Where Are We Headed?

FENGRUSH · January 2016

I dont think they should fix skills like BoL spam or cloak spam with use penalty - it wasnt a fun thing to do to streak either. I think it comes back to resources going crazy, and healing is just so effective with the multiple boosts you can get to outgoing healing and incoming healing. This is a bigger problem of resource management going crazy, and choices/management of ones resources are able to be done so carelessly and still be effective.

People say soft caps are the solution, but they wont bring them back, they want to get away from them. It takes better balance and constant tweaks to approach a desired goal. Problem is we dont get incremental changes in a timely fashion nor do we have any idea what the desired goal is - niether does ZOS though either... Their desired goal is to minimize and address loud and excessive complaints per patch.

Zheg · January 2016

FENGRUSH wrote: »

I dont think they should fix skills like BoL spam or cloak spam with use penalty - it wasnt a fun thing to do to streak either. I think it comes back to resources going crazy, and healing is just so effective with the multiple boosts you can get to outgoing healing and incoming healing. This is a bigger problem of resource management going crazy, and choices/management of ones resources are able to be done so carelessly and still be effective.

People say soft caps are the solution, but they wont bring them back, they want to get away from them. It takes better balance and constant tweaks to approach a desired goal. Problem is we dont get incremental changes in a timely fashion nor do we have any idea what the desired goal is - niether does ZOS though either... Their desired goal is to minimize and address loud and excessive complaints per patch.

One of the few times we agree. The streak spam nerf disproportionately impacted stam sorcs who only ever used streak strategically the way it was meant to be used. The need for nerfs like this belies root balance issues that aren't/can't be addressed by wrobel.

Minno · January 2016

FENGRUSH wrote: »

I dont think they should fix skills like BoL spam or cloak spam with use penalty - it wasnt a fun thing to do to streak either. I think it comes back to resources going crazy, and healing is just so effective with the multiple boosts you can get to outgoing healing and incoming healing. This is a bigger problem of resource management going crazy, and choices/management of ones resources are able to be done so carelessly and still be effective.

People say soft caps are the solution, but they wont bring them back, they want to get away from them. It takes better balance and constant tweaks to approach a desired goal. Problem is we dont get incremental changes in a timely fashion nor do we have any idea what the desired goal is - niether does ZOS though either... Their desired goal is to minimize and address loud and excessive complaints per patch.

"Putting out fires" so to speak. Only issue is that tactic only works if the task is done day of not 3 months later.

Talcyndl · January 2016

It all goes back to the underlying design choice the Devs made to not use cool downs. That was mostly ok when we had softcaps that truly limited stam and magicka. Spamming skills indefinitely was not really possible. But now, with regen through the roof, there is no check on spamming certain skills.

And when that skill is in-combat stealth, you have the fields of Cyrodiil dotted with NBs waiting to gank anyone riding by - and to disappear if there is the slightest chance they might get killed in response.

ZOS_MollyH · January 2016

Hey folks, as a heads up - several posts and comments have been edited within this thread for violating Code of Conduct. So far no official action has been taken for any specific users, but if we can't keep this constructive then please be aware that further violation of the rules may be actioned and the thread locked.

Thanks!

CN_Daniel · January 2016

ZOS_MollyH wrote: »

Hey folks, as a heads up - several posts and comments have been edited within this thread for violating Code of Conduct. So far no official action has been taken for any specific users, but if we can't keep this constructive then please be aware that further violation of the rules may be actioned and the thread locked.

Thanks!

Hey Molly:

Thanks for dropping by, do you think it's possible you guys have more resources allocated to forum moderation than content fixes?

Sincerely,

CN_Daniel · January 2016

Zheg wrote: »

show previous quotes

FENGRUSH wrote: »

I dont think they should fix skills like BoL spam or cloak spam with use penalty - it wasnt a fun thing to do to streak either. I think it comes back to resources going crazy, and healing is just so effective with the multiple boosts you can get to outgoing healing and incoming healing. This is a bigger problem of resource management going crazy, and choices/management of ones resources are able to be done so carelessly and still be effective.

People say soft caps are the solution, but they wont bring them back, they want to get away from them. It takes better balance and constant tweaks to approach a desired goal. Problem is we dont get incremental changes in a timely fashion nor do we have any idea what the desired goal is - niether does ZOS though either... Their desired goal is to minimize and address loud and excessive complaints per patch.

One of the few times we agree. The streak spam nerf disproportionately impacted stam sorcs who only ever used streak strategically the way it was meant to be used. The need for nerfs like this belies root balance issues that aren't/can't be addressed by wrobel.

I choose a sorc because I wanted to streak all over Cryodil. They nerfed the whole reason I selected Sorc, the classes 'special' skill. Why is it not reasonable to expect the same done to the other classes? Why is sorc punished separately, and in a special way from ever other class? If I cant streak away from a DK forever, he shouldn't be able to flappy-flap forever. You can't deny that logic.

Zheg · January 2016

CN_Daniel wrote: »

show previous quotes

ZOS_MollyH wrote: »

Hey folks, as a heads up - several posts and comments have been edited within this thread for violating Code of Conduct. So far no official action has been taken for any specific users, but if we can't keep this constructive then please be aware that further violation of the rules may be actioned and the thread locked.

Thanks!

Hey Molly:

Thanks for dropping by, do you think it's possible you guys have more resources allocated to forum moderation than content fixes?

Sincerely,

ZOS, I just hit the agree button on one of daniel's posts. The situation is dire; I'm scared.

Minno · January 2016

Zheg wrote: »

show previous quotes

CN_Daniel wrote: »

ZOS_MollyH wrote: »

Hey folks, as a heads up - several posts and comments have been edited within this thread for violating Code of Conduct. So far no official action has been taken for any specific users, but if we can't keep this constructive then please be aware that further violation of the rules may be actioned and the thread locked.

Thanks!

Hey Molly:

Thanks for dropping by, do you think it's possible you guys have more resources allocated to forum moderation than content fixes?

Sincerely,

ZOS, I just hit the agree button on one of daniel's posts. The situation is dire; I'm scared.

x99Needles · January 2016

Jules wrote: »

show previous quotes

ataggs wrote: »

I really believe the upcoming changes were not in the long term plans, but are reactions to a few vocal players demanding change because they want to play this game differently than it was designed.

My role is a support role and I wear a set designed for that role (it was not cheap attaining all of these pieces with the desired traits). That set will be almost worthless with the planned changes to the support line. Purge will be nerfed, barrier will be nerfed, that leaves me with guard and revealing flare. Oh wait, I still have siege shield...looks like we will be using that more.

Why create new sets (since IC) and then make them worthless in just a few months? Just stupid! The only up side is that these same vocal players that claim to play solo or small man (run alongside organised groups and leech the benefits) will no longer get the buff from the support sets.

I wish people would wake up...these super elite, we are so cool 1 v whatevers don't care about you, your play style,or the game..they care about making videos. Thanks for listening to these guys ZOS,and thanks for taking all of that spare gold that was weighing my toon down. Pfft!

Making a set useless is a small price to pay for fixing mechanics that directly favor large group gameplay over small. As Kena states below very eloquently, this game was intended to be a "play as you want" game. Numbers simply cannot continue to be the only determining factor in Cyrodiil. It makes for poor, dumbed down gameplay and servers that are unplayable. Large groups in and of themselves are already their own advantage because they have strength in numbers. They do not need incredibly powerful ultimates that are rotated between 9 healers and one ability to be spammed to cleanse 24 people of all negative effects. Capping these abilities is balance, it is not punishment. The removal of AOE caps is similar; it is not intended to be punishment to large group, but to balance the scales so that smaller groups have a chance. That's all anyone ever wants. Playing in large group should not be discouraged, but it should also not be the only method of survival in Cyrodiil.
show previous quotes

KenaPKK wrote: »

A zerg is any group larger than is necessary to achieve its objective. I've been saying this for a long time, and I stand by my definition of the word. No one dislikes large groups existing. People dislike two things: uneven fights and lag.

The game was marketed as a "play how you want" sandbox within a RvRvR environment capable of supporting large scale battles. All group sizes should be accommodated, and big groups shouldn't "zerg" down little groups with unnecessarily large numbers.

But as for your suggestions, yes, more PvP objectives in Cyrodiil and IC, removal of AoE caps and Prox Det, implementation of mild dynamic ulti generation, free movement between campaigns + incentive to participate in all of them, reworked campaign victory rewards...

The list goes on an on, all things we've been calling for in the name of "fixing" PvP. >.<

Well said Kena.

Also, Bulb aside from this disdain toward the upcoming changes, I agree with you on the more PVP objectives to naturally spread people out as well as the dynamic ulti and removal of AOE caps. Well written post.

You're failing to see the Meta you are helping create with supporting the upcoming changes. I agree large groups should not be the only way to survive in Cyrodiil. I know almost everyone has forgotten I did nothing but small man things when the game was released. I understand the struggle and frustration. However I firmly believe there are alternatives that could be explored with more thought than, "nerf barrier into oblivion, buff siege." That is NOT balance as you claim, that is one sided biased towards a single source. Zergs are a problem. What you need to realize is with the coming changes and lack of a proper way to defend against these, we are only further encouraging more stacking. If siege is going to be more powerful, you will NEVER take an objective with just 16, hell 24. You will HAVE to coordinate with another group. It will literally take 16 to DEFEND a keep with siege set up. And in response it will cause players to rally with double to triple the numbers. And no matter how you argue it, there will never but just 16 inside that keep waiting for you.
Let's run through a quick theory of a 2.3 siege on Chalman.

Let's even say I run 16 to stop all lag, (as Frozen has promised me). I can set up 20/20 siege easily without pug support. I roll in, set up siege. I am scouted, counter siege goes up. Oil cats, fire balista, meatbags. With a group of 16 I can manage with probably 4 healers maybe 5. Purge is only going to hit 4-6 targets. Balistas are doing more damage than ever before, my players are losing resources to oil cats. We can use siege shields to try and mitigate damage. okay, done, maybe we survive that. Still losing resources with no counter and no way to recover before you're hit again by someone else. Let's say, we don't wipe horribly. We get to the courtyard, we kill the pugs outside. Every EP falls to inner. Screams going out in zone to get to chal VE is here. We survive the inner counter siege somehow. Now I have a single choke point with, Oil Damage, Oil Cat snares and stamina damage, Fire balista and meatbag damage, a group of players waiting inside with all their ultimates. And no doubt lots and lots of other EP.

Now let's recount the logic that has been posted in this thread and generally throughout the forums.
1. I am supposed to run 16 to reduce lag.
2. Barrier will only affect 6 players
3. Purge will only affect 4 players with no effect on the resource damage
4. I cannot create another path to the inner, I have to go through ONE choke.
5. Siege damage in and of itself not even including the resource drain is going to hit me even harder

How do I win this fight? It's a wipe. And I never accept a situation where I cannot somehow win. But with the Meta we are creating, there is only one way to win that fight. I ask another guild to come and assist me with the inner. Over half of us will most likely die. It still might be a wipe. And if we do, DC will rally even more. I can take a keep without assistance with just my 24 and a 5 or so barriers. It allows to handle the insane amounts of damage being output. Does barrier need a nerf? Yes, 6 players? No. Does purge need a nerf? No. Make it so it only affects group members please. Does siege really need a buff? No. If you want to drain our resources with siege, it needs to be a DoT and it needs to be purgeable.

We are creating a Left-Click Meta with nothing but numbers and siege. Say what you want about barrier and purge. Give us another way to fight large groups then. The problem is not large groups fighting large groups in the end. Its small groups trying to fight large groups and failing because they are not outfitted the same. We need more options for smaller groups in cyrodiil to seriously contribute in their own way in Cyrodiil. Keep play was meant for large groups. If we continue like this I have no doubt you will see people stack more than they ever have before.

The only one's who can vocalize any change in this is us guys. You said disdain but its not really that, I just don't want the only recipe for success to be numbers and siege. Anyone who says its because of the way I play is welcome to come play with me for just one night. See for yourself.

Satiar · January 2016

Very well said. I've been saying this for ages in that siege thread, the harder you make it to take keeps the bigger the body pileup. More lag more nonsense

CN_Daniel · January 2016

I'll just keep both groups together at all times with the proposed seige changes. Our core will go in, the main group will setup 20 anti personal seize over the front door area, etc.

I'll burn them out of the inner.

Say what you want about my team, we are already excellent defenders.... I doubt we'll ever lose a keep anymore that we can prepare a proper inner defense for.

x99Needles · January 2016

CN_Daniel wrote: »

I'll just keep both groups together at all times with the proposed seige changes. Our core will go in, the main group will setup 20 anti personal seize over the front door area, etc.

I'll burn them out of the inner.

Say what you want about my team, we are already excellent defenders.... I doubt we'll ever lose a keep anymore that we can prepare a proper inner defense for.

Enough Said. Thanks Daniel, you seem to be among the few who can see where this is going with me.

Joy_Division · January 2016

Well said. Not seeing the logic in how making seige stronger for the defense and nerfing the attackers ability to mitigate / purge is going to encourage, let alone enable, groups of 16 to take keeps with defenders.

If you say, "well MY guild can do it," we'll see what happens your guild goes up against an equally competent one on defense. And besides, what are 95% of the rest of the people who play this game who aren't as good or organized as you going to do when it comes to taking keeps? They are going to either stack or wipe.

FENGRUSH · January 2016

I will WB the last guy in the door and raise my torch of victory over him before he is instaressed.

CN_Daniel · January 2016

Joy_Division wrote: »

Well said. Not seeing the logic in how making seige stronger for the defense and nerfing the attackers ability to mitigate / purge is going to encourage, let alone enable, groups of 16 to take keeps with defenders.

If you say, "well MY guild can do it," we'll see what happens your guild goes up against an equally competent one on defense. And besides, what are 95% of the rest of the people who play this game who aren't as good or organized as you going to do when it comes to taking keeps? They are going to either stack or wipe.

I'll take that challenge against anyone if I'm defending with equal numbers. Yeah, cmon please try to enter that breech LOL. Im never repairing a keep again.....

Talcyndl · January 2016

CN_Daniel wrote: »

If I cant streak away from a DK forever, he shouldn't be able to flappy-flap forever. You can't deny that logic.

They already nerfed the flappy-flap.

Satiar · January 2016

CN_Daniel wrote: »

show previous quotes

Joy_Division wrote: »

Well said. Not seeing the logic in how making seige stronger for the defense and nerfing the attackers ability to mitigate / purge is going to encourage, let alone enable, groups of 16 to take keeps with defenders.

If you say, "well MY guild can do it," we'll see what happens your guild goes up against an equally competent one on defense. And besides, what are 95% of the rest of the people who play this game who aren't as good or organized as you going to do when it comes to taking keeps? They are going to either stack or wipe.

I'll take that challenge against anyone if I'm defending with equal numbers. Yeah, cmon please try to enter that breech LOL. Im never repairing a keep again.....

Pretty much, yeah. Right now defending keeps is pretty easy, i would be surprised to lose one in the next patch expect against truly overwhelming numbers. I'll put 5 people on siege and still have 19 to bomb a breach getting pelted by meatbags, oil and oil cats. You'll need to hit 3 barriers to get up stairs... oh wait you don't have barrier anymore

Jules · January 2016

All of this talk of "well if you make it harder for us to do this, we'll need to bring more people."

Here's a thought:

Get good.

Instead of just getting more people to accomplish the 'impossible' goal, accomplish it with less and learn to thrive in different ways. Improve the overall individual player capability rather than just stacking more people because "F it, half of us are wiping anyway." That's a cop out.

Siege will drain resources, sure. Training ourselves in better methods of resource management will be necessary. Purge and barrier will be capped, sure. We will need to consider our defensive vs offensive abilities and ultimates even more now. We will need to consider the pros and cons of stacking up vs spreading out. There will need to be thought. There will be disadvantages to this style of gameplay. That is NECESSARY. As it stands now, ball up, rotate barriers is infallible to everything other than another ball up, rotate barriers group. The very way that we think about large group gameplay will need to change. And that is good.

FENGRUSH · January 2016

Jules wrote: »

Get good.

Hektik_V · January 2016

No one has taken into account the reintroduction of forward camps, which will make it much less of an impact if raid 1 wipes to the ulti/siege bomb, as they can just spawn up with full resources and come back to assist raid 2.

Poxheart · January 2016

x99Needles wrote: »

show previous quotes

Jules wrote: »

ataggs wrote: »

I really believe the upcoming changes were not in the long term plans, but are reactions to a few vocal players demanding change because they want to play this game differently than it was designed.

My role is a support role and I wear a set designed for that role (it was not cheap attaining all of these pieces with the desired traits). That set will be almost worthless with the planned changes to the support line. Purge will be nerfed, barrier will be nerfed, that leaves me with guard and revealing flare. Oh wait, I still have siege shield...looks like we will be using that more.

Why create new sets (since IC) and then make them worthless in just a few months? Just stupid! The only up side is that these same vocal players that claim to play solo or small man (run alongside organised groups and leech the benefits) will no longer get the buff from the support sets.

I wish people would wake up...these super elite, we are so cool 1 v whatevers don't care about you, your play style,or the game..they care about making videos. Thanks for listening to these guys ZOS,and thanks for taking all of that spare gold that was weighing my toon down. Pfft!

Making a set useless is a small price to pay for fixing mechanics that directly favor large group gameplay over small. As Kena states below very eloquently, this game was intended to be a "play as you want" game. Numbers simply cannot continue to be the only determining factor in Cyrodiil. It makes for poor, dumbed down gameplay and servers that are unplayable. Large groups in and of themselves are already their own advantage because they have strength in numbers. They do not need incredibly powerful ultimates that are rotated between 9 healers and one ability to be spammed to cleanse 24 people of all negative effects. Capping these abilities is balance, it is not punishment. The removal of AOE caps is similar; it is not intended to be punishment to large group, but to balance the scales so that smaller groups have a chance. That's all anyone ever wants. Playing in large group should not be discouraged, but it should also not be the only method of survival in Cyrodiil.

KenaPKK wrote: »

A zerg is any group larger than is necessary to achieve its objective. I've been saying this for a long time, and I stand by my definition of the word. No one dislikes large groups existing. People dislike two things: uneven fights and lag.

The game was marketed as a "play how you want" sandbox within a RvRvR environment capable of supporting large scale battles. All group sizes should be accommodated, and big groups shouldn't "zerg" down little groups with unnecessarily large numbers.

But as for your suggestions, yes, more PvP objectives in Cyrodiil and IC, removal of AoE caps and Prox Det, implementation of mild dynamic ulti generation, free movement between campaigns + incentive to participate in all of them, reworked campaign victory rewards...

The list goes on an on, all things we've been calling for in the name of "fixing" PvP. >.<

Well said Kena.

Also, Bulb aside from this disdain toward the upcoming changes, I agree with you on the more PVP objectives to naturally spread people out as well as the dynamic ulti and removal of AOE caps. Well written post.

I know almost everyone has forgotten I did nothing but small man things when the game was released.

Insert Peppridge Farm remembers.jpg here.

Minno · January 2016

Hektik_V wrote: »

No one has taken into account the reintroduction of forward camps, which will make it much less of an impact if raid 1 wipes to the ulti/siege bomb, as they can just spawn up with full resources and come back to assist raid 2.

Thanks! I honestly forget we have forward camps again lol.

zyk · January 2016

Jules wrote: »

All of this talk of "well if you make it harder for us to do this, we'll need to bring more people."

I see this as a completely empty threat because it's already what happens. I don't think it can get much worse.

Satiar · January 2016

Jules wrote: »

All of this talk of "well if you make it harder for us to do this, we'll need to bring more people."

Here's a thought:

Get good.

Instead of just getting more people to accomplish the 'impossible' goal, accomplish it with less and learn to thrive in different ways. Improve the overall individual player capability rather than just stacking more people because "F it, half of us are wiping anyway." That's a cop out.

Siege will drain resources, sure. Training ourselves in better methods of resource management will be necessary. Purge and barrier will be capped, sure. We will need to consider our defensive vs offensive abilities and ultimates even more now. We will need to consider the pros and cons of stacking up vs spreading out. There will need to be thought. There will be disadvantages to this style of gameplay. That is NECESSARY. As it stands now, ball up, rotate barriers is infallible to everything other than another ball up, rotate barriers group. The very way that we think about large group gameplay will need to change. And that is good.

Wow.

Jules, considering how much I hear from you about the "impossibility" of winning because of numbers/lag/Zerg/etc I find a "get good" argument to be less than compelling. Your very last post you talk about how numbers are THE deciding factor: should this argument be engaged with debate or a Get Good response? Got zerged? Get good. They hit three barriers? Get good. They have nine healers? Have you tried getting good...?

Like, the arguments Bulb is making are basically the ones you guys have made in the past. Why do you sit at bleaks instead of pushing Aleswell? The answer Ive gotten from you guys makes sense: it's a hard to take keep with A Lot of DC there. The reply that makes sense. You know it's going to be a shitshow so you just don't go. I could tell you to Get Good but I actually understand the concept of playing the content your group/numbers are capable of.

That's the point: people play to the content. If you make it impossible for AD raid #1 to take Roe they're not going to get good, they're going to being raid #2, and than #3. And then the server melts down.

But thank Akatosh you were here to tell everyone to get good. Crisis averted.

DaveMoeDee · January 2016

WillhelmBlack wrote: »

I'd love a campaign with no Alliance War skill line or AoE. People would actually be forced to fight 1v1.

They can play street fighter for that.

If anyone bought ESO for 1v1 fighting, they horribly misunderstood the marketing.

Psilent · January 2016

Hektik_V wrote: »

No one has taken into account the reintroduction of forward camps, which will make it much less of an impact if raid 1 wipes to the ulti/siege bomb, as they can just spawn up with full resources and come back to assist raid 2.

This, but two questions:

1. Will camps be allowed to be placed closer to keeps?

2. Will the radius reach into the inner?

If those are both no, then camps will aid defenders more than attackers.

Minno · January 2016

[

DaveMoeDee wrote: »

show previous quotes

WillhelmBlack wrote: »

I'd love a campaign with no Alliance War skill line or AoE. People would actually be forced to fight 1v1.

They can play street fighter for that.

If anyone bought ESO for 1v1 fighting, they horribly misunderstood the marketing.

Except it's an MMO, and unless I've been mistaken, a vital aspect of MMO's is the ability to have some 1v1 game play (duels).

DaveMoeDee · January 2016

Poxheart wrote: »

show previous quotes

Minno wrote: »

zyk wrote: »

spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »

You're so dishonest with yourself.. name one Cyrodiil objective for soloer's.

Resources can be captured and held for decent amounts of time by one or two players.

Ganking and anti-ganking are obviously part of the game design and can be done solo. IMO, lanes are intended to be full of solo hunters.

During keep takes and defenses, solo players can perform a wide variety of support roles -- including the disruption of reinforcements.

And, of course, scouting.

There is lots of gameplay for solo/duo/small groups out there.

Only viable objective with AP tangible rewards is resource taking.

They need an overhaul of cyro objectives in sync with AP gain review in order to offer players a balanced pvp environment.

Till then it will always be "damn zergs; solo players cry too much" partisanship.

We could offer our own sandbox rules, but in the end it's what the players are willing to support.

You know there's a problem with the PvP in a game when interdicting enemy actions through killing opposing players isn't considered a viable objective.

Killing is usually a means in war, not an end.

Jules · January 2016

Satiar wrote: »

show previous quotes

Jules wrote: »

All of this talk of "well if you make it harder for us to do this, we'll need to bring more people."

Here's a thought:

Get good.

Instead of just getting more people to accomplish the 'impossible' goal, accomplish it with less and learn to thrive in different ways. Improve the overall individual player capability rather than just stacking more people because "F it, half of us are wiping anyway." That's a cop out.

Siege will drain resources, sure. Training ourselves in better methods of resource management will be necessary. Purge and barrier will be capped, sure. We will need to consider our defensive vs offensive abilities and ultimates even more now. We will need to consider the pros and cons of stacking up vs spreading out. There will need to be thought. There will be disadvantages to this style of gameplay. That is NECESSARY. As it stands now, ball up, rotate barriers is infallible to everything other than another ball up, rotate barriers group. The very way that we think about large group gameplay will need to change. And that is good.

Wow.

Jules, considering how much I hear from you about the "impossibility" of winning because of numbers/lag/Zerg/etc I find a "get good" argument to be less than compelling. Your very last post you talk about how numbers are THE deciding factor: should this argument be engaged with debate or a Get Good response? Got zerged? Get good. They hit three barriers? Get good. They have nine healers? Have you tried getting good...?

Like, the arguments Bulb is making are basically the ones you guys have made in the past. Why do you sit at bleaks instead of pushing Aleswell? The answer Ive gotten from you guys makes sense: it's a hard to take keep with A Lot of DC there. The reply that makes sense. You know it's going to be a shitshow so you just don't go. I could tell you to Get Good but I actually understand the concept of playing the content your group/numbers are capable of.

That's the point: people play to the content. If you make it impossible for AD raid #1 to take Roe they're not going to get good, they're going to being raid #2, and than #3. And then the server melts down.

But thank Akatosh you were here to tell everyone to get good. Crisis averted.

I think you're taking more offense to that than is intended. It was not directed at you, or any guild, or anyone in particular. It was directed at the mindset of "something is hard, I need more people to achieve this." Within reason, I don't think anyone should use this logic as a crutch.

Haxus still runs on average 12-16 people daily. Even when we run 20-24, ask Hek, it's not something I'm usually in favor of because it diminishes the challenge of combat. And yes, my previous post talks about how numbers are the deciding factor, which I disagree with that being the meta. We've discussed this a number of times but I always go back to a very insightful thing you once said to me. You said the ability to PVP is power. And Numbers and Skill are the two power modifiers. These two power modifiers are very out of whack in this patch as numbers modify power 10-fold and skill falls by the waistside in most engagements. Though the challenges of the next patch may be speculated about, I look forward to finding and adapting to new methods of guild gameplay. And I hope you guys do too.