BigBadVolk wrote: »Honestly dont care much, as far as I seen it mostly just achieved that people cant play with their friends
furiouslog wrote: »Joy_Division wrote: »It's amazing that you think "trolls" would play correctly and not hand over scrolls or sabotage seiges, or spy if you just coerce them into playing a single faction.
No, but it creates additional barriers to entry.
Ofcourse they wouldn't, it was a nice & friendly campaign untill recent changes. Now I see bunch of new faces and handing over scrolls & hammer on daily basis. Most of groups are locked and they won't invite you even if you follow them and assist them in sieges. Maybe for you it's great, but I give this campaign maximum 6 months before it dies just like any previous no alliance lock campaigns.Joy_Division wrote: »It's amazing that you think "trolls" would play correctly and not hand over scrolls or sabotage seiges, or spy if you just coerce them into playing a single faction.
Ofcourse they wouldn't, it was a nice & friendly campaign untill recent changes. Now I see bunch of new faces and handing over scrolls & hammer on daily basis. Most of groups are locked and they won't invite you even if you follow them and assist them in sieges. Maybe for you it's great, but I give this campaign maximum 6 months before it dies just like any previous no alliance lock campaigns.Joy_Division wrote: »It's amazing that you think "trolls" would play correctly and not hand over scrolls or sabotage seiges, or spy if you just coerce them into playing a single faction.
Jesus christ lol you can still do the SAME exact thing on a locked campaign. All of this is irrelevant because if I wanted to play DC and my friends play AD I could steal a scroll and have them kill me to take it including the hammer so honestly alliance lock does NOT fix that.
No, if your friends play AD you would make AD character and join them since all you have to do is to rank up to LVL 50 during one evening unless you are too lazy to do that and you prefer to spend your time on complaining on forums about valid request.
I'm under the impression that players who heavily favor very large unorganized PvP and keep sieging over meaningful combat want faction lock back, because it makes the campaign score (and by extent, themselves) feel more relevant. If you can't contribute much in the form of skills and combat, at least you oiled the enemy, destroyed the milegate and repaired that front door.
But I doubt campaign score is much influenced by it: you can't stop night cappers anyway, and scroll trolling can be done whether a campaign is faction locked or not. Faction unlock is just another excuse when you lose the campaign.
Ofcourse they wouldn't, it was a nice & friendly campaign untill recent changes. Now I see bunch of new faces and handing over scrolls & hammer on daily basis. Most of groups are locked and they won't invite you even if you follow them and assist them in sieges. Maybe for you it's great, but I give this campaign maximum 6 months before it dies just like any previous no alliance lock campaigns.Joy_Division wrote: »It's amazing that you think "trolls" would play correctly and not hand over scrolls or sabotage seiges, or spy if you just coerce them into playing a single faction.
Jesus christ lol you can still do the SAME exact thing on a locked campaign. All of this is irrelevant because if I wanted to play DC and my friends play AD I could steal a scroll and have them kill me to take it including the hammer so honestly alliance lock does NOT fix that.
No, if your friends play AD you would make AD character and join them since all you have to do is to rank up to LVL 50 during one evening unless you are too lazy to do that and you prefer to spend your time on complaining on forums about valid request.I'm under the impression that players who heavily favor very large unorganized PvP and keep sieging over meaningful combat want faction lock back, because it makes the campaign score (and by extent, themselves) feel more relevant. If you can't contribute much in the form of skills and combat, at least you oiled the enemy, destroyed the milegate and repaired that front door.
But I doubt campaign score is much influenced by it: you can't stop night cappers anyway, and scroll trolling can be done whether a campaign is faction locked or not. Faction unlock is just another excuse when you lose the campaign.
Nightcapping is worse without faction lock actually, because same people capture same flags and then they re-capture them with the other alliance. Cyrodiil is all about sieging keeps and massive battles. Place for small scale PVP is in BG and IC.
I dont understand why people want alliance unlock ?
If you want to play with your friends, you just have all to play the same faction lol. wtf ?
This is war, you cant switch to the other side just because you're losing or wining too much. Imagine in the WWII "oh i'm german I want to try russian side, yesterday I was italian" wtf guys ?
Ofcourse they wouldn't, it was a nice & friendly campaign untill recent changes. Now I see bunch of new faces and handing over scrolls & hammer on daily basis. Most of groups are locked and they won't invite you even if you follow them and assist them in sieges. Maybe for you it's great, but I give this campaign maximum 6 months before it dies just like any previous no alliance lock campaigns.Joy_Division wrote: »It's amazing that you think "trolls" would play correctly and not hand over scrolls or sabotage seiges, or spy if you just coerce them into playing a single faction.
Jesus christ lol you can still do the SAME exact thing on a locked campaign. All of this is irrelevant because if I wanted to play DC and my friends play AD I could steal a scroll and have them kill me to take it including the hammer so honestly alliance lock does NOT fix that.
No, if your friends play AD you would make AD character and join them since all you have to do is to rank up to LVL 50 during one evening unless you are too lazy to do that and you prefer to spend your time on complaining on forums about valid request.I'm under the impression that players who heavily favor very large unorganized PvP and keep sieging over meaningful combat want faction lock back, because it makes the campaign score (and by extent, themselves) feel more relevant. If you can't contribute much in the form of skills and combat, at least you oiled the enemy, destroyed the milegate and repaired that front door.
But I doubt campaign score is much influenced by it: you can't stop night cappers anyway, and scroll trolling can be done whether a campaign is faction locked or not. Faction unlock is just another excuse when you lose the campaign.
Nightcapping is worse without faction lock actually, because same people capture same flags and then they re-capture them with the other alliance. Cyrodiil is all about sieging keeps and massive battles. Place for small scale PVP is in BG and IC.
Ofcourse they wouldn't, it was a nice & friendly campaign untill recent changes. Now I see bunch of new faces and handing over scrolls & hammer on daily basis. Most of groups are locked and they won't invite you even if you follow them and assist them in sieges. Maybe for you it's great, but I give this campaign maximum 6 months before it dies just like any previous no alliance lock campaigns.Joy_Division wrote: »It's amazing that you think "trolls" would play correctly and not hand over scrolls or sabotage seiges, or spy if you just coerce them into playing a single faction.
Jesus christ lol you can still do the SAME exact thing on a locked campaign. All of this is irrelevant because if I wanted to play DC and my friends play AD I could steal a scroll and have them kill me to take it including the hammer so honestly alliance lock does NOT fix that.
No, if your friends play AD you would make AD character and join them since all you have to do is to rank up to LVL 50 during one evening unless you are too lazy to do that and you prefer to spend your time on complaining on forums about valid request.I'm under the impression that players who heavily favor very large unorganized PvP and keep sieging over meaningful combat want faction lock back, because it makes the campaign score (and by extent, themselves) feel more relevant. If you can't contribute much in the form of skills and combat, at least you oiled the enemy, destroyed the milegate and repaired that front door.
But I doubt campaign score is much influenced by it: you can't stop night cappers anyway, and scroll trolling can be done whether a campaign is faction locked or not. Faction unlock is just another excuse when you lose the campaign.
Nightcapping is worse without faction lock actually, because same people capture same flags and then they re-capture them with the other alliance. Cyrodiil is all about sieging keeps and massive battles. Place for small scale PVP is in BG and IC.
Thanks for proving my point.
I accept that some players will always favor sieges and large scale battles, because their grasp of the game is not solid enough to achieve success in high pressure situations. Large scale battles are forgiving even when your individual contribution is lacking, it won't matter much in the overall course of events.
But I'd like these players for once to accept that others (like me) favor challenging player versus player combat, which ultimately results in participating in small scale PvP.
Honestly, it's surprising that people actually argue that seeking out more challenging combat situations is invalid in open world PvP. My best guess is that these people talk down on these more "combat oriented" small scale playstyles because it makes their playstyle feel more relevant and legitimate in a PvP environment.
My advice: leave your ego at the door, play as you want, and let others play as they want as well.
Ofcourse they wouldn't, it was a nice & friendly campaign untill recent changes. Now I see bunch of new faces and handing over scrolls & hammer on daily basis. Most of groups are locked and they won't invite you even if you follow them and assist them in sieges. Maybe for you it's great, but I give this campaign maximum 6 months before it dies just like any previous no alliance lock campaigns.Joy_Division wrote: »It's amazing that you think "trolls" would play correctly and not hand over scrolls or sabotage seiges, or spy if you just coerce them into playing a single faction.
Jesus christ lol you can still do the SAME exact thing on a locked campaign. All of this is irrelevant because if I wanted to play DC and my friends play AD I could steal a scroll and have them kill me to take it including the hammer so honestly alliance lock does NOT fix that.
No, if your friends play AD you would make AD character and join them since all you have to do is to rank up to LVL 50 during one evening unless you are too lazy to do that and you prefer to spend your time on complaining on forums about valid request.I'm under the impression that players who heavily favor very large unorganized PvP and keep sieging over meaningful combat want faction lock back, because it makes the campaign score (and by extent, themselves) feel more relevant. If you can't contribute much in the form of skills and combat, at least you oiled the enemy, destroyed the milegate and repaired that front door.
But I doubt campaign score is much influenced by it: you can't stop night cappers anyway, and scroll trolling can be done whether a campaign is faction locked or not. Faction unlock is just another excuse when you lose the campaign.
Nightcapping is worse without faction lock actually, because same people capture same flags and then they re-capture them with the other alliance. Cyrodiil is all about sieging keeps and massive battles. Place for small scale PVP is in BG and IC.
Thanks for proving my point.
I accept that some players will always favor sieges and large scale battles, because their grasp of the game is not solid enough to achieve success in high pressure situations. Large scale battles are forgiving even when your individual contribution is lacking, it won't matter much in the overall course of events.
But I'd like these players for once to accept that others (like me) favor challenging player versus player combat, which ultimately results in participating in small scale PvP.
Honestly, it's surprising that people actually argue that seeking out more challenging combat situations is invalid in open world PvP. My best guess is that these people talk down on these more "combat oriented" small scale playstyles because it makes their playstyle feel more relevant and legitimate in a PvP environment.
My advice: leave your ego at the door, play as you want, and let others play as they want as well.
"small scale", you mean running over solo players in groups of six players , all optimized down to the last stat point? Paint it any color you want, its still zerging.
Ofcourse they wouldn't, it was a nice & friendly campaign untill recent changes. Now I see bunch of new faces and handing over scrolls & hammer on daily basis. Most of groups are locked and they won't invite you even if you follow them and assist them in sieges. Maybe for you it's great, but I give this campaign maximum 6 months before it dies just like any previous no alliance lock campaigns.Joy_Division wrote: »It's amazing that you think "trolls" would play correctly and not hand over scrolls or sabotage seiges, or spy if you just coerce them into playing a single faction.
Jesus christ lol you can still do the SAME exact thing on a locked campaign. All of this is irrelevant because if I wanted to play DC and my friends play AD I could steal a scroll and have them kill me to take it including the hammer so honestly alliance lock does NOT fix that.
No, if your friends play AD you would make AD character and join them since all you have to do is to rank up to LVL 50 during one evening unless you are too lazy to do that and you prefer to spend your time on complaining on forums about valid request.I'm under the impression that players who heavily favor very large unorganized PvP and keep sieging over meaningful combat want faction lock back, because it makes the campaign score (and by extent, themselves) feel more relevant. If you can't contribute much in the form of skills and combat, at least you oiled the enemy, destroyed the milegate and repaired that front door.
But I doubt campaign score is much influenced by it: you can't stop night cappers anyway, and scroll trolling can be done whether a campaign is faction locked or not. Faction unlock is just another excuse when you lose the campaign.
Nightcapping is worse without faction lock actually, because same people capture same flags and then they re-capture them with the other alliance. Cyrodiil is all about sieging keeps and massive battles. Place for small scale PVP is in BG and IC.
Thanks for proving my point.
I accept that some players will always favor sieges and large scale battles, because their grasp of the game is not solid enough to achieve success in high pressure situations. Large scale battles are forgiving even when your individual contribution is lacking, it won't matter much in the overall course of events.
But I'd like these players for once to accept that others (like me) favor challenging player versus player combat, which ultimately results in participating in small scale PvP.
Honestly, it's surprising that people actually argue that seeking out more challenging combat situations is invalid in open world PvP. My best guess is that these people talk down on these more "combat oriented" small scale playstyles because it makes their playstyle feel more relevant and legitimate in a PvP environment.
My advice: leave your ego at the door, play as you want, and let others play as they want as well.
"small scale", you mean running over solo players in groups of six players , all optimized down to the last stat point? Paint it any color you want, its still zerging.
Are you talking about me specifically? Because when I mean small scale and solo, I definitely mean that for a majority of your time you fight outnumbered, and you actively move away from your own faction.
Also, I'm usually either solo, or duo. Six players is too big of a group for me.
Ofcourse they wouldn't, it was a nice & friendly campaign untill recent changes. Now I see bunch of new faces and handing over scrolls & hammer on daily basis. Most of groups are locked and they won't invite you even if you follow them and assist them in sieges. Maybe for you it's great, but I give this campaign maximum 6 months before it dies just like any previous no alliance lock campaigns.Joy_Division wrote: »It's amazing that you think "trolls" would play correctly and not hand over scrolls or sabotage seiges, or spy if you just coerce them into playing a single faction.
Jesus christ lol you can still do the SAME exact thing on a locked campaign. All of this is irrelevant because if I wanted to play DC and my friends play AD I could steal a scroll and have them kill me to take it including the hammer so honestly alliance lock does NOT fix that.
No, if your friends play AD you would make AD character and join them since all you have to do is to rank up to LVL 50 during one evening unless you are too lazy to do that and you prefer to spend your time on complaining on forums about valid request.I'm under the impression that players who heavily favor very large unorganized PvP and keep sieging over meaningful combat want faction lock back, because it makes the campaign score (and by extent, themselves) feel more relevant. If you can't contribute much in the form of skills and combat, at least you oiled the enemy, destroyed the milegate and repaired that front door.
But I doubt campaign score is much influenced by it: you can't stop night cappers anyway, and scroll trolling can be done whether a campaign is faction locked or not. Faction unlock is just another excuse when you lose the campaign.
Nightcapping is worse without faction lock actually, because same people capture same flags and then they re-capture them with the other alliance. Cyrodiil is all about sieging keeps and massive battles. Place for small scale PVP is in BG and IC.
Thanks for proving my point.
I accept that some players will always favor sieges and large scale battles, because their grasp of the game is not solid enough to achieve success in high pressure situations. Large scale battles are forgiving even when your individual contribution is lacking, it won't matter much in the overall course of events.
But I'd like these players for once to accept that others (like me) favor challenging player versus player combat, which ultimately results in participating in small scale PvP.
Honestly, it's surprising that people actually argue that seeking out more challenging combat situations is invalid in open world PvP. My best guess is that these people talk down on these more "combat oriented" small scale playstyles because it makes their playstyle feel more relevant and legitimate in a PvP environment.
My advice: leave your ego at the door, play as you want, and let others play as they want as well.
"small scale", you mean running over solo players in groups of six players , all optimized down to the last stat point? Paint it any color you want, its still zerging.
Are you talking about me specifically? Because when I mean small scale and solo, I definitely mean that for a majority of your time you fight outnumbered, and you actively move away from your own faction.
Also, I'm usually either solo, or duo. Six players is too big of a group for me.
Thats diffent, then kudos. However I have met far too many " small scale " players, that just play in groups of six, or 3 groups of two. And I will call them out at every corner. Hell, I got hate whispers the other day because I had 2 ppl follow me when I was chasing a solo player that I wasnt even aware of. And then They attacked me later with a group of 6 ( unsuccessfully mind you ) and then hate whispered me again for running away. Im like, dude, just shut up.
The more they spilt up the pvp community the worse pvp will get. They need to shorten the curve to get cp cap and get everyone playing in non faction and faction locked. This is hurting the game.
Ofcourse they wouldn't, it was a nice & friendly campaign untill recent changes. Now I see bunch of new faces and handing over scrolls & hammer on daily basis. Most of groups are locked and they won't invite you even if you follow them and assist them in sieges. Maybe for you it's great, but I give this campaign maximum 6 months before it dies just like any previous no alliance lock campaigns.Joy_Division wrote: »It's amazing that you think "trolls" would play correctly and not hand over scrolls or sabotage seiges, or spy if you just coerce them into playing a single faction.
Jesus christ lol you can still do the SAME exact thing on a locked campaign. All of this is irrelevant because if I wanted to play DC and my friends play AD I could steal a scroll and have them kill me to take it including the hammer so honestly alliance lock does NOT fix that.
No, if your friends play AD you would make AD character and join them since all you have to do is to rank up to LVL 50 during one evening unless you are too lazy to do that and you prefer to spend your time on complaining on forums about valid request.I'm under the impression that players who heavily favor very large unorganized PvP and keep sieging over meaningful combat want faction lock back, because it makes the campaign score (and by extent, themselves) feel more relevant. If you can't contribute much in the form of skills and combat, at least you oiled the enemy, destroyed the milegate and repaired that front door.
But I doubt campaign score is much influenced by it: you can't stop night cappers anyway, and scroll trolling can be done whether a campaign is faction locked or not. Faction unlock is just another excuse when you lose the campaign.
Nightcapping is worse without faction lock actually, because same people capture same flags and then they re-capture them with the other alliance. Cyrodiil is all about sieging keeps and massive battles. Place for small scale PVP is in BG and IC.
Thanks for proving my point.
I accept that some players will always favor sieges and large scale battles, because their grasp of the game is not solid enough to achieve success in high pressure situations. Large scale battles are forgiving even when your individual contribution is lacking, it won't matter much in the overall course of events.
But I'd like these players for once to accept that others (like me) favor challenging player versus player combat, which ultimately results in participating in small scale PvP.
Honestly, it's surprising that people actually argue that seeking out more challenging combat situations is invalid in open world PvP. My best guess is that these people talk down on these more "combat oriented" small scale playstyles because it makes their playstyle feel more relevant and legitimate in a PvP environment.
My advice: leave your ego at the door, play as you want, and let others play as they want as well.
"small scale", you mean running over solo players in groups of six players , all optimized down to the last stat point? Paint it any color you want, its still zerging.
Are you talking about me specifically? Because when I mean small scale and solo, I definitely mean that for a majority of your time you fight outnumbered, and you actively move away from your own faction.
Also, I'm usually either solo, or duo. Six players is too big of a group for me.
Thats diffent, then kudos. However I have met far too many " small scale " players, that just play in groups of six, or 3 groups of two. And I will call them out at every corner. Hell, I got hate whispers the other day because I had 2 ppl follow me when I was chasing a solo player that I wasnt even aware of. And then They attacked me later with a group of 6 ( unsuccessfully mind you ) and then hate whispered me again for running away. Im like, dude, just shut up.
The DC nightblade group is a great example of "how not to small scale".
Ofcourse they wouldn't, it was a nice & friendly campaign untill recent changes. Now I see bunch of new faces and handing over scrolls & hammer on daily basis. Most of groups are locked and they won't invite you even if you follow them and assist them in sieges. Maybe for you it's great, but I give this campaign maximum 6 months before it dies just like any previous no alliance lock campaigns.Joy_Division wrote: »It's amazing that you think "trolls" would play correctly and not hand over scrolls or sabotage seiges, or spy if you just coerce them into playing a single faction.
Jesus christ lol you can still do the SAME exact thing on a locked campaign. All of this is irrelevant because if I wanted to play DC and my friends play AD I could steal a scroll and have them kill me to take it including the hammer so honestly alliance lock does NOT fix that.
No, if your friends play AD you would make AD character and join them since all you have to do is to rank up to LVL 50 during one evening unless you are too lazy to do that and you prefer to spend your time on complaining on forums about valid request. Oh, you don't need to even lvl up to 50 because you can join them at ANY rank. Why would you lock yourself on the wrong side than your friends, whats wrong with you?