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

Desiato

Capsaica wrote: »

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.

Like the OP, I think you should give other players more credit. I played when the cap was introduced. The topic was actively discussed in zone chat, within guilds and in the forums. Players knew what they were signing up for. They made a choice, even if that choice was to go with the flow. Ultimately there were those who dictated the flow to the faction locked paradigm.

Players continue to make this choice. If you truly believe that most players do not prefer faction lock, instead of trying to have the option you do not prefer removed, you should play on the non-locked server to make it more viable and attractive.

If they removed CP and Procs from Greyhost, do you think everyone would keep filing in like cattle because it's first on the list and currently the most populated? Of course not.

Aurielle

I’ve long seen the “I can’t play with my friends” argument against faction locks. You can play with your friends at any time: on Blackreach. Just have to get your friends on the same page. They’re friends, right? If they want to play with you as much as you want to play with them, it shouldn’t be an issue. And if you’re not satisfied with the gameplay on Blackreach? Decide which friends you’re going to play with on Grey Host on a month by month basis.

Basically: you can always play with friends in Cyrodiil if you really want to. Always. It’s up to you and your friends to make that happen.

I, for one, got sick of the constant spying and AD/DC alliance flipping shenanigans on Blackreach, plus the daily DC low pop bonus abuse (take a look at the score on PC NA, and you’ll see what I’m talking about), so I moved permanently to Grey Host. The only reason why I played on Blackreach before was the lack of a queue, but I’ve decided to just suck it up and deal with the GH queue because it’s a better experience overall, largely because faction locks prevent the kind of garbage that occurs in BR.

Capsaica

Desiato wrote: »

Like the OP, I think you should give other players more credit. I played when the cap was introduced. The topic was actively discussed in zone chat, within guilds and in the forums. Players knew what they were signing up for. They made a choice, even if that choice was to go with the flow. Ultimately there were those who dictated the flow to the faction locked paradigm.

Players continue to make this choice. If you truly believe that most players do not prefer faction lock, instead of trying to have the option you do not prefer removed, you should play on the non-locked server to make it more viable and attractive.

If they removed CP and Procs from Greyhost, do you think everyone would keep filing in like cattle because it's first on the list and currently the most populated? Of course not.

I agree that lots of people did discuss. I pushed my entire guild to swap, and encouraged others. We talked to as many as we could, but I do stand by the assertion that the majority of the non-guild PvP playerbase (those who join as solos and play in pug groups) did not take part in any forum discussions. So many players don't even have accounts here. We played the nearly empty campagin for a week and essentially gave in. Our regular competitors, I can assure you, did not care one way or the other about faction locks. Only competition. And that's why we went back to the locked campaign as well. Many people tried one or two days on the other servers and then they switched back.

Like I said, there are many who prefer the locks. I do currently put a LOT of time in the non-locked servers on my main faction, primarily because we would rather play together than play without one or two people who crashed out of Grayhost - a frequent occurrence. I also routinely play on the non-locked campaign in order to get newer players some PvP time with a group when those players were locked out of Grayhost on my faction. But at the end of the day, weeknights and midday (weekend) Blackreach (PC NA) is rarely full. If you take a full group of people, or even more into the server, you run the risk of ruining the map and rolling over the competition. That is not fun for anyone.

Additionally, trying to get my friends on another faction to play on their non-home campaign just so I can play with them and they can play on a dead map on a weeknight is a lot to ask of friends, and although they may do it occasionally, it's not going to be routine. Thus, I have my second account that I have given a significant portion of my time to in the past 6 months.

I think that a less punishing faction lock (significantly shorter duration) would be beneficial to the PvP community as a whole. I would support something like that on all campaigns, tbh. The PvP community is shrinking. It would sure be nice to be able to be welcoming and inclusive to the new players that events like the Mayhem event bring into Cyrodiil, while still minimizing toxic swaps where players act like rats jumping off of a sinking ship and climbing onto the neighboring one still sailing along.

Tommy_The_Gun

Alliance lock was a very good idea.

Alliance Change Token was a very terrible idea....

NyassaV

I have always hated alliance lock and it was only added because people kept complaining about "spies" or whatever.

Necrotech_Master

as a person who is completely indifferent on campaign score and only has characters of 1 faction (out of habit mainly because at launch faction mattered in pve too), i usually agree with the "dislike faction locks"

however for me personally, i usually prefer going into a campaign that has somewhat even populations that doesnt feel dead

-if your faction has 3 bar and enemy factions have 1 bar, its less fun because the only enemies there are mostly tower trolls
-if your faction has 1 bar and enemy factions have 3 bars, its less fun because the enemies just zerg you down trying to do anything even capping a resource

i usually tend to play on whichever campaign does not feel dead or heavily out of balance population wise, but also doesnt have more than a 10-20 person queue

Heelie

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

This argument works both ways, I think it has a lot more to do with the fact that the "average" player does not feel encouraged to play PvP because the only campaign that was not PvDoor for the majority of the time since Alliance lock was Introduced in 2019 has been locked. The problem is that their friends group is locked to several different factions so the idea of jumping into some PvP after a run of dungeons is almost impossible. If the campaigns where not locked it would make it a lot easier for the average player to PvP. And that is what we are seeing now. Several people jumping into PvP because there are fun fights to be had on the no-nlocked servers.

React

Alliance lock is a scam zos uses to harvest more money from PVP players.

If it was about "faction loyalty" and "protecting competitive integrity", they wouldn't be selling you alliance changes.

It only serves to prevent people from playing with their friends, or from easily swapping factions to enjoy better PVP action based on population. It should absolutely be done away with, but I have no doubts it's here to stay.

Sluggy

React wrote: »

Alliance lock is a scam zos uses to harvest more money from PVP players.

If it was about "faction loyalty" and "protecting competitive integrity", they wouldn't be selling you alliance changes.

It only serves to prevent people from playing with their friends, or from easily swapping factions to enjoy better PVP action based on population. It should absolutely be done away with, but I have no doubts it's here to stay.

This. I remember when they took away faction lock from No-CP when it was on death's door and that gave it a totally new lease on life... er uh until it died from NoProc. But that's a whole other can of worms.

The reality is that as the population continues to wane over time faction-lock is going to start hurting more and more. Of course by the point where it's really noticeable how much it hurts it probably won't make much of a difference. By that point there's likely to only be one campaign that ever gets over two bars for each faction.

Desiato

Capsaica wrote: »

I agree that lots of people did discuss. I pushed my entire guild to swap, and encouraged others. We talked to as many as we could, but I do stand by the assertion that the majority of the non-guild PvP playerbase (those who join as solos and play in pug groups) did not take part in any forum discussions. So many players don't even have accounts here. We played the nearly empty campagin for a week and essentially gave in. Our regular competitors, I can assure you, did not care one way or the other about faction locks. Only competition. And that's why we went back to the locked campaign as well. Many people tried one or two days on the other servers and then they switched back.

Something I've learned over the years is that most people aren't opinionated like I am and keep their true feelings to themselves much of the time. IMO, most people prefer to be agreeable outwardly. It is probably the smartest approach. Like my grandmother says to me critically, "you can be right or you can be liked!"

I think the reason the faction lock paradigm won is because every faction has a loyal core of regular players that serve as the foundation of a successful campaign. So many of us say an active campaign is crucial to its success and they provide the bedrock for that. They're not always the best players, but they're loyal, they care, they're persistent and reliable.

I didn't advocate for the faction lock. I argued against it when it was announced. I expected the non-faction locked campaign to prevail. But in hindsight, I think it's been successful and has given the foundational players the stability they prefer. I think without those foundational players, Cyrodiil would truly be doomed and every campaign would be like BR, so I don't advocate changes to the system.

I think in this forum we are prone to conflate the things we don't like with the obvious failings of the game. I don't personally believe the faction lock is a factor in why Cyrodiil is unpopular. It's unpopular because it has always been broken with severe technical and gameplay issues. I think without those things the game could support a variety of healthy campaigns with different rules. It is because that it is unpopular that it can only support one ruleset, not the other way around.

Heelie

Desiato wrote: »

Capsaica wrote: »

I agree that lots of people did discuss. I pushed my entire guild to swap, and encouraged others. We talked to as many as we could, but I do stand by the assertion that the majority of the non-guild PvP playerbase (those who join as solos and play in pug groups) did not take part in any forum discussions. So many players don't even have accounts here. We played the nearly empty campagin for a week and essentially gave in. Our regular competitors, I can assure you, did not care one way or the other about faction locks. Only competition. And that's why we went back to the locked campaign as well. Many people tried one or two days on the other servers and then they switched back.

Something I've learned over the years is that most people aren't opinionated like I am and keep their true feelings to themselves much of the time. IMO, most people prefer to be agreeable outwardly. It probably the smartest approach. Like my grandmother says to me critically, "you can be right or you can be liked!"

I think the reason the faction lock paradigm won is because every faction has a loyal core of regular players that serve as the foundation of a successful campaign. So many of us say an active campaign is crucial to its success and they provide the bedrock for that. They're not always the best players, but they're loyal, they care, they're persistent and reliable.

I didn't advocate for the faction lock. I argued against it when it was announced. I expected the non-faction locked campaign to prevail. But in hindsight, I think it's been successful and has given the foundational players the stability they prefer. I think without those foundational players, Cyrodiil would truly be doomed and every campaign would be like BR, so I don't advocate changes to the system.

I think in this forum we are prone to conflate the things we don't like with the obvious failings of the game. I don't personally believe the faction lock is a factor why Cyrodiil is unpopular. It's unpopular because it has always been broken with severe technical and gameplay issues. I think without those things the game could support a variety of healthy campaigns with different rules. It is because that it is unpopular that it can only support one ruleset, not the other way around.

The only reason the faction lock "won" was because for the longest period after it was introduced there was only the 7-day campaign as an alternative with much worse rewards, especially in transmute stones. And when the nonlocked campaign was Introduced it was much lower on the list and people had already swapped their characters to one faction or just didn't care much to swap. Had the faction lock been Introduced as an alternative option in a new campaign further down the list, there is no way it would be the most popular today.

Desiato

Heelie wrote: »

The only reason the faction lock "won" was because for the longest period after it was introduced there was only the 7-day campaign as an alternative with much worse rewards, especially in transmute stones. And when the nonlocked campaign was Introduced it was much lower on the list and people had already swapped their characters to one faction or just didn't care much to swap. Had the faction lock been Introduced as an alternative option in a new campaign further down the list, there is no way it would be the most popular today.

Like I said before, by this logic, you believe if they removed CP and procs from Grey Host, people wouldn't switch because they're established there and it's the first on the list.

You're not giving other players enough credit. Everyone is smart enough to figure out which campaign they want to play on. If the non-faction locked campaign was preferred it would have won out by now.

Right now BR has a healthy population from the event like it does every PVP event. If it was actually the preferred option, it would be able to carry that momentum.

OsUfi

I like alliance locking. I also like no proc. Sometimes we take one thing but would also like something else.

Also, we currently have other unrelated issues on PC EU Ravenwatch causing many players to quit or shift campaigns due to 5-6 members of DC dominating the map, one way or another. With one person more or less being permanent emperor. It's tiresome and has caused many AD and EP players to play on other campaigns, including Blackreach just to avoid these 5-6 players. That'll be helping puff up Blackreach numbers this week.

Heelie

Desiato wrote: »

Heelie wrote: »

The only reason the faction lock "won" was because for the longest period after it was introduced there was only the 7-day campaign as an alternative with much worse rewards, especially in transmute stones. And when the nonlocked campaign was Introduced it was much lower on the list and people had already swapped their characters to one faction or just didn't care much to swap. Had the faction lock been Introduced as an alternative option in a new campaign further down the list, there is no way it would be the most popular today.

Like I said before, by this logic, you believe if they removed CP and procs from Grey Host, people wouldn't switch because they're established there and it's the first on the list.

You're not giving other players enough credit. Everyone is smart enough to figure out which campaign they want to play on. If the non-faction locked campaign was preferred it would have won out by now.

Right now BR has a healthy population from the event like it does every PVP event. If it was actually the preferred option, it would be able to carry that momentum.

So you're arguing my point. There is'nt a plurality of players who like faction lock. So there is no reason for it to be the top campaign, and I would even argue a 30 day campaign. It should be 7 days.

Desiato

Heelie wrote: »

So you're arguing my point. There is'nt a plurality of players who like faction lock. So there is no reason for it to be the top campaign, and I would even argue a 30 day campaign. It should be 7 days.

I'm not arguing your point at all. I think the notion that Blackreach is less popular than Grey Host because of where it's listed is absurd.

Furthermore, now that people have suddenly discovered it exists and it is an option, surely they'll keep playing there?

Do you think Ravenwatch has failed because of where it's listed?

Players have a choice. They're smart enough to figure out how to find Blackreach. They know it exists. This entire thread is based on a non-issue.

Necrotech_Master

Desiato wrote: »

Heelie wrote: »

The only reason the faction lock "won" was because for the longest period after it was introduced there was only the 7-day campaign as an alternative with much worse rewards, especially in transmute stones. And when the nonlocked campaign was Introduced it was much lower on the list and people had already swapped their characters to one faction or just didn't care much to swap. Had the faction lock been Introduced as an alternative option in a new campaign further down the list, there is no way it would be the most popular today.

Like I said before, by this logic, you believe if they removed CP and procs from Grey Host, people wouldn't switch because they're established there and it's the first on the list.

You're not giving other players enough credit. Everyone is smart enough to figure out which campaign they want to play on. If the non-faction locked campaign was preferred it would have won out by now.

Right now BR has a healthy population from the event like it does every PVP event. If it was actually the preferred option, it would be able to carry that momentum.

depending on the rulesets going on, i definitely switch camps because of that

when they did the BG queue tests where they had only DM and a DM + random that mixed the queues, i just didnt play those

when they changed ravenwatch from proc to no proc, i completely stopped playing there even though i liked no cp better

when they were doing all of the other cyro testing (aoe skill cooldowns, no buffs/heals outside of group, and i think a few others) i basically didnt pvp as much during that time because i didnt like the rulesets

i dont play in grey host as much because its usually more laggy and larger queues than blackreach, but i do go there when theres less queue and blackreach is dead (usually off peak hours like 2 am eastern)

i dont think people pick grey host on NA because its first on the list, but because thats what consistently has the highest population

Nharimlur_Finor

Desiato wrote: »

Heelie wrote: »

So you're arguing my point. There is'nt a plurality of players who like faction lock. So there is no reason for it to be the top campaign, and I would even argue a 30 day campaign. It should be 7 days.

I'm not arguing your point at all. I think the notion that Blackreach is less popular than Grey Host because of where it's listed is absurd.

Furthermore, now that people have suddenly discovered it exists and it is an option, surely they'll keep playing there?

Do you think Ravenwatch has failed because of where it's listed?

Players have a choice. They're smart enough to figure out how to find Blackreach. They know it exists. This entire thread is based on a non-issue.

I don't know the difference between campaigns.

It took me ages to work out how to get into Cyrodiil at all.

I only go there now for the Golden Vendor.

Casual me.

Heelie

Desiato wrote: »

Heelie wrote: »

So you're arguing my point. There is'nt a plurality of players who like faction lock. So there is no reason for it to be the top campaign, and I would even argue a 30 day campaign. It should be 7 days.

I'm not arguing your point at all. I think the notion that Blackreach is less popular than Grey Host because of where it's listed is absurd.

Furthermore, now that people have suddenly discovered it exists and it is an option, surely they'll keep playing there?

Do you think Ravenwatch has failed because of where it's listed?

Players have a choice. They're smart enough to figure out how to find Blackreach. They know it exists. This entire thread is based on a non-issue.

Yes, partly. When faction lock was Introduced the PC EU PvP population could sustain 2 servers. Today it can just barely sustain 1.5. I think what is the biggest Ravenwatch takeaway is that removing faction lock actually boosted numbers. There simply is'nt enough players to sustain 2 let alone 3, 30 day campaigns. And this is despite population caps being reduced. For this reason we need just 1 non locked campaign for CP and two 7 day, one CP locked one none CP. If we see population locks on either of the 7 days consistently it could be boosted to 30 day.

Desiato

The game isn't dead because of faction lock! We know this because except for a few months in 2019, there has been a 30 day non-faction locked campaign available.

Its population was in decline long before that. It lost players because it has severe problems that were never solved. That's why it's less popular now than it was in 2019. The same reasons it was less popular in 2019 than it was in 2014:

- major technical issues
- major gameplay and balance issues
- lack of attention from its developer

It's amazing you truly believe this boils down to players being too ignorant to find Blackreach. Especially when in your OP you note that they're currently playing on it.

Heelie

Desiato wrote: »

The game isn't dead because of faction lock! We know this because except for a few months in 2019, there has been a 30 day non-faction locked campaign available.

Its population was in decline long before that. It lost players because it has severe problems that were never solved. That's why it's less popular now than it was in 2019. The same reasons it was less popular in 2019 than it was in 2014:

- major technical issues
- major gameplay and balance issues
- lack of attention from its developer

It's amazing you truly believe this boils down to players being too ignorant to find Blackreach. Especially when in your OP you note that they're currently playing on it.

It's not ignorance it's simple human behavior there is no one going to page two on a Google search. For this same reason the most standard version should also be at the top. It makes no reason that an intrusive version is at the top. Because for this reason it will be the only played campaign. PvP would have more players if the pop capped campaign was not faction locked and that is what we are seeing now.

Desiato

Heelie wrote: »

It's not ignorance it's simple human behavior there is no one going to page two on a Google search. For this same reason the most standard version should also be at the top. It makes no reason that an intrusive version is at the top. Because for this reason it will be the only played campaign. PvP would have more players if the pop capped campaign was not faction locked and that is what we are seeing now.

It's not the same thing as a google search in which the first page has dozens of items.

Every regular AvA player knows Blackreach exists. It's extremely accessible. They have simply picked the option they prefer.

Again, players are playing on Blackreach now, so your problem is solved, right? Now that they know it exists and you believe they clearly prefer it, what is stopping them from continuing to play there?

I actually don't care either way. I think the current system is fine because players have a choice. If players prefer Blackreach, so be it.

Highwayman

Desiato wrote: »

It's amazing you truly believe this boils down to players being too ignorant to find Blackreach.

More strawmanning, nobody ever argued this. This one is doing double duty trying to frame the argument as people disagreeing with you as attacking the player base. Frankly, you are the one acting like you think people are ignorant.

McMasterx

Heelie wrote: »

Desiato wrote: »

The game isn't dead because of faction lock! We know this because except for a few months in 2019, there has been a 30 day non-faction locked campaign available.

Its population was in decline long before that. It lost players because it has severe problems that were never solved. That's why it's less popular now than it was in 2019. The same reasons it was less popular in 2019 than it was in 2014:

- major technical issues
- major gameplay and balance issues
- lack of attention from its developer

It's amazing you truly believe this boils down to players being too ignorant to find Blackreach. Especially when in your OP you note that they're currently playing on it.

It's not ignorance it's simple human behavior there is no one going to page two on a Google search. For this same reason the most standard version should also be at the top. It makes no reason that an intrusive version is at the top. Because for this reason it will be the only played campaign. PvP would have more players if the pop capped campaign was not faction locked and that is what we are seeing now.

Meanwhile I'm sitting here wondering how Gray Host is "Intrusive" when it's third in the list. I don't run addons that rearrange my UI, I barely run any addons on PC.

There's no reason to force GH to be the same as Blackreach, why even bother having 2 of the same campaign then? Zos would just shut one down. Also lmao "PvP would have more players if the pop capped campaign ..." stop right there, tell me how you intend to shove more people into an ALREADY CAPPED zone? This whole thread is such a weird "issue" to have, you want the Population that Gray Host enjoys during non-Mayhem.

Highwayman

McMasterx wrote: »

There's no reason to force GH to be the same as Blackreach, why even bother having 2 of the same campaign then?

This is precisely my point from the beginning. I'd like to see the resources merged into a single higher population cap campaign with less restrictions.

Desiato

Highwayman wrote: »

More strawmanning, nobody ever argued this. This one is doing double duty trying to frame the argument as people disagreeing with you as attacking the player base. Frankly, you are the one acting like you think people are ignorant.

It's not a strawman, but my interpretation of their argument.

Their fundamental argument seems to be that the only reason Grey Host is more popular than Blackreach is because of where it's listed in the campaign list. He argues most players prefer the non-faction lock ruleset, yet don't play there. To me, that implies some level of ignorance.

They certainly haven't disputed that.

Plus it's not even true. It's all a fallacy, as McMasterx pointed out. The Alliance Locked category is 3rd behind Standard No-CP and Standard. To me, the implied default would be Standard.

I would guess the OP is homed on Grey Host, so it is the server that first appears when they open the Alliance War window.



When an unhomed character opens the campaign window, the first server they are presented with is.... Ravenwatch! So why isn't it the post popular server?!

Highwayman

Desiato wrote: »

It's not a strawman, but my interpretation of their argument.

It really seems bad faith to expect the benefit of the doubt after not giving it.

Aurielle

Highwayman wrote: »

McMasterx wrote: »

There's no reason to force GH to be the same as Blackreach, why even bother having 2 of the same campaign then?

I'd like to see the resources merged into a single higher population cap campaign with less restrictions.

Many of us would hate that. Better to have options.

Blood_again

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?

Let me guess:
1. You're playing on PC NA server (I just checked the Grayhost scores there, yes )
2. You don't play PvP on PC EU or any other server. Maybe you don't even know about their existence.
3. You are a bit nervous with all these events and PvEers running around.

Please keep calm and concentrate. We all have one more week of this event ahead.
The screen I provided is from PC EU, as you can check in my message you quoted.
You can also check it by logging in to EU server personally. No purchase is required, as you already have the PC version of the game.
Also feel free to flag my messages if you're still convinced the information is false. Thank you for being on guard about the forum rules.

kargen27

To me it seems there was and still is a significant (by PvP population standards) number of players that had concerns with players being able to switch alliances during a campaign and players that just didn't care. Those that don't care can play either place and likely are not as passionate about having a choice because they don't care.
Players that were concerned with players switching alliances for a variety of reasons felt it hurt overall game play and asked for a campaign that is alliance locked. Turns out that became the primary campaign because in includes all the players that care and some of the players that are happy either way. This was one of those decisions made by ZoS that makes sense. We get a choice of how we want to play. I wish we would have been given that same choice with account wide achievements. I would have opted out.
During the event I'm taking most my characters across two accounts to Blackreach because of the shorter queue. A few of them (two each account) I have to take to Blackreach because they are not the same alliance as my main characters. I check both queues each time I get on another character and chose the shortest. So far it has almost always been Blackreach. A few times really late neither was population locked.
Outside of this event I play almost exclusively in the alliance locked campaign because I share some of the concerns with jumping from alliance to alliance being detrimental to the overall game play in Cyrodiil. Looking at queues outside the event enough players still really don't want alliance switching to make it the most popular campaign. If they didn't care they would see the queue and just go to the other.

Highwayman

Aurielle wrote: »

Many of us would hate that. Better to have options.

I agree it is better to have options, that is where I was coming from initially on this topic. I unfortunately think we are quickly getting to a place where options are the enemy of quality. I'd rather have one good campaign than a handful of bad ones.

If management decisions need to be made cutting resources (or not adding as complexity grows), it would be nice for the resources that are used to be spent in a manner that keep some minimal level of game quality.

I am excited to see what next quarter brings though. Also, I appreciate you addressing what I said, even minimally.