The only way to split up large groups is...

NadiusMaximus

Give bonuses, big bonuses, for taking stuff with a small group. Really the only thing that should take a large group are keeps.
How would you do it?

Soulac

Or we just implement more objectives (tower, bridge, gates, villages, wells, dungeons), possible to take with a small group and implement a real zerg buster dealing more dmg scaling with the amount of enemys hitted.

Done.

But I'd rather see a performance increase in addition to that.
If people want to zerg, let them.

Satiar

People are obsessed with breaking up groups in what is advertised as large, group oriented content. Wierd.

Huntler

This actually isn't the solution because it promotes PvEing objectives which will kill PvP faster than anything.


I've always been more of a fan of a much sharper/steeper diminishing curve on AP for being in a group. Make it so being in a large group EXPONENTIALLY reduces AP to where if you run 24 you are getting peanuts.


Put the power in the hands of the players. Do NOT promote PvEing. Promote PvP where the incentives are to be in smaller groups. Hell further buff AP gain for small-medium groups.

NukeAllTheThings

Huntler wrote: »

This actually isn't the solution because it promotes PvEing objectives which will kill PvP faster than anything.


I've always been more of a fan of a much sharper/steeper diminishing curve on AP for being in a group. Make it so being in a large group EXPONENTIALLY reduces AP to where if you run 24 you are getting peanuts.


Put the power in the hands of the players. Do NOT promote PvEing. Promote PvP where the incentives are to be in smaller groups. Hell further buff AP gain for small-medium groups.

Good idea in theory except that when this is in the hands of players you will have 6 groups of 6 in TS running together making more AP doing the same thing they did before. Everything exploitable will be exploited to a level even the game makers couldn't imagine

NadiusMaximus

It would work if they I placed diminishing returns on the bonus if there are other groups around.
Just like xp and the number of players around.

corx3

I want to fight against large groups. I just don't want to play The Elder PowerPoint Slideshow everytime any serious group vs group fighting goes on. I'd take small scale stuff to console my salt levels about the lag though.

Huntler

NadiusMaximus wrote: »

It would work if they I placed diminishing returns on the bonus if there are other groups around.
Just like xp and the number of players around.

C0pp3rhead

So you mean that if there are 50 people holed up in a keep,

it doesn't make sense to charge in with 50 people?

Get out of my internets.

NadiusMaximus

No, you need 50 for a keep. But not a resource.
Resources can be taken by 5 guys. It's when 50 from each side show up the system lags.
But really, all this doesn't matter. I'm just asking for ideas or opinions. They need a bigger faster server that can handle 100v100v100. Ah the old days.

I'm dreaming here, but there has to be a way of fixing the problem that is effective enough for them to use.

cozmon3c_ESO

they just need to make detonation work as it was supposed to be intended for, zerg busting. right now its better for single target delayed burst then actually even hurting a zerg.

Forumer-in-Prison

I always wondered what is the exact pop lock? I read from here that it's 450.

But is that 450 for each server (BWB = total 450, Thorn = total 450)

or entire PVP servers (all of them)

NadiusMaximus

I think it's a secret. I've seen numbers from 150 to just 100 per faction. Sometimes I question those because it seems lower, or there a lot more single players out doing stuff.

j3crow

// wall of text warning//

The whole point of large area, faction based warfare, with strategic objectives, is large groups fighting each other. That was the original expressed intent.

They're failing to meet their intent, and now they are trying to create a different PVP atmosphere other than what a large instanced PVP field typically is used for in order to compensate for population balance issues, as well as hardware problems.

That's not RVR. That's something else. I'm not saying its bad. I like smaller scenario based stuff too. But that's not what a large maneuver space is for.

Look, if I am PVPing for my faction in a large battle space, than I want to fight a 'big picture' fight. That usually includes lots of people, moving very fast, in a large group, regardless of the fact that, that also includes a number of small unit actions as well (blocking, ganking, etc..)

The would have done better to include scenario based, smaller scale instanced PVP content (CTF etc..).

At this point, the campaigns are unbalanced to the degree that they are mostly pointless. Its very difficult to find a campaign that has a reasonable amount of balance in population and ownership. On top of that, they make changing campaigns overly tedious. They of course do that to try and stabilize populations. But right now, all it does is punish the player.

Its not real life. Its a game. That being the case, I'm not going to pursue large amounts of 'not fun', in order to 'have fun'.

Some, sure. But not to the degree that there isn't even any word or acknowledgement on issues that are by now, blatantly obvious.

In any campaign I'm in (and I play both AD and EP), our side is ether hopeless defeated (being the underdog is fun for only so long), or victorious to the point that we are camping their scroll gates because there is nothing else to do. Nether of which is fun for any length of time. Good for a few momentary laughs, but not something I'm going to invest in over time.

ZoS needs to move away from band aid approaches, and actually get into the nuts and bolts of population management. Its not a new problem. Just about any title I've played had the super cool / evil / sith / drow-badguy side always out number the other side(s). And also the badguy side tends to be more aggressive, and often more coordinated in it's PVP.

And you know what, there is nothing wrong with that. Not at all

Its not the player's responsibility to manage the problem. Again, its a game (not a job, not real life), that at least some of us are paying for. I'm not saying that players shouldn't make a reasonable effort to be sensible, because I think most descent folks will. But what I am saying is that players shouldn't be arguing amongst themselves about "you guys just zerg", etc, etc..

Its a tactic, and if it's working, its working..

Its up to ZoS to implement floating population caps to ensure balance in alliances in Cyrodil. Its also up to ZoS to mange the mechanics in such a way that unproductive tactics are discouraged.

But if you're going to do that, than don't make a giant, multi-objective playing field and bill it as large scale Alliance vs. Alliance warfare.

/rant off

NadiusMaximus

^^Amen^^

I agree what they are trying to do is change the whole thing, but they can't without changing the entire thing. They kind painted themselves into a corner.

QuadroTony

this is the answer

http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/163197/grind-700-750k-exp-h-cracked-wood-cave-with-math/p1

Xiphyla

Satiar wrote: »

People are obsessed with breaking up groups in what is advertised as large, group oriented content. Wierd.

Yes it's designed for large group orientated content but no one want to deal with the lag because there's too many people at one area since this game got *** engine to be able to handle the masses at one spot. It's a slideshow or abilities cant be used most of the time if that happens. GG zenimax.

nikolaj.lemcheb16_ESO

Just reduce rewards based on how many you are in group with and how many allied players there are near you. For example if there is more than 20 allied players within 15 yards you no longer get any rewards in xp or ap.

That way the more people split up and fight in small group the faster they progress. And blop groups which are the cause of all the lag will become traps for the people who join them.

krim

1.5 people.

Oughash

Soulac wrote: »

Or we just implement more objectives (tower, bridge, gates, villages, wells, dungeons), possible to take with a small group and implement a real zerg buster dealing more dmg scaling with the amount of enemys hitted.

Done.

But I'd rather see a performance increase in addition to that.
If people want to zerg, let them.

Agree here. There are so many neat places and terrain hidden around Cyrodiil -- they should be utilized for fun fights.

Keron

Smart healing. As soon as you remove this mechanic and healers will have to keep an overview on who needs healing, the efficiency of a zerg will diminish against a smaller group. TTK will be smaller the more people are in a heap. If you want to remove the zergs, remove smart healing.

The real question is, do we want that? I tend to agree with

Soulac wrote: »

If people want to zerg, let them.

We just need to have options within the existing framework to allow for smaller battles.

I don't think arena style PvP is a worthwile solution. Maybe a more diverse choice of objectives is the way to go. Whatever the objectives are, give them a benefit to the cause. Faster and stronger uplevelling of keep walls or even slow rates of self-repair by "owning" delves or something like that. No direct player benefits like AP buffs or fancy new light effects for siege weapons.

They need to have a significant impact on the faction as a whole while not changing the situation for the individual player, otherwise they will be exploited or disregarded.

xaraan

Penalize AP (more than they do) when in big groups. Personally, if a zerg kills a player or two they should get zero AP and XP for that kill. And I would break it up not only against official 'groups' but to prevent big groups from running around in little groups and coordinating in TS I would divide by the amount of people that attack (or heal those attacking) a target. But at this point big groups of 20+ will just stir up trouble to farm small handfuls of players attacking them - if they got zero AP for that (and they shouldn't get AP for something that is no risk really) maybe they would split up if they aren't too scared. I would also max out the flag flip speed so that it didn't matter how many players over say... a dozen were on it.

They may also need to lower the pop caps again as it seems like one faction has enough players to zerg every campaign, maybe if they had to queue up to get in, people would join other alliances or campaigns.

I would also add a lot of smaller objectives like the way resources work all around the map, maybe taking them would be worth nothing for a giant zerg AP wise.

Let's face it - some drastic things need to happen to break up the zergs. Players that run in those huge groups are too afraid to not zerg as they often get wiped if they don't outnumber the other side 3 or more to one. They game already gets horribly laggy and unfun when giant zergs are fighting and that doesn't stop people from doing it.

Keron

xaraan wrote: »

Penalize AP (more than they do) when in big groups.

Still not going to work because of

NukeAllTheThings wrote: »

Good idea in theory except that when this is in the hands of players you will have 6 groups of 6 in TS running together making more AP doing the same thing they did before. Everything exploitable will be exploited to a level even the game makers couldn't imagine

No matter how often this idea will be repeated.

If there is to be a penalty, it needs to be zone based not group based and that would completely defeat the purpose of AvAvA.

As to the pop caps: You will not get people to reroll. That is too idealistic. They will just quit if they notice that they chose the wrong (read: overpopulated) faction.

xaraan

Keron wrote: »

xaraan wrote: »

Penalize AP (more than they do) when in big groups.

Still not going to work because of

NukeAllTheThings wrote: »

Good idea in theory except that when this is in the hands of players you will have 6 groups of 6 in TS running together making more AP doing the same thing they did before. Everything exploitable will be exploited to a level even the game makers couldn't imagine

No matter how often this idea will be repeated.

You seriously posted that when I already responded on that idea in the comment I made?

EDIT: from the very next sentence after the one you quoted: And I would break it up not only against official 'groups' but to prevent big groups from running around in little groups and coordinating in TS I would divide by the amount of people that attack (or heal those attacking) a target.

Agrippa_Invisus

IMO, the best way to reduce graphical lag easily done.

Just remove graphics.

Turn ESO into a text based MUD/MUSH/MUX and that solves the problem!

Daggerfall Player casts Steel Tornado. You take three (3) physical damage!
>w
You go west. You are now on the Nave Flag of Bleaker's Outpost. There are:
Four (4) Covenant Honor Guards
Two (2) Covenant Menders
>Cast Elemental Ring
You cast elemental ring using your Master's Inferno Staff. You do Four (4) fire damage to each of your opponents.
Your opponents are on fire!
Covenant Mender heals himself for Two (2) damage!
Covenant Mender heals Covenant Honor Guard for One (1) damage!
Covenant Honor Guard attacks you with Fire Salvo for Two (2) Damage!
Covenant Honor Guard attacks you with Fire Salvo for Two (2) Damage!
Covenant Honor Guard attacks you with Fire Salvo for Two (2) Damage!
Covenant Honor Guard attacks you with Fire Salvo for Two (2) Damage!
>Cast Green Dragon's Blood
You cast Green Dragon's Blood. you heal yourself for Five (5) damage! Your stamina regeneration has increased!
>Cast Elemental Ring
You cast elemental ring using your Master's Inferno Staff. You do Four (4) fire damage to each of your opponents.
You are ambushed! Daggerfall Player hits you with Wrecking Blow for Ten thousand three hundred two damage (10,302)! You are knocked down! You are dead!
Would you like to respawn? (y/n)

Keron

xaraan wrote: »

Keron wrote: »

xaraan wrote: »

Penalize AP (more than they do) when in big groups.

Still not going to work because of

NukeAllTheThings wrote: »

Good idea in theory except that when this is in the hands of players you will have 6 groups of 6 in TS running together making more AP doing the same thing they did before. Everything exploitable will be exploited to a level even the game makers couldn't imagine

No matter how often this idea will be repeated.

You seriously posted that when I already responded on that idea in the comment I made?

EDIT: from the very next sentence after the one you quoted: And I would break it up not only against official 'groups' but to prevent big groups from running around in little groups and coordinating in TS I would divide by the amount of people that attack (or heal those attacking) a target.

Yeah I did. Apologies are in order.

Should have taken more time to read, mentally switched off after the first words - I blame it on stupid overload after reading too much game forums

krim

I thought AOE caps were supposed to break up larger stacked up groups and reduce lag. Isnt that what we were asking for? Not the removal of AOE caps and the change of game mechanics.

Juraigr

krim wrote: »

I thought AOE caps were supposed to break up larger stacked up groups and reduce lag. Isnt that what we were asking for? Not the removal of AOE caps and the change of game mechanics.

I'm still trying to figure out why they changed ulti gain

frozywozy

Huntler wrote: »

This actually isn't the solution because it promotes PvEing objectives which will kill PvP faster than anything.


I've always been more of a fan of a much sharper/steeper diminishing curve on AP for being in a group. Make it so being in a large group EXPONENTIALLY reduces AP to where if you run 24 you are getting peanuts.


Put the power in the hands of the players. Do NOT promote PvEing. Promote PvP where the incentives are to be in smaller groups. Hell further buff AP gain for small-medium groups.

lol that will promote ganking even more and everything people will do is straight killing you off your horse all day with snipe / 2handed / dual wield.

AhPook_Is_Here

I don't think big groups are much of a problem anymore. The only thing focusing players to one point on a map now is when you crown or decrown an emp. This could be fixed by losing the ring and making the criteria for gaining emp holding 3/4 of the keeps and losing it when only holding 1/4 the keeps. This scenario would allow for more than one keep to be targeted for both crowning and de-crowning. If defenders were stacked at a single keep, a small offensive group could move off to another keep to draw away defenders and distribute the load on the server clusters.