Enough of the Faction Collusion Threads

Rana1014 · August 2014

There is no such thing as faction collusion. There is no "purple alliance", "green alliance" or "orange alliance". It's a three faction war, and each faction acts independently, and groups attack only if it benefits their own alliance. At times it may seem two factions are collaborating and targeting the third alliance, but this is just not true. If your alliance holds an enemy scroll, is dominating, or seems vulnerable at all, factions will both strike. They aren't plotting against you, you might just have something they want, like a scroll, or a keep. It's called being strategic and opportunistic. Each faction's players don't like the other two factions, that's why they joined the one they're in. So quit whining.

Cody · August 2014

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Tintinabula · August 2014

I used to wonder about the collusion thing myself..and even though Ive seen people in zone chat screaming there's been a cease fire I always laugh and say "great they wont see me coming".

Ive watched closely and there may be a cease fire between guilds?..but nothing more than that. The majority of the alliance are killing the enemies like they should be

Turelus · August 2014

Even if they are plotting against you and working together isn't that the entire point of three factions? I thought it was said long ago that there were three so in the case of one side having mass domination the other two could band together in temporary alliances to beat back the winning alliance.

I actually find it funny to see people complaining about alliances, deals and plots. Those are the things which add to the game, Cyrodiil is the closest to sandbox gameplay we have in ESO so enjoy it.

dcincali · August 2014

Rana1014 wrote: »

There is no such thing as faction collusion. There is no "purple alliance", "green alliance" or "orange alliance". It's a three faction war, and each faction acts independently, and groups attack only if it benefits their own alliance. At times it may seem two factions are collaborating and targeting the third alliance, but this is just not true. If your alliance holds an enemy scroll, is dominating, or seems vulnerable at all, factions will both strike. They aren't plotting against you, you might just have something they want, like a scroll, or a keep. It's called being strategic and opportunistic. Each faction's players don't like the other two factions, that's why they joined the one they're in. So quit whining.

Wow.. You don't get out much... Many times on DB there were agreements on who was taking what, EP would help clear DC out of AD keeps, DC would prevent AD from deposing EP emps etc... AD and DC would gang bang EP. DC and EP would charge into AD's last emp keep with single target skills to prevent killing each other.. Welcome to RvRvR.

Skwor · August 2014

You are seriously naive if you do not think some level of teaming never occurs. I would bet my house some amount occurs occasionally.

The real issue is just how much, temporary alliances are going to happen and are part of the game. Two sides deciding to totally negate the third as a long term strategy however is wrong; the question is does that happen?

I do believe the latter has happened to a lesser degree and that makes for a lot of bitter players in one faction. This is why campaigns need to be much shorter and more fluid to hopefully discourage this type of game-play.

Dleatherus · August 2014

AvAvA in a 'healthy' populated campaign is DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY to have collusion between the factions - although the collusion can be large or small, spontaneous or planned, it's primary purpose is so that no one faction can dominate and dishearten another faction over a long period of time as can occur when it is just AvA

to deny it exists is ignorance of how the AvAvA system works

to suspect that one faction is in permanent collusion with another is paranoia

the shifting balance of power, as well as an individual factions goals , and the goals of the individual guilds within that faction, will ensure that any 'agreement' will sooner or later be broken

this is within the spirit of the game

that said, why people complain about something that, on this level, is an intended mechanic, is beyond me

D.

Krinaman · August 2014

skwornub18_ESO wrote: »

The real issue is just how much, temporary alliances are going to happen and are part of the game. Two sides deciding to totally negate the third as a long term strategy however is wrong; the question is does that happen?

I do believe the latter has happened to a lesser degree and that makes for a lot of bitter players in one faction. This is why campaigns need to be much shorter and more fluid to hopefully discourage this type of game-play.

If two sides really decided to get together the third faction would spend it's time being gate farmed 24/7. It would also be nearly impossible to pull off. You might get a group or two on each side to do it but the who faction would be impossible.

heng14rwb17_ESO · August 2014

Purple is real......this is not a urban legend.

Mitharus · August 2014

heng14rwb17_ESO wrote: »

Purple is real......this is not a urban legend.

I agree... totally.

As much as the legendary Green and Orange anyway. :P

-M

Manoekin · August 2014

Mitharus wrote: »

heng14rwb17_ESO wrote: »

Purple is real......this is not a urban legend.

I agree... totally.

As much as the legendary Green and Orange anyway. :P

-M

I'm not sure. The entirety of Cyrodil north of Faregyl is essential one huge vineyard. So much grapes.

revcasy · August 2014

I have run quite a bit in Wabba, been in various TS and group chats. Never seen any evidence of collusion whatsoever. Either people are hiding it very well, even from their own teammates, or it just is not happening.

What I have seen happening is when my faction attacks say EP and we get very strong resistance because EP has a high pop and good organization at that particular time, we switch to attacking AD, or vice versa. Often this results in the two stronger alliances at any one time attacking the weaker one.

Why fight and struggle to make progress against an evenly matched opponent when you can make easier gains against a team that is weak or pushed back on the defensive?

Everybody gets frustrated and sees conspiracies when they aren't doing well, but 90% of the time they are simply wrong.

Edit: And I would add that AD in Wabba was very concentrated on defending their emperor keeps often times (no judgement, just a fact) and this often made it easier for a faction less concerned about emperorship to sneak in and grab a scroll or whatever. So if we (DC) saw EP and AD fighting interminably over that last AD emperor keep, we often just bypassed the fight and took other things from both sides. If we happened to be taking EP stuff it probably looked like we were colluding with AD, and if we were taking AD stuff it probably looked like we were colluding with EP.

Tintinabula · August 2014

Im sorry but today at Arrius Lumbermill AD and DC skipped hand in hand attacking EP..They didnt even turn on each other..It was crazy to see but plain as day..and I thought the excuse for collusion was to attack the strongest alliance?..cmon DC whats up?..we not good enough to be your friends? lol

..or is EP so good it takes the strongest alliance plus the third place alliance to team up to try to take arrius..what is it..5 times now today?..lol

Cody · August 2014

skwornub18_ESO wrote: »

You are seriously naive if you do not think some level of teaming never occurs. I would bet my house some amount occurs occasionally.

The real issue is just how much, temporary alliances are going to happen and are part of the game. Two sides deciding to totally negate the third as a long term strategy however is wrong; the question is does that happen?

I do believe the latter has happened to a lesser degree and that makes for a lot of bitter players in one faction. This is why campaigns need to be much shorter and more fluid to hopefully discourage this type of game-play.

it happened in hopesfire for a good bit. AD and DC double teamed EP for awhile. by awhile i mean for weeks. then when they reduced us to near nothing, AD betrayed DC, and DC got nothing out of it. was kinda funny

Krinaman · August 2014

Tintinabula wrote: »

Im sorry but today at Arrius Lumbermill AD and DC skipped hand in hand attacking EP..They didnt even turn on each other..It was crazy to see but plain as day..and I thought the excuse for collusion was to attack the strongest alliance?..cmon DC whats up?..we not good enough to be your friends? lol

..or is EP so good it takes the strongest alliance plus the third place alliance to team up to try to take arrius..what is it..5 times now today?..lol

Don't mistake short term common goals as some sort of collusion. But even when we both had an interest in taking Arrius it didn't happen because AD and DC kept attacking each other.

Nermy · August 2014

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend." - Arabian proverb.

At different times and on different servers I have seen some collusion between factions but I doubt that an accord has been drawn up and they have all signed it in blood.

As has been said, it make sense that two factions who are under manned collude slightly to fight the bigger faction. I see nothing wrong with this and honestly think that it's to be expected.

In the end it makes the PvP more fun I think and helps the predominance of factions swing from side to side.

frwinters_ESO · August 2014

So when you used to have players in one faction using the DK Fiery Gri[p to pull the enemy over keep walls or into starting area's there wasnt any collusion? You honestly do not think that players have other toons listening to zone chat telling people positions of the zerg or plans? It happens and we know it happens.

SeltzerDuke · August 2014

NookyZooky wrote: »

it happened in hopesfire for a good bit. AD and DC double teamed EP for awhile. by awhile i mean for weeks. then when they reduced us to near nothing, AD betrayed DC, and DC got nothing out of it. was kinda funny

Heh, catching up on threads while my patch finishes up, and you posted exactly what I was about to say. I left the first edition of Hopesfire after seeing too much of those shenanigans, one typically being that blue took resources at a keep while yellow sieged the keep - the final straw for me was seeing yellow and blue work together at an actual scroll temple, with blue guarding the perimeter while yellow went to work on the NPCs inside and got the scroll itself, then blue escorted the scroll carry, again as an outer ring of defense.

Making tactical decisions to overlook certain keeps in favor of other objectives, or simultaneously working to dethrone the third (or keep the third from getting emp) is obviously not only kosher but intelligent, as is deciding to ignore one faction's players at a siege in favor of another, if it seems like that faction is just there to stir up trouble/farm ap rather than back cap, but scrolls are one of the few explicit things that accrue advantage specifically to a single alliance (in terms of buffs but more importantly points total) that it just seemed stupid that blue would actually help yellow cap one. And like you say, blue was totally the junior partner and I'm glad to hear they got screwed in the end haha.

But yeah, paranoia about explicit, instutionalized collaboration does seem pretty heavy-handed in some threads. Some guilds might be in communication with each other in a campaign, but in AvAvA you will get that - the problem is when it becomes a permanent thing rather than situational. There are also a lot of reasons why one color might not attack another in an open combat setting - usually something like a 5v5 or whatnot being set-up so nobody is attacking until it's set up, or some are just observing. Occasionally just for fun some opposing players might just not attack each other if there is no specific battle taking place, and will just sit around emoting or testing abilities/gear set-ups on each other for number-crunching purposes - I've seen that too. So somebody comes along, sees blue and red or yellow and blue (I have to say yellow and red seem to never work together in any fashion, in my experience, haha) just hanging out or not being all-out attack against each other, and cries foul.