Zerg breaking idea #37

davey1107

Breaking up zergs has long been a ZOS goal, but their solution has always been to offer more powerful abilities, like the destro ultimate. This is problematic for obvious reasons - if I'm in a Zerg, the Zerg can heal through a solo players destro ultimate, but if I'm a solo player I have no hope of surviving a 10+ group casting these same skills.

So here's an idea for discussion - combat Zergs by making them weaker. The proposed new mechanic would use the keep grounds to count the number of players for any one team who are currently present. Then, for every 10 players on grounds for a team that does NOT currently own the keep, every player on that team loses 8% weapon and spell damage and 5% resistance, stacking multiple times as the Zerg grows.

Examples:

A. AD assaults Aleissa while under EP control. There are 22 AD players on grounds and 12 EP players. The debuff stacks twice, so each AD player would lose 16% weapon and spell damage and 10% resistance. EP owns the keep, so no debuffs.

B. EP assaults Ash while controlled by DC.There are 32 EP players on grounds, 20 DC defenders and 11 AD randoms. EP players would lose 24% damage and 15% resistance. AD players would lose 8% dps and 5% resistance. D.C. Players would be unaffected.

Pros:
Could encourage zergs to break up since larger groups would become increasingly squishy.
Could extend keep captures, which go too fast and don't offer enough opportunity for defense.
Could encourage more keep battles at any given time, making for a more vibrant campaign.

Cons
Debuff system could make for weird gameplay immediately after keep flip, depending on how that worked.
A player's dps and defense would become more variable, which could be frustrating.
You'd have instances where a reasonable force (~15) were taking a keep and taking fire, then another group of 15 wander onto grounds to help and you're all debuffed and possibly wiped. This would be hilarious to watch...but yeah...it'd be a concern.

For the vote and discussion, let's assume this system is technically possible (it might not be). And let's discuss the overall concept, not my random debuff numbers. How much is applied and how many times it stacks would require testing and analysis. Obviously the goal would be a significant penalty for zerging so that the pain is felt, but not so much that assault is impossible.

paulsimonps

No this does not seem feasible

I would guess I could say I am "pro zergs", I am in favor of the large scale battles and yes while its not fun to run into one alone, big group vs big group is a lot of fun and is how cyrodiil in a sense should be played. Its alliance vs alliance vs alliance, aka all of you vs all of us. Small skirmishes have their place and are not only fun but can contribute really well to the over all fight for cyrodiil but they should complement large scale not replace it. But such nerfs to group play that you described is not something I would ever want to see in game.

The proposed mechanics also makes no sense at all. "Hey lets group up, we are stronger together" "um actually not anymore the more people we are the worse we are." "Well how does that makes sense" "It doesn't". There are already plenty of instances were a slightly smaller force have fun against a slightly larger one with their skills as players and their coordination as a team. Obviously that becomes harder and harder to do the bigger the difference but that is AvA for you, and I would not want to see that changed.

Rohamad_Ali

There are systems in place to discourage factions from stacking . Smart players will go take other keeps from a faction doing this , sometimes even take their scrolls . Cyrodiil is a complicated place . The only way to improve Cyrodiil is through server performance and encouraging participation for one faction per account . Discouraging emp farming and AP farming without opposition .

Meetre

No this does not seem feasible

Too easy to take advantage of.

timidobserver

This would probably add to many calculations and it would cause people to become extremely hostile toward randoms/pugs.

Sharee

No this does not seem feasible

This would basically make it impossible to dethrone an emp at primetime, when the whole defending faction is stacked inside the last emp keep. They get the full strength of the whole faction, while the enemies will be severely weakened due to the stacking debuff.

What would really hurt zergs without affecting single players is making purge self-only in PvP areas. This would make groups vulnerable to slows, roots, healing debuffs etc. Right now organized groups pretty much ignore everything because they have dedicated purge spammers, and the only thing that is dangerous to them is a negate.

scipionumatia

No this does not seem feasible

I think it would add too much lag to the servers. In huge battles the lag is already high if we add in a system to monitor players and debuff them based on population I don't think the servers could handle it

kuro-dono

you so wrong. WAY TO FIGHT ZERG> FRIENDLYFIRE. make everyone cry. not just bunch of arseholes.

BoxFoxx

No this does not seem feasible

davey1107 wrote: »

Breaking up zergs has long been a ZOS goal, but their solution has always been to offer more powerful abilities, like the destro ultimate.

What evidence is there of that being a ZOS goal?

...and why tf would you want to break up Zergs?

You do realize Cyrodiil is a warzone. Numbers are part of war. If you get zerged down, deal with it and be happy you can revive or get resurrected.

Anyway, most zergs are composed of lower level players taking refuge in numbers against OP players. Once Morrowind hits, I think Zerg numbers will break up a bit more since the playing field will be a bit more level... and if you still can't handle the numbers you will have battlegrounds available.

WhiteMage

No this does not seem feasible

Turn on player collision?

TheBonesXXX

If all AoEs were weak but incrementally and appropriately stronger per person an AoE hits, that would clear up a lot of problems.

If Siege were given the same treatment, but have a higher base strength then player AoEs, then hat tricks and busting up the calamity of Crown Stacking would force players to spread out.

Collision detection would be amazing as well and would completely change PvP in a beneficial manner.

davey1107

@sharee That's a very good point about large keep captures during busy times...which can get insane. It might spur some more strategic ways to dethrone...spread out and take multiple keeps. But some battles would inevitably end up in one place, and if could get frustrating for a team if they were debuffed excessively.

@BoxFoxx Zerg control is a goal often discussed in patch notes and on ESO Live. It presents technical challenges that can reduce user experience, and it can frustrate newer players and keep them out of pvp.

But to be more specific, "Zerg" doesn't always mean "large battle." There are various forms of zerging...some conducive to the game and other not. A good example of a "bad Zerg" is the current iteration of the resource farm that I call "the idiot train". Lol. 8-15 players stack as tightly as possible and walk all over a resource casting their abilities constantly, keeping an endless rotation of destro staff ultimates running. The activity draws more and more opposition players, who the zerging team continually mow down.

This is detrimental to the game for several reasons. One, it creates horrible server lag. Two, it draws dozens of players away from the fundamental purpose of the keep capture game. Three, the victims of the idiot train can feel like pvp is futile and stupid...it's not a particularly fun play style. And when people go in and see this isn't a war game, but a bunch of vets AP farming in an exploitative manner, they leave, and the overall pvp experience is hurt by a smaller player base.

Currently in Scourge, PS4 NA, DC is utilizimg what we might call a "good Zerg" technique (other than the idiot trainers). They're simply capturing and retaining keeps will massive numbers. That is how the game was designed to be played, and these large battles can add to the game...except of course for the horrible server performance when you get this many players in one spot.

Vapirko

I agree there needs to be some sort of counter play options against zergs. But I think more useful would be something like destro and sorc ultis can't stack, obviously we need a cc cool down, but basically just toning down the ability to stack damage cause right now it's crazy op. Abilities like encase need to not be spammable. More calculations like the one you're suggesting I think would add a lot of lag.

Vapirko

paulsimonps wrote: »

I would guess I could say I am "pro zergs", I am in favor of the large scale battles and yes while its not fun to run into one alone, big group vs big group is a lot of fun and is how cyrodiil in a sense should be played. Its alliance vs alliance vs alliance, aka all of you vs all of us. Small skirmishes have their place and are not only fun but can contribute really well to the over all fight for cyrodiil but they should complement large scale not replace it. But such nerfs to group play that you described is not something I would ever want to see in game.

The proposed mechanics also makes no sense at all. "Hey lets group up, we are stronger together" "um actually not anymore the more people we are the worse we are." "Well how does that makes sense" "It doesn't". There are already plenty of instances were a slightly smaller force have fun against a slightly larger one with their skills as players and their coordination as a team. Obviously that becomes harder and harder to do the bigger the difference but that is AvA for you, and I would not want to see that changed.

Large scale battles are great fun. But zergs are not large scale battles, zergs are groups that significantly outnumber their opponents and use cancer tactics like encase spam and destro/sorc ulti stacking to simple run over their opponents utilizing numbers and no skill at all. I'd even say I'm fine being outnumbered, it happens and sometimes you can hold a keep sometimes not, but when you get those groups that move like a flock of birds and just fear and cc spam and ulti stack in a tight clump that is just bs and there should absolutely be some mechanism against it.

ofSunhold

No this does not seem feasible

Nobody likes getting zergsmashed, there is nothing fun there. It's not even fun for the zerg, just a guaranteed win on their way to whatever goal.

But god no, we don't need more calculations straining the hamsters. I'd rather get zergsmashed then deal with serial loading screens, invisible players, and 10 fps more than I already have to. At least it's over fast and you can go do something that IS fun.

Even if performance was ideal, adding unnatural constraints like this (why would you be weaker because there are more people standing around?) is bound to have unforeseen consequences we also don't need. And pity the poor random who rides to the crossed swords and gets eviscerated because now everybody's N percent weaker. Battle lost? That guy's fault.

The number of people is the buff and debuff. It's not supposed to be fair.

Glarin

No this does not seem feasible

I have one simple proposal, REVERSE AOE CAPS!

1-6 Players take 25% of the damage dealt
7-12 Players take 50% of the damage damage dealt
12-23 Players take 75% of the damage dealt
24+ Players take 100% of the damage dealt

deepseamk20b14_ESO

No this does not seem feasible

Wouldn't even come close to working. Nothing ever works out as planned in this game.

Universe

No this does not seem feasible

The zerging in Cyrodiil mimics real life battlefields.
There is always a chance of being outnumbered, 5 to 1 etc.
So in order to survive one must realize he's not "The One" & there is a need for a team work in order to succeed(sometimes enough players).
The number of troops in a battlefield has been crucial element since ancient times.
If a group of 5 will go against 25 players, the chance of success is slim, unless the 5 players are very skilled & the 25 are mega scrubs.

Do I like getting beaten 30 to 1 ?
No.
But this is the game, sometimes you need to run away in order to survive & continue playing.
Jack Sparrow quote: "We must fight... to run away! "

Qbiken

No this does not seem feasible

Isn´t the battle in cyrodil supposed to be a war?? Wars usually contain people in large amounts in groups.

runningtings

Don't know / Don't care

You will never stop weaker players wanting to run around in a big group hitting the same button over and over no matter what you do.
Play as you like or whatever the motto is...

Turelus

Just to be clear. ZOS wants to break up trains (stacked players) not zergs (masses of people running in large groups).

There is a very clear difference in them and the latter even if you get upset losing to them is partially what Cyrodiil was designed for.

Kas

No this does not seem feasible

would mean there 'seven more zonechat chit-chat and hate. adders are already annoying enough (especially if you took some remote outpost/resource as 4 only for 20 idiots to sneak by) and such a change would certainly make your own faction's randoms your biggest enemy

MADshadowman_

No this does not seem feasible

Lowering damage for zergs won't do anything.

Damage is absolutely irrelevant for larger groups, because it's all about numbers at that point.

Even if you cut down their damage to a laughable amount, the sheer number of attacks hitting you, will still kill you.

We once had the solution for the zerg problem, no aoe caps and dynamic ult gen took care of that.

They should be re-introduced but adjusted to a balanced level. AOE caps should be raised to 12 targets hit for full damage and then the next 12 for 50% less and so on. That would make sure that a well placed AOE combo actually does some damage to a group of players.

Dynamic ult gen should at least double the static rate we have now, depending on how many targets are hit. That would give small groups and solo players an advantage they can work with.

The fix to the zerg problem is not a specific set or skill you can equip, it's game mechanics that give solo players and small groups an advantage over big zergs.