PVP Group Sizes

Satiar

Arguably 2 12 mans would be more effective than 1 24 man raid. It's something we intend to explore in other games if they ever come out, but ESo had always been about who has the single strongest group so that's been our focus since day 1.

If it were forced on us we'd pretty much have to run that second raid or kick half our roster.

Ghost-Shot

I'm curious where people get the 16 number from? Is it from the old Alacrity 16 mans? Because as far as I know those were just because 16 was the most efficient for AP farming back in the day. It just seems so arbitrary.

Inig0

On a serious note, i think theres something that we should be able to infer from ZOS on this topic. ZOS has very indirectly implemented what group size could gain the maximum number of buffs without redundancy.

6

It seems to me over the past few patches ZOS has been standardizing things around 6 players. There are tons of buffs in various things in most class's tool-kits that can only affect 6 people at a time. Not to mention certain 5 piece set buff.

That being said there are a few sets that hit maximum of 12 but i wouldnt be surprised if they moved that to 6.
Whether or not i agree with 6 is besides the point (i dont 12 should be the standard group size for pve and pvp.) It still should at least be recognized that they have had a past of balancing things around 6 for some reason.

Kilandros

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

I'm curious where people get the 16 number from? Is it from the old Alacrity 16 mans? Because as far as I know those were just because 16 was the most efficient for AP farming back in the day. It just seems so arbitrary.

It is mostly arbitrary. For us a big part was finding the most efficient healer to damage ratio; so with the caliber of our healers we found we could comfortably run 3 healers in a group of 16. But why 16 and not 15 or 17? Because it is mostly arbitrary.

Agrippa_Invisus

Kilandros wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

I'm curious where people get the 16 number from? Is it from the old Alacrity 16 mans? Because as far as I know those were just because 16 was the most efficient for AP farming back in the day. It just seems so arbitrary.

It is mostly arbitrary. For us a big part was finding the most efficient healer to damage ratio; so with the caliber of our healers we found we could comfortably run 3 healers in a group of 16. But why 16 and not 15 or 17? Because it is mostly arbitrary.

I'm waiting on 18.5 to be accepted as the group size of note for most. It's the perfect number.

Nivellan

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

I'm curious where people get the 16 number from? Is it from the old Alacrity 16 mans? Because as far as I know those were just because 16 was the most efficient for AP farming back in the day. It just seems so arbitrary.

Basically. Alacrity and subsequent offshoot guilds stayed at that cap for the most part. It became popular again recently. There was the whole 12man period in orsinium-1tam i think.

Ghost-Shot

Nivellan wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

I'm curious where people get the 16 number from? Is it from the old Alacrity 16 mans? Because as far as I know those were just because 16 was the most efficient for AP farming back in the day. It just seems so arbitrary.

Basically. Alacrity and subsequent offshoot guilds stayed at that cap for the most part. It became popular again recently. There was the whole 12man period in orsinium-1tam i think.

Never forget the Classic Havoc 8 Man.

zyk

A lot of the players I group with feel that individual skill and decision making becomes much less of a factor in 24 player groups. I prefer 8-12 and up to 16. The gameplay is better, the group play is tighter and performance is improved.

I participated in a full 24 player raid for the first time in more than a year last month, and it was super meh. I felt like more of a cog than a player. It was super boring.

While our individual preferences may be arbitrary, there is large difference in gameplay between 16 player and 24 player groups.

Ghost-Shot

zyk wrote: »

A lot of the players I group with feel that individual skill and decision making becomes much less of a factor in 24 player groups. I prefer 8-12 and up to 16. The gameplay is better, the group play is tighter and performance is improved.

I participated in a full 24 player raid for the first time in more than a year last month, and it was super meh. I felt like more of a cog than a player. It was super boring.

While our individual preferences may be arbitrary, there is large difference in gameplay between 16 player and 24 player groups.

I disagree, when we have 16 or 24 we play it pretty much the same, just hit harder with extra dps.

Elong

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

zyk wrote: »

A lot of the players I group with feel that individual skill and decision making becomes much less of a factor in 24 player groups. I prefer 8-12 and up to 16. The gameplay is better, the group play is tighter and performance is improved.

I participated in a full 24 player raid for the first time in more than a year last month, and it was super meh. I felt like more of a cog than a player. It was super boring.

While our individual preferences may be arbitrary, there is large difference in gameplay between 16 player and 24 player groups.

I disagree, when we have 16 or 24 we play it pretty much the same, just lag the server harder with extra dps.

Fixed :P

Jk jk

Ghost-Shot

Elong wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

zyk wrote: »

A lot of the players I group with feel that individual skill and decision making becomes much less of a factor in 24 player groups. I prefer 8-12 and up to 16. The gameplay is better, the group play is tighter and performance is improved.

I participated in a full 24 player raid for the first time in more than a year last month, and it was super meh. I felt like more of a cog than a player. It was super boring.

While our individual preferences may be arbitrary, there is large difference in gameplay between 16 player and 24 player groups.

I disagree, when we have 16 or 24 we play it pretty much the same, just lag the server harder with extra dps.

Fixed

Jk jk

Look, when Tom Hanks left the game he passed his lag switch on to Teargrants, the famous sorc from youtube, it is known. We need no amount of players to lag the server!

Texas

Words and stuff.

Bromburak

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.

Keep raids, Roaming, Relic Raids, nested PvP Dungeon in the size of a zone in ESO and great performance 2001.
Hard to believe it's 2017 when you play ESO eh?

ZOS_Mika

We have had to remove several posts because of naming and shaming. This isn't tolerated on the forums and we ask that you stick to the topic of the thread.

Elong

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Elong wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

zyk wrote: »

A lot of the players I group with feel that individual skill and decision making becomes much less of a factor in 24 player groups. I prefer 8-12 and up to 16. The gameplay is better, the group play is tighter and performance is improved.

I participated in a full 24 player raid for the first time in more than a year last month, and it was super meh. I felt like more of a cog than a player. It was super boring.

While our individual preferences may be arbitrary, there is large difference in gameplay between 16 player and 24 player groups.

I disagree, when we have 16 or 24 we play it pretty much the same, just lag the server harder with extra dps.

Fixed

Jk jk

Look, when Tom Hanks left the game he passed his lag switch on to Teargrants, the famous sorc from youtube, it is known. We need no amount of players to lag the server!

The infamous lag switch. Many have tried to seek it, many have failed. Some say it sits behind Alessia's Front Door.

Vilestride

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

I'm curious where people get the 16 number from? Is it from the old Alacrity 16 mans? Because as far as I know those were just because 16 was the most efficient for AP farming back in the day. It just seems so arbitrary.

It's not straight up '16' yep that's it. Read back over the thread. Stalkers post in particular. It's a matter of finding a balance.

Bromburak

It should be 12 like everything else in ESO.

12 man trials
12 item slots
12 Top DPS to get Loot in crowded areas
12 skills including ulti (oh man sorc is out of range)

;-)

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

I'm curious where people get the 16 number from? Is it from the old Alacrity 16 mans? Because as far as I know those were just because 16 was the most efficient for AP farming back in the day. It just seems so arbitrary.

Speaking from my perspective on EU from way back in the day Banana Squad always ran the lowest number of players we could run whilst still being effective against large groups. So when I joined this was 6-8 ppl. This was then around 12 people by 1.5/1.6. Then when CP and insta cast proxy came out this number raised to around 14.

As the patches have progressed from there the tools groups have to deal with larger numbers have been slowly removed causing organised groups to run more players, generally because of the need for more specialised roles to deal with the numbers increase from pug stacking + guilds. As guilds find a challenge most normally think to add more numbers as a first response and only after this doesn't work to try something new and this is why numbers will generally grow quicker and quicker. However if a response is found then its slower for the numbers to come down because you already recruited and are running with the new numbers.
On EU for example back in 1.5/6 there was a guild who went from 24 to 48 because they wanted one raid in reserve for when their first died instead of just improving their initial 24 (e.g. stop purging under wall of elements)

Rin_Senya

People who didn't receive an invite into Dracarys have been perma spreading *** about us on the forums and ingame for like 2 months already.
Our guild is running fine thanks for your concerns If you think you can do better - GvG against our group. We would love to accept and have an opportunity for improvement. If you're not up for this then perhaps it’s not wise to just 'talk'.
I can name you exactly who spread all this nonsense – it comes from exactly the same people all the time. People that read this thread can simply judge on that: e.g supposedly whispering a new guy that just joined the guild something bad about their own guildmates is a straight forward enough example. It can already tell you a lot about them.

Btw in this situation, it's you who wasn't picked. Maybe if you wanted to change this you could have simply worked to be selected or just moved on with your new choices. Instead the solution is apparently to just try and spread this garbage again and again.
People doing this are the real cancer in the community imo and they can just look in the mirror to see who's really the toxic one.

I’d really love to see at least one piece of evidence that I’ve ever said something like “I’m the best healer in this game” or ever mentioned my supposed accomplishments? Do you have them? No, because I’ve never said it. As usual you just heard it from someone and are more than happy being fed this this crap.

Another point in case, creating a new thread to continue salt after the previous thread being closed. You dare to call other people toxic?
As it happened this outburst was because the player in question was removed from a friendslist, for talking *** about an ex guildmate (of a guild they were happy to get invited to some few months ago),

Shaggygaming wrote: »

Abram wrote: »

Like I said, no reasoning with you guys. 100% Delusional. You cannot when in a straight GvG and you cannot win in a straight 1 v 1. Pretty much the end of the argument. If you would like to prove me otherwise. Lets handle it in game.

You say you have never run from any of these fights, so Im confused why you wont even show up for one?

Who are you? Do you play with PM?

So because of this they have to come to the forum to spit their dummy out and cry for attention again.

Texas

Rin_Senya wrote: »

People who didn't receive an invite into Dracarys have been perma spreading *** about us on the forums and ingame for like 2 months already.
Our guild is running fine thanks for your concerns If you think you can do better - GvG against our group. We would love to accept and have an opportunity for improvement. If you're not up for this then perhaps it’s not wise to just 'talk'.
I can name you exactly who spread all this nonsense – it comes from exactly the same people all the time. People that read this thread can simply judge on that: e.g supposedly whispering a new guy that just joined the guild something bad about their own guildmates is a straight forward enough example. It can already tell you a lot about them.

Btw in this situation, it's you who wasn't picked. Maybe if you wanted to change this you could have simply worked to be selected or just moved on with your new choices. Instead the solution is apparently to just try and spread this garbage again and again.
People doing this are the real cancer in the community imo and they can just look in the mirror to see who's really the toxic one.

I’d really love to see at least one piece of evidence that I’ve ever said something like “I’m the best healer in this game” or ever mentioned my supposed accomplishments? Do you have them? No, because I’ve never said it. As usual you just heard it from someone and are more than happy being fed this this crap.

Another point in case, creating a new thread to continue salt after the previous thread being closed. You dare to call other people toxic?
As it happened this outburst was because the player in question was removed from a friendslist, for talking *** about an ex guildmate (of a guild they were happy to get invited to some few months ago),

Shaggygaming wrote: »

Abram wrote: »

Like I said, no reasoning with you guys. 100% Delusional. You cannot when in a straight GvG and you cannot win in a straight 1 v 1. Pretty much the end of the argument. If you would like to prove me otherwise. Lets handle it in game.

You say you have never run from any of these fights, so Im confused why you wont even show up for one?

Who are you? Do you play with PM?

So because of this they have to come to the forum to spit their dummy out and cry for attention again.

Are you speaking about a series of posts that are no longer a part of this conversation? If so, that was already cleaned up by a mod and doesn't need any further cries for attention. If not, then what does your post have to do with anything other than just crying out for more attention?

ataggs

@Rin_Senya _Senya

At this point it might be best to take this conversation offline. No one but you and whoever you are talking to know what this is about. Just pm the person, no need to make everyone read an extended post about guild drama.

Edited : quoted a quoted quote confusing, quoting baddie

Rin_Senya

Texas wrote: »

Are you speaking about a series of posts that are no longer a part of this conversation? If so, that was already cleaned up by a mod and doesn't need any further cries for attention. If not, then what does your post have to do with anything other than just crying out for more attention?

idc, this person decided to bring all this drama here and called out some names so he got a reply, that's it. Now we can get over it.

ataggs wrote: »

At this point it might be best to take this conversation offline. No one but you and whoever you are talking to know what this is about. Just pm the person, no need to make everyone read an extended post about guild drama.

Edited : quoted a quoted quote confusing, quoting baddie

Trust me majority of people reading this thread know who I was replaying to and what is this about.

Texas

Rin_Senya wrote: »

Texas wrote: »

Are you speaking about a series of posts that are no longer a part of this conversation? If so, that was already cleaned up by a mod and doesn't need any further cries for attention. If not, then what does your post have to do with anything other than just crying out for more attention?

idc, this person decided to bring all this drama here and called out some names so he got a reply, that's it. Now we can get over it.

ataggs wrote: »

At this point it might be best to take this conversation offline. No one but you and whoever you are talking to know what this is about. Just pm the person, no need to make everyone read an extended post about guild drama.

Edited : quoted a quoted quote confusing, quoting baddie

Trust me majority of people reading this thread know who I was replaying to and what is this about.

Gotcha so it was just crying for more attention. Noted.

NACtron

emma666 wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Abram wrote: »

Shaggygaming wrote: »

Please continue the group size discussion. I really enjoy reading the ignorance while drinking my morning coffee at work.

I'm talking to you, never run more than 16, never run more than 12, and never run less than 37.

Please continue...

I'm just really curious to the convenience of the thread getting closed after we start talking about Guild v Guilds....

All these arguments are just words, I think its time for people to start backing up all this Sh** talk IN GAME.

We're in game 5x a week, as we have been for the last several years. There are no obstacles to finding and fighting us. That's the joy of open world RvRvR, as opposed to an artificial setup where we're both running a very particular GvG setup and comp.

Any groups we've gone after in the game, we've handled in this fashion and intend to continue doing so. The guilds that gave us strong challenges (Nexus Meth Emp groups, GoS emp raids on TF, Decibel, Rage, etc) we met on the field. You could do that if you wanted to, but you'd rather not and that's your choice. Wanting that grudge match so hard is bewildering to me. Any group Weve found ourselves unable to consistently beat, Bulb and I have worked and crafted our raid and strategy until we ended up on top. We never just stewed in our unhappiness and complained that our enemies wouldn't lower themselves to fight on our level and on our terms. It's a dumb attitude for this kind of game, and I won't indulge it.

I don't think it was us who claimed that we will always win. I can understand your desire to avoid the challenge though. You were a bit more reasonable a few months ago though when you said yourself that you would like to GVG but Bulb won't let the guild do it.

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Rin_Senya wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Ppl don't get salty when they win. No one gives a *** who you are, what you run or how many as long as they're still beating you.

But the one who salty here is you You wrote so lot of pages on last thread trying to make excuses and arguing. Infact your entire guild did, including one very emotional post from 'B' The salt also overflows into game too where you tried to chase us around all night with your members also tryharding other guild chats.

Just confirm that you overracted about the phrase that you regularly "need 3+ guilds to take Chalman from EP" or that you are the only guild left in the game that needs 24+ members in the group to be competative or achieve something

You got rekt just about every time you seperated from your faction last night. I'm told you got a wipe once at Fare or something before I got there, so grats on that. But you needed to be a part of the 80 EP that took Ales so you don't really have room to talk here.

I tell you what, you upload the video of your kills on us and we'll upload ours on you let everyone be the judge of who rekt who shall we ?

I'm sure you'll upload your videos one way or another, you guys are fond of that .

And yes, I was more reasonable about the possibility of a GvG while things were civil. Good sportsmanship makes it interesting and fun, and that's been severely lacking.

Finally, nowhere did any of us say we'll "always win". We're not dumb. Destro meta is fast and furious and group wipes happen on one misstep. Dunno where you pulled that gem from.

Of course we will upload videos, Its nice to keep a record of fights to look back on and for other guilds to analyse and improve from.
I'm surprised you guys don't do it considering how proud you are of your fights.

Next excuse for no GvG is 'that things aren't civil'. Ok

We keep records of all our stuff. It's why I can laugh when I get hit with "you've never wiped us even numbers" or "you had 40 ppl!!!!". I just don't post that stuff on the forums. If we can't make our reputation on the field, then we've failed already. No need for bragging and video spam, that's been our policy for years now.

So VEs policy is apparently no bragging, no toxicity, no tbagging but that's exactly what your guild is known for? Okay then...

*hands out popcorn to the masses*

VE has been pretty chill for a PvP guild. Even back when I used to run 3 full awful (but enjoyable) pug raids. Sure some of their players have their salty moments but the guild as a whole have been pretty decent. They don't rub in their victories often and don't come up with exuses for their defeats. That's pretty rare for a PvP guild.

IxSTALKERxI

Satiar wrote: »

Arguably 2 12 mans would be more effective than 1 24 man raid. It's something we intend to explore in other games if they ever come out, but ESo had always been about who has the single strongest group so that's been our focus since day 1.

If it were forced on us we'd pretty much have to run that second raid or kick half our roster.

There's nothing wrong with that. No one should expect a 12 man to be able to take a defended objective all by themselves. That's like expecting a solo player to be able to 1vX every group of opponents they come across. Sure it can happen if the opponents are unorganized and bad but it shouldn't be expected. 24-36 players in total should be assaulting a defended keep - whether that is made up of 2x 12 mans or 2x 16 mans plus a bunch or solo randoms who knows. If they did reduce group size I wouldn't have a problem with groups running together if they are taking defended keeps / scrolls. Guild/ faction stacking wouldn't be as frowned upon.

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

I'm curious where people get the 16 number from? Is it from the old Alacrity 16 mans? Because as far as I know those were just because 16 was the most efficient for AP farming back in the day. It just seems so arbitrary.

As you keep adding players to your group, the groups survivability increases through healing, AoE caps, and players not being able to be single targeted as easily. If you keep adding players you get to the point at around 16 that you reach a very high level of survivability for some reason - it just works out that way. As you go above 16 to 17, 18 etc you're group does get stronger but it feels like a smaller % increase in survivability per group member added and yet you're AP rates start to suffer. So 16 was deemed the smallest group you can make and still have very high survivability. Obviously 24 is till stronger due to more ultimates more dps etc. But suvivability wise - 16 seemed to be a sweet spot. Someone should draw it on a graph or something haha.

StackonClown

FENGRUSH wrote: »

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

lol - care to elaborate or offer an opinion or is it enough for people to know 'you' approve of a post

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

Texas wrote: »

Rin_Senya wrote: »

Texas wrote: »

Are you speaking about a series of posts that are no longer a part of this conversation? If so, that was already cleaned up by a mod and doesn't need any further cries for attention. If not, then what does your post have to do with anything other than just crying out for more attention?

idc, this person decided to bring all this drama here and called out some names so he got a reply, that's it. Now we can get over it.

ataggs wrote: »

At this point it might be best to take this conversation offline. No one but you and whoever you are talking to know what this is about. Just pm the person, no need to make everyone read an extended post about guild drama.

Edited : quoted a quoted quote confusing, quoting baddie

Trust me majority of people reading this thread know who I was replaying to and what is this about.

Gotcha so it was just crying for more attention. Noted.

The original post that got cleaned up was a cry for attention yes. If you wish to contribute something meaningful to a discussion you should do that otherwise you should perhaps not derail things in an attempt to bait a response. It's clear it doesn't concern you.

StackonClown wrote: »

FENGRUSH wrote: »

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

lol - care to elaborate or offer an opinion or is it enough for people to know 'you' approve of a post

I would take from his post that he agreed with the statement without needing to add more to it.

stealthyevil

You guys made a huge mistake and forgot to factor in the PU Ratio. What is the PU Ratio you might ask ? It is the Pug Ratio, for every 8 people you have in raid there are 10 pugs next to you. Which means if you have 16 people you are theoretically running a 36 man. Thats ESO math for you, stays consistent with everything else the devs do anyways....kek

Etaniel

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.

best post in here so far

Xsorus

I liked 8, but this game should probably have a max group size of 12 because that's Trial Cap

I'm not saying 2 12 mans can't get together..

I'm saying 24 group cap is just dumb