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.

DC here - yeah it sucks being DC ATM.. but nothing needs to be done about it.

IMO, it just feels like EP/AD have more ball groups on during prime.. and while they fight each other sometimes.. more often than not they would prefer to not fight each other... or fight in DC keeps.

There is also an insane q difference between DC and everyone else. EP apparently had a 1+hr queue the other night during prime and DC was 3 bar (now ask why that is... well DC zone chat would tell you it's the ball group problem).

All that aside.. there are 3 sides to the map.. DC sometimes ignored EP and focuses AD.. and the other way around. Pretty much one side will always say they are being double teamed throughout the night.

No change warranted... just fix the ball group problem and alot of the issues with PVP/GH in general will go away.

Is this another "ban players for playing the game and not breaking any rules" thread?

All the factions will group up against each other. EP gets grouped against by DC and AD, the last time I was in Cyro about a month or so they were working together and not actively targeting each other at battles. It happens, it has happened since the game launched and will probably still be happening when the game closes.

And what exactly do you propose ZOS do to prevent it? One could say that maybe every player in Cyro has an aura on them that does Oblivion damage and hurts players outside of their Alliance within like 3 meters of them. But imagine how much work the server is then doing on every player every GCD to see if a player has someone around them that isn't their Alliance, plus it then makes bomb builds that work by being amid enemies impossible since the damage would be an alert that they're there (and also probably pull them from Stealth). And it wouldn't prevent grouping factions from just keeping distance from each other or still using Seige.

So what else can realistically be done other than being allowed to report players for...playing the game? The devs aren't going to do that, it becomes a slippery slope of "I'm mad how this/these player(s) are playing so I'm going to report them for it". They realize there's no way to keep different factions from teaming up, and if players don't attack each other they can't very well force them to.

Plus any efforts at making grouping against the ToS or anything else also removes the ability for two low-pop factions getting stomped by the third with high pop numbers from being able to actually challenge them. Sometimes you have two factions at one bar and the third at three or even poplocked (tho I don't think the poplocked vs two 1 bar pops happens TOO awfully often).

To clarify, I am not claiming that only DC experiences this, that every apparent double-team is collusion, or that players should be banned over one ambiguous encounter. If DC and EP deliberately cooperated against AD in the same way, I would object to that as well.

What I witnessed on PC EU Grey Host was not simply two alliances independently attacking the same objective. Five AD players were inside a DC fort with an EP zerg. They moved alongside them, ignored them completely, attacked only DC, and used siege with EP against the same inner gate. I deliberately remained dead instead of reviving so that I could continue observing what they were doing.

I accept that three-sided PvP naturally creates temporary situations where two factions pressure the third, particularly when one faction is dominant. That is different from players belonging to opposing alliances operating together as a mixed force.

Saying that every faction does it does not invalidate the issue. It would make it a systemic problem rather than a DC-specific one. Likewise, the fact that it may be impossible to prevent completely does not mean it is healthy for campaign balance or that ZOS cannot clarify what degree of organised cross-faction cooperation is acceptable.

I am not proposing automatic bans, proximity damage, or punishment based on one unclear encounter. I am drawing a distinction between ordinary tactical overlap and deliberate cooperation between opposing factions.

It's strange how every alliance claims to be a victim at every point in this game.

The game's balance is the core reason why it matters in the first place. Terrible balance at smaller scales compounds into a bigger issue at larger ones. Thank the people that want to protect this game's balance for the issues with population and lack of interest in ESO PvP in general.

ESO PvP sucks right now and it has for a long time. Think two factions are colluding? That's just ridiculous, especially when two factions simply have no incentive to fight each other and not take an easy path out at any turn.

Since the game is litered with so much nonsense they've added or adjusted that has no real mechanic or counter you can bet that all that needs to happen is that people repeat the same action until they overwhelm. When that takes too long, then you go for the easy faction or fight that's present.

Most PvPers do not want a fight or fair challenge, just check the balance discussions on this very forum. What they want is simply to win. I can't expand on it because it apparently will offend the universe for me to give an opinon, so let's leave it at that.

Oh and PvP in the game sucks.

FelisCatus wrote: »

To clarify, I am not claiming that only DC experiences this, that every apparent double-team is collusion, or that players should be banned over one ambiguous encounter. If DC and EP deliberately cooperated against AD in the same way, I would object to that as well.

What I witnessed on PC EU Grey Host was not simply two alliances independently attacking the same objective. Five AD players were inside a DC fort with an EP zerg. They moved alongside them, ignored them completely, attacked only DC, and used siege with EP against the same inner gate. I deliberately remained dead instead of reviving so that I could continue observing what they were doing.

I accept that three-sided PvP naturally creates temporary situations where two factions pressure the third, particularly when one faction is dominant. That is different from players belonging to opposing alliances operating together as a mixed force.

Saying that every faction does it does not invalidate the issue. It would make it a systemic problem rather than a DC-specific one. Likewise, the fact that it may be impossible to prevent completely does not mean it is healthy for campaign balance or that ZOS cannot clarify what degree of organised cross-faction cooperation is acceptable.

I am not proposing automatic bans, proximity damage, or punishment based on one unclear encounter. I am drawing a distinction between ordinary tactical overlap and deliberate cooperation between opposing factions.

Again, what you saw were sweats there for fights and the AD people ignore because they're not there to fight sweats theyre there to zerg the keep/kill easier targets, both etc.

The ad you may not have seen fighting ep right then but they do, whoever is an easy target to xv1, they will kill, and they will be ignored up until the keep take is over, because its a bad idea to try and focus them when also fighting the dc faction.

This isnt gonna change and it shouldnt change, its not cooperation its taking advantage of the chaos for fun/troll etc.

FelisCatus wrote: »

this was on PC EU.

DC dominated GH on PC EU for past few months simply outnumbering other alliances. DC's solo tryhards, small-scales and ball groups have started switching to the AD or EP simply because playing for those alliances is more interesting right now than playing for DC. And those alliances now double teaming DC for the same reason. Nothing you can do about it and it's not something that will be punished by ZOS. This problem will resolve itself over time once the alliances become roughly equal in strength or another alliance begins to dominate.

Faction locks are the only reason we ever have even remotely close campaigns, you can look to Blackreach and vengeance to see that point proven

The occasional campaign of one faction dominating is a small price to pay. Short of forcing population balance on people which would never work, faction locking is the best solution.