Why are Zergs rewarded more AP?

Xsorus

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus 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.

It's not one group, 24 people is 6 groups in this game; hell when you go past 4 people is specifically says its creating a large group. Hell even in raid terms the raids in this game are 12 mans.. At no point in any game is 24 one group... Hell its 3 groups in daoc, 6 in wow, 4 in warhammer.

See we Playing any of those games? No. Awesome. So why are we talking about them like they mean anything. Go play DAOC and argue about group size.

I just think it's hilarious that I can take 20 people to a keep with 50-70 freaking people inside but it's really me that's zerging. 24 vs 70 is zerging ? How about 24vs 50? 40? 30? Whether I run 24 or not factions will stack up and Zerg because that is what they have always done. The only difference is that good guilds provide a Zerg counter that isn't "make a bigger Zerg".

See it still doesn't help your point because the group size in this game is 4 people, when you go larger you are basically converting into a raid group. So you aren't just running 1 group.. You are running 6 groups and trying to pretend that's not zerging; pointing out to you that in multiple games you would be zerging is me just backing it up with more facts.

And again, you are zerging with 24 people; running into a bigger Zerg doesn't change that fact.

Now ignoring the fact that you are zerging let's examine why your group won't ever be taken seriously while doing it.. Because a setup 24 man fighting anything else in this game besides a setup 24 man requires zero skill... You have virtually no risk smashing your setup Zerg into a bunch of pug players...

It's also true for every other massive scale pvp game out there.. If you did it in daoc for example; no one would respect you. Hell if you ran more then 8 people you would get aj by every single other group out there because it implied you had no skill.

You will not change the vast majority of players mindsets on this. So while there is nothing wrong with you zerging (and that's what you are doing) being upset no one respects you for it is silly. I believe not only have I explained this to you multiple times but lowbei has as well.

Ah geez man. I love how you arbitrarily decide on a group size that is a "Zerg" and one that isn't. 2v1 and 50v24 are the same ratio but according to you one is a Zerg and one isn't. Because ? Because you don't like working with people to achieve victory? Because fighting in a field is more honorable than fighting in a keep?

What it comes down to is you hating groups and that's pretty much it. That I can face odds of 3v1 but still be zerging by your standards is flat on its face stupid; it's an opinion devoid of context because, for some reason, you think teamwork is bad.

And to that, all I can say is lol. To one guy in a field 4 men is a Zerg. To a 4 man 12 is a Zerg. It's about context, something you clearly are unable to factor into your blind group hate. 1v1 is honorable but 24v24 isn't? Explain that one to me and I'll be bloody impressed

Anything past 8 will be a Zerg to me in terms of group vs group; however I will be forgiving if you run 12 simply cause it's trial size. You run 24 you are zerging, and the vast majority if the time you know damn well you aren't fighting other 24 man groups.. You are smashing pugs.. I don't know how many times I've seen groups like yours post videos of you running a 24 man talking about how you just wiped this relic raid when you can clearly see you outnumber the Zerg they're running a vast majority of the fight. This is why I'm harsh on you and others who incest on whining about being called a Zerg.

For the record 2v1 isn't a Zerg; if you are talking small man and solo action generally when you went with 4 or more and smashed solo players did players talk about you zerging; though in the stealth game in daoc 2 man stealth teams was considered fine and the standard for the versions group size basically. You'd get people running stealth zergs of 8 people which was considered the actual group size in that game but since they were going for most people who were solo or duo it was considered zerging and frowned upon.

Xsorus

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Xsorus 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.

It's not one group, 24 people is 6 groups in this game; hell when you go past 4 people is specifically says its creating a large group. Hell even in raid terms the raids in this game are 12 mans.. At no point in any game is 24 one group... Hell its 3 groups in daoc, 6 in wow, 4 in warhammer.

See we Playing any of those games? No. Awesome. So why are we talking about them like they mean anything. Go play DAOC and argue about group size.

I just think it's hilarious that I can take 20 people to a keep with 50-70 freaking people inside but it's really me that's zerging. 24 vs 70 is zerging ? How about 24vs 50? 40? 30? Whether I run 24 or not factions will stack up and Zerg because that is what they have always done. The only difference is that good guilds provide a Zerg counter that isn't "make a bigger Zerg".

See it still doesn't help your point because the group size in this game is 4 people, when you go larger you are basically converting into a raid group. So you aren't just running 1 group.. You are running 6 groups and trying to pretend that's not zerging; pointing out to you that in multiple games you would be zerging is me just backing it up with more facts.

And again, you are zerging with 24 people; running into a bigger Zerg doesn't change that fact.

Now ignoring the fact that you are zerging let's examine why your group won't ever be taken seriously while doing it.. Because a setup 24 man fighting anything else in this game besides a setup 24 man requires zero skill... You have virtually no risk smashing your setup Zerg into a bunch of pug players...

It's also true for every other massive scale pvp game out there.. If you did it in daoc for example; no one would respect you. Hell if you ran more then 8 people you would get aj by every single other group out there because it implied you had no skill.

You will not change the vast majority of players mindsets on this. So while there is nothing wrong with you zerging (and that's what you are doing) being upset no one respects you for it is silly. I believe not only have I explained this to you multiple times but lowbei has as well.

Ah geez man. I love how you arbitrarily decide on a group size that is a "Zerg" and one that isn't. 2v1 and 50v24 are the same ratio but according to you one is a Zerg and one isn't. Because ? Because you don't like working with people to achieve victory? Because fighting in a field is more honorable than fighting in a keep?

What it comes down to is you hating groups and that's pretty much it. That I can face odds of 3v1 but still be zerging by your standards is flat on its face stupid; it's an opinion devoid of context because, for some reason, you think teamwork is bad.

And to that, all I can say is lol. To one guy in a field 4 men is a Zerg. To a 4 man 12 is a Zerg. It's about context, something you clearly are unable to factor into your blind group hate. 1v1 is honorable but 24v24 isn't? Explain that one to me and I'll be bloody impressed

Anything past 8 will be a Zerg to me in terms of group vs group; however I will be forgiving if you run 12 simply cause it's trial size. You run 24 you are zerging, and the vast majority if the time you know damn well you aren't fighting other 24 man groups.. You are smashing pugs.. I don't know how many times I've seen groups like yours post videos of you running a 24 man talking about how you just wiped this relic raid when you can clearly see you outnumber the Zerg they're running a vast majority of the fight. This is why I'm harsh on you and others who incest on whining about being called a Zerg.

For the record 2v1 isn't a Zerg; if you are talking small man and solo action generally when you went with 4 or more and smashed solo players did players talk about you zerging; though in the stealth game in daoc 2 man stealth teams was considered fine and the standard for the versions group size basically. You'd get people running stealth zergs of 8 people which was considered the actual group size in that game but since they were going for most people who were solo or duo it was considered zerging and frowned upon.

Xsorus

Teargrants wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Teargrants wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Teargrants wrote: »

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.

To answer your question.. No.
You getting outzerged while zerging doesn't change the fact you were zerging.

That's the thing, two big groups go at it and a couple seconds later one is wipped and as you would put it, it's all just out zergging another zerg. That does not provide useful information about what happened.

It's nice and all calling it all zergging vs zergging, but it's not helpful to the guilds fighting for campaign objectives. "Our zerg got out zergged." What people need to know is organized group? Disorganized group? Tons of pugs?

What you stated has no point with the matter at hand; you asked when it's considered a Zerg.. I explained when it is. Going into how you would describe the Zerg to other people doesn't matter.

Uh what?

Things I asked:

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?

You answered:

Xsorus wrote: »

No. You getting outzerged while zerging doesn't change the fact you were zerging.

I can only take it you're addressing that last question, in other words, that you define "zergging" based on numbers alone, not relative size or organization. Is you answer addressed at something else? Would be nice if you'd make it clearer.

So, do you just see fights between 24 man grps as just one side "getting outzerged while zerging" when they end?

I feel like I'm going in circles here, because people in this thread seem to just want to define any sort of 'large' group as a 'zerg', and anything it does as 'zergging'. That leaves the impression to me that people don't acknowledge what kind of organization, movement, positioning, ect that goes into large group play.

Fights between two 24 mans is simply two zergs fighting. It's generous to say you aren't zerging with a trial group (12 people) but I'll let it slide in this game; however if you look at 24 people and say "nah no one will think running two ESO raids is zerging" I can help but laugh.

I mean Christ, I'm almost certain 24 is more then actual wow raid groups? Isn't it like 20 mans in wow now?

Galalin

Teargrants wrote: »

I'm just gona say, whether I'm solo, duo, smallman or in a raid grp, I don't give a rat's ass about how much AP I get killing someone. I just care about getting good fights, AP is just a byproduct of pvping.

You can go ahead and change the AP to anything you want it's not gona change anyone's playstyle except someone farming for emp.

Have to totally agree... and until AP is actually worth a dam i don't think it really matters anyhow... i would hate to see time wasted working on this rather than fixing a crap ton of bigger issues. The difference in AP is sure not going to make or break anyones gaming experience.

DK SCRUB OUT

xylena

any size group that rushes together like a swarm of insects is gonna get called "zerg"

Artjuh90

cause there are people like me on my dk that just gind ap for some levels in the alliance wars. i dont want to pvp and it's already a grind so let me zerg so i can get out of cyro as soon as i can

MrSinister213

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.

You are what is wrong with this game in November 2015. 99.9% of the remaining player base is like you, a beta personality. You have no idea how a solo player plays because you never tried, to worried about your KDR. Instead you hide in a zerg and then make excuses when you are caught off crown and forced to 1v1. The reality of the situation is you die in 1v1 because you never took the time to learn the game. Instead you hide in between 23+ other people and pat yourselves on the back when u zerg over individuals and smaller groups. ZOS has catered these last few patches to players like you, but rest assured if I catch you in Blade and Soul or Camelot Unchained in a few months you will die just as fast as you used to when the game was more balanced.

Satiar

MrSinister213 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.

You are what is wrong with this game in November 2015. 99.9% of the remaining player base is like you, a beta personality. You have no idea how a solo player plays because you never tried, to worried about your KDR. Instead you hide in a zerg and then make excuses when you are caught off crown and forced to 1v1. The reality of the situation is you die in 1v1 because you never took the time to learn the game. Instead you hide in between 23+ other people and pat yourselves on the back when u zerg over individuals and smaller groups. ZOS has catered these last few patches to players like you, but rest assured if I catch you in Blade and Soul or Camelot Unchained in a few months you will die just as fast as you used to when the game was more balanced.

You know Zheg was part of one of the best small mans in the game and played many months of solo/duo, right?

Oh ya didn't? Eff off.

MrSinister213

Satiar wrote: »

MrSinister213 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.

You are what is wrong with this game in November 2015. 99.9% of the remaining player base is like you, a beta personality. You have no idea how a solo player plays because you never tried, to worried about your KDR. Instead you hide in a zerg and then make excuses when you are caught off crown and forced to 1v1. The reality of the situation is you die in 1v1 because you never took the time to learn the game. Instead you hide in between 23+ other people and pat yourselves on the back when u zerg over individuals and smaller groups. ZOS has catered these last few patches to players like you, but rest assured if I catch you in Blade and Soul or Camelot Unchained in a few months you will die just as fast as you used to when the game was more balanced.

You know Zheg was part of one of the best small mans in the game and played many months of solo/duo, right?

Oh ya didn't? Eff off.

Never heard of him. Probably because he is constantly surrounded by 23 other players. And myself who has solo'd since release, I know the majority of my fellow solo players on NA PC because I have fought them all dozens, if not hundreds of times.

#MadcuzBad

Huckdabuck

MrSinister213 wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

MrSinister213 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.

You are what is wrong with this game in November 2015. 99.9% of the remaining player base is like you, a beta personality. You have no idea how a solo player plays because you never tried, to worried about your KDR. Instead you hide in a zerg and then make excuses when you are caught off crown and forced to 1v1. The reality of the situation is you die in 1v1 because you never took the time to learn the game. Instead you hide in between 23+ other people and pat yourselves on the back when u zerg over individuals and smaller groups. ZOS has catered these last few patches to players like you, but rest assured if I catch you in Blade and Soul or Camelot Unchained in a few months you will die just as fast as you used to when the game was more balanced.

You know Zheg was part of one of the best small mans in the game and played many months of solo/duo, right?

Oh ya didn't? Eff off.

Never heard of him. Probably because he is constantly surrounded by 23 other players. And myself who has solo'd since release, I know the majority of my fellow solo players on NA PC because I have fought them all dozens, if not hundreds of times.

#MadcuzBad

Who are you? #Anonymoushate #Gotakeyourmeds

Satiar

MrSinister213 wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

MrSinister213 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.

You are what is wrong with this game in November 2015. 99.9% of the remaining player base is like you, a beta personality. You have no idea how a solo player plays because you never tried, to worried about your KDR. Instead you hide in a zerg and then make excuses when you are caught off crown and forced to 1v1. The reality of the situation is you die in 1v1 because you never took the time to learn the game. Instead you hide in between 23+ other people and pat yourselves on the back when u zerg over individuals and smaller groups. ZOS has catered these last few patches to players like you, but rest assured if I catch you in Blade and Soul or Camelot Unchained in a few months you will die just as fast as you used to when the game was more balanced.

You know Zheg was part of one of the best small mans in the game and played many months of solo/duo, right?

Oh ya didn't? Eff off.

Never heard of him. Probably because he is constantly surrounded by 23 other players. And myself who has solo'd since release, I know the majority of my fellow solo players on NA PC because I have fought them all dozens, if not hundreds of times.

#MadcuzBad

I was an EP player when Zheg was with Mostly Harmless. They were good, and our fights with them fantastic. Having rerolled DC I'm thrilled to have a player like him on my team.

All I see from you is someone who painted with too wide a brush to try to make a point and effed up doing it. I'll leave further defense to Zheg himself if he even cares.

Teargrants

Xsorus wrote: »

Teargrants wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Teargrants wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Teargrants wrote: »

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.

To answer your question.. No.
You getting outzerged while zerging doesn't change the fact you were zerging.

That's the thing, two big groups go at it and a couple seconds later one is wipped and as you would put it, it's all just out zergging another zerg. That does not provide useful information about what happened.

It's nice and all calling it all zergging vs zergging, but it's not helpful to the guilds fighting for campaign objectives. "Our zerg got out zergged." What people need to know is organized group? Disorganized group? Tons of pugs?

What you stated has no point with the matter at hand; you asked when it's considered a Zerg.. I explained when it is. Going into how you would describe the Zerg to other people doesn't matter.

Uh what?

Things I asked:

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?

You answered:

Xsorus wrote: »

No. You getting outzerged while zerging doesn't change the fact you were zerging.

I can only take it you're addressing that last question, in other words, that you define "zergging" based on numbers alone, not relative size or organization. Is you answer addressed at something else? Would be nice if you'd make it clearer.

So, do you just see fights between 24 man grps as just one side "getting outzerged while zerging" when they end?

I feel like I'm going in circles here, because people in this thread seem to just want to define any sort of 'large' group as a 'zerg', and anything it does as 'zergging'. That leaves the impression to me that people don't acknowledge what kind of organization, movement, positioning, ect that goes into large group play.

Fights between two 24 mans is simply two zergs fighting. It's generous to say you aren't zerging with a trial group (12 people) but I'll let it slide in this game; however if you look at 24 people and say "nah no one will think running two ESO raids is zerging" I can help but laugh.

I mean Christ, I'm almost certain 24 is more then actual wow raid groups? Isn't it like 20 mans in wow now?

Ok, clarification is good. Could you clarify what exactly you define as "outzerging" in a fight between one 24 man raid and another?

Galalin

Idk i play in both 2-6 man and 12-24 man grps. I use the same build and gear for both but keep a mix of skills on my bar... call me lazy but i find i do well in both as well as solo. Although i tend to take on more of a 1v1 roll even while in 12-24 man grps bursting down the healers or other special targets (you all know who you are) i do always keep grp friendly skills up and of course ST for the cleanup.

DK SCRUB OUT

FMonk

Teargrants wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Teargrants wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Teargrants wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Teargrants wrote: »

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.

To answer your question.. No.
You getting outzerged while zerging doesn't change the fact you were zerging.

That's the thing, two big groups go at it and a couple seconds later one is wipped and as you would put it, it's all just out zergging another zerg. That does not provide useful information about what happened.

It's nice and all calling it all zergging vs zergging, but it's not helpful to the guilds fighting for campaign objectives. "Our zerg got out zergged." What people need to know is organized group? Disorganized group? Tons of pugs?

What you stated has no point with the matter at hand; you asked when it's considered a Zerg.. I explained when it is. Going into how you would describe the Zerg to other people doesn't matter.

Uh what?

Things I asked:

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?

You answered:

Xsorus wrote: »

No. You getting outzerged while zerging doesn't change the fact you were zerging.

I can only take it you're addressing that last question, in other words, that you define "zergging" based on numbers alone, not relative size or organization. Is you answer addressed at something else? Would be nice if you'd make it clearer.

So, do you just see fights between 24 man grps as just one side "getting outzerged while zerging" when they end?

I feel like I'm going in circles here, because people in this thread seem to just want to define any sort of 'large' group as a 'zerg', and anything it does as 'zergging'. That leaves the impression to me that people don't acknowledge what kind of organization, movement, positioning, ect that goes into large group play.

Fights between two 24 mans is simply two zergs fighting. It's generous to say you aren't zerging with a trial group (12 people) but I'll let it slide in this game; however if you look at 24 people and say "nah no one will think running two ESO raids is zerging" I can help but laugh.

I mean Christ, I'm almost certain 24 is more then actual wow raid groups? Isn't it like 20 mans in wow now?

Ok, clarification is good. Could you clarify what exactly you define as "outzerging" in a fight between one 24 man raid and another?

When one of those 24 man raids is with 70+ others like DC on Azura atm.

Teargrants

FMonk wrote: »

Teargrants wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Teargrants wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Teargrants wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Teargrants wrote: »

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.

To answer your question.. No.
You getting outzerged while zerging doesn't change the fact you were zerging.

That's the thing, two big groups go at it and a couple seconds later one is wipped and as you would put it, it's all just out zergging another zerg. That does not provide useful information about what happened.

It's nice and all calling it all zergging vs zergging, but it's not helpful to the guilds fighting for campaign objectives. "Our zerg got out zergged." What people need to know is organized group? Disorganized group? Tons of pugs?

What you stated has no point with the matter at hand; you asked when it's considered a Zerg.. I explained when it is. Going into how you would describe the Zerg to other people doesn't matter.

Uh what?

Things I asked:

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?

You answered:

Xsorus wrote: »

No. You getting outzerged while zerging doesn't change the fact you were zerging.

I can only take it you're addressing that last question, in other words, that you define "zergging" based on numbers alone, not relative size or organization. Is you answer addressed at something else? Would be nice if you'd make it clearer.

So, do you just see fights between 24 man grps as just one side "getting outzerged while zerging" when they end?

I feel like I'm going in circles here, because people in this thread seem to just want to define any sort of 'large' group as a 'zerg', and anything it does as 'zergging'. That leaves the impression to me that people don't acknowledge what kind of organization, movement, positioning, ect that goes into large group play.

Fights between two 24 mans is simply two zergs fighting. It's generous to say you aren't zerging with a trial group (12 people) but I'll let it slide in this game; however if you look at 24 people and say "nah no one will think running two ESO raids is zerging" I can help but laugh.

I mean Christ, I'm almost certain 24 is more then actual wow raid groups? Isn't it like 20 mans in wow now?

Ok, clarification is good. Could you clarify what exactly you define as "outzerging" in a fight between one 24 man raid and another?

When one of those 24 man raids is with 70+ others like DC on Azura atm.

That's not the question I asked.

in a fight between one 24 man raid and another?

Sypher

Galalin wrote: »

Teargrants wrote: »

I'm just gona say, whether I'm solo, duo, smallman or in a raid grp, I don't give a rat's ass about how much AP I get killing someone. I just care about getting good fights, AP is just a byproduct of pvping.

You can go ahead and change the AP to anything you want it's not gona change anyone's playstyle except someone farming for emp.

Have to totally agree... and until AP is actually worth a dam i don't think it really matters anyhow... i would hate to see time wasted working on this rather than fixing a crap ton of bigger issues. The difference in AP is sure not going to make or break anyones gaming experience.

DK SCRUB OUT

Working on what though? What are we working on?

Stop giving larger groups extra AP? Make AP distribution even SIMPLY by making everyone worth their ACTUAL AP value? There isn't anything that needs to be worked on. This is simple numbers.

Xsorus

Teargrants wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Teargrants wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Teargrants wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Teargrants wrote: »

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.

To answer your question.. No.
You getting outzerged while zerging doesn't change the fact you were zerging.

That's the thing, two big groups go at it and a couple seconds later one is wipped and as you would put it, it's all just out zergging another zerg. That does not provide useful information about what happened.

It's nice and all calling it all zergging vs zergging, but it's not helpful to the guilds fighting for campaign objectives. "Our zerg got out zergged." What people need to know is organized group? Disorganized group? Tons of pugs?

What you stated has no point with the matter at hand; you asked when it's considered a Zerg.. I explained when it is. Going into how you would describe the Zerg to other people doesn't matter.

Uh what?

Things I asked:

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?

You answered:

Xsorus wrote: »

No. You getting outzerged while zerging doesn't change the fact you were zerging.

I can only take it you're addressing that last question, in other words, that you define "zergging" based on numbers alone, not relative size or organization. Is you answer addressed at something else? Would be nice if you'd make it clearer.

So, do you just see fights between 24 man grps as just one side "getting outzerged while zerging" when they end?

I feel like I'm going in circles here, because people in this thread seem to just want to define any sort of 'large' group as a 'zerg', and anything it does as 'zergging'. That leaves the impression to me that people don't acknowledge what kind of organization, movement, positioning, ect that goes into large group play.

Fights between two 24 mans is simply two zergs fighting. It's generous to say you aren't zerging with a trial group (12 people) but I'll let it slide in this game; however if you look at 24 people and say "nah no one will think running two ESO raids is zerging" I can help but laugh.

I mean Christ, I'm almost certain 24 is more then actual wow raid groups? Isn't it like 20 mans in wow now?

Ok, clarification is good. Could you clarify what exactly you define as "outzerging" in a fight between one 24 man raid and another?

It means when someone is whining they can't be a Zerg cause another group had more people then their Zerg. Like for example 24 vs 36; both are zergs... But one does have more people.. 24vs24 is Zerg vs Zerg... It just happens to be even number zergs.

Xsorus

Teargrants wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Teargrants wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Teargrants wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Teargrants wrote: »

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.

To answer your question.. No.
You getting outzerged while zerging doesn't change the fact you were zerging.

That's the thing, two big groups go at it and a couple seconds later one is wipped and as you would put it, it's all just out zergging another zerg. That does not provide useful information about what happened.

It's nice and all calling it all zergging vs zergging, but it's not helpful to the guilds fighting for campaign objectives. "Our zerg got out zergged." What people need to know is organized group? Disorganized group? Tons of pugs?

What you stated has no point with the matter at hand; you asked when it's considered a Zerg.. I explained when it is. Going into how you would describe the Zerg to other people doesn't matter.

Uh what?

Things I asked:

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?

You answered:

Xsorus wrote: »

No. You getting outzerged while zerging doesn't change the fact you were zerging.

I can only take it you're addressing that last question, in other words, that you define "zergging" based on numbers alone, not relative size or organization. Is you answer addressed at something else? Would be nice if you'd make it clearer.

So, do you just see fights between 24 man grps as just one side "getting outzerged while zerging" when they end?

I feel like I'm going in circles here, because people in this thread seem to just want to define any sort of 'large' group as a 'zerg', and anything it does as 'zergging'. That leaves the impression to me that people don't acknowledge what kind of organization, movement, positioning, ect that goes into large group play.

Fights between two 24 mans is simply two zergs fighting. It's generous to say you aren't zerging with a trial group (12 people) but I'll let it slide in this game; however if you look at 24 people and say "nah no one will think running two ESO raids is zerging" I can help but laugh.

I mean Christ, I'm almost certain 24 is more then actual wow raid groups? Isn't it like 20 mans in wow now?

Ok, clarification is good. Could you clarify what exactly you define as "outzerging" in a fight between one 24 man raid and another?

It means when someone is whining they can't be a Zerg cause another group had more people then their Zerg. Like for example 24 vs 36; both are zergs... But one does have more people.. 24vs24 is Zerg vs Zerg... It just happens to be even number zergs.

Huckdabuck

Sypher wrote: »

Galalin wrote: »

Teargrants wrote: »

I'm just gona say, whether I'm solo, duo, smallman or in a raid grp, I don't give a rat's ass about how much AP I get killing someone. I just care about getting good fights, AP is just a byproduct of pvping.

You can go ahead and change the AP to anything you want it's not gona change anyone's playstyle except someone farming for emp.

Have to totally agree... and until AP is actually worth a dam i don't think it really matters anyhow... i would hate to see time wasted working on this rather than fixing a crap ton of bigger issues. The difference in AP is sure not going to make or break anyones gaming experience.

DK SCRUB OUT

Working on what though? What are we working on?

Stop giving larger groups extra AP? Make AP distribution even SIMPLY by making everyone worth their ACTUAL AP value? There isn't anything that needs to be worked on. This is simple numbers.

Answer to question 1 - Breaking more things than they fix (this actually takes some serious talent).
Answer to question 2 - Still undecided.

And yes they would still need to work on the formula which would lead to my answer to your question. Just look at how many of the formulas were borked in the Champ Points when it was launched.

Galalin

Sypher wrote: »

Galalin wrote: »

Teargrants wrote: »

I'm just gona say, whether I'm solo, duo, smallman or in a raid grp, I don't give a rat's ass about how much AP I get killing someone. I just care about getting good fights, AP is just a byproduct of pvping.

You can go ahead and change the AP to anything you want it's not gona change anyone's playstyle except someone farming for emp.

Have to totally agree... and until AP is actually worth a dam i don't think it really matters anyhow... i would hate to see time wasted working on this rather than fixing a crap ton of bigger issues. The difference in AP is sure not going to make or break anyones gaming experience.

DK SCRUB OUT

Working on what though? What are we working on?

Stop giving larger groups extra AP? Make AP distribution even SIMPLY by making everyone worth their ACTUAL AP value? There isn't anything that needs to be worked on. This is simple numbers.

I think @Huckdabuck summed up my thoughts aswell... nothing is simple for ZoS... they can't math. I would rather see the simple numbers added to ambush for min range etc.etc im not even going to continue to list because everyone knows how many number things need fixed and worked on that are far more important

DK SCRUB OUT

TheLaw

This is the least of our issues, Sypher. You should use your influence to keep PVP from completely dying. This won't help.

Draxys

For all the people attempting to make themselves look like Internet badasses by insulting group play- grow up. This an MMO, anything you say while trying to be sarcastically condescending towards groups larger than 4 people is based on your preference and absolutely nothing else.

Derra

GRxKnight wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Teargrants wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Teargrants wrote: »

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.

I base it on the games normal grpsize and it´s applicable 100% of the time.

When basing it on your criteria things like organisation or something as arbitrary as skill becomes a factor in defining zerging.
1v4:
4 win => zerg
1 win => noobs
4v12:
12 win = zerg
4 = noobs

24ppl in ts following crown in highly organised guildgrp = no zerg bc organisation?
Not by my understanding of that term.




Also on topic for sypher:

I think everyone claiming ppl don´t play for ap are kidding themselves. 80% of the time when the server is lagging to sh*t it´s because people in large grps are farming their asses off at alessia bridge or sej => brk route. They´re definetly not doing this for ap nooo - of course not. It´s for the strategic value of holding alessia bridge as a blue raid grp when alessia is yellow and sejanus is red...

Move ap bonuses away from big grps and favor smaller ones and see how that works out.
1 player 100% ap
2 players 115% ap
3 players 130% ap
4 players 150% ap
every additional player does not add to the cake but makes the pieces smaller.

So you refuse to believe the selfsame large group ppl who say in this very thread that they don't give a crap about AP?

I can tell you exactly why we go to sej bridge and farm:

- We get tons of kills. (Kills is what we care about, AP is worthless)
- Sometimes it's the best spot to find good fights as blue if red and yellow aren't pushing us.
- It's a good way to get away from other blue guilds if there's already a couple pushing objectives and we would just be piling in with them as the alternative.
- It's a nice break from a million keep fights that are all the same thanks to uniform keep layout.
- It's funny.

Go ahead, cut AP earned the bigger your group size. Make it 0 AP for anything over '8 ppl', I couldn't care less.

Well i don´t understand the reasoning behind running with 24ppl in a grp at all as it presents no challenge in 90% of the encounters i see these grps in. They just farm.
Being it ap or be it kills. I did not claim it´s exclusively for AP and i believe ppl stating they don´t care about ap anymore. I don´t think they´re the majority though - could be wrong here again (I do know a lot of people caring about ranks which happen to be associated with ap). If it does not interest you why are you arguing - if it helps in spreading people out why not?

Also ezareth did the spiderman thing better. Yours seem a little forced.

This is becoming more and more untrue with each passing day, at least on Azuras during peak hours on weeknights and especially weekends. Daniel puts up 1-2 groups roughly of his own guild people plus the pugs they attract. Just those numbers alone warrant you to be running in 24 man groups almost all the time to fight them. These groups don't go after the small groups or 1vX'ers. Hell Rage saw Sypher at Sej the other night on his DK running around trying to kite us away from the group and we simply walked away. We "zergs" have no intention of mowing down individuals and chasing singles away from the group. Now if we come across you on our way to an objective that's a different story, but back on topic.

We run in these large groups with the sole purpose of fighting the other large groups on the map and this is becoming more and more of a necessity due to the larger issues that this game has than measly AP gains. If we were a 12 man group or 16 man group you can forget us ever dreaming of taking on Daniel's forces or VE or any other large organized group. It's just not going to happen that often.

As to your "no challenge" comment, large group play may seem mindless to a lot of small group/solo players because of the assumption that all we do is spam one button. There are builds that definitely do only that coughsteeltornadocough*...but on my sorc I can say that I use all 10 of my active skills and an ultimate in almost every encounter and it's not as simple as standing in one spot spamming impulse. There's a lot more too it than that and I wish that these small group players would step into our world for a change and see that it's not as simple as they think.

Well i´m playing on the EU server so no idea about motivation on NA. AP is definetly a factor for people here.

The no challenege comment was in no way related to playstyle per se but to choices of targets (I - which is obviously a biased opinion - see these grps make). It just happens that when i´m encountering said grps (which happens on a regular basis) they´re aiming to farm randoms and not fighting other grps.
No reason to get overly defensive.

I agree that the necessity of forming said grps to stay relevant in objective pvp is a whole other topic that´s on ZOS part to change.

MrGrimey

TheLaw wrote: »

This is the least of our issues, Sypher. You should use your influence to keep PVP from completely dying. This won't help.

You guys aren't getting the big picture.

Balancing out AP gain is the first step to discourage zerging. Zerging is the leading cause of performance issue in cyrodiil.

I'm really surprised (and disapointed) that people in this thread don't get that.

It has been said many times. Zergs already have an advantage on the battlefield due to sheer numbers. They don't need added help from game mechanics and added incentives from AP gain. Btw, anybody who says AP doesn't matter is flat out lying

Sypher

MrGrimey wrote: »

TheLaw wrote: »

This is the least of our issues, Sypher. You should use your influence to keep PVP from completely dying. This won't help.

You guys aren't getting the big picture.

Balancing out AP gain is the first step to discourage zerging. Zerging is the leading cause of performance issue in cyrodiil.

I'm really surprised (and disapointed) that people in this thread don't get that.

It has been said many times. Zergs already have an advantage on the battlefield due to sheer numbers. They don't need added help from game mechanics and added incentives from AP gain. Btw, anybody who says AP doesn't matter is flat out lying

Thank you... was losing faith for a moment.

Satiar

No one really disagrees with you Sypher. Some of us just think it's probably one of the last things on the priority list. Can we have functioning game first?

Sypher

Satiar wrote: »

No one really disagrees with you Sypher. Some of us just think it's probably one of the last things on the priority list. Can we have functioning game first?

Zenimax usually makes plenty of changes all at once (sweeping changes)

This is one I think they can slide in relatively easily. There's dozens of posts about the lag and server performance, another thread about that won't help it get fixed any faster.

We need to hit this problem from all angles. This is just one of those angles.

Satiar

Sypher wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

No one really disagrees with you Sypher. Some of us just think it's probably one of the last things on the priority list. Can we have functioning game first?

Zenimax usually makes plenty of changes all at once (sweeping changes)

This is one I think they can slide in relatively easily. There's dozens of posts about the lag and server performance, another thread about that won't help it get fixed any faster.

We need to hit this problem from all angles. This is just one of those angles.

Zenimax and easy, right. How about we get the basic freaking game mechanics working before raising hell over the AP formula ?

It's not like everyone's gonna be like "oh no I guess we gotta break up the raid" or "oh hey I get more AP I better get out there and earn it!" It's a feel good measure, let's not pretend it's anything more.

Satiar

MrGrimey wrote: »

TheLaw wrote: »

This is the least of our issues, Sypher. You should use your influence to keep PVP from completely dying. This won't help.

You guys aren't getting the big picture.

Balancing out AP gain is the first step to discourage zerging. Zerging is the leading cause of performance issue in cyrodiil.

I'm really surprised (and disapointed) that people in this thread don't get that.

It has been said many times. Zergs already have an advantage on the battlefield due to sheer numbers. They don't need added help from game mechanics and added incentives from AP gain. Btw, anybody who says AP doesn't matter is flat out lying

AP is nice but I have no need for it. I look at kill counter these days to see how the night went. My AP tracker mod is uninstalled lol

Cinnamon_Spider

Did someone say bridge fight? Defend the bridge!