hafgood wrote: »

Sorry, I want to see an increase in group size, 24 is better than 12, 48 would be awesome.

I love large scale PvP, epic fights in large groups where we can play alongside guildmates and randoms we have picked up, many of whom join the guild as a result.

Since the shrink to 12 it has got harder for randoms to get into groups, where we have multiple groups up we use guild chat, and the randoms have no access to that. Add in that numbers 11 and 12 often get dc'd and you find group size is often limited to 10.

Has it made a difference? No. Zos even say that, so I don't see how limiting it more will make a difference.

I get it, you don't like ball groups, other than those who play in them who does? I may not like them but I respect them, its not my style of play but for others it is.

So no, Zos don't know what to do, if they did they would do it.

What makes you think I don’t like groups? I would love all those things you listed actually. But it’s completely delusional to think the game could function at an acceptable level with those systems implemented.

You know if we had 48 man groups there would be a grand total of 3 groups per alliance. 48 players stacked on crown, with purely AOE abilities slotted, not even needing to target skills, smart healing and AOE’s just following crown pushing buttons on a rotation. Actually I take it back, I’m guilty, I would not want that, it sounds awful.

Anyway, how is it that people can complain about disconnects, instability, and performance, and at the same time wish for larger groups, more AOE spam, more players on the server? Always found that strange. Is performance not as important as the number of players your smart heals can target? Madness I say.
And another one, why do people here always say “ZOS said this doesn’t make enough of a difference therefore it should stay”, and constantly ignore the sticky thread, announcing the need the need for tests, written by Rich Lambert, where he describes exactly the ballgroup playstyle being the leading cause of performance degradation. Well, that’s actually called confirmation bias, so no need to answer that one.