We need to do something about the zergbads.

NightbladeMechanics

The best change for combating numbers would be removing aoe caps. Zerg can’t abuse that.

I like the idea at the end for changing snipe. I imagine a person aiming a little ground aoe, then releasing an arrow that arcs just like snipe at that spot. It would be dodgeable by sidestepping, but hit like a truck. You would have to lead opponents or hit them in an attack or cc.

Some of the other ideas go too far.

lao

VaranisArano wrote: »

lao wrote: »

you´re taking the wrong approach to deal with this. your treating symptoms but ignore the root of the problem. cyrodiil zone design is complete trash. objective based pvp is trash. get rid of all those keeps or make them completely irrelevant to pvp. change group cap to 8 ppl max and make anyone beeing hit by more than 8 ppl automatically be worth 0 ap.

the way an open world pvp zone is meant to work is a ton of small groups roaming around looking for competitive fights between each other while respecting each others fights and not add on each other when a fight is already in progress.

instead we get a giant cluster**** cos every single person on the map gets tunnelled into the same location cos some clueless amateur at ZOS thought objective based pvp would be great. its not. it never was. it never will be. just get rid of it completely finally and turn cyrodiil into a highly competitive pvp arena as it should have been from the very beginning.

This sounds like an excellent new zone to add to the game, a free-for all PVP zone.

However, just because you don't enjoy objective based PVP in a zone designed for groups of 8-24 players but supporting everything from solo players, small groups, organized raids, gankers, bombers, zergs, faction stacks, AP farming, Alessia bridge farming, remember the Chalamo, scroll runs, and emp pushes, doesn't mean there aren't players who do.

Don't destroy Cyrodiil. Make something new and if players like it better, they'll come.

the problem with that is that when you spread the population out over too many zones you just end up with low activity in all of them till all but one die and everyone flocking over to the one active zone regardless wether they agree with the ruleset or not. a similar thing is already happening with campaigns.

it doesnt have anything to do with wether i like or dont like objective based pvp. it doesnt work. thats an undenyable fact and its been proven over and over in ESO for the last 3 years. unless you think 300 ping pvp cos 98% of the population is using 2% of the map at the time is enjoyable that is. note how i dont even need to mention the fact that zergs are *** and boring to make my point. it simply doesnt work from a technical point of view.

Raudgrani

TheDoomsdayMonster wrote: »

Waffennacht wrote: »

If the Zergs had no one to fight, would they stay a Zerg?

Imo, if you wanna do something about Zergs, just play BGs, we need numbers

Or do Imperial City (as I do) when you are not in the mood to deal with zergs...

A three man group of two sneaky nightblades and a loud tanky werewolf in Imperial City, is one of the most fun and rewarding "small group play" experiences I have. So much fun.

Victimize

Zos won't do anything but buff zergs and continue to nerf solo/small-scale. It's been getting worse each patch and it won't change any time soon sadly because they want skill to be irrelevant when it should be relevant.

Derra

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

Most of the things that helped against zergs ironically got nerfed because small scale players complained about the zergers also using them.

Could you elaborate what specific skills or mechanics you mean?

deepseamk20b14_ESO

ak_pvp wrote: »

deepseamk20b14_ESO wrote: »

ak_pvp wrote: »

Mojmir wrote: »

Make up your mind, you want people in pvp or not? Take the good with the bad, war isn't supposed to be fair.

Making the game fairer will kill PvP?

No, maybe people not getting zerged down constantly and playing horse sim would have more people in PvP. To those like you saying oh well, irl wars are like this. We aren't in real life, we are in a game where people are throwing fire balls and can resurrect.

deepseamk20b14_ESO wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

deepseamk20b14_ESO wrote: »

if you’re not in an organized group using discord or TS yeah, you’re going to lose then subsequently complain that you are getting steam rolled by zergs. Even though there is a clear cut difference between a Zerg of disorganized players and a full raid of organized players. I’m not talking “put x in chat, TS required” groups. That’s not organized. It’s randoms. A real organized group isn’t a “bunch of idiots” as you say, it’s quite the opposite. Specialized roles and required builds, tactics and strategy that leads to victory 9/10 times against an enemy force twice the size. I know some people don’t like having to build how someone else tells them too but that order and discipline is key to success. It’s an AvAvA large scale war. Battlegrounds should of been a good answer for small scale but they ruined it with CP...

This. A raid that trains together, runs close together, and has a mixture of roles for support, healing, and damage is going to dominate the battlefield because of superior organization and execution of tactics. Gear sets and meta skills will come and go, organization and training carries the day.

Organized raid v PUGs is a slaughter, 9 times out of 10. Organized raid v organized raid has been some of the best PVP I've ever experienced. But then, I enjoy group combat and playing support roles. I certainly understand the people who prefer 1v1 or small group or PUGing it, and I've done all of those, but my preferred playstyle is definitely playing with a trained, organized, raid.

And what’s funny is even though I run with a organized guild I still actually prefer solo or small group lol. It’s a great sight to see when we roll through twice the enemy numbers but there is something more fun about running solo to me. Maybe more gratification from victories as I achieve them all by myself? Either way, both play styles are fun and people need to learn to adapt to any given situation.

Adapt to getting mowed down by multiple players who themselves don't need to adapt or manage resources/health/buffs because they have numbers carrying them without any drawback. Hell, for some reason AoE caps exist. There is no reason an NB shouldn't be able to fear everyone within the cone, or a DK talonsing everyone in the vicinity, since an entire group could do that to a single player with full damage and effects.

Your logic is incredibly flawed.

Get into an actual good group and go against another good organized group. It isn’t “mindless spamming of skills”.

My organized group will steam roll you and 50 others. If it’s so mindless, why is it that 50 unorganized players, can’t beat 24 organized players? If 24 “mindless people (as you call them)” best you and 49 others....man....what does that make you? Worse than mindless? By all means it must.

Why in the hell should one NB be able to fear anyone in a cone, which could literally be a dozen people or more if they were in this imaginary cone. Why the hell should one DK be able to talon everyone in their immediate vicinity? While you’re at it, make surprise attack hit everyone in a cone. While we’re at it, let’s double leaps radius and make flame lash 360 degrees. Any other silly ideas?

I don’t think you have the greatest situational awareness if you’re getting destroyed by zergs. Rarely do I die to zergs because I pick where I fight and if i see a Zerg coming I don’t just stand there dumb founded. 90% of my gameplay is solo as well.

Did you not read the rest of my posts, you know, the things that organised groups wont be affected since they look after themselves too. Just breaking the extra defense players get from being a group for no reason. And that it will only affect the bad ones.

If the nb/dk is fighting a dozen people, they are out matched in damage, combined health, and healing power. Why should their abilities have some arbitrary limit to people if all those people could affect the NB/Dk. (same with encase, warden spikes and the like too, basically total removal of aoe caps)

On escaping zerg. As a dk/templar/some wardens. If you see a zerg coming your generally ***. Also why should they have to. Hey, you. Either group up, run from half the fights or die.

Is there any reason things to limit mindless zerging or buff solo/smaller players is bad, or would you like anyone below a certain amount of players just to be steamrolled? I play mainly solo, (mainly bgs atm since time Constraints) and used to play haderus because it was smaller. Unfortunately it's now more of the same but less ever since updates made it more and more punishing to run solo.

1. We don’t need solo players fighting a Zerg of people and becoming basically titans. Having a uncapped fear or uncapped talons would STILL not save you so what’s the point? Why the hell should one player be able to stand against 24+? If you can’t survive a Zerg solo or you refuse to play in a group then honestly this game isn’t for you. I’m not questioning your skill but it’s apparent this isn’t the type of gameplay for your style of play. The way you go about the changes you would like to see wouldn’t just be a change, it would be a completely different game.

2. What are your graphics set to? Do you not see the metric butt ton of players coming at you with bright red circles everywhere? Why don’t you crouch and hide? If you know you can’t get out of the way why not have invis pots? NB and sorc can run easily. I’ve seen DK’s and wardens LOS tank a Zerg all the way back to a keep or back to a group of pigs who will steal the enemies attention from you. Sorry if you’re a Templar lol. Stand behind a rock or tree? Use KOCOA....google that. Zergs travel straight to objectives, don’t stand in bottle necks or the direct path. Organized Zerg fighting your alliance? Stay away from others that the Zerg will undoubtably move towards, stay on edges, attack the rear.

3. I and many others commonly 1vX and do fine. People already complain about LOS and fall damage and roll dodge and block and jumping not costing stamina, and you want to make us more powerful? I mean, go ahead, I’ll take the extra power lol. It’s just funny so many people complain about one person fighting many and being too powerful then we have you saying zergs are to powerful and make solo players more powerful. Anyone and stop and think that maybe, it’s not the game, it them (you)?

Thogard

Earthgore

misfitmanic

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

O_LYKOS wrote: »

It's funny that a game like this, how its played, the way Cyrodiil is designed, people still complain about zergs.

Great battles of war such as Cyrodiil don't happen between small groups. They're fight to the death between armies.

I wouldn't say that the best fights I've had in cyrodiil was outnumbered but I can agree that complaining about zergs is pointless, it's the way of the game. Albeit the real issue isn't the zergs is how those zergs decide to play like a 24 man raid shouldn't be mounting up chasing down one player or ult bombing them.

That really depends on who exactly that solo player is, and how many Meteor Ults a zerg has ready

sunandstars77

The best way I can think of to stop Zergs like this is the Synergy Mechanic.

For example a small group of players say 4 has much stronger synergies than that of a group of 6/8 players and so on to the limit of 24.

And the larger a group is, the synergies are nerfed almost to the point of negating the Synergy Mechanic altogether.

This will help to break up Zergs/meta balls and perhaps improve performance in Cyrodiil. Whilst empowering the importance of smaller balanced group play.

Further. There are large parts of the Cryodiil map that are basically redundant. The introduction of the towns were a step in the right direction but fall short of what is required to spread out the PvP players across the map. This has been eloquently shown and explained in a podcast by Fengrush. On his YT channel.

I'd like to ask the Community.What are your thoughts on this?

Thanks.

CatchMeTrolling

Derra wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

Most of the things that helped against zergs ironically got nerfed because small scale players complained about the zergers also using them.

Could you elaborate what specific skills or mechanics you mean?

For starters anything that had to do with healing or defense eventually got some kind of nerf, although I was talking more so offensive things like destro, proxy, vicious. Not really accounting for the numerous set nerfs, certain play styles, simple things like being able to throw rapids on randoms when a zerg is coming, pretty sure we got a few siege nerfs as well. Plus as much as people hated the rise of heavy armor it also helped small scale. Many calls for nerfs have been double edge swords but the thing is they always hurt small scale more.

This period was probably the calmest for zerg busting, you knew you was taking players with you, this was a guild group too

http://xboxdvr.com/gamer/CatchMeTrolling/video/19573915

VaranisArano

lao wrote: »

the problem with that is that when you spread the population out over too many zones you just end up with low activity in all of them till all but one die and everyone flocking over to the one active zone regardless wether they agree with the ruleset or not. a similar thing is already happening with campaigns.

it doesnt have anything to do with wether i like or dont like objective based pvp. it doesnt work. thats an undenyable fact and its been proven over and over in ESO for the last 3 years. unless you think 300 ping pvp cos 98% of the population is using 2% of the map at the time is enjoyable that is. note how i dont even need to mention the fact that zergs are *** and boring to make my point. it simply doesnt work from a technical point of view.

Sorry. Your undeniable fact is very deniable for people who actually like objective-based PVP. Like me. Now, certainly ZOS could upgrade their servers to handle it better (when couldn't ZOS stand to improve their servers? Right, never.), but I love the strategy of Cyrodiil that leads both to people heading to the same important objectives and spreading out to hit the less defended ones. Its PVP on a strategic level that then leads to PVP on the battlefield.

You disagree. I get that. So, don't destroy the Cyrodiil I love in order to get the Cyrodiil of your dreams. I've got no problem with your vision of a free-for-all no-objective PVP, but I definitely have a problem with you wanting to remove the option of objective based PVP.

CoJaxDeBrujah

I keep seeing people say to limit healing based on a fixed number of people or lower the healing done outside of groups. I don't think these would work for reasons that have already been stated by others. I pose an alternative though. Realistically, someone who would be healing a large group of people shouldn't be able to do its as efficiently as they would a smaller group. I think instead of capping it, they make it so that the more people you are healing the less healing is done. Essentially making the healing less effective or more effective proportionate to the number of people being healed. Another alternative would be to increase the magika cost proportionately to the number of people being healed.

Also I don't believe that the ago cap should be necessarily removed entirely. I think that instead maybe employ the same ideas as with the healing. For each additional person effected by it the cost increases until you run out of mag/stam. Or each additional person is effected less and less by it until it doesn't work. A third option is to limit it based on how big your mag/stam pool is. The more you have the more people it effects.

To remove the cap completely would just tip the scales too far into the solo players favor. You want to keep it as realistically as possible. That way it is more about skill and strategy than just sheer numbers.

If you want to solo god wreck a large group of enemies, Bethesda has game for you. It's called skyrim. Go play that instead.

CatchMeTrolling

CoJaxDeBrujah wrote: »

I keep seeing people say to limit healing based on a fixed number of people or lower the healing done outside of groups. I don't think these would work for reasons that have already been stated by others. I pose an alternative though. Realistically, someone who would be healing a large group of people shouldn't be able to do its as efficiently as they would a smaller group. I think instead of capping it, they make it so that the more people you are healing the less healing is done. Essentially making the healing less effective or more effective proportionate to the number of people being healed. Another alternative would be to increase the magika cost proportionately to the number of people being healed.

Also I don't believe that the ago cap should be necessarily removed entirely. I think that instead maybe employ the same ideas as with the healing. For each additional person effected by it the cost increases until you run out of mag/stam. Or each additional person is effected less and less by it until it doesn't work. A third option is to limit it based on how big your mag/stam pool is. The more you have the more people it effects.

To remove the cap completely would just tip the scales too far into the solo players favor. You want to keep it as realistically as possible. That way it is more about skill and strategy than just sheer numbers.

If you want to solo god wreck a large group of enemies, Bethesda has game for you. It's called skyrim. Go play that instead.

This part is a contradiction. You say it’s more about skill and not sheer numbers but it’s already set up for numbers to come out on top. You also say it would swing in the favor of solo players to remove the cap but why should people with more numbers get a damage reduction, if anything it would be a learn to not stack situation. Sound like you have no problem with large groups getting an advantage just because , doesn’t sound skillful to me but bias. Keeping it as “realistic” as possible would actually swing in the favor of removing aoe caps, especially considering Elder Scrolls lore.

CoJaxDeBrujah

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

CoJaxDeBrujah wrote: »

I keep seeing people say to limit healing based on a fixed number of people or lower the healing done outside of groups. I don't think these would work for reasons that have already been stated by others. I pose an alternative though. Realistically, someone who would be healing a large group of people shouldn't be able to do its as efficiently as they would a smaller group. I think instead of capping it, they make it so that the more people you are healing the less healing is done. Essentially making the healing less effective or more effective proportionate to the number of people being healed. Another alternative would be to increase the magika cost proportionately to the number of people being healed.

Also I don't believe that the ago cap should be necessarily removed entirely. I think that instead maybe employ the same ideas as with the healing. For each additional person effected by it the cost increases until you run out of mag/stam. Or each additional person is effected less and less by it until it doesn't work. A third option is to limit it based on how big your mag/stam pool is. The more you have the more people it effects.

To remove the cap completely would just tip the scales too far into the solo players favor. You want to keep it as realistically as possible. That way it is more about skill and strategy than just sheer numbers.

If you want to solo god wreck a large group of enemies, Bethesda has game for you. It's called skyrim. Go play that instead.

This part is a contradiction. You say it’s more about skill and not sheer numbers but it’s already set up for numbers to come out on top. You also say it would swing in the favor of solo players to remove the cap but why should people with more numbers get a damage reduction, if anything it would be a learn to not stack situation. Sound like you have no problem with large groups getting an advantage just because , doesn’t sound skillful to me but bias. Keeping it as “realistic” as possible would actually swing in the favor of removing aoe caps, especially considering Elder Scrolls lore.

What I was implying is that if you remove the cap completely the one person could completely manhandle entire groups of people which would not be balanced at all.

If you read the part before hand I did propose lifting the cap in a way that will give solos more of a chance to win without shifting all the power to them.

I would prefer a situation where both sides are fairly balanced and the outcome is decided on how you approach it.

No matter what a larger force is more likely to win in a toe to toe fight. But if you approach it strategically you can win.

You mention elderscrolls lore like it some how validates your point, when past games have had limits to who the spells can effect. Skyrim had it where lower level spells couldn't effect higher level opponents.

CatchMeTrolling

CoJaxDeBrujah wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

CoJaxDeBrujah wrote: »

I keep seeing people say to limit healing based on a fixed number of people or lower the healing done outside of groups. I don't think these would work for reasons that have already been stated by others. I pose an alternative though. Realistically, someone who would be healing a large group of people shouldn't be able to do its as efficiently as they would a smaller group. I think instead of capping it, they make it so that the more people you are healing the less healing is done. Essentially making the healing less effective or more effective proportionate to the number of people being healed. Another alternative would be to increase the magika cost proportionately to the number of people being healed.

Also I don't believe that the ago cap should be necessarily removed entirely. I think that instead maybe employ the same ideas as with the healing. For each additional person effected by it the cost increases until you run out of mag/stam. Or each additional person is effected less and less by it until it doesn't work. A third option is to limit it based on how big your mag/stam pool is. The more you have the more people it effects.

To remove the cap completely would just tip the scales too far into the solo players favor. You want to keep it as realistically as possible. That way it is more about skill and strategy than just sheer numbers.

If you want to solo god wreck a large group of enemies, Bethesda has game for you. It's called skyrim. Go play that instead.

This part is a contradiction. You say it’s more about skill and not sheer numbers but it’s already set up for numbers to come out on top. You also say it would swing in the favor of solo players to remove the cap but why should people with more numbers get a damage reduction, if anything it would be a learn to not stack situation. Sound like you have no problem with large groups getting an advantage just because , doesn’t sound skillful to me but bias. Keeping it as “realistic” as possible would actually swing in the favor of removing aoe caps, especially considering Elder Scrolls lore.

What I was implying is that if you remove the cap completely the one person could completely manhandle entire groups of people which would not be balanced at all.

If you read the part before hand I did propose lifting the cap in a way that will give solos more of a chance to win without shifting all the power to them.

I would prefer a situation where both sides are fairly balanced and the outcome is decided on how you approach it.

No matter what a larger force is more likely to win in a toe to toe fight. But if you approach it strategically you can win.

You mention elderscrolls lore like it some how validates your point, when past games have had limits to who the spells can effect. Skyrim had it where lower level spells couldn't effect higher level opponents.

Whatever you say, if one person wipes a large group they deserved to die, everyone is so scared to die and expect devs to hold their hands. It wouldn’t be the first game without aoe caps nor the first to go without it in large scale pvp.

Is Skyrim the only game you know? One person can wipe a group of people in the lore and what you mentioned has nothing to do with how many people you can kill at once or by yourself, stick to the point. Plus what you can and can’t do in all the games vary but lore doesn’t change, it’s a more accurate representation than a single game.

It’s okay to get outplayed, just respawn it’s a game. Large groups don’t need a cap to protect them they already have the numbers for that. Again you contradict yourself by saying the outcome should be decided based on how you approach it, so if a person approaches a fight & outplays a group then that’s that. Removing aoe caps wouldn’t make anyone God’s it’ll just make players that already had the potential to make you pay for bad play be able to do what they already could do without a cap saving someone.

You SHOULD get punished for bad play and you SHOULD get punished for making mistakes. That’s the problem with the game now the devs started catering to bad play and as a result removed counter play and added things with no counter play at all.

CoJaxDeBrujah

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

CoJaxDeBrujah wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

CoJaxDeBrujah wrote: »

I keep seeing people say to limit healing based on a fixed number of people or lower the healing done outside of groups. I don't think these would work for reasons that have already been stated by others. I pose an alternative though. Realistically, someone who would be healing a large group of people shouldn't be able to do its as efficiently as they would a smaller group. I think instead of capping it, they make it so that the more people you are healing the less healing is done. Essentially making the healing less effective or more effective proportionate to the number of people being healed. Another alternative would be to increase the magika cost proportionately to the number of people being healed.

Also I don't believe that the ago cap should be necessarily removed entirely. I think that instead maybe employ the same ideas as with the healing. For each additional person effected by it the cost increases until you run out of mag/stam. Or each additional person is effected less and less by it until it doesn't work. A third option is to limit it based on how big your mag/stam pool is. The more you have the more people it effects.

To remove the cap completely would just tip the scales too far into the solo players favor. You want to keep it as realistically as possible. That way it is more about skill and strategy than just sheer numbers.

If you want to solo god wreck a large group of enemies, Bethesda has game for you. It's called skyrim. Go play that instead.

This part is a contradiction. You say it’s more about skill and not sheer numbers but it’s already set up for numbers to come out on top. You also say it would swing in the favor of solo players to remove the cap but why should people with more numbers get a damage reduction, if anything it would be a learn to not stack situation. Sound like you have no problem with large groups getting an advantage just because , doesn’t sound skillful to me but bias. Keeping it as “realistic” as possible would actually swing in the favor of removing aoe caps, especially considering Elder Scrolls lore.

What I was implying is that if you remove the cap completely the one person could completely manhandle entire groups of people which would not be balanced at all.

If you read the part before hand I did propose lifting the cap in a way that will give solos more of a chance to win without shifting all the power to them.

I would prefer a situation where both sides are fairly balanced and the outcome is decided on how you approach it.

No matter what a larger force is more likely to win in a toe to toe fight. But if you approach it strategically you can win.

You mention elderscrolls lore like it some how validates your point, when past games have had limits to who the spells can effect. Skyrim had it where lower level spells couldn't effect higher level opponents.

Whatever you say, if one person wipes a large group they deserved to die, everyone is so scared to die and expect devs to hold their hands. It wouldn’t be the first game without aoe caps nor the first to go without it in large scale pvp.

Is Skyrim the only game you know? One person can wipe a group of people in the lore and what you mentioned has nothing to do with how many people you can kill at once or by yourself, stick to the point. Plus what you can and can’t do in all the games vary but lore doesn’t change, it’s a more accurate representation than a single game.

It’s okay to get outplayed, just respawn it’s a game. Large groups don’t need a cap to protect them they already have the numbers for that. Again you contradict yourself by saying the outcome should be decided based on how you approach it, so if a person approaches a fight & outplays a group then that’s that. Removing aoe caps wouldn’t make anyone God’s it’ll just make players that already had the potential to make you pay for bad play be able to do what they already could do without a cap saving someone.

You SHOULD get punished for bad play and you SHOULD get punished for making mistakes. That’s the problem with the game now the devs started catering to bad play and as a result removed counter play and added things with no counter play at all.

@CatchMeTrolling I thought about what you said here, and it occurred to me that you have a good point. My stance was about using strategy while trying to overcome your opponent. The thing is though my idea would only force solos to strategist while leaving the zergs to continue on with no strategy at all. So I thought about the merit of getting rid of the cap entirely. If you get rid of the cap then the zergs would have to approach situations differently to avoid being wiped by a solo, and the solos would still have to think of the best way to combat the zerg while not being overwhelmed by their sheer numbers. You were right I was contradicting myself when I held the two parties to a different standard without realizing I was doing so. Thankyou for pointing this out. You were also correct in the statement that if you are in a zerg and get wiped by a solo then you deserve to die.
Now how about my ideas about the healing and it being limited by how many people you are healing by either how much it heals or the cost of the heals? Do you think it is a valid idea to even the playing field a bit between solos and zergs?

VaranisArano

Why are you trying to level the playing field between solos and zergs like that's the only thing in consideration? Especially when a zerg can be many things?

A zerg can be a bunch of ungrouped players.
A zerg can be a lossely organized PUG raid with a bunch of ungrouped players riding its coattails.
A zerg can be an organized raid with a bunch of pugs riding its coattails.
A zerg can be more than one organized raid + pugs. (I've fought several times against a certain raid that had its raid #2 in the same area)
For the purposes of discussion, a bunch of ungrouped players, a loosely organized group, and an organized raid might have exactly the same numbers, but the organized raid has the far superior organization in that it has both damage and a great deal of healing right when it needs it.

So, when you say you want to balance solo players and zergs, I look at that and think, exactly which type of zerg are you talking about here? Not to mention that Cyrodiil is designed for groups of 8 to 24 players, so you have to preserve that while pursuing this balance.

Then you have to consider that if you put the ungrouped or loosely grouped players at a disadvantage vs solo players, you massively empower the organized raids who are able to use their abilities much more effectively due to organization. Who's going to use the removal of AOE caps more effectively on the battlefield: a solo player or an organized raid?

Then you have to consider that if you try to put the organized raids at a disadvantage, they can compensate in a lot of ways with their organization in ways that small groups, loosely organized groups, and ungrouped players simply can't. The raids might take a nerf, but they won't be down and out by a long shot because a good raid has the organization, strategy, and tactics to compensate or they wouldn't be a good, effective raid in the first place. More Aoe damage? A. now the raid does a ton more damage and B. the raid can get more healers to compensate. Again, the organized raids come out on top.

Cyrodiil is designed for groups of 8 to 24 players, supporting everything from solos to zergs. Acting like the game has to be balanced for the extremes, the solo players and the "zergs" of which I'm still not sure what type we're talking about, means that anything that makes solo players stronger against ungrouped or loosely organized players also massively empowers the organized raids who have the organization to use both healing and damage effectively.

So if your intention is to strengthen organized raids vs everyone else, go for it. That's how this suggestion actually works out. But I doubt that's your intention.

CatchMeTrolling

CoJaxDeBrujah wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

CoJaxDeBrujah wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

CoJaxDeBrujah wrote: »

I keep seeing people say to limit healing based on a fixed number of people or lower the healing done outside of groups. I don't think these would work for reasons that have already been stated by others. I pose an alternative though. Realistically, someone who would be healing a large group of people shouldn't be able to do its as efficiently as they would a smaller group. I think instead of capping it, they make it so that the more people you are healing the less healing is done. Essentially making the healing less effective or more effective proportionate to the number of people being healed. Another alternative would be to increase the magika cost proportionately to the number of people being healed.

Also I don't believe that the ago cap should be necessarily removed entirely. I think that instead maybe employ the same ideas as with the healing. For each additional person effected by it the cost increases until you run out of mag/stam. Or each additional person is effected less and less by it until it doesn't work. A third option is to limit it based on how big your mag/stam pool is. The more you have the more people it effects.

To remove the cap completely would just tip the scales too far into the solo players favor. You want to keep it as realistically as possible. That way it is more about skill and strategy than just sheer numbers.

If you want to solo god wreck a large group of enemies, Bethesda has game for you. It's called skyrim. Go play that instead.

This part is a contradiction. You say it’s more about skill and not sheer numbers but it’s already set up for numbers to come out on top. You also say it would swing in the favor of solo players to remove the cap but why should people with more numbers get a damage reduction, if anything it would be a learn to not stack situation. Sound like you have no problem with large groups getting an advantage just because , doesn’t sound skillful to me but bias. Keeping it as “realistic” as possible would actually swing in the favor of removing aoe caps, especially considering Elder Scrolls lore.

What I was implying is that if you remove the cap completely the one person could completely manhandle entire groups of people which would not be balanced at all.

If you read the part before hand I did propose lifting the cap in a way that will give solos more of a chance to win without shifting all the power to them.

I would prefer a situation where both sides are fairly balanced and the outcome is decided on how you approach it.

No matter what a larger force is more likely to win in a toe to toe fight. But if you approach it strategically you can win.

You mention elderscrolls lore like it some how validates your point, when past games have had limits to who the spells can effect. Skyrim had it where lower level spells couldn't effect higher level opponents.

Whatever you say, if one person wipes a large group they deserved to die, everyone is so scared to die and expect devs to hold their hands. It wouldn’t be the first game without aoe caps nor the first to go without it in large scale pvp.

Is Skyrim the only game you know? One person can wipe a group of people in the lore and what you mentioned has nothing to do with how many people you can kill at once or by yourself, stick to the point. Plus what you can and can’t do in all the games vary but lore doesn’t change, it’s a more accurate representation than a single game.

It’s okay to get outplayed, just respawn it’s a game. Large groups don’t need a cap to protect them they already have the numbers for that. Again you contradict yourself by saying the outcome should be decided based on how you approach it, so if a person approaches a fight & outplays a group then that’s that. Removing aoe caps wouldn’t make anyone God’s it’ll just make players that already had the potential to make you pay for bad play be able to do what they already could do without a cap saving someone.

You SHOULD get punished for bad play and you SHOULD get punished for making mistakes. That’s the problem with the game now the devs started catering to bad play and as a result removed counter play and added things with no counter play at all.

@CatchMeTrolling I thought about what you said here, and it occurred to me that you have a good point. My stance was about using strategy while trying to overcome your opponent. The thing is though my idea would only force solos to strategist while leaving the zergs to continue on with no strategy at all. So I thought about the merit of getting rid of the cap entirely. If you get rid of the cap then the zergs would have to approach situations differently to avoid being wiped by a solo, and the solos would still have to think of the best way to combat the zerg while not being overwhelmed by their sheer numbers. You were right I was contradicting myself when I held the two parties to a different standard without realizing I was doing so. Thankyou for pointing this out. You were also correct in the statement that if you are in a zerg and get wiped by a solo then you deserve to die.
Now how about my ideas about the healing and it being limited by how many people you are healing by either how much it heals or the cost of the heals? Do you think it is a valid idea to even the playing field a bit between solos and zergs?

I don’t think healers should be punished for being in a large group and even if they implement something like that healing in a 24 man group will still be silly. The problem with healing is the fact there’s no cool down for it like you would expect there to be, zos has already tried to tone down healing in multiple ways and it still remains powerful. A large part of that has to do with the cp system and the fact the power level kept rising.

VaranisArano

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

I don’t think healers should be punished for being in a large group and even if they implement something like that healing in a 24 man group will still be silly. The problem with healing is the fact there’s no cool down for it like you would expect there to be, zos has already tried to tone down healing in multiple ways and it still remains powerful. A large part of that has to do with the cp system and the fact the power level kept rising.

The cooldown for healing is your healers' resources and how fast they can spam heals. Guess who has the most healers and the most ability to compensate for any nerfs to healing? Organized raids. Even the raids that don't have half templars and stack earthgore can out-heal loosely organized or disorganized groups any day. But if you target those raids and their ability to heal (excepting earthgore here, which I expect to take a nerf to the knee once HotR isn't still new), then you hammer everyone else who doesn't have the ability to have that many healers or compensate for nerfs to healing.

There's a distinct difference between healing in an organized raid and healing a bunch of PUGs or ungrouped players. I do both at different times. In an organized group (mine doesn't stack healers or earthgore), I've got chevrons to know exactly where to throw my healing springs and combat prayer and I know exactly when to throw my purges. That maximizes the effectiveness of my heals plus I've got other healers in group with my doing the same thing so the burden of healing is shared. That has nothing to do with the power of our heals. It has everything to do with the power of our organization. We are organized, therefore our heals are as effective as we can make them.

When I run ungrouped alongside a bunch of players when I get tired of rushing from keep to keep and settle down for a nice bit of Chalamo to Bleakers farming (aka zerg surfing as an EP potato), healing is a whole 'nother matter. There, I don't have chevrons, so I'm throwing heals wherever I want - mostly on the largest group of players or somebody with a low health bar - with no guarantee that players will stay in them and reliant on my own read of the battlefield to stay alive. My heals are effective, sure, but not as effective as they are in my raid. I also don't have the backup of other healers. There are other healers around, but they and me aren't working as a team except for the fact we have the same color shields floating above our heads. There's no coordination, and therefore no way to compensate as a team for changes in healing. If I run myself out of resources healing others, there's no guarantee that someone else will pick up the slack the way there is in a raid. Unorganized or loosely organized, my heals are only as effective as I can make them with my read of the battlefield. Its considerably less effective than healing an organized raid.

So in my experience, an organized raid benefits from healing because their organization makes healing maximally effective if their healers are good. Nerf healing and the organization factor will allow raids to adjust and keep up their level of effective healing. But in the meantime, everyone else who can't compensate just got much weaker in comparison to those raids that can compensate. Healing nerfs are a nerf to everyone, but the raids can handle it much better than anyone else, thus effectively making raids stronger.

CoJaxDeBrujah

CoJaxDeBrujah wrote: »

I keep seeing people say to limit healing based on a fixed number of people or lower the healing done outside of groups. I don't think these would work for reasons that have already been stated by others. I pose an alternative though. Realistically, someone who would be healing a large group of people shouldn't be able to do its as efficiently as they would a smaller group. I think instead of capping it, they make it so that the more people you are healing the less healing is done. Essentially making the healing less effective or more effective proportionate to the number of people being healed. Another alternative would be to increase the magika cost proportionately to the number of people being healed.

@VaranisArano from reading your comment to @CatchMeTrolling I'm assuming you didn't read my comment that he was responding to. I've quoted it above, and in it I pose a few ideas on how to limit healing based on how many people are being effected. If done right, it would only really effect larger groups. That is why he said he didn't think healers should be punished for being in groups.

Thinking about it though, He has a good point. You make the choice to either run solo or in a group. If you run solo and you can't beat the zerg then you made the wrong choice.

Congratulations @CatchMeTrolling you've swayed my way of thinking. Lol

ak_pvp

CoJaxDeBrujah wrote: »

CoJaxDeBrujah wrote: »

I keep seeing people say to limit healing based on a fixed number of people or lower the healing done outside of groups. I don't think these would work for reasons that have already been stated by others. I pose an alternative though. Realistically, someone who would be healing a large group of people shouldn't be able to do its as efficiently as they would a smaller group. I think instead of capping it, they make it so that the more people you are healing the less healing is done. Essentially making the healing less effective or more effective proportionate to the number of people being healed. Another alternative would be to increase the magika cost proportionately to the number of people being healed.

@VaranisArano from reading your comment to @CatchMeTrolling I'm assuming you didn't read my comment that he was responding to. I've quoted it above, and in it I pose a few ideas on how to limit healing based on how many people are being effected. If done right, it would only really effect larger groups. That is why he said he didn't think healers should be punished for being in groups.

Thinking about it though, He has a good point. You make the choice to either run solo or in a group. If you run solo and you can't beat the zerg then you made the wrong choice.

Congratulations @CatchMeTrolling you've swayed my way of thinking. Lol

OK, using the same logic. When something like the old godlike DKs. I guess players just made the wrong choice to not run it. You can't really say that you have to play an exact certain way or get ***. Zerging causes a majority of lag, and is one of the main reasons people don't PvP, some streamers have left due to it, and explained why in depth, denying the problem doesn't change anything.

Also, why do you think people want 1.5 back?

CoJaxDeBrujah

ak_pvp wrote: »

CoJaxDeBrujah wrote: »

CoJaxDeBrujah wrote: »

I keep seeing people say to limit healing based on a fixed number of people or lower the healing done outside of groups. I don't think these would work for reasons that have already been stated by others. I pose an alternative though. Realistically, someone who would be healing a large group of people shouldn't be able to do its as efficiently as they would a smaller group. I think instead of capping it, they make it so that the more people you are healing the less healing is done. Essentially making the healing less effective or more effective proportionate to the number of people being healed. Another alternative would be to increase the magika cost proportionately to the number of people being healed.

@VaranisArano from reading your comment to @CatchMeTrolling I'm assuming you didn't read my comment that he was responding to. I've quoted it above, and in it I pose a few ideas on how to limit healing based on how many people are being effected. If done right, it would only really effect larger groups. That is why he said he didn't think healers should be punished for being in groups.

Thinking about it though, He has a good point. You make the choice to either run solo or in a group. If you run solo and you can't beat the zerg then you made the wrong choice.

Congratulations @CatchMeTrolling you've swayed my way of thinking. Lol

OK, using the same logic. When something like the old godlike DKs. I guess players just made the wrong choice to not run it. You can't really say that you have to play an exact certain way or get ***. Zerging causes a majority of lag, and is one of the main reasons people don't PvP, some streamers have left due to it, and explained why in depth, denying the problem doesn't change anything.

Also, why do you think people want 1.5 back?

You misunderstood what I said. I didn't say that going solo is the wrong choice. What I said was that if you make the choice to run solo and then you can't contend with a larger group then you probably made the wrong choice. And to address the dk, it's the same situation. No choice in character is a bad choice it's how you play the character. If you don't know how to play a character efficiently and are unwilling to learn then yes it was a bad choice because you'll be steam rolled left and right. The same with running solo. If you don't know how to do it, and are unwilling to learn and adapt in order to take on large groups, then yes it was a bad choice and you should probably group up.

CatchMeTrolling

CoJaxDeBrujah wrote: »

CoJaxDeBrujah wrote: »

I keep seeing people say to limit healing based on a fixed number of people or lower the healing done outside of groups. I don't think these would work for reasons that have already been stated by others. I pose an alternative though. Realistically, someone who would be healing a large group of people shouldn't be able to do its as efficiently as they would a smaller group. I think instead of capping it, they make it so that the more people you are healing the less healing is done. Essentially making the healing less effective or more effective proportionate to the number of people being healed. Another alternative would be to increase the magika cost proportionately to the number of people being healed.

VaranisArano from reading your comment to CatchMeTrolling I'm assuming you didn't read my comment that he was responding to. I've quoted it above, and in it I pose a few ideas on how to limit healing based on how many people are being effected. If done right, it would only really effect larger groups. That is why he said he didn't think healers should be punished for being in groups.

Thinking about it though, He has a good point. You make the choice to either run solo or in a group. If you run solo and you can't beat the zerg then you made the wrong choice.

Congratulations CatchMeTrolling you've swayed my way of thinking. Lol

You’re welcome lol

Jawasa

@Baconlad removing group purge is one of the worst ideas i have heard. Just empowers fire ballista/oil players and ungrouped huge zergs.

technohic

Jawasa wrote: »

@Baconlad removing group purge is one of the worst ideas i have heard. Just empowers fire ballista/oil players and ungrouped huge zergs.

I actually think siege could use some more bite to them, so this actually sways me in favor of the group purge nerf.

Ragnarock41

Problem is, game shouldn't favor big groups. having the numbers is an advantage by itself,

IF 10 players can't beat 1, thats their fault, game should not hold their hands and babysit them.

Baconlad

Siege has plenty of bite. Problem is that debuffs applied to zergs or organized raids get immediatly purged by a purge bot.

With the changes comming to the game with synergies, (as in they **should** be more reliable) they should make the purge from alliance line need to be synergized. It would need to be a conscious effort to get a purge if your not a magplar. Or free if you are a magplar XD.

Debuffs like AoE defile get removed instantly, where with this new set up they would not be, and would last until they synergized...balanced in my opinion.

As for siege? I laugh at it. Siege is a tool, would be a better tool without the instant purging on raids, and why do you think siege is too strong?

Lastly i want to emphasize...i do NOT want to see purge removed. As a matter of fact i like that other classes have a purge available to them, its not as strong as magplar purge but still decent. Even with my proposed changes. I also wouldnt mind seeing morph changes and both of them being the same cost at a reduced cost from efficient purge now. Its entirely too expensive.

If they want to keep it instant, fine, increase the cost dramatically to prevent non stop purge spamming.

technohic

Baconlad wrote: »

Siege has plenty of bite. Problem is that debuffs applied to zergs or organized raids get immediatly purged by a purge bot.

With the changes comming to the game with synergies, (as in they **should** be more reliable) they should make the purge from alliance line need to be synergized. It would need to be a conscious effort to get a purge if your not a magplar. Or free if you are a magplar XD.

Debuffs like AoE defile get removed instantly, where with this new set up they would not be, and would last until they synergized...balanced in my opinion.

As for siege? I laugh at it. Siege is a tool, would be a better tool without the instant purging on raids, and why do you think siege is too strong?

Lastly i want to emphasize...i do NOT want to see purge removed. As a matter of fact i like that other classes have a purge available to them, its not as strong as magplar purge but still decent. Even with my proposed changes. I also wouldnt mind seeing morph changes and both of them being the same cost at a reduced cost from efficient purge now. Its entirely too expensive.

If they want to keep it instant, fine, increase the cost dramatically to prevent non stop purge spamming.

Yeah, that’s why I’m saying they have no bite. It’s just purged off.

I’d like to see a purge that requires synergy for group support; then 1 morph be a self purge only but instant and auto

Azurya

we have this discussion for years ongoing now.
Every time we have a new enemy which spits in the soup of the true dedicated PvPlayer

First it were the Stamblades, which got rooted out on request so well that they now lives somewhere in the marges of this game
Then all stamabilities got nerfed in the ground, so now you hardly find even stamina users in PVE anymore. Then the heavy armour users got in the line of fire.

and now, what now? Now you are sick and tired of playing every evening the same schedule? But that is where it all leads to.
Diversity was killed, ppl no longer have another possibility as to do it the way they are doing it now.

and somehow you are still not satisfied with the results??

Cyrodil in its younger days was about diversity, today it is only about meta, and that is what makes it so dumb to be there and leave evening after evening with a dumb feeling, and finding me asking myself, why is it boring to play in cyro?!?

I have had those builds, using bows, sneaking, 2-handed warriors, but yeah, that all had to go. So now I am running a magicka build, spamming RoF, pumping Destrothings and longing for a nice long battle like we had back when.

VaranisArano

Ragnarock41 wrote: »

Problem is, game shouldn't favor big groups. having the numbers is an advantage by itself,

Even if Cyrodiil was designed for groups of 8 to 24 players?

A group that is organized is strong because of their organization. A group that is unorganized is weak in comparison, really only relying on numbers.

How exactly do you propose to nerf the benefits of being organized in such a way that doesn't turn unorganized players into cannon fodder or make organized raids more powerful than they already are?