We want our Cyrodill back!!! (PC EU)

Ormtunge · September 2018

When I began playing this game in the very beginning, you had to choose your alliance and stick with it. The pvp in Cyrodill was full of players fighting for their alliances, and there was a very positive pvp enviroment for new players. After years with people switching alliances all over, this is not the case anymore.

Today the population have dwindled and the pvp-enviroment in Cyrodil have become very toxic, and very unfriendly, especially for new players. There have been written several post about these players bad behaviour, both general trolling, sending toxic tells, sabotaging the game by stealing scrolls and delivering them to the opposition (the alliance your man char is on)...the list goes on and on.

Last weekend I had enough and wrote that I would quite the game for good. For me there is no fun if I can only play pve and do battlegrounds, I need a team to play for. I have thought about it alot these past days, and I want to come back, but only if ZOS bringes back some kind of faction/alliance lock. For me, as for many other players, it is not really fun when too many players only play to farm AP and troll each other. We want to play for our alliance, and play to win the campaign.

With a faction/alliance lock for the entire campaign, I belive we will get a very much more positive and larger pvp-population in Cyrodill. We will get rid of the worst trolls and alliance hoppers and get a more vibrant and including alliance population. I belive this will bring back alot of old players that quit/took a break (like me),and also recruit alot of new players as the enviroment will become alot more including.

I am not saying that an faction/alliance lock will solve all the problems in Cyrodill, but it would be a huge step in the right direction. Plase tell me your oppinion fellow players and I also want to hear from you ZOS. We want our Cyrodill back!!! This is not something we want to continue to pay for (most pvpers I know, including myself is ESO-pluss)!!

And yes, I know there already is a discussion for opening up one or two faction/alliance locked campaigns, but I belive this is a wider discussion. That is why I have posted it in "General" and not on "Alliance War". Until we get some kind of artificial intelligence, pvp will always be the end game, and most players will want to try it at some time. Therefore it also involves most players. In addition the war for the ruby throne is such a large part of the different alliances story lines. With some kind of alliance pride and a more positive and including pvp-enviroment, I think this game can grow in the future and make Cyrodill into a fun and challenging place for all players.

Hoping for your support, Sir Not So Brave (DC)

CoachPower · September 2018

Relax, you're doing fine.

Merlin13KAGL · September 2018

You realize with how cheap alt accounts are, this would change very little?

Universe · September 2018

I agree that account based* Campaign alliance lock is necessary in order to stop the traitors and to increase the overall loyalty to a certain alliance.
Here are the last ZOS responses in regard to this issue(5 months ago):

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Campaign lockouts based on Alliance swapping on a temporary level have been discussed and are still on going.

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

We are still discussing Alliance association and Campaigns.

Beardimus · September 2018

Universe wrote: »

I agree that account based* Campaign alliance lock is necessary in order to stop the traitors and to increase the overall loyalty to a certain alliance.
Here is the last ZOS response in regard to this issue(5 months ago):

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Campaign lockouts based on Alliance swapping on a temporary level have been discussed and are still on going.

I agree fully. Recent behaviour, feeding AP, boosting, Emp flipping, Scroll games just makes me more resolute.

We need alliance lock @ZOS_BrianWheeler or a way to stop or decentivise cheats.

Please. It's wrecking integrity of Campaigns

Universe · September 2018

Beardimus wrote: »

Universe wrote: »

I agree that account based* Campaign alliance lock is necessary in order to stop the traitors and to increase the overall loyalty to a certain alliance.
Here is the last ZOS response in regard to this issue(5 months ago):

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Campaign lockouts based on Alliance swapping on a temporary level have been discussed and are still on going.

I agree fully. Recent behaviour, feeding AP, boosting, Emp flipping, Scroll games just makes me more resolute.

We need alliance lock @ZOS_BrianWheeler or a way to stop or decentivise cheats.

Please. It's wrecking integrity of Campaigns

Indeed.
I have suggested the following alliance lock method back then:

Universe wrote: »

It will be great if you would implement a campaign alliance lock(account based) so we will once again have more alliance loyalty and less treason/plays all sides kind of gameplay.
I would suggest the following:
Char example 1 joins campaign 1. Char example 1 Alliance: AD
Char example 2 can't join campaign 1 for the duration of the campaign. Char example 2 Alliance: EP
Char example 3 can't join campaign 1 for the duration of the campaign. Char example 3 Alliance: DC

*If char example 1 abandoned campaign 1(penalty of ap, 500K-1M/other AP), only then it is possible to join campaign 1 with other alliance chars(only if they are all same alliance) and only after 24-72 hours have passed since char 1 abandoned the campaign.
*Once the campaign has ended, all players will receive a campaign reset(free of charge) so they may choose with which alliance to play(Only one alliance, AD/EP/DC). This reset will encourage to play until the end of campaign and not use the above option.

Katahdin · September 2018

Beardimus wrote: »

Please. It's wrecking integrity of Campaigns

Yea it's wrecking the ability of EP to paint NA Vivec red 24/7.

Didgerion · September 2018

An alliance lock will not change much.

Players, mostly novice ones, will simply join pvp when their alliance has greater numbers, and will leave pvp the instant numbers change.

Unfortunately there is no easy way of fixing it. As everyone is requesting for a balanced game, and were is balance the numbers makes the difference.

I think more control on population number would help. Anything mentioned below would help but not without frustrations to some players:
- make leading faction weaker by adding fatigue mechanism while holding keeps and scrolls. Keeping scrolls and keeps and emperorsip already gives points to the alliance to win the campaign, why making players stronger when they already are over performing?
- add slowdown mechanisms if the population numbers are too different. Like disable some fast travel nodes or disable resurrection or add a cool down similar to forward camps.

And very important, don't add above mechanisms at the same time.

Shardaxx · September 2018

I agree, recently we've had spies following our groups around reporting our positions, reds and blues will turn the map then switch over and turn it back again, and I often see the 2 enemy teams working together, since they all have friends on both alliances. It's getting quite ridiculous, and not even subtle anymore.

I'd love it if campaigns were alliance locked for their duration, that would cut out 90% of the nonsense. People could log in with a different account, but they would need to sub to eso with both accounts to do so, so its going to happen a lot less than it does now.

Ormtunge · September 2018

Didgerion wrote: »

An alliance lock will not change much.

Players, mostly novice ones, will simply join pvp when their alliance has greater numbers, and will leave pvp the instant numbers change.

Unfortunately there is no easy way of fixing it. As everyone is requesting for a balanced game, and were is balance the numbers makes the difference.

I think more control on population number would help.

While I agree that some kind of population control would be nice, I disagree that an alliance lock would not change much. I think it would make the pvp-enviroment a lot more welcoming and I actually think players would care less about only joining the campaign to farm AP, but also to help their faction/alliance as a whole.

Jurand80 · September 2018

There's not a thing you can do to make me care about any campaign.

Tommy_The_Gun · September 2018

2014 - 2015 Cyrodiil PvP with Alliance Locked Campaigns.. good old times

(for those who don't know - campaigns were alliance locked so once you joined to certain faction you could not log-off & log in with another character within the same campaign but with a different Alliance (basiclly - you could not switch teams at will at any point)).
But now... it is main reason why PvP is dying... it is not lag, not bad servers, not some OP broken sets or skills that is ruining it... it is that fact that you can switch teams... in a PvP game...

idk · September 2018

TL;dr

The failed experiment of locking players out to is something we should never return to. The effects of that barrier don’t seem worth returning to the dark ages no matter how melodramatic someone might get with talks of quitting.

Considering some of the most avid players had multiple accounts that was CP capped it would be pointless to do so anyhow.

Ofc, if Zos wanted to have one campaign faction locked for those who think this is a big deal that would be great and I’d expect we would still see the larger populations in each ge same campaigns we have them in now since most seem to not have an issue with this n

idk · September 2018

Tommy_The_Gun wrote: »

2014 - 2015 Cyrodiil PvP with Alliance Locked Campaigns.. good old times

(for those who don't know - campaigns were alliance locked so once you joined to certain faction you could not log-off & log in with another character within the same campaign but with a different Alliance (basiclly - you could not switch teams at will at any point)).
But now... it is main reason why PvP is dying... it is not lag, not bad servers, not some OP broken sets or skills that is ruining it... it is that fact that you can switch teams... in a PvP game...

The reason stated here is merely an oppinion ans offers no facts to back it up.

Royaji · September 2018

How do you propose to solve the issue of people who want to play specific campaign type (CP or non-CP) and have multiple characters in different alliances? Where is only 2 CP and 1 no-CP campaigns. So if someone strictly plays no-CP and goes to Cyro on a blue character he will be unable to play any of his other characters in PvP for a month. This is not cool.

Faction lock worked when there was enough competitive campaigns. Now we are down to two (because no one considers Shor competitive) and in case of some platforms just one actual campaign. Something has to be done about faction imbalances but faction lock is not an option in the current state.

Ormtunge · September 2018

Tommy_The_Gun wrote: »

2014 - 2015 Cyrodiil PvP with Alliance Locked Campaigns.. good old times

(for those who don't know - campaigns were alliance locked so once you joined to certain faction you could not log-off & log in with another character within the same campaign but with a different Alliance (basiclly - you could not switch teams at will at any point)).
But now... it is main reason why PvP is dying... it is not lag, not bad servers, not some OP broken sets or skills that is ruining it... it is that fact that you can switch teams... in a PvP game...

If you really read the post, you would not write a reply like this:). Like a said "I am not saying that an faction/alliance lock will solve all the problems in Cyrodill, but it would be a huge step in the right direction.". I think a faction/alliance lock would make pvp alot less toxic and alot more friendly for all players. And that for me is a good start.

Universe · September 2018

idk wrote: »

TL;dr

The failed experiment of locking players out to is something we should never return to. The effects of that barrier don’t seem worth returning to the dark ages no matter how melodramatic someone might get with talks of quitting.

Considering some of the most avid players had multiple accounts that was CP capped it would be pointless to do so anyhow.

Ofc, if Zos wanted to have one campaign faction locked for those who think this is a big deal that would be great and I’d expect we would still see the larger populations in each ge same campaigns we have them in now since most seem to not have an issue with this n

You present no proof for your assumption that most don't have an issue with this.
Every time I'm in Cyrodiil players complain in zone and in group chats about traitors/alliance swappers/ap farmers etc.
Many players don't like the idea that it is possible to switch sides in a matter of minutes.
The previous barrier failed experiment ?
Maybe the lock wasn't perfect but at least back then there was more loyalty to a certain alliance and there was less treason.
As for the multiple accounts theory, not many players have a second developed account.
The alliance lock may not prevent that, but at least it will prevent much of the alliance swapping, probably over 90%+.

Ormtunge · September 2018

Royaji wrote: »

How do you propose to solve the issue of people who want to play specific campaign type (CP or non-CP) and have multiple characters in different alliances? Where is only 2 CP and 1 no-CP campaigns. So if someone strictly plays no-CP and goes to Cyro on a blue character he will be unable to play any of his other characters in PvP for a month. This is not cool.

Faction lock worked when there was enough competitive campaigns. Now we are down to two (because no one considers Shor competitive) and in case of some platforms just one actual campaign. Something has to be done about faction imbalances but faction lock is not an option in the current state.

I belive that a faction/alliance lock will bring more, and not less players to Cyrodill. Than I dont see any problems with us having both 2 no-cp and 2 cp campaigns.

Ormtunge · September 2018

Merlin13KAGL wrote: »

You realize with how cheap alt accounts are, this would change very little?

I dont really know how many people have multiple accounts, but that they are so many to make any inpact on the game I really doupt. Personally I have never met or even heard of any player having many accounts (thou I am sure there are some who do). Most players only have one account, and they are those I am making this post for.

Tommy_The_Gun · September 2018

idk wrote: »

Tommy_The_Gun wrote: »

2014 - 2015 Cyrodiil PvP with Alliance Locked Campaigns.. good old times

(for those who don't know - campaigns were alliance locked so once you joined to certain faction you could not log-off & log in with another character within the same campaign but with a different Alliance (basiclly - you could not switch teams at will at any point)).
But now... it is main reason why PvP is dying... it is not lag, not bad servers, not some OP broken sets or skills that is ruining it... it is that fact that you can switch teams... in a PvP game...

The reason stated here is merely an oppinion ans offers no facts to back it up.

Sure. It is my opinion. I play this game since 2014 and saw what happened after ZOS removed Alliance Lock. Sure it did not happened in 1 day (more like gradually). The 2014 - 2015 and what we have today is non-comparable so to speak.

People switching teams in a long run only lead to more exploits like carrying scroll directly to your "friends" homebase, Scroll trolling and deliberately drooping it into the water, Helping your "friends" to get inside the keep, reporting what is going on on zone chat & what is next move, and even abusing camp cap (yes there is a global cap of how many camps a faction can put on map at once... so some one placed like 20 of them in a corner of the map and as a result our faction was unable to place any camps where they were needed).
Anyway - If I were to type every single thing that removing alliance lock caused I might as well type a whole new thread... But OP is right about it. Alliance lock is a good start to reduce some of those behaviours.

Ormtunge · September 2018

Ormtunge wrote: »

Tommy_The_Gun wrote: »

2014 - 2015 Cyrodiil PvP with Alliance Locked Campaigns.. good old times

(for those who don't know - campaigns were alliance locked so once you joined to certain faction you could not log-off & log in with another character within the same campaign but with a different Alliance (basiclly - you could not switch teams at will at any point)).
But now... it is main reason why PvP is dying... it is not lag, not bad servers, not some OP broken sets or skills that is ruining it... it is that fact that you can switch teams... in a PvP game...

If you really read the post, you would not write a reply like this:). Like a said "I am not saying that an faction/alliance lock will solve all the problems in Cyrodill, but it would be a huge step in the right direction.". I think a faction/alliance lock would make pvp alot less toxic and alot more friendly for all players. And that for me is a good start.

Sorry for misunderstanding your post earlier "Tommy_The_Gun ", I guess I need more coffee:)

playsforfun · September 2018

maybe something like a penalty for faction jumping over to other factions over the length of a campaign, e.g -50% ap is you go on a second faction toon then -75% ap if you go onto the 3rd faction toon during a campaign.

Elsterchen · September 2018

Yes, its gotten worse, but even back at launch information about "warfronts" have been carried over to the enemy: by TS or guild chat.

While I would welcome any solution to the current problems we should stay real: rats are always going to do what rats do.

ezio45 · September 2018

I also want some sort of campaign locking, it doesnt feel like being a loyal alliance member means anything anymore and it really sucks. When you have players literally switching sides over who has the most keeps at that moment and as soon as the tide of battle turn players jump ship to the winning side.

@ZOS_BrianWheeler

Animus-ESO · September 2018

Lol. Faction locking wouldn't solve anything. Didn't before and wouldn't now. All your doing is looking back with nostalgia forgetting about all the bad *** that really went on back then. People can still PM eachother and emp swap. They did since beta.

Wollust · September 2018

I'd rather have them spent their time fixing bugs and lag instead of bringing back faction lock. Most people were glad when they removed that years ago.

TequilaFire · September 2018

Incentive to not switch is what is needed. Awards of motifs, monster set pieces or large chunks of ap rewarded for playing a campaign through on one character. And even increased reward if your alliance wins the campaign might motivate people to care more about campaign score.

killimandrosb16_ESO · September 2018

I agree about a faction lock.Not because I believe it would sort out the worst cases, but because pugs will switch to the dominant faction in a second with the current situation. And the biggest problem of cyrodiil is easymoders jumping alliances to find the best ap farm. EP in the morning, AD in the evening, DC at night. Thats the cycle which needs to be stopped. And yes, pugs wont make alt accounts, they can barely level their 3 mains to 160 cp.

fatmanatcomp · September 2018

Needs to be a monthly lock

Thalmor-Nordmaster · September 2018

Universe wrote: »

I agree that account based* Campaign alliance lock is necessary in order to stop the traitors and to increase the overall loyalty to a certain alliance.
Here are the last ZOS responses in regard to this issue(5 months ago):

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Campaign lockouts based on Alliance swapping on a temporary level have been discussed and are still on going.

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

We are still discussing Alliance association and Campaigns.

@Universe

They seem to be having one hella long discussion.

ChefZero · September 2018

Hi @Ormtunge,

I'm playing since headstart and also fighting for DC on EU. In the first months of ESO an alliance existed called DBA, german alliance of different guild's and hundreds of german players, organized over every campaign. I've been member and raidleader of three german PvP guild's over the last year's, all dispersed or quit PvP. Now AvA is only a shadow of his former self.

I support something like an alliance lock, punishment for switching alliance's, etc. But that's not all, we also need a more rewarding system for fighting for the alliance. I could imagine something like a milestone reward system based on gained faction points, bounded account wide per campaign per faction. Means remove the alliance lock on character's (it's a joke since one tamriel and BGs), if you pic Vivec (main) for example you can lock an alliance for your account, if you go Sotha Sil (guest) another day you can lock the same alliance or another one. Now with milestones it isn't only about winning the campaign it's also about pushing the points to higher milestones to get better/more rewards. If you lock another alliance on this campaign your reward system resets. Just an idea.

But there's another important point which ZOS cannot influence: Guild's/social. After a break from ESO over a year I looked for PvP guild's and was disappointed. I run some pug raids and decided to form my own international PvP guild months ago. The PvP community is very small compared to the ESO population, many solo player's, toxic player's, no constructive communication, but also newcomers and player's looking for grps and raids.
Well, I just want to say we (everyone, especially guilds) have to take care of our community and newcomers more.

Maybe one day we'll meet on the battlefield