emma666 wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

emma666 wrote: »

As someone who used to play support for years in big groups and now favour smallscale, I personally have no doubt that large scale support is one of the easiest roles in PvP. I would expect people who compare smallscale vs large scale to atleast have experience in both playstyles to truly be able to compare, but what I'm seeing is players who lack experience in one of them and just sound heavily biased and salty. Notice how every person here defending the (objectively untrue) statement that "stamina support takes as much skill as solo/smallscale play" all favour large scale zerg PvP and is rarely found outside of a big group? Hmm, I wonder why... Whatever makes y'all feel better.

lol "objectively untrue". If it were objectively untrue then it should be easy to quantify and categorize all the ways it's harder. Anyone want to bite the bullet, or is everyone too scared to dive into it? Right now the only argument seems to be "it has to be hard because it feels hard", which isn't exactly a refutable analysis.

Huh? It comes down to experience for me. I'm not going to waste time doing math or rabbling all the differing things between supporting and smallscaling. I have 5 years of eso PvP experience as a rapid spamming support healer and as a smallscaling templar/sorcerer, I think it speaks for something. I can objectively say that not only is being a support in a large raid easy, just being in a large raid is way easier - especially now considering there's minimal competitive large scale PvP in eso compared to before. I'm pretty sure that we completely disagree on most things regarding this considering your first post on this thread, so I doubt a debate on this will change any minds. I just wanted to share my thoughts since I saw many players confidently comparing playstyles they are ironically inexperienced with.

That is actually a subjective statement. Like, definitionally so. If you want to make an objective analysis then you actually need to use objective methods, like math. Additionally, there is plenty of competitive large-scale PvP. It's going on pretty much every single night.

frozywozy wrote: »

Thogard wrote: »

Glory wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Your comparaison and experience in a ballgroup has no impact in this thread. People are exclusively talking about the most challenging fight where it's your group of 8-16 against 4 if not 5times your numbers and your faction out of reach.

Off-topic, but I am genuinely interested in seeing the 16v64-80's that people are talking about as being a scenario that happens.

I think the only scenario I've seen that even remotely resembles a fight like that is the one from your stream from a while back against AotP.

In something like this video https://youtube.com/watch?v=lq4GAlETlSA&t=109s, I paused and counted and the numbers from AotP never exceeded 30 on screen (and they were pretty well grouped)


I think this is the clip

• First full-force engagement I counted 31-33 EP @ 0:05
• Second push by your group I counted somewhere around 40 EP, probably 45
• From 1:23 to 1:44 I counted somewhere from 44-50 enemies, although it was hard to tally due to the movement

I don't think I've seen more than a handful of clips where people are fighting legitimately more than 50 people. Fighting 50 is quite a feat for any group (especially <=16), but I haven't seen any actual 80 enemy engagements (but there is truly an issue with necro-rezzing as well as having multiple groups of 24 throughout a keep etc.)

Note: I am in no way saying any of these fights are unimpressive. I am questioning how people perceive the quantity of opponents they are fighting. I am also a culprit: sometimes I feel like I am fighting 10 people alone when it's 3-6

That’s why I like miat’s addon.. the box that counts nearby allies and opponents. It keeps me honest while I’m streaming.

Yeah when I said "We also checked the amount of people who damaged us at the end of that engagement and it was between 70 and 75 if I recall correctly.", thats what I was referring to.

I suggest to anyone interested to go check it out, very useful addon.

https://www.esoui.com/downloads/info1545-MiatsPVPAlerts.html

I think my point @frozywozy is that while 70-75 people may have damaged you in that series of fights, it was a series of fights over a long period of time. Nowhere in those engagements did I count truly more than 50 people, so in reality you were fighting groups that were ~0x - ~2.5x your size. Again, not saying that fighting 2.5x the number of enemies is not a feat to be ignored.

You will often see smaller groups routinely fighting 2.5 - 5x people in a single engagement (1v5, 2v10, 10v20), and often back to back (3 people fighting waves of 8 enemies back to back). This is what I'm still confused about - where are the true 2.5-5x enemy engagements that large groups claim to fight (example, a 24 man fighting 3 times its numbers is 72 but I've NEVER seen a clip of a 24 v 72 engagement)?

The fact that I don't see many Dracarys videos where there are actually 2.5x enemies in a single engagement is telling to me that large scale groups inflate their engagement numbers. I say this because I think Dracarys is one of the last larger scale groups left that actually actively goes to fight outnumbered, so I have my doubts about other large groups claiming fighting megazergs.

ShadowProc wrote: »

ShadowProc wrote: »

Also why do you cap your raids at 12 to 16? I believe I could dig up some quotes of some of you saying to challenge yourselves. By your logic it is equally difficult in a raid of 16 or 24 or solo.

Bump. Was hoping for an answer?

The question has been answered multiple times in the past. Feel free to refer to those answers whilst you are digging through the history of my comments.

@Glory I'm not going to disagree that people inflate numbers but I don't think it's unique to large groups either. If you want to see 70+ players together just play on a night that AotP plays and we fight them or whenever AD or DC pugs and guilds faction stack. I can't speak for other groups but I appreciate the kind words about us

ShadowProc wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

ShadowProc wrote: »

ShadowProc wrote: »

Also why do you cap your raids at 12 to 16? I believe I could dig up some quotes of some of you saying to challenge yourselves. By your logic it is equally difficult in a raid of 16 or 24 or solo.

Bump. Was hoping for an answer?

The question has been answered multiple times in the past. Feel free to refer to those answers whilst you are digging through the history of my comments.

@Glory I'm not going to disagree that people inflate numbers but I don't think it's unique to large groups either. If you want to see 70+ players together just play on a night that AotP plays and we fight them or whenever AD or DC pugs and guilds faction stack. I can't speak for other groups but I appreciate the kind words about us

I didn’t dig through anything. I know why and others cap at smaller numbers. Same reason some cap at 4, 2, or 1. It gets more challenging.

Your right though. Maybe the question answered itself.

No one is arguing that 2 or 4 vs 40 is more challenging than 12 vs 40 and 12 vs 40 is more challenging that 16 vs 40. The thing which is being questioned is 2 vs 4 compared to 12 vs 24 compared to 16 vs 32+. My argument would be that fighting average players 16 vs 32 can sometimes be more challenging and sometimes less challenging due to the situations and locations with objective goals those fights generally occur in. E.g. keep capture or such. It's comparatively easier to kite 4 people when you don't need to defend or take an objective but they are both valid styles of play which offer challenge in their own ways and require their own tools to win.

They are just different types of fight. Obviously if the number of enemies stays the same the more you have the easier it is.