When Will ZOS Start Listening to the Rest of Us?

Soul_Demon

FENGRUSH wrote: »

Players shouldnt punch through 'healing' because 'they have a lot of healers'. Having a lot of healers means its easy to heal everyone. Generally, everyone will stay alive. If they all stand in one place and the other group coordinates offensive damage - they shouldnt die because.. they had a lot of healers? LOL. All theyd have to do is not stand on top of each other.

However, AOE caps was giving damage reduction, so it had an incentive to stand on top of each other.

lolworthy quotes:

"Why should we nerf someone because he's standing next to six people?"

They are not nerfed standing next to each other. Unless you refer to changing AOE caps as a nerf to a poor mechanic.


"The advantage of being in a group is the strength of the pack."

What does this even mean? The strength of the pack ??? The strength of the pack is the numerical advantage, which is a rightful advantage to have. The strength of the pack doesnt include having damage reduction because you outnumbered your enemy. All this does is encourage people to win through outnumbering people. If you dont see the folly in this logic, youre a lost cause for anyone to converse with.

This is how zergs end up being what they are. This is how Cyrodiil becomes what it is. This is why numbers begin to trump absolutely everything else. Not because they brought more numbers, but the game put in mechanics to make numbers even stronger against people who have fewer. This isnt even a linear advantage, it becomes exponential. I think your group is spoken and accounted for. Its how we ended up with a fraction of the amount of people left PvPing in Cyrodiil today

Just out of curiosity, if it was professional football....would you set up the 6 best players you could find with best gear possible and complain that the full teams in the NFL dumpstered them? Would you say its a poor mechanic that 6 guys tried to take on a full team instead of fielded a proper team? Cyro tells you what to bring, (8-24) if you try to bring less than that there is only so far the argument works that you are doing so to reduce the lag. There is a point where it becomes more a stubborn insistence that those 6 are just better and being beaten by the excess players from the other teams and the NFL should change the rules to accommodate those 6. I mean you cant honestly say the rules should be adjusted to allow 6 really, really good football players to take on full teams because it would be good for the sport......or are you saying exactly that?

FENGRUSH

Soul_Demon wrote: »

FENGRUSH wrote: »

Players shouldnt punch through 'healing' because 'they have a lot of healers'. Having a lot of healers means its easy to heal everyone. Generally, everyone will stay alive. If they all stand in one place and the other group coordinates offensive damage - they shouldnt die because.. they had a lot of healers? LOL. All theyd have to do is not stand on top of each other.

However, AOE caps was giving damage reduction, so it had an incentive to stand on top of each other.

lolworthy quotes:

"Why should we nerf someone because he's standing next to six people?"

They are not nerfed standing next to each other. Unless you refer to changing AOE caps as a nerf to a poor mechanic.


"The advantage of being in a group is the strength of the pack."

What does this even mean? The strength of the pack ??? The strength of the pack is the numerical advantage, which is a rightful advantage to have. The strength of the pack doesnt include having damage reduction because you outnumbered your enemy. All this does is encourage people to win through outnumbering people. If you dont see the folly in this logic, youre a lost cause for anyone to converse with.

This is how zergs end up being what they are. This is how Cyrodiil becomes what it is. This is why numbers begin to trump absolutely everything else. Not because they brought more numbers, but the game put in mechanics to make numbers even stronger against people who have fewer. This isnt even a linear advantage, it becomes exponential. I think your group is spoken and accounted for. Its how we ended up with a fraction of the amount of people left PvPing in Cyrodiil today

Just out of curiosity, if it was professional football....would you set up the 6 best players you could find with best gear possible and complain that the full teams in the NFL dumpstered them? Would you say its a poor mechanic that 6 guys tried to take on a full team instead of fielded a proper team? Cyro tells you what to bring, (8-24) if you try to bring less than that there is only so far the argument works that you are doing so to reduce the lag. There is a point where it becomes more a stubborn insistence that those 6 are just better and being beaten by the excess players from the other teams and the NFL should change the rules to accommodate those 6. I mean you cant honestly say the rules should be adjusted to allow 6 really, really good football players to take on full teams because it would be good for the sport......or are you saying exactly that?

Im not sure an NFL football environment compares too well against an open world PvP environment. Youre meant to run into varying degrees of numbers. Im not advocating for any rule set changes to accommodate a 6 man group in that scenario. Im not even sure what youre referencing in the last post that really digs at the analogy either. Was trying to clear up AOE caps to somebody and how an artificial mechanic that adds defense to players outnumbering opponents doesnt exactly encourage a healthy environment. You can go ahead and bring 24 (also, where did Cyro prescribe 8-24? All group sizes are welcome, but not expected to be able to compete in all fights). What happens when you have to go up against 48 with your 24? Youll be splitting damage amongst targets and the chances of hitting people youre actually targeting with AOE for full damage becomes less and less likely. Sure you were outnumbered, that disadvantage was going to lead to an uphill battle, but now your damage doesnt even appropriately hit the right targets. What about when you hit 72? Any of this making sense?

Earthewen

@FENGRUSH

Okay, Fengrush. First of all, I'm not stupid. Please don't talk to me like I am. I totally understand AOE's and how they work. What I'm saying is that if they are going to remove the caps, then fine. But also remove the caps on Barrier, Rapids, etc.

FENGRUSH wrote: »

Earthewen wrote: »

FENGRUSH wrote: »

Earthewen wrote: »

@FENGRUSH

Okay, first of all, don't ever presume that I know nothing about the game. That's about as arrogant a comment as you could possibly make, and I thought better of you than that. Secondly, I am asking a question that you have not yet answered. Do you lead a group? Are you a small scale player or do you solo? You specifically, I mean. I'm still asking that question and you didn't answer it. You've giving away a lot of knowledge from your perspective only. You are arguing that this current system has been great, but again, that is your opinion. You state it as a fact, but it is nothing more than opinion.

My opinion differs. I'm still waiting for the evidence. I see that AOE caps are being removed. Which ones? Why are the being removed? Are the caps being removed for the barrier and rapids as well? Or is it only that the offensive skill caps that are being removed so people can jump into a 40 man raid and kill everyone on the map in one blow? If that is the case, then explain to me how this is balanced because I'd really like to know.

I'm really asking some hard questions here, but I've not seen any facts or evidence to support your statements. I see a lot of opinion. Opinion is fine, but let's put it in its proper place. I've played PVP for a very long time as well, and not just in this game. However, someone needs to ask these questions and I'd like to see some real evidence.

@Joy_Division was spot on. Too often, the small man group players have demeaned the large scale players as if they lack any kind of skill, have too much influence, etc. When are we going to wake up and realize that we actually have a great deal in common? No one lacks skill because they prefer pve to pvp or vice versa. No one lacks skill because they prefer large to small groups and vice versa. IT'S SIMPLY A DIFFERENT PLAY STYLE.

So, I ask once again, who in this discussion right now is a large group playstyle and has been asked, listened to, or otherwise? Please let me know because I'm really wanting to know.

Im sorry if I came off offensive. I really didnt mean to be at all. I respect you care and are asking a lot of these questions. Ive been at the forefront of a lot of these changes above. Ive played in all of the environments youre asking about.

To answer your question as a whole, there is no active discussion on Cyrodiil issues with any large groups or anyone at all. Its not something that is talked about. Balance concerns like a skill or how many people are hit by a skill are. Cyrodiils issues go beyond that and encompass a wide range of problems at this point.

Also - AOE caps are not being removed. That is a campaign Ive driven long and hard for, as most people who know me would know that. They were changed (from 50% reduc after first 6% to 25%). It was a big and relevant change. At this point, having them in probably only creates more calculations against performance than it does relevance in turning a fight. It is still relevant when a group of outnumbered players are trying to punch through a lot of healing. But much less than it was before. Nobody should get a free major protection because they happen to be standing next to at least 6 people. Especially when its stacking with... major protection

No one should have an advantage either just because they are NOT standing next to six people. If you want that kind of fighting, that's fine. That's what I'm hearing the arenas are for. I do care about this game. I've spent a lot of money and time in it. I'm glad AOE caps are no being removed if that is the case. No one person should be able to take out 40 players even though I wish my small group could do just that. Still, it doesn't make sense! It also doesn't make sense, no matter how much I wish it did, for a few players to be able to punch through that healing when they have a lot of healers. It also doesn't make sense. That is the kind of thing that exactly DOES favor the small groups in many ways. The advantage of being in a group is the strength of the pack. Why should we nerf someone because he's standing next to six people? It's those kinds of comments that make me think that the larger group style of play is not being represented. Since you never answered my question about whether or not you lead a larger group or a small group, I can only guess.

I do thank you for apologizing. Sometimes, it is difficult to discern someone's tone in text alone.

Players shouldnt punch through 'healing' because 'they have a lot of healers'. Having a lot of healers means its easy to heal everyone. Generally, everyone will stay alive. If they all stand in one place and the other group coordinates offensive damage - they shouldnt die because.. they had a lot of healers? LOL. All theyd have to do is not stand on top of each other.

However, AOE caps was giving damage reduction, so it had an incentive to stand on top of each other.

lolworthy quotes:

"Why should we nerf someone because he's standing next to six people?"

They are not nerfed standing next to each other. Unless you refer to changing AOE caps as a nerf to a poor mechanic.


"The advantage of being in a group is the strength of the pack."

What does this even mean? The strength of the pack ??? The strength of the pack is the numerical advantage, which is a rightful advantage to have. The strength of the pack doesnt include having damage reduction because you outnumbered your enemy. All this does is encourage people to win through outnumbering people. If you dont see the folly in this logic, youre a lost cause for anyone to converse with.

This is how zergs end up being what they are. This is how Cyrodiil becomes what it is. This is why numbers begin to trump absolutely everything else. Not because they brought more numbers, but the game put in mechanics to make numbers even stronger against people who have fewer. This isnt even a linear advantage, it becomes exponential. I think your group is spoken and accounted for. Its how we ended up with a fraction of the amount of people left PvPing in Cyrodiil today.

Okay, let's take a look at what you're proposing. You're saying that since you have four players or less, you should be able to take out 40 players with 4. I'm kind of taking a look at that kind of logic and math, and it just doesn't add up as far as I can see. If you don't know what the analogy is meant by "Strength of the Pack", I can't help you with that. It's called an analogy.

On the one hand we have 40 players with a desire to play together. On the other hand, you have 4 players who would like to play together but really don't want to play with a bigger group than that. Now, you are suggesting that the math of the four players should be at least equal to or greater than the math of the 40 players. 40 players might be a slight exaggeration, so let's just cut it down to 24.

Since computers are all about numbers, programs are all about numbers. These numbers add up through builds to match what is happening on our screen. Now a number is the 4 players and what gear and skills they can run and the 24 players and their gear and skill that they can run. Those 24 players choose to group together either for fun, for strength, because they're a guild or w/e. Those 4 players group because they choose the smaller format. On what planet should the math and numbers of the 4 be greater to the math and numbers of the 24?

The exact thing that you are talking about, the very words you just wrote, is proof of my posts that the larger group players are not being represented to ZOS or being heard. If you as a single, small group player, has as much power with ZOS as you have posted here, then you don't represent me or my playstyle. Therefore, following this to it's logical conclusion, I can only believe that ZOS is not listening to anyone that is playing in the large scale playstyle that they originally designed PVP to support.

If all you depend on is the sheer math of your group against the math of 24 or 40, then yes, you're going to lose. It's called logic. This means you have two choices. One, come back when you have more players. Two, instead of trying to rely on the math being greater for the one shot, stealth bombs to take out the 24 players, start using more skill in the game. Then there is of course a third option which is use every ounce of influence you have to suggest that you're style of play is the only style of play and those people who benefit from standing next to 6 other players, as you have suggested, get nerfed to fit how you, yourself, like to play.

If you don't like coming up against large groups, then don't. Go somewhere else. Now if I'm hearing you right, you just said that ZOS listened to people like me that like playing large scale pvp. You are basically blaming us for issues in PVP and people leaving. Is that what you're saying now? The zergs are my fault?

I think zergs could be solved for the most part by completely eliminating the ability to even participate in all of the campaigns. One faction, one campaign. If you have toons on different campaigns, that's fine, but the can only play in a different campaign. No group porting either to cheat around the systems. There you go. Now we'll find campaigns without all the zergs.

Soul_Demon

FENGRUSH wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

FENGRUSH wrote: »

Players shouldnt punch through 'healing' because 'they have a lot of healers'. Having a lot of healers means its easy to heal everyone. Generally, everyone will stay alive. If they all stand in one place and the other group coordinates offensive damage - they shouldnt die because.. they had a lot of healers? LOL. All theyd have to do is not stand on top of each other.

However, AOE caps was giving damage reduction, so it had an incentive to stand on top of each other.

lolworthy quotes:

"Why should we nerf someone because he's standing next to six people?"

They are not nerfed standing next to each other. Unless you refer to changing AOE caps as a nerf to a poor mechanic.


"The advantage of being in a group is the strength of the pack."

What does this even mean? The strength of the pack ??? The strength of the pack is the numerical advantage, which is a rightful advantage to have. The strength of the pack doesnt include having damage reduction because you outnumbered your enemy. All this does is encourage people to win through outnumbering people. If you dont see the folly in this logic, youre a lost cause for anyone to converse with.

This is how zergs end up being what they are. This is how Cyrodiil becomes what it is. This is why numbers begin to trump absolutely everything else. Not because they brought more numbers, but the game put in mechanics to make numbers even stronger against people who have fewer. This isnt even a linear advantage, it becomes exponential. I think your group is spoken and accounted for. Its how we ended up with a fraction of the amount of people left PvPing in Cyrodiil today

Just out of curiosity, if it was professional football....would you set up the 6 best players you could find with best gear possible and complain that the full teams in the NFL dumpstered them? Would you say its a poor mechanic that 6 guys tried to take on a full team instead of fielded a proper team? Cyro tells you what to bring, (8-24) if you try to bring less than that there is only so far the argument works that you are doing so to reduce the lag. There is a point where it becomes more a stubborn insistence that those 6 are just better and being beaten by the excess players from the other teams and the NFL should change the rules to accommodate those 6. I mean you cant honestly say the rules should be adjusted to allow 6 really, really good football players to take on full teams because it would be good for the sport......or are you saying exactly that?

Im not sure an NFL football environment compares too well against an open world PvP environment. Youre meant to run into varying degrees of numbers. Im not advocating for any rule set changes to accommodate a 6 man group in that scenario. Im not even sure what youre referencing in the last post that really digs at the analogy either. Was trying to clear up AOE caps to somebody and how an artificial mechanic that adds defense to players outnumbering opponents doesnt exactly encourage a healthy environment. You can go ahead and bring 24 (also, where did Cyro prescribe 8-24? All group sizes are welcome, but not expected to be able to compete in all fights). What happens when you have to go up against 48 with your 24? Youll be splitting damage amongst targets and the chances of hitting people youre actually targeting with AOE for full damage becomes less and less likely. Sure you were outnumbered, that disadvantage was going to lead to an uphill battle, but now your damage doesnt even appropriately hit the right targets. What about when you hit 72? Any of this making sense?

You may be right with NFL analogy....was just in a football mindset so it came to mind when I read your post. You get the recommended size for Cyro in grouping tab in game.

As for the 48, love it and try to find it whenever possible....but large groups are at predictable locations and if I choose to engage those numbers a failure would be based pretty solidly around poor choice in targets on my part. I should know what I have, and be able to know that those additional players represent additional heals and damage per second- in tune with the radius limitations. If I proceed, should have a clear benefit to the tactic I use putting my team in the position to out play the others numerical advantage.....if I didn't, it would be my fault for choice in targets or poor strategy choice. As far as where the limit is for tactics being of use it usually drops off exponentially at 2 to 1 odds- so I shift to movement around the map since that is the weakness all large groups have. I don't think that is the same for small man groups since most of the ones I see really seem interested in owning a particular area on the map whereas larger groups tend to play the entire map without preference regarding exactly where as long as they are taking 'the map'.

If I understand your post correctly, it seemed to hint the increased damage reduction associated with sets/skills/aoe's/radius was an unfair advantage that was simply a byproduct of being 'near' others and bad. It didn't seem to account for the weakness you assume if say you choose to build that into a group and the sacrifices required that you would need to likely exchange for those benefits. Even heavy heals means you give something up that others can easily capitalize on as a weakness if they pay attention.

NBrookus

Earthewen wrote: »

I think zergs could be solved for the most part by completely eliminating the ability to even participate in all of the campaigns. One faction, one campaign. If you have toons on different campaigns, that's fine, but the can only play in a different campaign. No group porting either to cheat around the systems. There you go. Now we'll find campaigns without all the zergs.

This dead horse again. It's not like faction locks haven't been tried; we used to have them. We had zergs. We also had almost every campaign completely overrun by a single faction. Removing locks has been positive for the game overall, and we don't have the population to support more campaigns anyway -- which would be required to support everyone's characters.

Fengrush is only pointing out the history that the more ZOS has catered to and empowered zergs, the fewer people come to PvP. "If you don't like coming up against large groups, then don't. Go somewhere else." is exactly what people have done... go to other games. Not only has small group PvP suffered, but large group PvP as well.

RnR may be a big fish in Haderus, but you guys are not really a large group even with pugs tagging along. If you really want large scale pvp, Haderus is not the place to look for it.



P.S. Telling Fengrush "start using more skill in the game" is really funny since I've fought both of you.

Soul_Demon

NBrookus wrote: »

Earthewen wrote: »

I think zergs could be solved for the most part by completely eliminating the ability to even participate in all of the campaigns. One faction, one campaign. If you have toons on different campaigns, that's fine, but the can only play in a different campaign. No group porting either to cheat around the systems. There you go. Now we'll find campaigns without all the zergs.

This dead horse again. It's not like faction locks haven't been tried; we used to have them. We had zergs. We also had almost every campaign completely overrun by a single faction. Removing locks has been positive for the game overall, and we don't have the population to support more campaigns anyway -- which would be required to support everyone's characters.

Fengrush is only pointing out the history that the more ZOS has catered to and empowered zergs, the fewer people come to PvP. "If you don't like coming up against large groups, then don't. Go somewhere else." is exactly what people have done... go to other games. Not only has small group PvP suffered, but large group PvP as well.

RnR may be a big fish in Haderus, but you guys are not really a large group even with pugs tagging along. If you really want large scale pvp, Haderus is not the place to look for it.



P.S. Telling Fengrush "start using more skill in the game" is really funny since I've fought both of you.

Did you just say that we had faction locks and were overrun with players, so that didn't work....but now we don't have locks and are loosing servers and player populations and that shows it was a good thing?

out51d3r

Earthewen wrote: »

I got further clarification about the removal of the AOE caps. They stated on ESO Live that they were working on it, so go check it out kids.

Got a time stamp? I just watched the most recent ESO live and AOE caps never came up, unless I somehow missed it.

Earthewen

@NBrookus

I was speaking in general. Not specifically at Fengrush. I don't like getting ganked, so I avoid the gank lines. It's simple. If you don't like getting hit by a large group, stop hitting their back end and then whining when they turn around and smack you back. lol

Xsorus

Ummm LOTRO is getting ready to release another expansion, and is still going since what? 2007?

So its an MMO that's been running for 10 years...That's not a bad run.

Earthewen

Xsorus wrote: »

Ummm LOTRO is getting ready to release another expansion, and is still going since what? 2007?

So its an MMO that's been running for 10 years...That's not a bad run.

I sincerely hope you're right. From my friends who are still playing there, they are very disappointed with the quality of content there. It's not Middle Earth anymore. And the expansions aren't impressive from what I hear. Rather disappointing for such a rich lore.

NBrookus

Soul_Demon wrote: »

NBrookus wrote: »

Earthewen wrote: »

I think zergs could be solved for the most part by completely eliminating the ability to even participate in all of the campaigns. One faction, one campaign. If you have toons on different campaigns, that's fine, but the can only play in a different campaign. No group porting either to cheat around the systems. There you go. Now we'll find campaigns without all the zergs.

This dead horse again. It's not like faction locks haven't been tried; we used to have them. We had zergs. We also had almost every campaign completely overrun by a single faction. Removing locks has been positive for the game overall, and we don't have the population to support more campaigns anyway -- which would be required to support everyone's characters.

Fengrush is only pointing out the history that the more ZOS has catered to and empowered zergs, the fewer people come to PvP. "If you don't like coming up against large groups, then don't. Go somewhere else." is exactly what people have done... go to other games. Not only has small group PvP suffered, but large group PvP as well.

RnR may be a big fish in Haderus, but you guys are not really a large group even with pugs tagging along. If you really want large scale pvp, Haderus is not the place to look for it.



P.S. Telling Fengrush "start using more skill in the game" is really funny since I've fought both of you.

Did you just say that we had faction locks and were overrun with players, so that didn't work....but now we don't have locks and are loosing servers and player populations and that shows it was a good thing?

Different time frames. The days when we had multiple busy campaigns were a long time ago, and a very different game. We started losing campaigns when we started losing players; removing faction locks came after the campaigns were trimmed down in number to address the dwindling population.

With only 2 CP enabled and 1 no CP vet campaign on PC NA, players can't find a home for all 3 factions in their preferred rule set.

IxSTALKERxI

Earthewen wrote: »

Okay, let's take a look at what you're proposing. You're saying that since you have four players or less, you should be able to take out 40 players with 4. I'm kind of taking a look at that kind of logic and math, and it just doesn't add up as far as I can see. If you don't know what the analogy is meant by "Strength of the Pack", I can't help you with that. It's called an analogy.

On the one hand we have 40 players with a desire to play together. On the other hand, you have 4 players who would like to play together but really don't want to play with a bigger group than that. Now, you are suggesting that the math of the four players should be at least equal to or greater than the math of the 40 players. 40 players might be a slight exaggeration, so let's just cut it down to 24.

Since computers are all about numbers, programs are all about numbers. These numbers add up through builds to match what is happening on our screen. Now a number is the 4 players and what gear and skills they can run and the 24 players and their gear and skill that they can run. Those 24 players choose to group together either for fun, for strength, because they're a guild or w/e. Those 4 players group because they choose the smaller format. On what planet should the math and numbers of the 4 be greater to the math and numbers of the 24?

I don't believe that is what he is saying at all.

He is saying that 24 spread players should be equal to 24 stacked players. As it stands 24 spread players are not equal to 24 stacked players as they get free damage mitigation from aoe caps.



Edit:

@Earthewen

Also I wouldn't stress too much about large scale pvp next patch. After looking over the warden skills and changes for next patch I think morrowind will be a buff to larger organised groups. You should at least be in a better place then in the current patch if you build the group properly.

I will still need to play it on PTS to know for sure but I can already see some potentially strong group comps for 12+ man which will be less susceptible to wiping to 3 destro ult nb's. Might see a more interesting meta than the current one-dimensional destro ult meta.

Turelus

I think one of the biggest issues is that we don't know what ZOS want ESO to be.

We all have our perceptions of what they want (what we want) and when ZOS does something to mess with that we scream and kick off about how they're listening to the select few and catering to specific crowds.

I am pretty sure they're actually sat there working towards the ESO they want (it is their game after all) and using some feedback which lines up with their vision and not using what doesn't.

It's easy to say "ZOS doesn't listen because they didn't do Y" but if Y is something they never wanted in the game to start with then they won't add it because we ask.

Derra

lordrichter wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

But the thing is nobody feels they are being represented and everybody thinks the game has been balanced toward the style the don't play.

Yeah, to a certain extent, those who hold an opinion probably feel that way. To me, this means that ZOS is doing their thing, and not following a particular group.

Thing is - with the current state of pvp.
Dwindling playerbase and everybody unhappy.
ZOS doing their thing does not seem to be good for the game because to some extend they don´t seem to understand their own game and different playertypes?

Derra

ToRelax wrote: »

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

I think @Earthewen raises a legitimate question.

But the thing is nobody feels they are being represented and everybody thinks the game has been balanced toward the style the don't play.

People say ZoS has been catering to "zerg guilds" and I just have to laugh. Because the changes to impulse, rapid maneuvers, barrier, steel tornado, the AoE cap damage increase, purge, AP adjustment for smaller groups, breath of life/LOS healing, increase to siege damage, proximity det, and numerous others have all been implemented because of loud forum backlash against "zergs," "ball-groups," "stack on Crown guilds," or whatever you want to call them. In the nearly two years I have been a member of one of the more visible of these guilds on the NA server, we have never once had a guild meeting with a developer. Not once.

This doesn't mean I don't think the game has been dumbed down or that I don't think it generally more disadvantageous to those who are outnumbered. It is But it is *not* because they are listening to Zergers. It is because ZoS does not have a clear articulated vision and lack coherence in picking the issues they do address (as well as coming up with random "fixes" to things that are not raised on these forums). They are a rudderless ship, from patch to patch they have a goal, but these goals are not consistent nor lead the game to a desired objective. As far as the source of who they listen to, it comes from everyone ... but "everyone" means say 4 playstyles you don't care about/detest in additional to your own. So only 1 out of 5 changes you are going to be happy about. In the end, ZoS winds up alienating everyone and nobody feels they are represented.

PvErs are convinced PvP whining ruins their end-game.
PvPers are convinced PvE "carebears" are dumbing the game down.
Non-streamers are convinced "1vXers" have a disproportionate influence because of their visibility and the ridiculously powerful builds that are possible.
Small-Scale players convinced every patch ZoS intentionally chips away at 1vX feasibility.
Etc., etc.

This is a really good post, and it hits on a lot of areas that are true, I'm not sure about the vision of the game moving forward. You right that the ship just doesn't seem to have a clear steering, and I'm not sure why that is. ZOS seems to have decent devs with experience so I'm not sure why things are the way they are many changes made are changes no one asked for such as moving 10% of Major Expedition speed bonus to sprint? Why? What did that accomplish exactly?

They keep re-inventing their game every 8 months we need small incremental fixes every few weeks not throwing the baby out with the bath water every few months.

Well it seems to me they have slowed down a bit and started to state their reasons for balance changes in the patchnotes. We shall see how that will play out in the future though. They don't seem to see proc sets or poisons for example as as much of an issue as most small scale players, which is perplexing to me. It's not as if reducing how much skill matters and adding more RNG to combat helps new players learn the game nor old players to continue to enjoy it. I'd think players want to feel as if their decisions and actions matter, yet these mechanics have the opposite effect.

If there is a thing some people do not want to be confronted with in their recreational time it´s their own incompetence.

They points you mention do exactly that for those type of people (of whom zos obviously things they make up the majority of their pvp playerbase).
You don´t have to think about your own possible shortcomings if you can blame any loss on rgn/proccsets or gamemechanics. Whereas the same things enable you to win encounters by sheer dumb luck - that you shouldn´t have won.

Earthewen

Turelus wrote: »

I think one of the biggest issues is that we don't know what ZOS want ESO to be.

We all have our perceptions of what they want (what we want) and when ZOS does something to mess with that we scream and kick off about how they're listening to the select few and catering to specific crowds.

I am pretty sure they're actually sat there working towards the ESO they want (it is their game after all) and using some feedback which lines up with their vision and not using what doesn't.

It's easy to say "ZOS doesn't listen because they didn't do Y" but if Y is something they never wanted in the game to start with then they won't add it because we ask.

I get what your saying and you make some valid points. I think it's probably true that people scream when things don't go their way. I haven't since the beginning of the game screamed too much except in our guild's TS. lol And if you check my history, I love telling ZOS Thanks! when they get something right. I really do.

The reason I started this thread was to see if I could find out some facts about the way the large scale pvp is being represented to the people that need to hear. If they want feedback and go accordingly, then I'm not sure at all that we are. If that is the case, which I think you hit the nail on the head, then maybe the large scale stuff isn't what they really want to encourage anymore.

@1xSTALKERx1

I hope your right about the "love" that ZOS is giving the larger groups. I still maintain that if we remove AOE caps to assist the solo player, cool. But also remove the caps for the heals, the buffs, etc. Don't be so selective.

The truth of the matter is that I wanted to ask some hard questions that people were talking about in their TS and guild chats, but wasn't being asked in open forum. The large scale players wonder if they are being represented, and the fact that not one person here could say that they had even been tapped on the shoulder except for small scale players spoke volumes to me, which is a shame. That being said, I don't like zergs to be honest, but I don't call a full raid a zerg either. If they didn't want us to have a full raid, they would not have allowed us to invite up to 24 people. To me, anything that mindless moves around the map with their whole faction is a zerg. 50 plus players against my 12 guys is a zerg. LOL

I had a conversation with a DC player during PVP the other night, and I asked why they brought 50 guys onto Hadderus. "Do you like zerging a map with so little defense?" He said, "Well, yeah. That's why we came." The zergs you have today were brought about not by the actions of the full man raids, not because we had AOE changes, and not because of the campaign changes. I would agree, however, that closing the campaigns and bottlenecking everyone into TF was a really bad idea, ZOS. That was a REALLY bad idea.

I think the zergs happen because so many people prefer the easy button. What you can't kill by skill, come back with 50 players and kill with sheer numbers. Changes to the skills, champion points, buffs, debuffs, etc., will never change that. People who want the easy buttons will continue to look for them no matter what.

Another thing we're dealing with are the advantage players. These are players that are like people who mark cards in poker or find a way to slight the odds in their own favor. While you can't stack cards in an MMO, they will continue to try to do so. No matter what you do to the game, they will continue to try to find ways to get the advantage even if they have to cheat.

@Turelus said that we don't know what ZOS wants to be. He/she is right. We don't. The average guys and gals have no clue. What we do know is that we are paying for a game that we like or we wouldn't be here. Most of us are silent in the forums when things happen. We're in the shadows vocally, but are no less important. In fact, those people who are quietly playing our games need to be heard by ZOS, so I decided to ask if they were being represented. I am sad to see that some of us are not.

I am thankful to everyone that participated in this "social experiment". I read the comments. Some I totally agreed with and some I clearly did not. Some made some really valid points that brought me better perspective. Thanks guys!!! See you on the battlefield!!!!

Rickter

Earthewen wrote: »

The truth of the matter is that I wanted to ask some hard questions that people were talking about in their TS and guild chats, but wasn't being asked in open forum. The large scale players wonder if they are being represented, and the fact that not one person here could say that they had even been tapped on the shoulder except for small scale players spoke volumes to me, which is a shame.

This statement right here is the main reason for my animosity (when manifested) on the forums. Its why i go on a rant about the "small pvp elite dictating the game for the rest of us".

I appreciate you starting this thread. See you in Haderus!

Sandman929

Some weird, drifting discussions around AoE caps. I don't think anyone is saying that 4 should be able to wipe 40, or gain any advantage simply because their group is smaller. What most people are saying is that 40 shouldn't get a mechanical advantage in the form of AoE caps which will reduce the damage to the members of the larger group (40). The larger group already has a numbers advantage. More healers, more buffs/debuffs...the larger group has the advantage already. AoE caps gives them an additional built-in advantage mitigating their AoE damage received simply because of the larger numbers.

Derra

Rickter wrote: »

Earthewen wrote: »

The truth of the matter is that I wanted to ask some hard questions that people were talking about in their TS and guild chats, but wasn't being asked in open forum. The large scale players wonder if they are being represented, and the fact that not one person here could say that they had even been tapped on the shoulder except for small scale players spoke volumes to me, which is a shame.

This statement right here is the main reason for my animosity (when manifested) on the forums. Its why i go on a rant about the "small pvp elite dictating the game for the rest of us".

I appreciate you starting this thread. See you in Haderus!

Can you give an example where the game got changed to accomodate the small elite playerbase though?

Because the way i see it - almost every change to skills and mechanics in regard to pvp happened because it was used by the pvp "elite" (small and largegrp).

Rickter

FENGRUSH wrote: »

I think your group is spoken and accounted for. Its how we ended up with a fraction of the amount of people left PvPing in Cyrodiil today

you keep saying this in multiple threads and i dont think its true. I run into zergs in IC, Trueflame, Azura, Haderus, there are players everywhere and no shortage. like what are you comparing to? launch? when hype was the most?

Stop spreading this skewed perception that ESO PvP is at an all time low. its not true.

FENGRUSH

Rickter wrote: »

FENGRUSH wrote: »

I think your group is spoken and accounted for. Its how we ended up with a fraction of the amount of people left PvPing in Cyrodiil today

you keep saying this in multiple threads and i dont think its true. I run into zergs in IC, Trueflame, Azura, Haderus, there are players everywhere and no shortage. like what are you comparing to? launch? when hype was the most?

Stop spreading this skewed perception that ESO PvP is at an all time low. its not true.

A perception? The evidence is pretty concrete on the given numbers. This isnt just at release, this is patch to patch. Servers are not being added over time, they were reduced. Population caps have not been increased, they have been reduced, multiple times.

Activity on the PvP servers is not increasing, its stagnated at a low point. Also know tons of PC NA players that have dropped off in their play time drastically over the last few months.

Its not a skewed perception. Please indicate where you see actual growth in PvP or where the population was at a lower point and has since increased to our present day.

Rickter

FENGRUSH wrote: »

A perception? The evidence is pretty concrete on the given numbers. This isnt just at release, this is patch to patch. Servers are not being added over time, they were reduced. Population caps have not been increased, they have been reduced, multiple times.

Activity on the PvP servers is not increasing, its stagnated at a low point. Also know tons of PC NA players that have dropped off in their play time drastically over the last few months.

Its not a skewed perception. Please indicate where you see actual growth in PvP or where the population was at a lower point and has since increased to our present day.

Players come and go. its not about growth its about population stabilization. PVPers are not bleeding out of ESO. Servers arent ghost towns. There was a tremendous amount of hype at the launch of this game. Over time a lot of those players dropped off - thats expected of any mmo out there!

you citing patch to patch people leaving is a no-brainer. but i honestly dont think you have the numbers at all. In fact, I bet those numbers have INCREASED exponentially since the announcement of Morrowind. I know there has been steady growth since Dark Brotherhood.

Just because there were some well known pvp names at launch and they have all left, does NOT mean eso pvp is dying. it means they got banned or burnt out. Your stream numbers dont even represent eso pvp because frankly, people get bored with your stuff and stop tuning in.

You stating the game is in decline is just arrogance at its finest.

Derra

Rickter wrote: »

FENGRUSH wrote: »

A perception? The evidence is pretty concrete on the given numbers. This isnt just at release, this is patch to patch. Servers are not being added over time, they were reduced. Population caps have not been increased, they have been reduced, multiple times.

Activity on the PvP servers is not increasing, its stagnated at a low point. Also know tons of PC NA players that have dropped off in their play time drastically over the last few months.

Its not a skewed perception. Please indicate where you see actual growth in PvP or where the population was at a lower point and has since increased to our present day.

Players come and go. its not about growth its about population stabilization. PVPers are not bleeding out of ESO. Servers arent ghost towns. There was a tremendous amount of hype at the launch of this game. Over time a lot of those players dropped off - thats expected of any mmo out there!

you citing patch to patch people leaving is a no-brainer. but i honestly dont think you have the numbers at all. In fact, I bet those numbers have INCREASED exponentially since the announcement of Morrowind. I know there has been steady growth since Dark Brotherhood.

Just because there were some well known pvp names at launch and they have all left, does NOT mean eso pvp is dying. it means they got banned or burnt out. Your stream numbers dont even represent eso pvp because frankly, people get bored with your stuff and stop tuning in.

You stating the game is in decline is just arrogance at its finest.

Is there any high profile pvp player who actually thinks the open world pvp playerbase isn´t declining?

Honestly i´m fighting the same names every time i log in. Meeting someone new is something happening very rarely for me on TF EU.

Also would you mind answering my question from above?

Rickter

Derra wrote: »

Also would you mind answering my question from above?

The fact that Battlegrounds are being introduced is in direct response to the small scale pvp elite. Seriously you think this was in any kind of original layout of the game? What impact do you think this will have on Cyro over-world? its not going to make it more healthy thats for sure! ZOS signed Cyro's death warrant to cater to the 1vX "small Scale" snobs

The various changes to help "break up zergs" such as increasing siege dmg, lifting aoe caps (at least in its current form) are to accommodate smaller groups and break zergs.

Destro Ulti.

Derra wrote: »

Is there any high profile pvp player who actually thinks the open world pvp playerbase isn´t declining?

What kind of question is this? What "high profile" pvp player isnt preaching 1vX or "small scale" of course theyd share the same opinion because thats the agenda.

Earthewen

I am currently researching through all available records through a few different resources including this website for facts of changes and the resulting outcomes of those changes. I will be placing them in a timeline and trying to get facts and figures to determine the truth of the recent comments made here. I will be searching for dates, responses, outcomes in actual combat in PVP, as well as looking for population figures as well. It's going to take a LONG time to sift through and determine which is fact and which is opinion, but I'm going to make every effort to be as unbiased as possible. Just thought I'd let you guys know. I'm going to do my best to see if the changes did indeed help large scale groups as stated here, or didn't, and who actually was the first to prompt any of the changes.

Barring a complete wipe of the forums here and internet sites elsewhere, I think the picture will be pretty clear eventually. I'll let you guys know what I discover.

NBrookus

Rickter wrote: »

The fact that Battlegrounds are being introduced is in direct response to the small scale pvp elite. Seriously you think this was in any kind of original layout of the game?

June 2014 ESO Battlegrounds demo, 2 months after the game's release:
http://tamrielfoundry.com/2014/06/eso-e3-3v3-demo/

Speaking of pvp ghost town, have you seen Haderus this week? This is not a healthy, vibrant campaign right now. When a map can be painted a solid color on a Friday afternoon, or have 4 emps in a single day yesterday, it's got issues no matter how you slice it.

Earthewen

NBrookus wrote: »

Rickter wrote: »

The fact that Battlegrounds are being introduced is in direct response to the small scale pvp elite. Seriously you think this was in any kind of original layout of the game?

June 2014 ESO Battlegrounds demo, 2 months after the game's release:
http://tamrielfoundry.com/2014/06/eso-e3-3v3-demo/

Speaking of pvp ghost town, have you seen Haderus this week? This is not a healthy, vibrant campaign right now. When a map can be painted a solid color on a Friday afternoon, or have 4 emps in a single day yesterday, it's got issues no matter how you slice it.

Hey, @NBrookus. Did anyone complain last campaign when it was all yellow? Or when it was all blue? Was that healthy?

FENGRUSH

Rickter wrote: »

FENGRUSH wrote: »

A perception? The evidence is pretty concrete on the given numbers. This isnt just at release, this is patch to patch. Servers are not being added over time, they were reduced. Population caps have not been increased, they have been reduced, multiple times.

Activity on the PvP servers is not increasing, its stagnated at a low point. Also know tons of PC NA players that have dropped off in their play time drastically over the last few months.

Its not a skewed perception. Please indicate where you see actual growth in PvP or where the population was at a lower point and has since increased to our present day.

Players come and go. its not about growth its about population stabilization. PVPers are not bleeding out of ESO. Servers arent ghost towns. There was a tremendous amount of hype at the launch of this game. Over time a lot of those players dropped off - thats expected of any mmo out there!

you citing patch to patch people leaving is a no-brainer. but i honestly dont think you have the numbers at all. In fact, I bet those numbers have INCREASED exponentially since the announcement of Morrowind. I know there has been steady growth since Dark Brotherhood.

Just because there were some well known pvp names at launch and they have all left, does NOT mean eso pvp is dying. it means they got banned or burnt out. Your stream numbers dont even represent eso pvp because frankly, people get bored with your stuff and stop tuning in.

You stating the game is in decline is just arrogance at its finest.

This isnt a doomsday post - its a reality check.

Rickter wrote: »

There was a tremendous amount of hype at the launch of this game. Over time a lot of those players dropped off - thats expected of any mmo out there!

you citing patch to patch people leaving is a no-brainer. but i honestly dont think you have the numbers at all.

Yes - there is always a drop off after people try the game. Im refering to the rest of the time between the 3 years since it was released. We didnt drop down to 4 PvP servers that dont fill up after release. That happened over time. Thats a trend.

Rickter wrote: »

but i honestly dont think you have the numbers at all. In fact, I bet those numbers have INCREASED exponentially since the announcement of Morrowind. I know there has been steady growth since Dark Brotherhood.

Do the alliance bars day to day PvPing represent anything to you? Perhaps seeing Trueflame pop locking later in the day and for shorter windows and the other servers never pop locking around is an indication of exponential growth. Do you even know what that word means... lol. I wouldnt describe the current PvP population as such.

Rickter wrote: »

Just because there were some well known pvp names at launch and they have all left, does NOT mean eso pvp is dying. it means they got banned or burnt out. Your stream numbers dont even represent eso pvp because frankly, people get bored with your stuff and stop tuning in.

You stating the game is in decline is just arrogance at its finest.

What does my stream have to do with any of this? I stream other games other than ESO - using my stream as a basis for the games current PvP pop has never been a point of interest. I know you are among the posters that hate PvP streamers and feel they have too much of an ego that rubs you such a way that you feel compelled to disagree with them at all costs. Take a few steps back and try to reassess. If you think you have a better understanding of the games issues, Id invite you to come chat and have a debate about it - because your arguments are nonexistant in these PvP threads and solely revolve around your dislike of players that believe they are among the best.

Remember posting in the no CP thread and getting completely blown out of the water on dumb comments about noCP from me and a lot of other players that would wipe you and your guilds group out because they are better players and have a better understanding of PvP? In case you forgot:

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/3920802/#Comment_3920802

Rickter wrote: »

the issue is that the small scale proponents are insisting that theirs is the best way, and unfortunately they do have the ear of the developers. have you heard of hte Council of PVPers? thats actually a thing. its real.

Can you fill me in on the Council of PVPers. Is this a secret club whos existence you know of but the names you are not aware of? Please tell us more!

Rickter wrote: »

Derra wrote: »

Also would you mind answering my question from above?

The fact that Battlegrounds are being introduced is in direct response to the small scale pvp elite. Seriously you think this was in any kind of original layout of the game?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13wrTY_C240&oref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D13wrTY_C240&has_verified=1

This is actually a battleground back in 2014. Paul Sage unveiled ESOs potential development plans for the next few years back in 2014. They havent even released everything he discussed back then - but this was always intended to be part of it. Also discussed then, and frontlined more than any of those, was Imperial City. Thats what the PvP team was working on before BGs. Youre misinformed and full of misdirected anger at the egos you build up more than they do themselves. Get a grip.

NBrookus

Earthewen wrote: »

NBrookus wrote: »

Rickter wrote: »

The fact that Battlegrounds are being introduced is in direct response to the small scale pvp elite. Seriously you think this was in any kind of original layout of the game?

June 2014 ESO Battlegrounds demo, 2 months after the game's release:
http://tamrielfoundry.com/2014/06/eso-e3-3v3-demo/

Speaking of pvp ghost town, have you seen Haderus this week? This is not a healthy, vibrant campaign right now. When a map can be painted a solid color on a Friday afternoon, or have 4 emps in a single day yesterday, it's got issues no matter how you slice it.

Hey, @NBrookus. Did anyone complain last campaign when it was all yellow? Or when it was all blue? Was that healthy?

No, that wasn't healthy either. Nor was the emp swapping AD and EP -- and later on DC -- were doing. (And I did a fair amount of complaining about it.) This isn't a faction thing. You said yourself earlier that a big DC group was zerging the map for grins. That fact one group can do that at all is a symptom of sickness.

FENGRUSH

Earthewen wrote: »

NBrookus wrote: »

Rickter wrote: »

The fact that Battlegrounds are being introduced is in direct response to the small scale pvp elite. Seriously you think this was in any kind of original layout of the game?

June 2014 ESO Battlegrounds demo, 2 months after the game's release:
http://tamrielfoundry.com/2014/06/eso-e3-3v3-demo/

Speaking of pvp ghost town, have you seen Haderus this week? This is not a healthy, vibrant campaign right now. When a map can be painted a solid color on a Friday afternoon, or have 4 emps in a single day yesterday, it's got issues no matter how you slice it.

Hey, @NBrookus. Did anyone complain last campaign when it was all yellow? Or when it was all blue? Was that healthy?

Id complain at all stages. Issue with campaigns like that is not only the advantage they have as emp and the ground - but if theres 3 bars of EP on that map, who wants to try to push the map with 1 bar DC? They dont - they dont even bother showing up. Not because they cant flip the map, thatd be unrealistic to think they could. Because the fights they will take will involve such a differential in numbers that the combat they experience will be awful gameplay of mechanics that dont even allow them to compete. That was kind of the point of number differentials screwing PvP terribly. Numbers have an advantage, and the people who have those numbers can hit multiple places. But just simply throwing all those numbers at one place shouldnt ruin the entire PvP experience.

More importantly..because Im trying to logically lead you to this path and understand this train of thought.. why do you think they ever had dynamic ult gen in the first place? Please explain this to me if nothing else, its an issue Id love to have a healthy debate on.