Would you support a small group Cyrodiil Campaign?

jakeyura

loki547

Yes. Max group size of 6

TAMERLIN APPROVED

KILLING4ALIVING

No.

No point, people would still faction stack whether in a group or not.

bubbygink

While I always like any idea that promotes small scale PvP I'm just not sure how this would work. Even if you limited groups to 6, you'd just have guilds created four or five 6 man groups and all getting in Discord (for PC) or Party Chat (for console) and running together anyway. Yes, some buffs only apply to group members and this may limit some PUGs from easily forming groups but I'm just not sure limiting group sizes would be a solution for large zergs.

IcyDeadPeople

Unless there were a magic way to ban all voice comms, it's pointless. Otherwise, sure, I'd even support a pure solo campaign with no groups at all.

Ultimately, we don't even have enough PVP population anymore to keep Trueflame filled up, let alone adding a fifth campaign with limited appeal on top of the already low pop Haderus and Azura's Star.
.

sadownik

No.

Battlegrounds in less than 3 months so perhaps lets just stop with those silly ideas. The size of groups was already reduced once - did it reduce zergs?

jakeyura

Yes. Max group size of 6

The point is not to completely remove zergs. It's to reduce them in size and spread out gameplay thus reducing lag and improving the Cyrodiil experience. I believe a small group cap campaign would allow for much more diverse gameplay.

If you want to play with zergs you could always just join Haderus. Why not give players an option for more spread out and skill based gameplay.

paulsimonps

No.

Its pointless. Sure you can't group with certain amount of people but all it will do is change the AP distribution cause people will group up together without talking by simply being the uncontrollable zerg, which btw I like, not sure why people hate on it so much. People can be on TS or Discord or whatever and still coordinate well without actually being in a group. A campaign like this would not look any different than all the current ones.

Forztr

If you want to spread people out you need to change the map. As it stands the map funnels players into choke points. There's also too much emphasis on the ring of Emp keeps. The edge of map keeps are usually an afterthought and Dragonclaw is a pain to get from the DC side.

I'd like to see some outpost or gatehouse structures added near the map edges to make getting to Dragonclaw, Brindle, Drakelowe easier. It would help open up the map more.

geonsocal

IcyDeadPeople wrote: »

I'd even support a pure solo campaign with no groups at all.

now that would be something to see


guess we still have to have factions though

IcyDeadPeople

geonsocal wrote: »

IcyDeadPeople wrote: »

I'd even support a pure solo campaign with no groups at all.

now that would be something to see


guess we still have to have factions though

Who knows, if Morrowind sells a lot of copies and battlegrounds become popular, maybe one day we will see battle royale or last man standing matches.

geonsocal

@IcyDeadPeople ...don't tease me now

hunger games - eso style...

SoulScream

Yes. Max group size of 8

Sure! Why not just open one for a week or two and see what happens.

IxSTALKERxI

No.

Cyrodiil needs to support both smaller groups and larger groups. Also adding too many campaigns with different rules is bad.
I would support a change to maximum group size across all campaigns from 24 down to 16 or even 12 though, to encourage more tactical large group play.

AhPook_Is_Here

If they did it right so the map only had 3 spawns and it was 4 v 4 v 4 than sure. They would have to make each campaign capped at 12 players 4 per faction to prevent faction stacking. Isn't that what the whole battle grounds thing is though? 12 players on that cyrodiil map would be pretty boring, unless each group brought a camp to sej or something.

ThePonzzz

Yes. Max group size for 4

I'd support small scale in Cyrodiil if it can be done. But 4v4v4 is happening, so I think this is dead in the water.

Solariken

It's not practical or necessary for Cyrodiil. It's supposed to be war. Big faction battles can be glorious when it's all pugs and no ball groups.

Imperial City though, I would LOVE a max group size of 4. Another possible solution would be to squash the AP/TV gains if more than 4 people tag a mob or player. IC is a really frustrating place to be with zergs around.

NBrookus

The small scale server on PC NA is Haderus. While it is true that EP and AD both have resident guilds that sometimes run large groups, and sometimes DC faction stacks, you can often find groups in the <12 and even <6 range.

Knootewoot

No.

It's pointless.

Many times nobody wants to group because they fear it might cause lag/loading screens. But what happens with all those solo players? They still band together and coordinate with teamspeak or similar.

Reducing group size will just have smaller groups cluttered together to form a bigger one.

Etaniel

Yes. Max group size for 4

sadownik wrote: »

Battlegrounds in less than 3 months so perhaps lets just stop with those silly ideas. The size of groups was already reduced once - did it reduce zergs?

What? When did they ever reduce group size??

NightbladeMechanics

No.

KILLING4ALIVING wrote: »

No point, people would still faction stack whether in a group or not.

This. Also, the point of small scaling is to fight larger numbers. We want to fight larger groups than ourselves.

LegendaryChef

Yes. Max group size of 6

Would even support the introduction of this group size cap to all campaigns tbh, 24 is just far too big.

Even if the smaller group size didn't decrease the amount of zerging it would at least make it more difficult to stack up on that almighty crown.

Ghost-Shot

No.

Wouldn't do anything, it would be a better idea to just add mechanics and incentives to split up zergs.

ToRelax

Yes. Max group size of 6

It would be a lot easier to participate in large scale fights for small groups of any playstyle or skill level and with a smaller cap we would probably have more small groups, thus creating more small scale fights. And it's not as if one couldn't fight outnumbered this way, you'd just have fewer and less organized raid groups. Fighting those is very different from fighting a larger number of "randoms", but if that is the goal, you can still go on other campaigns for it.

MagnusRex

Yes. Max group size for 4

It would help with whole zergs chasing small groups of players.

Turelus

I don't see what this would change.

4x6 is still 24.

The only difference is skill effects (group only), AP sharing, overhead icons.

Zergs will remain as players will still just group up and follow one another.

jakeyura

Yes. Max group size of 6

What would have more coordination a group of 24 with one group leader or 4 groups of 6 with 4 different group leaders.

Groups would be more inclined to do their own thing and not just follow the pack.

KleanZlate

No.

PvP needs to be improved with better playability imo. We need something that makes it easier to counter large groups. Simple as that. If it were a bit easier to split up large groups, smaller groups would be more viable.

Turelus

jakeyura wrote: »

What would have more coordination a group of 24 with one group leader or 4 groups of 6 with 4 different group leaders.

Groups would be more inclined to do their own thing and not just follow the pack.

That's wishful thinking, and as long as people have voice comms nothing changes.

jakeyura

Yes. Max group size of 6

NightbladeMechanics wrote: »

KILLING4ALIVING wrote: »

No point, people would still faction stack whether in a group or not.

This. Also, the point of small scaling is to fight larger numbers. We want to fight larger groups than ourselves.

Ok so this would not be for you congratulations, this is why it would have its own campaign. You think that just because you're not in favor of it no one else should have a chance to try it out??

I think zenimax should give it a week with double AP to get people to test it out.

If it doesn't help, well then hell at least they tried.

If it does it could fix Cyrodiil for a ton of people.

Low risk, High Reward.

ToRelax

Yes. Max group size of 6

Turelus wrote: »

jakeyura wrote: »

What would have more coordination a group of 24 with one group leader or 4 groups of 6 with 4 different group leaders.

Groups would be more inclined to do their own thing and not just follow the pack.

That's wishful thinking, and as long as people have voice comms nothing changes.

Well I think it would effect PvP quite drastically. And it likely wouldn't be difficult to implement either, considering we already have group limits in PvE. No one can really claim to know how such a change would play out, and with the implementation not being especially difficult and a lot of players in favour of trying it out, it seems like a good idea. Even if it doesn't work out, ZOS wouldn't have invested much and the players would see they are trying to improve the PvP experience for everyone.