Numbers Win

TBois

Smaller numbers need to be able to hold their own if zos value map stability. We have had problems with population imbalance in the past and I imagine this will Not help those problems

OdinForge

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Hello! Hellooooo! Earth to ESO gamers! The game was designed, built, and marketed as a massive three faction alliance war! That's the whole idea! Lag is the only real wrench thrown in the spokes of the wheel!

No one was supposed to become ridiculously powerful and take on 5+ enemies at once and dispatch them without breaking a sweat. When you are outnumbered you get your *ss kicked. You're going around defining "fun" as pressing three keys in sequence and wiping out an entire group because you moved your pinky finger....

The alliance war is exactly that. You want a PvP arena for 1v1 or XvX? Keep lobbying for that.

Only that's not true, it was marketed as an Ava game similar to daoc, which had some of the best 1v1 and small scale pvp ever released in a game.

I don't know anything about daoc. I might be wrong but I don't remember anything about 1v1 and small scale PvP talk for eso. Only speak of massive keep sieges and stuff.

Get out of here with that zerg crap, we wanted small scale PvP with the Imperial City. These changes kill solo play, reward unskilled players in big groups. The only counter is getting in a bigger group, and that's lame especially within the small Imperial City zones.

bowmanz607

OdinForge wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Hello! Hellooooo! Earth to ESO gamers! The game was designed, built, and marketed as a massive three faction alliance war! That's the whole idea! Lag is the only real wrench thrown in the spokes of the wheel!

No one was supposed to become ridiculously powerful and take on 5+ enemies at once and dispatch them without breaking a sweat. When you are outnumbered you get your *ss kicked. You're going around defining "fun" as pressing three keys in sequence and wiping out an entire group because you moved your pinky finger....

The alliance war is exactly that. You want a PvP arena for 1v1 or XvX? Keep lobbying for that.

Only that's not true, it was marketed as an Ava game similar to daoc, which had some of the best 1v1 and small scale pvp ever released in a game.

I don't know anything about daoc. I might be wrong but I don't remember anything about 1v1 and small scale PvP talk for eso. Only speak of massive keep sieges and stuff.

Get out of here with that zerg crap, we wanted small scale PvP with the Imperial City. These changes kill solo play, reward unskilled players in big groups. The only counter is getting in a bigger group, and that's lame especially within the small Imperial City zones.

All I have done is solo and small scale pvp since launch and on pts. No issues here

Pchela

Running duo today, making better Tel Vars by killing smaller groups, much nicer than when with a larger group fighting a larger group last night.

myrrrorb14_ESO

There really is no logical reason why a small, skilled, organized group should not be able to take out a much larger group mobbed together in hand grenade radius. Im not sure why ZOS loves the zerg, but its here to stay. Winner of PvP is bigger group +/- about 2 people.

PvP can be fun when its spread out. But when its just a giant herd grouped shoulder to sjoulder it is just blah.

IxSTALKERxI

An outnumbered Emperor is so bad now btw.

Maulkin

bowmanz607 wrote: »

All I have done is solo and small scale pvp since launch and on pts. No issues here

bowmanz607 wrote: »

I run once a week with my guild that has 2 full raids going

Which one is it?

Winnamine

myrrrorb14_ESO wrote: »

There really is no logical reason why a small, skilled, organized group should not be able to take out a much larger group mobbed together in hand grenade radius. Im not sure why ZOS loves the zerg, but its here to stay. Winner of PvP is bigger group +/- about 2 people.

PvP can be fun when its spread out. But when its just a giant herd grouped shoulder to sjoulder it is just blah.

Small groups can and do take out larger groups, always have. It's way too soon to tell how group dynamics will work in 1.7, but I'd guess that there will still be zergs getting farmed by much smaller groups. The damage reduction may even help with that.
The issue I see a lot is that people assume that a large group = a bad group, and therefore, that group should be easily wipable by a small, good group. Not so. There are good guilds who run large groups, and a good big group vs. a good small group doesn't go well for the small group. Even when the small group is better, they need to pick their targets and their situations carefully. An uncoordinated zerg isn't hard to wipe, even when they greatly outnumber you, but even a bad organized group is dangerous in large numbers. This "May the best team win," mentality gets a lot of small groups killed.

WebBull

IxSTALKERxI wrote: »

Whoever has the most players wins. No need for skill or strategy, just add more people to your group and win.

Strategy will come with time. Right now most players don't even know where they are so most are going to run in large groups.

My issue is...strategy for what? As far as I can tell there are ZERO PvP objectives for IC. No scrolls to take, no bases to capture, nothing. There needs to be objectives otherwise IC will get stale quickly.

bowmanz607

mike.gaziotisb16_ESO wrote: »

bowmanz607 wrote: »

All I have done is solo and small scale pvp since launch and on pts. No issues here

bowmanz607 wrote: »

I run once a week with my guild that has 2 full raids going

Which one is it?

Your taking it out of context. Notice I specified that I have done solo and small scale pvp since launch and pts. I was refering to since launch of IC and ic on the pts

Maulkin

bowmanz607 wrote: »

mike.gaziotisb16_ESO wrote: »

bowmanz607 wrote: »

All I have done is solo and small scale pvp since launch and on pts. No issues here

bowmanz607 wrote: »

I run once a week with my guild that has 2 full raids going

Which one is it?

Your taking it out of context. Notice I specified that I have done solo and small scale pvp since launch and pts. I was refering to since launch of IC and ic on the pts

My apologies if I misunderstood. Though if you're talking about IC only, I'd say your 1 day experience is kinda limited (as is mine).

There is no doubt in my eyes that the change in mechanics has hit your survivability when outnumbered. We'll see how it plays out.

bowmanz607

mike.gaziotisb16_ESO wrote: »

bowmanz607 wrote: »

mike.gaziotisb16_ESO wrote: »

bowmanz607 wrote: »

All I have done is solo and small scale pvp since launch and on pts. No issues here

bowmanz607 wrote: »

I run once a week with my guild that has 2 full raids going

Which one is it?

Your taking it out of context. Notice I specified that I have done solo and small scale pvp since launch and pts. I was refering to since launch of IC and ic on the pts

My apologies if I misunderstood. Though if you're talking about IC only, I'd say your 1 day experience is kinda limited (as is mine).

There is no doubt in my eyes that the change in mechanics has hit your survivability when outnumbered. We'll see how it plays out.

Agreed only been one day. And time on the pts surely does not count toward the number fame. But my thinking is that since all campaigns were almost all pop locked on every faction, numbers in ic can only go down. So if I didn't have a bunch of trouble in a pop locked campaign and at a time when player capacity will be at its highest in 8c, then I don't see a problem going forward. Imo running in a group is less efficient when trying to get stones. And getting stones is my goal right now. When running with full groups my goal is to take the map and win the campaign. My goals in pvp have shifted since I last spoke about running with full raids. But again you are right. It has not even been 24hrs yet.

asneakybanana

IMO it feels like live in terms of the way #s are. We never had over an 8 man last night and while we may not have been able to take out the 40+ DC group on azuras we did manage to kill quite a few 16 man's and a couple 20+ groups of both ad and DC. The main problem when fighting the really large groups was the lag tho. Didn't really get any ping lag which was absolutely amazing to see and if it holds up could b really good. But it was fps. Idk wtf they did w/ the graphics bit when I found the zergball I could instantly tell. My game started to stutter really bad even though it was reading 30 fps and when we got in combat with the zerg it would drop to 5. If they can fix that patch isn't total garbage.

Ezareth

asneakybanana wrote: »

IMO it feels like live in terms of the way #s are. We never had over an 8 man last night and while we may not have been able to take out the 40+ DC group on azuras we did manage to kill quite a few 16 man's and a couple 20+ groups of both ad and DC. The main problem when fighting the really large groups was the lag tho. Didn't really get any ping lag which was absolutely amazing to see and if it holds up could b really good. But it was fps. Idk wtf they did w/ the graphics bit when I found the zergball I could instantly tell. My game started to stutter really bad even though it was reading 30 fps and when we got in combat with the zerg it would drop to 5. If they can fix that patch isn't total garbage.

That's exactly why I transferred off of Azuras. In a game where fighting in and facing zergs is the worst thing possible, why would you choose the campaign that out of all other campaigns would have the most of that?

asneakybanana

Ezareth wrote: »

asneakybanana wrote: »

IMO it feels like live in terms of the way #s are. We never had over an 8 man last night and while we may not have been able to take out the 40+ DC group on azuras we did manage to kill quite a few 16 man's and a couple 20+ groups of both ad and DC. The main problem when fighting the really large groups was the lag tho. Didn't really get any ping lag which was absolutely amazing to see and if it holds up could b really good. But it was fps. Idk wtf they did w/ the graphics bit when I found the zergball I could instantly tell. My game started to stutter really bad even though it was reading 30 fps and when we got in combat with the zerg it would drop to 5. If they can fix that patch isn't total garbage.

That's exactly why I transferred off of Azuras. In a game where fighting in and facing zergs is the worst thing possible, why would you choose the campaign that out of all other campaigns would have the most of that?

It's the main campaign so there's always action and it only gets *** for a few hours at night when people are running 2+ raids. I played for 12 hours or something yesterday and while a little frustrating at times due to the zerg most of the fights were actually really awesome(probably because I wasn't playing dk). One thing I dislike more than zergs is having nothing to do.

Mr_Nobody

TheBull wrote: »

you might be able to do a 2 v 3, but 2v4 is very rough right now. It doesn't matter the skill level of the 4 they can just last forever.

Yeah I did some solo in IC yesterday as a DC on a locked pop EP campaign. It was.. "Meh". I surely did fine in 1v1 and 1v2s against all these sub AR5 guys who have 0 idea what to do in PvP, but when i faced 3 or 4 of them i struggled alot. Which would have been free kills within seconds on 1.6 might be the gear difference since we are all kinda equal while not under vr16 gear, but still...

Ezareth

asneakybanana wrote: »

Ezareth wrote: »

asneakybanana wrote: »

IMO it feels like live in terms of the way #s are. We never had over an 8 man last night and while we may not have been able to take out the 40+ DC group on azuras we did manage to kill quite a few 16 man's and a couple 20+ groups of both ad and DC. The main problem when fighting the really large groups was the lag tho. Didn't really get any ping lag which was absolutely amazing to see and if it holds up could b really good. But it was fps. Idk wtf they did w/ the graphics bit when I found the zergball I could instantly tell. My game started to stutter really bad even though it was reading 30 fps and when we got in combat with the zerg it would drop to 5. If they can fix that patch isn't total garbage.

That's exactly why I transferred off of Azuras. In a game where fighting in and facing zergs is the worst thing possible, why would you choose the campaign that out of all other campaigns would have the most of that?

It's the main campaign so there's always action and it only gets *** for a few hours at night when people are running 2+ raids. I played for 12 hours or something yesterday and while a little frustrating at times due to the zerg most of the fights were actually really awesome(probably because I wasn't playing dk). One thing I dislike more than zergs is having nothing to do.

Don't forget that a large number of players spent most of the night downloading the patch and ever after they logged in many of us spent several hours turning in writs, doing surveys, rebuilding all our chars and alts before we set foot in Cyrodiil.

I think tonight is going to make the numbers we saw yesterday pale in comparison. I also heard Azura's had a queue up in the hundreds.....screw that!

Publius_Scipio

asneakybanana wrote: »

IMO it feels like live in terms of the way #s are. We never had over an 8 man last night and while we may not have been able to take out the 40+ DC group on azuras we did manage to kill quite a few 16 man's and a couple 20+ groups of both ad and DC. The main problem when fighting the really large groups was the lag tho. Didn't really get any ping lag which was absolutely amazing to see and if it holds up could b really good. But it was fps. Idk wtf they did w/ the graphics bit when I found the zergball I could instantly tell. My game started to stutter really bad even though it was reading 30 fps and when we got in combat with the zerg it would drop to 5. If they can fix that patch isn't total garbage.

This is very very good news. They are making progress on combating lag. The FPS issue can be tweaked much easier I would think (generally speaking).

Darlgon

Xsorus wrote: »

Only that's not true, it was marketed as an Ava game similar to daoc, which had some of the best 1v1 and small scale pvp ever released in a game.

That marketing .. pretty much went out the window on launch. And, with open world Justice System still a twinkle in Rich Lamberts eye, and it being optional, is a never to be fully realized dream.

omfgitsbatman

bowmanz607 wrote: »

Again. I don't see what the problem is. See a zerg then go to a different district. I have been so long and doing small group since it dropped. I was doing a 24 man raid for awhile, but it was boring and getting stones was impossible having to split amount that many. In telling you, give it a little time and people won't run in zergs as much in IC. The stones you get are too few. Also, it is no fun unless there is another zerg to play in that district. Having to run around from district to district with a zerg is annoying cause of all the load screens. Unless a zerg has another zerg to fight it sux. So either a zerg from each side will stay in one or 2 districts to fight. Without a zerg having a zerg to fight they are running around just trampling everything which is not fun for anyone. Especially cause the stone return 8s so low furthering making people not to run in zergs. I think IC is inherently a zerg buster. But it will take about 2 weeks for ppl to start figuring this out.

Most of the time in IC, you don't see the zerg until you walk around the corner and are suddenly balls deep in it. While they are not making very many stones, they are making a lot more than the people that they are constantly farming. On thornblade last night, there was an AD zerg that was alternating which side of the sewers it was dominating. EP didn't have the organized numbers to combat it, and neither did DC.
I got run over by this zerg 3 times in about an hour and a half. I never had more than 1-2 seconds of warning before being destroyed.
This is how it basically went down 2 of the 3 times: Killing mobs in the EP section of the sewers accumulating stones with 2-3 other people. Group attacks a portal or a boss. Someone yells "Oh SH*T!!!" on teamspeak. We all die because a group of 20+ Yellows comes around the corner. No getting away because by the time we see them, they already have caltrops and every other target area spell on us.
The third time was very similar except we decided to go deep into DC territory to see if it was safe from the yellow death blob. It was not.
So, unless you bank like every 10 minutes, you are probably not going to get very many stones if an enemy zerg is loose in your campaign.

Lessons learned:
Single faction dominated campaigns are going to be even worse because you won't be able to farm stones effectively unless your faction zerg controls IC.

Zerging gets you more stones than the people you are zerging are getting.

People are |)icks and will zerg IC for no other reason than to ruin people's days. The fact that they get Tel Var Stones from the deal, no matter how few just adds to the incentive.

asneakybanana

omfgitsbatman wrote: »

bowmanz607 wrote: »

Again. I don't see what the problem is. See a zerg then go to a different district. I have been so long and doing small group since it dropped. I was doing a 24 man raid for awhile, but it was boring and getting stones was impossible having to split amount that many. In telling you, give it a little time and people won't run in zergs as much in IC. The stones you get are too few. Also, it is no fun unless there is another zerg to play in that district. Having to run around from district to district with a zerg is annoying cause of all the load screens. Unless a zerg has another zerg to fight it sux. So either a zerg from each side will stay in one or 2 districts to fight. Without a zerg having a zerg to fight they are running around just trampling everything which is not fun for anyone. Especially cause the stone return 8s so low furthering making people not to run in zergs. I think IC is inherently a zerg buster. But it will take about 2 weeks for ppl to start figuring this out.

Most of the time in IC, you don't see the zerg until you walk around the corner and are suddenly balls deep in it. While they are not making very many stones, they are making a lot more than the people that they are constantly farming. On thornblade last night, there was an AD zerg that was alternating which side of the sewers it was dominating. EP didn't have the organized numbers to combat it, and neither did DC.
I got run over by this zerg 3 times in about an hour and a half. I never had more than 1-2 seconds of warning before being destroyed.
This is how it basically went down 2 of the 3 times: Killing mobs in the EP section of the sewers accumulating stones with 2-3 other people. Group attacks a portal or a boss. Someone yells "Oh SH*T!!!" on teamspeak. We all die because a group of 20+ Yellows comes around the corner. No getting away because by the time we see them, they already have caltrops and every other target area spell on us.
The third time was very similar except we decided to go deep into DC territory to see if it was save from the yellow death blob. It was not.
So, unless you bank like every 10 minutes, you are probably not going to get very many stones if an enemy zerg is loose in your campaign.

Lessons learned:
Single faction dominated campaigns are going to be even worse because you won't be able to farm stones effectively unless your faction zerg controls IC.

Zerging gets you more stones than the people you are zerging are getting.

People are |)icks and will zerg IC for no other reason than to ruin people's days. The fact that they get Tel Var Stones from the deal, no matter how few just adds to the incentive.

Poor tick tick. Found the yellow tko blob last night too had like 4 or 5 people and took about half them down. Got like 1k stones from that b4 being killed. Was pretty hilarious tho.

Darlgon

bowmanz607 wrote: »

....

So thunk a out it. The people a zerg kills generally won't have many stones. The amount of stones you get from mobs split between a zerg is very little or possibly even none cause there was not enough stones to split between the group. Or let's take a boss that gives you 400 stones. Split between 24 is only 16 each. Also, only one person can get a cheat. So in a small group you can alternate the chests, but it is first come in a zerg.

The main difference between ap and stones is that you are guaranteed ap from kills but not stones. And stones are the way tk go right now.

Actually, unless they changed the mechanic from announced, its MUCH worse to be in a zerg, but people dont realize it. This is from Rich Lambert on the ESO Live IC special, (timecode 56:28):

https://youtu.be/KmdWFdS_Hg8?t=3388

ZoS_ErickWrobel wrote:

You can have up to 12 contributors, (including those outside the group).... as long as you do up to 10% of the damage/heals,

ZoS_RichLambert wrote:

If you have 30 people beating on something, only 12 are gonna get something.

So, actually 12 will get 33 stones, and the rest will get zero.

Publius_Scipio

Darlgon wrote: »

bowmanz607 wrote: »

....

So thunk a out it. The people a zerg kills generally won't have many stones. The amount of stones you get from mobs split between a zerg is very little or possibly even none cause there was not enough stones to split between the group. Or let's take a boss that gives you 400 stones. Split between 24 is only 16 each. Also, only one person can get a cheat. So in a small group you can alternate the chests, but it is first come in a zerg.

The main difference between ap and stones is that you are guaranteed ap from kills but not stones. And stones are the way tk go right now.

Actually, unless they changed the mechanic from announced, its MUCH worse to be in a zerg, but people dont realize it. This is from Rich Lambert on the ESO Live IC special, (timecode 56:28):

https://youtu.be/KmdWFdS_Hg8?t=3388

ZoS_ErickWrobel wrote:

You can have up to 12 contributors, (including those outside the group).... as long as you do up to 10% of the damage/heals,

ZoS_RichLambert wrote:

If you have 30 people beating on something, only 12 are gonna get something.

So, actually 12 will get 33 stones, and the rest will get zero.

Rich Lambert is more intelligent, thoughtful, and observant than many on these forums give him credit for.

bowmanz607

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Darlgon wrote: »

bowmanz607 wrote: »

....

So thunk a out it. The people a zerg kills generally won't have many stones. The amount of stones you get from mobs split between a zerg is very little or possibly even none cause there was not enough stones to split between the group. Or let's take a boss that gives you 400 stones. Split between 24 is only 16 each. Also, only one person can get a cheat. So in a small group you can alternate the chests, but it is first come in a zerg.

The main difference between ap and stones is that you are guaranteed ap from kills but not stones. And stones are the way tk go right now.

Actually, unless they changed the mechanic from announced, its MUCH worse to be in a zerg, but people dont realize it. This is from Rich Lambert on the ESO Live IC special, (timecode 56:28):

https://youtu.be/KmdWFdS_Hg8?t=3388

ZoS_ErickWrobel wrote:

You can have up to 12 contributors, (including those outside the group).... as long as you do up to 10% of the damage/heals,

ZoS_RichLambert wrote:

If you have 30 people beating on something, only 12 are gonna get something.

So, actually 12 will get 33 stones, and the rest will get zero.

Rich Lambert is more intelligent, thoughtful, and observant than many on these forums give him credit for.

this

ToRelax

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Darlgon wrote: »

bowmanz607 wrote: »

....

So thunk a out it. The people a zerg kills generally won't have many stones. The amount of stones you get from mobs split between a zerg is very little or possibly even none cause there was not enough stones to split between the group. Or let's take a boss that gives you 400 stones. Split between 24 is only 16 each. Also, only one person can get a cheat. So in a small group you can alternate the chests, but it is first come in a zerg.

The main difference between ap and stones is that you are guaranteed ap from kills but not stones. And stones are the way tk go right now.

Actually, unless they changed the mechanic from announced, its MUCH worse to be in a zerg, but people dont realize it. This is from Rich Lambert on the ESO Live IC special, (timecode 56:28):

https://youtu.be/KmdWFdS_Hg8?t=3388

ZoS_ErickWrobel wrote:

You can have up to 12 contributors, (including those outside the group).... as long as you do up to 10% of the damage/heals,

ZoS_RichLambert wrote:

If you have 30 people beating on something, only 12 are gonna get something.

So, actually 12 will get 33 stones, and the rest will get zero.

Rich Lambert is more intelligent, thoughtful, and observant than many on these forums give him credit for.

Then he'd better make something out of it. Besides, the other 2 are not, sadly.

Starshadw

WebBull wrote: »

IxSTALKERxI wrote: »

Whoever has the most players wins. No need for skill or strategy, just add more people to your group and win.

Strategy will come with time. Right now most players don't even know where they are so most are going to run in large groups.

Doubtful - because we've been watching the zergs running amok in Cyrodiil for months now. There's no reason for that to change. In fact, if anything, the game mechanics in IC actively encourages zergs.

It's also amusing as hell that someone on the ZOS team thought the changes to proxy det would make zergs stop using it - if anything, they are using it even MORE. I've never seen so many zergs running into smaller groups of an opposing faction with the telltale proxy det red circles around them than I did last night.

IxSTALKERxI

WebBull wrote: »

IxSTALKERxI wrote: »

Whoever has the most players wins. No need for skill or strategy, just add more people to your group and win.

Strategy will come with time. Right now most players don't even know where they are so most are going to run in large groups.

My issue is...strategy for what? As far as I can tell there are ZERO PvP objectives for IC. No scrolls to take, no bases to capture, nothing. There needs to be objectives otherwise IC will get stale quickly.

By strategy I meant group vs group combat rather than objectives. You can use all the tricks in the book when engaging an enemy group but in the end numbers are going to be a big deciding factor in the fight.

IxSTALKERxI

Pchela wrote: »

Running duo today, making better Tel Vars by killing smaller groups, much nicer than when with a larger group fighting a larger group last night.

Yep, telvar stones can be earnt much faster in small groups. There is more to PvP than imperial city though.

Pchela

IxSTALKERxI wrote: »

Pchela wrote: »

Running duo today, making better Tel Vars by killing smaller groups, much nicer than when with a larger group fighting a larger group last night.

Yep, telvar stones can be earnt much faster in small groups. There is more to PvP than imperial city though.

Haven't even really paid attention to Cyrodiil itself since patch though, still learning IC and doing the PVE elements to it.

Sanct16

I think its too soon to really tell how the patch changes group fights but I think its safe to say that ZOS definetly wants to encourage playing with a full raid.