Are 'Ball-Groups' even logical ?

Anrose

Etaniel wrote: »

Anrose wrote: »

So according to OP, exactly what sort of play is “acceptable”?

Are we to deduce that the devs were wrong for designing this game for large groups?

Please, @raviour, tell us how we should play the game in order to do it the “right way”.

Let’s end this group size elitism once and for all so that we may all play AvA PvP in approved group sizes outside the parameters that were set by the people who made this game.

I think that the devs designed the game for large groups yes, not ball groups. Don't think they would have explicitely said that they were trying to find ways to incite people to spread out if it was intended.

I’ve always interpreted “spreading out” to mean the overall population instead of everyone converging on one objective. That would do much more for gameplay and performance then spreading an individual group out.

Etaniel

Anrose wrote: »

Etaniel wrote: »

Anrose wrote: »

So according to OP, exactly what sort of play is “acceptable”?

Are we to deduce that the devs were wrong for designing this game for large groups?

Please, @raviour, tell us how we should play the game in order to do it the “right way”.

Let’s end this group size elitism once and for all so that we may all play AvA PvP in approved group sizes outside the parameters that were set by the people who made this game.

I think that the devs designed the game for large groups yes, not ball groups. Don't think they would have explicitely said that they were trying to find ways to incite people to spread out if it was intended.

I’ve always interpreted “spreading out” to mean the overall population instead of everyone converging on one objective. That would do much more for gameplay and performance then spreading an individual group out.

Yeah except ball groups don't serve any purpose if they're not fighting huge zergs , and they force huge zergs to form to take them out anyways. How many times have I watched my ping meter drop back down the minute one ball group wipes...

Master_Kas

DC has no ballgroups

AyelineESO

Biro123 wrote: »

I'm looking for a term that fits the general player/playstyle, not what or how well he's doing at that particular time.
I mean lets take a 1vXer.. Now I see 1vX as something that just doesn't happen successfully very often nowadays anyway.. sometimes its successful(lets say 20% of the time), mostly the 1vXer escapes (not a win, not a loss), sometimes he dies. Does that mean he is only a 1vXer 20% of the time? What is he the rest of the time? A soloer? Is a soloer by definition a failed 1vXer?

Too damn complicated.. Can't we just call somebody who attempts to 1vX most of the time a 1vXer, and somebody who is ungrouped a soloer, and someone who is in a group, simply part of a group.

Yeah, sometimes they all come together and make up a zerg - but doesn't change what they are. A soloer can zerg-surf, or he can 1vX, or he can small-scale.. That's why I do it - the freedom to roll from one to another whenever you want. There are quite a few of us - alliance-minded but ungrouped. Often bumping into each other as we see we're needed at the same place at the same time. Usually clearing resources behind the lines, or supporting the weaker front while the main zerg pushes the other way or simply reading the map, anticipating where the next attack will be and watching for it.. Too alliance-minded to leave the flashpoints. Never grouped but sometimes zerging. The great ungrouped..

I want a label - Zergling aint it - and if it aint soloer, then what is it??

And thats why there's almost no soloers and 1vsXers around in cyrodiil anymore. They made it harder and harder for those kind of players to be successful at what they are doing with every patch. But onto your example: 1vsX doesent happen often these days because there is almost no players left that try to attempt this playstyle (because its pretty hard, most ppl dont seem to want to challenge themselves or they simply wanna play with their friends) or dont even try to attempt to be a soloer (for the same reasons as 1vsX). And I wouldnt say a soloer is a failed 1vsXer. People differ when it comes to what they are capable of. If anything, a 1vsXer is a better soloer. Not because soloers suck but because ppl differ in what they are capable of as I said.

You should have given me a percentage when it comes to escaping and dying cause being able to escape in crazy situations is quite hard aswell even tho people love to make it sound so easy + you actually gotta differentiate between escaping and kiting. The lower the percentage of actually escaping and the higher the percentage of him dying in your example, the more I'd consider that person to not be a 1vsXer cause you usually try to not get yourself into situations where you cant escape or even die as 1vsXer unless you *** up badly or the game fu... you.

It isnt all that complicated tbh. Everyone can call certain "groups" of players whatever they feel like but you gotta be prepared for a discussion since everyone has got a different opinion about that exact same thing as you see right now. While you like to keep it simple, which is fine, I like to subdivide people into a lot of different categories.

I personally call "alliance-minded but ungrouped" players simply "randoms" tbh.

VaranisArano

Cyrodiil was originally designed for groups of 8 to 24, currently the tooltip in grouping says 2 to 24.

If organized groups of 24 players aren't your style, that's fine. You do you. But its silly to pretend that this isn't intended, or that playing to capture objectices doesn't inevitably lead to large numbers of players heading to the same important objective.

If the server performance can't handle large groups playing as intended, that's on the people in charge of the servers.

Aki-Ral

Master_Kas wrote: »

DC has no ballgroups

Master Kas speaks the truth

BohnT

VaranisArano wrote: »

Cyrodiil was originally designed for groups of 8 to 24, currently the tooltip in grouping says 2 to 24.

If organized groups of 24 players aren't your style, that's fine. You do you. But its silly to pretend that this isn't intended, or that playing to capture objectices doesn't inevitably lead to large numbers of players heading to the same important objective.

If the server performance can't handle large groups playing as intended, that's on the people in charge of the servers.

It was designed for all kinds of playstyles at least that's what they promised during closed beta.

As you said the design just favours numbers with more players you can take more objectives in less time

antihero727

[removed quote]

Hitting stealth, pushing macro button, hit stealth again is just as much skill IMO. I guess all the work going into builds that complement each other and working as a unit taking teamwork is easy. That’s why we have so many organized guilds left.

ErMurazor

Another word came to my mind reading this thread, delusional. So OP are DCs Big Boss, lol.

zyk

AyelineESO wrote: »

Wouldnt really call that player a soloer, no. He's playing solo from time to time (1/3 of his playing time in your example) but you'd have to spent the majority of time playing solo to be considered a soloer. Thats only my opinion of course so feel free to tell me about your definition of a soloer.

This is as bad as the OP.

Solo can simply mean ungrouped. Even when they fight among teammates they don't overtly coordinate and have the benefit of designed grouped synergies or group buffs. They can't count on heals or any reliable help. They make their own decisions on the battlefield, regardless of who might be around them.

If that's not solo to you, fine, but know that it is to many others. It's a loose term. Playing *completely* by oneself all the time in an MMORPG is a bit counter intuitive and not very realistic if one also enjoys playing objectives.

Some players just try to have fun where they can find it. For many reasons, I often did not want to group, but I still enjoyed playing objectives and helping teammates. I would play "ungrouped" for many hours and during that time I would fight in a variety of scenarios in different environments from completely solo to lane surfing and objective fights with whomever else was there.

Playing like this is no worse or better than playing with 12-16 of your closest friends in a ball or executing some premeditated kiting routine along rocks, bridges, milegates, or towers completely alone. It's not a measure of aptitude or character. It is a preference. Good, decent and mediocre players can ball up, 1vX or surf. Some enjoy it all.

Durham

Ball group = lag = less fun for everyone else = dying PVP
However this is a great way to get into PVP get AP for new players since you can be carried in these groups much easier then small scale..
However I do hate seeing ball groups of 24+ running around they do look silly... I blame the ball meta on the dum down healing that's in this game ...

Anrose

zyk wrote: »

AyelineESO wrote: »

Wouldnt really call that player a soloer, no. He's playing solo from time to time (1/3 of his playing time in your example) but you'd have to spent the majority of time playing solo to be considered a soloer. Thats only my opinion of course so feel free to tell me about your definition of a soloer.

This is as bad as the OP.

Solo can simply mean ungrouped. Even when they fight among teammates they don't overtly coordinate and have the benefit of designed grouped synergies or group buffs. They can't count on heals or any reliable help. They make their own decisions on the battlefield, regardless of who might be around them.

If that's not solo to you, fine, but know that it is to many others. It's a loose term. Playing *completely* by oneself all the time in an MMORPG is a bit counter intuitive and not very realistic if one also enjoys playing objectives.

Some players just try to have fun where they can find it. For many reasons, I often did not want to group, but I still enjoyed playing objectives and helping teammates. I would play "ungrouped" for many hours and during that time I would fight in a variety of scenarios in different environments from completely solo to lane surfing and objective fights with whomever else was there.

Playing like this is no worse or better than playing with 12-16 of your closest friends in a ball or executing some premeditated kiting routine along rocks, bridges, milegates, or towers completely alone. It's not a measure of aptitude or character. It is a preference. Good, decent and mediocre players can ball up, 1vX or surf. Some enjoy it all.

So much this. +1

AyelineESO

zyk wrote: »

AyelineESO wrote: »

Solo can simply mean ungrouped. Even when they fight among teammates they don't overtly coordinate and have the benefit of designed grouped synergies or group buffs. They can't count on heals or any reliable help. They make their own decisions on the battlefield, regardless of who might be around them.

Never tried to say this or that particular playstyle is better than this or that one. All of them have their place in cyro even tho you have to admit that a few of them are almost dead.

I have got a question for you after reading that - Following that logic, would you consider a 4 man group that is saying they are smal scaling while running inside their faction zerg small scalers?

Edit: no clue what happened there but cant get it out of the quote

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

raviour wrote: »

DC strongest alliance Vivec. We rule everything at prime. Guess what ? We have no ball groups.

You have it the wrong... PC EU DC have plenty of 'no balls' groups.

zyk

AyelineESO wrote: »

Never tried to say this or that particular playstyle is better than this or that one. All of them have their place in cyro even tho you have to admit that a few of them are almost dead.

It's true that you did not directly say that, but I thought the connotation was negative as it often is.

I have got a question for you after reading that - Following that logic, would you consider a 4 man group that is saying they are smal scaling while running inside their faction zerg small scalers?

It's different. You see, you can go to a bar 'solo' and still socialize with other people. You can fly a jet that normally has a copilot solo while in a squadron. You can drive solo on the freeway. Etc..

A small group can surf, of course. And they often do. A solo player and a small group can be involved in a large scale conflict. A player can associate himself as small scale player if that's what they prefer and most often do and be involved in a large scale conflict. However, when that player or group is in a large scale fight, of course, they are not small scaling at that time.

But let's face it. This thread is all about salt. I've been guilty of it myself. A fight doesn't work out the way I prefer and I might attempt to demonize the other party somehow. It's ironic when you see this from people who profess to be looking for outnumbered fights and then whine when it's too outnumbered or they're outnumbered by the wrong players.

I did everything in Cyrodiil, so I would get all kinds of hate. At one moment I'm getting hate tells for 'ganking' while on my way to an objective and then 5 minutes later I'm getting a hate tell for 'zerging down' a group trying to farm a resource @ Alessia. Later, I'll fight that same group alone to try to slow them down as they try to take a different objective and they'll all tbag me. Of course, this group also loves to 'small scale' surf and will shamelessly zerg down anyone.

Kartalin

zyk wrote: »

It's ironic when you see this from people who profess to be looking for outnumbered fights and then whine when it's too outnumbered or they're outnumbered by the wrong players..

When fighting excessive numbers you kite and LOS, this is true of solos, small groups, and organized larger groups. The problem is everyone is so snare/CC happy now (with immunity possibly bugged again) it’s getting more and more frustrating. The unskilled faction blobs are winning and this seems to be what the devs want, regrettably. I have so many screenshots from the past couple weeks where our 12-15 gets run over by 40+, usually with an organized guild group embedded in that blob.

Then again, did ZOS finally stumble into the anti ball group tools they’ve been looking for since the beginning? Time stop and scattershot/meatbag AOEs that persist? So much siege being shot at us even when we engage these groups well away from keeps. And a carpet of bubbles. Not to mention all the additional lag these create.

barshemm

antihero727 wrote: »

Hitting stealth, pushing macro button, hit stealth again is just as much skill IMO. I guess all the work going into builds that complement each other and working as a unit taking teamwork is easy. That’s why we have so many organized guilds left.

I guess they need those macros cause it's a bit more complicated than stam, press rapids, magicka press eye of flame

barshemm

Kartalin wrote: »

zyk wrote: »

It's ironic when you see this from people who profess to be looking for outnumbered fights and then whine when it's too outnumbered or they're outnumbered by the wrong players..

When fighting excessive numbers you kite and LOS, this is true of solos, small groups, and organized larger groups. The problem is everyone is so snare/CC happy now (with immunity possibly bugged again) it’s getting more and more frustrating. The unskilled faction blobs are winning and this seems to be what the devs want, regrettably. I have so many screenshots from the past couple weeks where our 12-15 gets run over by 40+, usually with an organized guild group embedded in that blob.

Then again, did ZOS finally stumble into the anti ball group tools they’ve been looking for since the beginning? Time stop and scattershot/meatbag AOEs that persist? So much siege being shot at us even when we engage these groups well away from keeps. And a carpet of bubbles. Not to mention all the additional lag these create.

I think the problem with kiting in this current meta is the damage is way higher. Once you get about 6+ on a stam character unless there is a lot of los opportunity you're going to go down unless you're built for tanking not dps.

I couldn't sustain outnumbered in medium at all, even impreg.

SwampRaider

Ball groups are fun to be in. depending on the fights, I sometimes get 400k AP a night. only pvping for 2-3 hours.

It seems like the most effective way to have fun, to be honest. My group was in shor and spent 30 minutes at BRK nonstop farming both AD and EP as they entered the keep. we killed at least 200+ people(probably same folks multiple times) and only lost 2-3.

It was a challenge. A group of 13 people fighting 60+ enemies who are built for 1vxing..meaning if we get separated we die fast.

It was fun to guest into that campaign, it really helped practice our movement.

To answer OP question:

Ball groups are logical.

They are built to use certain Gear and skills that compliment the group nicely. Everyone relies on each other. You have:

AOE STAM DMG(usually warden)
AOE MAG DMG(usually NB bomber)
AOE HEALS(usually Templar)
AOE MAG Support/CC(Usually Sorcerer)
AOE MAG DEFILER(Warden or DK)
STAM Support(Sorcerer, usually spamming Rapids and dark deal)

All stam classes have vigor in their rotation to add to the heals and the healers are always spamming healing springs. These groups are designed to fight in outnumbered situations and come out unscathed. If they dont move as one..they are fooked. This is why VOICE COMMS are essential.

Crispen_Longbow

Just like all ESO play styles, you have varying degrees of “Ball” groups...

You have the top tier guilds that are very rare, a la “300 Spartans” that requires the entire faction to stack on top of them to stop them.


You have the PVDoor kings that look intimating, with so many numbers, but are more into dance fighting than actual pvp.


You have the "Pug Herders", that are just happy they can get people in the same general area at the same time.


Then you have the majority of "Social Guilds", that aren't really worried about being competitive, but they sure have fun.

Nemesismimz

Crispen_Longbow wrote: »

Just like all ESO play styles, you have varying degrees of “Ball” groups...

You have the top tier guilds that are very rare, a la “300 Spartans” that requires the entire faction to stack on top of them to stop them.


You have the PVDoor kings that look intimating, with so many numbers, but are more into dance fighting than actual pvp.


You have the "Pug Herders", that are just happy they can get people in the same general area at the same time.


Then you have the majority of "Social Guilds", that aren't really worried about being competitive, but they sure have fun.

lol this is awesome....anyways back to dance class.

Aelakhaii_De_Mythos

Crispen_Longbow wrote: »

Just like all ESO play styles, you have varying degrees of “Ball” groups...

You have the top tier guilds that are very rare, a la “300 Spartans” that requires the entire faction to stack on top of them to stop them.

You have the PVDoor kings that look intimating, with so many numbers, but are more into dance fighting than actual pvp.

You have the "Pug Herders", that are just happy they can get people in the same general area at the same time.

Then you have the majority of "Social Guilds", that aren't really worried about being competitive, but they sure have fun.

lol

Xai_Zi

raviour wrote: »

This needs putting out there. I don't ever see them doing anything productive or fun and a solo gets better AP gain. I think they just do it for attention...

How many times you read... "**(random generic ball-group) at *** (random generic keep)" ?

Its like some players get kicks out of knowing which ball-group is which and that people will think they are cool for mention them (people use nameplates too, not me but ball group = easy AP to a solo so I remember some @names). Don't big-up these ball zergs, they are totally useless and are just trolling newbies or AD (AD are almost all newbies in Vivkek(EU) coz of morning caps). They feed off of undeserved hype.

So I guess the point is, what is the point of these portable Rugby scrums that just hold onto each others crotches and throw the ball backwards if they ever get it? Doesn't seem very progressive for 'wannabe' end-gamers and takes no skill what-so-ever.

I don't think they are logical, Royals were a very effective 12 man raid that equalled 20 man ZS but we were not ball, just had an inventive leader. Black Swords seem to be similar but never ran with them. AD and EP do not have this stuff.

As a PuG lead we can contain ZS, UF, DE, NL, Big Boss, Saras or anyone with 1/5 numbers because they are all so predictable and DC don't like to play like we were 7 year olds chasing a football so we know how to AvAvA with least pop.

Like a lot of things in life its like genitalia. Its not how big your zergs or balls are... Its what you do with them that counts....

*note..... I don't hate ball-groups I just feel sorry for them.

Ball groups are totally scrummy. No one cares that they can make 100k AP an hour or more. Nor does anyone care that they lag the server by holding half an opposing faction at one keep. ZOS should just remove the grouping mechanism from Cyrodiil.

EDIT: Anrose is hilarious.

Minno

Aoe should be really powerful, but flipside they should damage everyone including yourself.

Crispen_Longbow

Minno wrote: »

Aoe should be really powerful, but flipside they should damage everyone including yourself.

LOL, could you imagine how much you could troll your own faciton? I would be tether bombing everyone.

Minno

Crispen_Longbow wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

Aoe should be really powerful, but flipside they should damage everyone including yourself.

LOL, could you imagine how much you could troll your own faciton? I would be tether bombing everyone.

Yea true, but then again what's stopping everyone from reporting you for trolling and then getting yourself banned?

Same thing for FPS games with friendly fire; it was really easy to see who was being a jerk and who was being a noob that wasn't being careful, with the jerks being auto banned almost instantly on the good servers.

Friendly fire is the only way to make large scale combat more tactical or just embrace the fact 4v4v4 BGs are the future of ESO PvP.

Anrose

Xai_Zi wrote: »

raviour wrote: »

This needs putting out there. I don't ever see them doing anything productive or fun and a solo gets better AP gain. I think they just do it for attention...

How many times you read... "**(random generic ball-group) at *** (random generic keep)" ?

Its like some players get kicks out of knowing which ball-group is which and that people will think they are cool for mention them (people use nameplates too, not me but ball group = easy AP to a solo so I remember some @names). Don't big-up these ball zergs, they are totally useless and are just trolling newbies or AD (AD are almost all newbies in Vivkek(EU) coz of morning caps). They feed off of undeserved hype.

So I guess the point is, what is the point of these portable Rugby scrums that just hold onto each others crotches and throw the ball backwards if they ever get it? Doesn't seem very progressive for 'wannabe' end-gamers and takes no skill what-so-ever.

I don't think they are logical, Royals were a very effective 12 man raid that equalled 20 man ZS but we were not ball, just had an inventive leader. Black Swords seem to be similar but never ran with them. AD and EP do not have this stuff.

As a PuG lead we can contain ZS, UF, DE, NL, Big Boss, Saras or anyone with 1/5 numbers because they are all so predictable and DC don't like to play like we were 7 year olds chasing a football so we know how to AvAvA with least pop.

Like a lot of things in life its like genitalia. Its not how big your zergs or balls are... Its what you do with them that counts....

*note..... I don't hate ball-groups I just feel sorry for them.

Ball groups are totally scrummy. No one cares that they can make 100k AP an hour or more. Nor does anyone care that they lag the server by holding half an opposing faction at one keep. ZOS should just remove the grouping mechanism from Cyrodiil.

EDIT: Anrose is hilarious.

Agreed.

FakeZavos

Minno wrote: »

Aoe should be really powerful, but flipside they should damage everyone including yourself.

So if I would play in a 4 man group, taking a resource and getting 30 AD swarming that resource I cant use AOE abilities because it will kill myself and my groupmemebers? How are you going to win any outnumbered fight? Or are you one of the guys thats always on the "30 AD swarms" side and you get tired of getting killed by your enemys?

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

FakeZavos wrote: »

Minno wrote: »

Aoe should be really powerful, but flipside they should damage everyone including yourself.

So if I would play in a 4 man group, taking a resource and getting 30 AD swarming that resource I cant use AOE abilities because it will kill myself and my groupmemebers? How are you going to win any outnumbered fight? Or are you one of the guys thats always on the "30 AD swarms" side and you get tired of getting killed by your enemys?

Monotarget Warband or go home.

Sandman929

Minno wrote: »

Aoe should be really powerful, but flipside they should damage everyone including yourself.

This is a strange idea, I think AoE should be exactly as it is, less powerful than single target (for the most part), but powerful when used by groups against groups. Friendly fire would be terrible and would make Cyrodiil completely unplayable.