The problem with faction lock for the veteran PvP players

LarsS

As ZOS said this is a test, I think its fine that we will have both open and locked Campaigns. Speculations on the population on open and locked server is just that, we will have to wait and see.

Diundriel

VaranisArano wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

ManwithBeard9 wrote: »

Jules wrote: »

zyk wrote: »

ZOS is essentially letting the players decide which they prefer by offering locked and unlocked servers.

Yeah, except the campaigns everyone plays are locked and the ghost towns are unlocked. Super fair.

2 servers are locked, its your own damn fault if you wanna sit a 200 queue at peak times to get into the 30 day instead of just guesting into one of the 7 days.

The problem is numbers wise it’s not enough players in pvp these days to support this change. This isn’t 2015 where like 5 campaigns was regularly pop locked. It further divides an already small pvp community. They didn’t think this one through enough.

I actually think that's the point.

ZOS has stated that lots of players in the same campaign, in the same place, leads to a lot of lag. They've tried spreading players out by offering more objectives (which hasn't helped because certain objectives are just more important than others).

So now they are trying to spread players out between multiple campaigns, either between ones dominated by different factions or between the faction-loyal vs "I wanna play with my friends" crowd.

If its actually the case that ZOS is trying to spread players out, hoping to lessen the lag by lowering the number of players in the campaigns, I don't think the arguments for or against faction lock are going to do any good.

Personally, I think its a bad way to try to lessen the lag, since low-population brings its own host of issues to Cyrodiil.

but isnt the big cyrodil map with big battles and (a lot of) Players in it what makes cyrodil unique?



BUT I have another Suggestion to minimize Anger of a lot of Players if zos wants faction locking to apply to all Campaigns: make it a less strict Version and let People use 2 factions per Campaign (tho it would be questionable why you would introduce it if you can still choose between two, but e.g. my Guild Plays on 2 factions and that wouldnt R.I.P our choices :O

DisgracefulMind

VaranisArano wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

ManwithBeard9 wrote: »

Jules wrote: »

zyk wrote: »

ZOS is essentially letting the players decide which they prefer by offering locked and unlocked servers.

Yeah, except the campaigns everyone plays are locked and the ghost towns are unlocked. Super fair.

2 servers are locked, its your own damn fault if you wanna sit a 200 queue at peak times to get into the 30 day instead of just guesting into one of the 7 days.

The problem is numbers wise it’s not enough players in pvp these days to support this change. This isn’t 2015 where like 5 campaigns was regularly pop locked. It further divides an already small pvp community. They didn’t think this one through enough.

I actually think that's the point.

ZOS has stated that lots of players in the same campaign, in the same place, leads to a lot of lag. They've tried spreading players out by offering more objectives (which hasn't helped because certain objectives are just more important than others).

So now they are trying to spread players out between multiple campaigns, either between ones dominated by different factions or between the faction-loyal vs "I wanna play with my friends" crowd.

If its actually the case that ZOS is trying to spread players out, hoping to lessen the lag by lowering the number of players in the campaigns, I don't think the arguments for or against faction lock are going to do any good.

Personally, I think its a bad way to try to lessen the lag, since low-population brings its own host of issues to Cyrodiil.

There's not the population for it around the clock, that's the huge issue here. Why lock out players except for those who play in the few hours of prime time?

EDIT: I'm not asking you directly, I've seen your other posts, I'm just opening the question up to everyone. Why are we focusing on strictly primetime? Sure, there will possibly be spreading, but it doesn't even happen now. It certainly won't happen with a lock, people want to stay on the 30-days, they always have.

Now if ZoS made the 7-day a 14-day, maybe there would be some more people. The scoring people like the longer times for score, people want better rewards than 7-day, and, most importantly, we just want fights

ManwithBeard9

frostz417 wrote: »

ManwithBeard9 wrote: »

Jules wrote: »

zyk wrote: »

ZOS is essentially letting the players decide which they prefer by offering locked and unlocked servers.

Yeah, except the campaigns everyone plays are locked and the ghost towns are unlocked. Super fair.

2 servers are locked, its your own damn fault if you wanna sit a 200 queue at peak times to get into the 30 day instead of just guesting into one of the 7 days.

2 locked servers are the only active servers while the others are completely dead or just PvDoor land.

The point of locking the two 30 days it to move population into the 7 days.

zyk

DisgracefulMind wrote: »

EDIT: I'm not asking you directly, I've seen your other posts, I'm just opening the question up to everyone. Why are we focusing on strictly primetime? Sure, there will possibly be spreading, but it doesn't even happen now. It certainly won't happen with a lock, people want to stay on the 30-days, they always have.

There are pros and cons during all time intervals.

Over the past year, I've observed all three factions have varying degrees of success during the low population period of 1am-6am eastern.

From what I've observed, whichever faction has the most success pushing the map usually attracts the most players. When it was EP and DC dominating during those times, I saw a lot of players I recognized as AD playing for them. AD has been doing well recently, and I see players who play more seriously for EP and DC join the AD faction stacks.

It makes a meaningful difference is when players, especially guilds, make a long term move to help a weaker faction. That will still be possible and should still happen.

To me, it does not seem that the ability to play for multiple factions through the course of a campaign cycle has improved population and/or combat parity imbalances. I know some players do legitimately switch to the side that needs the most help, but I think they have been a minority and most act purely in self-interest.

Defilted

So I am on like my 4th faction lock thread. Based on what I have read there are huge differences between platforms when it comes to which campaign is full and which campaign is not as full or empty.

XBOX NA
Sotha - Dead
Kyne- Fluctuates greatly
Vivec - most of the time full
Shor - Almost full after 1700 EST everyday

Seems to me that ZOS should look at each platform and make a informed decision on which campaign to lock/not lock. I still think that locking Shor is the best decision becasue it is only 7 days.

There are huge differences between PC and console. More than people know. Sometimes listening to the PC/NA people discuss the game, I think to myself , what game are they even playing.

DisgracefulMind

zyk wrote: »

DisgracefulMind wrote: »

EDIT: I'm not asking you directly, I've seen your other posts, I'm just opening the question up to everyone. Why are we focusing on strictly primetime? Sure, there will possibly be spreading, but it doesn't even happen now. It certainly won't happen with a lock, people want to stay on the 30-days, they always have.

There are pros and cons during all time intervals.

Over the past year, I've observed all three factions have varying degrees of success during the low population period of 1am-6am eastern.

From what I've observed, whichever faction has the most success pushing the map usually attracts the most players. When it was EP and DC dominating during those times, I saw a lot of players I recognized as AD playing for them. AD has been doing well recently, and I see players who play more seriously for EP and DC join the AD faction stacks.

It makes a meaningful difference is when players, especially guilds, make a long term move to help a weaker faction. That will still be possible and should still happen.

To me, it does not seem that the ability to play for multiple factions through the course of a campaign cycle has improved population and/or combat parity imbalances. I know some players do legitimately switch to the side that needs the most help, but I think they have been a minority and most act purely in self-interest.

What I meant is that there isn't the population to spread out during that time frame to other campaigns, so people suggesting that's what we do are missing the point.

I do agree, there are people who swap to the winning side. And I do agree that those of us who swap to the outnumbered faction frequently are not in the majority. That being said, I used to see guilds like Wormhole (I haven't seen them in awhile now) swap to EP when DC was overpopulated in oceanic, and then back to DC when EP was overpopulated in oceanic. People and guilds who do that really help oceanic. We don't even have that anymore currently on Vivec because the population has died off so much. This is what I mean when I say we just don't have the PvP population to support faction locks, particularly on PC/NA. I know quite a few people who swap from DC to EP when AD is faction stacking their gates in oceanic right now, and vice versa over to DC. Now it'll be like...maybe 4 of us instead of the 10 or so at keeps trying to defend. It's a sad state, and anyone who denies it doesn't have a clue. I don't even care which faction is doing it, the faction swapsin oceanic are a big help.

I wouldn't be so abhorrently against it if it didn't 1. screw over the players who legitimately want to find decent fights (there's a lot of us too, there are multiple guilds full of these type of players) 2. it didn't take away from the ESO "motto" that was put out and has been followed for the most part, catering to even minorities in the population and, most importantly, 3. divide the PvP community that is already small and dwindled down.

Sandman929

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

I would rather they made a separate campaign as a tester so people could opt-in to this rule set to see how popular it actually is before forcing it on the active campaigns and saying "well play this dead campaign if you don't like it".

I'd definitely rather they went this way with a trial 30 day locked campaign. I play one faction only, and I'd certainly like to see some kind of incentive for doing so since the premise of the game is an alliance war. However, that premise has been undermined for a very long time, often by ZOS themselves.
I think that ZOS, moreso than the player base, considers every character faction loyal by default, because every character is a member of a specific faction and that character cannot join another faction in Cyrodiil.
Players, however, look at the person controlling the character as what's relevant and have created the concept of faction-hopping.

I'd rather just see which campaign get's more population.

Ranger209

Dreyloch wrote: »

Ranger209 wrote: »

If there are as many people into this faction swapping side of things as some say there are, then the new 7 day server should have plenty of people on it. Meanwhile, those that prefer the factions to be locked will now also have a place to play. They stated they are blowing up the current servers and starting with 4 fresh new ones so everyone will have to pick a new server to begin with. Now there will be a choice so that those that faction loyalty means something can play on a server where that is a thing, and those that don't care a thing for faction loyalty can play on a server where that is a thing. Sounds like win-win.

Whoa, wait, hang on. Where was it mentioned that they are starting 4 new servers? Like as in new hardware? Or just re-naming the current ones with these new added locks? Please don't get my hopes up on new hardware that could potentially reduce the laggy mess that Cryodiil (yes, im coining the phase now. CRYodiil) is currently. Please provide dev statements/pictures/video, or it didn't happen!

Not new hardware no, the current campaigns will be gone in name and 4 new ones will be added. Its from Wheeler in the day 2 clip from Saturday I beleive.

LuciusOctavio

Some good points either way. A few of my own.

Huge problem ZOS allowing faction change in the very first place, should never have happened. But like everything in the gaming world, testing needs to be done. You don't ever truly know how systems will play out until they run live and over time. 30 Day campaign is not that intense, but when you have a player wanting to change every other day so they can pick up the maximum rewards and not fight in an alliance due to Zerg's or PVDoor then that is a weak excuse.

Players will still have the ability to change in Shor, just a few campaigns will lock, Vivec which is supposedly the "creme de la creme" should be locked down to Alliance. There was a mention to no spying or sabotage, last month saw DC NA XBOX scrolls slaughterfished or dropped at enemy keeps on a regualr basis. Team Orange always working together. But its a apart of it, so players need to adapt and overcome.

The Alliance, what it was intended for was to build some "Esprit de Corp" - the feelings, such as being proud and loyal, shared by members of a group of people. Which has been lost a bit over time.

ZERG's, okay. So this is a big one, as many players complain on a daily basis about this, its a apart of Cyrodiil that will never change. Its a viable tactic, Cyro is not BG's or Duelling, there is no fair fight. Its a war simulation and Horde's/Zerg's been around and will continue to be around regardless because it works. Like AD always has Dawnbreakers, beacause it works. Literally Zerging is the most challenging aspect of ESO, no dungeon, no boss will ever hit like a Zerg. 30+ 810CP's maxed out, dropping Ult's and if you can sustain and hold your own even for a little its a tremendous feat.

If you don't have an ability to "ADAPT & OVERCOME" in Cyrodiil then there is plenty of other content in the game. Its not for everyone, so you can easily find another aspects of the game you enjoy.

CatchMeTrolling

VaranisArano wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

ManwithBeard9 wrote: »

Jules wrote: »

zyk wrote: »

ZOS is essentially letting the players decide which they prefer by offering locked and unlocked servers.

Yeah, except the campaigns everyone plays are locked and the ghost towns are unlocked. Super fair.

2 servers are locked, its your own damn fault if you wanna sit a 200 queue at peak times to get into the 30 day instead of just guesting into one of the 7 days.

The problem is numbers wise it’s not enough players in pvp these days to support this change. This isn’t 2015 where like 5 campaigns was regularly pop locked. It further divides an already small pvp community. They didn’t think this one through enough.

I actually think that's the point.

ZOS has stated that lots of players in the same campaign, in the same place, leads to a lot of lag. They've tried spreading players out by offering more objectives (which hasn't helped because certain objectives are just more important than others).

So now they are trying to spread players out between multiple campaigns, either between ones dominated by different factions or between the faction-loyal vs "I wanna play with my friends" crowd.

If its actually the case that ZOS is trying to spread players out, hoping to lessen the lag by lowering the number of players in the campaigns, I don't think the arguments for or against faction lock are going to do any good.

Personally, I think its a bad way to try to lessen the lag, since low-population brings its own host of issues to Cyrodiil.

That’s just another band aid fix , without addressing the issue. What’s going to come of this change is one faction dominating an entire campaign like before but this time you can’t switch to the underdog. It isn’t going to spread people out as much because pvp players go wherever the most players are , hence why there’s pretty much one campaign that’s regularly pop locked. People will sit through 300-500 man queues, zos has to know this.

CatchMeTrolling

ManwithBeard9 wrote: »

frostz417 wrote: »

ManwithBeard9 wrote: »

Jules wrote: »

zyk wrote: »

ZOS is essentially letting the players decide which they prefer by offering locked and unlocked servers.

Yeah, except the campaigns everyone plays are locked and the ghost towns are unlocked. Super fair.

2 servers are locked, its your own damn fault if you wanna sit a 200 queue at peak times to get into the 30 day instead of just guesting into one of the 7 days.

2 locked servers are the only active servers while the others are completely dead or just PvDoor land.

The point of locking the two 30 days it to move population into the 7 days.

Players always eventually move back to the 30 day campaign.

VaranisArano

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

ManwithBeard9 wrote: »

Jules wrote: »

zyk wrote: »

ZOS is essentially letting the players decide which they prefer by offering locked and unlocked servers.

Yeah, except the campaigns everyone plays are locked and the ghost towns are unlocked. Super fair.

2 servers are locked, its your own damn fault if you wanna sit a 200 queue at peak times to get into the 30 day instead of just guesting into one of the 7 days.

The problem is numbers wise it’s not enough players in pvp these days to support this change. This isn’t 2015 where like 5 campaigns was regularly pop locked. It further divides an already small pvp community. They didn’t think this one through enough.

I actually think that's the point.

ZOS has stated that lots of players in the same campaign, in the same place, leads to a lot of lag. They've tried spreading players out by offering more objectives (which hasn't helped because certain objectives are just more important than others).

So now they are trying to spread players out between multiple campaigns, either between ones dominated by different factions or between the faction-loyal vs "I wanna play with my friends" crowd.

If its actually the case that ZOS is trying to spread players out, hoping to lessen the lag by lowering the number of players in the campaigns, I don't think the arguments for or against faction lock are going to do any good.

Personally, I think its a bad way to try to lessen the lag, since low-population brings its own host of issues to Cyrodiil.

That’s just another band aid fix , without addressing the issue. What’s going to come of this change is one faction dominating an entire campaign like before but this time you can’t switch to the underdog. It isn’t going to spread people out as much because pvp players go wherever the most players are , hence why there’s pretty much one campaign that’s regularly pop locked. People will sit through 300-500 man queues, zos has to know this.

Yeah, I pretty much agree that its not likely to have the effect ZOS perhaps hopes it will.

I wish they would just fix the lag, but they seem incapable, so we wind up with work-arounds that don't really work.

Soul_Demon

Thank you ZOS for bringing the locks back to the game. Personally I expect we will see a lot less of the less desirable behaviors as there are consequences now. Great choice and look forward to seeing how this plays out with the cries of "I cant play with my friends" mantra being started already.

Dutchessx

Beardimus wrote: »

Enkil wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

NirnStorm wrote: »

I couldn't have worded it better myself.

Let's all take a moment to remember faction lock has existed in ESO before, and it was taken down after the playerbase protested. Must we really do that again?

My organized PvP guild consists of EP, DC and AD mains. If faction lock gets to live, this might be the end of the guild, or any fun playing with it, since we will have to play on dead campaigns.

Yes. The people who wanted locks were by far the most vocal and better at presenting their case. ZOS believes they will get more subs than they'll lose.

Also, the case for it is much more sound logically. Easy to present. We wanted to just lock one or some of them while many others, yourself included, wanted to maintain every single campaign as FFA, disrespecting and discarding the wishes of a large segment of the current and potential PvP population. There will still be some FFA campaigns and the devs said this is experimental, hence it’s open to being adjusted. Perhaps some of those that want FFA will stop being so dismissive and maybe reassess the desire to horde every single campaign to cater to rampant faction hopping.

The vast majority of players have friends in all factions and aside from a few PvP guilds, most guilds are tri-faction or it isn’t even considered. Every player is in that same boat so...

OP @ks888 mentions a tinfoil hat brigade implying that people wanting a locked campaign to call home are part of some such clueless group. At the same time, some people already quite hastily surmise that locking one or some campaigns, while leaving others FFA is gonna be some stake to the heart of all ESO PvP period, full stop. Who is really jumping to ridiculous and downright silly tin-foil type conclusions here? And claiming victimhood and ostracization...? Really?!?

Spot on. The debate needs balance, and options for both.

- Not all switchers are boosters, we get that
- Likewise some of us care about alliance loyalty and decent campaign play without cheating

Both are right.

And having options for both is a great step by ZOS. and clearly they are thinking more holostically too on how to reduce lag, by spreading players out.

BUT reading comments on here people seem reluctant to change and belligerently want to play Vivec just 'cos'.
Had the lock been Sotha,shor, kyne i think most would appear happy - but that clearly isn't ZOS direction looking at the bigger picture / issues in Vivec.

According to things that I have read my understanding is that it will be Sotha as well. So if Sotha is under represented on this tread by people NOT wanting the faction lock. I will gladly add my voice on its behalf. I am an EP main but the map is usually red and has nothing going on. I have been playing on my DC lately for that reason. I can choose to be part of the problem and keep people at their gates and be bored and NOT pvp. The other option is to choose to hop on my alt either AD or DC and get a little pvp in. I also enjoy playing with some of my former guild mates who are maining AD. If this faction lock for Sotha goes through I will not be able to play with friends or help balance out the map when it is red. It will force me to play 1 faction and then I will have to choose between having fun, doing nothing, and playing with the guild I have spent the better part of 5 years in. For the most part I don’t see how switching factions for those reasons hurts anyone. It just means that I will be forced to choose. There is very little left for me to do in this game anymore because I have played it for so long, my loyalty are to the people I spent most of the last 5 years playing with. The only challenge is fighting outnumbered and if this goes through I won’t be able to do that so what’s the point.

CatchMeTrolling

VaranisArano wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

ManwithBeard9 wrote: »

Jules wrote: »

zyk wrote: »

ZOS is essentially letting the players decide which they prefer by offering locked and unlocked servers.

Yeah, except the campaigns everyone plays are locked and the ghost towns are unlocked. Super fair.

2 servers are locked, its your own damn fault if you wanna sit a 200 queue at peak times to get into the 30 day instead of just guesting into one of the 7 days.

The problem is numbers wise it’s not enough players in pvp these days to support this change. This isn’t 2015 where like 5 campaigns was regularly pop locked. It further divides an already small pvp community. They didn’t think this one through enough.

I actually think that's the point.

ZOS has stated that lots of players in the same campaign, in the same place, leads to a lot of lag. They've tried spreading players out by offering more objectives (which hasn't helped because certain objectives are just more important than others).

So now they are trying to spread players out between multiple campaigns, either between ones dominated by different factions or between the faction-loyal vs "I wanna play with my friends" crowd.

If its actually the case that ZOS is trying to spread players out, hoping to lessen the lag by lowering the number of players in the campaigns, I don't think the arguments for or against faction lock are going to do any good.

Personally, I think its a bad way to try to lessen the lag, since low-population brings its own host of issues to Cyrodiil.

That’s just another band aid fix , without addressing the issue. What’s going to come of this change is one faction dominating an entire campaign like before but this time you can’t switch to the underdog. It isn’t going to spread people out as much because pvp players go wherever the most players are , hence why there’s pretty much one campaign that’s regularly pop locked. People will sit through 300-500 man queues, zos has to know this.

Yeah, I pretty much agree that its not likely to have the effect ZOS perhaps hopes it will.

I wish they would just fix the lag, but they seem incapable, so we wind up with work-arounds that don't really work.

Just think it’s going to make the state of cyrodiil worse in locked campaigns while the campaigns that’s not locked will be dead most of the day.

Honestly wouldn’t mind if they actually gave more incentive to get people in imp city, that would’ve been a much better way to spread players out. Introduce a new leaderboard and new rewards that ENCOURAGES PVP but also has longevity to it.

gepe87

Many vet pvp players only play in 1 alliance, so its a draw. No more leech.

Malamar1229

My toons are spread over all factions and now I'm screwed if I need to swap to the underdog just to find fights. Great.

To top it off, this was a primary means of farming transmute stones.

Bravo RP zerglings, you win again.

VaranisArano

Malamar1229 wrote: »

My toons are spread over all factions and now I'm screwed if I need to swap to the underdog just to find fights. Great.

To top it off, this was a primary means of farming transmute stones.

Bravo RP zerglings, you win again.

I would not be the least bit surprised to find out that transmute stone farming played a role in this. Transmute stones are supposed to be a last resort, not plentiful, so if lots of people were hopping on different factions just long enough to get end of campaign rewards, ZOS might want to curtail that.

Obviously, that's just a part of what they want to accomplish, but it's likely to have that effect.

VaranisArano

Malamar1229 wrote: »

My toons are spread over all factions and now I'm screwed if I need to swap to the underdog just to find fights. Great.

To top it off, this was a primary means of farming transmute stones.

Bravo RP zerglings, you win again.

I would not be the least bit surprised to find out that transmute stone farming played a role in this. Transmute stones are supposed to be a last resort, not plentiful, so if lots of people were hopping on different factions just long enough to get end of campaign rewards, ZOS might want to curtail that.

Obviously, that's just a part of what they want to accomplish, but it's likely to have that effect.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

VaranisArano wrote: »

Malamar1229 wrote: »

My toons are spread over all factions and now I'm screwed if I need to swap to the underdog just to find fights. Great.

To top it off, this was a primary means of farming transmute stones.

Bravo RP zerglings, you win again.

I would not be the least bit surprised to find out that transmute stone farming played a role in this. Transmute stones are supposed to be a last resort, not plentiful, so if lots of people were hopping on different factions just long enough to get end of campaign rewards, ZOS might want to curtail that.

Obviously, that's just a part of what they want to accomplish, but it's likely to have that effect.

Except that those with characters on just 2 factions not 3 aren't affected at all

VaranisArano

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Malamar1229 wrote: »

My toons are spread over all factions and now I'm screwed if I need to swap to the underdog just to find fights. Great.

To top it off, this was a primary means of farming transmute stones.

Bravo RP zerglings, you win again.

I would not be the least bit surprised to find out that transmute stone farming played a role in this. Transmute stones are supposed to be a last resort, not plentiful, so if lots of people were hopping on different factions just long enough to get end of campaign rewards, ZOS might want to curtail that.

Obviously, that's just a part of what they want to accomplish, but it's likely to have that effect.

Except that those with characters on just 2 factions not 3 aren't affected at all

Mmm, yes. It quite depends on how much ZOS wants to lower the amount of transmute stones and how much faction hopping to do that is an issue. As it is, those who are faction loyal and PVP for the faction can get more transmute stones.

It also encourages the transmute farmers to spread out to other campaigns, which is another goal for ZOS in doing this: spreading out players. So even with the transmute stone farmers who PVP for 2 Or even 3 factions, ZOS still accomplishes some of their goals.

Glory

People talking about spies and feeding need to realize that this type of decision will have no impact on whether this is possible or not.

If someone really cares enough about faction politics it's just as easy to buy another account (<$10) and do all those things.

Glory

Side note: this is a perfect time to introduce factionless/rogue groups.

Ruckly

Does anyone know the rationale for a 30 day faction lock over a 15 day faction lock or a 3 day faction lock? It looks like it(30 day) would empty the campaigns since it being more rigid(than a lesser period) there would be less human capital fluidity. Human capital over-valuation and a collapse of the system like the great depression might result where in the great depression the dollar was deflated this causing a rigidity in capital flows.

Dutchessx

Ruckly wrote: »

Does anyone know the rationale for a 30 day faction lock over a 15 day faction lock or a 3 day faction lock? It looks like it(30 day) would empty the campaigns since it being more rigid(than a lesser period) there would be less human capital fluidity. Human capital over-valuation and a collapse of the system like the great depression might result where in the great depression the dollar was deflated this causing a rigidity in capital flows.

To be honest I don’t know but if you look at the campaigns the most populated are Vivec and Sotha Sil at least on pc.

Dutchessx

Glory wrote: »

Side note: this is a perfect time to introduce factionless/rogue groups.

Yeah I would really like to see that.

Dutchessx

VaranisArano wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Malamar1229 wrote: »

My toons are spread over all factions and now I'm screwed if I need to swap to the underdog just to find fights. Great.

To top it off, this was a primary means of farming transmute stones.

Bravo RP zerglings, you win again.

I would not be the least bit surprised to find out that transmute stone farming played a role in this. Transmute stones are supposed to be a last resort, not plentiful, so if lots of people were hopping on different factions just long enough to get end of campaign rewards, ZOS might want to curtail that.

Obviously, that's just a part of what they want to accomplish, but it's likely to have that effect.

Except that those with characters on just 2 factions not 3 aren't affected at all

Mmm, yes. It quite depends on how much ZOS wants to lower the amount of transmute stones and how much faction hopping to do that is an issue. As it is, those who are faction loyal and PVP for the faction can get more transmute stones.

It also encourages the transmute farmers to spread out to other campaigns, which is another goal for ZOS in doing this: spreading out players. So even with the transmute stone farmers who PVP for 2 Or even 3 factions, ZOS still accomplishes some of their goals.

Granted I pretty much pvp everyday but I have no issues getting transmute stones, I just wish those things stacked or went into my crafting bag. Lol

Ormtunge

ks888 wrote: »

There has always been a tinfoil hat brigade that is under the assumption that griefing or spying is prevalent, when in fact, it hasn't been a problem in 4 years. The few that do, will find a way to be trolls regardless of the changes ZOS makes. Because the conspiracy theorists shout the loudest, those of us who have friends across all 3 sides, are now forced to choose to essentially retire multiple toons or go to dead campaigns.

Faction locking serves no purpose other than to ostracize a large portion of the veteran PvP community. I'm not alone in saying this will probably be the end of my subscription. I know many who have said the same. That's $180/year ZOS will no longer see from me and it will also influence my decision to purchase new content. With no resolution to performance issues in sight, and now this, why would I?

The proposed changes are further evidence that ZOS doesn't actually understand the actual problems with Cyrodiil and just wants to slap a bandaid on it, again, to appease some players, but give the rest of us another reason to jump ship the minute an even slightly better game comes along. Many of us inch closer to that ledge every day we log in.

Ai ai:) Where to begin? Maybe with all of the trolling/griefing/scrollstealing/fighting for another alliance/etc threads that has been prevailent for the last 4 years? Hundreds of players have been vocal, but I guess u read/hear what u like?

And also, u will have campaigns wich are not locked, so in my oppinion all will benefit, and if people really doesnt want faction locked ones, they should be far from dead:)

Most pvpers I speak to (and many like myself have been with the game since beta) really welcome this change. So I suppose we both can agree that we dont speak for all veteran pvpers? Personally I took a break from the game (and I know alot of other did too) because we could not play to win the campaign, but now we can, and we are coming back. How many who are going each way I do not know, so if ZOS will profit I do not know, but I pay what it cost to have real pvp (playing for the
campaign)

Ofcourse it wont fix all problems with the pvp, but I am coming back, and I am feeling positive for the first time in a long time:)

Joy_Division

I was at ZOS and heard from the devs why they are doing this.

It wasnt about transmute stones, it wasn;t about lag, it wasn;t about spreading population out, it wasn't about any of those ancillary reasons. It was about precisely what the people who have argued from locks form the past year have said: to stop people from abusing AP gains by switching factions.

Now, you may personally think the devs don't know what's going on, they are wrong, this is dumb, etc., but the reason they feel this way is because the overwhelming amount of feedback they have gotten has communicated that view. If they ignored these requests, they would be - correctly - accused of ignoring the community.

One thing I have become more cognizant of as a Rep is that ZOS does take a while to make changes. Part of it is because they debate with each other whether to do it. Part of it is because for each patch they have a theme they want to cater to. Part of it is because it takes a legit long time to make changes. but mostly because they are backlogged with so many things they want to do. It was probably a year a ago when Wheeler first intimated ZOS was thinking of doing something about faction locks. People who like this got all excited and then nothing. For months. Many thought they forgotten or ZOS put this on the backburner. Both those who wanted it never stopped making threads, never stopped arguing why it would be a good idea, which only fortified a decision ZOS was leaning a long time ago.