[PODCAST] Dracast - Episode 6: The Bashening - How to adapt to change.

Derra

Biro123 wrote: »

I can't say I agree with you in this, Derra. I personally think small-group is the most toxic kind of gameplay in cyrodiil.

But then I play alone. I can see a large group coming a mile away, easily avoid them, pick at the edges of them get some kills, distract a lot of people for a while. Often I'll make a mistake and die - but that's my fault.

But I see a friendly resource flip or a player or 2 in a distance, head out to engage and then get ganked bey an organised 4-6 man with their timed ulti-dumps, and synergising buffs/heals/tankiness making them indestructible vs one player...

And yes, there are plenty 'small-scale' groups who I see do nothing BUT prey on soloers. They add nothing to the campaign, nothing to their faction - just repeatedly lure out people in their ones and 2's then gang up and dish out a kicking. You especially see them hanging around an enemy keep late at night when population is really low, jumping on anybody who tries to exit said keep. These guys *think* they are the small-scale heroes - but really they are the worst form of zergling there is.

Are you really asking that the people on the receiving-end lose their ability to heal each other, while said toxic farmers get to keep theirs?

Not to mention that it takes a large group - especially when talking pugs - to even think about starting an attack on an enemy keep or opening up a new front. Without large groups, these 'small-scalers' would have no counter. No keeps would get sieged, fights would just run around resources.

I honestly don't know the population demographics in Vivec - but I suspect its maybe 30% large groups, 10% small groups playing alone, 58% soloers/small groups running with the zerg. This would probably make much of the 30% quit - and since the 10% then have no counters - much of the 58% quit too.

Will the smallgrp continue to camp the resource if they have the possibility to participate in large objectives though? From my experience current smallgrp behaviour is a direct result of larger grps just roflstomping them so they only go for sth they can handle.
It´s a hen or the egg kinda question.

I agree on latenight - but when there is no large grp present nothing changes in the first place.

I don´t think randoms need large groups to start a new front - because as you´ve said most zergs are one core with plenty of solo/duo zergsurfers in their wake - so nothing would really change in that regard apart from the core getting smaller (but also the defending numbers).

Also when you say these smallscalers have no counter - what is the current counter to large groups? Exactly another large grp or a real big zerg. Against a smallgrp you´d need another small grp or a smaller zerg. Not much changes there apart from the numbers game making achieving the counter easier.

Biro123

Derra wrote: »

Biro123 wrote: »

I can't say I agree with you in this, Derra. I personally think small-group is the most toxic kind of gameplay in cyrodiil.

But then I play alone. I can see a large group coming a mile away, easily avoid them, pick at the edges of them get some kills, distract a lot of people for a while. Often I'll make a mistake and die - but that's my fault.

But I see a friendly resource flip or a player or 2 in a distance, head out to engage and then get ganked bey an organised 4-6 man with their timed ulti-dumps, and synergising buffs/heals/tankiness making them indestructible vs one player...

And yes, there are plenty 'small-scale' groups who I see do nothing BUT prey on soloers. They add nothing to the campaign, nothing to their faction - just repeatedly lure out people in their ones and 2's then gang up and dish out a kicking. You especially see them hanging around an enemy keep late at night when population is really low, jumping on anybody who tries to exit said keep. These guys *think* they are the small-scale heroes - but really they are the worst form of zergling there is.

Are you really asking that the people on the receiving-end lose their ability to heal each other, while said toxic farmers get to keep theirs?

Not to mention that it takes a large group - especially when talking pugs - to even think about starting an attack on an enemy keep or opening up a new front. Without large groups, these 'small-scalers' would have no counter. No keeps would get sieged, fights would just run around resources.

I honestly don't know the population demographics in Vivec - but I suspect its maybe 30% large groups, 10% small groups playing alone, 58% soloers/small groups running with the zerg. This would probably make much of the 30% quit - and since the 10% then have no counters - much of the 58% quit too.

Will the smallgrp continue to camp the resource if they have the possibility to participate in large objectives though? From my experience current smallgrp behaviour is a direct result of larger grps just roflstomping them so they only go for sth they can handle.
It´s a hen or the egg kinda question.

I agree on latenight - but when there is no large grp present nothing changes in the first place.

I don´t think randoms need large groups to start a new front - because as you´ve said most zergs are one core with plenty of solo/duo zergsurfers in their wake - so nothing would really change in that regard apart from the core getting smaller (but also the defending numbers).

Also when you say these smallscalers have no counter - what is the current counter to large groups? Exactly another large grp or a real big zerg. Against a smallgrp you´d need another small grp or a smaller zerg. Not much changes there apart from the numbers game making achieving the counter easier.

I'm not so sure.. Yes once the faction-stack gets moving, it will automatically push on to the next keep in the emp-ring - but it will never switch to hit the other faction. Soloers and small groups can't do it - Only a large group can think about trying to re-take Ash while the rest of the faction is infected with Chalmania.. The fact that they usually don't is a different issue - one partly due to the design and spacing in cyro imho.

Large groups have plenty of counters though - ranging from other large groups (yep, the numbers game), to organised small-scale groups with randoms support, to mid-sized guild groups (12-man..ish), to just kiting them around the map. The only ones that don't are the full faction stacks and the really organized high-end ball-groups. I don't think either is good for the game, to be honest - and the answer lies in spreading out the combat more (which, oddly, I think needs a smaller cyrodilil).

For me, ESO is the only game I know of where I can play without a group - having nobody rely on me (and my sudden AFK's) - yet still be able to take part in large-scale combat and help my team with heals/buffs etc.. Maybe that makes it casual friendly - but its a unique (afaik) feature that I really, really like. Yes - I'm the averaqe 'Random' - but there are quite a lot of us.
Don't be a-trying to break my game!

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

As someone playing in 2 different 16m groups it's actually incredibly easy to counter them. It's far harder to counter a 50 man zerg.
Sure some groups can occasionally pull off a 1h defense vs 3 or 4 times their number but there are a lot of mitigating situations. The situations on EU vs NA are very different also which is why we are having some slight perception differences too. There are far less strong 4-10m bombing groups on EU playing against the larger groups they are mostly off on Shor or Sotha if they really exist.
It's very easy this patch to shutdown larger groups when you are pug surfing. It's just a lot of the groups who normally could are off pug farming as well because campaign play has no benefit.

If campaign play is suddenly important you will see these groups hard countering eachother more often.

Equally as a small group inside a choke or resource tower you can very easily fight large groups but it does require different gameplay to most smallscale builds. Having full 1v1 setup plus an aoe ult isn't going to be enough in all situations. You need to specialise for what you are trying to fight. Most people think they can roll in with their 1v1 build + dawnbreaker and 1 shot a raid. (Even when they are emp)

Mojomonkeyman

I was listening/reading to the whole thing and I feel it deserves a lot of respect for effort, layout and structure. I usually don't waste time trying to be nice, but in this case I think it's well earned to give you guys some positive feedback. Great job!

Having said that, I just cannot identify myself with a lot of the suggestions being made. I get strong vibes of "coordinated large-scale pvpers with similar mindset regarding the game exchanging ideas in an isolated bubble without having any empathy for how other's might experience cyrodiil pvp".

Vilestride wrote: »

...
And to really re-iterate the point, I think we are forgetting the primary reason people play this game. Let's be honest, next to no one is playing this game because it's 'good'. The primary reason for PVP, for myself at least, and I have no doubt many others, is the community and people you get to raid and play with day to day. I just don't see ZoS taking the risk to compromise that.

But, maybe they will and you'll have the cyrodil you envision.

Basically, the "we know it all" attitude that is being displayed very well here in the quote, shines through. But...thats not how I feel about the game. I don't log for social aspects, I log in for the combat which is still fun and good enough for me to get my PvP fix, preferrably solo.

The problems that are really bothering my personal playing experience are not represented and/or the solutions suggested are clearly coming from someone who isn't experiencing those issues. I personally would not support this agenda, or just parts of it because I tend to think the concept would neither improve my personal playing experience nor the overall quality of gameplay (simple examples for such no-no's: top heavy reward schemes based on AP and stronger NPCs).

Apart from that, Derra has pointed out very well, why PvP is lacking from the POV of a non-largescale-player, I agree with him.

IxSTALKERxI

It would be interesting to see what would happen if group size was reduced to 12. That would be absolute minimum though. I do think groups of 24 are kinda overkill at this point.

Derra

Biro123 wrote: »

For me, ESO is the only game I know of where I can play without a group - having nobody rely on me (and my sudden AFK's) - yet still be able to take part in large-scale combat and help my team with heals/buffs etc.. Maybe that makes it casual friendly - but its a unique (afaik) feature that I really, really like. Yes - I'm the averaqe 'Random' - but there are quite a lot of us.
Don't be a-trying to break my game!

To be honest - i think smaller groups and less possible organisation would greatly improve the game for players like you (or me when i play solo).

Organisation of many is the enemy of the few. Removing the tools to organize many gives more points of attack for someone soloing/duoing.

Etaniel

Vilestride wrote: »

We're obviously not going to agree on matters of group size, which is fine. I just doubt the day is coming where ESO is relegated to a small scale PVP game only. To be frank, there are 1000 better outlets available for 4-8 man tactical PVP out there right now, large group PVP is the only thing ESO has going for it.

I keep reading this everywhere. Derra has said many times, same as me that large scale pvp does not necessarily equal large groups. Just like small groups doesn't necessarily mean small scale pvp.

Typically, when people argue that they enjoy small scale, they usually talk about small scale fights, but not small scale PvP. Battlegrounds are small scale PvP, Cyrodiil is large scale due to it's size. You're fighing 2 entire factions , just not necessarily all at one in one single fight. A 4 man group roaming between keeps to intercept reinforcements is a small scale encounter in a large scale context.

Limiting the group size wouldn't stop let's say 4 8 man groups to decide to siege a keep together. it doesn't magically turn all fights into small scale.

usmcjdking

Vilestride wrote: »

usmcjdking wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

usmcjdking wrote: »

I actually like the ideas but not in the context that was given. The patch notes, the post and the discussion did not lend to me understanding why more people will go into Cyrodiil to fight.

I'm with Derra on this one. From the outside looking in and not having spent much more than 10 minutes pontificating (so take it for what it's worth) the suggested changes are aimed more towards having the winner win harder and the losers lose more(r?). You are incentivizing people to win the campaign - you are not incentivizing people to fight. Nothing in that discussion makes me want to go fight other players any more or less than I currently do.

The changes you are looking for need to incentivize fighting players.

The changes actually give an incentive to spreading fights around the map as resources have a real impact and take time to regain their points value. Additionally if players focus on one keep too much they will lose others leading to further loss of points. Campaign play has always been the way to spread fights out more. The only reason people turtle into keeps is to get the tick / because they don't know any better. If you look at the topics we covered the general aims are 1) focusing on giving a reason to care about the campaign score because that promotes a lot of good gameplay. 2) giving less impact to numbers and nightcapping and 3) more depth of mechanics. By definition incentivising winning the campaign promotes fighting especially with a shorter timer (5m during primetime) players would have to fight and hold keeps and resources to make score.

With the group size argument, i'd say that comes more under combat balancing which we haven't covered. I can agree with some points that group size could potentially be due a change however the only really strong argument for this in my eyes is because of the server population being lower now then it was at launch. 24 man is a larger % of the overall population thus in order to spread fights out smaller groups may be beneficial. I would argue that lower than 12 would be fairly detrimental imo. I disagree completely with limiting healing and support to within groups personally because I feel like that would put the majority of players at an overall disadvantage.

I mean I see what you guys are saying.

I also think you are either discounting or unaware of the impact this will have on your average garden variety farmed pugvegetable. The average cyro pug will not see a spread out map. They will see multiple guild groups running over pugs uncontested because no one can effectively mass enough forces in a single location without paying a huge price.

And because of that, guilds and coordinated groups have a much more lasting and pronounced effect against an enemy faction while the pug's primary effect has been whittled down significantly.

I'm reading this as more available space to destrofarm ungrouped players, not provide more engaging & competetive fights across the map.

So, do you not agree that having more meaningful objectives for small scale groups would have a positive affect on smallscale PVP?

or is it that you just don't think objective based gameplay has anything to do ith good smallscale PVP?

It should have a positive effect on small scale, and a positive effect on large scale.

It should have an adverse effect on map and faction population/combined faction power for reasons I previously stated.

However I don't have a crystal ball here and I could be entirely wrong. It's up to you guys to determine whether the risk is worth the reward.

This thread is what ZOS proposed patch note discussions should look like. A massive thread of nopes. Probably the single best thread I've seen IRT to PVP.

Sandman929

I'm not sure why everyone is focused on group size. Reading the document, I see a lot of changes to campaign rewards and objective value that I think would definitely revitalize objective based play in Cyrodiil and make campaign rewards meaningful and sought after.

Rickter

Sandman929 wrote: »

I'm not sure why everyone is focused on group size. Reading the document, I see a lot of changes to campaign rewards and objective value that I think would definitely revitalize objective based play in Cyrodiil and make campaign rewards meaningful and sought after.

yep looks really familiar

Derra

Sandman929 wrote: »

I'm not sure why everyone is focused on group size. Reading the document, I see a lot of changes to campaign rewards and objective value that I think would definitely revitalize objective based play in Cyrodiil and make campaign rewards meaningful and sought after.

The problem with this is: On objective based fights the alpha and omega are large organised groups.
The only "counter" to a large organised group is another large organised group.

So these changes would greatly benefit these groups as they´re able to dictate the pvp reality around objectives.

The size of these groups makes it very hard or impossible for casual players to participate in a successful manner - while the groups that already do reap in the new rewards.

Shame upon him who thinks evil upon it.

I agree that campaignrewards and objectives should be more desireable than they are.
I disagree with making this a reality in the game while keeping the relative power of groups (and the amount of enemies they can fight in relation to total campaign population) the same as it is now.
I also disagree with nerfing everything allowing for grouping synergies further - so a reduction of grpsize seems more desireable for me.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

Derra wrote: »

Sandman929 wrote: »

I'm not sure why everyone is focused on group size. Reading the document, I see a lot of changes to campaign rewards and objective value that I think would definitely revitalize objective based play in Cyrodiil and make campaign rewards meaningful and sought after.

The problem with this is: On objective based fights the alpha and omega are large organised groups.
The only "counter" to a large organised group is another large organised group.

So these changes would greatly benefit these groups as they´re able to dictate the pvp reality around objectives.

The size of these groups makes it very hard or impossible for casual players to participate in a successful manner - while the groups that already do reap in the new rewards.

Shame upon him who thinks evil upon it.

I'll reply to all the points but wanted to start with this.

• There should be different objectives which are aimed at different group sizes. We have suggested what we beleive to be a *start* to making changes for this.
  
• It is not correct that the only counter to a large organised group is another large organised group. This is just wrong and multiple players who play within such groups can tell you this.
  
• These changes are primarily aimed at creating more emphasis on campaign play. A byproduct of true campaign play is that it spreads fights out and allows more variety of group size and roles(roles as in holding a resource, ganking backlines etc not healer). Incentivising overall map dominance rather than resource flipping every hour and zerg the next keep between those times which we have now in my opinion is a benefit.
  
• The question is very simple. Do you like what we have now? If they answer is No then we move on to the next, Was there a time which you preferred in ESO? assuming the answer is yes nearer launch then we look at the reasoning behind this, from our discussions these reasons generally revolve around the higher population and more active map as to a greater 'variety' of fights.
  
• The 'coordinated Largescale / Smallscale and 1vX' playstyles are byproducts of a skill gap between the high end players who have good game awareness and knowledge vs more casual players who are less familiar with this.
  This was heightened at the launch of the game by both the game being new and also a number of tool which were available and have been removed. In my opinion there should be a reward to coordination and grouping using the tools they have been given. I don't think the answer is saying they shouldn't have the tools in the first place. There should be a progression between someone coming in and throwing LFG into zone and someone coming joining a guild or static group and improving from there. The problem is that these groups often are not fighting eachother because there is no reward to doing so.
  
• You have said yourself on discord that you don't like for example group map markers because it shows where you have kited stragglers to and that if groups were smaller that wouldn't happen. My response would be that you should be prepared for that and adjust your own play if those are your targets.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

Mojomonkeyman wrote: »

Basically, the "we know it all" attitude that is being displayed very well here in the quote, shines through. But...thats not how I feel about the game. I don't log for social aspects, I log in for the combat which is still fun and good enough for me to get my PvP fix, preferrably solo.

The problems that are really bothering my personal playing experience are not represented and/or the solutions suggested are clearly coming from someone who isn't experiencing those issues. I personally would not support this agenda, or just parts of it because I tend to think the concept would neither improve my personal playing experience nor the overall quality of gameplay (simple examples for such no-no's: top heavy reward schemes based on AP and stronger NPCs).

Apart from that, Derra has pointed out very well, why PvP is lacking from the POV of a non-largescale-player, I agree with him.

Thanks for your kind words about the cast (not quoted), I can understand your issues. Vile was mentioning that for a number of players the social aspect is what keeps them coming back. (the same is true for almost all MMOs). It is a very large factor in larger group pvp. Combat is obviously another reason ESO's combat is quite unique but I think on its own it isn't enough for most everyone is different though..

I guess the question similar to my post above replying to Derra is that are you happy with the state of things?
We have top heavy reward schemes based on AP already for example.
Our suggestion is actually to allow everyone to gain benefit from campaign rewards no matter where they finish because the system is token based allowing players to save up over time.
The NPC system is a call back to how the game was at launch, which many players including smallscale and soloers agree were its best times.
I remember solo or 4man defending keeps vs 20-30 players with siege and NPCS allowing the fight to be even 'possible'. We don't have this option now. If you are 4 vs 20-30 and you aren't bombers vs an unaware group its almost game over as soon as the walls are breached.

I would assume that the majority of your solo fights don't take place inside keeps anyway currently so this change wouldn't affect you and would only add to the options you have available. Which is why I struggle to understand what the objection is to that.

Perhaps you could elaborate? @Mojomonkeyman

Sandman929

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

The problem is that these groups often are not fighting each other because there is no reward to doing so.

For me, this is the most important part of why I like the suggested changes. The incentive system in Cyrodiil right now has nothing to do with the objectives in Cyrodiil. The objectives are obstacles used to lure in players to kill, and many groups use them in this way because that's where the payoff is, basically just AP farming. The rewards system is basically just AP, and a tedious chore of cleaning the garbage out of your mailbox now and then.

LarsS

@Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO thanks for these proposals you and your Guild have produced. They would improve the pvp experience quite a lot! I hope that ZOS will put some of it at least, into the game.

The Daggerfall Authority is a EU/PC Guild which incudes both experienced pvp players and newbees, we have been around since the game started. One can also come and go as one wish, since most of us have an intensive real life to. On the other hand we have a pvp Group most Days at prime time with anything between 4 and 24 members. Our focus is very much on having fun, but still be good enough to be able to take down other Groups we meet. We have been called the blue zergsquad.

We have seen the same problems, there is no real incentive to play pvp and very little factional pride. My experience is that new pvp players often loose interest because there is a lack of incentive and Campaign balance. I think these are the biggest reasons to the low population in pvp, your proposals would improve the situation quite a lot.

Group size is another discussion, but my experience is that smaller Groups tend to zergsurf more than bigger Groups, so a reduction of size would be contraproductive.

Derra

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

[*] The question is very simple. Do you like what we have now? If they answer is No then we move on to the next, Was there a time which you preferred in ESO? assuming the answer is yes nearer launch then we look at the reasoning behind this, from our discussions these reasons generally revolve around the higher population and more active map as to a greater 'variety' of fights.

The answer is no indeed.
But the reasoning is not the one you´re suggesting as they are far more selfish and purely based on combat feeling. Balance wise the game has improved with every patch since homestead imo.
Personally i can see none of your proposed changes do anything that would make me prefer them to the current status quo. So i´m not happy with how it is - i´d be not happy with the changes aswell.

Higher population is something that would help alleviate the current issues large groups present (being able to fight too high of a %age of the total population).
However what speaks against this is performance. The game can´t handle the current status quo.
Which suggests that decreasing numbers in engagements while trying to spread out players and keeping total numbers would be a preferable solution to keeping numbers in engangements the same while increasing total numbers of players.

Also largegroups still present a participation hinderance for anyone not in such a grp that´s not desireable imo.
I firmly do not believe in different objectives for different groupsizes. I believe in objectives creating scenarios with chances for participation for all players in their vicinity. Currently with large groups as they are this couldn´t be further from ingame reality.

It´s kinda futile to argue with players that enjoy largegrp play as much as you do though.
It´s like arguing with a king about creating democratic structures instead of his totalitarianism.
I don´t blame anyone for wanting to keep a status quo they enjoy and pushing for changes that would reinforce their position as godkings of pvp.
I just think labeling this as having everyone best interest in mind is a little far fetched.

Derra

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

[*] You have said yourself on discord that you don't like for example group map markers because it shows where you have kited stragglers to and that if groups were smaller that wouldn't happen. My response would be that you should be prepared for that and adjust your own play if those are your targets.
[/list]

Adjusting to that would precisely end in what i think is problematic in current eso pvp: Bring more people.

You kinda proved my point for me there

Rianai

I understand where you are coming from, but i doubt reducing group size would lead to the desired results. Those who enjoy solo or small scale play are already limiting their own group size. And those who don't enjoy small scale pvp can't be forced into it.
Organized groups will still be able to organize zergs bigger than the actual group size thanks to voice communication. Maybe slightly less effective, but they could still run arround with 20+ players like they can now and they could still farm randoms who will be less organized too. Because unlike organized guilds those randoms won't form multiple small groups instead of one big "lfg zerg". I can see this very well on Sotha/DC. Often there is no big PuG zerg where all those "lfg" spammers get invited. So what do they do? They go to the nearest crossed swords and stack there together with guilds and other ungrouped randoms or - if there is nothing to stack with - they leave and go to another campaign/faction or log off. But they definitely don't form small groups and spread out. Because forming groups requires someone who takes the initiative and those are rare. Especially among randoms, casuals and new players.

So the question shouldn't be "How can players be forced into more small scale fights?", because that's not going to work. At best it doesn't change much, at worst it drives players away. The question should be "Why aren't there more players who enjoy small scale PvP and what could make it more enjoyable for those who don't like it now?" And the answers will differ greatly depending on who you ask ...

For example, for me personally there are two points (lags and bugs aside - those are by far the worst issues) that come into my mind first when thinking about what annoys me when playing solo or in a small group:

Huge map size and the resulting emptiness and long travel times

While it might seem contradictory at first, i think a smaller map would encourage players more to spread out. Right now the map is simply way too big for the population and even if all would split into small groups and spread out, the majority of the map would remain empty. So i can't just go out and expect to find some action. I need to go to certain locations where fights are more likely to happen. Others do the same and everyone ends up at the same few spots. On a smaller map fights are more likely to just happen, accidentially so to say, which removes the need to "set them up" at specific locations. And lower travel times would make it overall less boring and tedious to go somewhere else than the "nearest action".

Escape options - or more the lack of thereof

I'm coming from a different game where i played solo almost exclusively. And even though i'm pretty sure there are more and bigger zergs than in ESO, and fighting outnumbered was much more difficult, those zergs didn't bother me much, because most zerg builds were usually relative slow, while at the same time most classes had the option to build for decent mobilty (and/or stealth) when playing solo or in a small group. As a result most zerg leaders would consider chasing a waste of time.
In ESO most groups/zergs are way more tempted to hunt greatly outnumbered players. Even if they don't really gain much by doing so, simply being successfull at catching that one running player seems to be incentive enough. And escape in ESO is very limited. There is basically only cloak, which gets countered by mark target (and most zergs seem to have dedicated "markblades" nowadays) and streak with low range and a hefty cost increase. Compared to the accessibility and spammability of chasing tools such as gap closers, snares and immobilizes, that's ... meh.
Ofc you can try to fight even when outnumbered, but once the difference in numbers is too big and/or the difference in skill not big enough, there isn't much someone can do. And thererefore looking for safety in numbers is currently the best way to avoid this not so fun "dieing no matter what i do" situation.

The alternative to better escape options would be better fighting options when outnumbered, which i guess is what you are trying to achieve by reducing group size, but again, i'm afraid zergs would just try to compensate with even more numbers and if it doesn't work out, people become frustrated and stop playing. So even as someone who doesn't enjoy zerging, i'm not sure if "weakening zergs" is actually that desireable. It could very well backfire ...

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

Derra wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

[*] The question is very simple. Do you like what we have now? If they answer is No then we move on to the next, Was there a time which you preferred in ESO? assuming the answer is yes nearer launch then we look at the reasoning behind this, from our discussions these reasons generally revolve around the higher population and more active map as to a greater 'variety' of fights.

So i´m not happy with how it is - i´d be not happy with the changes aswell.

Higher population is something that would help alleviate the current issues large groups present (being able to fight too high of a %age of the total population).
However what speaks against this is performance. The game can´t handle the current status quo.
Which suggests that decreasing numbers in engagements while trying to spread out players and keeping total numbers would be a preferable solution to keeping numbers in engangements the same while increasing total numbers of players.

Also largegroups still present a participation hinderance for anyone not in such a grp that´s not desireable imo.
I firmly do not believe in different objectives for different groupsizes. I believe in objectives creating scenarios with chances for participation for all players in their vicinity. Currently with large groups as they are this couldn´t be further from ingame reality.

It´s kinda futile to argue with players that enjoy largegrp play as much as you do though.
It´s like arguing with a king about creating democratic structures instead of his totalitarianism.
I don´t blame anyone for wanting to keep a status quo they enjoy and pushing for changes that would reinforce their position as godkings of pvp.
I just think labeling this as having everyone best interest in mind is a little far fetched.

The question you would need to ask yourself is that if you are not happy now and you still wouldnt be happy after these changes. Is the situation better, worse or no different?

These changes in our opinion would improve gameplay by offering you more fights where you could participate in the type of engagements you enjoy as well as rewarding you better for them.

I'm sure there are a set of changes (for example reducing group size might be one of them) which would specifically enhance your preferred area of play and we can of course discuss them but it shouldn't take away from the others it should add to it.

Derra wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

[*] You have said yourself on discord that you don't like for example group map markers because it shows where you have kited stragglers to and that if groups were smaller that wouldn't happen. My response would be that you should be prepared for that and adjust your own play if those are your targets.
[/list]

Adjusting to that would precisely end in what i think is problematic in current eso pvp: Bring more people.

You kinda proved my point for me there

Unfortunately this isn't the case. The answer "Bring more people" isn't always the solution to a problem. For example, knowing that you might fight vastly outnumbered you can alter many things, for example: Build, Roles, Environment. Bringing more is certainly one factor but its no more valid then any of the others.

I think the thing it comes down to is expectations. The vast majority of players seem to think that they should always be able to win a fight by having a 1vX setup with an AOE ulti that they can coordinate. This isn't always the case.

One such change if you were constantly being zerged down would be to bring a nb bomber instead of a different class (as an example).

Another example might be having a dedicated healer instead of someone else to account for the times where your own defences are overwhelmed and you cannot be supported by simply another hybrid damage dealer.

Moving the fight to terrain which favours you, places you can streak or kite around and reduce the numbers allowing you to pick off ones and twos etc.

For me the argument there lies on the fact that you consider the answer to only be "bring more" is more likely to be the reason why you struggle in that scenario then the fact you are overwhelmed.

Its like groups who say "oh my god we got zerged" and complain about it, what were you aiming to fight by going to faregyl as a back keep (just an example).

Etaniel

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

[*] The question is very simple. Do you like what we have now? If they answer is No then we move on to the next, Was there a time which you preferred in ESO? assuming the answer is yes nearer launch then we look at the reasoning behind this, from our discussions these reasons generally revolve around the higher population and more active map as to a greater 'variety' of fights.

So i´m not happy with how it is - i´d be not happy with the changes aswell.

Higher population is something that would help alleviate the current issues large groups present (being able to fight too high of a %age of the total population).
However what speaks against this is performance. The game can´t handle the current status quo.
Which suggests that decreasing numbers in engagements while trying to spread out players and keeping total numbers would be a preferable solution to keeping numbers in engangements the same while increasing total numbers of players.

Also largegroups still present a participation hinderance for anyone not in such a grp that´s not desireable imo.
I firmly do not believe in different objectives for different groupsizes. I believe in objectives creating scenarios with chances for participation for all players in their vicinity. Currently with large groups as they are this couldn´t be further from ingame reality.

It´s kinda futile to argue with players that enjoy largegrp play as much as you do though.
It´s like arguing with a king about creating democratic structures instead of his totalitarianism.
I don´t blame anyone for wanting to keep a status quo they enjoy and pushing for changes that would reinforce their position as godkings of pvp.
I just think labeling this as having everyone best interest in mind is a little far fetched.

The question you would need to ask yourself is that if you are not happy now and you still wouldnt be happy after these changes. Is the situation better, worse or no different?

These changes in our opinion would improve gameplay by offering you more fights where you could participate in the type of engagements you enjoy as well as rewarding you better for them.

I'm sure there are a set of changes (for example reducing group size might be one of them) which would specifically enhance your preferred area of play and we can of course discuss them but it shouldn't take away from the others it should add to it.

Derra wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

[*] You have said yourself on discord that you don't like for example group map markers because it shows where you have kited stragglers to and that if groups were smaller that wouldn't happen. My response would be that you should be prepared for that and adjust your own play if those are your targets.
[/list]

Adjusting to that would precisely end in what i think is problematic in current eso pvp: Bring more people.

You kinda proved my point for me there

Unfortunately this isn't the case. The answer "Bring more people" isn't always the solution to a problem. For example, knowing that you might fight vastly outnumbered you can alter many things, for example: Build, Roles, Environment. Bringing more is certainly one factor but its no more valid then any of the others.

I think the thing it comes down to is expectations. The vast majority of players seem to think that they should always be able to win a fight by having a 1vX setup with an AOE ulti that they can coordinate. This isn't always the case.

One such change if you were constantly being zerged down would be to bring a nb bomber instead of a different class (as an example).

Another example might be having a dedicated healer instead of someone else to account for the times where your own defences are overwhelmed and you cannot be supported by simply another hybrid damage dealer.

Moving the fight to terrain which favours you, places you can streak or kite around and reduce the numbers allowing you to pick off ones and twos etc.

For me the argument there lies on the fact that you consider the answer to only be "bring more" is more likely to be the reason why you struggle in that scenario then the fact you are overwhelmed.

Its like groups who say "oh my god we got zerged" and complain about it, what were you aiming to fight by going to faregyl as a back keep (just an example).

In our case, as a 4 man group that can take on about 4 times our numbers usually (granted they aren't of similar skill of course), if we wipe to such numbers yeah we usually try to figure out what went wrong, we didn't move back fast enough, we should have that that skill slotted, or this set would be more appropriate, let's go farm it. But we're all veteran players.

What happens if we are 4 new players trying pvp for the time in the group format that dungeons taught us? What happens when we end up facing a 20 man group? That's when the answer picked is most likely to be "bring more people".

And "bring more people" is definitely the choice that most players choose when they face us and wipe. I remember loads of fight where the pugs we killed 3 min ago come back with 10 more people, but I have almost no recollection of any group coming back and trying a different approach against us.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

Etaniel wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

[*] The question is very simple. Do you like what we have now? If they answer is No then we move on to the next, Was there a time which you preferred in ESO? assuming the answer is yes nearer launch then we look at the reasoning behind this, from our discussions these reasons generally revolve around the higher population and more active map as to a greater 'variety' of fights.

So i´m not happy with how it is - i´d be not happy with the changes aswell.

Higher population is something that would help alleviate the current issues large groups present (being able to fight too high of a %age of the total population).
However what speaks against this is performance. The game can´t handle the current status quo.
Which suggests that decreasing numbers in engagements while trying to spread out players and keeping total numbers would be a preferable solution to keeping numbers in engangements the same while increasing total numbers of players.

Also largegroups still present a participation hinderance for anyone not in such a grp that´s not desireable imo.
I firmly do not believe in different objectives for different groupsizes. I believe in objectives creating scenarios with chances for participation for all players in their vicinity. Currently with large groups as they are this couldn´t be further from ingame reality.

It´s kinda futile to argue with players that enjoy largegrp play as much as you do though.
It´s like arguing with a king about creating democratic structures instead of his totalitarianism.
I don´t blame anyone for wanting to keep a status quo they enjoy and pushing for changes that would reinforce their position as godkings of pvp.
I just think labeling this as having everyone best interest in mind is a little far fetched.

The question you would need to ask yourself is that if you are not happy now and you still wouldnt be happy after these changes. Is the situation better, worse or no different?

These changes in our opinion would improve gameplay by offering you more fights where you could participate in the type of engagements you enjoy as well as rewarding you better for them.

I'm sure there are a set of changes (for example reducing group size might be one of them) which would specifically enhance your preferred area of play and we can of course discuss them but it shouldn't take away from the others it should add to it.

Derra wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

[*] You have said yourself on discord that you don't like for example group map markers because it shows where you have kited stragglers to and that if groups were smaller that wouldn't happen. My response would be that you should be prepared for that and adjust your own play if those are your targets.
[/list]

Adjusting to that would precisely end in what i think is problematic in current eso pvp: Bring more people.

You kinda proved my point for me there

Unfortunately this isn't the case. The answer "Bring more people" isn't always the solution to a problem. For example, knowing that you might fight vastly outnumbered you can alter many things, for example: Build, Roles, Environment. Bringing more is certainly one factor but its no more valid then any of the others.

I think the thing it comes down to is expectations. The vast majority of players seem to think that they should always be able to win a fight by having a 1vX setup with an AOE ulti that they can coordinate. This isn't always the case.

One such change if you were constantly being zerged down would be to bring a nb bomber instead of a different class (as an example).

Another example might be having a dedicated healer instead of someone else to account for the times where your own defences are overwhelmed and you cannot be supported by simply another hybrid damage dealer.

Moving the fight to terrain which favours you, places you can streak or kite around and reduce the numbers allowing you to pick off ones and twos etc.

For me the argument there lies on the fact that you consider the answer to only be "bring more" is more likely to be the reason why you struggle in that scenario then the fact you are overwhelmed.

Its like groups who say "oh my god we got zerged" and complain about it, what were you aiming to fight by going to faregyl as a back keep (just an example).

What happens if we are 4 new players trying pvp for the time in the group format that dungeons taught us? What happens when we end up facing a 20 man group? That's when the answer picked is most likely to be "bring more people".
.

I think you have answered your own point here.
If a new player is coming into the game and trying to only apply what they have learnt in dungeons to PVP then they need assistance and they should be joining more players to help them with that until they have the experience to choose for themselves which playstyle is for the best from an informed point.

The same would be the case if the same 4 man went into AA or Hel ra and expected to be performing as well as a 12m yet i've been in and tried to 3-4 man mantikora back in the day because we wanted the challenge (from a point of knowledge).

Comparing content simply doesn't work well in this example.

Biro123

Etaniel wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

[*] The question is very simple. Do you like what we have now? If they answer is No then we move on to the next, Was there a time which you preferred in ESO? assuming the answer is yes nearer launch then we look at the reasoning behind this, from our discussions these reasons generally revolve around the higher population and more active map as to a greater 'variety' of fights.

So i´m not happy with how it is - i´d be not happy with the changes aswell.

Higher population is something that would help alleviate the current issues large groups present (being able to fight too high of a %age of the total population).
However what speaks against this is performance. The game can´t handle the current status quo.
Which suggests that decreasing numbers in engagements while trying to spread out players and keeping total numbers would be a preferable solution to keeping numbers in engangements the same while increasing total numbers of players.

Also largegroups still present a participation hinderance for anyone not in such a grp that´s not desireable imo.
I firmly do not believe in different objectives for different groupsizes. I believe in objectives creating scenarios with chances for participation for all players in their vicinity. Currently with large groups as they are this couldn´t be further from ingame reality.

It´s kinda futile to argue with players that enjoy largegrp play as much as you do though.
It´s like arguing with a king about creating democratic structures instead of his totalitarianism.
I don´t blame anyone for wanting to keep a status quo they enjoy and pushing for changes that would reinforce their position as godkings of pvp.
I just think labeling this as having everyone best interest in mind is a little far fetched.

The question you would need to ask yourself is that if you are not happy now and you still wouldnt be happy after these changes. Is the situation better, worse or no different?

These changes in our opinion would improve gameplay by offering you more fights where you could participate in the type of engagements you enjoy as well as rewarding you better for them.

I'm sure there are a set of changes (for example reducing group size might be one of them) which would specifically enhance your preferred area of play and we can of course discuss them but it shouldn't take away from the others it should add to it.

Derra wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

[*] You have said yourself on discord that you don't like for example group map markers because it shows where you have kited stragglers to and that if groups were smaller that wouldn't happen. My response would be that you should be prepared for that and adjust your own play if those are your targets.
[/list]

Adjusting to that would precisely end in what i think is problematic in current eso pvp: Bring more people.

You kinda proved my point for me there

Unfortunately this isn't the case. The answer "Bring more people" isn't always the solution to a problem. For example, knowing that you might fight vastly outnumbered you can alter many things, for example: Build, Roles, Environment. Bringing more is certainly one factor but its no more valid then any of the others.

I think the thing it comes down to is expectations. The vast majority of players seem to think that they should always be able to win a fight by having a 1vX setup with an AOE ulti that they can coordinate. This isn't always the case.

One such change if you were constantly being zerged down would be to bring a nb bomber instead of a different class (as an example).

Another example might be having a dedicated healer instead of someone else to account for the times where your own defences are overwhelmed and you cannot be supported by simply another hybrid damage dealer.

Moving the fight to terrain which favours you, places you can streak or kite around and reduce the numbers allowing you to pick off ones and twos etc.

For me the argument there lies on the fact that you consider the answer to only be "bring more" is more likely to be the reason why you struggle in that scenario then the fact you are overwhelmed.

Its like groups who say "oh my god we got zerged" and complain about it, what were you aiming to fight by going to faregyl as a back keep (just an example).

In our case, as a 4 man group that can take on about 4 times our numbers usually (granted they aren't of similar skill of course), if we wipe to such numbers yeah we usually try to figure out what went wrong, we didn't move back fast enough, we should have that that skill slotted, or this set would be more appropriate, let's go farm it. But we're all veteran players.

What happens if we are 4 new players trying pvp for the time in the group format that dungeons taught us? What happens when we end up facing a 20 man group? That's when the answer picked is most likely to be "bring more people".

And "bring more people" is definitely the choice that most players choose when they face us and wipe. I remember loads of fight where the pugs we killed 3 min ago come back with 10 more people, but I have almost no recollection of any group coming back and trying a different approach against us.

I see that happen a lot from the other side - but I don't think its a conscious 'lets bring more people' decision - you're giving people too much credit. I honestly think its more like an organic increase... I mean if you take a resource around an enemy keep - somebody will arrive first to take it back. These are usually soloers/randoms - since they require no communication/co-ordination, they often move around the map and react to stuff the quickest.

You then outnumber and beat them down. They respawn, thinking.. 'right - I know what I'm facing now - gonna be a bit more careful'.. and come back.. By then a few others have spotted the wrong-coloured resource as they die - and decided to respawn close-by to flip it back - and come out of the keep more-or less with those first responders...
Then a crossed-swords appears - which only attracts more of the ungrouped randoms or small-scalers.

Nobody asked for more people to come. It just happened. The only solution imho is for stuff to be more spread out - for stuff to be happening in many different places at once - so you get less people reacting to each 'thing' - cos everybody can't be everywhere.. Not sure how Zos can encourage that.. maybe increase rewards for defending? (but don't want to stop people from attacking either) - maybe make cyro smaller? Maybe add a lot more spawn points along with it being smaller?.. idk..

Derra

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

[*] You have said yourself on discord that you don't like for example group map markers because it shows where you have kited stragglers to and that if groups were smaller that wouldn't happen. My response would be that you should be prepared for that and adjust your own play if those are your targets.
[/list]

Adjusting to that would precisely end in what i think is problematic in current eso pvp: Bring more people.

You kinda proved my point for me there

Unfortunately this isn't the case. The answer "Bring more people" isn't always the solution to a problem. For example, knowing that you might fight vastly outnumbered you can alter many things, for example: Build, Roles, Environment. Bringing more is certainly one factor but its no more valid then any of the others.

I think the thing it comes down to is expectations. The vast majority of players seem to think that they should always be able to win a fight by having a 1vX setup with an AOE ulti that they can coordinate. This isn't always the case.

One such change if you were constantly being zerged down would be to bring a nb bomber instead of a different class (as an example).

Another example might be having a dedicated healer instead of someone else to account for the times where your own defences are overwhelmed and you cannot be supported by simply another hybrid damage dealer.

Moving the fight to terrain which favours you, places you can streak or kite around and reduce the numbers allowing you to pick off ones and twos etc.

For me the argument there lies on the fact that you consider the answer to only be "bring more" is more likely to be the reason why you struggle in that scenario then the fact you are overwhelmed.

Its like groups who say "oh my god we got zerged" and complain about it, what were you aiming to fight by going to faregyl as a back keep (just an example).

This is the equivalent of me trying to lecture sanct about largegrp pvp.

Sometimes you just better say nothing at all.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

Derra wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

[*] You have said yourself on discord that you don't like for example group map markers because it shows where you have kited stragglers to and that if groups were smaller that wouldn't happen. My response would be that you should be prepared for that and adjust your own play if those are your targets.
[/list]

Adjusting to that would precisely end in what i think is problematic in current eso pvp: Bring more people.

You kinda proved my point for me there

Unfortunately this isn't the case. The answer "Bring more people" isn't always the solution to a problem. For example, knowing that you might fight vastly outnumbered you can alter many things, for example: Build, Roles, Environment. Bringing more is certainly one factor but its no more valid then any of the others.

I think the thing it comes down to is expectations. The vast majority of players seem to think that they should always be able to win a fight by having a 1vX setup with an AOE ulti that they can coordinate. This isn't always the case.

One such change if you were constantly being zerged down would be to bring a nb bomber instead of a different class (as an example).

Another example might be having a dedicated healer instead of someone else to account for the times where your own defences are overwhelmed and you cannot be supported by simply another hybrid damage dealer.

Moving the fight to terrain which favours you, places you can streak or kite around and reduce the numbers allowing you to pick off ones and twos etc.

For me the argument there lies on the fact that you consider the answer to only be "bring more" is more likely to be the reason why you struggle in that scenario then the fact you are overwhelmed.

Its like groups who say "oh my god we got zerged" and complain about it, what were you aiming to fight by going to faregyl as a back keep (just an example).

This is the equivalent of me trying to lecture sanct about largegrp pvp.

Sometimes you just better say nothing at all.

I think everyone bringing a sensible argument can be listened to even if not agreed with, lets agree to disagree since the discussion is off the topic of these specific changes anyway

Etaniel

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Etaniel wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

[*] The question is very simple. Do you like what we have now? If they answer is No then we move on to the next, Was there a time which you preferred in ESO? assuming the answer is yes nearer launch then we look at the reasoning behind this, from our discussions these reasons generally revolve around the higher population and more active map as to a greater 'variety' of fights.

So i´m not happy with how it is - i´d be not happy with the changes aswell.

Higher population is something that would help alleviate the current issues large groups present (being able to fight too high of a %age of the total population).
However what speaks against this is performance. The game can´t handle the current status quo.
Which suggests that decreasing numbers in engagements while trying to spread out players and keeping total numbers would be a preferable solution to keeping numbers in engangements the same while increasing total numbers of players.

Also largegroups still present a participation hinderance for anyone not in such a grp that´s not desireable imo.
I firmly do not believe in different objectives for different groupsizes. I believe in objectives creating scenarios with chances for participation for all players in their vicinity. Currently with large groups as they are this couldn´t be further from ingame reality.

It´s kinda futile to argue with players that enjoy largegrp play as much as you do though.
It´s like arguing with a king about creating democratic structures instead of his totalitarianism.
I don´t blame anyone for wanting to keep a status quo they enjoy and pushing for changes that would reinforce their position as godkings of pvp.
I just think labeling this as having everyone best interest in mind is a little far fetched.

The question you would need to ask yourself is that if you are not happy now and you still wouldnt be happy after these changes. Is the situation better, worse or no different?

These changes in our opinion would improve gameplay by offering you more fights where you could participate in the type of engagements you enjoy as well as rewarding you better for them.

I'm sure there are a set of changes (for example reducing group size might be one of them) which would specifically enhance your preferred area of play and we can of course discuss them but it shouldn't take away from the others it should add to it.

Derra wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

[*] You have said yourself on discord that you don't like for example group map markers because it shows where you have kited stragglers to and that if groups were smaller that wouldn't happen. My response would be that you should be prepared for that and adjust your own play if those are your targets.
[/list]

Adjusting to that would precisely end in what i think is problematic in current eso pvp: Bring more people.

You kinda proved my point for me there

Unfortunately this isn't the case. The answer "Bring more people" isn't always the solution to a problem. For example, knowing that you might fight vastly outnumbered you can alter many things, for example: Build, Roles, Environment. Bringing more is certainly one factor but its no more valid then any of the others.

I think the thing it comes down to is expectations. The vast majority of players seem to think that they should always be able to win a fight by having a 1vX setup with an AOE ulti that they can coordinate. This isn't always the case.

One such change if you were constantly being zerged down would be to bring a nb bomber instead of a different class (as an example).

Another example might be having a dedicated healer instead of someone else to account for the times where your own defences are overwhelmed and you cannot be supported by simply another hybrid damage dealer.

Moving the fight to terrain which favours you, places you can streak or kite around and reduce the numbers allowing you to pick off ones and twos etc.

For me the argument there lies on the fact that you consider the answer to only be "bring more" is more likely to be the reason why you struggle in that scenario then the fact you are overwhelmed.

Its like groups who say "oh my god we got zerged" and complain about it, what were you aiming to fight by going to faregyl as a back keep (just an example).

What happens if we are 4 new players trying pvp for the time in the group format that dungeons taught us? What happens when we end up facing a 20 man group? That's when the answer picked is most likely to be "bring more people".
.

I think you have answered your own point here.
If a new player is coming into the game and trying to only apply what they have learnt in dungeons to PVP then they need assistance and they should be joining more players to help them with that until they have the experience to choose for themselves which playstyle is for the best from an informed point.

The same would be the case if the same 4 man went into AA or Hel ra and expected to be performing as well as a 12m yet i've been in and tried to 3-4 man mantikora back in the day because we wanted the challenge (from a point of knowledge).

Comparing content simply doesn't work well in this example.

Ok you're taking me way too literally.
Unlike a trial which is explicitly 12 man content, pvp has no restrictions. If you've been used to play with 3 friends during your level up process, you'll naturally play with them in PvP assuming they're all interested. And if the only thing you see there is larger groups and zergs, you'll naturally think that it's the only way to go, hence, you need more people, or join a bigger group.

Also I think Derra could be a bit triggered by what you told him since he's been leading one of the most successful small scale group/guild since launch and you're telling him to learn how to adapt to terrain and that we need a healer. It is kinda insulting.

Anyways, I think what I'm trying to say is that our response is not "bring more people" when we face a challenge, but it's the most used one by a lot of players in Cyro, and it's what we'd like to see change.

LegendaryChef

Is Camelot Unchained out yet?

Vilestride

Alright, well moving along from group size, anyone have thoughts on perhaps the competitive campaign mode 'Dovahkiin'? Under the second heading 'campaigns'

When I used to play CoD all season there would be an open ladder and then for the end X period of the season there would be an invite league where certain teams were selected to compete in a more prestigious series. It was basically the competition where all the hype was at and I think it would be cool to great this sort of feeling within ESO if possible.

The other benefit is that it could perhaps be a great way of encouraging top tier players to compete against other top teir players not just farm pugs. That is the rationale anyway.

Criticisms and feedback?

MLRPZ

how do you decide who's top tier and who's not ? I mean, the issue I have with that it that it implies that you can use a ranking system different from the one we have right now. Cause AP made doesn't exactly mean something in a campaign.
I, for instance, only log in from 20 to 23 everyday (or close) for raid and I stopped smallscaling quite a long time ago. I still make more ap than 90% of the server population. Do I deserve a spot in the competitive campaign because I run with a highly efficient group ? There's better player than me out here, they just don't care too much about AP rate or K/D ratio. So how do you decide who's in and who's not ?

Etaniel

Vilestride wrote: »

Alright, well moving along from group size, anyone have thoughts on perhaps the competitive campaign mode 'Dovahkiin'? Under the second heading 'campaigns'

When I used to play CoD all season there would be an open ladder and then for the end X period of the season there would be an invite league where certain teams were selected to compete in a more prestigious series. It was basically the competition where all the hype was at and I think it would be cool to great this sort of feeling within ESO if possible.

The other benefit is that it could perhaps be a great way of encouraging top tier players to compete against other top teir players not just farm pugs. That is the rationale anyway.

Criticisms and feedback?

I listened to your podcast a few days ago so I'm not sure I recall correctly, but what's the incentive of fighting "high tier" players?

Right now people avoid same skill/ higher skill players because you can get twice as much AP from farming scrubs.
How about scaling the AP you earn by lowering it when you kill a lower rank enemy ? And actually making AP mandatory to continue PvP, like requiring ap to use transit shrines, respawn at camps, buy siege ( at a much heftier price tag )

Prestige takes too much effort for too littlt reward in this game, and doesn't attract many people.

IxSTALKERxI

A campaign with 20 people in it sounds pretty boring tbh... Unless you get 100's of pugs to join the server to boost the numbers but then like how is that different to what we already have?