A vote for ZOS to block people from jumping from factions while in the same Campaign

reiverx · December 2017

Campaigns were definitely a lot closer when there was alliance locking.

AnviOfVai · December 2017

What happens if a campaign is full and you can't access it with the character you want to play as you are campaign locked? This also is the same with lag. If two campaigns are full of lag and your character is stuck on those two only... your pretty much screwed for that character until a reset.

Nah, I'm quite happy with the way it is, I can see why people don't like it but now I just can't be bothered to be....bothered about it. Most players have characters on all factions and different builds they want to play. I don't like the fact that sometimes people will switch half way through play on their faction to switch to the other faction especially if there is lots of players already on that faction or they are winning. I tend to try and stick with my chosen faction for a week or more then switch again. I only switch mid way through if a friend is on.

SugaComa · December 2017

Rainraven wrote: »

TequilaFire wrote: »

So all of you that are opposed to faction locking, what is your solution to one alliance having the most population all the time?
It is absolutely no fun to play a campaign with 3 bars vs 1 vs 1 because everyone is playing with their "friends" on the alliance that just happens to be in the lead. Makes for a long 30 days.

I agree with you completely, but the solution you're going for here is 1. the nuclear option and 2. likely to have an effect opposite the one you're hoping for. People really DO switch to toons on the UNDER-populated side because they would like to get some PVP on a map that's all already their faction's color. That's also sometimes the motivations for guilds who switch factions: they are trying to do what ZOS won't, deal with the population imbalance so we can play the game.

If you're only seeing jerks, that sucks for you, but that's not the whole picture. Jerks will be jerks. And you want to penalize people who are good for the health of campaigns because they have toons in multiple factions. No.

Also, everything BrightOblivion said. There aren't enough campaigns for this nonsense to happen again.

Disclosure, if it matters: I only PVP for the Pact. And this is still a terrible idea.

This is most definitely not true on PS4 EU

There it's about switching to who ever has the biggest zerg ...

Basically one or two guilds stay factions loyal while others will go yellow, turn whole map yellow as a zerg switch to blue zerg whole map blue switch red zerg whole map red

Leaving those of use who are loyal to one faction looking either like we can't play unless we zerg or unable to move anywhere cos of the zerg

It makes for very dull PvP

What we need is a 4 hour challenge campaigns where you can invite friends fill the map with say 72 players reduce the size of keeps and the map to limit ride time and simply play first to emp or highest score after 4 hours wins

IcyDeadPeople · December 2017

Tommy_The_Gun wrote: »

I guess people don't see the paradox re-loging is causing...
Loging-off from one character from one alliance and then logging in with different character with different alliance still within the same campaign.
Imagine this scenario (and assume for a second that it is actually happening on live server):

- A PvP guild logs to their faction characters. Paints the map to their faction colour.
- Logs off and logs in as 2nd faction and paints the map their colour.
- Then Banks AP.
- 3rd faction is perma-pushed to the gates facing constant 2 vs scenario...

GG #Three_Banners_War Balance...

If one guild can do that, it must already be a dead campaign

supaskrub · December 2017

let them swap but disable AP gain after they move faction until the end of the campaign.

jssriot · December 2017

There are some many honest players who go to cyro for this or that reason, maybe just pvp casually or level up and get caltrops or the like, who really don't give one flying flip about the campaign, and that's OK. They shouldn't be punished if they want to play toons on different factions, go skyshard hunting or achieve hunting in Cyro with their friends or if they join a guild that only pvps once a week in a faction that's not their main toon's. You're only going to make pvp and Cyro less accessible to more players and that bad game design and bad business. It's also bad for the campaigns and guilds who recruit in cyro and rely on pugs to fill up their groups.

Cyro should not belong exclusively to the pvp elitists. For one there's not enough of them to justify them having all of cyro to themselves. You snobby elitist pvpers who are getting mad because you all are spying on each other and faction hopping--and YOU KNOW the people whining about it the loudest are doing it too--that's a problem YOU created. The entire player base should not have to pay for you being ***.

cairo_x · December 2017

So far, 59 people agree with a change of what we have now vs 52.

duendology · December 2017

I can understand changing faction because players's friends join and the want to share the experience..
but changing factions because yours is supposedly losing? It seems......low. And also tells me that someone really takes this game a little too seriously...or has got this obsessive-compulsive infliction "I must be a victor always".

Enslaved · December 2017

Qbiken wrote: »

I think one alliance/campaign is a good suggestion. I´m against having one alliance/account for obvious reasons. At the moment, people selling emperorship and rigging campaigns are an huge issue on Shor (PC/EU). Let me tell you a story:

A few weeks ago I was on my AD character on Shor. The reason I play on Shor is:
#1 I like CP over non-CP
#2 I hate long que-times and excessive lag and therefore avoid Vivec.

(Note that this story is told by another player to me through whisper)
For those who doesn´t are aware of how Shor is at the moment, it´s an emp-selling campaign dominated by DC. But last week during Tuesday/Wednesday AD had a really good chance of crowning an emperor. The guy who was in the current emp-group had suddenly gained a small lead to the player who was #2 on the leaderboard. The group he was in suddenly kicked him, because they had a "secret agreement" to get the #2 player as emp. They kicked the guy who was #1, half of the group relogged to DC faction and kept hunting the #1 AD player down (so he couldn´t farm any AP) and retook the majority of the keeps (Now as DC-players) the same group had taken the hours before. The #1 AD player could because of this not becoming emp. An hour later the map was yellow again, and the guy who was #2 became emp, because the team had swapped back from DC to AD.

If you people think this *** isn´t a problem, you´re either a part of the emp-selling people, or haven´t seen the issue.....

This is why I

hate ad
hate dc
hate alliance hoppers

Hurtfan · December 2017

I don't like alliance hopping and would feel dirty if I did...

However, let people do what they like, not everyone plays the game like I do, to each their own.

UnversedNumber3 · December 2017

I am not a fan of people jumping ship just to get on the winning side. Fight with some honor.

geonsocal · December 2017

it would seem the true culprits are the pvp guilds...

yes, that is the answer = cyrodiil should be a guild free, group free zone...

KrazyKooter · December 2017

TequilaFire wrote: »

So all of you that are opposed to faction locking, what is your solution to one alliance having the most population all the time?
It is absolutely no fun to play a campaign with 3 bars vs 1 vs 1 because everyone is playing with their "friends" on the alliance that just happens to be in the lead. Makes for a long 30 days.

There is no “solution”. You get over it. The server population will come back. Quit whining about it and try enjoying a different alliance sometime. How different would history have been if the Mongols stopped rolling over people because “everyone else didn’t have enough people to stop them and that’s not fair”. <insert pouty face> #PoorPuddin

Before the CWC release the XBNA 30 day CP Campaign was pop-locked and I would usually wind up in a queue position over #100. The week of the CWC release the Cyrodiil population dropped. It started to come back but for me personally the infinite load screens in Cyrodiil have kept me away.

jaws343 · December 2017

I mentionted this in the other thread. Not everyone has the any race any alliance add-on. If they want to play an Argonian DK and a High Elf Sorc in PVP, they would be forced to play two different factions. If you lock campaigns, you lock these players from being able to play more than one character for 30 days in a competitive CP campaign and you force players that don't have the add-on to only play 1 of three races if they want to play other classes in the same pvp campaign.

Unless any race any alliance becomes part of the base game, it is ridiculous to force campaign locks on players.

geonsocal · December 2017

jaws343 wrote: »

I mentionted this in the other thread. Not everyone has the any race any alliance add-on. If they want to play an Argonian DK and a High Elf Sorc in PVP, they would be forced to play two different factions. If you lock campaigns, you lock these players from being able to play more than one character for 30 days in a competitive CP campaign and you force players that don't have the add-on to only play 1 of three races if they want to play other classes in the same pvp campaign.

Unless any race any alliance becomes part of the base game, it is ridiculous to force campaign locks on players.

not sure I've read any one else put it in those terms...

you're exactly right...well done...

Colecovision · December 2017

I think people forget or simply aren't aware than many of us didn't choose our faction. I bought the gold edition and my faction is designated by the game by race. I rolled a Khajiit and was forced into AD. I added a redguard and he's DC. I wish I could have stayed the same, but ZoS said "no." And people with 14 characters can't be in different campaigns for everything.

I would rather have the option of going through some mission to permanently switch toons to my original faction. Some type of PVE spy mission would be great. Or just allow me the choice of an accountwide faction. As is, there's no way to do this.

Rainraven · December 2017

SugaComa wrote: »

Rainraven wrote: »

TequilaFire wrote: »

So all of you that are opposed to faction locking, what is your solution to one alliance having the most population all the time?
It is absolutely no fun to play a campaign with 3 bars vs 1 vs 1 because everyone is playing with their "friends" on the alliance that just happens to be in the lead. Makes for a long 30 days.

I agree with you completely, but the solution you're going for here is 1. the nuclear option and 2. likely to have an effect opposite the one you're hoping for. People really DO switch to toons on the UNDER-populated side because they would like to get some PVP on a map that's all already their faction's color. That's also sometimes the motivations for guilds who switch factions: they are trying to do what ZOS won't, deal with the population imbalance so we can play the game.

If you're only seeing jerks, that sucks for you, but that's not the whole picture. Jerks will be jerks. And you want to penalize people who are good for the health of campaigns because they have toons in multiple factions. No.

Also, everything BrightOblivion said. There aren't enough campaigns for this nonsense to happen again.

Disclosure, if it matters: I only PVP for the Pact. And this is still a terrible idea.

What we need is a 4 hour challenge campaigns where you can invite friends fill the map with say 72 players reduce the size of keeps and the map to limit ride time and simply play first to emp or highest score after 4 hours wins

That would be cool. Want.

What I'd really like is a new arena we can configure for different group sizes, number of teams, etc. Then go in there and kill the hell out of each other. I'm pretty tired of Cyrodiil.

Rainraven · December 2017

IcyDeadPeople wrote: »

Tommy_The_Gun wrote: »

I guess people don't see the paradox re-loging is causing...
Loging-off from one character from one alliance and then logging in with different character with different alliance still within the same campaign.
Imagine this scenario (and assume for a second that it is actually happening on live server):

- A PvP guild logs to their faction characters. Paints the map to their faction colour.
- Logs off and logs in as 2nd faction and paints the map their colour.
- Then Banks AP.
- 3rd faction is perma-pushed to the gates facing constant 2 vs scenario...

GG #Three_Banners_War Balance...

If one guild can do that, it must already be a dead campaign

And that's the real problem.

BigBragg · December 2017

Pigeon holing players is a band-aid, not a solution.

cairo_x · December 2017

As we all can see here is that the majority of the players (52%) want something done. I strongly suggest ZOS to take this as a challange and see about it before It is too late.

Sevn · December 2017

cairo_x wrote: »

As we all can see here is that the majority of the players (52%) want something done. I strongly suggest ZOS to take this as a challange and see about it before It is too late.

Are we looking at the same results? The poll clearly shows most disagree with your proposal. By a lot. And no, you don't get to combine the two different responses to bolster your agenda unless you're going to add another option for players who disagree with any sort of restrictions as well.

Eirella · December 2017

cairo_x wrote: »

As we all can see here is that the majority of the players (52%) want something done. I strongly suggest ZOS to take this as a challange and see about it before It is too late.

You do realize the majority of players don't even visit the forums, right?

BrightOblivion · December 2017

cairo_x wrote: »

As we all can see here is that the majority of the players (52%) want something done. I strongly suggest ZOS to take this as a challange and see about it before It is too late.

It's a tiny majority that can't agree on what they want, versus 48% of the people who say no, who don't want what you're selling.

But shoot. Maybe you're just fine with alienating and driving out 48% of Cyrodiil's population (assuming the forums are even representative of in-game). I mean, there's no way dropping your population down to 52% could cause problems, assuming it also wouldn't tick off people who chose the other yes option.

cairo_x · December 2017

Sevn wrote: »

cairo_x wrote: »

As we all can see here is that the majority of the players (52%) want something done. I strongly suggest ZOS to take this as a challange and see about it before It is too late.

Are we looking at the same results? The poll clearly shows most disagree with your proposal. By a lot. And no, you don't get to combine the two different responses to bolster your agenda unless you're going to add another option for players who disagree with any sort of restrictions as well.

52% want something done (yes). I didn't mention my agenda.

Osteos · December 2017

I only pvp for DC but I don't have a problem with other people playing on multiple factions and there really is only one competitive campaign.

Also..sometimes its fun to fight your friends

Rainraven · December 2017

Eirella wrote: »

cairo_x wrote: »

As we all can see here is that the majority of the players (52%) want something done. I strongly suggest ZOS to take this as a challange and see about it before It is too late.

You do realize the majority of players don't even visit the forums, right?

And the ones that do have had this conversation so many times already, how many even clicked to see it yet again?

Dead horse is dead. RIP dead horse.

Hurtfan · December 2017

Now hopping alliances just to spy on the zone chat...don't like that either but hey, it's kinda like real war with moles, spies and such...

MisterBigglesworth · December 2017

Wait... are you suggesting that when loopholes (ones that stand in direct contrast to the implied design goals and community behaviors intended by the developers) are allowed to exist by said developers...
...are you saying that people might not necessarily operate in good faith?

Anyways, on a totally unrelated note, just gonna leave this here:

kargen27 · December 2017

I think I have the solution. An idea that will make nobody happy! Basically you can switch factions but you have a twenty hour cool down where your character gets no AP.

The pure genius of this idea is in another thread people are seriously venting about the twenty hour cool down for random dungeons, feeding horses and other things. They hate it. So incorporating it into a cool down for gaining AP for a different alliance makes sure really nobody can be happy with it.

If you can't make everybody happy make nobody happy. That is what negotiation is all about and why this idea is so great!

Oh and if you start on DC and switch to AD then decide two hours later you want to go back to DC twenty hours starts over. THis idea just keeps getting better and better.

Leogon · December 2017

Xelrick wrote: »

They just need to drop Alliances on Character Creation and shift it to the Campaigns upon selecting a Home or Guest.

Making Home Campaigns Alliance bound for Account while Guest Campaigns you can switch.

ZOS, listen to this man.