Let's Talk Alliance Loyalty and Lockouts:

DuskMarine · April 2018

i dont think alot of you that are all for this are thinking about the consequences of this change. yall probly have thought team green orange and purple were a thing before. if they implement this its gonna become a regular everyday thing cause people will want to play with friends in another faction. and if their faction locked what do you think is gonna happen??

elfantasmo · April 2018

If ZOS does this for which I would be in favour of I would like to see 1 alliance change token per character. I really want to change my Templar to EP :-)

SwampRaider · April 2018

Even if they take away the ability to join an Alliance at character creation, They still need to Alliance lock campaigns.

Given time, choosing alliances at Character creation can grossly outnumber 1 side vs the other. The ability to choose an alliance right before a campaign would be ideal.

@ZOS_BrianWheeler you have many choices here. Perhaps next large update?
-Remove Alliance from Character Creation(choose alliance before entering cyrodiil)

-Alliance Lock campaigns(1 Side all your characters fight for only)

- if no Alliance lock, Have a substantial cool down to prevent quick switching (24-72 hour cool down)

- Alliance Loyalty Rewards: Sticking with 1 Alliance during whole campaign gets you extra gold and Gold items(So even if you lose and dont get 5 gold jewelry rewards, you get 2 gold jewelry for sticking with your side)

-Revamp Cyrodiil with an overhaul turning it into a Guild vs Guild Vs Guild Vs Guild Vs Guild Battleground since the war against Molag Bal is technically Over.( A true world PvP zone where you can flag or unflag and choose to ally with guilds or kill them)

- Create a new Larger Battleground to allow people to play with their friends in 20vs20vs20 fights (perhaps like a daedric Zone where they have to fight each other to close sigil stones and gain powerful daedric buffs and artifacts to help buff themselves

schattenkind · April 2018

Just to make this clear, my only intention is to take out alliance assignment from character creation.

- Being new to the game, at the point of character creation, the player has neither any idea what this means (later), nor has an overview which race is best for which class. Not everybody starts this game after reading all guides and relevant informations.
My first choice was templar on breton, because it looked better and sounds cool in the description - thats what new players see. I wouldnt make this choice again, with my experience from today.

- Having enough experience you exactly know, that for your chosen class and desired build youre going for, there is a "best race". But your choice is narrowed down to 3 races, when you have chosen "your alliance" already because maybe your friends are in that alliance or you just like to play this certain alliance. Mostly 2 of those 3 races are totaly wrong for your idea and you end up with the third, but still a race that is not what you intended.
I would have made my magDK as dark elf, but I am an AD player (friends and other stuff), so end up with creepy highelf... sucks.

- Having some characters created before the experience comes and the light bulb starts flickering above your head, you can totaly forget about changing the race to "best race" (except it is in the same alliance, which mostly is not) or changing alliance, if you would like to use them for PvP instead of creating a whole new character with all the grinds needed to make it halfway usable...
I have 4 characters which I made without any experience and before I started PvP. They were created for PvE uses, where the alliance does not play any role, so it comes that 3 of them are DC and 1 is EP. I have no chance to rebuild them for PvP, while staying with AD.

That 3 points show totaly useless forcing ppl to chose an alliance at character creation.

I like that idea, that alliance choice would be made before you enter alliance war the very first time (or earlier, if you wish) and there would be no rescritions on character creation. This way you could chose "your alliance" before entering alliance war and probably having some experience already and also having some friends you know you want to play with or other reasons that makes your choice a real choice.
It wouldnt help my 4 nonAD toons at all, but would give new players the possibility to make the right choice, or at least have a choice.

gepe87 · April 2018

People want AP and do multiple char ap farming as long campaign rewards aren't good enough. i think alliance lock isn't a solution, but people that stay wirh 1 alliance could get better rewards.

Katahdin · April 2018

We had faction locks before it didn't work then and it won't work now.

If you faction lock campaigns, NA Vivec will be all red 24/7. So much for balance.

If you force all your AD, EP, DC to each only be in one campaign like we had before, there will be 3 buff campaigns, one for each faction and no more pvp.

You want to fix faction switching for map flipping, institute dynamic pop caps on every campaign to force population balance and stop faction stacking.

No faction can have a population greater than 10% over the lowest faction. As people drop out, players in the higher factions that have been on longest or shortest, whichever, are putting into que to rejoin when the population requirements are met.

If the lowest faction has 100, the other 2 can't have more than 110 each.

If there are 10 people on the lowest, the other 2 can have 11 players for balance. 10 goes to 9, the other 2 each have one go to que.
Yup would suck to be in que but don't faction stack.

Faction stacking and lag are the bigger problems not lack of faction lock.

Stickbow · April 2018

Katahdin wrote: »

We had faction locks before it didn't work then and it won't work now.

If you faction lock campaigns, NA Vivec will be all red 24/7. So much for balance.

If you force all your AD, EP, DC to each only be in one campaign like we had before, there will be 3 buff campaigns, one for each faction and no more pvp.

You want to fix faction switching for map flipping, institute dynamic pop caps on every campaign to force population balance and stop faction stacking.

No faction can have a population greater than 10% over the lowest faction. As people drop out, players in the higher factions that have been on longest or shortest, whichever, are putting into que to rejoin when the population requirements are met.

If the lowest faction has 100, the other 2 can't have more than 110 each.

If there are 10 people on the lowest, the other 2 can have 11 players for balance. 10 goes to 9, the other 2 each have one go to que.
Yup would suck to be in que but don't faction stack.

Faction stacking and lag are the bigger problems not lack of faction lock.

I could get behind the core thought here- dynamic population capping. That would deal with swapping faction just to steamroll AP.

I would not want to see anyone already in the zone kicked out/put in queue - that seems a bit extreme, and would irritate the heck out of me if it happened to me, but if the cap was, let's say 1k each, and the game was at cap on all three factions, then half of AD logged out at midnight, EP and DC would be capped at what they were until population dropped to 550 in this scenario.

I'm just knee-jerk agreeing with the thought; haven't really tried to think through what negatives there might be other than my initial reaction to this post.

Number_51 · April 2018

Stickbow wrote: »

Katahdin wrote: »

We had faction locks before it didn't work then and it won't work now.

If you faction lock campaigns, NA Vivec will be all red 24/7. So much for balance.

If you force all your AD, EP, DC to each only be in one campaign like we had before, there will be 3 buff campaigns, one for each faction and no more pvp.

You want to fix faction switching for map flipping, institute dynamic pop caps on every campaign to force population balance and stop faction stacking.

No faction can have a population greater than 10% over the lowest faction. As people drop out, players in the higher factions that have been on longest or shortest, whichever, are putting into que to rejoin when the population requirements are met.

If the lowest faction has 100, the other 2 can't have more than 110 each.

If there are 10 people on the lowest, the other 2 can have 11 players for balance. 10 goes to 9, the other 2 each have one go to que.
Yup would suck to be in que but don't faction stack.

Faction stacking and lag are the bigger problems not lack of faction lock.

I could get behind the core thought here- dynamic population capping. That would deal with swapping faction just to steamroll AP.

I would not want to see anyone already in the zone kicked out/put in queue - that seems a bit extreme, and would irritate the heck out of me if it happened to me, but if the cap was, let's say 1k each, and the game was at cap on all three factions, then half of AD logged out at midnight, EP and DC would be capped at what they were until population dropped to 550 in this scenario.

I'm just knee-jerk agreeing with the thought; haven't really tried to think through what negatives there might be other than my initial reaction to this post.

Agreed. On the surface it doesn't sound bad. Would have to think through some of the other possible implications, and re-queuing people already in the campaign is also a no-go for me. But as a deterrent, super long queue times for pop capped factions could work.

TequilaFire · April 2018

Katahdin wrote: »

We had faction locks before it didn't work then and it won't work now.

If you faction lock campaigns, NA Vivec will be all red 24/7. So much for balance.

If you force all your AD, EP, DC to each only be in one campaign like we had before, there will be 3 buff campaigns, one for each faction and no more pvp.

You want to fix faction switching for map flipping, institute dynamic pop caps on every campaign to force population balance and stop faction stacking.

No faction can have a population greater than 10% over the lowest faction. As people drop out, players in the higher factions that have been on longest or shortest, whichever, are putting into que to rejoin when the population requirements are met.

If the lowest faction has 100, the other 2 can't have more than 110 each.

If there are 10 people on the lowest, the other 2 can have 11 players for balance. 10 goes to 9, the other 2 each have one go to que.
Yup would suck to be in que but don't faction stack.

Faction stacking and lag are the bigger problems not lack of faction lock.

Unlike then there aren't enough campaigns now for each alliance to have their own map, so no Vivec would not be red 24/7.
Besides everyone knows it's yellow that does that.

Sandman929 · April 2018

I've already heard the only argument against faction locks that I'll ever need a long time ago. Every character is already faction loyal. No one is hopping alliances on one character, they are deciding to play another character that's on another faction.
I'm fully DC on every character because I decided to make every one of my characters that way. Right for me, not everyone.

JumpmanLane · April 2018

As far as campaign switching goes, a cool down is just nuts. I was pvping the other day and this guy 1vXed the pug Zerg I was in and 1/2 the Zerg immediately quit then and there. He wiped the Zerg a second time and I whispered to the guy how hilarious it was that he basically caused a Zerg to log out of the campaign.

So, we’re hanging out the next day, yapping and fighting each other by a resource and my guards attack him. Then a NB from his faction attacked me. So, he switches to a toon on my faction. I’m gonna roll a toon on his.

You pick these factions for stupid reasons or no reason at all. Then you make friends and invariably these friends low and behold play in another faction. It’s a game. It’s fun. You ought to be able to play any faction you want with whomever you want. I main AD and could care less about Queen Ayrenn lol. I think Kate Beckensale has a cute voice (a cute everything else too). I chose AD for that

Marginis · May 2018

JumpmanLane wrote: »

As far as campaign switching goes, a cool down is just nuts. I was pvping the other day and this guy 1vXed the pug Zerg I was in and 1/2 the Zerg immediately quit then and there. He wiped the Zerg a second time and I whispered to the guy how hilarious it was that he basically caused a Zerg to log out of the campaign.

So, we’re hanging out the next day, yapping and fighting each other by a resource and my guards attack him. Then a NB from his faction attacked me. So, he switches to a toon on my faction. I’m gonna roll a toon on his.

You pick these factions for stupid reasons or no reason at all. Then you make friends and invariably these friends low and behold play in another faction. It’s a game. It’s fun. You ought to be able to play any faction you want with whomever you want. I main AD and could care less about Queen Ayrenn lol. I think Kate Beckensale has a cute voice (a cute everything else too). I chose AD for that

On console when I was getting into PVP for a while for midyear mayhem (I'm normally not a big PVPer) I started getting into the PVP communities in the game. They are largely separated from the PVEers I found, but within the overarching PVP label, it was one big community. I kind of liked that. All the top PVPers know each other, and they're largely a genuinely kind group that is really fun to hang out with. It's not the biggest thing when it comes to this argument, but I think it's actually really quite nice that there's a kind of understanding that PVP is a game, and that it's not hyper competitive and antagonistic toward other factions.

Katahdin · May 2018

TequilaFire wrote: »

Katahdin wrote: »

We had faction locks before it didn't work then and it won't work now.

If you faction lock campaigns, NA Vivec will be all red 24/7. So much for balance.

If you force all your AD, EP, DC to each only be in one campaign like we had before, there will be 3 buff campaigns, one for each faction and no more pvp.

You want to fix faction switching for map flipping, institute dynamic pop caps on every campaign to force population balance and stop faction stacking.

No faction can have a population greater than 10% over the lowest faction. As people drop out, players in the higher factions that have been on longest or shortest, whichever, are putting into que to rejoin when the population requirements are met.

If the lowest faction has 100, the other 2 can't have more than 110 each.

If there are 10 people on the lowest, the other 2 can have 11 players for balance. 10 goes to 9, the other 2 each have one go to que.
Yup would suck to be in que but don't faction stack.

Faction stacking and lag are the bigger problems not lack of faction lock.

Unlike then there aren't enough campaigns now for each alliance to have their own map, so no Vivec would not be red 24/7.
Besides everyone knows it's yellow that does that.

If you faction lock Cyrodiil, there will need to be a CP campaign added so that people with characters in each faction have a place to play for each faction.

Given the fact that we can't keep more than one campaign full most of the time, I doubt any of this will ever happen.

carljokl · May 2018

I feel like the longer I play the game the less I care about faction loyalty.

I have played all the PvE faction content and seen the game from all the perspectives.

Some create all the characters in one alliance.

I have gone to the other extreme and tried to balance characters across alliances.
My 15 alts consist of each of the 5 classes in each of the alliances. I can't actively play all 15 characters but just like having my options open.

I am glad that there was no campaign lock when grinding Anniversary boxes in Cyrodiil. Being able to switch characters if a campaign was flipped and all the towns inaccessible was really useful in that specific situation.

Now that it is over I don't have very strong feelings.

What occurs to me is that you can lock people into factions in campaigns but you can't force them to play.
What is the danger that if locked into a faction that is really struggling and players are not enjoying it then they might just not play that campaign at all. It does mean you don't have the positive reinforcement of more and more players flipping sides so the problem accelerates at the dominant side gets stronger as well as the opposition weaker. If other factions players get fed up and give up then the dominant side will remain dominant.

In terms of enjoyment in PvP there is a threshold where you feel you have enough players in a faction to make an impact on the campaign. It is one thing to be the underdog and another to be so totally dominated over that you feel powerless to fight back.

I am not sure that using alts for spying is all that effective. It doesn't take that long to see if the enemy is attacking somewhere. Also, knowing what the enemy are planning is one thing and having a powerful and organised enough group to stop them doing it is another. A dominant zerg will win out even if the other side knows it is comming.

Darkmage1337 · May 2018

I would support faction lockouts if there were 3 CP-enabled campaigns; however, there are currently only 2 (Vivec and Shor).
And, for me, 30-day duration campaigns are not ideal because, if you want to get Emperor, you are more likely to get it on Shor, where leader-boards and faction score reset every 7 days, once per week, instead of once per month. 30 days is too long IMO.
ZOS should also bring back the Axe of Balharza campaign, which was 14-days long and had the Imperial City locked if you did not own your home keeps. ZOS could keep this rule or remove it, they just need to bring back a 14-day CP-enabled campaign. The gap between 7 days and 30 days is too large. 14 days was a nice middle-ground.
7-day CP-enabled campaign: Shor.
14-day CP-enabled campaign: Axe of Belharza.
30-day CP-enabled campaign: Vivec.
There ya go. 1 faction for each CP-enabled campaign. Pick 1 campaign for each of character's faction and then change your campaign around, if needed, after each campaign ends. Or pay AP to do it immediately. (And maybe change 30-day campaigns to 28 days so that they reset at the same times as the 7-day and 14-day campaigns would reset [7..14..21..28..])
30-day CP-disabled campaign: Sotha Sil, could remain faction-open for any character, just like Battlegrounds (which are also currently CP-disabled), where faction does not matter.

Just my 2-cents.

Minyassa · May 2018

What if some of your friends are in one alliance and several are in another and you have toons in different alliances so that you can play with those friends when they are on? Sadly we cannot control our friends' online time. I've tried, it just doesn't work.

templesus · May 2018

By “Competitive group PvPer” you mean zerger right?

Grimm13 · May 2018

Why is there not three versions of each campaign mode? Each would have a shift in where the factions have the home base.

With a greater number of available campaigns then campaign locks would not be an issue.

TequilaFire · May 2018

Katahdin wrote: »

TequilaFire wrote: »

Katahdin wrote: »

We had faction locks before it didn't work then and it won't work now.

If you faction lock campaigns, NA Vivec will be all red 24/7. So much for balance.

If you force all your AD, EP, DC to each only be in one campaign like we had before, there will be 3 buff campaigns, one for each faction and no more pvp.

You want to fix faction switching for map flipping, institute dynamic pop caps on every campaign to force population balance and stop faction stacking.

No faction can have a population greater than 10% over the lowest faction. As people drop out, players in the higher factions that have been on longest or shortest, whichever, are putting into que to rejoin when the population requirements are met.

If the lowest faction has 100, the other 2 can't have more than 110 each.

If there are 10 people on the lowest, the other 2 can have 11 players for balance. 10 goes to 9, the other 2 each have one go to que.
Yup would suck to be in que but don't faction stack.

Faction stacking and lag are the bigger problems not lack of faction lock.

Unlike then there aren't enough campaigns now for each alliance to have their own map, so no Vivec would not be red 24/7.
Besides everyone knows it's yellow that does that.

If you faction lock Cyrodiil, there will need to be a CP campaign added so that people with characters in each faction have a place to play for each faction.

Given the fact that we can't keep more than one campaign full most of the time, I doubt any of this will ever happen.

The reason from my EP guild and most people I actually talk to in game the reason the population is down is because of the unbalanced populations caused by all switching to the winning side. None of the long time non casual PvP players want to play COD AP farm. PvP is our end game.

TequilaFire · May 2018

templesus wrote: »

By “Competitive group PvPer” you mean zerger right?

As opposed to running around rocks avoiding fight 1vXer?

SwampRaider · May 2018

templesus wrote: »

By “Competitive group PvPer” you mean zerger right?

16 man group with specific roles built for zerg busting and counterplay against other zerg busting groups

Competitive Group play PvP

templesus · May 2018

SwampRaider wrote: »

templesus wrote: »

By “Competitive group PvPer” you mean zerger right?

16 man group with specific roles built for zerg busting and counterplay against other zerg busting groups

Competitive Group play PvP

16 man group is Zerging.

templesus · May 2018

TequilaFire wrote: »

templesus wrote: »

By “Competitive group PvPer” you mean zerger right?

As opposed to running around rocks avoiding fight 1vXer?

I’m sorry do you get mad when your group of 15 has trouble killing someone by themselves? L2P issue

TequilaFire · May 2018

templesus wrote: »

TequilaFire wrote: »

templesus wrote: »

By “Competitive group PvPer” you mean zerger right?

As opposed to running around rocks avoiding fight 1vXer?

I’m sorry do you get mad when your group of 15 has trouble killing someone by themselves? L2P issue

No I don't because I won't be part of that group chasing the cheese tank build.
You make that L2P up all by yourself?

TequilaFire · May 2018

templesus wrote: »

SwampRaider wrote: »

templesus wrote: »

By “Competitive group PvPer” you mean zerger right?

16 man group with specific roles built for zerg busting and counterplay against other zerg busting groups

Competitive Group play PvP

16 man group is Zerging.

In your opinion, devs set groups at 24, so guess you got the wrong game.

ezio45 · May 2018

How about when a campaign starts whatever faction you join that campign in first is the only alliance you can earn rewards on?

Idk it wouldnt solve everything but its a compromised start, still would have trolls, saboteurs and band wagoners but at least it would solve the switching mid campaign to the winning side. unfortunately theyll probably all be on that server next campaign.

SydneyGrey · May 2018

That would really, really suck whenever there's a PvP event going on and you want to switch between alts for the sake of getting Vigor/Caltrops on alts you don't normally plan to play in PvP, or for the sake of getting reward boxes. Sorry, not a good idea. It would ruin the fun for way too many people just for the sake of "fixing" a problem that barely exists.

ezio45 · May 2018

Also @ZOS_BrianWheeler

some reform needs to be done with the town daily quest givers inside buildings. Theres no counter play when a group of 30 have the place locked down to pick off ppl just doing quests. It doesnt contribute to the AvA gameplay, just serves to frustrate players and there is nothing anyone can do to even remotely get a foot hold inside the town buildings. Ive taken a huge group with barriers popped before entering and your still DOA when you load in.

Separate but not totally unrelated. Cyrodiil is a great idea but i think the message isnt reinforced enough that this is ALLIANCE VS ALLIANCE while pvp is part of that killing players shouldnt be the focus. The focus should be to, as an alliance work together to and conquer the map. Alot of the cheap and suckish things i see in cyrodiil are a result of non AVA efforts being an easy way to gain ap.

NBrookus · May 2018

There are two basic types of PVP'ers. One, the self-defined competitive players. They are campaign loyal, faction loyal, and care about the score. Think NBA Finals. How they win is less important than the win, so they devise tactics and focus on fights they feel confident in winning. "Show up with a bigger army" is pretty damned effective as a tactic.

Two, there are the PVP'ers who are interested in the play. The journey. Think neighborhood pickup game of hoops where no one really knows the score, they crave the good plays and the camaraderie. They care less about the side they are playing on than the experience they share with their friends and enemies.

Either group can be casuals or hard core, potatoes or elite, and anywhere in between. Group one thinks group two are spies and sometimes sneers at small scale kr 1vXing, group 2 often calls group 1 zerglings.

Zeni seems most interested in fast-paced popcorn PvP. The game is not hardcore at all, it's a quick adrenaline fix. The serious RvRvR ship has long since sailed between any race any alliance and One Tamriel and the lack of population to support a large number of campaigns. I can see Zeni addressing outright abuse like AP farming friends, but I really doubt they'll impose any strong restrictions.

templesus · May 2018

TequilaFire wrote: »

templesus wrote: »

SwampRaider wrote: »

templesus wrote: »

By “Competitive group PvPer” you mean zerger right?

16 man group with specific roles built for zerg busting and counterplay against other zerg busting groups

Competitive Group play PvP

16 man group is Zerging.

In your opinion, devs set groups at 24, so guess you got the wrong game.

Actually, no, there are these things called battlegrounds, which are 4v4v4 PvP. So your notion that "I have the wrong game" and your implication that devs believe 24 man groups to be PvP in this game are both wrong. Next asinine claim please.