Zergs are still a big issue in PvP.

Anazasi

SneaK wrote: »

Restore Proxy Det to its former glory.

It's time

not a good idea. While this is necessary for mindless mobs moving together it's extremely deadly when used by larger organized groups. In fact it makes it almost impossible to stop them when you increase what they are already abusing.

LadyLavina

misfitmanic wrote: »

The reality is not 12+ players stacking and mashing a single button...
The reality is 24+ excellent players coordinating an assault on a poorly defended enemy, each synchronizing the casting of 12 abilities each.
The larger group with best team play will always win the fight.
L2P/GG
Also, as long as ZOS shows army vs army vs army in gameplay/trailers, deal with it. This IS an MMORPG with millions of active players and tons of player guilds.

See ya on the killing fields of Cyro, best not show up alone and unprepared

WTB Better bait

Malamar1229

When a game is advertised as AvAvA PvP, I dont understand why you say zergs are a problem. That's like saying lactose is a problem in milk.

Ill say it again, I dont walk into the BK Lounge and get upset they dont sell shrimp...


PS I am a solo player.


The problem is with the skills being spammed and how they contribute to server performance.

Eirella

I don't care if the game was advertised as AvAvA, when 10+ people feel the need to zerg down 1 person, that's lame.

umagon

One the largest problems has always been the fact that there is no player collision. This creates a situation where players can group on top of each other and fit into areas where large groups of players would not be able to if it was. Which means players do not have to spread out and assault keeps from multiple points. It allows for easy tower farms (doors or no doors), and makes it so that siege weapons can be easily avoided because players can just clip through friendly units to get out of the way.

The other problem as mentioned by other people the siege damage is far too low. But the other problem with siege weapons is the fact that there is no siege weapon that can physical push players away from the area of impact. If such a tool existed then groups of players can actually be separated from each other, knocked off walls, away from walls, etc.

If player collision was turned on, siege weapons did more damage, and there was a non-player skill tool to physically separate players from each other; then I think we would see more tactical play in both defense and offense.

DrummondWarrior

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

Zers are an issue in PVP for two reasons:

1. Grossly Overpowered Player Based Area of Effect Skills(PBAOE) - This one speaks for itself. I told them in the Beta's Impulse was OP,. and it would be used by stacked groups, and it was. I told them Steel Tornado was OP in the 1.6 PTs and it would be used by stacked groups and it was. I told them Eye of the Storm was way OP in my feedback on the PTS, and it was.

Liquid Lighting, Eruption, Wall of Elements, Arrow Barrage, etc...why would you sue these skills in PVP they SUCK compared to their PBAOE counterparts....hmm...push a button 1 time and deal 4-5k instant damage to everyone in a radius around me, or cast one of the woefully sucky ground based AOE that someone would have to stand inside its tiny radius for 3-4 seconds to get daamge comparable to the PBAOE....don't take a genius to figure out why zergs are a problem.

PBAOE need to goo...ALL OF THEM removed from the game completed, and replaced with Ground Targeted AOE...Liquid Lighting, Wall of Elements, Eruption, Arrow Barrage...those are actually balanced and what AOE should be, not these grossly OP PBAOE we have in this game now...Steel Tornado does more damage then over 70% of the single target skills in the game...thats broken....EOTS speaks for itself...why would anyone use anything else?

2. Woefully Underpowered Siege - Again, this one speaks for itselfs. I remember when Agrippa, myself and a few others successfully convinced ZOS to up siege damage, and we had a month where lag was minimal...but then all the zerg balls started whining because 1 Siege shot would kill half their group(As it should, don't want to die move) and they nerfed the damge and the lag came back to the game.

There are player skills that do more damage then siege and thats simply stupid. My Sorc can just shield though siege like it doesn't even matter.

Siege is the equivalent of this:



in what world does any reasonable person think a machine gun should do more damage then that?(It won't)

You can be insta-killed in this game with a dagger(Incapacitating Strike), but can be shot with a 70 pound piece of flaming rock traveling close to the speed of sound and simply shrug it off like it does;t matter. and we wonder why there are ball groups and lag.


When we had powerful siege for a few weeks, these ball groups died...and they died quickly...the server didn't lag all the time...the last Emp keep was over quickly because 1 Fire Ballista Bolt could kill 10-12 people in a single hit....and thats how it should be.

Siege is mostly ineffective for obvious reasons such as champ points, etc.

"Change siege where it gets a 5% increase in damage for each target hit with no cap on targets that can be hit and scaling damage up to 300%. Also, damage shielding effects such as Barrier and Hardened Ward no longer mitigate or absorb damage from siege artillery, and siege damage is no longer reduced by the Battle Spirit nerf, and Oil Catapault Snare is no longer Purgable"

This means:
if you hit 10 targets the siege does 50% more damage to everyone hit.
If you hit 20 targets it does 100% more damage to everyone hit.
If you hit 30 targets it does 150% more damage to everyone hit.
if you hit 40 targets its does 200% more damage to everyone hit.
if you hit 50 targets it does 250% more damage to everyone hit.
if you hit 60 targets it does 300% more damage to everyone hit.

Zergs will continue to be a problem as long as these game mechanics of too PBAOE exist and ground AOE suck. You look at every pain train from Havoc to present ALL OF them use whatever OP PBAOE skill was around at the time to make it work...EOTS just happens to be the one now. Ineffeitve siege and terrible ground target AOE make the situation worse.

Observing groups like Havoc, IR, etc for many many months i know full well what the strategies were(they were good at it too, not dissing them) im no fool, im a very good learner by observation. I don't like to run in large groups, its not fun to me...4-5 is really pushing it for me...im just not a big fan of numbers = victory 99.8% of the time...the game wasn't always like this, and its a shame that it is now.

So...much..awesomeness!!!!! In this Comment!!!! Plus one many times over @ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_JessicaFolsom @ZOS_BrianWheeler

DrummondWarrior

I actually enjoy the state of zergs ect... large battles make it enjoyable and typically in history if you were outnumbered 5-1 you either surrendered and hoped that your enemy was merciful or died a martyr... If I wanted small fights I would go play any other stupid PvP game out there...

But I do very much agree with the aspect that much harder hitting siege would help alot. And additionally, the ever present lag... half the time if a large group comes thru I cannot even retaliate since my buttons are a full second or two behind the large group spamming... if I die I die, but if I die because the lag didnt even allow me to try and fight then its frustrating...

But all in all.... I would be very disappointed if ZOS capped the pop servers because the large population and huge battles in Cyrodil is what keeps bringing me back to this game... even when I get frustrated from lag ect I cant ever completely drop the game.

olsborg

Zergs is still a problem now just as much as before, if not more, because ZOS keeps removing counterplay to the smallscalers.

Thelon

that the TLDR section of his post was too long to read

rivenjr

umagon wrote: »

One the largest problems has always been the fact that there is no player collision. This creates a situation where players can group on top of each other and fit into areas where large groups of players would not be able to if it was. Which means players do not have to spread out and assault keeps from multiple points. It allows for easy tower farms (doors or no doors), and makes it so that siege weapons can be easily avoided because players can just clip through friendly units to get out of the way.

The other problem as mentioned by other people the siege damage is far too low. But the other problem with siege weapons is the fact that there is no siege weapon that can physical push players away from the area of impact. If such a tool existed then groups of players can actually be separated from each other, knocked off walls, away from walls, etc.

If player collision was turned on, siege weapons did more damage, and there was a non-player skill tool to physically separate players from each other; then I think we would see more tactical play in both defense and offense.

Another vote for collision! Another vote for Individualism! C'mon ZOS punish those herds for standing inside each other. @ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_JessicaFolsom @ZOS_BrianWheeler

Malamar1229

Eirella wrote: »

I don't care if the game was advertised as AvAvA, when 10+ people feel the need to zerg down 1 person, that's lame.

I agree, but that's not the present argument.

TheBonesXXX

Make Coldfire Great Again! The best zerg buster in game was Coldfire, wasn't overpowered, didn't two shot people. People couldn't handle the element of surprise when the big blue flame hit their feet and people melted.

NightbladeMechanics

If unit collision existed, I'd spec a dozen full tanks and sit in the gate chokes for hours just to spite TF zergs.

BuggeX

TheBonesXXX wrote: »

Make Coldfire Great Again! The best zerg buster in game was Coldfire, wasn't overpowered, didn't two shot people. People couldn't handle the element of surprise when the big blue flame hit their feet and people melted.

until the broken emp passive worked aiganst Players and acctually oneshooted ppls

IcyDeadPeople

We had collision briefly during beta. It was pretty weird. Most were glad when it was removed IIRC.

Sandman929

NightbladeMechanics wrote: »

If unit collision existed, I'd spec a dozen full tanks and sit in the gate chokes for hours just to spite TF zergs.

That would actually be kind of a fun little dose of realism.

NightbladeMechanics

Sandman929 wrote: »

NightbladeMechanics wrote: »

If unit collision existed, I'd spec a dozen full tanks and sit in the gate chokes for hours just to spite TF zergs.

That would actually be kind of a fun little dose of realism.

Oh we would have a blast.

Sandman929

If people can't break the gate defense, they'd have to ride around it...players spreading out.

umagon

IcyDeadPeople wrote: »

We had collision briefly during beta. It was pretty weird. Most were glad when it was removed IIRC.

I wasn’t in beta but I am willing to wager that they did not have a smart collision system. One for example were friendly players can doge roll to bypass body blocking from other friendlies. And zones around npcs, doors, and other intractable that disabled the collision so players can purchase items. Zones that could be flagged on or off when certain conditions are present; such as if keep’s walls are down or up.

With a sub system that restricts the number of players that can charge/teleport to a single target/point and can intelligently distribute arrival locations. For example, if 3 players would end up at the same place behind a target those players would be placed at 225°, 270°, 315° plus a distance from the arrival point on the horizontal axis.

Knowing zos they just turned it on with no intelligence built into the system and when it didn’t work they turned it off. If it was on players would have to breach multiple points on the keep and defenders would have to defend both the court yard and with limited amount of people in the inner keep. Because everyone can’t just cram themselves into the inner keep. The whole combat experience would feel more like a proper siege battle. Rather than what we have now with groups of players just making one little hole and 40 or so players all rush through it, or 40 players stacking on the inner keep stairs.

My problem with the whole issue is zos keep turning to player based aoe damage as solution and every time it has failed. Proxy, v-death, and now with the aoe cap changes. And each time their next solution is some type of aoe damage or an adjustment to one. When they need to actually address the real reason why people can stand on top of one another.

kuro-dono

Zenimax is trying to tell us that its cool to be aoe choo choo kid. Run around, not really target anything and drop aoe abilities as you go.

Cool kids are trying to tell Zenimax> its not cool to run aoe choo choos:s Zenimax 1-0 cool kids

wasup23

If I convince more people to follow me into battle, I will probably win. That is life. That is the game. That is why everybody plays. Just because you are in a dysfunctional group, or trying to solo is no excuse to nerf people because they are in a big group. If you want smaller battles, pick smaller battles, or ask for what should be here, arenas and battle grounds. That is what we want. Let people who zerg play the map where it is DESIGNED FOR BIG GROUPS TO BATTLE! and just ask for ANOTHER option. Don't play the boo hoo poor millennial needs to get what they want because other people are doing better than me. Do something that will actually help the cause, and make everybody happy. If you don't like being in zergs, ask them for an ADDITIONAL smaller PVP. Don't try to victimize yourself, use your energy to promote greater good.

TheBonesXXX

I like @RinaldoGandolphi idea, I'm just not gonna quote that huge text.

This game was the best in the beginning, when a few well places ballista's destroyed 100s of people.

As said before, the removal of AoE caps needs to happen, needs.

All AoEs need to hit harder the more people are in the AoEs, period. They need to work like an explosion, if you tighten your fist around a firecracker, its going to blow apart your hand, if you open your hand, its just gonna scorch your hand; but you'll live. I have bitched about this myself for a better part of a year.

Remove the ground indicator on Coldfire again, if I can get on a rock, slap down a siege weapon and fire into a stacked group, they all deserve to melt.

There are huge suspended Cathedrals, things in Cyro that haven't absolutely no use, it should be a tacticians game on a large battle with smaller units being employed.

Make the map more complicated and used, the center keeps and scroll running are not complicated at all in order to achieve the buffs in the game. Make the dungeons more useful, they are not relevant to anything but daily quests anymore.

Ghost-Shot

TheBonesXXX wrote: »

I like @RinaldoGandolphi idea, I'm just not gonna quote that huge text.

This game was the best in the beginning, when a few well places ballista's destroyed 100s of people.

As said before, the removal of AoE caps needs to happen, needs.

All AoEs need to hit harder the more people are in the AoEs, period. They need to work like an explosion, if you tighten your fist around a firecracker, its going to blow apart your hand, if you open your hand, its just gonna scorch your hand; but you'll live. I have bitched about this myself for a better part of a year.

Remove the ground indicator on Coldfire again, if I can get on a rock, slap down a siege weapon and fire into a stacked group, they all deserve to melt.

There are huge suspended Cathedrals, things in Cyro that haven't absolutely no use, it should be a tacticians game on a large battle with smaller units being employed.

Make the map more complicated and used, the center keeps and scroll running are not complicated at all in order to achieve the buffs in the game. Make the dungeons more useful, they are not relevant to anything but daily quests anymore.

Why would you remove the indicator on coldfire? That would be broken OP

SneaK

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Why would you remove the indicator on coldfire? That would be broken OP

Used to be that way and it was awesome. Also, used to be silent, which actually made solo flagging keeps a common tactic.

Do we need to break out the member berries?

Ghost-Shot

SneaK wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Why would you remove the indicator on coldfire? That would be broken OP

Used to be that way and it was awesome. Also, used to be silent, which actually made solo flagging keeps a common tactic.

Do we need to break out the member berries?

And it was dumb, you shouldn't be able to be hit by something that strong that puts the user in no danger whatsoever, without any warning.

SneaK

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

SneaK wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Why would you remove the indicator on coldfire? That would be broken OP

Used to be that way and it was awesome. Also, used to be silent, which actually made solo flagging keeps a common tactic.

Do we need to break out the member berries?

And it was dumb, you shouldn't be able to be hit by something that strong that puts the user in no danger whatsoever, without any warning.

I personally enjoyed it and was saddened to see it go. They have taken out a lot of stuff from this game that created more fun than harm. To me that was one of them. Especially nowadays with camps, death just doesn't even matter.

NightbladeMechanics

@SneaK such a casual attitude shouldn't weigh into balance discussions, though.

SneaK

NightbladeMechanics wrote: »

@SneaK such a casual attitude shouldn't weigh into balance discussions, though.

I'll admit, it's awfully hard for me to discuss anything on these forums in a non-casual manner.. I didn't bring up the cold-fire stuff btw, was just saying I thought it was a fun thing back when silent siege existed.

But to be fair, I think the suggestion of bringing it back is actually relevant to the OP, and perhaps a decent suggestion. It would help combat zergs, as most the time the zerglings were the one's that didn't realize they were burning to death until it was too late (probably due to the lag, that they create).

NightbladeMechanics

SneaK wrote: »

NightbladeMechanics wrote: »

@SneaK such a casual attitude shouldn't weigh into balance discussions, though.

I'll admit, it's awfully hard for me to discuss anything on these forums in a non-casual manner.. I didn't bring up the cold-fire stuff btw, was just saying I thought it was a fun thing back when silent siege existed.

But to be fair, I think the suggestion of bringing it back is actually relevant to the OP, and perhaps a decent suggestion. It would help combat zergs, as most the time the zerglings were the one's that didn't realize they were burning to death until it was too late (probably due to the lag, that they create).

Lots of things would help combat zergs. Random instant deaths when there are more than 20 allies within render range or spontaneously combusting Pact Militia tabbards would help combat zergs. Just because an idea would help combat zergs doesn't mean it's a good idea, relevant, or worth serious discussion.

Counterplay is necessary to serious balance suggestions. Without it, an idea is merely derailing the thread.

Although I would so get a kick out of spontaneously combusting zerglings.

SneaK

NightbladeMechanics wrote: »

SneaK wrote: »

NightbladeMechanics wrote: »

@SneaK such a casual attitude shouldn't weigh into balance discussions, though.

I'll admit, it's awfully hard for me to discuss anything on these forums in a non-casual manner.. I didn't bring up the cold-fire stuff btw, was just saying I thought it was a fun thing back when silent siege existed.

But to be fair, I think the suggestion of bringing it back is actually relevant to the OP, and perhaps a decent suggestion. It would help combat zergs, as most the time the zerglings were the one's that didn't realize they were burning to death until it was too late (probably due to the lag, that they create).

Lots of things would help combat zergs. Random instant deaths when there are more than 20 allies within render range or spontaneously combusting Pact Militia tabbards would help combat zergs. Just because an idea would help combat zergs doesn't mean it's a good idea, relevant, or worth serious discussion.

Counterplay is necessary to serious balance suggestions. Without it, an idea is merely derailing the thread.

Although I would so get a kick out of spontaneously combusting zerglings.

I don't think their suggestion is derailing the thread though. I think it was a valid suggestion, to which I agreed with, nothing real crazy here.. Another suggestion, maybe make camps exclusive to groups. This would however mean ZOS would have to allow more camps in a certain radius.