Worth also mentioning: This was not accidental target overlap. AD and EP entered the DC fort together, moved around as a mixed red-and-yellow group, ignored each other completely, jointly used siege weapons to break down the inner gate, and only attacked DC players.

Four_Fingers wrote: »

Not against TOS, and all the alliances do it.
Another closed forum profile so I can't tell what platform you are talking about anyway.
Seems to be a trend.

Whether every alliance does it is beside the point. Five AD players were actively working alongside an EP zerg inside a DC fort. They moved together, ignored each other, used siege together to break down the inner gate, and exclusively attacked DC players.

That is deliberate cross-alliance teaming, not incidental target overlap. Whether it technically violates the Terms of Service does not determine whether it damages campaign balance and should be addressed.

My forum profile being private has nothing to do with what happened. Since it apparently matters to you, this was on PC EU.

Faction locks were introduced to prevent this and end the threat of spies. Maybe it's time to remove them since they clearly do not work.

Lord_Hev wrote: »

Faction locks were introduced to prevent this and end the threat of spies. Maybe it's time to remove them since they clearly do not work.

They don't work at all because some people have second accounts.

Legit saw a small DC ballgroup helping EP defend Chalman from AD last night. Every faction does cross teaming, people have friends that play on other alliances.

Literally nothing ZOS can do to stop it.

efster wrote: »

That still does not answer the underlying point. If EP and DC deliberately cooperate against AD in the same way, then I would object to that as well. The issue is not which alliance benefits. The issue is sustained cross-alliance cooperation in a mode designed around three opposing factions.

That's my point though. It's by no means sustained, it's opportunistic and it doesn't happen at all times. If it were constant, I'd agree with you, but most of the time the factions are all fighting each other as they "should" be (arguably, the rules of the game are that they should be fighting each other, but it is well established that there will always be people who will break every rule if it means they are going to win).

There is no sustained cross-alliance cooperation - I could easily see it as "sustained" if I only evaluated the situation based on when I happen to play the game, because when I port into Cyrodiil at my usual time, we are almost always gated and DC is almost always sitting on their scrolls and home keeps, and EP is not letting AD take our tri keeps back, with DC groups making occasional appearances to help EP do just that. I could claim this is "sustained cooperation" but I know it's not because when I log in at other times, AD has DC gated and leaves EP alone, or DC has everybody gated, or whatever other permutation, I've seen them all.

And there is absolutely the ESO equivalent of diplomacy; people play together in PVE/housing/socials and agree to cooperate in PVP, guilds switch alliances to address consistent imbalances literally all the time.

You are treating “sustained” as though I claimed AD and EP maintain a permanent campaign-wide alliance. I did not. I mean sustained throughout the engagement: they entered together, ignored each other, moved as a mixed group, jointly sieged the inner gate, and exclusively attacked DC.

That is materially different from two factions briefly converging on the same objective and then fighting over it.

Players arranging informal diplomacy through guilds or friendships may explain how it happens, but it does not establish that it is healthy for a mode designed around three enemy factions. There is no formal diplomacy system, treaty mechanic, shared victory condition, or consequence for betrayal. It is simply players from opposing teams choosing to function as one force against the third.

It also does not matter whether the same behaviour happens in every possible faction combination at different times. That would make it a systemic problem, not a balanced one.

LittleLionLeone wrote: »

Legit saw a small DC ballgroup helping EP defend Chalman from AD last night. Every faction does cross teaming, people have friends that play on other alliances.

Literally nothing ZOS can do to stop it.

If every faction does it, then the issue is systemic rather than faction-specific. I would object just as much to DC helping EP against AD.

And “ZOS cannot eliminate it completely” is not the same as “there is literally nothing ZOS can do.” They could clarify what level of cross-faction coordination is acceptable, investigate repeated organised cooperation, adjust campaign systems that enable abuse, or create stronger incentives for factions to treat one another as enemies.

No system will prevent every instance, especially where second accounts are involved. That does not mean repeated mixed-faction coordination should simply be accepted as unavoidable.

DenverRalphy wrote: »

An enemy of my enemy is my ally.

Not a new concept, and not at all reportable in any game I've ever played.

“An enemy of my enemy is my ally” describes real diplomacy. Cyrodiil does not have an alliance or diplomacy system. AD and EP remain enemy teams with separate scoring, objectives, and victory conditions.

There is also a difference between temporarily attacking the same strategic target and opposing factions moving together, refusing to fight one another, jointly operating siege, and exclusively attacking the third side.

Something being an old concept does not make it healthy game design, and your personal experience of what is reportable in other games is not universal. Competitive games frequently distinguish ordinary tactical overlap from deliberate collusion between opposing teams.

The question is not whether players are technically capable of doing it. The question is whether organised cross-faction cooperation damages the integrity of a three-faction PvP mode.

There have been teams Orange, Purple, and Green forming up from time to time since year one. Threads like this crop up every couple few years or so. Despite being aware that it happens over all that time, our esteemed ESO overlords have not deigned to weigh in on it. Doubt that's going to change any time soon.

dcrush wrote: »

Take it as a compliment. Just like how, on PC NA, the situations happen that Efster described.

Apparently EP and DC see AD as such a big threat that they team up to fight them together because they get their behinds handed to them if they try it alone 😎

I do not take it as a compliment because that avoids the actual issue. If EP and DC deliberately cooperate against AD in the same way, then that is also unhealthy for the campaign.

Being considered a strong opponent does not justify two enemy factions operating as one mixed force. The concern is not which alliance benefits, but whether sustained cross-alliance cooperation undermines a mode built around three competing factions.

DenverRalphy wrote: »

There have been teams Orange, Purple, and Green forming up from time to time since year one. Threads like this crop up every couple few years or so. Despite being aware that it happens over all that time, our esteemed ESO overlords have not deigned to weigh in on it. Doubt that's going to change any time soon.

The fact that it has happened since launch and ZOS has not addressed it does not mean it is healthy gameplay. It only means the issue has been tolerated.

Threads keep appearing because players continue to see a meaningful difference between temporary target overlap and opposing factions deliberately functioning as one group. Even if ZOS never changes anything, that does not make the criticism invalid.

SerafinaWaterstar wrote: »

Please state what platform!

But this is always said by factions in Cyro.

PSEU GH, us AD swear that EP & DC team up against us. Apparently in other faction’s zone chat, they say the same about the other 2 factions.

How did the AD ‘help’ EP without getting caught in the crossfire? Are you sure it was collusion and not just some gung-*** AD taking advantage of EP fighting for a keep, trying to get in, wait for DC & EP to fight & then do a sneaky keep take? Have done this myself.

It’s just the game. Don’t get upset over it!

This was PC EU Grey Host.

It was not AD waiting for EP and DC to fight before attempting a sneaky capture. Five AD players were already inside the DC fort with the EP zerg. They moved around together as a mixed red-and-yellow group, ignored each other completely, jointly used siege against the inner gate, and only attacked DC.

I watched this while dead and deliberately did not revive so I could observe what they were doing for longer. There was no accidental crossfire or brief overlap. They were clearly operating together.

I understand that every faction accuses the other two of teaming, but that does not mean every incident is imaginary. What I witnessed went well beyond opportunistically attacking the same objective. I am not upset over losing one fort. I am raising a broader balance issue.