Group play over performance

ZarkingFrued

Grouping is way to overpowered. There is zero downside to grouping up with 24 players, and running over any solo or small groups found. This isnt gameplay, this is player griefing. Max group size should be cut down to 6-12 at most. 24 man groups meeting up are the rather obvious culprit for bad Cyrodiil lag. Rather than promote this type of gameplay, Zos should promote smaller groups to keep the lag down, and to encourage players to use skills to play rather than charging over people like a stampede spamming two or 3 buttons. Pvp grouping should have some sort of debuff, or simply lose the positive sides of the current standard PVP buff after becoming a large group.

VaranisArano

Cyrodiik is designed for large scale AvAvA warfare, not only by allowing players to group up in groups of 2 to 24, but also in encouraging players to stack up to their entire faction at an important objective.

So even if you drop the group size down to 12, you'll still have to deal with the performance issues inevitably caused when players all go to the same important objective for a scroll take, emperorship, or heavily defended keep.

The only solution that's actually going to help is for ZOS to actually fix the performance issues when large numbers of players attack the same objective.

KillsAllElves

ZarkingFrued wrote: »

Grouping is way to overpowered. There is zero downside to grouping up with 24 players, and running over any solo or small groups found. This isnt gameplay, this is player griefing. Max group size should be cut down to 6-12 at most. 24 man groups meeting up are the rather obvious culprit for bad Cyrodiil lag. Rather than promote this type of gameplay, Zos should promote smaller groups to keep the lag down, and to encourage players to use skills to play rather than charging over people like a stampede spamming two or 3 buttons. Pvp grouping should have some sort of debuff, or simply lose the positive sides of the current standard PVP buff.

Pro tip- if your small group thinks theyre not good enough to fight a 24 man group, you have options (1) run away (2) jump off the bridge into the water.

Eso cyrodiil was marketed as largescale siege warfare. If you dont like it dont play it!

Dont come to the forums demanding nerfs and/or debuffs to other players because theyre not playing the way you want them to play.

Pvp in this game enables so much douchebaggery dont bring it to the forums!

Juhasow

VaranisArano wrote: »

Cyrodiik is designed for large scale AvAvA warfare, not only by allowing players to group up in groups of 2 to 24, but also in encouraging players to stack up to their entire faction at an important objective.

So even if you drop the group size down to 12, you'll still have to deal with the performance issues inevitably caused when players all go to the same important objective for a scroll take, emperorship, or heavily defended keep.

The only solution that's actually going to help is for ZOS to actually fix the performance issues when large numbers of players attack the same objective.

Or creating enviroment where it's worth to do different things in different parts of map instead of stacking in 1 place.

ZarkingFrued

KillsAllElves wrote: »

ZarkingFrued wrote: »

Grouping is way to overpowered. There is zero downside to grouping up with 24 players, and running over any solo or small groups found. This isnt gameplay, this is player griefing. Max group size should be cut down to 6-12 at most. 24 man groups meeting up are the rather obvious culprit for bad Cyrodiil lag. Rather than promote this type of gameplay, Zos should promote smaller groups to keep the lag down, and to encourage players to use skills to play rather than charging over people like a stampede spamming two or 3 buttons. Pvp grouping should have some sort of debuff, or simply lose the positive sides of the current standard PVP buff.

Pro tip- if your small group thinks theyre not good enough to fight a 24 man group, you have options (1) run away (2) jump off the bridge into the water.

Eso cyrodiil was marketed as largescale siege warfare. If you dont like it dont play it!

Dont come to the forums demanding nerfs and/or debuffs to other players because theyre not playing the way you want them to play.

Pvp in this game enables so much douchebaggery dont bring it to the forums!

PVP players are allowed to post on the forums as well. I have made no demands. I'm stating what I think based on my observations. Please stop regurgitating what everyone else says when they read forum posts that upset them.

ZarkingFrued

VaranisArano wrote: »

Cyrodiik is designed for large scale AvAvA warfare, not only by allowing players to group up in groups of 2 to 24, but also in encouraging players to stack up to their entire faction at an important objective.

So even if you drop the group size down to 12, you'll still have to deal with the performance issues inevitably caused when players all go to the same important objective for a scroll take, emperorship, or heavily defended keep.

The only solution that's actually going to help is for ZOS to actually fix the performance issues when large numbers of players attack the same objective.

Even if it does nothing for performance, which it would imo, then it is still an issue having 24 players constantly grouped. It diminishes the skill in the game. 12 players can easily take a keep. 12 is the standard for trials and should be for pvp for the very same reasons. 24 man trials would be insanely easy, as is 24 man pvp

VaranisArano

Juhasow wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Cyrodiik is designed for large scale AvAvA warfare, not only by allowing players to group up in groups of 2 to 24, but also in encouraging players to stack up to their entire faction at an important objective.

So even if you drop the group size down to 12, you'll still have to deal with the performance issues inevitably caused when players all go to the same important objective for a scroll take, emperorship, or heavily defended keep.

The only solution that's actually going to help is for ZOS to actually fix the performance issues when large numbers of players attack the same objective.

Or creating enviroment where it's worth to do different things in different parts of map instead of stacking in 1 place.

They've tried. So far it hasnt worked out, and the Hammer made it worse, but maybe ZOS will figure out some way to make it happen.

ZarkingFrued

VaranisArano wrote: »

Juhasow wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Cyrodiik is designed for large scale AvAvA warfare, not only by allowing players to group up in groups of 2 to 24, but also in encouraging players to stack up to their entire faction at an important objective.

So even if you drop the group size down to 12, you'll still have to deal with the performance issues inevitably caused when players all go to the same important objective for a scroll take, emperorship, or heavily defended keep.

The only solution that's actually going to help is for ZOS to actually fix the performance issues when large numbers of players attack the same objective.

Or creating enviroment where it's worth to do different things in different parts of map instead of stacking in 1 place.

They've tried. So far it hasnt worked out, and the Hammer made it worse, but maybe ZOS will figure out some way to make it happen.

When the hammer drops so does my fps, and inevitably my connection. Even if I stay far from the battle.

VaranisArano

ZarkingFrued wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Juhasow wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Cyrodiik is designed for large scale AvAvA warfare, not only by allowing players to group up in groups of 2 to 24, but also in encouraging players to stack up to their entire faction at an important objective.

So even if you drop the group size down to 12, you'll still have to deal with the performance issues inevitably caused when players all go to the same important objective for a scroll take, emperorship, or heavily defended keep.

The only solution that's actually going to help is for ZOS to actually fix the performance issues when large numbers of players attack the same objective.

Or creating enviroment where it's worth to do different things in different parts of map instead of stacking in 1 place.

They've tried. So far it hasnt worked out, and the Hammer made it worse, but maybe ZOS will figure out some way to make it happen.

When the hammer drops so does my fps, and inevitably my connection. Even if I stay far from the battle.

Ouch!

Yeah, the Hammer does a really good job of making long keep battles go quickly, but it also draws a lot of players to the Hammer zerg and to oppose the Hammer zerg, at least on PC/NA Kaal. So it really doesnt help with the performance issues that come with lots of players in the same place.

That's kind of the sticky problem at the root of Cyrodiil performance: the zone is designed to draw players into large fights and it does it really well, even with ZOS trying to change that by adding more reasons to spread out.

Some objectives just draw players no matter what because they are so important to the score or to the faction. When that happens, the size of the individual group doesn't matter much compared to the performance issues caused by the sheer number of players in a single location.

PhoenixGrey

KillsAllElves wrote: »

ZarkingFrued wrote: »

Grouping is way to overpowered. There is zero downside to grouping up with 24 players, and running over any solo or small groups found. This isnt gameplay, this is player griefing. Max group size should be cut down to 6-12 at most. 24 man groups meeting up are the rather obvious culprit for bad Cyrodiil lag. Rather than promote this type of gameplay, Zos should promote smaller groups to keep the lag down, and to encourage players to use skills to play rather than charging over people like a stampede spamming two or 3 buttons. Pvp grouping should have some sort of debuff, or simply lose the positive sides of the current standard PVP buff.

Pro tip- if your small group thinks theyre not good enough to fight a 24 man group, you have options (1) run away (2) jump off the bridge into the water.

Eso cyrodiil was marketed as largescale siege warfare. If you dont like it dont play it!

Dont come to the forums demanding nerfs and/or debuffs to other players because theyre not playing the way you want them to play.

Pvp in this game enables so much douchebaggery dont bring it to the forums!

Greetings zergling !!

Marketing as large scale siege warfare is different from playing it. Atrocious performance does not seem to indicate as such.

KillsAllElves

ZarkingFrued wrote: »

KillsAllElves wrote: »

ZarkingFrued wrote: »

Grouping is way to overpowered. There is zero downside to grouping up with 24 players, and running over any solo or small groups found. This isnt gameplay, this is player griefing. Max group size should be cut down to 6-12 at most. 24 man groups meeting up are the rather obvious culprit for bad Cyrodiil lag. Rather than promote this type of gameplay, Zos should promote smaller groups to keep the lag down, and to encourage players to use skills to play rather than charging over people like a stampede spamming two or 3 buttons. Pvp grouping should have some sort of debuff, or simply lose the positive sides of the current standard PVP buff.

Pro tip- if your small group thinks theyre not good enough to fight a 24 man group, you have options (1) run away (2) jump off the bridge into the water.

Eso cyrodiil was marketed as largescale siege warfare. If you dont like it dont play it!

Dont come to the forums demanding nerfs and/or debuffs to other players because theyre not playing the way you want them to play.

Pvp in this game enables so much douchebaggery dont bring it to the forums!

PVP players are allowed to post on the forums as well. I have made no demands. I'm stating what I think based on my observations. Please stop regurgitating what everyone else says when they read forum posts that upset them.

"Max group size [should] be cutdown to 6-12 at most" then you go on calling for a nerf. You used the word should 3 times, should~verb, used to indicate obligation,duty or correctness typically when criticizing someones actions. You made a demand. You want the devs to nerf the playstyle that most paying customers take part in.

And lets say your nerf came to fruition, groups are cut down to 6-12. Thats what you called for, whats going to stop 2-4, 6-12 man sized groups running with each other? Not only will their playstyle not be deterred but they will also capture their goal objectives.

KillsAllElves

PhoenixGrey wrote: »

KillsAllElves wrote: »

ZarkingFrued wrote: »

Grouping is way to overpowered. There is zero downside to grouping up with 24 players, and running over any solo or small groups found. This isnt gameplay, this is player griefing. Max group size should be cut down to 6-12 at most. 24 man groups meeting up are the rather obvious culprit for bad Cyrodiil lag. Rather than promote this type of gameplay, Zos should promote smaller groups to keep the lag down, and to encourage players to use skills to play rather than charging over people like a stampede spamming two or 3 buttons. Pvp grouping should have some sort of debuff, or simply lose the positive sides of the current standard PVP buff.

Pro tip- if your small group thinks theyre not good enough to fight a 24 man group, you have options (1) run away (2) jump off the bridge into the water.

Eso cyrodiil was marketed as largescale siege warfare. If you dont like it dont play it!

Dont come to the forums demanding nerfs and/or debuffs to other players because theyre not playing the way you want them to play.

Pvp in this game enables so much douchebaggery dont bring it to the forums!

Greetings zergling !!

Marketing as large scale siege warfare is different from playing it. Atrocious performance does not seem to indicate as such.

Oh no i was called a zergling oh my.... Are you trying to offend me? If so you should be more original instead of hurling a lame excuse of getting wiped by a large group term such as zergling. Btw i play by my self or with 2 others not in a "zerg".

Players still play and seige in largescale format, making your argument irrelevant.

JumpmanLane

Grouping is bad because you don’t learn to take care of yourself in a fight and get mopped across the floor in a 1v1 or in your group vs good players.

I went 108 and 2 today fighting against these dumb Zergs. At one point I was 105 and 1 lol. My kill streak record was 103 at one point...farming potatoes.

Artorias24

Group size shouldnt get reduced and they also shouldnt get any debuffs.

Cyro is still a warzone for "armies" to fight against each other. If you cant handle the zergs then dont fight them...

I only play smalscale and ofc we get zerged a lot but we are searching for these fights. outbumbered is the best you can do in cyro and without zergs there wont be any outbumbered Situations anymore

idk

First off I run either solo or with a small group. When solo I pretty much do not try to take on an entire zerg unless I am going to bomb them. I realize the next reply will be when they just run you over. To that you watch out for them.

Further, Cyrodiil was clearly designed for large scale, large group PvP. Even if max group size was half what we have now you would still get the same number of players at a keep and groups of 24 would just run as two groups of 12 doing the same thing they are now. We know this as fact because in Cyrodiil's heyday, when the pop caps were much higher, we had some zergs run in three full groups of 24.

So deal with it or move on because there really is not anything Zos can do to eliminate this.

ChefZero

VaranisArano wrote: »

Cyrodiik is designed for large scale AvAvA warfare, not only by allowing players to group up in groups of 2 to 24, but also in encouraging players to stack up to their entire faction at an important objective.

So even if you drop the group size down to 12, you'll still have to deal with the performance issues inevitably caused when players all go to the same important objective for a scroll take, emperorship, or heavily defended keep.

The only solution that's actually going to help is for ZOS to actually fix the performance issues when large numbers of players attack the same objective.

I suggested it already two or three times on this forum: spread flaggs and add a 3rd on keeps outer area. This won't fix everything but it's a step in the right direction and keep fights would become more dynamic.

BNOC

It does suck, but they need the help.

Recorded footage of the people you're complaining about when they're alone:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ0hNEw6EPo

idk

ChefZero wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Cyrodiik is designed for large scale AvAvA warfare, not only by allowing players to group up in groups of 2 to 24, but also in encouraging players to stack up to their entire faction at an important objective.

So even if you drop the group size down to 12, you'll still have to deal with the performance issues inevitably caused when players all go to the same important objective for a scroll take, emperorship, or heavily defended keep.

The only solution that's actually going to help is for ZOS to actually fix the performance issues when large numbers of players attack the same objective.

I suggested it already two or three times on this forum: spread flaggs and add a 3rd on keeps outer area. This won't fix everything but it's a step in the right direction and keep fights would become more dynamic.

Adding more keeps will do nothing. Zos added some locations not long ago and it is pretty irrelevant to server performance. Why, because we all flock to where the action is. If we are lucky there is action in at least 2 or 3 locations on the map. However, that has to do with choices people make, not the number of keeps.

ChefZero

idk wrote: »

ChefZero wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Cyrodiik is designed for large scale AvAvA warfare, not only by allowing players to group up in groups of 2 to 24, but also in encouraging players to stack up to their entire faction at an important objective.

So even if you drop the group size down to 12, you'll still have to deal with the performance issues inevitably caused when players all go to the same important objective for a scroll take, emperorship, or heavily defended keep.

The only solution that's actually going to help is for ZOS to actually fix the performance issues when large numbers of players attack the same objective.

I suggested it already two or three times on this forum: spread flaggs and add a 3rd on keeps outer area. This won't fix everything but it's a step in the right direction and keep fights would become more dynamic.

Adding more keeps will do nothing. Zos added some locations not long ago and it is pretty irrelevant to server performance. Why, because we all flock to where the action is. If we are lucky there is action in at least 2 or 3 locations on the map. However, that has to do with choices people make, not the number of keeps.

I talked about adding flaggs, not keeps.

Lord_Bidr

PhoenixGrey wrote: »

Greetings zergling !!

Marketing as large scale siege warfare is different from playing it. Atrocious performance does not seem to indicate as such.

Do you...not understand what marketing is and how it works? If you advertise a product as one thing, you cannot then actively encourage people to use it as something opposite of that. That's false advertisement and you're just asking to have your arse sued.

And please stop equating performance in cyrodiil with the dev's desired goal for it, otherwise imma say the dev's desired you to not play in Cyrodiil hence all the constant crashes.

VaranisArano

ChefZero wrote: »

idk wrote: »

ChefZero wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Cyrodiik is designed for large scale AvAvA warfare, not only by allowing players to group up in groups of 2 to 24, but also in encouraging players to stack up to their entire faction at an important objective.

So even if you drop the group size down to 12, you'll still have to deal with the performance issues inevitably caused when players all go to the same important objective for a scroll take, emperorship, or heavily defended keep.

The only solution that's actually going to help is for ZOS to actually fix the performance issues when large numbers of players attack the same objective.

I suggested it already two or three times on this forum: spread flaggs and add a 3rd on keeps outer area. This won't fix everything but it's a step in the right direction and keep fights would become more dynamic.

Adding more keeps will do nothing. Zos added some locations not long ago and it is pretty irrelevant to server performance. Why, because we all flock to where the action is. If we are lucky there is action in at least 2 or 3 locations on the map. However, that has to do with choices people make, not the number of keeps.

I talked about adding flaggs, not keeps.

That won't really help.

For one, ZOS already tried it by making the resources more important. Most groups just stick together to hit the keep or the resources, so it doesn't spread players out.

Second, once a keep has a critical mass of players fighting, it doesnt really matter how spread out they are within the keep itself. Players will start crashing when they get close to the keep anyways.

Third, any flag on the outer area is just going to be captured on the way inside. It won't make any practical difference in terms of the final push to the inner keep and the last two flags.

Blinkin8r

Cyrodiil's design is to control as much of the map as possible. When a faction is zerging hard you have a couple options.
1: Get in a good group with good comp and farm the zerg.
2: Get in a small group and flag objectives to split up the zerg. (Aka work with other small groups and flag multiple home keeps.) Sometimes an entire faction will zerg one keep. When this happens let that keep go and take everything behind them.
3: Cry on the forums about it.

Rungar

they went the wrong way with the weapons. Instead the server should predict too many players clustering together and drop bosses who are wielding the weapons to clean out some of the crew.

that being said it would be my preference if the group/raid frames were disables in cyrodiil. It would just be a bit more chaotic which is what i think they want.

BNOC

Rungar wrote: »

they went the wrong way with the weapons. Instead the server should predict too many players clustering together and drop bosses who are wielding the weapons to clean out some of the crew.

that being said it would be my preference if the group/raid frames were disables in cyrodiil. It would just be a bit more chaotic which is what i think they want.

Cyrodil doesn't need any more PvE aspects, it's basically 100% PvE as it is.

ZarkingFrued

I think it would be massively helpful to remove battle resurrection in PVP. As people die they would have to respawn elsewhere rather than be instantly rezed and back to spamming. Not to mention you should be punished for dying in a game rather than drop your intense Bomb then res and drop it again. No need to spec for survival with instant rez

ZarkingFrued

Blinkin8r wrote: »

Cyrodiil's design is to control as much of the map as possible. When a faction is zerging hard you have a couple options.
1: Get in a good group with good comp and farm the zerg.
2: Get in a small group and flag objectives to split up the zerg. (Aka work with other small groups and flag multiple home keeps.) Sometimes an entire faction will zerg one keep. When this happens let that keep go and take everything behind them.
3: Cry on the forums about it.

No one is crying. I'm not sure why people are so brave online to flat tell someone they're crying for introducing an intelligent view point. I would actually say the person who I've upset with my views is crying. Are you on Ps4? What's your PSN? I'll see if I have any videos of me 1vXing you so that you can see there is indeed a real 3rd option aside from being a zergling.

VaranisArano

ZarkingFrued wrote: »

I think it would be massively helpful to remove battle resurrection in PVP. As people die they would have to respawn elsewhere rather than be instantly rezed and back to spamming. Not to mention you should be punished for dying in a game rather than drop your intense Bomb then res and drop it again. No need to spec for survival with instant rez

I dunno about you, but I'd be pretty pissed with a groupmate who constantly needed to be battle rezzed because they werent paying attention to their survival. Against an enemy that knows what they are doing, battle rezzes are tricky to pull off and leave the rezzers very vulnerable.

Now, if the enemy isn't properly pressuring the rezzers and lets me get off battle rezzes without a hitch, I'd say that's on the enemy. Having to battle rez means mistakes were made. Its the job of the enemy to punish mistakes, and if they don't manage that, I don't think they have many grounds to complain. Battles in Cyrodiil aren't just about killing players once and done.

Dusk_Coven

ZarkingFrued wrote: »

Grouping is way to overpowered. There is zero downside to grouping up with 24 players, and running over any solo or small groups found. This isnt gameplay, this is player griefing.

If you mean Cyrodiil, grouping is all but necessary to take a keep even when there is no PvP opposition. Otherwise it'd be like killing a world boss solo with just light attacks. I'm sure you can do it, but it's boooring long.

I'd venture to say it's even intended for guilds to get organized and group. That's why they let guilds have the distinction of holding a keep and slapping their guild emblem on it.

Everything the group encounters is collateral damage until the main event.
Smaller groups and solo players can still do something -- wait for the group to pass or go somewhere else, harass their efforts by seizing resources and cutting their teleport lines.

ChefZero

VaranisArano wrote: »

ChefZero wrote: »

idk wrote: »

ChefZero wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Cyrodiik is designed for large scale AvAvA warfare, not only by allowing players to group up in groups of 2 to 24, but also in encouraging players to stack up to their entire faction at an important objective.

So even if you drop the group size down to 12, you'll still have to deal with the performance issues inevitably caused when players all go to the same important objective for a scroll take, emperorship, or heavily defended keep.

The only solution that's actually going to help is for ZOS to actually fix the performance issues when large numbers of players attack the same objective.

I suggested it already two or three times on this forum: spread flaggs and add a 3rd on keeps outer area. This won't fix everything but it's a step in the right direction and keep fights would become more dynamic.

Adding more keeps will do nothing. Zos added some locations not long ago and it is pretty irrelevant to server performance. Why, because we all flock to where the action is. If we are lucky there is action in at least 2 or 3 locations on the map. However, that has to do with choices people make, not the number of keeps.

I talked about adding flaggs, not keeps.

That won't really help.

For one, ZOS already tried it by making the resources more important. Most groups just stick together to hit the keep or the resources, so it doesn't spread players out.

Second, once a keep has a critical mass of players fighting, it doesnt really matter how spread out they are within the keep itself. Players will start crashing when they get close to the keep anyways.

Third, any flag on the outer area is just going to be captured on the way inside. It won't make any practical difference in terms of the final push to the inner keep and the last two flags.

You're first point isn't valid IMO because ZOS totally failed on it. For example they could change the rezz mechanic on keeps, so people are able to rezz in keep until the inner is under 50% because it's to easy to bring a keep UA atm and if a keep is UA it resources become unimportant.

To your second I already said it won't fix it, it's just a step.

And last but not least I have to disagree about third because a 3rd outer flagg can easily recaptured by defenders reinforcement from outside while attackers push into the inner. And if ZOS would move one inner flagg to the second floor it would spread the fights again.

Of course I'm only talking about steps they could do as well as it seems they try to adjust healing and combat calculations in general. But if they adjust combat calculations I think it would also help if only 20v20 fights on a flagg instead of 60v60 for example.

Sahidom

Hm, radical thought. Earned AP = AP Award / (Group No. + Non-Group No.**)

** Group No. and Non-Group No. whose engaged in combat with AP qualified player/target or PVP content activity.

When you hurt the player's pocket book, sometimes player habits change. Again, it's a radical thought.

AcadianPaladin

If you penalize groups of 24, won't that simply spawn coordinated multiple groups of 12? Or groups of 12 with many tagalongs, along migrating from group chat to zone chat for the benefit of those not in the group? Just asking since changes usually result in unintended consequences that often counter the 'solution'.