Raise group cap

Sacredx

Honestly they should get rid of group size limit. Let them group however they want to. Large guilds need to have a way to play as one team without being handicapped into splitting their teams. So let them play as a team and maybe we will get more large guilds come into eso and fill the servers more.

Why no limit, because group size doesn't equal better group.

Optimal group size is 12 to 16 for a coordinated group. Any more and you start getting inefficiencies causing your group skill level to drop and get worse the higher the size. 12 man groups beat 24 on a regular basis because the larger group is being weighed down by all the players that 'ride' the train and not actually participate in an efficient way. Bigger doesn't equal better, but if players want to play in a big group then let them.

Xeniph

zyk wrote: »

I hope this is sarcasm. Lower it to 12.

Limit should be 4.

And before anyone plays the "I wanna play with friends" yada yada. VoIP still works with folks not in a group, however buffs and whatnot would be limited to 4, that would be a good trade-off.

IxSTALKERxI

Could make group size 12, limit all buffs and heals to the group of 12, but then allow multiple groups of 12 to join together to create a giant 'raid' with an additional even bigger crown.

emma666

Cap groups at 12 just like PvE content. 12 is already a big group, especially considering there aren't many organized guilds left in PvP and barely any competition. Nerfing group size to 12 would make a lot of sense in many ways, simply to adapt to the reality of the state of the game. It would somewhat help with the huge lag issue since there would be less players concentrated together. I really don't understand the argument of letting people run 60+ groups, zergs don't need further simplified mechanics than they already have - it would also ofcourse affect lag negatively.

frozywozy

emma666 wrote: »

Cap groups at 12 just like PvE content. 12 is already a big group, especially considering there aren't many organized guilds left in PvP and barely any competition. Nerfing group size to 12 would make a lot of sense in many ways, simply to adapt to the reality of the state of the game. It would somewhat help with the huge lag issue since there would be less players concentrated together. I really don't understand the argument of letting people run 60+ groups, zergs don't need further simplified mechanics than they already have - it would also ofcourse affect lag negatively.

agreed 100%

ettenmoor

Can I also suggest that group cap limit be lifted in PvE trials?

Dudis

Lower it to 8 imo, to diversify builds and action.

Groups can still work together for larger objectives.

dtsharples

Too many people believe that running around protected by 20 other people, with pocket healers, rapids monkeys and purge spammers is ''competitive play''.
That is where the game is heading (unfortunately).
Each update they make it easier for people to ball up and run maniacally in circles like dogs chasing their tails. And each update the excuses as to why this is "Difficult challenging play" get more and more ludicrous and exaggerated.
So, whilst I would advocate for smaller group sizes to anyone who would listen, I have a feeling that this ballzerg mentality is actually the direction that ZOS wants to take us in.

Feanor

Group size is irrelevant when you’re running in the faction stack.

mojomood

MattT1988 wrote: »

*** no. If anything they need to be smaller. The servers are struggling as it is.

This. So this. Please don't raise the cap.

Recremen

dtsharples wrote: »

Too many people believe that running around protected by 20 other people, with pocket healers, rapids monkeys and purge spammers is ''competitive play''.
That is where the game is heading (unfortunately).
Each update they make it easier for people to ball up and run maniacally in circles like dogs chasing their tails. And each update the excuses as to why this is "Difficult challenging play" get more and more ludicrous and exaggerated.
So, whilst I would advocate for smaller group sizes to anyone who would listen, I have a feeling that this ballzerg mentality is actually the direction that ZOS wants to take us in.

I'm sure you thought this was cheeky and clever but it actually reads as "I don't understand team dynamics and strategy and am overall just salty because I keep falling for bait and getting trained on." It's honestly incomprehensible to me how someone could think that organized teams in gaming don't make up the majority of the competitive scene.

Ask any of the major guilds. They don't get excited about the good fights they're going to get training on guildless pugs running headlong into them with bow light attack spam, at that point they're just excited about the stellar AP farming they're about to do. What really gets their blood pumping is when they see someone on the field wearing a guild tabard that they recognize, because it means they're going to have much more engaging combat.

Now ask some pugs who don't run in major guilds. Hopefully they're stoked just to be fighting and know what they're getting into, but they're not going to be saying "oh look there's the other members of my solo competitive league I'd better go kill them to boost my real or imagined ranking". The people who are into that go enter dueling contests, since that's an actual thing now, instead of going to Cyro acting like it's meant to be something other than larger, looser battles.

Then you have gankers and 1vX/SomeVx types. What they do is rather by definition not competitive. Gankers are fully embracing the "it's all fair in warfare" mentality and are trying to set up a scenario that is necessary not an even and competitive playing field. That's not a negative character judgement, that's just specifically what that playstyle is, and it's one of the things Cyrodiil is set up to allow and even encourage. As for the 1vX/SomeVxers, they're specifically trying to pull off weaker players and bait them into getting farmed or looking good on video. There isn't a SomeVx arena where they all get together and roll around the terrain features. Or rather, there is, it's called Battlegrounds, and most of them have moved there.

Sandman929

12 seems too limiting, but it wouldn't be so bad. 16 seems better to me, but I don't have any qualms about 24 or larger either. If everyone isn't focused, I personally think more than 16 gets a bit unruly in chat and becomes counterproductive if it's not reigned in.

It's sort of irrelevant though IMO. The largest groups I typically come across aren't groups (though some sections may be grouped), they're mostly hordes of solo players/small groups that are all piled on the same keep who will claim that the 16 that are fighting them are causing lag for the 40+ ungrouped allies in a keep.

dtsharples

.

dtsharples

Recremen wrote: »

I'm sure you thought this was cheeky and clever but it actually reads as "I don't understand team dynamics and strategy and am overall just salty because I keep falling for bait and getting trained on." It's honestly incomprehensible to me how someone could think that organized teams in gaming don't make up the majority of the competitive scene.

Ask any of the major guilds. They don't get excited about the good fights they're going to get training on guildless pugs running headlong into them with bow light attack spam, at that point they're just excited about the stellar AP farming they're about to do. What really gets their blood pumping is when they see someone on the field wearing a guild tabard that they recognize, because it means they're going to have much more engaging combat.

Now ask some pugs who don't run in major guilds. Hopefully they're stoked just to be fighting and know what they're getting into, but they're not going to be saying "oh look there's the other members of my solo competitive league I'd better go kill them to boost my real or imagined ranking". The people who are into that go enter dueling contests, since that's an actual thing now, instead of going to Cyro acting like it's meant to be something other than larger, looser battles.

Then you have gankers and 1vX/SomeVx types. What they do is rather by definition not competitive. Gankers are fully embracing the "it's all fair in warfare" mentality and are trying to set up a scenario that is necessary not an even and competitive playing field. That's not a negative character judgement, that's just specifically what that playstyle is, and it's one of the things Cyrodiil is set up to allow and even encourage. As for the 1vX/SomeVxers, they're specifically trying to pull off weaker players and bait them into getting farmed or looking good on video. There isn't a SomeVx arena where they all get together and roll around the terrain features. Or rather, there is, it's called Battlegrounds, and most of them have moved there.

I thought nothing of the sort, I, like you, am allowed to voice my opinion on a public forum
I have played in every kind of group that you mention below, and whilst I can 100% say that ball-zerging is the simplest and easiest form of PVP, which ultimately allows you to personally fail repeatedly without any consequences, I understand why some people do sway towards that play style. It has its merits, but they are limited.

Shame that all these 'pro-groups' spend 90% of their time zerging down pugs then.
It's very, very rare that 2 guilds go head to head in Cyrodiil, they seem to actively avoid one another.
The usual ball-zerg tactic seems to be let all the 'scrubs' open a keep, then zerg in behind them and wipe them all with ulti dumps. Challenging play indeed....

At least gankers have to deal with their own actions. No purge monkey or 5 healbots to wipe up their mess.
And yes, 4 v X is much more difficult than 'playing' in a ball-zerg, you must know this for a fact.
Denying that would just be downright silly.

frozywozy

dtsharples wrote: »

It's very, very rare that 2 guilds go head to head in Cyrodiil, they seem to actively avoid one another.

Gave me a good laugh.

Katahdin

24 is enough and fine as is

Recremen

dtsharples wrote: »

I thought nothing of the sort, I, like you, am allowed to voice my opinion on a public forum

I never implied you can't voice your opinion, it just comes off as ill-informed and salty.

dtsharples wrote: »

I have played in every kind of group that you mention
...
At least gankers have to deal with their own actions. No purge monkey or 5 healbots to wipe up their mess.

If you really played in all of these different group types then you apparently learned nothing from the experience. Complaining about "purge monkeys" or "healbots" is intellectually on par with complaining about having a quarterback in football. These specialized roles are first and foremost driven by the design of the skill itself (it literally says "and your group" in the description), second by the needs of the types of combat you're getting into (since dots, snares, immobilizes, and debuffs are absolutely ubiquitous), and finally by the realization that specialization leads to better efficiency. If your group isn't running this skill, or if it expects everyone to run it on their own, then it doesn't make you better players it just means your team is bad on purpose.

Also a skilled ganker doesn't even have a "mess" to clean up because they choose their targets better and have good escape strategies. If you're trying to snipe spam a 49k health tank off their horse from out of the middle of a passing zerg and find yourself with a bunch of DoTs and snares on you then you're the one making bad decisions there, and at any rate are certainly not doing well in any competitive scene.

dtsharples wrote: »

whilst I can 100% say that ball-zerging is the simplest and easiest form of PVP, which ultimately allows you to personally fail repeatedly without any consequences, I understand why some people do sway towards that play style. It has its merits, but they are limited.

If by "ball-zerging" you mean "not being in an organized group and just kind of winging it with the rest of the groupless pugs" then sure, I can see that being "easy" since you're probably not trying hard to begin with and not overly invested in the fights. If you actually mean "organized group play" when you say "ball-zerging", though, then you're just plainly incorrect. Messing something up while in an organized group can have the exact same disastrous consequences as any other playstyle. I really don't know how you'd come up with the idea that things are somehow easier or less challenging. Like what kind of repeated failures without any consequences are we talking about here? Failing to secure a kill? Nope, the enemy is just as not dead as if you were solo and capable of hitting you more. Failing to avoid damage? Nope, turns out that will still kill you, especially if your "heal bots" repeatedly fail to, you know, use healing abilities. Or are we to assume that people only fail repeatedly when it fits your tired narrative, and otherwise flawlessly execute their role? Maybe people are failing to avoid a bait-and-bomb scenario without consequence? Nope, that's literally one of the primary ways that organized guilds take each other out. What then are these "repeated failures" that organized groups can somehow bad their way through which the poor maligned smallscale are so helplessly vulnerable against?

dtsharples wrote: »

Shame that all these 'pro-groups' spend 90% of their time zerging down pugs then.
It's very, very rare that 2 guilds go head to head in Cyrodiil, they seem to actively avoid one another.
The usual ball-zerg tactic seems to be let all the 'scrubs' open a keep, then zerg in behind them and wipe them all with ulti dumps. Challenging play indeed....

Selection bias issue on your part. Guilds are constantly fighting each other both open field and in keep battles while trying to accomplish map objectives, at least on my platform of PC NA. We definitely aren't avoiding each other, and couldn't even if we wanted to since we're usually showing up to the same keep as a rival guild to either attack or defend it. And none of us are opposed to opening a keep up ourselves. Even the ones who don't care about the map will open keeps themselves just to draw attention and provoke a fight. But if all you see is the death recap screen of one of these guilds' ult bombs then of course you're going to have a biased view of how things go. And if it's not challenging to perform these ult dumps, then why is it so challenging to avoid them? Is it because you keep falling for the bait/fail to check your surroundings/fail to use your escape and survival tools?

dtsharples wrote: »

And yes, 4 v X is much more difficult than 'playing' in a ball-zerg, you must know this for a fact.
Denying that would just be downright silly.

No, it really isn't more difficult unless you're not putting in the effort for larger group play. 4vX is just "ball-zerg" light. You're still using specialized builds (just for a different specialty), you're still baiting people into the right position to get stacked on by your whole group while they're separated from their allies, you're still using the terrain features to break off larger forces into smaller manageable chunks, and you're still low-key relying on the rest of your faction to keep most of the opponent's forces occupied so that you don't get completely overwhelmed by the whole faction stack. The only thing that's different between organized guild fights and 4vXers is that organized guilds actually go fight each other.

ShadowProc

Recremen wrote: »

dtsharples wrote: »

I thought nothing of the sort, I, like you, am allowed to voice my opinion on a public forum

I never implied you can't voice your opinion, it just comes off as ill-informed and salty.

dtsharples wrote: »

I have played in every kind of group that you mention
...
At least gankers have to deal with their own actions. No purge monkey or 5 healbots to wipe up their mess.

If you really played in all of these different group types then you apparently learned nothing from the experience. Complaining about "purge monkeys" or "healbots" is intellectually on par with complaining about having a quarterback in football. These specialized roles are first and foremost driven by the design of the skill itself (it literally says "and your group" in the description), second by the needs of the types of combat you're getting into (since dots, snares, immobilizes, and debuffs are absolutely ubiquitous), and finally by the realization that specialization leads to better efficiency. If your group isn't running this skill, or if it expects everyone to run it on their own, then it doesn't make you better players it just means your team is bad on purpose.

Also a skilled ganker doesn't even have a "mess" to clean up because they choose their targets better and have good escape strategies. If you're trying to snipe spam a 49k health tank off their horse from out of the middle of a passing zerg and find yourself with a bunch of DoTs and snares on you then you're the one making bad decisions there, and at any rate are certainly not doing well in any competitive scene.

dtsharples wrote: »

whilst I can 100% say that ball-zerging is the simplest and easiest form of PVP, which ultimately allows you to personally fail repeatedly without any consequences, I understand why some people do sway towards that play style. It has its merits, but they are limited.

If by "ball-zerging" you mean "not being in an organized group and just kind of winging it with the rest of the groupless pugs" then sure, I can see that being "easy" since you're probably not trying hard to begin with and not overly invested in the fights. If you actually mean "organized group play" when you say "ball-zerging", though, then you're just plainly incorrect. Messing something up while in an organized group can have the exact same disastrous consequences as any other playstyle. I really don't know how you'd come up with the idea that things are somehow easier or less challenging. Like what kind of repeated failures without any consequences are we talking about here? Failing to secure a kill? Nope, the enemy is just as not dead as if you were solo and capable of hitting you more. Failing to avoid damage? Nope, turns out that will still kill you, especially if your "heal bots" repeatedly fail to, you know, use healing abilities. Or are we to assume that people only fail repeatedly when it fits your tired narrative, and otherwise flawlessly execute their role? Maybe people are failing to avoid a bait-and-bomb scenario without consequence? Nope, that's literally one of the primary ways that organized guilds take each other out. What then are these "repeated failures" that organized groups can somehow bad their way through which the poor maligned smallscale are so helplessly vulnerable against?

dtsharples wrote: »

Shame that all these 'pro-groups' spend 90% of their time zerging down pugs then.
It's very, very rare that 2 guilds go head to head in Cyrodiil, they seem to actively avoid one another.
The usual ball-zerg tactic seems to be let all the 'scrubs' open a keep, then zerg in behind them and wipe them all with ulti dumps. Challenging play indeed....

Selection bias issue on your part. Guilds are constantly fighting each other both open field and in keep battles while trying to accomplish map objectives, at least on my platform of PC NA. We definitely aren't avoiding each other, and couldn't even if we wanted to since we're usually showing up to the same keep as a rival guild to either attack or defend it. And none of us are opposed to opening a keep up ourselves. Even the ones who don't care about the map will open keeps themselves just to draw attention and provoke a fight. But if all you see is the death recap screen of one of these guilds' ult bombs then of course you're going to have a biased view of how things go. And if it's not challenging to perform these ult dumps, then why is it so challenging to avoid them? Is it because you keep falling for the bait/fail to check your surroundings/fail to use your escape and survival tools?

dtsharples wrote: »

And yes, 4 v X is much more difficult than 'playing' in a ball-zerg, you must know this for a fact.
Denying that would just be downright silly.

No, it really isn't more difficult unless you're not putting in the effort for larger group play. 4vX is just "ball-zerg" light. You're still using specialized builds (just for a different specialty), you're still baiting people into the right position to get stacked on by your whole group while they're separated from their allies, you're still using the terrain features to break off larger forces into smaller manageable chunks, and you're still low-key relying on the rest of your faction to keep most of the opponent's forces occupied so that you don't get completely overwhelmed by the whole faction stack. The only thing that's different between organized guild fights and 4vXers is that organized guilds actually go fight each other.

Ganking is not just spamming snipe. There is a difference. It is extremely challenging depending the style and situation.

I like to challenge just how deep into a zerg or ball group I can get and pick someone off and then get out clean. You try going into the middle of bleakers front door and picking someone off in the middle of 30 players and getting away.

If you are so defensive about ball groups and dont like people judging that playstyle without understanding it you should do the same. Because I know for a fact you have no clue about the ganking playstyle or its challenges comparing it to just hitting snipe.

I have put in 2 to 3 years large scale and 1 to 2 years solo or duo. IT IS WAY HARDER SOLOING. Not even close. There is no one to save your butt if you screw up. Being responsible for you own healing, defense, damage, decision making, etc is way more challenging. No negates, earthgore procs, rememberence, etc.

Solo is most challenging form of pvp in this game.

Recremen

ShadowProc wrote: »

Ganking is not just spamming snipe. There is a difference. It is extremely challenging depending the style and situation.

@ShadowProc

Yes, that was the point of my statement. It is why I opened that paragraph with

Also a skilled ganker doesn't even have a "mess" to clean up

Mentioning spamming snipe on a 49k health tank was specifically to demonstrate what a skilled ganker wouldn't be doing.

ShadowProc wrote: »

If you are so defensive about ball groups and dont like people judging that playstyle without understanding it you should do the same. Because I know for a fact you have no clue about the ganking playstyle or its challenges comparing it to just hitting snipe.

That is specifically not what I was doing.

ShadowProc wrote: »

I have put in 2 to 3 years large scale and 1 to 2 years solo or duo. IT IS WAY HARDER SOLOING. Not even close. There is no one to save your butt if you screw up. Being responsible for you own healing, defense, damage, decision making, etc is way more challenging. No negates, earthgore procs, rememberence, etc.

Solo is most challenging form of pvp in this game.

If you weren't putting as much effort into your group play as you are your solo play then that's kind of on you. And if you're just comparing success rate to failure rate for solo play (by whatever metric you might measure success and failure) then of course you're going to perceive solo to be harder, as a solo player is necessarily never going to accomplish as much as multiple equally-skilled players. That doesn't make group play easier it just makes it more effective, which is exactly what you'd expect to happen.

Sacredx

ShadowProc wrote: »

There is no one to save your butt if you screw up. Being responsible for you own healing, defense, damage, decision making, etc is way more challenging.

Now read that and tell me how it does not apply to group play? Solo, duo, group, it matters not. They are one and the same. If you or your team screw up its over.

Sylosi

dtsharples wrote: »

Too many people believe that running around protected by 20 other people, with pocket healers, rapids monkeys and purge spammers is ''competitive play''.
That is where the game is heading (unfortunately).
Each update they make it easier for people to ball up and run maniacally in circles like dogs chasing their tails. And each update the excuses as to why this is "Difficult challenging play" get more and more ludicrous and exaggerated.
So, whilst I would advocate for smaller group sizes to anyone who would listen, I have a feeling that this ballzerg mentality is actually the direction that ZOS wants to take us in.

As opposed to people running around in solo/small group builds killing some guy in a zerg build or a 4 man gank group who have played the game 4 years ganking some guy who first set foot in Cyrodil that day.

I hate to shatter your delusions but as a competitive game mode Cyrodil is a joke whether people play in a zerg, a guild group, small group or solo.

Sacredx

Sylosi wrote: »

as a competitive game mode Cyrodil is a joke whether people play in a zerg, a guild group, small group or solo.

You can say that about any game that was ever made. Competitive play is not something that is given to you on a platter, it is something that players make for themselves. Be that solo, small scale or group play. For an event to be competitive it needs to have fair odds for both sides. The player must decide what is fair and the rest is history. Arguing, being subjective etc, it matters not. If the player has every intention to challenge themselves and create a competitive atmosphere that is what matters. The game does not compel "fair" or even play, the players decide that for themselves.

Sylosi

Sacredx wrote: »

Sylosi wrote: »

as a competitive game mode Cyrodil is a joke whether people play in a zerg, a guild group, small group or solo.

You can say that about any game that was ever made. Competitive play is not something that is given to you on a platter, it is something that players make for themselves.

The majority of the most successful PvP games give you competitive play on a platter because they are built around competitive game modes, with a level playing field, with vaguely decent matchmaking, have the size of playerbase to support that matchmaking and a game that is balanced exclusively around that game mode (or a small number of similar game modes).

Sacredx

Sylosi wrote: »

Sacredx wrote: »

Sylosi wrote: »

as a competitive game mode Cyrodil is a joke whether people play in a zerg, a guild group, small group or solo.

You can say that about any game that was ever made. Competitive play is not something that is given to you on a platter, it is something that players make for themselves.

What are you on about? The majority of the most successful PvP games give you competitive play on a platter because they are built around competitive game modes, with a level playing field, with vaguely decent matchmaking, have the size of playerbase to support that matchmaking and a game that is balanced exclusively around that game mode (or a small number of similar game modes).

Having a competitive play mode does not mean that the actual gameplay will be competitive. You have already proven that with Cyrodiil. Your words!

Players and teams know when it's competitive and when it's not, the game, no matter how well made, does not.

Sylosi

Sacredx wrote: »

Sylosi wrote: »

Sacredx wrote: »

Sylosi wrote: »

as a competitive game mode Cyrodil is a joke whether people play in a zerg, a guild group, small group or solo.

You can say that about any game that was ever made. Competitive play is not something that is given to you on a platter, it is something that players make for themselves.

What are you on about? The majority of the most successful PvP games give you competitive play on a platter because they are built around competitive game modes, with a level playing field, with vaguely decent matchmaking, have the size of playerbase to support that matchmaking and a game that is balanced exclusively around that game mode (or a small number of similar game modes).

Having a competitive play mode does not mean that the actual gameplay will be competitive. You have already proven that with Cyrodiil. Your words!

Which has nothing to do with what I wrote, Cyrodil lacks all the things I mentioned above that you conveniently ignored like matchmaking, a level playing field, etc, as a competitive mode it is a joke, which is why it would have to rely on players to be competitive, but most successful PvP games have the design, infrastructure and systems to provide a reasonable level of competitiveness with zero effort on the players part.

If I go play Overwatch for example, it has those things I mentioned, so if I queue up as a duo, then the vast majority of the time what I get is a reasonably competitive match. Because if our team is a duo + solos, then typically you are matched against opposing team is a duo + solos, then on top of that everyone is typically within a reasonable skill/experience range of each other (MMR range), obviously teams are the same size and so on.

So contrary to your claim, the game essentially provides reasonably competitive matches on a platter, the opposite to Cyrodil, not sure why this is such a difficult concept to grasp, is ESO the only game you have ever played?

Thraben

Sacredx wrote: »

Honestly they should get rid of group size limit. Let them group however they want to. Large guilds need to have a way to play as one team without being handicapped into splitting their teams. So let them play as a team and maybe we will get more large guilds come into eso and fill the servers more.

Why no limit, because group size doesn't equal better group.

Optimal group size is 12 to 16 for a coordinated group. Any more and you start getting inefficiencies causing your group skill level to drop and get worse the higher the size. 12 man groups beat 24 on a regular basis because the larger group is being weighed down by all the players that 'ride' the train and not actually participate in an efficient way. Bigger doesn't equal better, but if players want to play in a big group then let them.

Though I prefer 8 person- groups I totally agree here. Making bigger groups should be allowed as it also makes them vulnerable. On all EU servers, there is only one group which doesn´t seem to suffer loss of efficiancy when they get too big, and I´m pretty sure they won´t abuse it.

Sacredx

Sylosi wrote: »

If I go play Overwatch for example, it has those things I mentioned, so if I queue up as a duo, then the vast majority of the time what I get is a reasonably competitive match. Because if our team is a duo + solos, then typically you are matched against opposing team is a duo + solos, then on top of that everyone is typically within a reasonable skill/experience range of each other (MMR range), obviously teams are the same size and so on.

So contrary to your claim, the game essentially provides reasonably competitive matches on a platter, the opposite to Cyrodil, not sure why this is such a difficult concept to grasp, is ESO the only game you have ever played?

Games like Overwatch or any other with a rank system get undermined by smurf accounts where high skill players play on alts throwing the inherent game competitiveness out the window. Not to mention all the bot software and aim software out there. The whole MMR or any other type of system encourages this by design. Players don't want to loose a huge chunk of their MMR to an unfair loss and have to start over to regain it, and instead resort to smurfs instead. This is only natural, hence why it happens.

If you think that you are playing Overwatch and you are having a competitive match is all that matters. That does not mean that the game has made it this way. The opponent on the other end might feel that it is not fair or they may be cheating or they may be smurfing. You will never know.

Like I said competition is decided by the players, not by the game.

Sylosi

Sacredx wrote: »

Sylosi wrote: »

If I go play Overwatch for example, it has those things I mentioned, so if I queue up as a duo, then the vast majority of the time what I get is a reasonably competitive match. Because if our team is a duo + solos, then typically you are matched against opposing team is a duo + solos, then on top of that everyone is typically within a reasonable skill/experience range of each other (MMR range), obviously teams are the same size and so on.

So contrary to your claim, the game essentially provides reasonably competitive matches on a platter, the opposite to Cyrodil, not sure why this is such a difficult concept to grasp, is ESO the only game you have ever played?

Games like Overwatch or any other with a rank system get undermined by smurf accounts where high skill players play on alts throwing the inherent game competitiveness out the window. Not to mention all the bot software and aim software out there. The whole MMR or any other type of system encourages this by design. Players don't want to loose a huge chunk of their MMR to an unfair loss and have to start over to regain it, and instead resort to smurfs instead. This is only natural, hence why it happens.

If you think that you are playing Overwatch and you are having a competitive match is all that matters. That does not mean that the game has made it this way. The opponent on the other end might feel that it is not fair or they may be cheating or they may be smurfing. You will never know.

Like I said competition is decided by the players, not by the game.

LOL, that is pretty desperate, talk about clutching at straws.

Smurf players are a tiny minority that do not effect the vast majority of games.

There is no "think" I get mostly reasonably competitive matches in Overwatch it is fact, it is also very easy to tell, are most of the matches at least somewhat close as opposed to blowouts, to which the answer is yes, and that is down to the systems, design of the game and a large playerbase to matchmake from.

And it is also partly why games like Overwatch have so many players compared to garbage like Cyrodil, good PvP requires at least some meaningful degree of competitiveness, games like Overwatch for the most part provide that. Meanwhile in Cyrodil bads are ganking some guy who has played the game a couple of months and patting themselves on the back for how "skilled" they are or zergs flattening a group of 5, the game is trash tier as far as PvP goes.

Sacredx

Sylosi wrote: »

I get mostly reasonably competitive matches in Overwatch it is fact

And that is your opinion. Same goes for anyone else who believes that they are having a competitive experience in overwatch, eso or any other game.

People play because they choose to and frankly I don't understand why someone chooses to spend their time on a game that they call a joke.

Sylosi

Sacredx wrote: »

Sylosi wrote: »

I get mostly reasonably competitive matches in Overwatch it is fact

And that is your opinion.

No it is objective fact based on the scoring and outcome of most matches, is it perfect no, but for the most part it does a reasonable job of providing reasonably competitive matches.

Sacredx wrote: »

People play because they choose to and frankly I don't understand why someone chooses to spend their time on a game that they call a joke.

There is more in ESO than Cyrodil, beyond which on occasion I don't feel like playing a skilled, competitive PvP game, there are times I just want something trashy for which Cyrodil is fine.