Soul_Demon wrote: »

ellahellabella wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

MajBludd wrote: »

Do you really think more people will pick a campaign based on its position in a list? Seems condescending to me to think people cant read the descriptions.

Also, if everyone wants no faction lock, why isn't the no faction lock server (PcNa) more populated?

Here is the deal...over the years the same groups of swappers have claimed so many things they lost track. First, it was that if you gave them a game mode, like battlegrounds Cyro would go out of business because most of the population would migrate there because only bad players play the game the way it was designed, super elite players 'just go for good fights' and never play the map. They funneled resources into creating that and they cant populate it well now....so they move the goal post on it constantly ...even today.

But now its if you just do their bidding because they are the 'larger portion of player base' and give them a campaign that has swapping all the players will leave the other campaigns and play there. Again, ZOS funneled resources and gave them one- it bombed as bad as battlegrounds.....so they moved goalposts again with 'if it were 30 day camp the majority of players would play there' .......that is tanking now out of the gate so the new one will be "you need to put it FIRST on the list so newbs who don't look select it" as they claim once again they are the 'majority of the game' but the server is only failing due to that and not because what they claim is false.

The real issues with these kids who didn't get enough attention and now seek it as adults is that the constant excuses and departures from reality have been sidetracking resources at ZOS that SHOULD BE SPENT FIXING LAG AND LONG STANDING GAME BUGS. They will move the goalposts no matter what happens, its the nature of damaged goods to refuse the obvious at all cost. Even if it obviously is keeping the finite resources at ZOS from addressing the problems the 'real' majority of players want them to address.

And do I need to go through the level of excuses you've made to explain something? I hope not because some of these things in your history are comical.
As much as people might like or not like the lock, most players simply don't care. They just want to play the most populated server.
Conveniently, most of the lfg guilds are faction loyal so as I told people that supported a new unlocked 30 day, it would never fly: "casuals want groups and the GMs that lead those groups want to paint the map THEIR colour So OF COURSE they're faction loyal."
You'll find most of us that want to keep a campaign healthy don't support the lock. Those buggers are why.

Yes, yes you do need to go through them as from what I can read all you did with that word salad is say "those buggers are why" never making a single point- so please elaborate and dont change the subject to bash the groups doing "lfg". I am certainly on the edge of my seat waiting for the explanation and eventual point.

ellahellabella wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

ellahellabella wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

ellahellabella wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

ellahellabella wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

MajBludd wrote: »

Do you really think more people will pick a campaign based on its position in a list? Seems condescending to me to think people cant read the descriptions.

Also, if everyone wants no faction lock, why isn't the no faction lock server (PcNa) more populated?

Here is the deal...over the years the same groups of swappers have claimed so many things they lost track. First, it was that if you gave them a game mode, like battlegrounds Cyro would go out of business because most of the population would migrate there because only bad players play the game the way it was designed, super elite players 'just go for good fights' and never play the map. They funneled resources into creating that and they cant populate it well now....so they move the goal post on it constantly ...even today.

But now its if you just do their bidding because they are the 'larger portion of player base' and give them a campaign that has swapping all the players will leave the other campaigns and play there. Again, ZOS funneled resources and gave them one- it bombed as bad as battlegrounds.....so they moved goalposts again with 'if it were 30 day camp the majority of players would play there' .......that is tanking now out of the gate so the new one will be "you need to put it FIRST on the list so newbs who don't look select it" as they claim once again they are the 'majority of the game' but the server is only failing due to that and not because what they claim is false.

The real issues with these kids who didn't get enough attention and now seek it as adults is that the constant excuses and departures from reality have been sidetracking resources at ZOS that SHOULD BE SPENT FIXING LAG AND LONG STANDING GAME BUGS. They will move the goalposts no matter what happens, its the nature of damaged goods to refuse the obvious at all cost. Even if it obviously is keeping the finite resources at ZOS from addressing the problems the 'real' majority of players want them to address.

And do I need to go through the level of excuses you've made to explain something? I hope not because some of these things in your history are comical.
As much as people might like or not like the lock, most players simply don't care. They just want to play the most populated server.
Conveniently, most of the lfg guilds are faction loyal so as I told people that supported a new unlocked 30 day, it would never fly: "casuals want groups and the GMs that lead those groups want to paint the map THEIR colour So OF COURSE they're faction loyal."
You'll find most of us that want to keep a campaign healthy don't support the lock. Those buggers are why.

Now I'm really curious about what you think is "unhealthy" about lfg guilds and casuals wanting groups in a PVP war zone designed for AvAvA and groups of 2 to 24 players.

Especially when those types of guilds and players have been around long before the return of faction locks.

Unhealthy? You're kidding. Do I really need to explain it to a 'vet'? If you were really a vet, you would know. Or you're just playing stupid.

Maybe you entered PVP as a fully fledged warrior like Athena springing from the brow of Zeus.

Me, not so much. I started out as exactly the sort of player you are disparaging: a PVE-only player who came to PVP, joining lfg groups from zone because I didn't know what else to do, and learned to love PVP before I found my guild. In many ways, I'm a vet now because I started out playing with people who were willing to pick up an inexperienced PVEer from zone and teach me to PVP. Since then, I've been playing in a PVP guild since Haderus was a populated 7 day server and on Trueflame, Vivec, and Kaal on PC/NA, over three years now.

So, yes, do explain to me what you think is unhealthy about lfg guilds and casual PVPers wanting to find groups in a warzone designed for large scale combat between factions. Saying "it's self-evident if you were really a vet" doesn't actually do anything to answer the question.

I'd like to have a genuine discussion, but not if you prefer to insult instead of explain.

I was a pve only player that entered pvp. I joined the 24 man raids and saw success when we managed to actually take something. Then I got to join a higher guild and from then only grew as a player.

Never once did I mock a casual player in my post. They need a group (so stop putting words in my mouth) but if the gms continue to encourage taking everything on the map and ruining the fun for everyone, yes, I mock them.
It is unhealthy. It is unhealthy to stack a zerg heavily that lags the server. It is unhealthy to overwhelm with that zerg in off hours. It is unhealthy to paint the map because you want the victory when no one else is on.
This game might have been designed for avava but the servers can't handle it anymore. So it isn't. You can't stack 50+ in one area. As a veteran to the game, YOU WOULD KNOW THIS.
You're right. I shouldn't call you stupid, if you support faction stacking in this day and age..... Well, i call you ignorant instead.

Okay, so your concern is performance? That makes sense. Cyrodiil is designed to create faction stacks at important objectives like a dethrone or scroll take, but yeah, ZOS' neglect of performance mean that the servers can't handle it well. So I lay the blame at ZOS' feet primarily because ESO doesn't perform well enough to support players who are playing exactly as intended and in the sort of fights Cyrodiil is designed to produce. The only way to address it without fixing performance would be for players to decide en masse that they don't care about important objectives like keeps, the dethrone, the hammer, or scrolls, and that's not likely to happen.

I generally take a relaxed approach with "nightcapping" just because it's what happens on a 24-hr campaign. Players want to play whenever they get on and I've seen every faction do it. Though, not a fan of gatecamping the enemy myself.

Anyways, thanks for the clarification!

Yeah I'm sorry. It's been a long, stressful week at work and lack of sleep made me quite the snitty lady. Frustrated that my tired mind wasn't quite getting the point across.

ellahellabella wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

ellahellabella wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

MajBludd wrote: »

Do you really think more people will pick a campaign based on its position in a list? Seems condescending to me to think people cant read the descriptions.

Also, if everyone wants no faction lock, why isn't the no faction lock server (PcNa) more populated?

Here is the deal...over the years the same groups of swappers have claimed so many things they lost track. First, it was that if you gave them a game mode, like battlegrounds Cyro would go out of business because most of the population would migrate there because only bad players play the game the way it was designed, super elite players 'just go for good fights' and never play the map. They funneled resources into creating that and they cant populate it well now....so they move the goal post on it constantly ...even today.

But now its if you just do their bidding because they are the 'larger portion of player base' and give them a campaign that has swapping all the players will leave the other campaigns and play there. Again, ZOS funneled resources and gave them one- it bombed as bad as battlegrounds.....so they moved goalposts again with 'if it were 30 day camp the majority of players would play there' .......that is tanking now out of the gate so the new one will be "you need to put it FIRST on the list so newbs who don't look select it" as they claim once again they are the 'majority of the game' but the server is only failing due to that and not because what they claim is false.

The real issues with these kids who didn't get enough attention and now seek it as adults is that the constant excuses and departures from reality have been sidetracking resources at ZOS that SHOULD BE SPENT FIXING LAG AND LONG STANDING GAME BUGS. They will move the goalposts no matter what happens, its the nature of damaged goods to refuse the obvious at all cost. Even if it obviously is keeping the finite resources at ZOS from addressing the problems the 'real' majority of players want them to address.

And do I need to go through the level of excuses you've made to explain something? I hope not because some of these things in your history are comical.
As much as people might like or not like the lock, most players simply don't care. They just want to play the most populated server.
Conveniently, most of the lfg guilds are faction loyal so as I told people that supported a new unlocked 30 day, it would never fly: "casuals want groups and the GMs that lead those groups want to paint the map THEIR colour So OF COURSE they're faction loyal."
You'll find most of us that want to keep a campaign healthy don't support the lock. Those buggers are why.

Yes, yes you do need to go through them as from what I can read all you did with that word salad is say "those buggers are why" never making a single point- so please elaborate and dont change the subject to bash the groups doing "lfg". I am certainly on the edge of my seat waiting for the explanation and eventual point.

I never bashed them. I honestly didn't bash anyone in that comment I simply pointed out that lfg gms are always faction loyal and will paint the map to win. If there are several large lfg raids on and no real resistance on the other alliances, they will steamroll the map. You call these people 'Nightcappers', an excuse in itself.

*edit* oopsie wrong word

ellahellabella wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

ellahellabella wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

ellahellabella wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

MajBludd wrote: »

Do you really think more people will pick a campaign based on its position in a list? Seems condescending to me to think people cant read the descriptions.

Also, if everyone wants no faction lock, why isn't the no faction lock server (PcNa) more populated?

Here is the deal...over the years the same groups of swappers have claimed so many things they lost track. First, it was that if you gave them a game mode, like battlegrounds Cyro would go out of business because most of the population would migrate there because only bad players play the game the way it was designed, super elite players 'just go for good fights' and never play the map. They funneled resources into creating that and they cant populate it well now....so they move the goal post on it constantly ...even today.

But now its if you just do their bidding because they are the 'larger portion of player base' and give them a campaign that has swapping all the players will leave the other campaigns and play there. Again, ZOS funneled resources and gave them one- it bombed as bad as battlegrounds.....so they moved goalposts again with 'if it were 30 day camp the majority of players would play there' .......that is tanking now out of the gate so the new one will be "you need to put it FIRST on the list so newbs who don't look select it" as they claim once again they are the 'majority of the game' but the server is only failing due to that and not because what they claim is false.

The real issues with these kids who didn't get enough attention and now seek it as adults is that the constant excuses and departures from reality have been sidetracking resources at ZOS that SHOULD BE SPENT FIXING LAG AND LONG STANDING GAME BUGS. They will move the goalposts no matter what happens, its the nature of damaged goods to refuse the obvious at all cost. Even if it obviously is keeping the finite resources at ZOS from addressing the problems the 'real' majority of players want them to address.

And do I need to go through the level of excuses you've made to explain something? I hope not because some of these things in your history are comical.
As much as people might like or not like the lock, most players simply don't care. They just want to play the most populated server.
Conveniently, most of the lfg guilds are faction loyal so as I told people that supported a new unlocked 30 day, it would never fly: "casuals want groups and the GMs that lead those groups want to paint the map THEIR colour So OF COURSE they're faction loyal."
You'll find most of us that want to keep a campaign healthy don't support the lock. Those buggers are why.

Yes, yes you do need to go through them as from what I can read all you did with that word salad is say "those buggers are why" never making a single point- so please elaborate and dont change the subject to bash the groups doing "lfg". I am certainly on the edge of my seat waiting for the explanation and eventual point.

I never bashed them. I honestly didn't bash anyone in that comment I simply pointed out that lfg gms are always faction loyal and will paint the map to win. If there are several large lfg raids on and no real resistance on the other alliances, they will steamroll the map. You call these people 'Nightcappers', an excuse in itself.

*edit* oopsie wrong word

So- you did bash them regardless of what you 'meant' to do....and I never mentioned the word 'nightcap' at all. Dude, are you tagging the wrong person with your responses?

Dude I come from Aus. Everyone is a bugger. It can be an insult, neutral or compliment (it's all about the phrasing). In this case it was neutral. Not my problem if you're sensitive.

ellahellabella wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

ellahellabella wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

ellahellabella wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

ellahellabella wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

MajBludd wrote: »

Do you really think more people will pick a campaign based on its position in a list? Seems condescending to me to think people cant read the descriptions.

Also, if everyone wants no faction lock, why isn't the no faction lock server (PcNa) more populated?

Here is the deal...over the years the same groups of swappers have claimed so many things they lost track. First, it was that if you gave them a game mode, like battlegrounds Cyro would go out of business because most of the population would migrate there because only bad players play the game the way it was designed, super elite players 'just go for good fights' and never play the map. They funneled resources into creating that and they cant populate it well now....so they move the goal post on it constantly ...even today.

But now its if you just do their bidding because they are the 'larger portion of player base' and give them a campaign that has swapping all the players will leave the other campaigns and play there. Again, ZOS funneled resources and gave them one- it bombed as bad as battlegrounds.....so they moved goalposts again with 'if it were 30 day camp the majority of players would play there' .......that is tanking now out of the gate so the new one will be "you need to put it FIRST on the list so newbs who don't look select it" as they claim once again they are the 'majority of the game' but the server is only failing due to that and not because what they claim is false.

The real issues with these kids who didn't get enough attention and now seek it as adults is that the constant excuses and departures from reality have been sidetracking resources at ZOS that SHOULD BE SPENT FIXING LAG AND LONG STANDING GAME BUGS. They will move the goalposts no matter what happens, its the nature of damaged goods to refuse the obvious at all cost. Even if it obviously is keeping the finite resources at ZOS from addressing the problems the 'real' majority of players want them to address.

And do I need to go through the level of excuses you've made to explain something? I hope not because some of these things in your history are comical.
As much as people might like or not like the lock, most players simply don't care. They just want to play the most populated server.
Conveniently, most of the lfg guilds are faction loyal so as I told people that supported a new unlocked 30 day, it would never fly: "casuals want groups and the GMs that lead those groups want to paint the map THEIR colour So OF COURSE they're faction loyal."
You'll find most of us that want to keep a campaign healthy don't support the lock. Those buggers are why.

Yes, yes you do need to go through them as from what I can read all you did with that word salad is say "those buggers are why" never making a single point- so please elaborate and dont change the subject to bash the groups doing "lfg". I am certainly on the edge of my seat waiting for the explanation and eventual point.

I never bashed them. I honestly didn't bash anyone in that comment I simply pointed out that lfg gms are always faction loyal and will paint the map to win. If there are several large lfg raids on and no real resistance on the other alliances, they will steamroll the map. You call these people 'Nightcappers', an excuse in itself.

*edit* oopsie wrong word

So- you did bash them regardless of what you 'meant' to do....and I never mentioned the word 'nightcap' at all. Dude, are you tagging the wrong person with your responses?

Dude I come from Aus. Everyone is a bugger. It can be an insult, neutral or compliment (it's all about the phrasing). In this case it was neutral. Not my problem if you're sensitive.

So, you used a word that is an insult......you bashed them. And worse yet you keep tagging me about things I didn't say. Take five min when you read and make sure you tag the correct poster man.

Wow you're like a dog with a bone aren't ya? No point arguing with you. You can't have a battle of wits against someone lacking it.