New Campaigns, is the order intended?

The_Shadowborn

The new campaign has changed the name the Standard (Non Alliance Locked) Campaign was meant to be first in the lists however is under the lock version.
Is this order inteded?
https://imgur.com/yAGrZDY

Joy_Division

Of course it's intended. They're not going to do anything that might undermine their own decision to put in faction locks.

Juhasow

Well thank You ZoS for changing nothing then. Moments like this are reason why facepalm button shuld be added on forum.

x48rph

Don't see the problem. The campaigns are clearly labeled as to what they are, there's only one locked campaign left and people still aren't happy? Seriously, it's insulting to the entire player base that people keep implying that no one reads and just clicks on the first one in the list. Maybe your just under estimating how many people actually like the lock.

Dan_Fazzyub17_ESO

x48rph wrote: »

Don't see the problem. The campaigns are clearly labeled as to what they are, there's only one locked campaign left and people still aren't happy? Seriously, it's insulting to the entire player base that people keep implying that no one reads and just clicks on the first one in the list. Maybe your just under estimating how many people actually like the lock.

What's insulting is the constant disdain for faction locks and how people on these forums are against them and nothing gets done to address the issue. No one liked faction lock years ago when it was in the game and no one likes them now. It's a detriment to PvP.

ManwithBeard9

So what some of you are insinuating is that people are too stupid to look at what campaign they are joining.

Maybe people don't really care about alliance lock one way or the other and just want to PvP?

VaranisArano

Its the same order as last time, with the exception of swapping to standard for No CP.
Alliance- Locked CP
Standard No CP
Standard
Below 50

I mean, I figure players can figure out which CP campaign they want - usually the most populated one - regardless of whether it's listed first or third.

x48rph

Dan_Fazzyub17_ESO wrote: »

x48rph wrote: »

Don't see the problem. The campaigns are clearly labeled as to what they are, there's only one locked campaign left and people still aren't happy? Seriously, it's insulting to the entire player base that people keep implying that no one reads and just clicks on the first one in the list. Maybe your just under estimating how many people actually like the lock.

What's insulting is the constant disdain for faction locks and how people on these forums are against them and nothing gets done to address the issue. No one liked faction lock years ago when it was in the game and no one likes them now. It's a detriment to PvP.

Except that the forums are also filled with plenty of people who also like the locks which disproves your point "I don't like it" isn't the same as "Everyone doesn't like it"

And again, there is an unlocked cp and now an unlocked no cp campaign, all campaigns were reset at the same time so people have to choose a new one so I don't see the problem, unless you like faction locks and no cp and well , people like that (me) got screwed this time around but so be it.

mikikatze

Did we get rewards for the old campaigns? (Haven't logged on yet after the update.)

x48rph

mikikatze wrote: »

Did we get rewards for the old campaigns? (Haven't logged on yet after the update.)

Yes

mikikatze

\o/

del9

x48rph wrote: »

Don't see the problem. The campaigns are clearly labeled as to what they are, there's only one locked campaign left and people still aren't happy? Seriously, it's insulting to the entire player base that people keep implying that no one reads and just clicks on the first one in the list. Maybe your just under estimating how many people actually like the lock.

this is funny because it literally is a case of First-listed.

Soul_Demon

x48rph wrote: »

Don't see the problem. The campaigns are clearly labeled as to what they are, there's only one locked campaign left and people still aren't happy? Seriously, it's insulting to the entire player base that people keep implying that no one reads and just clicks on the first one in the list. Maybe your just under estimating how many people actually like the lock.

It indeed is...but you have to understand the mindset of a player who comes to an AvAvA and tries to play small scale or solo- they need something to be wrong with the other players- not them- in every instance. Even when they claimed the 'majority' of players wanted non locked campaigns and when they got them the low population was not of course because they were misrepresenting the number of players who wanted that.....but because it 'ended early' or 'players just selected first server'.

Reality is not something they wish to fully engage with...it simply doesn't support what they have claimed for so long that anything other than reality is immediately supported by them. No matter how easily dismissed the claims are.

Kartalin

I don’t understand why we don’t just list all the campaigns on one screen, alphabetically, with the type of campaign it is following in parentheses. That way we can see at a glance where the populations are and so on. Has it really been such a difficult thing for players to get into campaigns?

Ranger209

DisgracefulMind wrote: »

PLEASE GIVE US ANOTHER CP SERVER, ZOS

I remember these long queues.....wait a sec..... is that No CP listed first? How can this be? Are the queues in No CP even more astounding than this since it's listed first?....

Mr_Walker

x48rph wrote: »

Seriously, it's insulting to the entire player base that people keep implying that no one reads and just clicks on the first one in the list.

Imagine, if you will, the IQ bell curve. Now, imagine everyone to the left of the peak of that "hump". That's a lot of people.

VaranisArano

Kartalin wrote: »

I don’t understand why we don’t just list all the campaigns on one screen, alphabetically, with the type of campaign it is following in parentheses. That way we can see at a glance where the populations are and so on. Has it really been such a difficult thing for players to get into campaigns?

Somebody can correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't it used to be that way? I have a vague recollection of seeing Vivec, Sotha Sil, Almalexia, and Kyne all visible in a list on the campaign screen. But that was over two years ago so I'm not confident in my memory.

josh.lackey_ESO

The fictional xenophobia will continue until peace ensues.

idk

Zos said the order of the campaigns is not a bug. They will take into consideration the feedback they have seen considering the order of campaigns. This is from a pinned message for known issues Gina created yesterday.

TheFM

Dan_Fazzyub17_ESO wrote: »

x48rph wrote: »

Don't see the problem. The campaigns are clearly labeled as to what they are, there's only one locked campaign left and people still aren't happy? Seriously, it's insulting to the entire player base that people keep implying that no one reads and just clicks on the first one in the list. Maybe your just under estimating how many people actually like the lock.

What's insulting is the constant disdain for faction locks and how people on these forums are against them and nothing gets done to address the issue. No one liked faction lock years ago when it was in the game and no one likes them now. It's a detriment to PvP.

Speak for yourself.

Beardimus

x48rph wrote: »

Don't see the problem. The campaigns are clearly labeled as to what they are, there's only one locked campaign left and people still aren't happy? Seriously, it's insulting to the entire player base that people keep implying that no one reads and just clicks on the first one in the list. Maybe your just under estimating how many people actually like the lock.

The problem is the utter outright denial by people that don't want lock, that locked is more popular.

Choice has been available for 8 months and lock is the most popular across the board.

Yet folks now cling onto the theory that it's the order that defines it.

Insinuating that PvPers are troglodytes who open up campaign and button smash untill they can play without being able to read.

Lock is the choice of the majority, that's a fact we can all clearly see

Lol

Beardimus

Dan_Fazzyub17_ESO wrote: »

x48rph wrote: »

Don't see the problem. The campaigns are clearly labeled as to what they are, there's only one locked campaign left and people still aren't happy? Seriously, it's insulting to the entire player base that people keep implying that no one reads and just clicks on the first one in the list. Maybe your just under estimating how many people actually like the lock.

What's insulting is the constant disdain for faction locks and how people on these forums are against them and nothing gets done to address the issue. No one liked faction lock years ago when it was in the game and no one likes them now. It's a detriment to PvP.

Question. @Dan_Fazzyub17_ESO

Ok, following your wild assumption along, Why dont, for one month, these players vote with their feet and go the other camp. That's all it would take to swing pop.

Unless they in the minority of course....

Oh wait.

MajBludd

Do you really think more people will pick a campaign based on its position in a list? Seems condescending to me to think people cant read the descriptions.

Also, if everyone wants no faction lock, why isn't the no faction lock server (PcNa) more populated?

Ranger209

Soul_Demon

MajBludd wrote: »

Do you really think more people will pick a campaign based on its position in a list? Seems condescending to me to think people cant read the descriptions.

Also, if everyone wants no faction lock, why isn't the no faction lock server (PcNa) more populated?

Here is the deal...over the years the same groups of swappers have claimed so many things they lost track. First, it was that if you gave them a game mode, like battlegrounds Cyro would go out of business because most of the population would migrate there because only bad players play the game the way it was designed, super elite players 'just go for good fights' and never play the map. They funneled resources into creating that and they cant populate it well now....so they move the goal post on it constantly ...even today.

But now its if you just do their bidding because they are the 'larger portion of player base' and give them a campaign that has swapping all the players will leave the other campaigns and play there. Again, ZOS funneled resources and gave them one- it bombed as bad as battlegrounds.....so they moved goalposts again with 'if it were 30 day camp the majority of players would play there' .......that is tanking now out of the gate so the new one will be "you need to put it FIRST on the list so newbs who don't look select it" as they claim once again they are the 'majority of the game' but the server is only failing due to that and not because what they claim is false.

The real issues with these kids who didn't get enough attention and now seek it as adults is that the constant excuses and departures from reality have been sidetracking resources at ZOS that SHOULD BE SPENT FIXING LAG AND LONG STANDING GAME BUGS. They will move the goalposts no matter what happens, its the nature of damaged goods to refuse the obvious at all cost. Even if it obviously is keeping the finite resources at ZOS from addressing the problems the 'real' majority of players want them to address.

ellahellabella

Soul_Demon wrote: »

MajBludd wrote: »

Do you really think more people will pick a campaign based on its position in a list? Seems condescending to me to think people cant read the descriptions.

Also, if everyone wants no faction lock, why isn't the no faction lock server (PcNa) more populated?

Here is the deal...over the years the same groups of swappers have claimed so many things they lost track. First, it was that if you gave them a game mode, like battlegrounds Cyro would go out of business because most of the population would migrate there because only bad players play the game the way it was designed, super elite players 'just go for good fights' and never play the map. They funneled resources into creating that and they cant populate it well now....so they move the goal post on it constantly ...even today.

But now its if you just do their bidding because they are the 'larger portion of player base' and give them a campaign that has swapping all the players will leave the other campaigns and play there. Again, ZOS funneled resources and gave them one- it bombed as bad as battlegrounds.....so they moved goalposts again with 'if it were 30 day camp the majority of players would play there' .......that is tanking now out of the gate so the new one will be "you need to put it FIRST on the list so newbs who don't look select it" as they claim once again they are the 'majority of the game' but the server is only failing due to that and not because what they claim is false.

The real issues with these kids who didn't get enough attention and now seek it as adults is that the constant excuses and departures from reality have been sidetracking resources at ZOS that SHOULD BE SPENT FIXING LAG AND LONG STANDING GAME BUGS. They will move the goalposts no matter what happens, its the nature of damaged goods to refuse the obvious at all cost. Even if it obviously is keeping the finite resources at ZOS from addressing the problems the 'real' majority of players want them to address.

And do I need to go through the level of excuses you've made to explain something? I hope not because some of these things in your history are comical.
As much as people might like or not like the lock, most players simply don't care. They just want to play the most populated server.
Conveniently, most of the lfg guilds are faction loyal so as I told people that supported a new unlocked 30 day, it would never fly: "casuals want groups and the GMs that lead those groups want to paint the map THEIR colour So OF COURSE they're faction loyal."
You'll find most of us that want to keep a campaign healthy don't support the lock. Those buggers are why.

VaranisArano

ellahellabella wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

MajBludd wrote: »

Do you really think more people will pick a campaign based on its position in a list? Seems condescending to me to think people cant read the descriptions.

Also, if everyone wants no faction lock, why isn't the no faction lock server (PcNa) more populated?

Here is the deal...over the years the same groups of swappers have claimed so many things they lost track. First, it was that if you gave them a game mode, like battlegrounds Cyro would go out of business because most of the population would migrate there because only bad players play the game the way it was designed, super elite players 'just go for good fights' and never play the map. They funneled resources into creating that and they cant populate it well now....so they move the goal post on it constantly ...even today.

But now its if you just do their bidding because they are the 'larger portion of player base' and give them a campaign that has swapping all the players will leave the other campaigns and play there. Again, ZOS funneled resources and gave them one- it bombed as bad as battlegrounds.....so they moved goalposts again with 'if it were 30 day camp the majority of players would play there' .......that is tanking now out of the gate so the new one will be "you need to put it FIRST on the list so newbs who don't look select it" as they claim once again they are the 'majority of the game' but the server is only failing due to that and not because what they claim is false.

The real issues with these kids who didn't get enough attention and now seek it as adults is that the constant excuses and departures from reality have been sidetracking resources at ZOS that SHOULD BE SPENT FIXING LAG AND LONG STANDING GAME BUGS. They will move the goalposts no matter what happens, its the nature of damaged goods to refuse the obvious at all cost. Even if it obviously is keeping the finite resources at ZOS from addressing the problems the 'real' majority of players want them to address.

And do I need to go through the level of excuses you've made to explain something? I hope not because some of these things in your history are comical.
As much as people might like or not like the lock, most players simply don't care. They just want to play the most populated server.
Conveniently, most of the lfg guilds are faction loyal so as I told people that supported a new unlocked 30 day, it would never fly: "casuals want groups and the GMs that lead those groups want to paint the map THEIR colour So OF COURSE they're faction loyal."
You'll find most of us that want to keep a campaign healthy don't support the lock. Those buggers are why.

Now I'm really curious about what you think is "unhealthy" about lfg guilds and casuals wanting groups in a PVP war zone designed for AvAvA and groups of 2 to 24 players.

Especially when those types of guilds and players have been around long before the return of faction locks.

ellahellabella

VaranisArano wrote: »

ellahellabella wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

MajBludd wrote: »

Do you really think more people will pick a campaign based on its position in a list? Seems condescending to me to think people cant read the descriptions.

Also, if everyone wants no faction lock, why isn't the no faction lock server (PcNa) more populated?

Here is the deal...over the years the same groups of swappers have claimed so many things they lost track. First, it was that if you gave them a game mode, like battlegrounds Cyro would go out of business because most of the population would migrate there because only bad players play the game the way it was designed, super elite players 'just go for good fights' and never play the map. They funneled resources into creating that and they cant populate it well now....so they move the goal post on it constantly ...even today.

But now its if you just do their bidding because they are the 'larger portion of player base' and give them a campaign that has swapping all the players will leave the other campaigns and play there. Again, ZOS funneled resources and gave them one- it bombed as bad as battlegrounds.....so they moved goalposts again with 'if it were 30 day camp the majority of players would play there' .......that is tanking now out of the gate so the new one will be "you need to put it FIRST on the list so newbs who don't look select it" as they claim once again they are the 'majority of the game' but the server is only failing due to that and not because what they claim is false.

The real issues with these kids who didn't get enough attention and now seek it as adults is that the constant excuses and departures from reality have been sidetracking resources at ZOS that SHOULD BE SPENT FIXING LAG AND LONG STANDING GAME BUGS. They will move the goalposts no matter what happens, its the nature of damaged goods to refuse the obvious at all cost. Even if it obviously is keeping the finite resources at ZOS from addressing the problems the 'real' majority of players want them to address.

And do I need to go through the level of excuses you've made to explain something? I hope not because some of these things in your history are comical.
As much as people might like or not like the lock, most players simply don't care. They just want to play the most populated server.
Conveniently, most of the lfg guilds are faction loyal so as I told people that supported a new unlocked 30 day, it would never fly: "casuals want groups and the GMs that lead those groups want to paint the map THEIR colour So OF COURSE they're faction loyal."
You'll find most of us that want to keep a campaign healthy don't support the lock. Those buggers are why.

Now I'm really curious about what you think is "unhealthy" about lfg guilds and casuals wanting groups in a PVP war zone designed for AvAvA and groups of 2 to 24 players.

Especially when those types of guilds and players have been around long before the return of faction locks.

Unhealthy? You're kidding. Do I really need to explain it to a 'vet'? If you were really a vet, you would know. Or you're just playing stupid.

VaranisArano

ellahellabella wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

ellahellabella wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

MajBludd wrote: »

Do you really think more people will pick a campaign based on its position in a list? Seems condescending to me to think people cant read the descriptions.

Also, if everyone wants no faction lock, why isn't the no faction lock server (PcNa) more populated?

Here is the deal...over the years the same groups of swappers have claimed so many things they lost track. First, it was that if you gave them a game mode, like battlegrounds Cyro would go out of business because most of the population would migrate there because only bad players play the game the way it was designed, super elite players 'just go for good fights' and never play the map. They funneled resources into creating that and they cant populate it well now....so they move the goal post on it constantly ...even today.

But now its if you just do their bidding because they are the 'larger portion of player base' and give them a campaign that has swapping all the players will leave the other campaigns and play there. Again, ZOS funneled resources and gave them one- it bombed as bad as battlegrounds.....so they moved goalposts again with 'if it were 30 day camp the majority of players would play there' .......that is tanking now out of the gate so the new one will be "you need to put it FIRST on the list so newbs who don't look select it" as they claim once again they are the 'majority of the game' but the server is only failing due to that and not because what they claim is false.

The real issues with these kids who didn't get enough attention and now seek it as adults is that the constant excuses and departures from reality have been sidetracking resources at ZOS that SHOULD BE SPENT FIXING LAG AND LONG STANDING GAME BUGS. They will move the goalposts no matter what happens, its the nature of damaged goods to refuse the obvious at all cost. Even if it obviously is keeping the finite resources at ZOS from addressing the problems the 'real' majority of players want them to address.

And do I need to go through the level of excuses you've made to explain something? I hope not because some of these things in your history are comical.
As much as people might like or not like the lock, most players simply don't care. They just want to play the most populated server.
Conveniently, most of the lfg guilds are faction loyal so as I told people that supported a new unlocked 30 day, it would never fly: "casuals want groups and the GMs that lead those groups want to paint the map THEIR colour So OF COURSE they're faction loyal."
You'll find most of us that want to keep a campaign healthy don't support the lock. Those buggers are why.

Now I'm really curious about what you think is "unhealthy" about lfg guilds and casuals wanting groups in a PVP war zone designed for AvAvA and groups of 2 to 24 players.

Especially when those types of guilds and players have been around long before the return of faction locks.

Unhealthy? You're kidding. Do I really need to explain it to a 'vet'? If you were really a vet, you would know. Or you're just playing stupid.

Maybe you entered PVP as a fully fledged warrior like Athena springing from the brow of Zeus.

Me, not so much. I started out as exactly the sort of player you are disparaging: a PVE-only player who came to PVP, joining lfg groups from zone because I didn't know what else to do, and learned to love PVP before I found my guild. In many ways, I'm a vet now because I started out playing with people who were willing to pick up an inexperienced PVEer from zone and teach me to PVP. Since then, I've been playing in a PVP guild since Haderus was a populated 7 day server and on Trueflame, Vivec, and Kaal on PC/NA, over three years now.

So, yes, do explain to me what you think is unhealthy about lfg guilds and casual PVPers wanting to find groups in a warzone designed for large scale combat between factions. Saying "it's self-evident if you were really a vet" doesn't actually do anything to answer the question.

I'd like to have a genuine discussion, but not if you prefer to insult instead of explain.

ellahellabella

VaranisArano wrote: »

ellahellabella wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

ellahellabella wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

MajBludd wrote: »

Do you really think more people will pick a campaign based on its position in a list? Seems condescending to me to think people cant read the descriptions.

Also, if everyone wants no faction lock, why isn't the no faction lock server (PcNa) more populated?

Here is the deal...over the years the same groups of swappers have claimed so many things they lost track. First, it was that if you gave them a game mode, like battlegrounds Cyro would go out of business because most of the population would migrate there because only bad players play the game the way it was designed, super elite players 'just go for good fights' and never play the map. They funneled resources into creating that and they cant populate it well now....so they move the goal post on it constantly ...even today.

But now its if you just do their bidding because they are the 'larger portion of player base' and give them a campaign that has swapping all the players will leave the other campaigns and play there. Again, ZOS funneled resources and gave them one- it bombed as bad as battlegrounds.....so they moved goalposts again with 'if it were 30 day camp the majority of players would play there' .......that is tanking now out of the gate so the new one will be "you need to put it FIRST on the list so newbs who don't look select it" as they claim once again they are the 'majority of the game' but the server is only failing due to that and not because what they claim is false.

The real issues with these kids who didn't get enough attention and now seek it as adults is that the constant excuses and departures from reality have been sidetracking resources at ZOS that SHOULD BE SPENT FIXING LAG AND LONG STANDING GAME BUGS. They will move the goalposts no matter what happens, its the nature of damaged goods to refuse the obvious at all cost. Even if it obviously is keeping the finite resources at ZOS from addressing the problems the 'real' majority of players want them to address.

And do I need to go through the level of excuses you've made to explain something? I hope not because some of these things in your history are comical.
As much as people might like or not like the lock, most players simply don't care. They just want to play the most populated server.
Conveniently, most of the lfg guilds are faction loyal so as I told people that supported a new unlocked 30 day, it would never fly: "casuals want groups and the GMs that lead those groups want to paint the map THEIR colour So OF COURSE they're faction loyal."
You'll find most of us that want to keep a campaign healthy don't support the lock. Those buggers are why.

Now I'm really curious about what you think is "unhealthy" about lfg guilds and casuals wanting groups in a PVP war zone designed for AvAvA and groups of 2 to 24 players.

Especially when those types of guilds and players have been around long before the return of faction locks.

Unhealthy? You're kidding. Do I really need to explain it to a 'vet'? If you were really a vet, you would know. Or you're just playing stupid.

Maybe you entered PVP as a fully fledged warrior like Athena springing from the brow of Zeus.

Me, not so much. I started out as exactly the sort of player you are disparaging: a PVE-only player who came to PVP, joining lfg groups from zone because I didn't know what else to do, and learned to love PVP before I found my guild. In many ways, I'm a vet now because I started out playing with people who were willing to pick up an inexperienced PVEer from zone and teach me to PVP. Since then, I've been playing in a PVP guild since Haderus was a populated 7 day server and on Trueflame, Vivec, and Kaal on PC/NA, over three years now.

So, yes, do explain to me what you think is unhealthy about lfg guilds and casual PVPers wanting to find groups in a warzone designed for large scale combat between factions. Saying "it's self-evident if you were really a vet" doesn't actually do anything to answer the question.

I'd like to have a genuine discussion, but not if you prefer to insult instead of explain.

I was a pve only player that entered pvp. I joined the 24 man raids and saw success when we managed to actually take something. Then I got to join a higher guild and from then only grew as a player.

Never once did I mock a casual player in my post. They need a group (so stop putting words in my mouth) but if the gms continue to encourage taking everything on the map and ruining the fun for everyone, yes, I mock them.
It is unhealthy. It is unhealthy to stack a zerg heavily that lags the server. It is unhealthy to overwhelm with that zerg in off hours. It is unhealthy to paint the map because you want the victory when no one else is on.
This game might have been designed for avava but the servers can't handle it anymore. So it isn't. You can't stack 50+ in one area. As a veteran to the game, YOU WOULD KNOW THIS.
You're right. I shouldn't call you stupid, if you support faction stacking in this day and age..... Well, i call you ignorant instead.

VaranisArano

ellahellabella wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

ellahellabella wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

ellahellabella wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

MajBludd wrote: »

Do you really think more people will pick a campaign based on its position in a list? Seems condescending to me to think people cant read the descriptions.

Also, if everyone wants no faction lock, why isn't the no faction lock server (PcNa) more populated?

Here is the deal...over the years the same groups of swappers have claimed so many things they lost track. First, it was that if you gave them a game mode, like battlegrounds Cyro would go out of business because most of the population would migrate there because only bad players play the game the way it was designed, super elite players 'just go for good fights' and never play the map. They funneled resources into creating that and they cant populate it well now....so they move the goal post on it constantly ...even today.

But now its if you just do their bidding because they are the 'larger portion of player base' and give them a campaign that has swapping all the players will leave the other campaigns and play there. Again, ZOS funneled resources and gave them one- it bombed as bad as battlegrounds.....so they moved goalposts again with 'if it were 30 day camp the majority of players would play there' .......that is tanking now out of the gate so the new one will be "you need to put it FIRST on the list so newbs who don't look select it" as they claim once again they are the 'majority of the game' but the server is only failing due to that and not because what they claim is false.

The real issues with these kids who didn't get enough attention and now seek it as adults is that the constant excuses and departures from reality have been sidetracking resources at ZOS that SHOULD BE SPENT FIXING LAG AND LONG STANDING GAME BUGS. They will move the goalposts no matter what happens, its the nature of damaged goods to refuse the obvious at all cost. Even if it obviously is keeping the finite resources at ZOS from addressing the problems the 'real' majority of players want them to address.

And do I need to go through the level of excuses you've made to explain something? I hope not because some of these things in your history are comical.
As much as people might like or not like the lock, most players simply don't care. They just want to play the most populated server.
Conveniently, most of the lfg guilds are faction loyal so as I told people that supported a new unlocked 30 day, it would never fly: "casuals want groups and the GMs that lead those groups want to paint the map THEIR colour So OF COURSE they're faction loyal."
You'll find most of us that want to keep a campaign healthy don't support the lock. Those buggers are why.

Now I'm really curious about what you think is "unhealthy" about lfg guilds and casuals wanting groups in a PVP war zone designed for AvAvA and groups of 2 to 24 players.

Especially when those types of guilds and players have been around long before the return of faction locks.

Unhealthy? You're kidding. Do I really need to explain it to a 'vet'? If you were really a vet, you would know. Or you're just playing stupid.

Maybe you entered PVP as a fully fledged warrior like Athena springing from the brow of Zeus.

Me, not so much. I started out as exactly the sort of player you are disparaging: a PVE-only player who came to PVP, joining lfg groups from zone because I didn't know what else to do, and learned to love PVP before I found my guild. In many ways, I'm a vet now because I started out playing with people who were willing to pick up an inexperienced PVEer from zone and teach me to PVP. Since then, I've been playing in a PVP guild since Haderus was a populated 7 day server and on Trueflame, Vivec, and Kaal on PC/NA, over three years now.

So, yes, do explain to me what you think is unhealthy about lfg guilds and casual PVPers wanting to find groups in a warzone designed for large scale combat between factions. Saying "it's self-evident if you were really a vet" doesn't actually do anything to answer the question.

I'd like to have a genuine discussion, but not if you prefer to insult instead of explain.

I was a pve only player that entered pvp. I joined the 24 man raids and saw success when we managed to actually take something. Then I got to join a higher guild and from then only grew as a player.

Never once did I mock a casual player in my post. They need a group (so stop putting words in my mouth) but if the gms continue to encourage taking everything on the map and ruining the fun for everyone, yes, I mock them.
It is unhealthy. It is unhealthy to stack a zerg heavily that lags the server. It is unhealthy to overwhelm with that zerg in off hours. It is unhealthy to paint the map because you want the victory when no one else is on.
This game might have been designed for avava but the servers can't handle it anymore. So it isn't. You can't stack 50+ in one area. As a veteran to the game, YOU WOULD KNOW THIS.
You're right. I shouldn't call you stupid, if you support faction stacking in this day and age..... Well, i call you ignorant instead.

Okay, so your concern is performance? That makes sense. Cyrodiil is designed to create faction stacks at important objectives like a dethrone or scroll take, but yeah, ZOS' neglect of performance mean that the servers can't handle it well. So I lay the blame at ZOS' feet primarily because ESO doesn't perform well enough to support players who are playing exactly as intended and in the sort of fights Cyrodiil is designed to produce. The only way to address it without fixing performance would be for players to decide en masse that they don't care about important objectives like keeps, the dethrone, the hammer, or scrolls, and that's not likely to happen.

I generally take a relaxed approach with "nightcapping" just because it's what happens on a 24-hr campaign. Players want to play whenever they get on and I've seen every faction do it. Though, not a fan of gatecamping the enemy myself.

Anyways, thanks for the clarification!