Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

show previous quotes

Elong wrote: »

Ahtu wrote: »

It will be interesting to see how the lock affects faction population levels in Vivec, if at all. It's very possible that one faction would be sacrificed to the other two factions and absorbed completely. This could spell the end of The Three Banners War and we may see a dominant faction emerge like when the game first released with locks in place.

And that would be terrible for pvp mate. Just terrible.

Shows the mentality of those in favor of the lock that they seem to think there's a way to "win" a perpetual online war that's designed to have no ending.

All things being equal, there should be an even(ish) chance of any faction winning a particular month.

As much as it amuses the everloving heck out of me to see DC buried in last place month to month on a micro level, on a macro level it is fairly damaging to the game. DC population is already fairly depressed on Vivec while they run rampant on Sotha.

That makes it so people who are not DC don't want to play on Sotha, while DC doesn't want to play on Vivec. Exacerbating that so that one faction is in near constant control leads to server death like what happened to Trueflame back in the height of the Havoc days when red was utterly dominant.

In other games, like Shadowbane, they would have to shut down whole server shards when one faction overwhelmed the others as no one, not even the "winners" would play on that server as there was nothing to do.

The fight needs to remain even, and each faction needs to have a real chance of winning to retain the drive to actually compete.

I'm sure you and many others remember how many PvP servers we used to have. Now we have 2. Don't even have to look at other games to understand how imbalance has destroyed servers.

Ahtu wrote: »

Last night in Vivec on PC NA a certain well-know faction hopper and his group put down friendly attacker oils on the ground at the last Emperor keep to prevent a friend in my guild from becoming Emperor right before the campaign was reset. The only reason they would do such a thing is so that EP would not have Emperor when they relog into one of the other factions after the reset. Faction locks would prevent this from happening in the first place and I for one can't wait for them to be implemented next month.

Faction locks put aside, I will have to agree with you on this one. This has happened to me on several occasions and we sent massive amount of reports and clips of the offenders to ZOS. Don't hesitate to do the same. The more reports and the more chances ZOS will take it seriously and ban the offenders. This is simply unacceptable and childish, whoever the person is.

jaws343 wrote: »

Literally, the only way to be able to log out and log back into a different faction in minutes is if the population is below the caps...So yeah, the campaigns are dead if you are just faction swapping willy nilly at the drop of a hat.

Are you seriously telling me that you math goes CAP -1 = "DEAD"? Once again, the mentality of those opposed to faction lock shines through.

Metafae wrote: »

Let's make just one new campaign that is faction locked and in all other ways is exactly the same as the most popular server, but not remove the current most popular server, this way those people who complain about faction lock can now go play on a server that has it.

Response: "I won't play on that new faction lock server because no one plays on it, they're all still in the old one"

This is because people don't want faction lock....

BAHAHA!

Thats up to ZOS, they should have the numbers...

Mr_Walker wrote: »

show previous quotes

bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »

Mr_Walker wrote: »

Back what claim up? That outside of primetime every other campaign than Vivec is dead? How many people have to tell you?

Considering the few people who have been saying this have otherwise been full of baloney, you will forgive me if I don't accept their word for it. How about a screenshot of the population levels proving it?

If you want me to do work for you, I'll need to send you an invoice. Or you could stay up late and see it for yourself. Or you could ask any of the OCE XNA players.

I was with an 8-10 man group on XNA Sotha a few months back that painted the map in about 3 hours. The miracle of that? That there were 8-10 players on....

You can choose to deny it all you like. Reality doesn't change.

The loss of players have happened while we had faction hoppers, that is a undeniable fact...

Now as i said several times, if you dont want to play with faction locks you have that option, as off your post, you seem to enjoy going and flipping empty servers as is...

bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »

show previous quotes

jaws343 wrote: »

Yes, I would say if the campaign you are playing in is never pop-capped and people are able to swap at will (which is what pro-lock people seem to be parroting), the campaign is dead, or, at the least, unhealthy because not enough people are around to fill the server.

I can't even begin to address the lunacy of this statement, but I'll try.

Firstly, what you are saying is not what is being claimed. The person is complaining about the population levels outside of prime time. He never said they are never full. Secondly, the idea that something is either full, or else it is "dead" is just absurd. If you walk into a movie theatre, restaurant or a sports arena, and there are two seats free (in the slowest part of the day, yet) would you say that business is "dead"?

Futhermore, if you plan capacity so that things are full during the slowest hours, then during the prime hours you will be turning people away.

Let me give you some advice - don't start a business.

The entire point of this whole thread is faction locking. My statement is in regards to faction locking. Faction lockers are claiming that people are swapping factions at will. That is literally the argument for faction locking, people are "cheating" because they aren't roleplaying a particular faction and playing by the "rules" implemented by a specific segment of the community. My point is, this flipping back and forth cannot happen in pop-locked campaigns. You are trying to make this more than it is by nitpicking at my word choices, rather than actually disproving my point.

But, if you want to follow your own advice, faction hopping can only happen outside of primetime. Right? Since that is the time that the campaigns are not pop-locked according to your comment here. So, if that is the case, and following your own advice about not planning capacity around the slowest hours, maybe we shouldn't be planning faction locks around underpopulated hours....

If you would take the time to actually provide an argument rather than attacking my mentality, you would probably get somewhere in this argument.

Miriel wrote: »

show previous quotes

jaws343 wrote: »

bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »

jaws343 wrote: »

Yes, I would say if the campaign you are playing in is never pop-capped and people are able to swap at will (which is what pro-lock people seem to be parroting), the campaign is dead, or, at the least, unhealthy because not enough people are around to fill the server.

I can't even begin to address the lunacy of this statement, but I'll try.

Firstly, what you are saying is not what is being claimed. The person is complaining about the population levels outside of prime time. He never said they are never full. Secondly, the idea that something is either full, or else it is "dead" is just absurd. If you walk into a movie theatre, restaurant or a sports arena, and there are two seats free (in the slowest part of the day, yet) would you say that business is "dead"?

Futhermore, if you plan capacity so that things are full during the slowest hours, then during the prime hours you will be turning people away.

Let me give you some advice - don't start a business.

The entire point of this whole thread is faction locking. My statement is in regards to faction locking. Faction lockers are claiming that people are swapping factions at will. That is literally the argument for faction locking, people are "cheating" because they aren't roleplaying a particular faction and playing by the "rules" implemented by a specific segment of the community. My point is, this flipping back and forth cannot happen in pop-locked campaigns. You are trying to make this more than it is by nitpicking at my word choices, rather than actually disproving my point.

But, if you want to follow your own advice, faction hopping can only happen outside of primetime. Right? Since that is the time that the campaigns are not pop-locked according to your comment here. So, if that is the case, and following your own advice about not planning capacity around the slowest hours, maybe we shouldn't be planning faction locks around underpopulated hours....

If you would take the time to actually provide an argument rather than attacking my mentality, you would probably get somewhere in this argument.

I and alot more people want faction locks, ZOS is adding this feature, like it was in the beginning... Now they also have campaigns that dosent have faction locks... Here is what i think this fuzz is about, you guys that dont want faction locks realice there wont be people playing on servers without faction locks, simply couse people never wanted to... so now you guys try to force your way of playing on the wast majority...

Again people will have both options to play as they like, but keep forcing people to play with feature they dont like will just keep resulting in more and more people leaving pvp

Actually, myself and others who oppose this realize that the current campaigns are already unhealthy enough as it is population wise. And further dividing the PVP population for roleplaying is just going to make it worse. It's great that Vivec is pop-locked at primetime on live now. Once this all goes live, I would be shocked if a campaign is ever pop-locked again, outside of PVP specific events. You may like to gate camp opposing factions and call it "winning" the campaign, I personally prefer to actually PVP in a PVP zone.

jaws343 wrote: »

That is literally the argument for faction locking, people are "cheating" because they aren't roleplaying a particular faction and playing by the "rules" implemented by a specific segment of the community.

Wow. You completely miss the point of the argument in favor of faction locking, and the reason why it is being implemented. This is not any kind of roleplay or philosophical consideration.

People are cheating by logging in to "alts" on other factions and acting AGAINST THE INTEREST of those factions in order to help their "main" faction to win.

This is quite simply poor game design, and is not defensible on its face. You should not be able to play all sides of a campaign in the interests of advancing only one faction. This is not allowed in any real life competition based on fair play, why did it suddenly become exempt in ESO? This change is fixing a historic wrong.