We are currently investigating issues some players are having logging into the European PC/Mac megaserver. We will update as new information becomes available.
Make faction lock ONE CAMPAIGN
Regal_Imp
✭✭✭
So theres a tons of faction lock controversy, and rightfully so, its tough to understand the logic behind it, other than for players who REALLY care about lore and faction loyalty.
While I am personally against faction locking any campaign, as I believe freedom of choice is kind of a no-brainer, I do think its possible to make everybody happy in this situation AND spread out the population in vet PvP that is currently extremely vivec heavy with the other campaigns getting very little love.
My proposal is 3-fold:
1) Reduce faction lock to ONE campaign, theres a ton of outcry against it, and currently theres no way to play no-cp pvp without faction lock, which means if I have no-CP builds on multiple toons, I have no source of open world PvP.
2) Put a faction lock on the 7-day CP campaign, which sees the lowest population of any campaign. This will allow the people who NEED faction lock to have a campaign, and will spread the PvP community out a bit so that the 30-day CP campaign isn't constantly pop-locked and lagging to death.
3) If none of the above is possible, then force players to choose one faction for REWARDS and LEADERBOARD, but let players join campaigns on multiple factions as long as they're ok with forfeiting their rights to rewards. Most of the people supporting faction lock seem to believe that people swap factions to get on the winning side and win the campaign, when in reality, most of us DO NOT CARE about campaign scores, and only want to have fun with different groups of friends. This would make EVERYBODY happy, nobody would have any reason to "faction-swap" other than just to have fun.
I personally think these options are air tight, so if you think otherwise, hit up that comment section and lets discuss.
- Regal
While I am personally against faction locking any campaign, as I believe freedom of choice is kind of a no-brainer, I do think its possible to make everybody happy in this situation AND spread out the population in vet PvP that is currently extremely vivec heavy with the other campaigns getting very little love.
My proposal is 3-fold:
1) Reduce faction lock to ONE campaign, theres a ton of outcry against it, and currently theres no way to play no-cp pvp without faction lock, which means if I have no-CP builds on multiple toons, I have no source of open world PvP.
2) Put a faction lock on the 7-day CP campaign, which sees the lowest population of any campaign. This will allow the people who NEED faction lock to have a campaign, and will spread the PvP community out a bit so that the 30-day CP campaign isn't constantly pop-locked and lagging to death.
3) If none of the above is possible, then force players to choose one faction for REWARDS and LEADERBOARD, but let players join campaigns on multiple factions as long as they're ok with forfeiting their rights to rewards. Most of the people supporting faction lock seem to believe that people swap factions to get on the winning side and win the campaign, when in reality, most of us DO NOT CARE about campaign scores, and only want to have fun with different groups of friends. This would make EVERYBODY happy, nobody would have any reason to "faction-swap" other than just to have fun.
I personally think these options are air tight, so if you think otherwise, hit up that comment section and lets discuss.
- Regal
AD: R E G A L/Halle Bear-y/Regal Implar/ l l l l DC: Enel/Blue Imp EP: Regal Pimp/Chuck Bear-y/Red Imp
23
-
Expert✭✭✭✭I wouldn't mind if faction lock existed but while u play on a dif faction in the same campaign u cant get any rewards and ur AP is cut by 50%5 -
therift✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭The outcry against is tiny compared to the past two years of outcry in favor, along with the mountain of evidence and reports submitted to ZoS on faction-hopping abuses.
Another report went to ZoS yesterday on PS4NA. That particular abuse falls into the 'ban' category, according to statements previously made by ZoS.
All I wanted was one locked campaign. Apparently, since Update 18 went live and ZoS stated they would monitor concerns about Alliance loyalty, the abuses are significant and pervasive enough to require the decision they made.
Edited by therift on May 27, 2019 3:48AM33 -
bulbousb16_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭Make faction lock ALL campaigns. There is absolutely zero reason that people should be playing all sides of the campaign. There are more reasons to do this than just reducing exploitation.Lethal zergling22 -
therift✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭"2) Put a faction lock on the 7-day CP campaign, which sees the lowest population of any campaign. This will allow the people who NEED faction lock to have a campaign, and will spread the PvP community out a bit so that the 30-day CP campaign isn't constantly pop-locked and lagging to death."
The lock is on the correct campaign. The players who NEED to play multiple factions can spread out to the unlocked campaigns. If that group is such large, the pop-lock relief will be significant, correct?
16 -
Thogard✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭I agree. Let the faction lock supporters go to shor where they can pvdoor togetherPC NA - @dazkt - Dazk Ardoonkt / Sir Thogalot / Dask Dragoh’t / Dazk Dragoh’t / El Thogardo
Stream: twitch.tv/THOGARDvsThePeasants
YouTube: http://youtube.com/c/thogardpvp15 -
Regal_Imp✭✭✭bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »Make faction lock ALL campaigns. There is absolutely zero reason that people should be playing all sides of the campaign. There are more reasons to do this than just reducing exploitation.
That just sounds vindictive, just because you believe in faction loyalty doesn't mean everyone else does. These options give everybody freedom of choice.
There are tons of reasons to switch factions. If I'm on AD and they're at 3 bars zerging the map while EP and DC are at 1 bar, I want to swap factions and fight them, instead of having to just give up on the only open world campaign that has population.
Additionally, the best way to earn transmutes is to get as many characters to reward tier 1 in a 30 day campaign as possible, but at the moment you can only have 2 factions receiving max rewards, it slows down progression in the game.
I'd be interested to hear all these reasons you alluded to.AD: R E G A L/Halle Bear-y/Regal Implar/ l l l l DC: Enel/Blue Imp EP: Regal Pimp/Chuck Bear-y/Red Imp4 -
Regal_Imp✭✭✭The outcry against is tiny compared to the past two years of outcry in favor, along with the mountain of evidence and reports submitted to ZoS on faction-hopping abuses.
Another report went to ZoS yesterday on PS4NA. That particular abuse falls into the 'ban' category, according to statements previously made by ZoS.
All I wanted was one locked campaign. Apparently, since Update 18 went live and ZoS stated they would monitor concerns about Alliance loyalty, the abuses are significant and pervasive enough to require the decision they made.
I'm not saying its bad to want faction lock, it just makes sense to allow players freedom of choice, let them play faction lock if they want, let them play multifaction if they want, with no penalty to either choice.
"Faction flipping" is NOT a bannable offense, I'm 100% sure of that.
AD: R E G A L/Halle Bear-y/Regal Implar/ l l l l DC: Enel/Blue Imp EP: Regal Pimp/Chuck Bear-y/Red Imp1 -
therift✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭The outcry against is tiny compared to the past two years of outcry in favor, along with the mountain of evidence and reports submitted to ZoS on faction-hopping abuses.
Another report went to ZoS yesterday on PS4NA. That particular abuse falls into the 'ban' category, according to statements previously made by ZoS.
All I wanted was one locked campaign. Apparently, since Update 18 went live and ZoS stated they would monitor concerns about Alliance loyalty, the abuses are significant and pervasive enough to require the decision they made.
I'm not saying its bad to want faction lock, it just makes sense to allow players freedom of choice, let them play faction lock if they want, let them play multifaction if they want, with no penalty to either choice.
"Faction flipping" is NOT a bannable offense, I'm 100% sure of that.
The action that took place, made possible by absence of faction lock, most definitely is bannable. ZoS has stated so in other threads that questioned that type of action. When you bypass game mechanics, and the video evidence is incontrovertible, you play with fire.
5 -
Thogard✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭The outcry against is tiny compared to the past two years of outcry in favor, along with the mountain of evidence and reports submitted to ZoS on faction-hopping abuses.
Another report went to ZoS yesterday on PS4NA. That particular abuse falls into the 'ban' category, according to statements previously made by ZoS.
All I wanted was one locked campaign. Apparently, since Update 18 went live and ZoS stated they would monitor concerns about Alliance loyalty, the abuses are significant and pervasive enough to require the decision they made.
I'm not saying its bad to want faction lock, it just makes sense to allow players freedom of choice, let them play faction lock if they want, let them play multifaction if they want, with no penalty to either choice.
"Faction flipping" is NOT a bannable offense, I'm 100% sure of that.
The action that took place, made possible by absence of faction lock, most definitely is bannable. ZoS has stated so in other threads that questioned that type of action. When you bypass game mechanics, and the video evidence is incontrovertible, you play with fire.
Then how about instead of banning my main from PvP via the faction locks, they ban the people who abuse the cross alliance stuff.
Because let’s face it, none of the cross alliance abuses are actually blocked by faction locks.PC NA - @dazkt - Dazk Ardoonkt / Sir Thogalot / Dask Dragoh’t / Dazk Dragoh’t / El Thogardo
Stream: twitch.tv/THOGARDvsThePeasants
YouTube: http://youtube.com/c/thogardpvp9 -
therift✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »Make faction lock ALL campaigns. There is absolutely zero reason that people should be playing all sides of the campaign. There are more reasons to do this than just reducing exploitation.
Completely disagree.
Faction-lock should be an option.
The players who have rainbow rosters, or want to switch character/alliance on the fly to play with friends, or who like playing for the underdog all must have the ability to do so.
The 30 day cp and no-cp campaigns should have locked and unlocked options. One -locked- for players who care primarily about score and wins, and one -unlocked- for players who care about flexibility.
The only issue that has the two viewpoints arguing is whether or not there are enough players to go around to make everyone happy.
1 -
Thogard✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »
Wow.
So in your opinion, if we exclude the cross alliance abuse (which seems to be a 7day campaign issue anyway, which is still non faction locked lol) why are the faction locks in place?
Just to block me from playing half my characters?PC NA - @dazkt - Dazk Ardoonkt / Sir Thogalot / Dask Dragoh’t / Dazk Dragoh’t / El Thogardo
Stream: twitch.tv/THOGARDvsThePeasants
YouTube: http://youtube.com/c/thogardpvp4 -
DisgracefulMind✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »
Hahahahahaha.Unfortunate magicka warden main.
PC/NA Server
Fairweather Friends
Retired to baby bgs forever. Leave me alone.1 -
Gilvoth✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »Make faction lock ALL campaigns. There is absolutely zero reason that people should be playing all sides of the campaign. There are more reasons to do this than just reducing exploitation.
exactly!
well said.6 -
therift✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭The outcry against is tiny compared to the past two years of outcry in favor, along with the mountain of evidence and reports submitted to ZoS on faction-hopping abuses.
Another report went to ZoS yesterday on PS4NA. That particular abuse falls into the 'ban' category, according to statements previously made by ZoS.
All I wanted was one locked campaign. Apparently, since Update 18 went live and ZoS stated they would monitor concerns about Alliance loyalty, the abuses are significant and pervasive enough to require the decision they made.
I'm not saying its bad to want faction lock, it just makes sense to allow players freedom of choice, let them play faction lock if they want, let them play multifaction if they want, with no penalty to either choice.
"Faction flipping" is NOT a bannable offense, I'm 100% sure of that.
The action that took place, made possible by absence of faction lock, most definitely is bannable. ZoS has stated so in other threads that questioned that type of action. When you bypass game mechanics, and the video evidence is incontrovertible, you play with fire.
Then how about instead of banning my main from PvP via the faction locks, they ban the people who abuse the cross alliance stuff.
Because let’s face it, none of the cross alliance abuses are actually blocked by faction locks.
ZoS seems to have decided otherwise. *shrugs*
I'm sympathetic to the impact on you.
But having submitted yet another report with video yesterday on PS4NA, (not directly;a guildie sent), I'm looking forward to giving it a try. I've been waiting a year.
3 -
poietin✭✭✭bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »Make faction lock ALL campaigns. There is absolutely zero reason that people should be playing all sides of the campaign. There are more reasons to do this than just reducing exploitation.
I totally agree and while we are at it we should faction lock the entire map so that I will never see another faction player in my map! I just want to fight fact enemy faction NPCs!!0 -
Synnastix✭✭✭✭What’s the “abuse” you guys are claiming? Worst I’ve seen were people harassing others for being a “spy”.1 -
therift✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭I'll provide an example of how faction-hopping damages competitive gameplay.
I'm not going to state Alliances, because that's unimportant. I'm not going to say when this occurred, other than not recently, because I don't want the focus to shift to who or what guild.
My Alliance, which was far behind in points, managed to capture an enemy scroll after several hours of attempts. The enemy Alliance promptly dropped everything else they were doing to form a huge zerg to chase.
The third Alliance, which had a spawn point close enough to intercept, also gave chase with a large group.
After a series of close battles, during which that scroll changed hands three times, we finally secured it in one of our gate keeps. The Alliance to which the scroll belonged set up siege, which we defended, even to the point of throwing them back out of a breach and partially repairing.
At that moment, a player who had been observed numerous times in the enemy chase zerg, entered our gate keep on a character of our Alliance, picked up the enemy scroll, and hopped over the wall with it, into the waiting arms of his friends on the opposing Alliance.
We couldn't stop him. He was on our Alliance.
We were helpless as he walked into the enemy siege line and stood there while they killed him and took the scroll
All of our Alliance's effort was undone by one player who who faction-hopped to bypass the keep walls, bypass the keep guards, and bypass every defending player.
I guess the messages his guildies sent to some of us was just icing on the cake.
We got screwed out of a successful scroll capture.
We got screwed out of a successful scroll and keep defense.
We got screwed out of the Enemy Scroll buff.
We got screwed out of at least one 10 point score tick.
All because one player was able to swap factions within a few minutes.
So, yeah, faction-hopping leads to abuses that only a faction-lock can prevent. Could it be done with alt accounts? Sure... but not easily, not be every player in the game, and not quickly enough to matter.
And by the way... friends of that player report that he caught a temporary ban for bypassing intended gameplay mechanics.
This isn't a rare occurrence. It happens often enough to make a significant impact.
23 -
Thogard✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭But if he got a temp ban for it then it means ZOS is watching for it. He cheated, was caught, and was punished. He didn’t get away with it.
Your post is the most valid reason for faction locks I’ve seen yet and I truly appreciate that you are engaging in this dialogue with a rational perspective.
But the dude got a temp ban. If he does it again he’ll get a perma ban (hopefully).
But my 30 day ban on my main due to faction locks is longer than his.
And that’s absurd. Because I didn’t do anything wrong.
If this was the only way to punish then sure. But he got caught and he got punished. Justice was served.
I should not have my main “banned” from PvP in cyrodil due to the actions of someone I don’t know, on a server I don’t play. That’s collective punishment.
Collective punishment has been and always will be a logically flawed mechanism to prevent an undesired outcome. If you want to discuss why collective punishment is bad, we can.. but I think that’s unnecessary.
Edited by Thogard on May 27, 2019 5:20AMPC NA - @dazkt - Dazk Ardoonkt / Sir Thogalot / Dask Dragoh’t / Dazk Dragoh’t / El Thogardo
Stream: twitch.tv/THOGARDvsThePeasants
YouTube: http://youtube.com/c/thogardpvp5 -
therift✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭But if he got a temp ban for it then it means ZOS is watching for it.
I think this issue was so blatant there were a mountain of reports.
Bear in mind I heard he was banned third hand.
I also think there are enough reports on a range of abuses made possible by faction-hopping that faction-lock seemed to ZoS to be the best universal solution, and only they know for sure, and only they know what they were watching for. Reports? Something in the data? Magic 8ball?
I also ask that faction-lock supporters not use this example to suggest faction-lock opponents condone this activity. I try to be clear that faction-hopping in itself is not the problem, it is the abuses that open campaigns make possible.
2 -
russelmmendoza✭✭✭✭✭
✭Faction lock on 1 of each.
Below lvl50.
Non cp.
Cp.
Rest is no faction lock.
Players choice is always good.1 -
Ectheliontnacil✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭I'll provide an example of how faction-hopping damages competitive gameplay.
I'm not going to state Alliances, because that's unimportant. I'm not going to say when this occurred, other than not recently, because I don't want the focus to shift to who or what guild.
My Alliance, which was far behind in points, managed to capture an enemy scroll after several hours of attempts. The enemy Alliance promptly dropped everything else they were doing to form a huge zerg to chase.
The third Alliance, which had a spawn point close enough to intercept, also gave chase with a large group.
After a series of close battles, during which that scroll changed hands three times, we finally secured it in one of our gate keeps. The Alliance to which the scroll belonged set up siege, which we defended, even to the point of throwing them back out of a breach and partially repairing.
At that moment, a player who had been observed numerous times in the enemy chase zerg, entered our gate keep on a character of our Alliance, picked up the enemy scroll, and hopped over the wall with it, into the waiting arms of his friends on the opposing Alliance.
We couldn't stop him. He was on our Alliance.
We were helpless as he walked into the enemy siege line and stood there while they killed him and took the scroll
All of our Alliance's effort was undone by one player who who faction-hopped to bypass the keep walls, bypass the keep guards, and bypass every defending player.
I guess the messages his guildies sent to some of us was just icing on the cake.
We got screwed out of a successful scroll capture.
We got screwed out of a successful scroll and keep defense.
We got screwed out of the Enemy Scroll buff.
We got screwed out of at least one 10 point score tick.
All because one player was able to swap factions within a few minutes.
So, yeah, faction-hopping leads to abuses that only a faction-lock can prevent. Could it be done with alt accounts? Sure... but not easily, not be every player in the game, and not quickly enough to matter.
And by the way... friends of that player report that he caught a temporary ban for bypassing intended gameplay mechanics.
This isn't a rare occurrence. It happens often enough to make a significant impact.
You can't just pick up a scroll, if it's already been secured at a keep of your alliance.
Otherwise players would constantly take them away to lure out enemies and farm pugs.
Unless this was changed recently, I'm pretty sure this is just a blatant lie.
Maybe I'm wrong though.Edited by Ectheliontnacil on May 27, 2019 8:56AM1 -
VixxVexx✭✭✭✭✭One Tamriel: Let's combine all factions so you get to play with the other 2/3 of the playerbase, meet new people, make new friends, and join new guilds. Amazing.
Esweyr: Let's split up those people again, locking out several of their characters from openworld pvp. All because the average cyrodiil player blames his shotcomings on factionswapping.
Faction-lock does not stop nightcappers or emperor farms.
Campaign rewards are a joke, and winning one does nothing. 'Faction loyalty' is a meme. It should be about the challenge and the fun in playing with friends.
My suggestion is to keep faction-lock but reduce the cooldown to 6-8 hours instead of 30 days. This way you can't just swap whenever you like. Ex.: You get to solo/duo pvp in the morning, guild pvp after work/school, and maybe some late night small group pvp with friends.7 -
ku5h✭✭✭✭✭
✭Honestly, faction hoppers are but hurt for one simple reason. They are a minority and that is very evident now. The fact that's a 7 day campaign should have no relevance to them since they don't care. Problem for them is that they cant populate a campaign with a same minded people, while still thinking most ppl prefer open campaigns.
13 -
Mr_Walker✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »
Given you still think the population imbalance that people told you would happen is really a conspiracy against you, I already considered your judgment suspect. This statement confirms it. Either that or you're actually a PvEer who wants a dead cyrodiil. Either way, you've been proven wrong only what 5 days in?
1