TheMaos wrote: »

Obviously you haven't seen the numerous polls about faction lock, with an overwhelming majority against it.
Also ZoS realized this was a big mistake and people don't want it or else why are they reversing it.
Faction Lock has already been decided to be gone next Update.
I just don't see why we can't get a quick patch for it and not have to wait another month

What are you talking about.

No majority (on CP as you aren't specific above) as since last summer people have had a choice of lock and no lock and all platforms and regions the pop is on lock.

If you just taking noCP it's by platform, for the lower pop platforms (Xbox) it means boosting idiots will be back and messing about.

Anti-faction lock argument #1:

TheMaos wrote: »

Obviously you haven't seen the numerous polls about faction lock, with an overwhelming majority against it.

i.e., the vast majority don't want to play with faction lock, so faction lock must go away.

Anti-faction lock argument #2:

Juhasow wrote: »

it's just a proff that comunity doesn't care and chooses simply 1st campaign from the top because it's always most populated with or without locks. And if that's the case then locks doesn't change much so there is no point in keeping them.

i.e., people just don't care whether it's locked or not, so faction lock must go away.

You guys are inimitable.

I prefer to play on my own or with my friend and I do want faction lock. Even though my alliance didn't won since it got locked.

Juhasow wrote: »

Gilvoth wrote: »

D0PAMINE wrote: »

Gilvoth wrote: »

because the rest of the community loves the locked alliances and thats why we stay in them.
i hope they never change the locked alliances, it was this way from launch and its now where it was when the game started.
its the way its suppose to be.

You can speak for yourself, not the community.

the fact that locked campaign is CHUK full constantly is proof enough that the community Loves it Locked.

Or it's just a proff that comunity doesn't care and chooses simply 1st campaign from the top because it's always most populated with or without locks. And if that's the case then locks doesn't change much so there is no point in keeping them.

Speaking purely for myself, I chose the alliance-locked campaign as my home campaign on purpose, not "just because" it was the first one in the list.

During the recent Midyear Mayhem event I was playing in the temporarily-added alliance-unlocked 7-day CP campaign on both servers, because it was a 7-day campaign and used CP; there was no alliance-locked 7-day campaign to choose.

After the event ended I've kept going back into Cyrodiil pretty much every day with my NA main. I chose the alliance-locked campaign because it uses CP, not because it's alliance-locked, but I do like that it's alliance-locked.

It doesn't actually make a difference to me that it's alliance-locked, since the only other NA character I'd be likely to go into Cyrodiil on is in the same alliance as my main anyway; but now that I've committed myself to going into Cyrodiil every day, I'd rather not get into a situation where players can jump sides in that particular campaign. They can still jump sides if they really want to, but they have to go to a different campaign to do that.

If I were to go into Cyrodiil on any of my characters who belong to the other alliances, it would primarily be for the purpose of farming motifs and gear for those other alliances, so I can do master writs without having to buy the motifs or style mats any more than is absolutely necessary.

TheMaos wrote: »

ArchMikem wrote: »

I'm for the Alliance Lock and wish it was for all Campaigns. As a Red, seeing players who were on a Red fighting with you one day are now on a Blue or Yellow the next coming to wreck you is infuriating.

Okay so, you like to play a game a certain way, but not the way they do... So you want them to FORCED to play the way YOU want to.
Do you not see the problem with this kind of thinking?

How is it different from forcing him to play the way They want to?

Obviously there should be a second server. One for no lock and one for faction lock, both being no -cp, and have two for CP as well

Be interesting to see which one becomes a ghost town.

IMHO

TheFM wrote: »

Bucky_13 wrote: »

BoraxFlux wrote: »

Alliance lock has definitely more a unifying spirit among alliance members and -somewhat- lesser drama in zone-chat of No-CP EU. I wonder why 30 days CP gets both versions where the No CP only gets the Non-Alliance Locked.
NoCP is still my type op PvP, I'll adapt...but still. It's a pity.

This. Give us a locked No CP campaign too so we can choose kind we want.

After years I have sadly moved my home campaign to the CP campaign, and in the future our guild will unfortunately be split up between multiple campaigns because of this absolute blunder of an idea. The vocal minority whined, the US streamers whined, and ZoS gladly obliged them, COMPLETELY IGNORING the fact that noCP PC EU is thriving, and is the LEAST toxic campaign out there, albeit still a bit toxic. The hilarious thing is, the unlocked campaign HAS 2-3 bars every day constantly, so if ppl wanted to really play in a non locked campaign, its right there, its populated, its popping, but since PC NA ( which has a smaller population, and lower profit possibility ) whined, EVERYONE has to deal with this change.

I just hate the way CP makes builds too complete and tanky, find the combat so much more fun in no CP, so not gonna go CP no matter what. And I play PC/EU too, it's very rare that I see the not locked CP campaign have more players than the locked ones. I'd also say no CP have been less toxic since the faction lock came to be, less saltiness about traitors and spies. Not looking forward to not have the option to play faction locked no CP.

Just have 5 campaigns, 2 CP, 1 locked, 1 non-locked, 2 no CP, 1 locked, 1 non-locked, all those 30 days, then 1 under 50 campaign that's 7 days and is non-locked.

TheFM wrote: »

Bucky_13 wrote: »

BoraxFlux wrote: »

Alliance lock has definitely more a unifying spirit among alliance members and -somewhat- lesser drama in zone-chat of No-CP EU. I wonder why 30 days CP gets both versions where the No CP only gets the Non-Alliance Locked.
NoCP is still my type op PvP, I'll adapt...but still. It's a pity.

This. Give us a locked No CP campaign too so we can choose kind we want.

After years I have sadly moved my home campaign to the CP campaign, and in the future our guild will unfortunately be split up between multiple campaigns because of this absolute blunder of an idea. The vocal minority whined, the US streamers whined, and ZoS gladly obliged them, COMPLETELY IGNORING the fact that noCP PC EU is thriving, and is the LEAST toxic campaign out there, albeit still a bit toxic. The hilarious thing is, the unlocked campaign HAS 2-3 bars every day constantly, so if ppl wanted to really play in a non locked campaign, its right there, its populated, its popping, but since PC NA ( which has a smaller population, and lower profit possibility ) whined, EVERYONE has to deal with this change.

What US streamers whined about this?

The campaign changes don't make much sense. PC EU is the only platform that people seem to prefer the nonCP. Every other platform people prefer the crutch points.

TequilaFire wrote: »

ArchMikem wrote: »

D0PAMINE wrote: »

kargen27 wrote: »

D0PAMINE wrote: »

I hate alliance lock as well. It needs to go away.

Good thing you have a choice. You can play a campaign where there is no alliance lock. Those who like the locked campaign can also play where they wish. Why do you want to take the choice away? Just go play where you want and let others play where they want.

Because now I can help the faction that is last place while still having fun on an active campaign. I like fighting with, and against my friends in Cyrodiil. I get it. Faction lock and non lock being forced on the players is going to make it divided. Other solutions should be explored that could prove popular with both sides. My opinion is that I do not like faction lock, but I am not so close minded as to not accept a new solution that both sides can be happy with. The other campaigns are not as popular as Kaal and Bahl.

You know that's a problem of your own making? You want to play in an unrestricted Campaign, which the non-Alliance locked Campaigns are there to provide you, but you refuse to actually play in those Campaigns because they're not full. They're not full, because players like you refuse to play there.

The insanely simple fact of the matter is. If players like you moved over to those Campaigns to begin with, they wouldn't be empty anymore, and all your problems would be solved, if, you, just, moved.

Not to mention the load would be spread out making it better for all.
At some point ZOS is going to have to force players to spread out between the campaigns if performance is ever to improve.

The day ZOS forces me how to play a game I purchased is the day I'm gone.

Joy_Division wrote: »

TequilaFire wrote: »

ArchMikem wrote: »

D0PAMINE wrote: »

kargen27 wrote: »

D0PAMINE wrote: »

I hate alliance lock as well. It needs to go away.

Good thing you have a choice. You can play a campaign where there is no alliance lock. Those who like the locked campaign can also play where they wish. Why do you want to take the choice away? Just go play where you want and let others play where they want.

Because now I can help the faction that is last place while still having fun on an active campaign. I like fighting with, and against my friends in Cyrodiil. I get it. Faction lock and non lock being forced on the players is going to make it divided. Other solutions should be explored that could prove popular with both sides. My opinion is that I do not like faction lock, but I am not so close minded as to not accept a new solution that both sides can be happy with. The other campaigns are not as popular as Kaal and Bahl.

You know that's a problem of your own making? You want to play in an unrestricted Campaign, which the non-Alliance locked Campaigns are there to provide you, but you refuse to actually play in those Campaigns because they're not full. They're not full, because players like you refuse to play there.

The insanely simple fact of the matter is. If players like you moved over to those Campaigns to begin with, they wouldn't be empty anymore, and all your problems would be solved, if, you, just, moved.

Not to mention the load would be spread out making it better for all.
At some point ZOS is going to have to force players to spread out between the campaigns if performance is ever to improve.

The day ZOS forces me how to play a game I purchased is the day I'm gone.

Um, then bye? I'm not trying to be antagonistic, I'm just saying...

Didn't ZOS make the TOS rules and the game design from the get-go, before you ever purchased the game?

And don't they continue to update the TOS rules and the game design (including all the buffs and nerfs that some players can't stop whining about) as they see fit?

I mean, it's their game, their product, and they have complete creative control over it.

And if that sounds like some evil stinking pile of steaming poo that you just won't tolerate any more, consider that these things are true of every other game from every other company.

Unless you own the company or are in a position of creative control within the company, you don't get a say in how the game is designed; you only get a say in whether or not you'll buy it and play it.

TequilaFire wrote: »

So that is why the other servers are empty and performance will always suck.

The other servers are empty becuase the game's PVP isnt nearly ae enjoyable as it used to be, ZOS puts minimal effort in updating Cyrodiil that reflects how the game has chnaged since launch, and most people get sick and tired of being stuck in combat for 5 mintues even though we aren't fighting anyone.

If Zos is so desperate for pvp players that they have to force us to play, they are doing it wrong and will never fill those campaigns. This is entertainment and leisure, the diehards might stand for it, but this isnt the strategy for growth as most people are rather keen on choosing how they want to spend their free time.

The whole point of the alliance/faction IMO for ESO was designed for PVP. This way you know who your enemies are. In other games I played that contained factions typically it was faction vs faction. Some games adjusted it as some of the factions didn't have the population and allowed other factions to be on the lower populated faction teams but it was designed to improve getting players into content quicker, not simply because someone wants to play as another faction on a character.

If you want to play as a different faction, simply create a character in the other alliance/faction and there you go.