How do you think ZOS could keep enemy teams from working together?

hexentb16_ESO

So this kind of poor sportsmanship always pisses me off. Two factions working together in Cyrodil. When I say working together I don't mean their goals happen to line up. No, they literally work together via guild chat and make pvp incredibly unfair and work as one team. On Xbox US I stopped playing my usual campaign because one guild basically rigged every single campaign.

Oh but wait, it gets worse. This guild also constantly glitched the hammer to keep it up for far longer than it should be able to. Sometimes as long as 24hrs. Oh and coincidentally the team that was the biggest threat was always kicked from the server when they were about to turn the tides against the two factions working together. Not randomly, just them and only when the usual players were exploiting the hammer.

Players on the xbox US server have found proof of the guild/s doing this. Screencaps, text records, etc. They've been reported but as far as I am aware no action has been taken.

If it were up to me I'd give 1, 3, 6 months, then perma bans to players who do this in pvp. But clearly that will never happen.

So...I was wondering, what do you guys think ZOS could do to keep Cyrodil PVP fair? Or is it too late and entirely unfixable?

hexentb16_ESO

Its these kinds of poor sports that make me miss [game title removed] because in that game I NEVER encountered players of the opposite factions working together.

1. Faction loyalty was a big deal.
2. People who tried literally got perma-banned on the spot for trying.

-I removed the game title because I fear ZOS might ban me from the forums for talking about a competitor.

Anotherone773

I never liked the 3 faction setup myself. It doesn't add any value to the game and causes quite a lot of problems. Its great for PVE stories but when it comes to doing PVP it is really just a hindrance.

biminirwb17_ESO

It also happens on PC NA and I guess everywhere.

It is a result of one tamriel where factions were basically removed from PVE, people played with people from other factions and friendships were formed.

These cross faction guilds also played pvp, and friends tended to not fight each other. This got worse as the guild was what loyalty was given to not the faction.

In faction locked campaigns the guild will say what faction this month, often asking other guilds where they are going to play. In unlocked campaigns it can vary day to day or hour to hour.

Over time it became us vs them, factions mean nothing, its the long term friendships verses the unknown players. Sometimes this is fine, but at other times it is toxic.

Not much that can be done except asking people to consider their actions, of course many will not. We need to self regulate our game by trying to encourage fair play but some people are just toxic and proud of it.

Ackwalan

The only way any ZOS could change the current behavior of cross faction griefing, is to have in-game moderation that could step in and put an end to, for example, a ball group running the third floor of a keep for hours. The problem is having the right people moderating the game. (Here is the part that gets this post edited or deleted) Forum moderation is just one example when moderation over steps their role, and simply changes the intent of the TOS to fit their mood. Having in-game moderators, at the level needed, will quickly become so toxic as to make PvP completely over.

ThreeXB

First they need to fix all performance issues THEN raise the population cap. When game 1st came out Cyrodiil's population cap was 2000 and now its somewhere around 400-450.

ThePedge

Ackwalan wrote: »

...to have in-game moderation that could step in and put an end to, for example, a ball group running the third floor of a keep for hours.

I'm sorry, what do you mean by that?

Ackwalan

ThePedge wrote: »

Ackwalan wrote: »

...to have in-game moderation that could step in and put an end to, for example, a ball group running the third floor of a keep for hours.

I'm sorry, what do you mean by that?

The forums have moderators that can delete or edit posts, they do get heavy handed and can cause more problems then cure. An in-game moderator that could step in and moderate a situation could just as easily get out of hand depending on who the moderator is. For example, an organized ball group is running around the third floor of a keep for hours. Between heals and lag, they are basically immune to damage (this does happen) a moderator could step in and wipe them forcing them to leave. But, where is the line between playing and griefing? Also what happens when an in-game moderator picks sides? We've all seen the twitch streamers get preferential treatment. Who moderates the moderators?

redspecter23

This is the nature of a 3 faction system and at least to an extent is completely intended by the developers. Why else would they go with 3 factions instead of 2? If anything they are doing is unintended such as an exploit or score/point farming specifically, the best you can do is report it. If they are just plain working together, it sucks to be on the receiving end, but it's likely working as intended.

How to fix it? Reduce the number of factions down to 2. I'm not sure if that's something they would be willing to do, but it's way easier and more fair than having a subjective team of human mods on call 24/7 to handle any and all disputes in Cyrodiil. I can guarantee you that about 99% of those reports would be absolutely frivolous and a waste of moderator time.

Cirantille

People should stop caring about a campaign which gives 20k and useless set items at the end

It is even more fun, many many fights, maaaaaany many AP

notachik

Alliance locking in all campaigns would be a good start to cutting down on most of the shenanigans but not all. I’d like to see the 7day ones return they didn’t leave slot of time for messing around.still won’t stop the serious team ups I’ve seen tho. PS4 NA no cp

hexentb16_ESO

notachik wrote: »

Alliance locking in all campaigns would be a good start to cutting down on most of the shenanigans but not all. I’d like to see the 7day ones return they didn’t leave slot of time for messing around.still won’t stop the serious team ups I’ve seen tho. PS4 NA no cp

Unfortunately that probably wouldn't work. I left my old usual campaign on Xbox US because one guild rigged it each time. They chose which faction would win (always blue or yellow) and have poeple on all 3 teams helping that one team. This happened despite faction locking.

geonsocal

it's funny when you get three alliances fighting inside the inner keep and two of those alliances are doing everything they can to not damage each other...

it's some weird stuff to see...

notachik

hexentb16_ESO wrote: »

notachik wrote: »

Alliance locking in all campaigns would be a good start to cutting down on most of the shenanigans but not all. I’d like to see the 7day ones return they didn’t leave slot of time for messing around.still won’t stop the serious team ups I’ve seen tho. PS4 NA no cp

Unfortunately that probably wouldn't work. I left my old usual campaign on Xbox US because one guild rigged it each time. They chose which faction would win (always blue or yellow) and have poeple on all 3 teams helping that one team. This happened despite faction locking.

This is still happening

hafgood

The problem you have is human nature. No matter what controls were put in place players will come up with ways to circumvent them.

The simple answer is you cannot stop two alliance working together, you cannot stop a guild playing red one month, blue the next and yellow the one after.

I do not see what GM's could do either. The ball group example is just rubbish. The ball group only stays there as long as its fed AP. Leave them to run around by themselves, they will soon get fed up and go looking for AP elsewhere. Why should a GM step in? The ball group might not play the way you want them to but they are not actually doing anything wrong. Therefore a GM would have no power to step in.

I'm not defending any of the behaviours that are being described but with a lot of them you are describing human nature and a desire to win and that is nigh on impossible to program around.

finehair

I used to play some cheesy korean mmorpg. In that game, there were 3 factions similar to eso. Opposing faction players couldn't understand one another's messages. So if you write something like "hello lets gang up on that dude" it would seem like "Jhkarh syazh gnkog etchi!". Like speaking in foreign language or some sort.

But there wasn't this much discord-teamspeak and stuff back then so

Sahidom

Tamriel One heavily contributed to the loss of faction loyalty when they removed character creation to any fiction.

I suggest they redo the entire Cyrodiil map and isolate regions with closed transit zones; leaving keep recalls as the he source to move across the map;

Remove scrolls and have them be seige locations where the factions have to maintain control for a small bonus; these seige/keep locales could have control prerequisites to claim the "scroll bonus."

Three way does work but not with a population that can skip faction on a whim; maybe changing the accessibility and value of the map regjons;

Maybe drop the north/south faction into one start point on the Cyrodiil map to open up edit space to redesign the map.

Ackwalan

Sahidom wrote: »

Tamriel One heavily contributed to the loss of faction loyalty when they removed character creation to any fiction.

I suggest they redo the entire Cyrodiil map and isolate regions with closed transit zones; leaving keep recalls as the he source to move across the map;

Remove scrolls and have them be seige locations where the factions have to maintain control for a small bonus; these seige/keep locales could have control prerequisites to claim the "scroll bonus."

Three way does work but not with a population that can skip faction on a whim; maybe changing the accessibility and value of the map regjons;

Maybe drop the north/south faction into one start point on the Cyrodiil map to open up edit space to redesign the map.

Any place that need to be held will just be a focus point for ball groups. I don't mean organized groups trying to win the campaign, I mean toxic ball groups, causing so much lag in one spot, where the only intent is to grief others.

Wolfpaw

PS DC on BR this week had a DC player, Blueberry something, running up to other DC using the "Hello" emote on DC nightblades so his EP nightblades could locate us & positions of crown...

Lucky his buddies had pathetic damage.

Monroe585

This has been an ongoing issue for years. When I was on PS4NA it was EP/AD vs DC. Now I'm on PCNA and it hasn't changed.

Wolfpaw

Monroe585 wrote: »

This has been an ongoing issue for years. When I was on PS4NA it was EP/AD vs DC. Now I'm on PCNA and it hasn't changed.

PS4 NA BR yesterday EP/AD teamed up (literally sieging/fighting side-by-side) for the evening, mostly WW running their carry sets. DC couldn't do anything.

Many of us DC left, this joke isn't PvP.

Sad ZOS has done such a poor job with Cyrodiil, & sad EP/AD gave up on skill play to carry each other to a "win".

darvaria

There is no way. Players are being paid gold, like 1 million gold to give the hammer away. And the constant trolls misleading the less experienced players in zone chat. I've found out that many of these players have 2 accounts or simply use a friend's account that no longer plays. And these players are paid to betray a certain faction. I even saw one instance where a player received money on their pay pal to do something.

The solution would be TWO factions. With no cross overs.

Two factions with players qued to adjust for population problems.

RaikaNA

Ackwalan wrote: »

ThePedge wrote: »

Ackwalan wrote: »

...to have in-game moderation that could step in and put an end to, for example, a ball group running the third floor of a keep for hours.

I'm sorry, what do you mean by that?

The forums have moderators that can delete or edit posts, they do get heavy handed and can cause more problems then cure. An in-game moderator that could step in and moderate a situation could just as easily get out of hand depending on who the moderator is. For example, an organized ball group is running around the third floor of a keep for hours. Between heals and lag, they are basically immune to damage (this does happen) a moderator could step in and wipe them forcing them to leave. But, where is the line between playing and griefing? Also what happens when an in-game moderator picks sides? We've all seen the twitch streamers get preferential treatment. Who moderates the moderators?

That doesn't require an in-game moderation to step in.. When something like that happens... Just leave the keep.. Unfortunately... pugs and other people like to chase the **shiny** around.. continuing to be farmed by the ball group. Don't get me wrong. I hate ball groups with a passion.. I think they're a bunch of unskilled fighters who can't fight without stacking up ultimates and negates.. The ball group would eventually get bored without getting any AP, and move else where. Simple as that.

Indigogo

Wolfpaw wrote: »

Monroe585 wrote: »

This has been an ongoing issue for years. When I was on PS4NA it was EP/AD vs DC. Now I'm on PCNA and it hasn't changed.

PS4 NA BR yesterday EP/AD teamed up (literally sieging/fighting side-by-side) for the evening, mostly WW running their carry sets. DC couldn't do anything.

Many of us DC left, this joke isn't PvP.

Sad ZOS has done such a poor job with Cyrodiil, & sad EP/AD gave up on skill play to carry each other to a "win".

I don't main that campaign, just popped in, but aren't dc 20k odd in the lead? They had a whole blue map when I looked.

So, yeah, it sucks when you see that stuff, and shame on ep for teaming with ad *throws up in mouth*...... BUT... that's a case when alliances SHOULD team up.
Your side is stomping a campaign and has all scrolls. Expect pressure!

What many are saying, is the very real problem of alliances teaming up to purposely make the other lose. They can have no scrolls, be in third, and they STILL have the other two alliances pushing them back, refusing to touch each other.

There's no strategic value, just ask them. They just hate that one alliance for whatever reason.

darvaria

There are just too many inactive accounts now. Guildies give account access so it's easy to have multiple accounts now. Like how many ppl don't have two or more computers now? They get on discords and coordinate. They pay players to turn over the hammer. The get in zone chats and make confusing calls, slanted towards helping one of the other sides.

Think it's gone too far now. Just don't go and don't worry about the map.

RaikaNA

Monroe585 wrote: »

This has been an ongoing issue for years. When I was on PS4NA it was EP/AD vs DC. Now I'm on PCNA and it hasn't changed.

I don't know what campaign you play in, but it's always EP/DC vs AD.

Gilvoth

make keeps un-takeable unless you have 25 players on each of that keeps resources the entire time of taking a keep.
you Must have:
25 men on the Farm at all times
25 men on the Mine at all times
25 men on the Lumbermill at all times
and 25 players on Both keep flaggs in order to take a keep.

neferpitou73

Gilvoth wrote: »

make keeps un-takeable unless you have 25 players on each of that keeps resources the entire time of taking a keep.
you Must have:
25 men on the Farm at all times
25 men on the Mine at all times
25 men on the Lumbermill at all times
and 25 players on Both keep flaggs in order to take a keep.

So we'd need the entire pop of a faction to take a keep?

This is a hard problem to fix. Two things I think might help:

1.) Faction lock--I know this is an unpopular opinion on here but really what point does not having it serve besides allowing cross faction trolling?

2.) Forbid players from being on the emp board on more then one faction. I've seen several instances of people holding top spot on one or two factions in the beginning of the campaign and using it to screw around with whatever faction they don't main

WrathOfInnos

What is there to fix? Different factions forming a temporary truce to focus down a common enemy? That makes the war more realistic. Are you saying they shouldn’t be allowed to talk to each other? That sounds impossible to enforce, and again would be silly when considering the role of diplomacy in war.

I wouldn’t encourage overdoing it and playing 2v1 as the 3rd is backed against a wall, but some level of cooperation between factions is inevitable.

midgetfromtheshire

Gilvoth wrote: »

make keeps un-takeable unless you have 25 players on each of that keeps resources the entire time of taking a keep.
you Must have:
25 men on the Farm at all times
25 men on the Mine at all times
25 men on the Lumbermill at all times
and 25 players on Both keep flaggs in order to take a keep.

Let's run with your logic. So at a quiet time of the day, the one faction that has a zerg to run the minimum 125 players in your rule can take as many keeps knowing that the other factions can't take anything back because they have less than 125 players?

Tommy_The_Gun

hexentb16_ESO wrote: »

So...I was wondering, what do you guys think ZOS could do to keep Cyrodil PVP fair? Or is it too late and entirely unfixable?

Um... one thing that comes to mind is to simply disable / block non-faction chat, so you could only talk to people who are in same campaign & faction as you are, while in Cyrodiil. So if someone would whisper to you if they were in PvE zone or logged as other faction in Cyro they would see system message "this person is inaccessible right now" etc.

Of course, if you leave Cyro it would return to normal and you could chat with your friends normally.

I mean it is not a rocket science to figure out. This game has so many design flaws... did ZOS really expected that ALL players will be nice & play politely ? Most are, sure but there are also players who don't. Most of the things in RL are designed to be "idiot-proof" so those would not be use in an "unintended" way...

And, yeah, I know that 2 allaiances "teaming up" to defeat a stronger / winning / more populated allaiance is one of the way Cyro PvP is meant to play, but the situation OP describes feels more like an exploit, rather than something that is intended.