Different playstyles for different people is usually considered a good thing.

TheEndBringer wrote: »

"Because I wanna play with all my friends on different alliances" is the usual thing players say and they are loud enough that ZOS feels there should be a no locked option.

There's more to it than just that, sometimes it's nice having no alliance lock cause you can freely play without any detriments in cyrodiil. What am I supposed to do if my faction owns the entire map and there's no way to play PVP? I care more about being able to play pvp than "faction loyalty", I can always switch to a faction that's gated and get some action that way. Which is better than just leaving and hoping the map gets better later on.
On playstation, gray host is the only campaign active all around, if my faction gates everyone then I'd just have to log out and wait until later on when blackreach starts filling up. Which does happen often where entire map is one color.

Obviously, I'm not speaking for everyone when I say this, but having the option to not have to leave pvp over map coloring is good for some people.

Amottica wrote: »

Because many players are not interested in an alliance lock just as many are interested in it. If there was a notable issue with having alliance locks we would likely see all locked.

It is good this way. We all get a choice.

Ok, so it's bc choice. That's fine, but why isn't there another alliance locked campaign? Is the PvP pop that low?

TheEndBringer wrote: »

xDeusEJRx wrote: »

TheEndBringer wrote: »

"Because I wanna play with all my friends on different alliances" is the usual thing players say and they are loud enough that ZOS feels there should be a no locked option.

There's more to it than just that, sometimes it's nice having no alliance lock cause you can freely play without any detriments in cyrodiil. What am I supposed to do if my faction owns the entire map and there's no way to play PVP? I care more about being able to play pvp than "faction loyalty", I can always switch to a faction that's gated and get some action that way. Which is better than just leaving and hoping the map gets better later on.
On playstation, gray host is the only campaign active all around, if my faction gates everyone then I'd just have to log out and wait until later on when blackreach starts filling up. Which does happen often where entire map is one color.

Obviously, I'm not speaking for everyone when I say this, but having the option to not have to leave pvp over map coloring is good for some people.

I hear this and maybe you're sincere, but this is what usually happens in this scenario.

"I just used my blue to help zerg red until they're griefed into signing off. Now my friends and I will switch to red and farm AP for the low pop bonus."

That is exactly what I'm seeing on BR.

Syrusthevirus187 wrote: »

TheEndBringer wrote: »

xDeusEJRx wrote: »

TheEndBringer wrote: »

"Because I wanna play with all my friends on different alliances" is the usual thing players say and they are loud enough that ZOS feels there should be a no locked option.

There's more to it than just that, sometimes it's nice having no alliance lock cause you can freely play without any detriments in cyrodiil. What am I supposed to do if my faction owns the entire map and there's no way to play PVP? I care more about being able to play pvp than "faction loyalty", I can always switch to a faction that's gated and get some action that way. Which is better than just leaving and hoping the map gets better later on.
On playstation, gray host is the only campaign active all around, if my faction gates everyone then I'd just have to log out and wait until later on when blackreach starts filling up. Which does happen often where entire map is one color.

Obviously, I'm not speaking for everyone when I say this, but having the option to not have to leave pvp over map coloring is good for some people.

I hear this and maybe you're sincere, but this is what usually happens in this scenario.

"I just used my blue to help zerg red until they're griefed into signing off. Now my friends and I will switch to red and farm AP for the low pop bonus."

That's because they made a mistake. The empty campaigns should be alliance locked and grey host should be unlocked.

Then BR would become the main campaign. People put up with GH lag for action and alliance lock.

ResidentContrarian wrote: »

Look at PC NA camp for where locks ultimately lead: unbalanced population, massive zerging, "loyal" toxcity, etc.

Not everyone cares about the same things you do.

I, for one, don't care about lock and never will because it's only an artificial barrier and it does nothing to make the campaign better -- just walls off characters and cuts potential friendships and experiences in a GAME.

Except all of that happens on the unlocked campaign too. I know this bc I play on BR. Also, I'm not asking to force locks on all campaigns or asking to cater to my preference.

MEBengalsFan2001 wrote: »

CrashTest wrote: »

ResidentContrarian wrote: »

Look at PC NA camp for where locks ultimately lead: unbalanced population, massive zerging, "loyal" toxcity, etc.

Not everyone cares about the same things you do.

I, for one, don't care about lock and never will because it's only an artificial barrier and it does nothing to make the campaign better -- just walls off characters and cuts potential friendships and experiences in a GAME.

Except all of that happens on the unlocked campaign too. I know this bc I play on BR. Also, I'm not asking to force locks on all campaigns or asking to cater to my preference.

Not everyone creates characters in the same alliance. My PVP character is for AD. I have two EP and two DC characters that I use for PVE content. If I want to play those characters, having zero lock allows me flexibility to play those characters in any of the maps that is not GH. I like that.

Ya I get choice. That's fine. I'm asking why aren't there more alliance locked campaigns. Is it bc PvP is too low? No one has answered that, just people saying what they prefer.