The very concept of ball groups is outdated

Kordai

VaranisArano wrote: »

TheEndBringer wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Kordai wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Kordai wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

The very concept of ball groups is outdated.
Or...
Ball groups are so dominant in low-pop PVP that it's actively unfun for everyone not in a ball group.

Come on, pick one.

I hate to be the one to break it to you but the original pop cap of 1800 isn't still a thing. Your options literally aren't exclusive so not quite sure what you're talking about. But if you consider max pop to be low pop I can see your confusion.

Again :My argument was that the concept that made them necessary early on when proxy was created is now outdated as happens when this thing called "time" passes and changes are made. When the actual population cap in cyrodiil was 1800, you had massive zergs. Ball groups were made to largely counter those big zergs. And when you have massive numbers ball groups were fine and still didn't have a crazy impact because of the total population size. As population dropped and dropped to the current max cap of 240 total, they power difference simply went up and up. Hypothetically if the pop cap was reduced even further to 40 people, would you still argue that they aren't OP?

The current population cap is absolutely "low pop" compared to what we had even a few years ago. The lower the population gets, the more dominant ball groups get because it's harder and harder to counter them with a faction stack. Drop that to 40, and you can kiss any plans of breaking a properly built, trained 12-player Ball group goodbye.

But you can't go claiming something is dominant and outdated in the same breath.

Organized groups don't purely exist to counter zergs. In fact, it's pretty obvious that current ball groups exist to farm objectives, zergs, hordes of unorganized players for AP. They do that really, really well right now. Ball groups are still dominating the campaigns because they are the opposite of outdated. They are more dominant now because there are less semi-organized players around to oppose them.

Are they outdated?
Or are they overpowered?
Pick one.

(I prefer to run in a "Ball group" style guild. We're overpowered. We're absolutely not "outdated" when you consider that our playstyle has only gotten more powerful as the population gets smaller. The concept of "play in an organized group in voice comms" doesn't become outdated just because our enemies have gotten less powerful/numerous.)

I see the confusion. What I meant was that the concept that made ball groups necessary, massive zergs of 100+ people is no longer valid and is "outdated". The concept that made them necessary not the actual ball group unto itself. They have continued to get more powerful comparatively with the overall pop reduction even if you discount buffs to sets/skills and because the premise of their necessity (and their necessary power) is obsolete they should be looked at. Basically what was once a large fish in a big ocean is now a large fish in a small pond, the fish didn't change size but comparatively it is now much more significant.

See, I have to disagree about the premise of their necessity and necessary power.

The premise is to win. To dominate larger groups of players, capture objectives, and make loads of AP.

Ball groups are still hands down the most effective method of doing so, which is why the zergs have died and ball groups haven't. The premise of a ball group is evergreen: play in a tightly coordinated, trained group to win over all the less coordinated groups.

They do get looked at by ZOS periodically, but it's kinda hard to nerf the power of teamwork in an AvAvA game originally designed for teams of 8 to 24 players. (It absolutely does not help that ZOS keeps developing sets that only a team of tightly coordinated players can benefit from.)

Zergs haven't died because of ball groups. They've died because population is lower than it's ever been. Faction stacks are a sad vestige of their former selves.

The current way to kill a ball group is to overwhelm them because they take advantage of poor balance. In the past, the only way to eject a troll ball group was with overwhelming forces. Because there are no longer enough players to do so oftentimes, that's another thing ball groups don't have to worry about.

From a ball group's perspective, spending 30 minutes running up and down the stairs at Sej is fun. For everyone else? It's boring at best and infuriating at worst. A ball group needs other players to fight so maybe driving them offline isn't the wisest strategy. It's also funny how ball groups usually end up fighting non ball groups all across the map rather than engage one another.

Yeah, I agree the zergs died largely due to low pop and bad performance.

I don't think it's strange that ball groups don't fight ball groups when there's a lot more AP to be made now fighting everyone else. Ball group vs ball group fights tend to be a long stalemate where there's really not a lot of AP to be made, especially in the open field.

There are guilds that fight other guilds, but those are typically the faction focused guilds who fight at objectives rather than running the top floors at back keeps or the Sej stairs.


And while I understand your point about "hey, ball groups, in the longterm, maybe don't drive players away with boring gameplay", but I don't expect it to appeal to anyone who's in or runs a ball group. In the short-term, this is what their guild mates like to do. This is why they play PVP. It's a choice between having fun now in their preferred way vs maybe having a healthier PVP population a few years down the line (when that guild or those players maybe moved on). Guild leaders are going to prioritize what's best for their guild now.

It's real easy to tell someone else to play differently for "the greater good." It should come as no surprise when ball group guilds don't listen to people who aren't in their guild.

Frankly, the only way we get healthier PVP gameplay and population is for ZOS to fix the performance issues so they can raise the population cap. If they can't do that, then Cyrodiil is going to die whether the ball groups listen to you or not.

I'm sure any arguments toning down the power of ball groups will not be liked by said ball groups... Is that shocking to you? Why do you think that ball groups should dictate how much power they have? There are significantly more people that don't play in ball groups who have a larger say anyway curtesy of the numbers.

VaranisArano

TheEndBringer wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

TheEndBringer wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Kordai wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Kordai wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

The very concept of ball groups is outdated.
Or...
Ball groups are so dominant in low-pop PVP that it's actively unfun for everyone not in a ball group.

Come on, pick one.

I hate to be the one to break it to you but the original pop cap of 1800 isn't still a thing. Your options literally aren't exclusive so not quite sure what you're talking about. But if you consider max pop to be low pop I can see your confusion.

Again :My argument was that the concept that made them necessary early on when proxy was created is now outdated as happens when this thing called "time" passes and changes are made. When the actual population cap in cyrodiil was 1800, you had massive zergs. Ball groups were made to largely counter those big zergs. And when you have massive numbers ball groups were fine and still didn't have a crazy impact because of the total population size. As population dropped and dropped to the current max cap of 240 total, they power difference simply went up and up. Hypothetically if the pop cap was reduced even further to 40 people, would you still argue that they aren't OP?

The current population cap is absolutely "low pop" compared to what we had even a few years ago. The lower the population gets, the more dominant ball groups get because it's harder and harder to counter them with a faction stack. Drop that to 40, and you can kiss any plans of breaking a properly built, trained 12-player Ball group goodbye.

But you can't go claiming something is dominant and outdated in the same breath.

Organized groups don't purely exist to counter zergs. In fact, it's pretty obvious that current ball groups exist to farm objectives, zergs, hordes of unorganized players for AP. They do that really, really well right now. Ball groups are still dominating the campaigns because they are the opposite of outdated. They are more dominant now because there are less semi-organized players around to oppose them.

Are they outdated?
Or are they overpowered?
Pick one.

(I prefer to run in a "Ball group" style guild. We're overpowered. We're absolutely not "outdated" when you consider that our playstyle has only gotten more powerful as the population gets smaller. The concept of "play in an organized group in voice comms" doesn't become outdated just because our enemies have gotten less powerful/numerous.)

I see the confusion. What I meant was that the concept that made ball groups necessary, massive zergs of 100+ people is no longer valid and is "outdated". The concept that made them necessary not the actual ball group unto itself. They have continued to get more powerful comparatively with the overall pop reduction even if you discount buffs to sets/skills and because the premise of their necessity (and their necessary power) is obsolete they should be looked at. Basically what was once a large fish in a big ocean is now a large fish in a small pond, the fish didn't change size but comparatively it is now much more significant.

See, I have to disagree about the premise of their necessity and necessary power.

The premise is to win. To dominate larger groups of players, capture objectives, and make loads of AP.

Ball groups are still hands down the most effective method of doing so, which is why the zergs have died and ball groups haven't. The premise of a ball group is evergreen: play in a tightly coordinated, trained group to win over all the less coordinated groups.

They do get looked at by ZOS periodically, but it's kinda hard to nerf the power of teamwork in an AvAvA game originally designed for teams of 8 to 24 players. (It absolutely does not help that ZOS keeps developing sets that only a team of tightly coordinated players can benefit from.)

Zergs haven't died because of ball groups. They've died because population is lower than it's ever been. Faction stacks are a sad vestige of their former selves.

The current way to kill a ball group is to overwhelm them because they take advantage of poor balance. In the past, the only way to eject a troll ball group was with overwhelming forces. Because there are no longer enough players to do so oftentimes, that's another thing ball groups don't have to worry about.

From a ball group's perspective, spending 30 minutes running up and down the stairs at Sej is fun. For everyone else? It's boring at best and infuriating at worst. A ball group needs other players to fight so maybe driving them offline isn't the wisest strategy. It's also funny how ball groups usually end up fighting non ball groups all across the map rather than engage one another.

Yeah, I agree the zergs died largely due to low pop and bad performance.

I don't think it's strange that ball groups don't fight ball groups when there's a lot more AP to be made now fighting everyone else. Ball group vs ball group fights tend to be a long stalemate where there's really not a lot of AP to be made, especially in the open field.

There are guilds that fight other guilds, but those are typically the faction focused guilds who fight at objectives rather than running the top floors at back keeps or the Sej stairs.


And while I understand your point about "hey, ball groups, in the longterm, maybe don't drive players away with boring gameplay", but I don't expect it to appeal to anyone who's in or runs a ball group. In the short-term, this is what their guild mates like to do. This is why they play PVP. It's a choice between having fun now in their preferred way vs maybe having a healthier PVP population a few years down the line (when that guild or those players maybe moved on). Guild leaders are going to prioritize what's best for their guild now.

It's real easy to tell someone else to play differently for "the greater good." It should come as no surprise when ball group guilds don't listen to people who aren't in their guild.

Frankly, the only way we get healthier PVP gameplay and population is for ZOS to fix the performance issues so they can raise the population cap. If they can't do that, then Cyrodiil is going to die whether the ball groups listen to you or not.

I'm not telling anyone to play differently but the fact is most (not all) will follow the weakest groups around the map for, as you said, easy AP. There point is, if 99% of the population doesn't find that playstyle enjoyable but they're constantly having to spend ridiculous amounts of time chasing the 1% around and getting picked on by 12 players cheesing the system, then maybe the 99% needs and actual tool for fighting them.

Importantly not a tool the ball groups themselves will use.

24 good players shouldn't take 20 minutes to eject a 12 man group only surviving due to min maxing and indestructible obstacles.

Hey, if you figure out that tool, let ZOS know!

VaranisArano

Kordai wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

TheEndBringer wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Kordai wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Kordai wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

The very concept of ball groups is outdated.
Or...
Ball groups are so dominant in low-pop PVP that it's actively unfun for everyone not in a ball group.

Come on, pick one.

I hate to be the one to break it to you but the original pop cap of 1800 isn't still a thing. Your options literally aren't exclusive so not quite sure what you're talking about. But if you consider max pop to be low pop I can see your confusion.

Again :My argument was that the concept that made them necessary early on when proxy was created is now outdated as happens when this thing called "time" passes and changes are made. When the actual population cap in cyrodiil was 1800, you had massive zergs. Ball groups were made to largely counter those big zergs. And when you have massive numbers ball groups were fine and still didn't have a crazy impact because of the total population size. As population dropped and dropped to the current max cap of 240 total, they power difference simply went up and up. Hypothetically if the pop cap was reduced even further to 40 people, would you still argue that they aren't OP?

The current population cap is absolutely "low pop" compared to what we had even a few years ago. The lower the population gets, the more dominant ball groups get because it's harder and harder to counter them with a faction stack. Drop that to 40, and you can kiss any plans of breaking a properly built, trained 12-player Ball group goodbye.

But you can't go claiming something is dominant and outdated in the same breath.

Organized groups don't purely exist to counter zergs. In fact, it's pretty obvious that current ball groups exist to farm objectives, zergs, hordes of unorganized players for AP. They do that really, really well right now. Ball groups are still dominating the campaigns because they are the opposite of outdated. They are more dominant now because there are less semi-organized players around to oppose them.

Are they outdated?
Or are they overpowered?
Pick one.

(I prefer to run in a "Ball group" style guild. We're overpowered. We're absolutely not "outdated" when you consider that our playstyle has only gotten more powerful as the population gets smaller. The concept of "play in an organized group in voice comms" doesn't become outdated just because our enemies have gotten less powerful/numerous.)

I see the confusion. What I meant was that the concept that made ball groups necessary, massive zergs of 100+ people is no longer valid and is "outdated". The concept that made them necessary not the actual ball group unto itself. They have continued to get more powerful comparatively with the overall pop reduction even if you discount buffs to sets/skills and because the premise of their necessity (and their necessary power) is obsolete they should be looked at. Basically what was once a large fish in a big ocean is now a large fish in a small pond, the fish didn't change size but comparatively it is now much more significant.

See, I have to disagree about the premise of their necessity and necessary power.

The premise is to win. To dominate larger groups of players, capture objectives, and make loads of AP.

Ball groups are still hands down the most effective method of doing so, which is why the zergs have died and ball groups haven't. The premise of a ball group is evergreen: play in a tightly coordinated, trained group to win over all the less coordinated groups.

They do get looked at by ZOS periodically, but it's kinda hard to nerf the power of teamwork in an AvAvA game originally designed for teams of 8 to 24 players. (It absolutely does not help that ZOS keeps developing sets that only a team of tightly coordinated players can benefit from.)

Zergs haven't died because of ball groups. They've died because population is lower than it's ever been. Faction stacks are a sad vestige of their former selves.

The current way to kill a ball group is to overwhelm them because they take advantage of poor balance. In the past, the only way to eject a troll ball group was with overwhelming forces. Because there are no longer enough players to do so oftentimes, that's another thing ball groups don't have to worry about.

From a ball group's perspective, spending 30 minutes running up and down the stairs at Sej is fun. For everyone else? It's boring at best and infuriating at worst. A ball group needs other players to fight so maybe driving them offline isn't the wisest strategy. It's also funny how ball groups usually end up fighting non ball groups all across the map rather than engage one another.

Yeah, I agree the zergs died largely due to low pop and bad performance.

I don't think it's strange that ball groups don't fight ball groups when there's a lot more AP to be made now fighting everyone else. Ball group vs ball group fights tend to be a long stalemate where there's really not a lot of AP to be made, especially in the open field.

There are guilds that fight other guilds, but those are typically the faction focused guilds who fight at objectives rather than running the top floors at back keeps or the Sej stairs.


And while I understand your point about "hey, ball groups, in the longterm, maybe don't drive players away with boring gameplay", but I don't expect it to appeal to anyone who's in or runs a ball group. In the short-term, this is what their guild mates like to do. This is why they play PVP. It's a choice between having fun now in their preferred way vs maybe having a healthier PVP population a few years down the line (when that guild or those players maybe moved on). Guild leaders are going to prioritize what's best for their guild now.

It's real easy to tell someone else to play differently for "the greater good." It should come as no surprise when ball group guilds don't listen to people who aren't in their guild.

Frankly, the only way we get healthier PVP gameplay and population is for ZOS to fix the performance issues so they can raise the population cap. If they can't do that, then Cyrodiil is going to die whether the ball groups listen to you or not.

I'm sure any arguments toning down the power of ball groups will not be liked by said ball groups... Is that shocking to you? Why do you think that ball groups should dictate how much power they have? There are significantly more people that don't play in ball groups who have a larger say anyway curtesy of the numbers.

Well, I was specially referring to this type of argument about gameplay: "From a ball group's perspective, spending 30 minutes running up and down the stairs at Sej is fun. For everyone else? It's boring at best and infuriating at worst. A ball group needs other players to fight so maybe driving them offline isn't the wisest strategy."

You aren't going to persuade a ball group to stop playing in a way they find fun just because you and significantly more players find it boring or even infuriating.


And I do want to note that every PTS cycle, I see some ball group leader/players telling ZOS "Hey, you do realize this is going to make us more overpowered, right? That's not a good thing..."

Here's a pretty good example of that looking forward to the current meta:
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/597182/the-anti-ball-group-sets-again-buff-ball-groups/p1
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/599704/how-to-deal-with-the-incoming-ball-group-buffs-and-also-how-to-become-a-ball-group/p1

So oddly enough, I disagree with you that ball groups are automatically going to oppose arguments to tone down their power. My PVP guild's attitude whenever something we used got nerfed was more or less "About time ZOS nerfed it. Now what's the new meta?"

And ultimately, the people who decide how much power the ball groups get is ZOS. Right now, ZOS gave them a bunch of stacked support sets that only exacerbate the advantage that voice comms and coordinated movement/heals/attacks give the ball group. It might shock you to hear this, but I don't think ZOS should be doing that. Ball groups are already really powerful. They don't need more toys that only they can use more effectively than anyone else in Cyrodiil.

But I also realize that what I want is irrelevant to ZOS' desire to produce new sets that will attract trials and PVP players to new content, so I really don't expect ZOS to listen to me. Their pocketbook speaks a lot louder than I do.

xylena_lazarow

Kordai wrote: »

I'm sure any arguments toning down the power of ball groups will not be liked by said ball groups... Is that shocking to you?

The part that always gets me is there are so many potential ways coordinated groups could be run... but never will be because of how insanely powerful stack-heal-stall attrition is compared to anything else. What would be so bad about a new large scale meta? They brag of their skill, so clearly they should be able to adapt. Meanwhile, the supposedly unskilled zergs of solos/randoms/pugs have been adapting to nerf after nerf after nerf for years...

And it's not like coordinated groups didn't exist before mass mobile HoT stacking or Snow Treaders, they most certainly did and the good ones were quite powerful, but it never felt futile for the randoms, they had a fair amount of options for fighting back, but now... most siege engines do effectively nothing, most CCs do literally nothing against Snow Treaders, and even coordinated AoE bombs struggle to break through the heal stack without some lucky lag-induced stun-lock.

Wolfpaw

Kartalin wrote: »

Kordai wrote: »

Group sets should not be better than solo sets on an individual. Aoe heals are worse, aoe damage abilities are worse...

With the success and popularity of Rallying Cry as a set concept -- modifying the buffs it provides according to group size -- we may see the same approach taken with new sets in upcoming releases, and perhaps even older sets updated to a similar concept.
.

This set is a little misunderstood, it has conditions for it's scaling, group size does not scale up/down this set.

VaranisArano

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Kordai wrote: »

I'm sure any arguments toning down the power of ball groups will not be liked by said ball groups... Is that shocking to you?

The part that always gets me is there are so many potential ways coordinated groups could be run... but never will be because of how insanely powerful stack-heal-stall attrition is compared to anything else. What would be so bad about a new large scale meta? They brag of their skill, so clearly they should be able to adapt. Meanwhile, the supposedly unskilled zergs of solos/randoms/pugs have been adapting to nerf after nerf after nerf for years...

And it's not like coordinated groups didn't exist before mass mobile HoT stacking or Snow Treaders, they most certainly did and the good ones were quite powerful, but it never felt futile for the randoms, they had a fair amount of options for fighting back, but now... most siege engines do effectively nothing, most CCs do literally nothing against Snow Treaders, and even coordinated AoE bombs struggle to break through the heal stack without some lucky lag-induced stun-lock.

Pretty much! Like, I like ball group style play. I like being a healer in a ball group. It's just that ZOS has steadily handed ball groups and other organized PVP guild playstyles set after set, skill after skill, that are used more effectively by a coordinated team who can move and attack together.

We already had the advantage of coordination. We always had the advantage of optimized roles and support sets that no one else could use. My healer wore Meritorious Service for years - no PUG was getting stacked buffs like we were.

We didn't need more advantages.

Snowtreaders is a perfect example. One of the best counters to ball groups used to be that you snare them to break up their cohesion, pull one or two group members down at a time until the group broke. It's a lot harder to do that now.

Gaeliannas

TheEndBringer wrote: »

I'm not telling anyone to play differently but the fact is most (not all) will follow the weakest groups around the map for, as you said, easy AP. There point is, if 99% of the population doesn't find that playstyle enjoyable but they're constantly having to spend ridiculous amounts of time chasing the 1% around and getting picked on by 12 players cheesing the system, then maybe the 99% needs and actual tool for fighting them.

Well ball groups are no longer 1% of the population, when one is online they are now 20% of the population in that faction. Also, I have never once seen a ball group follow a weak group around the map, ever. Any group that does that other than by complete coincidence, is not a ball group. Ball groups attract player to themselves by grabbing scrolls or keeps they never leave, they don't chase their AP, that would be ineffective, they lure their AP in.

In short, anyone engaging a ball group, other than their original entry into a keep, is basically doing it by choice.

VaranisArano

Gaeliannas wrote: »

TheEndBringer wrote: »

I'm not telling anyone to play differently but the fact is most (not all) will follow the weakest groups around the map for, as you said, easy AP. There point is, if 99% of the population doesn't find that playstyle enjoyable but they're constantly having to spend ridiculous amounts of time chasing the 1% around and getting picked on by 12 players cheesing the system, then maybe the 99% needs and actual tool for fighting them.

Well ball groups are no longer 1% of the population, when one is online they are now 20% of the population in that faction. Also, I have never once seen a ball group follow a weak group around the map, ever. Any group that does that other than by complete coincidence, is not a ball group. Ball groups attract player to themselves by grabbing scrolls or keeps they never leave, they don't chase their AP, that would be ineffective, they lure their AP in.

In short, anyone engaging a ball group, other than their original entry into a keep, is basically doing it by choice.

By choice, with the understanding that if you don't choose to do it, your faction can kiss that keep/scroll/score points goodbye until the ball group gets bored of it, of course. And that if your faction successfully ignores them once, they will merely switch objectives until they find one your faction can't afford to ignore.

Iriidius

Ignoring a ball group means they can PvDoor every keep and take every scroll they want.
If you ignore someone it doesnt mean they ignores you too. Usually Ball groups bait Zergs to follow them and stack then bomb them, but they can also chase solo players and group if they want it.
Have always heard Ball groups were the counter to Zergs but it also seems like Megazergs are the only counter to ball groups except other ball groups. Both counter each other, but they also counter everything else even more effective.

xylena_lazarow

Iriidius wrote: »

Ignoring a ball group means they can PvDoor every keep and take every scroll they want.
If you ignore someone it doesnt mean they ignores you too. Usually Ball groups bait Zergs to follow them and stack then bomb them, but they can also chase solo players and group if they want it. Have always heard Ball groups were the counter to Zergs but it also seems like Megazergs are the only counter to ball groups except other ball groups. Both counter each other, but they also counter everything else even more effective.

The zergs have been nerfed both in size and what tools are available that have any effect at all on a ballgroup. Even the sort of semi-optimized heal-blobs that couldn't bomb a 24k hp squishy still demand 30+ randoms to get rid of them so they don't PvDoor the map, and when 30+ randoms aren't around in the off-hours, you see the "nightcapping" problem exacerbated.

The more competitive ballgroups that take 60+ enemies to deal with probably wouldn't stick around very long if their enemies actually did ignore them, since the last thing they actually want to do is PvDoor empty keeps and run scrolls uncontested. Of course, good luck convincing the pugs on any faction to ignore them long enough...

Gaeliannas

VaranisArano wrote: »

Gaeliannas wrote: »

TheEndBringer wrote: »

I'm not telling anyone to play differently but the fact is most (not all) will follow the weakest groups around the map for, as you said, easy AP. There point is, if 99% of the population doesn't find that playstyle enjoyable but they're constantly having to spend ridiculous amounts of time chasing the 1% around and getting picked on by 12 players cheesing the system, then maybe the 99% needs and actual tool for fighting them.

Well ball groups are no longer 1% of the population, when one is online they are now 20% of the population in that faction. Also, I have never once seen a ball group follow a weak group around the map, ever. Any group that does that other than by complete coincidence, is not a ball group. Ball groups attract player to themselves by grabbing scrolls or keeps they never leave, they don't chase their AP, that would be ineffective, they lure their AP in.

In short, anyone engaging a ball group, other than their original entry into a keep, is basically doing it by choice.

By choice, with the understanding that if you don't choose to do it, your faction can kiss that keep/scroll/score points goodbye until the ball group gets bored of it, of course. And that if your faction successfully ignores them once, they will merely switch objectives until they find one your faction can't afford to ignore.

My experience has usually been you can flip a keep back while a ball group is still running around in it, as they don't care. Also, if they have no one to play with them they simply drop the scroll and leave or log out. Ball groups don't carry scrolls back, they use them for bait, and in some cases get in the way of their own faction that is looking to actually capture the scroll.

Keeps flip constantly, and flipping them is AP. As far as score, between random low pop bonuses and night capping, scoring in Cyrodiil is near meaningless anymore.

DrSlaughtr

I love that argument. That's like saying if someone breaks into your house, you choose to fight them rather than go to the bar and have a drink while they steal everything.

Ball groups ABSOLUTELY follow combat markers on the screen. Will they sometimes pick out a scroll to take and farm it? Yes. But they also will follow combat markers within riding distance which usually means running over the same opposing groups over and over.

Thraben

Kordai wrote: »

The days of actual zergs are long gone. With max pop at 80. Having a group of 12 be able to go head to head against 60 players (their own words) is laughable. Although actually that 12 v 60 was before yet more ball group buffs because naturally they needed them. This concept is destroying new players willingness to stay in pvp and along with the overall skill ceiling/floor gap being way too bug and poor performance is one of the reasons pvp is dying.

Their is no other game I have ever played or can find any record of where the overall power difference is this ridiculous. Ball groups countering zergs is nice when their is an actual number difference, which is literally the definition of zerg. But now that pop cap has dropped and ball group power has not changed the overall balance just gets worse and worse. If there's 2 ad ball groups that can each fight just 40, and 20 pugs, they should be able to take 100 ep. When you literally can't have 100 ep anymore it starts to become unbalanced. As the population shrinks, this just becomes worse. If you have a ball group that can fight 40 and they have 20 pugs with them for a total of 32 players that can take 60, if there are only 40 enemies, it's just a slaughter

Let's work with your argument:

If 12 people can farm 60 players, but the pop cap is only 80, that must mean that only one ballgroup per faction can be happy, as 2 of them would steal each other's victims, and this is frustrating.

Thus, the surplus ballgroups must change faction - but what happens when the three ballgroup slots per campaign are already occupied?

Then one ballgroup has to specialize in killing other ballgroups in order to get enough fights AND/ OR reduce its group size to 5-7. Both options decrease their ability to farm pugs who now have a greater chance to actually fight and win against them.

The classical 12 people- ballgroups are not outdated. They have their place in the food chain. On a healthy campaign, they are hunted by anti-ballgroup groups who in turn are more vulnerable to PuGs.

Admittedly, there are not many healthy campaigns around.

Kordai

Thraben wrote: »

Kordai wrote: »

The days of actual zergs are long gone. With max pop at 80. Having a group of 12 be able to go head to head against 60 players (their own words) is laughable. Although actually that 12 v 60 was before yet more ball group buffs because naturally they needed them. This concept is destroying new players willingness to stay in pvp and along with the overall skill ceiling/floor gap being way too bug and poor performance is one of the reasons pvp is dying.

Their is no other game I have ever played or can find any record of where the overall power difference is this ridiculous. Ball groups countering zergs is nice when their is an actual number difference, which is literally the definition of zerg. But now that pop cap has dropped and ball group power has not changed the overall balance just gets worse and worse. If there's 2 ad ball groups that can each fight just 40, and 20 pugs, they should be able to take 100 ep. When you literally can't have 100 ep anymore it starts to become unbalanced. As the population shrinks, this just becomes worse. If you have a ball group that can fight 40 and they have 20 pugs with them for a total of 32 players that can take 60, if there are only 40 enemies, it's just a slaughter

Let's work with your argument:

If 12 people can farm 60 players, but the pop cap is only 80, that must mean that only one ballgroup per faction can be happy, as 2 of them would steal each other's victims, and this is frustrating.

And the ones that play to win? The ball groups that will be more than happy to ult bomb 1 player? Those that are more than happy to fight in the zerg when the total numbers are heavily in their favor?

If all of them actually had your mentality then sure it's fine, but as it doesn't always hold true...

And0ssus

Good that i had 98 People on my counter for one Faction yesterday, so the imagined Population Cap of 80 Players isn't a Thing.
What the actual Cap is only knows ZOS it self, but at least its 98+

Gaeliannas

And0ssus wrote: »

Good that i had 98 People on my counter for one Faction yesterday, so the imagined Population Cap of 80 Players isn't a Thing.
What the actual Cap is only knows ZOS it self, but at least its 98+

Actually the counter isn't 100% accurate, I lagged out and mine jumped from 65 to 130, then back down again a bit later. It is double counting due to lag issues, there were probably 49 players there in your case.

MipMip

The concept of ball groups is optimized team play, and that will never be outdated

Kordai

MipMip wrote: »

The concept of ball groups is optimized team play, and that will never be outdated

Kordai wrote: »

"I feel like people keep missing the point, I never said that ball groups shouldn't be good just HOW good they should be. Just reread my OP again I guess I don't feel like rewording it all." I'll just keep quoting myself ad nauseam.

rbfrgsp

PvP has been a complete write-off for over a year now and only worth playing during x2 events.

I get that ESO PvP was built on the lofty ambitions of organised play defeating mindless headlong charges but, let's face it, the experiment is a failed one for all the reasons in the thread here.

While they can no longer salvage that dream of balanced, merit-based gameplay, they could rescue the play4fun element which has been absent for, as I say, over a year.

It's a brutal step, but they should remove the option to premake groups. If you want to group, you have to use a base camp board, and it immediately allocates you to an open group. Then you're left to play with a random assortment of classes, experience levels and equipment.

It would be less tactical but then can you really say that ballgrouping an empty castle or tower farming is the level of tactical genius that they originally built the game for?

NotTaylorSwift

[snip] Ballgroups aren’t some evil menace out to crush the spirits of ‘new players’. Why should new players be automatically rewarded with beating ANY enemies just for the sake of keeping them in pvp? New players should be rewarded for actually learning how to play the game instead of being spoon fed. That’s the issue with a lot of members of the pvp community. [snip]

Also 1 flaw of this whole argument is that ‘ballgroups are intended to counter zergs’ or w/e. But no ballgroups aren’t for any specific reason other than cos we all enjoy playing this way and we enjoy playing together. So you say “well why not go play other styles of pvp than ballgroup if you enjoy playing together”. Ye, we do that too it’s a game, have fun.

[edited for baiting]

NotTaylorSwift

TheEndBringer wrote: »

24 good players shouldn't take 20 minutes to eject a 12 man group only surviving due to min maxing and indestructible obstacles.

Ye you’re right haha, it shouldn’t take 20 min, it should take longer

xylena_lazarow

MipMip wrote: »

The concept of ball groups is optimized team play, and that will never be outdated

Exactly, nobody here has any issue with optimized groups, the problem is the oppressive ball meta that chokes out all other strategies and turns large scale into a stall-fest. Nuking the ball meta wouldn't hurt optimized groups, they would still be the best, but it would open up a ton of new ways to play for both the optimized groups and the pugs/randoms/solos.

NotTaylorSwift

rbfrgsp wrote: »

PvP has been a complete write-off for over a year now and only worth playing during x2 events.

I get that ESO PvP was built on the lofty ambitions of organised play defeating mindless headlong charges but, let's face it, the experiment is a failed one for all the reasons in the thread here.

While they can no longer salvage that dream of balanced, merit-based gameplay, they could rescue the play4fun element which has been absent for, as I say, over a year.

It's a brutal step, but they should remove the option to premake groups. If you want to group, you have to use a base camp board, and it immediately allocates you to an open group. Then you're left to play with a random assortment of classes, experience levels and equipment.

It would be less tactical but then can you really say that ballgrouping an empty castle or tower farming is the level of tactical genius that they originally built the game for?

I have no words for this. Do you know you’re playing a social MMO?? If it bothers you that people play with friends then maybe it’s not the right game for you. This will be edited but that’s honestly one of the most non logical things I’ve heard. Ye let’s just stop people from playing with friends they’ve known for years! This game isn’t meant for that anyway!!

xylena_lazarow

NotTaylorSwift wrote: »

Ballgroups aren’t some evil menace out to crush the spirits of ‘new players’... If it bothers you that people play with friends then maybe it’s not the right game for you.

The problem isn't optimized team play, it's the behavior of groups stalling out objectives for the sole purpose of repeatedly killing the same new/casual/disorganized players, often called "farming pugs." The current mechanics and metagame strongly enable and reward this behavior, but since it's one-sided fun, these forum threads will keep coming.

rbfrgsp

NotTaylorSwift wrote: »

rbfrgsp wrote: »

PvP has been a complete write-off for over a year now and only worth playing during x2 events.

I get that ESO PvP was built on the lofty ambitions of organised play defeating mindless headlong charges but, let's face it, the experiment is a failed one for all the reasons in the thread here.

While they can no longer salvage that dream of balanced, merit-based gameplay, they could rescue the play4fun element which has been absent for, as I say, over a year.

It's a brutal step, but they should remove the option to premake groups. If you want to group, you have to use a base camp board, and it immediately allocates you to an open group. Then you're left to play with a random assortment of classes, experience levels and equipment.

It would be less tactical but then can you really say that ballgrouping an empty castle or tower farming is the level of tactical genius that they originally built the game for?

I have no words for this. Do you know you’re playing a social MMO?? If it bothers you that people play with friends then maybe it’s not the right game for you. This will be edited but that’s honestly one of the most non logical things I’ve heard. Ye let’s just stop people from playing with friends they’ve known for years! This game isn’t meant for that anyway!!

This is a social game. You could, you know, make new friends this way?

NotTaylorSwift

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

NotTaylorSwift wrote: »

Ballgroups aren’t some evil menace out to crush the spirits of ‘new players’... If it bothers you that people play with friends then maybe it’s not the right game for you.

The problem isn't optimized team play, it's the behavior of groups stalling out objectives for the sole purpose of repeatedly killing the same new/casual/disorganized players, often called "farming pugs." The current mechanics and metagame strongly enable and reward this behavior, but since it's one-sided fun, these forum threads will keep coming.

What is the reward for the behaviour? Ap? It’s more efficient to go keep to keep all day traditional zerg style than it is to ballgroup for farming ap. There is no reward for any pvp seeing as there are no meaningful pvp rewards in this game. So that’s not a valid argument.

rbfrgsp wrote: »

NotTaylorSwift wrote: »

rbfrgsp wrote: »

PvP has been a complete write-off for over a year now and only worth playing during x2 events.

I get that ESO PvP was built on the lofty ambitions of organised play defeating mindless headlong charges but, let's face it, the experiment is a failed one for all the reasons in the thread here.

While they can no longer salvage that dream of balanced, merit-based gameplay, they could rescue the play4fun element which has been absent for, as I say, over a year.

It's a brutal step, but they should remove the option to premake groups. If you want to group, you have to use a base camp board, and it immediately allocates you to an open group. Then you're left to play with a random assortment of classes, experience levels and equipment.

It would be less tactical but then can you really say that ballgrouping an empty castle or tower farming is the level of tactical genius that they originally built the game for?

I have no words for this. Do you know you’re playing a social MMO?? If it bothers you that people play with friends then maybe it’s not the right game for you. This will be edited but that’s honestly one of the most non logical things I’ve heard. Ye let’s just stop people from playing with friends they’ve known for years! This game isn’t meant for that anyway!!

This is a social game. You could, you know, make new friends this way?

And how would u ‘make new friends this way’ by being in a different group with different people every time you decide to group up? And what about the people we know and want to play with? We’re just supposed to forget about everyone we’ve played with for years for the sake of pandering to people who don’t like dying in a pvp environment? Pls…

Overall, the people who complain about ballgroups on this forum just don’t know, or don’t care to find out, how to stop them. And that’s not a problem that needs fixing by any gameplay changes. We don’t show you the parts of our raids where we’re left to abandon a siege/fight because the enemy faction sits inside the keep counter sieging us, and now left with no purge due to plaguebreak there is no way we can get inside and no way to force the enemy to come out meaning the fight is essentially ‘lost’ to us because we failed to get into the keep. And it happens more often than you would think.

Again and again people complain that there are no tools to stop ballgroups. But that is just blatantly wrong. Nothing else to say about it. It’s wrong.

Kordai wrote: »

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

NotTaylorSwift wrote: »

Ballgroups aren’t some evil menace out to crush the spirits of ‘new players’... If it bothers you that people play with friends then maybe it’s not the right game for you.

The problem isn't optimized team play, it's the behavior of groups stalling out objectives for the sole purpose of repeatedly killing the same new/casual/disorganized players, often called "farming pugs." The current mechanics and metagame strongly enable and reward this behavior, but since it's one-sided fun, these forum threads will keep coming.

[snip]

How is the point not relevant? You are suggesting ballgroups be easier to kill. This suggestion is made over and over and over again. Zos gave you plaguebreak. We can no longer use purge meaning that quite often, our siege attempts fail and we have to go somewhere else or come and try again later. Plaguebreak was big in terms of countering ballgroups and we had to make big changes in order to carry on effectively. And we did that. It’s still an issue for us that we can’t use purge. No matter how many times you want to talk about how op and unkillable these groups are you won’t actually experience their negative times because you aren’t in one of those groups. So all you see (or choose to see) is their strengths.

What do you actually want from ZoS? A free pass for beating optimised groups? Do you want a free pass for trial trifectas too? Nerfing buffs won’t stop ballgroups. Nerfing heals won’t stop ballgroups. We will just change our groups set ups etc etc until we find something that works again. The only way you ‘stop ballgroups’ is by preventing them from even playing the game which at that point Eso is no longer Eso ‘play how you want’. Really, credit to ZoS for seeing through and ignoring all of these forum complaints on coordinated pvp.

[edited to remove quote]

rbfrgsp

NotTaylorSwift wrote: »

rbfrgsp wrote: »

NotTaylorSwift wrote: »

rbfrgsp wrote: »

PvP has been a complete write-off for over a year now and only worth playing during x2 events.

I get that ESO PvP was built on the lofty ambitions of organised play defeating mindless headlong charges but, let's face it, the experiment is a failed one for all the reasons in the thread here.

While they can no longer salvage that dream of balanced, merit-based gameplay, they could rescue the play4fun element which has been absent for, as I say, over a year.

It's a brutal step, but they should remove the option to premake groups. If you want to group, you have to use a base camp board, and it immediately allocates you to an open group. Then you're left to play with a random assortment of classes, experience levels and equipment.

It would be less tactical but then can you really say that ballgrouping an empty castle or tower farming is the level of tactical genius that they originally built the game for?

I have no words for this. Do you know you’re playing a social MMO?? If it bothers you that people play with friends then maybe it’s not the right game for you. This will be edited but that’s honestly one of the most non logical things I’ve heard. Ye let’s just stop people from playing with friends they’ve known for years! This game isn’t meant for that anyway!!

This is a social game. You could, you know, make new friends this way?

And how would u ‘make new friends this way’ by being in a different group with different people every time you decide to group up? And what about the people we know and want to play with? We’re just supposed to forget about everyone we’ve played with for years for the sake of pandering to people who don’t like dying in a pvp environment? Pls…

Use zone chat. Send them postcards in the mail. Do a group dungeon together. It's not hard to stay in touch if you want. And if your friendships suffer because you can't ballgroup in Cyrodiil anymore, maybe they were never that important to begin with.

NotTaylorSwift wrote: »

Overall, the people who complain about ballgroups on this forum just don’t know, or don’t care to find out, how to stop them. And that’s not a problem that needs fixing by any gameplay changes. We don’t show you the parts of our raids where we’re left to abandon a siege/fight because the enemy faction sits inside the keep counter sieging us, and now left with no purge due to plaguebreak there is no way we can get inside and no way to force the enemy to come out meaning the fight is essentially ‘lost’ to us because we failed to get into the keep. And it happens more often than you would think.

Again and again people complain that there are no tools to stop ballgroups. But that is just blatantly wrong. Nothing else to say about it. It’s wrong.

But that isn't what people are saying, is it? They're saying that ball groups make for a viable strat when it's a 12 man ball against 20, 40, or even 60+ zerglings. We don't live in that reality any more. Max pop is about 120 per alliance and this means most battles are much smaller these days because of the dwindling population. Balls are the zerg now.

NotTaylorSwift

rbfrgsp wrote: »

NotTaylorSwift wrote: »

rbfrgsp wrote: »

NotTaylorSwift wrote: »

rbfrgsp wrote: »

PvP has been a complete write-off for over a year now and only worth playing during x2 events.

I get that ESO PvP was built on the lofty ambitions of organised play defeating mindless headlong charges but, let's face it, the experiment is a failed one for all the reasons in the thread here.

While they can no longer salvage that dream of balanced, merit-based gameplay, they could rescue the play4fun element which has been absent for, as I say, over a year.

It's a brutal step, but they should remove the option to premake groups. If you want to group, you have to use a base camp board, and it immediately allocates you to an open group. Then you're left to play with a random assortment of classes, experience levels and equipment.

It would be less tactical but then can you really say that ballgrouping an empty castle or tower farming is the level of tactical genius that they originally built the game for?

I have no words for this. Do you know you’re playing a social MMO?? If it bothers you that people play with friends then maybe it’s not the right game for you. This will be edited but that’s honestly one of the most non logical things I’ve heard. Ye let’s just stop people from playing with friends they’ve known for years! This game isn’t meant for that anyway!!

This is a social game. You could, you know, make new friends this way?

And how would u ‘make new friends this way’ by being in a different group with different people every time you decide to group up? And what about the people we know and want to play with? We’re just supposed to forget about everyone we’ve played with for years for the sake of pandering to people who don’t like dying in a pvp environment? Pls…

Use zone chat. Send them postcards in the mail. Do a group dungeon together. It's not hard to stay in touch if you want. And if your friendships suffer because you can't ballgroup in Cyrodiil anymore, maybe they were never that important to begin with.

NotTaylorSwift wrote: »

Overall, the people who complain about ballgroups on this forum just don’t know, or don’t care to find out, how to stop them. And that’s not a problem that needs fixing by any gameplay changes. We don’t show you the parts of our raids where we’re left to abandon a siege/fight because the enemy faction sits inside the keep counter sieging us, and now left with no purge due to plaguebreak there is no way we can get inside and no way to force the enemy to come out meaning the fight is essentially ‘lost’ to us because we failed to get into the keep. And it happens more often than you would think.

Again and again people complain that there are no tools to stop ballgroups. But that is just blatantly wrong. Nothing else to say about it. It’s wrong.

But that isn't what people are saying, is it? They're saying that ball groups make for a viable strat when it's a 12 man ball against 20, 40, or even 60+ zerglings. We don't live in that reality any more. Max pop is about 120 per alliance and this means most battles are much smaller these days because of the dwindling population. Balls are the zerg now.

to your first suggestion - ZoS: play how you want

feel free to take a look at our new youtube video when it is finished and uploaded in a week or 2! There you will see us against these rare, mythical 40+ man zergs.

rbfrgsp

Thanks for the suggestion but I've literally no idea who you are.

xylena_lazarow

NotTaylorSwift wrote: »

Nerfing buffs won’t stop ballgroups. Nerfing heals won’t stop ballgroups. We will just change our groups set ups etc etc until we find something that works again.

That's fine, the goal is to change the meta, not to delete optimized team play. Stack-heal-stall got old long ago.