In Depth Imperial City Rework Idea - The PVP content ESO needs in 2023

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO · February 22

Kartalin wrote: »

You can have a tightly coordinated, specced out group at 6 or 8 people and faceroll other groups in Cyro right now (minus the actually-good ball groups), so it would still be pretty strong in a modified IC environment. At 4 people in a group in IC you could probably still dominate too but the margins of error are greater and make them more manageable. So maybe max group of 4 is a little more reasonable.

It's also a fact we have no idea what population sizes we're dealing with in IC. 40 per side currently?

Cyro is around 12 players per population bar in GH so I would guess IC is around 6 per

React · February 22

Kartalin wrote: »

You can have a tightly coordinated, specced out group at 6 or 8 people and faceroll other groups in Cyro right now (minus the actually-good ball groups), so it would still be pretty strong in a modified IC environment. At 4 people in a group in IC you could probably still dominate too but the margins of error are greater and make them more manageable. So maybe max group of 4 is a little more reasonable.

It's also a fact we have no idea what population sizes we're dealing with in IC. 40 per side currently?

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

React wrote: »

SmellyUnlimited wrote: »

It sounds like a great plan, although I think the across the board tel var rate increases are a bit on the high side. The issue I’m having is with “grouping” in what’s described as a “free for all.” How would grouping actually work? If you can attack any player in IC, then are we assuming friendly-fire is also part of the mix? What’s to stop a group member from simply killing you and taking your tel var after a particularly good run. It’s a free for all. I don’t see how grouping could feasibly be implemented in a free for all environment.

Group size of around 6-8 to prevent "ball groups" from dominating.

6-8m is more than enough to be able to dominate as a ball group vs the sizes of players you get in IC. Ironically it would be better the have a higher group cap but reduce the effectiveness of group buff sets in IC to have a better chance against them.

This way a zerg can more easily coordinate against said groups.

Group cap of four sounds great to me, but any realistic suggestion needs to appeal to as many people as possible. When I suggested those numbers, I had the casual players in mind who may need 6-8 players to deal with molag bal, sewer bosses, or who may just be more comfortable in a slightly larger group.

I don't think "allowing 12 man groups but reducing the effectiveness of group buff sets" is within the realm of realism or possibility for a rework like this. It would just require too much work on the balance side of things, and would create a separate ruleset for one specific PVP zone which historically has not worked well (see no proc cyro population these days).

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO · February 22

React wrote: »

Kartalin wrote: »

You can have a tightly coordinated, specced out group at 6 or 8 people and faceroll other groups in Cyro right now (minus the actually-good ball groups), so it would still be pretty strong in a modified IC environment. At 4 people in a group in IC you could probably still dominate too but the margins of error are greater and make them more manageable. So maybe max group of 4 is a little more reasonable.

It's also a fact we have no idea what population sizes we're dealing with in IC. 40 per side currently?

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

React wrote: »

SmellyUnlimited wrote: »

It sounds like a great plan, although I think the across the board tel var rate increases are a bit on the high side. The issue I’m having is with “grouping” in what’s described as a “free for all.” How would grouping actually work? If you can attack any player in IC, then are we assuming friendly-fire is also part of the mix? What’s to stop a group member from simply killing you and taking your tel var after a particularly good run. It’s a free for all. I don’t see how grouping could feasibly be implemented in a free for all environment.

Group size of around 6-8 to prevent "ball groups" from dominating.

6-8m is more than enough to be able to dominate as a ball group vs the sizes of players you get in IC. Ironically it would be better the have a higher group cap but reduce the effectiveness of group buff sets in IC to have a better chance against them.

This way a zerg can more easily coordinate against said groups.

Group cap of four sounds great to me, but any realistic suggestion needs to appeal to as many people as possible. When I suggested those numbers, I had the casual players in mind who may need 6-8 players to deal with molag bal, sewer bosses, or who may just be more comfortable in a slightly larger group.

I don't think "allowing 12 man groups but reducing the effectiveness of group buff sets" is within the realm of realism or possibility for a rework like this. It would just require too much work on the balance side of things, and would create a separate ruleset for one specific PVP zone which historically has not worked well (see no proc cyro population these days).

Idk if you remember when they changed group size from 24 to 12 but kept 24 in PVE there was an exploit where you could still get 24 into your group because of forming in PVE etc (wont go into how it was done) but ZOS couldn't fix it and so they made groups 12m everywhere to fix it. Changing IC lower will just bring this exploit back. Thats why I say keep them the same / increase them but adjust the group sets in IC (or tbh just adjust them in general)

Drako_Ei · February 24

I will necro this post.

Make IC free for all.

And while you are at it, remove the port out by queueing for cyro exploit.