Revert the group size changes please!

Knockmaker

I seriously hope that zos reads all these and sees the logic and revert their inaccurate measure.

Cyrodiil has been a meat grinder for newcomers, PUGs, even for average PvP guilds that do not follow a ball-group style gameplay. The current change in group size pushes new players away, too.

I for one, lead pugs often, or recruit randoms in my group often. And with too small group size like we have here, I have to pick the not only just experienced players but very experienced players in order to be able to do basically simple things. This is really frustrating, because people are left out, and there is now a need for more pug-leaders, which is now more difficult than ever, since people do not want to risk filling their tiny group with random, inexperienced people and fail miserably. But, Cyrodiil needs new people since the old ones constantly keep taking long breaks or quit due to server problems frustrations. And all we have is newbies who need to be taught, and we can't really show them how to achieve things, since we can't successfully siege a keep with a tiny group of inexperienced players. And on the other side are the ball groups who coordinate over voice and they come and wipe those tiny groups of inexperienced people in a blink of an eye.

This group size reduction has to change. I already see population decreasing steadily in general (excluding the MYM event) and it is getting harder to fill the pop cap even tho it seems to have been low-key reduced again lately. We do have some new players, but they end up quitting Cyrodiil as well, because either nobody wants them in their group or the group they are in can't do much with inexperienced players, even if they are accepted to those groups in the first place. You can see LFGs flooding in zone chat, but most of them never get recruited. Hence, they eventually leave, never to return. But, we need more players in Cyrodiil. The whole map is even emptier than before. Seriously, look at the map on a random evening, and you will see little to no action going on most of those times you check. That is because there are not enough players. Low-key reducing pop-cap is not going to solve issues in Cyrodiil. Yes, population still gets capped, but we see very little action. So, where are all those people if we really have hundreds of players? All farming dolmens? I hardly think so. I don't even see most of the regulars often times. So, halving the population cap is not going to solve this. Let us at least have our groups as they were before and play with friends and be able to help newcomers like we could before.

And, no. It really did not improve the performance. Even zos did not explicitly claim so if I am not mistaken. Even if it did to some extent that is mostly unnoticable by us, the cost-benefit is simply not worth it. They should stop playing with fundamental gameplay mechanics without actually getting involved in that gameplay. Please, take a look at Cyrodiil, Zos.

Cirantille

Tbh this change didn't make sense

Because people still coordinate more than 1 groups, if they want they coordinate different guild groups in the same spot (3-4)

So it is not like it prevented people from being in the same spot

But they change what they want to change I guess

Knockmaker

Yes, if they wanted to ensure that people are not gathered in one place, hoping that it would alleviate the lag, it certainly did not work. And such measures will never work. It is a competitive game in PvP, against real players. There will always be choke points on every map; there will always be X number of players in one place and fight, even if that one place makes no sense in terms of strategy. That is because it is a competitive game and played by real people.

Instead of low-key trying to manipulate the way people play the game, they should focus on how to deliver an acceptable experience. We don't want much. We don't want new features as the top priority. We simply want to be able to play smoothly, with friends and new people alike in Cyrodiil as it was designed an AvA.

Larcomar

I agree with everything you said but I think this has been done to death a bit and I don't see it changing back. From what I could see, zos came under a lot of pressure from a small but very vocal group of people who have a particular idea of what cyrodiil should look like and really don't like "scrubs" in pugs / zergs etc clogging up the server. Not unreasonably, they took the decision that they needed to appease that group or face persistent negative commentary on the game.

We're seeing exactly the same thing happening with the ongoing campaign against proc sets - I'm betting these "tests" are nothing of the sort. They'll run them for a month, admit they did nothing for performance, say something vague about "behavioural changes" and then just announce they're permanent at the end. The bottom line is, zeni is shifting cyrodiil into a 12x12x12 bg format aimed at serious pvp guilds, and the rest of us have to just adapt or go elsewhere.

I wonder if there's more mileage in pushing for some sort of alternative, more casual / beginner friendly pvp mode. I don't think zeni is up for a fight with the hard core.

Knockmaker

Cross-healing was also initially perceived as permanent, yet they have reverted it. And this is even a bigger issue with more impact. Surely, there are a lot more problems to that than I mentioned, and with more people putting their inputs, the change is not that far.

Larcomar

I'm not disagreeing with you - there's been alot of commentary on this. I just took the fact that they reverted the healing change but didn't touch group size even though it's attracted even more criticism as an indication they weren't going there.

Like I say, my hunch is they're been driven by the streamers, the ball groupers, the hard core... They weren't really pressing on limiting cross healing but went pretty big on cutting down group size as a way of nerfing casual zergs. Who knows though. Zeni do one thing then do the complete opposite three months later.

Knockmaker

Exactly! I believe they introduced that cross-healing change solely on one streamer's suggestion, instead of the average community itself. I mean, that is what it looked like at least. It is ok to listen to the players, but it is better to listen to average, regular players instead of so-called celebrities, and to actually play it themselves perhaps. I mean, I would be willing to have one gm in my group (keeping their identity secret, if needed) for a test-drive, if they actually wanted to investigate.

Alurria

This type of change worries me. I occasionally step into PVP. Usually I try to remain with a big group. I have always been a fan of large group pvp saftey in numbers etc. Keep siege was always fun. Not being able to pop in and join a large group just makes me not want to pvp at all. I've seen this happen before, example DoAC. Z don't do it, don't change things based on only their input because in the end those small group players will leave for greener grass.

Knockmaker

Alurria wrote: »

This type of change worries me. I occasionally step into PVP. Usually I try to remain with a big group. I have always been a fan of large group pvp saftey in numbers etc. Keep siege was always fun. Not being able to pop in and join a large group just makes me not want to pvp at all. I've seen this happen before, example DoAC. Z don't do it, don't change things based on only their input because in the end those small group players will leave for greener grass.

True that. Just because they are more vocal shouldn't mean what they suggest is always true. I don't know about DoAC but I have never seen such restrictive measures implemented in any other mmos that I played.

Khajiitihaswares

Yeah one of reasons I only did pve quest in cyro for tickets and left. Or just did BGs If I want be confined to small group I will go to battle grounds. In cyro it makes no sense. As well healers not healing peeps outside your group? Like whoever thought this idea must have not been really thinking hard at all... At that point you invest in coding and fixes or hardware... Not hey lets limit the play style of people because its cheaper solution.

QuebraRegra

Cirantille wrote: »

Tbh this change didn't make sense

Because people still coordinate more than 1 groups, if they want they coordinate different guild groups in the same spot (3-4)

So it is not like it prevented people from being in the same spot

But they change what they want to change I guess

as usual ZOS missed the point, and implemented a poor "fix".

QuebraRegra

Knockmaker wrote: »

Alurria wrote: »

This type of change worries me. I occasionally step into PVP. Usually I try to remain with a big group. I have always been a fan of large group pvp saftey in numbers etc. Keep siege was always fun. Not being able to pop in and join a large group just makes me not want to pvp at all. I've seen this happen before, example DoAC. Z don't do it, don't change things based on only their input because in the end those small group players will leave for greener grass.

True that. Just because they are more vocal shouldn't mean what they suggest is always true. I don't know about DoAC but I have never seen such restrictive measures implemented in any other mmos that I played.

because in ZOS logic: PVP cries because of multi-faction coordinated humongo zergs.... ZOS does what no other MMO does and restricts group size in an MMO... Players now coordinate numerous smaller groups in the same multi alliance humungo zergs.

ZOS has been brainfarting over zergs since launch... What's the solution?

QuebraRegra

Knockmaker wrote: »

Yes, if they wanted to ensure that people are not gathered in one place, hoping that it would alleviate the lag, it certainly did not work. And such measures will never work. It is a competitive game in PvP, against real players. There will always be choke points on every map; there will always be X number of players in one place and fight, even if that one place makes no sense in terms of strategy. That is because it is a competitive game and played by real people.

Instead of low-key trying to manipulate the way people play the game, they should focus on how to deliver an acceptable experience. We don't want much. We don't want new features as the top priority. We simply want to be able to play smoothly, with friends and new people alike in Cyrodiil as it was designed an AvA.

that time when the few DC stood at the gate and held back the endless onslaught of AD/EP combined.... That went on for 2 hours while I was there... sweaty Fing EPIC!

QuebraRegra

Knockmaker wrote: »

Exactly! I believe they introduced that cross-healing change solely on one streamer's suggestion, instead of the average community itself. I mean, that is what it looked like at least. It is ok to listen to the players, but it is better to listen to average, regular players instead of so-called celebrities, and to actually play it themselves perhaps. I mean, I would be willing to have one gm in my group (keeping their identity secret, if needed) for a test-drive, if they actually wanted to investigate.

how many years now? I've never seen a GM... maybe that's good? In other MMOs I know leads and devs stealthed around under anonymous accounts in game.

Iccotak

Larcomar wrote: »

I agree with everything you said but I think this has been done to death a bit and I don't see it changing back. From what I could see, zos came under a lot of pressure from a small but very vocal group of people who have a particular idea of what cyrodiil should look like and really don't like "scrubs" in pugs / zergs etc clogging up the server. Not unreasonably, they took the decision that they needed to appease that group or face persistent negative commentary on the game.

We're seeing exactly the same thing happening with the ongoing campaign against proc sets - I'm betting these "tests" are nothing of the sort. They'll run them for a month, admit they did nothing for performance, say something vague about "behavioural changes" and then just announce they're permanent at the end. The bottom line is, zeni is shifting cyrodiil into a 12x12x12 bg format aimed at serious pvp guilds, and the rest of us have to just adapt or go elsewhere.

I wonder if there's more mileage in pushing for some sort of alternative, more casual / beginner friendly pvp mode. I don't think zeni is up for a fight with the hard core.

At that point you might as well re-do the whole game in the creation engine.

One of the main reasons they used a different engine was to have more players in one instance especially for PvP.

dotme

Agree with this - This doesn't feel well thought out at all. Not only are newcomers in Cyrodiil extremely unlikely to get a group, but if you're the 11th or 12th person invited, there's a decent chance you'll get kicked out of the game (And have to re-queue when you relog)

itscompton

Iccotak wrote: »

Larcomar wrote: »

I agree with everything you said but I think this has been done to death a bit and I don't see it changing back. From what I could see, zos came under a lot of pressure from a small but very vocal group of people who have a particular idea of what cyrodiil should look like and really don't like "scrubs" in pugs / zergs etc clogging up the server. Not unreasonably, they took the decision that they needed to appease that group or face persistent negative commentary on the game.

We're seeing exactly the same thing happening with the ongoing campaign against proc sets - I'm betting these "tests" are nothing of the sort. They'll run them for a month, admit they did nothing for performance, say something vague about "behavioural changes" and then just announce they're permanent at the end. The bottom line is, zeni is shifting cyrodiil into a 12x12x12 bg format aimed at serious pvp guilds, and the rest of us have to just adapt or go elsewhere.

I wonder if there's more mileage in pushing for some sort of alternative, more casual / beginner friendly pvp mode. I don't think zeni is up for a fight with the hard core.

At that point you might as well re-do the whole game in the creation engine.

One of the main reasons they used a different engine was to have more players in one instance especially for PvP.

Limiting groups to 12 players has really made clear how low the overall Pop cap for each faction is now. I remember when there were fights all over the map and almost every keep I showed up to had mobs of people. Now if feels like there are 75-80 people max on each alliance at a time and big wild fights that last more than a couple of minutes only happen once or twice an hour.
Half the players on each alliance are locked in either troll or ball groups that only want to farm AP. Troll groups try to avoid the big fights and farm towers/terrain. If they attack a keep it's in the hope that they can farm ungrouped randoms that show up to defend . If enough people show up to give a troll group a good fight they run for the nearest tower and start going in circles. And the ball groups are optimized to the point they can roll into keep sieges and steamroll everyone in 30 seconds using so many stacked CC's, AOE's, and Ulti's the server doesn't even give opponents a chance to react. Meanwhile the ball groups health can barely be touched due to the steady stream of purges and massive heals they're also stacking. This dynamic discourages people from besieging an enemy keep unless they have 4 full groups so they have enough people to spread out and pick each other up while the ball group continues to roll them again and again as it slowly gets whittled down itself.
On top of that half of the people not in ball groups on each alliance are playing gank-blades or some other "run around tower 1vX build" so there is only about 20-30 people on each side actually trying to play the map for the score.
I've been PvPing for a long time, I do pretty well and still have lot's of fun when I find good fights but I've got to say this last few months it's been harder to do and the game has really felt stale as far as the flow of the Cyrodiil war goes. I'm hoping bringing back cross healing will help and maybe with the less taxing CP system and the new servers they can raise the pop caps again.

Knockmaker

dotme wrote: »

Agree with this - This doesn't feel well thought out at all. Not only are newcomers in Cyrodiil extremely unlikely to get a group, but if you're the 11th or 12th person invited, there's a decent chance you'll get kicked out of the game (And have to re-queue when you relog)

Indeed. In fact, even I have to kick some newcomers out of the group sometimes. Because, even with a full 12-member group of experienced players, it is not easy to siege keeps, let alone with inexperienced players. Sometimes it gets so tricky that you can't even afford to have 1 newcomer in the group. How are we supposed to get new players and/or recruit for our guilds etc.?

A side note: When I say newcomers, I don't necessarily refer to newbies who lack decent CP or anything. Same goes with 810 CP folks who want to check out pvp and Cyrodiil. Even the latter group of people have hard time finding a group now.

Knockmaker

Limiting groups to 12 players has really made clear how low the overall Pop cap for each faction is now. I remember when there were fights all over the map and almost every keep I showed up to had mobs of people. Now if feels like there are 75-80 people max on each alliance at a time and big wild fights that last more than a couple of minutes only happen once or twice an hour.

Glad to know that I wasn't hallucinating about the pop cap, lol. It definitely is lower. What bothers me more is that not only they seem to have done this, but they seem to have done it without any announcement or anything. Then again, I think that would also mean that they cannot actually fix it, so I understand why.

itscompton

Knockmaker wrote: »

Limiting groups to 12 players has really made clear how low the overall Pop cap for each faction is now. I remember when there were fights all over the map and almost every keep I showed up to had mobs of people. Now if feels like there are 75-80 people max on each alliance at a time and big wild fights that last more than a couple of minutes only happen once or twice an hour.

Glad to know that I wasn't hallucinating about the pop cap, lol. It definitely is lower. What bothers me more is that not only they seem to have done this, but they seem to have done it without any announcement or anything. Then again, I think that would also mean that they cannot actually fix it, so I understand why.

That is the reason that the Cyrodiil pop indicator doesn't show actual numbers and they've never officially stated how many people each bar represents. Imagine the outrage it would have caused if they had announced they were cutting the population cap in Cyrodiil from 150 on each alliance to 120, and then 100, and then 80 and still couldn't fix the lag issues.

Knockmaker

After seeing many tiny groups being slaughtered to one ball group yesterday, I believe it is just about time to reiterate the need to revert this unnecessary change.

jle30303

For me one of the most annoying things about Cyrodiil is that each campaign is so LONG. And the result is usually locked-in early on - once one faction gets a big lead, the others might as well give up with 2 weeks to go.

There need to be more campaigns, and shorter campaigns, and the majority should be alliance-locked.

zaria

The group change hurt pugs a lot, an organized group can set up to have healers and various class buffs, not pugs you can not even be sure to have enough siege to take an keep hold by 2-3 enemies.

Worse its way harder to get into an pug as most people who pick up pugs can only pick up 11 rater than 23, this is worse if its an 4-6 man group wanted more numbers.

SgtNuttzmeg

I think this issue was caused by the last set of PVP tests. These tests caused many PVP guilds to die. Alot of these guilds were the more casual zerg oriented guilds that would actively run these open groups every night of the week. These guilds were the cornerstone of getting new players into the game. This combined with the abundance of overtuned proc sets makes PVP far more challenging to enter as traditional PVE setups cannot compete against the free damage created by these procs. Returning the meta to a state that based on stats, reducing some of the overtuned aspects of optimized ball groups (layered healing and the abundance of purge), improving performance and providing some new fresh PVP content would see a lot of players returning to this content. It would also create a far more welcoming place for new PVPers to get involved.

Knockmaker

zaria wrote: »

The group change hurt pugs a lot, an organized group can set up to have healers and various class buffs, not pugs you can not even be sure to have enough siege to take an keep hold by 2-3 enemies.

Worse its way harder to get into an pug as most people who pick up pugs can only pick up 11 rater than 23, this is worse if its an 4-6 man group wanted more numbers.

Yes, I have been keep seeing multiple pugs getting wiped by one medium-sized ball group. Because, most of them don't know how to react to a ball group properly, they miss all of the very few opportunities and they die. They can't learn it either, because how are you going to learn how to do that in such small group if you can't even siege a castle properly?

It is bad for us, too, but it is worse for newcomers. They mostly quit soon after, and we keep seeing a pop-locked campaign with almost nobody to be seen around, which is probably a new way of zos to cover it up. But that's another story.

Knockmaker

SgtNuttzmeg wrote: »

I think this issue was caused by the last set of PVP tests. These tests caused many PVP guilds to die. Alot of these guilds were the more casual zerg oriented guilds that would actively run these open groups every night of the week. These guilds were the cornerstone of getting new players into the game. This combined with the abundance of overtuned proc sets makes PVP far more challenging to enter as traditional PVE setups cannot compete against the free damage created by these procs. Returning the meta to a state that based on stats, reducing some of the overtuned aspects of optimized ball groups (layered healing and the abundance of purge), improving performance and providing some new fresh PVP content would see a lot of players returning to this content. It would also create a far more welcoming place for new PVPers to get involved.

True that. I don't know why Zos insists on this, but this change only favored the ball groups. Nobody else ever benefited from this change I think. They could at least increase the group size to 18 if not 24. I believe they are planning to eventually focus on pvp for real, once they are done with pushing new content this year and fixing the bugs which will come with it, but I am afraid it will be way too late by then.

Knockmaker

Now that group size has been reduced for pve as well, I think it is now the time to reiterate the need to revert this fallacy and raise our voices both as pvp and pve players together here.

There is simply no logic to this irrational change nor a noticeable performance improvement that has come with it.