Ball groups destroying everything fun about pvp

JerBearESO

ZoS needs to 100% deactivate cross healing for a month and see what happens. Healers will complain, I'm sure, but ZoS needs to see the effect it would have in general. I think it would be called.... enjoyment?

Granted we need an actual solution. But in the meantime, they would see just how many people stay off PvP specifically because of these ball groups shutting cyro enjoyment down for everyone.... That is to say, with cross healing gone for a while, we would see a lot of players staying on their campaign more.

Tommy_The_Gun

JerBearESO wrote: »

ZoS needs to 100% deactivate cross healing for a month and see what happens. Healers will complain, I'm sure, but ZoS needs to see the effect it would have in general. I think it would be called.... enjoyment?

Granted we need an actual solution. But in the meantime, they would see just how many people stay off PvP specifically because of these ball groups shutting cyro enjoyment down for everyone.... That is to say, with cross healing gone for a while, we would see a lot of players staying on their campaign more.

They already know what will happen as they did disabled cross healing in the past. What happened was the following: only ball groups left, most solo players and randoms stopped playing. There were even threads here on forums about ball group players complaining that all they fight are other ball groups...

...which was a hilarious karma twist in a way lol

Holycannoli

I think deactivating it would be overkill. They need to drastically reduce it though. Eliminating stacked healing could go a long way or solve it entirely.

It's so ridiculous how a ball group can shrug off multiple siege and constant attacks because their heals and shields are spammed (I'd like to say "coordinated" but it's really just spamming them over and over among the group).

I don't know of another MMORPG that has this much healing available to a group at a time while maintaining their ability to kill. If you stacked healing to that degree in your groups in other games you sacrifice DPS and burst damage significantly because healers aren't the damage dealers, they're the healers. It's a major ESO design flaw.

katorga

Tommy_The_Gun wrote: »

JerBearESO wrote: »

ZoS needs to 100% deactivate cross healing for a month and see what happens. Healers will complain, I'm sure, but ZoS needs to see the effect it would have in general. I think it would be called.... enjoyment?

Granted we need an actual solution. But in the meantime, they would see just how many people stay off PvP specifically because of these ball groups shutting cyro enjoyment down for everyone.... That is to say, with cross healing gone for a while, we would see a lot of players staying on their campaign more.

They already know what will happen as they did disabled cross healing in the past. What happened was the following: only ball groups left, most solo players and randoms stopped playing. There were even threads here on forums about ball group players complaining that all they fight are other ball groups...

...which was a hilarious karma twist in a way lol

Dunno. Ball group would just replace with spamming burst heals and shields. FWIW, Arcanist seems to be designed specifically for ball group use, lol. I expect to see balls of green beams b4 too long, with truly massive shield stacks, aoe roots, massive synergy bursts.

How you fix is simple, you scale heals and damage just like proc sets. Only max resource for heals and only max weap/spell damage for damage abilities. Get rid of health scaling heals completely, only damage shields scale from health (sorry tanks, but that is what healers are for). So a common damage build with 37K health, 20K mag/stam and ~7K spell damage has a radiating regen or vigor tick of like 50 and garbage burst heals.

TechMaybeHic

Tommy_The_Gun wrote: »

JerBearESO wrote: »

ZoS needs to 100% deactivate cross healing for a month and see what happens. Healers will complain, I'm sure, but ZoS needs to see the effect it would have in general. I think it would be called.... enjoyment?

Granted we need an actual solution. But in the meantime, they would see just how many people stay off PvP specifically because of these ball groups shutting cyro enjoyment down for everyone.... That is to say, with cross healing gone for a while, we would see a lot of players staying on their campaign more.

They already know what will happen as they did disabled cross healing in the past. What happened was the following: only ball groups left, most solo players and randoms stopped playing. There were even threads here on forums about ball group players complaining that all they fight are other ball groups...

...which was a hilarious karma twist in a way lol

They disabled healing outside of group. I wonder what no outside heals beyond self healing would look like

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

TechMaybeHic wrote: »

Tommy_The_Gun wrote: »

JerBearESO wrote: »

ZoS needs to 100% deactivate cross healing for a month and see what happens. Healers will complain, I'm sure, but ZoS needs to see the effect it would have in general. I think it would be called.... enjoyment?

Granted we need an actual solution. But in the meantime, they would see just how many people stay off PvP specifically because of these ball groups shutting cyro enjoyment down for everyone.... That is to say, with cross healing gone for a while, we would see a lot of players staying on their campaign more.

They already know what will happen as they did disabled cross healing in the past. What happened was the following: only ball groups left, most solo players and randoms stopped playing. There were even threads here on forums about ball group players complaining that all they fight are other ball groups...

...which was a hilarious karma twist in a way lol

They disabled healing outside of group. I wonder what no outside heals beyond self healing would look like

Everyone would run tank builds even more so than they do now.

Iriidius

TybaltKaine wrote: »

Would you walk into a veteran hardmode trial without assembling a cohesive group that plays off of each other's strengths? No. Why would you walk into Cyrodiil that way?

Cyrodiil is designed for group play. You can enter solo, but you won't be able to take a keep or do much of anything else that way.

Solo PVP is in Imperial City. Yes, you occasionally get groups there, but the area is so much smaller and the NPC's so much more threatening that you can kite them into other encounters and mitigate their advantage, see how quick a group dissolves when a boss shows up and a gate opens.

You either adapt to the content you are playing or get left behind. It's that simple.

Having to use Cyrodiil build in Cyrodiil like you use Trial gear for Trials makes sense, having to built a 12 man group like in Trial doesnt because.
Trials are build and balanced only for 12 man organized groups, for other group sizes exists other content, while Cyrodiil was the only PvP area at game start and had to be used by every form of PvP.
In Imperial City you also get zerged as a solo player and group players(VaranisArano) also claim it would for groups and not for solo players.
A few years ago playing solo or in PuG was normal and ballgroups/organized groups/smallscales rare. The PvP population has reduced since then, why do we want to increase the group size required to play PvP then? If PvP is dying and the PvP population is too small, removing solo players is the solution. In off hours there often are already to few players to form a group, so solo play is the only option, otherwise PvP is dead.

Saying Cyrodiil is for group play is like saying „If you cant join a group than leave Cyrodiil“. Many players cant even join a group because ZoS also destroyed PuGs when they reduced group size to 12 and their friends are offline/quitter/non existent because they are new to the game. I also dont like joining a PvP guild without knowing them before.
In the following article ZoS states that there will also be 1v1 fights in Cyrodiil. It is in german, but maybe you can translate it or someone else can confirm it for you. 1v1 duells dont happen if you are only a cell/organ in the body of a ballgroup, unable to survive alone and even run from keep to keep stacked as a ballgroup.
https://www.elderscrollsonline.com/de/news/post/749

AuraNebula wrote: »

TybaltKaine wrote: »

Would you walk into a veteran hardmode trial without assembling a cohesive group that plays off of each other's strengths? No. Why would you walk into Cyrodiil that way?

Cyrodiil is designed for group play. You can enter solo, but you won't be able to take a keep or do much of anything else that way.

Solo PVP is in Imperial City. Yes, you occasionally get groups there, but the area is so much smaller and the NPC's so much more threatening that you can kite them into other encounters and mitigate their advantage, see how quick a group dissolves when a boss shows up and a gate opens.

You either adapt to the content you are playing or get left behind. It's that simple.

I'm going to start off by saying I have nothing against ball groups. They're great and are needed in PvP. They help make things exciting.

However Cyrodiil is not specifically for groups only. You can 1vx, 2vx, 3vx, 1v1, etc. It is pretty much designed for everyone and is not specifically for groups only.

I'm just tired of hearing this group only narrative. Solo play is just as valid as group play. Lots of solos are taking resources, making call outs, setting down camps, and helping to siege.

Yeah I am tired of it too

katorga wrote: »

Tommy_The_Gun wrote: »

JerBearESO wrote: »

ZoS needs to 100% deactivate cross healing for a month and see what happens. Healers will complain, I'm sure, but ZoS needs to see the effect it would have in general. I think it would be called.... enjoyment?

Granted we need an actual solution. But in the meantime, they would see just how many people stay off PvP specifically because of these ball groups shutting cyro enjoyment down for everyone.... That is to say, with cross healing gone for a while, we would see a lot of players staying on their campaign more.

They already know what will happen as they did disabled cross healing in the past. What happened was the following: only ball groups left, most solo players and randoms stopped playing. There were even threads here on forums about ball group players complaining that all they fight are other ball groups...

...which was a hilarious karma twist in a way lol

Dunno. Ball group would just replace with spamming burst heals and shields. FWIW, Arcanist seems to be designed specifically for ball group use, lol. I expect to see balls of green beams b4 too long, with truly massive shield stacks, aoe roots, massive synergy bursts.

How you fix is simple, you scale heals and damage just like proc sets. Only max resource for heals and only max weap/spell damage for damage abilities. Get rid of health scaling heals completely, only damage shields scale from health (sorry tanks, but that is what healers are for). So a common damage build with 37K health, 20K mag/stam and ~7K spell damage has a radiating regen or vigor tick of like 50 and garbage burst heals.

This change will not fix ballgroup crosshealing but make it even stronger(at least compared to self healing), while completely destroying solo healing, making ballgroups the only option in Cyrodiil.
A 12 man ballgroup usually has 4-6 healers, many of them have at 30k hp anyway because they use earthgore+hiti. The 18k stamina ballgroup dds also do a bit crosshealing, but only a little bit, echoing vigor often is their only heal, so they will have to stack wpn dmg, crit dmg+chance and penetration like they already do.
Soloplayers will have to stack max ressoursse and wpn dmg without group buffs from other players sets and skills.

Iriidius

SimonThesis wrote: »

SimonThesis wrote: »

You do realize that if you make the group size 24 again then there will be 24-man ballgroups, don't you?

When group size was 24, Drac and other prominent ballgroups only ran 10-12.

Yeah many ballgroups had already 12 players when the group size was still 24. Otherwise it is not such a big problem for organized guilds to run with multiple groups when they are still in the same voicechat following the same leader(even when he is not in group)
Zerg guilds like „The Daggerfall Authority“, „Daggerfall the Conquerors“, „My Domain“(all blue) or an unnamed AD 60 man group in blackreach have multiple groups but still move together as one stack.
However PuG groups cant just run multiple groups, because leader is calling out targets and telling where to go in group chat most of the time or you see it on map. Also there are always players in PuGs that dont follow crown, do their own thing, stay around afk or are useless. There is no quality check in PuGs and most experienced players play in private groups or solo and deny PuGing, so most players in PuGs are bad. A PuG needs 24 players to be effektive and competitive against organized 12man/6man or even smallscale groups. Bow that PuGs are dead and solo PvP too, players are faction stacking or just doing nothing.

jaws343 wrote: »

Turtle_Bot wrote: »

OBJnoob wrote: »

Turtle_Bot wrote: »

This is why the scaling of ball groups to solos/small scales is so disproportionate despite them technically scaling in a linear way. Yes both playstyles can technically fight an equivalent number of players, the issue is that when those numbers are scaled up to the size of a ball group, this scaled number of players that the group can go up against, exceeds the numbers cap placed on the zergs and unorganized groups via the population cap which creates this imbalance we are currently seeing.

I agree with this 100%. I appreciate you saying it honestly-- it feels like maybe we can understand eachother a little now. It is only because lag may be an issue (may in fact be part of THIS issue,) that I mentioned shrinking max group size instead of increasing overall pop cap.

The organized groups will simply adapt to the smaller group sizes and likely use things such as the target markers (or an addon) alongside discord to coordinate 2-3 small scale size groups to essentially keep their current size and power level, meanwhile the zergs of randoms will have their current power cut in half again due to how they are now limited to a group size the equivalent of a small scale group but they're either not skilled enough, not built right, or simply not organized enough to make that group size work so they will very likely just give up in frustration completely and just leave PvP, leaving everyone (ball groups, small scales and solos alike) with even less people to fight/farm than there currently is.

I think another important thing to be said around reducing group size is that the number of players willing to lead groups have not only dwindled, it become incredibly difficult to form any semblance of a capable PUG in Cyrodil since the 24 - 12 group size reduction.

When there were 24 man groups, the number of group leaders necessary to organize the faction was relatively small, which meant more players were coordinated (somewhat at least).

The reduction to 12 man limits effectively doubled the number of groups that could be run, but didn't also double the number of players willing to lead. To make matters worse, a semi-organized, well led 24 man PUG group could get things done in Cyrodil. Take keeps, defend keeps, take scrolls, etc. They'd wipe against organized groups, but their impact in combat was still effective. And even when they were not, a 24 man group could accomodate for lesser skilled players. When you have 24 people, if 4 of them are lesser skilled, those 4 can man siege or heal and not be too much of a burden on the group. With 12 people, that burden becomes far more exacerbated. Where lesser skilled players can make a PUG 12 man group effectively useless the moment they take any pressure.

With all of that, the number of people willing to actually run PUG groups in cyrodil has decreased because it is far harder to predict a favorable outcome with a bunch of players you know little about, skill wise.

Reduction to 6 man cap would effectively kill any kind of grouping outside of highly organized ball groups. No one is going to want to run PUG small scale groups with players who barely function together as a group.

Yeah 12 man group size nearly killed PuG groups. When I was new player and played in PuGs in Kyne(u50 campaign, predecessor of icecap), there were 2 24 man groups in the evening in a campaign that is now completely dead. When one group had only 12 players, players considered it to small and weak and left to try get into the full 24 man PuG. Now all PuGs are capped at 12 man, 6 man PuGs are even more useless and often get 1vXed, but about the number of players typing lfg in chat. 6 man is also minimum size for a ballgroup and more like smallscale size.

Quackery

Playing on Gray Host on PC EU right now and it's beyond cancer! An AD ball group at Glademist dragged 10 players into the center INVISIBLY and killed everyone in less than a second! I MEAN LESS THAN A SECOND!! I would know because I WAS THERE!!

Ball groups are pure cancer! This isn't pvp or gaming at all, this is toxic behaviour of epic proportions!! SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE ABOUT THEM ALREADY!!!! THIS IS NOT FUN!!!!!!!!!

Quackery

JerBearESO wrote: »

ZoS needs to 100% deactivate cross healing for a month and see what happens. Healers will complain, I'm sure, but ZoS needs to see the effect it would have in general. I think it would be called.... enjoyment?

Granted we need an actual solution. But in the meantime, they would see just how many people stay off PvP specifically because of these ball groups shutting cyro enjoyment down for everyone.... That is to say, with cross healing gone for a while, we would see a lot of players staying on their campaign more.

Deactivating cross-healing only helps ball groups because, you know, they can STILL HEAL EACH OTHER INSIDE THE GROUP!!! And how do you expect people to stay alive when counter-siege is pummeling the siegers if cross-healing isn't allowed?? Only those who do not heal keep pushing this idea about removing cross-healing. That is NOT the issue!

LordSkruff

Good Afternoon,

I would like to add a few points here i dont have much time for forums.



yes ballgroups are ridiculously overperforming.
Speaking from a long term competetive player and ballgroupers perspective.

they are like big fish in a little pool.

My 12 man is capable of tanking 90+ players if all roles are played perfectly.
It isnt special it has been done many times by several groups.

its clear that this isnt healthy for the longevity of the playerbase's existence in PvP.

Options that i think could be explored are as follows.

increase server cap ( Not great )
this would come with issues like the return of lag however the zergs might big big enough to have some influence. in general this isnt a healthy approach in my opinion. it doesnt resolve the Core problem that is the OVERBEARING odds ballgroups are able to face. eventually youll run into the same problem.

reduce group size max in cyrodill again ( Pretty good )
if group size were at max say 6. there would still be overwhelmingly powerful 6 man groups however they arent quite nearly as overbearing to fight against.
However... groups of 6 Max makes many fights impossible for many groups to co ordinate resulting in stagnant Map Activity.

significantly reduce the effectiveness of group buffing sets in PvP zones ( Great Idea )
One of the REAL problems of effective vs ineffective group play is just how much of a powerful tool group buff sets are...
many of them are JUST as good in solo gameplay as they are in group.

Rallying cry. Perfectly Viable in group sizes of 1+
Trans. Perfectly Viable in group sizes of 2+
Plaguebreak. Perfectly Viable in group sizes of 1+
Olorime. Perfectly Viable in group sizes of 1+
Spc. Perfectly Viable in group sizes of 1+
Powerful assault. Perfectly Viable in group sizes of 1+
Phoenix Moth. Perfectly Viable in group sizes of 1+

there are many more.

Saxhleel.
Pillager.
Sanctuary.
Ebon.
Worm.
Hircine.

And these are JUST BASIC SETS.

some of these sets to just name a few of a potential 50+ effective group play sets
are used even in SOLO gameplay extensively as a no brainer solution...

in a typical ballgroup you would have 10+ group buffing sets each of which are pushing the groups tankiness, sustain or damage for the group to a region of 10 - 25% gains PER SET depending on set chosen.

two ways of Interpreting a Potential fix to this i can think of.

if every GROUP buffing specific set was Dynamically Scaling in Power based on Group Size (reducing large groups power)
if every GROUP buffing specific set was nerfed by a blanket 50%

Solo players would remain unaffected (some sets perhaps arent viable anymore in option 2)
Smallscalers would have to decide wether the buff is actually worth it or not.
Large groups would still use said sets but would be massively easier to kill.

i know and appreciate that this would affect PVE greatly causing many sets to be dropped in dungeons completely.

however if there was a battle spirit debuff like group buff sets reduced by say a % proportional to your weight in a group that would be enough i think.

Ballgroups are exactly as everyone already said. organized. sometimes HYPER organized. if you reduce the impact that organization provides to the group. it can only help casual players, become a bigger part of a more interesting fight.





Crosshealing.

Crosshealing is often pointed at as the root of all evil. i think a Cap on how many Crossheals a player can recieve is a Perfect solution to such a Problem. IE ( 6 Echoing Vigors Max 6 Rad Regens Max )

Siege currently IS a massive anti player tool for the casual player.

i dont think you can go ahead and completely destroy crossheal without doing any of the following.

buffing siege shield to mitigate a larger amount of damage or Cover a Larger Area. depending on just HOW BADLY you nerf crossheal.

Similarly. on a more personal note,

i think in general a nerf to siege Damage is in order to let players feel some kind of benefit from actually playing the game and not just siege simulator.

i lose count of the amount of times players STOP what they are doing in the midst of killing or being killed by players. to PLACE A SIEGE to have a Far greater advantage then zerging does. i dont think this is right. it isnt fun for either party. Keeps currently if scounted effectively are almost Completely unapproachable for even organized 12 man groups. DESPITE how overpowered people seem to claim ballgroups are.

In short.
Ease up on the rewards gained for Hyper Optimization. let ballgroups feel up to say 40% less effect from their optimization
Cap the amount of Crossheals a Group can Recieve to Bridge a Gap Between Smaller and Larger groups to 6 of any given hot
Ease up on siege effectiveness flat by 40%

everyone wins.

Let me know what people think.

Regards,

a long term fan.

LordSkruff.

LarsS

LordSkruff wrote: »

Good Afternoon,

I would like to add a few points here i dont have much time for forums.



yes ballgroups are ridiculously overperforming.
Speaking from a long term competetive player and ballgroupers perspective.

they are like big fish in a little pool.

My 12 man is capable of tanking 90+ players if all roles are played perfectly.
It isnt special it has been done many times by several groups.

its clear that this isnt healthy for the longevity of the playerbase's existence in PvP.

Options that i think could be explored are as follows.

increase server cap ( Not great )
this would come with issues like the return of lag however the zergs might big big enough to have some influence. in general this isnt a healthy approach in my opinion. it doesnt resolve the Core problem that is the OVERBEARING odds ballgroups are able to face. eventually youll run into the same problem.

reduce group size max in cyrodill again ( Pretty good )
if group size were at max say 6. there would still be overwhelmingly powerful 6 man groups however they arent quite nearly as overbearing to fight against.
However... groups of 6 Max makes many fights impossible for many groups to co ordinate resulting in stagnant Map Activity.

significantly reduce the effectiveness of group buffing sets in PvP zones ( Great Idea )
One of the REAL problems of effective vs ineffective group play is just how much of a powerful tool group buff sets are...
many of them are JUST as good in solo gameplay as they are in group.

Rallying cry. Perfectly Viable in group sizes of 1+
Trans. Perfectly Viable in group sizes of 2+
Plaguebreak. Perfectly Viable in group sizes of 1+
Olorime. Perfectly Viable in group sizes of 1+
Spc. Perfectly Viable in group sizes of 1+
Powerful assault. Perfectly Viable in group sizes of 1+
Phoenix Moth. Perfectly Viable in group sizes of 1+

there are many more.

Saxhleel.
Pillager.
Sanctuary.
Ebon.
Worm.
Hircine.

And these are JUST BASIC SETS.

some of these sets to just name a few of a potential 50+ effective group play sets
are used even in SOLO gameplay extensively as a no brainer solution...

in a typical ballgroup you would have 10+ group buffing sets each of which are pushing the groups tankiness, sustain or damage for the group to a region of 10 - 25% gains PER SET depending on set chosen.

two ways of Interpreting a Potential fix to this i can think of.

if every GROUP buffing specific set was Dynamically Scaling in Power based on Group Size (reducing large groups power)
if every GROUP buffing specific set was nerfed by a blanket 50%

Solo players would remain unaffected (some sets perhaps arent viable anymore in option 2)
Smallscalers would have to decide wether the buff is actually worth it or not.
Large groups would still use said sets but would be massively easier to kill.

i know and appreciate that this would affect PVE greatly causing many sets to be dropped in dungeons completely.

however if there was a battle spirit debuff like group buff sets reduced by say a % proportional to your weight in a group that would be enough i think.

Ballgroups are exactly as everyone already said. organized. sometimes HYPER organized. if you reduce the impact that organization provides to the group. it can only help casual players, become a bigger part of a more interesting fight.





Crosshealing.

Crosshealing is often pointed at as the root of all evil. i think a Cap on how many Crossheals a player can recieve is a Perfect solution to such a Problem. IE ( 6 Echoing Vigors Max 6 Rad Regens Max )

Siege currently IS a massive anti player tool for the casual player.

i dont think you can go ahead and completely destroy crossheal without doing any of the following.

buffing siege shield to mitigate a larger amount of damage or Cover a Larger Area. depending on just HOW BADLY you nerf crossheal.

Similarly. on a more personal note,

i think in general a nerf to siege Damage is in order to let players feel some kind of benefit from actually playing the game and not just siege simulator.

i lose count of the amount of times players STOP what they are doing in the midst of killing or being killed by players. to PLACE A SIEGE to have a Far greater advantage then zerging does. i dont think this is right. it isnt fun for either party. Keeps currently if scounted effectively are almost Completely unapproachable for even organized 12 man groups. DESPITE how overpowered people seem to claim ballgroups are.

In short.
Ease up on the rewards gained for Hyper Optimization. let ballgroups feel up to say 40% less effect from their optimization
Cap the amount of Crossheals a Group can Recieve to Bridge a Gap Between Smaller and Larger groups to 6 of any given hot
Ease up on siege effectiveness flat by 40%

everyone wins.

Let me know what people think.

Regards,

a long term fan.

LordSkruff.

This is a very good run through. I have tried to point it out before and now do it again, ZOS provides the non-proc non-CP campaigns, those campaigns solves the set problem, it strongly limits the build possibilities for balls and smalscalers. In addition it makes it easier for new players to join pvp even with low CP.

Thus why should ZOS put efforts into changing the standard CP, they have provided an alternative that solves much of the problems discussed in this thread.

OBJnoob

@LordSkruff Well said sir.

I'm not a supporter of the idea to limit HoT stacks. But it is obviously one solution. And I think you laid out all the solutions nicely.

I think the best solution you proposed is to shrink the max group size. It effectively accomplishes the 2nd best solution-- which is limiting the effect of group buff sets-- but it does it without wrecking PvE.

LarsS

OBJnoob wrote: »

@LordSkruff Well said sir.

I'm not a supporter of the idea to limit HoT stacks. But it is obviously one solution. And I think you laid out all the solutions nicely.

I think the best solution you proposed is to shrink the max group size. It effectively accomplishes the 2nd best solution-- which is limiting the effect of group buff sets-- but it does it without wrecking PvE.

Reducing group size is a bad idea, pug groups are struggling already with 12. A limit of 6 would kill them the only thing left would be the faction zerg.

LordSkruff

OBJnoob wrote: »

@LordSkruff Well said sir.

I'm not a supporter of the idea to limit HoT stacks. But it is obviously one solution. And I think you laid out all the solutions nicely.

I think the best solution you proposed is to shrink the max group size. It effectively accomplishes the 2nd best solution-- which is limiting the effect of group buff sets-- but it does it without wrecking PvE.

PVE should remain unaffected due to this being targeted at the battlespirit buff only gained while in any PvP zone.

LordSkruff

I would like to add that group buff sets should most certainly prevail as the best option
for groups in general

I’ll pick a random set

Sanctuary
12% healing received

In solo this doesn’t compete with some of the other options such as.

Old Maras balm
Hist sap

And fairly so.

However if you have 12 players all benefiting from such a buff it quickly turns into an extreme advantage which no other set can compare to.

Even if this set were 4-6% maybe even less it would still hold out great value and be incorporated into many optimized 12 man groups.

Every set like this should just scale down for each person in your group.

You already have the advantage of having an entire extra player to provide a massive effect on damage healing etc, whatever the role is

Does he really need to bring 12% healing with him?

Isn’t 4-6% enough to still outperform almost any other alternative?

LarsS

LordSkruff wrote: »

I would like to add that group buff sets should most certainly prevail as the best option
for groups in general

I’ll pick a random set

Sanctuary
12% healing received

In solo this doesn’t compete with some of the other options such as.

Old Maras balm
Hist sap

And fairly so.

However if you have 12 players all benefiting from such a buff it quickly turns into an extreme advantage which no other set can compare to.

Even if this set were 4-6% maybe even less it would still hold out great value and be incorporated into many optimized 12 man groups.

Every set like this should just scale down for each person in your group.

You already have the advantage of having an entire extra player to provide a massive effect on damage healing etc, whatever the role is

Does he really need to bring 12% healing with him?

Isn’t 4-6% enough to still outperform almost any other alternative?

My question is why should ZOS do this change there is already a campaign where sets like Sanctuary have 0 buff!

Mrtoobyy

Word!

Alchimiste1

When a solo player or small group (~4man) gets into an outnumbered fight they expect or either lose or to have to play extremely well to pull off the win.
-When ball group players run into a 20+ enemy players they expect to win.


When pugs group to fight solo players/ small man groups there have a good chance of winning (when they have more noticeably more numbers) . I'd say even great in the more recent patches.
-When pugs group up to fight ball groups, they have a 0% chance of victory. It is not the same.

Turtle_Bot

LarsS wrote: »

LordSkruff wrote: »

I would like to add that group buff sets should most certainly prevail as the best option
for groups in general

I’ll pick a random set

Sanctuary
12% healing received

In solo this doesn’t compete with some of the other options such as.

Old Maras balm
Hist sap

And fairly so.

However if you have 12 players all benefiting from such a buff it quickly turns into an extreme advantage which no other set can compare to.

Even if this set were 4-6% maybe even less it would still hold out great value and be incorporated into many optimized 12 man groups.

Every set like this should just scale down for each person in your group.

You already have the advantage of having an entire extra player to provide a massive effect on damage healing etc, whatever the role is

Does he really need to bring 12% healing with him?

Isn’t 4-6% enough to still outperform almost any other alternative?

My question is why should ZOS do this change there is already a campaign where sets like Sanctuary have 0 buff!

because that campaign is dead outside of strictly middle of prime time and MYM events.

Majority of players go into CP campaigns (GH/BR) because like it or not, for better or worse, people want to use more than just stat sets when playing and no CP doesn't allow for this.

The rest of the player-base should not be forced to move into a completely different version of PvP just because some ball group members don't want to be balanced for the current state of the game.

I'll propose an alternative question for you. If you want to use the excuse of the no CP campaigns existence just to not receive any much needed nerfs, then why don't ball groups ask for ZOS to create an entirely new campaign that is specifically designed for ball groups only and the only way you can enter there is to be in a premade group of 12 (like a trial, but its PvP) and the only other players you fight there are other ball groups and the NPCs are adjusted to match ball groups power level, that way ball groups can have their own campaign to play in without ruining the PvP experience for other players. Or will ball groups simply ignore that campaign because the easy farm/main action is still on the main campaign (GH) or BR if GH is too laggy/full.

Turtle_Bot

LordSkruff wrote: »

Good Afternoon,

I would like to add a few points here i dont have much time for forums.



yes ballgroups are ridiculously overperforming.
Speaking from a long term competetive player and ballgroupers perspective.

they are like big fish in a little pool.

My 12 man is capable of tanking 90+ players if all roles are played perfectly.
It isnt special it has been done many times by several groups.

its clear that this isnt healthy for the longevity of the playerbase's existence in PvP.

Options that i think could be explored are as follows.

increase server cap ( Not great )
this would come with issues like the return of lag however the zergs might big big enough to have some influence. in general this isnt a healthy approach in my opinion. it doesnt resolve the Core problem that is the OVERBEARING odds ballgroups are able to face. eventually youll run into the same problem.

reduce group size max in cyrodill again ( Pretty good )
if group size were at max say 6. there would still be overwhelmingly powerful 6 man groups however they arent quite nearly as overbearing to fight against.
However... groups of 6 Max makes many fights impossible for many groups to co ordinate resulting in stagnant Map Activity.

significantly reduce the effectiveness of group buffing sets in PvP zones ( Great Idea )
One of the REAL problems of effective vs ineffective group play is just how much of a powerful tool group buff sets are...
many of them are JUST as good in solo gameplay as they are in group.

Rallying cry. Perfectly Viable in group sizes of 1+
Trans. Perfectly Viable in group sizes of 2+
Plaguebreak. Perfectly Viable in group sizes of 1+
Olorime. Perfectly Viable in group sizes of 1+
Spc. Perfectly Viable in group sizes of 1+
Powerful assault. Perfectly Viable in group sizes of 1+
Phoenix Moth. Perfectly Viable in group sizes of 1+

there are many more.

Saxhleel.
Pillager.
Sanctuary.
Ebon.
Worm.
Hircine.

And these are JUST BASIC SETS.

some of these sets to just name a few of a potential 50+ effective group play sets
are used even in SOLO gameplay extensively as a no brainer solution...

in a typical ballgroup you would have 10+ group buffing sets each of which are pushing the groups tankiness, sustain or damage for the group to a region of 10 - 25% gains PER SET depending on set chosen.

two ways of Interpreting a Potential fix to this i can think of.

if every GROUP buffing specific set was Dynamically Scaling in Power based on Group Size (reducing large groups power)
if every GROUP buffing specific set was nerfed by a blanket 50%

Solo players would remain unaffected (some sets perhaps arent viable anymore in option 2)
Smallscalers would have to decide wether the buff is actually worth it or not.
Large groups would still use said sets but would be massively easier to kill.

i know and appreciate that this would affect PVE greatly causing many sets to be dropped in dungeons completely.

however if there was a battle spirit debuff like group buff sets reduced by say a % proportional to your weight in a group that would be enough i think.

Ballgroups are exactly as everyone already said. organized. sometimes HYPER organized. if you reduce the impact that organization provides to the group. it can only help casual players, become a bigger part of a more interesting fight.





Crosshealing.

Crosshealing is often pointed at as the root of all evil. i think a Cap on how many Crossheals a player can recieve is a Perfect solution to such a Problem. IE ( 6 Echoing Vigors Max 6 Rad Regens Max )

Siege currently IS a massive anti player tool for the casual player.

i dont think you can go ahead and completely destroy crossheal without doing any of the following.

buffing siege shield to mitigate a larger amount of damage or Cover a Larger Area. depending on just HOW BADLY you nerf crossheal.

Similarly. on a more personal note,

i think in general a nerf to siege Damage is in order to let players feel some kind of benefit from actually playing the game and not just siege simulator.

i lose count of the amount of times players STOP what they are doing in the midst of killing or being killed by players. to PLACE A SIEGE to have a Far greater advantage then zerging does. i dont think this is right. it isnt fun for either party. Keeps currently if scounted effectively are almost Completely unapproachable for even organized 12 man groups. DESPITE how overpowered people seem to claim ballgroups are.

In short.
Ease up on the rewards gained for Hyper Optimization. let ballgroups feel up to say 40% less effect from their optimization
Cap the amount of Crossheals a Group can Recieve to Bridge a Gap Between Smaller and Larger groups to 6 of any given hot
Ease up on siege effectiveness flat by 40%

everyone wins.

Let me know what people think.

Regards,

a long term fan.

LordSkruff.

Thanks for posting this, sums up the issues non ball group players are having with ball groups currently and nice to hear it from someone who runs in ball groups too.

A lot of focus is currently on HoT stacking due to how strong healing is in general currently, but you are correct, that is only part of the issue and a lot needs to be done to address the current power imbalance between ball groups and other playstyles. I want to mention that I think HoT stacking gets focused because of its passive nature (same as snow treaders). It's just always there in a ball group. You need to ensure that your group can either outdps 30-40k hps or have enough burst to wipe the ever tankier health bars (currently easily at 40k+) of ball groups and this is just not possible for other playstyles at the moment (it's a struggle even for other ball groups to achieve).

As for increasing the pop caps, I brought this up as a potential solution after the code re-write and all servers are upgraded, so lag would hopefully not be an issue by then.
As for eventually coming to the same problem even with the increased cap sizes, it's possible, but we used to have much higher caps and double the group size and those weren't creating a power imbalance like we currently have, which is most likely due to the nature of large groups. Groups above 12 become very hard to coordinate everyone in them, even for the best leaders, so they tend to falter and/or break apart until they become functional again (usually around that 10-12 player number) and the increased pop caps allow for a zerg large enough to facilitate counterplay against ball groups while not also giving up everything else to do so. So while definitely not a good short term solution, it would definitely be something to look into in the long term, hardware and code permitting.

Nerfing siege damage is an option to get people off sieges, but my guess is that many of those players will just switch to pew pewing from the roofs/walls instead, so I don't think it will solve much. There would also still be the issue of perma block tanks where siege and a coordinated dump is needed to kill them and nerfing sieges too much would make those players even more immortal than they currently are. Maybe nerf sieges base damage, but increase their AoE so they are harder to dodge and they deal double (or triple) damage to players they hit that are blocking the initial hit?

Galeriano

It's not ballgroups. It's healers aka healbots that are destroying everything fun about PvP. The moment You see a healbot spamming heals You know all fun will sucked away from the fight You are in and no matter the final results fight itself will be boring and tiresome. Crosshealing should be looked at long time ago. Ballgroups are just more annoying because they have more healbots in them.

LarsS

Turtle_Bot wrote: »

LarsS wrote: »

LordSkruff wrote: »

I would like to add that group buff sets should most certainly prevail as the best option
for groups in general

I’ll pick a random set

Sanctuary
12% healing received

In solo this doesn’t compete with some of the other options such as.

Old Maras balm
Hist sap

And fairly so.

However if you have 12 players all benefiting from such a buff it quickly turns into an extreme advantage which no other set can compare to.

Even if this set were 4-6% maybe even less it would still hold out great value and be incorporated into many optimized 12 man groups.

Every set like this should just scale down for each person in your group.

You already have the advantage of having an entire extra player to provide a massive effect on damage healing etc, whatever the role is

Does he really need to bring 12% healing with him?

Isn’t 4-6% enough to still outperform almost any other alternative?

My question is why should ZOS do this change there is already a campaign where sets like Sanctuary have 0 buff!

because that campaign is dead outside of strictly middle of prime time and MYM events.

Majority of players go into CP campaigns (GH/BR) because like it or not, for better or worse, people want to use more than just stat sets when playing and no CP doesn't allow for this.

The rest of the player-base should not be forced to move into a completely different version of PvP just because some ball group members don't want to be balanced for the current state of the game.

I'll propose an alternative question for you. If you want to use the excuse of the no CP campaigns existence just to not receive any much needed nerfs, then why don't ball groups ask for ZOS to create an entirely new campaign that is specifically designed for ball groups only and the only way you can enter there is to be in a premade group of 12 (like a trial, but its PvP) and the only other players you fight there are other ball groups and the NPCs are adjusted to match ball groups power level, that way ball groups can have their own campaign to play in without ruining the PvP experience for other players. Or will ball groups simply ignore that campaign because the easy farm/main action is still on the main campaign (GH) or BR if GH is too laggy/full.

Non-CP were the main campaign on PC/EU about 2 years ago, until the introduction of the non-proc condition, first to leave were most ball groups and smallscalers. I think the reason were obvious, balls and smallscalers got less powerful. Now most people on this thread seems to agree that balls and good smallscalers are to strong for the health of the game on CP campaigns. So if the pvpers discussing in this thread, really want to change the state of pvp why don't you choose the best existing solution, if you move, many casual players will move to. I don't understand how ZOS can take these suggestions serious as long as most people prefere the present state.

Turtle_Bot

LarsS wrote: »

Turtle_Bot wrote: »

LarsS wrote: »

LordSkruff wrote: »

I would like to add that group buff sets should most certainly prevail as the best option
for groups in general

I’ll pick a random set

Sanctuary
12% healing received

In solo this doesn’t compete with some of the other options such as.

Old Maras balm
Hist sap

And fairly so.

However if you have 12 players all benefiting from such a buff it quickly turns into an extreme advantage which no other set can compare to.

Even if this set were 4-6% maybe even less it would still hold out great value and be incorporated into many optimized 12 man groups.

Every set like this should just scale down for each person in your group.

You already have the advantage of having an entire extra player to provide a massive effect on damage healing etc, whatever the role is

Does he really need to bring 12% healing with him?

Isn’t 4-6% enough to still outperform almost any other alternative?

My question is why should ZOS do this change there is already a campaign where sets like Sanctuary have 0 buff!

because that campaign is dead outside of strictly middle of prime time and MYM events.

Majority of players go into CP campaigns (GH/BR) because like it or not, for better or worse, people want to use more than just stat sets when playing and no CP doesn't allow for this.

The rest of the player-base should not be forced to move into a completely different version of PvP just because some ball group members don't want to be balanced for the current state of the game.

I'll propose an alternative question for you. If you want to use the excuse of the no CP campaigns existence just to not receive any much needed nerfs, then why don't ball groups ask for ZOS to create an entirely new campaign that is specifically designed for ball groups only and the only way you can enter there is to be in a premade group of 12 (like a trial, but its PvP) and the only other players you fight there are other ball groups and the NPCs are adjusted to match ball groups power level, that way ball groups can have their own campaign to play in without ruining the PvP experience for other players. Or will ball groups simply ignore that campaign because the easy farm/main action is still on the main campaign (GH) or BR if GH is too laggy/full.

Non-CP were the main campaign on PC/EU about 2 years ago, until the introduction of the non-proc condition, first to leave were most ball groups and smallscalers. I think the reason were obvious, balls and smallscalers got less powerful. Now most people on this thread seems to agree that balls and good smallscalers are to strong for the health of the game on CP campaigns. So if the pvpers discussing in this thread, really want to change the state of pvp why don't you choose the best existing solution, if you move, many casual players will move to. I don't understand how ZOS can take these suggestions serious as long as most people prefere the present state.

Except it wasn't?

I've been PvP on PC/EU for the better part of a decade now (since start of 2016) and not once has the no CP campaign been the main campaign during that time. The main campaign and the one with the majority of players has been the one that is currently GH for as long as I've been playing.

No CP had always been populated back then, but never to the extent that GH was. In fact GH was changed to be alliance locked because it was the main campaign and people were complaining about players swapping factions to keep flipping the map 24/7.

Like I said before, like it or not (and clearly you don't), people want to play the current game, but they want to play it where the top is toned down so that the average player has a chance to compete if they can get a large enough group together (which against small scale and solos they can still do, but is not possible under the current pop caps to do against ball groups).

So once again, if ball groups don't want to play a balanced game, why don't they ask for a new campaign specifically for them to play on against each other instead of trying to force out everyone else from the main campaign?

Tommy_The_Gun

I think someone already said this, but I think that the only decent solution to tone down ball groups (and only ball groups, without nerfing everything else) is to add a cap on how many positive effects of the same type one player can have stacked.

There is this screenshot floating around of a ball group player having like 11 Vigors and some Radiant Regeneration hots ticking all at the same time. Even with 0 investment in stam/mag and weapon/spell damage this is still something around 20K healing per second - even if battle spirit is active. To put that into perspective that is like having 40K health recovery (reduced by half in PvP so 20K health recovery).

Ball groups are technically not the issue, but rather the issue is that having stats like this is possible in a 1st place. Ball groups are a play style that just happens to enable this kind of stats. And tbh - it would be totally fine having stats like this if for example they will have troubles with killing some PvE NPC guards as usually increasing your defences means that you sacrifice your offensive capabilities. But with how ball groups do scale it is not the case.

So, Imagine if the cap was 3 for example (max 3 vigots etc). Solo players would not feel that. Solo "zerg surfers" would not feel that. Small Scale would not feel that. The only one that would - would be ball groups.

It is very unhealthy for the game to have one playstyle dominating over others even to the point where same playstyle can not counter itself - hence why you don't see ball groups fighting eachother, and if they do it is very rare, as they know they will just both waste time. It is actually kinda puzzling why zos is unable (or unwilling ?) to balance out ball groups as they already have solutions - like some sets that scale with group size & become weaker the larger the group is, or various ideas served on a plater by community.

There is also other issue - how big impact do ball groups have on the PvP community in the global aspect. I am pretty sure that there are way, way more players that have stopped PvP-ing (or potenial players who did not started PVP-ing) vs players who started and are playing ball groups - because they want to be as much competitive as possible and have as much advantage as possible.

Remember, eso was famous (or infamous) for having "play as you want" motto being true for the most part - unless you wanted to push for PvE scoreboards. But min-maxing meta stuff for PvE is maybe like 10% better at max. Ball Groups vs other PvP playstyles are totally incomparable, from different league & category.

There is also other more basic problem - risk vs reward. Ball groups for the most part are quite easy to play as. Just "follow the leader" and spam 1 or 2 buttons and occasionally do an ulti-dump when passing tight spot. Nothing too difficult as you almost can't die. Other playstyles have to actually do a skill combo and use terrain as cover (line of sight) to actually do something and they still get less AP for more effort. And what about people who for whatever reason have to fight vs Ball Group (like last scroll gate keep). They are not getting more AP if they deal with a ball group. And even if they do, chances are ball group already placed a camp & respawned at it.

jaws343

Tommy_The_Gun wrote: »

I think someone already said this, but I think that the only decent solution to tone down ball groups (and only ball groups, without nerfing everything else) is to add a cap on how many positive effects of the same type one player can have stacked.

There is this screenshot floating around of a ball group player having like 11 Vigors and some Radiant Regeneration hots ticking all at the same time. Even with 0 investment in stam/mag and weapon/spell damage this is still something around 20K healing per second - even if battle spirit is active. To put that into perspective that is like having 40K health recovery (reduced by half in PvP so 20K health recovery).

Ball groups are technically not the issue, but rather the issue is that having stats like this is possible in a 1st place. Ball groups are a play style that just happens to enable this kind of stats. And tbh - it would be totally fine having stats like this if for example they will have troubles with killing some PvE NPC guards as usually increasing your defences means that you sacrifice your offensive capabilities. But with how ball groups do scale it is not the case.

So, Imagine if the cap was 3 for example (max 3 vigots etc). Solo players would not feel that. Solo "zerg surfers" would not feel that. Small Scale would not feel that. The only one that would - would be ball groups.

It is very unhealthy for the game to have one playstyle dominating over others even to the point where same playstyle can not counter itself - hence why you don't see ball groups fighting eachother, and if they do it is very rare, as they know they will just both waste time. It is actually kinda puzzling why zos is unable (or unwilling ?) to balance out ball groups as they already have solutions - like some sets that scale with group size & become weaker the larger the group is, or various ideas served on a plater by community.

There is also other issue - how big impact do ball groups have on the PvP community in the global aspect. I am pretty sure that there are way, way more players that have stopped PvP-ing (or potenial players who did not started PVP-ing) vs players who started and are playing ball groups - because they want to be as much competitive as possible and have as much advantage as possible.

Remember, eso was famous (or infamous) for having "play as you want" motto being true for the most part - unless you wanted to push for PvE scoreboards. But min-maxing meta stuff for PvE is maybe like 10% better at max. Ball Groups vs other PvP playstyles are totally incomparable, from different league & category.

There is also other more basic problem - risk vs reward. Ball groups for the most part are quite easy to play as. Just "follow the leader" and spam 1 or 2 buttons and occasionally do an ulti-dump when passing tight spot. Nothing too difficult as you almost can't die. Other playstyles have to actually do a skill combo and use terrain as cover (line of sight) to actually do something and they still get less AP for more effort. And what about people who for whatever reason have to fight vs Ball Group (like last scroll gate keep). They are not getting more AP if they deal with a ball group. And even if they do, chances are ball group already placed a camp & respawned at it.

Similar to a healing cap, I was thinking over the weekend after my Saturday night in Cyrodil was plagued by the same ball group pretty much showing up to every fight on the map, that there should be some sort of cap in place. But, not necessarily healing.

So, the biggest issues with ball groups is their ability to shrug off damage, even when in execute, and heal to full, all while dealing 12x damage. And while I don't disagree that heal stacking is a major issue, it might not be the solution. The group that kept chasing around the map were 12 players with like 40K plus HP each. It was absurd.

What if, instead, full 12 man groups were health capped. Make it diminishing returns for groups, through Battlespirit.

If you are running solo, this doesn't impact you at all. For every player you add to your group, the cap diminishes.

Health for example:
Solo: Uncapped
Duo: 40K cap
Trio: 38K
4Man 36K
5: 34K
6: 32K
7: 30K
8: 28K
9: 26K
10: 24K
11: 22K
12: 20K

12 man groups would still maintain the healing, defensive, and damage advantage. But, they would lose out on stacking health. Making it more dangerous for them when they do end up in execute as their health pool is significantly lower. I mean, think about a 40K health player in execute for the 50% execute skills, that is still 20K damage, or almost an entire player worth of health to chew through. However, a player capped at 20K health, is now in a more precarious spot in execute at 10K health.

OBJnoob

The HP scale isn't a bad idea but there are some problems I think. This will make normal zergs very squishy. Like very.

Ballgroups will probably prioritize more damage, which might make ballgroup v ballgroup fun again. That'd be cool.

Ultimately though I think 20k is too low. I'd like it better if the scale stopped at like 26.

JerBearESO

Increased damage taken and/or reduced healing taken per ally nearby is prolly easier than a health cap situation. There needs to be a breaking point to grouping where it is no longer advantageous to add more people to the group, for sure. I just feel a health cap could be built around and therefore wouldn't accomplish anything other than complexity in the long run.

Tonturri

Not saying this should be the only solution, but - also, why not buff DoTs, and/or make AoE application easier? In most games I've ever played that have PvP, part of the back and forth involves HoTs vs DoTs, or in a broader sense keeping health above a certain theshold beacuse below that threshold you're vulnerable to being killed much more easily due to burst or w/e, and DoTs were a staple in trying to strain your enemy healers' resources enough or just bring HP pools down low enough through rot that you had a window to kill someone (that is, they're now regenning maybe 5k HP/S instead of 10k or whatever the case may be and so you have a longer time interval to smash them). It looks like part of the problem is the ridiculously easy availability of and capability to coat your entire group in a heck-ton of over time heals, whereas most DoTs are single target, ground targetted, etc/other limitations.

I think it's important for solutions to combat imbalances to originate from, well, the combat part. Like the health cap thing - I think, while it very well might work, it looks and imo would *feel* absolutely atrocious just from a gameplay perspective, even from the PoV of someone who would benefit. Winning a fight because the enemy has arbitrarily capped health pools would feel...yucky, imo. Hard to articulate here, but eh.

Rowjoh

This lowest common denominator gameplay has been going on for so long, that if ZoS really wanted to address the issues and misery it causes, they would have done a long time ago.