Faction Lock debate: distilled!

Enkil

The takeaway from many of the numerous faction lock discussions that have started is that at least one new 7-day locked campaign should be added, but numerous vocal players are especially against the locking of 30-day Vivec.

Thing is most players advocating for faction lock agree on this. We just want ONE (preferably 7-day) locked campaign.

Maybe devs think locking most will spread the PvP population? They rarely even talk to the community anymore tho so who knows....

It’s the devs that want to lock vivec and all the rest. Why? They prob have their reason but unfortunately their communication efforts are almost nonexistent anymore. I’m personally very grateful that the devs have listened to and responded to calls for factions locks. But, please also take steps to implement it in a smart, thoughtful and well-intentioned way. (Current plans are NOT coming across as such). FFA campaigns have been the norm for years now, so let’s not just leave all those players out in the cold please.

@ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_JessicaFolsom Will y’all please get some interactive conversation started here?? Aren’t y’all tasked with exactly this type thing????

SirAndy

There aren't enough players for enough vet campaigns to cover those of us who play with multiple main characters.

Faction lock means i can't play PvP with all of my mains, which sucks. Simple as that ...

Enkil

SirAndy wrote: »

There aren't enough players for enough vet campaigns to cover those of us who play with multiple main characters.

Faction lock means i can't play PvP with all of my mains, which sucks. Simple as that ...

Exactly. That’s why I’m saying there should maybe just be a new faction locked campaign added instead of drastic changes to lock all....

Ranger209

Your own poll shows different results than you are stating here. Not sure how you are arriving at the conclusion you are stating here.

idk

The question is if what is the relevance of the information in the OP. No offense to the OP themselves as it is not an attack on them.

Zos has said this is a test. They have not said what they are testing. They could very well be testing to see how this affects the populations in campaigns. That would require locking the most popular campaign. They may be looking at the different effects this has on a vibrant campaign vs a low pop campaign.

As long as Zos keeps the parameters or interests of this test in a vacuum it does make it easier for them ignore us.

Yes, I have seen what someone posted and attributed to a specific class rep. Zos has also stated recently that only the information that comes directly from Zos can be taken at face value.

Enkil

Ranger209 wrote: »

Your own poll shows different results than you are stating here. Not sure how you are arriving at the conclusion you are stating here.

Polls here suffer form severe representation issues. They have little hope of representing a proper sample.

But it’s more about discussion of the issues...

I’m not arriving at any conclusions, I’m calling on the dev team to be more interactive with the entire community in the hopes of making this transition the best for all involved..

I polled people so we would have more data which is always a good thing... What more u wanting??

Ranger209

Just looking at your opening statement saying most are against locking 30 day campaign. I'm not certain anything I've seen points to that when looking through all of these faction lock threads. There is nothing wrong with asking the dev team to be more interactive though. There are plenty of unanswered questions hanging out there. Hopefully we will have more answers tomorrow. PTS patch tomorrow, yes?

Ranger209

idk wrote: »

The question is if what is the relevance of the information in the OP. No offense to the OP themselves as it is not an attack on them.

Zos has said this is a test. They have not said what they are testing. They could very well be testing to see how this affects the populations in campaigns. That would require locking the most popular campaign. They may be looking at the different effects this has on a vibrant campaign vs a low pop campaign.

As long as Zos keeps the parameters or interests of this test in a vacuum it does make it easier for them ignore us.

Yes, I have seen what someone posted and attributed to a specific class rep. Zos has also stated recently that only the information that comes directly from Zos can be taken at face value.

While I share your sentiment on transparency I'm not sure how much they dare let us know about what they are looking at. Doing so in an uncontrolled environment would allow people to try and do things to manipulate what they are testing to sway the results in a direction that they find favorable. I actually believe in this situation the less they tell us the more valid the results will be for them, whatever they are looking at.

Gilvoth

this forum is a very small fraction of the community of eso, many people ingame dont even come to the forums
if you want to see what people think about faction locks then you have to ask each of them by their account @name
making several threads here on the forum and then saying:

Quote:
"The takeaway from many of the numerous faction lock discussions that have started is that at least one new 7-day locked campaign should be added, but numerous vocal players are especially against the locking of 30-day Vivec."

only reflects what the forum participants Who even went to those threads thinks.
and that is a very small amount of people.
not to mention that many people here on the forum didnt even comment in those threads.

idk

Ranger209 wrote: »

idk wrote: »

The question is if what is the relevance of the information in the OP. No offense to the OP themselves as it is not an attack on them.

Zos has said this is a test. They have not said what they are testing. They could very well be testing to see how this affects the populations in campaigns. That would require locking the most popular campaign. They may be looking at the different effects this has on a vibrant campaign vs a low pop campaign.

As long as Zos keeps the parameters or interests of this test in a vacuum it does make it easier for them ignore us.

Yes, I have seen what someone posted and attributed to a specific class rep. Zos has also stated recently that only the information that comes directly from Zos can be taken at face value.

While I share your sentiment on transparency I'm not sure how much they dare let us know about what they are looking at. Doing so in an uncontrolled environment would allow people to try and do things to manipulate what they are testing to sway the results in a direction that they find favorable. I actually believe in this situation the less they tell us the more valid the results will be for them, whatever they are looking at.

I do not disagree that us knowing could taint the "test" depending on what they are testing.

Mostly what I am pointing out is what is stated in the OP is rather irrelevant without that knowledge. Essentially, I do not think Zos will listen on this subject because they have already chosen how they will do the "test".

I also think that Zos will determine whatever they want. Sometimes I question Zos' ability to analyze data anyhow but that is a different story.

JamilaRaj

Enkil wrote: »

Maybe devs think locking most will spread the PvP population? They rarely even talk to the community anymore tho so who knows....

It’s the devs that want to lock vivec and all the rest. Why? They prob have their reason but unfortunately their communication efforts are almost nonexistent anymore.

They communicated somewhat. In this video at around 50:30 Folsom directly asks what the goals are and Wheeler says that it is to prevent players from flipping the map back and forth (then goes on to descend into nonsensical babble).
What he expects to happen is not entirely clear though, because for example it may cause players to flip the map just forth and then stay stacked on one side, doing nothing, which sucks as well.

Most likely the main reason are daedric weapons, which would be too easily abused without faction lock.

josh.lackey_ESO

idk wrote: »

The question is if what is the relevance of the information in the OP. No offense to the OP themselves as it is not an attack on them.

Zos has said this is a test. They have not said what they are testing. They could very well be testing to see how this affects the populations in campaigns. That would require locking the most popular campaign. They may be looking at the different effects this has on a vibrant campaign vs a low pop campaign.

As long as Zos keeps the parameters or interests of this test in a vacuum it does make it easier for them ignore us.

Yes, I have seen what someone posted and attributed to a specific class rep. Zos has also stated recently that only the information that comes directly from Zos can be taken at face value.

This is wrong. I can't find the comment now, but one of the class reps explained that ZOS said it was doing this for explicitly ONE reason, and that reason was due people crying on the forums for faction lock. It is not a test, nor something they are doing for varied or unknown reasons.

edit: I found the comment. See below.

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.