Organized Raids vs Zergs

Soul_Demon

montiferus wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

Just a quick note on the post- without actual zergs the farm groups, small man LOS and gankers are irrelevant here in cyro and don't function. The idea of one server with max limit on grouping of 4 would be a nightmare for these groups as everyone would sit in stealth or run around resources in circles trying to bait new players into chasing them so they can be mowed down. These groups take experienced players only, so there would be no baiting of anyone on that server and since no one would push map there would not be anything to do, at all. They NEED zergs as much as they cry otherwise as without them they have absolutely nothing to do. This is different from organized small mans who do push for the faction and push the map, very different.

Lol. Do you really believe this?

Soul_Demon wrote: »

We are the skilled, they are mindless idiots mashing buttons.

I wouldn't say mindless idiots but if you think for a second playing small scale isn't harder than "organized raids" you are out of your mind.

Yes, not only do I believe it but I think we have a perfect example of what happens when PvP goes small scale only....Battlegrounds. Huge success, right? If small scale could exist on its own Battlegrounds would have drawn the entire PvP community from Cyro and made it the number 1 attraction. But that did not happen. You could argue the reasons why...but why bother, it simply was not the draw many proclaimed it would be. Personally I remember multiple players predicting this and asking ZOS to look at fixing bugs and working on Cyro- They chose to finish developing and implementing Battlegrounds.

The other statement- not only did I not say that, but now that you have.....if you think its a challenge to manage 4 players well and win more than you loose, try doing that with 16-18. Tell me what way you find to be more difficult and we can compare notes.

montiferus

Soul_Demon wrote: »

montiferus wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

Just a quick note on the post- without actual zergs the farm groups, small man LOS and gankers are irrelevant here in cyro and don't function. The idea of one server with max limit on grouping of 4 would be a nightmare for these groups as everyone would sit in stealth or run around resources in circles trying to bait new players into chasing them so they can be mowed down. These groups take experienced players only, so there would be no baiting of anyone on that server and since no one would push map there would not be anything to do, at all. They NEED zergs as much as they cry otherwise as without them they have absolutely nothing to do. This is different from organized small mans who do push for the faction and push the map, very different.

Lol. Do you really believe this?

Soul_Demon wrote: »

We are the skilled, they are mindless idiots mashing buttons.

I wouldn't say mindless idiots but if you think for a second playing small scale isn't harder than "organized raids" you are out of your mind.

Yes, not only do I believe it but I think we have a perfect example of what happens when PvP goes small scale only....Battlegrounds. Huge success, right? If small scale could exist on its own Battlegrounds would have drawn the entire PvP community from Cyro and made it the number 1 attraction. But that did not happen. You could argue the reasons why...but why bother, it simply was not the draw many proclaimed it would be. Personally I remember multiple players predicting this and asking ZOS to look at fixing bugs and working on Cyro- They chose to finish developing and implementing Battlegrounds.

The other statement- not only did I not say that, but now that you have.....if you think its a challenge to manage 4 players well and win more than you loose, try doing that with 16-18. Tell me what way you find to be more difficult and we can compare notes.

Lol. Delusional post of the year award goes to you!!!! Keep on zerging!

NBrookus

.

Soul_Demon wrote: »

montiferus wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

Just a quick note on the post- without actual zergs the farm groups, small man LOS and gankers are irrelevant here in cyro and don't function. The idea of one server with max limit on grouping of 4 would be a nightmare for these groups as everyone would sit in stealth or run around resources in circles trying to bait new players into chasing them so they can be mowed down. These groups take experienced players only, so there would be no baiting of anyone on that server and since no one would push map there would not be anything to do, at all. They NEED zergs as much as they cry otherwise as without them they have absolutely nothing to do. This is different from organized small mans who do push for the faction and push the map, very different.

Lol. Do you really believe this?

Soul_Demon wrote: »

We are the skilled, they are mindless idiots mashing buttons.

I wouldn't say mindless idiots but if you think for a second playing small scale isn't harder than "organized raids" you are out of your mind.

Yes, not only do I believe it but I think we have a perfect example of what happens when PvP goes small scale only....Battlegrounds. Huge success, right? If small scale could exist on its own Battlegrounds would have drawn the entire PvP community from Cyro and made it the number 1 attraction. But that did not happen. You could argue the reasons why...but why bother, it simply was not the draw many proclaimed it would be. Personally I remember multiple players predicting this and asking ZOS to look at fixing bugs and working on Cyro- They chose to finish developing and implementing Battlegrounds.

The other statement- not only did I not say that, but now that you have.....if you think its a challenge to manage 4 players well and win more than you loose, try doing that with 16-18. Tell me what way you find to be more difficult and we can compare notes.

The way ZOS implemented battlegrounds bears no resemblance to the small scale pvp that was wanted. We wanted deathmatch chaos and setting up group v group fights... we got games like CTR that reward you for avoiding any actual combat with no way to pick and choose. All of which was communicated early on PTS and ZOS chose, and continues to chose, to make battlegrounds something else entirely.

Battlegrounds aren't there to please small scalers, they are there to cater to a casual crowd with pvp lite. There's nothing wrong with that content but don't conflate it into something it's not.

Give me deathmatch every time and I'll be in BGs a lot.

Xsorus

Just for everyones Information..

CU is going with 8 man groups like DAOC, with basically very little cross group support abilities.

They are adding Battlegroups, which are basically Raids...but those are just for chat communication basically.

Biro123

Xsorus wrote: »

Just for everyones Information..

CU is going with 8 man groups like DAOC, with basically very little cross group support abilities.

They are adding Battlegroups, which are basically Raids...but those are just for chat communication basically.

Ah well, my casual 'don't wanna group cos I often need to suddenly AFK' self will probably give that one a miss then...

Will they have buffbots?

Soul_Demon

montiferus wrote: »

Lol. Delusional post of the year award goes to you!!!! Keep on zerging!

So....make a statement, fail to back it up...throw insult to cover inability to defend point. Ok snowflake.

NBrookus wrote: »

.

Soul_Demon wrote: »

montiferus wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

Just a quick note on the post- without actual zergs the farm groups, small man LOS and gankers are irrelevant here in cyro and don't function. The idea of one server with max limit on grouping of 4 would be a nightmare for these groups as everyone would sit in stealth or run around resources in circles trying to bait new players into chasing them so they can be mowed down. These groups take experienced players only, so there would be no baiting of anyone on that server and since no one would push map there would not be anything to do, at all. They NEED zergs as much as they cry otherwise as without them they have absolutely nothing to do. This is different from organized small mans who do push for the faction and push the map, very different.

Lol. Do you really believe this?

Soul_Demon wrote: »

We are the skilled, they are mindless idiots mashing buttons.

I wouldn't say mindless idiots but if you think for a second playing small scale isn't harder than "organized raids" you are out of your mind.

Yes, not only do I believe it but I think we have a perfect example of what happens when PvP goes small scale only....Battlegrounds. Huge success, right? If small scale could exist on its own Battlegrounds would have drawn the entire PvP community from Cyro and made it the number 1 attraction. But that did not happen. You could argue the reasons why...but why bother, it simply was not the draw many proclaimed it would be. Personally I remember multiple players predicting this and asking ZOS to look at fixing bugs and working on Cyro- They chose to finish developing and implementing Battlegrounds.

The other statement- not only did I not say that, but now that you have.....if you think its a challenge to manage 4 players well and win more than you loose, try doing that with 16-18. Tell me what way you find to be more difficult and we can compare notes.

The way ZOS implemented battlegrounds bears no resemblance to the small scale pvp that was wanted. We wanted deathmatch chaos and setting up group v group fights... we got games like CTR that reward you for avoiding any actual combat with no way to pick and choose. All of which was communicated early on PTS and ZOS chose, and continues to chose, to make battlegrounds something else entirely.

Battlegrounds aren't there to please small scalers, they are there to cater to a casual crowd with pvp lite. There's nothing wrong with that content but don't conflate it into something it's not.

Give me deathmatch every time and I'll be in BGs a lot.

I disagree...and agree. The claim from many players was PvP (real PvP without zergs interfering) was going to be in Battlegrounds. You have been around long enough and I know you likely read the same forum posts and know this is true. Remember how many said Cryo would be empty?

Battlegrounds would tank even if every single solo, 1vx and small scale player got a specific match created for them alone. The reason why is as I listed, no matter what is said by those groups, without a real zerg of inexperienced new players they play the horse simulator game. Otherwise we would see those play styles out on the map only searching for their counterparts to fight....that isn't what they do and never will be. What they claim is, and always has been completely different than what they go do on the map and what they engage.

These are of course different from small scale and teams who operate to support faction pushes, very different.

Zvorgin

I think organized guilds realize that you can escape the zerg by leaving the roundabout that is the center circle. The zergs never leave the center circle and if they try to they fall apart.

Organized groups are actually accomplishing objectives/keeps/scrolls while the zerg keeps going round and round.

As to stopping zergs, get rid of AoE caps so people have reason not to mindlessly ball up.

Earthewen

@MipMip I also agree with the OP, and I'm glad he/she spoke up. Too often, the small group players try to speak for the entire game, and it just simply isn't the truth for what others necessarily want. @NightbladeMechanics is right. We ARE playing a different game. Larger, organized raids are vastly different from smaller man groups and solo players. It's a bit like herding cats to be organized. However, a fully trained, fully geared, and rocking organized group is the bane of the other two factions. Period.

Of course, when they can't stand up to an organized raid they are going to scream, "Nerf the groups!!!" Why? Because it just wouldn't make good streaming to be wiping all the time. Who would watch that or pay to watch it? They have money invested and something in real life to lose, so of course they will try to slant things to protect their income. They definitely have a conflict of interests, and ZOS is feeding that either on purpose or inadvertently.

Even those smaller group players without stream feeds will holler. Why? Because people want to win. Of course people want to win. The problem is when too much credence is given to the hollers as if they apply to every other person in the game. The truth is that it simply doesn't. I love organized raiding for sure. If it's a zerg, then I'm a zerg-baby. I don't care who calls me that, I'm not going to change what I enjoy to please a few manipulative individuals who think their way is the only way to play the game.

Sotha_Sil

This all over again ? really ? We have seen pointless threads about this since 2014. Let it go guys. Just let it go. For the forums' sake.

Zvorgin

Sotha_Sil wrote: »

This all over again ? really ? We have seen pointless threads about this since 2014. Let it go guys. Just let it go. For the forums' sake.

We should just be happy enough players are in pvp to have zergs.

NBrookus

Soul_Demon wrote: »

I disagree...and agree. The claim from many players was PvP (real PvP without zergs interfering) was going to be in Battlegrounds. You have been around long enough and I know you likely read the same forum posts and know this is true. Remember how many said Cryo would be empty?

TBF, participation in Cyro does seem to be down. DC didn't pop lock on Vivec until pretty late in prime time last night. Shor is a ghost town. I don't think it's just battlegrounds at fault though.

I agree with your point that open world cyro theoretically works for everyone because some groups engage in dedicated map play; play types of all preferences have the opportunity to flourish when the map is reasonably well balanced. I just don't think that's actually the case anymore. There's a whole lot of IDGAF going on from all directions and that's a very bad sign.

The only people defending anything are usually solo'ers and small scale refugees while the big groups are "farming AP" on top of a resource tower or pvdooring a keep. The big groups have decided they want to play for themselves, not the faction, but still think they are the khajit's meow.



As for small groups engaging and fighting each other, it does happen. No one shouts out in zone for help and it goes unremarked. But we've reached the point where the remaining small scale players are either friends, frenemies or at least recognize each other. It's like trying to have a pick up game at the local park but as soon as you start a cattle stampede might come over the hill. If I see a small scale group taking a resource, the majority of the time I'm going to leave them be because 1) if I go in with a few randoms we will probably get our butts kicked and 2) this is about to happen to them:

NBrookus

Biro123 wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Just for everyones Information..

CU is going with 8 man groups like DAOC, with basically very little cross group support abilities.

They are adding Battlegroups, which are basically Raids...but those are just for chat communication basically.

Ah well, my casual 'don't wanna group cos I often need to suddenly AFK' self will probably give that one a miss then...

Will they have buffbots?

Jacobs said they were committed to activities for solo players, whom they expect to be the largest majority of their customers.

JumpAllOver

NBrookus wrote: »

The only people defending anything are usually solo'ers and small scale refugees while the big groups are "farming AP" on top of a resource tower or pvdooring a keep. The big groups have decided they want to play for themselves, not the faction, but still think they are the khajit's meow.

Kush. Runs. Everywhere. Around. Me.
KREAM
Get the AP
Gotta gotta farm tho

Soul_Demon

NBrookus wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

I disagree...and agree. The claim from many players was PvP (real PvP without zergs interfering) was going to be in Battlegrounds. You have been around long enough and I know you likely read the same forum posts and know this is true. Remember how many said Cryo would be empty?

TBF, participation in Cyro does seem to be down. DC didn't pop lock on Vivec until pretty late in prime time last night. Shor is a ghost town. I don't think it's just battlegrounds at fault though.

I agree with your point that open world cyro theoretically works for everyone because some groups engage in dedicated map play; play types of all preferences have the opportunity to flourish when the map is reasonably well balanced. I just don't think that's actually the case anymore. There's a whole lot of IDGAF going on from all directions and that's a very bad sign.

The only people defending anything are usually solo'ers and small scale refugees while the big groups are "farming AP" on top of a resource tower or pvdooring a keep. The big groups have decided they want to play for themselves, not the faction, but still think they are the khajit's meow.



As for small groups engaging and fighting each other, it does happen. No one shouts out in zone for help and it goes unremarked. But we've reached the point where the remaining small scale players are either friends, frenemies or at least recognize each other. It's like trying to have a pick up game at the local park but as soon as you start a cattle stampede might come over the hill. If I see a small scale group taking a resource, the majority of the time I'm going to leave them be because 1) if I go in with a few randoms we will probably get our butts kicked and 2) this is about to happen to them:

Some accurate assessment in there, but I think maybe the IDGAF is really a product of tri-faction playing. It started to be more prevalent due to the reduced incentive to work in a single faction, less emphasis on wins for camps and more focus on "my AP" that expanded when cost to change servers became non existent and you could home all chars from all factions on one server. It was always there before, but in much lower numbers as the cost was one issue and the inability to home different faction chars on same server really stabilized the populations. Low pop bonus and bonus for having feelings hurt don't help the playability either, to be sure. ZOS incentivized tri faction server hopping play that finally brings us to IDGAF.

Now, you are on target.....lots of coordinated groups don't bother to worry about winning as they can just farm AP on DC, move to EP chars and do the same, then move to the AD and do it all again. We used to have discouragement to tri faction play, now the game is not only encouraging it, but providing multiple rewards on the same camp for standing since you can home all chars there on all factions and play it. The reason to "win" is non existent at that point as there is no loyalty needed to take care of "my AP"

NBrookus

I can't speak for any other tri-faction players, but the choice to add a second faction and then a third was the exact opposite of IDGAF. I only play EP on Vivec because all 3 factions being pop locked in prime time is as equal as it gets. As a result there are people I like and respect on all factions.

But there was zero chance I was going to feel "faction pride" when the faction I was playing on a campaign was abusing their extra population to gate and spawn camp and make a server toxic. Eventually the campaign implodes and the cycle starts over. I've seen all 3 factions do it at various times and I refuse to participate in bullying.

montiferus

Soul_Demon wrote: »

montiferus wrote: »

Lol. Delusional post of the year award goes to you!!!! Keep on zerging!

So....make a statement, fail to back it up...throw insult to cover inability to defend point. Ok snowflake.

Here is a statement. You are a zeger who is so delusional he thinks it is harder to run in a gang of 24 than a gang of 4. Is that better? Do you feel good?

If you guys are so talented why don't you get the best and brightest from your herd to run in Animosity's GvG fights. This way we can all see how amazing you big groups really are and how terrible small scale players are....snowflake...

Earthewen

NBrookus wrote: »

I can't speak for any other tri-faction players, but the choice to add a second faction and then a third was the exact opposite of IDGAF. I only play EP on Vivec because all 3 factions being pop locked in prime time is as equal as it gets. As a result there are people I like and respect on all factions.

But there was zero chance I was going to feel "faction pride" when the faction I was playing on a campaign was abusing their extra population to gate and spawn camp and make a server toxic. Eventually the campaign implodes and the cycle starts over. I've seen all 3 factions do it at various times and I refuse to participate in bullying.

I am wondering about the spawn camp. What is that? I agree about the toxic server issue. It will destroy a faction and it's ability to play the game every time.

Soul_Demon

montiferus wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

montiferus wrote: »

Lol. Delusional post of the year award goes to you!!!! Keep on zerging!

So....make a statement, fail to back it up...throw insult to cover inability to defend point. Ok snowflake.

Here is a statement. You are a zeger who is so delusional he thinks it is harder to run in a gang of 24 than a gang of 4. Is that better? Do you feel good?

If you guys are so talented why don't you get the best and brightest from your herd to run in Animosity's GvG fights. This way we can all see how amazing you big groups really are and how terrible small scale players are....snowflake...

No, its not a statement- its an assumption combined with an insult. Sounds great to me man- come on out to Vivec tonight, see you there and we will compare kill counters when its all over, sound good Snowflake?

WuffyCerulei

Zergs seem more common after that pvp event, where all the pugs emerged from the darkness.

Soul_Demon

NBrookus wrote: »

I can't speak for any other tri-faction players, but the choice to add a second faction and then a third was the exact opposite of IDGAF. I only play EP on Vivec because all 3 factions being pop locked in prime time is as equal as it gets. As a result there are people I like and respect on all factions.

But there was zero chance I was going to feel "faction pride" when the faction I was playing on a campaign was abusing their extra population to gate and spawn camp and make a server toxic. Eventually the campaign implodes and the cycle starts over. I've seen all 3 factions do it at various times and I refuse to participate in bullying.

I am sure this is true, but this would be the exception rather than the rule. Much like the players who 'change' to other alliances only when the alliance they are on is dominating the map. We know they exist, but would not be having any population issues at all or problems with factions pushing the map if it were the majority of players rather than the few. Human nature seeks the path of least resistance more often than the one more difficult.

Sanct16

montiferus wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

montiferus wrote: »

Lol. Delusional post of the year award goes to you!!!! Keep on zerging!

So....make a statement, fail to back it up...throw insult to cover inability to defend point. Ok snowflake.

Here is a statement. You are a zeger who is so delusional he thinks it is harder to run in a gang of 24 than a gang of 4. Is that better? Do you feel good?

If you guys are so talented why don't you get the best and brightest from your herd to run in Animosity's GvG fights. This way we can all see how amazing you big groups really are and how terrible small scale players are....snowflake...

First, it is important to understand that we are comparing completly different playstyles. In smallscale everyone plays for himself kinda, whereas in a group you build your character in a way that will benefit the group the most. Both playstyles require a lot individual skill if you want to be successful, however it's completly different types of "skill". In smallscale, you need to be good at a "dueling" type of pvp, in raids you need to be good at movement, communcation and prediction of how the fight will develope.
An argument I often read for why players in groups are trash is that if you catch them alone, they die in no time. However this is most likely due to their build not being aimed to 1v1. On my nightblade bomber in group I run neither singletarget damage nor self-heal on a build with 900 magicka recovery. Hard to duel someone. However if you put someone with a smallscale build into a raid, he will be completly dead weight aswell.

Second, you have to put things into relation. You can't compare top smallscale groups to casual raid groups and vice versa. If you run with an average pug guild, you don't need to be good at anything, however that group won't ever pull off anything special. Maybe win a 20v20 fight against pugs but that's it. However if you take 14 really good players, you might be able to pull of a 14v60. Likewise, if you take 4 scrubs you might be able to win a 4v4. If you take 4 really good players, you might be able to pull of a 4v12.

NBrookus

Earthewen wrote: »

NBrookus wrote: »

I can't speak for any other tri-faction players, but the choice to add a second faction and then a third was the exact opposite of IDGAF. I only play EP on Vivec because all 3 factions being pop locked in prime time is as equal as it gets. As a result there are people I like and respect on all factions.

But there was zero chance I was going to feel "faction pride" when the faction I was playing on a campaign was abusing their extra population to gate and spawn camp and make a server toxic. Eventually the campaign implodes and the cycle starts over. I've seen all 3 factions do it at various times and I refuse to participate in bullying.

I am wondering about the spawn camp. What is that? I agree about the toxic server issue. It will destroy a faction and it's ability to play the game every time.

It's when groups of players blockade one or more faction bases at the jump off point. Sometimes even seiging INTO the base. For a while it was totally normal to log into the no CP campaign at 8am and have a DC emp plus 5 or 6 cronies firing cold fire into South Morrowind Gate. Get too close to the edge and they would could chain/leash/gap close/dragon leap up top. Those won't work anymore, and ZOS made enemy bases instakill zones to stop any new methods of getting in.

And that wasn't even the current DC infestation on Sotha Sil, but a previous one.

NBrookus

P.S. I realize I beat this sportsmanship horse a lot and take a more conservative stance than most. And not everyone agrees with all of it or even any of it, otherwise I wouldn't feel the need to say anything! But of the 6 vet level campaigns we have 1 that mostly works, 3 that are empty and 2 that have been repeatedly tainted by poor sportsmanship (aka map zerging) that drives players away. I don't think that's a good outcome.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

Sanct16 wrote: »

montiferus wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

montiferus wrote: »

Lol. Delusional post of the year award goes to you!!!! Keep on zerging!

So....make a statement, fail to back it up...throw insult to cover inability to defend point. Ok snowflake.

Here is a statement. You are a zeger who is so delusional he thinks it is harder to run in a gang of 24 than a gang of 4. Is that better? Do you feel good?

If you guys are so talented why don't you get the best and brightest from your herd to run in Animosity's GvG fights. This way we can all see how amazing you big groups really are and how terrible small scale players are....snowflake...

First, it is important to understand that we are comparing completly different playstyles. In smallscale everyone plays for himself kinda, whereas in a group you build your character in a way that will benefit the group the most. Both playstyles require a lot individual skill if you want to be successful, however it's completly different types of "skill". In smallscale, you need to be good at a "dueling" type of pvp, in raids you need to be good at movement, communcation and prediction of how the fight will develope.
An argument I often read for why players in groups are trash is that if you catch them alone, they die in no time. However this is most likely due to their build not being aimed to 1v1. On my nightblade bomber in group I run neither singletarget damage nor self-heal on a build with 900 magicka recovery. Hard to duel someone. However if you put someone with a smallscale build into a raid, he will be completly dead weight aswell.

Second, you have to put things into relation. You can't compare top smallscale groups to casual raid groups and vice versa. If you run with an average pug guild, you don't need to be good at anything, however that group won't ever pull off anything special. Maybe win a 20v20 fight against pugs but that's it. However if you take 14 really good players, you might be able to pull of a 14v60. Likewise, if you take 4 scrubs you might be able to win a 4v4. If you take 4 really good players, you might be able to pull of a 4v12.

^ this

CyrusArya

Soul_Demon wrote: »

we will compare kill counters when its all over, sound good Snowflake?

Kill counter is about as telling of player skill as rank on the leaderboards. Completely useless. These are things that bad players use to evaluate their own performance. Im sure looking at a great kill counter score after a night of zerging makes you feel good, considering it rewards a kill for every person you tagged in a fight but only records deaths once. I've easily racked up 60:1 KDR running in larger groups before. More proud of a 6:1 in (true) solo play any day.

Indeed, both large scale and small scale PvP can both demonstrate skillful and impressive play. But, that is seen in the fights themselves...not the AP gained or kill counter scores. Those metrics are meaningless without context.

montiferus

CyrusArya wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

we will compare kill counters when its all over, sound good Snowflake?

Kill counter is about as telling of player skill as rank on the leaderboards. Completely useless. These are things that bad players use to evaluate their own performance. Im sure looking at a great kill counter score after a night of zerging makes you feel good, considering it rewards a kill for every person you tagged in a fight but only records deaths once. I've easily racked up 60:1 KDR running in larger groups before. More proud of a 6:1 in (true) solo play any day.

Indeed, both large scale and small scale PvP can both demonstrate skillful and impressive play. But, that is seen in the fights themselves...not the AP gained or kill counter scores. Those metrics are meaningless without context.

This! The mere fact he brings up kill counters says a lot.

Earthewen

NBrookus wrote: »

Earthewen wrote: »

NBrookus wrote: »

I can't speak for any other tri-faction players, but the choice to add a second faction and then a third was the exact opposite of IDGAF. I only play EP on Vivec because all 3 factions being pop locked in prime time is as equal as it gets. As a result there are people I like and respect on all factions.

But there was zero chance I was going to feel "faction pride" when the faction I was playing on a campaign was abusing their extra population to gate and spawn camp and make a server toxic. Eventually the campaign implodes and the cycle starts over. I've seen all 3 factions do it at various times and I refuse to participate in bullying.

I am wondering about the spawn camp. What is that? I agree about the toxic server issue. It will destroy a faction and it's ability to play the game every time.

It's when groups of players blockade one or more faction bases at the jump off point. Sometimes even seiging INTO the base. For a while it was totally normal to log into the no CP campaign at 8am and have a DC emp plus 5 or 6 cronies firing cold fire into South Morrowind Gate. Get too close to the edge and they would could chain/leash/gap close/dragon leap up top. Those won't work anymore, and ZOS made enemy bases instakill zones to stop any new methods of getting in.

And that wasn't even the current DC infestation on Sotha Sil, but a previous one.

Oh, okay. That is what I call gate camping, and that is what I refuse to do. It is bad play altogether. You have to take the keeps in order to take the scrolls, but let the players out of their gates. No matter how powerful you think you are. LOL

MipMip

Sanct16 wrote: »

First, it is important to understand that we are comparing completly different playstyles. In smallscale everyone plays for himself kinda, whereas in a group you build your character in a way that will benefit the group the most. Both playstyles require a lot individual skill if you want to be successful, however it's completly different types of "skill". In smallscale, you need to be good at a "dueling" type of pvp, in raids you need to be good at movement, communcation and prediction of how the fight will develope.
An argument I often read for why players in groups are trash is that if you catch them alone, they die in no time. However this is most likely due to their build not being aimed to 1v1. On my nightblade bomber in group I run neither singletarget damage nor self-heal on a build with 900 magicka recovery. Hard to duel someone. However if you put someone with a smallscale build into a raid, he will be completly dead weight aswell.

Second, you have to put things into relation. You can't compare top smallscale groups to casual raid groups and vice versa. If you run with an average pug guild, you don't need to be good at anything, however that group won't ever pull off anything special. Maybe win a 20v20 fight against pugs but that's it. However if you take 14 really good players, you might be able to pull of a 14v60. Likewise, if you take 4 scrubs you might be able to win a 4v4. If you take 4 really good players, you might be able to pull of a 4v12.

This could not be said better

Soul_Demon

CyrusArya wrote: »

Kill counter is about as telling of player skill as rank on the leaderboards. Completely useless. These are things that bad players use to evaluate their own performance. Im sure looking at a great kill counter score after a night of zerging makes you feel good, considering it rewards a kill for every person you tagged in a fight but only records deaths once. I've easily racked up 60:1 KDR running in larger groups before. More proud of a 6:1 in (true) solo play any day.

Indeed, both large scale and small scale PvP can both demonstrate skillful and impressive play. But, that is seen in the fights themselves...not the AP gained or kill counter scores. Those metrics are meaningless without context.

montiferus wrote: »

This! The mere fact he brings up kill counters says a lot.

So, let me understand completely what you use to measure success in Cyro- not kill counter, not leaderboards (so not AP) and you managed to insult me by claiming "bad players" use kill counter, but then immediately go to ratio- You don't use ratio you use the players name who is stating they "won" the engagements in one night. Not sure why you would assume KDR ratio would even be considered. That appears to be a personal mindset that is incapable of thought prior to spewing out insults while simultaneously making assumptions to reinforce a false premise. Either that or you cant even show up on a competitive server and fight the map, the groups that are out and faction zergs.

Two groups meet repeatedly over one night playing the game in cyro, kill counter will show how many losses and wins via kills on a single player in that group- no "feel like we beat you more often" needs to be said, the number will be right there for you to view. You either got more kills on them or they got more on you with all other variables in Cyro being countered by each group throughout night on equal terms. You either chose poorly, or you made good choices- no excuses. Each group had opportunity to choose and engage at their discretion given all variables and other players on map that night.

Cyro wasn't created as a battlegrounds- its a war that never stops and is scored, has objectives, has leaderboards, has winning factions, ranks and AP rewards for those who participate in the way it was designed. Or- you can try to ignore basic mechanics and design of the game and come up with some other way to do things and claim that is a 'true measure' of skill. Up to you, but own that you want to disregard 90% of the game and what it was designed for and suggest others are "bad players" for embracing that concept.

krathos

Sanct16 wrote: »

montiferus wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

montiferus wrote: »

Lol. Delusional post of the year award goes to you!!!! Keep on zerging!

So....make a statement, fail to back it up...throw insult to cover inability to defend point. Ok snowflake.

Here is a statement. You are a zeger who is so delusional he thinks it is harder to run in a gang of 24 than a gang of 4. Is that better? Do you feel good?

If you guys are so talented why don't you get the best and brightest from your herd to run in Animosity's GvG fights. This way we can all see how amazing you big groups really are and how terrible small scale players are....snowflake...

First, it is important to understand that we are comparing completly different playstyles. In smallscale everyone plays for himself kinda, whereas in a group you build your character in a way that will benefit the group the most. Both playstyles require a lot individual skill if you want to be successful, however it's completly different types of "skill". In smallscale, you need to be good at a "dueling" type of pvp, in raids you need to be good at movement, communcation and prediction of how the fight will develope.
An argument I often read for why players in groups are trash is that if you catch them alone, they die in no time. However this is most likely due to their build not being aimed to 1v1. On my nightblade bomber in group I run neither singletarget damage nor self-heal on a build with 900 magicka recovery. Hard to duel someone. However if you put someone with a smallscale build into a raid, he will be completly dead weight aswell.

Second, you have to put things into relation. You can't compare top smallscale groups to casual raid groups and vice versa. If you run with an average pug guild, you don't need to be good at anything, however that group won't ever pull off anything special. Maybe win a 20v20 fight against pugs but that's it. However if you take 14 really good players, you might be able to pull of a 14v60. Likewise, if you take 4 scrubs you might be able to win a 4v4. If you take 4 really good players, you might be able to pull of a 4v12.

I'm sorry but this is misguided and i understand you weren't targeting Animosity specifically but... In animosity at least, we build to fill in each other's weaknesses all the time. Our builds are coordinated. Our comms are coordinated. Our movement HAS to be fast and precise. Our situational awareness has to be impeccable and a group effort. We have little room for mistakes when fighting a much larger group than us. We have to move faster, hit harder, and be able to take the beating a large group can put out - especially in this destro ult shower tactic that is popular in large groups. We run 4-6 normally and have a max of 8 in rare cases (only 12 on roster). We can't have multiple healers or multiple negates. We can't run a destro train (we don't run a single destro ult) or have multiple members wearing *** like earth gore to soak up negates. We fight the "raids" and the "zergs" as the OP decribes them. To say we don't have to be as coordinated or that we play for ourselves is extremely misguided and i reckon any proper small man group feels the same way. After all, OP makes a distinction between "zergs" and "raids" and there's a distinction between a group of friends playing around each other and what real small-man guilds do.

This is why we are able to wipe guilds like Blood of Daggerfall, LoM, Chuck Norris, Dominant Dominion, Knights of Nirn, etc, despite them having 3-4x our numbers in open field. Yes sometimes the large guilds win but more often than they should, they crumble despite having huge numbers advantage and still being what you define as a "raid" as opposed to a "zerg". We also actively avoid areas with other EP nearby and especially with EP zergs and raids so we don't really fall into that category/thinly veiled insult to ESO's pvp streamers. We run few in numbers because that's what we prefer. It's more fun. It's certainly not easier and this isn't an attempt to diminish the accomplishments of any of these guilds or any large guild trying to coordinate but to say that being in a small man doesn't require these sort of coordination skills is just a farce.

@montiferus thanks for the shout out.