Let's Talk Alliance Loyalty and Lockouts:

TequilaFire · May 2018

Slick_007 wrote: »

Morgul667 wrote: »

Please fix alliance switching

its not broken.

Yes it is.

TequilaFire · May 2018

Slick_007 wrote: »

jediprime74 wrote: »

My guild still has a rule that you only do PvP with an EP character in our home campaign. We enforce that rule strictly, and not only does it keep drama down

is your guild filled with 6yr olds? drama? seriously? iv played mmo's where it was epicly hilarious to bump your guildies off in pvp and no drama ever happened over it. if you have to enforce this rule to stop drama in your guild, you have a seriously immature guild.

Yes people get way to salty when their supposed friend tea bags them and comes into guild chat taunting.
So our guild was forced to implement the rule no opposing factions in the guilds main campaign, if you want to play on another faction do it in another campaign.
But I am not surprised that those that don't have alliance loyalty wouldn't have guild loyalty either.

Morgul667 · May 2018

Slick_007 wrote: »

Morgul667 wrote: »

Please fix alliance switching

its not broken.

The issue is real

Have seen my fair share of players using those tricks: trying to tell other factions where you are while in sneak mode, putting oils next to your ram so you cannot put balistas and speed up the keep taking, Scouting / Alerting others of your every move but they are in your faction so you cannot kill them

I also have seen my fair share of emperor trading and people switching factions as soon as it gets hard, so they can maximise their AP

I would be very happy if there was something to help on this

Joy_Division · May 2018

SwampRaider wrote: »

ezio45 wrote: »

jediprime74 wrote: »

I have three accounts, 15 characters, and all of them are EP. I founded a guild in 2015 and it was an EP guild. Back then faction was a big part of the game. EP characters couldn't group up with AD&DC characters to do any content whatsoever. We took to the fields and hills of Cyrodiil and waged epic war upon the enemy. It was glorious!

Then they allowed cross-faction grouping for dungeons, followed eventually by One Tamriel which allowed cross-faction grouping in all PvE content. Finally, the alliance lock on PvP was entirely removed and this gutted the last shred of real faction loyalty left in the game.

My guild still has a rule that you only do PvP with an EP character in our home campaign. We enforce that rule strictly, and not only does it keep drama down, it does keep some semblance of meaning for faction loyalty on life support.

I'd personally prefer that a player select a faction to represent in a campaign and be unable to change factions until the campaign ended. I understand there is a lot of pushback on that issue, but...come on...even a week isn't long enough in a four week campaign.

If faction loyalty has any proper place in this game it is in PvP and the Alliance War. Give that back to us, please.

AGREED

I would be down with that

Option 1
-make campaigns shorter (say 14 day)
-only allow you to be on one Alliance.

Option 2
- Same campaign length
-Introduce Alliance Loyalty rewards
-12-24 hour lock out between alliance hopping

Option 3
- Same campaign length
- Dissolve Alliance choosing at Character creation, allow you to choose when you enter campaign

Option 4
-Revamp Cyrodiil
-Remove alliance war
- Turn cyrodiil into a Guild vs Guild vs solo vs zerg vs 1vXer free for all situation

Option 5
- Revamp Tamriel
- Make the whole world a PvP zone
- introduce a true justice system where players can hunt other players for stealing
- Release Shimmering isles so we can wabbajack off

Option 6
-Make it so players can only receive AvA awards from one Alliance per campaign

templesus · May 2018

JPcrazysquirrel3 wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

JPcrazysquirrel3 wrote: »

Yes please! Bring back alliance/campaign locking! Make PvP great again!

@Joy_Division I play on PS4 and like @TequilaFire said, alliance switching definitely has been a recurring problem in the last few years, at least on PlayStation. And the PvP guilds that I have been a part of for many years had to start kicking and banning anyone in the guild that has been caught and confirmed to be switching alliances according to who was in the lead. They had to change their guild rules in the MOTD to reflect that we do not tolerate switchers that are in the same campaign as our alliance guild. It still happens! The officers exercise the appropriate punishment.
It really has gotten old pretty fast, back when it really started happening to the point where it was noticed. It makes those of us that are actually loyal to one particular alliance feel worthless and ashamed because we work so hard to maintain our alliance's status in a legitimate way.

Were you even around when there were faction locks and PvP was so not great that even Zos decided to get rid of them?

It wouldn't make PvP great again. There aren't enough servers/Players to have multiple competitive campaign in the first place.

There are other ways to make alliance war and rewards meaningful that don't involve completely locking people from playing their characters at all, let alone with their friends.

Yes, I was around, otherwise I wouldn't have made such a comment.
PvP wasn't great back then, true. It had its problems. It definitely isn't any better today. But you know what the old version of PvP that I'm referring to had that this current version does not? Loyalty, trust, and true faction pride and camaraderie.
Nowadays, it's just hoping over to whatever faction is the flavor of the week and bashing the one you were apart of prior to that.

This is a video game that survives on its playerbase and continuous sales. If you want them to change it, present ACTUAL DATA of why it would be beneficial, not the continuous “Appeal to emotion” (I encourage everyone to research logical fallacies so they can present better arguments.) ~ https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion ~ I personally do not want faction locks at all, as it will cause many players to be unable to play with eachother whom are cross faction, thus refuting the entire ideal of “One Tamriel”.

jediprime74 · May 2018

Slick_007 wrote: »

jediprime74 wrote: »

My guild still has a rule that you only do PvP with an EP character in our home campaign. We enforce that rule strictly, and not only does it keep drama down

is your guild filled with 6yr olds? drama? seriously? iv played mmo's where it was epicly hilarious to bump your guildies off in pvp and no drama ever happened over it. if you have to enforce this rule to stop drama in your guild, you have a seriously immature guild.

Quite the opposite, actually. Recognizing the potential friction caused by guild members fighting guild members is not immature; being proactive at preventing it is also not immature. This system has worked quite well to promote team building, camaraderie, and morale. We fight for the Pact and everyone knows we fight for the Pact. This has been the case since June 9, 2015 and we have had no reason to change it. If guild members wish to run a blue or yellow they can do so in one of the other campaigns that isn't our guild's home campaign. No harm, no foul.

SwampRaider · May 2018

Joy_Division wrote: »

SwampRaider wrote: »

ezio45 wrote: »

jediprime74 wrote: »

I have three accounts, 15 characters, and all of them are EP. I founded a guild in 2015 and it was an EP guild. Back then faction was a big part of the game. EP characters couldn't group up with AD&DC characters to do any content whatsoever. We took to the fields and hills of Cyrodiil and waged epic war upon the enemy. It was glorious!

Then they allowed cross-faction grouping for dungeons, followed eventually by One Tamriel which allowed cross-faction grouping in all PvE content. Finally, the alliance lock on PvP was entirely removed and this gutted the last shred of real faction loyalty left in the game.

My guild still has a rule that you only do PvP with an EP character in our home campaign. We enforce that rule strictly, and not only does it keep drama down, it does keep some semblance of meaning for faction loyalty on life support.

I'd personally prefer that a player select a faction to represent in a campaign and be unable to change factions until the campaign ended. I understand there is a lot of pushback on that issue, but...come on...even a week isn't long enough in a four week campaign.

If faction loyalty has any proper place in this game it is in PvP and the Alliance War. Give that back to us, please.

AGREED

I would be down with that

Option 1
-make campaigns shorter (say 14 day)
-only allow you to be on one Alliance.

Option 2
- Same campaign length
-Introduce Alliance Loyalty rewards
-12-24 hour lock out between alliance hopping

Option 3
- Same campaign length
- Dissolve Alliance choosing at Character creation, allow you to choose when you enter campaign

Option 4
-Revamp Cyrodiil
-Remove alliance war
- Turn cyrodiil into a Guild vs Guild vs solo vs zerg vs 1vXer free for all situation

Option 5
- Revamp Tamriel
- Make the whole world a PvP zone
- introduce a true justice system where players can hunt other players for stealing
- Release Shimmering isles so we can wabbajack off

Option 6
-Make it so players can only receive AvA awards from one Alliance per campaign

totally overlooked that! hopefully people dont play one side that usually wins campaigns, which wil lthen make the queue longer to get in. a true faction stack outside of cyrodiil !

ezio45 · May 2018

SwampRaider wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

SwampRaider wrote: »

ezio45 wrote: »

jediprime74 wrote: »

I have three accounts, 15 characters, and all of them are EP. I founded a guild in 2015 and it was an EP guild. Back then faction was a big part of the game. EP characters couldn't group up with AD&DC characters to do any content whatsoever. We took to the fields and hills of Cyrodiil and waged epic war upon the enemy. It was glorious!

Then they allowed cross-faction grouping for dungeons, followed eventually by One Tamriel which allowed cross-faction grouping in all PvE content. Finally, the alliance lock on PvP was entirely removed and this gutted the last shred of real faction loyalty left in the game.

My guild still has a rule that you only do PvP with an EP character in our home campaign. We enforce that rule strictly, and not only does it keep drama down, it does keep some semblance of meaning for faction loyalty on life support.

I'd personally prefer that a player select a faction to represent in a campaign and be unable to change factions until the campaign ended. I understand there is a lot of pushback on that issue, but...come on...even a week isn't long enough in a four week campaign.

If faction loyalty has any proper place in this game it is in PvP and the Alliance War. Give that back to us, please.

AGREED

I would be down with that

Option 1
-make campaigns shorter (say 14 day)
-only allow you to be on one Alliance.

Option 2
- Same campaign length
-Introduce Alliance Loyalty rewards
-12-24 hour lock out between alliance hopping

Option 3
- Same campaign length
- Dissolve Alliance choosing at Character creation, allow you to choose when you enter campaign

Option 4
-Revamp Cyrodiil
-Remove alliance war
- Turn cyrodiil into a Guild vs Guild vs solo vs zerg vs 1vXer free for all situation

Option 5
- Revamp Tamriel
- Make the whole world a PvP zone
- introduce a true justice system where players can hunt other players for stealing
- Release Shimmering isles so we can wabbajack off

Option 6
-Make it so players can only receive AvA awards from one Alliance per campaign

totally overlooked that! hopefully people dont play one side that usually wins campaigns, which wil lthen make the queue longer to get in. a true faction stack outside of cyrodiil !

good start but doesnt solve everything (alliance hoping for sabotage spying and trolling) yes its a thing, i was solo flagging nik 0 problems 55% a guy starts flipping my siege and 30 seconds later a zerg comes to kill me. thats not a coincidence and the keep would have been flagged if that guy didnt start flipping ballistics before that zerg ported in. i also like the campaign lockout idea. idc if pve doesnt like it. it needs to happen.

Mystrius_Archaion · May 2018

1) No, we should not put any restrictions on switching characters for whatever reason.
Why? We can't predict why people actually did so, like maybe they just wanted to join their friends who chose other alliances but don't play every day and their main is the one they switched away from to join friends on an alt.

2) This is another reason why open world PVP very rarely ever works at all.
It needs a huge balanced population or population restrictions that change to match the actual playerbase to be balanced. The ideal way is how battlegrounds work. They won't let anyone in until each side is a 4 player team to guarantee equal sides. Alliance versus Alliance is only balanced when each alliance hits its max population and only if those players are actually in the zone and only if they are actually participating in the pvp.
You're actually seeing issues a lot as a result of pve objectives in this pvp zone, like dailies to go into the delves and defeat npc bosses.

Honestly, the only way open world pvp would really work is if it was a free-for-all with no alliances. Alliance versus alliance will always be unbalanced. In a free-for-all you will always have opponents and nobody gets an advantage of numbers because their "allies" can and will turn on them. Think of all the drama on the tv show Survivor.

ezio45 · May 2018

Mystrius_Archaion wrote: »

1) No, we should not put any restrictions on switching characters for whatever reason.
Why? We can't predict why people actually did so, like maybe they just wanted to join their friends who chose other alliances but don't play every day and their main is the one they switched away from to join friends on an alt.

2) This is another reason why open world PVP very rarely ever works at all.
It needs a huge balanced population or population restrictions that change to match the actual playerbase to be balanced. The ideal way is how battlegrounds work. They won't let anyone in until each side is a 4 player team to guarantee equal sides. Alliance versus Alliance is only balanced when each alliance hits its max population and only if those players are actually in the zone and only if they are actually participating in the pvp.
You're actually seeing issues a lot as a result of pve objectives in this pvp zone, like dailies to go into the delves and defeat npc bosses.

Honestly, the only way open world pvp would really work is if it was a free-for-all with no alliances. Alliance versus alliance will always be unbalanced. In a free-for-all you will always have opponents and nobody gets an advantage of numbers because their "allies" can and will turn on them. Think of all the drama on the tv show Survivor.

this is just wrong, it doesnt matter if people are just going to play with there friends, A LARGE NOTICEABLE PORTION of players are switching sides for ap ditching there alliance and going to the winning one, thats not balanced at all. and its completely broken

reiverx · May 2018

They really just need to spin up another campaign for people who want faction locks. We've saw how quickly they can do that so it shouldn't be a problem.

That way, some people can have an alliance war and the others can enjoy the whole of Cyrodiil with their pals.

TequilaFire · May 2018

They could kill 2 birds with one stone by making Sotha non faction locked and Vivec faction locked.

efster · May 2018

Lock home campaigns just for the duration and don't allow opposing faction toons to home it. Guesting is fine. There are enough campaigns open to home a character from every alliance, you just have to make a choice which faction you want to "main" for that campaign cycle.

Allow changing the guest campaigns with a brief cooldown (to prevent map flipping farms). That way people can still ~have fun playing with their friends~ but need to make an actual choice if they want campaign rewards or a leaderboard ranking.

Of course this won't stop trolling or spying or any of that stuff, but a complete faction lockout wouldn't really stop it either (nor would it be feasible, with only 2 CP enabled campaigns and only 1 campaign with any real population to speak of, at least on NA). People can make a toon in any faction and communicate via guild chat or voice comms with the opposing factions; people were doing that back in the faction lock days, and these days Discord makes it trivially easy.

JPcrazysquirrel3 · May 2018

efster wrote: »

Lock home campaigns just for the duration and don't allow opposing faction toons to home it. Guesting is fine. There are enough campaigns open to home a character from every alliance, you just have to make a choice which faction you want to "main" for that campaign cycle.

Allow changing the guest campaigns with a brief cooldown (to prevent map flipping farms). That way people can still ~have fun playing with their friends~ but need to make an actual choice if they want campaign rewards or a leaderboard ranking.

Of course this won't stop trolling or spying or any of that stuff, but a complete faction lockout wouldn't really stop it either (nor would it be feasible, with only 2 CP enabled campaigns and only 1 campaign with any real population to speak of, at least on NA). People can make a toon in any faction and communicate via guild chat or voice comms with the opposing factions; people were doing that back in the faction lock days, and these days Discord makes it trivially easy.

That is the worst drawback about Discord honestly.

schattenkind · May 2018

reiverx wrote: »

They really just need to spin up another campaign for people who want faction locks. We've saw how quickly they can do that so it shouldn't be a problem.

That way, some people can have an alliance war and the others can enjoy the whole of Cyrodiil with their pals.

Lets try this exactly. Introduce an other campaign for lets say 3 months and see how it goes, how many ppl play vivec with all the problems and who plays the new campaign with alliance lock.
(I would chose second option...)

SwampRaider · May 2018

schattenkind wrote: »

reiverx wrote: »

They really just need to spin up another campaign for people who want faction locks. We've saw how quickly they can do that so it shouldn't be a problem.

That way, some people can have an alliance war and the others can enjoy the whole of Cyrodiil with their pals.

Lets try this exactly. Introduce an other campaign for lets say 3 months and see how it goes, how many ppl play vivec with all the problems and who plays the new campaign with alliance lock.
(I would chose second option...)

I dont think that would work. Spreading the pvp population thin is a bad idea

It would be easier to compromise.

schattenkind · May 2018

Why? Who would be hurten if we just tried this for once, to see numbers, not opinions?
I'm not talking permanent changes, just to find out what is closer to a real solution. What if most ppl decide to play on the alliance lock campaign?

Spreading the population is something, that needs to be seen from different points of view.
Speaking for me, I dont play evenings / weekends much, because either waiting in queue 50+ and - when finally in - absolutley unplayable lag issues which is no fun. I assume I m not the only one.
Both is not the players fault as we all know, but spreading might help here too.
On the other hand the maps are way to big to spread much and big battles like 50+ against 50+ would become rare and might introduce having more solo players. Or all battles would come to just one keep or sth like that. So, either way there is downsides, seeing the population.

s7732425ub17_ESO · May 2018

ZOS removed the cap on Alliance switching for good reasons. And the new problems that it causes don't seem to be worse than the old problems. Keep it the way it is.

Royaji · May 2018

SwampRaider wrote: »

schattenkind wrote: »

reiverx wrote: »

They really just need to spin up another campaign for people who want faction locks. We've saw how quickly they can do that so it shouldn't be a problem.

That way, some people can have an alliance war and the others can enjoy the whole of Cyrodiil with their pals.

Lets try this exactly. Introduce an other campaign for lets say 3 months and see how it goes, how many ppl play vivec with all the problems and who plays the new campaign with alliance lock.
(I would chose second option...)

I dont think that would work. Spreading the pvp population thin is a bad idea

It would be easier to compromise.

Now that just sounds like you want to force everyone to play the way you play. Why not give people who fight for faction loyalty a unique server with faction lockouts? You'll have it exactly how you like want it and people who want to play with friends can go play with friends on another server.

Or is it because you think that faction loyalty is such a joke that you will not find enough like-minded people (and I remind that the player cap is now around 100 per faction or so) to fill a server and have a healthy community? When why even bother with faction locks?

SwampRaider · May 2018

Royaji wrote: »

SwampRaider wrote: »

schattenkind wrote: »

reiverx wrote: »

They really just need to spin up another campaign for people who want faction locks. We've saw how quickly they can do that so it shouldn't be a problem.

That way, some people can have an alliance war and the others can enjoy the whole of Cyrodiil with their pals.

Lets try this exactly. Introduce an other campaign for lets say 3 months and see how it goes, how many ppl play vivec with all the problems and who plays the new campaign with alliance lock.
(I would chose second option...)

I dont think that would work. Spreading the pvp population thin is a bad idea

It would be easier to compromise.

Now that just sounds like you want to force everyone to play the way you play. Why not give people who fight for faction loyalty a unique server with faction lockouts? You'll have it exactly how you like want it and people who want to play with friends can go play with friends on another server.

Or is it because you think that faction loyalty is such a joke that you will not find enough like-minded people (and I remind that the player cap is now around 100 per faction or so) to fill a server and have a healthy community? When why even bother with faction locks?

There are a lot out there who think that some sort of lock out would be a good idea, be it for the whole campaign or jsut 24 hours to prevent "quick switching"

as much as I would prefer Cyrodiil the way it is intended (AvAvA. guilds are alliance based. only 1 alliance set of characters per campaign) I know that a compromise is a better solution

Sevn · May 2018

So just screw the players that like playing without CP right? Vivec isn't the only campaign that matters here and currently there is only ONE non-cp campaign for vets.

TheBonesXXX · May 2018

templesus wrote: »

JPcrazysquirrel3 wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

JPcrazysquirrel3 wrote: »

Yes please! Bring back alliance/campaign locking! Make PvP great again!

@Joy_Division I play on PS4 and like @TequilaFire said, alliance switching definitely has been a recurring problem in the last few years, at least on PlayStation. And the PvP guilds that I have been a part of for many years had to start kicking and banning anyone in the guild that has been caught and confirmed to be switching alliances according to who was in the lead. They had to change their guild rules in the MOTD to reflect that we do not tolerate switchers that are in the same campaign as our alliance guild. It still happens! The officers exercise the appropriate punishment.
It really has gotten old pretty fast, back when it really started happening to the point where it was noticed. It makes those of us that are actually loyal to one particular alliance feel worthless and ashamed because we work so hard to maintain our alliance's status in a legitimate way.

Were you even around when there were faction locks and PvP was so not great that even Zos decided to get rid of them?

It wouldn't make PvP great again. There aren't enough servers/Players to have multiple competitive campaign in the first place.

There are other ways to make alliance war and rewards meaningful that don't involve completely locking people from playing their characters at all, let alone with their friends.

Yes, I was around, otherwise I wouldn't have made such a comment.
PvP wasn't great back then, true. It had its problems. It definitely isn't any better today. But you know what the old version of PvP that I'm referring to had that this current version does not? Loyalty, trust, and true faction pride and camaraderie.
Nowadays, it's just hoping over to whatever faction is the flavor of the week and bashing the one you were apart of prior to that.

This is a video game that survives on its playerbase and continuous sales. If you want them to change it, present ACTUAL DATA of why it would be beneficial, not the continuous “Appeal to emotion” (I encourage everyone to research logical fallacies so they can present better arguments.) ~ https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion ~ I personally do not want faction locks at all, as it will cause many players to be unable to play with eachother whom are cross faction, thus refuting the entire ideal of “One Tamriel”.

*** one Tamriel and peace, TO ME YOU;RE JUST

SwampRaider wrote: »

Royaji wrote: »

SwampRaider wrote: »

schattenkind wrote: »

reiverx wrote: »

They really just need to spin up another campaign for people who want faction locks. We've saw how quickly they can do that so it shouldn't be a problem.

That way, some people can have an alliance war and the others can enjoy the whole of Cyrodiil with their pals.

Lets try this exactly. Introduce an other campaign for lets say 3 months and see how it goes, how many ppl play vivec with all the problems and who plays the new campaign with alliance lock.
(I would chose second option...)

I dont think that would work. Spreading the pvp population thin is a bad idea

It would be easier to compromise.

Now that just sounds like you want to force everyone to play the way you play. Why not give people who fight for faction loyalty a unique server with faction lockouts? You'll have it exactly how you like want it and people who want to play with friends can go play with friends on another server.

Or is it because you think that faction loyalty is such a joke that you will not find enough like-minded people (and I remind that the player cap is now around 100 per faction or so) to fill a server and have a healthy community? When why even bother with faction locks?

There are a lot out there who think that some sort of lock out would be a good idea, be it for the whole campaign or jsut 24 hours to prevent "quick switching"

as much as I would prefer Cyrodiil the way it is intended (AvAvA. guilds are alliance based. only 1 alliance set of characters per campaign) I know that a compromise is a better solution

This issue has been spoken about enough for me, One Tamriel killed an aspect of PvP that many of us thoroughly enjoyed. I'm not interested in compromise, I'm interested in War > Peace and Faction > Friends when it comes to Cyrodiil, plenty of other MMOs those players can invest their money into. I'm perfectly happy with old blood on the way out, improvements to lag and faction pride on the way back in.

We can replace those who leave, plenty of players left and it was not doom and gloom and others took their spots. It's going to happen.

I can understand holding hands and pickin flowers together in the PvE side of things, if carebears want their way one tamriel, fine. Cyrodiil should be about hating the opposite faction ruthlessly and trying to remove their head from their shoulders and throwing it to the slaughterfish.

14 day faction locks and removing campaign silliness, all three nodes to take a castle. Back to hardcore mode.

templesus · May 2018

TheBonesXXX wrote: »

templesus wrote: »

JPcrazysquirrel3 wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

JPcrazysquirrel3 wrote: »

Yes please! Bring back alliance/campaign locking! Make PvP great again!

@Joy_Division I play on PS4 and like @TequilaFire said, alliance switching definitely has been a recurring problem in the last few years, at least on PlayStation. And the PvP guilds that I have been a part of for many years had to start kicking and banning anyone in the guild that has been caught and confirmed to be switching alliances according to who was in the lead. They had to change their guild rules in the MOTD to reflect that we do not tolerate switchers that are in the same campaign as our alliance guild. It still happens! The officers exercise the appropriate punishment.
It really has gotten old pretty fast, back when it really started happening to the point where it was noticed. It makes those of us that are actually loyal to one particular alliance feel worthless and ashamed because we work so hard to maintain our alliance's status in a legitimate way.

Were you even around when there were faction locks and PvP was so not great that even Zos decided to get rid of them?

It wouldn't make PvP great again. There aren't enough servers/Players to have multiple competitive campaign in the first place.

There are other ways to make alliance war and rewards meaningful that don't involve completely locking people from playing their characters at all, let alone with their friends.

Yes, I was around, otherwise I wouldn't have made such a comment.
PvP wasn't great back then, true. It had its problems. It definitely isn't any better today. But you know what the old version of PvP that I'm referring to had that this current version does not? Loyalty, trust, and true faction pride and camaraderie.
Nowadays, it's just hoping over to whatever faction is the flavor of the week and bashing the one you were apart of prior to that.

This is a video game that survives on its playerbase and continuous sales. If you want them to change it, present ACTUAL DATA of why it would be beneficial, not the continuous “Appeal to emotion” (I encourage everyone to research logical fallacies so they can present better arguments.) ~ https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion ~ I personally do not want faction locks at all, as it will cause many players to be unable to play with eachother whom are cross faction, thus refuting the entire ideal of “One Tamriel”.

*** one Tamriel and peace, TO ME YOU;RE JUST

SwampRaider wrote: »

Royaji wrote: »

SwampRaider wrote: »

schattenkind wrote: »

reiverx wrote: »

They really just need to spin up another campaign for people who want faction locks. We've saw how quickly they can do that so it shouldn't be a problem.

That way, some people can have an alliance war and the others can enjoy the whole of Cyrodiil with their pals.

Lets try this exactly. Introduce an other campaign for lets say 3 months and see how it goes, how many ppl play vivec with all the problems and who plays the new campaign with alliance lock.
(I would chose second option...)

I dont think that would work. Spreading the pvp population thin is a bad idea

It would be easier to compromise.

Now that just sounds like you want to force everyone to play the way you play. Why not give people who fight for faction loyalty a unique server with faction lockouts? You'll have it exactly how you like want it and people who want to play with friends can go play with friends on another server.

Or is it because you think that faction loyalty is such a joke that you will not find enough like-minded people (and I remind that the player cap is now around 100 per faction or so) to fill a server and have a healthy community? When why even bother with faction locks?

There are a lot out there who think that some sort of lock out would be a good idea, be it for the whole campaign or jsut 24 hours to prevent "quick switching"

as much as I would prefer Cyrodiil the way it is intended (AvAvA. guilds are alliance based. only 1 alliance set of characters per campaign) I know that a compromise is a better solution

This issue has been spoken about enough for me, One Tamriel killed an aspect of PvP that many of us thoroughly enjoyed. I'm not interested in compromise, I'm interested in War > Peace and Faction > Friends when it comes to Cyrodiil, plenty of other MMOs those players can invest their money into. I'm perfectly happy with old blood on the way out, improvements to lag and faction pride on the way back in.

We can replace those who leave, plenty of players left and it was not doom and gloom and others took their spots. It's going to happen.

I can understand holding hands and pickin flowers together in the PvE side of things, if carebears want their way one tamriel, fine. Cyrodiil should be about hating the opposite faction ruthlessly and trying to remove their head from their shoulders and throwing it to the slaughterfish.

14 day faction locks and removing campaign silliness, all three nodes to take a castle. Back to hardcore mode.

Or, on the flip side, ZOS keeps Campaigns the way the are, which is likely to happen. Don't worry though, we can easily replace you and others who leave, plenty of players left and it was not doom and gloom and others took their spots. Don't let the door miss hitting you on the way out.

Beardimus · May 2018

@ZOS_BrianWheeler has already said they are looking at something around stopping alliance switching.

I've not read the whole thread but i wholeheartedly agree on a lock out. Per campaign.

There was a time i wanted accounts locked to one alliance full stop to make more of the loyalty. But ive heard peoples views in threads like these and can see that's extreme.

However being locked into one alliance for that campaign i see no problem with. As annoying as it may be for some to wait 7/30 days the volume of nefarious behaviour it would stop would be worth it. In particular on quiet campaigns - Shor & Sotha where players frequently Tri-Leaderboard.

Part of me wonders if Sotha became 7 day and Shor and Sotha were locked out and Vivec was left for the 'switching to be with mates' brigade could have their fun. As its harder to manipulate campaign score in a busy campaign

But aye, i vote for lock out 100%.

TheBonesXXX · May 2018

templesus wrote: »

TheBonesXXX wrote: »

templesus wrote: »

JPcrazysquirrel3 wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

JPcrazysquirrel3 wrote: »

Yes please! Bring back alliance/campaign locking! Make PvP great again!

@Joy_Division I play on PS4 and like @TequilaFire said, alliance switching definitely has been a recurring problem in the last few years, at least on PlayStation. And the PvP guilds that I have been a part of for many years had to start kicking and banning anyone in the guild that has been caught and confirmed to be switching alliances according to who was in the lead. They had to change their guild rules in the MOTD to reflect that we do not tolerate switchers that are in the same campaign as our alliance guild. It still happens! The officers exercise the appropriate punishment.
It really has gotten old pretty fast, back when it really started happening to the point where it was noticed. It makes those of us that are actually loyal to one particular alliance feel worthless and ashamed because we work so hard to maintain our alliance's status in a legitimate way.

Were you even around when there were faction locks and PvP was so not great that even Zos decided to get rid of them?

It wouldn't make PvP great again. There aren't enough servers/Players to have multiple competitive campaign in the first place.

There are other ways to make alliance war and rewards meaningful that don't involve completely locking people from playing their characters at all, let alone with their friends.

Yes, I was around, otherwise I wouldn't have made such a comment.
PvP wasn't great back then, true. It had its problems. It definitely isn't any better today. But you know what the old version of PvP that I'm referring to had that this current version does not? Loyalty, trust, and true faction pride and camaraderie.
Nowadays, it's just hoping over to whatever faction is the flavor of the week and bashing the one you were apart of prior to that.

This is a video game that survives on its playerbase and continuous sales. If you want them to change it, present ACTUAL DATA of why it would be beneficial, not the continuous “Appeal to emotion” (I encourage everyone to research logical fallacies so they can present better arguments.) ~ https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion ~ I personally do not want faction locks at all, as it will cause many players to be unable to play with eachother whom are cross faction, thus refuting the entire ideal of “One Tamriel”.

*** one Tamriel and peace, TO ME YOU;RE JUST

SwampRaider wrote: »

Royaji wrote: »

SwampRaider wrote: »

schattenkind wrote: »

reiverx wrote: »

They really just need to spin up another campaign for people who want faction locks. We've saw how quickly they can do that so it shouldn't be a problem.

That way, some people can have an alliance war and the others can enjoy the whole of Cyrodiil with their pals.

Lets try this exactly. Introduce an other campaign for lets say 3 months and see how it goes, how many ppl play vivec with all the problems and who plays the new campaign with alliance lock.
(I would chose second option...)

I dont think that would work. Spreading the pvp population thin is a bad idea

It would be easier to compromise.

Now that just sounds like you want to force everyone to play the way you play. Why not give people who fight for faction loyalty a unique server with faction lockouts? You'll have it exactly how you like want it and people who want to play with friends can go play with friends on another server.

Or is it because you think that faction loyalty is such a joke that you will not find enough like-minded people (and I remind that the player cap is now around 100 per faction or so) to fill a server and have a healthy community? When why even bother with faction locks?

There are a lot out there who think that some sort of lock out would be a good idea, be it for the whole campaign or jsut 24 hours to prevent "quick switching"

as much as I would prefer Cyrodiil the way it is intended (AvAvA. guilds are alliance based. only 1 alliance set of characters per campaign) I know that a compromise is a better solution

This issue has been spoken about enough for me, One Tamriel killed an aspect of PvP that many of us thoroughly enjoyed. I'm not interested in compromise, I'm interested in War > Peace and Faction > Friends when it comes to Cyrodiil, plenty of other MMOs those players can invest their money into. I'm perfectly happy with old blood on the way out, improvements to lag and faction pride on the way back in.

We can replace those who leave, plenty of players left and it was not doom and gloom and others took their spots. It's going to happen.

I can understand holding hands and pickin flowers together in the PvE side of things, if carebears want their way one tamriel, fine. Cyrodiil should be about hating the opposite faction ruthlessly and trying to remove their head from their shoulders and throwing it to the slaughterfish.

14 day faction locks and removing campaign silliness, all three nodes to take a castle. Back to hardcore mode.

Or, on the flip side, ZOS keeps Campaigns the way the are, which is likely to happen. Don't worry though, we can easily replace you and others who leave, plenty of players left and it was not doom and gloom and others took their spots. Don't let the door miss hitting you on the way out.

I was laughing at your statement because you said you like the ideal of One Tamriel while pointing out the fallacy of emotion. At first I thought it was hyperbole, but then I soon realized it was amusingly paradoxical.

Cyrodiil is down to it's last limb on campaigns, when there were faction locks it had more campaigns. I strongly suspect that "bros before campaigns" had its part to play.

I stand by what I said, that ZOS be held to their original vision to the game; deviance from that path got them what they have now.

templesus · May 2018

TheBonesXXX wrote: »

templesus wrote: »

TheBonesXXX wrote: »

templesus wrote: »

JPcrazysquirrel3 wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

JPcrazysquirrel3 wrote: »

Yes please! Bring back alliance/campaign locking! Make PvP great again!

@Joy_Division I play on PS4 and like @TequilaFire said, alliance switching definitely has been a recurring problem in the last few years, at least on PlayStation. And the PvP guilds that I have been a part of for many years had to start kicking and banning anyone in the guild that has been caught and confirmed to be switching alliances according to who was in the lead. They had to change their guild rules in the MOTD to reflect that we do not tolerate switchers that are in the same campaign as our alliance guild. It still happens! The officers exercise the appropriate punishment.
It really has gotten old pretty fast, back when it really started happening to the point where it was noticed. It makes those of us that are actually loyal to one particular alliance feel worthless and ashamed because we work so hard to maintain our alliance's status in a legitimate way.

Were you even around when there were faction locks and PvP was so not great that even Zos decided to get rid of them?

It wouldn't make PvP great again. There aren't enough servers/Players to have multiple competitive campaign in the first place.

There are other ways to make alliance war and rewards meaningful that don't involve completely locking people from playing their characters at all, let alone with their friends.

Yes, I was around, otherwise I wouldn't have made such a comment.
PvP wasn't great back then, true. It had its problems. It definitely isn't any better today. But you know what the old version of PvP that I'm referring to had that this current version does not? Loyalty, trust, and true faction pride and camaraderie.
Nowadays, it's just hoping over to whatever faction is the flavor of the week and bashing the one you were apart of prior to that.

This is a video game that survives on its playerbase and continuous sales. If you want them to change it, present ACTUAL DATA of why it would be beneficial, not the continuous “Appeal to emotion” (I encourage everyone to research logical fallacies so they can present better arguments.) ~ https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion ~ I personally do not want faction locks at all, as it will cause many players to be unable to play with eachother whom are cross faction, thus refuting the entire ideal of “One Tamriel”.

*** one Tamriel and peace, TO ME YOU;RE JUST

SwampRaider wrote: »

Royaji wrote: »

SwampRaider wrote: »

schattenkind wrote: »

reiverx wrote: »

They really just need to spin up another campaign for people who want faction locks. We've saw how quickly they can do that so it shouldn't be a problem.

That way, some people can have an alliance war and the others can enjoy the whole of Cyrodiil with their pals.

Lets try this exactly. Introduce an other campaign for lets say 3 months and see how it goes, how many ppl play vivec with all the problems and who plays the new campaign with alliance lock.
(I would chose second option...)

I dont think that would work. Spreading the pvp population thin is a bad idea

It would be easier to compromise.

Now that just sounds like you want to force everyone to play the way you play. Why not give people who fight for faction loyalty a unique server with faction lockouts? You'll have it exactly how you like want it and people who want to play with friends can go play with friends on another server.

Or is it because you think that faction loyalty is such a joke that you will not find enough like-minded people (and I remind that the player cap is now around 100 per faction or so) to fill a server and have a healthy community? When why even bother with faction locks?

There are a lot out there who think that some sort of lock out would be a good idea, be it for the whole campaign or jsut 24 hours to prevent "quick switching"

as much as I would prefer Cyrodiil the way it is intended (AvAvA. guilds are alliance based. only 1 alliance set of characters per campaign) I know that a compromise is a better solution

This issue has been spoken about enough for me, One Tamriel killed an aspect of PvP that many of us thoroughly enjoyed. I'm not interested in compromise, I'm interested in War > Peace and Faction > Friends when it comes to Cyrodiil, plenty of other MMOs those players can invest their money into. I'm perfectly happy with old blood on the way out, improvements to lag and faction pride on the way back in.

We can replace those who leave, plenty of players left and it was not doom and gloom and others took their spots. It's going to happen.

I can understand holding hands and pickin flowers together in the PvE side of things, if carebears want their way one tamriel, fine. Cyrodiil should be about hating the opposite faction ruthlessly and trying to remove their head from their shoulders and throwing it to the slaughterfish.

14 day faction locks and removing campaign silliness, all three nodes to take a castle. Back to hardcore mode.

Or, on the flip side, ZOS keeps Campaigns the way the are, which is likely to happen. Don't worry though, we can easily replace you and others who leave, plenty of players left and it was not doom and gloom and others took their spots. Don't let the door miss hitting you on the way out.

I was laughing at your statement because you said you like the ideal of One Tamriel while pointing out the fallacy of emotion. At first I thought it was hyperbole, but then I soon realized it was amusingly paradoxical.

Cyrodiil is down to it's last limb on campaigns, when there were faction locks it had more campaigns. I strongly suspect that "bros before campaigns" had its part to play.

I stand by what I said, that ZOS be held to their original vision to the game; deviance from that path got them what they have now.

Lmao, do you think they care about Cyrodiil, or the PvP playerbase as a whole? You've got it all wrong buddy. Cyrodiil hasn't functioned properly since the game came out 5 years ago. The truth is this is a PvE game, and no amount of demands by anyone is gonna make them bat an eye at PvP.

In regards to your statement that what I said was "amusingly paradoxical", if you go back and read(which is for some reason hard for people to do on these forums) you'll find I never stated I liked the ideal of One Tamriel anywhere, but rather used it as my basis of reasoning for why zenimax should not institute campaign locks. It is imo(thanks to Dr. King) a fundamental neccesity that one not change up on there ideology especially this far in the future. It will only cause chaos.

CatchMeTrolling · May 2018

Nope, not everyone switches just to play the winning side. Some like to have that option to play the underdog. Personally, I don’t like my alliance owning everything or limiting where I can go for action. That sounds great as a new player but gets old really quick with experience or for those that want something more challenging.

Right now I don’t have to worry about that but in the past I had to switch alliances because when I got on my alliance had 3 bars along with DC while AD only had one or zero.

Remember faction loyalist calling me a traitor, especially since I started getting number one emp spot for ad, to the point people went out of their way just so I couldn’t get emp. Like running from arrius to flip roebeck. But yeah.

reiverx · May 2018

templesus wrote: »

TheBonesXXX wrote: »

templesus wrote: »

JPcrazysquirrel3 wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

JPcrazysquirrel3 wrote: »

Yes please! Bring back alliance/campaign locking! Make PvP great again!

@Joy_Division I play on PS4 and like @TequilaFire said, alliance switching definitely has been a recurring problem in the last few years, at least on PlayStation. And the PvP guilds that I have been a part of for many years had to start kicking and banning anyone in the guild that has been caught and confirmed to be switching alliances according to who was in the lead. They had to change their guild rules in the MOTD to reflect that we do not tolerate switchers that are in the same campaign as our alliance guild. It still happens! The officers exercise the appropriate punishment.
It really has gotten old pretty fast, back when it really started happening to the point where it was noticed. It makes those of us that are actually loyal to one particular alliance feel worthless and ashamed because we work so hard to maintain our alliance's status in a legitimate way.

Were you even around when there were faction locks and PvP was so not great that even Zos decided to get rid of them?

It wouldn't make PvP great again. There aren't enough servers/Players to have multiple competitive campaign in the first place.

There are other ways to make alliance war and rewards meaningful that don't involve completely locking people from playing their characters at all, let alone with their friends.

Yes, I was around, otherwise I wouldn't have made such a comment.
PvP wasn't great back then, true. It had its problems. It definitely isn't any better today. But you know what the old version of PvP that I'm referring to had that this current version does not? Loyalty, trust, and true faction pride and camaraderie.
Nowadays, it's just hoping over to whatever faction is the flavor of the week and bashing the one you were apart of prior to that.

This is a video game that survives on its playerbase and continuous sales. If you want them to change it, present ACTUAL DATA of why it would be beneficial, not the continuous “Appeal to emotion” (I encourage everyone to research logical fallacies so they can present better arguments.) ~ https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion ~ I personally do not want faction locks at all, as it will cause many players to be unable to play with eachother whom are cross faction, thus refuting the entire ideal of “One Tamriel”.

*** one Tamriel and peace, TO ME YOU;RE JUST

SwampRaider wrote: »

Royaji wrote: »

SwampRaider wrote: »

schattenkind wrote: »

reiverx wrote: »

They really just need to spin up another campaign for people who want faction locks. We've saw how quickly they can do that so it shouldn't be a problem.

That way, some people can have an alliance war and the others can enjoy the whole of Cyrodiil with their pals.

Lets try this exactly. Introduce an other campaign for lets say 3 months and see how it goes, how many ppl play vivec with all the problems and who plays the new campaign with alliance lock.
(I would chose second option...)

I dont think that would work. Spreading the pvp population thin is a bad idea

It would be easier to compromise.

Now that just sounds like you want to force everyone to play the way you play. Why not give people who fight for faction loyalty a unique server with faction lockouts? You'll have it exactly how you like want it and people who want to play with friends can go play with friends on another server.

Or is it because you think that faction loyalty is such a joke that you will not find enough like-minded people (and I remind that the player cap is now around 100 per faction or so) to fill a server and have a healthy community? When why even bother with faction locks?

There are a lot out there who think that some sort of lock out would be a good idea, be it for the whole campaign or jsut 24 hours to prevent "quick switching"

as much as I would prefer Cyrodiil the way it is intended (AvAvA. guilds are alliance based. only 1 alliance set of characters per campaign) I know that a compromise is a better solution

This issue has been spoken about enough for me, One Tamriel killed an aspect of PvP that many of us thoroughly enjoyed. I'm not interested in compromise, I'm interested in War > Peace and Faction > Friends when it comes to Cyrodiil, plenty of other MMOs those players can invest their money into. I'm perfectly happy with old blood on the way out, improvements to lag and faction pride on the way back in.

We can replace those who leave, plenty of players left and it was not doom and gloom and others took their spots. It's going to happen.

I can understand holding hands and pickin flowers together in the PvE side of things, if carebears want their way one tamriel, fine. Cyrodiil should be about hating the opposite faction ruthlessly and trying to remove their head from their shoulders and throwing it to the slaughterfish.

14 day faction locks and removing campaign silliness, all three nodes to take a castle. Back to hardcore mode.

Or, on the flip side, ZOS keeps Campaigns the way the are, which is likely to happen. Don't worry though, we can easily replace you and others who leave, plenty of players left and it was not doom and gloom and others took their spots. Don't let the door miss hitting you on the way out.

No, you can't easily replace the players who leave. I think this is a bit obvious given the number of campaign that have been dropped and the pop caps being lowered.

programcanaan · May 2018

SwampRaider wrote: »

ezio45 wrote: »

jediprime74 wrote: »

I have three accounts, 15 characters, and all of them are EP. I founded a guild in 2015 and it was an EP guild. Back then faction was a big part of the game. EP characters couldn't group up with AD&DC characters to do any content whatsoever. We took to the fields and hills of Cyrodiil and waged epic war upon the enemy. It was glorious!

Then they allowed cross-faction grouping for dungeons, followed eventually by One Tamriel which allowed cross-faction grouping in all PvE content. Finally, the alliance lock on PvP was entirely removed and this gutted the last shred of real faction loyalty left in the game.

My guild still has a rule that you only do PvP with an EP character in our home campaign. We enforce that rule strictly, and not only does it keep drama down, it does keep some semblance of meaning for faction loyalty on life support.

I'd personally prefer that a player select a faction to represent in a campaign and be unable to change factions until the campaign ended. I understand there is a lot of pushback on that issue, but...come on...even a week isn't long enough in a four week campaign.

If faction loyalty has any proper place in this game it is in PvP and the Alliance War. Give that back to us, please.

AGREED

I would be down with that

Option 1
-make campaigns shorter (say 14 day)
-only allow you to be on one Alliance.

Option 2
- Same campaign length
-Introduce Alliance Loyalty rewards
-12-24 hour lock out between alliance hopping

Option 3
- Same campaign length
- Dissolve Alliance choosing at Character creation, allow you to choose when you enter campaign

Options 1-3 would work well together. 1 & 3 especially.

All characters locked to the same army and same campaign would be nice. Gotta love when someone gets killed by your army and decides they have to log in with their other character and trash talk on zone chat.

It would also clean up the Leaderboards/data as well. Everyone would only be able to have 3 or 4 campaign entries at a time instead of 1 or 2 per character.

templesus · May 2018

reiverx wrote: »

templesus wrote: »

TheBonesXXX wrote: »

templesus wrote: »

JPcrazysquirrel3 wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

JPcrazysquirrel3 wrote: »

Yes please! Bring back alliance/campaign locking! Make PvP great again!

@Joy_Division I play on PS4 and like @TequilaFire said, alliance switching definitely has been a recurring problem in the last few years, at least on PlayStation. And the PvP guilds that I have been a part of for many years had to start kicking and banning anyone in the guild that has been caught and confirmed to be switching alliances according to who was in the lead. They had to change their guild rules in the MOTD to reflect that we do not tolerate switchers that are in the same campaign as our alliance guild. It still happens! The officers exercise the appropriate punishment.
It really has gotten old pretty fast, back when it really started happening to the point where it was noticed. It makes those of us that are actually loyal to one particular alliance feel worthless and ashamed because we work so hard to maintain our alliance's status in a legitimate way.

Were you even around when there were faction locks and PvP was so not great that even Zos decided to get rid of them?

It wouldn't make PvP great again. There aren't enough servers/Players to have multiple competitive campaign in the first place.

There are other ways to make alliance war and rewards meaningful that don't involve completely locking people from playing their characters at all, let alone with their friends.

Yes, I was around, otherwise I wouldn't have made such a comment.
PvP wasn't great back then, true. It had its problems. It definitely isn't any better today. But you know what the old version of PvP that I'm referring to had that this current version does not? Loyalty, trust, and true faction pride and camaraderie.
Nowadays, it's just hoping over to whatever faction is the flavor of the week and bashing the one you were apart of prior to that.

This is a video game that survives on its playerbase and continuous sales. If you want them to change it, present ACTUAL DATA of why it would be beneficial, not the continuous “Appeal to emotion” (I encourage everyone to research logical fallacies so they can present better arguments.) ~ https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion ~ I personally do not want faction locks at all, as it will cause many players to be unable to play with eachother whom are cross faction, thus refuting the entire ideal of “One Tamriel”.

*** one Tamriel and peace, TO ME YOU;RE JUST

SwampRaider wrote: »

Royaji wrote: »

SwampRaider wrote: »

schattenkind wrote: »

reiverx wrote: »

They really just need to spin up another campaign for people who want faction locks. We've saw how quickly they can do that so it shouldn't be a problem.

That way, some people can have an alliance war and the others can enjoy the whole of Cyrodiil with their pals.

Lets try this exactly. Introduce an other campaign for lets say 3 months and see how it goes, how many ppl play vivec with all the problems and who plays the new campaign with alliance lock.
(I would chose second option...)

I dont think that would work. Spreading the pvp population thin is a bad idea

It would be easier to compromise.

Now that just sounds like you want to force everyone to play the way you play. Why not give people who fight for faction loyalty a unique server with faction lockouts? You'll have it exactly how you like want it and people who want to play with friends can go play with friends on another server.

Or is it because you think that faction loyalty is such a joke that you will not find enough like-minded people (and I remind that the player cap is now around 100 per faction or so) to fill a server and have a healthy community? When why even bother with faction locks?

There are a lot out there who think that some sort of lock out would be a good idea, be it for the whole campaign or jsut 24 hours to prevent "quick switching"

as much as I would prefer Cyrodiil the way it is intended (AvAvA. guilds are alliance based. only 1 alliance set of characters per campaign) I know that a compromise is a better solution

This issue has been spoken about enough for me, One Tamriel killed an aspect of PvP that many of us thoroughly enjoyed. I'm not interested in compromise, I'm interested in War > Peace and Faction > Friends when it comes to Cyrodiil, plenty of other MMOs those players can invest their money into. I'm perfectly happy with old blood on the way out, improvements to lag and faction pride on the way back in.

We can replace those who leave, plenty of players left and it was not doom and gloom and others took their spots. It's going to happen.

I can understand holding hands and pickin flowers together in the PvE side of things, if carebears want their way one tamriel, fine. Cyrodiil should be about hating the opposite faction ruthlessly and trying to remove their head from their shoulders and throwing it to the slaughterfish.

14 day faction locks and removing campaign silliness, all three nodes to take a castle. Back to hardcore mode.

Or, on the flip side, ZOS keeps Campaigns the way the are, which is likely to happen. Don't worry though, we can easily replace you and others who leave, plenty of players left and it was not doom and gloom and others took their spots. Don't let the door miss hitting you on the way out.

No, you can't easily replace the players who leave. I think this is a bit obvious given the number of campaign that have been dropped and the pop caps being lowered.

If you look at quoted, you'll see I was sarcastically mocking what he had said back at him.