I'm a special flower.

I play only 1 alliance. But, I'm certainly not an exception here. While I would prefer people take the honorable route and not alliance hop, people still do it regardless.

This is a tricky issue, I would like it if alliance switching on the same campaign was not a thing. However, me personally, have seen people end up in unfavorable political climates on one faction, and flee to another so they can still enjoy PvP. So for me to selfishly say, do or die well is very unreasonable.

So I purpose having incentives to keep players mentally locked into their alliance for long campaign cycles spanning over several months. This way, if the guy fighting for blue has a red and yellow, he'll be less likely to switch alliances to the reds that are winning in his campaign. If he says with DC, he'll get a lot of alliance bonus incentives that get more grander as time goes on. Creates loyalty towards the faction, and keeps gold coming into the DC's guys pocket, even though he's in 3rd place in his chosen campaign. If he did switch? Well, DC would take notice, and his long term incentives he built up for 6-months drops down to 0. Same goes for his next chosen alliance, he has to start from 0 tier and work up all over again.

I see a lot of this problem in Cyro. The reasoning for people to flip flop over is because they need the resources such as gold. If there is a tiered reward system that gets better the more you fight for the alliance, then winning the campaign cycle should just be the icing on the cake--and one of the ways to get specialty rewards. But is by no means a super lose-lose situation like it is CURRENTLY for losing alliances.

At the moment, if you're alliance is in a large losing spree, you end up in situations where you feel you cannot PvP on your favorite alliance. I have seen this time-and-time again in the PS4-Vivec thread, where folks who stay loyal are the ones being punished the most for playing in their losing alliance. I do believe this should not have to be the case. They should be rewarded for their long term efforts of staying in the fight, and not just a bland tiered reward at the end of the monthly cycle.

I do not like to play multiple alliances on the same campaign. On the other hand, we are kind of chained to that concept right now with the lack of campaign choices. If I wanted to play all three factions right now, one of my three factions' characters would be forced into playing no CP - or the converse - two of my alliances' characters would be forced into playing the CP campaigns.

Additionally, you then have to take into account your guilds' choices for campaign homes. Every guild cannot accommodate every player, obviously, so sometimes you are left with a "play as a traitor," or "don't play with your other 2 factions," choice. For me, I choose to only PvP with my main guild and main alliance right now. I will play with my other guilds/alliances on other maps occasionally for fun, but its just a personal choice for me to choose to invest my efforts in one place.

Refreshingly, Battlegrounds can be an entirely different matter if you choose - which is fun.

SwampRaider wrote: »

Darlgon wrote: »

Oh.. joy..

A "I need a PVE only Cyrodiil" thread in disguise, judging by the title..



BTW.. when ZoS locks guilds to one alliance, you can have your thing.

PVE in cyrodiil? who does that? I merely want it back the way it was. where players are only allowed to be on 1 faction per campaign, therefore instilling faction pride, and not being able to faction hop on different characters in same campaign

You mean, when there were three campaigns, and each faction picked one to dominate so people from their faction only could get into IC? Yeah.. there were enough players to support more than 3 campaigns back then. The faction lock on accounts never really was there.

Edited to add. Just to clear, even tho you could not home or guest them, but you could still port to group members or guildies.

Yes with cross-faction chat disabled.

I don't want a new campaign. I want joining a campaign restricted to characters from the same alliance, like it was before, though now that there are only 3 regular campaigns on PC NA, that makes it just enough for toons from every faction to have a home, but guest campaigns would be impossible. I don't have any ideas for how to get around that.

I'll allow it if they make it a 7-day non-cp campaign while all the rest are cp campaigns

I don't think account should be locked to it. I do however think you should be locked in to only one alliance on each campaign on reset. The first alliance you join with is the one you are stuck with. Non of this jumping on and off different alligned chatacters because one alliance is having a bad day. Thats bs....should have always been this way.

Actually I only play one alliance but still ...

The only reason why ppl want to have an alliance-lock is because they fear "spies" might create a toon just to watch their alliance zone chat and then tell their own alliance (or guild) where ppl will move. An alliance lock cant help against this. Many intense players have more than one account or they have friends in other alliances. So even if you lock a whole account to one alliance, ppl can still create another one and relog with a char in the other alliance.

Ofc then there is the issue of ppl switching alliances if their own fares badly. Many ppl complaining about that completely forget that you dont just "move on". You have to creat a new char at lvl1, farm him up, gear him up and then start doing the whole AP gaining thing again to unlock alliance skills. Its far less attractive then some people obviously think.

Most ppl create a new char in another alliance if they have their friends there and want to run with them. I don't think this should be prevented.

its all about AP and AMAZING gold rewards ... so you can spend it on ... um ... yeah ...