Maintenance for the week of March 25:
• [COMPLETE] ESO Store and Account System for maintenance – March 28, 9:00AM EDT (13:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EDT (16:00 UTC)

Would you like to see Alliance Lock back in 30 days noCP campaign?

  • BigBadVolk
    BigBadVolk
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Honestly dont care much, as far as I seen it mostly just achieved that people cant play with their friends
    "The ass is similar to the opinion: Everyone has it, but no one cares about the others!"
    I'm 120 years old
  • Kinetiks
    Kinetiks
    ✭✭
    No, we don't need Alliance Lock in 30 days noCP campaign.
    Obviously its loyalists who want locked camps because they don't have friends on other factions. Why do you need to when you run with a giant echo chamber already.
  • JamieAubrey
    JamieAubrey
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Mr_Walker wrote: »
    LOL spies. Yes, because most of you are tactical geniuses that no one could ever see coming.

    Except EP/DC don't need spies as AD ALWAYS take the res at a keep they plan to attack

    Might as well whisper somone on the other side and let them know
  • Morgul667
    Morgul667
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Yes, Alliance Lock should be present in 30 days noCP campaign.
    I prefered when it was locked

    And in all in favor of no cp locked campaign as it is what i enjoy

  • AlnilamE
    AlnilamE
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Yes, Alliance Lock should be present in 30 days noCP campaign.
    BigBadVolk wrote: »
    Honestly dont care much, as far as I seen it mostly just achieved that people cant play with their friends

    Do you not talk to your friends? I was able to coordinate with friends who PvP in other factions and sort out which campaign we were going to use for each faction without any issues.
    The Moot Councillor
  • Faulgor
    Faulgor
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Yes, Alliance Lock should be present in 30 days noCP campaign.
    Yes. Really didn't enjoy yesterday's troll at the hammer.
    Bring back the original design of the game please.
    Alandrol Sul: He's making another Numidium?!?
    Vivec: Worse, buddy. They're buying it.
  • idk
    idk
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    No, we don't need Alliance Lock in 30 days noCP campaign.
    furiouslog 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.

    Not really. It just give people a false sense of security.

    The first week of the game players started trolling alliances. One player helped a player from another alliance steal a scroll without any combat in that first week. It was not long before we saw an occasional scroll runner just run the scroll until it reset just to infuriate those who put the effort into getting it. We had alliance lock in every campaign and the trolls pawned alliances then just as they do now.

    Joy speaks the truth
  • darthgummibear_ESO
    darthgummibear_ESO
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    No, we don't need Alliance Lock in 30 days noCP campaign.
    At one point I might have said yes, but with no grouping in BG's now Cyro and IC are my only options for grouping with a lot of my friends and I need the flexibility to move around.
  • regime211
    regime211
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    No, we don't need Alliance Lock in 30 days noCP campaign.
    Commancho 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.

    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.
  • Salthy
    Salthy
    ✭✭✭
    No, we don't need Alliance Lock in 30 days noCP campaign.
    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.
    PC EU - NO CP / CP camp | Stamplar & Magblade
  • FierceSam
    FierceSam
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭
    Yes, Alliance Lock should be present in 30 days noCP campaign.
    However, the sad thing is I don’t think there is the PvP population to support it.

    Alliance locked campaigns are for players who take PvP in Cyrodiil seriously enough to care about who actually wins. Inclusion in them requires a commitment to an Alliance and the corresponding acceptance that your other (wrong Alliance) characters will not be able to play. It means guilds have to collectively commit to a single alliance to do ‘serious’ Cyrodiil campaigning. I’m all for an environment where players who have that commitment can play without worrying about flag-flipping cheats.

    Unlocked campaigns are for everyone from casual ‘just started PvP’ L50 players to those who are enthusiastic, but fundamentally don’t care about the ultimate winners.

    Non-CP is a much more forgiving version of Cyrodiil. If ZOS want any serious growth in Cyrodiil PvP, there has to be an environment for players who want to take it seriously but aren’t ready for full on CP Cyrodiil. That would be a locked non-CP campaign.
  • Commancho
    Commancho
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Yes, Alliance Lock should be present in 30 days noCP campaign.
    Commancho wrote: »
    regime211 wrote: »
    Commancho 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.

    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.
    Salthy wrote: »
    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.
  • FierceSam
    FierceSam
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭
    Yes, Alliance Lock should be present in 30 days noCP campaign.
    Commancho wrote: »
    Commancho wrote: »
    regime211 wrote: »
    Commancho 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.

    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.
    Salthy wrote: »
    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 agree. Nightcapping makes sense in a no CP environment where you can play multiple sides and you get more rewards and quests for conquering than for defending. In terms of acquiring AP, it makes no sense (for any side) to have a lengthy stalemate, so when you can swap sides and get, in effect, double AP for recycling keeps and resources, it’s almost foolish not to.

    At least faction locked campaigns force you to pick a side so you can’t go double dipping in those juicy rewards.

    Cyrodiil may be the place for massive fights, but if you don’t have the population, small fights will have to do. You shouldn’t need a Zerg to threaten a keep and low number ambushes on badly defended resources should always have a serious chance of success.
  • OlumoGarbag
    OlumoGarbag
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    No, we don't need Alliance Lock in 30 days noCP campaign.
    I can only talk about my expirience here, but i think most people did similar.

    When faction lock for non-cp was established, i couldnt play alot of my chars anymore. Since that was also the time they heavy nerfed some races i did delete most chars other then one alliance. Bc there was no way to play them anyway.
    Now that the lock is lifted i can finally play those lone survivors again. Im would be okay with creating one locked non-cp campain for all the pve, pvdoor and alliance roleplayers. If you enjoy taking keeps without a fight thats great, keep doing it! But im here for pvp. The only time i would switch sides anyways is when my alliance has emp and is taking all scrolls. If pvp completly died of due to my alliance dominating im switching to other alliances defending against the zerg, to balance the population.

    After all there is a faction locked alliance if you care about, it go for it. But as someone who only plays non-cp, its really annoying that i couldnt play alot of my chars bc they were the "wrong" alliance
    class representative for the working class, non-cp, bwb and Trolling
  • Karmen
    Karmen
    ✭✭✭
    Yes, Alliance Lock should be present in 30 days noCP campaign.
    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 ?
    I am Carmen.
    For Bosmers, war is only a sport
  • Sanguinor2
    Sanguinor2
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    Karmen wrote: »
    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 ?

    "You cant swap sides in war" mentions Italy and WWII :D
    Politeness is respecting others.
    Courage is doing what is fair.
    Modesty is speaking of oneself without vanity.
    Self control is keeping calm even when anger rises.
    Sincerity is expressing oneself without concealing ones thoughts.
    Honor is keeping ones word.
  • OlumoGarbag
    OlumoGarbag
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    No, we don't need Alliance Lock in 30 days noCP campaign.
    I strongly doubt that a single individuum promoting faction lock actually cares about player vs player fights.

    If you are promoting faction lock and think your looking for good fights in pvp, please tell us how your average pvp fight looks like. Maybe even add some of you pvp footage.

    I would be totally okay with a home campain lock for one faction. Heck i would even accept not gaining any ap for fighting on another alliance, but let me fight with frens on all factions.
    class representative for the working class, non-cp, bwb and Trolling
  • Salthy
    Salthy
    ✭✭✭
    No, we don't need Alliance Lock in 30 days noCP campaign.
    Commancho wrote: »
    Commancho wrote: »
    regime211 wrote: »
    Commancho 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.

    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.
    Salthy wrote: »
    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.
    PC EU - NO CP / CP camp | Stamplar & Magblade
  • TheFM
    TheFM
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    Yes, Alliance Lock should be present in 30 days noCP campaign.
    It was so fun yesterday watching people zerg surf all day. AD is doing good - everyone goes to ad and crushes dc and ep, oh wait, now ad is doing too good, everyone piles into dc, oh wait, dc is doing too good, everyone piles into EP. Its the most ridiculous thing.
  • TheFM
    TheFM
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    Yes, Alliance Lock should be present in 30 days noCP campaign.
    Salthy wrote: »
    Commancho wrote: »
    Commancho wrote: »
    regime211 wrote: »
    Commancho 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.

    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.
    Salthy wrote: »
    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.
  • Salthy
    Salthy
    ✭✭✭
    No, we don't need Alliance Lock in 30 days noCP campaign.
    TheFM wrote: »
    Salthy wrote: »
    Commancho wrote: »
    Commancho wrote: »
    regime211 wrote: »
    Commancho 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.

    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.
    Salthy wrote: »
    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. Even in a duo, we don't like to 2v1 players. Most of the time we'll just quickly discuss who will take on which target. I'd even consider this kind of extreme, but it's a personal preference.
    Edited by Salthy on March 1, 2020 1:05PM
    PC EU - NO CP / CP camp | Stamplar & Magblade
  • TheFM
    TheFM
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    Yes, Alliance Lock should be present in 30 days noCP campaign.
    Salthy wrote: »
    TheFM wrote: »
    Salthy wrote: »
    Commancho wrote: »
    Commancho wrote: »
    regime211 wrote: »
    Commancho 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.

    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.
    Salthy wrote: »
    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.
  • Nanfoodle
    Nanfoodle
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    No, we don't need Alliance Lock in 30 days noCP campaign.
    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.
  • Salthy
    Salthy
    ✭✭✭
    No, we don't need Alliance Lock in 30 days noCP campaign.
    TheFM wrote: »
    Salthy wrote: »
    TheFM wrote: »
    Salthy wrote: »
    Commancho wrote: »
    Commancho wrote: »
    regime211 wrote: »
    Commancho 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.

    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.
    Salthy wrote: »
    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".

    PC EU - NO CP / CP camp | Stamplar & Magblade
  • Cirantille
    Cirantille
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    Yes, Alliance Lock should be present in 30 days noCP campaign.
    To be fair whatever side is zerg surfing the campaign is boring

    At the moment, AD is winning and when I logged in yesterday people capped everything

    I play AD, I have always played AD, so I should be happy right?

    Nah, no significant amount of enemy to fight on DC or EP side

    So where is PvP in this?

    If i wanted to kill NPCs I would go to dungeons.

    But of course people switch to AD side instead of defending for their own alliance bc we are on the lead

    What a boring concept of Cyrodiil, I want to kill players not zerg surf...
  • Cirantille
    Cirantille
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    Yes, Alliance Lock should be present in 30 days noCP campaign.
    And if next campaign EP or DC takes the lead we will be minority fight 5 vs 40

    So much fun, indeed

    Cyrodiil just become bleh
  • AlnilamE
    AlnilamE
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Yes, Alliance Lock should be present in 30 days noCP campaign.
    Nanfoodle wrote: »
    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.

    I'm not going to seriously PvP in a CP campaign, so I say remove CP from PvP like they did with battlegrounds and leave it in IC only. One locked campaign and one unlocked and we call it a day?
    The Moot Councillor
  • TheFM
    TheFM
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    Yes, Alliance Lock should be present in 30 days noCP campaign.
    Salthy wrote: »
    TheFM wrote: »
    Salthy wrote: »
    TheFM wrote: »
    Salthy wrote: »
    Commancho wrote: »
    Commancho wrote: »
    regime211 wrote: »
    Commancho 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.

    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.
    Salthy wrote: »
    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".

    Yeah, exactly, and almost all their kills come from their proc sets, I dont ever see any actual skill of theirs that requires thumbs hurting me . " we small scale but run over single players with our group of 8 players in stealth " xD.
  • Joy_Division
    Joy_Division
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    No, we don't need Alliance Lock in 30 days noCP campaign.
    Commancho wrote: »
    regime211 wrote: »
    Commancho 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.

    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?

    What are you talking about? I have friends on DC, EP, and AD so no matter what I do, I am going to lock myself on the wrong side twice over. No matter what stupid barriers of entry you make, I am always going to have friends on two of the enemy factions. So, come a random Wednesday night or what not when my locked DC alliance friends are not on, the stupid faction-lock system is creating the very environment for trolling because I can't play with my AD friends.

    When the subject of faction locks come up, it's like the advocates' brain stops functioning. It's like they are so deftly afraid that ZOS might revert their precious faction lock system that has done absolutely nothing the past year to make PvP more popular or the campaigns more competitive that they'll just sprout out any nonsense.
    Edited by Joy_Division on March 1, 2020 3:23PM
  • ZOS_Volpe
    ZOS_Volpe
    admin
    Greetings,

    We've had to remove a few non-constructive and baiting comments. Please remember that while it’s alright to disagree or even debate with each other, provoking conflict, baiting, inciting, mocking, etc. is never acceptable on our forums.
    The Elder Scrolls Online: Tamriel Unlimited - ZeniMax Online Studios
    Forum Rules | Code of Conduct | Terms of Service | Home Page | Help Site
    Staff Post
Sign In or Register to comment.