Lieblingsjunge wrote: »

Universe wrote: »

TequilaFire wrote: »

Myux wrote: »

yall weird. ill never understand pvp roleplayers. for those of us who dont enjoy zerging and just wanna kill people, its pretty needless to say that faction locking would just be alienating us entirely and preventing us from actually playing with our friends, in addition to being forced to pvp when your entire *** map belongs to your faction, meaning there isnt even anyone to fight. tho its not like zos is too worried about not caring for solo players.

if they implement faction locks, they need a technical 4th faction that you set yourself to at the start of a campaign that doesnt belong to a faction aside from people youre in a party with (only people on this rogue faction obv). lemme kill who i wanna kill and i'll be very content. the day i can kill EP on my main will be a day of celebration.

What is weird is not playing the game as it was intended and then belittling the players that do.
What causes a one color map is everybody jumping on the same alliance to "play with their friends", whom they don't even know! lmao

True.
For example, once AD lose Faregyl and is down to 2 keeps, Black Boot and Bloodmayne, the population of AD suddenly drops from full to high or even medium.
The ADs leave to help either DC or EP who have more keeps at the moment.
This is happening in all alliances, many players don't want to face a true challenge and they switch sides when they feel they can't win.
A campaign alliance lock will prevent this frequent alliance swapping and will encourage players to stick with their alliance even when the battle seems lost.
.

Aaand you're mistaken .When AD is down to 2 keeps, they dont log to different factions. They are too busy standing around in base licking their wounds and/or going out of Cyrodiil. And then you have some players leaving EP/DC when one of the factions dominate, to play for the underdog to increase the chance of decent fights. They even each other out, trust me.

Ormtunge wrote: »

Universe wrote: »

TequilaFire wrote: »

Myux wrote: »

yall weird. ill never understand pvp roleplayers. for those of us who dont enjoy zerging and just wanna kill people, its pretty needless to say that faction locking would just be alienating us entirely and preventing us from actually playing with our friends, in addition to being forced to pvp when your entire *** map belongs to your faction, meaning there isnt even anyone to fight. tho its not like zos is too worried about not caring for solo players.

if they implement faction locks, they need a technical 4th faction that you set yourself to at the start of a campaign that doesnt belong to a faction aside from people youre in a party with (only people on this rogue faction obv). lemme kill who i wanna kill and i'll be very content. the day i can kill EP on my main will be a day of celebration.

What is weird is not playing the game as it was intended and then belittling the players that do.
What causes a one color map is everybody jumping on the same alliance to "play with their friends", whom they don't even know! lmao

True.
For example, once AD lose Faregyl and is down to 2 keeps, Black Boot and Bloodmayne, the population of AD suddenly drops from full to high or even medium.
The ADs leave to help either DC or EP who have more keeps at the moment.
This is happening in all alliances, many players don't want to face a true challenge and they switch sides when they feel they can't win.
A campaign alliance lock will prevent this frequent alliance swapping and will encourage players to stick with their alliance even when the battle seems lost.

There are many benefits to such a lock, it was already stated by many.
I don't see a real reason to not implement it.
If you have multiple characters with different alliances and want to play in Cyrodiil, you can do so either by waiting the lock is lifted or by joining other campaigns(Yes, ZOS can add 1 more 30 days CP campaign and 1 more 7 days CP campaign and they won't be empty).

I have to agree. Please implement a campaign alliance lock ZOS! As stated earlier I also think this will bring back more players to Cyrodil and make the pvp enviroment less toxic. I think it will be a win win:).

Another campaign, especially on PC/EU, will just be empty. Nobody will play in an empty campaign, even though it's faction-locked. Because puglings have their homes in Vivec, they don't change campaigns for fights and/or faction. They just want their home, man.

As if we don't have empty campaigns rn lol.

Sotha Sil is pretty much an EP campaign rn without faction lock. Which makes your point about alliance locks causing one sided campaigns invalid. This faction swap BS helps nothing but ap farming. Neither your group nor anyone else swap alliances to help the losing side, they only swap to where they can farm the most AP. No need to play hero here.

Faction locking might hurt zergballs yes, tho i couldn't care less. Cyro needs more people. People who actually fight for keeps, resources, their alliances and all. It definitely doesn't need to feed farmers further.

ATomiX96 wrote: »

Faction locked campaigns wont do anything to save the health of ESO's PvP right now. What it needs is more frequent balancing (even if they dont get it right it will at least feel fresh for a few weeks again).
IDK how much more they can optimize to make cyrodill less "laggy" but I mean they could try to fix bugs which are still in the game since launch, that would be great.
And they need to nerf "lfg" in zone chat lmao. #BuffViciousDeathRangeThxZos

It sure won't fix the problems you mention. But it will help quite a bit with overall health. I mean what does Cyro mean to anyone now? Darn nothing but AP. Thus people keep switching sides around Alessia bridge, go farm on whichever side they can most. Others -like zergballs- go capture an outpost or take a scroll to some resource and keep farming in there.

There's no spirit in there. It's even less fun than PvPing in Call of Duty or sth lol. There's no Elder Scrolls, no RP, no loyalty no nothing but AP farm.

Lieblingsjunge wrote: »

themaddaedra wrote: »

Lieblingsjunge wrote: »

Universe wrote: »

TequilaFire wrote: »

Myux wrote: »

yall weird. ill never understand pvp roleplayers. for those of us who dont enjoy zerging and just wanna kill people, its pretty needless to say that faction locking would just be alienating us entirely and preventing us from actually playing with our friends, in addition to being forced to pvp when your entire *** map belongs to your faction, meaning there isnt even anyone to fight. tho its not like zos is too worried about not caring for solo players.

if they implement faction locks, they need a technical 4th faction that you set yourself to at the start of a campaign that doesnt belong to a faction aside from people youre in a party with (only people on this rogue faction obv). lemme kill who i wanna kill and i'll be very content. the day i can kill EP on my main will be a day of celebration.

What is weird is not playing the game as it was intended and then belittling the players that do.
What causes a one color map is everybody jumping on the same alliance to "play with their friends", whom they don't even know! lmao

True.
For example, once AD lose Faregyl and is down to 2 keeps, Black Boot and Bloodmayne, the population of AD suddenly drops from full to high or even medium.
The ADs leave to help either DC or EP who have more keeps at the moment.
This is happening in all alliances, many players don't want to face a true challenge and they switch sides when they feel they can't win.
A campaign alliance lock will prevent this frequent alliance swapping and will encourage players to stick with their alliance even when the battle seems lost.
.

Aaand you're mistaken .When AD is down to 2 keeps, they dont log to different factions. They are too busy standing around in base licking their wounds and/or going out of Cyrodiil. And then you have some players leaving EP/DC when one of the factions dominate, to play for the underdog to increase the chance of decent fights. They even each other out, trust me.

Ormtunge wrote: »

Universe wrote: »

TequilaFire wrote: »

Myux wrote: »

yall weird. ill never understand pvp roleplayers. for those of us who dont enjoy zerging and just wanna kill people, its pretty needless to say that faction locking would just be alienating us entirely and preventing us from actually playing with our friends, in addition to being forced to pvp when your entire *** map belongs to your faction, meaning there isnt even anyone to fight. tho its not like zos is too worried about not caring for solo players.

if they implement faction locks, they need a technical 4th faction that you set yourself to at the start of a campaign that doesnt belong to a faction aside from people youre in a party with (only people on this rogue faction obv). lemme kill who i wanna kill and i'll be very content. the day i can kill EP on my main will be a day of celebration.

What is weird is not playing the game as it was intended and then belittling the players that do.
What causes a one color map is everybody jumping on the same alliance to "play with their friends", whom they don't even know! lmao

True.
For example, once AD lose Faregyl and is down to 2 keeps, Black Boot and Bloodmayne, the population of AD suddenly drops from full to high or even medium.
The ADs leave to help either DC or EP who have more keeps at the moment.
This is happening in all alliances, many players don't want to face a true challenge and they switch sides when they feel they can't win.
A campaign alliance lock will prevent this frequent alliance swapping and will encourage players to stick with their alliance even when the battle seems lost.

There are many benefits to such a lock, it was already stated by many.
I don't see a real reason to not implement it.
If you have multiple characters with different alliances and want to play in Cyrodiil, you can do so either by waiting the lock is lifted or by joining other campaigns(Yes, ZOS can add 1 more 30 days CP campaign and 1 more 7 days CP campaign and they won't be empty).

I have to agree. Please implement a campaign alliance lock ZOS! As stated earlier I also think this will bring back more players to Cyrodil and make the pvp enviroment less toxic. I think it will be a win win:).

Another campaign, especially on PC/EU, will just be empty. Nobody will play in an empty campaign, even though it's faction-locked. Because puglings have their homes in Vivec, they don't change campaigns for fights and/or faction. They just want their home, man.

As if we don't have empty campaigns rn lol.

Sotha Sil is pretty much an EP campaign rn without faction lock. Which makes your point about alliance locks causing one sided campaigns invalid. This faction swap BS helps nothing but ap farming. Neither your group nor anyone else swap alliances to help the losing side, they only swap to where they can farm the most AP. No need to play hero here.

Faction locking might hurt zergballs yes, tho i couldn't care less. Cyro needs more people. People who actually fight for keeps, resources, their alliances and all. It definitely doesn't need to feed farmers further.

We do, that's why I said adding another campaign, even faction locked, will just be empty. Maybe 10 from each alliance will swap there for roleplaying reasons.. But that's about it.

No, it's not. Every evening EP gets roflstomped to the gates.. Or at least scroll-keeps. Sure, during the day they are dominating 'cus it's easier for them to dominate Sotha, than to fight the AD dominating Vivec, at the same time. (That's not a faction lock, issue, that's a player issue). AD Vivec is on High during the day, EP Sotha is on High during the day. Imagine those two sides fighting in one campaign. Yes, pl0x. Although, primetime-lag would start already at noon then. :thinking:

And the most AP is usually farmed on the losing side. Because there will always be defenders willingly stacking up, defending a keep. You can say whatever you want, but reality is, the 50 enemies a good ball-group can occupy, is 50 less enemies the faction has to fight, thus playing for the alliance. (In a certain sense.) Is there rly a difference between how valueable someone is to the campaign, between those that captures the keeps, or those that kills enemies? I would claim both are needed to assure victory.

And in ZS' case, faction-locking won't hurt us, as a raid, at all. We already play one side only. Except a couple of times every 2nd month or so. This change will *only* hurt the people that stays loyal to their faction because of character-race, or those that swap factions to play in smaller groups with their friends. (Which are both.. not campaign-focused, but rather enjoyment focuseD).

So you are basically saying that zergballs helping losing sides by farming their enemies in an outpost or a resource. Not mentioning how many -ratherly newer- people lose their will to PvP after getting farmed for an hour until rage-quitting? Everybody who is familiar with PvP just ignores these groups. What they farm is nothing but newbies basically. I can't help but wonder how that makes difference to call it a help.

And no, you'll never see 50 people getting rekt by grinders lol. It's more like 10-15 newbies at maximum who'll get triggered and therefore keep coming back.

I mean i don't really care if ZS farms more or less AP. I'm more about overall Cyrodiil. And what i see %90 of the time, is that there's nothing worth going for in there. That has been killing it, slowly over years.

themaddaedra wrote: »

Lieblingsjunge wrote: »

themaddaedra wrote: »

Lieblingsjunge wrote: »

Universe wrote: »

TequilaFire wrote: »

Myux wrote: »

yall weird. ill never understand pvp roleplayers. for those of us who dont enjoy zerging and just wanna kill people, its pretty needless to say that faction locking would just be alienating us entirely and preventing us from actually playing with our friends, in addition to being forced to pvp when your entire *** map belongs to your faction, meaning there isnt even anyone to fight. tho its not like zos is too worried about not caring for solo players.

if they implement faction locks, they need a technical 4th faction that you set yourself to at the start of a campaign that doesnt belong to a faction aside from people youre in a party with (only people on this rogue faction obv). lemme kill who i wanna kill and i'll be very content. the day i can kill EP on my main will be a day of celebration.

What is weird is not playing the game as it was intended and then belittling the players that do.
What causes a one color map is everybody jumping on the same alliance to "play with their friends", whom they don't even know! lmao

True.
For example, once AD lose Faregyl and is down to 2 keeps, Black Boot and Bloodmayne, the population of AD suddenly drops from full to high or even medium.
The ADs leave to help either DC or EP who have more keeps at the moment.
This is happening in all alliances, many players don't want to face a true challenge and they switch sides when they feel they can't win.
A campaign alliance lock will prevent this frequent alliance swapping and will encourage players to stick with their alliance even when the battle seems lost.
.

Aaand you're mistaken .When AD is down to 2 keeps, they dont log to different factions. They are too busy standing around in base licking their wounds and/or going out of Cyrodiil. And then you have some players leaving EP/DC when one of the factions dominate, to play for the underdog to increase the chance of decent fights. They even each other out, trust me.

Ormtunge wrote: »

Universe wrote: »

TequilaFire wrote: »

Myux wrote: »

yall weird. ill never understand pvp roleplayers. for those of us who dont enjoy zerging and just wanna kill people, its pretty needless to say that faction locking would just be alienating us entirely and preventing us from actually playing with our friends, in addition to being forced to pvp when your entire *** map belongs to your faction, meaning there isnt even anyone to fight. tho its not like zos is too worried about not caring for solo players.

if they implement faction locks, they need a technical 4th faction that you set yourself to at the start of a campaign that doesnt belong to a faction aside from people youre in a party with (only people on this rogue faction obv). lemme kill who i wanna kill and i'll be very content. the day i can kill EP on my main will be a day of celebration.

What is weird is not playing the game as it was intended and then belittling the players that do.
What causes a one color map is everybody jumping on the same alliance to "play with their friends", whom they don't even know! lmao

True.
For example, once AD lose Faregyl and is down to 2 keeps, Black Boot and Bloodmayne, the population of AD suddenly drops from full to high or even medium.
The ADs leave to help either DC or EP who have more keeps at the moment.
This is happening in all alliances, many players don't want to face a true challenge and they switch sides when they feel they can't win.
A campaign alliance lock will prevent this frequent alliance swapping and will encourage players to stick with their alliance even when the battle seems lost.

There are many benefits to such a lock, it was already stated by many.
I don't see a real reason to not implement it.
If you have multiple characters with different alliances and want to play in Cyrodiil, you can do so either by waiting the lock is lifted or by joining other campaigns(Yes, ZOS can add 1 more 30 days CP campaign and 1 more 7 days CP campaign and they won't be empty).

I have to agree. Please implement a campaign alliance lock ZOS! As stated earlier I also think this will bring back more players to Cyrodil and make the pvp enviroment less toxic. I think it will be a win win:).

Another campaign, especially on PC/EU, will just be empty. Nobody will play in an empty campaign, even though it's faction-locked. Because puglings have their homes in Vivec, they don't change campaigns for fights and/or faction. They just want their home, man.

As if we don't have empty campaigns rn lol.

Sotha Sil is pretty much an EP campaign rn without faction lock. Which makes your point about alliance locks causing one sided campaigns invalid. This faction swap BS helps nothing but ap farming. Neither your group nor anyone else swap alliances to help the losing side, they only swap to where they can farm the most AP. No need to play hero here.

Faction locking might hurt zergballs yes, tho i couldn't care less. Cyro needs more people. People who actually fight for keeps, resources, their alliances and all. It definitely doesn't need to feed farmers further.

We do, that's why I said adding another campaign, even faction locked, will just be empty. Maybe 10 from each alliance will swap there for roleplaying reasons.. But that's about it.

No, it's not. Every evening EP gets roflstomped to the gates.. Or at least scroll-keeps. Sure, during the day they are dominating 'cus it's easier for them to dominate Sotha, than to fight the AD dominating Vivec, at the same time. (That's not a faction lock, issue, that's a player issue). AD Vivec is on High during the day, EP Sotha is on High during the day. Imagine those two sides fighting in one campaign. Yes, pl0x. Although, primetime-lag would start already at noon then. :thinking:

And the most AP is usually farmed on the losing side. Because there will always be defenders willingly stacking up, defending a keep. You can say whatever you want, but reality is, the 50 enemies a good ball-group can occupy, is 50 less enemies the faction has to fight, thus playing for the alliance. (In a certain sense.) Is there rly a difference between how valueable someone is to the campaign, between those that captures the keeps, or those that kills enemies? I would claim both are needed to assure victory.

And in ZS' case, faction-locking won't hurt us, as a raid, at all. We already play one side only. Except a couple of times every 2nd month or so. This change will *only* hurt the people that stays loyal to their faction because of character-race, or those that swap factions to play in smaller groups with their friends. (Which are both.. not campaign-focused, but rather enjoyment focuseD).

So you are basically saying that zergballs helping losing sides by farming their enemies in an outpost or a resource. Not mentioning how many -ratherly newer- people lose their will to PvP after getting farmed for an hour until rage-quitting? Everybody who is familiar with PvP just ignores these groups. What they farm is nothing but newbies basically. I can't help but wonder how that makes difference to call it a help.

And no, you'll never see 50 people getting rekt by grinders lol. It's more like 10-15 newbies at maximum who'll get triggered and therefore keep coming back.

I mean i don't really care if ZS farms more or less AP. I'm more about overall Cyrodiil. And what i see %90 of the time, is that there's nothing worth going for in there. That has been killing it, slowly over years.

If people lose their will because they die - that's not my problem. That's not anyone's problem. Imo, if you're playing a game and you find yourself dying... It's in a lot of situations your fault. Learn from it, and improve. But as long as people are happy stacking up and being farmed, I'm having my fun. I'm not having fun killing people(I heal, duh), but I'm having fun raiding with people I actually enjoy spending time with. And I enjoy being competitive, in a sense. If PvP would cater to those "Disheartened newbies", they might as well make pre-definied specs/skills/gear for everyone to use and that's that. Oh wait, they'll still die. How about a fist-fight? Wait, if they don't know what RMB is, do they even stand a chance? :popcorn:

Because 50 "noobs"(as you call them, rude btw) that keeps dying to scroll-farming, that's 50 less potential players to place siege etc. And don't give me the bs. that it's only newbies that gets farmed. You would be surprised how many times I've noticed "known" names around. There's even the same people every night coming back, and they're by far not "noobs". And there's been quite a few EP-guilds on Sotha that frequently tries to bomb us while we scroll-farm or smth. I guess every guild group(even tho decent groups) are noobs in your eyes? I noticed you're the "Blood and Fear" - NB. I recall seeing you in the Kill Counter-list, but I can't recall if it was with a guild, or if you were solo-bombing. It's a long time ago, though.

There's quite a lot of nice things in Cyrodiil, tbh. You should watch Etaniel's Tamriel Baguette News Report-video. It showcases all the great spots in Cyrodiil, nobody goes to. Some are even fit for ERP... :>
Or you can enjoy sieging keeps with friends, flipping resources.. Idk. But there's nice things in there.

Ormtunge wrote: »

themaddaedra wrote: »

Lieblingsjunge wrote: »

themaddaedra wrote: »

Lieblingsjunge wrote: »

Universe wrote: »

TequilaFire wrote: »

Myux wrote: »

yall weird. ill never understand pvp roleplayers. for those of us who dont enjoy zerging and just wanna kill people, its pretty needless to say that faction locking would just be alienating us entirely and preventing us from actually playing with our friends, in addition to being forced to pvp when your entire *** map belongs to your faction, meaning there isnt even anyone to fight. tho its not like zos is too worried about not caring for solo players.

if they implement faction locks, they need a technical 4th faction that you set yourself to at the start of a campaign that doesnt belong to a faction aside from people youre in a party with (only people on this rogue faction obv). lemme kill who i wanna kill and i'll be very content. the day i can kill EP on my main will be a day of celebration.

What is weird is not playing the game as it was intended and then belittling the players that do.
What causes a one color map is everybody jumping on the same alliance to "play with their friends", whom they don't even know! lmao

True.
For example, once AD lose Faregyl and is down to 2 keeps, Black Boot and Bloodmayne, the population of AD suddenly drops from full to high or even medium.
The ADs leave to help either DC or EP who have more keeps at the moment.
This is happening in all alliances, many players don't want to face a true challenge and they switch sides when they feel they can't win.
A campaign alliance lock will prevent this frequent alliance swapping and will encourage players to stick with their alliance even when the battle seems lost.
.

Aaand you're mistaken .When AD is down to 2 keeps, they dont log to different factions. They are too busy standing around in base licking their wounds and/or going out of Cyrodiil. And then you have some players leaving EP/DC when one of the factions dominate, to play for the underdog to increase the chance of decent fights. They even each other out, trust me.

Ormtunge wrote: »

Universe wrote: »

TequilaFire wrote: »

Myux wrote: »

yall weird. ill never understand pvp roleplayers. for those of us who dont enjoy zerging and just wanna kill people, its pretty needless to say that faction locking would just be alienating us entirely and preventing us from actually playing with our friends, in addition to being forced to pvp when your entire *** map belongs to your faction, meaning there isnt even anyone to fight. tho its not like zos is too worried about not caring for solo players.

if they implement faction locks, they need a technical 4th faction that you set yourself to at the start of a campaign that doesnt belong to a faction aside from people youre in a party with (only people on this rogue faction obv). lemme kill who i wanna kill and i'll be very content. the day i can kill EP on my main will be a day of celebration.

What is weird is not playing the game as it was intended and then belittling the players that do.
What causes a one color map is everybody jumping on the same alliance to "play with their friends", whom they don't even know! lmao

True.
For example, once AD lose Faregyl and is down to 2 keeps, Black Boot and Bloodmayne, the population of AD suddenly drops from full to high or even medium.
The ADs leave to help either DC or EP who have more keeps at the moment.
This is happening in all alliances, many players don't want to face a true challenge and they switch sides when they feel they can't win.
A campaign alliance lock will prevent this frequent alliance swapping and will encourage players to stick with their alliance even when the battle seems lost.

There are many benefits to such a lock, it was already stated by many.
I don't see a real reason to not implement it.
If you have multiple characters with different alliances and want to play in Cyrodiil, you can do so either by waiting the lock is lifted or by joining other campaigns(Yes, ZOS can add 1 more 30 days CP campaign and 1 more 7 days CP campaign and they won't be empty).

I have to agree. Please implement a campaign alliance lock ZOS! As stated earlier I also think this will bring back more players to Cyrodil and make the pvp enviroment less toxic. I think it will be a win win:).

Another campaign, especially on PC/EU, will just be empty. Nobody will play in an empty campaign, even though it's faction-locked. Because puglings have their homes in Vivec, they don't change campaigns for fights and/or faction. They just want their home, man.

As if we don't have empty campaigns rn lol.

Sotha Sil is pretty much an EP campaign rn without faction lock. Which makes your point about alliance locks causing one sided campaigns invalid. This faction swap BS helps nothing but ap farming. Neither your group nor anyone else swap alliances to help the losing side, they only swap to where they can farm the most AP. No need to play hero here.

Faction locking might hurt zergballs yes, tho i couldn't care less. Cyro needs more people. People who actually fight for keeps, resources, their alliances and all. It definitely doesn't need to feed farmers further.

We do, that's why I said adding another campaign, even faction locked, will just be empty. Maybe 10 from each alliance will swap there for roleplaying reasons.. But that's about it.

No, it's not. Every evening EP gets roflstomped to the gates.. Or at least scroll-keeps. Sure, during the day they are dominating 'cus it's easier for them to dominate Sotha, than to fight the AD dominating Vivec, at the same time. (That's not a faction lock, issue, that's a player issue). AD Vivec is on High during the day, EP Sotha is on High during the day. Imagine those two sides fighting in one campaign. Yes, pl0x. Although, primetime-lag would start already at noon then. :thinking:

And the most AP is usually farmed on the losing side. Because there will always be defenders willingly stacking up, defending a keep. You can say whatever you want, but reality is, the 50 enemies a good ball-group can occupy, is 50 less enemies the faction has to fight, thus playing for the alliance. (In a certain sense.) Is there rly a difference between how valueable someone is to the campaign, between those that captures the keeps, or those that kills enemies? I would claim both are needed to assure victory.

And in ZS' case, faction-locking won't hurt us, as a raid, at all. We already play one side only. Except a couple of times every 2nd month or so. This change will *only* hurt the people that stays loyal to their faction because of character-race, or those that swap factions to play in smaller groups with their friends. (Which are both.. not campaign-focused, but rather enjoyment focuseD).

So you are basically saying that zergballs helping losing sides by farming their enemies in an outpost or a resource. Not mentioning how many -ratherly newer- people lose their will to PvP after getting farmed for an hour until rage-quitting? Everybody who is familiar with PvP just ignores these groups. What they farm is nothing but newbies basically. I can't help but wonder how that makes difference to call it a help.

And no, you'll never see 50 people getting rekt by grinders lol. It's more like 10-15 newbies at maximum who'll get triggered and therefore keep coming back.

I mean i don't really care if ZS farms more or less AP. I'm more about overall Cyrodiil. And what i see %90 of the time, is that there's nothing worth going for in there. That has been killing it, slowly over years.

I have to agree with themaddaedra here. Cyrodill need more players who care about their alliance and not more farmers. What we need is more players that want to play FOR their faction and helping new pvpers. Both zergballs farming AP and one faction totally dominating will scare off new pvpers.

And personally I dont think that a faction locked campaign would be emtpy, but would actually be the most popular one. I think people are tired of the toxic pvp enviroment atm, as several other treads at this moment suggest. A fraction locked campaign would imo give us all who want to play group-pvp (as fighting for your own alliance) a new beginning. And I for one would be happy to lead any number of pugs to fun fights for my own faction. And I know alot of others who would do the same for the other two factions.

It would be completely empty. Except for your group vs. 1 group vs. 1 group. Then maybe you'll even get some smallscalers that plays on 1 side in that campaign only. Or enemy bomb groups will follow you there. It's not gonna make it any better whatsoever.

If(If that I don't believe in) by any chance becomes a populated campaign, you'll see that the same people you consider traitors to their alliance, will join that campaign too. Even faction-locking a campaign, isn't gonna enable any different type of gameplay. There will be 1 faction dominating, there will be a bomb-group or two, there will be small-scalers. Then there will be pugs. It'll look like Shor probably. Dead. Except during events.

Lieblingsjunge wrote: »

themaddaedra wrote: »

Lieblingsjunge wrote: »

themaddaedra wrote: »

Lieblingsjunge wrote: »

Universe wrote: »

TequilaFire wrote: »

Myux wrote: »

yall weird. ill never understand pvp roleplayers. for those of us who dont enjoy zerging and just wanna kill people, its pretty needless to say that faction locking would just be alienating us entirely and preventing us from actually playing with our friends, in addition to being forced to pvp when your entire *** map belongs to your faction, meaning there isnt even anyone to fight. tho its not like zos is too worried about not caring for solo players.

if they implement faction locks, they need a technical 4th faction that you set yourself to at the start of a campaign that doesnt belong to a faction aside from people youre in a party with (only people on this rogue faction obv). lemme kill who i wanna kill and i'll be very content. the day i can kill EP on my main will be a day of celebration.

What is weird is not playing the game as it was intended and then belittling the players that do.
What causes a one color map is everybody jumping on the same alliance to "play with their friends", whom they don't even know! lmao

True.
For example, once AD lose Faregyl and is down to 2 keeps, Black Boot and Bloodmayne, the population of AD suddenly drops from full to high or even medium.
The ADs leave to help either DC or EP who have more keeps at the moment.
This is happening in all alliances, many players don't want to face a true challenge and they switch sides when they feel they can't win.
A campaign alliance lock will prevent this frequent alliance swapping and will encourage players to stick with their alliance even when the battle seems lost.
.

Aaand you're mistaken .When AD is down to 2 keeps, they dont log to different factions. They are too busy standing around in base licking their wounds and/or going out of Cyrodiil. And then you have some players leaving EP/DC when one of the factions dominate, to play for the underdog to increase the chance of decent fights. They even each other out, trust me.

Ormtunge wrote: »

Universe wrote: »

TequilaFire wrote: »

Myux wrote: »

yall weird. ill never understand pvp roleplayers. for those of us who dont enjoy zerging and just wanna kill people, its pretty needless to say that faction locking would just be alienating us entirely and preventing us from actually playing with our friends, in addition to being forced to pvp when your entire *** map belongs to your faction, meaning there isnt even anyone to fight. tho its not like zos is too worried about not caring for solo players.

if they implement faction locks, they need a technical 4th faction that you set yourself to at the start of a campaign that doesnt belong to a faction aside from people youre in a party with (only people on this rogue faction obv). lemme kill who i wanna kill and i'll be very content. the day i can kill EP on my main will be a day of celebration.

What is weird is not playing the game as it was intended and then belittling the players that do.
What causes a one color map is everybody jumping on the same alliance to "play with their friends", whom they don't even know! lmao

True.
For example, once AD lose Faregyl and is down to 2 keeps, Black Boot and Bloodmayne, the population of AD suddenly drops from full to high or even medium.
The ADs leave to help either DC or EP who have more keeps at the moment.
This is happening in all alliances, many players don't want to face a true challenge and they switch sides when they feel they can't win.
A campaign alliance lock will prevent this frequent alliance swapping and will encourage players to stick with their alliance even when the battle seems lost.

There are many benefits to such a lock, it was already stated by many.
I don't see a real reason to not implement it.
If you have multiple characters with different alliances and want to play in Cyrodiil, you can do so either by waiting the lock is lifted or by joining other campaigns(Yes, ZOS can add 1 more 30 days CP campaign and 1 more 7 days CP campaign and they won't be empty).

I have to agree. Please implement a campaign alliance lock ZOS! As stated earlier I also think this will bring back more players to Cyrodil and make the pvp enviroment less toxic. I think it will be a win win:).

Another campaign, especially on PC/EU, will just be empty. Nobody will play in an empty campaign, even though it's faction-locked. Because puglings have their homes in Vivec, they don't change campaigns for fights and/or faction. They just want their home, man.

As if we don't have empty campaigns rn lol.

Sotha Sil is pretty much an EP campaign rn without faction lock. Which makes your point about alliance locks causing one sided campaigns invalid. This faction swap BS helps nothing but ap farming. Neither your group nor anyone else swap alliances to help the losing side, they only swap to where they can farm the most AP. No need to play hero here.

Faction locking might hurt zergballs yes, tho i couldn't care less. Cyro needs more people. People who actually fight for keeps, resources, their alliances and all. It definitely doesn't need to feed farmers further.

We do, that's why I said adding another campaign, even faction locked, will just be empty. Maybe 10 from each alliance will swap there for roleplaying reasons.. But that's about it.

No, it's not. Every evening EP gets roflstomped to the gates.. Or at least scroll-keeps. Sure, during the day they are dominating 'cus it's easier for them to dominate Sotha, than to fight the AD dominating Vivec, at the same time. (That's not a faction lock, issue, that's a player issue). AD Vivec is on High during the day, EP Sotha is on High during the day. Imagine those two sides fighting in one campaign. Yes, pl0x. Although, primetime-lag would start already at noon then. :thinking:

And the most AP is usually farmed on the losing side. Because there will always be defenders willingly stacking up, defending a keep. You can say whatever you want, but reality is, the 50 enemies a good ball-group can occupy, is 50 less enemies the faction has to fight, thus playing for the alliance. (In a certain sense.) Is there rly a difference between how valueable someone is to the campaign, between those that captures the keeps, or those that kills enemies? I would claim both are needed to assure victory.

And in ZS' case, faction-locking won't hurt us, as a raid, at all. We already play one side only. Except a couple of times every 2nd month or so. This change will *only* hurt the people that stays loyal to their faction because of character-race, or those that swap factions to play in smaller groups with their friends. (Which are both.. not campaign-focused, but rather enjoyment focuseD).

So you are basically saying that zergballs helping losing sides by farming their enemies in an outpost or a resource. Not mentioning how many -ratherly newer- people lose their will to PvP after getting farmed for an hour until rage-quitting? Everybody who is familiar with PvP just ignores these groups. What they farm is nothing but newbies basically. I can't help but wonder how that makes difference to call it a help.

And no, you'll never see 50 people getting rekt by grinders lol. It's more like 10-15 newbies at maximum who'll get triggered and therefore keep coming back.

I mean i don't really care if ZS farms more or less AP. I'm more about overall Cyrodiil. And what i see %90 of the time, is that there's nothing worth going for in there. That has been killing it, slowly over years.

If people lose their will because they die - that's not my problem. That's not anyone's problem. Imo, if you're playing a game and you find yourself dying... It's in a lot of situations your fault. Learn from it, and improve. But as long as people are happy stacking up and being farmed, I'm having my fun. I'm not having fun killing people(I heal, duh), but I'm having fun raiding with people I actually enjoy spending time with. And I enjoy being competitive, in a sense. If PvP would cater to those "Disheartened newbies", they might as well make pre-definied specs/skills/gear for everyone to use and that's that. Oh wait, they'll still die. How about a fist-fight? Wait, if they don't know what RMB is, do they even stand a chance? :popcorn:

Because 50 "noobs"(as you call them, rude btw) that keeps dying to scroll-farming, that's 50 less potential players to place siege etc. And don't give me the bs. that it's only newbies that gets farmed. You would be surprised how many times I've noticed "known" names around. There's even the same people every night coming back, and they're by far not "noobs". And there's been quite a few EP-guilds on Sotha that frequently tries to bomb us while we scroll-farm or smth. I guess every guild group(even tho decent groups) are noobs in your eyes? I noticed you're the "Blood and Fear" - NB. I recall seeing you in the Kill Counter-list, but I can't recall if it was with a guild, or if you were solo-bombing. It's a long time ago, though.

There's quite a lot of nice things in Cyrodiil, tbh. You should watch Etaniel's Tamriel Baguette News Report-video. It showcases all the great spots in Cyrodiil, nobody goes to. Some are even fit for ERP... :>
Or you can enjoy sieging keeps with friends, flipping resources.. Idk. But there's nice things in there.

I never actually called anyone nubs, i said newbies which has different meaning. Nub would be someone who plays badly, newbie is just someone new to Cyro lol.

Yes i'm that NB. I have never been into a PvP guild, been playing solo, sometimes with one or two people from my pve guild. Tho you won't really see me around until Balorg gets fixed lol.

Another thing, i didn't say that people leave Cyrodiil when they die. Sometimes i die like 10 times until i manage a perfect bomb but it doesn't make me leave. But i sure leave if i can't see anything else than an ap farm group around. So for the other people, they leave and get disheartened when they get farmed hard, not when they die :kappa:

I wonder how fun is to play in a locked pop alliance and the other have 1 or 2 bars. Feeling powerful?

TequilaFire wrote: »

Lokirules wrote: »

My Question is what is the harm in trying out the idea to see what the reception would be for a faction locked Campaign. Is it hurting anyone? I think they should try it just so we can actually see what the vast majority of the pvp population want. If it fails so what Vivec and the other campaigns are still there to fall back on.

The problem is the people who flip alliances now would continue to play on the unlocked campaign Vivec because they like jumping to side where they will get the highest ap gain per hour. This would leave a smaller population of players for the locked campaign because even the ones who are pro one alliance would want to go where the most action is. The only way it would work if alliance switching was controlled in some fashion for everyone correcting player population imbalance.

If ZOS for instance make Sotha Sil a locked campaign and Vivec and the unlocked one, I agree that the pure ap-farmers would stay in Vivec. And in my personal oppinion that would be just fine. I do not think the locked campaign would be empty thou, I think it would be very alive and even more vibrent. Most players in my experience want to make ap AND pvp for a meaningful experience, like fighting for the victory of their alliance. I dont think most players that pvp only want to farm, but have fun in a less toxic pvp enviroment than is the case today. Nobody likes to be trolled and fighting for hours for a scroll only to get it stolen by one in our own faction and delivered to the enemy.

Given new characters don't even start in the alliance zone anymore, I really wouldn't care if the concept of alliance was scrapped when starting a new toon. Having the player choose their faction account wide every season is something only PVP'ers would use, PVE'ers wouldn't care.

I guess the only value a faction has on the PVE player is which faction campaign they start first on the main land. Which could be solved by the first boat master you speak to asking which faction you wish to be sent to.

Account wide factions that expire after each season would certainly prevent treason. The PVE player wouldn't even notice.