The problem with faction lock for the veteran PvP players

Beardimus

Mr_Walker wrote: »

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.....

In your opinion....

Regardless it doesn't alter the reasoning for the change. And that's people boosting / switching and doing stuff that ruins the game for many who do care - on that toon or that account.

It's awesome there are some white knight faction hoppers of Cyrodiil in all these threads. Really is. I wish when my alliance was the underdog I actually saw some in game. Sadly what I've seen was the opposite.

DisgracefulMind

Beardimus wrote: »

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

"It doesn't affect me so it doesn't matter."

You're an EU player? That's why you don't care about oceanic ):

Beardimus

DisgracefulMind wrote: »

Beardimus wrote: »

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

"It doesn't affect me so it doesn't matter."

You're an EU player? That's why you don't care about oceanic ):

And vice versa. "It doesn't affect me so it doesn't matter." Is the whole anti lock argument no?

You night not see the benefit of faction lock but i / we do. We have had no choice to get one tho, you will have as there are unlocked campaigns.

Sure you are relying on player behavior, and sadly so were we - and that didn't work.

There are two sides to every story my friend, ZOS is at least giving options for both.

As ive said before I'm happy if they leave Vivec if that ticks your boxes as long as Sotha / Shor & Kyne are locked.

Middle ground
Compromise

Tekillya

Dose anyone know what this Fraction lock is at the moment?

TerraDewBerry

Tekillya wrote: »

Dose anyone know what this Fraction lock is at the moment?

Both Vivec & Sotha Sil will be the only faction locked home campaigns and you can't be a guest on either campaign. The first home campaign and faction that you enter with during a campaign's cycle will be considered your account's faction on that campaign for that campaign's current cycle. For example, if you entered Vivec the first day of a new campaign cycle on an AD character, that will lock Vivec as an AD campaign for you. You can play any AD character you wish in Vivec, but you can't enter Vivec on a DC or EP character for the duration of that campaign's cycle (30 days or less depending on when you first entered).

You could also play on Sotha Sil as a home campaign on a different faction other than AD. Again, whatever faction DC or EP you enter Sotha Sil on first during that campaign's cycle will be locked for that campaign until a new cycle begins. Actually, thinking about this further, the Devs have not said anything about if you might also be able to have Sotha Sil as a locked campaign for AD as long as that was the first faction you entered with for that campaign's current cycle. If that might be a possibility (Devs would need to clarify if that would be possible), that would simply mean that you could not play on Vivec or Sotha Sil with your DC and EP characters, but you would still be able to play any faction and all factions on Shor & Kyne and you can just enter those campaigns freely without making them a guest campaign. Based on the video, it sounds like they are doing away with the need to designate a specific guest campaign.

Here is where ZOS announced the new faction lock at Bethesda Days for Elsweyr; fast forward all the way to about 05:43:21

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfyViQ9Uo_M

OtarTheMad

I really don't know how to feel about this because both sides have pretty valid arguments. I remember when we had sort-of locked campaigns and they could be a pure nightmare, especially if you didn't realize you could switch via grouping. If one side was dominant and over powering then most players just PvE'd and never entered PvP again. Some pressed through the nightmare. It was not fun getting gate camped by a dominant faction.

But I see the other side too, if you don't want to fight with a zerg and can't help out the underdog then maybe people will flock to the other non-locked campaigns and play in them and in doing so that will lessen the pressure on servers and maybe help with lag. Also some BS that happens with some shady players won't happen. This change could fix that.

The big ques can't be helping either really. But those que counts should tell ZOS something even right now. If players are willing to just sit in a que for Vivec or even maybe Sotha instead of playing in Shor... will they do that with this change? Will they jump to the 7 Day since they hate zergs and can't help the others sides? I can't say but maybe those que numbers kind of speak for themselves huh? So far in ESO history it says players will wait and won't flock to the other campaigns.

This is just a question, not saying I want it/believe in it. Would this change work better without a que system? Like if an alliance is at population cap then that's it... pick another campaign to play in.

Mr_Walker

Beardimus wrote: »

Mr_Walker wrote: »

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.....

In your opinion....

Unless you've created an actual family unit which you RP, how are you RPing an entire account? Especialluy when your account can cover multiple races from multiple factions?

Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.

DisgracefulMind

Beardimus wrote: »

DisgracefulMind wrote: »

Beardimus wrote: »

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

"It doesn't affect me so it doesn't matter."

You're an EU player? That's why you don't care about oceanic ):

And vice versa. "It doesn't affect me so it doesn't matter." Is the whole anti lock argument no?

You night not see the benefit of faction lock but i / we do. We have had no choice to get one tho, you will have as there are unlocked campaigns.

Sure you are relying on player behavior, and sadly so were we - and that didn't work.

There are two sides to every story my friend, ZOS is at least giving options for both.

As ive said before I'm happy if they leave Vivec if that ticks your boxes as long as Sotha / Shor & Kyne are locked.

Middle ground
Compromise

We have no choice but to play the locked camp in oceanic though. Because that's where everyone is going to be

I've already said I'd be okay with locks if there was a compromise, telling oceanic players to suck it up and that we don't matter isn't a compromise.

InvictusApollo

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.

It's the same mechanism as on this comic:


Makes me question cognitive capabilities of people who manifest this kind of behavior.

Ranger209

https://youtu.be/CBL1dcIXEik

Or is it the same mechanism that makes this game fair?
BTW is that @JackDaniell doing the commentary for this play???

Dutchessx

Mr_Walker wrote: »

Beardimus wrote: »

Mr_Walker wrote: »

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.....

In your opinion....

Unless you've created an actual family unit which you RP, how are you RPing an entire account? Especialluy when your account can cover multiple races from multiple factions?

Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.

Actually, I write stories based on my adventures in the game, most people never see them. I lost some when my last 2 computers crashed. I’ve since gone to using google docs. I name all my alts by the names I have in my stories. I know other people who do the same thing. I have a whole bunch of stories that explain who she is, how she came to get her name Dutchess, and why she fights as an EP instead of DC. So what is wrong with this guy doing just that? I know a lot of RPers at least for someone who primarily only pvp’s. So if the guy says he does it with his account, why worry about how he does it? After all it is his account... just throwing my 2 cents in, as someone who does something similar.
Be blessed
Dutchess Out.

Dutchessx

Beardimus wrote: »

DisgracefulMind wrote: »

Beardimus wrote: »

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

"It doesn't affect me so it doesn't matter."

You're an EU player? That's why you don't care about oceanic ):

And vice versa. "It doesn't affect me so it doesn't matter." Is the whole anti lock argument no?

You night not see the benefit of faction lock but i / we do. We have had no choice to get one tho, you will have as there are unlocked campaigns.

Sure you are relying on player behavior, and sadly so were we - and that didn't work.

There are two sides to every story my friend, ZOS is at least giving options for both.

As ive said before I'm happy if they leave Vivec if that ticks your boxes as long as Sotha / Shor & Kyne are locked.

Middle ground
Compromise

Leave Vivec as it is and sorry you like no cp so you are out of luck? The thing about a compromise is that each side gets something it is either we both win or we both get some of what we want or one side gets what they want and the other side gets nothing, the last is not a compromise just FYI. I honestly care very little about leader boards the AP I make playing daily makes up for it. I care more about not having options when my home faction leaves me with nothing to do when I want to play.

Here is a true compromise - let me only home it as 1 faction. I still get AP from the fights I get to participate in on other factions but like guesting I don’t get the leader boards rewards etc. just make it to where we can get on to any server no matter the faction but we only get rewards once and that is the “homed” faction on that server. It falls into the category of I get some of what I want and you get some of what you want. It isn’t ideal but if people are worried about faction swapping for the purpose of rewards it will cut that out but still give players options to play with friends, play the game when their main faction is overwhelming the map, and help out other factions if that is what they want to do. Like I said it isn’t win-win but at all but we all get something we want. Have you all considered this @ZOS_GinaBruno and @ZOS_JessicaFolsom

Ollowaiin2

There is no faction lock in eso pc/eu. Did I miss Something? Is elsweyr pts online

Dutchessx

Ollowaiin2 wrote: »

There is no faction lock in eso pc/eu. Did I miss Something? Is elsweyr pts online

It isn’t in place yet it is suppose to be coming with Elsweyr.

Ollowaiin2

That means there are no pts/patch notes, just the announcement? Can we all chill a Second and see how they implement it in the fest server? I've heart about a emperor lock for only 1 alliance at a time in the live Streams, not more. You guys have to chill.

Dutchessx

Ollowaiin2 wrote: »

That means there are no pts/patch notes, just the announcement? Can we all chill a Second and see how they implement it in the fest server? I've heart about a emperor lock for only 1 alliance at a time in the live Streams, not more. You guys have to chill.

To be honest I held my opinion when I saw all the threads about faction locking because I thought “surely ZoS wouldn’t do that again, since it goes against everything that One Tamerial was about.” However, if they continue down this path I want to make sure that at least my voice is heard, even if it means I loose the ability to play with my friends

Quote didn’t work here for some reason...
Fixed it

Beardimus wrote: »

In your opinion....

Regardless it doesn't alter the reasoning for the change. And that's people boosting / switching and doing stuff that ruins the game for many who do care - on that toon or that account.

It's awesome there are some white knight faction hoppers of Cyrodiil in all these threads. Really is. I wish when my alliance was the underdog I actually saw some in game. Sadly what I've seen was the opposite.

If that is what you want to call it I am okay with that at least I got my own sense of fair play.

I don’t undervalue your feelings on this, I use to be red or dead myself, but I learned that it is just a color I decided to play with friends when I first came to the game. It is lore rich just as the other factions are. It is completely cool with me for you to be concerned about the welfare of the faction as a whole, I get that. I think it is important.

However, is it fair for a whole group of people to not be able to play the game, when your faction has supreme control of the map?

On Sotha, I have LOVED being EP, the people are great! And we work well together. I’ve also enjoyed fighting the guilds that are there especially the DC guilds they are always a challenge to me. AD it has always been a lot of fun especially bridge wars.

But, for the most part when I get on during the weekend the map is red. The only way to get a fight is to join another faction one with honored enemies or rivals however you wish to word it.

If you want people not to “White Knight” something don’t give them a reason to do so. Don’t gate camp and let people out of their tri-keeps. Back several years ago it was not uncommon for guilds to agree with each other not to do this stuff. We would police our own as much as possible. Yeah we would farm tri-keeps everyone does but what is going on at least in Sotha is more than that. Now it is dog eat dog and with it faction loyalty has gone out the window due to the actions of a few. This probably wouldn’t be an issue unless people felt “forced” to play other factions in order to play the game. By all means take the Scrolls but is there any reason to push a faction to their gates and to camp them when there are no Scrolls? I am not just talking to EP because all factions have been guilty of it at one time or another. This sort of thing goes in cycles, someone does it & then someone else does it in return because it was done to them. The problem is breaking the cycle because the people you are doing it to may not be the ones doing it to you. People log out & don’t always log back in, this hurts everyone and then stuff like faction locks happen.

Wake up, own your actions, stop pointing fingers, and let’s have fun in Cyrodiil and kill all the things, and not turn on each other just for wanting to play the game.

I can’t speak to what goes on in Vivec because I don’t really play there unless it is in off hours with my friends who main AD. But if it is truly because of the ques maybe some guilds need to decide to re-home to Shor. I can’t speak for it or even try.

Be Blessed & above all have fun it is a game!

CatchMeTrolling

Ollowaiin2 wrote: »

That means there are no pts/patch notes, just the announcement? Can we all chill a Second and see how they implement it in the fest server? I've heart about a emperor lock for only 1 alliance at a time in the live Streams, not more. You guys have to chill.

A faction lock is pretty obvious and they already said how it’ll be implemented. And you mean you can only get emp once per campaign now.

Neoauspex

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

.
Faction hoppers are needed, they help the underdog alliance and bring balance to the map.

I think ZoS intends for artifact weapons to be that sort of catch up mechanic. No idea if it'll work, that's just what it seems they were alluding to in the Bethesda Game Days stream.

CatchMeTrolling

Neoauspex wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

.
Faction hoppers are needed, they help the underdog alliance and bring balance to the map.

I think ZoS intends for artifact weapons to be that sort of catch up mechanic. No idea if it'll work, that's just what it seems they were alluding to in the Bethesda Game Days stream.

People are going to end up hating it if it’s as powerful as they say it is. Think it’s going to get nerfed real quick once the small scale and solo players get it and have clips soloing 20 people.

But there also the fact that the dominating faction still can pick it up, you have to kill people to keep it so naturally you’re going to have to bring it towards another alliance.

Neoauspex

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

Neoauspex wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

.
Faction hoppers are needed, they help the underdog alliance and bring balance to the map.

I think ZoS intends for artifact weapons to be that sort of catch up mechanic. No idea if it'll work, that's just what it seems they were alluding to in the Bethesda Game Days stream.

People are going to end up hating it if it’s as possible as they say it is. Think it’s going to get nerfed real quick once the small scale and solo players get it and have clips soloing 20 people.

But there also the fact that the dominating faction still can pick it up, you have to kill people to keep it so naturally you’re going to have to bring it towards another alliance.

I maintain no opinion until I've been merked by it.

Dutchessx

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

Neoauspex wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

.
Faction hoppers are needed, they help the underdog alliance and bring balance to the map.

I think ZoS intends for artifact weapons to be that sort of catch up mechanic. No idea if it'll work, that's just what it seems they were alluding to in the Bethesda Game Days stream.

People are going to end up hating it if it’s as possible as they say it is. Think it’s going to get nerfed real quick once the small scale and solo players get it and have clips soloing 20 people.

But there also the fact that the dominating faction still can pick it up, you have to kill people to keep it so naturally you’re going to have to bring it towards another alliance.

Oh dear let’s not give small scale or solo players ANY advantage! Nope nope nope... they all should just play in groups of 48 or more! I jest I jest I jest maybe lol

Davadin

Ollowaiin2 wrote: »

That means there are no pts/patch notes, just the announcement? Can we all chill a Second and see how they implement it in the fest server? I've heart about a emperor lock for only 1 alliance at a time in the live Streams, not more. You guys have to chill.

FORUM CHILLING

CatchMeTrolling

Dutchessx wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

Neoauspex wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

.
Faction hoppers are needed, they help the underdog alliance and bring balance to the map.

I think ZoS intends for artifact weapons to be that sort of catch up mechanic. No idea if it'll work, that's just what it seems they were alluding to in the Bethesda Game Days stream.

People are going to end up hating it if it’s as possible as they say it is. Think it’s going to get nerfed real quick once the small scale and solo players get it and have clips soloing 20 people.

But there also the fact that the dominating faction still can pick it up, you have to kill people to keep it so naturally you’re going to have to bring it towards another alliance.

Oh dear let’s not give small scale or solo players ANY advantage! Nope nope nope... they all should just play in groups of 48 or more! I jest I jest I jest maybe lol

I predominately play by myself and if I’m in a group it’s 2-6 people. It’s two scenarios that’s possible, the one I mentioned or any player becomes too powerful with it so they have to nerf it.

That’s not even accounting for emp groups or ball groups using it.

Dutchessx

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

Dutchessx wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

Neoauspex wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

.
Faction hoppers are needed, they help the underdog alliance and bring balance to the map.

I think ZoS intends for artifact weapons to be that sort of catch up mechanic. No idea if it'll work, that's just what it seems they were alluding to in the Bethesda Game Days stream.

People are going to end up hating it if it’s as possible as they say it is. Think it’s going to get nerfed real quick once the small scale and solo players get it and have clips soloing 20 people.

But there also the fact that the dominating faction still can pick it up, you have to kill people to keep it so naturally you’re going to have to bring it towards another alliance.

Oh dear let’s not give small scale or solo players ANY advantage! Nope nope nope... they all should just play in groups of 48 or more! I jest I jest I jest maybe lol

I predominately play by myself and if I’m in a group it’s 2-6 people. It’s two scenarios that’s possible, the one I mentioned or any player becomes too powerful with it so they have to nerf it.

That’s not even accounting for emp groups or ball groups using it.

Most of the time for the past 3-6 months I have been solo or in small groups usually 2-6. If you solo or small man you have to understand you are going to get zerged down, just how many can you take with you. The problem is anything they give us will also work for the zergs as well. I feel you.

Mr_Walker

Dutchessx wrote: »

Mr_Walker wrote: »

Beardimus wrote: »

Mr_Walker wrote: »

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.....

In your opinion....

Unless you've created an actual family unit which you RP, how are you RPing an entire account? Especialluy when your account can cover multiple races from multiple factions?

Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.

Actually, I write stories based on my adventures in the game, most people never see them. I lost some when my last 2 computers crashed. I’ve since gone to using google docs. I name all my alts by the names I have in my stories. I know other people who do the same thing. I have a whole bunch of stories that explain who she is, how she came to get her name Dutchess, and why she fights as an EP instead of DC. So what is wrong with this guy doing just that? I know a lot of RPers at least for someone who primarily only pvp’s. So if the guy says he does it with his account, why worry about how he does it? After all it is his account... just throwing my 2 cents in, as someone who does something similar.
Be blessed
Dutchess Out.

Dutchessx wrote: »

Mr_Walker wrote: »

Beardimus wrote: »

Mr_Walker wrote: »

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.....

In your opinion....

Unless you've created an actual family unit which you RP, how are you RPing an entire account? Especialluy when your account can cover multiple races from multiple factions?

Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.

Actually, I write stories based on my adventures in the game, most people never see them. I lost some when my last 2 computers crashed. I’ve since gone to using google docs. I name all my alts by the names I have in my stories. I know other people who do the same thing. I have a whole bunch of stories that explain who she is, how she came to get her name Dutchess, and why she fights as an EP instead of DC. So what is wrong with this guy doing just that? I know a lot of RPers at least for someone who primarily only pvp’s. So if the guy says he does it with his account, why worry about how he does it? After all it is his account... just throwing my 2 cents in, as someone who does something similar.
Be blessed
Dutchess Out.

I never said there was anything wrong with it. Just that most people don't do it account wide (as you apparently don't) and using it as a reason to inflict faction lock on everyone is invalid.

Enkil

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).

Many of us wanting faction locked were asking for and expected 7-day campaigns to be locked, but not really Vivec as it has queues on most if not all platforms.

I think if the dev’s changed their minds and decided to lock the 7-days (Kyne too) and leave the others FFA, it would probably placate most on the forums.

However, we have to remember they have a marketing department that will be expecting an influx of players with the release of Elsweyr, so they likely see things differently and make decisions based on future projections and priorities when considering their business model and potential future subscribers.

It would be best all around if they do a clean wipe (regenesis/renewal)—retire all of the current campaign names with the release of Elseweyr—then create new names with their varying degrees of locks/restrictions from that point on. FRESH START! then let people find a new home to play where they want with all new choices.

Then there would be no “oh please don’t lock my long-time home campaign vivec” because vivec would be retired and resigned to history (like the original campaigns were). Hasn’t it been long enough by now? We can even have fun voting on new names.

The overall goal of advocates on all sides is to be able to play how we want to play. That varies from “I want to be able to play any faction toon I want, whenever i want” on one end of the spectrum, to “I want a total lockout of players logging toons from other factions in this campaign til the campaign window ends” on the other end.

Many of the posts I’ve read here are from self-identifying members of x-label group trying undermine y-label group, and blaming upcoming changes on an perceived (straw-man) enemy. We all just want to play on a campaign that fits our style. The devs are moving toward that which is good overall for all of us existing players, but perhaps more importantly will allow newcomers to find a fitting home amongst a broader spectrum of campaigns. We should all be mindful that there are various types of players and the game can and should accommodate all with just 3-4 campaigns without infringing on anyone.

All this back-and-forth, and pitting oneself and others against one another, or demonizing whatever play style... it is pure folly and utter BS.

How ‘bout we all forget about the past and focus on making sure going forward there are both locked campaigns and FFA campaigns, that are all robust so everyone will have a campaign to migrate to and call home come update time. Once we agree to get to that point collectively, we can give tons of constructive feedback to the dev team and @ZOS_BrianWheeler in hopes the eventual end game product suits everyone, while welcoming and attracting new and returning players of all types to the game.

Ranger209

Enkil wrote: »

It would be best all around if they do a clean wipe (regenesis/renewal) and reitre all the the current server names with the release of Elseweyr and create new names with their varying degree of locks/restrictions from that point on. FRESH START!

They are doing exactly this. 2 new 30 day campaigns cp and no cp locked, 1 new 7 day campaign no lock, 1 new 10-49 campaign no lock, 2 new IC Sewers campaigns 1 cp, 1 no cp, not locked. All current campaigns will be retired.

Kaiz

idk

LarsS wrote: »

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

If this was a test they would not use the most active campaign. This is just an excuse to force it upon us do to some vocal players with baseless claims. Zos has not even said what they are testing and that alone says it is not a test.

Kikke

I don't understand this whining. If the cross faction AP farming map ignoring players are in bigger numbers. Why don't you take the 7 day Campaign you're being offered? It should be very active, since you guys dont care about score why siege? Or is it that you have to farm that ap on the 30 day for the rewards at the end? The rewards that came as an result of people caring about the map? Or let me guess, rewards are nothing for you.. well... Then why not take the move? And leave the 30 day for those that wants to play for score.