The problem with faction lock for the veteran PvP players

VaranisArano

Joy_Division wrote: »

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.

Good to know!

As a faction loyal player who's PVPed solely for EP on Haderus, Trueflame, Vivec, and Shor...

I've been in favor of letting other players play how they want to play. If that means they want to faction-hop, they can do that. Personally, I laugh at them when I see them show up next to me defend a keep when I know my raid killed them on their AD toon yesterday. I've always known that faction loyalty was right for me, but its not something I've felt the need to impose on others.

I do see the point of the players arguing about the abuses that happen when faction locks aren't in place. I don't expect faction locks to stop all those abuses, but it will make it harder for players to troll. Moreover, I expect faction locks to cause new problems, and it may well be that faction locks become the Cyrodiil equivalent to CP Battlegrounds: the experiment that proves why such is a bad idea.

Nevertheless, its good to be reminded that ZOS does listen, and that if we disagree with an idea its best to logically explain why even on threads that seem like dead horses.

Thank you!

Ruckly

Joy_Division wrote: »

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.

Do you know why they decided to make the lock on Vivec 30 days long and not a shorter interval for the reasons I above stated? And did you actually physically go to ZOS?

InvictusApollo

Faction lock is a very bad idea. ZOS should do something about lag and ballgroups instead.

ks888

@Dutchessx I play all 3 sides. All 3 sides are convinced there is green team or purple team or team orange. They have been saying this for 5 years lol. How is that NOT tinfoil hat-y? I never said that griefing and trolling doesn't exist, but it's NOT as prevalent as zone chat and the forums think it is. I can recall a list of roughly 10 names of known trolls, all of which ended up being banned at one point or another. Reporting exists in the game for a reason. If you see someone obviously abusing, Shadowplay it, report it and be done with it. They do it again? Rinse, repeat. Enough reports and people get banned.

I've seen the case for faction lock and it's often the same people saying there is "team X" in zone, when really it's just one side or the other taking advantage of an opportunity. Example: AD is sieging Arrius, so DC goes to KC to open a gate and try to get an EP scroll. Were the AD guilds and DC guilds coordinating in a Teamspeak somewhere? No. One saw a chance to get a scroll and took it, simple as that. THESE are the people calling for faction locks the loudest. Which means that one of the cases for faction locking is fundamentally flawed.

As far as farming goes and boosting - it's still going to happen. It happened during the last time we had faction locks. So we decided to implement something that has already proven to be a failed measure once before? Why not try something new?

Lastly, playing the map is ONE way to play in Cyrodiil, but not the ONLY way. Some people prefer to play solo or small scale. If there's no one to fight but either 1-2 dudes at a resource or an entire faction, which is often the case when the map is all one color, how is that fair and enjoyable to those players? ZOS has touted for a long time they want players to enjoy Tamriel their way. This would prevent myself and most others I associate with on a regular basis from enjoying it our way. SO instead of going back to an old system that already was reversed once before - why can't we have compromise and a new solution that can accommodate more styles of play? All I'm asking for is an evaluation that factors in MANY views instead of just one. Alas, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

DisgracefulMind

Joy_Division wrote: »

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.

So because we didn't have reasons to make threads as to why we want no locks this entire time, and while ZoS kept encouraging community across all factions, we're screwed?

Is that actually a thing? That's ridiculous.

Faction locks are going to hurt small scale and oceanic even more, and both of those groups are already dying off. I guess we really know how ZoS feels then.

Elong

Joy_Division wrote: »

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.

You understand the irony of you posting this when your playstyle involves getting on the biggest faction zerg, standing in the middle of it, and getting the easiest AP possible right?

DaveMoeDee

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.

The most vocal people after the change will be the one for the design that isn't implemented (no faction lock). That is how forums like this work. The unhappy people are the loudest.

josh.lackey_ESO

If they want to give faction loyalists a new campaign which has a per-account faction lock, that's fine. But they should leave Vivec the way it is. No reason to upset hardcore players when you can have it both ways. I don't want a faction lock. But if people do they can join the new locked camaign.

I honestly don't enjoy playing with extreme faction loyalists anyway, in my experience they are toxic and have bad sportsmanship. Better to have them go do their own campaign.

josh.lackey_ESO

Gretzel 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.

So pick an Alliance and stick with it. This should have stayed when it first came out. I hate dc and ad so this is perfect. You dont get to be on everyone's side at once anywhere.

A perfect example of the bad sportsmanship and toxicity of these faction loyalists.

We are all on the same "side" here, which is people trying to have fun with our friends in a video game. We might compete with each other sometimes, we might work together sometimes. I don't understand this "hating" other factions. There is no reason for "hate" and faction lock will make it exponentially worse.

If anything, this person should be forced to play on a different faction every campaign. So they will realize players on all sides are basically the same, just human beings trying to have fun. You might have fun fighting friends on opposting team, but you shouldn't hate them as some kind of "other". It's xenophobia but for an imaginary video game. Just why? It's not even roleplaying, a roleplayer would understand playing different charcters have different back stories. It's just bizarre tribalism. Unhealthy.

Tonnopesce

I like the removal to the home-guest campaign system and honestly if i want to faction hop i just randomly go into another campaign, no issue, i'm here for the pvp not the rewards.

Probably with this system more people will get the rewards without having hardcore players sitting at 5+ million ap in every faction, locking the leaderboard for everyone else.
This can be the reason why many ppl asked for a faction lock in some of the campaign i believe...

Ruckly

Joy_Division wrote: »

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.

Wouldn't a lesser duration faction lock accomplish the primary stated goal but at the same time offer flexibility to the player so they don't get stuck in a long line high disconnect campaign and have to choose between that or a wasteland campaign? I understand if you want AP you do BGs. Or you form a group and farm a gate keep irrespective of what goes on in the campaign. 30 days is long and harsh.

And besides this there are outside scenarios like me playing a low lvl EP toon in Vivec grinding Dolmens with my battle spirit buff far away from any possible disconnect and slowing down the line.

DisgracefulMind

Tonnopesce wrote: »

I like the removal to the home-guest campaign system and honestly if i want to faction hop i just randomly go into another campaign, no issue, i'm here for the pvp not the rewards.

Probably with this system more people will get the rewards without having hardcore players sitting at 5+ million ap in every faction, locking the leaderboard for everyone else.
This can be the reason why many ppl asked for a faction lock in some of the campaign i believe...

I have never seen this scenario on PC/NA. Like never.

Tonnopesce

DisgracefulMind wrote: »

Tonnopesce wrote: »

I like the removal to the home-guest campaign system and honestly if i want to faction hop i just randomly go into another campaign, no issue, i'm here for the pvp not the rewards.

Probably with this system more people will get the rewards without having hardcore players sitting at 5+ million ap in every faction, locking the leaderboard for everyone else.
This can be the reason why many ppl asked for a faction lock in some of the campaign i believe...

I have never seen this scenario on PC/NA. Like never.

Yeah same, i've maybe seen ten names who does this, i'm just assuming that a problem exist to have a reasonable response to faction locking.

To another extend i also swap faction mainly because i kinda hate the style my faction have (eu dc) no temwork at all.
But to be completly honest i also grind ap till the "tier 3" of other faction to get the transmute crystals, because if there is a thing that i hate more than zergs, trolls, *** builds and nightcap is to grind pve content in order to get the gear i want...
Maybe even this behaviuor hurts the population but, who knows

Gnozo

On PC EU the loudest fraction crying about this is AD actually. We as DC take Advantage of Something EP does to push out own goals and we are instantly the purple alliance.

Funny thing is, when DC owns everything on the map there is no Action for us anymore and AD and EP also dont have a good time getting farmed at their gates. We go EP to fight for the Underdog, we would even go AD if we find our will to grind another char....

So with fraction lock it is not possible anymore to fight for the Underdogs and gate farming will be even more active then it is now.

Also we cant play with our friends anymore when they have their main on another alliance. Switch to other campaigns? They are empty af in PC EU.

Beardimus

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.

Exactly and people seem to be missing this point totally.

Beardimus

Joy_Division wrote: »

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.

Fair enough @Joy_Division appreciate you sharing that, i know we've shared differing opinions on this topic in the past. Good to know the focus is on limiting AP abuse which was our main focus.

I also appreciate everyone has their own view, and both sides have pro's and cons depending where you are sat, thus I personally think that ZOS have done the right thing, locking some and not locking others to allow choice.

I think the only backlash is the lock of Vivec, which im surprised about. As it was Kyne, Shor, Sotha i saw the worst offences as lower pop, easier to manipulate etc. Being selfish id be happy with those three locked and vivic left to have at it, and reading the majority of the anti-lock opinions on the threads it appears the biggest concern is about Vivec

Thus i can see a world were vivec is flicked back if the change is as detrimental as people say.

Regardless I'm very happy steps have been taken to give both sides what they want, even if not everyone sees it like that, this is a middle ground.

Beardimus

josh.lackey_ESO wrote: »

Gretzel 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.

So pick an Alliance and stick with it. This should have stayed when it first came out. I hate dc and ad so this is perfect. You dont get to be on everyone's side at once anywhere.

A perfect example of the bad sportsmanship and toxicity of these faction loyalists.

We are all on the same "side" here, which is people trying to have fun with our friends in a video game. We might compete with each other sometimes, we might work together sometimes. I don't understand this "hating" other factions. There is no reason for "hate" and faction lock will make it exponentially worse.

If anything, this person should be forced to play on a different faction every campaign. So they will realize players on all sides are basically the same, just human beings trying to have fun. You might have fun fighting friends on opposting team, but you shouldn't hate them as some kind of "other". It's xenophobia but for an imaginary video game. Just why? It's not even roleplaying, a roleplayer would understand playing different charcters have different back stories. It's just bizarre tribalism. Unhealthy.

josh.lackey_ESO wrote: »

Gretzel 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.

So pick an Alliance and stick with it. This should have stayed when it first came out. I hate dc and ad so this is perfect. You dont get to be on everyone's side at once anywhere.

A perfect example of the bad sportsmanship and toxicity of these faction loyalists.

We are all on the same "side" here, which is people trying to have fun with our friends in a video game. We might compete with each other sometimes, we might work together sometimes. I don't understand this "hating" other factions. There is no reason for "hate" and faction lock will make it exponentially worse.

If anything, this person should be forced to play on a different faction every campaign. So they will realize players on all sides are basically the same, just human beings trying to have fun. You might have fun fighting friends on opposting team, but you shouldn't hate them as some kind of "other". It's xenophobia but for an imaginary video game. Just why? It's not even roleplaying, a roleplayer would understand playing different charcters have different back stories. It's just bizarre tribalism. Unhealthy.

players can have that in battlegrounds.... A fight for the moment. the point of the whole lore of the game is the alliance war, and Cyrodill is a place for that, there's no deep rooted psychology behind team loyalty, it's an MMORPG, expect some RP!!!! Like any team sport!

FOr me alliance loyalty gives more meaning to what I'm playing. It gives me a reason for my guild to try to help win a 7 day or all commit to a 30 day and turn the tide of war. It's fun, with friends, and i have 'friends' or nemesis who are faction loyal on other alliances fighting us. But loyalty and the campaign gives more meaning to the fight than instant gratification which i can get in BG - or via an FPS.

Race car drivers hate each other in the heat of the moment, but respect each other also. It's just competition talking.

Hope that explains, not unhealthy at all. For many Its part of the game and seen in the light its intended. Without alliances or that bigger reason, i might as well play PUBG etc

Qbiken

Beardimus wrote: »

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.

Exactly and people seem to be missing this point totally.

ZOS when revealing Elsweyr and it's chapter:

There are going to be noticeable improvements to performance in PvP with the next chapter.

My expectations: Nice, ZOS finally make some upgrades to servers, software or whatever you do these days to improve performance.

ZOS: We implement changes that forces people to spread out as much as possible because it might fix some issues with performance......

Elong

Beardimus wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

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.

Fair enough @Joy_Division appreciate you sharing that, i know we've shared differing opinions on this topic in the past. Good to know the focus is on limiting AP abuse which was our main focus.

I also appreciate everyone has their own view, and both sides have pro's and cons depending where you are sat, thus I personally think that ZOS have done the right thing, locking some and not locking others to allow choice.

I think the only backlash is the lock of Vivec, which im surprised about. As it was Kyne, Shor, Sotha i saw the worst offences as lower pop, easier to manipulate etc. Being selfish id be happy with those three locked and vivic left to have at it, and reading the majority of the anti-lock opinions on the threads it appears the biggest concern is about Vivec

Thus i can see a world were vivec is flicked back if the change is as detrimental as people say.

Regardless I'm very happy steps have been taken to give both sides what they want, even if not everyone sees it like that, this is a middle ground.

Honestly Beardimus, we've disagreed a lot on this topic, but if the faction lock was for Shor and not Vivec I could live with it.

I worry a lot for the population of my time of play (Oceanic).

Beardimus

Qbiken wrote: »

Beardimus wrote: »

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.

Exactly and people seem to be missing this point totally.

ZOS when revealing Elsweyr and it's chapter:

There are going to be noticeable improvements to performance in PvP with the next chapter.

My expectations: Nice, ZOS finally make some upgrades to servers, software or whatever you do these days to improve performance.

ZOS: We implement changes that forces people to spread out as much as possible because it might fix some issues with performance......

I understand where you are coming from, and from Joys update it appears ZOS only did this to stop the boosting. I can see spread as an ancillary benefit though. Really who enjoys the zergs? If there are reasons / incentives to spread out and we all have better PvP as a result is that a bad thing?

I'm not blindly defending ZOS but they have made small improvements each patch, and in Turelus update or another i saw from PAX Rich etc talk about lag, how its complex, they are doing what they can, it's all interconnected etc etc so in a way it is what it is, if they could fix it easily i think they would

Gnozo

Beardimus wrote: »

josh.lackey_ESO wrote: »

Gretzel 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.

So pick an Alliance and stick with it. This should have stayed when it first came out. I hate dc and ad so this is perfect. You dont get to be on everyone's side at once anywhere.

A perfect example of the bad sportsmanship and toxicity of these faction loyalists.

We are all on the same "side" here, which is people trying to have fun with our friends in a video game. We might compete with each other sometimes, we might work together sometimes. I don't understand this "hating" other factions. There is no reason for "hate" and faction lock will make it exponentially worse.

If anything, this person should be forced to play on a different faction every campaign. So they will realize players on all sides are basically the same, just human beings trying to have fun. You might have fun fighting friends on opposting team, but you shouldn't hate them as some kind of "other". It's xenophobia but for an imaginary video game. Just why? It's not even roleplaying, a roleplayer would understand playing different charcters have different back stories. It's just bizarre tribalism. Unhealthy.

josh.lackey_ESO wrote: »

Gretzel 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.

So pick an Alliance and stick with it. This should have stayed when it first came out. I hate dc and ad so this is perfect. You dont get to be on everyone's side at once anywhere.

A perfect example of the bad sportsmanship and toxicity of these faction loyalists.

We are all on the same "side" here, which is people trying to have fun with our friends in a video game. We might compete with each other sometimes, we might work together sometimes. I don't understand this "hating" other factions. There is no reason for "hate" and faction lock will make it exponentially worse.

If anything, this person should be forced to play on a different faction every campaign. So they will realize players on all sides are basically the same, just human beings trying to have fun. You might have fun fighting friends on opposting team, but you shouldn't hate them as some kind of "other". It's xenophobia but for an imaginary video game. Just why? It's not even roleplaying, a roleplayer would understand playing different charcters have different back stories. It's just bizarre tribalism. Unhealthy.

players can have that in battlegrounds.... A fight for the moment. the point of the whole lore of the game is the alliance war, and Cyrodill is a place for that, there's no deep rooted psychology behind team loyalty, it's an MMORPG, expect some RP!!!! Like any team sport!

FOr me alliance loyalty gives more meaning to what I'm playing. It gives me a reason for my guild to try to help win a 7 day or all commit to a 30 day and turn the tide of war. It's fun, with friends, and i have 'friends' or nemesis who are faction loyal on other alliances fighting us. But loyalty and the campaign gives more meaning to the fight than instant gratification which i can get in BG - or via an FPS.

Race car drivers hate each other in the heat of the moment, but respect each other also. It's just competition talking.

Hope that explains, not unhealthy at all. For many Its part of the game and seen in the light its intended. Without alliances or that bigger reason, i might as well play PUBG etc

Battlegrounds are the worst ever Seen. Solo is boring af and if you go in with friends you wait 30+ minutes for a Queue to pop Up. 30 minutes of waiting for 10 minutes of fighting. Really nice. And its also no cp, not everyone likes this.

The game forces the alliance on your char if you didnt purchased the all races all alliances dlc. PvE is free from this restriction, the friends you make there or in a mutli alliance Guild whatsoever cant play with you on your Main campaign. Even If they create a new character just to play with you. They are now forced to go to a 7 day campaign with way less Population to play with you. Do you know what happens if you dont find anyone to fight with for 30 minutes+? You get bored and logg off from the game.

"Play how you want" ye, Sure. Lies everywhere.

MajBludd

Does anyone really think that faction lock is the answer to bringing in more players or retaining them?

frozywozy

They could make you select which faction you want to main when you home a campaign, and then they could set the faction locks only at specific times. 8:00am to 1:00am EST or so. That would still let people play in Vivec for different factions during off hours when there isn't enough population to support a second one and when one faction is highly dominating the others.

This being said, sadly most people play the winning faction and don't want to do an effort to support the underdog so I honestly don't believe that having faction locks at specific time is going to benefit alot of people.

Mayrael

I'm a vet player. I like the lock cause I've seen enough sheit out there without it.

Ulfgarde

Joy_Division wrote: »

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.

So they're basically addressing a non-issue and do so after a long period of time. How is it relevant that ZOS is "ignoring" the community if they don't go through with this specific change? They've ignored so much over the years, and it's not excusable to say they "debate" or have a long time to fix things. They're a business first and foremost; it makes sense why they've ignored so many issues in the past for so long because, as PvPers, we are nothing but the minority, whereas I'm sure they make much more money off the other half of content.

Like you said yourself, they've come up with this arbitrary reason for this change and been ignorant of other auxiliary reasons, which will impact the health of this game. AP farming isn't an issue dependent on a faction lock. If it's merely, AP feeding, I'm 100% sure it will happen regardless. There is no faction lock on guilds nor communication lock between factions, so there will still be the exact same problems as before, only with a completely needless change.

The glory of Cyrodiil is not even getting AP most of the time, it's about having interesting and fulfilling fights. Anyone who has played PvP realised the futility of AP as a reward and isn't being rewarded monetarily at all for PvPing. You basically get no reward out of AP because there is no gear progression, special mounts or items to spend it on, so it's only relevant for emperorship, grinding ranks, etc. All you can truly enjoy is having some competitive fight where you kill 15 people alone open field or beat a team in 5v5 or so. That is what I'm sure most decent PvPers feel the need to even log into ESO.

What will a faction lock do? The second you pick a faction, you're stuck to it. You can't get good fights if your faction dominates the map. You can't have group fights if half your guild happens to be on another faction. You can't meet other players from other factions, who would have been someone you would play along with. It's like as if they reverted One Tamriel to the old system in PvE. There would be an insane amount of outrage on the forums if so. But that's where their priorities stand and how little thought they've actually put into the idea.

But you know what? At least at the month of a campaign you get 11k gold, some wall repairs and 50 transmutes for being a mindless zergling. What a pity this game will turn out to be, even though PvP as been at a low point for years.

Lucky28

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.

Not really. they removed faction lock because the player base died and they had to remove multiple campaigns, which is still the crux of the issue. However, when faction lock existed it wasn't bad because there where multiple active Campaigns.... but yeah, now that there are no longer multiple active campaigns i don't know that faction lock is gonna work, i don't think the playerbase is here anymore.

Katahdin

Joy_Division wrote: »

[Snip],
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.

[Snip]

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.

Yet in every single one of those threads, before and after Wheeler indicated they were looking into it, there were plenty of people against it that gave valid reasons why it would not accomplish what the faction role players were saying (hoping) it would.

They listened to what they wanted to listen to and ignored everything else...again

MipMip

Beardimus wrote: »

the point of the whole lore of the game is the alliance war

Concerning the alliance war and lore - in the logic of this world there can be very well be all of the following

a) soldiers loyal to their king / queen = players enjoying being loyal to a faction
b) adventurers looking for glory = players enjoying going wherever the best fights are
c) mercenaries looking for riches = players enjoying farming rewards (AP, transmutes...)

If players who prefer a) really want servers were they are among themselves (well, with some c) players as well, faction lock will not prevent AP farming) they should have such server(s) but equally players who prefer b) (and I haven't heard any b) players say that the presence of a) players disturbs us) should have server(s) where they can continue to enjoy their playstyle (instead of suddenly being robbed of it)

(and no, leaving Shor / Kyne / IC for b) is not a solution, for obvious reasons)

Neoauspex

I just hate when 2-3 level 10 characters start running around your keep turning siege around and just standing on it without firing in order to cripple the defense.

Delsskia

I just hate when 2-3 level 10 characters start running around your keep turning siege around and just standing on it without firing in order to cripple the defense.

You do realize that faction locks won't prevent this, right? For a couple bucks they can just create a new account. It would make a lot more sense for ZOS to just address the issue of griefers by banning them.

Very few of the major issues with PvP are due to the players. The issues are caused by and perpetuated by ZOS. The entire PvP community would be well served by holding ZOS accountable rather than pointing fingers at the players.