Raise group cap

Sacredx

Sylosi wrote: »

No it is objective fact based on the scoring in most matches, is it perfect no, but for the most part it does a reasonable job of providing reasonably competitive matches.

So you say. That does not make it fact, just an individual's opinion. Whether a game is competitive or not is up the player who is making the decision, not the game or anyone else. To each his own.

frozywozy

Sacredx wrote: »

Sylosi wrote: »

No it is objective fact based on the scoring in most matches, is it perfect no, but for the most part it does a reasonable job of providing reasonably competitive matches.

So you say. That does not make it fact, just an individual's opinion. Whether a game is competitive or not is up the player who is making the decision, not the game or anyone else. To each his own.

Agreed.

Sylosi

Sacredx wrote: »

Sylosi wrote: »

No it is objective fact based on the scoring in most matches, is it perfect no, but for the most part it does a reasonable job of providing reasonably competitive matches.

So you say. That does not make it fact, just an individual's opinion.

The scoring is objective fact, the only opinion is how close one deems the scoring needs to be in order to be called 'competitve', but then really that is just clutching at straws again.

Sacredx wrote: »

Whether a game is competitive or not is up the player who is making the decision, not the game or anyone else. To each his own.

Whether a player thinks a game is competitive or not is down to the player's opinion (however deluded that opinion may be), the actual reality of how competitive a game is, is something else entirely.

Sacredx

Sylosi wrote: »

Sacredx wrote: »

Sylosi wrote: »

No it is objective fact based on the scoring in most matches, is it perfect no, but for the most part it does a reasonable job of providing reasonably competitive matches.

So you say. That does not make it fact, just an individual's opinion. Whether a game is competitive or not is up the player who is making the decision, not the game or anyone else. To each his own.

No, whether a player thinks a game is competitive or not is down to the player's opinion (however deluded that opinion may be), the actual reality of how competitive a game is, is something else entirely.

No? You just paraphrased my words.

Sylosi

Sacredx wrote: »

Sylosi wrote: »

Sacredx wrote: »

Sylosi wrote: »

No it is objective fact based on the scoring in most matches, is it perfect no, but for the most part it does a reasonable job of providing reasonably competitive matches.

So you say. That does not make it fact, just an individual's opinion. Whether a game is competitive or not is up the player who is making the decision, not the game or anyone else. To each his own.

No, whether a player thinks a game is competitive or not is down to the player's opinion (however deluded that opinion may be), the actual reality of how competitive a game is, is something else entirely.

No? You just paraphrased my words.

No, I did not. So I guess it is a case of whoosh...

Sacredx

Sylosi wrote: »

No, I did not.

Looks the same to me

Sacredx wrote: »

Whether a game is competitive or not is up the player who is making the decision

Sylosi wrote: »

Whether a player thinks a game is competitive or not is down to the player's opinion

Sylosi

Sacredx wrote: »

Sylosi wrote: »

No, I did not.

Looks the same to me

Sacredx wrote: »

Whether a game is competitive or not is up the player who is making the decision

Sylosi wrote: »

Whether a player thinks a game is competitive or not is down to the player's opinion

Then read again, without conveniently cutting out relevant parts .

Sacredx wrote: »

Whether a game is competitive or not is up the player who is making the decision, not the game or anyone else.

Sylosi wrote: »

whether a player thinks a game is competitive or not is down to the player's opinion (however deluded that opinion may be), the actual reality of how competitive a game is, is something else entirely.

frozywozy

Arguing for the sake of arguing.

Sacredx

frozywozy wrote: »

Arguing for the sake of arguing.

Welcome to the forums

Also, #weekdays!

Katahdin

Comparing Cyrodiil to a first person shooter is like comparing apples to a steak.

They are both food/games, but that is where the similarities end

frozywozy

Katahdin wrote: »

Comparing Cyrodiil to a first person shooter is like comparing apples to a steak.

They are both food/games, but that is where the similarities end

Both the apple and a steak can be cut with a knife. Both games can be competitive if the player wants it to be.

Kadoin

Elong wrote: »

crazy_catman21 wrote: »

enzoisadog wrote: »

Nice troll 10/10

I’m serious, it’s quite annoying having to be in 2 groups & use guild chat. Hard to coordinate 30+ ppl when half can’t see crown

Stand in the oils, that's where your raid is.

Damn, sick burn...in more than one way!

zyk

If you believe player estimates -- different groups have used different methodologies to make educated guesses -- the per-faction population cap has dropped from approximately 450 players to approximately 150 players over the years. This includes both Cyrodiil and IC combined.

If it is 150 players, a 24 player group accounts for 16% of a faction's total population in Cyrodiil. That is obviously a significant contributing factor to player concentration. A 16 player group would account for 11% and a 12 player group would account for 8%.

Another factor of player concentration is the number of random, disorganized, ungrouped players it takes to combat a 16-24 player group. Some guilds are proud to say they regularly fight 50+ opponents. So these large groups have incredible gravity, attracting not only a huge number of opponents, but an ecosystem of surfers and small groups from all sides that participate in the fights -- especially as the tick builds.

Players concentrated in few areas, of course, has been noted by ZOS to be a major factor in server lag.

IMO, these are the best reasons to reduce the maximum group size in Cyrodiil.

frozywozy

zyk wrote: »

If you believe player estimates -- different groups have used different methodologies to make educated guesses -- the per-faction population cap has dropped from approximately 450 players to approximately 150 players over the years. This includes both Cyrodiil and IC combined.

If it is 150 players, a 24 player group accounts for 16% of a faction's total population in Cyrodiil. That is obviously a significant contributing factor to player concentration. A 16 player group would account for 11% and a 12 player group would account for 8%.

Another factor of player concentration is the number of random, disorganized, ungrouped players it takes to combat a 16-24 player group. Some guilds are proud to say they regularly fight 50+ opponents. So these large groups have incredible gravity, attracting not only a huge number of opponents, but an ecosystem of surfers and small groups from all sides that participate in the fights -- especially as the tick builds.

IMO, these are the best reasons to reduce the maximum group size in Cyrodiil.

To add to this, those are the best reasons for the 50players to start seeking for advices and improve their gameplay as they should be able to easily counter 16 players with that many if they would put the minimal efforts.

zyk

frozywozy wrote: »

To add to this, those are the best reasons for the 50players to start seeking for advices and improve their gameplay as they should be able to easily counter 16 players with that many if they would put the minimal efforts.

I disagree completely. Organized groups composed of experienced players in optimal builds *should* be able to take on 4+ times their numbers of random, disorganized players on a public server; and Cyrodiil campaigns are public servers. Just in the same way a CS clan will completely wipe the floor against randoms on public servers.

This is especially true of large groups.

Even if all of those randoms are experienced players in decent builds -- which is never the case -- they lack group synergies and organization. It is a fact that a disorganized mob of people is significantly less intelligent than an individual.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

zyk wrote: »

If you believe player estimates -- different groups have used different methodologies to make educated guesses -- the per-faction population cap has dropped from approximately 450 players to approximately 150 players over the years. This includes both Cyrodiil and IC combined.

If it is 150 players, a 24 player group accounts for 16% of a faction's total population in Cyrodiil. That is obviously a significant contributing factor to player concentration. A 16 player group would account for 11% and a 12 player group would account for 8%.

Another factor of player concentration is the number of random, disorganized, ungrouped players it takes to combat a 16-24 player group. Some guilds are proud to say they regularly fight 50+ opponents. So these large groups have incredible gravity, attracting not only a huge number of opponents, but an ecosystem of surfers and small groups from all sides that participate in the fights -- especially as the tick builds.

Players concentrated in few areas, of course, has been noted by ZOS to be a major factor in server lag.

IMO, these are the best reasons to reduce the maximum group size in Cyrodiil.

My current estimate would be nearer 90 players than 150.

frozywozy

zyk wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

To add to this, those are the best reasons for the 50players to start seeking for advices and improve their gameplay as they should be able to easily counter 16 players with that many if they would put the minimal efforts.

I disagree completely. Organized groups composed of experienced players in optimal builds *should* be able to take on 4+ times their numbers of random, disorganized players on a public server; and Cyrodiil campaigns are public servers. Just in the same way a CS clan will completely wipe the floor against randoms on public servers.

This is especially true of large groups.

Even if all of those randoms are experienced players in decent builds -- which is never the case -- they lack group synergies and organization. It is a fact that a disorganized mob of people is significantly less intelligent than an individual.

Do you realize that you just answered my post advising people to get organized by stating that you disagree because we should be able to farm disorganized players? There is no logic in that statement.

killahsin

frozywozy wrote: »

zyk wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

To add to this, those are the best reasons for the 50players to start seeking for advices and improve their gameplay as they should be able to easily counter 16 players with that many if they would put the minimal efforts.

I disagree completely. Organized groups composed of experienced players in optimal builds *should* be able to take on 4+ times their numbers of random, disorganized players on a public server; and Cyrodiil campaigns are public servers. Just in the same way a CS clan will completely wipe the floor against randoms on public servers.

This is especially true of large groups.

Even if all of those randoms are experienced players in decent builds -- which is never the case -- they lack group synergies and organization. It is a fact that a disorganized mob of people is significantly less intelligent than an individual.

Do you realize that you just answered my post advising people to get organized by stating that you disagree because we should be able to farm disorganized players? There is no logic in that statement.

I was completely confused by his/her response as well.

montiferus

Recremen wrote: »

If you weren't putting as much effort into your group play as you are your solo play then that's kind of on you. And if you're just comparing success rate to failure rate for solo play (by whatever metric you might measure success and failure) then of course you're going to perceive solo to be harder, as a solo player is necessarily never going to accomplish as much as multiple equally-skilled players. That doesn't make group play easier it just makes it more effective, which is exactly what you'd expect to happen.

I don't think that is what he was saying. I believe he was saying that that solo/small group play is harder than large group play. If this is what he is saying then I agree completely. I say this because the game becomes far easier with just a couple of good teammates. When you add a healer it gets even more ridiculous.

It doesn't really matter anyway people should play how they want. If you want to be in a large group then you should completely be able to do it and have a great time. Same for solo players / gankers (hard for me to say that) / small scalers and PUGs. The reality is the game is dying away and it is a shame because there are aspects of this game that are truly great.

zyk

frozywozy wrote: »

Do you realize that you just answered my post advising people to get organized by stating that you disagree because we should be able to farm disorganized players? There is no logic in that statement.

No, I did not. You do not seem to comprehend what a public server implies. It is, by definition, a server open to all players regardless of playstyle.

Not everyone has the ability and/or inclination to be more organized or effective in Cyrodiil than they already are. There are too many factors to list, but they're pretty obvious. The underlying reasons for this go much deeper than the game itself. This is a game enjoyed by people of all ages and walks of life.

frozywozy

zyk wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Do you realize that you just answered my post advising people to get organized by stating that you disagree because we should be able to farm disorganized players? There is no logic in that statement.

No, I did not. You do not seem to comprehend what a public server implies. It is, by definition, a server open to all players regardless of playstyle.

Not everyone has the ability and/or inclination to be more organized or effective in Cyrodiil than they already are. There are too many factors to list, but they're pretty obvious. The underlying reasons for this go much deeper than the game itself. This is a game enjoyed by people of all ages and walks of life.

Ok so what you're saying is : This is totally fine for people who don't want to improve and this should consist of the majority of people in Cyrodiil. This should not be a normal thing for them to improve and we should reduce the group cap instead to force organized groups to give a chance to the zergers and reduce the duration of fights in Cyrodiil?

Note that I agree with the group size being reduced to 12 or 16. Just not a big fan of your reasoning here.

ShadowProc

Sacredx wrote: »

ShadowProc wrote: »

There is no one to save your butt if you screw up. Being responsible for you own healing, defense, damage, decision making, etc is way more challenging.

Now read that and tell me how it does not apply to group play? Solo, duo, group, it matters not. They are one and the same. If you or your team screw up its over.

Not necessarily true. For small groups yes. But once you get up above 12 or so it gets extremely dumbed down. Multiple people performing same roles as backups. You can absorb mistakes. ;z

For example. In a group of 4, if you have one healer and he goes down your done. In a group of say 16 you will have 2 healers maybe 3 depending on quality. If one goes down you wont necessarily wipe. The group will go defensive and focus on getting them up. Same if your Rapids spammer goes down.

Not to mention how difficult it is to get them down with all the healing, remembrances, earth gore procs going off.
There are backups to the backups when you get to 24. Lmao.

Is it hard fighting outnumbered with 16 to 24? Absolutely when you take on the fights say Drac or Fantasia do. But do not pretend that it is more difficult than a small group or solo. You make a mistake it's over. Period.

You in a large group and make a mistake, that is not true against fighting pugs outnumbered and probably not against a guild unless the are top tier.

And let's be honest. How many top tier guilds are left? Compared to three years ago. No one should be bragging or posting videos about fighting these days. It was WAY HARDER 2 to 3 years ago.

montiferus

@ShadowProc

Well said. Couldn't agree more. Our group doesn't run with a healer at all just 3-5 DDs. The one time we tried we were cracking up at how easy the game was. Didn't even seem fair TBH.

zyk

frozywozy wrote: »

Ok so what you're saying is : This is totally fine for people who don't want to improve and this should consist of the majority of people in Cyrodiil. This should not be a normal thing for them to improve and we should reduce the group cap instead to force organized groups to give a chance to the zergers and reduce the duration of fights in Cyrodiil?

Note that I agree with the group size being reduced to 12 or 16. Just not a big fan of your reasoning here.

That's not what I'm saying, but yes, as a public server, if someone just wants to potato yolo, that's totally fine and it's definitely going to happen. A lot. Everyone knows ESO is an extremely casual game, so its PVP public servers are going to be full of extremely casual players.

Gamers come in different forms. I'm not going to attempt to list them all because that's impossible. Each of us, as gamers, is composed of different traits. But some limiting factors players have are: age, time, interest level, and health issues -- to name a few. Organized gaming requires commitments that most people simply aren't willing and/or able to make.

The factors that constrain us as gamers go far deeper than the game itself. Gaming, as a pastime, is a low priority for most of us. When push comes to shove, RL comes first and our gaming lives get the leftovers.

This is the reality of all public servers of games. Typically, if organized gamers want good fights against other organized gamers, they need to arrange a private match.

No matter how much you demand that your opponents git gud, it's not going to change the fact that they don't want to invest socially in a group, or work 80 hours a week but like to yolo in cyrodiil a couple of times a week with a 2 year old build, or have a disability/significant illness. Or whatever the case may be; there are thousands of factors.

AbraXuSeXile

I dont know why people cry about group size when there is 40 solo scrubs nuttcupping the groups

Sacredx

ShadowProc wrote: »

For example. In a group of 4, if you have one healer and he goes down your done.

Here is what a person agreeing with you said:

montiferus wrote: »

@ShadowProc

Well said. Couldn't agree more. Our group doesn't run with a healer at all just 3-5 DDs. The one time we tried we were cracking up at how easy the game was. Didn't even seem fair TBH.

Notice the 3 to 5 group size running no healer part? Notice how he said how easy it was. Your statement of if the healer goes down you're done is false.

ShadowProc wrote: »

In a group of say 16 you will have 2 healers maybe 3 depending on quality. If one goes down you wont necessarily wipe. The group will go defensive and focus on getting them up. Same if your Rapids spammer goes down.

If one heal or one dps goes down, of course you won't necessarily wipe. That goes for any group size. But what it does is have a huge effect on group performance. Organised groups have players with roles. If the group looses a role that's like loosing an arm. The group performance takes a huge dive and it cannot function at before. The whole argument of "the group will go defensive" can apply to any size, it has nothing to do with 12+ or 16.

ShadowProc wrote: »

Is it hard fighting outnumbered with 16 to 24? Absolutely when you take on the fights say Drac or Fantasia do. But do not pretend that it is more difficult than a small group or solo. You make a mistake it's over. Period.

All you did was put some words together and called my opinion a mistake. You have not put in any evidence to back up your claim what so ever. Next time prove your words. Until then it's just small talk.

ShadowProc wrote: »

You in a large group and make a mistake, that is not true against fighting pugs outnumbered and probably not against a guild unless the are top tier.

This doesn't even make sense. Check your grammar or rephrase the paragraph so that people can understand it.

ShadowProc wrote: »

And let's be honest. How many top tier guilds are left? Compared to three years ago. No one should be bragging or posting videos about fighting these days. It was WAY HARDER 2 to 3 years ago.

Way harder to do what? To fight pugs, to fight other guilds? 16 man group vs 50 pugs then and now? Saying that it was way harder is relative to the challenge the group faces. It can be way harder fighting 60 pugs rather than 40. Your statement is meaningless without a proper example and proof.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

ShadowProc wrote: »

It was WAY HARDER 2 to 3 years ago.

This is absolutely incorrect. 2-3 years ago was some of the easiest times to be a coordinated group.

1) you had perma rapids across all group without needing to dedicate someone to this role. it didnt drop when you healed only damaged, as soon as you want to disengage just stop dmg cast it couple of times and done.

2) you had Purge hitting all 24 people + pugs / 2nd groups

3) you had barriers stacking

4) Depending how far back - you had no VD proc's to kill you if you stacked too tightly

5) you had AOE caps either preventing or greatly reducing the damage you took individually.

6) you could break free from negate

All of these meant that it was so easy to run groups. This is why there were so many groups running and enjoying their success.

When it got harder to do this as everything there got removed slowly you see groups dieing and dropping out of the game.

Now the only benefit groups got recently to having lost all of the above is earthgore. Which in itself has been nerfed to the point where it outputs less healing than other sets in the game. Yes it can assist you if your group is being burst down preventing some smaller groups who only have one burst cycle from being as effective but it does almost nothing against groups which have 2 burst cycles or just simply know how to play against it.

frozywozy

zyk wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Ok so what you're saying is : This is totally fine for people who don't want to improve and this should consist of the majority of people in Cyrodiil. This should not be a normal thing for them to improve and we should reduce the group cap instead to force organized groups to give a chance to the zergers and reduce the duration of fights in Cyrodiil?

Note that I agree with the group size being reduced to 12 or 16. Just not a big fan of your reasoning here.

That's not what I'm saying, but yes, as a public server, if someone just wants to potato yolo, that's totally fine and it's definitely going to happen. A lot. Everyone knows ESO is an extremely casual game, so its PVP public servers are going to be full of extremely casual players.

Gamers come in different forms. I'm not going to attempt to list them all because that's impossible. Each of us, as gamers, is composed of different traits. But some limiting factors players have are: age, time, interest level, and health issues -- to name a few. Organized gaming requires commitments that most people simply aren't willing and/or able to make.

The factors that constrain us as gamers go far deeper than the game itself. Gaming, as a pastime, is a low priority for most of us. When push comes to shove, RL comes first and our gaming lives get the leftovers.

This is the reality of all public servers of games. Typically, if organized gamers want good fights against other organized gamers, they need to arrange a private match.

No matter how much you demand that your opponents git gud, it's not going to change the fact that they don't want to invest socially in a group, or work 80 hours a week but like to yolo in cyrodiil a couple of times a week with a 2 year old build, or have a disability/significant illness. Or whatever the case may be; there are thousands of factors.

I work 40hours a week and I know better than to spam light attack at a 16men raid.

ShadowProc

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

ShadowProc wrote: »

It was WAY HARDER 2 to 3 years ago.

This is absolutely incorrect. 2-3 years ago was some of the easiest times to be a coordinated group.

1) you had perma rapids across all group without needing to dedicate someone to this role. it didnt drop when you healed only damaged, as soon as you want to disengage just stop dmg cast it couple of times and done.

2) you had Purge hitting all 24 people + pugs / 2nd groups

3) you had barriers stacking

4) Depending how far back - you had no VD proc's to kill you if you stacked too tightly

5) you had AOE caps either preventing or greatly reducing the damage you took individually.

6) you could break free from negate

All of these meant that it was so easy to run groups. This is why there were so many groups running and enjoying their success.

When it got harder to do this as everything there got removed slowly you see groups dieing and dropping out of the game.

Now the only benefit groups got recently to having lost all of the above is earthgore. Which in itself has been nerfed to the point where it outputs less healing than other sets in the game. Yes it can assist you if your group is being burst down preventing some smaller groups who only have one burst cycle from being as effective but it does almost nothing against groups which have 2 burst cycles or just simply know how to play against it.

Sorry. Poor choice of words. I meant way more top tier guilds. You can try all you want to make drac look good against the guilds now but you would have got rekt by some of those that were smarter than us and left ages ago.

Havoc, No Mercy, etc. Would have mopped the floor with you.

Vilestride

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

ShadowProc wrote: »

It was WAY HARDER 2 to 3 years ago.

This is absolutely incorrect. 2-3 years ago was some of the easiest times to be a coordinated group.

1) you had perma rapids across all group without needing to dedicate someone to this role. it didnt drop when you healed only damaged, as soon as you want to disengage just stop dmg cast it couple of times and done.

2) you had Purge hitting all 24 people + pugs / 2nd groups

3) you had barriers stacking

4) Depending how far back - you had no VD proc's to kill you if you stacked too tightly

5) you had AOE caps either preventing or greatly reducing the damage you took individually.

6) you could break free from negate

All of these meant that it was so easy to run groups. This is why there were so many groups running and enjoying their success.

When it got harder to do this as everything there got removed slowly you see groups dieing and dropping out of the game.

Now the only benefit groups got recently to having lost all of the above is earthgore. Which in itself has been nerfed to the point where it outputs less healing than other sets in the game. Yes it can assist you if your group is being burst down preventing some smaller groups who only have one burst cycle from being as effective but it does almost nothing against groups which have 2 burst cycles or just simply know how to play against it.

I assumed he meant in terms of the level of competition not actual game mechanics.

And it is true, there was far more 'variety' in a conversation regarding top teir guilds 2 years ago compared to today. So in that respect it was 'harder' for groups back then because the likleyhood in which they encounter an engagement where they are equaled in skill was higher.

But in terms of the tools a large group has today vs back then to manage the fights against the general population, the I'd agree groups are worse off now.