This event has taught us that Alliance Lock was not that popular after all.

Heelie

Currently, the "Standard" campaign Blackreach is above the Alliance Locked campaign in the campaign roster and is consistently more filled and if full, has a longer queue than the "Alliance Locked" campaign. And what it tells us is what we have known for years. The majority of players prefer not to play Alliance Locked and the only reason that Grey Host was more popular was because it appeared higher on the roster of campaigns.

Blood_again

Not that popular?!
I'm rusty in PvP, but this week I pushed all my 15 alts to tier 3 in that aliance locked Greyhost campaign. Just because I can.
For all previous days I saw the Blackreach queue was about a half of the Greyhost's one in prime time (PC EU). So the alliance locked is still popular.
Well, at the moment Greyhost is mostly empty, guess why




I'm sure it's population will rise the day after the campaign ends. Screen this tweet

Aurielle

Heelie wrote: »

Currently, the "Standard" campaign Blackreach is above the Alliance Locked campaign in the campaign roster and is consistently more filled and if full, has a longer queue than the "Alliance Locked" campaign. And what it tells us is what we have known for years. The majority of players prefer not to play Alliance Locked and the only reason that Grey Host was more popular was because it appeared higher on the roster of campaigns.

Huh? This has not been my experience on PCNA thus far during Mayhem, as an EP main. The queue for Grey Host takes an hour or longer at prime time, and the queue for Blackreach only takes 10-15 minutes (or there’s no queue).

Soarora

Well, heres another thing to consider: people leveling alliance war on alts of differing factions or even PvE quest spam inflating numbers.

ArchangelIsraphel

For me, my homed campaign is appearing at the top of the roster list, not whatever campaign is "popular". That's Ravenwatch on most of my EP characters, while on other EP Greyhost appears at the top because it's homed.

Also, numbers are being inflated by PVE players wanting to get quests done...those numbers have absolutely nothing to do with what PVP players who play in these campaigns outside of mayhem want.

cptscotty

Not one single time this event has Grey Host not been top. Both in population and wait times.

WaywardArgonian

Blackreach has been the more popular server on EU for a while now, but a lot of it has to do with reasons not related to faction lock. It's more that EP was poplocked for most of the day and other factions eventually grew tired of it and moved to Blackreach. This happened once before and the situation will revert again when one faction flees back to Gray Host for the same reason.

Though I agree that faction lock is annoying and would often prevent me from playing with certain friends back when Blackreach was a ghost town.

Heelie

cptscotty wrote: »

Not one single time this event has Grey Host not been top. Both in population and wait times.

TheMajority

says nothing other than that pve players are going into blackreach to turn in quests and stuff cause they ain't locked to one faction and can go in on whatever has the map

Aurielle

TheMajority wrote: »

says nothing other than that pve players are going into blackreach to turn in quests and stuff cause they ain't locked to one faction and can go in on whatever has the map

Precisely. The PVEers don’t care about the campaign — they just want their tickets and/or AP to boost their PVE characters through Alliance ranks. Makes sense that they’d pick the first campaign they see on the list.

Compare BR and GH after MYM is over, and Grey Host will remain the preferred campaign for a majority of PVPers.

cptscotty

Blackreach is not locked. A few of us have noticed a bug with the UI on population. Its not updating correctly for people. When grouping up it will show a different status for each player in the group before trying to join. Grey Host is still "locked" for EP (my faction) as it has been the entire event...even at 8am in the morning.

AlnilamE

What server are you guys on? On PC NA, Gray Host is the only one with a locked faction right now (EP) and full bars in the other two. And that's in the middle of the day.

In the evening, my queue has bee 100+ when trying to get in.

Highwayman

I'd wager most people simply don't care about alliance lock.

I know I don't. I see it it as some weird roleplay mechanic that doesn't involve me as long as everything else is healthy. Everything else is not healthy though and arbitrary restrictions are just making things worse at this point.

Removing no proc is a great step in the right direction. It's not because procs aren't annoying at times, but because spending resources on campaigns with a more general applicability is just plain needed for the health of large scale pvp right now.

The only exception in restrictive rule sets I think is worth enforcing is below 50, but it really needs to be cp160 and below and enforced account wide. Otherwise, just get rid of under 50 too and spend the resources on an unrestricted no-cp campaign.

I get it if spending on resources for pvp is a no go from a management perspective. Let's start budgeting what we have and making sure quality on that stays up to some minimum then.

Desiato

Highwayman wrote: »

I'd wager most people simply don't care about alliance lock.

A lot of daily Cyrodiil players do, which is why it was implemented in the first place.

Prior to its introduction, it had become common for many players to switch factions throughout a play session based on which faction presented favorable conditions.

There were players who played in an EP ball group during the afternoon, a DC ball group during the evening, and then an AD ball group at night. Players would also do the same in the context of small groups and zerg surfing.

You'd even see players switch to a faction they had just gated just to get the gate dtick from the fight for the departing scroll. I'm not joking.

Though many would argue they'd like to be able to switch to a faction that needs help, the reality was that more players would bail on the faction that needed help and join in on farming them.

SaffronCitrusflower

Heelie wrote: »

Currently, the "Standard" campaign Blackreach is above the Alliance Locked campaign in the campaign roster and is consistently more filled and if full, has a longer queue than the "Alliance Locked" campaign. And what it tells us is what we have known for years. The majority of players prefer not to play Alliance Locked and the only reason that Grey Host was more popular was because it appeared higher on the roster of campaigns.

Most of the people not playing in Grey Host during this event are in an alternate campaign while they're waiting for their queue to Grey Host to run down.

The reason the alliance locked campaign is always the fullest campaign is because people prefer the alliance locked camp over the others.

Orbital78

I can only get into Gray host early morning or late night after prime time hype has died down. People may be filling over from there to the other campaigns. I know I have been harvesting in the lower campaigns that have CP.

Highwayman

Desiato wrote: »

Highwayman wrote: »

I'd wager most people simply don't care about alliance lock.

A lot of daily Cyrodiil players do, which is why it was implemented in the first place.

Prior to its introduction, it had become common for many players to switch factions throughout a play session based on which faction presented favorable conditions.

There were players who played in an EP ball group during the afternoon, a DC ball group during the evening, and then an AD ball group at night. Players would also do the same in the context of small groups and zerg surfing.

You'd even see players switch to a faction they had just gated just to get the gate dtick from the fight for the departing scroll. I'm not joking.

Though many would argue they'd like to be able to switch to a faction that needs help, the reality was that more players would bail on the faction that needed help and join in on farming them.

Yup, I've been there... seen it all. I think you overestimate how much all that matters to most people and underestimate how easy it is to get a an alt account up to speed to pull the same shenanigans. If anything it just hides the names of the people doing it so you don't see it happening. I understand we aren't ever going to agree on this though.

Desiato

Highwayman wrote: »

Yup, I've been there... seen it all. I think you overestimate how much all that matters to most people and underestimate how easy it is to get a an alt account up to speed to pull the same shenanigans. If anything it just hides the names of the people doing it so you don't see it happening. I understand we aren't ever going to agree on this though.

We saw players vote on which they prefer when the faction locked campaign was introduced.

It's not practical for most players to maintain multiple accounts in terms of sets and mythics. I know some do, but they are a significant minority. So for most players multiple faction play on GH is limited to trolling zone chat and scrolls. Before, it was incredibly accessible and common.

Highwayman

Desiato wrote: »

Highwayman wrote: »

Yup, I've been there... seen it all. I think you overestimate how much all that matters to most people and underestimate how easy it is to get a an alt account up to speed to pull the same shenanigans. If anything it just hides the names of the people doing it so you don't see it happening. I understand we aren't ever going to agree on this though.

We saw players vote on which they prefer when the faction locked campaign was introduced.

It's not practical for most players to maintain multiple accounts in terms of sets and mythics. I know some do, but they are a significant minority. So for most players multiple faction play on GH is limited to trolling zone chat and scrolls. Before, it was incredibly accessible and common.

Yeah, I probably would have voted that way at the time too, because it didn't matter to me and it would have seemed like something that some would get enjoyment from. Can you point out this vote? Did it happen to have an "I don't care but go ahead and try it" option?

It matters now to me with extreme population imbalances and low pop cap exacerbating the issue. It's doing more harm than good, where it was a meaningless gesture for role players back then.

Again, just my opinion though. I do only have a data set of one and anecdata for other people I've played with. I can assure you that I at least have played multiple accounts on a single campaign and you are right, it's to find "favorable conditions". It's not how you mean it though, the favorable conditions I am looking for aren't "who's winning" but "how can I find the large scale combat I play cyrodiil for during the hours I have to play". Fix that and I'll go back to "let the role players role play".

Desiato

Highwayman wrote: »

Yeah, I probably would have voted that way at the time too, because it didn't matter to me and it would have seemed like something that some would get enjoyment from. Can you point out this vote? Did it happen to have an "I don't care but go ahead and try it" option?

It matters now to me with extreme population imbalances and low pop cap exacerbating the issue. It's doing more harm than good, where it was a meaningless gesture for role players back then.

There was no ballot box. Players choose which ruleset they prefer based on the campaign they join. I know not everyone who plays on GH prefers faction lock, but obviously the majority lean that way or the other ruleset would be the main campaign.

The low pop caps actually help minimize population imbalances. There are times now on PC/NA/GH when EP is poplocked and DC and AD have 2-3 bars. If more EP players could join during these periods, the imbalance would be worse. By now, I mean non-event conditions.

When the per-faction cap was theorized to be 150-200 players, we would often see one faction poplocked with another at 2 bars. PC/NA AD went through a brutal, extended period of being completely noncompetitive, depleting its playerbase. And this was before faction locking. I'm not trying to argue for lower caps, I'm just pointing out that they don't result in larger imbalances.

Highwayman

Desiato wrote: »

Highwayman wrote: »

Yeah, I probably would have voted that way at the time too, because it didn't matter to me and it would have seemed like something that some would get enjoyment from. Can you point out this vote? Did it happen to have an "I don't care but go ahead and try it" option?

It matters now to me with extreme population imbalances and low pop cap exacerbating the issue. It's doing more harm than good, where it was a meaningless gesture for role players back then.

There was no ballot box. Players choose which ruleset they prefer based on the campaign they join.

Seems a bad voting method. Play where the action is or don't play to prove a point. Let me know when there is a real vote.

Also, I personally always just played the top campaign if they were empty, what control does your voting method use for that behavior?

Desiato

Highwayman wrote: »

Desiato wrote: »

Highwayman wrote: »

Yeah, I probably would have voted that way at the time too, because it didn't matter to me and it would have seemed like something that some would get enjoyment from. Can you point out this vote? Did it happen to have an "I don't care but go ahead and try it" option?

It matters now to me with extreme population imbalances and low pop cap exacerbating the issue. It's doing more harm than good, where it was a meaningless gesture for role players back then.

There was no ballot box. Players choose which ruleset they prefer based on the campaign they join.

Seems a bad voting method. Play where the action is or don't play to prove a point. Let me know when there is a real vote.

Also, I personally always just played the top campaign if they were empty, what control does your voting method use for that behavior?

I suggest showing some leadership and supporting the ruleset you prefer. If you're correct and most players prefer non-locked factions, then all they need to do is support the ruleset they prefer to make BR the main campaign. Be the change you want to see.

Highwayman

Desiato wrote: »

I suggest showing some leadership and supporting the ruleset you prefer. If you're correct and most players prefer non-locked factions, then all they need to do is support the ruleset they prefer to make BR the main campaign. Be the change you want to see.

So now you are going to strawman this? That wasn't my argument at all. My argument is most people don't care about alliance lock in and of itself. I already have made the change I want, and am continuing to do so here in a public forum. Thanks for your concern though.

Edit: just for clarity, the change I made was playing multiple accounts.

WaywardArgonian

TheMajority wrote: »

says nothing other than that pve players are going into blackreach to turn in quests and stuff cause they ain't locked to one faction and can go in on whatever has the map

On EU it was the case way before the event as well. Multiple PVP guilds/groups I'm in have switched their focus from GH to BR for a while now.

Desiato

Highwayman wrote: »

So now you are going to strawman this? That wasn't my argument at all. My argument is most people don't care about alliance lock in and of itself. I already have made the change I want, and am continuing to do so here in a public forum. Thanks for your concern though.

Edit: just for clarity, the change I made was playing multiple accounts.

That wasn't a strawman. In any case, let's not devolve into arguing semantics. I'm not sure what you're arguing for then. Players currently have a choice.

The playerbase as a whole chooses which rulesets they prefer based on which they choose to play on. That doesn't mean everyone who plays on GH prefers faction lock or has a binary opinion on the subject. But obviously more players care about faction lock than those who do not to tilt the balance, at least on PC/NA. I think it's also true on all platforms/regions.

darvaria

They have to keep Alliance lock in GH. We already have enough repeat of zone chat. I called a target on a DC player once and within seconds they sent me a nasty tell asking me to never say their name again in zone. Of course I called it continuously because they told ppl that had a slow internet connection and were the squishy player in their ball group.

We have enough problems now with streamers not using delay. Allowing instant switching would create more cross spying than we already have.

Highwayman

Desiato wrote: »

But obviously more players care about faction lock than those who do not to tilt the balance, at least on PC/NA. I think it's also true on all platforms/regions.

Again, the evidence I see for this is flimsy. You vastly overestimate how many people care about this and it shows when you tried to put an argument in my mouth other than the one I was making.

It is a meaningless restriction to appease role players that does harm to the pvp population in the game at this point.

darvaria

Blood_again wrote: »

Not that popular?!
I'm rusty in PvP, but this week I pushed all my 15 alts to tier 3 in that aliance locked Greyhost campaign. Just because I can.
For all previous days I saw the Blackreach queue was about a half of the Greyhost's one in prime time (PC EU). So the alliance locked is still popular.
Well, at the moment Greyhost is mostly empty, guess why




I'm sure it's population will rise the day after the campaign ends. Screen this tweet

When was this taken? Had to be over a year ago. It's not the current score ............ Or has DC even won the last 5 campaigns?

darvaria

Why are you trying to promote FALSE information? I thought that was against Forum rules. Here is the current score on 7/30/2024. Why are you wanting ppl to tweet FALSE informationi?

Capsaica

darvaria wrote: »

Why are you trying to promote FALSE information? I thought that was against Forum rules. Here is the current score on 7/30/2024. Why are you wanting ppl to tweet FALSE informationi?

Are you also posting the Grayhost score from PC EU? That is what the person you are referring to was sharing.

Capsaica

I dislike Alliance locks. When these were implemented, there was a campaign cycle where players could support faction locked or unlocked campaigns by playing in the one that they preferred.

The problem is that the most populated campaign, and the one at the top of the list, was the one where alliance locks were enforced. There was no in-game explanation or announcement letting people know that playing one campaign or the other was a vote for which style they preferred, and relatively few players actually visit these forums where it was discussed.

My guild at the time tried to encourage others to play the non-locked campaign and to swap over. The problem is that not enough people got the message and everyone kept playing in the only place where there was action - the main campaign. Can't remember if it was named Grayhost still at that time. Either you PvDoored a map, got bored and logged off, or you fought on the faction locked campaign where the fights were before the change and remained afterwards.

Sure, there are some who feel strongly that faction locks are good. And there are many who really couldn't care less. And there are some who dislike it a lot.

I have many friends on other factions that I would love to PvP with, but sadly, they only routinely play on Grayhost because that is where the good fights are. I now have two accounts which I actively play, my main which plays on AD, and the alt which plays DC. It has been an unbelievable grind to get the second account up to speed on gear, CP, characters, XP, skill lines, skyshards (omg having to do scrying twice is unbelievably painful), mythics and so much more. Not to mention all of the collectibles which I have worked so hard to accumulate that I don't have on that alt account.

I would fully support something like a 12 or 18 hour lock between entering Cyrodiil on one faction and then trying to join on another. If you want to minimize jumping ship to take advantage (and leech off of) whomever is doing the best at the time, that would work. A month-long lock out means that friends are forced to choose some friends over others and this eventually just reduces opportunities for fun in PvP.