join them', and it honestly needs to stop. ZOS please implement some sort of regulation for faction hopping during the campaign duration, it's ruining all the fun in Cyrodiil.

barshemm

I switched to DC so I would have something to do. I think when the map looks like that more of the losing faction go do other things rather than jump on a member of the dominant faction.

Plus the entire map is yellow most mornings.

Katahdin

What makes you think faction locking will do anything at all to solve that?

Everyone could just stay on their EP characters and it will still look like that.

There is only one way to prevent that but it's unpopular. Only dynamic population caps will do anything to solve one faction always having more population. No faction could have more than 10% above the lowest faction's population.

It is the only way to force equal populations.

Jaimeh

barshemm wrote: »

I switched to DC so I would have something to do. I think when the map looks like that more of the losing faction go do other things rather than jump on a member of the dominant faction.

Plus the entire map is yellow most mornings.

When maps look like that it's not fun for anyone--dominant alliance or otherwise. I logged off because I find it ridiculous to have to swap faction and play with another character just to have something to do on the map. The fact that it's yellow in the mornings is not much of a consolation either; this does not make for good PvP, campaign scores become meaningless, and people stop caring.

Katahdin wrote: »

What makes you think faction locking will do anything at all to solve that?

Everyone could just stay on their EP characters and it will still look like that.

There is only one way to prevent that but it's unpopular. Only dynamic population caps will do anything to solve one faction always having more population. No faction could have more than 10% above the lowest faction's population.

It is the only way to force equal populations.

Yes, any sort of regulation would be welcome, however, I still don't believe that if a lock happened, people would flock only to one alliance... for one thing, it would be boring because they wouldn't have anyone to play against. I know it's an easy thing to ask for campaign restrictions, and a whole different story for them to be implemented, but I really wish ZOS would seriously look into this, because as it is, overland Cyrodiil PvP, at least in Vivec, is becoming a joke.

JaZ2091

Jaimeh wrote: »

barshemm wrote: »

I switched to DC so I would have something to do. I think when the map looks like that more of the losing faction go do other things rather than jump on a member of the dominant faction.

Plus the entire map is yellow most mornings.

When maps look like that it's not fun for anyone--dominant alliance or otherwise. I logged off because I find it ridiculous to have to swap faction and play with another character just to have something to do on the map. The fact that it's yellow in the mornings is not much of a consolation either; this does not make for good PvP, campaign scores become meaningless, and people stop caring.

Katahdin wrote: »

What makes you think faction locking will do anything at all to solve that?

Everyone could just stay on their EP characters and it will still look like that.

There is only one way to prevent that but it's unpopular. Only dynamic population caps will do anything to solve one faction always having more population. No faction could have more than 10% above the lowest faction's population.

It is the only way to force equal populations.

Yes, any sort of regulation would be welcome, however, I still don't believe that if a lock happened, people would flock only to one alliance... for one thing, it would be boring because they wouldn't have anyone to play against. I know it's an easy thing to ask for campaign restrictions, and a whole different story for them to be implemented, but I really wish ZOS would seriously look into this, because as it is, overland Cyrodiil PvP, at least in Vivec, is becoming a joke.

Becoming? Been a joke for a long time.

Eirella

I'm not sure how faction locking would prevent this.
I mainly play EP, but last night me and a few guild-mates hopped on our DC characters to help them out because EP owned the entire map + emp and scrolls .
I don't know anyone that switches to the winning faction, that's just boring.

Nermy

Eirella wrote: »

I'm not sure how faction locking would prevent this.
I mainly play EP, but last night me and a few guild-mates hopped on our DC characters to help them out because EP owned the entire map + emp and scrolls .
I don't know anyone that switches to the winning faction, that's just boring.

Yes but you get the best rewards for being on the winning side.

Jimmy_The_Fixer

Nermy wrote: »

Eirella wrote: »

I'm not sure how faction locking would prevent this.
I mainly play EP, but last night me and a few guild-mates hopped on our DC characters to help them out because EP owned the entire map + emp and scrolls .
I don't know anyone that switches to the winning faction, that's just boring.

Yes but you get the best rewards for being on the winning side.

The rewards suck, nobody cares about them. People tend to swap around for gameplay reasons and not because they’re chasing a carrot.

karekiz

Eirella wrote: »

I'm not sure how faction locking would prevent this.
I mainly play EP, but last night me and a few guild-mates hopped on our DC characters to help them out because EP owned the entire map + emp and scrolls .
I don't know anyone that switches to the winning faction, that's just boring.

To be fair most players prolly jump ship to the winning side, especially non hardcore PvPers <AKA the mass majority>. If it wasn't that way pop locks would look VERY different.

Nutshotz

Actually your wrong on your statement. Well at least on PC na vivec that is. A lot of people I play with swap to another faction to prevent situations like this as best as they can.

When a certain faction is taking an entire map in the morning hours, you log on your main see that it's all DC,EP, or AD. Swap to another faction cuz you'll benefit More.

I have toons on all 3 factions mainly for this reason and for a certain other reason too.

idk

OMG,.no.

Absolutely nothing presented in the OP says a darn thing to support faction lock. I really cannot believe anyone would try to pass that off as evidence that has anything to do with campaigns not having faction lock.

I will keep this very simple. All those images demonstrate is at that given time there was a population imbalance which happens often in all the campaigns. Pretty much each and every day when it is not prime time or it is a lol population campaign.

In the end OP has not shown or demonstrated problems with not having faction locks. Not even close. It seems from the lack of interest in this thread (2 days old now) that few agree with OP since it is glaringly obvious this was during a slow time of the day which often has a pop imbalance.

Jaimeh

idk wrote: »

OMG,.no.

Absolutely nothing presented in the OP says a darn thing to support faction lock. I really cannot believe anyone would try to pass that off as evidence that has anything to do with campaigns not having faction lock.

I will keep this very simple. All those images demonstrate is at that given time there was a population imbalance which happens often in all the campaigns. Pretty much each and every day when it is not prime time or it is a lol population campaign.

In the end OP has not shown or demonstrated problems with not having faction locks. Not even close. It seems from the lack of interest in this thread (2 days old now) that few agree with OP since it is glaringly obvious this was during a slow time of the day which often has a pop imbalance.

It wasn't during a slow time of day, it was evening EST, and EP having more bars on average than the other factions has been happening for a long time. They keep winning the campaign over and over again for a reason. You don't have to take my word for it, just go to Vivec and try to play DC/AD, you'll have to contend with massive groups. This was never meant to be evidence, just a showcase of the grounds of my frustration, but a population regulation is very much needed, regardless if the colours on the picture were the other way around--having comparable numbers is healthier for PvP, it makes for more strategic and fun play, not this PvDooring we've been having.

idk

Jaimeh wrote: »

idk wrote: »

OMG,.no.

Absolutely nothing presented in the OP says a darn thing to support faction lock. I really cannot believe anyone would try to pass that off as evidence that has anything to do with campaigns not having faction lock.

I will keep this very simple. All those images demonstrate is at that given time there was a population imbalance which happens often in all the campaigns. Pretty much each and every day when it is not prime time or it is a lol population campaign.

In the end OP has not shown or demonstrated problems with not having faction locks. Not even close. It seems from the lack of interest in this thread (2 days old now) that few agree with OP since it is glaringly obvious this was during a slow time of the day which often has a pop imbalance.

It wasn't during a slow time of day, it was evening EST, and EP having more bars on average than the other factions has been happening for a long time. They keep winning the campaign over and over again for a reason. You don't have to take my word for it, just go to Vivec and try to play DC/AD, you'll have to contend with massive groups. This was never meant to be evidence, just a showcase of the grounds of my frustration, but a population regulation is very much needed, regardless if the colours on the picture were the other way around--having comparable numbers is healthier for PvP, it makes for more strategic and fun play, not this PvDooring we've been having.

You need to edit your OP if you are not longer falsely stating those SS are evidence of the need for fraction lock.

Also, population regulation is a bad idea because during off peak times it is not unusual to have a imbalance between the factions in any campaign. This was even the case when Cyrodiil attracted many times more players than it has been I recent years.

Essentially you would be saying that players really cannot play during off peak times unless they can get people from both of the other faction to join in. Essentially, if you cannot play during prime time do not bother. Something that has been rejected for almost 5 years running now because it would be back for Cyrodiil.

(BTW Population imbalanced occurred during off peak times back when we had faction lock.)

Jaimeh

This is not a court room, merely a platform to express opinions, and as I see it, a regulation would come into effect only on great numbers, so that one faction wouldn't grossly overpower the others, thus, it wouldn't affect numbers when populations are low, like during off-peak times.

idk

Jaimeh wrote: »

This is not a court room, merely a platform to express opinions, and as I see it, a regulation would come into effect only on great numbers, so that one faction wouldn't grossly overpower the others, thus, it wouldn't affect numbers when populations are low, like during off-peak times.

First, I am merely expressing my opinions as to why you are wrong. You asked for that when you created a thread.

Second, you hare already stated your comments in the OP (and really the title) are not correct. So asking you to edit it so it reflects what you are now saying you want, population regulation, makes sense.

Jaimeh

I will not argue semantics because that's a surefire way to derail a topic from an issue; I do want a faction lock--whether it's by regulating population numbers, or account locking for the campaign duration, it's up to ZOS on how to best go about it. I've been playing in Vivec daily, and I really think it would make overland Cyrodiil interesting and fun again, instead of the frustration it has been.

Sacredx

This is a regular topic in the pvp thread.

I have put forward a simple fix that people agree with:

The current low pop bonus needs rework. Change it so that lower pop is calculated more often and instead of awarding faction points the low pop faction is awarded bonus AP % to encourage natural balancing. The bigger the imbalance the more the %.

Problem solved. Balancing the natural way, not forced, easy to implement. No locks required.

Jaimeh

Sacredx wrote: »

This is a regular topic in the pvp thread.

I have put forward a simple fix that people agree with:

The current low pop bonus needs rework. Change it so that lower pop is calculated more often and instead of awarding faction points the low pop faction is awarded bonus AP % to encourage natural balancing. The bigger the imbalance the more the %.

Problem solved. Balancing the natural way, not forced, easy to implement. No locks required.

That would definitely entice people to play for the underdog, but then I wonder if it wouldn't help score, because people could just hop onto another faction when it has low pop, just do AP farming by camping somwehere to benefit from the increased AP gain, but not play for the map/actually help that faction.

ezio45

Katahdin wrote: »

What makes you think faction locking will do anything at all to solve that?

Everyone could just stay on their EP characters and it will still look like that.

There is only one way to prevent that but it's unpopular. Only dynamic population caps will do anything to solve one faction always having more population. No faction could have more than 10% above the lowest faction's population.

It is the only way to force equal populations.

At face value that seems like a correct assumption. At the start of the campaign tho the alliance pops are pretty even, the last campaign winner will have a bit more but but the other pops still have good numbers. What happens is about a week or so in one alliance gets a 1-2k point lead (not a lead that the other alliances couldnt comeback from) and everyone switches to that alliance to get the better end of campaign rewards. This creates a pop inbalance for the campaign and the other alliances cant come back from that.

it also disrupts the gameplay. rather than players both attacking and defending what you end up with is everyone on the alliance with the winning majority of the map. Players will enter in to whatever alliance is doing the best right then. Which in then hurts the other alliances putting them at a disadvantage. Everyone will stay on that alliance and zerg down the map until they have the majority of it. Then they all get bored from not getting ap because they have everything. then players log out or switch to another alliance start taking the map back on that alliance. One of the 2 alliances that everyone just switched to will do that faster and gain a majority of the map and the cycle repeats. This is basically the cause for pvdooring

Sacredx

Jaimeh wrote: »

Sacredx wrote: »

This is a regular topic in the pvp thread.

I have put forward a simple fix that people agree with:

The current low pop bonus needs rework. Change it so that lower pop is calculated more often and instead of awarding faction points the low pop faction is awarded bonus AP % to encourage natural balancing. The bigger the imbalance the more the %.

Problem solved. Balancing the natural way, not forced, easy to implement. No locks required.

That would definitely entice people to play for the underdog, but then I wonder if it wouldn't help score, because people could just hop onto another faction when it has low pop, just do AP farming by camping somwehere to benefit from the increased AP gain, but not play for the map/actually help that faction.

The balancing component would ensure that the factions balance out. Once they are balanced then there is no AP bonus and it reverts to normal gameplay. Faction scores would then be determined by the organisation and skill level of each faction (not by piling up on one faction and pveing to victory). This in effect creates balanced factions and map play, "two birds with one stone"!

Would you rather have my proposal or the one we have in the game right now?

NBrookus

Jaimeh wrote: »

Sacredx wrote: »

This is a regular topic in the pvp thread.

I have put forward a simple fix that people agree with:

The current low pop bonus needs rework. Change it so that lower pop is calculated more often and instead of awarding faction points the low pop faction is awarded bonus AP % to encourage natural balancing. The bigger the imbalance the more the %.

Problem solved. Balancing the natural way, not forced, easy to implement. No locks required.

That would definitely entice people to play for the underdog, but then I wonder if it wouldn't help score, because people could just hop onto another faction when it has low pop, just do AP farming by camping somwehere to benefit from the increased AP gain, but not play for the map/actually help that faction.

People who don't care about score don't play the map now and they won't play the map if there are scoring changes. No change.

Daedric_NB_187

So nobody is going to comment on how these pics are from console and not PC?

Jaimeh

Daedric_NB_187 wrote: »

So nobody is going to comment on how these pics are from console and not PC?

They are from PC/NA--I play the game with PS4 controller/DS4windows

Daedric_NB_187

Jaimeh wrote: »

Daedric_NB_187 wrote: »

So nobody is going to comment on how these pics are from console and not PC?

They are from PC/NA--I play the game with PS4 controller/DS4windows

I forget y'all got add ons to change the UI. My bad. Carry on.

Jaimeh

Sacredx wrote: »

Jaimeh wrote: »

Sacredx wrote: »

This is a regular topic in the pvp thread.

I have put forward a simple fix that people agree with:

The current low pop bonus needs rework. Change it so that lower pop is calculated more often and instead of awarding faction points the low pop faction is awarded bonus AP % to encourage natural balancing. The bigger the imbalance the more the %.

Problem solved. Balancing the natural way, not forced, easy to implement. No locks required.

That would definitely entice people to play for the underdog, but then I wonder if it wouldn't help score, because people could just hop onto another faction when it has low pop, just do AP farming by camping somwehere to benefit from the increased AP gain, but not play for the map/actually help that faction.

The balancing component would ensure that the factions balance out. Once they are balanced then there is no AP bonus and it reverts to normal gameplay. Faction scores would then be determined by the organisation and skill level of each faction (not by piling up on one faction and pveing to victory). This in effect creates balanced factions and map play, "two birds with one stone"!

Would you rather have my proposal or the one we have in the game right now?

It's a good proposal but it's largely contigent on player mentality (whether someones cares more for an added AP gain, than being on the winning alliance, for example). And I agree with what @ezio45 said above about how faction populations seem to change with the course of the campaign depending on scoring; when there's a small lead, we start seeing the bigger ball groups that eventually tip the campaign in favour of only one faction, with no hope of the others catching up.

Daedric_NB_187 wrote: »

Jaimeh wrote: »

Daedric_NB_187 wrote: »

So nobody is going to comment on how these pics are from console and not PC?

They are from PC/NA--I play the game with PS4 controller/DS4windows

I forget y'all got add ons to change the UI. My bad. Carry on.

No worries, it looks exactly like the console UI, so I get the confusion

idk

Sacredx wrote: »

This is a regular topic in the pvp thread.

I have put forward a simple fix that people agree with:

The current low pop bonus needs rework. Change it so that lower pop is calculated more often and instead of awarding faction points the low pop faction is awarded bonus AP % to encourage natural balancing. The bigger the imbalance the more the %.

Problem solved. Balancing the natural way, not forced, easy to implement. No locks required.

So you want to encourage players to faction hop to balance out a campaign?

Haashhtaag

Faction loyalty is more of an issue than faction hopping.

Sacredx

idk wrote: »

Sacredx wrote: »

This is a regular topic in the pvp thread.

I have put forward a simple fix that people agree with:

The current low pop bonus needs rework. Change it so that lower pop is calculated more often and instead of awarding faction points the low pop faction is awarded bonus AP % to encourage natural balancing. The bigger the imbalance the more the %.

Problem solved. Balancing the natural way, not forced, easy to implement. No locks required.

So you want to encourage players to faction hop to balance out a campaign?

I want what the OP wants, a balanced pvp system. The current system has nothing that provides this. Players can faction stack and win by numbers. The low pop system is a joke. My proposal delivers what players want with minimal effort. No map overhaul, no expensive changes, we all know zos can't afford it. So this is the easy fix with minimal impact to how the game works.

Nothing will ever be perfect, there is no magic fix that everyone will be happy with, but is a good compromise to get the pvp balance back to a reasonable state.

malchior

The real contributor is the lack of separation between Cyro and IC. These should have separate queues.

TheYKcid

Sacredx wrote: »

Change it so that ... the low pop faction is awarded bonus AP % to encourage natural balancing. The bigger the imbalance the more the %.

Problem solved. Balancing the natural way, not forced, easy to implement. No locks required.

I'm pretty sure the low pop bonus already doubles your AP gains, in addition to boosting faction score? Either way, I'd prefer any AP-scaling mechanism to reduce AP gains on the dominant faction instead. AP is already flooding the game economy and we don't need any more inflation on that front.

Also, people respond more strongly to disincentives than incentives when it comes to curtailing certain behaviours, even if it leaves a bitter taste. But what works, works.

Jaimeh

TheYKcid wrote: »

I'm pretty sure the low pop bonus already doubles your AP gains, in addition to boosting faction score? Either way, I'd prefer any AP-scaling mechanism to reduce AP gains on the dominant faction instead. AP is already flooding the game economy and we don't need any more inflation on that front.

Yep, there is a bonus, not sure if doubled, I think it's something like a 20% increase.