The major NO-CP pvp campaign should be ALLIANCE-LOCKED? Yes or No?

silver1surfer69 · February 2020

Carespanker · February 2020

Yes

I mean, much like 7 day, the majority of the populace moved to alliance locked after their camp changed to non-locked. History shows that almost all large pvp guilds want faction lock which leads to dead camps for the small scale players who want non-locked which leads to small scale pvpers staying in faction locked because that's where the fights are (which I predicted here).

To prevent such migrations and dead camps, Zenimax should have chosen a side, faction locked or non-locked, large scale loyalists or small scale non-loyalists. Instead, they eased us in and the casual large scale groups decided where the fights are and now we got 2 dead campaigns. https://gyazo.com/2800af3b77f76e4c83bd66be14c9eec4 Oh and don't even try to blame this on the order lol.

Personally, I vote faction lock because I believe in majority rules. Even though ive never been in large scale pvp in all 6 years of this game and I personally wouldn't care if either happened, I know that the majority of players would want faction locks. If the majority is happy then pvp will be healthier and thus I will be happier 1vXing those happy zergliings.

ThePedge · February 2020

No

If they introduce lock make the campaign 7 days. 30 Days of being unable to use 2/3rds of my characters, for absolutely no reason, is dumb.

All it promotes is zerging.

NoCP will remain same population locked or unlocked. It's dead ATM as you can't play more than 10 minutes without crashing.

InvitationNotFound · February 2020

You forgot the option "i don't care".

silver1surfer69 · February 2020

Yes

Thanks for all the input so far! Imo this is a discrepancy between casual players and players which play the campaign to win the campaign. If you play a campaign and put in your effort to win this campaign you want it to be locked. If you play casualy just to have fun with friends from different factions, you obiously play different factions. -> So make the main major campaign, both CP and no-CP faction locked and implement other camapigns non locked.

silver1surfer69 · February 2020

Yes

InvitationNotFound wrote: »

You forgot the option "i don't care".

Thanks, this was deliberate, i wanted the ppl to decide...

Sanguinor2 · February 2020

No

silver1surfer69 wrote: »

Thanks for all the input so far! Imo this is a discrepancy between casual players and players which play the campaign to win the campaign. If you play a campaign and put in your effort to win this campaign you want it to be locked. If you play casualy just to have fun with friends from different factions, you obiously play different factions. -> So make the main major campaign, both CP and no-CP faction locked and implement other camapigns non locked.

If you Play the Campaign to win the Campaign you organize the more efficient/stronger night cap/morning cap Squad, alliance lock has no effect on that.

Jaxaxo · February 2020

No

i guess im the casual, rip

Imryll · February 2020

Yes

I'd be curious to see, especially in light of reduced populations in the new PC EU campaign, whether there's a correlation between spending 10 or 15 or more hours per week (on average) or less than 10 and preference for locked vs. unlocked: either last six months for those who prefer locked or anticipated hours for those who prefer unlocked, since preference could affect how much folks will play/have played in the campaign.

Certainly other factors (like performance issues) could be driving an initially low population, but I still wonder.

15+

xWarbrain · February 2020

No

Alliance lock does absolutely nothing except prevent people from playing on all of their characters in the campaign that they want to play in.

We don't need more campaigns that prevent people from playing on different characters.

Commancho · February 2020

Yes

xWarbrain wrote: »

Alliance lock does absolutely nothing except prevent people from playing on all of their characters in the campaign that they want to play in.

We don't need more campaigns that prevent people from playing on different characters.

Then whats the point of alliance war? Lets remove all alliances and lets play battle royal or free for all!

idk · February 2020

No

Considering only 56 people felt it necessary to vote on this over the past two days it seems that most do not care at all. Seems people are making a big deal about nothing.

indigorune · February 2020

Yes

ThePedge wrote: »

All it promotes is zerging.

It's meant to be AvA. It's not meant to be small scale. That's what duels and BGs are for. Cyrodiil is way more fun when It's full of people. And the campaigns that are locked attract more people and bigger fights, thus more fun.

The most fun I have ever had in Cyrodiil was during sieges that lasted for 30 mins or more with tons of people participating on both sides.

notvenousdrake · March 2020

Coming from Xbox, it’s dead the whole time here and never reaches a bar on any side, even under 50 reaches a bar on very rare occasions, maybe if they changed what campaigns were and weren’t locked based on server it would be better since no cp is dead here and on pc it has that streamer zergling followed by the whole dc server whenever he’s on

Flamingfunk · March 2020

No

Imryll wrote: »

I'd be curious to see, especially in light of reduced populations in the new PC EU campaign, whether there's a correlation between spending 10 or 15 or more hours per week (on average) or less than 10 and preference for locked vs. unlocked: either last six months for those who prefer locked or anticipated hours for those who prefer unlocked, since preference could affect how much folks will play/have played in the campaign.

Certainly other factors (like performance issues) could be driving an initially low population, but I still wonder.

15+

I've read this many times, but I'm unsure what correlation you are looking for.
Is it a correlation between hours played in Cyrodiil and whether you want faction lock or not?
I seriously doubt played time matters at all.

There is only one reason for Cyrodiil being close to empty atm, it's because of the constant crashes.

A huge positive about non locked is the fear of traitors and spies in zone chat, if anything gives the immersion another level, it's the zone chat conspiracy theories.

NightSquirrel · March 2020

Yes

I voted yes because faction lock is one big thing that ruined the game for me and I think they should fully utilize it to make the game as restrictive and lame as possible until they eventually remove all faction locks as it was for years.

GhostWolf_ESO · March 2020

No

Like i thought not even 24hrs and now we have two of these threads that were created to complain about the faction lock crap again

x48rph · March 2020

Yes

GhostWolf_ESO wrote: »

Like i thought not even 24hrs and now we have two of these threads that were created to complain about the faction lock crap again

Yep, it sort goes right along with all the complaint threads we had when it was locked, now you get the other side cause it's unlocked. Pretty much standard practice on the forums of any mmo really when something is changed. People that don't like it come complain and some who do pop in to defend the change.

On topic, I want the lock back or a locked no cp option but I doubt it will happen. Not enough population for 2 no cp campaigns and by unlocking it, ZOS gets a lot less complaints about not giving people an alliance change so they can play all their chars so I think we're pretty much stuck with just having the one CP locked campaign. Though it's nice to see it's still the most popular.

thatESOdude · March 2020

No

Lol, no, no lock will stop me.from taking those scrolls against cappers

silver1surfer69 · March 2020

Yes

Thanks for the vote on the third option^^

The Elder Scrolls Online

The major NO-CP pvp campaign should be ALLIANCE-LOCKED? Yes or No?

The major NO-CP pvp campaign should be ALLIANCE-LOCKED? Yes or No? 121 votes