Alliance switching to boost AP and take Emp - discuss!

Beardimus

Interested to discuss this.

I'm aware many players like being able to switch alliance mid campaign. I do not agree with it, ive only seen it used for nefarious things and this time I'm furious.

I worked hard this campaign reset to get ahead and get myself Emp for the first time. Took time off work and a big effort to achieve it had to fight the outgoing emp who's a Pro and use all resources i had!

Im Ebonheart Pact and loyal. Friday night I played as Emp with a guy his score was low, unsure of Cyrodiil and i helped him out. Saturday I came on and he had been on all night and had a gd score up the board fair enough I thought, tho map was mainly red as I left after midnight.... But Saturday he had switched to his DC toon with mates to take the Emp keeps flip map and boost AP (ihave full video and image proof)

Luckily I came on in time for last keep battle - HUZZAH!- and had my first 1vX defending Chalman with one EP mate. Killed this player and We wiped them twice, it was close tho. Then I started to get abuse from him and his mates that I was out of order and not honorable (I.e. I was stopping a fellow Pact guy get Emp) surely the outgoing Emp defending last keep is honorable????? And switching sides to boost AP and flip map the opposite? They spammed zone chat (switching back) and Xbox message from abuse to offers of 300k to walk away

Just salty I guess......

Anyway they gave up (shame, as Great fight and they nearly got us twice) and i logged out for the weekend. But yesterday map was blue that group took emp and farmed AP with it. Overnight this Pact guys score has doubled and now has Emp. Making a mockery of the whole system.

It's not taken away my efforts, im not bitter and nor will I feel bad for my personal battle of the Chal-amo. But I want the community view on this.

I have complete evidence of him switching alliances to flip the 6 keeps. Overnight AP farming I wasn't witness to to be clear.

TLDR -
1. is switching alliances to boost AP and flip keeps for your own Emp push legit? I.e. Flip then as DC, change back to EP to flip back.
2. How can we stop this type of thing bar locking alliance per campaign?
3. Should players doing it be reported?

Qbiken

Same thing happening on Shor (PC/EU), basically a guild (DC based) that has claimed the campaign for their own to sell emperorship.

#1: I absolutely hate it and it´s not legitimate at all. Calling in friends from your guilds or in asking a friend to call in reinforcements from PvE zones is legit. Heck, even whisper people from opposing faction not to interfere is more legit.

#2: One alliance/campaign is the solution. I´m against one alliance/account because you make new friends all the time who play on different alliances and campaigns, and being able to play with them should be possible.

#3: I´ve never heard any comments from ZOS about this kind of behaviour, but I doubt it´s punishable by any means. However, flipping keeps back and forth to AP-farm is against the "rules" and people have been banned for it in the past.

LordSemaj

There's nothing stopping them from doing it and ZOS allowed cross-faction home campaigns when it wasn't allowed at launch. It's despicable and exploitative but there's literally nothing that can be done about it. Vivec faces the same problem daily, people will log off their EP characters and go full DC zerg to flip the map, then repeat the process, always playing the characters with the most AP potential at the time given current populations and resistance.

AP farming comes from the 65 million requirement for rank 50 pvp while abusing the Emperor system just lets kids think they're cool. In actuality, it's a mark of shame since it gets exploited so much by collaboration between the three sides that any hope of achieving it requires similar exploitation.

Morgul667

I despise those behaviors, alliance switching for AP behaviours.

I like to play for the fun and believe game emperor should be fair.

Beardimus

@Qbiken @Morgul667 @LordSemaj really appreciate the replies, I concur completely.

I've always felt switching to not sit right, ive seen people move scrolls etc, hop to the winning side.

But this situation, I guess off the back of a big effort on my part, planning the approach for a month, enlisting support from my close guild mates (I'm the first of them to get Emp) to see someone just boost it really grates.

Cheers fellas.

efster

If a player is switching alliances to go where the good/interesting/fun fighting is or where their friends are, that's fine. I personally keep my non-AD alts away from my main campaign, but not everyone wants to do that, and that's fine. It's a game.

However, if a player is switching alliances to gain an advantage in PVP on their "main" alliance, that really shouldn't be fine, IMO. (Granted, the advantage here is arguable, since emp buff will not save you or your emperorship from skilled players if you're a potato.)

...spitballin possible solutions that don't require alliance locking (because that is probably not something ZoS is going to do, lbr):

- remove AP gain from PVDooring keeps. I'm not sure how to accomplish this without just straight up removing O-ticks on all keep takes longer than, IDK, 20 minutes. Wouldn't prevent people from just straight up sieging keeps for 20 minutes in empty campaigns, but it would significantly delay their map flipping, at least. And if they have to be there for 20 minutes, any actual defenders around at that time would have time to try and get a defence going by calling for help in guild chat or whatever.

- If a map is flipped entirely within some amount of time that's obviously indicative of 'keeps are getting PVDoored with no resistance' and then starts flipping back just as quickly, the alliance that's doing the flipping back gets a debuff that prevents the top AP earner from emping for 24 hours. So people would be forced to, again, maintain sieges for a really long time. This could also be used for griefing legit emp claims though.

- make emperorship based on more than just AP earned since campaign start. Track player activity like killing players, healing players, staying logged in (with longer times being a penalty rather than an advantage - get some sleep!), blocking damage, buying and/or using siege (camps put down near active flagged keeps = huge buff), defending and taking keeps and resources, completing gate board quests (not PVE ones or FG bounty ones), repairing (with excessive repair being a bad thing), maybe even alliance engagement (communicating with other players in chat). Whoever has the best mix of these things based on whatever esoteric formula ZoS wishes gets to be emp, and no one knows until the last emp keep flips. But that would probably require so much math that the servers would break completely.

Tan9oSuccka

This is very common. I’m not a fan at all.

There’s too much drama for my taste. I know quite a few players that switch factions to the “winning side” for optimal AP gains.

Kikke

The same day they allowed for alliance swapping I quit PvP. Even before alliance swap we had issues with spies etc. with alliance swapping we've gotten all thats cancer. everyone run with the winning alliance, making the other sides lacking in people, making the winning alliance the dominant alliance aswell. Your own alliance de-throning you from emp becaus "they want it - fast", AP farming, Scroll stealing (that moment a AD guy bring a AD scroll from DC too EP "you all have seen it one way or another")

BRING BACK FACTION PRIDE!

GO BACK TO ALLIANCE LOCK! Atleast pr campaign!

Beardimus

Agreed @kikkehs ive seen the same behavior loads, ive only seen bad things from alliance switching. The difference is I have real evidence this time before it was smaller offences. And if ZOS checked the data they would see the few individuals involved @ZOS_GinaBruno can you advise the route to report this, if its deemed an offense by ZOS?

It's narked me, and I always vote against switching on polls but more people seem to agree with alliance switching with the 'play with your friends' justification but this type of behavior really wrecks the 'point' of PvP and outs people off the wider effort.

Then it does just become snakes and ladders playing with keeps if you lose the greater meaning.

VaranisArano

Unlike other forms of AP boosting, that one isn't going to be against any TOS. Its not an exploit to log onto another faction and go play the game in the intended manner by taking keeps and helping dethrone an emperor, then to log back onto a different faction, theoretically gain tons of AP as you play the game in the intended manner by taking keeps and helping crown an emperor...who just so happens to be you or your good buddy.

So while I agree that its poor form, faction disloyalty, bad for the health of the faction and bad for the health of that campaign, its not actually against the rules as there technically isn't any AP feeding from cross faction cooperation or technically even any cross faction cooperation going on at all, since its the same players switching factions not players on different alliances working together.

I think there's reasons for ZOS to reconsider instituting a faction lock and I'm sure there's reason ZOS will continue to not reinstitute a faction lock for campaigns.

But I doubt anything will change because unless ZOS reinstitutes faction locks for campaigns, there was nothing in the TOS that was broken. Just the expectations of good sportsmanship.

Feanor

Switching chars for AP boosting is exploiting and ZOS repeatedly has said so. The consequences alas are not so clear. It’s hard to prove and even if bans were to be issued it’s questionable for how long they would be upheld.

Edit: Reread the OP more closely. Yes, sadly nothing that can be done about it save locking accounts to campaigns.

Beardimus

Thanks guys appreciate the insights!

Something needs to change. Gamers won't sadly...

I get it that as gamers some people just want to tear through stuff just ticking of achievements etc, but on this caliber / scale of game its really bad form to undermine decent achievements.

For everyone too. If people lose faith in the bigger wider objectives etc they can go off content. Less population hits us all.

It's not devalued my effort, the opposite in fact I feel more bonafide doing it legit. But ill add this thread to every poll voting to keep alliance switching as the 'playing with friends' argument stacks up less and less in my book. Campaign per alliance answers that anyway for the tri faction boys.

Cheers.

AnviOfVai

VaranisArano wrote: »

Unlike other forms of AP boosting, that one isn't going to be against any TOS. Its not an exploit to log onto another faction and go play the game in the intended manner by taking keeps and helping dethrone an emperor, then to log back onto a different faction, theoretically gain tons of AP as you play the game in the intended manner by taking keeps and helping crown an emperor...who just so happens to be you or your good buddy.

So while I agree that its poor form, faction disloyalty, bad for the health of the faction and bad for the health of that campaign, its not actually against the rules as there technically isn't any AP feeding from cross faction cooperation or technically even any cross faction cooperation going on at all, since its the same players switching factions not players on different alliances working together.

I think there's reasons for ZOS to reconsider instituting a faction lock and I'm sure there's reason ZOS will continue to not reinstitute a faction lock for campaigns.

But I doubt anything will change because unless ZOS reinstitutes faction locks for campaigns, there was nothing in the TOS that was broken. Just the expectations of good sportsmanship.

Aisle9

Ok, premise:

I don't own the Adventurer Pack, so I can't make any race/any alliance toons, if I decide to make an Argonian, I have to make it EP.

Incidentally, my main PvE tank is an Argonian DK, because, why not, Argonians are OP.

I also play PvP, primarily DC. I have many DC toons and lions organize in prides. As a lion I have Pride.

I'm a small scale player, and I play in Sotha Sil, primarily, as I don't like CP PvP, unless I want to farm telvars, in that case I go CP, because, let's face it, it's basically PvE.

I understand your point, and, to some degree, I can agree with your conclusions.

That said:

I'm a fairly experienced player (I'd say above average), but I also have guildies/friends who are not. If I want to play with them (which I may want to, because I'm a freelancer, I work a lot, I want to be social, but I can't be bothered going out to get drunk) I need to adapt to them, because I know it would be hard and frustrating to convince them to roll another toon.

Therefore I may have to log in an AD or an EP char, especially if they ask me for help in leveling up AW for vigor/caltrops.

The little push I can apply is to convince them to play in Sotha Sil, so I get to have meaningful PvP (if I get lucky).

Currently there are 2 choices if I want to play: Vivec or Sotha Sil. Shor is dead, so I'm not even counting it.

What happen if I get locked to DC ? I can't play with friends/guildies.

To that I would add:

If I'm locked to DC, and I need to level up AW on my Argonian, I can't for 30 days, then I need to spend 30 days not doing PvP on my main because my EP PvE tank needs barrier, vigor and passives ?

You can make the argument that I would only need to do that for a short amount of time, then I'm done, but what you don't know is that like to make new toons once in a while, so this is actually a recurring theme.

I'm not even going to start with what happens if I solo queue and EP is gatecamping DC base (yeah, we have some population imbalances in PC-EU Sotha Sil). I wouln't be able to log on my AD magsorc to have some fun fights, instead I would be locked on my DC toons, and would have to settle for solo ganking, then run like hell when discovered, or just straight up resource-flipping related trolling.

I'm not contending your point, just saying the issue is a little bit more nuanced than that.

Enslaved

Its disgusting and exploiting. Zos should address this bs.

Kikke

people using "play with friends" as a reply too why there should not be any alliance lock. but cant these people also see that the same thing that lets them play with friends break the whole aspect of AvAvA? As there are no faction pride anymore, noone will stay active on a losing team, they all just switch too the winning team for easy rewards. THIS is whats killing Cyro.

Get faction locks back! and keep BGs as the casuals playground!

Aisle9

kikkehs wrote: »

people using "play with friends" as a reply too why there should not be any alliance lock. but cant these people also see that the same thing that lets them play with friends break the whole aspect of AvAvA? As there are no faction pride anymore, noone will stay active on a losing team, they all just switch too the winning team for easy rewards. THIS is whats killing Cyro.

Get faction locks back! and keep BGs as the casuals playground!

PC-EU:

2 active campaigns.

1 of which gets constantly nightcapped and has severe population imbalance, unless you play in prime time. And even then you have the faction that nightcapped with Emp, scrolls, keep bonuses and to add insult to injury, they may even get the underdog buff on AP.

The 7 days campaign is straight up dead and constantly of the same color.

The under 50 is ... well, under 50.

There are 3 alliances.

Please explain to me how do you play toons from 3 different alliances in 2 different campaigns with the lock ?

I get the exploitative potential of this system, but you're not taking into account 1st grade math.

Beardimus

@Aisle9 there are four campaigns.

Kyne 1-50

Sotha, Vivec and shor. One for each alliance....first grade maybe indeed

TheValar85

well according to TOs it is not legal, considering this was an ongoing emperor ship selling.

EDIT: I would lock every account to only join one aliance side for a time period lets say: 60 days and you can swich. and that will go on till the game is closed forever. Problem solved by the aliance swiching in pvp. but also i would definetly remove those players who abuses this system.

Aisle9

Beardimus wrote: »

@Aisle9 there are four campaigns.

Kyne 1-50

Sotha, Vivec and shor. One for each alliance....first grade maybe indeed

Kyne is under lvl 50 -> all my toons are higher than lvl 50 -> no meaningful PvP to be found there.

Shor is dead, as in empty, as in no players -> no meaningful PvP to be found there.

4 - 2 = 2.

I rest my case

jaws343

Beardimus wrote: »

Agreed @kikkehs ive seen the same behavior loads, ive only seen bad things from alliance switching. The difference is I have real evidence this time before it was smaller offences. And if ZOS checked the data they would see the few individuals involved @ZOS_GinaBruno can you advise the route to report this, if its deemed an offense by ZOS?

It's narked me, and I always vote against switching on polls but more people seem to agree with alliance switching with the 'play with your friends' justification but this type of behavior really wrecks the 'point' of PvP and outs people off the wider effort.

Then it does just become snakes and ladders playing with keeps if you lose the greater meaning.

My issue with the campaign lock is along the friends mindset. For example, I joined a social guild event in Vivec on AD on Friday. I built 1 AD toon to join that event and future events. I have 9 other PVP toons, all EP. It would be pretty ridiculous if I were to be locked out of a campaign for 28 days on my other 9 toons because I wanted to do a social event.

But I also disagree with the campaign lock because of the any race any alliance add-on. Some people want to make a Khajit nightblade and an orc tank or dark elf dK and a high elf sorc. In order to do this without that add-on, they have to pick different alliances. Until any race any alliance is part of the base game, I will never agree with campaign locking.

And there is a vast difference between joining Vivec and other campaigns. The 30 day campaign time equals a lot more in end of campaign rewards than the 7 day.

Beardimus

Ok @Aisle9 so you are putting specific conditions on your counting, then you will always get a Different answer. Pretty pedantic. You brought up maths, and the math is 3 alliances 3 Vet campaigns.

And just think if people picked a campaign per alliance then the perhaps the quieter campaigns might get pop.

Regardless back on topic, folks cheat with the current system, it's bad for all of us. How we gunna fix it

TheValar85

Beardimus wrote: »

Ok @Aisle9 so you are putting specific conditions on your counting, then you will always get a Different answer. Pretty pedantic. You brought up maths, and the math is 3 alliances 3 Vet campaigns.

And just think if people picked a campaign per alliance then the perhaps the quieter campaigns might get pop.

Regardless back on topic, folks cheat with the current system, it's bad for all of us. How we gunna fix it

We can't fix it as a player base, we can only porvide feedback to the Developers, and tehy have to fix this matter. If they don't deal with this well, thats thier fault, wich will definetly leads this game downfall in pvp mode.

randomkeyhits

When I started before I realised it would be a thing I created a DC, an AD and an EP character to play the separate stories, then found out Cadwells existed when the first finished and I hadn't needed to create all three up front. Then I started looking at PvP and realised why any race any alliance actually existed.

Bought it too for the new characters I wanted to create so I could use them in PvP.

Even having bought it I'd be happy (others may be not) if it was subsumed back into the base game and instead simply lock an account to the alliance they start a campaign as.

We just had a "random blue" grab the scroll on a run yesterday and deliver to the reds.

That kind of frustration is what drags down a games rep.

Beardimus

@randomkeyhits spot on, it's so hugely demotivating. It devalues the reasons to be in the war.

@TheValar85 sadly you are correct. Gamers integrity is pretty pants. My small IRL mates guild stay that way for the reason. I'm pretty trusting as assume people act with honour...

jaws343

randomkeyhits wrote: »

When I started before I realised it would be a thing I created a DC, an AD and an EP character to play the separate stories, then found out Cadwells existed when the first finished and I hadn't needed to create all three up front. Then I started looking at PvP and realised why any race any alliance actually existed.

Bought it too for the new characters I wanted to create so I could use them in PvP.

Even having bought it I'd be happy (others may be not) if it was subsumed back into the base game and instead simply lock an account to the alliance they start a campaign as.

We just had a "random blue" grab the scroll on a run yesterday and deliver to the reds.

That kind of frustration is what drags down a games rep.

I'll keep bringing this up in these threads because people use this as an example of why we need campaign locks. Delivering 1 enemies scroll to another enemy is strategic. It is how you get pressure off of your own forces. If you are holding the enemy scrolls in your own home keeps, your home keeps will constantly be under siege by that enemy. But if you deliver the yellow scroll to red, yellow will split their forces and attempt to take the scroll back, focusing their attention on red. Leaving your armies free to take the rest of the map unchecked.

Qbiken

jaws343 wrote: »

randomkeyhits wrote: »

When I started before I realised it would be a thing I created a DC, an AD and an EP character to play the separate stories, then found out Cadwells existed when the first finished and I hadn't needed to create all three up front. Then I started looking at PvP and realised why any race any alliance actually existed.

Bought it too for the new characters I wanted to create so I could use them in PvP.

Even having bought it I'd be happy (others may be not) if it was subsumed back into the base game and instead simply lock an account to the alliance they start a campaign as.

We just had a "random blue" grab the scroll on a run yesterday and deliver to the reds.

That kind of frustration is what drags down a games rep.

I'll keep bringing this up in these threads because people use this as an example of why we need campaign locks. Delivering 1 enemies scroll to another enemy is strategic. It is how you get pressure off of your own forces. If you are holding the enemies scrolls in your own home keeps, your home keeps with constantly be under siege by that enemy. But if you deliver the yellow scroll to red, yellow will split their forces and attempt to take the scroll back. Leaving your armies free to take the rest of the map unchecked.

I can get the reasoning behind it, but we both know in most cases you either bring the scroll close to enemies to:

a) AP-farm
b) Give away the scroll

I´ve seen legit groups do as you describe, but I don´t even need to use the fingers on 2nd hand to count how many times that have happened.....

Tan9oSuccka

Beardimus wrote: »

@randomkeyhits spot on, it's so hugely demotivating. It devalues the reasons to be in the war.

@TheValar85 sadly you are correct. Gamers integrity is pretty pants. My small IRL mates guild stay that way for the reason. I'm pretty trusting as assume people act with honour...

Heh. Honor....

I wasted a soul gem on a red, and five minutes later I was fighting the same guy playing on a blue.

Green alliance finally had enough numbers.

Beardimus

@jaws343 you may be missing the point. You are talking about delivering an enemies scroll to an enemy. What ive seen happen, and what most people are talking about on these threads is a random from your alliance deliver YOUR scroll to the enemy. And I think that's what @randomkeyhits is talking about.

There is nothing you can do either, as can't attack them.

kromegas

Any gamer tag that switches alliances and plays on another character within the same 24 hours should get a scarlet letter next to their character name when targeting them on pvp. This can help other players knowing they are possibly a spy.

After one switch you should be banned from earning AP for that 24 hour period, unable to pick up a scroll and cannot become emeperor. This way you are identified, and can still play with your friends.

Beardimus

kromegas wrote: »

Any gamer tag that switches alliances and plays on another character within the same 24 hours should get a scarlet letter next to their character name when targeting them on pvp. This can help other players knowing they are possibly a spy.

After one switch you should be banned from earning AP for that 24 hour period, unable to pick up a scroll. This way you are identified, and can still play with your friends.

Not a bad suggestion! Would have help in the 3 areas I've seen issues.

@ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_JessicaFolsom @ZOS_BrianWheeler this thread airs a few concerns about these nefarious behaviors and perhaps some sensible solutions?

Be great to see a response even if it's on your long range radar

It hoovers the fun out of PvP to have people game the system, and can drag motivation down in players.