PVP Group Sizes

Xsorus

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

As much as I want to continue the salt farm, I may have reached the limit of my patience for this game. Gonna go renew the wow sub.

You won't enjoy it much better there, Its on the tale end up Legion and damage is like instant death right now for in PvP in some cases.

Granted the PVP is *** in WoW anyway.

Ghost-Shot

Xsorus wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

As much as I want to continue the salt farm, I may have reached the limit of my patience for this game. Gonna go renew the wow sub.

You won't enjoy it much better there, Its on the tale end up Legion and damage is like instant death right now for in PvP in some cases.

Granted the PVP is *** in WoW anyway.

I played most of Legion actually, just canceled it like a month ago and already regret it. It was a much better expansion than WoD. Might try SWTOR or FF14 too.

Should add, I main fury warrior so nothing is instant death lol.

Xsorus

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

As much as I want to continue the salt farm, I may have reached the limit of my patience for this game. Gonna go renew the wow sub.

You won't enjoy it much better there, Its on the tale end up Legion and damage is like instant death right now for in PvP in some cases.

Granted the PVP is *** in WoW anyway.

I played most of Legion actually, just canceled it like a month ago and already regret it. It was a much better expansion than WoD. Might try SWTOR or FF14 too.

Should add, I main fury warrior so nothing is instant death lol.

I was doing a Tank Monk till they nerfed Tanks in PvP and I was like nope....

I play SWTOR every now and again, but my off game is usually pveing in LOTRO working my way through it.

Shaggygaming

Logohs wrote: »

In west Philadelphia born and raised
On the playground was where I spent most of my days

Xsorus wrote: »

IcyDeadPeople wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

Shaggygaming wrote: »

I personally think anything more than 8 is a zerg but I am an old DAOC fan. DAOC competitive 8 mans were the most fun I've ever had in MMO PVP.

It was always a point of pride how much our Alb melee masher group could wipe in one go. Our biggest number was 47 in the Lord room of Caer Hurbury (in RVR 1.0, back when the keeps were static things).

1 Paladin (me)
2 Mercs
1 Reaver / Polearmsman
1 Sorc
1 Minstrel
2 Clerics

But that's a digression.

This game is different and built for different things. It's also much faster paced than DAoC.

Pfft, you're not an alb group till you ran 3 Theurgist/1 Sorc/2 Clerics/1 Minstrel/1 Cabby

You wanna ruin the lives of everyone you run across, run that setup lol

That game had cab drivers?

Yea, Minstrel ;o)

But Cabby is Cabalist.

Don't forget about skalds and bards. They were drivers too!

Derra

Imo in normal games for good group pvp there has to be a balance between roles in a group - which is obviously an easier feat for games that have classes with dedicated roles such as rangeDD healer buffsupport or tank.

In eso it somewhat acts the opposite way. I feel that once you´re building for very specific roles the quality gameplay in a group suffers.
Thus i prefer groups that can not afford to have a dedicated rapids spammer. A dedicated root + negate sorc with maximum ult gain or magblades only optimised for vd maximum dmg.
Same goes for HP stacking to the point where you´re only able to kill stuff with multiple layered eots + negates.

I think groups up to 6 people provide the best quality combat for all participants of a fight (meaning for the groups players and the people they fight) - if it´s not lagging.


Edit: I also prefer smaller groups for pvp as they lower the requirements for participation. Getting 4 people to play together is easier than getting 12 or 16 or 24.
If you want pvp to thrive you have to enable casualgamers to form an environment where they can participate with low to medium effort on any level they desire. This is basically impossible with the groupsize eso has as a requirement for participation in objective fights.
In my opinion having groups as large as eso has is harming the game in the long run because the effort of maintaining them is too high for the majority of players.

zyk

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Its just embarrassing at this point, if the ZOS engineers haven't figured out after 3 years how to make this game run, maybe its time for new engineers.

It's not really an engineering problem. I doubt anyone is capable of creating a client-server architecture capable of smoothly handling the ZvZvZ fights we have in this game as gameplay is currently designed.

All servers have limitations. It is up to the game designers to design gameplay according to those limitations. The problem here is that ESO gameplay is fundamentally designed for 12 player instances. AvA is an afterthought and has been for years.

Rozenwyn

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

As much as I want to continue the salt farm, I may have reached the limit of my patience for this game. Gonna go renew the wow sub.

TBH, after how terrible the performance was tonight, I don't blame you.

Sadly, I only got to play because of the crashing, and had been stuck in a 350+ person queue which vanished immediately.

Its just embarrassing at this point, if the ZOS engineers haven't figured out after 3 years how to make this game run, maybe its time for new engineers.

Its time for something. Not only are the servers awful but then when we get back in, we can't kick offline people, disband the group or invite new people to the group. Was very frustrating and lonely not being in group for 1 1/2 hours today..

Agrippa_Invisus

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

As much as I want to continue the salt farm, I may have reached the limit of my patience for this game. Gonna go renew the wow sub.

You won't enjoy it much better there, Its on the tale end up Legion and damage is like instant death right now for in PvP in some cases.

Granted the PVP is *** in WoW anyway.

I played most of Legion actually, just canceled it like a month ago and already regret it. It was a much better expansion than WoD. Might try SWTOR or FF14 too.

Should add, I main fury warrior so nothing is instant death lol.

Don't go to SWTOR. It has consistently gotten buggier and sloppier as the years go by and the dev team is drained of resources by Bioware/EA. Cut scenes that used to work perfectly in former xpacks leave phantom characters on the screen, character animations stick constantly, there's more instability and less content than ever. This game has one foot in maintenance mode.

It's a shame, too.

Subversus

Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

As much as I want to continue the salt farm, I may have reached the limit of my patience for this game. Gonna go renew the wow sub.

You won't enjoy it much better there, Its on the tale end up Legion and damage is like instant death right now for in PvP in some cases.

Granted the PVP is *** in WoW anyway.

I played most of Legion actually, just canceled it like a month ago and already regret it. It was a much better expansion than WoD. Might try SWTOR or FF14 too.

Should add, I main fury warrior so nothing is instant death lol.

Don't go to SWTOR. It has consistently gotten buggier and sloppier as the years go by and the dev team is drained of resources by Bioware/EA. Cut scenes that used to work perfectly in former xpacks leave phantom characters on the screen, character animations stick constantly, there's more instability and less content than ever. This game has one foot in maintenance mode.

It's a shame, too.

I disagree. The game, while not in the glory it once was, is at the best point it's been in 3 years.

emma666

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

@Abram

Just noticed, that tabard looks suspiciously exactly like Havocs except no dragon. You're welcome for the inspo, I designed it!

Sandman929

Have the representatives from Guinness World Records shown up yet to verify the results of the measuring contest? Whose was longest?

Inig0

wait can we go back to the everyone bashing each other and being salty. this whole 'whose the bigger zergling' pissing contest has been quiet entertaining.

Ghost-Shot

zyk wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Its just embarrassing at this point, if the ZOS engineers haven't figured out after 3 years how to make this game run, maybe its time for new engineers.

It's not really an engineering problem. I doubt anyone is capable of creating a client-server architecture capable of smoothly handling the ZvZvZ fights we have in this game as gameplay is currently designed.

All servers have limitations. It is up to the game designers to design gameplay according to those limitations. The problem here is that ESO gameplay is fundamentally designed for 12 player instances. AvA is an afterthought and has been for years.

Sure they can, the game could handle it in the past until they moved everything off the client onto the server. All they need to do is move some of that functionality back to the client and actually invest in an anti cheat program to monitor it.

Rozenwyn wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

As much as I want to continue the salt farm, I may have reached the limit of my patience for this game. Gonna go renew the wow sub.

TBH, after how terrible the performance was tonight, I don't blame you.

Sadly, I only got to play because of the crashing, and had been stuck in a 350+ person queue which vanished immediately.

Its just embarrassing at this point, if the ZOS engineers haven't figured out after 3 years how to make this game run, maybe its time for new engineers.

Its time for something. Not only are the servers awful but then when we get back in, we can't kick offline people, disband the group or invite new people to the group. Was very frustrating and lonely not being in group for 1 1/2 hours today..

Yeah after my third Cyrodiil disconnect I crashed 3 times in Vivec City waiting on the queue. After that sixth disconnect I logged in just in time for my queue to pop only to disconnect again as soon as I got into combat.

Abram

Sandman929 wrote: »

Have the representatives from Guinness World Records shown up yet to verify the results of the measuring contest? Whose was longest?

Yes, and it was a clear victory.

Agrippa_Invisus

Abram wrote: »

Sandman929 wrote: »

Have the representatives from Guinness World Records shown up yet to verify the results of the measuring contest? Whose was longest?

Yes, and it was a clear victory.

It's clear? is it transparent or just translucent?

IxSTALKERxI

Not sure what this thread was meant to be about but I can give some insight on groups and group sizes since I've been doing group pvp for a long time in eso now.

Ever since launch it has felt like a group size of 16 is the magic number. Once you reach 16 you feel unstoppable. Going from 16 up to 24 usually feels like overkill and almost a waste combat wise but useful if you are playing keep objectives with siege etc. A group size as low as 12 can have the same 'unstoppable feeling' as a 16 man if you min max the *snip* out of every member slot, especially with the introduction of VD and destro ults. Group sizes of 6-11 can be fun but require an experienced group lead who can carefully pick fights and understands the capabilities of the group dps/ heals wise and can adapt accordingly and each member needs to be able to handle themselves (some experience in small scale/ duelling helps).

As for the rest of this thread - thanks for the entertaining read lol.

Vilestride

IxSTALKERxI wrote: »

Not sure what this thread was meant to be about but I can give some insight on groups and group sizes since I've been doing group pvp for a long time in eso now.

Ever since launch it has felt like a group size of 16 is the magic number. Once you reach 16 you feel unstoppable. Going from 16 up to 24 usually feels like overkill and almost a waste combat wise but useful if you are playing keep objectives with siege etc. A group size as low as 12 can have the same 'unstoppable feeling' as a 16 man if you min max the *snip* out of every member slot, especially with the introduction of VD and destro ults. Group sizes of 6-11 can be fun but require an experienced group lead who can carefully pick fights and understands the capabilities of the group dps/ heals wise and can adapt accordingly and each member needs to be able to handle themselves (some experience in small scale/ duelling helps).

As for the rest of this thread - thanks for the entertaining read lol.

I agree with this. I will not judge raids that max out their group to the full 24. Its game intended, do what you gotta do. Personally though I am having the most fun with your 'magic' numbers stalker. The 2 biggest issues I see when playing in a full raid is:

1) Finding challenging fights is a challenge of its own.
2) I find that I cannot feel my own personal impact on the group. I have healed groups this large when I played DC and compared to healing smaller groups, I was not able to distinguish my contribution to the group. Again, its personally preference of play style but that is something that I think is particularly important.

Serjustin19

Yesterday, I was by myself. Trying to take Cropsford, alas 2 lower levels, one level 10 AD and one level 23 AD. I was on my 630cp healer Templar. They both chased me away from Cropsford, they just kept on attacking me.

I kept on healing over and over. They gave up, as well even though they considered a zerg against myself. Those 2 low level AD won by default. Sure they where considered a zerg, sure I could've destroyed them.... maybe. At same time they low levels









If I don't run into valid internet connection, If I do join a group of 24 even though it's rare, I will follow the leader at the same time however; my group usually splits into 4 different teams. It will consider a zerg. Most of the time I am solo. Most of time I not like solo am a healer after all with no damage. Must follow others and or defend keeps, but since I am usually solo I make decoys and hit DC and AD keeps. Mostly AD keeps...

Bosov

The thing is dislike the most are the 'small group players'' who have a understanding of the game and arent terrible. They equip all the cheese sets they can get so they become nearly unkillable in a 1v1 situation and say they only do it because ''Im in a small group/solo i dont zerg so i need these sets'' but what they do in theory is ignore/run big enemy zergs when they see them and go full groupsize versus that 1 solo player they find.

Yesterday i actually whispered one of the ''smallscalers'' after being zerged down by them multiple times. He said ''Im in a group of 7 lol im not zerging'' while him and his 6 friends all stood on my body after chasing me from the milegate to chalman mine.

Give me a unorganised zerggroup of 24 where atleast 20 people will stop chasing me when i sprint away and where i have to deal with 4 not so good players instead of a 3 men organised small group who will stick together and ultdrop/combo skills and chase me until they get the kill.

FENGRUSH

Derra wrote: »

Imo in normal games for good group pvp there has to be a balance between roles in a group - which is obviously an easier feat for games that have classes with dedicated roles such as rangeDD healer buffsupport or tank.

In eso it somewhat acts the opposite way. I feel that once you´re building for very specific roles the quality gameplay in a group suffers.
Thus i prefer groups that can not afford to have a dedicated rapids spammer. A dedicated root + negate sorc with maximum ult gain or magblades only optimised for vd maximum dmg.
Same goes for HP stacking to the point where you´re only able to kill stuff with multiple layered eots + negates.

I think groups up to 6 people provide the best quality combat for all participants of a fight (meaning for the groups players and the people they fight) - if it´s not lagging.


Edit: I also prefer smaller groups for pvp as they lower the requirements for participation. Getting 4 people to play together is easier than getting 12 or 16 or 24.
If you want pvp to thrive you have to enable casualgamers to form an environment where they can participate with low to medium effort on any level they desire. This is basically impossible with the groupsize eso has as a requirement for participation in objective fights.
In my opinion having groups as large as eso has is harming the game in the long run because the effort of maintaining them is too high for the majority of players.

This is good post

Nivellan

Vilestride wrote: »

IxSTALKERxI wrote: »

Not sure what this thread was meant to be about but I can give some insight on groups and group sizes since I've been doing group pvp for a long time in eso now.

Ever since launch it has felt like a group size of 16 is the magic number. Once you reach 16 you feel unstoppable. Going from 16 up to 24 usually feels like overkill and almost a waste combat wise but useful if you are playing keep objectives with siege etc. A group size as low as 12 can have the same 'unstoppable feeling' as a 16 man if you min max the *snip* out of every member slot, especially with the introduction of VD and destro ults. Group sizes of 6-11 can be fun but require an experienced group lead who can carefully pick fights and understands the capabilities of the group dps/ heals wise and can adapt accordingly and each member needs to be able to handle themselves (some experience in small scale/ duelling helps).

As for the rest of this thread - thanks for the entertaining read lol.

I agree with this. I will not judge raids that max out their group to the full 24. Its game intended, do what you gotta do. Personally though I am having the most fun with your 'magic' numbers stalker. The 2 biggest issues I see when playing in a full raid is:

1) Finding challenging fights is a challenge of its own.
2) I find that I cannot feel my own personal impact on the group. I have healed groups this large when I played DC and compared to healing smaller groups, I was not able to distinguish my contribution to the group. Again, its personally preference of play style but that is something that I think is particularly important.

I agree but 16 is even a little too easy. Once you're at 16 you have just enough of everything to handle basically any situation. I'm not sure it matters at all though. A person can have fun in a VE 37man, a Classic Havoc 8man, a Fengrush smallman group, or just solo. It all depends on your perspective of the game. Too many people get caught up in numbers. Yeah maybe you did die because you were outnumbered. Feel free to express that, but it's not really an accomplishment. It doesn't make you better than anyone. If you're in a 24man and don't feel like you're contributing then you probably aren't. You're resigning yourself to the role decided for you instead of trying to make a bigger impact. That's the go-to insult for every small group/solo player. "You're just doing what you're told in these big groups". You're only doing that if you're that type of person or new to the game. The most disappointing thing as a raid lead is when players are quiet and disengaged. It's much more fun for the lead and everyone else when they're making plays and excited about doing so, having lots of fun.

Just my two cents.

Satiar

Vilestride wrote: »

IxSTALKERxI wrote: »

Not sure what this thread was meant to be about but I can give some insight on groups and group sizes since I've been doing group pvp for a long time in eso now.

Ever since launch it has felt like a group size of 16 is the magic number. Once you reach 16 you feel unstoppable. Going from 16 up to 24 usually feels like overkill and almost a waste combat wise but useful if you are playing keep objectives with siege etc. A group size as low as 12 can have the same 'unstoppable feeling' as a 16 man if you min max the *snip* out of every member slot, especially with the introduction of VD and destro ults. Group sizes of 6-11 can be fun but require an experienced group lead who can carefully pick fights and understands the capabilities of the group dps/ heals wise and can adapt accordingly and each member needs to be able to handle themselves (some experience in small scale/ duelling helps).

As for the rest of this thread - thanks for the entertaining read lol.

I agree with this. I will not judge raids that max out their group to the full 24. Its game intended, do what you gotta do. Personally though I am having the most fun with your 'magic' numbers stalker. The 2 biggest issues I see when playing in a full raid is:

1) Finding challenging fights is a challenge of its own.
2) I find that I cannot feel my own personal impact on the group. I have healed groups this large when I played DC and compared to healing smaller groups, I was not able to distinguish my contribution to the group. Again, its personally preference of play style but that is something that I think is particularly important.

I gotta disagree. As a longtime raid lead I have to say you "know" when a certain person gets in raid. There are always people that get in group and make themselves felt immediately. There's always those healers that just somehow keep people alive, those dps that get in raid and start dropping people, those support players that get in and suddenly you're faster and tankier. The end result of this is sometimes you get a group of ppl mostly all on that level, and those are the raids that dominate a meta. That's always the goal

HoloYoitsu

Satiar wrote: »

Vilestride wrote: »

IxSTALKERxI wrote: »

Not sure what this thread was meant to be about but I can give some insight on groups and group sizes since I've been doing group pvp for a long time in eso now.

Ever since launch it has felt like a group size of 16 is the magic number. Once you reach 16 you feel unstoppable. Going from 16 up to 24 usually feels like overkill and almost a waste combat wise but useful if you are playing keep objectives with siege etc. A group size as low as 12 can have the same 'unstoppable feeling' as a 16 man if you min max the *snip* out of every member slot, especially with the introduction of VD and destro ults. Group sizes of 6-11 can be fun but require an experienced group lead who can carefully pick fights and understands the capabilities of the group dps/ heals wise and can adapt accordingly and each member needs to be able to handle themselves (some experience in small scale/ duelling helps).

As for the rest of this thread - thanks for the entertaining read lol.

I agree with this. I will not judge raids that max out their group to the full 24. Its game intended, do what you gotta do. Personally though I am having the most fun with your 'magic' numbers stalker. The 2 biggest issues I see when playing in a full raid is:

1) Finding challenging fights is a challenge of its own.
2) I find that I cannot feel my own personal impact on the group. I have healed groups this large when I played DC and compared to healing smaller groups, I was not able to distinguish my contribution to the group. Again, its personally preference of play style but that is something that I think is particularly important.

I gotta disagree. As a longtime raid lead I have to say you "know" when a certain person gets in raid. There are always people that get in group and make themselves felt immediately. There's always those healers that just somehow keep people alive, those dps that get in raid and start dropping people, those support players that get in and suddenly you're faster and tankier. The end result of this is sometimes you get a group of ppl mostly all on that level, and those are the raids that dominate a meta. That's always the goal

And then there's those ppl who get in raid and you don't even know they're there until you see some poor pug get ambushed 16x in a row.

Vilestride

Satiar wrote: »

Vilestride wrote: »

IxSTALKERxI wrote: »

Not sure what this thread was meant to be about but I can give some insight on groups and group sizes since I've been doing group pvp for a long time in eso now.

Ever since launch it has felt like a group size of 16 is the magic number. Once you reach 16 you feel unstoppable. Going from 16 up to 24 usually feels like overkill and almost a waste combat wise but useful if you are playing keep objectives with siege etc. A group size as low as 12 can have the same 'unstoppable feeling' as a 16 man if you min max the *snip* out of every member slot, especially with the introduction of VD and destro ults. Group sizes of 6-11 can be fun but require an experienced group lead who can carefully pick fights and understands the capabilities of the group dps/ heals wise and can adapt accordingly and each member needs to be able to handle themselves (some experience in small scale/ duelling helps).

As for the rest of this thread - thanks for the entertaining read lol.

I agree with this. I will not judge raids that max out their group to the full 24. Its game intended, do what you gotta do. Personally though I am having the most fun with your 'magic' numbers stalker. The 2 biggest issues I see when playing in a full raid is:

1) Finding challenging fights is a challenge of its own.
2) I find that I cannot feel my own personal impact on the group. I have healed groups this large when I played DC and compared to healing smaller groups, I was not able to distinguish my contribution to the group. Again, its personally preference of play style but that is something that I think is particularly important.

I gotta disagree. As a longtime raid lead I have to say you "know" when a certain person gets in raid. There are always people that get in group and make themselves felt immediately. There's always those healers that just somehow keep people alive, those dps that get in raid and start dropping people, those support players that get in and suddenly you're faster and tankier. The end result of this is sometimes you get a group of ppl mostly all on that level, and those are the raids that dominate a meta. That's always the goal

I get what you guys are saying, there is merit to it and no doubt the feeling you are describing happens. I have definitely experienced this. My point though is the larger the group, LITERALLY the less impact an individual has. I don't know if you guys use combat metrics to review your fights but as an example if its me and one other healer healing a 12 man raid, then Izy at the end might pull up his combat metrics and see that Vilestride did 40% of his healing. That is the measurable impact I had on the raid. If we pump up our numbers and get 2-3 more healers in there is no chance I am going to be doing 40% of the raids healing. Obviously its give or take, I might be 40% of one persons heals, 25% for someone else, 30% for the next guy and so on but as an average my percentage of the groups heals would always drop the more healers we added. (I better just get good right? :P)

I think the reason stalker refers to it as the magic number is because for a lot of group players it is the equilibrium of being able to be effective as a group, push objectives and contest other large groups, which is the game play we want to be involved with, while at the same time not feeling like we are fading into one of many.

The Healers example I just gave could be applied to even smaller groups and one might think "hey vile, but if you just healed a 4 man you could be hitting 70-80% of the groups heals and feel even more worthwhile" While I agree, and for many people this is why they love small scale and solo, they know that the results they achieve are exactly that, theirs.

For me though, this magic number is the balance between this feeling of worth, and the kind of game play I want to participate in and be viable. That is my position on it, you and others will value different things and sit at a different point on the scale. As you have stated in the past, you value pushing the map, taking keeps being on the front line day in day out, and that's fair, for that I concede its more viable to run full raids, its just not what we all wanna do.

Ghostbane

Its all good until your group frame looks like an Advent Calendar.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

Ghostbane wrote: »

Its all good until your group frame looks like an Advent Calendar.

Comment of the day

I agree there are always gnna be players who perform better than others but equally if you remove the excess this allows those players to shine even more and generally you will feel like you're accomplishing more. There is merit in running full raids and pushing the map for campaign scoring. Faction stacking can achieve a lot if your enemies are only meeting you head on. Emp keep attack and defence are some of the most memorable fights. However when you reach the point that you aren't confident enough in your group and play to compete (speaking for the ratio between number and 'stars' if you can call them this) then imo it's gone too far.

Soul_Demon

Group size has been recommended to be from 8-24 since launch until the last patch changed it to 2-24 (have to wonder why on that one). The game was advertised as https://polygon.com/gaming/2012/6/6/3067008/elder-scrolls-online-preview

It has been pointed out that it is much easier to find a group of four or six who can work well together and that really gives a lot of insight as to why some comment on group size in favor of simply forcing other players to not group up beyond xyz. I suspect many who comment as noted above on full size groups have little to no experience building them and are oblivious to the challenges. To find a group of 24, recruit, train, gear up, teach the mechanics and finally tolerate each other while playing the game is much more of a challenge than many may think. The work required is well beyond what a lot of players are willing to do much less continue to do over the extended periods of time required to keep those groups running.

There is a huge difference between coordinated guild full size raids and pug groups of 24 and often its only the full size raids that can break up faction zergs out in cyro, but that isn't touched on much during these discussions. Often the full size guild raids are the ones who can push the map in a meaningful way in the presence of those faction zergs to change the course of the fights allowing factions to recover real estate, but again this is not really touched on.

Most of the small man groups I personally see are found farming new players in remote locations or at single resources not pushing the map in any way. Not all of course, but many of them simply gloss over they are purposely looking for straggling player in larger groups to 4v1 as well as ignore the map and camp score in favor of AP gains. However when those same groups make a mistake and get run over by the same ratio of players in a group of say 16- gasp - its a tragedy of epic proportions to be lamented in forums for weeks on end.

Personally I don't think a full rework of a game designed for 8-24, from top to bottom and all the skills being constantly adjusted to favor small groups is a good idea and would do anything. If that were the solution then battlegrounds would have been a success and we wouldn't be talking about this at all. It wasn't, and that isn't the solution if you small scale in my opinion. Forcing others to do anything will not do anything but limit the people who log in to play the game.

Why would the solution not be to keep the skills the way they are, not change the code for the entire game, not rework the rewards system and redesign map....but open a server with simple rule set adjustment to 4-6 man groups being the ONLY group size. Scrolls wouldn't count for any points (or buffs), and all resources and keeps wouldn't count for points or AP either. The entire server would only pay out AP for KB's on players. The entire scoring system for alliances would be disabled but the Emp achievement would be left in server rule set in case any group of 4-6 wanted to push the map for it. This requires minimal work, we already have the servers for it and would lay to rest the 100's of things that would have to be recoded or otherwise reworked to accommodate small scale players in a game designed from the ground up for large scale. If you wanted, you could even shrink the size of the map to suit the smaller groups on that server.

That would provide what many say they are looking for, only 4-6 man groups of similar builds and play styles hunting each other and no one capable of forming up beyond that size. Why would that not be the solution to this age old discussion?

Joy_Division

At Launch when ZoS claimed to support 2000 players in a single campaign and the Angry Joe Army and Brandon South Ga hordes, 24 max made sense.

Now that there are probably at most 600 players in a single campaign, that number is due for a revision. (Though not 16, just because too many people have somehow arbitrary deduced that that number was ideal, magic, perfection, sublime, perfect, etc., and not 17 or 15. Odd numbers are almost always universally discriminated against, although 1 is something of an anomaly in this respect).

Of course, it won't matter because the way the map is designed, factions will stack around the Emperor Ring and guilds will still argue about about getting stealth-bombed and getting Faction Vs. Guilded.

IxSTALKERxI

Joy_Division wrote: »

Of course, it won't matter because the way the map is designed, factions will stack around the Emperor Ring and guilds will still argue about about getting stealth-bombed and getting Faction Vs. Guilded.

In a large scale battle of 60 vs 60 on a front line keep, I think it would be more fun for everyone involved if the faction stacks were made up of:

Group of 12+ Group of 12+1Group of 12+ Group of 12+ (12x ungrouped players) All faction stacking
vs
Group of 12+ Group of 12+1Group of 12+ Group of 12+ (12x ungrouped players) All faction stacking


Rather than the current:


Group of 24 + Group of 24 + (12x ungrouped players) All faction stacking
vs
Group of 24 + Group of 24 + (12x ungrouped players) All faction stacking


Even if they stacked two 12 mans in TS, it would require more organisation & co-ordination from both groups and each individual group would need to have their own purge and rapids. They might get separated and each 12 man get picked off one by one. They could use pincer moves etc rather than just blobbing around. Fight would be more interesting imo. Just breaks down the fight into more manageable bite sized pieces.

Agrippa_Invisus

TBH, I never understood why the group size maxima for most PVE activities is 12 while it's 24 in pvp.

I know, in WoW for instance, the larger raid size is an artifact from 'ye olde days', but it never made sense in ESO.