12-player group limit is killing Guild socializing

TheDarkRuler

1st time writing in PTS server but i feel like its needed to get as many people in on an imminent change: All groups are set to be limited to 12 in overland!

I am an officer in a guild that tends to start mini-events for our players to give some small gimmicks, to have fun and to roam the world of Tamriel together (e.g. fishing contest, skyshard run, world boss run, ...). Why are we grouping up? To see ourselves better on the worldmap to avoid leaving a person behind and because of the instancing of ESO.

If we now were to get limited to 12 then we would need to split our groups? The groups itself then would not necessarily be able to see themselves as they might be in another ESO instance and we would not be able to do the social guild activities anymore.

So please. Revert the 12-player-group in overland PVE contents! Dont make it go live.

@all players: Please comment and tell me your feedback.

Anyron

You dont have to be in group to be on same instance, just use teleportation to player via guild.

Also overland is so easy you can solo almost everything

cyberjanet

Anyron wrote: »

Also overland is so easy you can solo almost everything

I think you're missing the point.

RedMuse

Anyron wrote: »

You dont have to be in group to be on same instance, just use teleportation to player via guild.

Also overland is so easy you can solo almost everything

1) There's no guarantee of that and priority are given to people in group over "random" telelports.

2) It also does nothing to address the problem of communicating between group members. Not everyone has or want discord and there are players for whom voice chat is not an option. So just making two groups isn't an option either as it leaves players unable to communicate cross groups.

@TheDarkRuler There's already a long, ongoing thread about this, you may want to weigh in there so as to gather all opinions in one place for the devs to see exactly how unpopular this change is. What is more there doesn't seem to be a good reason for it, or any reason at all for that matter.

FluffWit

Not being able to group is just going to be another bloody hassle we can do without.

Its unnecessary. Something someone who thinks all we do is pvp and trials came up with because they didn't realize there are other ways we socialize in this game.

Between this, our guild traders being virtually unusable and our guild rosters being broken so we can't even see who's become inactive.... we put up with a lot of crap ZOS. Most of it unintentional glitches.

So please, don't intentionally give us even more problems. Back off and let us run our large groups in pve, it's not causing any significant problems for your servers.

etchedpixels

Definitely too small a group for guild activites - I agree

Also totally pointless. It's bad enough that due to bugs and glitches we already sometimes have this pantomime of a group half appearing in one instance of a public dungeon or overland and then having to ungroup everyone who did appear, ungroup and regroup those who didn't, have them port to the group then regroup everyone.

By all means limit to 12 for things like buffs, and for PVP (though why anyone wants ball groups to in effect be protected by the game from bigger groups is beyond me)

JoeCapricorn

I really hope ZOS sees how harmful this change is to social, RP and trading guilds and realizes that this change is a mistake regardless of what rationale there was behind it.

If anything, they should increase the group limit to 32 or even 40, and raise player limits in houses to 40 as well.

jaws343

The changes seem intended to get ahead of problems with the companions. I expect they don't want 24 player groups with 24 companions running around. Knocking groups down to 12 keeps the group maximum limit at 24 when you take companions into account.

BlueRaven

jaws343 wrote: »

The changes seem intended to get ahead of problems with the companions. I expect they don't want 24 player groups with 24 companions running around. Knocking groups down to 12 keeps the group maximum limit at 24 when you take companions into account.

This is probably it, but it's still a bad idea.

In trials/dungeons, companions cannot be used if the trial or dungeon is already full of players. They cannot exceed their maximum population allowance for the area. Meaning in a trial that only has ten actual players, only two people are allowed to use companions to fill out the group.

If overloading the outdoor PvE area is a problem, (But would it? Pretend the twenty four people were all strangers playing solo and they decided to attack WB at the same time with their companions. Wouldn't that just be the same as a twenty four person group all with companions? Anyway...) they can set a limitation similar to the trial/dungeon limitation and make it so the twenty four person group limit could be made up of players and companions combined.
So for example, twenty players in a group, only four could use companions.

BlueRaven

Maybe I missed it, but it appears they did not revert the change. Still 12 person limit.

😔

TheDarkRuler

BlueRaven wrote: »

Maybe I missed it, but it appears they did not revert the change. Still 12 person limit.

😔

We need to raise our voices more often and louder then in the PTS forums while hoping ZoS gives a damn about us.

Ryath_Waylander

BlueRaven wrote: »

Maybe I missed it, but it appears they did not revert the change. Still 12 person limit.

😔

In Cyrodiil only on live. They want to implement it in PvE too. An atrocious idea for social guilds.

RedMuse

jaws343 wrote: »

The changes seem intended to get ahead of problems with the companions. I expect they don't want 24 player groups with 24 companions running around. Knocking groups down to 12 keeps the group maximum limit at 24 when you take companions into account.

But should it be that hard to change the code so you can only be 24 in a group including companions? Like in group dungeons it'll be that you can only be four people including any companions, so either three players and one companion or two players and two companions. Wouldn't it be possible to extend that to overland grouping too?

I admit I know nothing about the coding of this game but would the coding for grouping in dungeons and that for general/overland grouping be that different?

jaws343

RedMuse wrote: »

jaws343 wrote: »

The changes seem intended to get ahead of problems with the companions. I expect they don't want 24 player groups with 24 companions running around. Knocking groups down to 12 keeps the group maximum limit at 24 when you take companions into account.

But should it be that hard to change the code so you can only be 24 in a group including companions? Like in group dungeons it'll be that you can only be four people including any companions, so either three players and one companion or two players and two companions. Wouldn't it be possible to extend that to overland grouping too?

I admit I know nothing about the coding of this game but would the coding for grouping in dungeons and that for general/overland grouping be that different?

I imagine there is probably a difference in the instancing of group locations and overland that might prevent it. Instanced location won't even let a player enter if the instance is full. Overland doesn't really have that.

So my guess is the Companion limit is tied in more to the instancing mechanic than the grouping mechanic. So while it would make sense to cap companion limits at zero in groups of 24, if the companion prevention is working off of instances with limits, the group would be unable to be capped in noninstanced locations.

xaraan

I've taken the beating from everyone that hates this change, but since you asked for all feedback from players: I'm glad the group size is being limited to 12. It's better for the game in every area except group events like what OP speaks of.

12 is what pvp should have been for the longest time and changing it like that everywhere might help pvpers realize it's not going back up to 24. 12 is max for trials. 12 is max scaling for a lot of events and the drops you can earn. And in anything combat related in the game, like world bosses and events, more than 12 (even 12 really) stops players from learning mechanics and creates uneducated players when they have to fight that later without the zerg. The game would be healthier with more players learning it better.

NOW, that being said, the only thing I can see an argument for is for RP and similar guild events.

Though honestly you guys need to stop using the 'instance' reasoning. It makes you look like you are exaggerating to make a point which takes away from the point. You should travel to someone you are trying to instance with whether you are in a group or not, the fact it prioritizes it to people in your group won't stop it from splitting you up unless it's a dead zone. So if you should already be traveling that way to avoid issues, which means being in a group or not changes nothing about the instancing issue. Instead focus on the other issues that not being in a group causes IMO.

Personally, I think this is an opportunity to maybe push zos to create something different in a future patch for QoL for RPers and other event focused groupings. Maybe a new sort of temporary guild or event group feature that didn't create a combat ready group, ie maybe no formal group frame (Maybe just a name list instead of health bars), nor did it use chevrons to mark mates, but maybe something even less intrusive to signify those participating. And they could create different rule sets than normal groups as well, like maybe not counting companions toward the cap, or maybe having a feature to not allow companions at all, allow event groups larger than 24, etc.

I think the change to group size of 12 is for more than just for the heck of it and is happening regardless of how much complaining there is. Maybe I'm wrong, who knows. So I think focusing on a different request that maybe improved what was needed for event groups and still allowed for max 12 man combat groups would go farther and maybe get even more QoL features than a normal group has now.

Anyway, that's my thoughts. I know plenty would rather just not have something change and use what works for them now. Can't fault you for that.

JoeCapricorn

From a combat perspective, 12 does make sense, for trials and Cyrodiil. Although, I personally am for the return of 24-person groups in Cyrodiil. But there are a large number of guilds that make use of groups for numerous reasons outside of combat. Are you saying those guilds should just wait for maybe another alternative being put forward? I don't think there will be an alternative to groups, certainly not something that would be on the crown store (good, we don't need those conspiratorial posts)

Three of my beloved guilds use groups outside of pvp and trials. They run events with them. They need the capacity, and if anything I think capacity should be increased, to up to 40 players. Social and RPing guilds would HUGEly benefit from that higher capacity. Larger events fosters a larger sense of community and that is what helps keep major guilds around for years to come. Social events are the lifeblood of some guilds. In a way, reducing group sizes to 12 cuts that supply in half. It makes it harder to organize large events. Some may adapt, others may not and fold.

ZOS_ConnorG

Greetings all,

After review we have closed this thread as there are other threads about this topic already. If you wish to continue this discussion you may do so on the other threads located here and here.