Faction Lock (on main campaigns) is wrong & a bad decision

Bam_Bam · April 2019

dazee wrote: »

cheifsoap wrote: »

I absolutely support this change and it couldn't come soon enough

mmhmmm wait till you see what it actually looks like.

fantastically faction flipper-free

White wabbit · April 2019

People asked for it so shut up and put up with it until the next patch as I cant see zos doing a u turn so quickly

jaws343 · April 2019

White wabbit wrote: »

People asked for it so shut up and put up with it until the next patch as I cant see zos doing a u turn so quickly

You heard it hear. The PTS is no longer a place to voice concerns.

Gilvoth · April 2019

we like the changes.
the faction lock is a Good thing.
not a bad thing.

Ermiq · April 2019

dazee wrote: »

Ermiq wrote: »

It makes me laugh. People complain about alliances in alliance-based PvP.
Devs are preventing abusing and exploiting in PvP. And people complain about that.
This community is the most irrational community I've ever seen.

Your alliance is different depending which character you're on. no matter what alliance you fight for you fight for your alliance. even if that alliance is different sometimes. why is this so hard for you people who only play one character or alliance to understand?

You insist that others be forced to play the way you do, and you finally got your way. now its time to discover you cant force people to play the way you do becuase they'll simply choose not to play at all if they cant play in the way thats fun for them. Enjoy your empty campaigns.

This "way you want to play" is not the way the game was designed to be played. See, there are always rules and restrictions in games, and those exist not because someone wants players to be limited but because games shouldn't have backdoors and abuse possibilities.
I think you people don't know about these exploits, or you just pretend you don't know. However, there are exploits, and the game that has exploits is not a good game by definition, no matter if you agree or not.
The truth is, ZOS didn't made alliance-lock to please alliance loyalists. If anyone here thinks that was the main reason, well, guys, just think, do some research. They did it to fix the game and to make it with a "fair play" approach.

White wabbit · April 2019

jaws343 wrote: »

White wabbit wrote: »

People asked for it so shut up and put up with it until the next patch as I cant see zos doing a u turn so quickly

You heard it hear. The PTS is no longer a place to voice concerns.

Yep how often have they changed something so big like this

TequilaFire · April 2019

DivineFirstYOLO wrote: »

DisgracefulMind wrote: »

MrSinister213 wrote: »

DisgracefulMind wrote: »

Why not reduce the otick AP? And if people are grinding to AR50...they're doing it on one alliance.

That could work or add something like a 3k base to defense ticks to reward and encourage defenders, encourage pvp. I spend 80% of my time on AD PC NA lately, and from my perspective majority want to pvdoor not just because it offers them their best chance at the most ap/hr but also because it usually doesnt involve pvp. Lowering the Otick to 3k would probably still be this type of players best way to make the most ap xD

We shouldn't even be taking people who want to avoid PvP into consideration; they should have to PvP to make AP, end of story.

That being said, I think removing base oTick AP and only rewarding it if there are enemies killed on keep grounds would actually have a lot more of a positive impact to PvP than hard faction locks.

You are so damn right! This 6-7 base tick for not doing anything but zerging an (almost) empty keep is only rewarding people that don't want to PvP.
..and by the way.. stealth (perma sneak) also allows people to avoid PvP, too many try to avoid PvP until they can Xv1 you...

But as a badass 1vXer shouldn't you be turning Xv1 around?

Moonsorrow · April 2019

dazee wrote: »

TequilaFire wrote: »

This will hopefully force some players who insist on playing on all three factions to spread out to other campaigns evening out the population more.

Not gonna force anyone. people will simply do things other than pvp and campaigns will become ghost towns.

Nah, after some baby temper tantrums from certain people, things will go on like before, campaigns full at primetimes, and with fewer trolls, scroll to water dumpers, toxic chatters from other alliances.. it will be nice.

Only takes a bit of attitude from those who been doing the jumping back and forth.. or moving to Shor. Two different sandboxes to play on, for those who play alliance war as it is intended and for those who just not care and switch back and forth to flip things.

Glorious times.

MipMip · April 2019

Karivaa wrote: »

This game was designed around PVP faction loyalty.

The game allows us to create characters on different factions. Also, it doesn't say anywhere that you have to play for faction objectives.

Glory · April 2019

People are apparently really salty about other people playing the game they want to, and having multiple alliance characters in the era of One Tamriel.

Also, people who think that the PvP population has enough players to populate the 7 day campaigns that are ghost towns for 95% of the week and are constantly PvDoor'ed.

Ulfgarde · April 2019

Bad idea.

Not everyone wants to "play" with your faction. There is a substantial amount of people who want to play in smaller groups and have their own fights. You won't ever get fights when your own faction controls the whole map, and since factions dominate at certain times, that means you can only come at certain times to play, and the rest of the times you can just log off because there's zero action happening. Most people like this don't even play during prime time because it's far too laggy and unplayable, so it's already limiting the sparse time you can play

The game barely rewards you for the campaign, let alone for PvPing actively. So what's the real point of this change? To befit faction roleplayers and kill off the last bit of the estranged "competitive" PvP community, if it ever existed?

Alienoutlaw · April 2019

first_kodiak wrote: »

RDMyers65b14_ESO wrote: »

OP, you are so very wrong. This is the absolute BEST thing to happen to Cyrodiil since the faction lock was erroneously removed. We warned ZOS repeatedly not to remove it and now they are having to correct their mistake.

And yes, I PVP.

Why? If you are going to state that it was "erroneously removed" you need to explain why, because some of us don't have the patience to wade through years of old posts or whatever to figure out why you think faction lock is necessary.

My question is, why are they adding it back? Is it something they want to do? Was it something a class rep mentioned? Personally, I see no benefit to faction locking cyrodiil, and a whole lot of confusion and negative issues. I'd like to understand why they are adding it in.

i suggest reading through X amount of threads and posts, you cant have a valid argument for or against if your not in full possession of the facts either side, any argument you offer would be null and void

DivineFirstYOLO · April 2019

TequilaFire wrote: »

DivineFirstYOLO wrote: »

DisgracefulMind wrote: »

MrSinister213 wrote: »

DisgracefulMind wrote: »

Why not reduce the otick AP? And if people are grinding to AR50...they're doing it on one alliance.

That could work or add something like a 3k base to defense ticks to reward and encourage defenders, encourage pvp. I spend 80% of my time on AD PC NA lately, and from my perspective majority want to pvdoor not just because it offers them their best chance at the most ap/hr but also because it usually doesnt involve pvp. Lowering the Otick to 3k would probably still be this type of players best way to make the most ap xD

We shouldn't even be taking people who want to avoid PvP into consideration; they should have to PvP to make AP, end of story.

That being said, I think removing base oTick AP and only rewarding it if there are enemies killed on keep grounds would actually have a lot more of a positive impact to PvP than hard faction locks.

You are so damn right! This 6-7 base tick for not doing anything but zerging an (almost) empty keep is only rewarding people that don't want to PvP.
..and by the way.. stealth (perma sneak) also allows people to avoid PvP, too many try to avoid PvP until they can Xv1 you...

But as a badass 1vXer shouldn't you be turning Xv1 around?

Much WoW such counter, you really beat me good !11!1
Where did I say I'm a badass 1vXer? Does the truth hurt so much that you have to get salty? Keep spaming pew pew from stealth.

Bam_Bam wrote: »

Gnozo wrote: »

It just hurst pvp thats all.

No it doesn't.

Gnozo wrote: »

We normally switched to the Underdog to get decents fight and restore the Balance. Not possible anymore.

THAT is what hurts PvP.

Faction flipping utterly destroys PvP and leaves it completely unbalanced as proven by the perma-AD campaign wins (EU PC Vivec). It's an Alliance War - pick a side and fight for it for a campaign. Now there's no "get out of jail free" option if things aren't going your way and no option to swap factions to purposely give in and give up territory. If you want to play a different Alliance then just change over when the new campaign starts

Some people are here to PvP, f*** alliance pride, 3 bars or pop lock vs 1 bar is not PvP, thats zerging and role playing or "playing for the campaign and your alliance" as you people like to say. We were in the same situation when RPers protested against the racial changes, but let me ask this question, do you want to have a balanced game or a lore friendly one? You can't always have both.
Why do you join the PvP area in this game? To role play a zone chat general while taking empty keeps or to find challenging fights? With faction lock at certain times of the day you won't be able to find fights any more, e.g. Sotha PC EU, EP has zerged and painted the whole map red in non prime time for the last 2,5 years. People relogged and helped the other 2 alliances to fight back.

ks888 · April 2019

@Divine EXACTLY! With the exception of when I am on a baby toon that really makes no difference, I want to be in a balanced map or hop over to the side that is struggling. 3 bars or locked bars vs 2 and 1 bars of pop is boring AF.

It seems there's a growing number of people who are unwilling to try to new things, challenge themselves and improve as players. They simply want to boost their egos by rolling over the map and consider this to be "winning". Yet take those same players and match numbers, they can't hold their own and cry that faction hopping is the problem, not their skill levels.

Beardimus · April 2019

MipMip wrote: »

Firstly, let’s consider this: 30 days campaigns are the most popular and players will continue to go there. Even players who are disappointed by faction lock will tend to grudgingly go there because they do not expect to find enough action on the other campaigns. So saying that there is a choice is hypocrisy.

This means faction lock is being forced on everyone, whether we enjoy playing for a faction or not. Until now, faction loyalists could play for their factions and others could play for their other objectives.

Faction loyalists have been asking for faction locked campaigns. It’s difficult to understand why they want everyone else to play the same way as they do, but if they want campaigns where they can be among themselves, that’s ok as long as there are also campaigns without faction lock. This is not what is being offered in this update, if it goes live as currently described.

The faction lock as currently announced will not achieve what faction loyalists hope for: since other players will be more or less forced to play in the locked campaigns there will be many players in those campaigns who will not care about the score and will pursue other objectives.

A solution that has been mentioned in many threads is soft locks: be able to play on all sides but be on the leatherboards only on one.

This is extremely disappointing for many of us as ESO players, gamers (who might consider other games) and as customers (who might unsubscribe, not play, not visit the crown store etc).

Also I believe this will not help ESO compete for the player base against other games. Versatility has always been ESO’s strength.

So they are offering choice, and rather than go play where you can play how you want to, you will stubbornly intend to play in the place there's a rule set that you dont agree with huh??

OP You are wrong that faction loyal can play how they want now - as it's undermined by the guys that cheat, we don't have a way to stop that. Hence the requests and being listened to.

Now there's choice, i for one would go wherever the lock is, CP, noCP, 30 / 7 - id adapt to where the ruleset for me is, that's all faction hoppers need to do...... Simple

MipMip · April 2019

Ulfgarde wrote: »

Not everyone wants to "play" with your faction. There is a substantial amount of people who want to play in smaller groups and have their own fights.

Ulfgarde wrote: »

So what's the real point of this change? To befit faction roleplayers and kill off the last bit of the estranged "competitive" PvP community, if it ever existed?

DivineFirstYOLO wrote: »

Why do you join the PvP area in this game? To role play a zone chat general while taking empty keeps or to find challenging fights? With faction lock at certain times of the day you won't be able to find fights any more, e.g. Sotha PC EU, EP has zerged and painted the whole map red in non prime time for the last 2,5 years. People relogged and helped the other 2 alliances to fight back.

Thanks for spelling these things out clearly!

Davadin · April 2019

oh god not this again.

literally dozens of threads are filling up the PvP forum, we don't need this *** here too.

ZOS not changing their mind.

adapt, or find another game.

OR simply wait it out for a couple of weeks, and see if this works or not. If everyone hates it after a month, i'm sure ZOS will do something about it like a couple years back. this is nothing new.

Lord_Zele · April 2019

I just wish they'd lock leaderboards so we can play what we want but without the rewards on the other faction.

I have known people in this game for years that were on one faction but eventually switched over to another faction for different fights. Just to spice things up you know?
I just want to be able to play with my friends at the end of the day. I don't play with them too often anymore because of their switch to EP(me staying on DC). Although I've been leveling my passives on my EP now. I still don't want my overall chance to play with them to just be ruined because of faction lock in Vivec. Who knows if the other campaigns will pick up cause of faction lock?
Either way, just lock my rewards. I just want to be able to play the game with my friends like the MMO it was meant to be.
Remember One Tamriel? Where we couldn't PvE together? Then ZOS made it possible cause they thought faction shouldn't matter in PvE, and it shouldn't. They wanted us playing together. Well just lock my leaderboard rewards and let me play together with my buds. Let me join the losing side to get better fights. Why restrict my chances at getting both good fights AND fights with old friends?

Let us play how we want to play. Just like PvErs were able to play with who they wanted to. Lock faction leaderboards and let the multifaction players play on whatever faction. That way the Faction Loyalists can still get rewarded well on their faction and the 'Faction Hoppers' only get rewards for one faction.

JAwtunes · April 2019

Can we at least get an equivalent to this campaign for no CP? Yolnahkriin: 7 Day CP Enabled.

Ranger209 · April 2019

It's kind of funny, you have no cp players who are asking for a 7 day no cp unlocked campaign so they can play on it and cp players who are being offered one and are refusing to play on it. Maybe they should make the unlocked one no cp....

MipMip · April 2019

Lord_Zele wrote: »

Let us play how we want to play. Just like PvErs were able to play with who they wanted to. Lock faction leaderboards and let the multifaction players play on whatever faction. That way the Faction Loyalists can still get rewarded well on their faction and the 'Faction Hoppers' only get rewards for one faction.

I agree this could be an excellent compromise. Most of the people I play with are against faction locks, but wouldn't mind if only the leatherboards would be locked.

kendellking_chaosb14_ESO · April 2019

MipMip wrote: »

Firstly, let’s consider this: 30 days campaigns are the most popular and players will continue to go there. Even players who are disappointed by faction lock will tend to grudgingly go there because they do not expect to find enough action on the other campaigns. So saying that there is a choice is hypocrisy.

This means faction lock is being forced on everyone, whether we enjoy playing for a faction or not. Until now, faction loyalists could play for their factions and others could play for their other objectives.

Faction loyalists have been asking for faction locked campaigns. It’s difficult to understand why they want everyone else to play the same way as they do, but if they want campaigns where they can be among themselves, that’s ok as long as there are also campaigns without faction lock. This is not what is being offered in this update, if it goes live as currently described.

The faction lock as currently announced will not achieve what faction loyalists hope for: since other players will be more or less forced to play in the locked campaigns there will be many players in those campaigns who will not care about the score and will pursue other objectives.

A solution that has been mentioned in many threads is soft locks: be able to play on all sides but be on the leatherboards only on one.

This is extremely disappointing for many of us as ESO players, gamers (who might consider other games) and as customers (who might unsubscribe, not play, not visit the crown store etc).

Also I believe this will not help ESO compete for the player base against other games. Versatility has always been ESO’s strength.

This change was needed jumping to the winning Alliance just to mess and take up space so your Alliance can catch up happens a lot. Grinding or doing whatever while taking the place of someone that wants to fight is dumb. One of the best changes this update.

Phaius · April 2019

MipMip wrote: »

This is extremely disappointing for many of us as ESO players, gamers (who might consider other games) and as customers (who might unsubscribe, not play, not visit the crown store etc).

Good god dude, enough with the tedious hyperbole. The worst trait about PvP players is their martyr complex and the tendency to cry that a game is going to lose players because of a change they don't like. This sort of stuff has been constantly said about this game since launch and it's still around but none of it ever comes true. What would you be doing if ESO hadn't bent to the cries of "But... but... my friends!" and not removed the alliance locks that Cyrodiil originally had?

OrdoHermetica · April 2019

I find it interesting that most of the ideas and proposals presented here are essentially binary. Either there's a hard lock and it's a super serious one that doesn't allow ANY breaking from a single, or there's a soft lock and people don't get scores (which, let's be honest, most people don't really care about, even most PvPers unless they happen to be former or aspiring emperors). But why does it have to be binary?

The problem ZOS is addressing with this is bad behavior: faction flipping to exploit mechanics like the underdog bonus, AP farming through resources capture trading/PvDooring, etc. Those are all very real problems, and definitely detract from the PvP experience. However, I think they can be addressed without the nuclear option of "if you want to be on a 30 day campaign, you can only play one Alliance" pretty easily.

One idea: keep the hard lock, but instead of the full campaign, make it, say, a 48 hour (or 72 hour, or whatever) lockout. That way you can't just swap toons when the going gets rough or so you can re-take the empty keeps and resources you just took with your other Alliance, but it also allows people to keep playing with their friends. It could also be implemented in a soft lock method, too (applying a AP earning or campaign contribution malus for a set amount of time after switching, for example).

And playing with friends IS a valid concern - it's not just people saying that because they don't want to lose their easy AP grinding. I'll use myself as an example - my main character is DC, because I got him before I had the Any Race, Any Alliance upgrade and I wanted to remake my Redguard from Skyrim in ESO. I do both PvE and PvP with him, and he's usually who I take to Cyrodiil when I'm playing solo, along with my Breton magsorc, also created when I first started playing. However, I'm also the PvP guild event leader for my AD social guild, so on the weekends I spend a reasonable amount of time representing the Queen with the rest of my guild. I also have a couple EP characters that are mostly BG toons, but I enjoy taking them into Cyrodiil every now and again to test new setups and the like.

In my case, I play all three Alliances some months, and at least two Alliances pretty much every month. I'm not doing this to exploit game systems, and I don't quit when the going gets tough - if I'm playing my Redguard and DC is struggling, I don't drop him for my high elf for some easy keep capturing (hypothetically - we all know AD struggles

). Instead, I'm playing those Alliances because Vivec is where all the people are and I want to be able to play with my friends.

Maybe the new 7-day campaigns will be populated - that'd be neat. But I just don't think my case is all that unusual, or that the problems being addressed by ZOS require a fix that is, frankly, kinda drastic. I mean, if that's what it takes for a healthy Cyrodiil, then I'm all for it... I just don't think it's required.

firedrgn · April 2019

Just let us change alliance why is that a big deal?

first_kodiak · April 2019

Alienoutlaw wrote: »

first_kodiak wrote: »

RDMyers65b14_ESO wrote: »

OP, you are so very wrong. This is the absolute BEST thing to happen to Cyrodiil since the faction lock was erroneously removed. We warned ZOS repeatedly not to remove it and now they are having to correct their mistake.

And yes, I PVP.

Why? If you are going to state that it was "erroneously removed" you need to explain why, because some of us don't have the patience to wade through years of old posts or whatever to figure out why you think faction lock is necessary.

My question is, why are they adding it back? Is it something they want to do? Was it something a class rep mentioned? Personally, I see no benefit to faction locking cyrodiil, and a whole lot of confusion and negative issues. I'd like to understand why they are adding it in.

i suggest reading through X amount of threads and posts, you cant have a valid argument for or against if your not in full possession of the facts either side, any argument you offer would be null and void

And you make yourself an example of my point. I was asking for his reasoning behind supporting it. I already know why I dislike faction locking. I was hoping to read a decent explanation to support the other side but I've read nothing here to change my views. Just a lot of insults and harassment towards anyone who dislikes faction locking.

Faction locking will stop organized groups from swapping factions to manipulate things, but no one I asked in-game thought this would outweigh the massive problems faction locking will create. There are far less extreme changes that could rectify this problem in any case. The only general arguments I've heard in favor of factions locks are little more than RP faction loyalism and forcing everyone to play the way one small group believes is right.

This change will greatly inconvenience a lot of average players, blocking them from playing how they want with different groups of friends and forcing them instead to conform to a specific approved style of gameplay favored by only a vocal minority.

Ranger209 · April 2019

firedrgn wrote: »

Just let us change alliance why is that a big deal?

Because it is Alliance vs Alliance vs Alliance large scale warfare. If you can switch Alliances it no longer is.

Lord_Eomer · April 2019

This is one for best descion and i hope its there in IC too

Joosef_Kivikilpi · April 2019

MipMip wrote: »

Firstly, let’s consider this: 30 days campaigns are the most popular and players will continue to go there. Even players who are disappointed by faction lock will tend to grudgingly go there because they do not expect to find enough action on the other campaigns. So saying that there is a choice is hypocrisy.

This means faction lock is being forced on everyone, whether we enjoy playing for a faction or not. Until now, faction loyalists could play for their factions and others could play for their other objectives.

Faction loyalists have been asking for faction locked campaigns. It’s difficult to understand why they want everyone else to play the same way as they do, but if they want campaigns where they can be among themselves, that’s ok as long as there are also campaigns without faction lock. This is not what is being offered in this update, if it goes live as currently described.

The faction lock as currently announced will not achieve what faction loyalists hope for: since other players will be more or less forced to play in the locked campaigns there will be many players in those campaigns who will not care about the score and will pursue other objectives.

A solution that has been mentioned in many threads is soft locks: be able to play on all sides but be on the leatherboards only on one.

This is extremely disappointing for many of us as ESO players, gamers (who might consider other games) and as customers (who might unsubscribe, not play, not visit the crown store etc).

Also I believe this will not help ESO compete for the player base against other games. Versatility has always been ESO’s strength.

Just came across 2 AD griefing questers inside a building... The Covenant players being shown their locations in stealth by a traitor Covenant. Stuff like that is what makes me glad there is going to faction lock. Because those little fairies are going to have make a choice to not play at all together in the same team if they want to play together or be penalized. I'm all for it.

MipMip · April 2019

Joosef_Kivikilpi wrote: »

Just came across 2 AD griefing questers inside a building... The Covenant players being shown their locations in stealth by a traitor Covenant. Stuff like that is what makes me glad there is going to faction lock. Because those little fairies are going to have make a choice to not play at all together in the same team if they want to play together or be penalized. I'm all for it.

Why would faction lock stop these behaviors? It obviously won't.

If it goes live it will just severely restrict the choices that we have, the opportunities to find good fights, to play with friends, to switch to underdog factions, etc