Why are Zergs rewarded more AP?

Manoekin

Sypher wrote: »

Swiift wrote: »

The post sounds like a kid saying me, me, me!

How about we address the real issues: cc system, broken mechanics, perma fear, aoe caps, and endless performance problems.

You think I don't know what issues this game has? What have we been doing for the past year with our heads up our own asses.

Let's start picking this apart piece by piece and fix simple things to make the complex things easier to fix.

This is a simple, yet overlooked part of the game that should be addressed in hopes of fixing the bigger picture.

Still waiting on ticks to be based on Participation, too :P

No problems with what you said, btw. Shouldn't cap ap like that.

MrGrimey

easy solution, make every player worth 2,900 AP

manny254

The scaling is not the problem.

The problem is that the current cyrodiil landscape does not offer opportunities for smaller groups. This is mostly due to how IC spread population and the damage reduction.

In 1.6 I regularly competed on the leader board against people playing in full 24 man groups, and I was #1 on every campaign I homed at reset in 1.6. The first 2 times I did it I actually reached #1 through solo play. When we consistently ran small-medium groups (4-12) I would regularly have more than double the points of the closest player who was not in my group.

IxSTALKERxI

I actually agree with Sypher on this one. I brought this point up in a thread several months back and the response we got was that it's not possible to do any calculations based on the number of players in an area as there would be too many checks. Not sure what this had to do with anything as I thought you would simply need to change how dividing AP amoungst players who contributed to killing a player was done.

RÁGE can earn up to double the AP/hr rate per player running in a group of 24 then we do running in a group of 12. Should be the other way round. This is due to the killing power of a 24 man. Removing AoE caps would reduce the killing power of the 24 man thus help bring the AP/hr rates more in line, but even then I think the larger group might still be better off.

I personally prefer playing the AVA objectives in strong 12 man groups which has been possible in the past, but in the current meta against some of the opposition (multiple stacked 24man raids) it's no longer possible. More power needs to be given to the smaller 12 man groups to be able to be competitive with the 24 man groups in order for the game to be a success.

Ara_Valleria

ataggs wrote: »

.BTW, If someone needs AP I'm happy to sell,I've got plenty.

lol

ataggs

I don't have a problem with the discussion itself, I just wish we could leave out the negative labeling of players who have 23 friends they group with. I belong to a pvp guild, not a game ruining Zerg ball- blob.

Zheg

Ara_Valleria wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Bigger question is who cares about AP? These days most guilds I know play for fun fights and objective completions than AP. Even the farming groups are really just attempts to get high number of kills as opposed to high amounts of AP.

Everyone cares about AP. AP is for leaderboards and alliance war ranks and abilities.
I'm surprised a zer..I mean raid leader like yourself question the importance of AP and its demand.
tsk tsk... /disappointed.

Zheg wrote: »

Same reason why most games give bonuses of some kind to groups, whether it's exp or otherwise. It's an mmo. It's supposed to be social, group up.

AP is still fine if you can find good ganking while solo, but why should solo play be optimal when Cyrodiil is meant for mass pvp?

Also, and perhaps more importantly, it seems like you're trying to figure out why people in pvp groups gain more AP than you, and it's not because of the formula you posted. They simply kill more people over the same period of time than you could find solo running between objectives to gank in a field. You have to pick your fights while solo, you can't challenge another raid group. PVP groups have more options, as they should.

Spoken like a true zergling.

On a totally unrelated note... Zheg rhymes with Zerg. Fascinating !

#LetsSocialize
#24v1Style

jkjk

I mean, if you think Zheg rhymes with zerg, you either need speech therapy or are just not all that intelligent - at which point it would be cruel to argue with you. I'm currently leaning towards the latter given that you're calling someone who played solo or duo for 6+ months, and recently in groups <=24, a zergling.

And @Sypher , come now, you're honestly going to say you had no foresight that a thread like this would turn into yet another hysterics-focused rant about whatever arbitrary number someone picked to start saying zerg? I tend to give you a little more credit than that. While I see no problems with adopting an even distribution system for AP (and see little value to AP to even begin with...), AP distribution has been the same since launch; there have been no additions or changes made to that system to promote or discourage solo/small/large group play that should suddenly make this a pressing issue all of a sudden, so if I'm reading between the lines you can't blame me for suspecting this is just another attempt to stoke the flames against group play, for which you could have picked a better cause or contributed to any number of the other threads doing that. I mean, you frame the thread title as "why do zergs get this", and then your OP does math for 1 to 4 and then 24 people. How SHOULD something like that be interpreted? Most would interpret that as you saying 24 people is a zerg, or anything lower but still close to that. Given the things you say, one could even go so far as to assume something like 12 would be a zerg in your eyes considering the way you've framed this thread.

The way AP is awarded is probably on the same scale as ice trebs not being as good as fire trebs in terms of priorities for pvp right now. Healers tend to make more AP than every other role in pvp, is that even and balanced? No. Is that important right now? No. There are far bigger fish to fry, as you should well know.

As for the incentives for large group play, while you and others seem to obviously loathe it, you all tend to conveniently forget the promos for ESO and descriptions of cyrodiil being for large-scale pvp. Maybe the devs actually WANTED to encourage more than 8 people in a group for large scale pvp, and while still allowing it and keeping it perfectly viable, provide disincentives for everyone to run around solo or in a small group as that impedes the ability for alliances to focus on map objectives.

ataggs

^ ^
So much this!

Alucardo

It's like fishing

The more people involved the more likely you are to catch something special, but the hole will become used up faster.
Zerging one player you get more AP, but the player dies faster. It totally makes sense.

Actually no, it makes no sense and it's stupid. What the hell

Lava_Croft

Let's take it one step at a time.

First fix all the actual gameplay buffs that zergs receive, then look at the AP gain. Don't wanna confuse ZOS.

k2blader

MrGrimey wrote: »

k2blader wrote: »

Assuming all four statements are correct, just do 1, 2, or 3 a lot and you'll be earning AP fine.

Yes?

What?

Yeah sorry I was lazy to type everything out and it didn't come off that well, I guess.

I was just trying to say: folks who successfully play solo or small group, which I assume the OP does, earn AP just fine.

Also I'm a bit unsure of the 24 people getting 120 AP each per kill? Been a while since I was in a 24-person pug so I just don't know. I can understand if every person who gets a tag on an enemy gets some AP, but anyone not getting a tag shouldn't be getting AP. Anyway, I just don't know what is actually happening there.

Not to mention half the time zergs probably aren't 24-person groups but smaller sized groups and randoms gravitating toward the same action. So to argue over AP received seems a little peckish.

Glarin

/facedesk

Stikato

This meta is busted. Enjoy running back and forth casting prox det.

Xsorus

It amazes me how many people can't comprehend what sypher is talking about; or if they can they just willfully dismiss it because they happen to be in one of those Zerg groups he's talking about.

Lava_Croft

Stikato wrote: »

This meta is busted. Enjoy running back and forth casting prox det.

"Zerg Buster".

Jules

I agree with @Sypher . I can't see a legitimate reason why Xv1 should result in extra AP created just for the sake of creating it.

Realistically, why not have 1000 AP from one person split X ways, or only award AP to those who actually tagged the target.
It's mechanics such as these that favor large group, again, when enough others already do this. Sure it's simple and small, but it's principle.

Large groups already have the distinct advantage of being the larger group. More heals, damage, eyes, ect. All of these additional mechanics to award the larger group is why we stand where we stand today in a zerged out mess of a server and with 60-70-80+ groups simply running over each other.

Why is everyone incapable of seeing that these mechanics lend themselves to the exponential growth of group size; and the devolution and ultimate failure of the game? No one is saying award the outnumbered group more AP. All anyone is suggesting is that Player X should be worth a flat amount of AP to be equally distributed by the number of members of the group. That doesn't seem that outrageous.

elc8745ub17_ESO

Some of you people are geniuses. And some are not. I will leave this here for educational purposes.

http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/230459/ball-groups-monkeys-pats-on-the-back/p1

On top of all the advantages ball groups get that are described in that thread, they also get more ap per kill.

It is LONG past time to make the game fair again ZOS. It's been way too long. No one is saying or asking for anything extreme here. All that is being asked for is fairness. LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD ZOS.

Ernest145

Zheg wrote: »

Ara_Valleria wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Bigger question is who cares about AP? These days most guilds I know play for fun fights and objective completions than AP. Even the farming groups are really just attempts to get high number of kills as opposed to high amounts of AP.

Everyone cares about AP. AP is for leaderboards and alliance war ranks and abilities.
I'm surprised a zer..I mean raid leader like yourself question the importance of AP and its demand.
tsk tsk... /disappointed.

Zheg wrote: »

Same reason why most games give bonuses of some kind to groups, whether it's exp or otherwise. It's an mmo. It's supposed to be social, group up.

AP is still fine if you can find good ganking while solo, but why should solo play be optimal when Cyrodiil is meant for mass pvp?

Also, and perhaps more importantly, it seems like you're trying to figure out why people in pvp groups gain more AP than you, and it's not because of the formula you posted. They simply kill more people over the same period of time than you could find solo running between objectives to gank in a field. You have to pick your fights while solo, you can't challenge another raid group. PVP groups have more options, as they should.

Spoken like a true zergling.

On a totally unrelated note... Zheg rhymes with Zerg. Fascinating !

#LetsSocialize
#24v1Style

jkjk

I mean, if you think Zheg rhymes with zerg, you either need speech therapy or are just not all that intelligent - at which point it would be cruel to argue with you. I'm currently leaning towards the latter given that you're calling someone who played solo or duo for 6+ months, and recently in groups <=24, a zergling.

And @Sypher , come now, you're honestly going to say you had no foresight that a thread like this would turn into yet another hysterics-focused rant about whatever arbitrary number someone picked to start saying zerg? I tend to give you a little more credit than that. While I see no problems with adopting an even distribution system for AP (and see little value to AP to even begin with...), AP distribution has been the same since launch; there have been no additions or changes made to that system to promote or discourage solo/small/large group play that should suddenly make this a pressing issue all of a sudden, so if I'm reading between the lines you can't blame me for suspecting this is just another attempt to stoke the flames against group play, for which you could have picked a better cause or contributed to any number of the other threads doing that. I mean, you frame the thread title as "why do zergs get this", and then your OP does math for 1 to 4 and then 24 people. How SHOULD something like that be interpreted? Most would interpret that as you saying 24 people is a zerg, or anything lower but still close to that. Given the things you say, one could even go so far as to assume something like 12 would be a zerg in your eyes considering the way you've framed this thread.

The way AP is awarded is probably on the same scale as ice trebs not being as good as fire trebs in terms of priorities for pvp right now. Healers tend to make more AP than every other role in pvp, is that even and balanced? No. Is that important right now? No. There are far bigger fish to fry, as you should well know.

As for the incentives for large group play, while you and others seem to obviously loathe it, you all tend to conveniently forget the promos for ESO and descriptions of cyrodiil being for large-scale pvp. Maybe the devs actually WANTED to encourage more than 8 people in a group for large scale pvp, and while still allowing it and keeping it perfectly viable, provide disincentives for everyone to run around solo or in a small group as that impedes the ability for alliances to focus on map objectives.

Large groups are already encouraged in cyrodiil because you can get more heals, damage, etc. Also, you can take on more numbers and actually have a chance at taking objectives on the map which smaller groups don't. That incentive alone should be enough for people who like large scale pvp to be able to do so while having fun and still being effective. With all the disadvantages that solo players and small groups have why should they also be rewarded less ap? This is not the biggest problem at the moment I know but still it should be changed to make it fair for everybody no matter how they like to play.

Tomato

Please stop making dumb post like this distract to ZOS from the real issues. They would probably implement this and not fix the cc system or broken mechanics. Let's as a community concentrate on the real issues and not get distracted with nonsense like this.

Cryhavoc

Nearly every other mmo I have played has been balanced around a specific size group. Is ESO balanced around 24 person groups? The largest PVE content is for a 12 person group, and the 4 person group for dungeons. We are obviously not balanced around 1v1. So what is it going to be Zos?

Why not balance around a 6-12 person group.

Right now, the most efficient size group in Cyrodiil is minimum 20, larger is better. As Sypher pointed out, those larger groups receive the most benefit. The game is broken in that there is ZERO way to combat this size group when they exploit the AOE caps.

Zerg, ball groups, blurbs, blobs, whatever....

Give the 6-12 person groups a closer look!

PS. And fix some of these game breaking bugs that I see every day in Cyrodiil

Draxys

Alucardo wrote: »

It's like fishing or-gies

The more people involved the more likely you are to catch something special, but the hole will become used up faster.

Draxys

Really guys? Orgiesz is a banned word?

Zheg

Hey @Sypher , why don't you go ahead and define what you think a zerg is for everybody? The exact number. From you:

"ALL THE GROUPS listed above, are rewarded LESS AP per kill as a whole compared to a group of 20-24 people"

So 20 is a zerg? What about 16? 12? I have a feeling once you actually say your magic number people will start to realize that every time you say zerg you really just mean not your streamed solo play. You can misdirect and say that you're fighting for the mighty group of 8 (you're not), but the fact that your thread is focused on AP for zergs and 20 is one of the numbers you're alluding is a zerg pretty much says it all. Frankly I think everyone that calls a single raid group a zerg isn't playing with a full deck, but hey, that's just me, and the actual definition of the word. The vitriol that you guys seems to have towards group play is disgusting, and legitimate skillful group play always seems to get lumped in with the folks that stack 3+ raids on top of each other. These two things are not even remotely the same, but if you're going to equate them as such, at least be open and honest about it. Just look at the posts that have stemmed from this already and the hate that the usual suspects continue to foment against group play - the exact intention of Cyrodiil.

You even go so far as to say "FOCUS PEOPLE. Please, it's already hard enough to portray the message to the devs in a fashion that can get things fixed. Let's not make it even harder" and yet clearly didn't get the memo from the multiple intelligent pvp'ers in this thread that this is a topic of miniscule importance and the message portrayed to devs should be focused on that things that are actually priorities. People say, "oh, he's a zergling and defending all of that extra AP he gets!" - who gives an eff about AP right now? None of us do. Gotta buy all dem l33t motifs? Get real. In fact, I'd suggest that someone running around spamming heals would end up getting more AP than a dps in a group of 20, and more AP than a solo ganker. Why has THAT not been raised as part of the issue? Oh right, because it doesn't fit into the 'group play is bad' message you and the usual suspects are trying to push.

As I said in my previous post, I have no problems with an even distribution system for AP. But this is a very low priority, there is a lot of BS to be called out in this thread, and you've framed the thread as hostile as you could and allude a group of 20 is a zerg - what kind of constructive discussion did you think would come from this? Unless you weren't looking for constructive discussion and were hoping for yet another hysterical rant about the dreaded 'zerg' - which again, for you, is what? 12? 16? 20? think we've already confirmed 20 for you, but does that go lower?

Ernest145

Zheg wrote: »

Hey @Sypher , why don't you go ahead and define what you think a zerg is for everybody? The exact number. From you:

"ALL THE GROUPS listed above, are rewarded LESS AP per kill as a whole compared to a group of 20-24 people"

So 20 is a zerg? What about 16? 12? I have a feeling once you actually say your magic number people will start to realize that every time you say zerg you really just mean not your streamed solo play. You can misdirect and say that you're fighting for the mighty group of 8 (you're not), but the fact that your thread is focused on AP for zergs and 20 is one of the numbers you're alluding is a zerg pretty much says it all. Frankly I think everyone that calls a single raid group a zerg isn't playing with a full deck, but hey, that's just me, and the actual definition of the word. The vitriol that you guys seems to have towards group play is disgusting, and legitimate skillful group play always seems to get lumped in with the folks that stack 3+ raids on top of each other. These two things are not even remotely the same, but if you're going to equate them as such, at least be open and honest about it. Just look at the posts that have stemmed from this already and the hate that the usual suspects continue to foment against group play - the exact intention of Cyrodiil.

You even go so far as to say "FOCUS PEOPLE. Please, it's already hard enough to portray the message to the devs in a fashion that can get things fixed. Let's not make it even harder" and yet clearly didn't get the memo from the multiple intelligent pvp'ers in this thread that this is a topic of miniscule importance and the message portrayed to devs should be focused on that things that are actually priorities. People say, "oh, he's a zergling and defending all of that extra AP he gets!" - who gives an eff about AP right now? None of us do. Gotta buy all dem l33t motifs? Get real. In fact, I'd suggest that someone running around spamming heals would end up getting more AP than a dps in a group of 20, and more AP than a solo ganker. Why has THAT not been raised as part of the issue? Oh right, because it doesn't fit into the 'group play is bad' message you and the usual suspects are trying to push.

As I said in my previous post, I have no problems with an even distribution system for AP. But this is a very low priority, there is a lot of BS to be called out in this thread, and you've framed the thread as hostile as you could and allude a group of 20 is a zerg - what kind of constructive discussion did you think would come from this? Unless you weren't looking for constructive discussion and were hoping for yet another hysterical rant about the dreaded 'zerg' - which again, for you, is what? 12? 16? 20? think we've already confirmed 20 for you, but does that go lower?

Does it really matter what his definition of a zerg is? First of all he didn't even say a group of 20-24 is a zerg, you would notice that if you actually thoroughly read his comments. He was just using those numbers to show us how the ap gets split up and also how groups of 20-24 are getting more ap per kill. But I may be wrong and he could be calling groups of 20 a zerg but tbh his intentions don't matter because what he is stating is facts. How large groups get more ap per kill on top of the advantages they already have over small groups or solo players ap wise. Yes you are correct this is not the highest priority but still it matters and should be looked at, does not mean it has to be fixed immediately but at least let zos know so they can decide what they want to do.

Also, I don't believe players get really upset about large scale battles and zergs fighting each other or whatever. Players get mad about this "blob" meta that almost all pvp guilds including yours have adopted, which makes then unkillable because of aoe caps and also the lag they cause. But that is my opinion and I could be wrong about what others think of course.

MrGrimey

@zheg

AP is very important if you are grinding caltrops or inevitable detonation. The "Zerg" I run with all care about AP. The difference between AP gain from a small group and large group is staggering and needs to be examined. In fact, I finally joined a zerging guild this week, I made more AP in a day then I did all week on my own.

Also, nobody is saying that performance isn't a issue and that Zerg AP gain is a major problem in pvp. But it's no secret that Zergs are a major contributor to lag and performance issues in pvp. Zergs should not be so encouraged if the game can't handle so many players on the screen. Zergs already have a ton of bonuses and game mechanics in their favor, changes need to be made to encourage players too spread out and cause less strain on the server. AP gain is one of those issue along with AOE caps

Sypher

Zheg wrote: »

Hey @Sypher , why don't you go ahead and define what you think a zerg is for everybody? The exact number. From you:

"ALL THE GROUPS listed above, are rewarded LESS AP per kill as a whole compared to a group of 20-24 people"

So 20 is a zerg? What about 16? 12? I have a feeling once you actually say your magic number people will start to realize that every time you say zerg you really just mean not your streamed solo play. You can misdirect and say that you're fighting for the mighty group of 8 (you're not), but the fact that your thread is focused on AP for zergs and 20 is one of the numbers you're alluding is a zerg pretty much says it all. Frankly I think everyone that calls a single raid group a zerg isn't playing with a full deck, but hey, that's just me, and the actual definition of the word. The vitriol that you guys seems to have towards group play is disgusting, and legitimate skillful group play always seems to get lumped in with the folks that stack 3+ raids on top of each other. These two things are not even remotely the same, but if you're going to equate them as such, at least be open and honest about it. Just look at the posts that have stemmed from this already and the hate that the usual suspects continue to foment against group play - the exact intention of Cyrodiil.

You even go so far as to say "FOCUS PEOPLE. Please, it's already hard enough to portray the message to the devs in a fashion that can get things fixed. Let's not make it even harder" and yet clearly didn't get the memo from the multiple intelligent pvp'ers in this thread that this is a topic of miniscule importance and the message portrayed to devs should be focused on that things that are actually priorities. People say, "oh, he's a zergling and defending all of that extra AP he gets!" - who gives an eff about AP right now? None of us do. Gotta buy all dem l33t motifs? Get real. In fact, I'd suggest that someone running around spamming heals would end up getting more AP than a dps in a group of 20, and more AP than a solo ganker. Why has THAT not been raised as part of the issue? Oh right, because it doesn't fit into the 'group play is bad' message you and the usual suspects are trying to push.

As I said in my previous post, I have no problems with an even distribution system for AP. But this is a very low priority, there is a lot of BS to be called out in this thread, and you've framed the thread as hostile as you could and allude a group of 20 is a zerg - what kind of constructive discussion did you think would come from this? Unless you weren't looking for constructive discussion and were hoping for yet another hysterical rant about the dreaded 'zerg' - which again, for you, is what? 12? 16? 20? think we've already confirmed 20 for you, but does that go lower?

My Apologize.

If I had known my message would get drowned out by using the term 'Zerg' in the title then I wouldn't have used that word. My definition of a Zerg isn't really of importance. But, I can see how the word causes a negative connotation. I feel the same way when I'm categorized as a 'Ganker'. So, I do understand your point of you and apologize.

If you want my honest opinion, I don't mind "zergs" those groups aren't ruining my game play or performance. To me, a group of 12-16 or more players, stacked up so tight into a ball is FAR worse to the game than a group of 20-24 players.

Zheg

Ernest145 wrote: »

Does it really matter what his definition of a zerg is? First of all he didn't even say a group of 20-24 is a zerg, you would notice that if you actually thoroughly read his comments. He was just using those numbers to show us how the ap gets split up and also how groups of 20-24 are getting more ap per kill. But I may be wrong and he could be calling groups of 20 a zerg but tbh his intentions don't matter because what he is stating is facts. How large groups get more ap per kill on top of the advantages they already have over small groups or solo players ap wise. Yes you are correct this is not the highest priority but still it matters and should be looked at, does not mean it has to be fixed immediately but at least let zos know so they can decide what they want to do.

Also, I don't believe players get really upset about large scale battles and zergs fighting each other or whatever. Players get mad about this "blob" meta that almost all pvp guilds including yours have adopted, which makes then unkillable because of aoe caps and also the lag they cause. But that is my opinion and I could be wrong about what others think of course.

The thread title is "Why are Zergs rewarded more AP", his OP goes up to 24 players for math, and then in a follow up post he drops down to 20. How should any intelligent person interpret that? I interpret that as him starting the conversation off as calling anyone that runs in a group of 20 (or less?) a zerg and looking to pick a fight. As for why his definition of a zerg should matter, it speaks to the intention behind his thread and whether he was just looking to create even more forum drama and stoke yet another thread into an anti-group play mentality, or whether he legitimately thought this was such a pressing issue that would go a long way towards fixing whatever imbalance there is between solo/small/large group play. Because if it's the former, it's troll worthy. If it's the latter, it's evidence that he doesn't have as good a grasp as to what the real problems in pvp are as he and others seem to think he does.

As to all of the advantages that large groups get over solo/small groups, the argument is always focused on what "they have and I don't". Small players can go where and when they want, can afford to run far more diverse and survivable builds for fights, don't have to wait for other players coming back from an afk, don't have to listen to a crown, don't have to worry about someone else popping them out of stealth at on inopportune time or doing something to cause their death, don't have to be accountable at least to some extent to the alliance and /zone chat and can fight in a field all day long instead of pushing objectives, and most importantly, don't have to put up with the pure vitriol that comes from so many of the playerbase because you chose to actually make friends and group up for pvp that night. Back when Jules used to run on blue she'd lose fights because she was running in a group that night and had to have group-oriented skill bars. A very good pvper would lose fights because she was in a group and her skill bar was handicapped for the many times (yes, many) a group player encounters a 1v1 or small group fight while away from their own group. Somehow though, these kinds of disadvantages for large group players are apparently meaningless or blatantly ignored by this crowd so they can focus on all of the disadvantages they have.

Are there legitimate discrepancies between solo/small group and large group play regarding mechanics? Absolutely. Are things even and balanced? No. But almost never in these conversations do I hear a balanced argument that even admits the benefits that solo/small groups have - all I hear are complaints and insults. So how can devs even hope to balance things (whatever that means) when one side is disingenuous throughout the entire discussion? And who is to say that the devs don't want there to be more incentives for large group play given all of the evidence we have that this was their intention since launch since it makes for better advertising videos and allows players to actually interact with the only objectives the map has?

MrGrimey

Lol at the "benefits" that small groups have you listed... Literally nothing you listed has anything to do with game mechanics like the benefits that Zergs receive.

Small groups would also stand a better chance if they also didn't have to fight against the lag that Zergs bring with them. Small groups need the game to be much more responsive in order to coordinate and fight against AOE spamming blobs

ataggs

MrGrimey wrote: »

Lol at the "benefits" that small groups have you listed... Literally nothing you listed has anything to do with game mechanics like the benefits that Zergs receive.

Small groups would also stand a better chance if they also didn't have to fight against the lag that Zergs bring with them. Small groups need the game to be much more responsive in order to coordinate and fight against AOE spamming blobs

Hook, line, and sinker. This is the discussion the OP wants and it has zero to do with AP gain. Well done!

Zheg

MrGrimey wrote: »

Lol at the "benefits" that small groups have you listed... Literally nothing you listed has anything to do with game mechanics like the benefits that Zergs receive.

Small groups would also stand a better chance if they also didn't have to fight against the lag that Zergs bring with them. Small groups need the game to be much more responsive in order to coordinate and fight against AOE spamming blobs

Right, because being able to run builds that are more survivable and honed towards the 1v1 and small group fights that group players have to engage in while also solo or in a small group (away from the main raid) multiple times a night provides no benefit at all for you during those fights.

"I'd like to present exhibit A to the court for how solo/small group players are consistently disingenuous in the discussion and want to only ever focus on the disadvantages they have."

As to the other benefits, it speaks to the fact that solo/small group players have more freedom than large group players have during the night. That doesn't necessarily translate into combat wins, but they are certainly perks that large group players don't get to enjoy. As I said at the bottom of the post, things are hardly equal, but as you so eloquently proved, your side of the argument never wants to even admit that there are some advantages to running solo or in a small group, so why even bother having the debate?