Crom_CCCXVI wrote: »There is nothing of value in Alliance War.
Is this something that really happens? Or is it a banner that pugs rally behind like the legendary lag switch?Crom_CCCXVI wrote: »Perhaps ZOS could actually start enforcing the bans fot boosting? At the least.
Spying, one alliance paying another alliance to help (and yes it has happened)... Those things are real enough I can fathom them... Boosting is a exploit which needs a severe penalty
Sallington wrote: »I think any game with AvAvA should have your account locked to a certain Alliance, but I know I'm in the minority there.
Crom_CCCXVI wrote: »Hey look Bob is on his red today, oh wait now he is on yellow, or was that blue.
Maybe he is spying...
Maybe he is just being a jerk and trolling the chat...
Maybe his friends are taking turns killing him, or maybe he just defended that keep against 20 of his guildmates all by himself and now he is Emperor!
Maybe, no definitely this was a terrible idea. What was ZOS thinking? I have heard other topics (like justice system) where ZOS says it would be "too vulnerable to exploit"... THIS IS ONE GIANT EXPLOIT.
Whatever reason it was decided to allow players to play multiple alliances in the same campaign (what was it anyway?), can't be more important than the utter garbage it has added to the validity of Alliance War.
Once a campaign starts you should only be able to play one alliance per campaign. Being able to play more than one alliance in the same campaign at the same time has taken the already fragile integrity of Alliance War and Emperorship and tossed it totally out the window. I know this is a relatively recent change, let's just call it a bad idea and go back to the way it was please.
Lieblingsjunge wrote: »I like it. Sometimes PvP is completely dead on one alliance, swapping to another for the sake of good PvP is nice.
You can go to another campaign for it.
God_flakes wrote: »Faction pride has its place for role players, and this IS a role playing game after all. To say it's "ridiculous" isn't exactly fair.
RadioheadSh0t wrote: »God_flakes wrote: »Faction pride has its place for role players, and this IS a role playing game after all. To say it's "ridiculous" isn't exactly fair.
So, you're saying RPers should dictate what PvP players should be able to do? That players shouldn't be able to play on multiple factions because it hurts RPers "immersion?"
People who don't care about RPing shouldn't be forced to play by the rules of RPers. I think "ridiculous" is a fair description of that idea.
God_flakes wrote: »RadioheadSh0t wrote: »God_flakes wrote: »Faction pride has its place for role players, and this IS a role playing game after all. To say it's "ridiculous" isn't exactly fair.
So, you're saying RPers should dictate what PvP players should be able to do? That players shouldn't be able to play on multiple factions because it hurts RPers "immersion?"
People who don't care about RPing shouldn't be forced to play by the rules of RPers. I think "ridiculous" is a fair description of that idea.
Whoa whoa whoa I'm not saying anything about dictating anything. I'm saying don't dog on us who DO have faction loyalties and express them by showing our frustration with multis.