🛡️ Cyrodiil Alliance War is broken: Cross-teaming, win-trading, and bullying are ruining PvP

VidmaVirtual · 12:14AM

Hello everyone,

I wanted to open a discussion about the current state of the Cyrodiil Alliance War. The original core mechanic of three factions fighting for their alliance’s honor feels completely dead.

Instead of a real war, we now see high-tier players from different alliances making unofficial friendships and pacts. They refuse to fight each other, trade castles back and forth for easy Alliance Points (AP), and intentionally surrender their keeps to the enemy without a fight.

What makes this incredibly toxic is how they treat their own faction members. These coordinated groups will actively stand by and watch enemy alliance players slaughter low-tier or casual players from their own faction. If you actually try to defend a castle that they secretly agreed to give away, you get targeted, left to die, and laughed at. 💔

Before anyone types the classic "learn to play" or "get a better build" comments, please realize that not everyone has the same gaming conditions. MMO games are played by all kinds of people. Some players are dealing with health issues or disabilities that affect their reaction time. Others are playing on older, low-end PCs 🖥️ or have weak internet connections that cause terrible lag in Cyrodiil.

None of these things should mean that a player deserves to be bullied, gatekept, or betrayed by their own alliance's high-tier groups. PvP should be about fighting the enemy faction, not toxic groups controlling the map and farming vulnerable players who just want to enjoy the game.

How can ZOS fix this cross-teaming and faction betrayal? Should alliance locking be stricter?

Alternatively, ZOS could change the nameplates so that you can only see the real names of players in your own alliance. Enemy players should look anonymous (like "Ebonheart Soldier"). This would allow us to still see and greet our real friends in our faction 🤝, while completely destroying the ability for toxic groups to make agreements with enemies.

To make this even more effective, ZOS should disable the ability to send private messages (whispers) to enemy alliance players while inside Cyrodiil. This would instantly stop both toxic hate-whispers after fights and real-time win-trading coordination between factions.

This anonymous enemy system and disabled enemy whispers already work perfectly in MMOs like Guild Wars 2 (WvW mode) and World of Warcraft, where it successfully stopped cross-team win-trading and toxic chat abuse.

*Some might ask: how can we report someone for toxic behavior (like toxic t-bagging) if their name is hidden? It's simple: ZOS tools and the "Report" function would still track real UserIDs behind the scenes. If a player submits a video clip of toxic behavior, ZOS support can easily check the server logs (using the time, date, and location) to find out exactly which account was controlling that anonymous enemy character.* 🔍

**Do we want a game where we can fight fairly and properly for our alliances, or are we okay with a system where casual and solo players are just turned into targets for toxicity and bullying? Let's discuss.**

DoofusMax · 12:34AM

VidmaVirtual wrote: »

Alternatively, ZOS could change the nameplates so that you can only see the real names of players in your own alliance. Enemy players should look anonymous (like "Ebonheart Soldier"). This would allow us to still see and greet our real friends in our faction 🤝, while completely destroying the ability for toxic groups to make agreements with enemies.

To make this even more effective, ZOS should disable the ability to send private messages (whispers) to enemy alliance players while inside Cyrodiil. This would instantly stop both toxic hate-whispers after fights and real-time win-trading coordination between factions.

This anonymous enemy system and disabled enemy whispers already work perfectly in MMOs like Guild Wars 2 (WvW mode) and World of Warcraft, where it successfully stopped cross-team win-trading and toxic chat abuse.

Not wanting to rain on an admirable sentiment, but there is this thing called "Discord" (or any other third-party chat app). Anyone who wants to deal-broker for AP, leaderboards, emperor, or whatever doesn't need the in-game communications to do it. So no, it would not instantly stop the win-trading. It would probably put a damper on the hate whispers, though.

Nordstern · 12:42AM

It's always been like this and there are good reasons for it. I hardly doubt that there are many people whose intention is "bullying" other players. When youre a top tier player, you dont want to fight people on an equal skill level all the time. Not because youre scared but because those fights often take a long time and if I want to duel people i'll do it outside of cyrodiil. I play eso because it's unique pvp allows me to fight solo or duo against bigger groups. If I would fight every enemy I see, I would spend more than half of my time dueling other top tier players. From time to time thats great but I don't want to do that all the time.

Anonymous names are an interesting idea but I think most people won't like it cause rivalry between players/guilds is a revelant part of pvp. Disabling whispers doesnt solve the problem, they will just use guild chat and I don' think it would be wise to limit communication in a social game like eso. Not that I thought reporting was an important feature but what you suggest doesnt work without much more effort on ZOSs side. But anyways, who would care about tbagging in a completely anonymous pvp environment?

Stamicka · 12:56AM

Your complaints are a symptom of bigger issues tbh.. mainly low Cyrodiil population caps and terrible balance.

Have you seen many dueling tournies lately? Cause I haven’t. When I did used to see sign ups for these tournaments, the rules were literally paragraphs and paragraphs long. So many things were banned to try to ensure that people could kill each other. Even then, many duels would go to judges decision which could be problematic. Also sometimes there were edge cases that the tourney organizers didn’t think of. Someone would show up to the tournament with something totally broken that’s technically allowed, but no one else thought of it, and they would win.

I bring this up cause that’s really what the ‘competitive’ scene of ESO is like at this point. It’s so bad that even banning most of the stuff in the game results in boring fights and stalemates. If a player doesn’t fight to kill (and many don’t), it’ll be a long boring battle. Some people have something to prove and they just can’t stand dying. Then there’s also the case where people just know that someone is in a cheesy build that isn’t fun to fight, so they avoid each other.

So a lot of the time if you see two people from different alliances who don’t fight each other, it might not even be a friendship thing. They may not even like each other, but they know fighting would be long, boring, and eventually interrupted. So it turns into a game where people with recognizable names leave each other alone.

Sometimes you’re right and two players who are from different alliances who don’t fight are indeed friends. They won’t fight each other to keep the peace. If Cyrodiil population caps weren’t so low, this would be less of an issue. It’s a big issue for you now because these people see the same names every day, multiple times per day because hardly anything is going on elsewhere on the map. This wasn’t a big problem when Cyrodiil held many more people and there were many different campaigns to choose from.

What you want isn’t easily enforceable, but these problems would be mitigated a lot by fixing underlying issues.

Lokiator · 1:48AM

I haven't seen much win-trading, but I have been online when my faction brokered a temporary peace treaty with one of the others. The agreement was AD and DC wouldn't cross our mutual border so we could both deal with EP who had numerical advantage. The logic being that while we fought each other, neither of us could keep EP from taking our territory on the other front. Essentially, we had a common enemy who outnumbered us individually but not jointly, so for a couple hours we turned the war from one with 3 frontlines into one with 2 frontlines.

VidmaVirtual · 3:09AM

DoofusMax wrote: »

VidmaVirtual wrote: »

Alternatively, ZOS could change the nameplates so that you can only see the real names of players in your own alliance. Enemy players should look anonymous (like "Ebonheart Soldier"). This would allow us to still see and greet our real friends in our faction 🤝, while completely destroying the ability for toxic groups to make agreements with enemies.

To make this even more effective, ZOS should disable the ability to send private messages (whispers) to enemy alliance players while inside Cyrodiil. This would instantly stop both toxic hate-whispers after fights and real-time win-trading coordination between factions.

This anonymous enemy system and disabled enemy whispers already work perfectly in MMOs like Guild Wars 2 (WvW mode) and World of Warcraft, where it successfully stopped cross-team win-trading and toxic chat abuse.

Not wanting to rain on an admirable sentiment, but there is this thing called "Discord" (or any other third-party chat app). Anyone who wants to deal-broker for AP, leaderboards, emperor, or whatever doesn't need the in-game communications to do it. So no, it would not instantly stop the win-trading. It would probably put a damper on the hate whispers, though.

You are absolutely right about Discord for pre-planned group deals. However, that’s where the second part of the suggestion—hiding enemy nameplates—comes into play.
Even if people are sitting in a cross-faction Discord call, if they cannot see who is running towards them in the middle of a chaotic Cyrodiil map (because everyone looks like an anonymous "Ebonheart Soldier"), it becomes nearly impossible to coordinate safe win-trading in real-time. They won't know if the incoming player is their "Discord friend" or a random enemy who will attack them.
But yes, at the very least, disabling whispers would instantly clean up the toxic post-fight chat environment!

VidmaVirtual · 3:14AM

Nordstern wrote: »

It's always been like this and there are good reasons for it. I hardly doubt that there are many people whose intention is "bullying" other players. When youre a top tier player, you dont want to fight people on an equal skill level all the time. Not because youre scared but because those fights often take a long time and if I want to duel people i'll do it outside of cyrodiil. I play eso because it's unique pvp allows me to fight solo or duo against bigger groups. If I would fight every enemy I see, I would spend more than half of my time dueling other top tier players. From time to time thats great but I don't want to do that all the time.

Anonymous names are an interesting idea but I think most people won't like it cause rivalry between players/guilds is a revelant part of pvp. Disabling whispers doesnt solve the problem, they will just use guild chat and I don' think it would be wise to limit communication in a social game like eso. Not that I thought reporting was an important feature but what you suggest doesnt work without much more effort on ZOSs side. But anyways, who would care about tbagging in a completely anonymous pvp environment?

Thank you for your perspective, but you actually highlighted exactly why this is a problem for the health of Cyrodiil.

When you say that top-tier players don't want to fight equal skill levels because it takes too long, and instead prefer "not fighting every enemy" (leaving each other alone), it directly results in those top-tier groups turning all their attention onto solo, casual, or less-experienced players. For a new or casual player, being constantly farmed by a coordinated group while your own alliance's high-tier players just stand there and watch is the definition of griefing and a toxic experience.
Regarding whispers: limiting cross-faction talk in a PvP zone is not "limiting communication in a social game." You can still talk to your guild, your group, and your entire alliance. You just can't trash-talk the enemy or make deals with them. Games like Guild Wars 2 and WoW have successfully used this for years, and their PvP communities are doing just fine.
As for t-bagging and anonymity: people who do it to troll will do it regardless of whether a name is visible or not. The point is that ZOS *can* track it through server logs if needed, so reporting wouldn't be broken.
PvP should be about faction loyalty and fair competition, not high-tier groups choosing to only fight the players who stand no chance against them.

Gabriel_H · 4:33AM

Stamicka wrote: »

Your complaints are a symptom of bigger issues tbh.. mainly low Cyrodiil population caps and terrible balance.

...

What you want isn’t easily enforceable, but these problems would be mitigated a lot by fixing underlying issues.

They have been fixed. The PvP community, particularly the more hardcore elements, rejected it outright.

Luneca · 4:42AM

Welcome to life. You cannot moderate or control player behavior. I don't expect anyone to do as I want or even back me up in Cyrodiil. That's why I fire siege. Siege is the only thing that is constant and will never betray or plot against me.

aetherix8 · 7:52AM

From my years in Cyro (Ravenwatch) I learned that "faction loyalty" is nearly non-existent among skilled PvPers. Most veteran players who are very good at PvP (as in player vs player exclusively, without the "playing the map" component) couldn't care less about the score. That wouldn't be an issue if these players just focused on their thing, fighting other players, while leaving alone those who care about winning a campaign. But, in my opinion, some of them developed a God complex, and they act as if it were their divine right to decide the fate of any given campaign: who wins and who doesn't. Some of them do it in good faith, to boost the morale of a weaker faction who would not have scored a win otherwise. But good faith is not always involved, and even if it is the case, it is counterproductive because campaigns feel rigged. There is this saying: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions".

It leads to a situation described by the OP:

"What makes this incredibly toxic is how they treat their own faction members. These coordinated groups will actively stand by and watch enemy alliance players slaughter low-tier or casual players from their own faction. If you actually try to defend a castle that they secretly agreed to give away, you get targeted, left to die, and laughed at. 💔"

It leads to a situation where many players not only feel betrayed, but they also feel their effort is worthless, their faction loyalty a reason to scorn them, and ultimately a sentiment of hopelessness sets in. This is quite harmful to maintaining healthy populations, as newer players might simply give up entirely on Cyrodiil.

I don't see an easy way out of this mess. I'm against disabling whispers to enemy players because I would not be able to ask them about their build choices after a good fight; not all communications are hate whispers and score rigging. I'm against only having "EP soldier" instead of user ID, and there would still be ways to recognize players by their distinctive looks. Or shall we disable fashion in Cyrodiil as well? I don't think it's a good idea, as we all love to show off our shiny mounts.

Personally, I also stopped caring about the score knowing that it is rigged anyway. I learned never to rely on skilled players who one day fight side by side with you and farm you the next. I only play my chosen faction because I believe that the impact of "betraying" newer players is truly devastating, and I don't want to be part of it, ever. The only real counter that I can think of is to outnumber the riggers, so their impact becomes close to none. That would mean coordinating effectively with other like-minded players and guilds, via your own channels, never in the zone chat.

Gabriel_H · 8:22AM

aetherix8 wrote: »

From my years in Cyro (Ravenwatch) I learned that "faction loyalty" is nearly non-existent among skilled PvPers. Most veteran players who are very good at PvP (as in player vs player exclusively, without the "playing the map" component) couldn't care less about the score.

Which is, in my opinion, part of the problem that many have with Vengeance. It's a lot more balanced, and it's much more focussed on the campaign score, not the AP farm. Though the latter is achieved by focussing the former but that is often ignored in the pursuit of a more efficient AP farm.

Not that long ago, on these forums, someone who others described as a "well known PvP main" attempted a mocking comment about Vengeance, stating something along the lines of 'well what are you going to do there, siege and fight large scale battles'. Well, yeah, that is the whole point of Cyro, isn't it?!

If the PvP community actually cared about balance, they'd be engaging with Vengeance and giving feedback to improve it, wouldn't they? Instead they rejected it outright. I'm not one for moment suggesting that Vengeance solves everything, or that it doesn't need some major and massive changes, but as someone who enjoys PvP, and who wants a more balanced experience, I am engaging. So, why aren't more people? Just a thought to ponder.

Things may become clearer when ZOS release their medium map. If it's a farm the enemy and occasionally capture a flag (along the lines of WSG or Arathi for any WoW players) then I think (normal) Cyro may well see an exodus of players, or at least a significant drop in participation among a certain segment.

Burtan · 8:48AM

There are no secret agreements to hand over keeps, no words are exchanged and no agreements are made. "high tier" players will typically choose not to attack each other without any real thought, only the reading of nameplates or guild tags.

AvA players will typically chase you down 10 vs 1, "high tier" players typically do not. Then consider that a fight between "high tier" players could potentially ensue for 20 minutes just so 10-20 players can arrive and run over one or both of you. At this point, teaming becomes survival and continues as a simple status quo.

A secondary and major component is that there is absolutely no incentive for faction loyalty or playing the actual objective, you only need to make AP. Campaign scoring means nothing when 10 people can capture the map during off-hours and more more of an impact than a full population during peak hours.

This realistically is not going to change and is not unfolding the way people claim it is.

aetherix8 · 9:11AM

Gabriel_H wrote: »

aetherix8 wrote: »

From my years in Cyro (Ravenwatch) I learned that "faction loyalty" is nearly non-existent among skilled PvPers. Most veteran players who are very good at PvP (as in player vs player exclusively, without the "playing the map" component) couldn't care less about the score.

Which is, in my opinion, part of the problem that many have with Vengeance. It's a lot more balanced, and it's much more focussed on the campaign score, not the AP farm. Though the latter is achieved by focussing the former but that is often ignored in the pursuit of a more efficient AP farm.

Not that long ago, on these forums, someone who others described as a "well known PvP main" attempted a mocking comment about Vengeance, stating something along the lines of 'well what are you going to do there, siege and fight large scale battles'. Well, yeah, that is the whole point of Cyro, isn't it?!

If the PvP community actually cared about balance, they'd be engaging with Vengeance and giving feedback to improve it, wouldn't they? Instead they rejected it outright. I'm not one for moment suggesting that Vengeance solves everything, or that it doesn't need some major and massive changes, but as someone who enjoys PvP, and who wants a more balanced experience, I am engaging. So, why aren't more people? Just a thought to ponder.

Things may become clearer when ZOS release their medium map. If it's a farm the enemy and occasionally capture a flag (along the lines of WSG or Arathi for any WoW players) then I think (normal) Cyro may well see an exodus of players, or at least a significant drop in participation among a certain segment.

I think most players who rejected Vengeance did so out of the fear that this drastically different ruleset would replace their favored one. And I'm not sure how many GH players care about the score balance; when they talk about balance, it is mostly related to combat (unkillable groups, broken new item sets, etc.)

And just to add to my previous post, I think sometimes it is necessary to jump ship in Cyrodiil. Sometimes "faction loyalty" creates an oppressive environment where one dominant faction wins campaign after campaign, keeping the map one color only, gating other factions and never letting them have a win too. I'm fine with players being loyal to their chosen alliance, but I think it becomes very problematic when players of a dominant faction are blinded by their "loyalty" to a definitely more important factor: the overall health of a campaign and its population. Only one faction winning all the time basically kills the campaign by driving other faction-loyal players away. In such a context, jumping ship to help weaker factions becomes an honorable thing to do, and, when done correctly, it is conducive to a healthy power balance.

Gabriel_H · 9:15AM

aetherix8 wrote: »

Gabriel_H wrote: »

aetherix8 wrote: »

From my years in Cyro (Ravenwatch) I learned that "faction loyalty" is nearly non-existent among skilled PvPers. Most veteran players who are very good at PvP (as in player vs player exclusively, without the "playing the map" component) couldn't care less about the score.

Which is, in my opinion, part of the problem that many have with Vengeance. It's a lot more balanced, and it's much more focussed on the campaign score, not the AP farm. Though the latter is achieved by focussing the former but that is often ignored in the pursuit of a more efficient AP farm.

Not that long ago, on these forums, someone who others described as a "well known PvP main" attempted a mocking comment about Vengeance, stating something along the lines of 'well what are you going to do there, siege and fight large scale battles'. Well, yeah, that is the whole point of Cyro, isn't it?!

If the PvP community actually cared about balance, they'd be engaging with Vengeance and giving feedback to improve it, wouldn't they? Instead they rejected it outright. I'm not one for moment suggesting that Vengeance solves everything, or that it doesn't need some major and massive changes, but as someone who enjoys PvP, and who wants a more balanced experience, I am engaging. So, why aren't more people? Just a thought to ponder.

Things may become clearer when ZOS release their medium map. If it's a farm the enemy and occasionally capture a flag (along the lines of WSG or Arathi for any WoW players) then I think (normal) Cyro may well see an exodus of players, or at least a significant drop in participation among a certain segment.

I think most players who rejected Vengeance did so out of the fear that this drastically different ruleset would replace their favored one. And I'm not sure how many GH players care about the score balance; when they talk about balance, it is mostly related to combat (unkillable groups, broken new item sets, etc.)

When I say balanced, I mean combat

aetherix8 · 9:45AM

Gabriel_H wrote: »

aetherix8 wrote: »

Gabriel_H wrote: »

aetherix8 wrote: »

From my years in Cyro (Ravenwatch) I learned that "faction loyalty" is nearly non-existent among skilled PvPers. Most veteran players who are very good at PvP (as in player vs player exclusively, without the "playing the map" component) couldn't care less about the score.

Which is, in my opinion, part of the problem that many have with Vengeance. It's a lot more balanced, and it's much more focussed on the campaign score, not the AP farm. Though the latter is achieved by focussing the former but that is often ignored in the pursuit of a more efficient AP farm.

Not that long ago, on these forums, someone who others described as a "well known PvP main" attempted a mocking comment about Vengeance, stating something along the lines of 'well what are you going to do there, siege and fight large scale battles'. Well, yeah, that is the whole point of Cyro, isn't it?!

If the PvP community actually cared about balance, they'd be engaging with Vengeance and giving feedback to improve it, wouldn't they? Instead they rejected it outright. I'm not one for moment suggesting that Vengeance solves everything, or that it doesn't need some major and massive changes, but as someone who enjoys PvP, and who wants a more balanced experience, I am engaging. So, why aren't more people? Just a thought to ponder.

Things may become clearer when ZOS release their medium map. If it's a farm the enemy and occasionally capture a flag (along the lines of WSG or Arathi for any WoW players) then I think (normal) Cyro may well see an exodus of players, or at least a significant drop in participation among a certain segment.

I think most players who rejected Vengeance did so out of the fear that this drastically different ruleset would replace their favored one. And I'm not sure how many GH players care about the score balance; when they talk about balance, it is mostly related to combat (unkillable groups, broken new item sets, etc.)

When I say balanced, I mean combat

Combat is more balanced in Vengeance, and this is something I completely agree with. But this is not what this thread is about; the OP complains about players from their faction refusing to fight other factions' players. That cannot be remedied, as everyone is free to pick their own fights, and a no-fight agreement between players might also have nothing to do with score trading or stalemates for that matter. So my best advice is: never rely on skilled PvPers' support in your pursuit of a campaign win. Hone your own fighting skills and cooperate with players who share your objectives.

Nordstern · 9:59AM

VidmaVirtual wrote: »

Nordstern wrote: »

It's always been like this and there are good reasons for it. I hardly doubt that there are many people whose intention is "bullying" other players. When youre a top tier player, you dont want to fight people on an equal skill level all the time. Not because youre scared but because those fights often take a long time and if I want to duel people i'll do it outside of cyrodiil. I play eso because it's unique pvp allows me to fight solo or duo against bigger groups. If I would fight every enemy I see, I would spend more than half of my time dueling other top tier players. From time to time thats great but I don't want to do that all the time.

Anonymous names are an interesting idea but I think most people won't like it cause rivalry between players/guilds is a revelant part of pvp. Disabling whispers doesnt solve the problem, they will just use guild chat and I don' think it would be wise to limit communication in a social game like eso. Not that I thought reporting was an important feature but what you suggest doesnt work without much more effort on ZOSs side. But anyways, who would care about tbagging in a completely anonymous pvp environment?

Thank you for your perspective, but you actually highlighted exactly why this is a problem for the health of Cyrodiil.

When you say that top-tier players don't want to fight equal skill levels because it takes too long, and instead prefer "not fighting every enemy" (leaving each other alone), it directly results in those top-tier groups turning all their attention onto solo, casual, or less-experienced players. For a new or casual player, being constantly farmed by a coordinated group while your own alliance's high-tier players just stand there and watch is the definition of griefing and a toxic experience.
Regarding whispers: limiting cross-faction talk in a PvP zone is not "limiting communication in a social game." You can still talk to your guild, your group, and your entire alliance. You just can't trash-talk the enemy or make deals with them. Games like Guild Wars 2 and WoW have successfully used this for years, and their PvP communities are doing just fine.
As for t-bagging and anonymity: people who do it to troll will do it regardless of whether a name is visible or not. The point is that ZOS *can* track it through server logs if needed, so reporting wouldn't be broken.
PvP should be about faction loyalty and fair competition, not high-tier groups choosing to only fight the players who stand no chance against them.

I hardly see any solo players at all, I fight groups as a solo player almost all of the time. If theres "coordinated groups" farming solo players or casual players of even numbers, it's definitely a sad playstyle but if theres like one or two players that kill your whole group you cant complain because someone else is not helping you. And I don't think there will ever be a rule forcing players to fight every enemy they see, because it would be absurd. As someone else already asked: what platform are we speaking of?
Also if you guys want to win the alliance war you need to coordinate properly and work together. I hardly see this anymore but over the years there have been multiple guilds ruling cyrodiil not because they were top tier players but because they had good coordination and a plan. One such guild can easily make the difference and win the campaign.

Gabriel_H · 10:08AM

aetherix8 wrote: »

Gabriel_H wrote: »

aetherix8 wrote: »

Gabriel_H wrote: »

aetherix8 wrote: »

From my years in Cyro (Ravenwatch) I learned that "faction loyalty" is nearly non-existent among skilled PvPers. Most veteran players who are very good at PvP (as in player vs player exclusively, without the "playing the map" component) couldn't care less about the score.

Which is, in my opinion, part of the problem that many have with Vengeance. It's a lot more balanced, and it's much more focussed on the campaign score, not the AP farm. Though the latter is achieved by focussing the former but that is often ignored in the pursuit of a more efficient AP farm.

Not that long ago, on these forums, someone who others described as a "well known PvP main" attempted a mocking comment about Vengeance, stating something along the lines of 'well what are you going to do there, siege and fight large scale battles'. Well, yeah, that is the whole point of Cyro, isn't it?!

If the PvP community actually cared about balance, they'd be engaging with Vengeance and giving feedback to improve it, wouldn't they? Instead they rejected it outright. I'm not one for moment suggesting that Vengeance solves everything, or that it doesn't need some major and massive changes, but as someone who enjoys PvP, and who wants a more balanced experience, I am engaging. So, why aren't more people? Just a thought to ponder.

Things may become clearer when ZOS release their medium map. If it's a farm the enemy and occasionally capture a flag (along the lines of WSG or Arathi for any WoW players) then I think (normal) Cyro may well see an exodus of players, or at least a significant drop in participation among a certain segment.

I think most players who rejected Vengeance did so out of the fear that this drastically different ruleset would replace their favored one. And I'm not sure how many GH players care about the score balance; when they talk about balance, it is mostly related to combat (unkillable groups, broken new item sets, etc.)

When I say balanced, I mean combat

Combat is more balanced in Vengeance, and this is something I completely agree with. But this is not what this thread is about; the OP complains about players from their faction refusing to fight other factions' players. That cannot be remedied, as everyone is free to pick their own fights, and a no-fight agreement between players might also have nothing to do with score trading or stalemates for that matter. So my best advice is: never rely on skilled PvPers' support in your pursuit of a campaign win. Hone your own fighting skills and cooperate with players who share your objectives.

It's driven from the same mindset. AP >>>> Actual campaign or ruleset for that matter.

VidmaVirtual · 1:12PM

Luneca wrote: »

Welcome to life. You cannot moderate or control player behavior. I don't expect anyone to do as I want or even back me up in Cyrodiil. That's why I fire siege. Siege is the only thing that is constant and will never betray or plot against me.

I see you have a point! Trusting only your cold, hard stone trebuchet to never betray you is a very safe Cyrodiil strategy. 🥹

But while it's true we can't change human nature or player behavior, developers *can* change the game environment. We aren't asking ZOS to police how players think, we are just suggesting mechanical changes—like anonymous enemy nameplates and disabling cross-faction whispers—that remove the tools toxic groups use to coordinate their betrayal.
Until then, I guess we will all keep firing that loyal siege!

VidmaVirtual · 1:32PM

Burtan wrote: »

There are no secret agreements to hand over keeps, no words are exchanged and no agreements are made. "high tier" players will typically choose not to attack each other without any real thought, only the reading of nameplates or guild tags.

AvA players will typically chase you down 10 vs 1, "high tier" players typically do not. Then consider that a fight between "high tier" players could potentially ensue for 20 minutes just so 10-20 players can arrive and run over one or both of you. At this point, teaming becomes survival and continues as a simple status quo.

A secondary and major component is that there is absolutely no incentive for faction loyalty or playing the actual objective, you only need to make AP. Campaign scoring means nothing when 10 people can capture the map during off-hours and more more of an impact than a full population during peak hours.

This realistically is not going to change and is not unfolding the way people claim it is.

Thank you for your input, but you actually just made the perfect case for why hiding enemy nameplates is necessary.

When you say that high-tier players choose not to attack each other based purely on "reading nameplates or guild tags," you are confirming that they are using meta-information to bypass the faction war. 🥹 In a three-faction war, an enemy should be an enemy, regardless of what guild tag they wear or how famous their name is.
If ZOS implements the anonymous nameplate system I suggested, that automatic "status quo" completely shatters. If you can't read the nameplate or the guild tag, you won't know if the player running at you is a top-tier duelist or a casual player. You will actually have to fight for your alliance, rather than using names to decide who gets a free pass and who gets farmed.

You also mentioned that there is no incentive for faction loyalty because off-hours capture groups ruin the score. While that is a valid system issue, it shouldn't be used to justify or excuse the toxic behavior and griefing that casual players experience during peak hours. We should aim to fix both, not accept it as the unchangeable norm.

VidmaVirtual · 1:37PM

Nordstern wrote: »

VidmaVirtual wrote: »

Nordstern wrote: »

It's always been like this and there are good reasons for it. I hardly doubt that there are many people whose intention is "bullying" other players. When youre a top tier player, you dont want to fight people on an equal skill level all the time. Not because youre scared but because those fights often take a long time and if I want to duel people i'll do it outside of cyrodiil. I play eso because it's unique pvp allows me to fight solo or duo against bigger groups. If I would fight every enemy I see, I would spend more than half of my time dueling other top tier players. From time to time thats great but I don't want to do that all the time.

Anonymous names are an interesting idea but I think most people won't like it cause rivalry between players/guilds is a revelant part of pvp. Disabling whispers doesnt solve the problem, they will just use guild chat and I don' think it would be wise to limit communication in a social game like eso. Not that I thought reporting was an important feature but what you suggest doesnt work without much more effort on ZOSs side. But anyways, who would care about tbagging in a completely anonymous pvp environment?

Thank you for your perspective, but you actually highlighted exactly why this is a problem for the health of Cyrodiil.

When you say that top-tier players don't want to fight equal skill levels because it takes too long, and instead prefer "not fighting every enemy" (leaving each other alone), it directly results in those top-tier groups turning all their attention onto solo, casual, or less-experienced players. For a new or casual player, being constantly farmed by a coordinated group while your own alliance's high-tier players just stand there and watch is the definition of griefing and a toxic experience.
Regarding whispers: limiting cross-faction talk in a PvP zone is not "limiting communication in a social game." You can still talk to your guild, your group, and your entire alliance. You just can't trash-talk the enemy or make deals with them. Games like Guild Wars 2 and WoW have successfully used this for years, and their PvP communities are doing just fine.
As for t-bagging and anonymity: people who do it to troll will do it regardless of whether a name is visible or not. The point is that ZOS *can* track it through server logs if needed, so reporting wouldn't be broken.
PvP should be about faction loyalty and fair competition, not high-tier groups choosing to only fight the players who stand no chance against them.

I hardly see any solo players at all, I fight groups as a solo player almost all of the time. If theres "coordinated groups" farming solo players or casual players of even numbers, it's definitely a sad playstyle but if theres like one or two players that kill your whole group you cant complain because someone else is not helping you. And I don't think there will ever be a rule forcing players to fight every enemy they see, because it would be absurd. As someone else already asked: what platform are we speaking of?
Also if you guys want to win the alliance war you need to coordinate properly and work together. I hardly see this anymore but over the years there have been multiple guilds ruling cyrodiil not because they were top tier players but because they had good coordination and a plan. One such guild can easily make the difference and win the campaign.

I play on PC (Windows/Steam).

To clarify, this post is not a complaint about losing fights to skilled solo players or larger coordinated groups. Losing is a normal part of PvP.

The issue is about **intentional cross-faction cooperation and betrayal**. It is a fact that certain groups from opposing alliances actively choose not to fight each other due to out-of-game friendships or AP-trading agreements. When those enemy groups push into a keep, and the high-tier players of your *own* alliance intentionally step aside, watch you get slaughtered, and refuse to defend the objectives because of a mutual pact with the enemy—that is not just "good coordination." That is cross-teaming and griefing.

Nobody is asking for a rule that forces people to fight every enemy they see. That would be impossible to enforce. What I am suggesting are structural, mechanical changes—like anonymous enemy nameplates and disabling cross-faction whispers in Cyrodiil. These changes would naturally break those toxic, unspoken agreements and force players back into the core spirit of the Alliance War.

CatalinaWineMixer2 · 2:01PM

I sympathize with the OP. I see and experience these same things all the time in PvP. This is not the fault of the Developers, most of it is really just terrible people. Doing what they do best, exploits and vitriol. And chasing more people away from the dwindling PvP population.

The most important question, what can be done about these issues?

Im afraid there isn't a simple, easy or totally acceptable solution. Ive mentioned this before, but if players were added to and grouped into the instance based on the player/alliance count and conditions in Cyrodiil at the time of entry by the system itself it might eliminate this. It would at least prevent the account/character switching to exploit Alliances. But it would basically prevent people from joining as groups or playing exclusively with their Guilds. Or as an alliance they choose.

I think a big help at least in BG would be to eliminate the ability to que as a group. That might put an end to the ball groups at least there. It wont change the fact that its the same people in there over and over again at times. That issue comes from a low PvP population.

Totally fair PvP - im not sure such a thing really exists. I dont like to compare games either because its not fair to the Developers. If you look at the large PvP battles in Final Fantasy XIV, some of the things I've mentioned exist. 3 teams, groups assigned by the system. Everyone in there is equalized too, that is they have the same abilities per Class/Role as well. It's a lot of fun and it's always busy there too by the way.

The sad reality is, the necessary changes to stop some of these issues would have to be mandated and instituted by the Developers. And it puts them in an unwinnable position because they will take heat about it either way no matter what they do.

BardokRedSnow · 2:03PM

Gabriel_H wrote: »

aetherix8 wrote: »

From my years in Cyro (Ravenwatch) I learned that "faction loyalty" is nearly non-existent among skilled PvPers. Most veteran players who are very good at PvP (as in player vs player exclusively, without the "playing the map" component) couldn't care less about the score.

Which is, in my opinion, part of the problem that many have with Vengeance. It's a lot more balanced, and it's much more focussed on the campaign score, not the AP farm. Though the latter is achieved by focussing the former but that is often ignored in the pursuit of a more efficient AP farm.

Not that long ago, on these forums, someone who others described as a "well known PvP main" attempted a mocking comment about Vengeance, stating something along the lines of 'well what are you going to do there, siege and fight large scale battles'. Well, yeah, that is the whole point of Cyro, isn't it?!

If the PvP community actually cared about balance, they'd be engaging with Vengeance and giving feedback to improve it, wouldn't they? Instead they rejected it outright. I'm not one for moment suggesting that Vengeance solves everything, or that it doesn't need some major and massive changes, but as someone who enjoys PvP, and who wants a more balanced experience, I am engaging. So, why aren't more people? Just a thought to ponder.

Things may become clearer when ZOS release their medium map. If it's a farm the enemy and occasionally capture a flag (along the lines of WSG or Arathi for any WoW players) then I think (normal) Cyro may well see an exodus of players, or at least a significant drop in participation among a certain segment.

This is about me btw to those who are curious

We care about balance yes, in relation to combat, as well as population. Ironically Greyhost is more balanced in both cases.

At least in PCNA, the score is usually much closer than what you see anywhere else because every night all night primetime is locked for all factions. When it’s not close, it’s because daytime dc is on when everyone is at work, like currently. Before this campaign though the camps were so close that previously we had a tie breaker based off number of resources, outposts and keeps which put ep in first place at the very last eval

Those are incredibly rare in greyhost but nonexistent everywhere else. So campaign score, population, due to the presence of faction lock, unmatched. Meanwhile Vengeance could only ever have a balanced population if they reach 900 players but they haven’t reached even half that since the first iteration of the vengeance tests.

And because of that reality, everyone swaps to one faction to do precisely what I said, Zerg down the low pop factions, siege virtually empty keeps by comparison to the populated faction everyone switched to and otherwise be just as toxic as what the op described here minus the need to coordinate in discord in order to do it.

And finally as for combat, ignoring the population disadvantage… actually let’s address that again. No procs means no bombers, no tanks to distract and hold up the Zerg, no negates to hold back a charge or help your charge etc. no counterplay at all when you are outnumbered by a mob, it’s a pure numbers game only and you’re a sitting duck if you don’t log into a toon on the bigger faction

Aside from that this game has balance issues at its core that never go addressed which is why nightblade was considered the strongest class for vengeance and I assume still is. Zos said they’d make adjustments in the future, add sets etc so when that happens we can have another discussion, but the iteration they’ve released now, it’s not better, balanced or less toxic compared to Greyhost in any single way. Every comment I made about it prior is true and the more people complain about Greyhost players rejecting vengeance the more evident it is I am right.

I roasted Vengeance for being a siege simulator absolutely. Cyrodiil isn’t about sieging walls no, that’s a feature that helps aid and change or alter the actual fights and overall war, no one is logging in and sometimes queueing up for hours in Greyhost just to siege and even our siege warriors avoid Vengeance because you only get one siege at a time xDDDDD can the PvP side of Zos get something right?

Even with the inclusion of immortal ballgroups and lag I would choose Greyhost over Vengeance every time, at least for PCNA

You don’t balance a game by stripping it of everything that made the game popular to fans in the first place. “Throwing the baby out with the bathwater” is the exact opposite of balance.

Happy hunting

VidmaVirtual · 3:22PM

Gabriel_H wrote: »

aetherix8 wrote: »

From my years in Cyro (Ravenwatch) I learned that "faction loyalty" is nearly non-existent among skilled PvPers. Most veteran players who are very good at PvP (as in player vs player exclusively, without the "playing the map" component) couldn't care less about the score.

Which is, in my opinion, part of the problem that many have with Vengeance. It's a lot more balanced, and it's much more focussed on the campaign score, not the AP farm. Though the latter is achieved by focussing the former but that is often ignored in the pursuit of a more efficient AP farm.

Not that long ago, on these forums, someone who others described as a "well known PvP main" attempted a mocking comment about Vengeance, stating something along the lines of 'well what are you going to do there, siege and fight large scale battles'. Well, yeah, that is the whole point of Cyro, isn't it?!

If the PvP community actually cared about balance, they'd be engaging with Vengeance and giving feedback to improve it, wouldn't they? Instead they rejected it outright. I'm not one for moment suggesting that Vengeance solves everything, or that it doesn't need some major and massive changes, but as someone who enjoys PvP, and who wants a more balanced experience, I am engaging. So, why aren't more people? Just a thought to ponder.

Things may become clearer when ZOS release their medium map. If it's a farm the enemy and occasionally capture a flag (along the lines of WSG or Arathi for any WoW players) then I think (normal) Cyro may well see an exodus of players, or at least a significant drop in participation among a certain segment.

I understand why you see Vengeance as a better alternative since it focuses on the score rather than the AP farm. However, a change of campaign doesn't change player behavior.

The core issues I mentioned—cross-teaming, win-trading, and high-tier groups choosing to ignore each other to farm solo players—can happen in Vengeance just as easily as anywhere else. As long as enemy players can read each other's nameplates, recognize guild tags, and send private whispers to coordinate truces in real-time, any campaign can be rigged or turned into a toxic environment.

Vengeance might change the rules of the match, but it doesn't remove the tools that allow toxic groups to collaborate. That is why structural changes like anonymity and blocking cross-faction whispers are needed globally, regardless of which campaign people choose to play.🥹

Nordstern · 3:29PM

VidmaVirtual wrote: »

Burtan wrote: »

There are no secret agreements to hand over keeps, no words are exchanged and no agreements are made. "high tier" players will typically choose not to attack each other without any real thought, only the reading of nameplates or guild tags.

AvA players will typically chase you down 10 vs 1, "high tier" players typically do not. Then consider that a fight between "high tier" players could potentially ensue for 20 minutes just so 10-20 players can arrive and run over one or both of you. At this point, teaming becomes survival and continues as a simple status quo.

A secondary and major component is that there is absolutely no incentive for faction loyalty or playing the actual objective, you only need to make AP. Campaign scoring means nothing when 10 people can capture the map during off-hours and more more of an impact than a full population during peak hours.

This realistically is not going to change and is not unfolding the way people claim it is.

Thank you for your input, but you actually just made the perfect case for why hiding enemy nameplates is necessary.

When you say that high-tier players choose not to attack each other based purely on "reading nameplates or guild tags," you are confirming that they are using meta-information to bypass the faction war. 🥹 In a three-faction war, an enemy should be an enemy, regardless of what guild tag they wear or how famous their name is.
If ZOS implements the anonymous nameplate system I suggested, that automatic "status quo" completely shatters. If you can't read the nameplate or the guild tag, you won't know if the player running at you is a top-tier duelist or a casual player. You will actually have to fight for your alliance, rather than using names to decide who gets a free pass and who gets farmed.

You also mentioned that there is no incentive for faction loyalty because off-hours capture groups ruin the score. While that is a valid system issue, it shouldn't be used to justify or excuse the toxic behavior and griefing that casual players experience during peak hours. We should aim to fix both, not accept it as the unchangeable norm.

This won't work the way you intend because it's the playstyle that causes the way of playing. I will NEVER outnumber anyone thats not using some really annoying playstyle. So this change would cause me to engage even less in those fights as I wont know if its someone that for example ganked me before.

Stamicka · 4:15PM

Gabriel_H wrote: »

Stamicka wrote: »

Your complaints are a symptom of bigger issues tbh.. mainly low Cyrodiil population caps and terrible balance.

...

What you want isn’t easily enforceable, but these problems would be mitigated a lot by fixing underlying issues.

They have been fixed. The PvP community, particularly the more hardcore elements, rejected it outright.

I think you’re referring to Vengeance, but that campaign has a very serious time to kill issue that ZOS hasn’t addressed. Healing is so much stronger than damage and everyone has similar stats which results in effortless survival.

So two more experienced players would almost definitely avoid each other in that campaign, because no one would die.

I think this is one of the biggest reasons the PvP community rejects it. I’m not totally anti-Vengeance, in fact I’ll defend the existence of the campaign. However, I won’t go there myself unless they make the needed balance tweaks.

Anyway long story short, OP’s grievances would still happen in Vengeance, maybe even more so.

Gabriel_H · 4:37PM

BardokRedSnow wrote: »

We care about balance yes, in relation to combat, as well as population. Ironically Greyhost is more balanced in both cases.

Going to stop you right there with the bad faith argument. GH is no way balanced for combat, at all. It cannot be, because GH allows group buffing, which causes the imbalance. Vengeance does not. It's very limited in group effects, meaning they can balance damage and healing by class to be roughly the same without having to worry about the larger group issue.

As for population balance, if that were true the map wouldn't completely change colour 3+ times a day. I'm more than happy to debate you, but I'm bored of the bad faith arguments, where everything is perfect in Cyrodiil (until reality hits).

Gabriel_H · 4:39PM

Stamicka wrote: »

Gabriel_H wrote: »

Stamicka wrote: »

Your complaints are a symptom of bigger issues tbh.. mainly low Cyrodiil population caps and terrible balance.

...

What you want isn’t easily enforceable, but these problems would be mitigated a lot by fixing underlying issues.

They have been fixed. The PvP community, particularly the more hardcore elements, rejected it outright.

I think you’re referring to Vengeance, but that campaign has a very serious time to kill issue that ZOS hasn’t addressed. Healing is so much stronger than damage and everyone has similar stats which results in effortless survival.

So two more experienced players would almost definitely avoid each other in that campaign, because no one would die.

I think this is one of the biggest reasons the PvP community rejects it. I’m not totally anti-Vengeance, in fact I’ll defend the existence of the campaign. However, I won’t go there myself unless they make the needed balance tweaks.

Anyway long story short, OP’s grievances would still happen in Vengeance, maybe even more so.

By time to kill issue, you mean it taking 10 - 15s instead of a 1-shot?! Sounds balanced to me. Allows for strategy and counterplay.

VidmaVirtual · 5:50PM

Nordstern wrote: »

VidmaVirtual wrote: »

Burtan wrote: »

There are no secret agreements to hand over keeps, no words are exchanged and no agreements are made. "high tier" players will typically choose not to attack each other without any real thought, only the reading of nameplates or guild tags.

AvA players will typically chase you down 10 vs 1, "high tier" players typically do not. Then consider that a fight between "high tier" players could potentially ensue for 20 minutes just so 10-20 players can arrive and run over one or both of you. At this point, teaming becomes survival and continues as a simple status quo.

A secondary and major component is that there is absolutely no incentive for faction loyalty or playing the actual objective, you only need to make AP. Campaign scoring means nothing when 10 people can capture the map during off-hours and more more of an impact than a full population during peak hours.

This realistically is not going to change and is not unfolding the way people claim it is.

Thank you for your input, but you actually just made the perfect case for why hiding enemy nameplates is necessary.

When you say that high-tier players choose not to attack each other based purely on "reading nameplates or guild tags," you are confirming that they are using meta-information to bypass the faction war. 🥹 In a three-faction war, an enemy should be an enemy, regardless of what guild tag they wear or how famous their name is.
If ZOS implements the anonymous nameplate system I suggested, that automatic "status quo" completely shatters. If you can't read the nameplate or the guild tag, you won't know if the player running at you is a top-tier duelist or a casual player. You will actually have to fight for your alliance, rather than using names to decide who gets a free pass and who gets farmed.

You also mentioned that there is no incentive for faction loyalty because off-hours capture groups ruin the score. While that is a valid system issue, it shouldn't be used to justify or excuse the toxic behavior and griefing that casual players experience during peak hours. We should aim to fix both, not accept it as the unchangeable norm.

This won't work the way you intend because it's the playstyle that causes the way of playing. I will NEVER outnumber anyone thats not using some really annoying playstyle. So this change would cause me to engage even less in those fights as I wont know if its someone that for example ganked me before.

I understand that from a solo or ganker perspective, knowing exactly who you are fighting helps you choose your battles or get revenge on someone who ganked you earlier.

However, sacrificing the entire competitive integrity of a three-faction war just so a few players can settle personal rivalries or avoid specific builds isn't healthy for the game. Currently, allowing high-tier groups to read nameplates is exactly what enables them to systematically ignore each other and focus entirely on farming casual and solo players.

Besides, even with anonymous nameplates, ZOS could easily keep the "Death Recap" screen showing the anonymous tag or class that defeated you, or a temporary session ID (like "Enemy 12"). If that same "Enemy 12" ganks you again, you would know it's the same person during that session.

We have to weigh what hurts Cyrodiil more: you not knowing the exact name of your previous attacker, or thousands of casual and new players quitting PvP entirely because toxic groups are using nameplates to rig campaigns and exploit the system.

Nordstern · 6:22PM

Gabriel_H wrote: »

Stamicka wrote: »

Gabriel_H wrote: »

Stamicka wrote: »

Your complaints are a symptom of bigger issues tbh.. mainly low Cyrodiil population caps and terrible balance.

...

What you want isn’t easily enforceable, but these problems would be mitigated a lot by fixing underlying issues.

They have been fixed. The PvP community, particularly the more hardcore elements, rejected it outright.

I think you’re referring to Vengeance, but that campaign has a very serious time to kill issue that ZOS hasn’t addressed. Healing is so much stronger than damage and everyone has similar stats which results in effortless survival.

So two more experienced players would almost definitely avoid each other in that campaign, because no one would die.

I think this is one of the biggest reasons the PvP community rejects it. I’m not totally anti-Vengeance, in fact I’ll defend the existence of the campaign. However, I won’t go there myself unless they make the needed balance tweaks.

Anyway long story short, OP’s grievances would still happen in Vengeance, maybe even more so.

By time to kill issue, you mean it taking 10 - 15s instead of a 1-shot?! Sounds balanced to me. Allows for strategy and counterplay.

What are you even talking about? Its not 10-15s, its infinite. You cant kill a good player 1v1 in vengeance by anything but boring him so hard that he falls asleep. Theres a huge inbalance between damage and max hp in vengeance. Skill does hardly matter there, it's mainly about numbers. Cant imagine a more boring pvp environment.

VidmaVirtual wrote: »

Nordstern wrote: »

VidmaVirtual wrote: »

Burtan wrote: »

There are no secret agreements to hand over keeps, no words are exchanged and no agreements are made. "high tier" players will typically choose not to attack each other without any real thought, only the reading of nameplates or guild tags.

AvA players will typically chase you down 10 vs 1, "high tier" players typically do not. Then consider that a fight between "high tier" players could potentially ensue for 20 minutes just so 10-20 players can arrive and run over one or both of you. At this point, teaming becomes survival and continues as a simple status quo.

A secondary and major component is that there is absolutely no incentive for faction loyalty or playing the actual objective, you only need to make AP. Campaign scoring means nothing when 10 people can capture the map during off-hours and more more of an impact than a full population during peak hours.

This realistically is not going to change and is not unfolding the way people claim it is.

Thank you for your input, but you actually just made the perfect case for why hiding enemy nameplates is necessary.

When you say that high-tier players choose not to attack each other based purely on "reading nameplates or guild tags," you are confirming that they are using meta-information to bypass the faction war. 🥹 In a three-faction war, an enemy should be an enemy, regardless of what guild tag they wear or how famous their name is.
If ZOS implements the anonymous nameplate system I suggested, that automatic "status quo" completely shatters. If you can't read the nameplate or the guild tag, you won't know if the player running at you is a top-tier duelist or a casual player. You will actually have to fight for your alliance, rather than using names to decide who gets a free pass and who gets farmed.

You also mentioned that there is no incentive for faction loyalty because off-hours capture groups ruin the score. While that is a valid system issue, it shouldn't be used to justify or excuse the toxic behavior and griefing that casual players experience during peak hours. We should aim to fix both, not accept it as the unchangeable norm.

This won't work the way you intend because it's the playstyle that causes the way of playing. I will NEVER outnumber anyone thats not using some really annoying playstyle. So this change would cause me to engage even less in those fights as I wont know if its someone that for example ganked me before.

I understand that from a solo or ganker perspective, knowing exactly who you are fighting helps you choose your battles or get revenge on someone who ganked you earlier.

However, sacrificing the entire competitive integrity of a three-faction war just so a few players can settle personal rivalries or avoid specific builds isn't healthy for the game. Currently, allowing high-tier groups to read nameplates is exactly what enables them to systematically ignore each other and focus entirely on farming casual and solo players.

Besides, even with anonymous nameplates, ZOS could easily keep the "Death Recap" screen showing the anonymous tag or class that defeated you, or a temporary session ID (like "Enemy 12"). If that same "Enemy 12" ganks you again, you would know it's the same person during that session.

We have to weigh what hurts Cyrodiil more: you not knowing the exact name of your previous attacker, or thousands of casual and new players quitting PvP entirely because toxic groups are using nameplates to rig campaigns and exploit the system.

My point was that what you are criticizing isn't solved by anonymization. For most players its a general way of playing rather than being a pact with certain players. I could live with this change tho if it meant more people would come into cyro. But I both doubt this change will happen and doubt more people would come in. Because in the end the main problem for casual players is that they dont stand a chance against the best players. Which is completely normal in a game this old and as we see with vengeance, people have very little interest in a pvp format, where neither game knowledge nor skill really matter.