Why are Zergs rewarded more AP?

Zheg

Sypher wrote: »

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.

I'd still love to hear what you actually think constitutes a zerg, because I think that speaks to where you're coming from during all of these threads/posts/videos, and I wonder if the people that parrot your viewpoints would then pause and wonder if the situations you complain about zergs are in fact the same situations that they feel warrant complaining about. I suspect your interpretation is far lower than most people's.

The last paragraph pretty much gets at the point I'm trying to make though. AP distribution is laughable in terms of importance right now, and I'd assume you know this. Of all of the legitimate discrepancies between solo/small group and large group play, this is the axe you pick to grind? Really? I suspect this is just a straw man argument to provide another venue to gripe about the 12-16 man balls that you detest. And if you truly thought AP distribution should be a priority for the devs to fix, I'd argue that diminishes the credibility people should give you for having a grasp of the important issues impeding pvp in ESO.

MrGrimey

Zheg wrote: »

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?

The discussion is about the game mechanic advantages that Zergs have over small groups... Not some arbitrary "benefits" you made up that don't do anything for small groups in the battlefield.

Zheg

MrGrimey wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

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?

The discussion is about the game mechanic advantages that Zergs have over small groups... Not some arbitrary "benefits" you made up that don't do anything for small groups in the battlefield.

You seem to be incapable of following, so I'll try to phrase it yet again.

People playing in large groups have to run group-oriented bars that are quite lackluster when they engage in solo or small skirmishes. People playing in large groups have to engage in these kinds of fights many times throughout the night, which may come as a surprise to you. People playing in small groups or solo do NOT have to handicap their build/skillbar and therefore have a distinct advantage during the 1v1 or small skirmishes that people in large groups so often have to engage in.

How, in what world, is that an arbitrary ::airquotes:: benefit? You may not think it's all that important (though it is...) but the fact that you refuse to even admit that it's a benefit is indicative of what you and everyone else on that side of the debate does in these discussions. I, and everyone else that plays in large groups for pvp, completely revamp my skill bar and sometimes my gear when I want to go play solo or with a friend or two. That should say something. And if you're still incapable of understanding, I know not what to do with you.

Jura23

Zheg wrote: »

MrGrimey wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

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?

The discussion is about the game mechanic advantages that Zergs have over small groups... Not some arbitrary "benefits" you made up that don't do anything for small groups in the battlefield.

You seem to be incapable of following, so I'll try to phrase it yet again.

People playing in large groups have to run group-oriented bars that are quite lackluster when they engage in solo or small skirmishes. People playing in large groups have to engage in these kinds of fights many times throughout the night, which may come as a surprise to you. People playing in small groups or solo do NOT have to handicap their build/skillbar and therefore have a distinct advantage during the 1v1 or small skirmishes that people in large groups so often have to engage in.

How, in what world, is that an arbitrary ::airquotes:: benefit? You may not think it's all that important (though it is...) but the fact that you refuse to even admit that it's a benefit is indicative of what you and everyone else on that side of the debate does in these discussions. I, and everyone else that plays in large groups for pvp, completely revamp my skill bar and sometimes my gear when I want to go play solo or with a friend or two. That should say something. And if you're still incapable of understanding, I know not what to do with you.

They don't have to. They choose to do so. Which is pretty significant difference.

Zheg

Jura23 wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

MrGrimey wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

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?

The discussion is about the game mechanic advantages that Zergs have over small groups... Not some arbitrary "benefits" you made up that don't do anything for small groups in the battlefield.

You seem to be incapable of following, so I'll try to phrase it yet again.

People playing in large groups have to run group-oriented bars that are quite lackluster when they engage in solo or small skirmishes. People playing in large groups have to engage in these kinds of fights many times throughout the night, which may come as a surprise to you. People playing in small groups or solo do NOT have to handicap their build/skillbar and therefore have a distinct advantage during the 1v1 or small skirmishes that people in large groups so often have to engage in.

How, in what world, is that an arbitrary ::airquotes:: benefit? You may not think it's all that important (though it is...) but the fact that you refuse to even admit that it's a benefit is indicative of what you and everyone else on that side of the debate does in these discussions. I, and everyone else that plays in large groups for pvp, completely revamp my skill bar and sometimes my gear when I want to go play solo or with a friend or two. That should say something. And if you're still incapable of understanding, I know not what to do with you.

They don't have to. They choose to do so. Which is pretty significant difference.

You can choose not to, but when you engage another large group, they will have a significant advantage. So yes, you pretty much need to make your skill bars more group-oriented. Either you have a disadvantage when fighting other large groups (which usually means more because those fights happen to determine control of map objectives), or you have a disadvantage during small skirmishes away from your group. It should be obvious why almost everyone chooses to not be disadvantaged during the group v group fights, meaning that the solo/small group has the advantage during those small skirmishes.

For some classes and builds this means swapping out a single skill, for others, far more. Either way, it's an advantage, one that is like pulling teeth to get some people to even acknowledge. I mean, the entire last few posts are about people refusing to admit even a single advantage to being solo or in a small group. No one is saying things are perfectly balanced, but the fact that people insist they have zero advantages just shows how ridiculous these debates are.

MrGrimey

Zheg wrote: »

MrGrimey wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

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?

The discussion is about the game mechanic advantages that Zergs have over small groups... Not some arbitrary "benefits" you made up that don't do anything for small groups in the battlefield.

You seem to be incapable of following, so I'll try to phrase it yet again.

People playing in large groups have to run group-oriented bars that are quite lackluster when they engage in solo or small skirmishes. People playing in large groups have to engage in these kinds of fights many times throughout the night, which may come as a surprise to you. People playing in small groups or solo do NOT have to handicap their build/skillbar and therefore have a distinct advantage during the 1v1 or small skirmishes that people in large groups so often have to engage in.

How, in what world, is that an arbitrary ::airquotes:: benefit? You may not think it's all that important (though it is...) but the fact that you refuse to even admit that it's a benefit is indicative of what you and everyone else on that side of the debate does in these discussions. I, and everyone else that plays in large groups for pvp, completely revamp my skill bar and sometimes my gear when I want to go play solo or with a friend or two. That should say something. And if you're still incapable of understanding, I know not what to do with you.

Kinda like saying it's better to be homeless because then you don't have to worry about paying your landlord rent, or go to work.

Zheg

MrGrimey wrote: »

Kinda like saying it's better to be homeless because then you don't have to worry about paying your landlord rent, or go to work.

Not even remotely applicable or coherent. I've laid it out multiple times for you, the last one being as direct and easy to digest as possible. You clearly want nothing to do with logic, so what's the point?

Xsorus

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.

24 people is a zerg..this shouldn't be up for argument.

Jura23

Zheg wrote: »

Jura23 wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

MrGrimey wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

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?

The discussion is about the game mechanic advantages that Zergs have over small groups... Not some arbitrary "benefits" you made up that don't do anything for small groups in the battlefield.

You seem to be incapable of following, so I'll try to phrase it yet again.

People playing in large groups have to run group-oriented bars that are quite lackluster when they engage in solo or small skirmishes. People playing in large groups have to engage in these kinds of fights many times throughout the night, which may come as a surprise to you. People playing in small groups or solo do NOT have to handicap their build/skillbar and therefore have a distinct advantage during the 1v1 or small skirmishes that people in large groups so often have to engage in.

How, in what world, is that an arbitrary ::airquotes:: benefit? You may not think it's all that important (though it is...) but the fact that you refuse to even admit that it's a benefit is indicative of what you and everyone else on that side of the debate does in these discussions. I, and everyone else that plays in large groups for pvp, completely revamp my skill bar and sometimes my gear when I want to go play solo or with a friend or two. That should say something. And if you're still incapable of understanding, I know not what to do with you.

They don't have to. They choose to do so. Which is pretty significant difference.

You can choose not to, but when you engage another large group, they will have a significant advantage. So yes, you pretty much need to make your skill bars more group-oriented. Either you have a disadvantage when fighting other large groups (which usually means more because those fights happen to determine control of map objectives), or you have a disadvantage during small skirmishes away from your group. It should be obvious why almost everyone chooses to not be disadvantaged during the group v group fights, meaning that the solo/small group has the advantage during those small skirmishes.

For some classes and builds this means swapping out a single skill, for others, far more. Either way, it's an advantage, one that is like pulling teeth to get some people to even acknowledge. I mean, the entire last few posts are about people refusing to admit even a single advantage to being solo or in a small group. No one is saying things are perfectly balanced, but the fact that people insist they have zero advantages just shows how ridiculous these debates are.

Everything has its pros and cons. So what is your point exactly?

Zheg

Jura23 wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

Jura23 wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

MrGrimey wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

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?

The discussion is about the game mechanic advantages that Zergs have over small groups... Not some arbitrary "benefits" you made up that don't do anything for small groups in the battlefield.

You seem to be incapable of following, so I'll try to phrase it yet again.

People playing in large groups have to run group-oriented bars that are quite lackluster when they engage in solo or small skirmishes. People playing in large groups have to engage in these kinds of fights many times throughout the night, which may come as a surprise to you. People playing in small groups or solo do NOT have to handicap their build/skillbar and therefore have a distinct advantage during the 1v1 or small skirmishes that people in large groups so often have to engage in.

How, in what world, is that an arbitrary ::airquotes:: benefit? You may not think it's all that important (though it is...) but the fact that you refuse to even admit that it's a benefit is indicative of what you and everyone else on that side of the debate does in these discussions. I, and everyone else that plays in large groups for pvp, completely revamp my skill bar and sometimes my gear when I want to go play solo or with a friend or two. That should say something. And if you're still incapable of understanding, I know not what to do with you.

They don't have to. They choose to do so. Which is pretty significant difference.

You can choose not to, but when you engage another large group, they will have a significant advantage. So yes, you pretty much need to make your skill bars more group-oriented. Either you have a disadvantage when fighting other large groups (which usually means more because those fights happen to determine control of map objectives), or you have a disadvantage during small skirmishes away from your group. It should be obvious why almost everyone chooses to not be disadvantaged during the group v group fights, meaning that the solo/small group has the advantage during those small skirmishes.

For some classes and builds this means swapping out a single skill, for others, far more. Either way, it's an advantage, one that is like pulling teeth to get some people to even acknowledge. I mean, the entire last few posts are about people refusing to admit even a single advantage to being solo or in a small group. No one is saying things are perfectly balanced, but the fact that people insist they have zero advantages just shows how ridiculous these debates are.

Everything has its pros and cons. So what is your point exactly?

The point is that there ARE some cons to being in a large group, and none of the peanut gallery is even capable of admitting that. Don't believe me? Just scroll up.

@Xsorus , agree to disagree, but thank you for reaffirming that the goal of threads like this isn't to improve solo/small group play, but to create yet ANOTHER thread bashing large group play and throwing out the word 'zerg' because it makes people feel better. Gold star Sypher, goal achieved.

MrGrimey

Zheg wrote: »

MrGrimey wrote: »

Kinda like saying it's better to be homeless because then you don't have to worry about paying your landlord rent, or go to work.

Not even remotely applicable or coherent. I've laid it out multiple times for you, the last one being as direct and easy to digest as possible. You clearly want nothing to do with logic, so what's the point?

The thing is, people in Zergs don't have to run group skills to still have a massive advantage. You seem to be forgetting that. Maybe you should go back to reading your list of "benefits" to see just how arbitrary your list is and they have nothing to do with game mechanics, but rather player choice.

You're grasping for straws at this point and you're logic is so skewed and bias. You're right, there is no point in responding to you anymore

Keep up the great logic

Satiar

Xsorus wrote: »

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.

24 people is a zerg..this shouldn't be up for argument.

One group a Zerg, lawl.

Satiar

MrGrimey wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

MrGrimey wrote: »

Kinda like saying it's better to be homeless because then you don't have to worry about paying your landlord rent, or go to work.

Not even remotely applicable or coherent. I've laid it out multiple times for you, the last one being as direct and easy to digest as possible. You clearly want nothing to do with logic, so what's the point?

The thing is, people in Zergs don't have to run group skills to still have a massive advantage. You seem to be forgetting that. Maybe you should go back to reading your list of "benefits" to see just how arbitrary your list is and they have nothing to do with game mechanics, but rather player choice.

You're grasping for straws at this point and you're logic is so skewed and bias. You're right, there is no point in responding to you anymore

Keep up the great logic

If a group wants to be competitive and not free AP for any semi serious group they fight, than yes they have to run group builds.

The lack of knowledge as to how groups work on this forum is lol-worthy.

Jura23

Xsorus wrote: »

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.

24 people is a zerg..this shouldn't be up for argument.

Since the game can't handle fight of 2 such groups. Yeah, it is. I would define zerg as a group that is large enough to hurt the game's performance.

I know it's not their fault, it's fault of the game. But they are still zerg.

Sypher

Zheg wrote: »

Jura23 wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

Jura23 wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

MrGrimey wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

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?

The discussion is about the game mechanic advantages that Zergs have over small groups... Not some arbitrary "benefits" you made up that don't do anything for small groups in the battlefield.

You seem to be incapable of following, so I'll try to phrase it yet again.

People playing in large groups have to run group-oriented bars that are quite lackluster when they engage in solo or small skirmishes. People playing in large groups have to engage in these kinds of fights many times throughout the night, which may come as a surprise to you. People playing in small groups or solo do NOT have to handicap their build/skillbar and therefore have a distinct advantage during the 1v1 or small skirmishes that people in large groups so often have to engage in.

How, in what world, is that an arbitrary ::airquotes:: benefit? You may not think it's all that important (though it is...) but the fact that you refuse to even admit that it's a benefit is indicative of what you and everyone else on that side of the debate does in these discussions. I, and everyone else that plays in large groups for pvp, completely revamp my skill bar and sometimes my gear when I want to go play solo or with a friend or two. That should say something. And if you're still incapable of understanding, I know not what to do with you.

They don't have to. They choose to do so. Which is pretty significant difference.

You can choose not to, but when you engage another large group, they will have a significant advantage. So yes, you pretty much need to make your skill bars more group-oriented. Either you have a disadvantage when fighting other large groups (which usually means more because those fights happen to determine control of map objectives), or you have a disadvantage during small skirmishes away from your group. It should be obvious why almost everyone chooses to not be disadvantaged during the group v group fights, meaning that the solo/small group has the advantage during those small skirmishes.

For some classes and builds this means swapping out a single skill, for others, far more. Either way, it's an advantage, one that is like pulling teeth to get some people to even acknowledge. I mean, the entire last few posts are about people refusing to admit even a single advantage to being solo or in a small group. No one is saying things are perfectly balanced, but the fact that people insist they have zero advantages just shows how ridiculous these debates are.

Everything has its pros and cons. So what is your point exactly?

The point is that there ARE some cons to being in a large group, and none of the peanut gallery is even capable of admitting that. Don't believe me? Just scroll up.

@Xsorus , agree to disagree, but thank you for reaffirming that the goal of threads like this isn't to improve solo/small group play, but to create yet ANOTHER thread bashing large group play and throwing out the word 'zerg' because it makes people feel better. Gold star Sypher, goal achieved.

Maybe.. just maybe, I just want a fair AP distribution and that's the only reason I created this thread. What would I get out of bashing zergs?


If you want my honest opinion regarding what constitutes a zerg. Any group large enough to CONSISTENTLY cause the server performance to plummet is regarded as a Zerg to me. (emphasis on the word CONSISTENTLY) The blame mainly falls on the servers so I'm not mad at people for running these groups, but these groups that cause a negative effect on performance shouldn't be encouraged/rewarded as much as they do over smaller groups. This is a step to prevent further server issues.

ToRelax

Zheg wrote: »

MrGrimey wrote: »

Kinda like saying it's better to be homeless because then you don't have to worry about paying your landlord rent, or go to work.

Not even remotely applicable or coherent. I've laid it out multiple times for you, the last one being as direct and easy to digest as possible. You clearly want nothing to do with logic, so what's the point?

Actually the quoted comparison hits the nail on top, if that's a phrase in english.

You tell us large group players not only have advantages over small group players, but also disadvantages. Because they have to change their bars for large group combat. The truth behind that, however, is that because of a large scale meta that is seen a problem by many small (and large) scale players, requires these skillbars, that happen to put you at a significant disadvantage outside your large group. That means, a large group player has the advantage to be able to make use of it, while a player who refuses to follow the zergball meta does not even have a place in large scale combat and is therefore only playing small scale PvP.
It's like someone complaining his racing car isn't the perfect vehicle to get him to the racecourse. Rediculous.

MrGrimey

Satiar wrote: »

MrGrimey wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

MrGrimey wrote: »

Kinda like saying it's better to be homeless because then you don't have to worry about paying your landlord rent, or go to work.

Not even remotely applicable or coherent. I've laid it out multiple times for you, the last one being as direct and easy to digest as possible. You clearly want nothing to do with logic, so what's the point?

The thing is, people in Zergs don't have to run group skills to still have a massive advantage. You seem to be forgetting that. Maybe you should go back to reading your list of "benefits" to see just how arbitrary your list is and they have nothing to do with game mechanics, but rather player choice.

You're grasping for straws at this point and you're logic is so skewed and bias. You're right, there is no point in responding to you anymore

Keep up the great logic

If a group wants to be competitive and not free AP for any semi serious group they fight, than yes they have to run group builds.

The lack of knowledge as to how groups work on this forum is lol-worthy.

I run in a group/Zerg everyday and the AP gain is astounding compared to when I was running solo or in a small group.

You guys are over exaggerating the "skill" it takes to run in a large group. Maybe I'm just a gifted player, but it's not that hard or a big hindrance to put a group ability on your bar. Even then, solo builds are fine for group play since they focus on survivability and single target burst. It's always good to have a few players that can focus the healers in the other group

The thing is, I'm speaking on experience from both sides, small and large groups. Many of you group players wouldn't be caught dead without at least 10 other players by your side.

Zheg

Sypher wrote: »

If you want my honest opinion regarding what constitutes a zerg. Any group large enough to CONSISTENTLY cause the server performance to plummet is regarded as a Zerg to me. (emphasis on the word CONSISTENTLY) The blame mainly falls on the servers so I'm not mad at people for running these groups, but these groups that cause a negative effect on performance shouldn't be encouraged/rewarded as much as they do over smaller groups. This is a step to prevent further server issues.

So then if the pendulum swings the other way and AP distribution, and all of the other things you harp on are patched and it's far more favorable to run solo or small groups, and now you just have a gigantic mass of multiple 1-5 man groups at keeps and the performance STILL drops, are each of these 1-5 man groups a zerg? Who becomes the scapegoat then?

We did a long, painful siege against a well-defend chalman last night, and after getting the inner down, left the keep because another blue raid showed up (at least) and performance plummeted before we were about to engage the reds inside. And yet we are the boogeyman that zergs and is to blame for all of the performance issues according to the posts that your thread promotes. While you may diplomatically choose your words, you share guilt in having fostered the anti-group atmosphere that's currently present.

Zheg

MrGrimey wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

MrGrimey wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

MrGrimey wrote: »

Kinda like saying it's better to be homeless because then you don't have to worry about paying your landlord rent, or go to work.

Not even remotely applicable or coherent. I've laid it out multiple times for you, the last one being as direct and easy to digest as possible. You clearly want nothing to do with logic, so what's the point?

The thing is, people in Zergs don't have to run group skills to still have a massive advantage. You seem to be forgetting that. Maybe you should go back to reading your list of "benefits" to see just how arbitrary your list is and they have nothing to do with game mechanics, but rather player choice.

You're grasping for straws at this point and you're logic is so skewed and bias. You're right, there is no point in responding to you anymore

Keep up the great logic

If a group wants to be competitive and not free AP for any semi serious group they fight, than yes they have to run group builds.

The lack of knowledge as to how groups work on this forum is lol-worthy.

I run in a group/Zerg everyday and the AP gain is astounding compared to when I was running solo or in a small group.

You guys are over exaggerating the "skill" it takes to run in a large group. Maybe I'm just a gifted player, but it's not that hard or a big hindrance to put a group ability on your bar. Even then, solo builds are fine for group play since they focus on survivability and single target burst. It's always good to have a few players that can focus the healers in the other group

The thing is, I'm speaking on experience from both sides, small and large groups. Many of you group players wouldn't be caught dead without at least 10 other players by your side.

Frankly, it's a little insulting to assume that none of us have ever solo'd or small manned. In fact, I'd say the super majority of us (can't speak for other guilds) started off doing just that. Many of our guildies will stay up late at night and solo or small man after the raid is over, so you come of like a ... making assumptions like that.

And if we somehow over-exaggerate the skill it takes to run in a large group, everyone else is equally guilty of underestimating the skill as the majority of posts of that nature insist it takes zero skill at all.

Satiar

MrGrimey wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

MrGrimey wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

MrGrimey wrote: »

Kinda like saying it's better to be homeless because then you don't have to worry about paying your landlord rent, or go to work.

Not even remotely applicable or coherent. I've laid it out multiple times for you, the last one being as direct and easy to digest as possible. You clearly want nothing to do with logic, so what's the point?

The thing is, people in Zergs don't have to run group skills to still have a massive advantage. You seem to be forgetting that. Maybe you should go back to reading your list of "benefits" to see just how arbitrary your list is and they have nothing to do with game mechanics, but rather player choice.

You're grasping for straws at this point and you're logic is so skewed and bias. You're right, there is no point in responding to you anymore

Keep up the great logic

If a group wants to be competitive and not free AP for any semi serious group they fight, than yes they have to run group builds.

The lack of knowledge as to how groups work on this forum is lol-worthy.

I run in a group/Zerg everyday and the AP gain is astounding compared to when I was running solo or in a small group.

You guys are over exaggerating the "skill" it takes to run in a large group. Maybe I'm just a gifted player, but it's not that hard or a big hindrance to put a group ability on your bar. Even then, solo builds are fine for group play since they focus on survivability and single target burst. It's always good to have a few players that can focus the healers in the other group

The thing is, I'm speaking on experience from both sides, small and large groups. Many of you group players wouldn't be caught dead without at least 10 other players by your side.

Best players in the game can be found in elite raids. Most of us raid at raid times and then small man in off hours. Has been like that since forever

Manoekin

Jura23 wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

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.

24 people is a zerg..this shouldn't be up for argument.

Since the game can't handle fight of 2 such groups. Yeah, it is. I would define zerg as a group that is large enough to hurt the game's performance.

I know it's not their fault, it's fault of the game. But they are still zerg.

I fought with a near full group vs. Vehemence and some other blues last night and the game did not lag.

On the other hand, that same night I showed up to Chalman and I think Daniel was there with some blues and EP had their whole faction in the keep. Some lag was had. Though it wasn't as terrible as the DC scroll temple/gate fights. I don't see groups causing lag. I see much more massive amounts of players causing lag. I have videos of when VE was on EP, we fought them three times back in 1.6 when lag was really unbearable. It only lagged out one of those fights and that's because there was a three way fight at another keep with the rest of the faction populations all being there.

Edit: This thread should be moderated back onto the topic posed by OP. We can make our own zerg thread.

Derra

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

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.

24 people is a zerg..this shouldn't be up for argument.

One group a Zerg, lawl.

I don´t get why people refer to 24 slots as grps. It´s a raid. Eso´s grpsize is 4 ppl (hint hint - the game even tells you when inviting the 5th person that you´re exceeding the standard grpsize). In my book you´re zerging when you´re running with more than 8 - that´s two standard grps for eso.
Running around with 24 people and claiming to not be zerging just bc it´s organised and everyone is on TS is hilarious. You´re not a grp you´re literally 6 grps running together.

Edit: Because i quoted wrong

Teargrants

MrGrimey wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

MrGrimey wrote: »

Kinda like saying it's better to be homeless because then you don't have to worry about paying your landlord rent, or go to work.

Not even remotely applicable or coherent. I've laid it out multiple times for you, the last one being as direct and easy to digest as possible. You clearly want nothing to do with logic, so what's the point?

The thing is, people in Zergs don't have to run group skills to still have a massive advantage. You seem to be forgetting that. Maybe you should go back to reading your list of "benefits" to see just how arbitrary your list is and they have nothing to do with game mechanics, but rather player choice.

You're grasping for straws at this point and you're logic is so skewed and bias. You're right, there is no point in responding to you anymore

Keep up the great logic

Do people actually think this?

First off, I'm gona have to assume that based off your replies thus far you're gona refer to anything that looks like 24 ppl or more as a zerg regardless of whether they're an organized bomb group, a pug group, or just a bunch of ungrouped people following the lemming train.

So if you don't have to run a group build in a group, tell me how a 24 man group full of 24 ppl running 24 solo builds will fare against a 24 man group with 24 group builds? Or is the correct answer, "they're both 'zergs' so I don't care"?

Jura23 wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

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.

24 people is a zerg..this shouldn't be up for argument.

Since the game can't handle fight of 2 such groups. Yeah, it is. I would define zerg as a group that is large enough to hurt the game's performance.

I know it's not their fault, it's fault of the game. But they are still zerg.

So a zerg is anything the server can't handle? You know the server used to be able to handle multiple 24 man raids fighting each other alongside tons of pugs on launch. I guess that wasn't 'zergging' back then? Then in 1.2 for 2 weeks literally ANY combat resulted in ~5 FPS, so at that time 1v1 was zergging? And since that was 'fixed' Cyrodiil performance has only gotten progressively worse patch. It's not uncommon for stuff like 16v16 to get bad lag these days, guess that's a zerg too. How long until 8v8 becomes zergging?

I hope you see the flaw of your zerg criteria. Typically zergging is used to refer to either a substantially larger than normal group of un or loosely coordinated players, or a much larger group fighting a much smaller group at the scale that numbers alone confer victory.

Zheg

Derra wrote: »

I don´t get why people refer to 24 slots as grps. It´s a raid. Eso´s grpsize is 4 ppl. In my book you´re zerging when you´re running with more than 8 - that´s two standard grps for eso.
Running around with 24 people and claiming to not be zerging just bc it´s organised and everyone is on TS is hilarious. You´re not a grp you´re literally 6 grps running together.

Kind of indicative of the problem with the word zerg here though isn't it? Everyone tosses it around to insult people and make themselves feel better and give themselves a reason to complain, but everyone has different interpretations of what actually constitutes a zerg. Most of the people that champion small man fights would consider that to be their 8-man groups, but you think they're a zerg. And yet, I'd estimate that it will continue getting tossed out there for the duration of this thread's life.

Derra

Zheg wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

I don´t get why people refer to 24 slots as grps. It´s a raid. Eso´s grpsize is 4 ppl. In my book you´re zerging when you´re running with more than 8 - that´s two standard grps for eso.
Running around with 24 people and claiming to not be zerging just bc it´s organised and everyone is on TS is hilarious. You´re not a grp you´re literally 6 grps running together.

Kind of indicative of the problem with the word zerg here though isn't it? Everyone tosses it around to insult people and make themselves feel better and give themselves a reason to complain, but everyone has different interpretations of what actually constitutes a zerg. Most of the people that champion small man fights would consider that to be their 8-man groups, but you think they're a zerg. And yet, I'd estimate that it will continue getting tossed out there for the duration of this thread's life.

I have no problem with zerging per se - it can be quite enjoyable. But claiming to not be doing it when running around with the maximum capacity of the games raidinterface is a little far fetched in my book...

Also i said more than 8

Sypher

Can we get back to the original topic...

Satiar

As to the original topic: Eh, whatever. Level of caring low, do it or don't ZoS, but please don't push more essential changes back for it.

Huckdabuck

Back on topic......see post #30 in the thread.

ataggs

I suggest that campaigns be based on group size. Why not let the large objective guilds have a campaign or two with the current 24 person raid size and then throw a small man campaign out there with a cap of 8. I would prefer that because everyone knows that those small groups and pugs steal AP from those doing the heavy lifting (not to mention they steal your siege).

Teargrants

Derra wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

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.

24 people is a zerg..this shouldn't be up for argument.

One group a Zerg, lawl.

I don´t get why people refer to 24 slots as grps. It´s a raid. Eso´s grpsize is 4 ppl (hint hint - the game even tells you when inviting the 5th person that you´re exceeding the standard grpsize). In my book you´re zerging when you´re running with more than 8 - that´s two standard grps for eso.
Running around with 24 people and claiming to not be zerging just bc it´s organised and everyone is on TS is hilarious. You´re not a grp you´re literally 6 grps running together.

Edit: Because i quoted wrong

And your basing your entire argument about what is and isn't a zerg on semantics, why?

The UI divisions of 'grp 1 - grp 6' in the raid frame is purely aesthetic, it plays no role in the functionally of grouping. Why is running more than 8 zergging? Does something magical happen at that number? Is it not more responsible to define zergging by the relative sizes of two opposing forces and the organization or lack there of on each side? That is to say, based on behavior, not arbitrary numbers.