Alt Accounts and faction hopping on locked campaigns

Ranger209

When locked campaigns first opened I thought this would not be an overly prevalent thing, or maybe I was just happy that they were making an attempt at a faction locked campaign. Lately I have been more concerned with this. What are peoples thoughts on this. Is it an issue? Is it a growing concern? Does it happen more often at certain times of day? Is it something that happens across all platforms or more so on PC? Is it still being done to paint the map one color, swap accounts, and paint it another color by the same individuals?

The point of faction lock is so that individual players must commit to one faction for the duration of the campaign cycle on a locked campaign. If this is being worked around with alt accounts does ZOS need to go deeper with this lock to the ip level? Is that even possible? Should doing this be a bannable offence? Should there be warnings given to those partaking? Thoughts, comments, or concerns?

Royaji

It's fine.

I'd rather see ZOS work on scoring adjustments and population balance problems to make Cyro more enjoyable in the short term. No need to shackle people to one faction for that.

Ranger209

Obviously there was a need or they wouldn't have implemented faction locks to begin with. Plenty of players like faction locks and the spirit behind it. Obviously you prefer the ability to swap if you consider it being shackled to a faction. You're entitled to that opinion, and the spirit behind that, and there are servers that offer that type of game play. This is exactly what makes doing this so offensive for those that prefer faction locks. There are alternatives that allow this play style so take it to those servers where it is the designed intent.

Royaji

Ranger209 wrote: »

Obviously there was a need or they wouldn't have implemented faction locks to begin with. Plenty of players like faction locks and the spirit behind it. Obviously you prefer the ability to swap if you consider it being shackled to a faction. You're entitled to that opinion, and the spirit behind that, and there are servers that offer that type of game play. This is exactly what makes doing this so offensive for those that prefer faction locks. There are alternatives that allow this play style so take it to those servers where it is the designed intent.

I'm a no-CP player. I don't get an alternative.

Soon though.

Mr_Walker

Ranger209 wrote: »

Obviously there was a need or they wouldn't have implemented faction locks to begin with.

Invalid assumption.

Ranger209 wrote: »

If this is being worked around with alt accounts does ZOS need to go deeper with this lock to the ip level? Is that even possible? Should doing this be a bannable offence? Should there be warnings given to those partaking? Thoughts, comments, or concerns?

It is happening. No, your "solutions" are neither feasible or possible.

Maybe you should have thought about all the ways it could fail instead of blindly cheering it on. Because it has failed. Miserably. Consider it a salutory life lesson in thinking past your own immediate want/s.

Some of us told you.

ks888

There was no "need" for faction locks. People just complained on the forums enough, so it happened. Thus kind of screwing those of us who don't really play the map and just want to find fights. We got stuck on a laggy campaign where we could find fights or spent 1/2 of our time afk and bored because we couldn't pop around to find fights when our faction zerged a map down. That's usually when I would go play something else.

Reverb

I have doubts that this is happening with notable frequency, but if it is, so be it. It’s absolutely not bannable, and no action should be taken by Zeni.

There’s no restrictions on the number of game licenses/accounts a person can buy. Each account must abide by the TOS, but is fully independent. You could have an account fully dedicated to each faction without breaking any Zeni terms.

Phoebe

Ranger209 wrote: »

The point of faction lock is so that individual players must commit to one faction for the duration of the campaign cycle on a locked campaign. If this is being worked around with alt accounts does ZOS need to go deeper with this lock to the ip level? Is that even possible? Should doing this be a bannable offence? Should there be warnings given to those partaking? Thoughts, comments, or concerns?

Even if it was a problem, ZOS couldn't solve it by just looking at the IP. What if in a family household the mother prefers the Dominion, the father the Pact and the kids the Convenant? Locking them all to the same faction, or even banning them for playing for their favourite alliance, would just be simply unfair

Even my partner prefers a different alliance than me, though I usually get him to play for the one I like

mague

Ranger209 wrote: »

The point of faction lock is so that individual players must commit to one faction for the duration of the campaign cycle on a locked campaign. If this is being worked around with alt accounts does ZOS need to go deeper with this lock to the ip level? Is that even possible? Should doing this be a bannable offence? Should there be warnings given to those partaking? Thoughts, comments, or concerns?

It is extremely sad that certain players need others as background actors. I d love to see this go away. It is.. well, lets say quite ignorant.

Officially it is allowed to even run two copies of ESO on the same PC. From changing a video card i know they use the video card to identify you. Or the combination of CPU and GPU. Whatever..

IP is not possible because you and your brother, sister, mom or wife could sit at home and play in a NAT network on multiple PC.

We could appeal to common sense, but that probably wont change anything.

As it is you can go play till you are fed up. Then do something else. There many good days, but some days are really smelly.

More important is to change mechanics to avoid scroll hording on one faction.

TheFM

Royaji wrote: »

It's fine.

I'd rather see ZOS work on scoring adjustments and population balance problems to make Cyro more enjoyable in the short term. No need to shackle people to one faction for that.

There needs to be a score debuff for the team that has far more players than the other ones on off target hours. Real simple really.

TheFM

Mr_Walker wrote: »

Ranger209 wrote: »

Obviously there was a need or they wouldn't have implemented faction locks to begin with.

Invalid assumption.

Ranger209 wrote: »

If this is being worked around with alt accounts does ZOS need to go deeper with this lock to the ip level? Is that even possible? Should doing this be a bannable offence? Should there be warnings given to those partaking? Thoughts, comments, or concerns?

It is happening. No, your "solutions" are neither feasible or possible.

Maybe you should have thought about all the ways it could fail instead of blindly cheering it on. Because it has failed. Miserably. Consider it a salutory life lesson in thinking past your own immediate want/s.

Some of us told you.

Damn us for hoping we could keep the spirit of the faction war alive. xD Pesky teams and all that.

Ranger209

TheFM wrote: »

Mr_Walker wrote: »

Ranger209 wrote: »

Obviously there was a need or they wouldn't have implemented faction locks to begin with.

Invalid assumption.

Ranger209 wrote: »

If this is being worked around with alt accounts does ZOS need to go deeper with this lock to the ip level? Is that even possible? Should doing this be a bannable offence? Should there be warnings given to those partaking? Thoughts, comments, or concerns?

It is happening. No, your "solutions" are neither feasible or possible.

Maybe you should have thought about all the ways it could fail instead of blindly cheering it on. Because it has failed. Miserably. Consider it a salutory life lesson in thinking past your own immediate want/s.

Some of us told you.

Damn us for hoping we could keep the spirit of the faction war alive. xD Pesky teams and all that.

Yes, well didn't you know that when ZOS proclaimed "Play the way you want" they weren't talking to you or me. They were only talking to those that "Want good fights", or "Want to play with friends", or "Don't care about the score", or "Don't care about playing the map", or "Don't care about the 3 banner war". They weren't talking to the people that want to play in Cyrodiil under a rule set that creates actual teams with rosters that don't change every 10 minutes because of whim or fancy, but actually holds teams members firm for the duration of the campaign like any AvAvA game is supposed to. They weren't talking to the people who don't want to fight side by side with another saving them from certain death, only to be teabagged by the person they saved 15 minutes later riding under another banner. No they were talking to all of those people who never think about their immediate wants, and care primarily for the health of the game where options contrary to their play style are not allowed, in other words, not us. Maybe ZOS should come up with a new slogan, "Play the way they want". Kinda catchy.

idk

Ranger209 wrote: »

Obviously there was a need or they wouldn't have implemented faction locks to begin with. Plenty of players like faction locks and the spirit behind it. Obviously you prefer the ability to swap if you consider it being shackled to a faction. You're entitled to that opinion, and the spirit behind that, and there are servers that offer that type of game play. This is exactly what makes doing this so offensive for those that prefer faction locks. There are alternatives that allow this play style so take it to those servers where it is the designed intent.

It is very much an assumption that Zos saw a need. Especially in light that their first reason mentioned for the return of factions locks that players requested it. Further, if Zos really thought there was a need then every 50+ campaign would have had faction lock. The biggest action Zos has taken to discredit the idea that there was an actual need for this is Zos backing off how many campaigns are locked. That speaks volumes that there really is not a need.

We know have callouts that alt accounts are a growing issue without anything to really back it up which is much like the previous calls for faction locks. So it just might be that we have some players that see things not going well and assume it is players using alt accounts to circumvent the faction locks to manipulate the scoring even though there is not really anything to support the claim.

Regardless, use of alt accounts is perfectly legitimate according to statements from Zos in these very forum. As long as we are actually controlling said accounts manually it is perfectly legitimate. However, as someone who has an alt account, I really doubt enough players have alt accounts to have the effect OP is suggesting and until we have actual information to back it up then it is nothing more than the empty claims about faction hopping made before locks returned.

Syrusthevirus187

@Ranger209 if you want to roleplay as one faction you can. Play however you want. Other players swapping alliance should not affect you. They can play how they want. Turn off name tags or something so you don't know who you're fighting and just chill out and enjoy yourself. Play your own game and don't stress about how others play theirs.

Ranger209

Syrusthevirus187 wrote: »

@Ranger209 if you want to roleplay as one faction you can. Play however you want. Other players swapping alliance should not affect you. They can play how they want. Turn off name tags or something so you don't know who you're fighting and just chill out and enjoy yourself. Play your own game and don't stress about how others play theirs.

It affects many people who all feel the same way for various reasons toward faction hopping. It doesn't affect me when people do it on a server that allows it. We can all play how we want, some on a faction locked server, and some on an unlocked server. Choice, is good. Why are so many people anti-choice?

Ranger209

idk wrote: »

Ranger209 wrote: »

Obviously there was a need or they wouldn't have implemented faction locks to begin with. Plenty of players like faction locks and the spirit behind it. Obviously you prefer the ability to swap if you consider it being shackled to a faction. You're entitled to that opinion, and the spirit behind that, and there are servers that offer that type of game play. This is exactly what makes doing this so offensive for those that prefer faction locks. There are alternatives that allow this play style so take it to those servers where it is the designed intent.

It is very much an assumption that Zos saw a need. Especially in light that their first reason mentioned for the return of factions locks that players requested it. Further, if Zos really thought there was a need then every 50+ campaign would have had faction lock. The biggest action Zos has taken to discredit the idea that there was an actual need for this is Zos backing off how many campaigns are locked. That speaks volumes that there really is not a need.

We know have callouts that alt accounts are a growing issue without anything to really back it up which is much like the previous calls for faction locks. So it just might be that we have some players that see things not going well and assume it is players using alt accounts to circumvent the faction locks to manipulate the scoring even though there is not really anything to support the claim.

Regardless, use of alt accounts is perfectly legitimate according to statements from Zos in these very forum. As long as we are actually controlling said accounts manually it is perfectly legitimate. However, as someone who has an alt account, I really doubt enough players have alt accounts to have the effect OP is suggesting and until we have actual information to back it up then it is nothing more than the empty claims about faction hopping made before locks returned.

The fact that there are faction locked campaigns is the pudding the proof resides in. There is no reason to make them all faction locked or all unlocked, that is foolish. Choice is good.

Mr_Walker

TheFM wrote: »

Damn us for hoping we could keep the spirit of the faction war alive. xD Pesky teams and all that.

Here it comes, the "we only wanted it for altruistic reasons" BS.

Regardless, the point of my post was neither to celebrate nor decry your ERP desires, just top oint out that it has largely failed. As predicted by anoyone with an ounce of foresight

Ranger209 wrote: »

Yes, well didn't you know that when ZOS proclaimed "Play the way you want" they weren't talking to you or me. They were only talking to those that "Want good fights", or "Want to play with friends", or "Don't care about the score", or "Don't care about playing the map", or "Don't care about the 3 banner war". They weren't talking to the people that want to play in Cyrodiil under a rule set that creates actual teams with rosters that don't change every 10 minutes because of whim or fancy, but actually holds teams members firm for the duration of the campaign like any AvAvA game is supposed to. They weren't talking to the people who don't want to fight side by side with another saving them from certain death, only to be teabagged by the person they saved 15 minutes later riding under another banner. No they were talking to all of those people who never think about their immediate wants, and care primarily for the health of the game where options contrary to their play style are not allowed, in other words, not us. Maybe ZOS should come up with a new slogan, "Play the way they want". Kinda catchy.

[snip] Nothing stopped you from playing the way you wanted. All faction locks have done is place restrictions on other people. They now have to play the way YOU want.

Except I don't even bother with PvP during the week now. I'm playing other games the way I want. As an Aussie, playing off-peak is more of a farce that it was before, so frankly, thank you for ruining it for me, and more than a few others. All because it's not enough for you to be an ERPer, but you insisted everyone else be too.

Minor edit for bait.

Syrusthevirus187

Mr_Walker wrote: »

[snip] Nothing stopped you from playing the way you wanted. All faction locks have done is place restrictions on other people. They now have to play the way YOU want.

Except I don't even bother with PvP during the week now. I'm playing other games the way I want. As an Aussie, playing off-peak is more of a farce that it was before, so frankly, thank you for ruining it for me, and more than a few others. All because it's not enough for you to be an ERPer, but you insisted everyone else be too.

Minor edit for bait.

100% correct

Ranger209

Mr_Walker wrote: »

TheFM wrote: »

Damn us for hoping we could keep the spirit of the faction war alive. xD Pesky teams and all that.

Here it comes, the "we only wanted it for altruistic reasons" BS.

Regardless, the point of my post was neither to celebrate nor decry your ERP desires, just top oint out that it has largely failed. As predicted by anoyone with an ounce of foresight

Ranger209 wrote: »

Yes, well didn't you know that when ZOS proclaimed "Play the way you want" they weren't talking to you or me. They were only talking to those that "Want good fights", or "Want to play with friends", or "Don't care about the score", or "Don't care about playing the map", or "Don't care about the 3 banner war". They weren't talking to the people that want to play in Cyrodiil under a rule set that creates actual teams with rosters that don't change every 10 minutes because of whim or fancy, but actually holds teams members firm for the duration of the campaign like any AvAvA game is supposed to. They weren't talking to the people who don't want to fight side by side with another saving them from certain death, only to be teabagged by the person they saved 15 minutes later riding under another banner. No they were talking to all of those people who never think about their immediate wants, and care primarily for the health of the game where options contrary to their play style are not allowed, in other words, not us. Maybe ZOS should come up with a new slogan, "Play the way they want". Kinda catchy.

Quit the crap. Nothing stopped you from playing the way you wanted. All faction locks have done is place restrictions on other people. They now have to play the way YOU want.

Except I don't even bother with PvP during the week now. I'm playing other games the way I want. As an Aussie, playing off-peak is more of a farce that it was before, so frankly, thank you for ruining it for me, and more than a few others. All because it's not enough for you to be an ERPer, but you insisted everyone else be too.

You obviously don't comprehend the way I want to play. I want to play the game the way it was meant to be played as AvAvA, that's what I signed up for. It's a game mode where faction loyalty matters. It's a game mode where 1v or GROUPv or GUILDv is not the end all be all. It's a game mode where you are team mates with people you never meet or play with. It's a game mode that is bigger than the individual or small group. It's a game mode that is 24 hours a day for 30 days straight and the score is kept for the duration. It is faction vs faction vs faction. It's competitive on a large scale level more so than a small scale level. I get it that you don't understand that, or like it, or appreciate it, but that's the way that I want to play. Without faction locks I can not play the way I want to play. Nor can many people that feel about it the same way. It's impossible. Without faction locks there is no option for this kind of game play. There are options now, whether people utilize all of them or not is another story. Without faction locks the score doesn't matter, the teams don't matter, the campaign doesn't matter.

As far as playing during Aussie hours goes I feel for you. More of a farce, less of a farce, it's still a farce, and it's been going on a lot longer than faction locks. Performance is what should be blamed for that. Faction locks may have exacerbated the problem, but the problem was already there, and it was huge prior. The fact that so few can even get into Cyro to begin with at a tolerable level of game play is the biggest issue you guys have. I hope for you and everyone else that they figure this performance stuff out and what they bring to the game in that regard this year gets the game to the point that 100X as many people over there can get in and enjoy Cyro.

idk

Ranger209 wrote: »

idk wrote: »

Ranger209 wrote: »

Obviously there was a need or they wouldn't have implemented faction locks to begin with. Plenty of players like faction locks and the spirit behind it. Obviously you prefer the ability to swap if you consider it being shackled to a faction. You're entitled to that opinion, and the spirit behind that, and there are servers that offer that type of game play. This is exactly what makes doing this so offensive for those that prefer faction locks. There are alternatives that allow this play style so take it to those servers where it is the designed intent.

It is very much an assumption that Zos saw a need. Especially in light that their first reason mentioned for the return of factions locks that players requested it. Further, if Zos really thought there was a need then every 50+ campaign would have had faction lock. The biggest action Zos has taken to discredit the idea that there was an actual need for this is Zos backing off how many campaigns are locked. That speaks volumes that there really is not a need.

We know have callouts that alt accounts are a growing issue without anything to really back it up which is much like the previous calls for faction locks. So it just might be that we have some players that see things not going well and assume it is players using alt accounts to circumvent the faction locks to manipulate the scoring even though there is not really anything to support the claim.

Regardless, use of alt accounts is perfectly legitimate according to statements from Zos in these very forum. As long as we are actually controlling said accounts manually it is perfectly legitimate. However, as someone who has an alt account, I really doubt enough players have alt accounts to have the effect OP is suggesting and until we have actual information to back it up then it is nothing more than the empty claims about faction hopping made before locks returned.

The fact that there are faction locked campaigns is the pudding the proof resides in. There is no reason to make them all faction locked or all unlocked, that is foolish. Choice is good.

I think we know there are faction locked campaigns and I even mention that. I have no idea what you mean by puddle of proof as that makes no sense. I am not or ever been against removing faction locks nor have I been against having some campaigns be locked. Your reply makes no sense as it seems you might have missed my point.

So, the point is that people are probably mistaking normal increases and decreases in alliance population as people swapping to alts accounts but in reality have nothing to back up such a comment. I seriously doubt the use of alt accounts is wide spread enough to effect a campaign and fairly certain no player would actually know if that was the case or not.

Hopefully that makes it clear.

xaraan

I think you guys worry way too much about faction lock and think it's going to magically solve some imagined problem.

The ship long ago sailed on the majority of players caring about the factions in this game. At this point, especially once One Tamriel launched, the game was sold to people on the ability to play with their friends and pushing faction lock in PvP after the faction loyalty ship long ago sailed away only accomplishes making it harder to play with friends for players where their alliance previously didn't matter in that regard.

Faction lock is a failure and the people that thought it solved everything now think there are all kinds of extra max level accounts being created by a large enough portion of players that it matters, just so they can get around faction lock? And you think IP locking will change that? It's very easy to change your IP.

ThePedge

That's what happens when you constantly reinforce "play how you want", then take that away.

Players like myself who started after 1T had the freedom to join any faction I pleased and experience attacking and defending any objective.

Of course I'm not happy when that's taken away for no reason. I played for hours on those characters, leveled up all skill lines and now I can't use them?

Thank God it looks like they seen sense and unlocking noCP next update.

Soul_Demon

xaraan wrote: »

I think you guys worry way too much about faction lock and think it's going to magically solve some imagined problem.

The ship long ago sailed on the majority of players caring about the factions in this game. At this point, especially once One Tamriel launched, the game was sold to people on the ability to play with their friends and pushing faction lock in PvP after the faction loyalty ship long ago sailed away only accomplishes making it harder to play with friends for players where their alliance previously didn't matter in that regard.

Faction lock is a failure and the people that thought it solved everything now think there are all kinds of extra max level accounts being created by a large enough portion of players that it matters, just so they can get around faction lock? And you think IP locking will change that? It's very easy to change your IP.

Out of curiosity- where do you get "The ship long ago sailed on the majority of players caring about the factions in this game." as many have noticed the small scale solo failures of Battlegrounds and huge ques on faction locked 30 day Kal seems to show a different realty than what you claim. Where are you getting the evidence of such a thing from exactly?

Ranger209

xaraan wrote: »

I think you guys worry way too much about faction lock and think it's going to magically solve some imagined problem.

Faction locks inherently do one thing, and one thing only. They make you pick a side, and make you play for it for the duration of the campaign. They delineate the population into the 3 unique factions, they draw the lines. This validates the idea of AvAvA, and without it there is no AvAvA. Instead, there are just small bands of players switching sides whenever they want. That is not AvAvA. That is all that it does, defines who is on what team for the duration of the campaign. After the campaign you can swap to another alliance for the duration of the next campaign, or contest if that makes more sense. Each 30 days is a contest unto itself where a winner is declared and rewards are given. Faction locks establish the teams that compete against each other in these contests and create a true AvAvA atmosphere.

Anything beyond this that faction locks do is merely a side benefit to some. Less spies, less toxic chat, less shenanigans with scrolls, hammer, or whatnot, those are second level things which may occur to varying degrees, but are not what faction locks are for. Faction locks are "the thing" that establishes AvAvA and the only way that "it" can fail is if individuals are still faction hopping, which can only be done on faction locked servers by using alternate accounts. I am not saying this is happening, I am asking if others think this is happening. Some people have told me that it is happening which has created some suspicion within me, hence my creating this topic of discussion. It was always the only loophole that could get around the faction lock on an individual basis.

The questions are how prevalent do people think it is, and what, if anything should be done about it. All questions, not statements in the OP. Maybe it really is not an issue at all and is done very minimally. I play during peak hours generally so it is a non issue there for the most part because queues. Those willing to endure the queues can still do it though, but I doubt many are. During off hours when I am not personally on though, I have no idea. Is it more prevalent there? Are people still doing it to paint the map one color, jump on alts and paint it another color? This faction swap/map painting is one of those second level effects that was supposed to happen and was stated by ZOS as one of the things they hoped it would curtail. It is just as likely that the map is being painted one color by certain individuals and another color by a completely different set of individuals, which while not fine to me is yet acceptable. Faction locks don't magically solve any problems, they merely create static teams for the duration of a given campaign. They are what define the teams, that is all they do.

Ranger209

idk wrote: »

Ranger209 wrote: »

idk wrote: »

Ranger209 wrote: »

Obviously there was a need or they wouldn't have implemented faction locks to begin with. Plenty of players like faction locks and the spirit behind it. Obviously you prefer the ability to swap if you consider it being shackled to a faction. You're entitled to that opinion, and the spirit behind that, and there are servers that offer that type of game play. This is exactly what makes doing this so offensive for those that prefer faction locks. There are alternatives that allow this play style so take it to those servers where it is the designed intent.

It is very much an assumption that Zos saw a need. Especially in light that their first reason mentioned for the return of factions locks that players requested it. Further, if Zos really thought there was a need then every 50+ campaign would have had faction lock. The biggest action Zos has taken to discredit the idea that there was an actual need for this is Zos backing off how many campaigns are locked. That speaks volumes that there really is not a need.

We know have callouts that alt accounts are a growing issue without anything to really back it up which is much like the previous calls for faction locks. So it just might be that we have some players that see things not going well and assume it is players using alt accounts to circumvent the faction locks to manipulate the scoring even though there is not really anything to support the claim.

Regardless, use of alt accounts is perfectly legitimate according to statements from Zos in these very forum. As long as we are actually controlling said accounts manually it is perfectly legitimate. However, as someone who has an alt account, I really doubt enough players have alt accounts to have the effect OP is suggesting and until we have actual information to back it up then it is nothing more than the empty claims about faction hopping made before locks returned.

The fact that there are faction locked campaigns is the pudding the proof resides in. There is no reason to make them all faction locked or all unlocked, that is foolish. Choice is good.

I think we know there are faction locked campaigns and I even mention that. I have no idea what you mean by puddle of proof as that makes no sense. I am not or ever been against removing faction locks nor have I been against having some campaigns be locked. Your reply makes no sense as it seems you might have missed my point.

So, the point is that people are probably mistaking normal increases and decreases in alliance population as people swapping to alts accounts but in reality have nothing to back up such a comment. I seriously doubt the use of alt accounts is wide spread enough to effect a campaign and fairly certain no player would actually know if that was the case or not.

Hopefully that makes it clear.

Pudding, not puddle. "The proof is in the pudding," is a saying. I am saying the existence of faction locks is that pudding, and the proof of their need or desire for them is the fact that we have them. Enough people wanted them that ZOS made them a reality, or ZOS' vision of what Cyrodiil AvAvA is supposed to be aligned with their thinking faction locks should be an option.

Thank you for the concise answer, yes that does make your thoughts clear on the matter. I happen to agree, but as stated in the OP a glimmer of suspicion has crept into my mind recently by what others have told me.

Syrusthevirus187

If I play EP I kill AD and DC. If anyone changes alliance I am EP and I still kill AD and DC.

I fail to see anyone's problem.

Ranger209

Syrusthevirus187 wrote: »

If I play EP I kill AD and DC. If anyone changes alliance I am EP and I still kill AD and DC.

I fail to see anyone's problem.

And if you change alliance you kill EP. I don't want to save your butt only to have you come back 15 minutes later and kick mine for the alliance that you just swapped to. Where is the camaraderie in that? Pick a side and fight for it, or play on the available server that embraces your play style.

Joy_Division

Ranger209 wrote: »

Anything beyond this that faction locks do is merely a side benefit to some. Less spies, less toxic chat, less shenanigans with scrolls, hammer, or whatnot, those are second level things which may occur to varying degrees, but are not what faction locks are for.

Faction Lock advocates assert this as if it's some sort of truth or indisputable fact when there is zero evidence for this happening and even less reason to theorize that it might be a possibility.

Where is the logic in asserting - not even assuming - that just because I am forced to play on a faction, that I wont hand a scroll off to a friend, engage in shenanigans with the hammer, and be abusive in zone chat? Since when do laws, rules, and restrictions change personalities? If anything, there would be more of it because you are forcing people to play in a way they don't to, they are annoyed, and they are prevented from playing in a group with friends that otherwise might actually want to play the map legitimately.

MipMip

mague wrote: »

It is extremely sad that certain players need others as background actors.

So well said. It's simply not true that people who would like to play for a faction cannot play this way when others play exclusively or primarily for their group / guild and do not care about the score. As long as I have played this game there have been players (in non-faction locked campaigns) who play for the score, coordinate through zone chat etc. But I am one of those who has no interest in playing for the score and rather want to be able to group up flexibly and go on whichever side the good fights are, and I look forward so much to being able to do that again soon!

Ranger209

Joy_Division wrote: »

Ranger209 wrote: »

Anything beyond this that faction locks do is merely a side benefit to some. Less spies, less toxic chat, less shenanigans with scrolls, hammer, or whatnot, those are second level things which may occur to varying degrees, but are not what faction locks are for.

Faction Lock advocates assert this as if it's some sort of truth or indisputable fact when there is zero evidence for this happening and even less reason to theorize that it might be a possibility.

Where is the logic in asserting - not even assuming - that just because I am forced to play on a faction, that I wont hand a scroll off to a friend, engage in shenanigans with the hammer, and be abusive in zone chat? Since when do laws, rules, and restrictions change personalities? If anything, there would be more of it because you are forcing people to play in a way they don't to, they are annoyed, and they are prevented from playing in a group with friends that otherwise might actually want to play the map legitimately.

Has there been more of it on the faction locked servers than there was before there were such servers? I think most would say that it has lessened, but we are all humans and tend to see what we want to see to support our already ingrained beliefs. So it is just as likely that some will say it is worse than ever. Maybe during some times of the 24 hour cycle it is worse, maybe during some times faction swapping on alt accounts is more prevalent. Maybe these things correlate, maybe they don't. I know when I play, which is during peak and weekends, I don't see these things. I use ignore liberally though so my chat is never toxic for long.

In hindsight logic and assumption are no longer needed. Either it made a difference or it didn't, and it is known, not speculated about. If things go on during the times I am not in game then I cannot speak to those. If they are different or the same, I do not know, and still must speculate, or ask others for their experiences and view point at those times. Hence this topic of conversation.

Davadin

Ranger209 wrote: »

When locked campaigns first opened I thought this would not be an overly prevalent thing, or maybe I was just happy that they were making an attempt at a faction locked campaign. Lately I have been more concerned with this. What are peoples thoughts on this. Is it an issue? Is it a growing concern? Does it happen more often at certain times of day? Is it something that happens across all platforms or more so on PC? Is it still being done to paint the map one color, swap accounts, and paint it another color by the same individuals?

The point of faction lock is so that individual players must commit to one faction for the duration of the campaign cycle on a locked campaign. If this is being worked around with alt accounts does ZOS need to go deeper with this lock to the ip level? Is that even possible? Should doing this be a bannable offence? Should there be warnings given to those partaking? Thoughts, comments, or concerns?

not an issue.

i LOVE faction locks and i will stay loyal as EP, and yes, it annoys me before that people faction-hop just so they can ride the winning faction.... (FOR THE PACT! and all....)


but if someone got out of their way, spent real hard cold cash to buy another account, JUST so they can... faction hop during an active campaign instead of waiting 30 days?

jeezus, let them. their impact to my gameplay is effectively non-existant. the number of people who faction-hop has been reduced probably by 90% when locks introduced, and then we got non-faction locked campaign and... nobody seems to care.


so yeah. it's completely fine. the outcome of each month has little to no dependencies on faction-hoppers (with or without alt-account). period.