The problem with faction lock for the veteran PvP players

Elong

Kikke wrote: »

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.

You are assuming a lot about the playstyle of people who play multiple factions. This group you are labeling is in the minority, but keep slandering people as you see fit.

I note you only have PVE accomplishments in your footnote, perhaps you lack a clear understanding of pvp and the politics and playstyles involved?

Enkil

Ranger209 wrote: »

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.

I’ve watched several videos and haven’t seen those soecific plans yet personally.

I do hope they wipe the slate clean and lock some and leave the others FFA. Most importantly the Under 50 campaign must be locked. If any, that is THE single most important as it is the pipeline for new players which are currently getting wrecked, steamrolled and totally off-put to PvP entirely by gold gear vet rerollers (trust me this happens) and the distorted way PvP development favors steamrolling zergs.

Nothing is even on PTS yet so hopefully we can give enough feedback to get the devs to implement the changes that are the most informed and will have the most positive impact long-term.

Beardimus

Dutchessx wrote: »

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

That's not a comprimise. Rewards are not the only issue, cheating is, AP boosting is. Even if AP was turned off in your scenario above it wouldn't be enough but would be a minimum

However SOME locked campaigns are the answer. I'd be happy with shor, sotha, kyne personally. But whatever the split, ill play where the lock is. As ill adapt.

Folks moaning about changing campaigns to get the PvP they want amaze me. And I'm all for a 7 day noCP but unsure pop could handle it.

Dutchessx

Mr_Walker wrote: »

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.

Ooo... shots fired!
Maybe I don’t, I don’t know I’m not an RP’er & never claimed to be one. I just LOVE to write. And, encase you haven’t read my other posts only this one maybe you should because I don’t want a faction lock. 😜

Haashhtaag

Calling it now

1) longer queues to Vivec because of faction lock
2) AD/EP will dominate Vivec(PCNA) because of numbers
3) DC will get tired of Vivec and guilds there will home Shor and make it a buff server
4) Sotha camps will be just a numbers game with action only during prime time and weekends such as now.

We’ve literally done this dance before when the game was far more populated and we had the same results.

200-300 queues to Vivec that people for whatever wait on.
The off camps were essentially buff servers for whatever faction. People only care about transmute stones as reward, especially PVE players because they’re not able to access them as easily as PVP players are. Faction locks essentially kill their geode gains.

Why do the same thing and expect different results?

Finally the true litmus test for this would have been to make shor 30 days and mimic Vivec scoring and rewards. Faction lock that campaign and see how much traffic it gets.

This Vivec lock thing will only be a false positive in the scheme of the test as people have ALWAYS gravitated to the main campaign. It’s almost like this faction lock is designed not to fail.

Kikke

Elong wrote: »

Kikke wrote: »

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.

You are assuming a lot about the playstyle of people who play multiple factions. This group you are labeling is in the minority, but keep slandering people as you see fit.

I note you only have PVE accomplishments in your footnote, perhaps you lack a clear understanding of pvp and the politics and playstyles involved?

how can you be playing the map when you play for all 3 factions? Nope, You're not playing the map. you are lollygagging.

MipMip

If ZOS wanted to test the popularity of faction lock they should introduce one or two (cp, no-cp) campaigns with faction lock, not lock the existing main campaigns (giving Vivec and Sotha new names does not make them 'new')

What is happening (if this really goes live) is that there will be two well populated campaigns for those who want to play in a locked campaign, and an empty campaign for those who do not wish to play with faction locks. It's complete hypocrisy to say there will be a 'choice'

Izaki

Yirmeyahu wrote: »

Not only is "Faction Lock" Back to the Future for those of us that have been playing since launch (well, really, even just anyone who played before One Tamriel) and makes little sense in that regard, it also makes very little sense to have "no ETA", or even a mention, really, of being able "faction change" characters if this is something ZeniMax Online Studios and/or Zenimax and/or Bethesda is actually dead set on doing. In essence, if you're going to "lock" players in to one faction after years of encouraging them to "play their way", then it stands to reason that they should be allowed to move characters where they want them with the very same update, not even a single DLC later.

By far, the only people I've seen who actually support this measure have not been playing the game long enough to know that it used to work this way previously. (Having to spend a lot of AP to "re-home" mid-campaign, etc.) The majority of players who actually are a problem (hopping entire guilds from one faction to another on the daily to attempt to influence the campaign score as they see fit) have multiple accounts. So, it's actually pretty laughable to think that the proposed change would stop that type of specific behavior anyway.

I think it's great to allow the playerbase to have a voice in the game we all play and love. But, I feel pretty strongly that, at this point, some of the loudest voices have had very detrimental ideas.

^ This.

Beardimus

Elong wrote: »

Kikke wrote: »

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.

You are assuming a lot about the playstyle of people who play multiple factions. This group you are labeling is in the minority, but keep slandering people as you see fit.

I note you only have PVE accomplishments in your footnote, perhaps you lack a clear understanding of pvp and the politics and playstyles involved?

Alot gets assumed about those of us that do want lock....

...And This is the issue with this debate. Like any IRL politics debate, the slandering and view of other side which are actually just off centre as being extreme / far views.

Pro-Lock folks get accused of lying about volume of nefarious behaviour, or RPing, or even having extreme IRL views as they loyal to a team

Anti-Lock folks get accused of all being boosters, emp flippers and cheats.

Neither is true. Not all faction hoppers cheat, we know that, but the ones that do really mess with PvP. Likewise not all pro lock folks are care bear RPers or IRL racists!!!

Both sides are right. There ARE cheats, and lock will help that. There ARE faction hoppers who legit want to play with mates or support underdogs and just want action over campaign play.

Thus comprimise - some locked, some not, is a great solution.

ErMurazor

NirnStorm wrote: »

I couldn't have worded it better myself.

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

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

So how can you play together if you have different alliances? Or do you play against eachother? LoL

Dutchessx

Beardimus wrote: »

Dutchessx wrote: »

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

That's not a comprimise. Rewards are not the only issue, cheating is, AP boosting is. Even if AP was turned off in your scenario above it wouldn't be enough but would be a minimum

However SOME locked campaigns are the answer. I'd be happy with shor, sotha, kyne personally. But whatever the split, ill play where the lock is. As ill adapt.

Folks moaning about changing campaigns to get the PvP they want amaze me. And I'm all for a 7 day noCP but unsure pop could handle it.

There are a few things to remember:
1). There is only one (1) No CP Server..
You mentioned it yourself - “I’m all for a 7 day noCP server but unsure the pop could handle it.”
I personally don’t think it can, not with the large zergs that log in at night. One if not both servers would become 1 faction dominant with little or no one to fight. The other server will have more fights but also be just as zergy. That and I think folks just don’t care for 7 day servers. I actually think from the people who I still know from launch prefer a 14 day server, which we haven’t seen in a really long time.

2). You mention cheaters such as AP boosting. Yes, that is an issue I see often, especially on Sotha. However, punish the people who are doing it, not everyone that changes factions does it. People even did it when there was faction locks. Punishing everyone for the wrong doings of others is just wrong in my opinion. I use to substitute teach middle school long term and I never have seen punishing everyone work. But hey my opinion right?

3). You and others have mentioned turning off AP from cross factioned fights. This is another let’s punish the whole class things. Turning off AP when you are on another faction toon will prevent people from being able to buy gear and sell things on the market. It will hurt everyone because you are limiting the ability of people to interact in the economy of the game. Again, not really into the games economy like some people I know are so I can’t speak completely to that but it is just my opinion.

I liked the idea set about by another person I saw. Instead of “punishing” people why not give us incentives to stay with 1 faction for the campaign. Generally speaking this person was right people respond better to incentives than punishment. An example, I’ve been playing my DC lately and enjoying it immensely. Well I got into the 30s on the leaderboard - well guess who ran solo on Sotha to keep up there or get higher because I want my rewards to sell? Me. I could have gone played with my friends on on other factions but I want those rewards. If I stayed on my main which are all EP, I probably wouldn’t even get purple at this point. I think most of us who where here when the top 2% got master weapons would agree we played our butts off hoping to get the right one with the right trait back then. Why not give us an incentive to play more to get specific weapons or armor that is specific for pvp, that would be good for pvp like master weapons. It would probably give people not only an incentive to stay on 1 faction but also to just log in and pvp.

ErMurazor

Im a PvPer and i dont give a xxxx about ap or end of campaign rewards. I play for the fights and the social aspect of raiding and i think faction lock is a good thing for the health of PvP. We play on AD side currently but have No problem changing sides IF that gives us better fights. And we play 30 days and evaluate. I see No problem at all about that. And it stops all the faction hoppers that goes to the winning side or thoose just intrested in trolling.

Glory

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.

I guess I didn't realize we had to continue being vocal about a topic I felt was reasonably settled. I always looked at threads like "faction lock for us loyalists please" as those kinds of threads where, as a player who experienced the decision to go without faction lock and One Tamriel, you shook your head and said "thank goodness the community and Zenimax already sorted this out."

I hope the loud vocal outcry of people who are against faction locks that are currently occurring (and most of them being well-respected, well-reasoned arguments) is an indicator to Zenimax that this change is nonsensical. As I am guessing this change will go through anyway, I hope the non-stop complaints this forum will see about wildly unbalanced populations and the inability to play with friends, alongside dead campaigns, will indicate to whoever is making this decision that it is the wrong one.

Glory

Why are people acting like this is some sort of compromise? It's literally just flipping a switch and removing the ability for people on multiple factions to play where they want to.

Without locks:

• Faction loyalists can be faction loyalists
• Multi-faction players can play on whatever faction

With locks:

• Faction loyalists can be faction loyalists
• Multi-faction players are forced to be loyalists or play on dead campaigns

Also, arguments for "compromise" saying that people should just play on these currently dead servers? That's just saying we need to segregate an already hemorrhaged PvP community, further dividing the game's minority group (PvP is definitely a minority) into different buckets. Thanks for saying forced segregation is a good thing.

Iskiab

Faction locks are a good thing. There are way too many purples (cross blue and red players) who just want to fight on the winning side. Or even worse red and blue players who help each other.

If anything they should just remove the bonus for winning a campaign. Make rewards solely for individual performance, and the better your faction does on the map the faster you accumulate ap.

Haashhtaag

Iskiab wrote: »

Faction locks are a good thing. There are way too many purples (cross blue and red players) who just want to fight on the winning side. Or even worse red and blue players who help each other.

If anything they should just remove the bonus for winning a campaign. Make rewards solely for individual performance, and the better your faction does on the map the faster you accumulate ap.

Using terms such as “purples” renders your arguments useless imo.

The only people I ever say purple, orange, green are zone chat warriors who are in or lead terrible raids.

DisgracefulMind

Iskiab wrote: »

Faction locks are a good thing. There are way too many purples (cross blue and red players) who just want to fight on the winning side. Or even worse red and blue players who help each other.

If anything they should just remove the bonus for winning a campaign. Make rewards solely for individual performance, and the better your faction does on the map the faster you accumulate ap.

So more AP for PvDooring, therefore giving more incentive to faction stacks not just in normal hours, but especially off-hours and oceanic.

Great idea.





(Just FYI this whole "team purple" "team green" "team orange" thing is really old, there are 3 sides, 2 are always going to push one side for the most part, so that argument is so invalid, and has been since this game was launched.)

KenaPKK

Gilvoth wrote: »

NirnStorm wrote: »

ManwithBeard9 wrote: »

Dead campaigns? Devs stated a 30 day no CP, a 30 day CP (both locked) and I think two 7 days, not locked, the 2 IC campaigns, and the lowbie one How will there be dead campaigns?

Because if you don't play primetime nowadays every campaign other than Vivec is 100% dead, except for the occasional PvDoor group. If the pop is split, believe me, the 7 days campaign will have no one in them until primetime, and even then, maybe 2 bars at most.

Joy_Division wrote: »

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

Alright then, time to make some noise Joy

the bolded part is exactly the reason many of us believe the class rep program is biased and unfair.
if only a few are able to make choices and agendas pushed with the developers then the game is unfair for everyone!

Except that "a few" do not have exclusive ability to make choices and push agendas. We don't answer to "a few," or any biased or personal agenda for that matter. Don't construe NirnStorm's request as controlling Joy's actions. Joy already said that the devs intend to send faction locks on Vivec to live in order to see how the locks versus no locks debate washes out today.

White wabbit

I love the fact that this hasn't been come into play as patch hasn't land so we really don't know what impact it will have, but the forum warriors gotta have their say

Iskiab

Well, when a faction is full people have been logging into other factions to help their friends. Faction lock is a no brainer, everything else in this thread is just drivel trying to justify the shenanigans people are doing.

Glory

Iskiab wrote: »

Well, when a faction is full people have been logging into other factions to help their friends. Faction lock is a no brainer, everything else in this thread is just drivel trying to justify the shenanigans people are doing.

What? This thought needs more elaboration to make a valid argument.

Are you saying that people are playing on factions in order to play with their friends, and we need to not allow this to happen?

Iskiab wrote: »

Faction locks are a good thing. There are way too many purples (cross blue and red players) who just want to fight on the winning side. Or even worse red and blue players who help each other.

If anything they should just remove the bonus for winning a campaign. Make rewards solely for individual performance, and the better your faction does on the map the faster you accumulate ap.

Inferring from this statement, it sounds like you are advocating for a faction lock because you have the perspective that your faction (AD) is being teamed up on by other factions (DC, EP). Would it shock you if I am a cross faction player who mains AD and occasionally plays DC to play with friends?

I do agree with your removal of bonuses for winning a campaign and rewarding individual performance, and I think many cross-faction players would love this idea too.

Glory

KenaPKK wrote: »

Gilvoth wrote: »

NirnStorm wrote: »

ManwithBeard9 wrote: »

Dead campaigns? Devs stated a 30 day no CP, a 30 day CP (both locked) and I think two 7 days, not locked, the 2 IC campaigns, and the lowbie one How will there be dead campaigns?

Because if you don't play primetime nowadays every campaign other than Vivec is 100% dead, except for the occasional PvDoor group. If the pop is split, believe me, the 7 days campaign will have no one in them until primetime, and even then, maybe 2 bars at most.

Joy_Division wrote: »

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

Alright then, time to make some noise Joy

the bolded part is exactly the reason many of us believe the class rep program is biased and unfair.
if only a few are able to make choices and agendas pushed with the developers then the game is unfair for everyone!

Except that "a few" do not have exclusive ability to make choices and push agendas. We don't answer to "a few," or any biased or personal agenda for that matter. Don't construe NirnStorm's request as controlling Joy's actions. Joy already said that the devs intend to send faction locks on Vivec to live in order to see how the locks versus no locks debate washes out today.

The assertion that class reps are either a) unable to collect various opinions from differing community viewpoints; b) supposed to also not be able to voice their own experiences or opinions is insulting. I don't agree with several of some of their individual viewpoints, but I respect them for attempting to make sense out of the disastrous nonsense most of the ESO community spews on a daily basis.

DisgracefulMind

Iskiab wrote: »

Well, when a faction is full people have been logging into other factions to help their friends. Faction lock is a no brainer, everything else in this thread is just drivel trying to justify the shenanigans people are doing.

What? No one is doing that on PC/NA for the most part. I fight the same AD every night, they're AD mains pushing the map in oceanic.

You know what though, before the oceanic guilds got on last night AD was being gate camped, guess where I was to try and help the map out - on AD.

Because that's what actual trifaction people do - sure there are people who hop for bad reasons, but the faction isn't "full of people logging over". No, it's usually the faction mains doing what they are to the maps.

I'm not shaming them, but saying it's people like me doing it is absurd.

CatchMeTrolling

It would be cool to see how long people have played because it’s been the faction loyalist that ruin a campaign every time. Relentlessly gating alliances and pvdooring the map. Which causes alliance flipping to the winning side, essentially making the campaign a perma buff campaign at some point.

But apparently it’s an issue for the minority to switch to help the underdog alliance or find better fights. From experience it’s the loyalists that’s the most toxic people in pvp. I remember switching to ad and some people got so mad to the point they went out of their way to stop me from getting emp and called me a traitor. Mind you ad barely got 1 bar most of the day. The thing is everyone doesn’t want to ruin the map , some of us want good fights. Forcing us into dead campaigns isn’t the way to go.

Every loyalist swears there’s some teaming up going on , I’ve played on every alliance and the area chat is filled with the same rhetoric.

It’s like we’re repeating the same mistakes. We already have faction dominance, now it’ll go back to completely being one sided most of the day. People will wait in that queue simply because it’s the 30 day. If anything the pvp events should make that obvious. And the other campaign will be dead for most of the day and when it’s prime time one faction will dominate it.

Beardimus

Dutchessx wrote: »

Beardimus wrote: »

Dutchessx wrote: »

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

That's not a comprimise. Rewards are not the only issue, cheating is, AP boosting is. Even if AP was turned off in your scenario above it wouldn't be enough but would be a minimum

However SOME locked campaigns are the answer. I'd be happy with shor, sotha, kyne personally. But whatever the split, ill play where the lock is. As ill adapt.

Folks moaning about changing campaigns to get the PvP they want amaze me. And I'm all for a 7 day noCP but unsure pop could handle it.

There are a few things to remember:
1). There is only one (1) No CP Server..
You mentioned it yourself - “I’m all for a 7 day noCP server but unsure the pop could handle it.”
I personally don’t think it can, not with the large zergs that log in at night. One if not both servers would become 1 faction dominant with little or no one to fight. The other server will have more fights but also be just as zergy. That and I think folks just don’t care for 7 day servers. I actually think from the people who I still know from launch prefer a 14 day server, which we haven’t seen in a really long time.

2). You mention cheaters such as AP boosting. Yes, that is an issue I see often, especially on Sotha. However, punish the people who are doing it, not everyone that changes factions does it. People even did it when there was faction locks. Punishing everyone for the wrong doings of others is just wrong in my opinion. I use to substitute teach middle school long term and I never have seen punishing everyone work. But hey my opinion right?

3). You and others have mentioned turning off AP from cross factioned fights. This is another let’s punish the whole class things. Turning off AP when you are on another faction toon will prevent people from being able to buy gear and sell things on the market. It will hurt everyone because you are limiting the ability of people to interact in the economy of the game. Again, not really into the games economy like some people I know are so I can’t speak completely to that but it is just my opinion.

I liked the idea set about by another person I saw. Instead of “punishing” people why not give us incentives to stay with 1 faction for the campaign. Generally speaking this person was right people respond better to incentives than punishment. An example, I’ve been playing my DC lately and enjoying it immensely. Well I got into the 30s on the leaderboard - well guess who ran solo on Sotha to keep up there or get higher because I want my rewards to sell? Me. I could have gone played with my friends on on other factions but I want those rewards. If I stayed on my main which are all EP, I probably wouldn’t even get purple at this point. I think most of us who where here when the top 2% got master weapons would agree we played our butts off hoping to get the right one with the right trait back then. Why not give us an incentive to play more to get specific weapons or armor that is specific for pvp, that would be good for pvp like master weapons. It would probably give people not only an incentive to stay on 1 faction but also to just log in and pvp.

1) i get ya, and its a platform / region thing. Sotha is quiet on Xbox
2) I'm ALL for punishing cheaters and boosters. But reporting doesn't work, and they use switching to cheat. Not all are cheats, i just wish those impacted by this change directed their agnst at the cheats rather than the pro lock camp who only want this because of cheats.....
3) i suggested it previously in place of locks as a interim step. For me locks are better. Cutting rewards alone does nothing
4) loyalty rewards i thought this would come last year. Incentives. However it still wouldn't stop boosting or cheating, is the issue. It's a step, but many don't care for rewards

I'll reiterate. I don't want to ruin the game for others, I only want lock as it reduces the ability for people to ruin the game for others. Previous, no lock on all gave us no option. Now with some locked there's at least a choice.

Sure player behaviour needs to change. You like Sotha right? I loved it. But got fed up of boosters influencing the scoreboards in the first few days post reset. So i left. To Shor. Now ill go back. I've adapted and gone where i get good PvP for me.

Prior to lock this was harder (Shor has boosters!)

There's no perfect answer. But choice is a good try.

DisgracefulMind

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

It would be cool to see how long people have played because it’s been the faction loyalist that ruin a campaign every time. Relentlessly gating alliances and pvdooring the map. Which causes alliance flipping to the winning side, essentially making the campaign a perma buff campaign at some point.

But apparently it’s an issue for the minority to switch to help the underdog alliance or find better fights. From experience it’s the loyalists that’s the most toxic people in pvp. I remember switching to ad and some people got so mad to the point they went out of their way to stop me from getting emp and called me a traitor. Mind you ad barely got 1 bar most of the day. The thing is everyone doesn’t want to ruin the map , some of us want good fights. Forcing us into dead campaigns isn’t the way to go.

Every loyalist swears there’s some teaming up going on , I’ve played on every alliance and the area chat is filled with the same rhetoric.

It’s like we’re repeating the same mistakes. We already have faction dominance, now it’ll go back to completely being one sided most of the day. People will wait in that queue simply because it’s the 30 day. If anything the pvp events should make that obvious. And the other campaign will be dead for most of the day and when it’s prime time one faction will dominate it.

I've seen the same behavior.

I come from the era of buff campaigns (because of faction locks). I played on dead Thornblade until it was closed down - where EP gate camped DC at all times and if you even flipped a resource tons would show up and roll you. I mean, being gated alone is enough toxicity as is, and locked campaigns encourage behavior like this. People keep asking "well how do you know" - because they were toxic before, what makes anyone think they won't be toxic now.

And 100% agree with you, and it's been the point I've been trying to make - people like the 30-day campaign, it's most popular for a reason, lock or no lock isn't going to change that default.

Neoauspex

This thread is the Fox News of faction lock propaganda. Thank you all for assuring us that nobody switches factions for anything other than the most noble, honest intentions. Personally, I'll reserve judgement until it's live.

Steelshiv

The lack of faction locks took most of the competition out of AvA PvP. There is no motivation to score high or win a campaign. There is no team pride.

I see AvA PvP as a sport. My team is AD. I'm not going to switch sides if my team is losing or winning too much. It isn't my job or the job of a guild to balance the map. It's like in hockey if half the team joined the other side halfway through a match because their team is performing too well.

Ackwalan

With all the joke faction lock threads being made and closed, looks like the only ones upset are the 12 year olds.

Minalan

Lock the factions all you want. But can we please have a 'murder hobo' faction for those of us that don't want a faction and don't care?

Call it 'imperials' or something for the lore nerds. We're farmin..err I mean fighting for the honor of Clivia Tharn. Or something.