The problem with faction lock for the veteran PvP players

Neoauspex

Delsskia wrote: »

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.

I'm on console, so faction lock is a little more of a deterrent to this behavior than on PC. But either way, I kinda like things that encourage loyalty in this game. The commitment might make the environment less toxic. I made all my characters the same alliance though, so I do want to validate the other side of this debate.

Joy_Division

DisgracefulMind 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.

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.

@DisgracefulMind - Bee, I don't agree with the change, I'm trying to tell people the reasoning why ZOS made it from what I was told, which is consistent with what they have said on their streams.

They think Shor will be a viable alternative. I think you are correct in that it won't be because for 5 years of ESO PvP, we have seen there always be a default campaign that people would rather wait in a 100 que for, but ZOS isn't wrong yet. They want to experiment. If Shor does not become viable, I suggest the people who dislike this change be like the proverbial squeaky wheel.

Elong 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.

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?

As ironic as a DC reroll who stands in the middle of GoD, Iron Legion, and Shadowgrabber's faction stacks calling me out.

Ruckly wrote: »

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?

I did physically go to ZOS. Perhaps they wanted to preserve the integrity of the AvAvA theme for the campaign. Also, I do not think a short 3 day lock would make much of a difference. if my character is locked for three days, then unless I avoided playing on it in cyrodiil for 3 days, I'd be resetting the lock out clock.

@Ulfgarde
IF I had a say, I would have gone about things a lot differently here. I agree with a lot of what you say. This change was mentioned when I was at ZOS and I'm just acting as a messenger here.

No doubt ZOS has not done a lot of what the community has asked for. They can't because it asks for everything. But they do implement some changes that has been asked for and this is one.

Katahdin wrote: »

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

There were people (me being one so I know), but I would bet real money they were a noticeable minority. Also their biggest argument of "I want to play with my friends" ZOS thinks they are allowing because of Shor. If you're going to tell me that Shor will be dead for 20 hours a day, you're preaching to the choir. If and when this happens, I suggest people who dislike this change do as good of a job communicating their grievances and explaining why the lock is harmful to PvP as a whole.

*****

I think some people have the wrong impression that I'm somehow in favor of these changes. If you dislike these changes and you're arguing with me, then you are wasting your breath because I came on in everyone of those faction lock threads and argued against it.

I have been in numerous meetings with ZOS, talked to the devs, they explained why they are doing this while I was at Zenimax. All I'm trying to do here is to tell people why they made the change that they did. You might not like to hear it, would you rather me BS you? It's *a lot* easier for me (or any rep) to argue in favor of a change when there is a video, clearly presented evidence, or even a well articulate thread to refer to. You might not think the devs read the forums, they do: in our meetings and other communication they have specifically pointed to certain ones. At this point the change is in and it's not something that can be tested on the PTS. We're going to have to see what happens on Live. Some people are optimistic and some are pessimistic, how can you or ZOS know for certain?

If it doesn't work, then compile evidence and explain why. They have changed their mind before on this issue (I believe for One Tamriel update?) in removing restrictions to campaigns.

Irylia

If all the faction swapping guilds/groups go to shor we can enjoy good fights instead of siege battles and lag.
Have the die hard campaign scorers go to viv

LuciusOctavio

Neoauspex wrote: »

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.

Agree, had this happen last night. A level 810CP on my team (DC) grabbed my siege and turned it around so I couldn't drop meatbags on AD Zerg coming at us. Its happens far too often.

Beardimus

Elong wrote: »

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).

I think we're finally aligned on something then, as id be ok with that! Lol! Awesome!

I hear ya on Oceanic and seen that concern raised a few tines, i guess We just need to see the new landscape, it's a big change and players behavior may well spread, or who knows. The 'dead' campaigns for some regions / platforms may alter with this change. Perhaps a rename is worthwhile at the same time, as folks do seem stuck on Vivec even if it's no longer their best option.

Beardimus

Joy_Division wrote: »

DisgracefulMind 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.

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.

@DisgracefulMind - Bee, I don't agree with the change, I'm trying to tell people the reasoning why ZOS made it from what I was told, which is consistent with what they have said on their streams.

They think Shor will be a viable alternative. I think you are correct in that it won't be because for 5 years of ESO PvP, we have seen there always be a default campaign that people would rather wait in a 100 que for, but ZOS isn't wrong yet. They want to experiment. If Shor does not become viable, I suggest the people who dislike this change be like the proverbial squeaky wheel.

Elong 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.

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?

As ironic as a DC reroll who stands in the middle of GoD, Iron Legion, and Shadowgrabber's faction stacks calling me out.

Ruckly wrote: »

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?

I did physically go to ZOS. Perhaps they wanted to preserve the integrity of the AvAvA theme for the campaign. Also, I do not think a short 3 day lock would make much of a difference. if my character is locked for three days, then unless I avoided playing on it in cyrodiil for 3 days, I'd be resetting the lock out clock.

@Ulfgarde
IF I had a say, I would have gone about things a lot differently here. I agree with a lot of what you say. This change was mentioned when I was at ZOS and I'm just acting as a messenger here.

No doubt ZOS has not done a lot of what the community has asked for. They can't because it asks for everything. But they do implement some changes that has been asked for and this is one.

Katahdin wrote: »

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

There were people (me being one so I know), but I would bet real money they were a noticeable minority. Also their biggest argument of "I want to play with my friends" ZOS thinks they are allowing because of Shor. If you're going to tell me that Shor will be dead for 20 hours a day, you're preaching to the choir. If and when this happens, I suggest people who dislike this change do as good of a job communicating their grievances and explaining why the lock is harmful to PvP as a whole.

*****

I think some people have the wrong impression that I'm somehow in favor of these changes. If you dislike these changes and you're arguing with me, then you are wasting your breath because I came on in everyone of those faction lock threads and argued against it.

I have been in numerous meetings with ZOS, talked to the devs, they explained why they are doing this while I was at Zenimax. All I'm trying to do here is to tell people why they made the change that they did. You might not like to hear it, would you rather me BS you? It's *a lot* easier for me (or any rep) to argue in favor of a change when there is a video, clearly presented evidence, or even a well articulate thread to refer to. You might not think the devs read the forums, they do: in our meetings and other communication they have specifically pointed to certain ones. At this point the change is in and it's not something that can be tested on the PTS. We're going to have to see what happens on Live. Some people are optimistic and some are pessimistic, how can you or ZOS know for certain?

If it doesn't work, then compile evidence and explain why. They have changed their mind before on this issue (I believe for One Tamriel update?) in removing restrictions to campaigns.

I'll back up Joy in this, we sit on different sides of the fence on this debate but he's always made the most salient points about lock v no lock and always joined the debate whenever its come up. Hes simply giving the inside facts on the decision by ZOS and that i respect that.

DisgracefulMind

Joy_Division wrote: »

@DisgracefulMind - Bee, I don't agree with the change, I'm trying to tell people the reasoning why ZOS made it from what I was told, which is consistent with what they have said on their streams.

They think Shor will be a viable alternative. I think you are correct in that it won't be because for 5 years of ESO PvP, we have seen there always be a default campaign that people would rather wait in a 100 que for, but ZOS isn't wrong yet. They want to experiment. If Shor does not become viable, I suggest the people who dislike this change be like the proverbial squeaky wheel.

I'm not yelling at you, Des, I'm just really, really sad that they think this is a solution. Plus you know the people I play with, they're all faction swappers and have been since launch, basically; myself included as I used to go between EP and DC all the time depending on the map. Not to mention most people I play with are from New Zealand, and I play in that timezone with them, so it just sucks that we're getting cut off during oceanic without even a second thought.

DisgracefulMind

Ulfgarde 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.

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.

These are some of my biggest arguments against faction lock as well.

We've been encouraged since they removed the original locks, and with One Tamriel, to build communities across all factions: this includes PvP.

Also, the "ap abuse" is something I have barely seen, and the "boosting" that does sometimes happen for emps, etc. will....STILL HAPPEN. Are they specifically mad that people swap around during double ap for low score bonuses? What exactly is the scenario in which they're seeing people boost millions and millions of ap by faction swapping? Maybe because I'm on PC/NA I don't see this (our PvP population isn't really that big), but isn't it a good thing that if a faction has low pop or low score that people then go to that faction to play it and balance it? I thought that was apart of the incentive. Obviously people want ap during double ap, but often it creates some really decent fights.

I completely agree with you that PvP is about just that...PvPing. And there are many different ways to PvP that have always been encouraged by ZoS: large scale, medium scale, small scale, solo, map play, etc. I don't think ZoS is realizing that small scale PvPers really rely on faction swapping to find fights when they can't on their main faction. They're not thinking about any other timezones but primetimes. It's just not thought well through at all.

I feel like we've been given the okay to play how we want and seek fights for so long but now we're being slapped on the hand like we've done something wrong.

MajBludd

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

Ulfgarde

@Joy_Division Fair enough, my rant were channeled towards ZOS, and I can respect that you're here to tell us why ZOS implemented this change; that's why I even bothered to make my post. What I don't think is acceptable is to simply let ZOS take the reins and do this change simply because of AP farming. This is such a minor issue that it doesn't rationalize a sweeping change like a faction lock. The other issues that literally EVERYONE ELSE mentioned will have way more impact on the game, that it makes this sole reason make ZOS look stupidly draconian in their decision-making.

There is really no way this can go well for healthy PvP. Unless there is some actual ideas, like the idea that you don't get placed in leaderboards when you're not on your main faction, a faction lock will kill PvP for any non-zerging group. Unfortunately the PvP community doesn't care for outcry after numerous failures to reach ZOS's attention.

Shor is a meme on PC EU btw, with its long-dead PvP community. Most of the last few guilds, small or large, are playing Vivec because there's ZERO action on Shor.

usmcjdking

Whilst I think this idea actually stupid, it's not unacceptable.

What is unacceptable is that some of my toons whilst be straight up locked out of any 30 day campaign which limits my activities on the character.

I do not even have the choice to change an alts factions, meaning at any given point I have 3 characters that I cannot play on a 30 day campaign.

DisgracefulMind

Posting this here too to spread this to the people who think we can go to the 7-day campaign and "spread out" in oceanic.

This pop is all we have, and we need the faction hoppers to help when we're getting gated. Not to mention, the faction gating has players who don't want to gate lol, why are they not allowed to PvP?

Ranger209

This really only shows that swapping can not fix this situation which has been ongoing for as long as I have been paying attention to it. Those AD guilds could spread out on Vivec now but don't. They could represent multiple alliances now but don''t. This occurs with the ability to swap in place now. Daily. I don't foresee them spreading out among campaigns when faction locking goes live either. They will most likely all be on one campaign or the other. That behavior can be addressed in other ways after faction locking is in place. Faction locking is the first step in the right direction.

ks888

@Delsskia RIGHT?! lol I've had friends come up and turn my siege around. I've also gone and troll sieged keeps on my baby toons to help draw groups away from the thing my faction at the time is really trying to get. Baby toons are not always trolls. Heck I've even led pug groups on a lvl 30 in the CP campaigns, just for fun.

ks888

@DisgracefulMind You make a good point Bee - it's many of the faction hoppers who DON'T participate in things that will ruin PvP for a few hrs - perfect example - GATING. I only ever go to a gate if there's a scroll to get or I need the skyshard on an alt. There's 0 fun and 0 AP in it for me to push a faction to their gates. I want people to come out and fight and don't want to discourage them from doing so. When that happens, I usually log into another alliance or leave Cyro for a bit.

Rin_Senya

Ranger209 wrote: »

This really only shows that swapping can not fix this situation which has been ongoing for as long as I have been paying attention to it. Those AD guilds could spread out on Vivec now but don't. They could represent multiple alliances now but don''t.

^ This.
These AD guilds zerging Vivec map during Oceanic time for almost a year. They had many opportunities to swap to other faction for "better PVP" but the only thing they want to do is PVD surrounded by their own pugs I'm actually almost sure that these guilds legit think that they have good challenging fights and *** tons on enemies lol.

Alomar

I'm not of the ESO veteran mentality even though I've been here as long if not longer than most. I've played 49 mmo's and always prefer/gravitate towards one's with RvR or openworld faction based pvp. I have never and will never flip between factions/sides/teams like I'm flipping pancakes. It's just embedded in my DNA to care for the average lvl 10 next to me just as much as my friends who play both against me and with me. ESO did a great disservice to the faction system in this game with One Tamriel, I for one welcome this change. Yet, I understand the disagreements and reasoning wholeheartedly; many of them have merit. A line has been drawn in the sand, let's where everyone really stands.

Elong

Rin_Senya wrote: »

Ranger209 wrote: »

This really only shows that swapping can not fix this situation which has been ongoing for as long as I have been paying attention to it. Those AD guilds could spread out on Vivec now but don't. They could represent multiple alliances now but don''t.

^ This.
These AD guilds zerging Vivec map during Oceanic time for almost a year. They had many opportunities to swap to other faction for "better PVP" but the only thing they want to do is PVD surrounded by their own pugs I'm actually almost sure that these guilds legit think that they have good challenging fights and *** tons on enemies lol.

That's another issue altogether. Rin can you please play late night and sort these PVDoorers out?

DisgracefulMind

Rin_Senya wrote: »

Ranger209 wrote: »

This really only shows that swapping can not fix this situation which has been ongoing for as long as I have been paying attention to it. Those AD guilds could spread out on Vivec now but don't. They could represent multiple alliances now but don''t.

^ This.
These AD guilds zerging Vivec map during Oceanic time for almost a year. They had many opportunities to swap to other faction for "better PVP" but the only thing they want to do is PVD surrounded by their own pugs I'm actually almost sure that these guilds legit think that they have good challenging fights and *** tons on enemies lol.

The point I'm trying to make is that this is why there are faction hoppers. There are a lot of players in oceanic and off-hours who want to go and fight against the dominating faction. I'm not here to shame AD, every single faction has done what they do, the only difference is that they're been doing it for almost a year now.

That being said, there are consistent AD players who hop over during this and try to help defend the map. Sure, there might not be full success, but they do help hold off a bit longer. And they should be allowed to go to where the actual challenging fights are if they do so choose.

But the major point I want to hit is that the faction lock supporters are telling us to go to the 7-day non-locked campaigns during this time period if we want to "swap", but all of the population during this time is in that screenshot, and they all flock to the 30-day. I just do not see that changing. People want to PvP, and there's little people in that time. Faction hopping has been important during these hours for a long time.

CatchMeTrolling

Ranger209 wrote: »

This really only shows that swapping can not fix this situation which has been ongoing for as long as I have been paying attention to it. Those AD guilds could spread out on Vivec now but don't. They could represent multiple alliances now but don''t. This occurs with the ability to swap in place now. Daily. I don't foresee them spreading out among campaigns when faction locking goes live either. They will most likely all be on one campaign or the other. That behavior can be addressed in other ways after faction locking is in place. Faction locking is the first step in the right direction.

No, faction locking will only make one alliance dominating a campaign even worse, especially in a 30 day campaign. I’ve seen this one too many times in the game over the course of the years. People will not spread out , if anything more people will stop playing open world or even worse swap to the dominate faction before the update drops. I don’t know how long you’ve been playing but the majority of the people who play this game prefer to win.

Seen old Haderus get dominated by AD for months, I’m talking gated everyday and could only get as far as Arrius. While the 30 day campaign was getting dominated by EP and the other campaigns were dead. This isn’t a step in the right direction, it only shows that the devs have no idea how open world plays out and the fact we don’t have the numbers to support this change.

Faction hoppers are needed, they help the underdog alliance and bring balance to the map. Being a person who has faction hopped and changed the map, I can confidently say this is a ridiculous change.

Minno

Beardimus wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

DisgracefulMind 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.

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.

@DisgracefulMind - Bee, I don't agree with the change, I'm trying to tell people the reasoning why ZOS made it from what I was told, which is consistent with what they have said on their streams.

They think Shor will be a viable alternative. I think you are correct in that it won't be because for 5 years of ESO PvP, we have seen there always be a default campaign that people would rather wait in a 100 que for, but ZOS isn't wrong yet. They want to experiment. If Shor does not become viable, I suggest the people who dislike this change be like the proverbial squeaky wheel.

Elong 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.

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?

As ironic as a DC reroll who stands in the middle of GoD, Iron Legion, and Shadowgrabber's faction stacks calling me out.

Ruckly wrote: »

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?

I did physically go to ZOS. Perhaps they wanted to preserve the integrity of the AvAvA theme for the campaign. Also, I do not think a short 3 day lock would make much of a difference. if my character is locked for three days, then unless I avoided playing on it in cyrodiil for 3 days, I'd be resetting the lock out clock.

@Ulfgarde
IF I had a say, I would have gone about things a lot differently here. I agree with a lot of what you say. This change was mentioned when I was at ZOS and I'm just acting as a messenger here.

No doubt ZOS has not done a lot of what the community has asked for. They can't because it asks for everything. But they do implement some changes that has been asked for and this is one.

Katahdin wrote: »

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

There were people (me being one so I know), but I would bet real money they were a noticeable minority. Also their biggest argument of "I want to play with my friends" ZOS thinks they are allowing because of Shor. If you're going to tell me that Shor will be dead for 20 hours a day, you're preaching to the choir. If and when this happens, I suggest people who dislike this change do as good of a job communicating their grievances and explaining why the lock is harmful to PvP as a whole.

*****

I think some people have the wrong impression that I'm somehow in favor of these changes. If you dislike these changes and you're arguing with me, then you are wasting your breath because I came on in everyone of those faction lock threads and argued against it.

I have been in numerous meetings with ZOS, talked to the devs, they explained why they are doing this while I was at Zenimax. All I'm trying to do here is to tell people why they made the change that they did. You might not like to hear it, would you rather me BS you? It's *a lot* easier for me (or any rep) to argue in favor of a change when there is a video, clearly presented evidence, or even a well articulate thread to refer to. You might not think the devs read the forums, they do: in our meetings and other communication they have specifically pointed to certain ones. At this point the change is in and it's not something that can be tested on the PTS. We're going to have to see what happens on Live. Some people are optimistic and some are pessimistic, how can you or ZOS know for certain?

If it doesn't work, then compile evidence and explain why. They have changed their mind before on this issue (I believe for One Tamriel update?) in removing restrictions to campaigns.

I'll back up Joy in this, we sit on different sides of the fence on this debate but he's always made the most salient points about lock v no lock and always joined the debate whenever its come up. Hes simply giving the inside facts on the decision by ZOS and that i respect that.

One thing I want to point out from Joy's comment concerning shor being unused for 5 years basically. I think next patch IC will be a viable area to jump into which never really was viable the previous couple of years. If only it had it's own leaderboard/ranking with rewards and a general map shakeup/quick respawn system .

Rin_Senya

Elong wrote: »

Rin_Senya wrote: »

Ranger209 wrote: »

This really only shows that swapping can not fix this situation which has been ongoing for as long as I have been paying attention to it. Those AD guilds could spread out on Vivec now but don't. They could represent multiple alliances now but don''t.

^ This.
These AD guilds zerging Vivec map during Oceanic time for almost a year. They had many opportunities to swap to other faction for "better PVP" but the only thing they want to do is PVD surrounded by their own pugs I'm actually almost sure that these guilds legit think that they have good challenging fights and *** tons on enemies lol.

That's another issue altogether. Rin can you please play late night and sort these PVDoorers out?

Why would I play late at night to sort these things? I have prime time guild and we sort zerg and PVD issues during our time zone (including playing other factions). Oceanic guilds should be responsible for their time zone issues, it's not so hard to rerole in this game whatsoever.

Elong

Rin_Senya wrote: »

Elong wrote: »

Rin_Senya wrote: »

Ranger209 wrote: »

This really only shows that swapping can not fix this situation which has been ongoing for as long as I have been paying attention to it. Those AD guilds could spread out on Vivec now but don't. They could represent multiple alliances now but don''t.

^ This.
These AD guilds zerging Vivec map during Oceanic time for almost a year. They had many opportunities to swap to other faction for "better PVP" but the only thing they want to do is PVD surrounded by their own pugs I'm actually almost sure that these guilds legit think that they have good challenging fights and *** tons on enemies lol.

That's another issue altogether. Rin can you please play late night and sort these PVDoorers out?

Why would I play late at night to sort these things? I have prime time guild and we sort zerg and PVD issues during our time zone (including playing other factions). Oceanic guilds should be responsible for their time zone issues, it's not so hard to rerole in this game whatsoever.

Because the AD guilds think they're better than Dracarys. You need to show them.

DisgracefulMind

Rin_Senya wrote: »

Elong wrote: »

Rin_Senya wrote: »

Ranger209 wrote: »

This really only shows that swapping can not fix this situation which has been ongoing for as long as I have been paying attention to it. Those AD guilds could spread out on Vivec now but don't. They could represent multiple alliances now but don''t.

^ This.
These AD guilds zerging Vivec map during Oceanic time for almost a year. They had many opportunities to swap to other faction for "better PVP" but the only thing they want to do is PVD surrounded by their own pugs I'm actually almost sure that these guilds legit think that they have good challenging fights and *** tons on enemies lol.

That's another issue altogether. Rin can you please play late night and sort these PVDoorers out?

Why would I play late at night to sort these things? I have prime time guild and we sort zerg and PVD issues during our time zone (including playing other factions). Oceanic guilds should be responsible for their time zone issues, it's not so hard to rerole in this game whatsoever.

I actually really like that Drac does what they can to balance map play, I hear it's great in primetime hours (I don't play that time period anymore, so I can't speak for myself.)

There's not many guilds in oceanic though, and the ones we do have are all on AD xD

DC does have a little pug guild now that gets on about 3-4am EST, and they've been able to stop some of the PvDooring. It's been nice to see them. Hopefully EP can get something too; we'll see.

ShenaniganSquad

I dont want to post the same post in every thread so putting the link here...

Possible Solution:
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/466683/free-for-all-pvp-area-without-objectives#latest

Mr_Walker

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.

The dead ones?

Mr_Walker

Beardimus wrote: »

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!

RP applies to your toon, not to your whole account.....

linoge63

That 75% of casual players probably arrive to obtain the transmutes.

Rethink that aspect and open up far greater access to be able to change traits (lol) of a bloody item for gods sakes in PVE rather than pressing players to play in a purest type of gameplay who could care less about whos emp and whos not.

People will swap factions for the capacity to earn those APs as you earn them with successes not losses as you eso, have micromanipulated pve players to kind of infect the atmosphere of the cryodiil chess board.

1 transmute per pledge? -talk to the hand

kpittsniperb14_ESO

Defilted wrote: »

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.

I'm with this guy, if you have to implement faction lock shouldn't it be on a 7 day campaign?

Beardimus

Minno wrote: »

Beardimus wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

DisgracefulMind 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.

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.

@DisgracefulMind - Bee, I don't agree with the change, I'm trying to tell people the reasoning why ZOS made it from what I was told, which is consistent with what they have said on their streams.

They think Shor will be a viable alternative. I think you are correct in that it won't be because for 5 years of ESO PvP, we have seen there always be a default campaign that people would rather wait in a 100 que for, but ZOS isn't wrong yet. They want to experiment. If Shor does not become viable, I suggest the people who dislike this change be like the proverbial squeaky wheel.

Elong 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.

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?

As ironic as a DC reroll who stands in the middle of GoD, Iron Legion, and Shadowgrabber's faction stacks calling me out.

Ruckly wrote: »

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?

I did physically go to ZOS. Perhaps they wanted to preserve the integrity of the AvAvA theme for the campaign. Also, I do not think a short 3 day lock would make much of a difference. if my character is locked for three days, then unless I avoided playing on it in cyrodiil for 3 days, I'd be resetting the lock out clock.

@Ulfgarde
IF I had a say, I would have gone about things a lot differently here. I agree with a lot of what you say. This change was mentioned when I was at ZOS and I'm just acting as a messenger here.

No doubt ZOS has not done a lot of what the community has asked for. They can't because it asks for everything. But they do implement some changes that has been asked for and this is one.

Katahdin wrote: »

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

There were people (me being one so I know), but I would bet real money they were a noticeable minority. Also their biggest argument of "I want to play with my friends" ZOS thinks they are allowing because of Shor. If you're going to tell me that Shor will be dead for 20 hours a day, you're preaching to the choir. If and when this happens, I suggest people who dislike this change do as good of a job communicating their grievances and explaining why the lock is harmful to PvP as a whole.

*****

I think some people have the wrong impression that I'm somehow in favor of these changes. If you dislike these changes and you're arguing with me, then you are wasting your breath because I came on in everyone of those faction lock threads and argued against it.

I have been in numerous meetings with ZOS, talked to the devs, they explained why they are doing this while I was at Zenimax. All I'm trying to do here is to tell people why they made the change that they did. You might not like to hear it, would you rather me BS you? It's *a lot* easier for me (or any rep) to argue in favor of a change when there is a video, clearly presented evidence, or even a well articulate thread to refer to. You might not think the devs read the forums, they do: in our meetings and other communication they have specifically pointed to certain ones. At this point the change is in and it's not something that can be tested on the PTS. We're going to have to see what happens on Live. Some people are optimistic and some are pessimistic, how can you or ZOS know for certain?

If it doesn't work, then compile evidence and explain why. They have changed their mind before on this issue (I believe for One Tamriel update?) in removing restrictions to campaigns.

I'll back up Joy in this, we sit on different sides of the fence on this debate but he's always made the most salient points about lock v no lock and always joined the debate whenever its come up. Hes simply giving the inside facts on the decision by ZOS and that i respect that.

One thing I want to point out from Joy's comment concerning shor being unused for 5 years basically. I think next patch IC will be a viable area to jump into which never really was viable the previous couple of years. If only it had it's own leaderboard/ranking with rewards and a general map shakeup/quick respawn system .

That's a great point, IC will be a more viable place now also just for action seekers who care little for bigger alliance picture etc. Having some form of ranking would help.

The challenge is with many of the posts that they are referring to using non-Vivec as it is now. Once this settles in pop landscape may change as you say scraps in IC, action drifts to shor etc. We need to see.

I hear the oceanic complaints but again that's a different issue with pop in general, and whilst it might not seem great, neither is faction hopping for boosting / cheating for other time zones hence the demand for this change. It's never going to be perfect for everyone, but having options as they have done is about as middle ground as it gets.

We need to let the dust settle