Faction Lock (on main campaigns) is wrong & a bad decision

MipMip

Firstly, let’s consider this: 30 days campaigns are the most popular and players will continue to go there. Even players who are disappointed by faction lock will tend to grudgingly go there because they do not expect to find enough action on the other campaigns. So saying that there is a choice is hypocrisy.

This means faction lock is being forced on everyone, whether we enjoy playing for a faction or not. Until now, faction loyalists could play for their factions and others could play for their other objectives.

Faction loyalists have been asking for faction locked campaigns. It’s difficult to understand why they want everyone else to play the same way as they do, but if they want campaigns where they can be among themselves, that’s ok as long as there are also campaigns without faction lock. This is not what is being offered in this update, if it goes live as currently described.

The faction lock as currently announced will not achieve what faction loyalists hope for: since other players will be more or less forced to play in the locked campaigns there will be many players in those campaigns who will not care about the score and will pursue other objectives.

A solution that has been mentioned in many threads is soft locks: be able to play on all sides but be on the leatherboards only on one.

This is extremely disappointing for many of us as ESO players, gamers (who might consider other games) and as customers (who might unsubscribe, not play, not visit the crown store etc).

Also I believe this will not help ESO compete for the player base against other games. Versatility has always been ESO’s strength.

Ryanoxx

MipMip wrote: »

Firstly, let’s consider this: 30 days campaigns are the most popular and players will continue to go there. Even players who are disappointed by faction lock will tend to grudgingly go there because they do not expect to find enough action on the other campaigns. So saying that there is a choice is hypocrisy.

This means faction lock is being forced on everyone, whether we enjoy playing for a faction or not. Until now, faction loyalists could play for their factions and others could play for their other objectives.

Faction loyalists have been asking for faction locked campaigns. It’s difficult to understand why they want everyone else to play the same way as they do, but if they want campaigns where they can be among themselves, that’s ok as long as there are also campaigns without faction lock. This is not what is being offered in this update, if it goes live as currently described.

The faction lock as currently announced will not achieve what faction loyalists hope for: since other players will be more or less forced to play in the locked campaigns there will be many players in those campaigns who will not care about the score and will pursue other objectives.

A solution that has been mentioned in many threads is soft locks: be able to play on all sides but be on the leatherboards only on one.

This is extremely disappointing for many of us as ESO players, gamers (who might consider other games) and as customers (who might unsubscribe, not play, not visit the crown store etc).

Also I believe this will not help ESO compete for the player base against other games. Versatility has always been ESO’s strength.

I absolutely agree, my main faction is AD EU but I am playing DC as well because I have friends there. Because of the faction lock I would leave AD behind which makes 5 of my 8 chars useless. AD on EU will just be stupidly overpopulated, even more than it is right now.

KhajiitFelix

yes indeed

Jimmy_The_Fixer

The soft lock idea is clearly the best choice, lock rewards to one faction but allow people to play with their friends. It’ll stop people from playing a faction for in-game reward but allow for socializing (what?! Social play, in an MMO?!) with people who normally play another faction.

And no, going to a dead campaign with nobody to fight is not an viable option.

Alienoutlaw

best thing to happen to PVP for a long time

Inechr

Jimmy_The_Fixer wrote: »

The soft lock idea is clearly the best choice, lock rewards to one faction but allow people to play with their friends. It’ll stop people from playing a faction for in-game reward but allow for socializing (what?! Social play, in an MMO?!) with people who normally play another faction.

And no, going to a dead campaign with nobody to fight is not an viable option.

^ I agree with this! Lock the rewards to only one faction, but don't take away the option to be able to play with friends in a campaign that isn't dead. :<

TequilaFire

This will hopefully force some players who insist on playing on all three factions to spread out to other campaigns evening out the population more.

Zath

Like many I intentionally created pvp-focused characters in each faction to support our guild runs that intentionally rotate through factions in order to be inclusive of all of our members. I understand the reason some players want faction locks on campaigns since they're faction-score focused. The group that's not being considered here are casual pvp'ers who primarily want to get tier 1 rewards so they get the geode with 50 transmute crystals at the end of the campaign. If you did a poll, I think you'd find a significant portion of your pvp base fits in that later group.

Since we've been told that we're not getting faction-change tokens, I feel that we either need an additional 30-day campaign (so we have a total of 3) or we need another method of getting a monthly 50-crystal reward outside of pvp. And while we're on the topic, please please please get rid of the useless 100/200 crystal cap. It does nothing other than cause player frustration when they realize that they're capped and have lost some. We're all keeping the geodes in our inventory anyway to avoid the cap so it's not preventing people from stockpiling crystals.

Sorry if this seems a bit off-topic, but the two subjects are in fact very closely tied together.

idk

Yes, this is disappointing since there is really only one active campaign. For those who want an active campaign we do not have a choice.

However the rest of what OP says does not address what Zos is doing. They are doing a test. Test of what we do not know but OP does not seem to address the test aspect at all.

Also, undertones promises/threats of going to another game or unsubscribing are ignored by Zos. We just has a thread from one player who said they canceled their sub due to crown store stuff but that same person stated this company would not see another dime from them ever. So it does not really hold up well.

DisgracefulMind

Would love to see a soft-lock. We should be able to play with the people and communities that ZoS encouraged us to make with One Tamriel. That being said, I think it is fine and would be balanced to only allow us to home the campaign on one faction, and to disable our ability to interact with scrolls and Volendrung if we are on an alliance we are not homed on.

It's acceptable that we shouldn't be able to earn rewards from multiple factions, but it is not acceptable that we are now closed off from characters we created, have paid money modifying (through race changes, appearance changes, mount upgrades, etc., there's a lot of things people buy from the crown store), and the friends we have made since One Tamriel.

I feel like ZoS is not seeing that people automatically will flock to the 30-day campaigns, and outside of primetimes and weekends, there will be a forced choice to lock into a faction.

RDMyers65b14_ESO

OP, you are so very wrong. This is the absolute BEST thing to happen to Cyrodiil since the faction lock was erroneously removed. We warned ZOS repeatedly not to remove it and now they are having to correct their mistake.

And yes, I PVP.

luen79rwb17_ESO

Wasn't like this many years ago? They changed back for reasons I don't know but maybe they'll explain.

Ryanoxx

RDMyers65b14_ESO wrote: »

OP, you are so very wrong. This is the absolute BEST thing to happen to Cyrodiil since the faction lock was erroneously removed. We warned ZOS repeatedly not to remove it and now they are having to correct their mistake.

And yes, I PVP.

You're probably zerging.

Moonsorrow

Faction locks are good and the right decision. So glad they listened to the majority of players that wanted the Alliance war to be as it is intended.

Well done ZOS.

Lots of good changes upcoming anyways on other things too, was positively surprised. Of course not perfect, but a nice patch indeed!

MipMip

idk wrote: »

Yes, this is disappointing since there is really only one active campaign. For those who want an active campaign we do not have a choice.

However the rest of what OP says does not address what Zos is doing. They are doing a test. Test of what we do not know but OP does not seem to address the test aspect at all.

Locking all the active (popular, populated) campaigns is a 'test'? My understanding of what a test is would be to do it on a new campaign (and no, renaming Vivec and Sotha doesn't make them new campaigns)

first_kodiak

RDMyers65b14_ESO wrote: »

OP, you are so very wrong. This is the absolute BEST thing to happen to Cyrodiil since the faction lock was erroneously removed. We warned ZOS repeatedly not to remove it and now they are having to correct their mistake.

And yes, I PVP.

Why? If you are going to state that it was "erroneously removed" you need to explain why, because some of us don't have the patience to wade through years of old posts or whatever to figure out why you think faction lock is necessary.

My question is, why are they adding it back? Is it something they want to do? Was it something a class rep mentioned? Personally, I see no benefit to faction locking cyrodiil, and a whole lot of confusion and negative issues. I'd like to understand why they are adding it in.

MrSinister213

Cyrodil in 2019 is essentially a pve grind for rank 50 grand overlord for 90% of the population, facilitated by pvdoored 6k+4.5k unbuffed O-ticks . Faction Lock is the right decision in that regard, best for the majority.

Faction lock bring more negatives than positives in my opinion, but I think it is being blown out of context immensely by the majority of you and I'm not sure why, yet.

Personally Id like to see something like Battlegrounds become a solo only queue to rid it of the 4 man tank groups that destroy the enjoyment of BGs for everybody, casual and tryhard as a better counter to preserve a place for small scale combat.

DisgracefulMind

MrSinister213 wrote: »

Cyrodil in 2019 is essentially a pve grind for rank 50 grand overlord for 90% of the population, facilitated by pvdoored 6k+4.5k unbuffed O-ticks . Faction Lock is the right decision in that regard, best for the majority.

Faction lock bring more negatives than positives in my opinion, but I think it is being blown out of context immensely by the majority of you and I'm not sure why, yet.

Personally Id like to see something like Battlegrounds become a solo only queue to rid it of the 4 man tank groups that destroy the enjoyment of BGs for everybody, casual and tryhard as a better counter to preserve a place for small scale combat.

Why not reduce the otick AP? And if people are grinding to AR50...they're doing it on one alliance.

Kolzki

DisgracefulMind wrote: »

MrSinister213 wrote: »

Cyrodil in 2019 is essentially a pve grind for rank 50 grand overlord for 90% of the population, facilitated by pvdoored 6k+4.5k unbuffed O-ticks . Faction Lock is the right decision in that regard, best for the majority.

Faction lock bring more negatives than positives in my opinion, but I think it is being blown out of context immensely by the majority of you and I'm not sure why, yet.

Personally Id like to see something like Battlegrounds become a solo only queue to rid it of the 4 man tank groups that destroy the enjoyment of BGs for everybody, casual and tryhard as a better counter to preserve a place for small scale combat.

Why not reduce the otick AP? And if people are grinding to AR50...they're doing it on one alliance.

I doubt that many pve’ers care much for ranks other than getting a few skill points. Many are there for the transmute crystals.

Faction lock people’s alts out of the 30 day campaigns and there’s a chance that cyrodill might be noticably quieter.

idk

MipMip wrote: »

idk wrote: »

Yes, this is disappointing since there is really only one active campaign. For those who want an active campaign we do not have a choice.

However the rest of what OP says does not address what Zos is doing. They are doing a test. Test of what we do not know but OP does not seem to address the test aspect at all.

Locking all the active (popular, populated) campaigns is a 'test'? My understanding of what a test is would be to do it on a new campaign (and no, renaming Vivec and Sotha doesn't make them new campaigns)

Yes, this is a test and we have known this for 17 days now. The specific word Zos used was "experimental" so take that for what it is. Zos said some people have been requesting this for awhile so they figured they would "try it out and see how it goes". That is exactly what and how they said it.

Also, Zos specifically mentioned it would happen to Vivec and other campaigns and said nothing about new campaigns so not sure where the idea this was happening only to new campaigns other than it was posted in the forums.

Zos did state that people swap to an alliance and flip the map then swap to another alliance and flip the map again. I think this may an issue with low pop campaigns as I have not seen happening in Vivec during low pop times. Maybe they are bad at it, but it is what Zos says is happening so it must be true (/sarcasm)

They start talking about PvP about 5:50 into the video below.



BTW, I am not in favor of this change and would have favored having one or two alternative campaigns for this.

MrSinister213

DisgracefulMind wrote: »

Why not reduce the otick AP? And if people are grinding to AR50...they're doing it on one alliance.

That could work or add something like a 3k base to defense ticks to reward and encourage defenders, encourage pvp. I spend 80% of my time on AD PC NA lately, and from my perspective majority want to pvdoor not just because it offers them their best chance at the most ap/hr but also because it usually doesnt involve pvp. Lowering the Otick to 3k would probably still be this type of players best way to make the most ap xD

Rexy18

Faction hopping aside, people with chars across all 3 alliances will no longer be able to get 50 crystals on each one as there are only 2 30-day campaigns

Berenhir

Those players who pledge allegiance to a certain cause (as intended by the game developers) are rewarded with a long and thus more epic campaign approach. Those who just want good and quick fights are rewarded with short campaigns and more fluctuation. I think this is a marvellous change for PvP.

People just wanting to make AP and have good fights will primarily be found in the 7-day-campaigns and that is basically where they belong. People who want to push campaign scores and fight 24/7 for an imaginary alliance can do that for a month in the 30 day campaigns.

I doubt that the 7-day campaigns are going to be less populated than the 30 day campaigns. Basically all people who are factionless will be forced to play 7d to get geodes and stuff on their alts and thus the campaign will fill itsself automatically.

You cannot compare it to the old 7day campaign system where people only moved to e.g. Shor if Vivec was unplayable. Now the 30d Campaign will be unplayable 24/7 for their hopper alts and thus they are forced to fork to 7d campaign play if they refuse to play the map/for their faction.

ks888

I could care less about transmute stones. Honestly, they're a luxury I forget about most of the time until they start eating into my bag space too much. I am used to farming for gear, no big loss for me there.

What I DO care about is the fact that 1/2 of my toons are now mules with no crafting skills. Last time I checked this wasn't Elder Cobblers Online. Or is it?

disintegr8

Rexy18 wrote: »

Faction hopping aside, people with chars across all 3 alliances will no longer be able to get 50 crystals on each one as there are only 2 30-day campaigns

You can still get more than you need. I have 6 reds, 5 blues and 4 yellows on my main account - so I can still get at least 550 crystals by taking all my reds into one campaign and all my blues into another. Having said that, I don't think most PVP players care about crystals.

I'm not sure how locking will impact me but making both 30 day campaigns locked really restricts your choices. Maybe it will liven up some of the other campaigns, maybe not, but I don't think the PVP population could really keep 2 CP and 2 non CP 30 day campaigns going.

I think if they had 2 of each 30 day campaigns, the 'alliance for life' players would be in the locked campaigns complaining about it being underpopulated while everyone else was in the unlocked campaign, possibly with the same complaint.

DisgracefulMind

MrSinister213 wrote: »

DisgracefulMind wrote: »

Why not reduce the otick AP? And if people are grinding to AR50...they're doing it on one alliance.

That could work or add something like a 3k base to defense ticks to reward and encourage defenders, encourage pvp. I spend 80% of my time on AD PC NA lately, and from my perspective majority want to pvdoor not just because it offers them their best chance at the most ap/hr but also because it usually doesnt involve pvp. Lowering the Otick to 3k would probably still be this type of players best way to make the most ap xD

We shouldn't even be taking people who want to avoid PvP into consideration; they should have to PvP to make AP, end of story.

That being said, I think removing base oTick AP and only rewarding it if there are enemies killed on keep grounds would actually have a lot more of a positive impact to PvP than hard faction locks.

Ranger209

Seems pretty cut and dry what the intention of pvp in Cyrodiil is supposed to be.

echo2omega

I agree 100%

+Faction lock needs to go away or change.

-Faction lock is denying your player(s) the ability to play the game. By locking out [potentially] 2/3 of a players characters from receiving end of campaign rewards.

-Faction locking still does nothing to stop one faction from sweeping the map at 4am.

Option 1. Get rid of faction locking.

Option 2. Allow me to change my characters faction. And NO I do NOT mean sell me a crown store item to faction change. I mean add something in game to allow me to change my character faction.

Option 3. When you choose a faction for the campaign all characters are allowed to participate for that faction. (basically you are choosing you account to be a Pit Demon, Storm Lord or Fire Drake for the duration of the campaign instead of individual characters being Daggerfall/Ebonhear/Aldmeri)

Option 4. Add in 3 of each campaign. So 3 CP and 3 No-CP 30 day campaigns. (on a personal note this is a horrific idea as it would lead to massive population imbalances.)

Merlight

Zath wrote: »

The group that's not being considered here are casual pvp'ers who primarily want to get tier 1 rewards so they get the geode with 50 transmute crystals at the end of the campaign. If you did a poll, I think you'd find a significant portion of your pvp base fits in that later group.

Right. Someone who gets tier 1 over the course of a 30-day campaign is not a member of pvp base, not even casual.

How about removing geodes from end-of-campaign REWARD? That'd show who's there for pvp, and who's only interested in harvesting REWARDs with multiple characters.

Cously

Balanced rules should come before need to play with friends. Finally faction lock, because you guys come here with "I want to play with my friends" but you know what happen in reality is a few guilds destroying PVP for everyone by swaping factions and not giving a damn about faction work and score. ZOS is correct here.

I'd only make two changes, one is to allow 30 day campaigns without faction lock so people do have a choice. The second is to strip factions from characters. For instance, you create your character and choose where you want to start the game, Summerset, Elsweyr, Morrowind, Coldhabour, and the three starting islands. Then on every campaign, both faction locked or not, you can choose which alliance you will fight for and will be "hired" to fight for it until the campaign ends. Then you choose another and so on.

I think that would be a great compromise and give good options for everyone. The flaw in the faction system is that I'm a Covenant loyalist and an achievement completionist, to do so I have to do Auridon quests and kill my own Covenant brothers. Also no npc in my faction treats me like part of it but just a casual helper. All the officers have to say is "Good, you done, now go do more!". Faction inclusion is an illusion, so we are nothing more than glorified mercs. Make it so.

jaws343

Merlight wrote: »

Zath wrote: »

The group that's not being considered here are casual pvp'ers who primarily want to get tier 1 rewards so they get the geode with 50 transmute crystals at the end of the campaign. If you did a poll, I think you'd find a significant portion of your pvp base fits in that later group.

Right. Someone who gets tier 1 over the course of a 30-day campaign is not a member of pvp base, not even casual.

How about removing geodes from end-of-campaign REWARD? That'd show who's there for pvp, and who's only interested in harvesting REWARDs with multiple characters.

You can actually be there for both though. Playing 15 characters for the time to get tier 1 on each is absolutely no different pvp wise than playing 1 character for that same amount of time. In both instances you are pvping for x amount of time. Just 1 way you get transmute stones as well. I run 15 characters. Having access to a ton of stones is the only affordable and time efficient method of gearing them up or trying new builds.