Increase Raid Size to 36?

RedGirl41

Lol tf? Why would that even matter. The entire alliance shows up at each keep for free 6k ap. And they all chase 2 players across open field. Lol 36...

MLRPZ

Sanct16 wrote: »

Group size 12 would be great.

please update your signature, Zerg Squad is not a thing anymore SMH

TriangularChicken

MLRPZ wrote: »

Sanct16 wrote: »

Group size 12 would be great.

please update your signature, Zerg Squad is not a thing anymore SMH

what about a comeback of zerg squad? cyro zergs are out of control, need you guys back to destroy them :-)

MLRPZ

TriangularChicken wrote: »

MLRPZ wrote: »

Sanct16 wrote: »

Group size 12 would be great.

please update your signature, Zerg Squad is not a thing anymore SMH

what about a comeback of zerg squad? cyro zergs are out of control, need you guys back to destroy them :-)

Aoe rats does the job just fine =P

dtsharples

TBH People have wised up to ball groups. They aren't nearly as effective as they were.
But ofc you'll still have some plebs running into them instead of away due to being new.
AOE Rats come across as a bunch of vegetables, they aren't very good Even against pugs.

Durham

Cap at 13

Master_Kas

I agree, just what the game needs!

Xsorus

12, it should of never been 24...hell I'd even say 8 would be better but 12 fits with the Trials more

zyk

In the OW game I'm playing now, 6 is considered a zerg. 12 might get one death threats.

akray21

Interesting, I've wanted them to limit raid size to a smaller number, not larger.

No_Division

akray21 wrote: »

Interesting, I've wanted them to limit raid size to a smaller number, not larger.

and then after that, cap all healing so it only impacts yourself and those in your group.
nothing worse than AOE heals that heal 6 targets + have to search in a sea of 100 every time while kicking the server in the balls lol.

Ahtu

On second thought, the raid size could not be increased to 36 technically as the group boxes would bleed into the chat window. Instead, raid size could be increased to 48 if the current group boxes were split in half. Player name sizes would have to be changed to compensate.

TBois

Ahtu wrote: »

On second thought, the raid size could not be increased to 36 technically as the group boxes would bleed into the chat window. Instead, raid size could be increased to 48 if the current group boxes were split in half. Player name sizes would have to be changed to compensate.

Or... we could change raid size to 12 like most people would prefer.

Crispen_Longbow

Ahtu wrote: »

On second thought, the raid size could not be increased to 36 technically as the group boxes would bleed into the chat window. Instead, raid size could be increased to 48 if the current group boxes were split in half. Player name sizes would have to be changed to compensate.

Just get the hammer. Then everyone can just follow the hammer and your problem is solved. No need to increase group size that way. I guess that would only work for 10 minutes though. You would just lose the hammer as people would know which keep you guys were going to pvdoor.

Maybe you could just take a page from the old CN guild and Adamos can just where the white wedding dress to make it easier for everyone to be able to see him.

karekiz

They changed healing springs thus lag is no longer an issue no reason not too amirite?

Qbiken

Reduce it to 12 and don't allow healing outside of your group (aka you can only heal and receive healing from people that are within your group).

Major_Lag

Qbiken wrote: »

Reduce it to 12 and don't allow healing outside of your group (aka you can only heal and receive healing from people that are within your group).

No.

Reducing raid sizes is NOT the answer - and neither is reducing Cyrodiil population caps (which ZOS has been steadily doing for the last few major updates at least).

If we continue in this direction, soon the Cyrodiil population limit will be down to just 4 players per faction (same as BGs) and it will nonetheless still LAG LIKE HELL with more than 1 enemy player visible on the screen

The real problem is that the game servers are trash - and the only right solution is to address THAT problem directly, rather than purposedly crippling the game to the detriment of everyone instead.

And please, no more of this "make X ability only affect group members" nonsense. Purge and Rapids - already 2 crucial AoE abilities have been castrated by this kind of stupidity.
All that does is punishes being a team player, which is completely nonsensical in the largescale PvP environment that is Cyrodiil.

It's already bad enough that I get a lot more lag and disconnects when being in a group as opposed to NOT being in a group in Cyrodiil, even if I'm still surrounded by all the same players in either case.
Thanks, but no thanks.

Durham

Major_Lag wrote: »

Qbiken wrote: »

Reduce it to 12 and don't allow healing outside of your group (aka you can only heal and receive healing from people that are within your group).

No.

Reducing raid sizes is NOT the answer - and neither is reducing Cyrodiil population caps (which ZOS has been steadily doing for the last few major updates at least).

If we continue in this direction, soon the Cyrodiil population limit will be down to just 4 players per faction (same as BGs) and it will nonetheless still LAG LIKE HELL with more than 1 enemy player visible on the screen

The real problem is that the game servers are trash - and the only right solution is to address THAT problem directly, rather than purposedly crippling the game to the detriment of everyone instead.

And please, no more of this "make X ability only affect group members" nonsense. Purge and Rapids - already 2 crucial AoE abilities have been castrated by this kind of stupidity.
All that does is punishes being a team player, which is completely nonsensical in the largescale PvP environment that is Cyrodiil.

It's already bad enough that I get a lot more lag and disconnects when being in a group as opposed to NOT being in a group in Cyrodiil, even if I'm still surrounded by all the same players in either case.
Thanks, but no thanks.

You can do everything in cyrodil in a group of 12. You don't need more then 12. If you need more it's a l2p issue.

24 man ball group talking about tactics is laughable. Half of the groups are filled with high ranked bad players...

Jodynn

12

Major_Lag

Durham wrote: »

You can do everything in cyrodil in a group of 12. You don't need more then 12. If you need more it's a l2p issue.

Yep, clearly a L2P issue when facing a faction stack of 80+ enemies in a single keep, with the lag being so severe that abilities don't work and you can totally forget about swapping bars. Dream on.

On PC-EU Kaal, I've repeatedly participated in fights at Aleswell which lasted as long as 2 HOURS, with multiple breaches being opened and siege limit maxed out on both sides.

Of course for PvDoor, you don't even need a group of 12. As little as 3-4 players is usually more than enough.

Xsorus

Major_Lag wrote: »

Durham wrote: »

You can do everything in cyrodil in a group of 12. You don't need more then 12. If you need more it's a l2p issue.

Yep, clearly a L2P issue when facing a faction stack of 80+ enemies in a single keep, with the lag being so severe that abilities don't work and you can totally forget about swapping bars. Dream on.

On PC-EU Kaal, I've repeatedly participated in fights at Aleswell which lasted as long as 2 HOURS, with multiple breaches being opened and siege limit maxed out on both sides.

Of course for PvDoor, you don't even need a group of 12. As little as 3-4 players is usually more than enough.

Ok lets just clear something up here, You as a 12 man group shouldn't be fighting 80 people in a keep and expecting to live without you getting the jump on them. Hell even as a 24 man group you should have trouble with those numbers. Yes i realize in this game you can zerg it up with your zerg and maybe spread them out and win but thats going to be a horrible laggy mess in that keep fight.

12 Mans should be like 8 mans from DAOC, picking your fights and when to hit a zerg by surprise....

Major_Lag

Xsorus wrote: »

Ok lets just clear something up here, You as a 12 man group shouldn't be fighting 80 people in a keep and expecting to live without you getting the jump on them. Hell even as a 24 man group you should have trouble with those numbers.

As with most things, the answer is "it depends".

Even just 12 good players, communicating via Discord/TS, should have little problem with the average zerg, even 2 full 24-man raids stacked on each other - as long as they play smart and use the terrain to their advantage.
And no, I don't mean rockhumping, but rather forcing the zerg into a chokepoint and/or spreading them out and focusing the stragglers.

Of course with the wonderful state of the game's servers, dealing with 2-3 stacked full raids is simply not feasible without the advantage of either considerable numbers and/or a well-defensible position (keep, outpost or milegate), because of the horrible lag they cause.
Skilled play simply isn't possible when you constantly get lagged out and/or disconnected with 999+ ping and can't run more than 100m in any direction without getting "stuck on textures" which invariably means death.

Massive, heavily lagged fights usually devolve to everyone just spamming light or heavy attacks at each other (because using abilities is impossible), and whichever side has bigger numbers wins. Ugh.

Reducing group size will do very little (if anything) to deter faction stacking, some objectives are just more important than others.
And the "weaker" / less skilled players, who are inherently inclined to stack for survivability, will continue to do so regardless of group sizes. You don't even need to be in a group to follow a zerg...

Please ZOS, just fix the damn servers already, so we can have huge 100+ player fights again without everyone crashing or disconnecting

Fawn4287

TBois wrote: »

I would like them to decrease raid size to 12 to stay consistent with pve raid size.

If ZOS even some how in the slightest cared about the quality and state of their game they would stop making crown store content for 5 minutes and look at the post like to first comment likes on this and make an adjustment based on community feedback, however more likely they will continue to let PvP server performance decline and work on the next pay to win sets locked behind a pay wall and some more visual items to loot crate gamble for

Xsorus

Major_Lag wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Ok lets just clear something up here, You as a 12 man group shouldn't be fighting 80 people in a keep and expecting to live without you getting the jump on them. Hell even as a 24 man group you should have trouble with those numbers.

As with most things, the answer is "it depends".

Even just 12 good players, communicating via Discord/TS, should have little problem with the average zerg, even 2 full 24-man raids stacked on each other - as long as they play smart and use the terrain to their advantage.
And no, I don't mean rockhumping, but rather forcing the zerg into a chokepoint and/or spreading them out and focusing the stragglers.

Of course with the wonderful state of the game's servers, dealing with 2-3 stacked full raids is simply not feasible without the advantage of either considerable numbers and/or a well-defensible position (keep, outpost or milegate), because of the horrible lag they cause.
Skilled play simply isn't possible when you constantly get lagged out and/or disconnected with 999+ ping and can't run more than 100m in any direction without getting "stuck on textures" which invariably means death.

Massive, heavily lagged fights usually devolve to everyone just spamming light or heavy attacks at each other (because using abilities is impossible), and whichever side has bigger numbers wins. Ugh.

Reducing group size will do very little (if anything) to deter faction stacking, some objectives are just more important than others.
And the "weaker" / less skilled players, who are inherently inclined to stack for survivability, will continue to do so regardless of group sizes. You don't even need to be in a group to follow a zerg...

Please ZOS, just fix the damn servers already, so we can have huge 100+ player fights again without everyone crashing or disconnecting

Again, If you're open fielding or attacking a keep with that many players with 12 people, you should lose.

I hate to be that broken record, in DAOC when we wiped that zerg with 8 we did not hit that zerg head on, We always came from the side or back and CCed the zerg first before we bombed them. If we did not kill a substantial portion of those players they would overwhelm us.

Now you might be asking, how did we take keeps as an 8 man if there was a huge number of people guarding it? We didn't....We assisted other players when taking the keep, This either means we skimmed the outside making sure no one got inside the keep and we only entered the keep to help take the Lord Room.

As for reducing group size, It would not reduce faction stacking..which i don't think anyone has ever said it would. It would reduce some of the lag I believe because you wouldn't have multiple 24 mans running around spamming.

As for lesser skilled players or people not in a group zerging? They're suppose to do that...That's the whole point. Those people are suppose to be able to zerg and that's what keeps the balance in check. However when you allow bloody Guild groups to form 24 player Zergs of their own... Its super bad for the game.

Now is that to say two 12 mans couldn't get together? Nope...We had people actually run 2 8 mans in DAOC...however it was extremely rare for guilds to do that. Why you might ask? Because it was super embarrassing for one. You would be laughed at and heckled constantly...and worst of all a big thing about 8v8 was that we policed our own...If say a hib and mid group were fighting and a 16 man of Albs rolled up...guess what those hib and mid groups are going to do..They're going to stop fighting and turn on you....Then when you die and you run out again and you attack say another 8 man...Those two groups you just tried to zerg will look specifically for you and AJ that fight as well...And they will keep doing that till you log out.

frozywozy

MLRPZ wrote: »

dtsharples wrote: »

TBH People have wised up to ball groups. They aren't nearly as effective as they were.
But ofc you'll still have some plebs running into them instead of away due to being new.
AOE Rats come across as a bunch of vegetables, they aren't very good Even against pugs.

People haven't "wised up" to ball groups, ball groups have been nerfed to the ground.
We have adapted as always and I don't think you know what you're on about.
I'd happily prove my point against your group though

Edit : compilation of 8vs24+pugs from this patch just for you
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCPWyNwSaQQ&t=484s

Impressive, good stuff guys!

Sandman929

MLRPZ wrote: »

dtsharples wrote: »

TBH People have wised up to ball groups. They aren't nearly as effective as they were.
But ofc you'll still have some plebs running into them instead of away due to being new.
AOE Rats come across as a bunch of vegetables, they aren't very good Even against pugs.

People haven't "wised up" to ball groups, ball groups have been nerfed to the ground.
We have adapted as always and I don't think you know what you're on about.
I'd happily prove my point against your group though

Edit : compilation of 8vs24+pugs from this patch just for you
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCPWyNwSaQQ&t=484s

Awesome. A lot of groups have been fairly quiet since the update, and I've been curious what they're up to.

Jabbs_Giggity

I agree with all that have suggested group cap at 12 max for Cyrodiil. However, IC should be capped at 6.

No_Division

Jabbs_Giggity wrote: »

I agree with all that have suggested group cap at 12 max for Cyrodiil. However, IC should be capped at 6.

I say 4. IC is kinda like a dungeon, whereas cyro is a trial.
BGs should be immune to this, because they should be multiple group sizes being offered.

Kartalin

No_Division wrote: »

Jabbs_Giggity wrote: »

I agree with all that have suggested group cap at 12 max for Cyrodiil. However, IC should be capped at 6.

I say 4. IC is kinda like a dungeon, whereas cyro is a trial.
BGs should be immune to this, because they should be multiple group sizes being offered.

Agreed, and I like the analogies. Also if you 4 v 1 someone in IC they will still complain about being zerged even though they initiated the attack on the furthest behind player in the group.

ZOS_RogerJ

Greetings! While we completely understand everyone has their own opinions, thoughts, feelings and even frustrations, we want the forums to be a civil and constructive platform for the game and it's community as a whole. Please keep the thread on-topic, constructive and civil.