We are currently investigating issues some players are having on the megaservers. We will update as new information becomes available.
We are currently investigating issues some players are having with the ESO Store and Account System. We will update as new information becomes available.
In response to the ongoing issue, the North American and European megaservers are currently unavailable while we perform maintenance.
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/8235739/
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/8235739/
In response to the ongoing issue, the ESO Store and Account System have been taken offline for maintenance.
Are 'Ball-Groups' even logical ?
-
Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Once again, I don't care about the ball group play style in itself, I don't give a crap if I get stomped by one, people can enjoy any and every type of gameplay *until* it impacts server performance, and then I get loud about it because it's our jobs as players to do something. Saying Zos is responsible, posting thousands of forums posts blaming them telling them to get their act together has shown to serve *zero* purpose over the last 4 years. We get one acknowledgment message from Matt Firor in 4 years, yeeehaaaw.
I agree 100% about what you said here. That's why most people who have played this game since release competitively and actively understand that running a group with the actual max group size is not an option and decide to cap their group at 16 instead of 24 to help server performances. People realized that 16 is the perfect balance between being able to counter massive numbers thrown at us while limiting the lag caused as much as possible.
What is your suggestion exactly @Etaniel? What would be a convenient max group size? Before you answer this question, please consider all the aspects of the question. Do you think that a group of X members could be able to capture a well defended objective? If the answer is no, do you advice them to stack with other guilds in a massive guilds VS guilds in the same area to capture said objective?
All that sounds boring af, at least for me. Until they decide to release battlegrounds (real battlegrounds and not the arena-like style we have right now) with 10-16players on each side, we are going to seek our own fights away from our faction as much as possible & too bad for them if the enemy team has to throw 50 players at us instead of stepping up their game play and :
1) min/max a nightblade and bomb us at the proper time
2) Chain / Frozen Gate players out of the ball
Stop blaming a 16men raid for lagging the server. Blame players for not using the tools to break them.
I don’t think you drop to 16 with lag and the server in mind. You do it because you then have a way to justify yourselves as not being a zerg while also not really having to push any micro skill.
Why not drop to 8 or under?
Destro vd stacking is far too easy.
Assuming you actually want a discussion. Groups below 8 have a very different playstyle and goal compared to groups higher.
For example the aim of our group is to be able to have a reliable outcome of winning any fight the map may present. Regardless of the numbers of enemies against us. With that goal in mind we look to the minimum number of players to accomplish (usually between 12 and 16, depending on day, group comp and opposition).
I'm fascinated by this new 'micro skill' that people keep mentioning, first Thogard now you. He wouldn't talk about it so perhaps you will?
Your group aims to fight other small groups and small-medium amounts of pugs. For this you use single target skills, a combination of survival sets or survival focused classes and ultimates along with coordinated burst.
Our groups aims to fight other large groups and massive amounts of pugs. For this we use specific roles to maximise our effectiveness. We still use all our abilities in a similar way to you, and trust that our group members have our back too just like you when you focus down single players one by one after kiting them out or shalk db hit a stack.
I would say that shalk+db on a clueless pug is also far too easy but unless im wrong about your group I would expect you to actually prefer harder fights just like we do.
Feel free to actually reply sensibly if you want to talk about it more.
Edited by Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO on July 5, 2018 8:13PM@Solar_Breeze
NA ~ Izanerys: Dracarys (Videos | Dracast)
EU ~ Izanagi: Roleplay Circle (AOE Rats/ Zerg Squad / Banana Squad)9 -
Derra✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »For example the aim of our group is to be able to have a reliable outcome of winning any fight the map may present. Regardless of the numbers of enemies against us.
This is one of the key problems with large grps in eso.
IMO it should never be possible to even think of winning any fight regardless of number of enemies for just one group (largegrp whatever you want to call it). In eso it´s not only thinkable but actually somewhat doable.
I fundamentally disagree with that train of thought/concept of a groups.Edited by Derra on July 5, 2018 8:27PM<Noricum>
I live. I die. I live again.
Derra - DC - Sorc - AvA 50
Derrah - EP - Sorc - AvA 504 -
Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »For example the aim of our group is to be able to have a reliable outcome of winning any fight the map may present. Regardless of the numbers of enemies against us.
This is one of the key problems with large grps in eso.
IMO it should never be possible to even think of winning any fight regardless of number of enemies for just one group (largegrp whatever you want to call it). In eso it´s not only thinkable but actually somewhat doable.
I fundamentally disagree with that train of thought/concept of a groups.
So why do you keep trying to lower pug groups like Big Bosses numbers so that you can beat them if you expect to lose these fights and are ok with it?Edited by Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO on July 5, 2018 8:29PM@Solar_Breeze
NA ~ Izanerys: Dracarys (Videos | Dracast)
EU ~ Izanagi: Roleplay Circle (AOE Rats/ Zerg Squad / Banana Squad)4 -
Sandman929✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »For example the aim of our group is to be able to have a reliable outcome of winning any fight the map may present. Regardless of the numbers of enemies against us.
This is one of the key problems with large grps in eso.
IMO it should never be possible to even think of winning any fight regardless of number of enemies for just one group (largegrp whatever you want to call it). In eso it´s not only thinkable but actually somewhat doable.
I fundamentally disagree with that train of thought/concept of a groups.
Zergs should always win? Interesting.7 -
Derra✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »For example the aim of our group is to be able to have a reliable outcome of winning any fight the map may present. Regardless of the numbers of enemies against us.
This is one of the key problems with large grps in eso.
IMO it should never be possible to even think of winning any fight regardless of number of enemies for just one group (largegrp whatever you want to call it). In eso it´s not only thinkable but actually somewhat doable.
I fundamentally disagree with that train of thought/concept of a groups.
So why do you keep trying to lower pug groups like Big Bosses numbers so that you can beat them if you expect to lose these fights and are ok with it?Sandman929 wrote: »Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »For example the aim of our group is to be able to have a reliable outcome of winning any fight the map may present. Regardless of the numbers of enemies against us.
This is one of the key problems with large grps in eso.
IMO it should never be possible to even think of winning any fight regardless of number of enemies for just one group (largegrp whatever you want to call it). In eso it´s not only thinkable but actually somewhat doable.
I fundamentally disagree with that train of thought/concept of a groups.
Zergs should always win? Interesting.
Strawman arguments much?
Read again. Understand what´s written. Realise what you bring up has nothing to do with what i wrote.
Theoretically speaking:
3 fighting 12 isn´t the same as 1group fighting an entire faction.
Why isn´t it the same? In our scenario they can bring more people. In your scenario there is a game/serverside limitation that doesn´t allow for that option.
Which is why i write that one group should not ever have the option to aim for being able to have a reliable outcome of winning any fight the map may present. Regardless of the numbers of enemies against them.
Or: If the numbers of a zerg are suffiently high it should take a zerg to defeat them. Maybe a better organized smaller one with 2 or 3 good groups in it vs 2 to 3 times their numbers - but never one group.
Edited by Derra on July 6, 2018 7:06AM<Noricum>
I live. I die. I live again.
Derra - DC - Sorc - AvA 50
Derrah - EP - Sorc - AvA 500 -
LarsS✭✭✭✭✭Not exactly the first thread where some people blame ballgroups for the lagg. So please present the proof! Dont post cases with ballgroups and lag, thats no proof. Prove that there is less lag when there is no ballgroup around, but simmiar number of players. Or post a clip with serious lag with no ballgroups around to disprove the conection between ballgroups and lag.GM for The Daggerfall Authority EU PC2 -
Derra✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Not exactly the first thread where some people blame ballgroups for the lagg. So please present the proof! Dont post cases with ballgroups and lag, thats no proof. Prove that there is less lag when there is no ballgroup around, but simmiar number of players. Or post a clip with serious lag with no ballgroups around to disprove the conection between ballgroups and lag.
It´s quite simple - we as players can not present definitive proof.
It´s the same as if i were to write: Prove that ballgroups to not contribute. You can´t.
There are other argument to get rid of them though if you care to read on page 8.<Noricum>
I live. I die. I live again.
Derra - DC - Sorc - AvA 50
Derrah - EP - Sorc - AvA 501 -
BohnT✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Not exactly the first thread where some people blame ballgroups for the lagg. So please present the proof! Dont post cases with ballgroups and lag, thats no proof. Prove that there is less lag when there is no ballgroup around, but simmiar number of players. Or post a clip with serious lag with no ballgroups around to disprove the conection between ballgroups and lag.
It´s quite simple - we as players can not present definitive proof.
It´s the same as if i were to write: Prove that ballgroups to not contribute. You can´t.
There are other argument to get rid of them though if you care to read on page 8.
Well ZS didn't raid this week and i could play all the time with a bearable amount of lag even when the whole AD faction stacked in Roe to fight a huge blue zerg.
Was there no lag? No
But i could use skills and they would actually fire, break free did actually work and there were no random lag spikes going to 999+
I don't make ZS responsible for the lag i think UF didn't play as well but i can't confirm that but what has been a stable thing to do to be able to play pvp in the evening is to find out if ZS/\ \/ UF are raiding and if they do i simply don't play or get ready for unplayable lagsEdited by BohnT on July 6, 2018 8:37AM0 -
Derra✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭[
I don't make ZS responsible for the lag i think UF didn't play as well but i can't confirm that but what has been a stable thing to do to be able to play pvp in the evening is to find out if ZS/\ \/ UF are raiding and if they do i simply don't play or get ready for unplayable lags
Its not one grp. It´s all of them. The bad ones running in the pugzerg same as the good ones.
There´s like 3 to 6 active per evening?
However there are noticeable improvements when the best groups aren´t playing.Edited by Derra on July 6, 2018 9:08AM<Noricum>
I live. I die. I live again.
Derra - DC - Sorc - AvA 50
Derrah - EP - Sorc - AvA 500 -
LarsS✭✭✭✭✭Not exactly the first thread where some people blame ballgroups for the lagg. So please present the proof! Dont post cases with ballgroups and lag, thats no proof. Prove that there is less lag when there is no ballgroup around, but simmiar number of players. Or post a clip with serious lag with no ballgroups around to disprove the conection between ballgroups and lag.
It´s quite simple - we as players can not present definitive proof.
It´s the same as if i were to write: Prove that ballgroups to not contribute. You can´t.
There are other argument to get rid of them though if you care to read on page 8.
How do you know that zos have all answers I dont think so, there is hardly possible for them to log all issues that may influence preformance. There such things as internet and player computers just to take a few examples. If we really want to improve pvp we could try to collect hard facts instead of playing the blame game.Not exactly the first thread where some people blame ballgroups for the lagg. So please present the proof! Dont post cases with ballgroups and lag, thats no proof. Prove that there is less lag when there is no ballgroup around, but simmiar number of players. Or post a clip with serious lag with no ballgroups around to disprove the conection between ballgroups and lag.
It´s quite simple - we as players can not present definitive proof.
It´s the same as if i were to write: Prove that ballgroups to not contribute. You can´t.
There are other argument to get rid of them though if you care to read on page 8.
Well ZS didn't raid this week and i could play all the time with a bearable amount of lag even when the whole AD faction stacked in Roe to fight a huge blue zerg.
Was there no lag? No
But i could use skills and they would actually fire, break free did actually work and there were no random lag spikes going to 999+
I don't make ZS responsible for the lag i think UF didn't play as well but i can't confirm that but what has been a stable thing to do to be able to play pvp in the evening is to find out if ZS/\ \/ UF are raiding and if they do i simply don't play or get ready for unplayable lags
I disagree regarding bearable lag, we went to roe around 19 cet with 6 in the group and we left due to severe lag we could not even see each other. But since I did not store the clip its hardly evidence.GM for The Daggerfall Authority EU PC0 -
Lieblingsjunge✭✭✭✭✭
✭I still don't see the difference between 2 people killing off 5 inexperienced pugs, and 15 people killing off 50.
They're the exact same- just different scales. Maybe I'm just blind.
Although the 5 DC guilds that stack on the last emp keep, proves for a challenging, laggy fight \o/ (Sorry, shouldn't say laggy, delayed.. Intended delay -cough-).Ignorance is the greatest weapon of tyranny.
PC - EU.
Lieblingsjunge(AD) - Racechanged Argonian :< | AR 50 - No double AP or Bleakers involved |
Sits-On-Cacti(DC) - Problem?
Fail-With-Tail(AD) - Healing Springs-spammer :<
Tiny Liebs(EP) - Very Tiny. Also heals.
Lieblingsmädchen(DC) - Magplar is love.
The Dominàtrix(AD) - Chains, whip, whip, whip.
Fluffy Furball Kitten(DC) - Kittycat, meow.
Your Face(EP) - People make bad jokes about my name =(
Liebs-With-Trees(AD) - Male argo with a big tail :>
Officer/Sandwitch of Zerg Squad
My title: The Maneater, Destroyer of Maneuvers, Bane of Potatoes, she who devours them, The Black Hole, the humorless, first of her name.0 -
BohnT✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Lieblingsjunge wrote: »I still don't see the difference between 2 people killing off 5 inexperienced pugs, and 15 people killing off 50.
They're the exact same- just different scales. Maybe I'm just blind.
Although the 5 DC guilds that stack on the last emp keep, proves for a challenging, laggy fight \o/ (Sorry, shouldn't say laggy, delayed.. Intended delay -cough-).
Evenly distributed the 2 players have to provide damage equal to 1/2 of the health of an enemy player to kill him while the 15 players only have to provide 1/15 of the targets health to kill it.
As the 50 players are still 50 individuals that don't add their health up all together meaning if you use 15 destro ults ( exaggeration) and Run through them everyone of them is facing 15 destro ults and in that case they are more likely to die rather than the 5 players who only have to survive 2 destro ults.
The total damage output of the 15 is just so much higher that they have an easier killing people along with more healing, buffs etc but we could ignore that aspect if we assume that everyone of the 50 players is running different builds to provide as many debuffs and damage as possible.
The importance of abilities are just different for both, your movement, timing etc is more important in a Ball group while the ability to deal damage and survive is more important for the 2 players.
This is no Rating which playstyle is harder just how they differ from each other imo3 -
Sandman929✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »For example the aim of our group is to be able to have a reliable outcome of winning any fight the map may present. Regardless of the numbers of enemies against us.
This is one of the key problems with large grps in eso.
IMO it should never be possible to even think of winning any fight regardless of number of enemies for just one group (largegrp whatever you want to call it). In eso it´s not only thinkable but actually somewhat doable.
I fundamentally disagree with that train of thought/concept of a groups.
So why do you keep trying to lower pug groups like Big Bosses numbers so that you can beat them if you expect to lose these fights and are ok with it?Sandman929 wrote: »Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »For example the aim of our group is to be able to have a reliable outcome of winning any fight the map may present. Regardless of the numbers of enemies against us.
This is one of the key problems with large grps in eso.
IMO it should never be possible to even think of winning any fight regardless of number of enemies for just one group (largegrp whatever you want to call it). In eso it´s not only thinkable but actually somewhat doable.
I fundamentally disagree with that train of thought/concept of a groups.
Zergs should always win? Interesting.
Strawman arguments much?
Read again. Understand what´s written. Realise what you bring up has nothing to do with what i wrote.
Theoretically speaking:
3 fighting 12 isn´t the same as 1group fighting an entire faction.
Why isn´t it the same? In our scenario they can bring more people. In your scenario there is a game/serverside limitation that doesn´t allow for that option.
Which is why i write that one group should not ever have the option to aim for being able to have a reliable outcome of winning any fight the map may present. Regardless of the numbers of enemies against them.
Or: If the numbers of a zerg are suffiently high it should take a zerg to defeat them. Maybe a better organized smaller one with 2 or 3 good groups in it vs 2 to 3 times their numbers - but never one group.
Well, we should really dial this in to exactly where you're comfortable. How many should a group of 12-16 be able to deal with?1 -
Sanct16✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭
I don't think he has a problem with the numerical value of people that a group is able to fight. 16 people fighting 60 enemies isn't a problem in itself - it is a problem if you consider that 60 people represent more than 50% of the entire enemy faction.Sandman929 wrote: »Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »For example the aim of our group is to be able to have a reliable outcome of winning any fight the map may present. Regardless of the numbers of enemies against us.
This is one of the key problems with large grps in eso.
IMO it should never be possible to even think of winning any fight regardless of number of enemies for just one group (largegrp whatever you want to call it). In eso it´s not only thinkable but actually somewhat doable.
I fundamentally disagree with that train of thought/concept of a groups.
So why do you keep trying to lower pug groups like Big Bosses numbers so that you can beat them if you expect to lose these fights and are ok with it?Sandman929 wrote: »Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »For example the aim of our group is to be able to have a reliable outcome of winning any fight the map may present. Regardless of the numbers of enemies against us.
This is one of the key problems with large grps in eso.
IMO it should never be possible to even think of winning any fight regardless of number of enemies for just one group (largegrp whatever you want to call it). In eso it´s not only thinkable but actually somewhat doable.
I fundamentally disagree with that train of thought/concept of a groups.
Zergs should always win? Interesting.
Strawman arguments much?
Read again. Understand what´s written. Realise what you bring up has nothing to do with what i wrote.
Theoretically speaking:
3 fighting 12 isn´t the same as 1group fighting an entire faction.
Why isn´t it the same? In our scenario they can bring more people. In your scenario there is a game/serverside limitation that doesn´t allow for that option.
Which is why i write that one group should not ever have the option to aim for being able to have a reliable outcome of winning any fight the map may present. Regardless of the numbers of enemies against them.
Or: If the numbers of a zerg are suffiently high it should take a zerg to defeat them. Maybe a better organized smaller one with 2 or 3 good groups in it vs 2 to 3 times their numbers - but never one group.
Well, we should really dial this in to exactly where you're comfortable. How many should a group of 12-16 be able to deal with?
- EU - Raid Leader of Banana Zerg Squad
AD | AR 50 | Sanct Fir'eheal | ex Mana DK @31.10.2015
EP | AR 50 | Sanctosaurus | Mana NB
AD | AR 44 | rekt ya | Mana NB
AD | AR 41 | Sanct Thunderstorm | Mana Sorc
EP | AR 36 | S'na'ct | Mana NB {NA}
AD | AR 29 | Captain Full Fist| Stam DK
AD | AR 29 | Sanct The Dark Phoenix| Stam Sorc
EP | AR 16 | Horny Sanct | Stam Warden
EP | AR 16 | Sánct Bánáná Sláyér | Mana DK
DC | AR 13 | ad worst faction eu | Stam Sorc
DC | AR 13 | Lagendary Sanct | Mana NB
>320.000.000 AP2 -
pieratsos✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Solo players getting bashed in every single thread because "if you are outnumbered you should die" and at the same time ball groups feel entitled to stomp any numbers thrown at them. Makes sense i guess.0 -
Joy_Division✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Sandman929 wrote: »Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »For example the aim of our group is to be able to have a reliable outcome of winning any fight the map may present. Regardless of the numbers of enemies against us.
This is one of the key problems with large grps in eso.
IMO it should never be possible to even think of winning any fight regardless of number of enemies for just one group (largegrp whatever you want to call it). In eso it´s not only thinkable but actually somewhat doable.
I fundamentally disagree with that train of thought/concept of a groups.
So why do you keep trying to lower pug groups like Big Bosses numbers so that you can beat them if you expect to lose these fights and are ok with it?Sandman929 wrote: »Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »For example the aim of our group is to be able to have a reliable outcome of winning any fight the map may present. Regardless of the numbers of enemies against us.
This is one of the key problems with large grps in eso.
IMO it should never be possible to even think of winning any fight regardless of number of enemies for just one group (largegrp whatever you want to call it). In eso it´s not only thinkable but actually somewhat doable.
I fundamentally disagree with that train of thought/concept of a groups.
Zergs should always win? Interesting.
Strawman arguments much?
Read again. Understand what´s written. Realise what you bring up has nothing to do with what i wrote.
Theoretically speaking:
3 fighting 12 isn´t the same as 1group fighting an entire faction.
Why isn´t it the same? In our scenario they can bring more people. In your scenario there is a game/serverside limitation that doesn´t allow for that option.
Which is why i write that one group should not ever have the option to aim for being able to have a reliable outcome of winning any fight the map may present. Regardless of the numbers of enemies against them.
Or: If the numbers of a zerg are suffiently high it should take a zerg to defeat them. Maybe a better organized smaller one with 2 or 3 good groups in it vs 2 to 3 times their numbers - but never one group.
Well, we should really dial this in to exactly where you're comfortable. How many should a group of 12-16 be able to deal with?
He doesn't want there to be a groups of 12-16 in the first place if they are good enough collectively such that a faction stack is required to beat them.1 -
Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Solo players getting bashed in every single thread because "if you are outnumbered you should die" and at the same time ball groups feel entitled to stomp any numbers thrown at them. Makes sense i guess.
It's not the ballgroup people generally saying that though
just like it's not the ballgroup players pointing to other playstyles and saying they are wrong and have no skill. Edited by Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO on July 6, 2018 7:51PM@Solar_Breeze
NA ~ Izanerys: Dracarys (Videos | Dracast)
EU ~ Izanagi: Roleplay Circle (AOE Rats/ Zerg Squad / Banana Squad)7 -
pieratsos✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »Solo players getting bashed in every single thread because "if you are outnumbered you should die" and at the same time ball groups feel entitled to stomp any numbers thrown at them. Makes sense i guess.
It's not the ballgroup people generally saying that though just like it's not the ballgroup players pointing to other playstyles and saying they are wrong and have no skill.
Solo players dont feel entitled to stomp on any amount of bad players they face tho just because they are more skilled. There has to be some sort of limit. When you reach to a point where you can literally expect to stomp on everyone and everything by just choosing to play a specific playstyle whatever that playstyle may be then there is something fundamentally wrong.
And thats not even counting the performance issues caused by that specific playstyle.2 -
ezeepeezee✭✭✭✭https://suntzusaid.com/book/3/8
https://suntzusaid.com/book/3/9
In Sun Tzu's Art of War, it's laid out pretty plainly that there should be no expectation of victory - especially not a consistent expectation of victory - over a force of greater numbers.
I appreciate that this game is fantasy, but to people at least somewhat educated on warfare, it really flies in the face of sensibility to see these groups do what they do.
My 2 cents.
"Hence, though an obstinate fight may be made by a small force, in the end it must be captured by the larger force."Edited by ezeepeezee on July 6, 2018 8:25PM0 -
ezeepeezee✭✭✭✭What does Sun Tzu say about conjuring rocks and meteors?ezeepeezee wrote: »I appreciate that this game is fantasy,...
You're missing the point.
The fact that certain mechanics, either by themselves or combined, can have an extremely unnatural result, show that the game is not well designed.1 -
Vilestride✭✭✭✭✭I lagged watching a duel in wayrest once. Ban dueling.Edited by Vilestride on July 6, 2018 10:00PM6
-
NBrookus✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭ezeepeezee wrote: »What does Sun Tzu say about conjuring rocks and meteors?ezeepeezee wrote: »I appreciate that this game is fantasy,...
You're missing the point.
The fact that certain mechanics, either by themselves or combined, can have an extremely unnatural result, show that the game is not well designed.
What do you think would happen if you and 30 random people were pitted against Seal Team 6? Do you think you'd naturally win against leadership and teamwork because you had more numbers?
There has to be a path of progression toward improving skill and outcomes, solo or team, or no one will keep playing. (This is also true for PVE.)5 -
pieratsos✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭
You are still missing the point. Its not about winning just because you have more numbers. Its about expecting a completely unnatural result like winning no matter how many numbers are thrown at you.ezeepeezee wrote: »What does Sun Tzu say about conjuring rocks and meteors?ezeepeezee wrote: »I appreciate that this game is fantasy,...
You're missing the point.
The fact that certain mechanics, either by themselves or combined, can have an extremely unnatural result, show that the game is not well designed.
What do you think would happen if you and 30 random people were pitted against Seal Team 6? Do you think you'd naturally win against leadership and teamwork because you had more numbers?
There has to be a path of progression toward improving skill and outcomes, solo or team, or no one will keep playing. (This is also true for PVE.)
Sure, a few well trained soldiers would win against 30 random people. But they wouldnt win against an entire army. Thats the freaking point.
You are right, there needs to be a progression towards improving skill and outcomes. If you reach to a point where you can always expect to win no matter what then there is no sense of progression and improvement for the people you are fighting against cause they will always lose. There is also no sense of progression for you either cause you cant do better.Edited by pieratsos on July 7, 2018 6:52AM1 -
Derra✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
I don't think he has a problem with the numerical value of people that a group is able to fight. 16 people fighting 60 enemies isn't a problem in itself - it is a problem if you consider that 60 people represent more than 50% of the entire enemy faction.Sandman929 wrote: »Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »For example the aim of our group is to be able to have a reliable outcome of winning any fight the map may present. Regardless of the numbers of enemies against us.
This is one of the key problems with large grps in eso.
IMO it should never be possible to even think of winning any fight regardless of number of enemies for just one group (largegrp whatever you want to call it). In eso it´s not only thinkable but actually somewhat doable.
I fundamentally disagree with that train of thought/concept of a groups.
So why do you keep trying to lower pug groups like Big Bosses numbers so that you can beat them if you expect to lose these fights and are ok with it?Sandman929 wrote: »Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »For example the aim of our group is to be able to have a reliable outcome of winning any fight the map may present. Regardless of the numbers of enemies against us.
This is one of the key problems with large grps in eso.
IMO it should never be possible to even think of winning any fight regardless of number of enemies for just one group (largegrp whatever you want to call it). In eso it´s not only thinkable but actually somewhat doable.
I fundamentally disagree with that train of thought/concept of a groups.
Zergs should always win? Interesting.
Strawman arguments much?
Read again. Understand what´s written. Realise what you bring up has nothing to do with what i wrote.
Theoretically speaking:
3 fighting 12 isn´t the same as 1group fighting an entire faction.
Why isn´t it the same? In our scenario they can bring more people. In your scenario there is a game/serverside limitation that doesn´t allow for that option.
Which is why i write that one group should not ever have the option to aim for being able to have a reliable outcome of winning any fight the map may present. Regardless of the numbers of enemies against them.
Or: If the numbers of a zerg are suffiently high it should take a zerg to defeat them. Maybe a better organized smaller one with 2 or 3 good groups in it vs 2 to 3 times their numbers - but never one group.
Well, we should really dial this in to exactly where you're comfortable. How many should a group of 12-16 be able to deal with?
This^
if we´d have 500 people pvping per faction i wouldn´t think 24 man groups are too big (theoretically - ignoring lag in this scenario) and i´d be fine with 24 good organized players fighting 80 unorganised pugs - because that would still mean they´re only fighting ~ 20% of the whole faction.Edited by Derra on July 7, 2018 11:37AM<Noricum>
I live. I die. I live again.
Derra - DC - Sorc - AvA 50
Derrah - EP - Sorc - AvA 502 -
MLRPZ✭✭✭✭✭Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »Solo players getting bashed in every single thread because "if you are outnumbered you should die" and at the same time ball groups feel entitled to stomp any numbers thrown at them. Makes sense i guess.
It's not the ballgroup people generally saying that though just like it's not the ballgroup players pointing to other playstyles and saying they are wrong and have no skill.
Solo players dont feel entitled to stomp on any amount of bad players they face tho just because they are more skilled. There has to be some sort of limit. When you reach to a point where you can literally expect to stomp on everyone and everything by just choosing to play a specific playstyle whatever that playstyle may be then there is something fundamentally wrong.
And thats not even counting the performance issues caused by that specific playstyle.
That's assuming every ball group can do that, which is pretty wrongAD // Marc the Epic Goat // Templar // AR50
EP // The Goatfather // Templar // AR44
AD // Unforgoatable // Sorc // AR33
EP // You Goat Rekt // NB // AR28
EP // Bill Goats // Swarden // AR28
AD // Goat Ya // NB // AR24
AD // Unforgoatten // StamDK // AR 21
DC // Egoatcentric // Stamsorc // AR16
and many unused PVE chars
REMOVE FACTION LOCKAoE RatsRIP Zerg SquadRIP Banana Squad IncNot your typical goat4 -
VaranisArano✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
I don't think he has a problem with the numerical value of people that a group is able to fight. 16 people fighting 60 enemies isn't a problem in itself - it is a problem if you consider that 60 people represent more than 50% of the entire enemy faction.Sandman929 wrote: »Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »For example the aim of our group is to be able to have a reliable outcome of winning any fight the map may present. Regardless of the numbers of enemies against us.
This is one of the key problems with large grps in eso.
IMO it should never be possible to even think of winning any fight regardless of number of enemies for just one group (largegrp whatever you want to call it). In eso it´s not only thinkable but actually somewhat doable.
I fundamentally disagree with that train of thought/concept of a groups.
So why do you keep trying to lower pug groups like Big Bosses numbers so that you can beat them if you expect to lose these fights and are ok with it?Sandman929 wrote: »Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »For example the aim of our group is to be able to have a reliable outcome of winning any fight the map may present. Regardless of the numbers of enemies against us.
This is one of the key problems with large grps in eso.
IMO it should never be possible to even think of winning any fight regardless of number of enemies for just one group (largegrp whatever you want to call it). In eso it´s not only thinkable but actually somewhat doable.
I fundamentally disagree with that train of thought/concept of a groups.
Zergs should always win? Interesting.
Strawman arguments much?
Read again. Understand what´s written. Realise what you bring up has nothing to do with what i wrote.
Theoretically speaking:
3 fighting 12 isn´t the same as 1group fighting an entire faction.
Why isn´t it the same? In our scenario they can bring more people. In your scenario there is a game/serverside limitation that doesn´t allow for that option.
Which is why i write that one group should not ever have the option to aim for being able to have a reliable outcome of winning any fight the map may present. Regardless of the numbers of enemies against them.
Or: If the numbers of a zerg are suffiently high it should take a zerg to defeat them. Maybe a better organized smaller one with 2 or 3 good groups in it vs 2 to 3 times their numbers - but never one group.
Well, we should really dial this in to exactly where you're comfortable. How many should a group of 12-16 be able to deal with?
This^
if we´d have 500 people pvping per faction i wouldn´t think 24 man groups are too big (theoretically - ignoring lag in this scenario) and i´d be fine with 24 good organized players fighting 80 unorganised pugs - because that would still mean they´re only fighting ~ 20% of the whole faction.
If 24 players in an organized raid are fighting 80 players of your faction, and the organized raid is winning...
Then those 80 players of your faction aren't very good. Either they are trickling in, or not coordinating or just plain using bad tactics. Its got nothing to do with the % of your faction.
Ive been on both ends of that, the 24 man raid fighting a faction stack and winning (and losing) AND the zerging faction stack fighting the 24 man raid and winning (and losing). When that 24 man raid beats the faction stack, we generally had halfway decent support from our own PUGs and the enemy was just uncoordinated, disorganized, and generally not able to counter an organized group fighting them. When I've been on the faction stack side, we eventually beat the 24 man raid through persistence, not throwing ourselves at them stupidly, and actually acting semi-organized ourselves. Heck, that's what works even when I'm not in a faction stack. Smaller groups of PUGs can use smart play to take down organized raids too.
Or to put it another way, IMO, if a 24 man raid can manhandle your faction stack, the problem is not with the ability of 24 organized players to use their skills and tactics effectively. The problem is that 60-80 of your faction players cant manage to fight effectively or use decent tactics even when the numbers are in their favor.
You say that organized groups shouldn't expect to win every fight. I say that disorganized groups/zerg/faction stacks shouldn't expect to win many fights against a superiorly organized force if they aren't willing to play smart. There is not a point where sheer numbers but dumb play ought to automatically win against smaller numbers using smart, organized play. Because in my experience, if those sheer numbers are willing to use intelligent tactics themselves, the faction stack can and will beat the 24 man organized raid.
Now, the % of factions is something you'll have to take up with ZOS. But the principle is the same. If a raid of 24 are destroying 80 players, I'm questioning the tactics of the 80 players, not the 24. If those 80 (or 60 or 40 or 30) were playing smart, in my experience, the zerg or faction stack usually can beat the 24 man raid if they play smart.4 -
pieratsos✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »Solo players getting bashed in every single thread because "if you are outnumbered you should die" and at the same time ball groups feel entitled to stomp any numbers thrown at them. Makes sense i guess.
It's not the ballgroup people generally saying that though just like it's not the ballgroup players pointing to other playstyles and saying they are wrong and have no skill.
Solo players dont feel entitled to stomp on any amount of bad players they face tho just because they are more skilled. There has to be some sort of limit. When you reach to a point where you can literally expect to stomp on everyone and everything by just choosing to play a specific playstyle whatever that playstyle may be then there is something fundamentally wrong.
And thats not even counting the performance issues caused by that specific playstyle.
That's assuming every ball group can do that, which is pretty wrong
But the issue isnt with how many groups can do that. The issue is that its possible to do it.1
This discussion has been closed.