Change Alliance Tokens

Elusiin

Please ZoS, when can we have them? I want all my characters on the same alliance, especially because of the new faction lock.

Numerikuu

ZO$: *sees posts like this*

Also ZO$: Our plan is working as intended..... $$$$$

Elusiin

Yes, add them.

Numerikuu wrote: »

ZO$: *sees posts like this*

Also ZO$: Our plan is working as intended..... $$$$$

Lmao you're not wrong... I'd throw my wallet at them if they'd just add it already!! @ZOS_GinaBruno, @ZOS_JesC please!!

Aznarb

It should be free for ppl who add char before the change.

Elusiin

Yes, add them.

Aznarb wrote: »

It should be free for ppl who add char before the change.

Well not really. I don't feel entitled to a free one, as we're still fighting for the same alliance we picked on character creation, and there were no real changes to damage or combat ability, but I certainly would like the option to get all of my characters on the same team.

White wabbit

Sure that zos said they had no intention of doing this , so starting the many thousand threads isn't likely to change that

Elusiin

Yes, add them.

White wabbit wrote: »

Sure that zos said they had no intention of doing this , so starting the many thousand threads isn't likely to change that

Where did they say this?

barney2525

No, don't add them.

Aznarb wrote: »

It should be free for ppl who add char before the change.

Before what change?

It would not be possible to make the story/quests fit together. You go half way through one Alliance questline, and poof suddenly you are no longer part of that Alliance?

How does that make any sense?

White wabbit

Elusiin wrote: »

White wabbit wrote: »

Sure that zos said they had no intention of doing this , so starting the many thousand threads isn't likely to change that

Where did they say this?

In one of the many threads if you took the time to read them

Siohwenoeht

Unfortunately a token is too complex to implement according to zos. I've been suggesting a one time change as a reward for cadwell's gold, as that would avoid most, if not all the complications from pve.

theyancey

Yes, add them.

Good idea. Should be limited in the dame way that character deletion is.

VaranisArano

Elusiin wrote: »

White wabbit wrote: »

Sure that zos said they had no intention of doing this , so starting the many thousand threads isn't likely to change that

Where did they say this?

During the Q&A event before Elsweyr.

The relevant quote:
"Alliance Change and Separating Alliances
Discussing the new faction locked campaigns with Rob we spoke about how ZOS wanted to keep the accessibility of people playing with any of their friends but also bring back something to encourage team and faction loyalty.
I spoke with Rob about breaking alliance choice away from character creation (something I’ve wanted to see in ESO for a long time), we spoke about how there are technical issues (which is why they don’t and won’t offer faction changes) and whilst these could be overcome with a large investment of time ZOS needs to balance between if these would be good use of that time vs other things they could be working on."

Elusiin

Yes, add them.

VaranisArano wrote: »

Elusiin wrote: »

White wabbit wrote: »

Sure that zos said they had no intention of doing this , so starting the many thousand threads isn't likely to change that

Where did they say this?

During the Q&A event before Elsweyr.

The relevant quote:
"Alliance Change and Separating Alliances
Discussing the new faction locked campaigns with Rob we spoke about how ZOS wanted to keep the accessibility of people playing with any of their friends but also bring back something to encourage team and faction loyalty.
I spoke with Rob about breaking alliance choice away from character creation (something I’ve wanted to see in ESO for a long time), we spoke about how there are technical issues (which is why they don’t and won’t offer faction changes) and whilst these could be overcome with a large investment of time ZOS needs to balance between if these would be good use of that time vs other things they could be working on."

Well considering how much money this would make them, I don't see why it wouldn't be in their best interest to do it. Or allow it to be done only on characters who have completed Caldwell's gold.

White wabbit

Elusiin wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Elusiin wrote: »

White wabbit wrote: »

Sure that zos said they had no intention of doing this , so starting the many thousand threads isn't likely to change that

Where did they say this?

During the Q&A event before Elsweyr.

The relevant quote:
"Alliance Change and Separating Alliances
Discussing the new faction locked campaigns with Rob we spoke about how ZOS wanted to keep the accessibility of people playing with any of their friends but also bring back something to encourage team and faction loyalty.
I spoke with Rob about breaking alliance choice away from character creation (something I’ve wanted to see in ESO for a long time), we spoke about how there are technical issues (which is why they don’t and won’t offer faction changes) and whilst these could be overcome with a large investment of time ZOS needs to balance between if these would be good use of that time vs other things they could be working on."

Well considering how much money this would make them, I don't see why it wouldn't be in their best interest to do it. Or allow it to be done only on characters who have completed Caldwell's gold.

Because then there would be threads saying I've completed Cadwells gold I want that achievement account wide

idk

They should as the situation is a direct result of Zos not know8mg what to do/changing their minds. MattF is directly responsible for the current situation.

Zos not interested in offering it because of technical challenges is just plain laziness. They need to own their mistakes and make their wrong right.

trackdemon5512

No, don't add them.

Players want this solely for PVP. The problem is that there are quite a number of quests that actually change depending on your faction. So adding a faction change token means that ZOS would have to go back in and address every single one of those quests as they would have to account for a change at any point. Caldwell’s Gold and Silver would also be affected.

And then there is how to deal with Cyrodiil. You may want to just play with your friends but then there are those that will faction switch to try and cheat via spying or AP farming not to mention allowing players to potentially bypass a faction lock. It is legitimately too much of a headache to do all this when they can just focus on trying to improve servers and overall game performance instead.

Elusiin

Yes, add them.

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

Players want this solely for PVP. The problem is that there are quite a number of quests that actually change depending on your faction. So adding a faction change token means that ZOS would have to go back in and address every single one of those quests as they would have to account for a change at any point. Caldwell’s Gold and Silver would also be affected.

And then there is how to deal with Cyrodiil. You may want to just play with your friends but then there are those that will faction switch to try and cheat via spying or AP farming not to mention allowing players to potentially bypass a faction lock. It is legitimately too much of a headache to do all this when they can just focus on trying to improve servers and overall game performance instead.

So what you're saying is it can be done?

Fivefivesix

Yes, add them.

I think thats reasonable to ask for and I'm surprised its not available with the faction lock this patch. If they do it there should be a limitation for one per character and thats it. No more after that so choose wisely.

White wabbit

Elusiin wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

Players want this solely for PVP. The problem is that there are quite a number of quests that actually change depending on your faction. So adding a faction change token means that ZOS would have to go back in and address every single one of those quests as they would have to account for a change at any point. Caldwell’s Gold and Silver would also be affected.

And then there is how to deal with Cyrodiil. You may want to just play with your friends but then there are those that will faction switch to try and cheat via spying or AP farming not to mention allowing players to potentially bypass a faction lock. It is legitimately too much of a headache to do all this when they can just focus on trying to improve servers and overall game performance instead.

So what you're saying is it can be done?

Probably can be done but as zos said

we spoke about how there are technical issues (which is why they don’t and won’t offer faction changes) and whilst these could be overcome with a large investment of time ZOS needs to balance between if these would be good use of that time vs other things they could be working on."

And I'd rather them carry on with things they are working on and fixing the base game then this

UnseenCat

What about a "Mercenary" option for non-faction-locked Cyrodiil/Imperial City campaigns ONLY?

You still retain your alliance association in PvE, in Cyrodiil/Imperial City. But it doesn't apply to your alliance leaderboard ranking at all. Earn gold instead of AP. No Rewards for the Worthy drops. You just get to fight for money and play with your friends.

No ranking or contribution to leaderboards heads off much of the value for cheating by contributing to another alliance's emperor run. Yes, you can fight, but it adds nothing to the stats, which devalues the role of a mercenary's contribution. Essentially, it reduces the role to just a body that fights or dies so the role can't easily be used to push stats toward emperorship. But a player can still have fun with cross-alliance friends, and then go back to making a difference for their own alliance when they play on their own side.


More complex, but even more way to limit the influence an alliances -- if you go in as a Mercenary, you automatically forfeit your leaderboard progress in all campaigns except for your faction-locked one. So you can only advance in a faction-locked campaign, and can only play your appropriate faction character(s) there. For the rest, you're a merc for the rest of the campaign(s) with nothing but gold to gain.

Players with a goal of advancing their alliance or competing for Emperor won't play as Mercenaries, since they'd be giving up too much. Players who just want to have fun in the Cyrodiil sandbox won't care. In the greater Cyrodiil conflict, they're just bodies on the battlefield and that's fine.

As to Emperor campaigns that want to use Mercenaries to turn the tide of battles in order to advance? Would it be cheating? Not necessarily. It's a legitimate strategy throughout real-world history. Need soldiers but can't afford the cost of properly equipping and supporting them? Hire mercenaries for gold! In ESO, mercenary guilds would likely form for the sole purpose of fighting to earn gold. Alliance campaign leaders would have to weigh the cost of paying them per-battle, or paying them more to stay loyal throughout an entire campaign rather than showing up the next day (or even next battle) on the opposite side. That, too, was a real-world historical strategic problem.

Let's face it. Spying and mercenary behavior happens in Cyrodiil campaigns. It can't be stopped as long as players can organize and communicate out-of-band through email and Discord chat. Instead, put in a formal structure that affects that hidden aspect of gameplay. Cross-faction "cheating" gets checks and balances applied to gameplay. Now players have incentives and disincentives to use or not use it.

White wabbit

UnseenCat wrote: »

What about a "Mercenary" option for non-faction-locked Cyrodiil/Imperial City campaigns ONLY?

You still retain your alliance association in PvE, in Cyrodiil/Imperial City. But it doesn't apply to your alliance leaderboard ranking at all. Earn gold instead of AP. No Rewards for the Worthy drops. You just get to fight for money and play with your friends.

No ranking or contribution to leaderboards heads off much of the value for cheating by contributing to another alliance's emperor run. Yes, you can fight, but it adds nothing to the stats, which devalues the role of a mercenary's contribution. Essentially, it reduces the role to just a body that fights or dies so the role can't easily be used to push stats toward emperorship. But a player can still have fun with cross-alliance friends, and then go back to making a difference for their own alliance when they play on their own side.


More complex, but even more way to limit the influence an alliances -- if you go in as a Mercenary, you automatically forfeit your leaderboard progress in all campaigns except for your faction-locked one. So you can only advance in a faction-locked campaign, and can only play your appropriate faction character(s) there. For the rest, you're a merc for the rest of the campaign(s) with nothing but gold to gain.

Players with a goal of advancing their alliance or competing for Emperor won't play as Mercenaries, since they'd be giving up too much. Players who just want to have fun in the Cyrodiil sandbox won't care. In the greater Cyrodiil conflict, they're just bodies on the battlefield and that's fine.

As to Emperor campaigns that want to use Mercenaries to turn the tide of battles in order to advance? Would it be cheating? Not necessarily. It's a legitimate strategy throughout real-world history. Need soldiers but can't afford the cost of properly equipping and supporting them? Hire mercenaries for gold! In ESO, mercenary guilds would likely form for the sole purpose of fighting to earn gold. Alliance campaign leaders would have to weigh the cost of paying them per-battle, or paying them more to stay loyal throughout an entire campaign rather than showing up the next day (or even next battle) on the opposite side. That, too, was a real-world historical strategic problem.

Let's face it. Spying and mercenary behavior happens in Cyrodiil campaigns. It can't be stopped as long as players can organize and communicate out-of-band through email and Discord chat. Instead, put in a formal structure that affects that hidden aspect of gameplay. Cross-faction "cheating" gets checks and balances applied to gameplay. Now players have incentives and disincentives to use or not use it.

Sorry didn't mean to press the awesome button , the problem with this idea is I think alot would use this faction to troll

Eiagra

Something just to keep in mind is: even though we're players of the game, and have a voice, ultimately this isn't our game to develop. Bandwidth -- that is to say, the limited resource of TIME, not the kind you use for your internet -- is something that needs to be carefully allocated to ensure development keeps moving forward.

"[...] whilst these could be overcome with a large investment of time ZOS needs to balance between if these would be good use of that time vs other things they could be working on."

It's great to see people coming up with ideas to improve a game they play -- it shows they love the game, or have a passion for it, and want it to flourish. Just might want to temper that zeal a bit so we're staying realistic about what can be achieved.

Mihael

Yes, add them.

And give us at leas t1 for free like they did with race change tokens

Karivaa

Yes, add them.

We want them badly, but Zos has stated in the past that due to coding there is no way they can ever do this.

citats

Yes, add them.

With faction lock, there is effectively no way to play NonCP cyrodiil with 2/thirds of our characters...
Please zos add these tokens so we can play with all of our characters once again... Or remove the faction lock, or allow guest factions, or add an extra unlocked noncp campaign... anything.

Krec

No, don't add them.

Nah... I'd rather have them spend time and resource on improving the game, server performance, or more content. This is an isolated problem impacting a small potion of the player base.

BrooksP

No, don't add them.

No, but only because a method should added into the game itself instead of more cash shop garbage.

richo262

No, don't add them.

They should just scrap alliance being bound to characters.

Have it so that when you start a season you can choose your alliance for that season. After the season ends you revert to neutral until you rejoin the next season and make your choice.

1) If you do not have any race / any alliance only characters of a particular race can join that particular alliance, all other characters sit the season out. Imperial can join any.

2) If you do have any race / any alliance, all your characters can enter Cyro / Imp city.

Alternatively, make it 2) the default position, everyone gets Any Race / Any Alliance, those that have purchased it get 5 crown crates as compensation.

---

For the purpose of story content, unbind alliance from starting location. I'd like to see it possible to select your own starting location, but have every character start in Cold Harbor, after you escape you land in either.

1) Roost
2) Bleakrock
3) Stros
4) Murkmire Prologue Island (Archaeologist pull you out of water into their boat)
5) Gold Coast (Washed up near lighthouse)
6) TG Heist quest (Saved by the TG NPC and brought along on a heist)
7) Morrowind (Captured by slavers)
8) Summerset (Landed in a delve, delve collapses)
9) Elsweyr (Landed in a field, hitched a ride in a caravan, caravan is attacked by a dragon)
10) Wrothgar (Unknown)

Options 1), 2) and 3) are only accessible to new players, they unlock as starting locations after they have completed the zone on one character. 1) 2) and 3) will give the player access to mundus and is closer to the main quest point. It is still the most user friendly starting zone.

However, the latest chapter is open to all (no prior competition required) for those that just want to jump straight into it, with a recommendation those that are completely new to the game start in 1) 2) or 3).

Defilted

Yes, add them.

Yes add them if you own any race any alliance.