Why Tho?

KisoValley

Sandman929 wrote: »

Anazasi wrote: »

HA HA This kind of thread again........when will it stop......

When people realize that in an AvAvA game you're likely to come across the occasional A.

Problem is 1 A laggs out an entire server on PC. On console I hear it's worse, but from the looks of it you like to run in these groups of 24 that lagg entire servers out, so you think it's fine.

Sandman929

KisoValley wrote: »

Sandman929 wrote: »

Anazasi wrote: »

HA HA This kind of thread again........when will it stop......

When people realize that in an AvAvA game you're likely to come across the occasional A.

Problem is 1 A laggs out an entire server on PC. On console I hear it's worse, but from the looks of it you like to run in these groups of 24 that lagg entire servers out, so you think it's fine.

Nah, pretty small scale. Small guild. Never the less, the statement is true. It's a large scale game.

Lava_Croft

A maximum group size of twelve will do nothing but double the amount of groups in any given area.

Sandman929

I don't know how anyone can stand being in a group of 24. Every time I've ever joined a pug it's just a cacophony of way too loud people on way too much Mountain Dew with a crown desperately trying to herd the cats.

NACtron

svartorn wrote: »

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

You better check with Pack Militia if this is ok to post . The drunken nord tidal wave just wouldn't be the same after .

God is there anything more useless than Pact Militia stacking 3 raids in some crap place like black boot while EP loses all the keeps behind them? This guild is worse than useless, they actively harm EP on whatever campaign they're on.

Pact Militia does not always attack Black Boot, but when we do we choose to do it with 5 raids (not 3)

Stay salty my friend.

Soul_Demon

Recommendations of reducing group size doesn't impact the game in the same way as simply giving the dualists and gankers a campaign with an arena that doesn't allow for a group size of greater than four. No resource d-ticks and no points for anything other than kills. Alter the Trial board to reflect arena positions and do rewards based on those with rule sets that makes sense. One campaign for that purpose alone. Dualist, gankers happy. Group payers still have their server, so they are happy too. We all win.

Consistently taking an MMO sold as AvAvA with the entire scoring and playing concept of factional war in cyro and trying to change it to something else to solve a lag problem that shouldn't exist- doesn't make sense. Its like going to Burger King and demanding they serve you a Big Mac. Telling people they cant play the way they want will never, ever go well. Insulting the way they play turns out the same way- so maybe the approach here to help the games lag is not partition off players by playstyle and let a thread get derailed into insults of those styles, but maybe ask for a campaign they clearly have the ability to give the player base here. And should have a long, long time ago while working to fix the lag that obviously impacts us all.

zyk

The game is zergy because of its design. It funnels players and encourages stacking.

What it needs to correct this is active development by a dev team dedicated to AvA. There are no simple changes that will fix it.

DocFrost72

Sandman929 wrote: »

Im_MegaDeath wrote: »

Sandman929 wrote: »

Anazasi wrote: »

HA HA This kind of thread again........when will it stop......

When people realize that in an AvAvA game you're likely to come across the occasional A.

Who are you even?

Is "who are you" the standard reply?

It's how PvPers say "You have a point but I have pride"

Im_MegaDeath

geonsocal wrote: »

Im_MegaDeath wrote: »

geonsocal wrote: »

hmmmmm, wondering if you're having any second thoughts on getting "social" with your pvp buddies

If you want to get physical we can to netflix and chill?

you're a braaaaaaave person...I think one of the main reasons I spend so much time gaming is a fear of social interaction...this whole mmo and forum thing is a huge leap of faith

you seem though to have gotten the hang of things pretty quick (it was pretty cool to see everyone's response from your first thread)...

on a side note - I've always wanted to catch the "clone wars" on netflix...

have fun and try not to let some of the more colorful forum people get to ya...

Thanks for the tips ^_^ and ill start the popcorn up

Im_MegaDeath

Soul_Demon wrote: »

Recommendations of reducing group size doesn't impact the game in the same way as simply giving the dualists and gankers a campaign with an arena that doesn't allow for a group size of greater than four. No resource d-ticks and no points for anything other than kills. Alter the Trial board to reflect arena positions and do rewards based on those with rule sets that makes sense. One campaign for that purpose alone. Dualist, gankers happy. Group payers still have their server, so they are happy too. We all win.

Consistently taking an MMO sold as AvAvA with the entire scoring and playing concept of factional war in cyro and trying to change it to something else to solve a lag problem that shouldn't exist- doesn't make sense. Its like going to Burger King and demanding they serve you a Big Mac. Telling people they cant play the way they want will never, ever go well. Insulting the way they play turns out the same way- so maybe the approach here to help the games lag is not partition off players by playstyle and let a thread get derailed into insults of those styles, but maybe ask for a campaign they clearly have the ability to give the player base here. And should have a long, long time ago while working to fix the lag that obviously impacts us all.

Having another camp for 4 man is a terrible idea, 4 man groups gankers and 1vX player are there to kill the bigger groups. Your saying it wont impact the game like a separate campaign but this small change will provide other group style play besides zerging, it does not have to be 12 players but 24 being over the 20/20 siege limit should be lowered slightly.

About it being sold as a AvAvA, my recommendation doesn't change that fact nor the play style of the zerglings. The lower cap will require nothing from a player. I think 16 players can group just fine together and zerg and siege and heal spam. I cant tell you not to like zerging but it wont ruin game play or your personal fun at all

Also everyone is over looking the icon thing and I want that more than the lower cap so............................................. please implement ^_^

ideal group cap should be 16-20 since everyone can place 2 or 3 siege at a time and hit the limit on a keep. I said 12 because I want a complex group of armor and players like in trials unlike the 23 templars and 1 dk tank in a zerg -_-

Im_MegaDeath

DocFrost72 wrote: »

Sandman929 wrote: »

Im_MegaDeath wrote: »

Sandman929 wrote: »

Anazasi wrote: »

HA HA This kind of thread again........when will it stop......

When people realize that in an AvAvA game you're likely to come across the occasional A.

Who are you even?

Is "who are you" the standard reply?

It's how PvPers say "You have a point but I have pride"

You have a point, but who are you?

Im_MegaDeath

I forgot to say I play on NA PC and all my recommendations are for that server, I cant speak for gameplay on EU or the consoles

Samuel_Bantien

Im_MegaDeath wrote: »

If you want to get physical we can to netflix and chill?

Me and Jonny still waiting for our date though!

Soul_Demon

Im_MegaDeath wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

Recommendations of reducing group size doesn't impact the game in the same way as simply giving the dualists and gankers a campaign with an arena that doesn't allow for a group size of greater than four. No resource d-ticks and no points for anything other than kills. Alter the Trial board to reflect arena positions and do rewards based on those with rule sets that makes sense. One campaign for that purpose alone. Dualist, gankers happy. Group payers still have their server, so they are happy too. We all win.

Consistently taking an MMO sold as AvAvA with the entire scoring and playing concept of factional war in cyro and trying to change it to something else to solve a lag problem that shouldn't exist- doesn't make sense. Its like going to Burger King and demanding they serve you a Big Mac. Telling people they cant play the way they want will never, ever go well. Insulting the way they play turns out the same way- so maybe the approach here to help the games lag is not partition off players by playstyle and let a thread get derailed into insults of those styles, but maybe ask for a campaign they clearly have the ability to give the player base here. And should have a long, long time ago while working to fix the lag that obviously impacts us all.

Having another camp for 4 man is a terrible idea, 4 man groups gankers and 1vX player are there to kill the bigger groups. Your saying it wont impact the game like a separate campaign but this small change will provide other group style play besides zerging, it does not have to be 12 players but 24 being over the 20/20 siege limit should be lowered slightly.

About it being sold as a AvAvA, my recommendation doesn't change that fact nor the play style of the zerglings. The lower cap will require nothing from a player. I think 16 players can group just fine together and zerg and siege and heal spam. I cant tell you not to like zerging but it wont ruin game play or your personal fun at all

Also everyone is over looking the icon thing and I want that more than the lower cap so............................................. please implement ^_^

ideal group cap should be 16-20 since everyone can place 2 or 3 siege at a time and hit the limit on a keep. I said 12 because I want a complex group of armor and players like in trials unlike the 23 templars and 1 dk tank in a zerg -_-

I have put it out more than one time, but you suggest the players who play in full raids simply need to change the way they play now, to accommodate what exactly? More importantly who would this please other than you?

You mentioned your experience in a full raid was calls that consisted of "zerg here" and that there were "23 conflicting opinions" and one person was trying to maintain it all. I tell you now, you were in the wrong raid and it certainly wasn't an organized PvP group. That being said, you feel the best way to solve the issue of what you have yet to define beyond you personal experience is to change the game for anyone who plays full raids. Reduce group size immediately and add up to four additional crowns. What does that fix? Who exactly does this accommodate?

We have years of threads asking for an Arena system for dualist, and the gankers are some of the vocal crowd when it comes to small man groups limited by size to asses just who performs better as a team, but it has been mentioned many prefer no more than four in a group at any time. Those groups are some of the more vocal regarding the belief that lag will be solved if everyone played in small groups all over the map instead of funneled to the objectives.

A campaign for this would accommodate both those play styles AND allow groups who use full raids to have a camp too. You suggest the addition of four crowns in a group and reduction to 12 man groups in your OP solves.......?

Morostyle

12man groups - co-leader icon! Pretty please @ZOS_BrianWheeler

Signed

Im_MegaDeath

Soul_Demon wrote: »

Im_MegaDeath wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

Recommendations of reducing group size doesn't impact the game in the same way as simply giving the dualists and gankers a campaign with an arena that doesn't allow for a group size of greater than four. No resource d-ticks and no points for anything other than kills. Alter the Trial board to reflect arena positions and do rewards based on those with rule sets that makes sense. One campaign for that purpose alone. Dualist, gankers happy. Group payers still have their server, so they are happy too. We all win.

Consistently taking an MMO sold as AvAvA with the entire scoring and playing concept of factional war in cyro and trying to change it to something else to solve a lag problem that shouldn't exist- doesn't make sense. Its like going to Burger King and demanding they serve you a Big Mac. Telling people they cant play the way they want will never, ever go well. Insulting the way they play turns out the same way- so maybe the approach here to help the games lag is not partition off players by playstyle and let a thread get derailed into insults of those styles, but maybe ask for a campaign they clearly have the ability to give the player base here. And should have a long, long time ago while working to fix the lag that obviously impacts us all.

Having another camp for 4 man is a terrible idea, 4 man groups gankers and 1vX player are there to kill the bigger groups. Your saying it wont impact the game like a separate campaign but this small change will provide other group style play besides zerging, it does not have to be 12 players but 24 being over the 20/20 siege limit should be lowered slightly.

About it being sold as a AvAvA, my recommendation doesn't change that fact nor the play style of the zerglings. The lower cap will require nothing from a player. I think 16 players can group just fine together and zerg and siege and heal spam. I cant tell you not to like zerging but it wont ruin game play or your personal fun at all

Also everyone is over looking the icon thing and I want that more than the lower cap so............................................. please implement ^_^

ideal group cap should be 16-20 since everyone can place 2 or 3 siege at a time and hit the limit on a keep. I said 12 because I want a complex group of armor and players like in trials unlike the 23 templars and 1 dk tank in a zerg -_-

I have put it out more than one time, but you suggest the players who play in full raids simply need to change the way they play now, to accommodate what exactly? More importantly who would this please other than you?

You mentioned your experience in a full raid was calls that consisted of "zerg here" and that there were "23 conflicting opinions" and one person was trying to maintain it all. I tell you now, you were in the wrong raid and it certainly wasn't an organized PvP group. That being said, you feel the best way to solve the issue of what you have yet to define beyond you personal experience is to change the game for anyone who plays full raids. Reduce group size immediately and add up to four additional crowns. What does that fix? Who exactly does this accommodate?

We have years of threads asking for an Arena system for dualist, and the gankers are some of the vocal crowd when it comes to small man groups limited by size to asses just who performs better as a team, but it has been mentioned many prefer no more than four in a group at any time. Those groups are some of the more vocal regarding the belief that lag will be solved if everyone played in small groups all over the map instead of funneled to the objectives.

A campaign for this would accommodate both those play styles AND allow groups who use full raids to have a camp too. You suggest the addition of four crowns in a group and reduction to 12 man groups in your OP solves.......?

Talk to me on the game, ill give you my ts. @megadeath

Im_MegaDeath

I do care about the conflicting opinions and if there are better suggestions im all ears, but leaving the group tool alone without the icons is a terrible lose for everyone

Im_MegaDeath

Samuel_Bantien wrote: »

Im_MegaDeath wrote: »

If you want to get physical we can to netflix and chill?

Me and Jonny still waiting for our date though!

Lol sam ^_^

TheDefiantOne

Im_MegaDeath wrote: »

Why hasn't the max group cap been lowered yet, 24 players controlled by a single crown just yells, zerg here! if the group sizes were lowered to 12 and give the crown the ability to name co-leaders with different emblems other than the crown It would help with zerging and controlling pugs inside the group. you could use the emblems related to guild ranks that way you don't even need to create anything new. More organization, faster battles, less lag, less ball group.

You could just add the option of different leaders in without lowering the cap couldnt you? No you can't, because no one would use the other leaders except for the already experienced groups that are in pvp now. (pug view) - Oh look the crown I better get on it!!! Oh look crown 2 (also I would love to take the crown out and label each player in group with a number above their head ^_^)

12 man cap, 4 different possible leaders selected by crown. Also no content in game requires 24 people, not flipping a keep not completing a trial nothing.

You may say, we want everyone to be able to play together and be happy but if you have played in a 24 man group and listen its just 23 conflicting opinions following the dude that dies the least amount.

If anyone has other ideas please list them and build up a few good options for ZoS to choose from because I know my idea is not perfect but its a better system then now

So why hasn't a change been made to the grouping system? Why tho?

#Why_Tho? #Bad_Grammar #g2g_doctors_appointment #Dont_Hate_Me_IDGAF_Im_Megadeath

According to your original statement, this thread is not about game design and mechanics. It's about guild / group skills and organization. Maybe try to git gud or l2p with better players. Being in a good group with talented players you will see the kind of procedures you talked about in your thread; that's called leadership and initiative. The best groups / guilds in this game (6 to 24 men) will have 1 crown and will listen to that single crown calls...however multiple defensive, offensive, scouting, etc roles will be assign to specific players using their own initiative, making their own decision and working towards the crown's intention and objective.....

So once again, everything you mention in your original post is group/players abilities, knowledge and skills related

Dreyloch

One thing I can think of off the top of my head is the calculations between individuals within a raid, and those not in the raid when it comes to damage etc. Perhaps going with less than 24 man raid size (over all the factions and in Cyro as a whole) makes more server lag?

I probably have all that wrong, but I'm just trying to make a stab at why ZoS hasn't changed this.

Im_MegaDeath

TheDefiantOne wrote: »

Im_MegaDeath wrote: »

Why hasn't the max group cap been lowered yet, 24 players controlled by a single crown just yells, zerg here! if the group sizes were lowered to 12 and give the crown the ability to name co-leaders with different emblems other than the crown It would help with zerging and controlling pugs inside the group. you could use the emblems related to guild ranks that way you don't even need to create anything new. More organization, faster battles, less lag, less ball group.

You could just add the option of different leaders in without lowering the cap couldnt you? No you can't, because no one would use the other leaders except for the already experienced groups that are in pvp now. (pug view) - Oh look the crown I better get on it!!! Oh look crown 2 (also I would love to take the crown out and label each player in group with a number above their head ^_^)

12 man cap, 4 different possible leaders selected by crown. Also no content in game requires 24 people, not flipping a keep not completing a trial nothing.

You may say, we want everyone to be able to play together and be happy but if you have played in a 24 man group and listen its just 23 conflicting opinions following the dude that dies the least amount.

If anyone has other ideas please list them and build up a few good options for ZoS to choose from because I know my idea is not perfect but its a better system then now

So why hasn't a change been made to the grouping system? Why tho?

#Why_Tho? #Bad_Grammar #g2g_doctors_appointment #Dont_Hate_Me_IDGAF_Im_Megadeath

According to your original statement, this thread is not about game design and mechanics. It's about guild / group skills and organization. Maybe try to git gud or l2p with better players. Being in a good group with talented players you will see the kind of procedures you talked about in your thread; that's called leadership and initiative. The best groups / guilds in this game (6 to 24 men) will have 1 crown and will listen to that single crown calls...however multiple defensive, offensive, scouting, etc roles will be assign to specific players using their own initiative, making their own decision and working towards the crown's intention and objective.....

So once again, everything you mention in your original post is group/players abilities, knowledge and skills related

there are exceptions to every situation but zerging is 80% or more of what big groups do. and gitgud and l2p is the best defense XD. that last part where each player has a role, is why I want more icons, no one is taking control of have the group they are still working towards the crowns obj but it will let other split into smaller groups easier to achieve that goal.

example one, 24 man splits into X amount of groups to scout, take resources and repair. if they say specific players do this and that and everyone in group knows each players name and isnt new to the group or game yeah its simple and has a easy flow, but for the new players and pugs and uninformed players, looking at the map where to go what role was I given they are clueless and are being talked over by the crowns next move or action in combat. Icons would give them a location of the leader per small group and could split more often reducing the zerg ball more often reducing the lag more often.

Now ive said this many many times. the lower cap isnt targeting zerging as a solution and I have been in a organized group before when I first started pvp and its fun. I dont want to get rid of that completely I just want more strat added and a lower cap on the group along with icons will force that to happen.

Example two, have you ever seen a small man group? under 24 man under 16 more than likely, Each player has a high skill lvl for their own class and most of the players are helping the group out with buff sets of armor. not just the healer or tanks but each player has a small role ultis are timed for burst negates are dropped. it is a higher skill lvl of playing but its not hard to learn and with AGAIN lower capped groups and icons this will be made easier for the other large man groups to try and achieve.

AGAIN NOT GETTING RID OF ZERGING Just giving more playstyle options

Roechacca

Group size has nothing to do with skill. Has nothing to do with learning skill. Lowering group size is not going to teach anyone anything. It's just a tool. Raid leaders either teach thier players in group or they don't. Some raid leaders can run full raids. Some can only run small raids. Nothing I have read in this thread is going to improve quality of groups by reducing the size.

If you don't like fighting raids, you have duels coming and arenas after that. I solo most of the time but I've been in some big raids that had big raid leaders that ran it great and changed the map easily. I've seen some people lead big raids to thier doom. Again it's just a tool and only as useful as the skilled hand directing it.

TheDefiantOne

I disagree. What you are proposing will never solve the zerging problem... solving the zerging problem require skilled people. If you are a lazy pvper ( and i mean that in a very large way, going from not analysing and adapting your build to whining and complaining about zergs instead of making a call to arms to your friends to run them through the f ing ground) then you will only just whine about it on the forums and force ZOS to overthink the problem and implement lazy solutions. AND YES IM POITING AT PROXY, VD, NERF TO SPEED AND BARRIER AND SO ON.

There will always be mindless people running to the next keep to bang their heads against the door until so many of them hit it that it falls. UNLESS... zos changes their daylie quests giver system in pvp. Apart from the kill quest, the other 4 quest givers are useless. Make it responsive of the map, count towards the faction war, increase the reward depending o the difficulty, exponential to the number of time it has been completed etc.... When this system gets improved we will finally see the map open and more than 2 objectives at a time be challenged. That way you counter AP farming with a reward system and encourage people to play the objectives, which will have a result of making the objectives a fight...not limit the fights to natural/artificial funels for pugs....

TheDefiantOne

Oh and btw, no i have never been in a small man group. Actually i know nothing of pvp and am only a PVE casual.

zZzleepyhead

This may actually spread groups around Cyrodiil! It's not hard to take a keep and it's even easier to have a group harassing keeps around Cyrodiil. Holding a resource and sieging a keep does not require more than 12 people. More needs to be done to redirect players who ONLY funnel to the main battle. Why aren't there group-exclusive forward camps? It'd be interesting to see other respawn options as well. The problem with forward camps was never the ability to respawn. It was the MASS respawning - endless zergs.

The way Cyrodiil is played today is with stand by zergs. As soon as something is called out everyone flocks there because they know: If the fights here there's no where else to be because there's rarely more than 3 mid-sized encounters. Players are too *** chicken to leave castle walls without an army behind them. It's *** stupid.

FENGRUSH wrote: »

Been saying the same thing for awhile too - great start to changing things in Cyro.

I think your proposed idea of having IC be in it's own campaign/pop lock is another great idea that should be looked at. There's no reason for two completely separate zones to share populations. AP gained can just go towards your home campaign. Just one of many small steps in the right direction

SwaminoNowlino

Or.... Get rid of AOE caps, add dynamic ult gen, and watch the zerglings dissolve into a pile of ash.

Im_MegaDeath

TheDefiantOne wrote: »

I disagree. What you are proposing will never solve the zerging problem... solving the zerging problem require skilled people. If you are a lazy pvper ( and i mean that in a very large way, going from not analysing and adapting your build to whining and complaining about zergs instead of making a call to arms to your friends to run them through the f ing ground) then you will only just whine about it on the forums and force ZOS to overthink the problem and implement lazy solutions. AND YES IM POITING AT PROXY, VD, NERF TO SPEED AND BARRIER AND SO ON.

There will always be mindless people running to the next keep to bang their heads against the door until so many of them hit it that it falls. UNLESS... zos changes their daylie quests giver system in pvp. Apart from the kill quest, the other 4 quest givers are useless. Make it responsive of the map, count towards the faction war, increase the reward depending o the difficulty, exponential to the number of time it has been completed etc.... When this system gets improved we will finally see the map open and more than 2 objectives at a time be challenged. That way you counter AP farming with a reward system and encourage people to play the objectives, which will have a result of making the objectives a fight...not limit the fights to natural/artificial funels for pugs....

TheDefiantOne wrote: »

Oh and btw, no i have never been in a small man group. Actually i know nothing of pvp and am only a PVE casual.

Your second paragraph has a lot of good ideas that I support, I still say we need a better grouping tool with icons and smaller group cap from 24 but hey we cant agree on everything ^_^

and ive seen you in pvp so..........

Im_MegaDeath

Roechacca wrote: »

Group size has nothing to do with skill. Has nothing to do with learning skill. Lowering group size is not going to teach anyone anything. It's just a tool. Raid leaders either teach thier players in group or they don't. Some raid leaders can run full raids. Some can only run small raids. Nothing I have read in this thread is going to improve quality of groups by reducing the size.

If you don't like fighting raids, you have duels coming and arenas after that. I solo most of the time but I've been in some big raids that had big raid leaders that ran it great and changed the map easily. I've seen some people lead big raids to thier doom. Again it's just a tool and only as useful as the skilled hand directing it.

I agree, but improvements to the tool will encourage smarter play. ^_^ thanks for the feedback

Im_MegaDeath

SwaminoNowlino wrote: »

Or.... Get rid of AOE caps, add dynamic ult gen, and watch the zerglings dissolve into a pile of ash.

dynamic ulti cant be added until they split pvp updates from pve. but i dont see a reason for aoe caps at all, even in dungeons and trials

Im_MegaDeath

Im_MegaDeath wrote: »

SwaminoNowlino wrote: »

Or.... Get rid of AOE caps, add dynamic ult gen, and watch the zerglings dissolve into a pile of ash.

dynamic ulti cant be added until they split pvp updates from pve. but i dont see a reason for aoe caps at all, even in dungeons and trials

actually the cap probably has something to do with lag, i mean hitting 24 players and having the server calculate the dmg from one person must be stressful