PvP Podcast (Episode 7 Uploaded)

Minno

Takllin wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

FENGRUSH wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

FENGRUSH wrote: »

I agree with not doing the old ult gen formula - this would require more time and thought. I dont agree with lumping multiple big changes together either, but doing them one at a time. ZOS generally just makes huge changes every new DLC/patch and we end up relearning a new game but the meta of ball groups has always been core due to AOE caps.

I think a lot of people agree with what Im saying, even from ball groups, but take offense when I use the word 'ball group' since it lumps them into a category of what it really is. Its been said enough that its not personally diminishing any of these players personal talent levels in the group. But if people want to ignore that it makes no difference to me. I get that theyre offended and want to come here and lay into me and thats fine - but what Ive said isnt untrue.

Dont lump me in a zerg because I was engaging your group. I actually spent the first 5-10 minutes on the sideline watching it. After that we started picking people off, and frankly, Essa and I were alone in that respect to actually killing people. You were fighting 60 people or whatever, thats fine. You werent however fighting a 60man ball group, because you wouldnt be able to with AOE caps. You would lose pretty badly if 60 people grouped up in the same way. It isnt a matter of strategy, its simply a matter of coordination.

Moving from point A to point B and back to point A isnt something Id consider a strategy either. Everyone who knows whats going on in Cyro can tell what youre going to do long before you do it, but as a smaller group we really dont have an option to counter it. If strategy had any place here, wed have access to some techniques to counter it. The counter is bringing more people and forming a similar group.

Will it make your group stronger against 60 people? Yes it will, and that is a good thing. It will bring less stress to the server. Ball groups do stress the server with the purging and healing that goes on inside them though. This was apparent when ball groups first rolled out that servers started to eat it bad on lag. Before that, not nearly as bad. It really comes down to the overabundant healing/defensive posturing of these ball groups.

Do I expect to walk up with 4 people and knock your ball group down every time? No. In fact the chances of doing that to any decent group is highly unlikely post AOE cap removal. But you guys like to take my words and misconstrue them. The reality is we cant do anything. There isnt a place for the small man group in this battle. This is the problem.


I love folks from K-hole and would love to fight with them on the battlefield. They run a medium sized raid most the time, and I like running a small group. If we fought today and they were 12 and I had a group of 4 vs an enemy of 24 synced in a ball, wed be stupid to fight separate. If AOE caps were removed, they could fight in one manner while the 4 could flank to much greater effect. This doesnt exist today. This did exist moreso in release. This actually has a level of strategy that doesnt revolve around numbers and AOE caps at its core. This is what I want back.

Fair and balanced gameplay - a place for more than ball groups. If they want to fix performance, they have to address ball groups, not 24 man raids. There is a clear difference. If you dont think balling up in 24man groups impacts performance vs 24 people fighting together, you are absolutely and 100% in denial. The reality is many have played like this for so long they dont even know the difference. They would wonder how or why a 24 man group would not fight in a ball. This is truly a sad thing.

RIP: http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/88049/do-you-think-there-should-be-an-aoe-cap/p1

I hate myself for even being in these threads (any of the many, many ones) any more. Maybe an underlying issue is how you WANT to engage vs. how you SHOULD be engaging ball groups. You 'want' to rambo in and kill everyone because who doesn't, when you SHOULD be peppering them with siege until there are enough numbers of allies there where you have breathing room to engage the outer perimeter of the group. About two months ago when we fought GoS on TF, one of our biggest headaches came from all of the randoms that would set up siege on us while we engaged GoS or were trying to maneuver. I can guarantee you that two well-timed and well-positioned cold stone trebs on a ball group will make most of them dead, even if they get off a reactionary barrier. You keep talking about how you want skillful small groups to have a fighting chance, well - there you go. It DOES take skill to have two, three people coordinate their siege, especially if they're trying to hit a moving target. So, don't say you can't do ANYTHING, because if a group is balled up and you are able to get off 2-3 well-timed stone treb hits, it doesn't matter if they have barrier and heals, it's too much burst and people will drop. Now, you might not WANT to do this because you want to be able to attack them and pop bats and use aoes, but that doesn't mean you can't kill them in the current meta - you just have to do something that has less glory.

Sorry, but 2.1 is a numbers game, even for ball groups. At some point you just can't win when you're heavily outnumbered, and when we're talking 4 to 24, it's the same scenario as 24 vs 60+, but with easier overall ratios. Sorry, but I wouldn't try to have my group of 24 engage a group of 144 (same ratio), I'd be kiting and running and picking off anyone I could, while expecting the wipe soon.

So if were a 4 man group we should focus on being siege specialists in Cyro? We shouldnt be concerned with the performance issues being caused by ball groups - STILL? We dont want to make a balanced approach to PvP where numbers create an artificial mitigation?

Again, this isnt about 4 people being heroes in a battle. Its about 4 people having a real limited and unenjoyable time in today's Cyro.

Part of the post I quoted:

But you guys like to take my words and misconstrue them. The reality is we cant do anything. There isnt a place for the small man group in this battle. This is the problem.

Believe you me, I think sieging in fights is cheap, but sometimes it's a necessity. You said you can't do anything, and that there's no place for small groups in the battle, and I was just pointing out that's not true. It's not as fun, but if 3 of you timed your siege and the 4th jumped in with a prox det + standard/bats/whatever, chances are you'd wipe the majority or all of the group if they're balled up. Server performance is an entirely different beast, and I can get on board when the discussion veers in that direction.

@Etaniel Amen.

Zheg, the discussion is in that direction. This is a two headed beast. How long have people been arguing for AoE caps to go away because of server performance? It's been a long time, I've been posting or read almost all of them. This latest upbringing is gaining more steam because it's now become an issue of game balance as well as server performance.

It's also gaining speed because @BrianWheeler has let us know that the original fix for the lag issue did not work as well as they hoped.
But they assured us they are now looking at how the physics is calculated regarding the way spells are calculated with the server. (Paraphrased)

If they are looking at the physic calcs, it wouldn't hurt to check those AOE caps and institute a better system.

Zheg

Takllin wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

Etaniel wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

Starshadw wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

I hate myself for even being in these threads (any of the many, many ones) any more. Maybe an underlying issue is how you WANT to engage vs. how you SHOULD be engaging ball groups. You 'want' to rambo in and kill everyone because who doesn't, when you SHOULD be peppering them with siege until there are enough numbers of allies there where you have breathing room to engage the outer perimeter of the group. About two months ago when we fought GoS on TF, one of our biggest headaches came from all of the randoms that would set up siege on us while we engaged GoS or were trying to maneuver. I can guarantee you that two well-timed and well-positioned cold stone trebs on a ball group will make most of them dead, even if they get off a reactionary barrier. You keep talking about how you want skillful small groups to have a fighting chance, well - there you go. It DOES take skill to have two, three people coordinate their siege, especially if they're trying to hit a moving target. So, don't say you can't do ANYTHING, because if a group is balled up and you are able to get off 2-3 well-timed stone treb hits, it doesn't matter if they have barrier and heals, it's too much burst and people will drop. Now, you might not WANT to do this because you want to be able to attack them and pop bats and use aoes, but that doesn't mean you can't kill them in the current meta - you just have to do something that has less glory.

Sorry, but 2.1 is a numbers game, even for ball groups. At some point you just can't win when you're heavily outnumbered, and when we're talking 4 to 24, it's the same scenario as 24 vs 60+, but with easier overall ratios. Sorry, but I wouldn't try to have my group of 24 engage a group of 144 (same ratio), I'd be kiting and running and picking off anyone I could, while expecting the wipe soon.

Siege can be good, but it's more than a little tricksy and twitchy at the moment - first, any of us who PvP know that the damn things are bugging out left and right. Second, they are slow - which means that it's very likely the spot your siege is hitting will be empty by the time it hits because out on the battlefield, things are constantly in motion and the siege doesn't move fast enough to keep up with that. Third, people are still running Purge and right now, a lot of the groups we're seeing are templar-heavy, which means tons of heals, lessening the value of siege damage.

Don't get me wrong, siege can be and is useful. But it's not the magic bullet against zergs.

Regarding heals, that's why I said cold stone trebs, it's all burst damage, no dot. Regarding being able to hit moving targets - of course it's hard, but that's where the skill of the skillful group of 4 should come into effect. They should know when to put down siege, when and where to aim, how to lead a moving group of targets, the most favorable terrain and positioning to engage, etc.

It is as fun? No. Is siege bugged and clunky? Yes. Is it hard to pull off? Yes. But it IS a tool available to small groups to fight large clumped up groups, should they actually be able to pull it off. If the discussion is on MORE tools, that's one thing, but to say there are no means currently available is disingenuous.

Rephrased :
I say : I have a lighter and a potato, I don't have the means to cook the potato.
You say : Well fire + potato should work if you are skilled enough, it's doable.

really?

Thenuse the lighter to make a campfire and cook the potato, no need to BE a potato. I said use trebs, not scattershots. If 2 people from a skillful small man can't coordinate treb hits in any engagement they're ever in, ten we're not talking about skilled players are we? Siege won't work in every engagement, but it certainly works in a good number of them. Hasn't the whole driver been to gain tools that allow small groups to sometimes wipe larger groups? Sometimes being the key word here.

Your talking about a niche case like it can be used regularly...it can't. People recognize that wiping big groups is possible, it's just that with each update that possibility decreases further and further.

The post was refuting fengrush saying it WASN'T possible, and yes he was using hyperbole, but it was still introduced as a valid example of it indeed being possible. Never said you could use it all the time, but it's an available to use SOME of the time. It's probably safe to say that most if not all of the people complaining never even bother trying to implement siege even when the situation is ripe for it. Yes it has it's problems, but so does everything else in the game. Just pointing out that people are more likely to go hop on the forums and complain then try to time a siege shot even when there's a high chance of that being a win.

xaraan

Derra wrote: »

xaraan wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

xaraan wrote: »

FENGRUSH wrote: »

Sorry, the ball groups in ESO are anything but strategic or chess-like. Theres generally 2 directions you can go on the map, towards one faction or the other. Sometimes you hit a keep behind the front line. What you do with your group is the same regardless of where you are. This isnt chess. Its checkers maybe, with a board sized down to 6x6.

As someone whos led guilds in other games, very large ones - Ive simply never been interested in large scale PvP in this game due to the nature of how overly simplistic large guild play was made after AOE caps/dynamic ult changes. TSYM pretty much invented the ball group to the population here, and it was never the same after that. Im sure there will be lots of people to come post otherwise though - have at it.

OK, gotta piggy back onto this thread b/c it continues on this comment. I watched your playback of your stream from Tuesday night b/c you were going on about our group when you were fighting us outside of Ash. I have no problem that people enjoy 1vXing in the game or dueling, but first off you should be aware that is not what PvP in ESO is built around. It's built around fighting groups and objectives and some players will enjoy that sort of game play over 1v1s. I personally get bored by 1v1 style fights and prefer the teamwork involved in taking objectives and working towards a bigger goal than a single fight.

That being said, I think anyone can read over my posts here and see that I'm against giant zergs and think that several things should be done to combat them. Unlike you guys though, it seems that I still think it should take a group to kill a group, even if it's a smaller group killing a bigger one, and not a solo guy wiping out a dozen plus b/c they can drop five ulti's in a row. I think what bothered me most was how off-base you were with many of your complaints.

1. You state "this is what's wrong with the game" and we are lagging out the server with giant groups. We were running a 24 man group that might have been missing a person or two by the time this fight rolled out. We've fought many fights with 24v24 and had no lag. So no, a 24 man group does not lag out the server. What lagged out the server was your side. Were they "with" you, no, they were not in your group, but I hope you realize you were the one in the zerg there. We were fighting over 60 blues with open spawn at Ash (we came to siege and found out most of the alliance was there so decided to go out fighting).

2. You stated many times that we just "move here or there" and "spamming heals" that takes no skill. But then you continually talk about maneuvers we make - which would be strategy - using things like line of site, timed prox dets, ulti's to fight a much larger force. You complain about spamming heal despite the fact that once again, we have three times our number spamming attacks on us (on top of siege). Or complain that we just breath of life - yes, giving one player out of 24 a decent heal everytime we cast is all that's needed to survive vs. those numbers. Just the fact you think 24 guys fighting that many takes no skill shows your disconnect ("as many as we've picked off, look how many there still are" - b/c we did things like moving back for our dead). Or "they just move behind house, move to flag, etc - no skill" - you mean, using line of site and also avoiding the siege you were trying to set up on us in your video? You are right, we should just stand in your damage, not heal, and let everyone attack us freely. Also "rotating barrier" - we were not. You'd be surprised how few healers vs fighters we run in our group, we use barrier when we are clashing into other groups, but we don't have enough to rotate them.

3. "At Release" - "if you tried doing what they are doing now at release, they'd be busted". UH - no, we've been running as a group since release and doing just as well. Our tactics change of course as the game changes, but that wouldn't magically destroy us. In fact, you realize that AoE caps are hurting our group more than the 60 blues hitting us with attacks and siege right? And all those things you said would destroy a group at release, we used to deal with at release.

Like I said, I agree with many of your points (though not all) when you talk about zergs needing to be addressed. We used to prefer to run in groups of less than 12 (anywhere from 4-12 before last patch). But no, the game shouldn't revolve around 1vXing.

Fact is, if what we were doing took no skill, it wouldn't take 60+ people to take us out - and it would only take another 24 man blue group to do the same thing. In the end, we got tired of fighting against the spawn being right there and the lead just called stack and fight until wiping when we were finally beat. We probably could have just moved north and strung out the blues as we moved and gotten away as we killed them further away from their spawn. Does it take skill to kill one or two guys if you jump us when we are in a group? No, it doesn't and hopefully groups don't think it does.

Though I might agree with some of your points about zerging, all the inaccurate noise you mixed in the other night keeps it from being taken seriously IMO. And remember, in the end, the game is about groups fighting groups in an alliance war, not dueling. Not that very small man fights cannot take place, but you aren't meant to solo take keeps and solo run scrolls and solo wipe groups.

Very good points man, really getting tired of people complaining about groups and automatically equating group with zerg. This is an RvR game which will always be centered around group gameplay.

On a side note, our 24 man blue group has wiped you

You and haxus are about the only groups that can run 24 or smaller size and we know we actually have a fight on our hands. Unfortunately, both you guys seem to be able to fill out a full 24 man group more often than us and if we hit you with like 16 or less, we know it's not gonna go well most of the time. Doesn't mean we won't do it anyway

As soon as a grp is only flilling slots with redundant positions you´re zerging as individual players are no longer a key component but only part of a key component of the grp (edit: i´m sure someone is going to tell me every player up to 24 is a key grp member bc you know - aoe caps )

I´ve played enough RvR games that did not cater to people with blob mentality in the way eso and guildwars2 did to know that strategy/objectives and large scale pvp has nothing to do with the reason why people stack up on crown with 20+ players.

Edit: I don´t have a problem with this playstyle. Just that the gamemechanics basically enforce it or you´re putting yourself at a disadvantage - this part i don´t like.

Meh, that's just not even remotely true.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

FENGRUSH wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

FENGRUSH wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

FENGRUSH wrote: »

I agree with not doing the old ult gen formula - this would require more time and thought. I dont agree with lumping multiple big changes together either, but doing them one at a time. ZOS generally just makes huge changes every new DLC/patch and we end up relearning a new game but the meta of ball groups has always been core due to AOE caps.

I think a lot of people agree with what Im saying, even from ball groups, but take offense when I use the word 'ball group' since it lumps them into a category of what it really is. Its been said enough that its not personally diminishing any of these players personal talent levels in the group. But if people want to ignore that it makes no difference to me. I get that theyre offended and want to come here and lay into me and thats fine - but what Ive said isnt untrue.

Dont lump me in a zerg because I was engaging your group. I actually spent the first 5-10 minutes on the sideline watching it. After that we started picking people off, and frankly, Essa and I were alone in that respect to actually killing people. You were fighting 60 people or whatever, thats fine. You werent however fighting a 60man ball group, because you wouldnt be able to with AOE caps. You would lose pretty badly if 60 people grouped up in the same way. It isnt a matter of strategy, its simply a matter of coordination.

Moving from point A to point B and back to point A isnt something Id consider a strategy either. Everyone who knows whats going on in Cyro can tell what youre going to do long before you do it, but as a smaller group we really dont have an option to counter it. If strategy had any place here, wed have access to some techniques to counter it. The counter is bringing more people and forming a similar group.

Will it make your group stronger against 60 people? Yes it will, and that is a good thing. It will bring less stress to the server. Ball groups do stress the server with the purging and healing that goes on inside them though. This was apparent when ball groups first rolled out that servers started to eat it bad on lag. Before that, not nearly as bad. It really comes down to the overabundant healing/defensive posturing of these ball groups.

Do I expect to walk up with 4 people and knock your ball group down every time? No. In fact the chances of doing that to any decent group is highly unlikely post AOE cap removal. But you guys like to take my words and misconstrue them. The reality is we cant do anything. There isnt a place for the small man group in this battle. This is the problem.


I love folks from K-hole and would love to fight with them on the battlefield. They run a medium sized raid most the time, and I like running a small group. If we fought today and they were 12 and I had a group of 4 vs an enemy of 24 synced in a ball, wed be stupid to fight separate. If AOE caps were removed, they could fight in one manner while the 4 could flank to much greater effect. This doesnt exist today. This did exist moreso in release. This actually has a level of strategy that doesnt revolve around numbers and AOE caps at its core. This is what I want back.

Fair and balanced gameplay - a place for more than ball groups. If they want to fix performance, they have to address ball groups, not 24 man raids. There is a clear difference. If you dont think balling up in 24man groups impacts performance vs 24 people fighting together, you are absolutely and 100% in denial. The reality is many have played like this for so long they dont even know the difference. They would wonder how or why a 24 man group would not fight in a ball. This is truly a sad thing.

RIP: http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/88049/do-you-think-there-should-be-an-aoe-cap/p1

I hate myself for even being in these threads (any of the many, many ones) any more. Maybe an underlying issue is how you WANT to engage vs. how you SHOULD be engaging ball groups. You 'want' to rambo in and kill everyone because who doesn't, when you SHOULD be peppering them with siege until there are enough numbers of allies there where you have breathing room to engage the outer perimeter of the group. About two months ago when we fought GoS on TF, one of our biggest headaches came from all of the randoms that would set up siege on us while we engaged GoS or were trying to maneuver. I can guarantee you that two well-timed and well-positioned cold stone trebs on a ball group will make most of them dead, even if they get off a reactionary barrier. You keep talking about how you want skillful small groups to have a fighting chance, well - there you go. It DOES take skill to have two, three people coordinate their siege, especially if they're trying to hit a moving target. So, don't say you can't do ANYTHING, because if a group is balled up and you are able to get off 2-3 well-timed stone treb hits, it doesn't matter if they have barrier and heals, it's too much burst and people will drop. Now, you might not WANT to do this because you want to be able to attack them and pop bats and use aoes, but that doesn't mean you can't kill them in the current meta - you just have to do something that has less glory.

Sorry, but 2.1 is a numbers game, even for ball groups. At some point you just can't win when you're heavily outnumbered, and when we're talking 4 to 24, it's the same scenario as 24 vs 60+, but with easier overall ratios. Sorry, but I wouldn't try to have my group of 24 engage a group of 144 (same ratio), I'd be kiting and running and picking off anyone I could, while expecting the wipe soon.

So if were a 4 man group we should focus on being siege specialists in Cyro? We shouldnt be concerned with the performance issues being caused by ball groups - STILL? We dont want to make a balanced approach to PvP where numbers create an artificial mitigation?

Again, this isnt about 4 people being heroes in a battle. Its about 4 people having a real limited and unenjoyable time in today's Cyro.

1. You can organise 4v4 fights (or even 4v4+ depending on how good you think you are)
2. You can play on lower population campaigns and fight senseless boring pver's
3. You can take the pvp you are given and play it as it comes.

On EU there are less bomb groups (24m) playing now then ever before the game is dieing for all players. The problem is that the groups that are there are having to fight in 1 of 2 places on the map. If forward camps were just brought back into the game instantly the 24m groups would split away from the masses and different fights would happen around the map again.

So the game is dying and youre not interested in changing the meta because you dont see a correlation between the gameplay being in a bad place and players leaving the game? So I should organize 4v4s and seek out players to 4v4 all day? Great solution.

The game doesnt have a bad meta in need of drastic changes. It needs its lag sorted and its bugs and fotms fixed. Other then that it just needs more content. You seem to only be interested in stopping large groups rather than the game being better than it is now.

I'm giving you suggestions of what you could do to enjoy the game as 4 players and encourage others to do the same promoting this kind of good gameplay and tournament environment would get more people playing in that style. Especially if they have somewhere to do it.

FENGRUSH wrote: »

Ill continue to fight the battle on the forums and on stream, thats the medium I have. ZOS says they are listening - theyll have a window to prove it. If they are not, then they will continue to lose players and there wont be a game left to play anyway, so whats the point in setting up 4v4s as those people start to leave as well?

The battle shouldnt be between players at all though. Whose playstyle is *** and whos is good just damages the community you are trying to help. It's a good thing you care enough to post etc. Looking at the campaign forums activity recently you can see how few people even care about that any more. I'm not sure if you think I'm critical of you on this from your post or just saying it to say it?

FENGRUSH wrote: »

Forward camps would not split ball groups. Ball groups are what they are, and the players in them play because of the success it brings them. They will simply push the map faster with less resistance on the front line and force the fight to them. They will use camps and back end the trans keeps and funnel the mass to them. This is nothing new. This is how it works because of Cyros 1 dimensional objective based play.

You play on Us and I play on EU. On EU forward camps brought interest and actual interesting gameplay for groups of all sizes. If you ask anyone from eu who plays in any serious pvp group I'm sure 95% would say came should come back as they were before. From small scale to 'ball'.

Having played the most active campaign and won 3 times in a row camps were a pivotal part of that and their removal has hurt pvp by a proportion that is actually crazy to see. The times im talking about had over 5 active guilds on each faction on the campaign. Now theres basically 1 guild on each side and There is 1 fight on the map between BRK chat and arrius. That is it. 1 fight.

If groups lured some pugs away from the zerg to take back another keep it would REDUCE lag. Not to mention that players defending keeps against zergs would have something to use to counter them .

On a phone so quotations may be screwey

Lava_Croft

Etaniel wrote: »

Lava_Croft wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Lava_Croft wrote: »

Etaniel wrote: »

Lava_Croft wrote: »

This whole idea that running in a 24-man group is somehow 'less skilled' than running in a 4-man group while ESO is designed and marketed as a large scale PvP game makes me wonder if these people are the same people that say I should play Quake using only my Axe, since Rocket Launchers are for people without skill.

Idiots.

Let's say someone designs a rocket launcher to kill a pack of squirrels.
Let's say that same person designs a pellet launcher to kill individual squirrels.

Killing a pack of squirrels using the pellet launcher takes undeniably more skill than to kill a single squirrel with the rocket launcher.

Ball is in your court Kris

So because you choose to run around with a much less effective weapon than available, that automagically makes you 'more skilled' and automagically gives you the position to constantly belittle people who do use the more effective weapon?

Guess it's time to run around Cyrodiil unarmored and fist fight my way to victory while constantly proclaiming that the rest are just lesser skilled players.

This is so wrong.

Everybody is running around with the same weapons. Yet if the smallgrp throws their handgranades against a biggrp half of them turn into foul eggs midair while the granades thrown by the biggrps stay the same.

ESO in it's current state means that the most effective way of playing PvP is to run around in a large group (The Rocket Launcher). While it's fine and part of the glorious Elder Scrolls Freedom that you can choose to run around in a group that is (by design) less effective than a 24-man group (The Axe), this choice is yours and the reason it's sub-optimal is not the people running around in large groups that constantly get whined at for running around in large groups.

Instead of constantly telling people who run in large groups that they lack skill, cause lag and what not, try telling ZOS to fix their product.

[EDIT] Helpful hints added.

I'll create another analogy to help you understand Kris.

Say someone sells you a gun and advertises that it shoots straight.

Say that, it appears this particular gun is broken, and that every time you shoot it, it backfires and it blows your face apart.
Now, is the person who sold you the gun to blame, because he did false advertising and sold you a broken gun? Yes. Should he strive to fix it? yes

Are you utterly re tar ded for using said gun even though you know it's broken? WOW YES

[HINT] the analogy is to make you understand that large lag trains kill server performance, but oh no since it's ZOS's fault, we should definitely keep shooting ourselves in the face and ruin the experience for everyone mkay?

What you propose is that everybody follows Sage's advice and spreads out over Cyrodiil and proceeds to do 4v4 and maybe if the latency allows it 8v8.

That is in effect the defeat of ESO's PvP design.

What is much better is for as much people as possible to play the game advertised, complain on the forums and via support tickets and hope ZOS finally manages to finally deliver a working product.

Takllin

Minno wrote: »

Takllin wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

FENGRUSH wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

FENGRUSH wrote: »

I agree with not doing the old ult gen formula - this would require more time and thought. I dont agree with lumping multiple big changes together either, but doing them one at a time. ZOS generally just makes huge changes every new DLC/patch and we end up relearning a new game but the meta of ball groups has always been core due to AOE caps.

I think a lot of people agree with what Im saying, even from ball groups, but take offense when I use the word 'ball group' since it lumps them into a category of what it really is. Its been said enough that its not personally diminishing any of these players personal talent levels in the group. But if people want to ignore that it makes no difference to me. I get that theyre offended and want to come here and lay into me and thats fine - but what Ive said isnt untrue.

Dont lump me in a zerg because I was engaging your group. I actually spent the first 5-10 minutes on the sideline watching it. After that we started picking people off, and frankly, Essa and I were alone in that respect to actually killing people. You were fighting 60 people or whatever, thats fine. You werent however fighting a 60man ball group, because you wouldnt be able to with AOE caps. You would lose pretty badly if 60 people grouped up in the same way. It isnt a matter of strategy, its simply a matter of coordination.

Moving from point A to point B and back to point A isnt something Id consider a strategy either. Everyone who knows whats going on in Cyro can tell what youre going to do long before you do it, but as a smaller group we really dont have an option to counter it. If strategy had any place here, wed have access to some techniques to counter it. The counter is bringing more people and forming a similar group.

Will it make your group stronger against 60 people? Yes it will, and that is a good thing. It will bring less stress to the server. Ball groups do stress the server with the purging and healing that goes on inside them though. This was apparent when ball groups first rolled out that servers started to eat it bad on lag. Before that, not nearly as bad. It really comes down to the overabundant healing/defensive posturing of these ball groups.

Do I expect to walk up with 4 people and knock your ball group down every time? No. In fact the chances of doing that to any decent group is highly unlikely post AOE cap removal. But you guys like to take my words and misconstrue them. The reality is we cant do anything. There isnt a place for the small man group in this battle. This is the problem.


I love folks from K-hole and would love to fight with them on the battlefield. They run a medium sized raid most the time, and I like running a small group. If we fought today and they were 12 and I had a group of 4 vs an enemy of 24 synced in a ball, wed be stupid to fight separate. If AOE caps were removed, they could fight in one manner while the 4 could flank to much greater effect. This doesnt exist today. This did exist moreso in release. This actually has a level of strategy that doesnt revolve around numbers and AOE caps at its core. This is what I want back.

Fair and balanced gameplay - a place for more than ball groups. If they want to fix performance, they have to address ball groups, not 24 man raids. There is a clear difference. If you dont think balling up in 24man groups impacts performance vs 24 people fighting together, you are absolutely and 100% in denial. The reality is many have played like this for so long they dont even know the difference. They would wonder how or why a 24 man group would not fight in a ball. This is truly a sad thing.

RIP: http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/88049/do-you-think-there-should-be-an-aoe-cap/p1

I hate myself for even being in these threads (any of the many, many ones) any more. Maybe an underlying issue is how you WANT to engage vs. how you SHOULD be engaging ball groups. You 'want' to rambo in and kill everyone because who doesn't, when you SHOULD be peppering them with siege until there are enough numbers of allies there where you have breathing room to engage the outer perimeter of the group. About two months ago when we fought GoS on TF, one of our biggest headaches came from all of the randoms that would set up siege on us while we engaged GoS or were trying to maneuver. I can guarantee you that two well-timed and well-positioned cold stone trebs on a ball group will make most of them dead, even if they get off a reactionary barrier. You keep talking about how you want skillful small groups to have a fighting chance, well - there you go. It DOES take skill to have two, three people coordinate their siege, especially if they're trying to hit a moving target. So, don't say you can't do ANYTHING, because if a group is balled up and you are able to get off 2-3 well-timed stone treb hits, it doesn't matter if they have barrier and heals, it's too much burst and people will drop. Now, you might not WANT to do this because you want to be able to attack them and pop bats and use aoes, but that doesn't mean you can't kill them in the current meta - you just have to do something that has less glory.

Sorry, but 2.1 is a numbers game, even for ball groups. At some point you just can't win when you're heavily outnumbered, and when we're talking 4 to 24, it's the same scenario as 24 vs 60+, but with easier overall ratios. Sorry, but I wouldn't try to have my group of 24 engage a group of 144 (same ratio), I'd be kiting and running and picking off anyone I could, while expecting the wipe soon.

So if were a 4 man group we should focus on being siege specialists in Cyro? We shouldnt be concerned with the performance issues being caused by ball groups - STILL? We dont want to make a balanced approach to PvP where numbers create an artificial mitigation?

Again, this isnt about 4 people being heroes in a battle. Its about 4 people having a real limited and unenjoyable time in today's Cyro.

Part of the post I quoted:

But you guys like to take my words and misconstrue them. The reality is we cant do anything. There isnt a place for the small man group in this battle. This is the problem.

Believe you me, I think sieging in fights is cheap, but sometimes it's a necessity. You said you can't do anything, and that there's no place for small groups in the battle, and I was just pointing out that's not true. It's not as fun, but if 3 of you timed your siege and the 4th jumped in with a prox det + standard/bats/whatever, chances are you'd wipe the majority or all of the group if they're balled up. Server performance is an entirely different beast, and I can get on board when the discussion veers in that direction.

@Etaniel Amen.

Zheg, the discussion is in that direction. This is a two headed beast. How long have people been arguing for AoE caps to go away because of server performance? It's been a long time, I've been posting or read almost all of them. This latest upbringing is gaining more steam because it's now become an issue of game balance as well as server performance.

It's also gaining speed because @BrianWheeler has let us know that the original fix for the lag issue did not work as well as they hoped.
But they assured us they are now looking at how the physics is calculated regarding the way spells are calculated with the server. (Paraphrased)

If they are looking at the physic calcs, it wouldn't hurt to check those AOE caps and institute a better system.

Especially with that thread one of our EU players posted in the General Discussion and German boards with his program on AoE caps and such.

Zheg wrote: »

Takllin wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

Etaniel wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

Starshadw wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

I hate myself for even being in these threads (any of the many, many ones) any more. Maybe an underlying issue is how you WANT to engage vs. how you SHOULD be engaging ball groups. You 'want' to rambo in and kill everyone because who doesn't, when you SHOULD be peppering them with siege until there are enough numbers of allies there where you have breathing room to engage the outer perimeter of the group. About two months ago when we fought GoS on TF, one of our biggest headaches came from all of the randoms that would set up siege on us while we engaged GoS or were trying to maneuver. I can guarantee you that two well-timed and well-positioned cold stone trebs on a ball group will make most of them dead, even if they get off a reactionary barrier. You keep talking about how you want skillful small groups to have a fighting chance, well - there you go. It DOES take skill to have two, three people coordinate their siege, especially if they're trying to hit a moving target. So, don't say you can't do ANYTHING, because if a group is balled up and you are able to get off 2-3 well-timed stone treb hits, it doesn't matter if they have barrier and heals, it's too much burst and people will drop. Now, you might not WANT to do this because you want to be able to attack them and pop bats and use aoes, but that doesn't mean you can't kill them in the current meta - you just have to do something that has less glory.

Sorry, but 2.1 is a numbers game, even for ball groups. At some point you just can't win when you're heavily outnumbered, and when we're talking 4 to 24, it's the same scenario as 24 vs 60+, but with easier overall ratios. Sorry, but I wouldn't try to have my group of 24 engage a group of 144 (same ratio), I'd be kiting and running and picking off anyone I could, while expecting the wipe soon.

Siege can be good, but it's more than a little tricksy and twitchy at the moment - first, any of us who PvP know that the damn things are bugging out left and right. Second, they are slow - which means that it's very likely the spot your siege is hitting will be empty by the time it hits because out on the battlefield, things are constantly in motion and the siege doesn't move fast enough to keep up with that. Third, people are still running Purge and right now, a lot of the groups we're seeing are templar-heavy, which means tons of heals, lessening the value of siege damage.

Don't get me wrong, siege can be and is useful. But it's not the magic bullet against zergs.

Regarding heals, that's why I said cold stone trebs, it's all burst damage, no dot. Regarding being able to hit moving targets - of course it's hard, but that's where the skill of the skillful group of 4 should come into effect. They should know when to put down siege, when and where to aim, how to lead a moving group of targets, the most favorable terrain and positioning to engage, etc.

It is as fun? No. Is siege bugged and clunky? Yes. Is it hard to pull off? Yes. But it IS a tool available to small groups to fight large clumped up groups, should they actually be able to pull it off. If the discussion is on MORE tools, that's one thing, but to say there are no means currently available is disingenuous.

Rephrased :
I say : I have a lighter and a potato, I don't have the means to cook the potato.
You say : Well fire + potato should work if you are skilled enough, it's doable.

really?

Thenuse the lighter to make a campfire and cook the potato, no need to BE a potato. I said use trebs, not scattershots. If 2 people from a skillful small man can't coordinate treb hits in any engagement they're ever in, ten we're not talking about skilled players are we? Siege won't work in every engagement, but it certainly works in a good number of them. Hasn't the whole driver been to gain tools that allow small groups to sometimes wipe larger groups? Sometimes being the key word here.

Your talking about a niche case like it can be used regularly...it can't. People recognize that wiping big groups is possible, it's just that with each update that possibility decreases further and further.

The post was refuting fengrush saying it WASN'T possible, and yes he was using hyperbole, but it was still introduced as a valid example of it indeed being possible. Never said you could use it all the time, but it's an available to use SOME of the time. It's probably safe to say that most if not all of the people complaining never even bother trying to implement siege even when the situation is ripe for it. Yes it has it's problems, but so does everything else in the game. Just pointing out that people are more likely to go hop on the forums and complain then try to time a siege shot even when there's a high chance of that being a win.

I can somewhat agree here about the knee jerk QQing, but we both know that seige is not a viable solution to the problem because of all the issues that it has.

xaraan

FENGRUSH wrote: »

I agree with not doing the old ult gen formula - this would require more time and thought. I dont agree with lumping multiple big changes together either, but doing them one at a time. ZOS generally just makes huge changes every new DLC/patch and we end up relearning a new game but the meta of ball groups has always been core due to AOE caps.

I think a lot of people agree with what Im saying, even from ball groups, but take offense when I use the word 'ball group' since it lumps them into a category of what it really is. Its been said enough that its not personally diminishing any of these players personal talent levels in the group. But if people want to ignore that it makes no difference to me. I get that theyre offended and want to come here and lay into me and thats fine - but what Ive said isnt untrue.

Dont lump me in a zerg because I was engaging your group. I actually spent the first 5-10 minutes on the sideline watching it. After that we started picking people off, and frankly, Essa and I were alone in that respect to actually killing people. You were fighting 60 people or whatever, thats fine. You werent however fighting a 60man ball group, because you wouldnt be able to with AOE caps. You would lose pretty badly if 60 people grouped up in the same way. It isnt a matter of strategy, its simply a matter of coordination.

Moving from point A to point B and back to point A isnt something Id consider a strategy either. Everyone who knows whats going on in Cyro can tell what youre going to do long before you do it, but as a smaller group we really dont have an option to counter it. If strategy had any place here, wed have access to some techniques to counter it. The counter is bringing more people and forming a similar group.

Will it make your group stronger against 60 people? Yes it will, and that is a good thing. It will bring less stress to the server. Ball groups do stress the server with the purging and healing that goes on inside them though. This was apparent when ball groups first rolled out that servers started to eat it bad on lag. Before that, not nearly as bad. It really comes down to the overabundant healing/defensive posturing of these ball groups.

Do I expect to walk up with 4 people and knock your ball group down every time? No. In fact the chances of doing that to any decent group is highly unlikely post AOE cap removal. But you guys like to take my words and misconstrue them. The reality is we cant do anything. There isnt a place for the small man group in this battle. This is the problem.


I love folks from K-hole and would love to fight with them on the battlefield. They run a medium sized raid most the time, and I like running a small group. If we fought today and they were 12 and I had a group of 4 vs an enemy of 24 synced in a ball, wed be stupid to fight separate. If AOE caps were removed, they could fight in one manner while the 4 could flank to much greater effect. This doesnt exist today. This did exist moreso in release. This actually has a level of strategy that doesnt revolve around numbers and AOE caps at its core. This is what I want back.

Fair and balanced gameplay - a place for more than ball groups. If they want to fix performance, they have to address ball groups, not 24 man raids. There is a clear difference. If you dont think balling up in 24man groups impacts performance vs 24 people fighting together, you are absolutely and 100% in denial. The reality is many have played like this for so long they dont even know the difference. They would wonder how or why a 24 man group would not fight in a ball. This is truly a sad thing.

RIP: http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/88049/do-you-think-there-should-be-an-aoe-cap/p1

Movement is strategy first of all. If you think it's not, then I expect every video of you fighting for you to not be moving at all. But since we know that isn't true, I'll add that moving large groups of people through a giant fight is even harder than moving just one guy or a few. See, this is what people are taking issue with, some of the comments you continue to make are pretty ignorant and when someone makes a handful of smart comments mixed with that, it's unfortunate to watch so we speak up. Also, if everyone knew what we were going to do, then they'd be there before us and the movement would be countered. And yes, the amount of healing they have is part of the combat as well, same way the amount of armor or personal healing in a solo build is part of the equation for any fight a 1vXer gets in.

The comment you make about the 60 man being a ball is correct, but that's exactly why one of my points was capping group size at 12 instead of 24. You can see how hard it is to coordinate multiple groups and how much more skill it takes to move together. This is why we saw several different stacks of in your video, but make no mistake, it's still taking skill and quite a bit of work to survive fighting 3 24 man groups, even if it's not 1 60 man blob - especially when they are setting up multiple siege on us. Just that fact that you even hint that it takes no skill for us to do what we did is pretty narrow-minded.

And yes, attacking players in a small group when they are fighting 60 others does make you part of the zerg. You don't have to like it, but that doesn't change what it is. We've all been there even when we don't want to be.

Now, I've agreed with you countless times in the thread about the need to address the zerg. The only thing I took issue with was you choosing a horrible example to try and make a point on the other night in your stream.

Tankqull

xaraan wrote: »

I've always been intrigued by the pvp backseat to pve comments. We've seen them for a long time, going back to the first time content was being released for ESO. . As a player of both types of content (a lot of both) I feel like PvE needs the constant stream of DLC to be appealing. You can only do quests or dungeons so many times. PvP however is endless in what you can get out of it The most important thing for me is for it to be balanced, have bugs addressed very quickly (b/c they effect balance usually) and make sure they have decent rewards. Aside from seeing an arena, I don't know what else they can add to pvp (this being b/c I disagree that the pvp aspect of justice system would be "so awesome", but it would be pvp content I guess). PvE however ends, needs content added. This being said, I would have handled IC much differently and made it more enjoyable for both pve'rs and pvp'ers instead of somewhere in the middle and not really loved by either.

I guess, to me, PvP by its very nature is a beast that has more self sustain than PvE. This is probably why players that do a lot of both will play PvE a lot when there is new content and then go right back to the same ol' PvP and have just as much or more fun.

I also wanted to comment on the ball group stuff:

Don't get me wrong, I hate zergs and zerging. Our guild used to run in groups of 6-12 players (or smaller) before the last patch and had no problems running into full groups and dealing with them. There was (and still is, though to a MUCH smaller degree) strategy involved in group fighting. It is a very different type of strategy than fighting small man battles however and is hampered by game mechanics.

With the last patch and the change to battle spirit, they took a lot of skill out of the game. Bad builds and bad players have a much higher survival rate simply b/c of the reduction going on and numbers matter more not just b/c of AoE caps, but because of this reduction and just being able to have an extra healer or two makes a much bigger difference now b/c their isn't as much burst. But there are several other issues that give zergs an advantage that I touched on in my previous post.

Thats actaully the part the gaming industry has tu realize.
creating a PvE game means content updates as fast as possible other wise you are going to lose your investment and consumers.
pvp on the otherside is player driven, give them a robust environment wich primarily means a good network implementation end they entertain themselves. you have to handle more balance issues then in pve as mobs don´t bother OP chars and skills but the time and money investment for PvP is tremendously more worth it than for PvE and that is sth need to be realized for heavens sake...
its unbelievable that that nearly 20 years after m59 and UO this has not been realized by developers...

Minno

[/quote]

Thats actaully the part the gaming industry has tu realize.
creating a PvE game means content updates as fast as possible other wise you are going to lose your investment and consumers.
pvp on the otherside is player driven, give them a robust environment wich primarily means a good network implementation end they entertain themselves. you have to handle more balance issues then in pve as mobs don´t bother OP chars and skills but the time and money investment for PvP is tremendously more worth it than for PvE and that is sth need to be realized for heavens sake...
its unbelievable that that nearly 20 years after m59 and UO this has not been realized by developers...[/quote]

They know it. Issue is pve aspect of the game pulls more money than pvp through various venues.
At the end of the day, its hard to escape the fact ZOS needs to operate as a business first if they wanna keep making games

Derra

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

You play on Us and I play on EU. On EU forward camps brought interest and actual interesting gameplay for groups of all sizes. If you ask anyone from eu who plays in any serious pvp group I'm sure 95% would say came should come back as they were before. From small scale to 'ball'.

Having played the most active campaign and won 3 times in a row camps were a pivotal part of that and their removal has hurt pvp by a proportion that is actually crazy to see. The times im talking about had over 5 active guilds on each faction on the campaign. Now theres basically 1 guild on each side and There is 1 fight on the map between BRK chat and arrius. That is it. 1 fight.

If groups lured some pugs away from the zerg to take back another keep it would REDUCE lag. Not to mention that players defending keeps against zergs would have something to use to counter them .

On a phone so quotations may be screwey

I loled. Forwardcamps can stay where they are. Unobtainable for the masses in my guildbank and gone from the general game. It was a crappy mechanic encouraging crappy gameplay.

It´s about discouraging ballgrps not 24 slots. Balling makes the game unattractive for everyone not doing it. This is something you have to realize. While someone doing 4v4 or 4vX does not bother a 24 slot at all it´s not the same the other way round.
The game is going down the drain at the moment for this very reason. You can´t participate in large scale pvp if you´re not part of a ball of death - which isn´t fun for most players i know.

Tankqull

Derra wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

You play on Us and I play on EU. On EU forward camps brought interest and actual interesting gameplay for groups of all sizes. If you ask anyone from eu who plays in any serious pvp group I'm sure 95% would say came should come back as they were before. From small scale to 'ball'.

Having played the most active campaign and won 3 times in a row camps were a pivotal part of that and their removal has hurt pvp by a proportion that is actually crazy to see. The times im talking about had over 5 active guilds on each faction on the campaign. Now theres basically 1 guild on each side and There is 1 fight on the map between BRK chat and arrius. That is it. 1 fight.

If groups lured some pugs away from the zerg to take back another keep it would REDUCE lag. Not to mention that players defending keeps against zergs would have something to use to counter them .

On a phone so quotations may be screwey

I loled. Forwardcamps can stay where they are. Unobtainable for the masses in my guildbank and gone from the general game. It was a crappy mechanic encouraging crappy gameplay.

It´s about discouraging ballgrps not 24 slots. Balling makes the game unattractive for everyone not doing it. This is something you have to realize. While someone doing 4v4 or 4vX does not bother a 24 slot at all it´s not the same the other way round.
The game is going down the drain at the moment for this very reason. You can´t participate in large scale pvp if you´re not part of a ball of death - which isn´t fun for most players i know.

this - give us just one weekend with a buged inevitable detonation without any playercap. and on monday the tightballer will flood the forums with tears.

_Chaos

I'd like to see these 1vXer's form a 24 man raid that they think could last more than 20 seconds against a competent raid.

Like that would ever happen doe

Derra

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

I'd like to see these 1vXer's form a 24 man raid that they think could last more than 20 seconds against a competent raid.

Like that would ever happen doe

That´s the problem. Nobody apart from the people doing it WANTS to do that. Yet because of questionable gamemechanics it´s the only way to play around objectives.

Minno

Derra wrote: »

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

I'd like to see these 1vXer's form a 24 man raid that they think could last more than 20 seconds against a competent raid.

Like that would ever happen doe

That´s the problem. Nobody apart from the people doing it WANTS to do that. Yet because of questionable gamemechanics it´s the only way to play around objectives.

On the flip side argument, you will never be a good pvp player if you don't try to challenge yourself 1vx style.

It's one thing to follow a raid and spam abilities, its entirely another to face off on uneven odds and knowing how to counter each skill.

LegendaryChef

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

I'd like to see these 1vXer's form a 24 man raid that they think could last more than 20 seconds against a competent raid.

Like that would ever happen doe

By competent you mean a zerg that has 10 people running barrier, 5 spamming healing springs, 2 spamming purge, everyone of them equipping their almighty steel tornado and last but not least the main man shouting "barrier 1/2/3" ?

I love your use of the word competent but all it really means is a group that do the same stuff every night following their "crown" spamming their skills surrounded by 23 people, brainless, boring and your not gona learn much about the game from that.

Mojomonkeyman

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

I'd like to see these 1vXer's form a 24 man raid that they think could last more than 20 seconds against a competent raid.

Like that would ever happen doe

You can place tiger woods against the best minigolfer in the world, the best minigolfer would prolly win. What does it prove? The minigolfer has more training minigolfing.

The simple meaning is:
You cannot develop the control over your character (widely known as "skill", yes, individual skill as a player) as much in tight grp settings as you would solo or in smaller scale pvp situations simply due to the nature of:

1. not having to deal with a lot of pressure situations when comforted by 23 helpful allies
2. fulfilling a specific role or max two instead of the covering the entire spectrum by yourself including map awareness and tactics
3. not being forced to actually pvp (interrupts, focus target, assist, etc. pp - control over your character and the character attacking you)

Yes, there are groups who consist of great players. Yes, those players were great before they joined said group and will, at least partially, look for more challenging environments the longer they play. Yes, raiding is a group effort that can be done more or less good.

I mean, I bet all those guys you are arguing against have prolly been part of zergs, paintrains, superskilledmegatrightlyorganizeduberpvperswholiketomoveinballs at least once and have actually experienced groups better than yours. If not in ESO then in other games. It`s like growing up - the more advanced zergers (you) from today will become the smallscalers from tomorrow.

BR

FENGRUSH

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

I'd like to see these 1vXer's form a 24 man raid that they think could last more than 20 seconds against a competent raid.

Like that would ever happen doe

Are you insinuating I couldnt join VEs group today and perform just as well as everyone else despite having never played in the group or spent time really doing this?

Let me know, Id be happy to oblige.

Etaniel

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

I'd like to see these 1vXer's form a 24 man raid that they think could last more than 20 seconds against a competent raid.

Like that would ever happen doe

Take Banana squad in EU, all their members are very talented solo/small scale players and most have youtube channels to show it, and they also run a 12 ish man group that wrecks larger bomb groups with ease.

_Chaos

FENGRUSH wrote: »

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

I'd like to see these 1vXer's form a 24 man raid that they think could last more than 20 seconds against a competent raid.

Like that would ever happen doe

Are you insinuating I couldnt join VEs group today and perform just as well as everyone else despite having never played in the group or spent time really doing this?

Let me know, Id be happy to oblige.

No, I'm insinuating that you come up with 23 other superduper skilled players and try taking on Haxus, or reroll and take on VE.

Etaniel

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

FENGRUSH wrote: »

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

I'd like to see these 1vXer's form a 24 man raid that they think could last more than 20 seconds against a competent raid.

Like that would ever happen doe

Are you insinuating I couldnt join VEs group today and perform just as well as everyone else despite having never played in the group or spent time really doing this?

Let me know, Id be happy to oblige.

No, I'm insinuating that you come up with 23 other superduper skilled players and try taking on Haxus, or reroll and take on VE.

Careful what you wish for

FENGRUSH

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

FENGRUSH wrote: »

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

I'd like to see these 1vXer's form a 24 man raid that they think could last more than 20 seconds against a competent raid.

Like that would ever happen doe

Are you insinuating I couldnt join VEs group today and perform just as well as everyone else despite having never played in the group or spent time really doing this?

Let me know, Id be happy to oblige.

No, I'm insinuating that you come up with 23 other superduper skilled players and try taking on Haxus, or reroll and take on VE.

You want me to form a guild for the purpose of entertaining your point that we couldnt do this?

Did you form VE yourself / are you the leader?

Manoekin

FENGRUSH wrote: »

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

I'd like to see these 1vXer's form a 24 man raid that they think could last more than 20 seconds against a competent raid.

Like that would ever happen doe

Are you insinuating I couldnt join VEs group today and perform just as well as everyone else despite having never played in the group or spent time really doing this?

Let me know, Id be happy to oblige.

Do it. Or roll an AD and play with me :P

Satiar

Minno wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

I'd like to see these 1vXer's form a 24 man raid that they think could last more than 20 seconds against a competent raid.

Like that would ever happen doe

That´s the problem. Nobody apart from the people doing it WANTS to do that. Yet because of questionable gamemechanics it´s the only way to play around objectives.

On the flip side argument, you will never be a good pvp player if you don't try to challenge yourself 1vx style.

It's one thing to follow a raid and spam abilities, its entirely another to face off on uneven odds and knowing how to counter each skill.

Pretty much my entire core small manned and 1vXed for their first year. We have lots of videos to prove it

Valindor Magnus

FENGRUSH wrote: »

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

FENGRUSH wrote: »

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

I'd like to see these 1vXer's form a 24 man raid that they think could last more than 20 seconds against a competent raid.

Like that would ever happen doe

Are you insinuating I couldnt join VEs group today and perform just as well as everyone else despite having never played in the group or spent time really doing this?

Let me know, Id be happy to oblige.

No, I'm insinuating that you come up with 23 other superduper skilled players and try taking on Haxus, or reroll and take on VE.

You want me to form a guild for the purpose of entertaining your point that we couldnt do this?

Did you form VE yourself / are you the leader?

Don't fall for that bait lol. You obviously wouldn't just be able to wipe these guild raids within the first few nights if you had a 24 man group of solo players but you would conversely learn how to very quickly and when you start to wipe their raids then they get more ppl and or change their builds then when they wipe yours you would have to get more ppl. This is how it's been going on lately. What I really don't understand is why people feel the need to try and change how other people play. If you don't want to get run over by zergs then set your self up in between flagged keeps where you know players will be running and try and gets some small man action, likewise with mile gates and the sewer entrances. There's also lower pop campaigns that have less zergs and IC can have really good small man action at times. If you really want to play the only objectives we have in cyrodiil though you are going to have to deal with the zergs. I don't think zos imagined having to deal with 20,30,40,50,60 people stacking within the same 8 meter radius but I also don't think they expected keep battles to be a bunch of individual battles going on. Likewise they aren't going to give a solo player or small group of players a way of being able to kill large amounts of players. Although I do see some people asking for this I mainly see people asking to take away from the zergs what makes them so dangerous. The aoe cap should be removed, but as long as their is any aoe in the game people will stack, and if they removed all aoe the. Your small or medium group would have even less of a chance of wiping a group of 24 or more. So what is the exact change people who hate zergs want to see? Because I can't really see any realistic changes that can be made to alleviate your complaints. I've seen y'all say you don't want a single players to be able to just destroy a Zerg but at the same time ask for ways for small groups to deal with zergs... Just removing the aoe cap still wouldn't really give y'all much of a chance unless you get a stealth bomb off or engage them in the right time. I still have seen multiple clips of small and medium groups wiping much larger groups then theirs by engaging correctly and having siege support so I know it can be done in this meta.

@FENGRUSH if you could make the dev team change 3 things about cyrodiil and combat what would they be?

Fruitdog

FENGRUSH wrote: »

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

FENGRUSH wrote: »

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

I'd like to see these 1vXer's form a 24 man raid that they think could last more than 20 seconds against a competent raid.

Like that would ever happen doe

Are you insinuating I couldnt join VEs group today and perform just as well as everyone else despite having never played in the group or spent time really doing this?

Let me know, Id be happy to oblige.

No, I'm insinuating that you come up with 23 other superduper skilled players and try taking on Haxus, or reroll and take on VE.

You want me to form a guild for the purpose of entertaining your point that we couldnt do this?

Did you form VE yourself / are you the leader?

No, he is not.

ToRelax

Valindor Magnus wrote: »

FENGRUSH wrote: »

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

FENGRUSH wrote: »

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

I'd like to see these 1vXer's form a 24 man raid that they think could last more than 20 seconds against a competent raid.

Like that would ever happen doe

Are you insinuating I couldnt join VEs group today and perform just as well as everyone else despite having never played in the group or spent time really doing this?

Let me know, Id be happy to oblige.

No, I'm insinuating that you come up with 23 other superduper skilled players and try taking on Haxus, or reroll and take on VE.

You want me to form a guild for the purpose of entertaining your point that we couldnt do this?

Did you form VE yourself / are you the leader?

Don't fall for that bait lol. You obviously wouldn't just be able to wipe these guild raids within the first few nights if you had a 24 man group of solo players but you would conversely learn how to very quickly and when you start to wipe their raids then they get more ppl and or change their builds then when they wipe yours you would have to get more ppl. This is how it's been going on lately. What I really don't understand is why people feel the need to try and change how other people play. If you don't want to get run over by zergs then set your self up in between flagged keeps where you know players will be running and try and gets some small man action, likewise with mile gates and the sewer entrances. There's also lower pop campaigns that have less zergs and IC can have really good small man action at times. If you really want to play the only objectives we have in cyrodiil though you are going to have to deal with the zergs. I don't think zos imagined having to deal with 20,30,40,50,60 people stacking within the same 8 meter radius but I also don't think they expected keep battles to be a bunch of individual battles going on. Likewise they aren't going to give a solo player or small group of players a way of being able to kill large amounts of players. Although I do see some people asking for this I mainly see people asking to take away from the zergs what makes them so dangerous. The aoe cap should be removed, but as long as their is any aoe in the game people will stack, and if they removed all aoe the. Your small or medium group would have even less of a chance of wiping a group of 24 or more. So what is the exact change people who hate zergs want to see? Because I can't really see any realistic changes that can be made to alleviate your complaints. I've seen y'all say you don't want a single players to be able to just destroy a Zerg but at the same time ask for ways for small groups to deal with zergs... Just removing the aoe cap still wouldn't really give y'all much of a chance unless you get a stealth bomb off or engage them in the right time. I still have seen multiple clips of small and medium groups wiping much larger groups then theirs by engaging correctly and having siege support so I know it can be done in this meta.

Numbers always have an advantage. If a small group or single player is able to wipe a much larger force it does not mean the smaller group is somehow OP, because the larger one must have played worse (wich in this meta can also mean they didn't stack up). Remember the endless batswarms at launch? These were OP, but they would never have been able to wipe a large group of people who knew what they were doing. I wasn't vamp at that time, and I had no problems surviving against that ***, if I was a much better player also killing them.
By 1.5 the game was much more balanced. In a pretty good spot actually, with my main concerns being 1.) Sorcerers being the worst class in groups and 1vX except for Negate and 2.) the still widely underperforming stamina builds. There was no reason to nerf anyone, Templars were crazy good healers, NBs even better tanks then DKs. Both issues could have been solved in very different ways. In fact, both Sorcs and stamina builds became kind of OP compared to the DKs people had been complaining about, though ofc they lost Negate...
In 1.6 players complained about low ttk, "one-shot-builds" etc. For some reason I mostly stopped dueling shortly after the patch hit though. Because the fights were too long. The deciding factor wasn't always skill anymore, it became concentration, the ability to stay awake long enough in such a boring fight! We had basically endless resources, but the cassuals wouldn't realize that. They had never learned to manage their resources correctly, so now most players still couldn't sustain as well as I would in 1.5, and they'd never realize how long fights between skilled players would take as all they saw was getting destroyed within seconds by someone seemingly never running out of resources and rarely getting hit.
And now that they even introduced this damage reduction, there really is absolutely nothing left that would give small groups a fighting chance against larger ones except the stupidity of the latter one. Is that is not a given, you just have no chance.

Valindor Magnus

ToRelax wrote: »

Valindor Magnus wrote: »

FENGRUSH wrote: »

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

FENGRUSH wrote: »

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

I'd like to see these 1vXer's form a 24 man raid that they think could last more than 20 seconds against a competent raid.

Like that would ever happen doe

Are you insinuating I couldnt join VEs group today and perform just as well as everyone else despite having never played in the group or spent time really doing this?

Let me know, Id be happy to oblige.

No, I'm insinuating that you come up with 23 other superduper skilled players and try taking on Haxus, or reroll and take on VE.

You want me to form a guild for the purpose of entertaining your point that we couldnt do this?

Did you form VE yourself / are you the leader?

Don't fall for that bait lol. You obviously wouldn't just be able to wipe these guild raids within the first few nights if you had a 24 man group of solo players but you would conversely learn how to very quickly and when you start to wipe their raids then they get more ppl and or change their builds then when they wipe yours you would have to get more ppl. This is how it's been going on lately. What I really don't understand is why people feel the need to try and change how other people play. If you don't want to get run over by zergs then set your self up in between flagged keeps where you know players will be running and try and gets some small man action, likewise with mile gates and the sewer entrances. There's also lower pop campaigns that have less zergs and IC can have really good small man action at times. If you really want to play the only objectives we have in cyrodiil though you are going to have to deal with the zergs. I don't think zos imagined having to deal with 20,30,40,50,60 people stacking within the same 8 meter radius but I also don't think they expected keep battles to be a bunch of individual battles going on. Likewise they aren't going to give a solo player or small group of players a way of being able to kill large amounts of players. Although I do see some people asking for this I mainly see people asking to take away from the zergs what makes them so dangerous. The aoe cap should be removed, but as long as their is any aoe in the game people will stack, and if they removed all aoe the. Your small or medium group would have even less of a chance of wiping a group of 24 or more. So what is the exact change people who hate zergs want to see? Because I can't really see any realistic changes that can be made to alleviate your complaints. I've seen y'all say you don't want a single players to be able to just destroy a Zerg but at the same time ask for ways for small groups to deal with zergs... Just removing the aoe cap still wouldn't really give y'all much of a chance unless you get a stealth bomb off or engage them in the right time. I still have seen multiple clips of small and medium groups wiping much larger groups then theirs by engaging correctly and having siege support so I know it can be done in this meta.

Numbers always have an advantage. If a small group or single player is able to wipe a much larger force it does not mean the smaller group is somehow OP, because the larger one must have played worse (wich in this meta can also mean they didn't stack up). Remember the endless batswarms at launch? These were OP, but they would never have been able to wipe a large group of people who knew what they were doing. I wasn't vamp at that time, and I had no problems surviving against that ***, if I was a much better player also killing them.
By 1.5 the game was much more balanced. In a pretty good spot actually, with my main concerns being 1.) Sorcerers being the worst class in groups and 1vX except for Negate and 2.) the still widely underperforming stamina builds. There was no reason to nerf anyone, Templars were crazy good healers, NBs even better tanks then DKs. Both issues could have been solved in very different ways. In fact, both Sorcs and stamina builds became kind of OP compared to the DKs people had been complaining about, though ofc they lost Negate...
In 1.6 players complained about low ttk, "one-shot-builds" etc. For some reason I mostly stopped dueling shortly after the patch hit though. Because the fights were too long. The deciding factor wasn't always skill anymore, it became concentration, the ability to stay awake long enough in such a boring fight! We had basically endless resources, but the cassuals wouldn't realize that. They had never learned to manage their resources correctly, so now most players still couldn't sustain as well as I would in 1.5, and they'd never realize how long fights between skilled players would take as all they saw was getting destroyed within seconds by someone seemingly never running out of resources and rarely getting hit.
And now that they even introduced this damage reduction, there really is absolutely nothing left that would give small groups a fighting chance against larger ones except the stupidity of the latter one. Is that is not a given, you just have no chance.

Everyone got the damage reduction and the healing reduction was larger than the damage one so if anything it should be harder to sustain heals than it is to do damage in comparison to 1.6. I still want to know what the exact changes y'all are asking for. I understand it's frustrating even as someone who plays in groups of 16-24 once it gets past 10-12 people you really lose the feeling that you are actually contributing anything to the fight and it just become a mindless pattern of the same thing, but the only options are to go do something else or fight back by doing the same thing. No one is just gonna run in small man groups and die to zergs over and over in objectives because of the principal that "zergs are dumb and I'm not gonna do it" because the fact of the matter is if you want to win campaigns this how it's done atm. I am not advocating for groups of more than 24 to stack up and all coordinate. But the group size right now is 24 if you have a problem with that take it up with zeni not the players who do it.

Zheg

FENGRUSH wrote: »

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

I'd like to see these 1vXer's form a 24 man raid that they think could last more than 20 seconds against a competent raid.

Like that would ever happen doe

Are you insinuating I couldnt join VEs group today and perform just as well as everyone else despite having never played in the group or spent time really doing this?

Let me know, Id be happy to oblige.

Kind of goes to show that you lose/lack perspective when you dont partake in that realm of pvp - each group does in fact run differently, and no, you would not perform as well as our best players on day one until you adjusted and picked up guildies' strengths and weaknesses and individual playstyles. Even though I know the raid dynamic well, I would not make arrogant statements saying I could run with haxus/gos/rage tonight and perform in a raid setting as well as their best players right off the bat, even if I was on equal or better individual skill level to said players.

You could be the best solo player in the game but that does not mean you can function well in a group environment. We'll take our group into pushes that a solo/small man has zero experience engaging and surviving and in some cases yes, the pug we picked up two months ago and trained can outperform you in those situations because they're familiar with us, our calls, our raid leads, etc.

Could you join our group today and perform well? Most likely, if youre capable of following commands and moving as a group and not a solo player. Are you going to perform as well as our best, given that you lack the knowledge one picks up when you run with the same people every day for months? Very doubtful. The same would be true of any organized group. It's not to say you can't pick it up, but to automatically assume just because you solo/small man that you can be on the same level as the best of a raid group on day one when you lack the experience of that playstyle and particular group just goes to show how people in these threads need to ... Well, I have nothing nice to say, so I'll finish here.

Huckdabuck

FENGRUSH wrote: »

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

I'd like to see these 1vXer's form a 24 man raid that they think could last more than 20 seconds against a competent raid.

Like that would ever happen doe

Are you insinuating I couldnt join VEs group today and perform just as well as everyone else despite having never played in the group or spent time really doing this?

Let me know, Id be happy to oblige.

@FENGRUSH If you'd like to come play with us...all you have to do is ask! I'm sure @Satiar or Bulbasir wouldn't mind having you in raid with us to see Cyrodiil from another perspective.

ToRelax

Valindor Magnus wrote: »

ToRelax wrote: »

Valindor Magnus wrote: »

FENGRUSH wrote: »

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

FENGRUSH wrote: »

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

I'd like to see these 1vXer's form a 24 man raid that they think could last more than 20 seconds against a competent raid.

Like that would ever happen doe

Are you insinuating I couldnt join VEs group today and perform just as well as everyone else despite having never played in the group or spent time really doing this?

Let me know, Id be happy to oblige.

No, I'm insinuating that you come up with 23 other superduper skilled players and try taking on Haxus, or reroll and take on VE.

You want me to form a guild for the purpose of entertaining your point that we couldnt do this?

Did you form VE yourself / are you the leader?

Don't fall for that bait lol. You obviously wouldn't just be able to wipe these guild raids within the first few nights if you had a 24 man group of solo players but you would conversely learn how to very quickly and when you start to wipe their raids then they get more ppl and or change their builds then when they wipe yours you would have to get more ppl. This is how it's been going on lately. What I really don't understand is why people feel the need to try and change how other people play. If you don't want to get run over by zergs then set your self up in between flagged keeps where you know players will be running and try and gets some small man action, likewise with mile gates and the sewer entrances. There's also lower pop campaigns that have less zergs and IC can have really good small man action at times. If you really want to play the only objectives we have in cyrodiil though you are going to have to deal with the zergs. I don't think zos imagined having to deal with 20,30,40,50,60 people stacking within the same 8 meter radius but I also don't think they expected keep battles to be a bunch of individual battles going on. Likewise they aren't going to give a solo player or small group of players a way of being able to kill large amounts of players. Although I do see some people asking for this I mainly see people asking to take away from the zergs what makes them so dangerous. The aoe cap should be removed, but as long as their is any aoe in the game people will stack, and if they removed all aoe the. Your small or medium group would have even less of a chance of wiping a group of 24 or more. So what is the exact change people who hate zergs want to see? Because I can't really see any realistic changes that can be made to alleviate your complaints. I've seen y'all say you don't want a single players to be able to just destroy a Zerg but at the same time ask for ways for small groups to deal with zergs... Just removing the aoe cap still wouldn't really give y'all much of a chance unless you get a stealth bomb off or engage them in the right time. I still have seen multiple clips of small and medium groups wiping much larger groups then theirs by engaging correctly and having siege support so I know it can be done in this meta.

Numbers always have an advantage. If a small group or single player is able to wipe a much larger force it does not mean the smaller group is somehow OP, because the larger one must have played worse (wich in this meta can also mean they didn't stack up). Remember the endless batswarms at launch? These were OP, but they would never have been able to wipe a large group of people who knew what they were doing. I wasn't vamp at that time, and I had no problems surviving against that ***, if I was a much better player also killing them.
By 1.5 the game was much more balanced. In a pretty good spot actually, with my main concerns being 1.) Sorcerers being the worst class in groups and 1vX except for Negate and 2.) the still widely underperforming stamina builds. There was no reason to nerf anyone, Templars were crazy good healers, NBs even better tanks then DKs. Both issues could have been solved in very different ways. In fact, both Sorcs and stamina builds became kind of OP compared to the DKs people had been complaining about, though ofc they lost Negate...
In 1.6 players complained about low ttk, "one-shot-builds" etc. For some reason I mostly stopped dueling shortly after the patch hit though. Because the fights were too long. The deciding factor wasn't always skill anymore, it became concentration, the ability to stay awake long enough in such a boring fight! We had basically endless resources, but the cassuals wouldn't realize that. They had never learned to manage their resources correctly, so now most players still couldn't sustain as well as I would in 1.5, and they'd never realize how long fights between skilled players would take as all they saw was getting destroyed within seconds by someone seemingly never running out of resources and rarely getting hit.
And now that they even introduced this damage reduction, there really is absolutely nothing left that would give small groups a fighting chance against larger ones except the stupidity of the latter one. Is that is not a given, you just have no chance.

Everyone got the damage reduction and the healing reduction was larger than the damage one so if anything it should be harder to sustain heals than it is to do damage in comparison to 1.6. I still want to know what the exact changes y'all are asking for. I understand it's frustrating even as someone who plays in groups of 16-24 once it gets past 10-12 people you really lose the feeling that you are actually contributing anything to the fight and it just become a mindless pattern of the same thing, but the only options are to go do something else or fight back by doing the same thing. No one is just gonna run in small man groups and die to zergs over and over in objectives because of the principal that "zergs are dumb and I'm not gonna do it" because the fact of the matter is if you want to win campaigns this how it's done atm. I am not advocating for groups of more than 24 to stack up and all coordinate. But the group size right now is 24 if you have a problem with that take it up with zeni not the players who do it.

- remove AoE caps on damage
- cap all support and healing spells at 6
- invent a new dynamic ult system
- revert the blocking, roll dodge, bolt escape, scales and eclipse nerfs
- deal with Purge: as example, make efficient Purge only selfpurge. It's important to preserve a group purge but it doesn't have to be that easily spammable
- remove the snare and root immunity from Rapid Maneuver. A Purge is okay, an immunity is not.
- increase Impulse radius back to 8m and make WoE competitive again
- make Vigor selfheal only. This is because stamina group heals make no sense to me, but one of my the changes I'd like that also happen to effect zergballs negatively.
- do not increase the CP cap again and greatly reduce the effectiveness of all the stars you can spend points into.
- put continuous diminishing returns on all max stats and regens. These last two points are against unlimited resources and power creep, but they also help against larger forces because if you can face them, you play better, and if you play better, you manage your resources better.
- increase the health multiplier back to 1.5
- remove the cooldown from surge
- change all armor passives back to per piece equipped instead of a set effect for at least 5 pieces. This enables very viable niche setups to combat larger numbers

I'm sure I could think of more. Anyway, it should be clear by now I have a very clear idea what should be done.