Revert Faction Locks. We've Been Through This Already

IzzyStardust · April 2019

tbh if I cannot alliance change my chars just once - I will just quit PVPing on most of them. I am not tossing any of my chars to make more No Way No Chance No How.

Ranger209 · April 2019

Mr_Walker wrote: »

Alienoutlaw wrote: »

Mr_Walker wrote: »

Alienoutlaw wrote: »

Question:
how are you loosing out on playing with fiends?
you cant talk in zone or group up in different factions so wouldnt you be on the same factions to do that?
only reason you would need to "play" cross faction with friends/other groups, is keep/resource flipping co-ordination

Or, you have... different friends in different factions?

you missed half my comment off lol
i still fail to see how having friends in different factions is a viable argument unless you are exploiting/flipping/running scrolls cross faction ect ect ect..........
i have friends in all factions we run trials and dungeons together but in PvP they just another red/blue or yellow we laugh and joke in discord ect ect whilst pvping yet i dont faction hop and neither do they, have i found out something that others cant do? surely i cant be unique?
so no your argument has no real validation

Care to rework that so it's coherent? Because for the life of me I can't understand what point it is you're trying to make here.

Are you... playing with these friends? Or against them?

Both, cause you can do that. When you play chess or checkers with a friend are you playing with them or against them? Any sandlot game you ever played as a kid were there friends on your team and friends on the team you were playing against? Playing with friends does not have to mean on the same team exclusively. You can still talk to them all in game chat and voice.

Alienoutlaw · April 2019

Minyassa wrote: »

Siohwenoeht wrote: »

The whole "I can't play with friends" argument seems a bit disingenuous to me.

Unless your friends only play one faction, and you are the only one that plays multiple alliances on the same campaign, thus the only one that can switch, what in the world is preventing you and your friends from predetermining which alliance to play on before the start of the campaign?

The same folks that break out the friends argument are also the ones that say the only people who want faction lock are the one alliance players...

It makes my brain hurt because of the circular logic here.

Are you saying that the majority play multiple factions, or that you won't be able to play with friends because they only play one alliance?

According to the argument, a minority of players that play one alliance are preventing people from playing with each other because they only play one alliance.................

Here is my situation, as an example. I belong to a large guild containing: 1. People who only have one character, period, end of story, and have not got the time to level another to a point they'd be comfortable PvPing with them; 2. People who have more than one character but they are all in the same race/alliance; 3. People who have multiple characters, but are only in two alliances; 4. People like me who have multiple characters in all three alliances. These players are in the USA from one end of the coast to the other (and Hawai'i) and in Australia and New Zealand. They are on at all different times of the day, some able to be on mornings and evenings, some only able to be on in their afternoons, some only able to be on in the evenings. Since times of day range wildly across the geographical range our guild occupies, players are on at many varied times of day. If I want to play with my Aussies, I need to join them at one time of day, and most of them are in Alliance X or Y. If I want to play with my people in my own time zone I need to play in the evening and most of them are in guilds Y or Z. If I want to play with the people across the country from me, I need to play hours later than the evening crowd, and most of those players are in Alliance Z. So in order to play with the group of friends who's on at the same time I am on at a given day, I need to be able to match one of the alliances they're in with one of my characters. And this is in *just one guild*.

And this isn't even taking into consideration who I might be wanting to work on ranking up or getting alliance skills for. It only gets more complicated from there, IF you have to plan it out and try to herd cats enough to get a specific group of people together to play a specific alliance for THIRTY DAYS instead of just catching it as it comes and playing with whoever's available to play with...or going without any rewards for your loyalty to playing with friends.

if you have characters in ALL 3 factions simply play the faction your friends are. this argument is getting old now

Sy1ph5 · April 2019

Alienoutlaw wrote: »

Minyassa wrote: »

Siohwenoeht wrote: »

The whole "I can't play with friends" argument seems a bit disingenuous to me.

Unless your friends only play one faction, and you are the only one that plays multiple alliances on the same campaign, thus the only one that can switch, what in the world is preventing you and your friends from predetermining which alliance to play on before the start of the campaign?

The same folks that break out the friends argument are also the ones that say the only people who want faction lock are the one alliance players...

It makes my brain hurt because of the circular logic here.

Are you saying that the majority play multiple factions, or that you won't be able to play with friends because they only play one alliance?

According to the argument, a minority of players that play one alliance are preventing people from playing with each other because they only play one alliance.................

Here is my situation, as an example. I belong to a large guild containing: 1. People who only have one character, period, end of story, and have not got the time to level another to a point they'd be comfortable PvPing with them; 2. People who have more than one character but they are all in the same race/alliance; 3. People who have multiple characters, but are only in two alliances; 4. People like me who have multiple characters in all three alliances. These players are in the USA from one end of the coast to the other (and Hawai'i) and in Australia and New Zealand. They are on at all different times of the day, some able to be on mornings and evenings, some only able to be on in their afternoons, some only able to be on in the evenings. Since times of day range wildly across the geographical range our guild occupies, players are on at many varied times of day. If I want to play with my Aussies, I need to join them at one time of day, and most of them are in Alliance X or Y. If I want to play with my people in my own time zone I need to play in the evening and most of them are in guilds Y or Z. If I want to play with the people across the country from me, I need to play hours later than the evening crowd, and most of those players are in Alliance Z. So in order to play with the group of friends who's on at the same time I am on at a given day, I need to be able to match one of the alliances they're in with one of my characters. And this is in *just one guild*.

And this isn't even taking into consideration who I might be wanting to work on ranking up or getting alliance skills for. It only gets more complicated from there, IF you have to plan it out and try to herd cats enough to get a specific group of people together to play a specific alliance for THIRTY DAYS instead of just catching it as it comes and playing with whoever's available to play with...or going without any rewards for your loyalty to playing with friends.

if you have characters in ALL 3 factions simply play the faction your friends are. this argument is getting old now

Your failure to understand the arguement doesn't mean it's getting old.
What is getting old is peoples wierd desire to have ZoS control other peoples fun.

Nogawd · April 2019

Let's guess where I stand on the issue...

I have played EP only since beta. I would never make an AD/DC character. Disgusting.

No respect for the hoppers. Go play on the shorter campaigns.

Elong · April 2019

Vapirko wrote: »

Elong wrote: »

Vapirko wrote: »

There are still multiple unlocked campaigns. Why does everyone keep acting like they’re entirely locked. 7 day campaigns are great too.

They're great for 2 hours a day while a large section of the world the server supports are at work.

Well this faction lock will undoubtedly move the population around. I get it, I play from SE Asia, so I understand PvP is dead most of the day. But if everyone is so upset about it then the unlocked 7 day campaigns will be the most popular in a short time instead of Vivec. The new IC campaign will also be unlocked and a great place to play with friends. I just think there’s options and I’m interested to see how it plays out in the current PvP climate. I know it was implemented a while back and failed but the game, and the attitude towards PvP, has changed a lot since then.

There's not enough population to move around, look at the screenshots of populations in late evenings.

Agrippa_Invisus · April 2019

I am one of the biggest homers there is in ESO. All my toons are EP. Always have been, always will be. I will likely never have a character from another faction.

The pvp population in this game is not so large that being picky and choosy about who we play with is going to benefit us in any way. Dividing the community up with artificial limits such as faction locking campaigns is caving to a VERY vocal, whiney, and VERY small minority.

I have yet to see a good argument for faction locks. I'm still waiting for one. Feel free to show them to me, but as it stands, I oppose factional locks and would rather players have choices.

A BETTER system of locks is dynamic population locks to force players to spread out amongst the different factions, but still giving them a CHOICE of sitting in a queue if they really want to play with friends on a certain faction. This maintains faction balance while allowing some freedom of choice. Completely removing choice is the worst type of option, one born out of bad policy and decision making.

imredneckson · April 2019

Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

I am one of the biggest homers there is in ESO. All my toons are EP. Always have been, always will be. I will likely never have a character from another faction.

The pvp population in this game is not so large that being picky and choosy about who we play with is going to benefit us in any way. Dividing the community up with artificial limits such as faction locking campaigns is caving to a VERY vocal, whiney, and VERY small minority.

I have yet to see a good argument for faction locks. I'm still waiting for one. Feel free to show them to be, but as it stands, I oppose factional locks and would rather players have choices.

A BETTER system of locks is dynamic population locks to force players to spread out amongst the different factions, but still giving them a CHOICE of sitting in a queue if they really want to play with friends on a certain faction. This maintains faction balance while allowing some freedom of choice. Completely removing choice is the worst type of option, one born out of bad policy and decision making.

^ This +1

bulbousb16_ESO · April 2019

Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

Dividing the community up with artificial limits such as faction locking campaigns is caving to a VERY vocal, whiney, and VERY small minority.

It is quite clear that the "VERY vocal, whiney, and VERY small minority" are those OPPOSED to faction locking. If you are being objective, you will note the huge number of posts supporting faction locking from people who have indicated support but not stuck around to debate the subject.

imredneckson · April 2019

jimijac0me wrote: »

imredneckson wrote: »

+1 there was a reason why faction lock was removed in the first place and now it's being thrown back at use again with no fixes added it. Reverting to a system you know is broken and worse for the community is not a good idea. Please ZOS rethink this.

But it isn’t the same system?

Id like to ask what is different about it? We are having the PvP population split to only being able to fight on one faction again and the only differences I have seen are time has progressed and they are removing the ability to have a guest campaign.

UppGRAYxDD · April 2019

I really don't see why they need faction locking a this time... I understand both sides of the argument and ask, why not just make 1-2 faction locked campaigns and leave the rest alone? Then if the problem is " Everyone only plays in one campaign", lower the population. The PvP population problem is definitely apparent on Xbox atm with only 2 viable PvP campaigns to play with a fare amount of players on the map and spending 3-4 hours soloing resources without seeing a soul is not a healthy PvP environment. ZoS really needs to think about either less campaigns or lowered populations, not faction locking.

Agrippa_Invisus · April 2019

bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »

Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

Dividing the community up with artificial limits such as faction locking campaigns is caving to a VERY vocal, whiney, and VERY small minority.

It is quite clear that the "VERY vocal, whiney, and VERY small minority" are those OPPOSED to faction locking. If you are being objective, you will note the huge number of posts supporting faction locking from people who have indicated support but not stuck around to debate the subject.

Large numbers of posts does not equal a large number of players. Volume is not equal to population.

Give me a good reason, not just 'that it's wanted'. Even if there was a majority that wanted it, that doesn't make them right. This isn't democracy, it's game design.

Kikke · April 2019

back when faction locks was a thing: Me and majority of those I knew played a lot of PvP

Faction locks where removed: Me and majority of those I knew stopped playing PvP.

Faction locks are coming back: Me and majority of those I know cant wait to try proper cyrodill warfare again...

bulbousb16_ESO · April 2019

Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

Large numbers of posts does not equal a large number of players. Volume is not equal to population.

I didn't just say "large number of posts". I said "huge number of posts supporting faction locking from people who have indicated support but not stuck around to debate the subject". That is people who have posted once and not carried on a back-and-forth generating additional posts. So, yes, given the fact that these are singular posts, volume is indicative of population.

Give me a good reason, not just 'that it's wanted'. Even if there was a majority that wanted it, that doesn't make them right. This isn't democracy, it's game design.

For a good reason why this is warranted, see the screenshot in post #400 in https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/466071/the-problem-with-faction-lock-for-the-veteran-pvp-players/p14
This is a clear illustration of how people use alts in other factions to advance their faction's performance. This is simple poor game design.

jaws343 · April 2019

bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »

Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

Large numbers of posts does not equal a large number of players. Volume is not equal to population.

I didn't just say "large number of posts". I said "huge number of posts supporting faction locking from people who have indicated support but not stuck around to debate the subject". That is people who have posted once and not carried on a back-and-forth generating additional posts. So, yes, given the fact that these are singular posts, volume is indicative of population.

Give me a good reason, not just 'that it's wanted'. Even if there was a majority that wanted it, that doesn't make them right. This isn't democracy, it's game design.

For a good reason why this is warranted, see the screenshot in post #400 in https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/466071/the-problem-with-faction-lock-for-the-veteran-pvp-players/p14
This is a clear illustration of how people use alts in other factions to advance their faction's performance. This is simple poor game design.

The problem is, until Faction lock was a thing, those who oppose it have zero reasons to come to the forums and do so. Why? because the game is playing the way they want. So really, the only people complaining prior to this change were a minority of PVdoor elites who think turning the map one color and keeping it that way is competitive gameplay.

Also, the number of players who do not frequent the forums, or don't come to the forums until they have a complaint, is fairly large. In a few weeks when this goes live, expect the # of people coming to the forums to complain because they can no longer play the game as they have for the last 3 years to skyrocket. There are so many players that don't even know what changes are on the PTS. We see it every patch.

bulbousb16_ESO · April 2019

jaws343 wrote: »

The problem is, until Faction lock was a thing, those who oppose it have zero reasons to come to the forums and do so. Why? because the game is playing the way they want.

That's funny, I keep hearing that those opposed to faction lock are the "veterans" and those in support are the "casual players". The veterans are much more likely to be regular forum users than casual players. If those depictions are true, then the number of dissenters are actually over-represented in the forums.

Also, the number of players who do not frequent the forums, or don't come to the forums until they have a complaint, is fairly large.

That cuts both ways. There will be just as many who will be pleasantly surprised.

Agrippa_Invisus · April 2019

bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »

Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

Large numbers of posts does not equal a large number of players. Volume is not equal to population.

I didn't just say "large number of posts". I said "huge number of posts supporting faction locking from people who have indicated support but not stuck around to debate the subject". That is people who have posted once and not carried on a back-and-forth generating additional posts. So, yes, given the fact that these are singular posts, volume is indicative of population.

Give me a good reason, not just 'that it's wanted'. Even if there was a majority that wanted it, that doesn't make them right. This isn't democracy, it's game design.

For a good reason why this is warranted, see the screenshot in post #400 in https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/466071/the-problem-with-faction-lock-for-the-veteran-pvp-players/p14
This is a clear illustration of how people use alts in other factions to advance their faction's performance. This is simple poor game design.

Tent spamming has been its own issue for years, and it doesn't require cross factional players to be an issue. On more than one occasion I've seen emperor pushes have attempted blocks put in place with tent spamming by players within their own faction who either a) don't like said person, or b) or just opportunistic trolls.

In fact, it was more of an issue when the old fashioned campaign / faction locks were still in place during the original campaigns like Wabbajack and Auriel's Bow, because you didn't have the option of swapping to the other faction if you couldn't advance through the ranks to be Emperor if you were being outperformed by another -- and since these were three month campaigns that actually had good rewards (the old legendary Master weapons) no one wanted to quit the campaign and lose all that hard work.

I remain unconvinced as to there being a good reason this needs to be done. The only reason you have worth arguing at the moment is its supposed popularity, which rests on purely anecdotal grounds from the 'there's a lot of people asking for it!'.

As mentioned above, those with a problem are the most likely to be vocal. Very rarely will there be proactive arguments for the status quo. And now that these faction lock changes are showing up in PTS notes and becoming a real thing, that's when those that favor the status quo will start to step forward.

I continue to oppose faction locks. Give me a good, solid reason they need to be implemented. One that improves the game in a measurable way. That's what I am asking for as your barrier for changing that.

bulbousb16_ESO · April 2019

Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

I continue to oppose faction locks. Give me a good, solid reason they need to be implemented. One that improves the game in a measurable way. That's what I am asking for as your barrier for changing that.

Asked and answered. You can continue to oppose faction locks as you see fit, but you can stop trying to convince anyone your opposition is rooted in the interest of good gameplay.

The idea that you can intervene on your own behalf by joining the opposing side with an alt is a poor game design decision on its face. Try spending some time justifying THAT, instead of requesting that others defend a change that is smart on its face.

jaws343 · April 2019

bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »

Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

I continue to oppose faction locks. Give me a good, solid reason they need to be implemented. One that improves the game in a measurable way. That's what I am asking for as your barrier for changing that.

Asked and answered. You can continue to oppose faction locks as you see fit, but you can stop trying to convince anyone your opposition is rooted in the interest of good gameplay.

The idea that you can intervene on your own behalf by joining the opposing side with an alt is a poor game design decision on its face. Try spending some time justifying THAT, instead of requesting that others defend a change that is smart on its face.

I literally only have EP toons and I think faction lock is a terrible idea. So you can continue trying to convince anyone that only those who cheat oppose it. You would be wrong.

bulbousb16_ESO · April 2019

jaws343 wrote: »

I literally only have EP toons and I think faction lock is a terrible idea. So you can continue trying to convince anyone that only those who cheat oppose it. You would be wrong.

I don't believe I ever said anything remotely like that. But I'm interested in hearing why you feel that way.

jaws343 · April 2019

bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »

jaws343 wrote: »

I literally only have EP toons and I think faction lock is a terrible idea. So you can continue trying to convince anyone that only those who cheat oppose it. You would be wrong.

I don't believe I ever said anything remotely like that. But I'm interested in hearing why you feel that way.

bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »

Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

I continue to oppose faction locks. Give me a good, solid reason they need to be implemented. One that improves the game in a measurable way. That's what I am asking for as your barrier for changing that.

Asked and answered. You can continue to oppose faction locks as you see fit, but you can stop trying to convince anyone your opposition is rooted in the interest of good gameplay.

The idea that you can intervene on your own behalf by joining the opposing side with an alt is a poor game design decision on its face. Try spending some time justifying THAT, instead of requesting that others defend a change that is smart on its face.

If an argument isn't rooted in good gameplay, it must be rooted in bad gameplay. And if any of the arguments coming from the pro-lock camp are to deciphered properly, bad gameplay is considered cheating or gaining an advantage somehow.

And I am anti-lock beacuase I do not think the PVP population is large enough to support further division. I do not think any of the issues outlined by the pro-lock camp will actually be addressed by this change. The issues that are supposed to be addressed are only issues on under-populated campaigns. It is impossible to faction swap at will, like every anecdote describes, in a pop-locked campaign. So this change is really only catering to people who play in secondary campaigns that dont't even have enough population for a wait queue. I oppose faction locks because once one faction begins dominating and holding the entire map, zero people from the other factions are going to want to log in to be gate farmed repeatedly, outside of a few masochists. And on the other end, if I log in and my faction is just gating the two opposing factions all day, where is the fun in that. "But we're winning" they'll say. Winning the campaign is toothless and trivial.

Edirt_seliv · April 2019

Hey at least faction locks will help server performance.

bulbousb16_ESO · April 2019

jaws343 wrote: »

If an argument isn't rooted in good gameplay, it must be rooted in bad gameplay. And if any of the arguments coming from the pro-lock camp are to deciphered properly, bad gameplay is considered cheating or gaining an advantage somehow.

I could have used a better word. I am referring more to game design than what happens on the field.

And I am anti-lock beacuase I do not think the PVP population is large enough to support further division.

Possibly so. I think the alliance lock should encourage more participate and some have indicated they will come back.

I oppose faction locks because once one faction begins dominating and holding the entire map, zero people from the other factions are going to want to log in to be gate farmed repeatedly, outside of a few masochists. And on the other end, if I log in and my faction is just gating the two opposing factions all day, where is the fun in that. "But we're winning" they'll say. Winning the campaign is toothless and trivial.

If this is your concern, then I agree with you. We want to prevent that from happening. And this is exactly what faction lock is designed to prevent. Sounds like you should be supporting it.

Agrippa_Invisus · April 2019

bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »

Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

I continue to oppose faction locks. Give me a good, solid reason they need to be implemented. One that improves the game in a measurable way. That's what I am asking for as your barrier for changing that.

Asked and answered. You can continue to oppose faction locks as you see fit, but you can stop trying to convince anyone your opposition is rooted in the interest of good gameplay.

The idea that you can intervene on your own behalf by joining the opposing side with an alt is a poor game design decision on its face. Try spending some time justifying THAT, instead of requesting that others defend a change that is smart on its face.

The answer you provided is insufficient, straight up. Evidence of popularity is not evidence at all. Reasoned arguments that give reasons why this, as a game design change, will improve gameplay are the only measure of success here.

Your definition of why faction locks should happen is so narrow, it fails to see what other options there are. A far worse issue is population imbalances during various times of day or on certain servers that allow for entire maps to be painted one color and faction locks prevent any attempt at correction of that.

Those players with multicolored toons can't swap out if EP is locked pop vs 2 bars on each of the other factions (which happened yesterday on PC / NA Vivec ), and help keep the other side from being gated when they have no ability to defend themselves. Dynamic population based locks would prevent that, but faction locking only exacerbates it.

This isn't nationalism. Loyalty is not rewarded with anything other than a pittance of gold in the mail every campaign reset. I am not an "Ebonheart American" or something else utterly ridiculous. I am not yellow or red or blue in real life. You wouldn't demand we always be on the same team in every BG, and it's silly to say the same about the Cyrodiil campaigns.

Limiting the choices other players can make so others can feel good about their own decisions is the same type of utter tripe that's being peddled in modern politics nowadays and I find it revolting.

NBrookus · April 2019

For the pro-lock people thinking this will reduce trolling, I have bad news for you. Friends who have friends who decided on another faction that campaign are still going to play together. The crying about green/purple/orange team has usually been wrong. That's about to change.

For the pro-lock people thinking locks will make balance, I have bad news for you. If you haven't been around long enough for the phrase "buff campaign" to ring a bell, it will. Because when one faction has zerged another to their gates, there won't be anyone -- not gankers, not small scalers, not bigger guilds -- to swap to the other faction to help balance. You may not think that has been happening because it's not what you personally do, but it does. And if the map is solid red, there won't be any pugs and casuals logging on to blue or yellow either. (Rearrange colors as desired.)

For the pro-lock people who think this will solve "night-capping" or whatever you want to call when the map dramatically shifts color on your non-prime time: the only people that will look at that map and like it are the pvdoor guilds that will see a lot of o-ticks.

twitch_zero · April 2019

bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »

That's funny, I keep hearing that those opposed to faction lock are the "veterans" and those in support are the "casual players". The veterans are much more likely to be regular forum users than casual players.

Counterpoint: my main 2 cyrodiil guilds are made up largely of veteran players and most of the players in these guilds want faction lock. These 2 guilds are DC only.

bulbousb16_ESO · May 2019

Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

The answer you provided is insufficient, straight up. Evidence of popularity is not evidence at all. Reasoned arguments that give reasons why this, as a game design change, will improve gameplay are the only measure of success here.

Interesting how you keep focusing on my statements that the change is more popular, meanwhile ignoring the basic fact that this change is a completely sensible game design decision on its face. You shouldn't allow players to have alts in other alliances that can intervene *against their alliance* to promote your chosen winner. That is absolutely common sense at a most basic level. I even provided you a specific example (one of many possible) of how this is a detriment.

The onus is now on you to speak to why maintaining the status quo is a good thing. As it stands, you're just dancing around the question.

Mr_Walker · May 2019

Alienoutlaw wrote: »

Minyassa wrote: »

Siohwenoeht wrote: »

The whole "I can't play with friends" argument seems a bit disingenuous to me.

Unless your friends only play one faction, and you are the only one that plays multiple alliances on the same campaign, thus the only one that can switch, what in the world is preventing you and your friends from predetermining which alliance to play on before the start of the campaign?

The same folks that break out the friends argument are also the ones that say the only people who want faction lock are the one alliance players...

It makes my brain hurt because of the circular logic here.

Are you saying that the majority play multiple factions, or that you won't be able to play with friends because they only play one alliance?

According to the argument, a minority of players that play one alliance are preventing people from playing with each other because they only play one alliance.................

Here is my situation, as an example. I belong to a large guild containing: 1. People who only have one character, period, end of story, and have not got the time to level another to a point they'd be comfortable PvPing with them; 2. People who have more than one character but they are all in the same race/alliance; 3. People who have multiple characters, but are only in two alliances; 4. People like me who have multiple characters in all three alliances. These players are in the USA from one end of the coast to the other (and Hawai'i) and in Australia and New Zealand. They are on at all different times of the day, some able to be on mornings and evenings, some only able to be on in their afternoons, some only able to be on in the evenings. Since times of day range wildly across the geographical range our guild occupies, players are on at many varied times of day. If I want to play with my Aussies, I need to join them at one time of day, and most of them are in Alliance X or Y. If I want to play with my people in my own time zone I need to play in the evening and most of them are in guilds Y or Z. If I want to play with the people across the country from me, I need to play hours later than the evening crowd, and most of those players are in Alliance Z. So in order to play with the group of friends who's on at the same time I am on at a given day, I need to be able to match one of the alliances they're in with one of my characters. And this is in *just one guild*.

And this isn't even taking into consideration who I might be wanting to work on ranking up or getting alliance skills for. It only gets more complicated from there, IF you have to plan it out and try to herd cats enough to get a specific group of people together to play a specific alliance for THIRTY DAYS instead of just catching it as it comes and playing with whoever's available to play with...or going without any rewards for your loyalty to playing with friends.

if you have characters in ALL 3 factions simply play the faction your friends are. this argument is getting old now

Did you even read his post?

Gilvoth · May 2019

Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »

Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

I continue to oppose faction locks. Give me a good, solid reason they need to be implemented. One that improves the game in a measurable way. That's what I am asking for as your barrier for changing that.

Asked and answered. You can continue to oppose faction locks as you see fit, but you can stop trying to convince anyone your opposition is rooted in the interest of good gameplay.

The idea that you can intervene on your own behalf by joining the opposing side with an alt is a poor game design decision on its face. Try spending some time justifying THAT, instead of requesting that others defend a change that is smart on its face.

The answer you provided is insufficient

i don't know where it came into view that if someone does not agree with you then they owe you an answer and explanation of what they believe and why.
the only reason we would give you those answers is if you were the one that has the ability to lock or unlock the campaigns.
many think it should be locked and many think it should not, but they certainly do not owe each-other valid reasons to those desires.
the developers are the ones that can ask that, not us.
if others DO answer you, then thats a debate, and that does not solve anything on the forums.
we disagree with you
you disagree with us
thats where it should end.

ellahellabella · May 2019

Gilvoth wrote: »

Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »

Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

I continue to oppose faction locks. Give me a good, solid reason they need to be implemented. One that improves the game in a measurable way. That's what I am asking for as your barrier for changing that.

Asked and answered. You can continue to oppose faction locks as you see fit, but you can stop trying to convince anyone your opposition is rooted in the interest of good gameplay.

The idea that you can intervene on your own behalf by joining the opposing side with an alt is a poor game design decision on its face. Try spending some time justifying THAT, instead of requesting that others defend a change that is smart on its face.

The answer you provided is insufficient

i don't know where it came into view that if someone does not agree with you then they owe you an answer and explanation of what they believe and why.
the only reason we would give you those answers is if you were the one that has the ability to lock or unlock the campaigns.
many think it should be locked and many think it should not, but they certainly do not owe each-other valid reasons to those desires.
the developers are the ones that can ask that, not us.
if others DO answer you, then thats a debate, and that does not solve anything on the forums.
we disagree with you
you disagree with us
thats where it should end.

That's literally the point of forums. Discuss, converse, debate.