12 person group limit? Whaaaaaat?

DreadDaedroth

This change is badly thought. Standardisation is not the way.

gariondavey

Bad change. So thoughtless to player base.

JoeCapricorn

I sure hope Patch 7.03 has a note saying they reverted this stupid, non-beneficial, harmful and ridiculous change.

DerAlleinTiger

Last night was a perfect example for my guild of how this change would be absolutely disastrous for us. It's a very large RP guild, one of the largest ones for Khajiit/Elsweyr RP on the NA server, and last night we had a cross-guild event with not one but two other RP guilds. Both of them are trying to get up and off their feet, with one of them being so brand new that they don't even have enough people for a guild bank or tabard yet. Still, we like supporting new guilds in the Khajiit/Elsweyr RP sphere, and this was one of our best ways of doing that. While their guilds are smaller, combined they made up a solid third to half of the total group (depending on the time of the evening, this event went on for hours last night).

My own guild showed out in force, but accounting for people being at work, getting to bed early, or just plain not being available for whatever reason it may be, we could have easily had double or even triple our own presence last night (I'm still very proud of them for coming out and showing what support they did). Further, there were even a handful of people lingering in and out who weren't in the group because they didn't see the callouts for the group chat or they just didn't feel like joining it.


(Character names blotted out for privacy purposes.)

It was a wonderful time, an amazing time! Everyone had so much fun, and the guilds plan to stick around ours for a few days for even more RP and nights like this. But if this was planned out after these group changes? This couldn't have happened nearly as easily like this. One of the other guild leads and I had to constantly swap the group crown back and forth to pick up our members. It wasn't so bad, really. Just took a hint of coordination. But if the group sizes were down to only 12? We wouldn't have been able to swap out and pick up all the people who wanted to join at all. Not even close. We would have had to have our guilds separated in different groups, or cut in half between two of them. That would have required extra coordination and extra officers managing the groups instead of just roleplaying and making connections.

That was the whole point of the event, after all. Of course we had fun, but we wanted to support our fellow guilds and network with them. There's no point to networking if you can't even talk with the other people in group chat. For those who haven't done any roleplaying in ESO, or not a lot of it, the standard procedure is to use groups to organize and coordinate OOC (out-of-character) and use local chat (/say and /emote) IC (in-character), while guild chat is left open to be used completely OOC by any and all members, who might not all be at the event at that particular time.

"Just use guild chat" would not work for this, and for several reasons! Again, guild chat isn't used for the actual RP in 99.9% of cases, and not everyone in the guild chat is actually at the event most of the time. Trying to use it for the RP would become a total flustercluck. Second, again, this was an event between three guilds. How can you conduct it in a single guild chat when it's between multiple guilds, who can't all just join in? There's a guild limit that many people in RP have topped off, you know! Roleplayers often still play the game. They still often have trade guilds, PvE guilds, non-RP social guilds ON TOP of having their roleplaying guilds. Just joining another for 1 event simply isn't feasible for many, if not most!

Just using multiple groups would completely defeat the purpose. My own guild would have needed an entire group just on its own, possibly two if we just happened to get an even higher turnout than last night. At that point, why bother if the group is just all your own guild? You aren't networking with anyone then. And splitting the guilds across groups is just going to make it a total mess, and arbitrarily force people to network with just random people in the other guilds, instead of making connections that are natural, make sense, and catch their interest.

I could go on and on and on about this, but I just wanted to share a small example of how this change WILL ABSOLUTELY hurt roleplay guilds going forward, and make networking and supporting each other a lot more difficult and painful. Not all RP is done within a single guild, and not everything going on at an RP event is all in-character but rather there's a lot of out-of-character networking going on behind the scenes and in group chats. That networking is VITAL to the survival of RP guilds, especially NEW AND SMALL ONES! Do you want us to be a community, or not?

JoeCapricorn

^^^ This is the kind of posts we need to illustrate why cutting group sizes will be so harmful

MasterWarrior

JoeCapricorn wrote: »

I sure hope Patch 7.03 has a note saying they reverted this stupid, non-beneficial, harmful and ridiculous change.

We can hope.

indigojulze

I am genuinely sad that we've got a "Hey no bad language" reply to this thread but not so much as a peep as to why the Devs think this guild ruining, and in my case, Game ruining, idea was even brought forward.

Is Zen that strapped for cash that they can't afford large groups any more?

If I promise to never touch the companions can I keep large groups?

How about if you are in a group of more than 12 people companions and even combat pets get dismissed? Would that help?

Give use some blanking feedback please. Why is this being considered?

Tess_Phyreforge

limit 12 man outside of cyrodiil will ruin a lot of guilds weekly events.

Our guild does a couple a week and its our biggest guild gathering, We even have to start a 2nd group at times because 1st group fills up.

We gather up to do WB and Dolmans and zone achievements to help our members get these completed
Being able to be grouped helps our members follow the leader for the event when running a zone.

I know a lot of our group leads are not happy about this idea.

gariondavey

Don't shoot yourself in the foot over this, zos. This is a horrible idea.

coop500

As sucky as it is, I think it's all because of companions (an arguably useless feature) since they show up as a group member, the UI would be too cluttered to have 24 people and 24 companions, that's why it was dropped to 12, so the UI would remain the same.

What I think they should have done instead is put companions on the other side (since that side of the screen isn't used by the UI much?) But yeah, that takes more work.

DerAlleinTiger

coop500 wrote: »

As sucky as it is, I think it's all because of companions (an arguably useless feature) since they show up as a group member, the UI would be too cluttered to have 24 people and 24 companions, that's why it was dropped to 12, so the UI would remain the same.

What I think they should have done instead is put companions on the other side (since that side of the screen isn't used by the UI much?) But yeah, that takes more work.

I would agree with you, if it weren't for the fact that companions take up group spaces and start to get dismissed if you hit max and another person joins.

coop500

DerAlleinTiger wrote: »

coop500 wrote: »

As sucky as it is, I think it's all because of companions (an arguably useless feature) since they show up as a group member, the UI would be too cluttered to have 24 people and 24 companions, that's why it was dropped to 12, so the UI would remain the same.

What I think they should have done instead is put companions on the other side (since that side of the screen isn't used by the UI much?) But yeah, that takes more work.

I would agree with you, if it weren't for the fact that companions take up group spaces and start to get dismissed if you hit max and another peraon joins.

Is that in trials or overland too? My explanation was in relation to overland because in trials it fixes itself.

DerAlleinTiger

coop500 wrote: »

DerAlleinTiger wrote: »

coop500 wrote: »

As sucky as it is, I think it's all because of companions (an arguably useless feature) since they show up as a group member, the UI would be too cluttered to have 24 people and 24 companions, that's why it was dropped to 12, so the UI would remain the same.

What I think they should have done instead is put companions on the other side (since that side of the screen isn't used by the UI much?) But yeah, that takes more work.

I would agree with you, if it weren't for the fact that companions take up group spaces and start to get dismissed if you hit max and another peraon joins.

Is that in trials or overland too? My explanation was in relation to overland because in trials it fixes itself.

I assumed it was for both, since a 48-member group with half of them being bot companions would be a bit ridiculous. A 24 man group like that would be too, though, in my mind. If it doesn't work for overland, then it just becomes even more ridiculous because ZOS clearly has the ability to make it work. Instead of cutting our groups in half, take the system you already have and apply it to overland.

Salix_alba

VaxtinTheWolf wrote: »

Group sizes are 12 Players + 12 Companions now to equal 24.

/s

companions count as players so 6 people and their compaions = 12

JoeCapricorn

@ZOS_GinaBruno

Do not let this change go live!

Read the responses as to why it is a terrible idea! Please!

SantieClaws

This one just cannot believe we have not yet even had an explanation for a change that was not asked for and is certainly not wanted and will cause a great level of difficulty.

Yours with paws
Santie Claws

Jaraal

coop500 wrote: »

As sucky as it is, I think it's all because of companions (an arguably useless feature) since they show up as a group member, the UI would be too cluttered to have 24 people and 24 companions, that's why it was dropped to 12, so the UI would remain the same.

What I think they should have done instead is put companions on the other side (since that side of the screen isn't used by the UI much?) But yeah, that takes more work.

This doesn't even make sense to me.

Are you saying the group window will now read:

Player 1
Player 2
Player 3
Player 4
Player 5
Player 6
Bastion
Bastion
Bastion
Bastion
Mirri
Mirri?

If that's the case, then just increase group sizes to 48 so players can still play together as ZOS intended for the last 7 years with no issues. Or just put a little star next to a player's name to indicate they have a companion with them. Maybe a star for a DPS companion, a + sign for a tank companion.

What is it with all these unfriendly changes to things that have been fine since the beginning of the game? Change just for the sake of change? Why?

coop500

Jaraal wrote: »

coop500 wrote: »

As sucky as it is, I think it's all because of companions (an arguably useless feature) since they show up as a group member, the UI would be too cluttered to have 24 people and 24 companions, that's why it was dropped to 12, so the UI would remain the same.

What I think they should have done instead is put companions on the other side (since that side of the screen isn't used by the UI much?) But yeah, that takes more work.

This doesn't even make sense to me.

Are you saying the group window will now read:

Player 1
Player 2
Player 3
Player 4
Player 5
Player 6
Bastion
Bastion
Bastion
Bastion
Mirri
Mirri?

If that's the case, then just increase group sizes to 48 so players can still play together as ZOS intended for the last 7 years with no issues. Or just put a little star next to a player's name to indicate they have a companion with them. Maybe a star for a DPS companion, a + sign for a tank companion.

What is it with all these unfriendly changes to things that have been fine since the beginning of the game? Change just for the sake of change? Why?

I haven't grouped with anyone with a companion out in PTS so I dunno for sure, but hovering over another player's companion lists them as

'Jeff The Nord's companion'

So I imagine it would have been something like this, if 24 people grouped up and all had their companions out.

Player 1
Player 2
Player 3
Player 4 (being you for this example)
Player 5
Player 6
And so on

Then

Player 1's Companion
Player 2's Companion
Player 3's Companion
Your actual Companion's name (assuming you're player 4)
Player 5's Companion
Player 6's Companion
And so on

Maybe I am wrong, like I said I did not check this and in trials this won't even happen, it'd only be in overland grouping.

skyrimfantasy

SantieClaws wrote: »

This one just cannot believe we have not yet even had an explanation for a change that was not asked for and is certainly not wanted and will cause a great level of difficulty.

Yours with paws
Santie Claws

I agree, the complete silence feels awfully disrespectful to your players.

Jaraal

coop500 wrote: »

Player 1's Companion
Player 2's Companion
Player 3's Companion
Your actual Companion's name (assuming you're player 4)
Player 5's Companion
Player 6's Companion
And so on

I'm not sure that would all fit in the little red box. Most actual players have their names truncated because it doesn't fit in the box. No way that "Gorbash Gro-Shargala's Companion" is going to fit in the current box.

miteba

I do not have an opinion formed about (1) role playing guilds neither about (2) how group numbers can influence PvP (sometimes we think it will have some type of results, and that logic betray us completely).

What i know is that, although Zenimax has been doing a excellent job globally, communication with their community lacks in the same proportion.

This is an plain example, since it seems to affect so many players and guilds, that they should have had the consideration of explaining their decision, for the many players that respectfully showed their point of view and shared their experience with their best intentions: to make this great game even better!

Being silent only annoys even more the community, which i imagine It's not in their best interest... so it doesn't make sense at all 🤐

jrgray93

Thank god I can't make large groups anymore. Frankly, I was sick of having fun.

JoeCapricorn

miteba wrote: »

Being silent only annoys even more the community, which i imagine It's not in their best interest... so it doesn't make sense at all 🤐

Yeah, at the least @ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_RichLambert @ZOS_MattFiror @ZOS_SarahHecker can do is explain their reasoning behind this change...

Or ideally come out and say they will not implement it after all...

Next week it will be a whole month that this was on PTS

Jaraal

gariondavey wrote: »

Bad change. So thoughtless to player base.

And we forum users are just a small fraction of the player base. Imagine the outcry that's going to be heard when this awful change goes live! And compounded by the fact that no reason will be given in the patch notes.

anadandy

I'm totally having flashbacks to the Bosmer stealth change, where all the reasonable and well thought feedback was summarily ignored and no reason for the change was ever given.

I suspect the group size change is going to be the same. "Someone" decided it was a good idea and will die on that hill. It's disheartening.

BlueRaven

anadandy wrote: »

I'm totally having flashbacks to the Bosmer stealth change, where all the reasonable and well thought feedback was summarily ignored and no reason for the change was ever given.

I suspect the group size change is going to be the same. "Someone" decided it was a good idea and will die on that hill. It's disheartening.

Still a sore point for me, that bosmer stealth change.

And this update is just filled with bad ideas, and once again zos is not listening.

Goregrinder

BlueRaven wrote: »

anadandy wrote: »

I'm totally having flashbacks to the Bosmer stealth change, where all the reasonable and well thought feedback was summarily ignored and no reason for the change was ever given.

I suspect the group size change is going to be the same. "Someone" decided it was a good idea and will die on that hill. It's disheartening.

Still a sore point for me, that bosmer stealth change.

And this update is just filled with bad ideas, and once again zos is not listening.

They are listening, just not necessarily to you.

RedMuse

Goregrinder wrote: »

BlueRaven wrote: »

anadandy wrote: »

I'm totally having flashbacks to the Bosmer stealth change, where all the reasonable and well thought feedback was summarily ignored and no reason for the change was ever given.

I suspect the group size change is going to be the same. "Someone" decided it was a good idea and will die on that hill. It's disheartening.

Still a sore point for me, that bosmer stealth change.

And this update is just filled with bad ideas, and once again zos is not listening.

They are listening, just not necessarily to you.

Then who pray tell suggesting the 12 person group change and why? Like what's the reason for that? Who in this case are they listening to?

JoeCapricorn

RedMuse wrote: »

Goregrinder wrote: »

BlueRaven wrote: »

anadandy wrote: »

I'm totally having flashbacks to the Bosmer stealth change, where all the reasonable and well thought feedback was summarily ignored and no reason for the change was ever given.

I suspect the group size change is going to be the same. "Someone" decided it was a good idea and will die on that hill. It's disheartening.

Still a sore point for me, that bosmer stealth change.

And this update is just filled with bad ideas, and once again zos is not listening.

They are listening, just not necessarily to you.

Then who pray tell suggesting the 12 person group change and why? Like what's the reason for that? Who in this case are they listening to?

Molag Bal

LoneStar2911

I led a harrowstorm group in The Reach pretty much all day today. It was at or near 24 members most of the time. I’ve also led more Alik’r dolmen groups than I can count. Cutting overland PvE groups down to 12 just doesn’t make any sense at all. I’m used to ~40 man groups from other MMOs.
ZOS, please give us a real answer on why you’re making this change.