Why on Earth is 30 day faction lock a thing

CatchMeTrolling

master_vanargand wrote: »

Faction lock is great.
It is not the perfect but the first step in the right action.
Do your fight for alliance, that is true war.
When you effort with alliance mates, you get a bond of victory.
That is a great experience.

Well wouldn’t “cheating”, traitors and collision be a part of true War too?

Ramber

Kadoin wrote: »

Enough people cried for ZOS to do it. Plus it might make them sell more of that dumb DLC that lets you play any race on any alliance. It's a win-win for ZOS!

At least until Cyrodiil population turns to zero and those players stop logging...

ZOS really only looks at the short-term with this game on every level, even class balance. It's sad.

its actually busier then ever in pvp

Sharee

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

master_vanargand wrote: »

Faction lock is great.
It is not the perfect but the first step in the right action.
Do your fight for alliance, that is true war.
When you effort with alliance mates, you get a bond of victory.
That is a great experience.

Well wouldn’t “cheating”, traitors and collision be a part of true War too?

In a "true war" you could kill the traitor.
This is a game, where certain things are assumed, like that players of the same color are teammates, not enemies, thus you can not kill them, thus a mechanism is needed to ensure(as much as possible) that they actually *are* teammates, and not enemies. Faction locks go a long way towards that goal.

CatchMeTrolling

Sharee wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

master_vanargand wrote: »

Faction lock is great.
It is not the perfect but the first step in the right action.
Do your fight for alliance, that is true war.
When you effort with alliance mates, you get a bond of victory.
That is a great experience.

Well wouldn’t “cheating”, traitors and collision be a part of true War too?

In a "true war" you could kill the traitor.
This is a game, where certain things are assumed, like that players of the same color are teammates, not enemies, thus you can not kill them, thus a mechanism is needed to ensure(as much as possible) that they actually *are* teammates, and not enemies. Faction locks go a long way towards that goal.

No you guys are just proving your bias when it doesn’t fit your opinion, even if your logic is being used against you.

Sharee

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

master_vanargand wrote: »

Faction lock is great.
It is not the perfect but the first step in the right action.
Do your fight for alliance, that is true war.
When you effort with alliance mates, you get a bond of victory.
That is a great experience.

Well wouldn’t “cheating”, traitors and collision be a part of true War too?

In a "true war" you could kill the traitor.
This is a game, where certain things are assumed, like that players of the same color are teammates, not enemies, thus you can not kill them, thus a mechanism is needed to ensure(as much as possible) that they actually *are* teammates, and not enemies. Faction locks go a long way towards that goal.

No you guys are just proving your bias when it doesn’t fit your opinion, even if your logic is being used against you.

The logic you are using against me is faulty. This is a game. It has teams. Players on the same team are meant to work together, that's why they are unable to kill each other. "But in true war there would be traitors" does not apply here.

CatchMeTrolling

Sharee wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

master_vanargand wrote: »

Faction lock is great.
It is not the perfect but the first step in the right action.
Do your fight for alliance, that is true war.
When you effort with alliance mates, you get a bond of victory.
That is a great experience.

Well wouldn’t “cheating”, traitors and collision be a part of true War too?

In a "true war" you could kill the traitor.
This is a game, where certain things are assumed, like that players of the same color are teammates, not enemies, thus you can not kill them, thus a mechanism is needed to ensure(as much as possible) that they actually *are* teammates, and not enemies. Faction locks go a long way towards that goal.

No you guys are just proving your bias when it doesn’t fit your opinion, even if your logic is being used against you.

The logic you are using against me is faulty. This is a game. It has teams. Players on the same team are meant to work together, that's why they are unable to kill each other. "But in true war there would be traitors" does not apply here.

I wasn’t talking to you to begin with. And that’s the point you guys logic is faulty , thanks.

Ps. The “this is a game logic” can also be used to support anti faction lock.

Sanct16

Ramber wrote: »

Kadoin wrote: »

Enough people cried for ZOS to do it. Plus it might make them sell more of that dumb DLC that lets you play any race on any alliance. It's a win-win for ZOS!

At least until Cyrodiil population turns to zero and those players stop logging...

ZOS really only looks at the short-term with this game on every level, even class balance. It's sad.

its actually busier then ever in pvp

Do you have any numbers to back this statement?

From my personal experience on PC EU populations have gone down. Outside of primetime it's really empty. It might be related to the different time of year causing players to rather stay outside than to play ESO. However it contradicts your observations.

Kadoin

Ramber wrote: »

Kadoin wrote: »

Enough people cried for ZOS to do it. Plus it might make them sell more of that dumb DLC that lets you play any race on any alliance. It's a win-win for ZOS!

At least until Cyrodiil population turns to zero and those players stop logging...

ZOS really only looks at the short-term with this game on every level, even class balance. It's sad.

its actually busier then ever in pvp

We'll see when everyone swaps to the faction that previously won over and over.

Sharee

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

The “this is a game logic” can also be used to support anti faction lock.

Maybe we should also allow soccer players switch to the enemy team mid-match because they have a higher score, yes?

"This is a game" logic, and all that.

Sanct16

Sharee wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

The “this is a game logic” can also be used to support anti faction lock.

Maybe we should also allow soccer players switch to the enemy team mid-match because they have a higher score, yes?

"This is a game" logic, and all that.

Actually in a casual game with friends you'd probably do that if the teams are unbalanced. Trade a good player from the winning team with a not-so-good player from the losing team.

Or are you implying that ESO should be compared to competitive soccer rather than casual?

I understand of course that you're implying people switch to the winning faction resulting in further imbalance but this behaviour can not be stopped by faction locks. You can delay for a bit but at the end of the campaign the players that want to be on the winning team will swap regardless.

CatchMeTrolling

Sharee wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

The “this is a game logic” can also be used to support anti faction lock.

Maybe we should also allow soccer players switch to the enemy team mid-match because they have a higher score, yes?

"This is a game" logic, and all that.

You’re not even making sense soccer and any sports already have their rules and can’t be compared to a game that constantly changes. They’re not even the same type of thing. You don’t even realize you’re bending the other persons logic that agree with your silly faction lock stance. Proving that you guys will say anything to sound right.

Btw learn when someone is being mocked.

master_vanargand

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

master_vanargand wrote: »

Faction lock is great.
It is not the perfect but the first step in the right action.
Do your fight for alliance, that is true war.
When you effort with alliance mates, you get a bond of victory.
That is a great experience.

Well wouldn’t “cheating”, traitors and collision be a part of true War too?

They are all punishable

master_vanargand

Sanct16 wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

The “this is a game logic” can also be used to support anti faction lock.

Maybe we should also allow soccer players switch to the enemy team mid-match because they have a higher score, yes?

"This is a game" logic, and all that.

Actually in a casual game with friends you'd probably do that if the teams are unbalanced. Trade a good player from the winning team with a not-so-good player from the losing team.

Or are you implying that ESO should be compared to competitive soccer rather than casual?

I understand of course that you're implying people switch to the winning faction resulting in further imbalance but this behaviour can not be stopped by faction locks. You can delay for a bit but at the end of the campaign the players that want to be on the winning team will swap regardless.

ESO can change alliances at any time.
You lose AP, but you can play with your friends' alliance all the time.

Sharee

Sanct16 wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

The “this is a game logic” can also be used to support anti faction lock.

Maybe we should also allow soccer players switch to the enemy team mid-match because they have a higher score, yes?

"This is a game" logic, and all that.

Actually in a casual game with friends you'd probably do that if the teams are unbalanced. Trade a good player from the winning team with a not-so-good player from the losing team.

Or are you implying that ESO should be compared to competitive soccer rather than casual?

I dare say there are many players in ESO who are competitive and feel strongly about alliance war scoring. The kind of player swapping you mention is generally only possible if all involved agreed to it (a casual game with friends, as you say), not a game where most of the teammates/enemies are strangers to you, and rightfully expect that if you are on their team, you play for them, not against them.

Sanct16 wrote: »

I understand of course that you're implying people switch to the winning faction resulting in further imbalance but this behaviour can not be stopped by faction locks. You can delay for a bit but at the end of the campaign the players that want to be on the winning team will swap regardless.

That is like saying we should remove all locks on doors because a determined thief can overcome any lock anyway.
The goal of faction locks is to reduce unwanted behavior, not to eliminate it.

Sanct16

master_vanargand wrote: »

Sanct16 wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

The “this is a game logic” can also be used to support anti faction lock.

Maybe we should also allow soccer players switch to the enemy team mid-match because they have a higher score, yes?

"This is a game" logic, and all that.

Actually in a casual game with friends you'd probably do that if the teams are unbalanced. Trade a good player from the winning team with a not-so-good player from the losing team.

Or are you implying that ESO should be compared to competitive soccer rather than casual?

I understand of course that you're implying people switch to the winning faction resulting in further imbalance but this behaviour can not be stopped by faction locks. You can delay for a bit but at the end of the campaign the players that want to be on the winning team will swap regardless.

ESO can change alliances at any time.
You lose AP, but you can play with your friends' alliance all the time.

With faction locks you can't change your alliance - which is the problem.

master_vanargand

Sanct16 wrote: »

master_vanargand wrote: »

Sanct16 wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

The “this is a game logic” can also be used to support anti faction lock.

Maybe we should also allow soccer players switch to the enemy team mid-match because they have a higher score, yes?

"This is a game" logic, and all that.

Actually in a casual game with friends you'd probably do that if the teams are unbalanced. Trade a good player from the winning team with a not-so-good player from the losing team.

Or are you implying that ESO should be compared to competitive soccer rather than casual?

I understand of course that you're implying people switch to the winning faction resulting in further imbalance but this behaviour can not be stopped by faction locks. You can delay for a bit but at the end of the campaign the players that want to be on the winning team will swap regardless.

ESO can change alliances at any time.
You lose AP, but you can play with your friends' alliance all the time.

With faction locks you can't change your alliance - which is the problem.

If you need AP, you can change it after a month.
If you do not need AP, you can play other characters in other alliances.
There is nothing wrong.

cheifsoap

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

master_vanargand wrote: »

Faction lock is great.
It is not the perfect but the first step in the right action.
Do your fight for alliance, that is true war.
When you effort with alliance mates, you get a bond of victory.
That is a great experience.

Well wouldn’t “cheating”, traitors and collision be a part of true War too?

In a "true war" you could kill the traitor.
This is a game, where certain things are assumed, like that players of the same color are teammates, not enemies, thus you can not kill them, thus a mechanism is needed to ensure(as much as possible) that they actually *are* teammates, and not enemies. Faction locks go a long way towards that goal.

No you guys are just proving your bias when it doesn’t fit your opinion, even if your logic is being used against you.

The logic you are using against me is faulty. This is a game. It has teams. Players on the same team are meant to work together, that's why they are unable to kill each other. "But in true war there would be traitors" does not apply here.

I wasn’t talking to you to begin with. And that’s the point you guys logic is faulty , thanks.

Ps. The “this is a game logic” can also be used to support anti faction lock.

Name checks out.

CatchMeTrolling

cheifsoap wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

master_vanargand wrote: »

Faction lock is great.
It is not the perfect but the first step in the right action.
Do your fight for alliance, that is true war.
When you effort with alliance mates, you get a bond of victory.
That is a great experience.

Well wouldn’t “cheating”, traitors and collision be a part of true War too?

In a "true war" you could kill the traitor.
This is a game, where certain things are assumed, like that players of the same color are teammates, not enemies, thus you can not kill them, thus a mechanism is needed to ensure(as much as possible) that they actually *are* teammates, and not enemies. Faction locks go a long way towards that goal.

No you guys are just proving your bias when it doesn’t fit your opinion, even if your logic is being used against you.

The logic you are using against me is faulty. This is a game. It has teams. Players on the same team are meant to work together, that's why they are unable to kill each other. "But in true war there would be traitors" does not apply here.

I wasn’t talking to you to begin with. And that’s the point you guys logic is faulty , thanks.

Ps. The “this is a game logic” can also be used to support anti faction lock.

Name checks out.

Don’t hate on my reverse psychology skills pal.

Marcus684

It’s pretty obvious to me now why ZOS locked the “main” campaign. They know that most new pvpers just picked the first campaign for their home and hopped in, whether that’s because it was the first or the most populated is irrelevant. These same new pvpers are the favorite prey of the “small-scalers” and 1vXers, no matter how many times they try to deny it. Their streams are all the proof we need of this. Eventually, ZOS realized that the merciless farming of new pvpers is bad for business, and chose to faction lock the main campaign, and left a 7-day no-CP campaign, the least popular version of Cyrodiil, for those l33t players. This fact alone should tell everyone what ZOS thinks of you faction-hoppers. They don’t want you, and would be happy if you just left the game, just like most of the players that fight you.

TBois

Marcus684 wrote: »

It’s pretty obvious to me now why ZOS locked the “main” campaign. They know that most new pvpers just picked the first campaign for their home and hopped in, whether that’s because it was the first or the most populated is irrelevant. These same new pvpers are the favorite prey of the “small-scalers” and 1vXers, no matter how many times they try to deny it. Their streams are all the proof we need of this. Eventually, ZOS realized that the merciless farming of new pvpers is bad for business, and chose to faction lock the main campaign, and left a 7-day no-CP campaign, the least popular version of Cyrodiil, for those l33t players. This fact alone should tell everyone what ZOS thinks of you faction-hoppers. They don’t want you, and would be happy if you just left the game, just like most of the players that fight you.

That's the message they have been giving most pvpers since they ditched the idea of pvp being the game's endgame. Those that remain are a persistent bunch.

Agrippa_Invisus

master_vanargand wrote: »

Sanct16 wrote: »

master_vanargand wrote: »

Sanct16 wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

The “this is a game logic” can also be used to support anti faction lock.

Maybe we should also allow soccer players switch to the enemy team mid-match because they have a higher score, yes?

"This is a game" logic, and all that.

Actually in a casual game with friends you'd probably do that if the teams are unbalanced. Trade a good player from the winning team with a not-so-good player from the losing team.

Or are you implying that ESO should be compared to competitive soccer rather than casual?

I understand of course that you're implying people switch to the winning faction resulting in further imbalance but this behaviour can not be stopped by faction locks. You can delay for a bit but at the end of the campaign the players that want to be on the winning team will swap regardless.

ESO can change alliances at any time.
You lose AP, but you can play with your friends' alliance all the time.

With faction locks you can't change your alliance - which is the problem.

If you need AP, you can change it after a month.
If you do not need AP, you can play other characters in other alliances.
There is nothing wrong.

Only cruddy mobile games tell you you can't play a character in the way you want after arbitrary time periods pass.

KingExecration

WoppaBoem wrote: »

The lock is awesome. Instead of very toxic zone chat it turned into a alliance zone team chat. The trolling is gone, scroll pick up and running to the enemies to hand it over. The game feels like it should be and the fights are balanced enough. The blues could need some bodies do.

So far really nice experience. Especially the hate out of zone chat. Come to enjoy the game but so many people just logged into the alliance to make drama.

I don’t know what utopia campaign you’re playing in, but I think the toxicity has hit an all time high considering the same people are always arguing in zone. And you’re right on the scroll trolling being stopped, now it’s the hammer bringing it straight to the others door.

SirAndy

hassubhai wrote: »

Why on Earth is 30 day faction lock a thing

Because people with only one main were making a lot of noise and ZOS caved in and brought the ill-fated faction lock back from the dead.

Gariele

I keep hearing "play with my friends". This is such a lame excuse. Only time this would matter is if you or your friend is Emp pushing. Either decide what faction you guys want or go to 7 day and play together. Its a lot of faction hoppers upset they cant AP leech on every faction depending on time of the day.

SirAndy

Gariele wrote: »

I keep hearing "play with my friends". This is such a lame excuse. Only time this would matter is if you or your friend is Emp pushing. Either decide what faction you guys want or go to 7 day and play together. Its a lot of faction hoppers upset they cant AP leech on every faction depending on time of the day.

Sigh, like i said, people with only one main making a lot of noise because they can't understand how having multiple mains works.

*i* don't want any faction, *i* am not an in-game character.

What i do want is for my 5 mains spanning all 3 factions to be able to play in 30 day CP campaigns.

Gilvoth

if you faction hop it should let you be flaggable and killable by ALL!

Derra

master_vanargand wrote: »

Faction lock is great.
It is not the perfect but the first step in the right action.
Do your fight for alliance, that is true war.
When you effort with alliance mates, you get a bond of victory.
That is a great experience.

I´m a roleplayer.
I let my alliance "mates" die all the time - sorts out the weak links.

If someone can´t win an honorable duel i don´t want them fighting beside me. There is no place for the frail and feeble in war.

RedGirl41

It used to be in the game before, they took it out because it’s stupid tbh. But so many people who pvp for campaign score etc firmly believe that spies ruin the game. Which is a joke. For example on PS4 NA the AD alliance couldn’t wait for alliance lock because they assumed they would start winning again. Yet the only time they cane get score points is from midnight till 7am when all the Australian players get on. During prime time they have one keep lol.

Hope it’s changed soon. Personally my guild has swapped alliances before but we stayed on dc for a year straight then came back to AD. One of our healers accidentally locked the campaign and he can’t play with us for 15 more days...

The other campaigns are either empty of just have one mega zerg holding the whole map

dtsharples

People can't be all that put-out if they continue to swarm both the 30 day CP and non-CP campaigns.
Clearly they have made the decision that playing in a 30 day campaign is more important that playing with friends.

If all the people making posts in favour of unlocking the campaigns again, instead made posts encouraging others to move to the existing unlocked campaign it could actually be busy this time around.
Seriously, the only people losing out here are those who play Non-CP and want to play Unlocked.

Gilvoth

Vercingetorix wrote: »

Faction Lock is hurting exploiters that can no longer cheat the leaderboard for 10+ 30-day rewards. FTFY

Everyone else is fine because they play on only one faction for leaderboard rewards like a correct person. If you want to play with your friends on another faction, go to another campaign - AP is AP. The only reason why you'd complain is because you're after the leaderboard so you can exploit it. You can't cheat anymore - get over it.

well said