More alliance locked campaigns

halcrusher

What is the likely hood or has there been discussion of adding a new alliance locked campaign. Seeing queue times can get rather lengthy in time for gray host and prime time in most case can be very laggy. Black reach is fun but I noticed more times then not players switching between alliances to find where the other teams are or have players being counter productive to the team as a whole. Does anyone else feel this way or would like to see another campaign alliance locked?

CameraBeardThePirate

No thank you. All Alliance Lock does is prevent people from playing with friends.

bbrown0770

All campaigns should be alliance locked in my opinion just my 2cents

Amottica

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

No thank you. All Alliance Lock does is prevent people from playing with friends.

This.

Historically players who want a very active AvA tend to flock to the same campaign no matter the design of that campaign which means adding another alliance lock campaign is not likely to reduce queue times during peak play hours. So it would not make any sense to add another alliance-locked campaign.

Just_Attivi

I personally would have preferred 3 alliance lock campaigns, so any player could have any alliance and just go to the appropriate campaign.

My AD go to Campaign 1, maybe you are EP here.
My DC go to campaign 2, maybe you are DC here too! Hey friend!
My EP go to campaign 3, maybe you are AD here.

Pro's
This would still let you change per campaign (so after 30 days, you and your friends all agree to play one faction on whatever server).
This would mitigate a lot of the team swapping problems (this morning a horde of EP swapped to AD just to troll and kill low pop bonus in BR, and theres literally map watching spies at base camps on all sides)
This would help encourage people working together toward the campaign ( a lot of BR just has people tier 1'ing their off faction, and usually not actually try to be useful. not everyone obviously, but a frustratingly large portion).

Con's
lol PVP population probably cant sustain more servers until a large medley of cyrodiil related issues are fixed. which we all know will be #soon lol
populations will likely become imbalanced. Maybe campaign 1 is routinely pop locked AD, no one else. Campaign 2 is all DC, no one else. Campaign 3 all EP. would pretty much kill campaigns fun.

and unfortunately, the Cons generally outweighs the pros. Id love to see an overall healthier pvp community, less trolls, more cooperation, less faction swapping for lulz and spying, but unfortunately with how everything is in cyro right now, Just enjoy the large populations of Grayhost when you can, and its BR for everything else.

Tigor

Why were they unlocked in the first place?

danwtayl

I'm not for another Alliance locked campaign but there absolutely needs to be a cooldown on swapping alliances. There is too much trolling going on campaigns that aren't locked.

Tigor

Yes softlocks max e.g. 1 swap after 12 hrs keeps the troll away.

Twig_Garlicshine

Personally, I'd just prefer if they raised the caps so the queue didn't become an hour long.
This has driven away a lot of the people I know who came to Eso for Pvp.
Shorter or no queues and you might se a lot more people PvPing.
Maybe they just don't really want that.

Dagoth_Rac

Fkey wrote: »

Personally, I'd just prefer if they raised the caps so the queue didn't become an hour long.
This has driven away a lot of the people I know who came to Eso for Pvp.
Shorter or no queues and you might se a lot more people PvPing.
Maybe they just don't really want that.

ZOS absolutely want more people in Cyrodiil and playing ESO. But they cannot increase the number of max players without seriously impacting performance. The long queues are because you can wait a while for 100 player fights with decent performance, or you can go in instantly for 150 player fights that are an unresponsive slideshow.

ZOS is not making players queue to be jerks. They are making players queue because even if it is no fun, the performance degradation from more players in campaign is even worse.

Twig_Garlicshine

Dagoth_Rac wrote: »

Fkey wrote: »

Personally, I'd just prefer if they raised the caps so the queue didn't become an hour long.
This has driven away a lot of the people I know who came to Eso for Pvp.
Shorter or no queues and you might se a lot more people PvPing.
Maybe they just don't really want that.

ZOS absolutely want more people in Cyrodiil and playing ESO. But they cannot increase the number of max players without seriously impacting performance. The long queues are because you can wait a while for 100 player fights with decent performance, or you can go in instantly for 150 player fights that are an unresponsive slideshow.

ZOS is not making players queue to be jerks. They are making players queue because even if it is no fun, the performance degradation from more players in campaign is even worse.

I didn't say they were doing it to be jerks or for no reason.
I did say maybe they want less people pvping.
Priorities in any company can change, maybe theirs have changed.
Zos upgrades to better server hardware and also lowers player cap.
Performance remains similar.
Something isn't adding up.
And yes I was in I.T. at one time, so yea I do know this is not a normal result. If I was to guess I would say the reallocation of resources like server cores, cpu threads, ram, even bandwidth can be throttled for specific servers, processes etc. it isn't hard and is common to allocate resources based on -priority- demands.
Priorities.