Ball Groups: A National Concern

Sandman929

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Lets say that we see Aleswell is UA by the entirety of the EP faction (there's no fight anywhere between AD and EP) We might choose to hit Chal or Arrius to draw EP faction players away from that battle to lessen the lag on the server.

You might, many groups do not. Because of the hopeless defensive advantage a ball group has over the rest of Cyrodiil, more and more ball groups are avoided and that pushes those groups to the frontline looking for a fight, same as the zerg.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

your second point regarding

Sandman929 wrote: »

You say all players have to deal with lag, and that's true, but you say it as though all players are experiencing lag at the same time in the same way, which is disingenuous to me. As I've said, I've had fights that I thought were very good fights with low lag and successful kills against greater numbers, but when I see those fights from the POV of solo players or small groups within the zerg I see a completely different experience as they get killed by the lag that I didn't experience during the fight.

You can go back to my post history where I've explained why players not in groups generally experience more lag than those in groups.. player loading and skill animations.. (i'm fairly sure its been on posts we have both commented on). I'm not denying this. I also don't think that's a problem that should be blamed on the groups involved as the only fix to it is to disband.

It isn't to be blamed on groups, aside from the blame of knowingly taking advantage of that lag. I don't see how that is different than taking advantage of, and defending the use of any exploit. If you acknowledge that the ungrouped players are at a disadvantage because they are dealing with more lag the the ballgroup, how is this a fair fight? How is this good gameplay? How can I possibly claim that we outfought greater numbers when those greater numbers are dying because they are crippled by lag?
I've said before that when a good ball group dies, it's usually due to bad luck/lag. And we complain about it, same as everyone else, that lag killed us, but refuse to admit that we kill thanks to lag. We lag the zerg until the zerg lags us...what a fun and incredible PvP experience.

I do think there is much that can be done to bring better balance, and I think it starts with bringing organized groups down several notches, defensively via HoT stacking and group purging.

Sanct16

Sandman929 wrote: »

Having been on both sides of the equation, I just wish others were more willing to take ownership of what they're really doing without just claiming their greatness is the reason they're doing well.

Do you want to imply that the lag helps ball groups?

While someone might feel like they are dieing to lag and an unperformant game when fighting a ballgroup, in reality the lag is the only reason why he didn't die earlier.

Sandman929

Sanct16 wrote: »

Sandman929 wrote: »

Having been on both sides of the equation, I just wish others were more willing to take ownership of what they're really doing without just claiming their greatness is the reason they're doing well.

Do you want to imply that the lag helps ball groups?

While someone might feel like they are dieing to lag and an unperformant game when fighting a ballgroup, in reality the lag is the only reason why he didn't die earlier.

I'm not implying it, I'm stating it as a fact. Lag helps and hurts both zerg and ball groups. I've been on the outside edge of an ulti drop to know that CC break didn't work, or I've been stunned through CC immunity. When you're on the edge, you don't always die, but you get to experience the lag created during an offensive push. Ego might tell you otherwise, but many people die because a lag spike was created and prevented them from acting, not because of all the amazing skill of the group.

Mamba

This has been a good read this morning. Has provided lots of laughs reading this circle conversation that is going on for the 10000000000000 time regarding ball groups " using lag" to kill people. Everyone wants to complain about ball groups after they die to them over and over. But then turn around and also complain when we take steps to stay away from the front line fights to avoid and the lag and help spread out the population.

Soul_Demon

Sandman929 wrote: »

Sanct16 wrote: »

Sandman929 wrote: »

Having been on both sides of the equation, I just wish others were more willing to take ownership of what they're really doing without just claiming their greatness is the reason they're doing well.

Do you want to imply that the lag helps ball groups?

While someone might feel like they are dieing to lag and an unperformant game when fighting a ballgroup, in reality the lag is the only reason why he didn't die earlier.

I'm not implying it, I'm stating it as a fact. Lag helps and hurts both zerg and ball groups. I've been on the outside edge of an ulti drop to know that CC break didn't work, or I've been stunned through CC immunity. When you're on the edge, you don't always die, but you get to experience the lag created during an offensive push. Ego might tell you otherwise, but many people die because a lag spike was created and prevented them from acting, not because of all the amazing skill of the group.

Seems to me the logic here is that if ball groups AND players say they are experiencing lag (some say more for ball groups) then why consistently push back against a suggestion that maybe, just maybe .....fixing the global immunity could improve game-play when the game is lagging its worst......its not like most posters have already stated they are well aware they are not functioning properly and to keep pushing to look elsewhere for ways to improve playability seems a distraction, and a self serving one at that.

Sandman929

Mamba wrote: »

This has been a good read this morning. Has provided lots of laughs reading this circle conversation that is going on for the 10000000000000 time regarding ball groups " using lag" to kill people. Everyone wants to complain about ball groups after they die to them over and over. But then turn around and also complain when we take steps to stay away from the front line fights to avoid and the lag and help spread out the population.

What I'm saying is that, as someone who has played in ballgroups, I've seen the lag we created. I've seen fights from the perspective of players we've killed and seen the lag created. I'm also saying that I won't deny that it's happening and that it's a problem. You're free to say otherwise in defense of something you enjoy.
Also, as far as the noble "bringing the fight away from the front" argument. Whenever we take a keep off the front lines, we're doing so with the hope that the zerg will come to us...this isn't some noble gesture to spread out the population, the whole point of the ballgroup is to fight a zerg. I'm not hoping to peel off 12-20, I want them all to come. That just moves the lag to a different keep where I already have a defensive advantage rather than trying to take a keep on the front lines where I don't.
It's done to fight on our terms, not to benevolently ease the lag of the server.

Sandman929

Soul_Demon wrote: »

Sandman929 wrote: »

Sanct16 wrote: »

Sandman929 wrote: »

Having been on both sides of the equation, I just wish others were more willing to take ownership of what they're really doing without just claiming their greatness is the reason they're doing well.

Do you want to imply that the lag helps ball groups?

While someone might feel like they are dieing to lag and an unperformant game when fighting a ballgroup, in reality the lag is the only reason why he didn't die earlier.

I'm not implying it, I'm stating it as a fact. Lag helps and hurts both zerg and ball groups. I've been on the outside edge of an ulti drop to know that CC break didn't work, or I've been stunned through CC immunity. When you're on the edge, you don't always die, but you get to experience the lag created during an offensive push. Ego might tell you otherwise, but many people die because a lag spike was created and prevented them from acting, not because of all the amazing skill of the group.

Seems to me the logic here is that if ball groups AND players say they are experiencing lag (some say more for ball groups) then why consistently push back against a suggestion that maybe, just maybe .....fixing the global immunity could improve game-play when the game is lagging its worst......its not like most posters have already stated they are well aware they are not functioning properly and to keep pushing to look elsewhere for ways to improve playability seems a distraction, and a self serving one at that.

Sadly, asking for functioning CC immunity is as old as the game itself.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

Mamba wrote: »

This has been a good read this morning. Has provided lots of laughs reading this circle conversation that is going on for the 10000000000000 time regarding ball groups " using lag" to kill people. Everyone wants to complain about ball groups after they die to them over and over. But then turn around and also complain when we take steps to stay away from the front line fights to avoid and the lag and help spread out the population.

Sadly, asking for ball group nerfs is as old as the game itself too



@Sandman929 Lets say ZOS implements all your desired measures to lessen the effectiveness of ball groups. Based on this assumption, and that players would stay and instead of making a ball group just make a zerg group and frontline stack instead. Do you think the lag, CC responsiveness due to bugs and general cyrodiil gameplay would be better or worse than it is currently?

Sandman929

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Mamba wrote: »

This has been a good read this morning. Has provided lots of laughs reading this circle conversation that is going on for the 10000000000000 time regarding ball groups " using lag" to kill people. Everyone wants to complain about ball groups after they die to them over and over. But then turn around and also complain when we take steps to stay away from the front line fights to avoid and the lag and help spread out the population.

Sadly, asking for ball group nerfs is as old as the game itself.



@Sandman929 Lets say ZOS implements all your desired measures to lessen the effectiveness of ball groups. Based on this assumption, and that players would stay and instead of making a ball group just make a zerg group and frontline stack instead. Do you think the lag, CC responsiveness due to bugs and general cyrodiil gameplay would be better or worse than it is currently?

Here's the thing, I'm not directly asking for ball group nerfs. I'm saying that stacking HoTs and group purging is defensively imbalanced and effectively reduces the effectiveness of siege to zero (which I don't think is ZOS's vision), and enables groups who use these mechanics well to be defensively too strong against far greater numbers (which I also think isn't something ZOS would want).
As with any other imbalance, whether it's a class skill or a set, if the only good counter is do use the imbalance yourself or pray for rain (lucky lag), then it's not an imbalance that should continue. Indirectly, this is a group meta nerf, but that's because the meta is obviously to take advantage of these mechanics.
Nothing seems to make Cyrodiil lag better, and often "worse" is a matter that varies from night to night.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

Sandman929 wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Mamba wrote: »

This has been a good read this morning. Has provided lots of laughs reading this circle conversation that is going on for the 10000000000000 time regarding ball groups " using lag" to kill people. Everyone wants to complain about ball groups after they die to them over and over. But then turn around and also complain when we take steps to stay away from the front line fights to avoid and the lag and help spread out the population.

Sadly, asking for ball group nerfs is as old as the game itself.



@Sandman929 Lets say ZOS implements all your desired measures to lessen the effectiveness of ball groups. Based on this assumption, and that players would stay and instead of making a ball group just make a zerg group and frontline stack instead. Do you think the lag, CC responsiveness due to bugs and general cyrodiil gameplay would be better or worse than it is currently?

Here's the thing, I'm not directly asking for ball group nerfs. I'm saying that stacking HoTs and group purging is defensively imbalanced and effectively reduces the effectiveness of siege to zero (which I don't think is ZOS's vision), and enables groups who use these mechanics well to be defensively too strong against far greater numbers (which I also think isn't something ZOS would want).
As with any other imbalance, whether it's a class skill or a set, if the only good counter is do use the imbalance yourself or pray for rain (lucky lag), then it's not an imbalance that should continue. Indirectly, this is a group meta nerf, but that's because the meta is obviously to take advantage of these mechanics.
Nothing seems to make Cyrodiil lag better, and often "worse" is a matter that varies from night to night.

For me this didn't answer the question I posed. Perhaps you can rephrase it if you intended to answer it by this response. Unless the answer was simply ballgroups don't affect lag because 'Nothing seems to make Cyrodiil lag better'


Also I mention desired measures to lessen the effectiveness of ballgroups directly because of this comment from your above posts:

Sandman929 wrote: »

I think it starts with bringing organized groups down several notches, defensively via HoT stacking and group purging.

Mamba

You do realize the one of the main reason siege has close to zero effect on ball groups is that we are very good at constantly moving and not just sitting still while we get hit by cold fire on repeat. Complaining about groups being able to purge is one of the oldest complaint I have heard in eso. If you don't want groups to use purge then there needs to be a major rework of how debuffs and dots work.

Sandman929

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Sandman929 wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Mamba wrote: »

This has been a good read this morning. Has provided lots of laughs reading this circle conversation that is going on for the 10000000000000 time regarding ball groups " using lag" to kill people. Everyone wants to complain about ball groups after they die to them over and over. But then turn around and also complain when we take steps to stay away from the front line fights to avoid and the lag and help spread out the population.

Sadly, asking for ball group nerfs is as old as the game itself.



@Sandman929 Lets say ZOS implements all your desired measures to lessen the effectiveness of ball groups. Based on this assumption, and that players would stay and instead of making a ball group just make a zerg group and frontline stack instead. Do you think the lag, CC responsiveness due to bugs and general cyrodiil gameplay would be better or worse than it is currently?

Here's the thing, I'm not directly asking for ball group nerfs. I'm saying that stacking HoTs and group purging is defensively imbalanced and effectively reduces the effectiveness of siege to zero (which I don't think is ZOS's vision), and enables groups who use these mechanics well to be defensively too strong against far greater numbers (which I also think isn't something ZOS would want).
As with any other imbalance, whether it's a class skill or a set, if the only good counter is do use the imbalance yourself or pray for rain (lucky lag), then it's not an imbalance that should continue. Indirectly, this is a group meta nerf, but that's because the meta is obviously to take advantage of these mechanics.
Nothing seems to make Cyrodiil lag better, and often "worse" is a matter that varies from night to night.

For me this didn't answer the question I posed. Perhaps you can rephrase it if you intended to answer it by this response.

Also I mention desired measures to lessen the effectiveness of ballgroups directly because of this comment from your above posts:

Sandman929 wrote: »

I think it starts with bringing organized groups down several notches, defensively via HoT stacking and group purging.

I don't know if changing HoT stacking or group purging will positively or negatively effect lag. I thought group only healing was going to do it, but was wrong on that one. Reducing lag isn't the point of asking for those mechanics to be addressed.
As for "general Cyrodiil gameplay"...I don't really know what that means, but I think general Cyrodiil gameplay will always eventually be a faction stack at a keep. If I had to describe Cyrodiil gameplay, at primetime especially, I would describe a faction stack at a keep.

I don't think ball groups make that general experience better or worse, and from the perspective of solo player a ballgroup is the same as a zerg, and they experience the same performance in the presence of either because to be in the presence of one usually means the other is around too.

Sandman929

Mamba wrote: »

You do realize the one of the main reason siege has close to zero effect on ball groups is that we are very good at constantly moving and not just sitting still while we get hit by cold fire on repeat. Complaining about groups being able to purge is one of the oldest complaint I have heard in eso. If you don't want groups to use purge then there needs to be a major rework of how debuffs and dots work.

I do..if you've been reading you'd see that I'm well aware of how to play in a ball group. I've also sat on a flag and let the zerg attempt to siege and bomb us to no avail without needing to move at all (except to occasionally counter negate), being able to do that is all the proof I need to understand the imbalance created by stacking HoTs and group purge.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

Sandman929 wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Sandman929 wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Mamba wrote: »

This has been a good read this morning. Has provided lots of laughs reading this circle conversation that is going on for the 10000000000000 time regarding ball groups " using lag" to kill people. Everyone wants to complain about ball groups after they die to them over and over. But then turn around and also complain when we take steps to stay away from the front line fights to avoid and the lag and help spread out the population.

Sadly, asking for ball group nerfs is as old as the game itself.



@Sandman929 Lets say ZOS implements all your desired measures to lessen the effectiveness of ball groups. Based on this assumption, and that players would stay and instead of making a ball group just make a zerg group and frontline stack instead. Do you think the lag, CC responsiveness due to bugs and general cyrodiil gameplay would be better or worse than it is currently?

Here's the thing, I'm not directly asking for ball group nerfs. I'm saying that stacking HoTs and group purging is defensively imbalanced and effectively reduces the effectiveness of siege to zero (which I don't think is ZOS's vision), and enables groups who use these mechanics well to be defensively too strong against far greater numbers (which I also think isn't something ZOS would want).
As with any other imbalance, whether it's a class skill or a set, if the only good counter is do use the imbalance yourself or pray for rain (lucky lag), then it's not an imbalance that should continue. Indirectly, this is a group meta nerf, but that's because the meta is obviously to take advantage of these mechanics.
Nothing seems to make Cyrodiil lag better, and often "worse" is a matter that varies from night to night.

For me this didn't answer the question I posed. Perhaps you can rephrase it if you intended to answer it by this response.

Also I mention desired measures to lessen the effectiveness of ballgroups directly because of this comment from your above posts:

Sandman929 wrote: »

I think it starts with bringing organized groups down several notches, defensively via HoT stacking and group purging.

I don't know if changing HoT stacking or group purging will positively or negatively effect lag. I thought group only healing was going to do it, but was wrong on that one. Reducing lag isn't the point of asking for those mechanics to be addressed.
As for "general Cyrodiil gameplay"...I don't really know what that means, but I think general Cyrodiil gameplay will always eventually be a faction stack at a keep. If I had to describe Cyrodiil gameplay, at primetime especially, I would describe a faction stack at a keep.

I don't think ball groups make that general experience better or worse, and from the perspective of solo player a ballgroup is the same as a zerg, and they experience the same performance in the presence of either because to be in the presence of one usually means the other is around too.

The discussion on the last 2 or 3 pages has been how ball groups supposedly intentionally make use of skills to cause worse performance, but now you are stating that groups don't cause this problem. So I assume your viewpoint has changed now?

I would also make the argument that at least when its a ball group at a back keep I disconnect less trying to get there as a solo player than I do going to a frontline faction stack fight.

Sandman929

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Sandman929 wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Sandman929 wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Mamba wrote: »

This has been a good read this morning. Has provided lots of laughs reading this circle conversation that is going on for the 10000000000000 time regarding ball groups " using lag" to kill people. Everyone wants to complain about ball groups after they die to them over and over. But then turn around and also complain when we take steps to stay away from the front line fights to avoid and the lag and help spread out the population.

Sadly, asking for ball group nerfs is as old as the game itself.



@Sandman929 Lets say ZOS implements all your desired measures to lessen the effectiveness of ball groups. Based on this assumption, and that players would stay and instead of making a ball group just make a zerg group and frontline stack instead. Do you think the lag, CC responsiveness due to bugs and general cyrodiil gameplay would be better or worse than it is currently?

Here's the thing, I'm not directly asking for ball group nerfs. I'm saying that stacking HoTs and group purging is defensively imbalanced and effectively reduces the effectiveness of siege to zero (which I don't think is ZOS's vision), and enables groups who use these mechanics well to be defensively too strong against far greater numbers (which I also think isn't something ZOS would want).
As with any other imbalance, whether it's a class skill or a set, if the only good counter is do use the imbalance yourself or pray for rain (lucky lag), then it's not an imbalance that should continue. Indirectly, this is a group meta nerf, but that's because the meta is obviously to take advantage of these mechanics.
Nothing seems to make Cyrodiil lag better, and often "worse" is a matter that varies from night to night.

For me this didn't answer the question I posed. Perhaps you can rephrase it if you intended to answer it by this response.

Also I mention desired measures to lessen the effectiveness of ballgroups directly because of this comment from your above posts:

Sandman929 wrote: »

I think it starts with bringing organized groups down several notches, defensively via HoT stacking and group purging.

I don't know if changing HoT stacking or group purging will positively or negatively effect lag. I thought group only healing was going to do it, but was wrong on that one. Reducing lag isn't the point of asking for those mechanics to be addressed.
As for "general Cyrodiil gameplay"...I don't really know what that means, but I think general Cyrodiil gameplay will always eventually be a faction stack at a keep. If I had to describe Cyrodiil gameplay, at primetime especially, I would describe a faction stack at a keep.

I don't think ball groups make that general experience better or worse, and from the perspective of solo player a ballgroup is the same as a zerg, and they experience the same performance in the presence of either because to be in the presence of one usually means the other is around too.

The discussion on the last 2 or 3 pages has been how ball groups supposedly intentionally make use of skills to cause worse performance, but now you are stating that groups don't cause this problem. So I assume your viewpoint has changed now?

I would also make the argument that at least when its a ball group at a back keep I disconnect less trying to get there as a solo player than I do going to a frontline faction stack fight.

Well, we've sort of diverged from the original point about some AOE spasm that groups create into a separate point I've discussed before about defensively imbalanced mechanics. Probably my fault for drifting away from the OP. I don't know what an AOE spasm is.

I do think the discussion about group meta should be focused on the two mechanics I brought up. And it's almost distracting to keep pointing to "ball groups", whatever that means in everyone's mind might be different things. A group, like a single player setup, has a group meta that makes the group the strongest it can be and this is what most ball groups are chasing. What I believe most people object to when it comes to that meta is the defensive strength...the great lengths it takes to cut through those defenses.
I don't know many people who don't think coordinated damage should kill them.

Soul_Demon

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Sandman929 wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Sandman929 wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Mamba wrote: »

This has been a good read this morning. Has provided lots of laughs reading this circle conversation that is going on for the 10000000000000 time regarding ball groups " using lag" to kill people. Everyone wants to complain about ball groups after they die to them over and over. But then turn around and also complain when we take steps to stay away from the front line fights to avoid and the lag and help spread out the population.

Sadly, asking for ball group nerfs is as old as the game itself.



@Sandman929 Lets say ZOS implements all your desired measures to lessen the effectiveness of ball groups. Based on this assumption, and that players would stay and instead of making a ball group just make a zerg group and frontline stack instead. Do you think the lag, CC responsiveness due to bugs and general cyrodiil gameplay would be better or worse than it is currently?

Here's the thing, I'm not directly asking for ball group nerfs. I'm saying that stacking HoTs and group purging is defensively imbalanced and effectively reduces the effectiveness of siege to zero (which I don't think is ZOS's vision), and enables groups who use these mechanics well to be defensively too strong against far greater numbers (which I also think isn't something ZOS would want).
As with any other imbalance, whether it's a class skill or a set, if the only good counter is do use the imbalance yourself or pray for rain (lucky lag), then it's not an imbalance that should continue. Indirectly, this is a group meta nerf, but that's because the meta is obviously to take advantage of these mechanics.
Nothing seems to make Cyrodiil lag better, and often "worse" is a matter that varies from night to night.

For me this didn't answer the question I posed. Perhaps you can rephrase it if you intended to answer it by this response.

Also I mention desired measures to lessen the effectiveness of ballgroups directly because of this comment from your above posts:

Sandman929 wrote: »

I think it starts with bringing organized groups down several notches, defensively via HoT stacking and group purging.

I don't know if changing HoT stacking or group purging will positively or negatively effect lag. I thought group only healing was going to do it, but was wrong on that one. Reducing lag isn't the point of asking for those mechanics to be addressed.
As for "general Cyrodiil gameplay"...I don't really know what that means, but I think general Cyrodiil gameplay will always eventually be a faction stack at a keep. If I had to describe Cyrodiil gameplay, at primetime especially, I would describe a faction stack at a keep.

I don't think ball groups make that general experience better or worse, and from the perspective of solo player a ballgroup is the same as a zerg, and they experience the same performance in the presence of either because to be in the presence of one usually means the other is around too.

The discussion on the last 2 or 3 pages has been how ball groups supposedly intentionally make use of skills to cause worse performance, but now you are stating that groups don't cause this problem. So I assume your viewpoint has changed now?

I would also make the argument that at least when its a ball group at a back keep I disconnect less trying to get there as a solo player than I do going to a frontline faction stack fight.

I cant possibly tell you what you read into the posts but that isn't what I see being discussed at all. The discussion was regarding what skills caused worsening lag and tended to malfunction during lag and the number of times some used those skills. Since then we have gone from saying there is a 5 second cool down so its just not possible to agreeing that indeed those functions with cc's in particular were not working properly. We have nicely distanced from the original portion where the claims were that the 5 sec immunity worked to now focus being shifted to what else might be the issues and what warrants the most attention. There was a little bit in there when groups basically stated they were impacted more by lag so they are not really to blame for lag since they suffered more than anyone else from it- how superior their skills are so most players would be dead much sooner if it were not for lag and how they are caring for the community in selfless way to position themselves at keeps out of the way.

Now, it seems we are merely discussing what the most important problem in the game would be to address playability for the greatest number of players.

Mr_Gallows

The only real solution to ball big balls is being able to aoe them with greater force.

CrustyCroco

It's a bit hard to get to the point of what people are saying, what organised groups do wrong. Some say, they intentionally create lag to kill their enemies. Some say, it's just a byproduct of their gameplay etc.
I also don't really get the people playing in "organised groups" but not "ballgroups" what's so much better or different about it regarding lag and balance. Would be helpful to get clear definitions of those terms.

If a 12 man group spamming abilities were that a big of a reason for lag as many people say here, every pve trial would have a lot more problems.
Even 12v12/24 GvGs can be made without lagging, if the server isn't under too much stress already.
When we start raiding, there is not that much of lag in the beginning ~1hour (usually AD 2bars; ep and dc locked). The more it becomes primetime with all the 3 alliances locked, the lags increases. I know this is subjective tho and there is no way for anyone to prove stuff like this to say that X or Y were the main reason for lag, just because of their own experience.
For me playing in an organised group, it's much easier to play without lag, than with lag btw.

That being said tho, yes, usually the players of an organised group use some "over time" (deto, destro, synergies etc) skills and "instant" skills (sap, tornado, fear etc) timed on pushes, so that a lot of info has to be transferred at the same time, which doesn't help performance at all, if it's bad already.
But that's also what they are doing without lag, noone really goes out of their way to abuse the lag. Lag rather causes the group to play more carefully, because some nasty stuns+ debuffs + negates can mess up a lot, if breaking free and using skills is heavily delayed. If I'm thinking about setups, I always keep in mind, if it's even useful to use in lag. Most reactionary skills are bad, if in lag your group gets caught off guard. That's one (of other) reason the hots are preferred a lot over direct healing atm.
And that's also a reason, why, while lag impacts groups (sometimes even more fatally) as well as zergs, usually the group has the upper hand. Their pushes are organised, defensive is planned accordingly in advance and desync makes engages more surprising at times. Since there are rarely organised engages from zergs, the group doesn't struggle as much usually, if they use the defensive tools to work around that (hello immovable pots, snare removal/ immunity skills etc).
The pots for getting immunity against hard cc give ~10sec immunity. The biggest difference here is, that the group is most vulnerable on/after their own push, where they can use these skills in advance to counter the delayed casts. And the "solo" player most of the time can only use it reactionary, which usually is too late in lag (yes, I played the other side too). This happens to the groups too tho, if they get caught by a slightly organised push that they aren't prepared for.

Performance will be a problem, as long as the active combat system is like this (what we like and mainly play the game for tho). Many players on a spot will create lag, just because of how the skills are coded, some more, some less. Almost every used skill has to make a lot of checks in the surrounding. Even just using single target skills like snipe has to make calculations of the locations of all the possible targets around, just for the "action combat" targeting and using all the stats for the damage calculation. Here we also don't even know, what other infos are getting transferred to make a skill hitting the right player possible.
The more enemies around, the more checks are being made. Same as for the "solo" healer who has 40 possible targets when casting a smart cast heal, checking every player's health just to hit the one in range with the lowest health. This is a big reason, why these skills were also considered as AoE skills in the tests.
But even just being there, casting nothing, will put some stress on the servers, just because you are a possible target for friendly and enemy skills. Your position to another player, your stats, everything is checked constantly by your side and by the each other player's side.
Here some of the disliked "aoe" skill may not even be that bad, even if they are able to hit several targets. Usually their range is much lower, so the target checks are a lot less. But like i said, we just don't really know about what skills impact performace to what amount. In my opinion it's more about a combination of using skills that do target checks (which almost every skill does) with a lot of players around.
The individual playstyle only plays a secondary role, even tho (again) casting a lot of them at the same time while the performance is already bad, is probably making it worse for some duration.

So pointing fingers at people playing organised, in zerg or whatever is not the solution to solve the performance issue.
The design of Cyrodiil making the casual player moving from one keep to the next and attracting players who want to be in big fights and fight outnumbered, together with how targetting and skill calculations work in big stacks of friendlies and enemies, is imo a combination of reasons why the lag didn't get solved year after year after year.

This wall of text was just aiming at the performance part of the discussion btw.
For the balance part, of how strong or not strong group play should be possible or rewarded it's even more subjective and more about a decision by the persons who run these parts.
Nerf groupplay -> more zerging (including most groups then) is what everyone should keep in mind here tho, resulting in stuff nobody initially wanted.

Joy_Division

Sandman929 wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Sandman929 wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Mamba wrote: »

This has been a good read this morning. Has provided lots of laughs reading this circle conversation that is going on for the 10000000000000 time regarding ball groups " using lag" to kill people. Everyone wants to complain about ball groups after they die to them over and over. But then turn around and also complain when we take steps to stay away from the front line fights to avoid and the lag and help spread out the population.

Sadly, asking for ball group nerfs is as old as the game itself.



@Sandman929 Lets say ZOS implements all your desired measures to lessen the effectiveness of ball groups. Based on this assumption, and that players would stay and instead of making a ball group just make a zerg group and frontline stack instead. Do you think the lag, CC responsiveness due to bugs and general cyrodiil gameplay would be better or worse than it is currently?

Here's the thing, I'm not directly asking for ball group nerfs. I'm saying that stacking HoTs and group purging is defensively imbalanced and effectively reduces the effectiveness of siege to zero (which I don't think is ZOS's vision), and enables groups who use these mechanics well to be defensively too strong against far greater numbers (which I also think isn't something ZOS would want).
As with any other imbalance, whether it's a class skill or a set, if the only good counter is do use the imbalance yourself or pray for rain (lucky lag), then it's not an imbalance that should continue. Indirectly, this is a group meta nerf, but that's because the meta is obviously to take advantage of these mechanics.
Nothing seems to make Cyrodiil lag better, and often "worse" is a matter that varies from night to night.

For me this didn't answer the question I posed. Perhaps you can rephrase it if you intended to answer it by this response.

Also I mention desired measures to lessen the effectiveness of ballgroups directly because of this comment from your above posts:

Sandman929 wrote: »

I think it starts with bringing organized groups down several notches, defensively via HoT stacking and group purging.

I don't know if changing HoT stacking or group purging will positively or negatively effect lag.

Neither. ESO lags because of deeper rooted problems (whether old servers, bad code, failure to implement standard anti-cheating measures and thus dumpling so much server side, etc.), which is why none of the tests they have run made much of a difference.

I thought group only healing was going to do it, but was wrong on that one.

You were rather optimistic.

Reducing lag isn't the point of asking for those mechanics to be addressed.

Maybe for you. A lot of people specifically cite this as a big point. Unless they are not being honest and disingenuously citing lag so as to make their argument more palatable.

As for "general Cyrodiil gameplay"...I don't really know what that means, but I think general Cyrodiil gameplay will always eventually be a faction stack at a keep.

You are probably correct here. And it's quite possible this would get worse if these mechanics you are asking for get implemented. If ZOS simply removes group purge and prevents HoTs from stacking without also adjusting the ridiculously high number and potency of the negative status effects and damage incoming, the pendulum will be jerked to the other extreme such that would probably make the 12 person LFGs actually worse than 12 randoms since they would lack the tools they need to do things like take defended keeps while under duress from oils, meatbags, AoE spam, etc. They would be more of an asset to their faction by disbanding and doing things that are not beyond their means.

The better organized groups would be better at adapting, but I'd imagine there would be serious decline in participation because it's no fun for the game designers to say "take Arrius with your 12" and be subjected to siege that has been buffed numerous times because the Purge skill exists, leave frustrating skills like Bombard in the game, and allowing 30 defenders damage to stack but not the 12's heals.

Also as much as the small scalers decry stacking HoTs, when their little groups of 4 run around resource towers, they, like the larger organized groups, stack beneficial effects as a means to fight the 20 chasing them around. This very much might be an instance of be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.

In any event, there would be an absolute decline in "ball group" participants, which means they're now stuck playing a map whose only objectives are keep oriented. So many of them are going to join the faction stacks wherever they are because that's the way they have been playing the game for 7 years.

So, yep, we'll have the faction stacks at a keep, but more so than it is now.

I don't think ball groups make that general experience better or worse, and from the perspective of solo player a ballgroup is the same as a zerg, and they experience the same performance in the presence of either because to be in the presence of one usually means the other is around too.

I'm not sure I agree that when it's just me; i.e., which of the two I'd rather fight against, a "ball group" or a zerg. When I run into a "ball group" I know that the skills I use are pretty much not going to have any effect whatsoever and it will take a concerted (and coincidental) herculean effort by masses of unorganized players to finally dispatch them. In short, ESO's equivalent of a root canal.

If I run into a faction "stack," well, they aren't really stacked since there isn't a crown and they operate independently of each other. They're not getting purged, their DDs often have selfish as opposed to group heals, and they're not coordinating CCs with mass ulti dumps so it's much easier to be aggressive against them. In short, your skills will have a perceptible and lasting affect on the targets you use them against and it's not hard at all to secure kills against them.

I'd much rather fight the latter.

Mr_Gallows

I don't think organized groups do anything wrong as such, but it would be better for gameplay if nore tactical movement was preferred because big balls would get punished harder by aoe.

CrustyCroco

Mr_Gallows wrote: »

I don't think organized groups do anything wrong as such, but it would be better for gameplay if nore tactical movement was preferred because big balls would get punished harder by aoe.

So, what group are you talking about here exactly? Because groups are very different to each other.
Some want to stay below 10 people. Some limit at 12. Some take everything they can find and form several groups.
Some of these then try to find their own fights, some move with their faction from one keep to the other.

For my raid i can tell you, that a lot of tactical movement is needed fighting outnumbered.
Also drawing the lines between "solo" players in a zerg, a player joining an unorganised group, a player joining a semi-organised group and a player joining a fully organised group is very hard. The lines are blurred and opinions about it are very subjective again.

Mr_Gallows

CrustyCroco wrote: »

Mr_Gallows wrote: »

I don't think organized groups do anything wrong as such, but it would be better for gameplay if nore tactical movement was preferred because big balls would get punished harder by aoe.

So, what group are you talking about here exactly? Because groups are very different to each other.
Some want to stay below 10 people. Some limit at 12. Some take everything they can find and form several groups.
Some of these then try to find their own fights, some move with their faction from one keep to the other.

For my raid i can tell you, that a lot of tactical movement is needed fighting outnumbered.
Also drawing the lines between "solo" players in a zerg, a player joining an unorganised group, a player joining a semi-organised group and a player joining a fully organised group is very hard. The lines are blurred and opinions about it are very subjective again.

I prefer 12 or less too, but that doesn't make a 48 man attack wrong. I just like the gameplay better between smaller groups.

But it would be nice if aoe was more effective against groups but not against single target. The defensive edge og being abte to use choke points better would be great.

I heard that zos are dropping the megaserver tech, but what that means I do not know. If it's good for performamce, then it's awesome, because sometimes a huge siege can look awesome. From a gameplay perspective however it's not so great, because (if we disregard the lag) it's over too quick. Havibg better defence through aoe doing more damage the more people it hits at once would be great. 10 minutes is just a bit short for a siege and it can be over faster than that.

CrustyCroco

Mr_Gallows wrote: »

CrustyCroco wrote: »

Mr_Gallows wrote: »

I don't think organized groups do anything wrong as such, but it would be better for gameplay if nore tactical movement was preferred because big balls would get punished harder by aoe.

So, what group are you talking about here exactly? Because groups are very different to each other.
Some want to stay below 10 people. Some limit at 12. Some take everything they can find and form several groups.
Some of these then try to find their own fights, some move with their faction from one keep to the other.

For my raid i can tell you, that a lot of tactical movement is needed fighting outnumbered.
Also drawing the lines between "solo" players in a zerg, a player joining an unorganised group, a player joining a semi-organised group and a player joining a fully organised group is very hard. The lines are blurred and opinions about it are very subjective again.

I prefer 12 or less too, but that doesn't make a 48 man attack wrong. I just like the gameplay better between smaller groups.

But it would be nice if aoe was more effective against groups but not against single target. The defensive edge og being abte to use choke points better would be great.

I heard that zos are dropping the megaserver tech, but what that means I do not know. If it's good for performamce, then it's awesome, because sometimes a huge siege can look awesome. From a gameplay perspective however it's not so great, because (if we disregard the lag) it's over too quick. Havibg better defence through aoe doing more damage the more people it hits at once would be great. 10 minutes is just a bit short for a siege and it can be over faster than that.

I don't really mind any playstyle either, to each their own, I played pretty much everything as well.
What you are saying here sounds like there weren't mechanics in the game that support tactical movements and skills already. I agree, that the tactical possibilities while running in a group within the own faction stack are kinda limited and also the group is protected by people around them.
That's the reason why i wanted to make clear, what groups we are talking about.
Because proxy/ inev detos and using chokes is a common strategy being used by groups that try to fight outnumbered, otherwise they would die way faster.
Also aoe damage having (almost) no limit on how many players it hits, is an indirect increase of aoe damage if you compare it to healing and purges. Most of the healing and supporting skills are limited at up to 6 people. So you really want to think about sending more than 6 people into the clash. Especially in GvGs you can see more people dying the more are in the push, what kinda balances smaller groups vs bigger groups to a certain extend, because the smaller group still can have a high impact, if they use the right movement and strategy.

Mr_Gallows

CrustyCroco wrote: »

Mr_Gallows wrote: »

CrustyCroco wrote: »

Mr_Gallows wrote: »

I don't think organized groups do anything wrong as such, but it would be better for gameplay if nore tactical movement was preferred because big balls would get punished harder by aoe.

So, what group are you talking about here exactly? Because groups are very different to each other.
Some want to stay below 10 people. Some limit at 12. Some take everything they can find and form several groups.
Some of these then try to find their own fights, some move with their faction from one keep to the other.

For my raid i can tell you, that a lot of tactical movement is needed fighting outnumbered.
Also drawing the lines between "solo" players in a zerg, a player joining an unorganised group, a player joining a semi-organised group and a player joining a fully organised group is very hard. The lines are blurred and opinions about it are very subjective again.

I prefer 12 or less too, but that doesn't make a 48 man attack wrong. I just like the gameplay better between smaller groups.

But it would be nice if aoe was more effective against groups but not against single target. The defensive edge og being abte to use choke points better would be great.

I heard that zos are dropping the megaserver tech, but what that means I do not know. If it's good for performamce, then it's awesome, because sometimes a huge siege can look awesome. From a gameplay perspective however it's not so great, because (if we disregard the lag) it's over too quick. Havibg better defence through aoe doing more damage the more people it hits at once would be great. 10 minutes is just a bit short for a siege and it can be over faster than that.

I don't really mind any playstyle either, to each their own, I played pretty much everything as well.
What you are saying here sounds like there weren't mechanics in the game that support tactical movements and skills already. I agree, that the tactical possibilities while running in a group within the own faction stack are kinda limited and also the group is protected by people around them.
That's the reason why i wanted to make clear, what groups we are talking about.
Because proxy/ inev detos and using chokes is a common strategy being used by groups that try to fight outnumbered, otherwise they would die way faster.
Also aoe damage having (almost) no limit on how many players it hits, is an indirect increase of aoe damage if you compare it to healing and purges. Most of the healing and supporting skills are limited at up to 6 people. So you really want to think about sending more than 6 people into the clash. Especially in GvGs you can see more people dying the more are in the push, what kinda balances smaller groups vs bigger groups to a certain extend, because the smaller group still can have a high impact, if they use the right movement and strategy.

Yes I agree. Would just like to see it tweaked some more in the right direction. But yeah heals being limited is great. Heals or rather automatic health regen is completely out of whack. When you stack 4k+ health regen the gameplay simply breaks. A hard cap of 2k regen across the board would be great... then it's up to you to decide where you get your regen. While in the current game the health regen CP star makes the issue worse, it is really a great idea, because it means you sacrifice regen to use your ultimate... that's good gameplay. A 2k limit would work well because it balances fine with dots.

DrSlaughtr

Both Extended Ritual and Purge remove too many status effects. Either lower the total number or limit the number of targets maybe?

I'd rather the total number to be reduced to 1 but still hits everyone.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

TheEndBringer wrote: »

Both Extended Ritual and Purge remove too many status effects. Either lower the total number or limit the number of targets maybe?

I'd rather the total number to be reduced to 1 but still hits everyone.

you want to improve cleanse and extended ritual to hit everyone in raid? sounds good to me

Kwoung

TheEndBringer wrote: »

Both Extended Ritual and Purge remove too many status effects. Either lower the total number or limit the number of targets maybe?

I'd rather the total number to be reduced to 1 but still hits everyone.

No thank you. I run purge when solo and I would die in short order pushing in to many keeps if I could only purge 1 effect per second. It is not uncommon to have so many effects ticking away on you it requires multiple purges already.

Imagine 4 oils ticking on you and you only get to purge off 1 per second, what do you put your chances of survival at even if you are getting a ton of random heals from the zerg (most of whom also just melted BTW)?

Soul_Demon

Mr_Gallows wrote: »

CrustyCroco wrote: »

Mr_Gallows wrote: »

CrustyCroco wrote: »

Mr_Gallows wrote: »

I don't think organized groups do anything wrong as such, but it would be better for gameplay if nore tactical movement was preferred because big balls would get punished harder by aoe.

So, what group are you talking about here exactly? Because groups are very different to each other.
Some want to stay below 10 people. Some limit at 12. Some take everything they can find and form several groups.
Some of these then try to find their own fights, some move with their faction from one keep to the other.

For my raid i can tell you, that a lot of tactical movement is needed fighting outnumbered.
Also drawing the lines between "solo" players in a zerg, a player joining an unorganised group, a player joining a semi-organised group and a player joining a fully organised group is very hard. The lines are blurred and opinions about it are very subjective again.

I prefer 12 or less too, but that doesn't make a 48 man attack wrong. I just like the gameplay better between smaller groups.

But it would be nice if aoe was more effective against groups but not against single target. The defensive edge og being abte to use choke points better would be great.

I heard that zos are dropping the megaserver tech, but what that means I do not know. If it's good for performamce, then it's awesome, because sometimes a huge siege can look awesome. From a gameplay perspective however it's not so great, because (if we disregard the lag) it's over too quick. Havibg better defence through aoe doing more damage the more people it hits at once would be great. 10 minutes is just a bit short for a siege and it can be over faster than that.

I don't really mind any playstyle either, to each their own, I played pretty much everything as well.
What you are saying here sounds like there weren't mechanics in the game that support tactical movements and skills already. I agree, that the tactical possibilities while running in a group within the own faction stack are kinda limited and also the group is protected by people around them.
That's the reason why i wanted to make clear, what groups we are talking about.
Because proxy/ inev detos and using chokes is a common strategy being used by groups that try to fight outnumbered, otherwise they would die way faster.
Also aoe damage having (almost) no limit on how many players it hits, is an indirect increase of aoe damage if you compare it to healing and purges. Most of the healing and supporting skills are limited at up to 6 people. So you really want to think about sending more than 6 people into the clash. Especially in GvGs you can see more people dying the more are in the push, what kinda balances smaller groups vs bigger groups to a certain extend, because the smaller group still can have a high impact, if they use the right movement and strategy.

Yes I agree. Would just like to see it tweaked some more in the right direction. But yeah heals being limited is great. Heals or rather automatic health regen is completely out of whack. When you stack 4k+ health regen the gameplay simply breaks. A hard cap of 2k regen across the board would be great... then it's up to you to decide where you get your regen. While in the current game the health regen CP star makes the issue worse, it is really a great idea, because it means you sacrifice regen to use your ultimate... that's good gameplay. A 2k limit would work well because it balances fine with dots.

You could look at that....But I think some of the longstanding bugs and over-heals would be more productive time for ZOS to spend. CC' immunity has been mentioned here and no one who really plays the game is unaware of how devastating it is during lag to have them malfunction so consistently. Fix it---take all your resources and fix that first.

Crash427

Soul_Demon wrote: »

Mr_Gallows wrote: »

CrustyCroco wrote: »

Mr_Gallows wrote: »

CrustyCroco wrote: »

Mr_Gallows wrote: »

I don't think organized groups do anything wrong as such, but it would be better for gameplay if nore tactical movement was preferred because big balls would get punished harder by aoe.

So, what group are you talking about here exactly? Because groups are very different to each other.
Some want to stay below 10 people. Some limit at 12. Some take everything they can find and form several groups.
Some of these then try to find their own fights, some move with their faction from one keep to the other.

For my raid i can tell you, that a lot of tactical movement is needed fighting outnumbered.
Also drawing the lines between "solo" players in a zerg, a player joining an unorganised group, a player joining a semi-organised group and a player joining a fully organised group is very hard. The lines are blurred and opinions about it are very subjective again.

I prefer 12 or less too, but that doesn't make a 48 man attack wrong. I just like the gameplay better between smaller groups.

But it would be nice if aoe was more effective against groups but not against single target. The defensive edge og being abte to use choke points better would be great.

I heard that zos are dropping the megaserver tech, but what that means I do not know. If it's good for performamce, then it's awesome, because sometimes a huge siege can look awesome. From a gameplay perspective however it's not so great, because (if we disregard the lag) it's over too quick. Havibg better defence through aoe doing more damage the more people it hits at once would be great. 10 minutes is just a bit short for a siege and it can be over faster than that.

I don't really mind any playstyle either, to each their own, I played pretty much everything as well.
What you are saying here sounds like there weren't mechanics in the game that support tactical movements and skills already. I agree, that the tactical possibilities while running in a group within the own faction stack are kinda limited and also the group is protected by people around them.
That's the reason why i wanted to make clear, what groups we are talking about.
Because proxy/ inev detos and using chokes is a common strategy being used by groups that try to fight outnumbered, otherwise they would die way faster.
Also aoe damage having (almost) no limit on how many players it hits, is an indirect increase of aoe damage if you compare it to healing and purges. Most of the healing and supporting skills are limited at up to 6 people. So you really want to think about sending more than 6 people into the clash. Especially in GvGs you can see more people dying the more are in the push, what kinda balances smaller groups vs bigger groups to a certain extend, because the smaller group still can have a high impact, if they use the right movement and strategy.

Yes I agree. Would just like to see it tweaked some more in the right direction. But yeah heals being limited is great. Heals or rather automatic health regen is completely out of whack. When you stack 4k+ health regen the gameplay simply breaks. A hard cap of 2k regen across the board would be great... then it's up to you to decide where you get your regen. While in the current game the health regen CP star makes the issue worse, it is really a great idea, because it means you sacrifice regen to use your ultimate... that's good gameplay. A 2k limit would work well because it balances fine with dots.

You could look at that....But I think some of the longstanding bugs and over-heals would be more productive time for ZOS to spend. CC' immunity has been mentioned here and no one who really plays the game is unaware of how devastating it is during lag to have them malfunction so consistently. Fix it---take all your resources and fix that first.

If they could fix it, they would have by now.

Soul_Demon

Crash427 wrote: »

Soul_Demon wrote: »

Mr_Gallows wrote: »

CrustyCroco wrote: »

Mr_Gallows wrote: »

CrustyCroco wrote: »

Mr_Gallows wrote: »

I don't think organized groups do anything wrong as such, but it would be better for gameplay if nore tactical movement was preferred because big balls would get punished harder by aoe.

So, what group are you talking about here exactly? Because groups are very different to each other.
Some want to stay below 10 people. Some limit at 12. Some take everything they can find and form several groups.
Some of these then try to find their own fights, some move with their faction from one keep to the other.

For my raid i can tell you, that a lot of tactical movement is needed fighting outnumbered.
Also drawing the lines between "solo" players in a zerg, a player joining an unorganised group, a player joining a semi-organised group and a player joining a fully organised group is very hard. The lines are blurred and opinions about it are very subjective again.

I prefer 12 or less too, but that doesn't make a 48 man attack wrong. I just like the gameplay better between smaller groups.

But it would be nice if aoe was more effective against groups but not against single target. The defensive edge og being abte to use choke points better would be great.

I heard that zos are dropping the megaserver tech, but what that means I do not know. If it's good for performamce, then it's awesome, because sometimes a huge siege can look awesome. From a gameplay perspective however it's not so great, because (if we disregard the lag) it's over too quick. Havibg better defence through aoe doing more damage the more people it hits at once would be great. 10 minutes is just a bit short for a siege and it can be over faster than that.

I don't really mind any playstyle either, to each their own, I played pretty much everything as well.
What you are saying here sounds like there weren't mechanics in the game that support tactical movements and skills already. I agree, that the tactical possibilities while running in a group within the own faction stack are kinda limited and also the group is protected by people around them.
That's the reason why i wanted to make clear, what groups we are talking about.
Because proxy/ inev detos and using chokes is a common strategy being used by groups that try to fight outnumbered, otherwise they would die way faster.
Also aoe damage having (almost) no limit on how many players it hits, is an indirect increase of aoe damage if you compare it to healing and purges. Most of the healing and supporting skills are limited at up to 6 people. So you really want to think about sending more than 6 people into the clash. Especially in GvGs you can see more people dying the more are in the push, what kinda balances smaller groups vs bigger groups to a certain extend, because the smaller group still can have a high impact, if they use the right movement and strategy.

Yes I agree. Would just like to see it tweaked some more in the right direction. But yeah heals being limited is great. Heals or rather automatic health regen is completely out of whack. When you stack 4k+ health regen the gameplay simply breaks. A hard cap of 2k regen across the board would be great... then it's up to you to decide where you get your regen. While in the current game the health regen CP star makes the issue worse, it is really a great idea, because it means you sacrifice regen to use your ultimate... that's good gameplay. A 2k limit would work well because it balances fine with dots.

You could look at that....But I think some of the longstanding bugs and over-heals would be more productive time for ZOS to spend. CC' immunity has been mentioned here and no one who really plays the game is unaware of how devastating it is during lag to have them malfunction so consistently. Fix it---take all your resources and fix that first.

If they could fix it, they would have by now.

I understand why you might think that way....but to be honest I don't believe they take any action whatsoever until they have some semblance of community consensus on what the issues are. Now, I don't think anyone really knows how they make those decisions or who they would even speak to- or even where they get feedback from.

But, I feel its safe to say for as long as the community feedback in forums is focused around multiple pitches for particular playstyles to be buffed/nerfed rather than in game issues that directly impact the largest portion of the players----absolutely nothing is more likely to be being done in the background. I would think the only vehicle the players really have at this point is overwhelming numbers of statements in forums calling for things to even have a chance to be looked at now.

Could be wrong, but I think you are being really, really generous assuming they put a lot of time and effort into anything like this from a few mentions here and there over the years. Something tells me that is highly unlikely.